STRAIGHT ANSWERS FOR TOUGH QUESTIONS....Bernard J. Shapiro
STAYING MORALLY SUPERIOR TO SHARKS...Guest Editorial....Yashiko Sagamori
GLARING DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR ISRAEL...Guest Editorial....Joseph Farah
ARAB-ISRAELI HISTORY AND SECURITY
ISRAEL'S MILITARY BALANCE: 2004....Emanuel A. Winston
THE BIG LIE WHICH PLANTED THE SEEDS OF GLOBAL JIHAD....Ruth Matar
MAKING THE CASE FOR ISRAEL....Lee Kaplan
ISRAEL MUST FACE REALITY OR FACE ANNIHILATION....Beth Goodtree
THE WAR THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME..The Battle Is Against Militant Islam, Not "Terror"....Andrew C. McCarthy
WRONG MESSAGE....David Basch
THE TIME OF TRUTH FOR THE TEMPLE MOUNT....Ariel Natan Pasko
COLUMN ONE: THE NEW PLAN....Caroline Glick
WISEACRES AND PRAGMATISTS....Shmuel Katz
ISRAEL AND GAZA....Louis Rene Beres
JEWS ON THE PRECIPICE....Phyllis Chesler
WHY THE LEFT HATES ISRAEL....Bruce S. Thornton
AWARDING ANTI-US HATE MONGERS WITH AN INDEPENDENT STATE?....Yoram Ettinger
DOES OPPRESSION CAUSE SUICIDE BOMBING?....Alan M. Deshowitz
ALLAH AND HIS PROPHET....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
HAWAII GOVERNOR: US Jews Shift To Right....Hilary Leila Kreiger
ISRAELI TECHNOLOGY COMPUTERIZES THE BATTLEFIELD
ISRAELI ACHIEVEMENTS FRUSTRATE FRENCH AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND!....Prof. D. Koller
ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
TO MAKE A TAX EXEMPT
DONATION VISIT: http://www.freeman.org/paypal.htm
STRAIGHT ANSWERS FOR TOUGH QUESTIONS
By Bernard J. Shapiro
Q. Will Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's Gaza retreat plan lead to peace between Israel and the Arabs?
A. On the contrary, if implemented, it will lead to greatly increased terrorism against Israel.
Q. Will Egypt be able to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza and control terrorism from there as Sharon says.
A. Of course not. Egypt is a major part of the problem - not the solution. Egypt has been one of the most anti-Semitic nations in the Arab world. They have done everything possible to sabotage any agreement between Israel and other Arabs. They have used their relationship with America to build a huge modern army that today threatens Israel. Egypt has done nothing to stop the smuggling of weapons into Gaza from its territory. At present there are huge stockpiles of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons in Sinai. There are also Kaytusha and other missiles that can hit targets deep into Israel. There is ABSOLUTELY no chance that Egyptian behavior will change after an Israeli retreat. Only a fool would believe so.
Q. Then why does the international media, world leaders (including Bush), and even Israeli PM Sharon act like this is an opening to begin negotiations that could lead to "peace?"
A. There is a distinction between international supporters of the Gaza surrender and Israeli supporters. The world generally doesn't care about Israel's survival due to latent and open anti-Semitism and a desire to appease the Arabs.
Israelis (mostly leftists like Labor, Meretz and Peace Now) for some psychopathological reasons hate their Jewish heritage and will only be happy with self-destruction. In many ways they honestly supported Oslo as a way to absolve their "sin" of creating a Jewish State. Like obsessive compulsive psychotics they continue to expect Oslo to work if only Israel worked harder for its success, even though it was the Arabs who made it unworkable. They hit their heads against the brick wall of Oslo and then get a bloody headache. Being obsessive compulsive they keeping hitting their heads over and over again, each time expecting a different result. It will never happen and the Gaza retreat is just a revival of the failed Oslo blunder.
Q. Will Israeli-American relations suffer if the Gaza retreat is rejected?
A. No, Israeli relations with America are based on many common political and strategic interests and can survive any temporary disagreement on policy. America will respect a strong Israel defending its security interests and fighting terrorism. A weak Israel will only earn contempt. Israel military industries are developing many weapon systems used by the US military. Some are jointly produced with American companies. Israeli intelligence services have been extremely important in America's war against international terrorism. And finally, President Bush's political base is with the Evangelical Christians, whose support for Israel is unshakeable.
Q. Can't the IDF with its immense power be able to control terrorism after a retreat from Gaza, like it is doing now?
A. Unilateral retreat from Gaza will inevitably lead to a terrorist Palestinian State which would be recognized by the entire world. Israel would find it much more difficult to cross a national border to fight terrorism. It would not be able to maintain its extensive intelligence network which has prevented 90% of attacks before they can be perpetrated.
Q. Wouldn't a Palestinian State be demilitarized with Israel controlling its borders and air space?
A. With reference to the writings of Louis Rene Beres (an international legal expert and strategic analyst from Purdue University), once a nation's sovereignty is recognized it is under no legal obligation to adhere to the conditions it agreed to before it became a State.
Q. Does this mean that planes flying into Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport would be vulnerable to Palestinian anti-aircraft missiles?
A. Yes! And even if there is an international treaty obligation not to fire on civilian aircraft, I would not expect the Palestinians to honor ANY agreement.
Q. Would a Palestinian State lead to the "End of the Conflict with the Arabs?"
A. No!! The Palestinian would still want to continue terrorism to drive the Jews into the sea. Their maps do not even show Israel existing in the Middle East. The same with the other Arab countries including Egypt. They are just biding their time while Israel is being weakened by the Palestinian State ( the end result of Oslo, the Road Map, Geneva, and now the Gaza retreat). Then they will launch a surprise attack to destroy what is left of Israel, bringing about a Second Holocaust.
Q. Why are all negotiations in the Middle East aimed at helping the terrorist Arabs, and none is to benefit Israel?
A. A better question is: Why do the Israelis participate in these one-sided talks?
Q. If America is truly Israel's best friend, why do they pursue the Road Map and back Sharon's surrender to terrorism in Gaza, which could lead to Israel's destruction?
A. It is necessary to make clear distinctions when referring to the United States. Most important there are many supporters of Israel. For example: The US Congress, the American people (especially Evangelical Christians), the US Defense department (which works with Israel developing many high-tech weapon systems) plus a high proportion of the US Jewish population.
And then there is the US State Department which has a long history of trying to undermine Israel's security. Before WWII they restricted visas to Jews trying to escape the Nazis. They opposed the Partition Resolution of the United Nations in 1947 that led to Israel's re-birth as a nation. Even though Truman forced the US Ambassador to the UN to vote YES on the resolution, the State Department enacted an arms embargo on the new Jewish State. At the same time England and France were feverishly arming the Arabs. The Arabs announced publically that this would be a War of Extermination that would be remembered like the great Mongolian massacres.
Q. Is there any hope for Israel's survival in this hostile Arab/Muslim world? In fact, the whole world seems anxious to rid the planet Earth of Jews.
A. We must struggle to survive. Those who think that we are at the End of Time and can relax are grossly mistaken. The struggle of Israel and Am Yisrael (the Jewish People) continues. Peace will come with Moshiach and not any retreat from Gaza, Oslo or Road Map.
Q. Why is Israel like Charlie Brown?
A. As a kid, one of my favorite cartoons was Charlie Brown and his gang of off beat characters. It is a little embarrassing to admit that my fondness for Charlie Brown extended way into my adulthood. There was something about him that seemed to correspond to my life. He was always trying to do good but forces beyond his control kept intervening.
One of those forces was a nasty little girl named Lucy. She would promise Charlie to hold a football so he could kick it. Simple enough, except she never followed through on her promises. She would pull the football away and Charlie always landed on his back, stunned at the betrayal.
It may sound over simplified to equate Israel with Charlie Brown, but I am going to do it. Israel repeatedly has tried to make peace, negotiate with the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat and others. Of course they always end up on their back with more suicide bombings, shootings, and sniper attacks.
Charlie Brown never learned his lesson and neither has Sharon. Although he recently launched a wide ranging offensive to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Gaza, he is still ready to retreat and let terrorism revive itself there once Israel has left.
THE BOTTOM LINE
As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. The only peace the Arabs are prepared to give us is the peace of the grave.
Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of both The Maccabean Online and the freemanlist.
STAYING MORALLY SUPERIOR TO SHARKS
By Yashiko Sagamori
Here's a joke so old that some of you may not have heard it. A young officer of Her Majesty's Navy fell overboard and was attacked by a shark. He tried to outswim it, which, as you understand, was a pretty hopeless task. Fortunately, he was saved at the last possible moment, and while he was standing, all wet, on deck and the disappointed shark was still snapping its terrible jaws in the air, one of the sailors asked him, "Lieutenant, you have your dagger on you. Why didn't you try to fight the shark off?" The lieutenant's response was, "You don't cut fish with a knife."
What's really funny about this joke is how precisely it describes the civilized world's approach to the War on Terror. We have one hell of a dagger on us. We could've fought it off. But we've been taught to never cut fish with a knife, and we are not going to, despite a very significant difference between the maladroit naval officer and us: there is no one to pull us out of the water. If we don't save ourselves, the shark will eat us. It's as simple as that.
However, at this particular moment, we, along with the rest of the world including all our false friends and genuine enemies, have more important issues on our mind. We are busy condemning the terrible crimes committed by the US military at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. While Saddam was still in power, the prison was famous for atrocities against its inmates. Nevertheless, while Iraqis were enthusiastically torturing and killing other Iraqis there, the world had many more important issues to take care of. For some strange reason the prison, where untold thousands of people suffered brutal torture and painful death for the terrible crime of displeasing Saddam, became the center of the world's attention only after a happy looking young woman in an American military uniform was photographed standing next to a naked, hooded prisoner. On some of those photographs the young lady is laughing her head off, pointing at the prisoner's genitals. The spot that attracted her attention was modestly edited out of the pictures, so we will never know whether her laughter was an expression of happiness at the sight or meant as ridicule. Not that it makes any difference. The participants in that unsavory affair have once again proven that no matter how incredibly disgusting and idiotic a sick person's imagination may be, someone has already done something much worse and enjoyed it tremendously.
The common outrage against this incident is perfectly understandable. What I find very hard to understand, however, is a total lack of common outrage against certain other recent events. Take, for instance, the spontaneous celebration in Fallujah, which culminated in the murder of four American civilians and mutilation of their bodies. Or consider the execution-style murder, also by Arabs, of an 8-month pregnant Jewish woman and her four young daughters. A few governments and international organizations made some vaguely appropriate but totally meaningless sounds. Arabs unanimously pronounced the killers heroes; nobody objected to that. Neither the EU nor the US stopped their financing of Arafat's gang of murderers; nobody expected them to.
The most eloquent reaction came from the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. He strongly condemned a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia, but managed not to even mention the murder of the Jewish woman and her children although the two attacks occurred within hours from each other. Had he sent Arafat an open letter congratulating him on his latest accomplishment, the effect would've been exactly the same.
Why does the world take the murder of Jews and Americans by Arabs in stride, while even the slightest perception of mistreatment of Arabs at the hands of Jews or Americans causes such widespread protests? I think two factors are at play here: first, the fact that the murderers are Arabs; second, that their victims are Jews or Americans. It's quite possible that I have it all wrong, and the truth is exactly the opposite: first, it's the fact that the victims are Jews or Americans; second, that the murderers are Arabs. Or maybe the world doesn't really care who does the killing as long as the victims are Jews and Americans. Especially Jews. Do you have a better explanation?
Let's now talk about morals. Why was bombing innocent civilians of Belgrade moral, while decisively putting down the vicious rebellion in the completely irrelevant and inherently hostile town of Fallujah was not? Why were Arabs allowed to desecrate Joseph's Tomb? Why is Muqtaba al-Sadr allowed to use the "sanctity" of another irrelevant Iraqi town, Najaf, to evade capture and prosecution? Why would evicting Israel's enemies from Israel's land by the Israeli government be immoral, but evicting Israelis from Israel's land by the Israeli government would not be?
The usual reference to the Geneva Conventions is moot in this case. The Geneva Conventions assume that both sides of the conflict follow them and explicitly free one side of obligations when the other side doesn't comply. During WWII, responding to German violations of the international rules of war, the Allies began systematic destruction of German cities, ruthlessly killing civilians. Was it cruel? Very much so. Was it unfair? Not at all. German civilians brought Hitler to power; German civilians had to pay a terrible price for that mistake. There was not a single military object in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But the civilian population of those cities, and, to a lesser degree, the rest of Japan, had to pay for their support of the militaristic policies of their government. Without such inevitable cruelty, we wouldn't have won the war.
By the way, there were no military objects in the Twin Towers. The Madrid commuter trains were 100% peaceful. The car and the pregnant woman with her four children were going about their business presenting no danger whatsoever to anyone at all. The two reservists lynched in Ramallah in 2000 were soldiers, but the treatment they received at the hands of the Arabs was a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, as was the murder of the four American civilians in Fallujah. The list of unpunished Arab crimes is long and getting longer by the hour.
By common sense, by basic fairness, and in full compliance with the international law, Arabs have lost their right of protection that the Geneva Conventions grant to innocent civilians during armed conflicts. Arab innocence is no more. And if our civilization is to survive, sooner or later, Arabs will have to pay a terrible price in blood for their celebrations of mass murders and mass murderers, for their systematic turning of their own children into cannibals, for their support of terrorism, for their jihad, for their hatred towards everything healthy that exists in our world. This will be terribly cruel, but absolutely fair.
Unfortunately, the obvious fact that our enemies happen to be less moral than even sharks does not mean that our own morals are beyond reproach. The perverted games that a few American soldiers played with the inmates at Abu Ghraib are far from the worst of our deeds. For instance, the compensation paid with our hard earned money to the families of killed enemies is shamelessly immoral. This whole war for which we are paying with hundreds (soon, it will be thousands) of our soldiers killed and tens (soon, it will be hundreds) billions of dollars is itself an obscenity. Don't take me wrong: I am not suggesting that Arabs should be left alone; I am saying that our war against them should have been conducted in a way that would render them forever incapable of ever again hurting the United States or Israel, and it is getting more obvious every day that this is not going to happen.
Bush's humble apologies are way more obscene than whatever those soldiers have done to Iraqi prisoners. Someone should've explained to him that demonstrating good will towards people whose culture has failed to produce the concept of good will is counterproductive and, therefore, immoral: when we let them live, they perceive it as our weakness, because they themselves never miss an opportunity to murder those who are weak.
Even more obscene is the celebration by the Democrats of the scandal during a presidential campaign. They would gladly sacrifice the country if only they could rule over its ruins. What makes it even worse is the obvious futility of their efforts. The powerful Clinton clique will never let a Democrat win the elections this year, because such a victory will destroy Hillary's presidential ambitions. And in 2009, when Hillary moves into the White House, the immorality of the United States will need a different scale for measurement, a scale which will leave sharks barely visible even with a powerful microscope.
But the most immoral of all today is the government of Israel, which is ready to surrender its land to an evil, but impotent, enemy, while substituting the defense of its citizens' lives with symbolic gestures, unable to postpone the next mass murder of Jews by Arabs even by a few hours.
In response to my calls for an honest war, a reader sent me a letter asking how the Jews would keep their moral superiority over the Arabs if the former finally start fighting the latter in earnest. I explained to him that in the eternal struggle between good and evil, good inevitably wins, because the right to decide what's right and what's wrong invariably goes to the victor. Therefore, the only way to lose one's moral superiority to a shark is to allow oneself to be devoured.
My sincerest apologies to the sharks for the unflattering comparison to Arabs.
WorldNetDaily, May 25, 2004
GLARING DOUBLE-STANDARDS FOR ISRAEL
By Joseph Farah
Just about the same time the United Nations was condemning Israel for its anti-terrorism operations in the Gaza Strip, the United States found itself under international fire for bombing a wedding party and killing innocent Arabs in Iraq.
Israel is defending itself in Gaza -- the source of hundreds of terrorist attacks on Israel and on Jewish civilians who live in territory.
But the United States didn't veto the U.N. resolution, as it often does. Instead, the United States abstained on the resolution, sending the wrong signal, once again, to the anti-Israeli international community.
The resolution came on the heels of charges that Israel had killed up to 20 Arab civilians during a demonstration. The number has gone down to around 10 since then, and Israel says it is actually seven -- including five armed terrorists.
Innocent people do get hurt in these bloody conflicts between terrorists and the civilized world. No nation should know that better than the United States, victim of the worst terrorist attack in the history of the world. But when innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire, they should be seen as victims of terrorism, not victims of nations defending themselves.
The United States did the right thing going halfway around the world to challenge terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. But Israel is confronting terrorists much closer to home. The Israelis war on terrorism takes place in its own streets and in its own backyard on a daily basis.
Yet, here's what U.S. Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations James Cunningham said after the vote:
While we believe that Israel has the right to act to defend itself and its citizens, we do not see that its operations in Gaza in the last few days serve the purposes of peace and security.
The U.S. doesn't see how killing terrorists a few miles from Israel's capital and major population centers "serves the purposes of peace and security"? If the United States can't justify this kind of urgent self-defense by a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors promotes peace and security, how does the United States justify actions thousands of miles from its own territory and its own population centers?
Regarding the Americans' bombing of the wedding party in Iraq, U.S. officials said that the target was a suspected safe house for terrorists, that U.S. planes had come under fire, and that the bombing was had been carried out "within the framework of our rules of engagement."
Why is it that the U.S. is free to establish rules of engagement in defending itself while not applying those same standards to its friend and ally in this war -- Israel?
The Security Council ignored the explanation provided by Israel's Ambassador Dan Gillerman:
The whole of Gaza, and Rafiach in particular, is on the verge of becoming a missile base aimed at Israel's cities and civilians ... What would the international community have Israel do? Just sit back and wait for this horrific scenario to materialize? The suffering of the Palestinian population is a direct result of Palestinian terrorism aimed at innocent Israelis, and the need for Israel to protect its citizens from these abhorrent attacks. Rather than criticizing Israel for damaging private property, those truly concerned for Palestinian welfare should instead demand that the terrorists stop using homes to shield their illegal operations.
And that's just what the United States should be doing right now as it, too, is under fire from the international community for its actions in Iraq. The United States should stand with those few nations which understand what is at stake in this global conflict with Islamo-terrorism. It should support Israel's restrained efforts at defending itself.
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
ISRAEL'S MILITARY BALANCE: 2004
By Emanuel A. Winston
Sometimes we lose focus on the bigger picture as Muslim Jihadists ramp up daily terror in Israel and globally. Israel is fighting two wars. One is the war against well-known terror which occurs every day - called low-intensity war-fare. For the other, the IDF (Israel Defense Force) is preparing for a conventional, area-wide war, waged by the surrounding Arab and Muslim countries, many with hidden weapons of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) - including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical). Those who belong to any or all of the various terrorist organizations, Hamas, Fatah, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, Tanzim, Islamic Jihad - and all the others connected in neighboring countries, such as Al Qaeda and Hezb'Allah (in Syria and Lebanon, are funded and run by the organization in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, 'et al').
Although comparing the quantifiable vital statistics in the Military Balance between Israel and her hostile neighbors is an indispensable necessity, there are other leading factors to be assessed which are non-numerical. Warfare has changed in almost every facet. It always had layers to be reviewed but now, those layers include primitive, backward nations and terrorists who have the capability of leveling cities and contaminating vast areas with NBC (Nuclear, Chemical and Radioactive materials). Men and equipment do not move without pre-planning or without having the mind-set to do so. Many nations have armies but in most nations, they exist for security and self-defense. They are not necessarily poised to attack at a time of their leaders' choosing - which cannot be said to describe the Arab/Muslim nations who use their treasure NOT for the benefit of their people but to keep military forces ready in an actionable status. Israel has had to maintain her forces in a quasi-alert status for over 55 years.
Given the prior 7 wars, the Jewish nation did not know when one or more Arab countries would alert their standing armies instantly to a war footing and move from camp to menace Israel's borders. This would require Israel to call up reserves from her mostly civilian forces and move to some pre-positioned equipment and transport equipment to all fronts from main depots. The last example of a standing army moving from camp was Egypt and Syria's secret assemblage of forces and surprise attack during the Jewish High Holy Day of Yom Kippur 1973. Add to that the factor of a pre-planned saturation missile attack from Iran, Syria and, Yes - even Egypt, all of which can occur within minutes. Presently Egypt - with a $60 Billion dollar U.S. investment is a military colossus which could easily represent a vital threat to Israel, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood succeeds in overthrowing the current Egyptian government.
Here the Balance of Counter Force was conditional upon the ability of the enemy to quietly assemble its forces over a convenient period of time. What the enemy is able to accomplish over a year or more, Israel had to do within a 24-48 hour period. Therefore, the Balance of Power was highly skewed in favor of any aggressor(s) who could be triggered by the orders of 'usually' one man, the dictator of that country. Israel's enemy (ies) rely on not being challenged or faced with a pre-emptive strike as they quietly gather their forces. At one time Israel had a doctrine of defense that called for preemption which was dropped due to pressure from the U.S., E.U., U.N., 'et al'. America has since adopted the doctrine of preemptive strikes for themselves, recognizing that threats from WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) leaves little time to negotiate or slowly prepare defensive forces. Israel is still being pressured to restrain herself and NOT conduct preemptive strikes.
The Balance of Power during the first days of any war for Israel rests on a sliding scale of efficiency which, for Israel, begins on the low end and rises exponentially as her reserve forces are assembled and moved to the front(s). It is expected that in future war, Israel's enemies will do everything in their power to impede her civilian mobilization as a vital part of attack planning. This would include blowing up roads, setting ambushes, utilizing the Israeli Arabs and Arab Palestinians as an organized 'Fifth Column', dispensing chemical and/or biologically loaded missiles, both at troops and civilians. For Israel, chaos in the cities will delay mobilization and draw vital forces to the trouble spots. Regretfully, Israeli leaders have not made training civilians, particularly retired soldiers, a priority so they could quickly and efficiently assemble to guard their own neighborhoods and communities. Some may recall the wild confusion when Saddam launched 39 SCUD missiles at Israeli cities.
There was no organization to deal with the confusion or mass exodus out of Tel Aviv each evening before the expected missile strike times. Here again, while equipment can be numerically categorized, it is the non-quantifiable, deceptive mind-set of various Arab Muslim leaders that cannot be added up on a calculator. In term of Balance of Power, it rests on a sliding scale of mixed components - some of which do not lend themselves to actuarial tables.
For example, there is a broad area of psychological motivation which defies numerical evaluation. The Arab Muslims have an accumulation of rage, often driven and stirred up by their religion - Islamic Fundamentalism. There is also the matter of reclaiming what can only be referred to as a macho-driven Pride and Shame for prior lost wars to the infidel 'dhimmi' (low class outsider). Being beaten 7 times on the field of battle by an enemy always discounted as weak and contemptible creates a certain pathological rage - only satisfied with blood conquest. - not political agreements. That is what their leaders tell them, what they sing or chant during huge demonstrations, what they teach their children - to hate and kill the Jews. "In Blood and Fire, we will redeem you, O Jerusalem." is their continual chant. Rage is a highly motivating factor. Capturing Jerusalem is a highly symbolic act which is intended to prove the capability as Muslim warriors which will also 'prove' that Allah supercedes HaShem, the G-d of the Jews. According to Koranic or Shari'ah law, politically-driven written agreements may be used temporarily to regain strength and then re-engage the enemy. Such agreements when accepted by one's adversary are looked upon as indicative of weakness which usually encourages and accelerates the next attack. Yassir Arafat frequently described Oslo as a "Hudabaiya Treaty" in speeches to Arabs in Arabic on September 13, 1993, the day Oslo was signed and often thereafter. (Mohammed signed a 10 year peace treaty with the Jewish Koreish (also spelled: Qurayza) tribe of Jews in order to pray in Mecca, but he returned with a stronger army in 2 years, massacred all the men and sold the women and children into slavery.)
Psychological warfare may be practiced as a science by the West but, within the Arab culture, it is endemic. Myth and hyperbole quickly become fact. At the same time of conventional warfare, it is anticipated that the Mullahs will encourage Arab Muslim civilians to launch massive human wave attacks on Israeli cities and towns and to block the roads to prevent mobilization. This tactic falls within the hysterical willingness to commit ritual suicide which allows a Muslim a "guaranteed entry into warrior's heaven" and other benefits. Here again, the street mobs with shrieking women and men, firing guns into the air are the rule, not the exception.
Conversely, Israel's motivation among her civilian army is that they cannot sustain even one loss. Losing one war means that Arab Muslim soldiers would plunder, kills all the Jews - including women, children and the elderly. They say they will in so many words - declaring this is their "scorched earth" policy. The Israeli soldiers and general population know the Arab tendency to savagely mutilate captured prisoners - cutting off body parts, burning, etc. Israeli soldiers are motivated by the fact that they and their families have no where to retreat to. Unlike the Arab Muslim nations with vast lands which could never be conquered or occupied by the comparatively small Israeli forces, Israel has little strategic depth, militarily speaking - even with Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights. Israelis have long recognized their peril and must follow the philosophy of "Ein Breira" (No Choice). Clearly, the motivation of the fighting soldier is a 'Force Multiplier' in the Balance of Power which cannot be calculated in numbers.
COSTS OF WAR
As a result of 7 aggressive wars by the Arab Muslim nations, Israel has had to use its GNP/GDP to purchase and/or build war making equipment at enormous expense. Unlike such nations as German, Japan or, more recently, Iraq 1991, Israel was never compensated by the aggressor nations who lost each war. Because Israel was never allowed to complete its victory to the point of the enemies' surrender, Israel could neither force a peace nor demand war reparations. Every war in which Israel was forced to fight - including continuous terrorist attacks, she lost the blood of countless dead and wounded soldiers and staggering costs in dollars. Israel's Balance of Power was greatly affected by the nation's single budget which had to counterbalance the individual Arab nations' budgets which were often pooled collectively, funded by oil or given by donor nations - including the U.S. Such nations as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria/Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Libya...who initiated and participated in wars against Israel wasted their nation's treasure on war rather than build a productive society. Each promptly began to rebuild their military after each loss - with more and better equipment. Israel was consequently forced into an endless, expensive arms' race to maintain a credible military balance and deterrence against attack. Arabs respect strength of arms.
This is Israel's best deterrent against major war. Therefore, Israel is forced to rely upon U.S. aid to a great extent, coupled with onerous terms of restraint, thus lowering necessary preemptive action. This destruction of equipment provided a profit windfall to weapons' manufacturers in almost every nation of the Free West - in addition to Russia, China, North Korea, etc. Such sales were in the trillions of dollars and thus considered a profit base for these nations. War was profitable and, therefore, to be encouraged or at the very least not terminated. Most every major nation relies upon weapons' sales as a profit center, both for cash flow and employment. Keeping Israel from total victory in each of the 7 wars initiated by the Arab/Muslim countries, was a policy decision by most of the Free West, including America, to appease Arab oil nations but, this policy also served to keep the arms manufacturing plants in production. An arms race against well-funded and numerous hostile nations is a major factor in considering the Military Counter Balance in the Middle East. If there were an objective World Court with unbiased, genuine authority, Israel's claims against these nations could very well exceed one Trillion dollars as compensation for wars thrust upon her. Clearly, the cost of defense is a compelling factor in assessing the Balance of Power for any nation.
COST OF TERROR
Another phase of a non-numeric view of the Balance of Power comes with Terror -which is defined as "low-intensity warfare". The alert and cost status to keep the military and police in the field continuously is staggering. The cost in lives, killed, wounded and maimed for life in incalculable. Multiple Israel's casualties by the number 55 to calculate the ratior of what such losses would mean in America. For example, since Oslo (September 13, 1993) at least 1500 Israelis have been murdered by Arab Muslim Terror x 55 would be equal to 82,5000 Americans. Plus, hundreds of thousands wounded, many maimed for life. Arab Muslim nations have funded proxy Terrorist organizations which are constantly in motion - always able to choose the times and places of attack. The main bankers, weapons' suppliers, Terrorist Organization sponsors have been Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Iran and (until recently) Iraq. While each of these nations, in themselves remain an armed threat which is quantifiable, they also act as financial enablers of numerous Terrorist organizations. I must note that the U.S. State Department - despite confirmed knowledge of Arab Muslim Palestinian terror - continues to press Congress to fund Yassir Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority. One must add to that those funds paid yearly by the so-called donor nations of the E.U. (European Union). All seem to understand that these funds do NOT go to civilian infrastructure and the Palestinian Authority for civilian benefits but, rather to Yassir Arafat to maintain his terrorist organizations. Despite complaints and proofs laid before the E.U. (European Union), they remain political and financial supporters of Arafat's Terrorist organizations.
Here the Balance of Power gets fuzzy because the Terrorists operate amidst the civilians in uncountable numbers. They deliberately use women and children to commit terror acts and to hide behind. They recruit the so-called 'civilian' Arab Muslim Palestinians as suicide bombers, spotters, snipers who are a hostile 'Fifth Column' situated in the heartland of the Jewish State of Israel. It has long been anticipated that, in time of war internally, local Israel Muslim Arabs would move to mine roads and undertake other sabotage intended to tie up Israeli troops and keep them from getting to their staging areas during mobilization. Therefore, Israel must field combat troops from the reserves to interdict Terrorists, which depletes time from proper training for war, in addition to wearing out the reservists and depleting equipment. The cost for each reserve soldier to leave his school or job and family is impossible to assess but it is a cruel price Israel must pay in order to defend her people from Terror and to be prepared for the constantly threatened full scale War. The cost of maintaining a sophisticated army on a war footing is far greater than the expense of maintaining Terrorists within the Arab Muslim civilian population. Here again the Balance of Power tips both ways against Israel - depending on circumstances.
As mentioned previously, we must factor in the Europeans, Arabs, Muslims and America as donor nations. Much publicity has been given to the several Billions of dollars poured into the coffers of Terrorist(s) and Terrorist organizations by the various donor nations. Here the Balance of Power cannot necessarily be measured in numbers of men or armaments. The donor monies allow Terrorist networks to be established on a global basis which penetrates the political establishment via Terror or bribery. It is anticipated that Europe and America will pay a heavy price for not confronting Muslim Terror networks long before 9/11.
This is definitely a 'Force Multiplier' that cannot be physically counted. Perhaps it can be guesstimated, but it is highly effective in draining away forces, thereby tipping the Balance of Power. A stark example is the American forces being worn down by Saddam's Ba'ath Party insurgents, joined by other Muslim Terrorists - euphemistically called "foreign forces" or "mujahadin". Here again we observe the phenomenon of Arab and Muslims voluntarily migrating to a war zone to confront the infidel. It can be anticipated that the same mix of 'Jihadists' who poured into Iraq from surrounding Muslim countries will migrate into Gaza or whatever territory is surrendered to them as another Arab Muslim Palestinian State. Israel will be under constant assault for years with terror launched from territories abandoned or given over to appease not the terrorists but, Israel's friend, America. And it will be the organizational and training center from which to launch global terrorist attacks. Another alliance that represents the Counter Forces is that between Terrorists motivated by religion - namely, radical Islam and other Terrorists who simply wish to overthrow the government in power in their region.
With that, one can add criminal elements such as the Drug Cartels and Counterfeiting rings who connect and ride in with the Terrorists. Syria has been especially active in smuggling drugs and counterfeit currency, in addition to supporting the numerous terrorist organizations. Each acts as a support mechanism for the other - particularly in cash flow operations. For many, being employed as Terrorists is both a salaried job with guaranteed payments to your family if you are 'martyred' and for the young men, it is a thrilling life which they will sacrifice to get to 'martyrs' heaven. It is also a dramatic way to escape the poverty and boredom of backward nations who are held back from modernization by radical Muslim clerics and dictators. Here again, these alliances cannot be numbered - except to estimate their power as a 'Force Multiplier'.
PROPAGANDA'S USE IN THE MILITARY BALANCE
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate Arab Muslim Palestinian Propaganda around 8 - while Israeli Counter Propaganda would barely reach a 2. For reasons that are totally unexplainable, the Arab Muslims seem to understand how to motivate and manipulate world opinion while the so-called "Smart Jews" cannot seem to even grasp the rudimentary elements of Propaganda (in Hebrew called 'Hasbara' - which means 'explanation'). While all major nations have recognized the need for Propaganda, Israelis are generally too late with their explanations, mostly inarticulate in English and resistant to employing professional spokesmen or thinkers. In Israel every officer seems anxious to express his opinion, often admitting or accepting blame for incidents which, on further inquiry, are often proven to be false. By the time they offer a well-researched denial, the story is off the front pages or TV news and the negative impact as told by the Arabs is firmly embedded. (Israel also faces this problem internally, caused by pacifists of the Left who actively subvert Israel's fighting capability and the morale of her civilians and military population. They are one and the same, because Israel must rely on her civilians fulfilling the role of a reserve army.)
Here, the Balance of Power is radically tipped as the Arab Muslim Palestinians and the Arab Muslim nations successfully court world public opinion, causing many governments and their people to turn against the Jewish nation. This results in embargoes, cancellations of contracts (military and civilian - economic and scientific). The willingness to vote sanctions against Israel in world organizations is tremendous - especially in the United Nations. Here we find that words are, indeed, mightier than the sword. Add to that the manipulation of language by the World Media, who still call Terrorists 'militants' when they commit atrocities against Israelis or Jews.
Granted there is always the oil weapon as a persuasive factor but, the Israelis make it easier by literally abandoning the field of pre-emptive Propaganda and failing at an effective explanation of their actions - after the fact. Israel and the Jewish establishment watched passively while anti-Semitism ramped up - especially in Europe - encouraged by Arab Muslim Propaganda. This anti-Jewish attitude (always on a low flame) can easily be placed on the high burner, deeply effects Israel's Military Balance of Power in real numbers. The cutbacks of Military Development programs due to a shortfall of funds did strike at Israel's military readiness and Balance of Forces. Managing insurgency in a restrained manner in order to assuage world opinion raises the costs exponentially. In brief, Israel's Military Balance rests on many factors besides the inventory and cost of tanks, plane, missiles and soldiers.
THE BIG LIE WHICH PLANTED
THE SEEDS OF GLOBAL JIHAD
LETTER FROM RUTH MATAR
WOMEN IN GREEN, JERUSALEM
Thursday, May 27, 2004
This is probably the most important letter that I have ever written to you. I implore you to forward this letter or a letter in your own words, accompanied by the original PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER OF 1964, to President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, your Senators and Congressmen, your local newspaper, your family, friends and acquaintances. It would be preferable, when sending your letter to government officials, to print the accompanying Charter and send it by registered mail. E-mail, unfortunately, often does not get the proper attention of the recipient.
THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER
(Al-Mithaq Al-Kawmee Al-Philisteeni)*
* "Al-Kawmee" has no exact equivalent in English but reflects the notion of Pan-Arabism
We, the Palestinian Arab people, who waged fierce and continuous battles to safeguard its homeland, to defend its dignity and honor, and who offered all through the years continuous caravans of immortal martyrs, and who wrote the noblest pages of sacrifice, offering and giving.
We, the Palestinian Arab people, who faced the forces of evil, injustice and aggression, against whom the forces of international Zionism and colonialism conspire and worked to displace it, dispossess it from its homeland and property, abused what is holy in it and who in spite of all this refused to weaken or submit.
We, the Palestinian Arab people, who believe in its Arabism and in its right to regain its homeland, to realize its freedom and dignity, and who have determined to amass its forces and mobilize its efforts and capabilities in order to continue its struggle and to move forward on the path of holy war (al-jihad) until complete and final victory has been attained,
We, the Palestinian Arab people, based on our right of self-defense and the complete restoration of our lost homeland- a right that has been recognized by international covenants and common practices including the Charter of the United Nations-and in implementation of the principles of human rights, and comprehending the international political relations, with its various ramifications and dimensions, and considering the past experiences in all that pertains to the causes of the catastrophe, and the means to face it,
And embarking from the Palestinian Arab reality, and for the sake of the honor of the Palestinian individual and his right to free and dignified life,
And realizing the national grave responsibility placed upon our shoulders, for the sake of all this,
We, the Palestinian Arab people, dictate and declare this Palestinian National Charter and swear to realize it.
Article 1. Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong Arab national ties to the rest of the Arab Countries and which together form the great Arab homeland.
Article 2: Palestine, with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate, is a indivisible territorial unit.
Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation. It shares the sufferings and aspirations of the Arab Nation and its struggle for freedom, sovereignty, progress and unity.
Article 4: The people of Palestine determine its destiny when it completes the liberation of its homeland in accordance with its own wishes and free will and choice.
Article 5: The Palestinian personality is a permanent and genuine characteristic that does not disappear. It is transferred from fathers to sons.
Article 6: The Palestinians are those Arab citizens who were living normally in Palestine up to 1947 , whether they remained or were expelled. Every child who was born to a Palestinian Arab father after this date, whether in Palestine or outside, is a Palestinian.
Article 7: Jews of Palestinian origin are considered Palestinians if they are willing to live peacefully and loyally in Palestine.
Article 8: Bringing up Palestinian youth in an Arab and nationalist manner is a fundamental national duty. All means of guidance, education and enlightenment should be utilized to introduce the youth to its homeland in a deep spiritual way that will constantly and firmly bind them together.
Article 9: Ideological doctrines, whether political, social, or economic, shall not distract the people of Palestine from the primary duty of liberating their homeland. All Palestinian constitute one national front and work with all their feelings and material potentialities to free their homeland.
Article 10: Palestinians have three mottos: National Unity, National Mobilization, and Liberation. Once liberation is completed, the people of Palestine shall choose for its public life whatever political, economic, or social system they want.
Article 11: The Palestinian people firmly believe in Arab unity, and in order to play its role in realizing this goal, it must, at this stage of its struggle, preserve its Palestinian personality and all its constituents. It must strengthen the consciousness of its existence and stance and stand against any attempt or plan that may weaken or disintegrate its personality.
Article 12: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary goals; each prepares for the attainment of the other. Arab unity leads to the liberation of Palestine, and the liberation of Palestine leads to Arab unity. Working for both must go side by side.
Article 13: The destiny of the Arab Nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Palestine question. From this firm bond stems the effort and struggle of the Arab Nation to liberate Palestine. The people of Palestine assume a vanguard role in achieving this sacred national goal.
Article 14: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab nation, governments and peoples, the Palestinian peoples being in the forefront. For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its military, spiritual and material potentialities; specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their role in liberating their homeland.
Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual viewpoint, prepares for the Holy Land an atmosphere of tranquillity and peace, in which all the Holy Places will be safeguarded, and the freedom to worship and to visit will be guaranteed for all, without any discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. For all this, the Palestinian people look forward to the support of all the spiritual forces in the world.
Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from an international viewpoint, is a defensive act necessitated by the demands of self-defense as stated in the Charter of the United Nations. For that, the people of Palestine, desiring to befriend all nations which love freedom, justice, and peace, look forward to their support in restoring the legitimate situation to Palestine, establishing peace and security in its territory, and enabling its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.
Article 17: The partitioning of Palestine, which took place in 1947, and the establishment of Israel are illegal and null and void, regardless of the loss of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and its natural right to its homeland, and were in violation of the basic principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, foremost among which is the right to self-determination.
Article 18: The Balfour Declaration, the Palestine Mandate System, and all that has been based on them are considered null and void. The claims of historic and spiritual ties between Jews and Palestine are not in agreement with the facts of history or with the true basis of sound statehood. Judaism, because it is a divine religion, is not a nationality with independent existence. Furthermore, the Jews are not one people with an independent personality because they are citizens to their states.
Article 19: Zionism is a colonialist movement in its inception, aggressive and expansionist in its goal, racist in its configurations, and fascist in its means and aims. Israel, in its capacity as the spearhead of this destructive movement and as the pillar of colonialism, is a permanent source of tension and turmoil in the Middle East, in particular, and to the international community in general. Because of this, the people of Palestine are worthy of the support and sustenance of the community of nations.
Article 20: The causes of peace and security and the requirements of right and justice demand from all nations, in order to safeguard true relationships among peoples and to maintain the loyalty of citizens to their homeland, that they consider Zionism an illegal movement and outlaw its presence and activities.
Article 21: The Palestinian people believes in the principles of justice, freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, human dignity, and the right of peoples to practice these principles. It also supports all international efforts to bring about peace on the basis of justice and free international cooperation.
Article 22: The Palestinian people believe in peaceful co-existence on the basis of legal existence, for there can be no coexistence with aggression, nor can there be peace with occupation and colonialism.
Article 23: In realizing the goals and principles of this Convent, the Palestine Liberation Organization carries out its full role to liberate Palestine in accordance with the basic law of this Organization.
Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields.
Article 25: This Organization is in charge of the movement of the Palestinian people in its struggle to liberate its homeland in all liberational, organizational, and financial matters, and in all other needs of the Palestine Question in the Arab and international spheres.
Article 26: The Liberation Organization cooperates with all Arab governments, each according to its ability, and does not interfere in the internal affairs of any Arab states.
Article 27: This Organization shall have its flag, oath and a national anthem. All this shall be resolved in accordance with special regulations.
Article 28: The basic law for the Palestine Liberation Organization is attached to this Charter. This law defines the manner of establishing the Organization, its organs, institutions, the specialties of each one of them, and all the needed duties thrust upon it in accordance with this Charter.
Article 29: This Charter cannot be amended except by two-thirds majority of the members of the National Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization in a special session called for this purpose.
*Adopted in 1964 by the 1st Palestinian Conference
Dear Friends, the question is often asked: since the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded in 1964, what were the Arabs liberating at that time? The answer is: that part of the Holy Land which the Jews were able to hold on to when five armies, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Transjordan, attacked Israel in the bitterly fought War of Independence, in 1948. 6,000 Jews were killed in the War of Independence, 1% of the nation's total population. As a result of the War, Egypt took over the Gaza Strip. TransJordan illegally occupied Judea and Samaria, which it then named the "West Bank." At that time, King Hussein of Jordan significantly changed the name of TransJordan (across the Jordan) to just plain Jordan. By the way, this illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria, was recognized by only two countries, Britain and Pakistan.
It is important to pay great attention to article 24 of the PLO National Charter of 1964, which reads as follows: "THIS ORGANIZATION DOES NOT EXERCISE ANY TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE WEST BANK IN THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF JORDAN, ON THE GAZA STRIP OR IN THE HIMMAH AREA. Its activities will be on the national popular level in the liberational, organizational, political and financial fields."
When did the PLO discover its passionate attachment to the Biblical Homeland of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, declaring it to be their fictional Palestinian homeland, even though these areas are repeatedly mentioned in the Judeo-Christian Bible as promised to the Jewish People by Hashem? Of course, there never was such a country called Palestine, or a nation called Palestinians.
The Arabs themselves make it clear in this 1964 Palestinian National Charter (in the Introduction of the Charter) that they are part of a larger Arab people (Arabism), and that it is incumbent on all Arab people to move forward on the path of HOLY WAR (AL-JIHAD) until complete and final victory has been attained.
Here in this 1964 Palestinian National Charter we see the planting of the seeds of "global Jihad."
"Article 1: Palestine is an Arab homeland bound by strong
Arab national ties to the Arab Countries and which together form
the great Arab homeland"
"Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people has the legitimate right to its homeland and is an inseparable part of the Arab Nation..."
"Article 12: Arab unity and the liberation of Palestine are two complementary goals; each prepares for the attainment of the other..."
"Article 13: The destiny of the Arab Nation and even the essence of Arab existence are firmly tied to the destiny of the Palestine question..."
And finally, article 14 clearly spells out the necessity of Jihad: "The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty. Its responsibilities fall upon the entire Arab nation, governments and peoples, the Palestinian peoples being in the forefront. For this purpose, the Arab nation must mobilize its military, spiritual and material potentialities; specifically, it must give to the Palestinian Arab people all possible support and backing and place at its disposal all opportunities and means to enable them to perform their role in liberating their homeland."
Unfortunately, the United Nations and the European Union have bought into the fantasy of a Palestinian nation and a Palestinian state, to replace the Jewish Homeland. Tragically, even the United States, supposedly Israel's best friend, is working with the Arab world to make the realization of another Arab state a reality. Shouldn't the US State Department and the rest of the Unites States government take a good thorough look at the PLO National Charter of 1964 and the lies contained therein?
In the Jerusalem Post of May 5, 2004 there was an article by Michael Freund about the U.S. National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice fundraising for the PA.
"According to a May 3 article in The Washington Post, the Bush administration has launched a 'diplomatic offensive' aimed at allaying Arab concerns regarding the president's recent embrace of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza withdrawal plan.
"Among other things, the paper notes, 'the administration in recent days has tried to emphasize its concern for the Palestinians.' This has included an effort to drum up financial support for the PA. 'As part of the diplomatic offensive,' the report says, 'national security adviser Condoleezza Rice last week called some Arab countries that were behind in making payments to shore up the Palestinian Authority.'
"Isn't that thoughtful of her. With American casualties mounting daily in Iraq, Osama Bin-Laden still on the run, and North Korea threatening to develop more nuclear weapons, doesn't Rice have better things to do than making sure Arafat can balance his checkbook? Indeed, Rice's telethon on behalf of the PA is particularly astonishing in light of some of the Palestinians' recent actions.
"Just this past weekend the PA transferred funds to Hamas-affiliated organizations in Gaza, claiming that economic conditions in the territories were the reason for the move. But if the PA itself is truly in such need of funds that the US national security adviser must intervene, why is it showering money on Hamas terrorists?"
The pressure on Ariel Sharon from the United States Government to evacuate Jewish Communities to make possible the establishment of another Arab state within the Promised Land, has been enormous. This coming Sunday, May 30, Prime Minister Sharon is trying to force the Israeli Cabinet to approve his unilateral disengagement plan to abandon the Jewish Communities in Gaza, as well as some in Samaria. In Gaza alone, this plan, without any reciprocal agreement from the Arabs, will hand over hothouses, factories, homes, schools and synagogues to the Arabs, making at least 8,000 people homeless. Sharon has said that even if the Cabinet does not support him, and even though his own Likud party overwhelmingly in a referendum rejected his plan, he will go ahead, because he knows best!
Now the question is, will the most important democracy in the world, the United States, support such blatantly undemocratic behavior?
It is up to you dear friends, to remind the United States Government of the intentions of the Arab world as spelled out in the Palestinian National Charter of 1964, which were the seeds planted for the Muslim Global Jihad, which the Judeo-Christian world will have to defeat in order to survive.
With Blessings and Love for Israel,
MAKING THE CASE FOR ISRAEL
By Lee Kaplan
FrontPageMagazine, June 1, 2004
Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University Law School. He is an internationally respected attorney and human rights activist. At one time he was actively involved as an attorney in the Soviet Jewry Movement and helped to free Natan Sharansky from the USSR. He is recognized as a member of the liberal establishment yet a strong supporter of Israel. He has also become aware of the continual anti-Israel bias that is growing on college campuses in the United States.
Below is an edited transcript of his speech at UC Berkeley, one of the most anti-Israel campuses in the United States. Dershowitz addressed an audience of 1,200 people on April 29, 2004, about the growing problem of anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses.
The Case For Israel
I remember so well the early days in the 1970's when I sat down in UC Berkeley. I was there for a year. I was probably defending some of the parents of the kids who are outside protesting tonight.
I defended Angela Davis and many of the people involved in the free speech movement at UC Berkeley. But I was also deeply involved with the Soviet Jewry Movement. Recently I was on a radio talk show and somebody asked me what my biggest fee I ever earned was. Was it Michael Milken or Leona Helmsley? I said it was Natan Sharansky.
"Sharansky?" they said, "We didn't know he had any money."
And I said no. He didn't have any money. I had to defend him at my own expense. But when he walked over the Glienicke Bridge and he threw his arms around me, and he whispered in my ear in Hebrew "Blessed are those who help free the imprisoned." Tears came to my eyes, to his eyes -- I'll never earn a bigger fee in my life than that.
When we were in Jerusalem, we said we'd look back at that time and remember it as a wonderful point in history, when civil liberties, love for Judaism and a love for Israel came together. This week marks the 56th anniversary of Israel. And I'm reminded of myself in 1947 and 1948, watching the UN on television, the division of Palestine into hopefully a Jewish state and a Palestinian state. It was accepted by the Jews, but rejected by the Palestinians.
And then Ben Gurion announced the statehood. It was such a joyous moment! I remember when the director of my yeshiva came in and announced the words from Hatikva [Israel's national anthem] were officially changed from "going back to the land of our fathers" to "a free people in our land."
Those were the days. Those were the days when the Israeli-Arab conflict presented a clear-cut conflict between good and evil. Israelis were Holocaust survivors trying to build a Jewish democratic homeland that would always be open to Jewish immigrants and refugees. Doors to the world had been closed to so many refugees during the Holocaust.
On the other side were the Holocaust perpetrators. We forget too often that the Egyptian army commanders in large part were former Nazis given asylum by the Egyptian government. Amung them was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the recognized leader of the Palestinian people. These were indicted war criminals who spent most of the war years with Hitler in Nazi Germany.
This was a conflict between democracy and tyranny. A conflict between those who wanted to accept the United Nations' plan of a two-state resolution and those who rejected the existence of Israel. Those were the days when it was so clear on which side civil liberties and human rights and progress led and on which side tyranny and oppression lied. The sad reality is that nothing has changed on the ground. These facts are still the same today as they were in 1947 or 1948, yet the perspectives have changed so dramatically. Even in 1956, even in 1967, even in the early 1970's, most progressive, liberal and centrist people supported the right side of this struggle.
Sure, I favored a two state solution. I've always favored a two state solution. Israel has always favored a two state solution, since 1937, when they accepted the Peel Commission report which would have give the Palestinians a long, contiguous state and the Jews a totally non-contiguous state. The Jews said yes and the Palestinians and Arabs said no.
In 1947, the Jews were offered a non-contiguous state in which Jerusalem was separated from Tel Aviv and other Jewish cities, and the Palestinians were offered a contiguous state. And the Palestinians said no. Ben Gurion and the Israelis said yes. Nothing has changed. Not Israeli actions to be sure.
What changed is the perception of the world. The United Nations tragically has become a mega bomb for bigotry against Israel. If a space alien from another planet were to come down to earth and land at the General Assembly of the United Nations, or at some American college campuses, or many an urban capital, and have to report back to the distant galaxy from which he came, he'd have to report this is a wonderful planet with great countries that love peace. Like Syria, which is on the Security Council. Or Libya, that chairs the Human Rights Commission. But there's this one country, this evil nation that's been condemned by the UN more than any other country or all other countries combined. If the spaceship landed on the Berkeley campus, all the canards and untruths about Israel--genocide, apartheid, all the claims you hear so often, would be heard. And that's the tragedy.
And that's why I had to write The Case For Israel. It's my least favorite book, I have to tell you. It's the book nobody wants to write. Nobody has to write the Case for Canada or the Case for Spain or the Case for Australia. There's so much lying on college campuses today, so many untruths, so many legalese falsities being directed against Israel. But the impetus to write the Case For Israel came when the divestiture campaign began at Harvard and Berkeley and many of our college campuses. No members of the law school faculty, nor of the medical school faculty, nor the business school signed, but many at the other schools and departments signed the petition.
What did it call for? It called for no further investments in Israeli industries. What are Israel's main industries? It's not Jaffa oranges, it's high tech, life saving medical equipment, like kidney dialysis machines. Israel per capita saves more lives than any other country in the world.
I said cutting off this industry was immoral, so I challenged one of the leading pro-divestment professors at one of the Harvard colleges to debate me in front of his students. I challenged him to debate the morality of signing the petition to divest from Israel, but not from North Korea, not Cuba, not China, not Libya, not from Iraq in those days, not the Sudan -- only Israel. This was a man who taught the Christian approaches to the Old Testament. He said to me "Professor Dershowitz, my knowledge of the Middle East ended with the death of Moses." I invited those students to see me, watch me debate him or a surrogate. When nobody showed to take his position, I set the petition on a chair as a token surrogate and we had a dialog.
Many of the students who attended were not Jews and held no firm views of Israel. They all came up to me afterward and said the same three words: "We didn't know!"
"We didn't know Israel first offered a two state solution, a Palestinian state, but the Arabs rejected it!"
"We didn't know in 1967 Israel accepted Resolution 242, in which the United Nations called for the return of territories captured in exchange for full peace and secure boundaries."
All Arab states rejected it saying, "no peace, no recognition, no negotiations," but students today said, "We didn't know!"
These Harvard students didn't know that in the years 2000 and 2001 Ehud Barak along with President Bill Clinton had initially offered the Palestinians everything they were asking for -- a state made up of 97% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, a capital in Jerusalem, control of East Jerusalem, control of the Temple Mount, 30 billion dollars in a compensation package, and symbolic return of several thousand refugees. Instead of accepting it or coming back to the negotiating table, Arafat walked away and started the intifada and all the violence. The Harvard students kept saying, "We didn't know!"
"We didn't know that Prince Bandar at Taba called Arafat's rejection of the offer a crime against the Palestinian people and against all the people of the region."
The students just didn't know.
I came away with a different view than my friend Natan Sharansky. He came away with a sense of hopelessness. When he toured American campuses, he believed that America was becoming like France [which is exceedingly anti-Israel].
I came away with a very different, optimistic view. To be sure, 15 to 20% of students on college campuses -- perhaps more at Berkeley, Michigan, or Rutgers, fewer at Harvard and Yale -- you can't argue with them. It's like putting a dollar in the soda machine and the soda doesn't come out and neither does your dollar. You just can't argue with them. You want to kick the machine but you can't do that.
You cannot convince people like Noam Chomsky. And there are 15% on the other side who are clearly favorably disposed to Israel. But then there are 70% on college campuses with open and unfortunately empty minds when it comes to Israel. They take what their peers and professors say the Gospel truth. It's crucially important to fill that information gap.
During the same divestiture campaign, a young student came to me from Harvard College and asked me for forgiveness. I said, "What do I have to forgive you for? I don't even know you."
He said, "I never speak up on campus, in my classroom, in my dormitory, at dinner. I never speak up in favor of Israel even though I've been there on Operation Birthright and I know the facts and hear the lies."
"Why not?" I asked.
He replied, "Because if I am perceived as pro-Israel, pro-Zionist, in favor of Israel, I won't be able to get dates with young girls."
It was as simple as that. It's not cool to be a "Zionist." It's not cool. I thought I should start a program at the Harvard campus: "Date a Zionist Tonight!" That's the way he put it -- Not cool to be a Zionist. It's really a problem.
I decided to make it cool again to support Israel and show you can support Israel from a progressive, liberal perspective. Indeed, I support Israel not in spite of my history as a human rights activist, but because of it. I support Israel because I support female rights, women's rights, feminism, and the Palestinian Authority does not.
I also support gay rights. I saw a student at a college campus hold up a sign that said, "Gays For Palestine." I said to him "Imagine what would happen if you carried that sign in Ramallah. You'd be killed." I support Israel because I support gay rights. Recently a progressive congressman, Barney Frank from Massachusetts, worked with me and Israel to grant asylum for 40 Palestinian gays.
"Environmentalists For Palestine" is another ironic group. Palestinians are utterly insensitive to environmental concerns. Israel is the most environmentally sensitive country in the Middle East.
Israel is the only country in the Middle East in which an Arab can file a case against his country in the Supreme Court. Israel's Supreme Court is among the finest courts in the world today. It enforces the rule of law on a daily basis against inevitable abuses that occur when a nation is at war. As we look at the United States Supreme Court this week there are two big cases -- the Hamdi case and the Padilla case. At question is if we can detain and hold terrorist combatants at Guantanamo indefinitely, while deciding if they are prisoners of war or common criminals. One has only to look to Israel, which see resolved these things 20 years ago.
We see that the Israelis routinely decide in favor of the Palestinians against their own government. In 1989, Justice Brennan, perhaps the most liberal justice in America's court, went to Israel at the invitation of Justice Aharon Barak of the Israeli Supreme Court. Brennan said, "God forbid that terrorism should ever come to the shores of the United States. At least we in America have the model to help balance the needs of security against the needs of liberty. That model is Israel."
I think the American courts today will look to that model, just as the United States Army looks to the Israeli army as a model to fight guerilla wars against terrorists with "holiness of arms." I recently attended a hearing of the Ethics Committee of the Israeli Army which decides when it's appropriate to consider somebody a combatant and target him for killing when he can't be arrested as a terrorist. The Ethics Committee consisted of a professor of Philosophy from Tel Aviv University, a human rights activist from Bar-Ilan University, several lawyers, mathematicians, and experts on how to evaluate potential collateral damage -- civilian deaths in numbers. They were debating how to value the life of a Palestinian civilian against the life of an Israeli soldier. The Ethics professor said the Israeli government has the right to balance and to value the life of its own soldiers over enemy civilians. And the Israeli general disagreed and said the Israeli soldiers must die to save the lives of civilians even if they are enemy civilians.
Now, however you decide what is the right result, the interesting point is Israel is debating these issues. The Israeli Supreme Court is debating these issues. They're trying their very best to fight within the constraints of the Rules of War. Laws are enacted that give terrorists an advantage in this fight against democracy. You know, Israel has nothing to be ashamed of in its general record. It's fought terrorism for over 56 years.
There was the massacre in Hebron in 1929 before the advent of Israel, before the occupied territories, before the settlements. Hebron's Jewish population was subject to a massacre at the whim of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The victims were not armed Zionists, but primarily yeshiva students and rabbis and they were massacred because they were of the wrong religion. In all its years, Israel has killed fewer civilians than any other comparable country.
Israel is the only country in modern times that has never dropped bombs on enemy capitols in retaliation for bombs dropped on its own civilians. People forget that in 1948, Egypt dropped bombs on a Tel Aviv bus station, killing many people. The '67 War began when the Jordanians lobbed 1600 bombs into downtown West Jerusalem. In the '73 War Syria tried to kill civilians in Galilee. But Israel never bombed Cairo or Damascus. When Israel did bomb on the outskirts of Beirut during the Beirut War, it tried its best not to kill innocent civilians.
In fact, in order to destroy a terrorist base in the middle of Beirut, Israel sent Ehud Barak dressed as a woman on a raft to eliminate the base so as not to drop bombs from the air.
The United States today, when they go into Fallujah from the air or on the ground they use Israel as the model. Israel went in on the ground in Jenin and lost 23 soldiers, yet it's called a massacre: first they claimed 5,000 people were killed, then 500, then 100. In truth, 52 people, most of them combatants, were killed. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers were killed in the process. Israel can be really proud of the way it fought terror and efforts to destroy it over the years. And Israel can be proud of the fact that it has constantly been willing to support the creation of a democratic, peaceful Palestinian state.
Look, I know there are people outside claiming they are Jews for Palestine. I suspect many of you in the auditorium are Jews for Palestine. We favored a Palestinian state in '37, in '47, and we favored Resolution 242. Many offers of statehood were made by Ehud Barak. It was not we who turned them down. It was Yasser Arafat. It's not we who stole money from the Palestinian people, not we who turn Palestinian children into suicide bombers. Yasser Arafat's primary victims have been the Palestinian people. He has stolen his people's lives from them.
There was a cartoon in the Berkeley Daily Planet. It shows a picture of a man holding a Palestinian flag that says. " State of Palestine," and it shows an American flag and a man with a Jewish Star of David stabbing him in the back, as if Israel denied statehood to the Palestinian people.
Prince Bandar, the Saudi Arabian member of the peace delegation, said if Arafat had accepted what was offered by 2001, we could be celebrating the third year of Palestinian statehood. Palestine could have been one of the wealthiest states in the Middle East, with all kinds of money pouring in from Europe, with great medical care and good education.
The best thing that could happen to the Middle East would be the existence of a democratic, economically viable Palestinian state. It is not Israel that has prevented that from happening. It's the Palestinian leadership. The Palestinians should value having their own state more than the destruction of the Jewish state. But it cannot come without, it must be a condition of, recognizing the existence of the state of Israel.
And statehood cannot come as a reward for terrorism. As Tom Friedman wrote in the New York Times, if Palestinian statehood is a reward for terrorism, then terrorism is coming to a theater near you. The world learned a terrible lesson when it rewarded Palestinian terrorism at Munich in 1972; when it rewarded Palestinian terrorism in Turkey and in France; when it rewarded Palestinian terrorists in Italy and Israel, as well. Indeed, I think Usama Bin Laden learned an important lesson from Arafat -- that terrorism works because the United States doesn't have the backbone to stand up to it.
Many European countries become complicit with terror by making deals with the devil, like when Germany's Wily Brandt freed the murderers of Munich after the fake hijacking that he arranged with the Palestinians. This is the kind of cowardly act which results in spreading terrorism around the world. And it's the United States that shares this same destiny with Israel. Both are victims of terrorism against civilians. They fight for the preservation of democracy in a world where terrorism is tolerated; a world where terrorists think they can change the outcome of elections the way they did in Spain, and hope to do in England, Australia, Untied States and Israel. These democracies have to be able to stand up to the tyranny of the world.
Israel can be proud of the way it stood up to terrorism. Israel should be proud of the way it has fought the wars that were thrust upon it for so many years. The last thing Israel wanted to do was fight the wars. Not in 1947, in 1948, not in 1956, not in 1967, not in 1973 and not in any era since. All Israel wants to do is live in peace and prosperity and openness and become a center of science, of intellectualism, of art and culture.
You know you hear excuses all the time that democracy is only for secure nations. "It's only for rich nations. It's only for old nations. Don't expect democracies too quickly in Iraq, don't expect it in other parts of the world. Don't expect it in China. It's a luxury. The United States can afford it, Western Europe can afford it." Israel puts the lie to that.
Israel has been a democracy since the day it was born. Israel never gave up democracy even when faced with genocidal attempts to destroy it. Even when faced with a war and the potential for major, major destruction, it never gave up on democracy. There is no question Israel will remain a democracy.
And as a democracy, Israel can take criticism. Israel is a country with a thick skin. It has had to develop that thick skin over a number of years. It will remain a democracy, believe it. That's a given. Just go online and read the Israeli press. If you want to see criticism in Israel just read Ma'ariv or Yediot Ahranot or Ha'aretz. They tell the joke of the Israelis who were stranded on a deserted island. They were rescued after five years and they had 15 political parties and several newspapers. And American Jews shouldn't be timid to criticize policies of a particular Israeli government. You hear Michael Lerner and others say that to criticize Israel you are called an anti-Semite. That's just nonsense.
I have challenged Michael Lerner, I have challenged others both in the Bay Area and other places too. Show me a single instance where a major Jewish leader or Israeli leader has ever said that criticizing a particular policy of Israeli government is anti-Semitic. That's just something made up by Israel's enemies. It is not something that can actually be argued today.
It is anti-Semitism to single out Israel -- to single out the Jewish nation and blow its faults out of proportion and beyond any kind of recognition, and it is anti-Semitism to continually compare Israel to Nazism.
I was accused of carrying my own anti-Semitisic agenda the first time in my adult life when I spoke at Fanueil Hall and received an award from a Jewish organization for my work in human rights. As I walked out there was a group from the hard Left chanting "Dershowitz and Hilter, it's all the same, the only difference is the name!" and "Dershowitz and Goebbels, all the same, the only difference is the name!" They were chanting that Jews who support Israel are worse than Nazis. Norman Finkelstein has said he doesn't understand why Israel isn't flattered by the comparison with Nazis.
You'll notice these people never compare Israel to others -- to dictatorships, to China, never to Pinochet, never to Cuba, never even to Mussolini and never to solve anything. And that is anti-Semitism. To compare a democratic state that is trying so hard to conform to the rule of law and has never killed innocent civilians deliberately or willfully to the Nazi regimes that killed Jews can only be motivated by hatred and bigotry. So criticism is there. Criticism should be comparable, contextual, constructive. Israel thrives on criticism and the Jewish community thrives on criticism. All I want when I come to Berkeley is to confront those people, those professors, those Israel haters.
Again, I say I'm pro-Palestinian. The only difference between me and other pro-Palestinians is they are anti-Israel. I could debate them because my goal is simply to bring more nuances in the discussion of the Israeli/Arab Palestinian conflict to the college campus. Enough of the shouting, enough of the polemics, enough of the extremism, enough of the ignorant comparisons to Nazism or to apartheid. Enough of the thoroughly non-intellectual sloganeering. Let's have a real intellectual discussion, let's have a real conversation. Let's have a real case.
But you can't buy that case unless there's elimination of the extremist rhetoric -- this sense that Israel is demonized, de-legitimized in the world. In fact, the extreme criticism makes it hard to get the nuances of criticism of both sides. And what happens is each side gets polemical views and that doesn't make progress toward peace.
So I ask those in the progressive movement, who support feminism and civil liberties, -- the kind of political theories I've supported all my life-- to come join an effort to support Israel and support Palestine. To support a democratic Palestinian state to be sure. Take the position you want on unilateralism, or on the fence; they are issues about which reasonable people can disagree. Israelis disagree.
The fence case is now in the Israeli Supreme Court as well as the International Court of Justice. The Israeli Supreme Court will resolve it fairly. The International Court of Justice won't. Why? Because the International Court of Justice is just like the Mississippi Supreme Court in the 1930's.
There was a Mississippi Supreme Court that could do justice only for cases of a White against a White. It was an all White court. It could in a paternalistic way solve a case of a Black against another Black, but it couldn't do justice in a case involving a Black and White. It would always find in favor of a White in such a case.
The same goes for the United Nations General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, which is a United Nations court. It can do justice in some disputes, but when Israel is involved it is incapable of doing justice. Like the Mississippi Supreme Court, it used its credibility that existed in some cases to pretend it was doing justice, but no perspicacious students of the International Court of Justice will be fooled. But many people are not perspicacious. They'll see judges with robes declaring the use of a fence to prevent terrorism not only a violation of international law, but a grievous one!
Among cases now pending before the International Court, there are no cases pending involving genocide or slavery, or oppression of women. There are no cases of oppression of people because of their religion. There are no cases involving events in Algeria or the Sudan or Rwanda. But Israel builds a moveable fence, a fence that three times already has been moved by order of the Israeli Supreme Court and by the Israeli government in response to changes on the ground, and that seems to be the greatest violation of international law.
There is a clear effort on the part of those who want to demonize and de-legitimize Israel to win a struggle for the hearts and souls and minds of the next generation of American leaders. The generation educated at Berkeley, at Stanford, at the University of San Francisco, today's students at UC Santa Cruz. Students from all over the state of California and all over the United States. Fifteen to 20 years from now these will be the congress people, the senators. These will be the judges and business leaders. The President of the United States and international leaders as well. The goal is to make these people so knee-jerk anti-Israel that they will resemble typical French or most Western European leaders of today. That's the goal of the divestiture campaign. The leaders of the divestiture movement knew it couldn't work. Noam Chomsky knew it. He said he never believed in divestiture, yet he supported it. Why? Because it would cause students to be misled by the context of the petition, to believe Israel deserved to be singled out as a great human rights violator of the world.
So it is a struggle for the hearts and minds of the students. "College is a dangerous place," Dershowitz said. Your children and grandchildren and the children and grandchildren of our friends, they come from high schools, many from a Jewish education, and they are directed into classes that present a totally one-sided perspective. And when somebody tries to speak up for Israel they are demonized the way I have been demonized.
My book has been attacked viciously. I've been accused of plagiarism when I have all my original hand written copies. Norman Finkelstein said I didn't write it. People are prepared to make all kinds of false allegations not only against Israel, but against any Israel supporters also. Martin Gilbert, Stuart Eisenstadt, Debra Lipstadt, Elie Wiesel -- everybody who can speak in favor of the Jewish community -- is subjected to a well-organized, well-orchestrated and well-financed attack.
But they cannot stop us. They know they are not going to stop us. They know they aren't going to succeed in discrediting me, but they are sending a message to young assistant professors that "if you write a book that is pro-Israel or you write an article that is pro-Israel, we will savage you, we will accuse you of plagiarism. We will savage you, we will call you a fraud. And Dershowitz may be able to survive those charges, but you won't; when your tenure comes up those charges will be there, they will be in the air."
As Churchill said, "A lie can make its way half way around the world before the truth can get its pants on."
That's the goal, that's the purpose. And let there be no mistake about it. This is a battle for the hearts and minds for all of our future generation. That's why you all have to become Op Ed writers, you all have to become the people who call the TV and radio stations. You all have to write letters to the editor. You all have to support your local federation in the best defense of Israel.
JewishIndy, May 25, 2004
ISRAEL MUST FACE REALITY
OR FACE ANNIHILATION
By Beth Goodtree
Their successes are few, but failures by policy makers and shakers never seem to end. The reason? Not a single one has faced reality. Be it Ariel Sharon, George Bush and his Arabist State Department, the so-called Arab moderates or the delusional EU, all they are good at producing are failures and thus hastening the annihilation of their own people. (Why do I feel like a rehab counselor surrounded by a bunch of unwilling drug addicts?)
I'll pick on George Bush first. This man has more waffles then The International House of Pancakes. In a presidential address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American people made on Sept. 20, 2001, George Bush made the following statements:
"It (the war on terror) will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated...And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism."
"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."
From this statement, one would think that George Bush would never consider giving away a section of the US's strongest ally's land to a bunch of terrorists bent upon genocide so that they could better continue their agenda from their own newly-created country. But he is doing this to Israel, demanding she expel her own people from their own land and give it to her blood enemy. Bush, possibly because of his Arabist State Department advisors, seems to feel that the terror-bent Arabs occupying Israeli land are a separate entity, despite the following statement by one of their esteemed own:
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism." (1)
Mr. Bush also ignores the reality of the Arab's own polls which show the average Arab occupying Israeli land supports genocide bombings and is hell-bent on perpetrating genocide upon the Jews.
Most recently, Mr. Bush has ignored the fact that Israel is under constant attack and in a fight for her survival. He has shown his ignorance of this by having the US abstain in a UN (United Nazis?) vote condemning Israel for defensive actions against an enemy who uses women and children as human shields and living bombs. If Mr. Bush were cognizant of the laws of the Geneva Convention, he would know that any harm that comes to civilians, or destruction of their properties by the defendant in armed combat, is the fault of the combatant, not the victim trying to defend themselves, as Israel is doing.
Meanwhile, Christendom in the EU has their heads in the sand (literally) when it comes to Arab countries and Muslims in general. Europe is under invasion from the Moslem hordes and seems to think appeasement will work. Their philosophy is 'condemn Israel and the Muslims and Arabs will leave us alone and continue the flow of oil.' Fat chance. The Muslim world has its sights set on another European conquest (2), as a prelude to world domination and subjugation, and is fast approaching success. Their methods are a combination of out-of-control birth rates, immigration, propaganda and terror. At the rate they're going, Europeans will be subjugated by the next generation.
So now lets talk Arab 'moderates.' Here is a statement made last year by a man hailed as a Muslim moderate, Dr. Mahathir, former Prime Minister of Indonesia and former head of the Organization of Islamic Countries:
"We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships..." (3)
Since Malaysia is not under siege or threat, whom is he planning on attacking with these weapons?
Okay, forget the statements. How about behavior? Equating interrogation techniques that cause embarrassment and a bit of discomfort (used with known combatants and terrorists) to the brutal slow, gruesome beheading of an American (also Jewish) noncombatant shows a shocking, but unsurprising lack of human decency on the part of the Arab/Muslim world, as well as the left-wing western world. And as if this immoral equivalence were not enough, state-sponsored Arab papers, many from so-called moderate countries, went even further. Egypt, considered moderate and 'friendly,' ignored the beheading in it's leading daily newspaper, Al-Ahram. Two other major pro-government newspapers ran news service reports on their inside pages, without photos, while blasting America about Iraq on their front pages. (4)
Want more bad behavior? Let's talk broken treaties. Supposedly, Egypt is at peace with Israel, but you'd never know it by Egypt's behavior. According to the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty (which the US has guaranteed in her Israel-US Memorandum of Agreement), Egypt may not promote terrorism nor promulgate incitement. Yet Egypt actively breaks this treaty on a daily basis.
Egypt refuses to stop the flow of weapons -- through illicit tunnels and other means -- to the terrorist Arab entity occupying Israeli land in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The Egyptian government even uses textbooks that represent Jews as having the traits of "...malice, greed, treachery, exploitation of others, fomenting of dissension, deception, racism, arrogance, hypocrisy, trickery, and hostility." (5) And yet the US still considers Egypt a 'moderate' country and a friend, refusing to see the reality of Egypt's duplicity.
Meanwhile, the Arab world has just staged another farcical 'International Islamic Conference,' meant to appease the civilized world. This year's theme was 'Tolerance In the Islamic Culture.' Shamelessly, they tried to present themselves as tolerant and even enlightened, while all the while their compatriots not at the conference continue to enslave and force conversion on Christians and wage war on Jews merely for being Jewish. These Muslims do the same thing year after year, yet our leaders seems to buy into their lies and propaganda instead of demanding that the Islamic world change its behavior. This reminds me of the home invader who tells his victims that if only they cooperate no harm will come to them, and then proceeds to shoot them n the head.
Next comes Ariel Sharon. That man does more about-faces than a military academy on parade day. After being the main proponent of populating Judea, Samaria and Gaza, he now wants to destroy them and expel all Jews from their homes, in an act reminiscent of the Holocaust. Nor are his about-faces reserved for the disputed territories. First Sharon had many reservations about the 'Road Map,' then he seemed to accept it by all his concessions. First he said Israel wouldn't do anything until the terrorism stops, then he rewards terrorism by attempting to push through pullouts and expulsions of his own people.
The reality Sharon fails to face is that the Arab/Muslim world does not want Israel to exist. He also fails to face the reality that he cannot use Israel's fate to offset his personal problems. And he also fails to face the reality that the US does what is good for the US and not necessarily what is in Israel's best interests.
And finally, there is the civilized world in general, specifically, the common citizens thereof. They have bought the line that the enemy is terror. In truth, terror is merely a tactic of the real enemy, Islamism, which seeks to dominate and subjugate the entire planet just as Nazi Germany once did. We are in a war for our very existence. And unless we are willing to face this reality, we might as well immediately give the Muslims the keys to our countries, control of our lives (and accept the role of second class citizens with few rights if any), renounce our religions, buy prayer rugs and start praying to Allah five times a day.
(1) Zahir Muhsein, PLO executive committee member, in an interview with the Dutch newspaper "Trouw" March 31, 1977 and http://www.paktoday.com/expert.htm
(2) Islam will invade Europe and America. http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36914
(3) Mahathir Speech to OIC. http://thestar.com.my/oic/story.asp?file=/2003/10/16/oic/20031016123438
(4) Arab media muted in coverage of beheading. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4961118/
(5) War and Peace, Israel and the West in Egyptian Schoolbooks. http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/PubEuropeEducation.asp?did=1115
BETH GOODTREE lives in the New York City metro area and has a background in advertising. She writes political commentary and the occasional humor piece. Ms. Goodtree is a regular valued contributor to JewishIndy. She may be reached at Bgoodtree@AOL.com.
THE WAR THAT DARE NOT SPEAK
The Battle Is Against Militant Islam, Not "Terror"
by Andrew C. McCarthy
At any gathering of analysts, academics, and law-enforcement officers who specialize in counter-terrorism, it certainly is appropriate that we should focus on risks, responsibilities, and realities. My question, though, is whether we have the order backwards. Our most urgent imperative today is the need to confront reality. Only by doing that can we get a true understanding of the risks we face and our responsibilities in dealing with them.
What reality am I talking about?
Well, we are now well into the third year of what is called the "War on Terror." That is the language we all use, and it is ubiquitous. The tabloids and the more prestigious journals of news and opinion fill their pages with it. The 24-hour cable television stations are not content merely to repeat "War on Terror" as if it were a mantra; they actually use it as a floating logo in their dizzying set designs.
Most significant of all, the "War on Terror" is our government's top rhetorical catch-phrase. It is the way we define for the American people and the world -- especially the Islamic world -- what we are doing, and what we are about. It is the way we explain the nature of the menace that we are striving to defeat.
But is it accurate? Does it make sense? More importantly, does it serve our purposes? Does it make victory more identifiable, and hence more attainable? I humbly suggest that it fails on all these scores. This, furthermore, is no mere matter of rhetoric or semantics. It is all about substance, and it goes to the very core of our struggle.
Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a method. It is the most sinister, brutal, inhumane method of our age. But it is nonetheless just that: a method. You cannot, and you do not, make war on a method. War is made on an identified -- and identifiable -- enemy.
In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam -- a very particular practice and interpretation of a very particular set of religious, political and social principles.
Now that is a very disturbing, very discomfiting thing to say in 21st-century America. It is very judgmental. It sounds very insensitive. It is the very definition of politically incorrect. Saying it aloud will not get you invited to chat with Oprah. But it is a fact. And it is important both to say it and to understand it.
We have a rich and worthy tradition of religious tolerance in America. Indeed, in many ways our reverence for religious practice and tolerance is why there is an America. America was a deeply religious place long before it was ever a constitutional democracy. That tradition of tolerance causes us, admirably, to bend over backwards before we pass judgment on the religious beliefs and religious practices of others. It is an enormous part of what makes America great.
It led our government, within hours of the 9/11 attacks, to announce to the world that Islam was not and is not our enemy. Repeatedly, the president himself has said it: "The 19 suicide terrorists hijacked a great religion." The message from all our top officials has been abundantly clear: "That's that; Islam off the table; no need to go deeper."
But we have the ostrich routine way too far. A commitment in favor of toleration is not the same as a commitment against examination. We have been so paralyzed by the fear of being portrayed as an enemy of Islam -- as an enemy of a creed practiced by perhaps a billion people worldwide -- that we've lost our voice on a very salient question: What will be the Islam of the 21st century? Will it be the Islam of the militants, or the Islam of the moderates? That's the reality we need to grapple with.
Let's make no mistake about this: We have a crucial national-security interest in the outcome of that struggle. We need the moderates to win. And here, when I speak of moderates, I am not talking about those who merely pay lip service to moderation. I am not talking about those who take advantage of America's benign traditions and our reluctance to examine the religious practices of others. I am not talking about those who use that blind eye we turn as an opportunity to be apologists, enablers, and supporters of terrorists.
I am talking about authentic moderates: millions of Muslims who want an enlightened, tolerant, and engaged Islam for today's world. Those people need our help in the worst way. They are losing the battles for their communities. The militants may not be a majority, but they are a vocal, aggressive minority -- and they are not nearly as much of a small fringe as we'd like to believe.
As an assistant U.S. attorney, time and time again I heard it over the last decade, from ordinary Muslims we reached out to for help -- people we wanted to hire as Arabic translators, or who were potential witnesses, or who were simply in a position to provide helpful information. People who were as far from being terrorists as you could possibly be. "I'd like to help the government," they would say, "but I can't." And it was not so much about their safety -- although there was, no doubt, some of that going on. It was about ostracism.
Repeatedly they'd tell us that the militant factions dominated their communities. These elements were usually not the most numerous, but they were the most vocal, the best networked, the best funded, and the most intimidating. Consequently, people whose patriotic instinct was to be helpful could not overcome the fear that they and their families could be blackballed if it became known that they had helped the United States prosecute Muslim terrorists. The militants had the kind of suasion that could turn whole communities into captive audiences.
This is no small matter. Events of the last decade, throughout the world, are a powerful lesson that the more insular and dominated communities become, the more they are likely to breed the attitudes and pathologies that lead to terrorist plots and suicide bombings. It's true that suicide bombers seem to defy precise psychological profiling; they come from diverse economic and educational backgrounds -- the only common thread seems to be devotion to militant Islam. But while we have not had success predicting who is likely to become a suicide bomber, it is far easier to get a read on where suicide bombers and other terrorists will come from. They come from communities where the militants dominate and those who don't accept their beliefs are cowed into submission.
SAVING OURSELVES, SAVING ISLAMThat militant Islam is our enemy is a fact. That it is the object of our war is a fact. That we need to empower real moderates is a fact. And we need to talk about these facts.
We are not helping the authentic moderates if we avoid having the conversation that so needs to be had if the militants hiding in the weeds we've created are going to be exposed and marginalized. If we fail to be critical, if we fail to provoke that discussion, it will continue to be militants who hold positions of influence and who control indoctrination in communities, madrassas, prisons, and other settings where the young, the vulnerable, and the alienated are searching for direction.
For ourselves too, and for the success of our struggle, we need to be clear that the enemy here is militant Islam. If we are to appreciate the risks to our way of life, and our responsibilities in dealing with them, we need to understand that we are fighting a religious, political and social belief system -- not a method of attack, but a comprehensive ideology that calls for a comprehensive response.
In the 1990s, our response, far from being comprehensive, was one-dimensional. We used the criminal justice system. As an individual, I am very proud to have been associated with the good work done in that effort. Yet, if we are going to be honest with ourselves -- if we are truly going to confront reality -- as a nation, we'd have to call it largely a failure.
We have learned over the years that the militant population is large -- maybe tens of thousands, maybe more. Certainly enough to staff an extensive international network and field numerous cells and small battalions that, in the aggregate, form a challenging military force. Nevertheless, in about a half dozen major prosecutions between 1993 and 2001, we managed to neutralize less than three-dozen terrorists -- the 1993 World Trade Center bombers; those who plotted an even more ghastly "Day of Terror" that would have destroyed several New York City landmarks; the Manila Air conspirators who tried to blow U.S. airliners out of the sky over the Pacific; those who succeeded in obliterating our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the would-be bombers of Los Angeles International Airport who were thwarted just before the Millennium celebration.
In these cases, we saw the criminal-justice response at its most aggressive, operating at a very high rate of success. Every single defendant who was charged and tried was convicted. As a practical matter, however, even with that rate of efficiency, we were able to neutralize only a tiny portion of the terrorist population.
Now, however, combining law enforcement with the more muscular use of military force -- the way we have fought the battle since September 11 -- we are far more effective. Terrorists are being rolled up in much greater numbers. They are being captured and killed. Instead of dozens being neutralized, the numbers are now in the hundreds and thousands.
But I respectfully suggest that this is still not enough, because it doesn't necessarily mean we are winning.
WAR OF IDEAS
When I was a prosecutor in the 1980s, it was the "War on Drugs" that was all the rage. We would do mega-cases, make mega-arrests, and seize mega-loads of cocaine and heroin. It made for terrific headlines. It looked great on television. But we weren't winning. Neighborhoods were still rife with narcotics traffickers and all their attendant depravity. And there was the tell-tale sign: The price of drugs kept going down instead of up. We said we were at war, but with all we were doing we were still failing to choke off the supply chain.
Now I see another version of the same syndrome, and if we don't talk about Islam we will remain blind to it -- to our great detriment. To understand why, all we need to do is think for a moment about the cradle-to-grave philosophy of Hamas. Yes, what blares on the news are suicide bombings that slaughter scores of innocents. But look underneath them, at what Hamas is doing day-to-day. They don't just run paramilitary training for adult jihadists. They start from the moment of birth. From infancy, hatred is taught to children. They learn to hate before they ever have a clue about what all the hatred is over. At home, in mosques, in madrassas, in summer camps -- dressed in battle fatigues and hoods, and armed with mock weapons -- it is fed to them.
And Hamas is not nearly alone. A funding spigot has been wide open for years. We are better about trying to shut it down than we used to be, but we're not even close to efficient yet. And even if we were to shut it down tomorrow, there are hundreds of millions -- maybe more -- already in the pipeline. Dollars that are contributed and controlled by the worst Wahhabist and Salafist elements. Those dollars are funding hatred. Hatred and the demonization of human beings simply because of who they are.
Some suggest that our situation might benefit from making accommodations -- policy concessions that might mollify the militants and miraculously change their attitude toward us. But let's think about a five-year-old Muslim boy who has already gotten a sizable dose of the venom that is found in the madrassas and the Arabic media.
I can assure you that five-year-old kid does not hate American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. He does not hate the intractable nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What he hates is Jews. What he hates is Americans. It is in the water he drinks and the air he breathes. Sure, as he grows, he'll eventually be taught to hate American foreign policy and what he'll forever be told is the "Israeli occupation." But those abstractions are not the source of the child's hatred, and changing them won't make the hatred go away -- the hatred that fuels the killing.
When I say I worry that we could lose this struggle against militant Islam that we keep calling the "War on Terror," it is that fuel and that hatred I am talking about. We have the world's most powerful, competent military -- it can capture and kill large numbers of terrorists. With the help of our law-enforcement and intelligence agencies -- especially cutting off funding and cracking down on other kinds of material support -- our unified government can make a sizable dent in the problem. It can give us periods like the last two years when there have been no successful attacks on our homeland -- although it is hard to take too much comfort in that once you look at Bali, or Casablanca, or Istanbul, or Baghdad, or Madrid.
Yes, we can have temporary, uneasy respites from the struggle. We cannot win, however, until we can honestly say we are turning the tide of the numbers. The madrassas are like conveyor belts. If they are churning out more militants in waiting than we are capturing, killing, prosecuting, or otherwise neutralizing, then we are losing this war.
It's not enough to deplete the militants' assets. We need to defeat their ideas, and that means marginalizing their leaders. That means talking about how Islam assimilates to American ideals and traditions. It means making people take clear positions: making them stand up and be counted -- and be accountable -- not letting them hide under murky labels like "moderate".
As far as recognizing what we're really up against here, the terrorism prosecutions of the 1990s were a powerful eye-opener. We saw up close who the enemy was and why it was so crucial to be clear about it. Those cases are generally thought to have begun with the 1993 World Trade Center bombing -- a horror that oddly seems mild compared to the carnage we've witnessed in over a decade since. Yet, while that attack -- the militants' declaration of war -- began the string of terrorism cases, it was not really the start of the story.
That actually began years earlier. The men who carried out the World Trade Center bombing spent years training for it, mostly in rural outposts remote from Manhattan -- like Calverton, Long Island, western Pennsylvania, and northern Connecticut. There, they drilled in shooting, hand-to-hand combat, and improvised explosive devices. From about 1988 on, they were operating here, and saw themselves as a committed jihad army in the making.
They were fully convinced that their religion compelled them to brutality. And unlike us, they had no queasiness: They were absolutely clear about who their enemy was. They did not talk in jingos about the "War on Freedom," or the "War on Liberty." They talked about the War on America, the War on Israel, and the War on West. They were plainspoken about whom they sought to defeat and why.
Their leader was a blind Egyptian cleric named Omar Abdel Rahman, the emir of an international terrorist organization called the "Islamic Group." This was a precursor of al Qaeda, responsible for the infamous 1981 murder of Anwar Sadat for the great crime of making peace with Israel. Abdel Rahman continues to this day to have a profound influence on Osama bin Laden; his sons have been linked to al Qaeda, and one of bin Laden's demands continues to be that America free the "Blind Sheikh," who is now serving a life sentence.
Abdel Rahman laid out the principles of his terror group -- including its American division -- with alarming clarity: Authority to rule did not come from the people who are governed; it came only from Allah -- a God who, in Abdel Rahman's depiction, was not a God of mercy and forgiveness, but a God of wrath and vengeance, and a God single-mindedly consumed with the events of this world. For the Blind Sheikh and his cohorts, there would be no toleration for other religions or other views. There was militant Islam, and there was everybody else.
All the world was divided into two spheres -- and it is very interesting how those spheres were referred to: the first was Dar al Islam, or the domain of the Muslims; the second was Dar al Harb. You might assume that Dar al Harb would be the domain of the non-Muslims. It is not. It is instead the domain of war. The militants perceive themselves as in a constant state of war with those who do not accept their world view.
Sometimes that war is hot and active. Sometimes it is in recess while the militants take what they can get in negotiations and catch their breath for the next rounds of violence. But don't be fooled: the war never ends -- unless and until all the world accepts their construction of Islam.
As Abdel Rahman taught his adherents -- and as the bin Ladens, the Zawahiris, and the Zarqawis echo today -- the manner of prosecuting the never-ending war is jihad. This word is often translated as holy war; it more closely means struggle.
We hear a lot today from the mainstream media about jihad. Usually, it's a happy-face jihad, congenially rendered as "the internal struggle to become a better person," or "the struggle of communities to drive out drug peddlers," or "the struggle against disease, poverty and ignorance." In many ways, these reflect admirable efforts to reconstruct a very troubling concept, with an eye toward an Islam that blends into the modern world.
But let's be clear: these are reconstructions. Jihad, in its seventh-century origins, is a forcible, military concept. I realize politesse frowns on saying such things out loud, but one of the main reasons it is so difficult to discredit the militants -- to say convincingly that they have hijacked a peaceable religion -- is this: when they talk about this central tenet, jihad, as a duty to take up arms, they have history and tradition on their side. As Abdel-Rahman, the influential scholar with a doctorate from the famed al-Azhar University in Egypt, instructed his followers: "There is no such thing as commerce, industry, and science in jihad.... If Allah says: 'Do jihad,' it means jihad with the sword, with the cannon, with the grenades, and with the missile. This is jihad. Jihad against God's enemies for God's cause and his word."
So rich is the military pedigree of this term, jihad, that many of the apologists concede it buttry a different tack to explain it away: "Sure, jihad means using force," they say, "but only in defense -- only when Muslims are under attack." Of course, who is to say what is defensive? Who is to say when Muslims are under attack? For the militants, Islam is under attack whenever anyone has the temerity to say: "Islam -- especially their brand of Islam -- is not for me." For the militants who will be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of Israel, Islam is under attack simply because Israelis are living and breathing and going about their lives.
Simply stated, for Abdel Rahman, bin Laden, and those who follow them, jihad means killing the enemies of the militants -- which is pretty much anyone who is not a militant. When your forces are outnumbered, and your resources are scarce, it means practicing terrorism.
Abdel Rahman was brazen about it. As he said many times:
Why do we fear the word terrorist? If the terrorist is the person who defends his right, so we are terrorists. And if the terrorist is the one who struggles for the sake of God, then we are terrorists. We have been ordered to terrorism because we must prepare what power we can to terrorize the enemy of God. The Quran says the word "to strike terror." Therefore, we don't fear to be called terrorists. They may say, "He is a terrorist. He uses violence. He uses force." Let them say that. We are ordered to prepare whatever we can of power to terrorize the enemies of Islam.
It is frightening. But, as this makes clear, it is not simply the militants' method that we are at war with. We are at war with their ideology. Militant Islam has universalist designs. That sounds crazy to us -- we're from a diverse, tolerant, live-and-let-live culture. It's hard for us to wrap our brains around a hegemonic world view in the 21st Century. But if we are going to appreciate the risk -- the threat -- we face, the reality is: it matters much less what we think about the militants than what they think about themselves.
The militants see terrorism as a perfectly acceptable way to go about achieving their aims. When they succeed in destroying great, towering symbols of economic and military might; when with a few cheap bombs detonated on trains they can change the course of a national election; it reinforces their convictions that their designs are neither grandiose nor unattainable. It tells them that their method of choice works, no matter what we may think of it.
Making our task even more difficult is the structure of Islam. As Bernard Lewis and other notable scholars have observed, there are no synods, and there is no rigorous hierarchy. There is no central power structure to say with authority that this or that practice is heresy. There is no pope available to say, "Sheik Omar, blowing up civilians is out of bounds. It is condemned."
So how does the conduct become condemned? How do we turn the tide? Naturally, only Muslims themselves can cure Islam. Only they can ultimately chart their course; only they can clarify and reform where reform is so badly needed.
There is much, however, that we can do to help. It starts with ending the free ride for the apologists and enablers of terrorists. We need to be more precise in our language. We are not at war with terror. We are at war with militant Islam. Militant Islam is our enemy. It seeks to destroy us; we cannot co-exist with it. We need to defeat it utterly.
We seek to embrace moderate Muslims; to promote them, and to help them win the struggle for what kind of religious, cultural and social force Islam will be in the modern world. "Moderate," however, cannot just be a fudge. It needs to be a real concept with a defined meaning.
What should that meaning be? Who are we trying to weed out? Well, last year, the distinguished Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes proposed a few questions -- a litmus test of sorts. Useful questions, he said, might include: Do you condone or condemn those who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn the likes of al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah by name as terrorist groups? Is jihad, meaning a form of warfare, acceptable in today's world? Do you accept the validity of other religions? Should non-Muslims enjoy completely equal civil rights with Muslims? Do you accept the legitimacy of scholarly inquiry into the origins of Islam? Who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Do you accept that institutions that fund terrorism should be shut down?
To be sure, we should have no illusions about all this. We are never going to win every heart and mind. Asking these questions and questions like them, though, would provoke a very necessary conversation. It could begin to reveal who are the real moderates, and who are the pretenders. It could begin to identify who are the friends of enlightenment and tolerance, and who are the allies of brutality and inhumanity. It could begin the long road toward empowering our friends and marginalizing our enemies. Finally, it could make the War on Militant Islam a war we can win -- for ourselves and for the millions of Muslims who need our help.
Andrew C. McCarthy, a former chief assistant U.S. attorney who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman .
This piece is the most important commentary I have ever read on the threat we face from militant Islam. I urge you to read this in its entirety. This should be required reading for every American, to be read again and again. I urge you to forward it to as many people as you know.....Steven Emerson
by David Basch
"Since destruction of Israel is the Arab highest priority, count on the Arabs to concentrate on making the area uninhabitable for both. While both sides will be devastated, for the Arabs it is the Jewish devastation that will be the most significant aspect since it will have achieved the Arab dream of driving the Jews from the Islamic realm...."
Unfortunately for Israel's people, their government persists in giving the wrong message to the Arab enemy. By failing to demonstrate by decisive action, physically on the ground, that the enemy cannot succeed in destroying and replacing Israel, Israel encourages and tempts the enemy to continue his vile war to the end.
We see this encouragement once again in Rafah and Gaza: the Egyptian enemy supplies deadly weapons to the Arabs in Gaza along the border; despite this, Israel has not firmly created a condition on the ground that renders this impossible. Instead, Israel succumbs to outside pressure that sides with Israel's enemies and fails to make the conditions for such weapon deliveries impossible. There is no doubt that the border area, at the least, needs a very wide corridor that precludes such weaponry tunnels. By showing again that Israel has not the resolve to create such a condition -- though military necessity gives Israel the right to do so -- it gives another victory to the Arab enemy and confirms his view that he will in the end be victorious.
The disaster that Israel acquiesces in at Rafah, it doubles with Sharon's proposal to abandon Gaza and to ethnically cleanse its Jewish communities. This is an even grander victory that will not only initiate a new Arab state but will lead to the establishment of a dangerous military bastion, a lethal salient poised at the heart of Israel. It would include the stationing of far more deadly Arab weapons aimed at Israel's population centers. It will give reality to the Arab dream of a route for the severing of the southern half of the country.
It is no secret (except to liberals) that the Arab world is arrayed to destroy Israel, even maintaining a mass of 3 to 5 million in Arab lands that it calls refugees and the true owners of Israel. Arab strategy is to get the most favorable terms for Israeli withdrawal from her strategic territory so that the position can be used, not to make peace, but in finishing off the Jewish state. Israel is asleep to think that the Arabs, armed with a new Arab state, will become concerned with making a peaceful success of that nation alongside Israel.
The fact is that the land of Israel cannot support two such nations, especially when the Arab nation has the capacity to gorge the area with Arabs, wall to wall. Since destruction of Israel is the Arab highest priority, count on the Arabs to concentrate on making the area uninhabitable for both. While both sides will be devastated, for the Arabs it is the Jewish devastation that will be the most significant aspect since it will have achieved the Arab dream of driving the Jews from the Islamic realm. A nation involved in survival does not allow possible conditions for its destruction to eventuate. Hence Israel's failure to head off such an outcome by making physically impossible the Arab dream teaches the Arab world that it can succeed.
By such irresolution, Israel shows the Arab enemy that the survival of Israel is not Israel's highest goal. Insanely, Israel's highest goal, in effect, happens to be posing as a paragon of virtue in accordance with precepts of an unreal, liberal utopia -- a false, unattainable morality. While such illusions, in liberal eyes, may make Israel one day the most righteous, destroyed nation in the graveyard, that will have been achieved by the betrayal of Israel's people -- a true, honest to goodness, moral disaster.
Israel, whose leader has inexplicitly embraced Arab
propagandathat presents a false Palestinian peoplehood with
equally false national claims to Israel's lands, is on its way to
the moral disaster of delivering the nation to the enemy. Unless
Israel's people rise up against the obsessed liberal architects
of Israel's policies, destruction will become the irrevocable
reality. A pro-Israel government that places the long term
survival of the Jewish state first is desperately needed, and
THE TIME OF TRUTH
FOR THE TEMPLE MOUNT
By Ariel Natan Pasko
Three modern "prophecies" have been spoken in the last generation, yet few have listened. The first, was in a song by Naomi Shemer just weeks before the June 1967 "Six-Day-War". The second, spoken in his Yeshiva -Rabbinical Seminary - three weeks before the war, by Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook. The third was said, in the middle of the war, just after the heat of battle ended in victory, by Mordechai "Motta" Gur. "Prophecies" of liberation, "prophecies" of consolation, to the nation of Israel, that had suffered occupation, destruction, exile, torture and murder, too long.
Weeks before the outbreak of the 1967 Six-Day-War, "Yerushaliyim Shel Zahav - Jerusalem of Gold" written by Naomi Shemer was released. It spoke of the eternal connection between the Jewish People and Holy City of Jerusalem. But not just the modern half of "Western Jerusalem" that had spilled out of the Old City Walls, that had sprung up during the last 100 years of fervent growth, seen in the return of Jews to Zion. No, "Jerusalem of Gold" cried out about the heart-wrenching situation that had prevailed since the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
For 19 years, the Jordanians had occupied the Old City of Jerusalem and the "Eastern" side. For 19 years, in violation of the 1949 Armistice agreement with the newly established State of Israel, Jordan - the late King Hussein - denied Jews access to the Western Wall, the outskirts of their most holy site, the western retaining wall of the Temple Mount. It is one of the last vestiges of the Jewish People's Holy Temple - the "House of G-D" - destroyed by the occupying Roman Army 1,900 years earlier.
"The Shofar is heard again on the Temple Mount, in the Old City," the song declared. "Jerusalem of Gold" spoke to the sufferings of the Jewish People and the hope that the situation would end. The war broke out and it became a massive hit, the unofficial anthem of the war.
Three weeks before the war began, during Yom HaAtzmaut celebrations - Israeli Independence Day - at his Yeshiva, Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook, son of the venerated former Chief Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, gave a rousing lecture on the joyous significance of the day. But then he took his students by surprise, switched gears and began lamenting the situation, in a tearful cry he asked, "Where is our Jerusalem (the Old City and Temple Mount)? Where is our Hebron? Where is our Jericho?" Teaching his students that the holiday joy was not yet complete without them. After the victory, his words rung with "prophetic" intent, as if he demanded from above the return of the Jewish People's inheritance, and was granted it.
The 1967 Six-Day-War was fought on all fronts. The Egyptians were fought in the south, in Sinai. The Syrians tried their hand, in the north, on the Golan Heights. But Jordan held the prize. Initially, the Israeli government called on King Hussein to stay out of the war, but he would have none of that. Over-inflated from Egyptian President Nasser's ranting to drive the Jews into the sea, King Hussein took the fateful plunge instead - that had already been "foreseen" - he opened another front in Jerusalem and the center of the country. Jordanian soldiers shot at Israelis - civilians and soldiers - from the Old City Walls into "New, Western Jerusalem," the fighting was fierce.
But the Israeli government decided not to repeat the mistake of Ben-Gurion's government in the 1948 war. Rather that lose the Old City of Jerusalem a second time, they decided to liberate it. Soon the nation would hear those words that still send ripples of joy to Jews. Motta Gur, commander of the front, announced over his army radio the third "prophecy," "Har HaBayit B'Yadenu - the Temple Mount is in our hands." They had liberated the Old City of Jerusalem. Almost 1,900 years after the Romans destroyed the Holy Temple in Jerusalem, after 19 years of separation from the most holy place on earth, the Jews had returned home. Who still can't hear those words of "prophecy" without being moved? The full weight of 19 centuries was lifted off the backs of the Jewish People.
"The Temple Mount is in our hands!"
Yet in contrast to all those "miracles," all those hopes and dreams finally fulfilled, several "peace initiatives" envision a reversal of history, a slap-in-the-face to "The G-D of Israel". A plan being promoted by former Israeli Justice Minister Yossi Beilin and former Palestinian Information Minister Yasser Abed Rabbo called, "The Geneva Initiative -a model for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian agreement," calls for the Temple Mount to be given to the "Palestinians" permanently, with the help of the rest of the world. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh petition drive also seeks to give the Old City of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount to the "Palestinians". Even the "Roadmap" plan that the US, EU, UN, and Russia have devised - and the Sharon government has accept - puts Jerusalem and the Temple Mount on the chopping block, "up for negotiations".
Long ago, when the Roman occupation forces burnt the Holy Temple and razed it to the ground, and then later destroyed the rest of Jerusalem; the Jewish People defeated in war after a valiant attempt to expel the invaders, tired and forlorn, accepted the "Judgment of G-D." Jews yearned in every generation for the Messiah to come, waiting for him to take them out of exile and bring them back to Judea, the Land of Israel, Zion and Jerusalem, to rebuild their "Holy House of G-D."
In 1948, with the establishment of the State of Israel, after almost 1,900 years, Jews now could return home unhindered by "foreign occupiers." But the victory in the War of Independence was bittersweet. Where was Jerusalem - the Old City? That 1948 Israeli government, led by David Ben-Gurion, decided to consolidate victory elsewhere and not to capture the Old City. That would have to wait for the future. The Jordanians occupied her.
That future time came in 1967, with lightning victory on several fronts, but most importantly, in Jerusalem. Jews took the initiative then and with help from above, they reunited with their holy site, the Temple Mount. Great joy encompassed the nation, 200,000 Jews came out that Shavuot - the Feast of Weeks - just days after the war's end, to celebrate at the Western Wall. Joy seemed complete again...
So how is it that this generation is contemplating the unthinkable?
Generations of Jews prayed for the eventual return to the Holy City of Jerusalem, the prayers and dreams of generations and millennia materialized in 1967. And today, there are those who want to reverse history, to give away the Jewish People's patrimony?
Ironically, rather than by force of arms - something the Arab occupiers tried and fail to do - some Jews contemplate doing voluntarily, through "peace agreements". How could they spurn the "Blessings of G-D"? How could they try to reverse Jewish history? How could they ignore the "prophecies"?
Now is the time for every Jew - and gentile - to take a stand. "Not by force, nor by might, but by MY spirit," says the Holy One of Israel.
Now is the time of truth for the Temple Mount!
Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysisand is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: http://www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko
The Jerusalem Post, May. 21, 2004
COLUMN ONE: THE NEW PLAN
By Caroline Glick
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is now tentatively set to bring his "new plan" for withdrawing IDF troops from the Gaza Strip and uprooting Israeli settlements there and in Samaria to the cabinet for its approval next Sunday. The new plan, we are told, is simply an incremental variation on Sharon's previous plan which was overwhelmingly rejected by Likud party members at the beginning of the month.
The new plan calls for IDF withdrawal from Gaza and uprooting of Israeli communities in three stages with each distinct stage coming before the cabinet for approval before implementation. Aside from this, the plan also contains two additional novelties. The first is a call for amending the 1979 peace treaty with Egypt to enable the Egyptian military, as opposed to Egyptian border guards to deploy along the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza. The second new component of the plan that the prime minister's office is currently floating is the deployment of an international force into Gaza.
From a domestic standpoint, what stands out about the new plan is its author. Whereas authorship of the plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza belonged to former Labor party leader Amram Mitzna, the new plan comes straight from Yossi Beilin's drawing board. In crafting the Oslo plan, Beilin came up with the idea of establishing a PLO state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem on an incremental basis. So it was that Israel first removed its troops from Gaza and Jericho and only later from the other major cities and villages in Judea and Samaria. As well, over the past two years, Beilin has been pushing the idea of bringing foreign forces, including Arab armies, into the territories together with his American supporter, former US ambassador Martin Indyk.
The idea of amending the peace treaty with Egypt is bizarre on the face of it. The current IDF operation in Rafah was necessitated by Egypt's abject refusal or failure to prevent weapons smuggling into Gaza through subterranean tunnels burrowed across the Egypt-Gaza border. If Egypt were upholding its commitments to Israel in the peace treaty, it would have been actively and continuously working to prevent weapons flow from its territory to Gaza. It has not.
It is argued that an amendment of the 1979 treaty to allow regular Egyptian military units to deploy along the border will empower Egypt to take action against the weapons smugglers. This is ridiculous. As it stands the treaty enables Egyptian border guards to deploy along the border and places no restrictions on the size of such a force. These border guards can be armed with assault rifles for the dispatch of their duties and there is no reason why such armaments would be insufficient for stemming the arms trafficking.
More importantly, given the virulence of hatred of Israel in Egypt -- hatred that is encouraged by the Egyptian government -- the long term implications of an Israeli move to allow Egypt to deploy regular army forces along the border could be disastrous. Indeed, rather than look to Egypt for a solution to a problem it is largely responsible for creating, Israel should be leading a diplomatic campaign against Egypt to force it to act responsibly.
Up until this week when the idea of bringing foreign troops into Gaza in the framework of an Israeli withdrawal was first introduced by the prime minister's office, it had been the policy of all Israeli governments to reject out of hand any thought of bringing in foreign troops aside perhaps from US forces. This has been Israel's consistent policy because the our successive governments have understood that the hostility towards Israel in the international community -- from the Arab world to the EU to the UN to the international human rights organizations -- is so inbred that any foreign troop presence in the area would automatically harm Israel's national interest of ensuring the security of its citizens and the inviolability of its territory.
The understanding was that foreign troops in Judea, Samaria and Gaza would not work to bring order and quell terrorism but would rather protect terrorists operating in these areas from Israeli military operations. This view was based not only on the knee-jerk anti-Israel positions taken by these governments and international organizations but also on Israel's experience with UN forces in southern Lebanon. There UN peacekeepers allowed themselves to be exploited, repeatedly and consistently by Hizbullah and other terrorist organizations that used UN cover to commit terrorist attacks against Israel.
It should not be forgotten that almost a year after IDF soldiers Benny Avraham, Omar Sawayid and Adi Avitan were kidnapped by Hizbullah in October 2000, Israel discovered that the UN had been hiding information about their abduction. Arguably in contravention of international law, the UN had hidden from the IDF videotapes it had of the soldiers' abduction as well as operational and personal effects of the soldiers. The Hizbullah terrorists who carried out the kidnapping traveled in a vehicle with UN plates and a UN flag. UN forces in Lebanon who found the vehicle while its engine was still running, removed the equipment from it, including several articles that were stained with blood.
After the information was revealed, the UN still insisted that Israel could not analyze the blood samples but rather that the analysis would have to be done by the World Health Organization. Until Israel discovered this information the government and the IDF were operating under the assumption that the soldiers were still alive. Early access to the information could have given the IDF the opportunity to discover that in fact the soldiers were murdered by their kidnappers.
The rationale for the current plan of bringing foreign troops into Gaza is that the prime minister and his advisors are attempting to find a way to negotiate the Gaza withdrawal with someone. In the absence of a responsible Palestinian interlocutor, the thinking goes, Israel must invent a partner with which it can implement the withdrawal plan from Gaza. Indeed, although the full-blown campaign launched by the Israeli media to delegitimize the results of the Likud vote has resulted in a majority of public support now for a withdrawal from Gaza, the public is still evenly split as to whether Israel can leave Gaza without handing over its responsibility for security to a responsible party.
The hope no doubt is that if the international community has an active role to play in Sharon's retreat plan, it will have a stake in the plan's success. Yet the international community's reaction to this week's IDF operation in Rafah has shown unequivocally that this hope is based on absolutely nothing.
Even before Israel had committed its troops to Rafah, Amnesty International had already accused Israel of committing war crimes in destroying houses in Rafah along the border. Never mind that the claim has no basis whatsoever in international law as states have a right to view as military targets any structure that is used to conduct military operations against it and these houses were used specifically for that purpose. Amnesty's condemnation came without the organization even bothering to check the facts. Just as was the case of the battle in Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, Amnesty reached its conclusion without launching an inquiry.
Amnesty's libelous attack on Israel was immediately picked up by media organizations worldwide as well as by the UN and the EU. These then repeated the condemnation of Israel verbatim. On Tuesday, no greater moral authority than the Church of Sweden called for its members to wage an economic boycott against Israel.
And it isn't that the UN and the EU, the media and the human rights organizations do not know the truth. They do. They have all received documented proof, not only from Israel but from their own people that have shown them conclusively that the Palestinian Authority is a terrorist organization and that its method of fighting Israel while hiding behind civilians is by its very nature a war crime. They know everything, but they do not care. They believe that their national and institutional interests are best served by condemning Israel and embracing Palestinian war crimes as justified.
In an attempt to get the foreign media to report what is actually happening on the ground in Gaza, the IDF's spokesman's unit pleaded with foreign news agencies to join IDF forces in their operations and see for themselves. By mid-week, the IDF had to admit that the attempt was an abject failure. Almost no one took them up on the offer. The foreign media is not interested in showing the truth. They simply want to criminalize Israel.
The most abject and obnoxious instance of this is the reaction to the IDF's apparent inadvertent killing of five Palestinian gunmen and two teenagers during a PA organized march towards IDF forces stationed in Rafah on Wednesday. Without bothering to check the facts, just as was the case in Jenin, the international media gushingly reported that IDF troops had "massacred" Palestinian civilians in a peaceful march in Gaza. The Palestinian press releases on the matter were indulgently quoted as fact as news organization after new organization dismissed the IDF's explanations as lies. In a matter of hours, the UN Security Council passed a resolution condemning Israel and the US, due no doubt to its current self-destructive wooing of the UN and France in Iraq declined to veto the decision.
The sad and terrible thing about Sharon's newest plan is that he actually thinks he needs a plan in the first place. If our experience over the past 11 years has taught us anything, it is that no matter what Israel proposes to do in the interest of peace and Palestinian independence, it is always blamed when the Palestinians continue to make war against us -- regardless of the barbarism of their actions.
The simple truth of the matter was made clear this week by COS Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon. Speaking of the military necessity of the operation in Gaza to the Knesset, Ya'alon said, "Only the IDF can secure Gaza." No plan, no matter how new can change this basic truth.
The Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2004
WISEACRES AND PRAGMATISTS
By Shmuel Katz
It was Weizmann who was the dreamer, while Jabotinsky was the ultimate practical thinker
Sholem Asch, one of the great Yiddish writers of the last century, was not a politician but he was convinced, like many others, that in the ongoing Zionist conflict of the Twenties and Thirties between Chaim Weizmann and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Weizmann was the rational, levelheaded statesman while Jabotinsky was an impractical dreamer.
When I met Asch in the early 1950s, he told me of his pre-Holocaust opinions on Zionist politics. "But," he added, "it turned out that I was all wrong. After all that happened, it became clear to me that the roles were completely reversed. It was Weizmann who was the dreamer, while Jabotinsky was the ultimate practical thinker."
We should not now need a national disaster to discover how wrongheaded are the people who persist in supporting Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan. They indeed preen themselves as the hard-headed people who think with their brains, while those who oppose it are clueless people, thinking with their emotions, their hearts, with their ossified ideologies.
Now Sharon is on the horns of a dilemma. Feverishly he is seeking a "formula" that will satisfy everybody.
At the cabinet meeting on May 9 he asked the ministers a number of "key" questions, to which he wanted a reply.
What should Israel do with the homes and synagogues in settlements that are to be evacuated? What should Israel do with the Erez Industrial Zone? How should Israel deal with the demographic situation in Gaza? With whom should Israel be negotiating?
Asking these questions at this stage strongly supports the charge that the disengagement policy was not carefully thought out but merely a showy quick fix for "running from Gaza."
There are, moreover, several more weighty questions for which he evidently did not find answers.
THE WISEACRES who were ready with their sneers and their jibes at the poor impractical ideologists who opposed the "rational" and "sensible" disengagement plan as the only game in town should stop their sneering and jibing; they should pause and reflect the very serious - perfectly pragmatic - grounds for opposing the disengagement plan that evidently moved the majority in the Likud Party referendum.
True pragmatists understand that the settlements are not the reason for the terror, so getting rid of settlements will not rid Israel of the terror - which began long, long before the settlements of our day were established.
Otherwise, how come the pogrom in Jerusalem 84 years ago? How come the attack on Jews in 1921, beginning with the Immigrants' Hostel in Jaffa? How come the massacre of the Hebron Jews in 1929, and the three-year-long riots of 1936-1939? And then the full-scale wars, beginning with 1948?
When the realization of the Zionist dream of the reconstitution of Jewish statehood came onto the political horizon, the Arabs states declared, and repeated in one formulation or another, that they would not tolerate a sovereign Jewish state even in a part of Palestine.
That, after all, is why the members of the Arab League, formed after WWII, determined to destroy Israel at its birth. They said so too, in 1947, even before the UN General Assembly had decided on the partition of Palestine - and in 1948 launched war to that end.
Not succeeding then, they tried once more in 1967. Then Abdul Nasser, president of Egypt, boastfully declared that the object of the war was the "annihilation" of Israel.
It isn't the dreamers but the hard-headed who recall why the Arab League, failing to destroy Israel at one blow, decided on the policy of "phases," getting Israel at each phase - by terror, propaganda, and friendly relations with Europe - to hand over a part of its territory and then, with enhanced energy and motivation, fighting for the next phase.
What can the Arabs see in Sharon's disengagement idea if not an obvious realization of the Arab policy? Here is a piece of the country given to them free as a result of their terror. Is this not an ideal prelude to the next "phase"?
There is a plethora of declarations on Arab intent, emphasized day after day by articles and cartoons in the press, by sermons in the mosques, by teachers in the schools, and in the textbooks for the schoolchildren.
The youthful suicide bombers are not killing Jews because of settlers but because they have had it drummed into their heads since their childhood days that this is their country and the Jews came and stole it from them.
The Israeli people are told, and many seem innocently to believe, that handing over Gaza and expelling Jews from Gush Katif and from several settlements in Samaria will somehow stop the terror.
All the significant signs are inflexibly pointing in the opposite direction. The Israeli leadership, instead of basking in compliments from Washington and from Europe for being so generous with Jewish land, should wake up and tell the people that we are at war, that in war a surrender of land is a victory to the enemy.
This victory the Arabs, becoming ever more sophisticated militarily, will exploit to the full. So, in that context, who is being levelheaded and who is being emotional?
The writer, who co-founded the Herut Party with Menachem Begin and was a member of the first Knesset, is a biographer and essayist.
The Washington Post, May 27, 2004
By Louis Rene Beres
Israel has just completed an essential defensive operation against terrorists in Rafah. Although televised images of this Gaza operation suggested cruelty and indiscriminate action by Israeli forces, exactly the opposite is true. By deliberately placing young Arab children in the front of large mobs that advanced menacingly upon Israeli soldiers, Palestinian leaders openly committed major violations of the Law of War. There is, in fact, a precise legal term for these violations, a term that applies equally to the Palestinian tactic of routinely inserting scores of gunmen among the lines of children. This codified crime under humanitarian international law is called "perfidy."
Israel's leaders understand fully that several Palestinian terror groups are now actively planning for mega-terror attacks. These preparations underway in Gaza are partially directed by various elements in Egypt. Remarkably, although unrecognized, Israel has been willing to keep its counterterrorism operations in Gaza consistent with established legal rules of engagement. Palestinian violence, however, is consistently in violation of all civilized norms.
Israel has been blamed for blowing up Palestinian houses. These houses are not ordinary residences. Rather, they are critical exit points for smugglers' tunnels that begin in other houses on the Egyptian side. The tunnels are a primary conduit for the growing traffic of arms, heavy explosives, drugs and hostile operatives into Rafah. Left in place, they could soon become the source of chemical and/or biological terrorism against Israel. Indeed, these tunnels could even enlarge the prospect of a "dirty bomb" nuclear assault upon Israeli cities deliveredbyArabsuicide bombers.
Terrorism is a crime under international law. When terrorists represent populations that enthusiastically support such attacks, and when these terrorists also find easy refuge among hospitable populations, all blame for ensuing counterterrorist harms lies exclusively with the criminals. Understood in terms of ongoing Palestinian terrorism and Israeli self-defense, this means that the Palestinian side alone must now bear full legal responsibility for Arab civilian casualties.
International law is not a suicide pact. Rather, it correctly offers an authoritative body of rules and procedures that always permits states their "inherent right of self-defense." When terrorist organizations openly celebrate the explosive"martyrdom"of Palestinian children and unashamedly seek religious redemption through the mass-murder of Jewish children, they have absolutely no legal right to demand sanctuary anywhere. Under international law they are hostes humani generis, "common enemies of humankind," who must be punished wherever they are found.
Palestinian terrorism has become a barbarous goal unto itself. Using bombs filled with nails, razor blades and screws dipped in rat poison, the killers proceed to maim and burn Israeli civilians with only cheers and blessings from Yasser Arafat's appointed Islamic clergy. The children who are encouraged to blow themselves up for Allah have been carefully indoctrinated with musical glorifications of a fiery death and emboldened with delightful images of immortality. It goes without saying that the children of Palestinian leaders are themselves "deprived" of any divinely sanctioned propulsions into "paradise."
Deception can be legal in armed conflict, but the Hague Regulations disallow placement of military assets or personnel in heavily populated civilian areas. Further prohibition of perfidy is found in Protocol I of the 1977 addition to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and it is widely recognized that these rules also are binding on the basis of customary international law. Perfidy represents an especially serious violation of the Law of War, one identified as a "grave breach" in Article 147 of Geneva Convention IV. The full legal effect of perfidy committed by Palestinian terrorist leaders is to immunize Israel from any responsibility for counter-terrorist harms done to Arab civilians.
All combatants, including Palestinian terrorists, are bound by the Law of War of international law. This requirement is found in Article 3, common to the four Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949, and at the two protocols to these Conventions. Protocol I applies humanitarian international law to all conflicts fought for "self-determination," the stated objective of all Palestinian fighters. This protocol brings all irregular forces within the full scope of international law.
Israel has both the right and the obligation under international law to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism. Should it ever decide to yield to Palestinian perfidy in its indispensable war against escalating Arab violence, Israel would surrender this important right and undermine this fundamental obligation. The clear effect of such capitulation would be to make potential victims of us all.
Just wars arise from love of the innocent. Still, in the midst of such a war against uniquely cruel enemies, Israel must continue to root out the terrorists in Gaza to avoid further mass murders of its citizens -- murders that could soon involve chemical, biological or even nuclear agents. Although perfidious provocations by assorted Palestinian terror groups may repeatedly elicit Israeli reprisals that bring harm to Arab noncombatants, it is always these provocations -- not Israel's defensive responses -- that are violations of international law.
Louis Rene Beres is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism, war and international law. He is also the academic advisor for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.
The Jewish Press, May 19, 2004
JEWS ON THE PRECIPICE
by Phyllis Chesler
Some say that we are re-living the 1930's. I disagree. Today, the danger to Jews is far graver and more complex than it was in the pagan or medieval-Christian world, or during World War Two. Today, anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, and anti-American propaganda has gone global. It is visually masterful, technologically sophisticated, and available around the clock, especially in Arabic. Jews and Zionists can be "seen" holding a meeting of the (fake) Elders of Zion, (falsely) demanding that Jesus be tortured and crucified, committing (fake) massacres in Jenin, and stabbing non-Jewish children to death for their blood.
Old-fashioned Czarist-, Nazi-, and Stalinist-era anti-Semitic stereotypes (the Jews control the media and the banks and seek world domination), have been added to the pre-existing Islamic views of Jews as subhuman infidels. The mix is a hot brew of relentless hatred.
Jew-haters are creating a situation in which -- dare I say it? Yes, I must say it -- another mass murder -- perhaps even a Holocaust-like mass murder of Jews might be possible. Indeed, in my view, it has already begun, certainly not in America, and not yet in Europe -- but in Israel. Today, Jews who live in the Jewish state -- a nation that was initially envisioned as the solution to the ceaseless persecution of the Jews -- are far more endangered than those who live in the Diaspora. Worse: The existence of the Jewish state is now being used to justify verbal and physical attacks against Diaspora Jews around the world and on campuses throughout the Western world. For example, "Zionism" is an increasingly dirty word on campuses. I am also told that among American teenagers, the word "Jew" is increasingly being used pejoratively.
Israel has served as the laboratory, or groundzero, in the terrorist war against the West. It is where the Islamofascists have perfected their experiments, their grisly, spectacular, and well-choreographed mass murders and their ingenious use of hijacked planes.
In my recent book, The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It, I was among the first to characterize the new anti-Semitism as an alliance between Islamofascist terrorists and "politically correct" western intellectuals. Both groups have remained morally blind to the slaughter of innocent civilians in Israel and America. Worse, they have blamed that slaughter on Israeli and American policy. In their frenzy to scapegoat Israel for all human suffering, these new anti-Semites have joined the United Nations, international human rights groups, and the media in failing to condemn the most horrendous human rights abuses in the world, including genocide.
Reality Turned Upside-Down
The propaganda war against Israel and against Jews is staggering, both visually and linguistically. It is often vulgar and blatant but it is also subtle, earnest, persuasive. One is forced to confront Big Lies at every level, socially, professionally, among scholars and in the media.
Today, Israel is the world's punching-bag symbol for "Colonial, Apartheid, Oppressor." Although Arafat began his terrorist campaign against Israel in 1964 when the "offending" settlements were Tel Aviv and Haifa, his terrorism against Israel is justified because of the offending Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Let me quote from ex-PLO terrorist Walid Shoebat, who has since converted to Christianity and is now pro-Israel. In an interview in the Jerusalem Post, Shoebat suggested the unthinkable: "The true occupation is of the minds of Palestinians, of teaching them hatred for Jews. That is the real occupation."
Let me expand upon that. The true occupation also includes the utter Palestinianization and highjacking of the western media and the western academic world into believing that black is white, day is night, that the Palestinian Authority can do no wrong, and Israel can do no right.
Say this on many campuses in North America or Europe and you will be mocked, scorned, intimidated, bullied, raged at, perhaps even physically endangered. And not by illiterate, impoverished, formerly colonized people but by well-heeled tenured faculty and bright doctoral students -- some of whom will soon run for public office.
"Politically correct" Americans, including some Jews, have joined Islamists in embracing the Palestinians as the most oppressed and most Noble of Savages whose misery, in their view, has been caused solely by a cabal of Zionists, Orthodox Jews, and Christian Republican conservatives.
This unholy alliance of politically correct progressives and Islamists has presented the long-suffering Palestinians and their corrupt and murderous leadership as secular versions of Jesus crucified. Newspaper cartoonists have literally portrayed Arafat as Jesus. They have also romanticized Arafat, bin Laden, and their human bombs as Che Guevara- and Nelson Mandela-like "freedom fighters."
Bizarrely, tragically, these new anti-Semites have decided that Israel is the "greatest oppressor of all time," and is "worse than the Nazis" -- surely a new form of Holocaust denial. They also characterize Israel as an "apartheid" state (which it is not). In fact, Islam is the largest practitioner of apartheid in the world, both in terms of religion and gender; Israel once again is the scapegoat for this.
Today, Israelis are being slaughtered not only because they happen to live in a nation engaged in a local war with a neighboring nation but because Israel is a Jewish nation that has been under almost perpetual siege since its birth in 1948. Twenty-one thousand Israelis have lost their lives in wars of self-defense and in acts of terrorism against the Jewish state since 1948.
Since the fall of 2000, Israelis have endured the equivalent of 9/11 almost every other week. I cannot imagine the level of post-traumatic stress symptomatology Israelis must be suffering -- they, who have lived through so many unchosen wars of self-defense and whose parents and grandparents endured Hitler's Final Solution, the Gulag, Cossack pogroms, and persecution and exile from Arab and Muslim lands.
The Israeli Toll in American Terms
As I've noted, the slow-bleed of Israelis from 1948-2000 has been barely noted among western intellectuals. "Everybody dies, other people also suffer. Enough with the Jews!" Jewish blood does not register with them -- or, rather, Jews are supposed to die; they are not shocked when it happens. In an attempt to awaken such hard-hearted intellectuals, some of whom are, sadly, Jews, I decided to convert the Israeli reality into American terms.
Thus, from 9/29/2000 to 5/12/04, 961 Israelis were murdered by terrorists. This represents 0.015% of the Israeli Jewish, Christian, and Muslim population of six million, four hundred thousand. Based on an American population of approximately 293 million, the Israeli civilian death count is the equivalent of 44, 005 Americans killed by terrorists on our own soil, in pizza parlors, on buses, at Passover sedorim, in our beds.
In addition, between 9/29/2000 and 5/12/04, a total of 6,344 Israelis were wounded by terrorists, often seriously, and for life. This represents .099% of the Israeli population. In American terms, this is the equivalent of approximately 290,000 Americans wounded by terrorists.
Every Israeli personally knows someone -- a parent, a child, a spouse, a co-worker, a neighbor, a friend -- who has been killed. Every Israeli personally knows someone who has been wounded for life. Ads for hospital beds and orthopedic devices regularly appear in mainstream newspapers, not in medical journals.
And yet, our "best and brightest" suggest that the Jews are "paranoid" about anti-Semitism, "alarmist," "neurotic," that Hitler killed millions of people who were not Jews ("Why do the Jews go on and on only about themselves as if they are the only victims?"), that the Israelis are now perpetuating a "Holocaust" upon the Palestinians, (another way of saying that "Hitler should have finished the Jews off"), that Israel is a "colonial" state that should be abolished -- exterminated -- and that this suggestion, which is being made by many progressives and intellectuals, does not necessarily amount to Jew-hatred.
Even Orwell might weep at this.
Meanwhile, as some Jewish American organizations launch major fundraising drives pegged to these latest alarming trends, their leaders hasten to reassure us that Jews in America are relatively safe; that Israel has a strong military, including a nuclear strike capacity. All true.
But if Israel (G-d forbid) ceases to exist, if America is fatefully weakened by the terrorist threat against it -- who are we? If the Jews of Israel, Europe, and South America remain at peril -- what then? Is it "okay" that we're "okay" in America?
Hillel asked three questions, not just one. Let me remind us of these questions: "If I'm not for myself, who will be for me?" "When I am only for myself, what am I?" "And, if not now, when?"
Many Jewish progressives gloss over Hillel's first question and focus only on his last two questions. Some Jews are often the first to demonize the Jewish state and the Jewish religion in their zeal to institute social justice as if doing so is a substitute for G-d.
Yes, of course Israel has made mistakes; what nation hasn't? But nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- that Israel has done deserves the savage, obsessive, demonization and terrorism against it. The Israel Defense Forces have behaved with exquisite moral restraint given the enormous provocation against the Jewish state. They have not been congratulated for this but rather condemned.
Call to Action
As I have documented in my book about the new anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism is today's new anti-Semitism.
So, what must we do? We must stand up to The Big Lies. We must take back the campuses. We must forge an alliance with Christian and Republican Americans to fight the war against terrorism and for a safe Israel. And yes, of course, the Israeli government and Jewish organizations and individuals must continue talking with Arab and world leaders.
But my most radical suggestion is a gathering of the twelve tribes. This must be undertaken in the same spirit in which Theodor Herzl convened the first World Zionist Congress. So many Jews who hold passionate and opposing views have simply stopped listening and talking to each other. The silence is more awful than arguments. Many Jews no longer act as if they believe the 'Other' has been created in G-d's image. We must come together in order to strategize about our very survival.
Let me suggest that we consult the Torah for some perspective and guidance. What does the Torah teach us about anti-Semitism?
Early on, we see that G-d accepts Abel's offering but rejects Cain's. Despite G-d's intervention, the heartbroken and enraged Cain kills his brother Abel, whose offering was "chosen" by G-d.
Yaakov favored Yosef -- and Yosef's older half-brothers envied, resented, and hated him. Yosef, the absolute apple of his father's eye, the precocious dream-interpreter, the young peacock who struts about in his coat of many colors -- oh how his brothers want him out of the way. Some want to kill him but they settle for selling him into slavery. Divine destiny will have Yosef both rescuing his people from famine and forgiving his brothers.
What happens when one is chosen, not only by one's biological father but by G-d, one's heavenly parent?
One breaks the hearts of all those who have not been chosen and such heartbreak often leads to envy and resentment. Oddly enough, despite the considerable hardship and danger, many people still want to be "the chosen one."
While Jews do not cause Jew-hatred -- nor does Israeli policy -- we must also quietly consider that our chosenness (or at least our perceived chosenness) does seem to have certain consequences. We are the first People of the Book and are, psychologically and theologically, the Mothers and Fathers of all those who have followed in our monotheistic footsteps. In addition, our Jewish ideas about G-d, mitzvot, justice, ethics, mercy, have indeed gotten us into trouble with all those who wish to worship idols, engage in child sacrifice, and to murder, rape, slander, and steal. The glory of being "chosen" is also a dangerous and difficult burden.
The sages say that Jerusalem is the source of the world's peace and light. When the source of peace is not at peace, the world is sorely troubled too.
May the Israel Defense Forces and the American military endure and prevail. May civilians -- both here and in Israel -- be kept safe from terrorist attacks. May G-d protect and look over us.
Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D, is Emerita Professor of
Psychology and the author of twelve books including "The New
Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About
It." She may be reached at her website:
WHY THE LEFT HATES ISRAEL
By Bruce S. Thornton
THE DISTASTE FOR ISRAEL EVIDENT in coverage of the current crisis is a mystery to me. I'm not talking about the Arabs, who have their own obvious reasons for hating Israel, not the least being that Israel is a living reproach to Islamic civilization's inability to adapt to the modern world. The weakness of Islam vis a vis a West it once terrified and dominated is exposed daily by the strength and confidence and prosperity of a tiny nation dwarfed by the population and resources and armies of its adversaries.
I'm speaking rather about Israel's critics in Europe and the United States, where the media's double standard in judging Israel, and their failure to acknowledge the historical circumstances that have created the current crisis and explain it, are so commonplace that it usually goes unnoticed. It is testimony to the bizarre mental universe of many in the Islamic world that an American media that has made the Palestinians their pet victims "of color" instead continue to be seen as the puppets of some Zionist conspiracy.
The answer to this disgust can't be that Israel is as uniquely oppressive as it is claimed to be, setting aside for the moment the reasons why Israel has to do what it does. Given the bloodshed, violence, ethnic cleansing, seizure of territory, and genocidal rampages occurring daily across the planet, Israel's offences, even if they were as horrible as their enemies claim, are pretty small beer, and certainly not as destructive as those of many Arab regimes in the Middle East.
For example, if seizing territory and interfering with national autonomy and self-determination are such a crime, why isn't the international community bombarding Syria, which controls Lebanon, with demands to end the "illegal occupation" and withdraw its thousands of troops? Or if killing Arabs justifies such criticism, why didn't we have marches in solidarity with Saddam Hussein's Islamic victims, which must number in the hundreds of thousands? Or if abusing Palestinians is the specific charge, why aren't there movements to isolate Jordan, which has probably killed more Palestinians than the Israelis have?
And of course, what's ignored is that Israel's actions have all been reactions to unceasing attempts to destroy it. Israel does what it does to survive, rather than to create an empire or acquire more wealth for a ruling elite or gain access to precious resources. Some in Israel may dream of a return to the Biblical borders of David and Solomon's kingdom, but most Israelis think about the West Bank and Gaza solely in terms of security. Just compare the number of Israelis killed when Israel controlled the West Bank to the number killed since the Palestinians have controlled it, and you'll see their point.
Yet this necessary context for evaluating Israel's actions is usually ignored or dismissed. Instead Israel is judged by some absolute standard of behavior never applied to any Third-World country that's not to the right of Attila the Hun. An obvious reason for this phenomenon is that Israel is a Western society, and so it is held to the same utopian expectations for behavior that all Western nations are subject to. That critics strain out the Western gnat and swallow whole the Third-World camels of oppression and violence is a continuing scandal. I suspect that such critics are in reality ethnocentric chauvinists, and believe the West is superior, more civilized and advanced, and so should be held to a higher standard. Westerners, in other words, should know better because they are better.
There's another dimension, though, to this unfair standard. Just imagine for a moment that Israel was a communist country like Cuba. Do you think they'd be the evil villains they've been made out to be? You can answer that question by contemplating the relatively good press that Castro's regime enjoys. Compared to the obsessive attention paid to every move Israel makes in defending itself, we hear little outside of Miami about human rights violations in Cuba, which serve to maintain an autocrat's power rather than to prevent maniacs from blowing up children. Yet the same "progressive" Americans who sneak into Castro's island to gape at the socialist paradise join marches condemning Israeli "genocide."
So Israel is fair game because it's "capitalist," a client of the world's Great Satan, the United States, the premier colonial and imperial exploiter of the abused "other." We see here at work the same weird logic that allows right-thinking leftists to shrug off Communism's 100 million corpses at the same time they scream about the accidental killing of a civilian. Not all people's lives, it seems, are equally precious--just those playing the proper role in the Marxist historical operetta.
Israel is attacked, then, because it is a Western liberal democracy tarred with the brush of all the West's crimes against humanity. But let's not forget another obvious point--Israelis are Jews. A residual anti-Semitism has lately joined up with guilt-fatigue, particularly in Europe. As the generation responsible for the Holocaust dies off, I think we'll see more and more Europeans simply getting sick of the whole thing, sick of the guilt, the reminders of barbarity, the museums testifying to the insane depths to which presumably civilized people can descend.
In short, they'll want to forget, and the existence of Israel itself, its determination never again to be a despised and pitied victim, is a constant irritating reminder that won't let them forget.
Jerusalem Cloakroom #160
AWARDING ANTI-US HATE MONGERS
WITH AN INDEPENDENT STATE?
by Yoram Ettinger
May 12, 2004
Palestinian Authority's (PA's) top muslim clerics instigate the Iraqi people, and the Muslim world, against the US. PA's chief Muslim cleric, Mufti Akrameh Sabri: "The US epitomizes and leads evil and arrogance, threatening Islam... The US has introduced plunder and murder into Faluja and other parts of the globe, where the US is robbing Islamic resources... All Muslims should pray for the souls of the martyrs [homicide bombers] in Iraq and in Palestine..." (April 23, 2004, sermon at the al Aqsa mosque, broadcast live via PA TV and radio). PA's top cleric, Youssef Abu-Sneina: "The Iraqi People is stronger than the US enemy, and will deal it an unforgettable blow... US occupation aims at looting Muslim oil and resources..." (April 18, 2004, sermon at al Aqsa mosque, PA TV and radio).
The PA/PLO has systematically sided with anti-US elements, such as Khomeini, Saddam, Bin-Laden, No. Korea, USSR, Cuba, as did the Palestinian mentor of the PLO (Haj Amin Al-Husseini), who collaborated with the Nazis. The PLO spearheaded Saddam's 1990 invasion of Kuwait, in spite of the brutal pressure by Bush-Baker, on Israel, to recognize the PLO and freeze settlements.
Palestinian Terrorists Confronted US Troops In Afghanistan And Iraq, as an extension of PA/PLO's subversive operations in the Persian Gulf and beyond. PA's top cleric Muhammad Jamal ostracized the Gulf States for their collaboration with the "US enemy", begging Allah to "plague the Gulf States with misery and affliction, destroy their oil reserves and palaces, and relegate them to poverty and tents." (February 27, 2004, teachings at al Aqsa). On March 5, Jamal added: "Muslims who provide bases to the US enemy are condemned as infidel...The Satan of the twenty-first century, the US, has defied Allah and humanity..." On April 2, he cursed "Muslim leaders who take instructions from the Big Satan... " On April 18, Jamal accused Iraq's new leadership of "facilitating the murder of children, old people and other innocent civilians by the US."
PA clerics accuse the US of conspiring against Islam. PA's lead cleric, Abu-Sneina: "All Muslims should stand up to US conspiracies, which are falsely packaged as a campaign against terrorism and for freedom and liberty... The US has orchestrated the murder of hundreds of Iraqis in the bombings in Kerbala and Baghdad... The US aims at triggering a civil war among Iraq's Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds and other groups..." (March 5, 2004, al Aqsa sermon, PA TV and radio).
K-12 hate-education in PA schools, mosques and media -- launched since the 1993 Oslo Accord -- has reflected PA ideology and has been the engine driving homicide bombing. The International Criminal Tribunal in Rwanda (ICTR) sentenced Rwanda media executives to 35 years to life imprisonment, for poisoning the minds of the Hutu majority against the Tutsi minority, thus fueling mass murders. What should be the sentence against PA/PLO political and ideological leadership, which has established a manufacturing line of homicide bombers for the next decade?!
Why would the US award PA/PLO hate-education with a proposed state and with an annual $70MN-$100MN foreign aid to Palestinian NGOs, which are controlled by the PA/PLO, just as were Iraqi NGOs during Saddam's regime???
The Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2004
DOES OPPRESSION CAUSE SUICIDE BOMBING?
By Alan M. Deshowitz
Some overprivileged Muslims support a culture of death, while impoverished Tibetans celebrate life
As suicide bombings increase in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia, and in Israel, more and more people have come to believe that this tactic is a result of desperation. They see a direct link between oppression, occupation, poverty, and humiliation on the one hand, and a willingness to blow oneself up for the cause on the other hand. It follows from this premise that the obvious remedy for suicide bombing is to address its root cause - namely, our oppression of the terrorists.
But the underlying premise is demonstrably false: There is no such link as a matter of fact or history. Suicide bombing is a tactic that is selected by privileged, educated, and wealthy elitists because it has proven successful.
Moreover, even some of the suicide bombers themselves defy the stereotype of the impoverished victims of occupation driven to desperate measures by American or Israeli oppression. Remember the 9/11 bombers, several of whom were university students and none of whom were oppressed by the US. They were dispatched by a Saudi millionaire named Osama bin Laden.
Bin Laden has now become the hero of many other upper-class Saudis who are volunteering to become shahids (martyrs) in Iraq, Israel, and other parts of the globe.
Majid al-Enezi, a Saudi student training to become a computer technician, recently changed career plans and decided to become a martyr; he crossed over into Iraq, where he died. His brother Abdullah celebrated that decision. "People are calling all the time to congratulate us, crying from happiness and envy. There are many young men who wish they could cross over into Iraq, but they can't. Thank God he was able to."
These rich kids glorify the culture of suicide, even in distant places. As Tufful al-Oqbi, a student at the elite King Saud University, described this situation, young people are wearing T-shirts with bin Laden's picture on them just the way people used to wear pictures of Che Guevara, the Cuban revolutionary. According to a recent news account, wealthy women students sport Osama bin Laden T-shirts under their enveloping abayas to show their approval for his calls to resist the United States.
Why do these overprivileged and well-educated young men and women support this culture of death, while impoverished and oppressed Tibetans continue to celebrate life despite their occupation by China for half a century?
WHY HAVE other oppressed people throughout history not resorted to suicide bombings and terrorism? The answer lies in differences among the elite leadership of various groups and causes. The leaders of Islamic radical causes, especially the Wahhabis, advocate and incite suicide terrorism, while the leaders of other causes advocate different means.
Recall Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., whose people were truly oppressed but who advocated non-violent means of resistance. It is the leaders who send suicide bombers to blow themselves up. No suicide bomber ever sent himself to be blown up.
The bombers accept death because they have been incited into a frenzy of hatred by imams preaching "Kill the infidels." Sheikh Muhammad Sayed Tantawi, the leading Islamic scholar at the elite Al-Azhar University in Cairo (which is not occupied), has declared that martyrdom operations - which means suicide bombings - are the highest form of jihad and an Islamic commandment.
Even more mainstream role models, such as Yasser Arafat's wife, who lives in a multimillion-dollar residence in Paris, has said that if she had a son, she would want him to become a suicide bomber because there is no greater honor than to become a martyr.
Young children, some as young as 12 and 13, are incited and seduced into strapping bombs around themselves by these older and better-educated elitist leaders. The children are promised virgins in heaven, praise and money for their families here on Earth, and posters portraying them as rock stars. It is an irresistible combination for some, and the blame lies squarely at the feet of the elitists who exploit them, use them, and eventually kill them.
There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim of a direct relationship between occupation and suicide bombing. If anything, occupation makes it more difficult to launch successful terrorist attacks. This is not to argue for occupation; it is to separate the arguments regarding occupation from the claim that it is the fact of occupation, and the oppression it brings, that causes suicide bombing.
Indeed, were Israel to end its occupation of Gaza and most of the West Bank (as I have long believed it should), it is likely that terrorism would actually increase as terrorist commanders secure more freedom to plan and implement terrorist actions. The same might well be true in Iraq, were the United States to pick up and run.
The time has come to address the real root cause of suicide bombing: elitist incitement by certain religious and political leaders who are creating a culture of death and exploiting the ambiguous teachings of an important religion.
Abu Hamza - the cleric who tutored Richard Reid, the convicted shoe bomber - recently urged a large crowd to embrace death. Islamic young people are in love with death, claim some influential imams; but it is these leaders who are arranging the marriages between the children and the bomb belts.
Perhaps, now that suicide bombers have attacked Saudi Arabia, responsible Islamic leaders will better understand that it is their people who will be the ultimate victims of this tactically imposed culture of death.
The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His latest book is The Case for Israel.
ALLAH AND HIS PROPHET *
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
In his marvelous book, The Science of God, physicist Gerald Schroeder writes: "The god an atheist does not believe in is usually not the God of the Bible. Unfortunately, the god of the 'believer' is also often not the God of the Bible."
Islam's deity, Allah, is absolutely transcendent. He is pure will without personality. One consequence of Allah's absolute transcendence is the impossibility of human free will or choice. Islam postulates absolute predestination of all that we think, say and do. Sinners are as predestined as virtuous believers.
Islamic fatalism contradicts the free will implied in the Genesis account of man's creation in the image of God. The Jewish God endows all men with freedom. Abraham can argue and plead with God, as did Moses, because the God of the Jews is a personal God, immanent as well as transcendent. This attestation of human dignity in Judaism is absent in Islam. Hence it is the profoundest error to identify Allah with the God of the Bible, i.e., YHVH. The Zohar states that, "this Name YHVH belongs only to Israel."
Although the Quran refers to Allah as the "compassionate" and the "merciful," his most conspicuous function in that highly polemical work is to consign unbelievers to hell. Of course, there are in the Quran many verses of peace and tolerance, and also many verses mandating violence against non-believers. Addressing these contradictions, some of the most respected theologians in Islamic history say that when one sees peace in one place of the Quran and violence in another, one must follow what was revealed last. Unfortunately, the violent verses were revealed later and therefore nullify the peaceful verses. Apologists quote the peaceful verses as if the violent ones were non-existent. They obscure the fact that Islam is a religion of war in theory as well as in practice. But now let us demonstrate that the God of Islam should not be identified with the God of Israel.
According to Muhammad's own admission, Islam stands or falls with the person of its prophet. Hence it is appropriate to examine Muhammad's character.
That Islam is a militant religion follows from the character of Muhammad as a man of war. In her monumental work, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide (2002), Bat Ye'or avoids discussing the relationship between Muhammad's character and Islamic theology. Instead, she documents Islam's fourteen-century record of plunder, rape, and genocide. Hence let us turn to Serge Trifkovic, a Christian scholar.
In His The Sword of the Prophet (2002), Trifkovic departs from the moral neutrality of academia and provides a "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." He portrays Muhammad as a simple preacher who became a fanatical warlord in the process of conquering Mecca and Medina. Citing the Quran and the voluminous Hadiths--the Traditions or Reports of what Muhammad said and did -- he exposes Islam's prophet as cruel, ignorant, and lascivious. Thus, after slaughtering Arab tribesmen and looting their camels, the prophet and his followers kidnapped their women and staged an orgy of rape. One Hadith explains:
We desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wives, but at the same time we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them but by observing 'azl [coitus interruptus]. But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger... and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born.
To the men of one Jewish tribe, Muhammad offered the choice of conversion to Islam or death. Upon their refusal, up to 900 were decapitated in front of their women and children. "Truly the judgment of Allah was pronounced on high," was Muhammad's comment. The women were subsequently raped. Trifkovic comments: "That Muhammad's actions and words, as immortalized in the Quran and recorded in the Traditions, are frankly shocking by the standards of our time--and punishable by its laws, that range from war crimes and murder to rape and child molestation--almost goes without saying."
Trifkovik is aware of the cultural and historical relativism that would prompt Western intellectuals to say, "we must not extend the judgmental yardstick of our own culture to the members of other cultures who have lived in other eras." He counters this relativism by pointing out that "even in the context of seventh century Arabia, Muhammad had to resort to divine revelations as a means of suppressing the prevalent moral code of his own milieu." Muhammad is thus revealed as a deeply flawed man by the standards of his own society, as well as those of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, and even by the law of which he claimed to be the divinely appointed medium and custodian.
Let us not be deceived by Muslim apologists. The eminent orientalist Sir William Muir (1819-1905) writes: "the sword of Muhammad and the Quran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty, and truth which the world has yet known." No less than the incomparable nineteenth-century philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville went even further:
I studied the Quran a great deal. I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammad. So far as I can see, it is the principal cause of the decadence so visible today in the Muslim world and, though less absurd than the polytheism of old, its social and political tendencies are in my opinion more to be feared, and I therefore regard it as a form of decadence rather than a form of progress in relation to paganism itself.
Finally, a word from the renowned historian and philologist Ernest Renan (1823-1892): "To liberate the Muslim from his religion is the best service that one can render him."
*From my forthcoming book, A Jewish Philosophy of History.
The Jerusalem Post, May. 22, 2004
US JEWS SHIFT TO RIGHT
by Hilary Leila Kreiger
The situation in Israel has pushed American Jewry significantly to the Right, which means more Jews will vote Republican in this year's presidential elections than ever before, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle told The Jerusalem Post Friday while on her first trip to Israel.
Herself a Jewish Republican, Lingle has her biases. But as a moderate, she knows that party ideology has its limits.
"I think there's been a big shift, and it's because of Israel and President Bush's support for Israel. While they may not agree with the president on a variety of things, and I don't agree with him on everything, the bottom line is he's a great friend of Israel, certainly among the closest to Israel of any president America has ever had," she said. "You may be a Democrat by your political orientation, but you have to agree that President Bush is supporting Israel at a very difficult time to support Israel, when our European allies are not being supportive, and yet he's willing to stand up for the country."
She's cautiously optimistic that Bush will prevail in November after a close contest. "Cautiously optimistic" is also how she characterized Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's views on his campaign to push through his revised Gaza disengagement plan as expressed to her during a conversation held during her stay.
She declined to "be presumptuous" and offer her views on the plan or other Israeli political issues, but she did note her admiration for the hopefulness that pervaded most comments she heard from Israeli officials.
"What has struck me in talking to people is their ability to remain optimistic in a very difficult and seemingly unsolvable situation," she said.
"When you think about what people have achieved in such a short period of time, it's remarkable. So I can see why they could remain optimistic, because if you look at their history and what they've achieved, nobody would ever believe it."
Lingle pointed to universities, medical facilities, and artistic achievements, some of which she got to see first-hand during her trip. She also took care of some business, signing a memorandum of understanding with the Agriculture Ministry on behalf of her state, allowing the two entities to share technology on issues ranging from water conservation to agricultural biotechnology to aquaculture.
"We felt that Israel and Hawaii had a lot in common economically because tourism, agriculture, the military, and technology are the same components of our economy," she said of the impulse to forge a pact together. "We also thought that we share an isolation. Our isolation is created by water and Israel's is created by having neighbors who aren't friendly, and so Israel has to achieve success based on its own resources, natural resources, human resources, and Hawaii has to do the same thing."
But some of the impetus was personal, sprung from the well of
Lingle's own past and convictions.
The 50-year-old politician can still remember the cardboard sheets, complete with illustrations of trees and semi-circle cut-outs for dimes, that she and her Sunday school friends would use to collect spare change to pay for the Jewish National Fund to plant trees in Israel.
When she arrived in Israel on Monday, the first thing she did was plant a sapling herself.
"This is the first time I've been in a place where almost everyone is Jewish," she noted. "I don't know the exact word to describe it, but it's a good feeling."
Hawaii boasts only 10,000 Jews among its population of 1.2 million.
Since her election in November -- giving the state its first female, first Republican, and, of course, first Jewish chief executive -- Judaism has received significantly more attention than ever before in the Christian and Buddhist-dominated locale.
The hosting of Pessah Seders in the capitol and this very trip to Israel, for example, have raised the religion's profile.
And Lingle's faith has raised her profile.
"I didn't expect it, but Jewish people all across the country know about me and are proud," she said. "They don't care what party I'm in. They don't care what my position is on a particular issue is. They just are proud I'm Jewish and I'm the governor of a state."
COMPUTERIZES THE BATTLEFIELD
Much of the Arab press has been consistently portraying the "Zionists" as the brains behind America's war in Iraq. Though such claims are unfounded, the US is indeed making use of Israeli brainpower to equip their troops in Iraq with advanced technological tools. Israeli-developed battle-reinforced handheld computers are to be distributed to American troops in Iraq and elsewhere to help with the War on Terror according to an Israel21c report.
A subsidiary of Israel's Tadiran Communications won two contracts worth a combined $11.5 million supplying the Tacter-31A Rugged Handheld Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) to the US Marines. The contracts are in addition to previous orders worth $15 million by the US armed forces.
Tadiran told Israel21c that these orders, and others for thousands of tactical computers to supply the U.S. and other armed forces, place the company at the forefront in the 'ruggedized' personal computers sphere.
The Tacter-31A, the subject of the latest order, is a version of the PDA built to survive harsh ground conditions and includes a tactical modem allowing communications via military communicators. The PDA includes a GPS (Global Positioning System) receiver allowing soldiers to receive updated reports on the status of a battle and his location, as well as the location of friendly and enemy forces -- all in real time while in the field.
Besides their internal battery, the rugged PDAs feature external military or commercial battery capability providing over 30 hours of operation. Unlike conventional PDAs, they can survive a six-foot drop and survive below three feet of water as well. The military devices even allow gloved soldiers in chemical or biological warfare suits to easily handle the units, and in the case of enemy capture, sensitive data can be quickly deleted.
The unit has a modular design that is suitable for use in bright daylight and can be modified for specific missions. The RPDA can be configured to provide pilots with flight data and pre-flight checklists, while enabling communications with ATE systems for pre-flight inspection tests.
"Thousands of our RPDAs have been supplied to U.S. and other armed forces throughout the world," Hezi Hermoni, president and CEO of Tadiran Communications, said in a statement.
Tadiran Communications Ltd. is recognized worldwide for its advanced field proven integrated communications and computer solutions for the modern battlefield. Tadiran Communications' products address every echelon, from the individual fighting soldier through the squad and platoon up to the division and corps level. Its products deliver the reliability essential for the combat arena and are offered in every configuration demanded by battlefield units. More than three decades of experience support Tadiran's ranking as a leader in its field, with equipment and systems deployed in the Israel Defense Forces, the US Armed Forces and the armies of over 40 nations.
FRENCH AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND!
By Prof. D. Koller
Here is a capsule of accomplishments you may not be fully aware of. I thought you might find these statistics interesting.
The Middle East has been growing date palms for centuries. The average tree is about 18-20 feet tall and yields about 38 pounds of dates a year. Israeli trees are now yielding 400 pounds/year and are short enough to be harvested from the ground or a short ladder.
Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:
The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel. Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.
The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel.
The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.
Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.
Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R&D facilities outside the US in Israel.
The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.
Israel has the fourth largest air force in the world (after the U. S, Russia and China). In addition to a large variety of other aircraft, Israel's air force has an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16's. This is the largest fleet of F-16 aircraft outside of the U. S.
According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S. officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.
Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined. Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.
Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.
Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people -- as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.
In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the U. S. (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).
With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies in the world -- apart from the Silicon Valley, U. S.
Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the U. S.
Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.
Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle East. The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.
On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech startups.
Twenty-four per cent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees -- ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 per cent hold advanced degrees. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the MiddleEast.
In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia, to safety in Israel.
When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.
When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day -- and saved three victims from the rubble.
Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship -- and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.
Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.
Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."
Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.
Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.
Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.
Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentationfor breast cancer.
An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.
Israel's Givun Imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.
Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.
Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U. S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions.
Israel places first in this category as well. A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct -- all without damaging surrounding skin or tissue.
An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.
All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth.
AND THE FRENCH AMBASSADOR IN ENGLAND SAYS WE ARE NOTHING BUT A "SH***Y LITTLE COUNTRY"!!!
Prof. D. Koller is at the Institute of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University.