Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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



MARCH 2001




THE END OF OSLO (An open letter to Ariel Sharon)....Boris Shusteff 4

FACING THE MUSIC....Ari Shavit 7



FORCE MUST BE USED....Boris Shusteff 10



BUSH'S MIDEAST AUTOPILOT....The Jerusalem Post Editorial 16




MONEY DOWN ARAFAT'S RAT HOLE....Emanuel A. Winston 20

NO PEACE, NO MONEY....The Jerusalem Post Editorial 23





ARAFAT AND THE BIG LIE....Joseph Farah 28

THE MEDIA AS THE ENEMY: "If the shoe fits" story....Emanuel A. Winston 30



THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro

Published Monthly by the
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661
Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
** URL:

Copyright (c) 2001 Bernard J. Shapiro

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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

Ariel Sharon's landslide victory and emergence as Israel's Prime Minister has elicited a multitude of reactions around the world and in the Middle East. The very size of the victory at over 25 percentage points tempts one to interpret the meaning of this shift in the Israeli electorate. Prime Minister Ehud Barak had been elected 19 months earlier by a large majority. What had happened? Below are reflections and reactions to Sharon's victory:


Barak was driven by a post-Zionist ideology that insisted that peace was possible with the Palestinians. Before the election, disappointed and angry, he told an interviewer:

"I learned a few things in the past nine months. Because we had these great experts on the Palestinians who knew for sure where you could cut a deal. But it turned out that they didn't know. They were wrong. Because the Palestinians really do have intransigent national attitudes. They have been in the struggle for 50 years and they are ready for another 20." PM Ehud Barak in a pre-election interview (Ha'aretz 2/2)

Because of his failure to provide personal security to Israelis by crushing the Palestinian violence, he was rejected massively at the polls. Barak also embarrassed Israelis by being a "door mat" for Arafat, negotiating while violence continued. His frequent threats to cut off negotiations proved phony and the Arabs laughed at him. His concessions to the Palestinians went way beyond the national consensus and still Arafat snubbed him and demanded more.


Some observers have noted that this election was against Barak but not against the "peace process" or for Sharon. This is nonsense. The Israeli electorate came out massively to support Sharon and his policies of security and Zionism. It is true that many leftist and Arabs chose to boycott the election or use blank ballots but this does not diminish the victory of Sharon. In fact Sharon received nearly 70% of the Jewish vote which is unprecedented in Israel's 53 year old history.

Sharon staked out policies that were preferred by the Israeli electorate, like: unity of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, sovereignty over the Temple Mount and other Jewish Holy sites, control Israel's strategic territory including the Jordan Valley, and of course support for the Jews of YESHA. All this was understood by the electorate and they supported it instead of Barak's constant never ending concessions.


The media, both Israeli and international) looked at Sharon's landslide and launched into many varieties of faulty analysis:

1. First they told us that 69%of Israel's population still support peace. The implication was that Sharon would be forced to continue the Oslo negotiations. This is totally false. As an abstract, nearly everyone will say that they support "peace." It gets messy when you discuss the details. The brutal violence (pogrom) of the Palestinians and their anti-Semitic incitement against Jews (in their schools, TV, newspapers and sermons) has convinced a huge majority of Israelis that they are not a "partner for peace."

2. We are told that Sharon can not form a narrow right wing/religious coalition and must seek a unity government with Labor. We are also told that if he does form a narrow coalition it will be short lived due to internal contradictions. At the Freeman Center, we prefer a Zionist/religious coalition in order to maintain the goals of Sharon's election campaign. Diluting the government with the likes of Shimon Peres or Haim Ramon will defeat that purpose. In fact, in post election interviews, Labor leaders had the chutzpah to say their decision to join a Sharon government depended on his adopting their positions on the "peace process."

Israel faces very serious security challenges at home and diplomatic challenges abroad. It would be my fervent prayer that the Zionist/religious parties will give Sharon the opportunity to work without constant governmental crises.

3. We are told by the media that Sharon is dangerous, bloodthirsty and will provoke a war in the Middle East. We have also been told that he provoked the current violence in Israel. Poppycock. The truth is that the existence on one Jew in Israel or on the Temple Mount is considered a provocation by anti-Semitic Arabs. In our sovereign Jewish state, we do not need to ask anyone permission to live and breathe. Sharon has been a proud defender of Israel throughout his whole life. The media likes to point to the Sabra/Shatila massacre as a black mark against his name. But none of it is true: See below:

That's not what the Kohan Commission found: "We have no doubt that no conspiracy or plot was entered into between anyone from the Israeli political echelon or from the military echelon in the I.D.F. and the Phalangists with the aim of perpetrating atrocities in the camps ... We assert that in having the Phalangists enter the camps, no intention existed on the part of anyone who acted on behalf of Israel to harm the non-combatant population, and that the events that followed did not have the concurrence or assent of anyone from the political or civilian echelon who was active regarding the Phalangists' entry into the camps. . . . the direct responsibility for the perpetration of the acts of slaughter rests on the Phalangist forces " Source: The Beirut Massacre - The Complete Kahan Commission Report (authorized translation} Karz-Cohl Publishing, Inc.1983 {pp.54-55)


The Arabs, especially, the Palestinians seem oblivious to how much they contributed to Sharon's stunning victory. In interview after interview they say that violence will continue until Israel surrenders to all of their demands. These demands would result in the destruction Israel and its replacement with Palestine. They don't seem to understand that Israelis were willing to try peace talks but reject suicide. They threaten to increase the violence with Sharon as Prime Minister but they are acting out violence every single day. There seems to be a serious disconnect in their policies.

They repeatedly tell reporters that they will only start negotiations where Barak left off at Taba. They seem not to understand that Barak had neither parliamentary or public support for the concessions he made at Camp David II and Taba. The Palestinian leadership is fooling itself if it thinks it can revert to previous offers they themselves rejected. As Abba Eban once said: "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

The Arab world is full of threats against Israel, but Sharon has never been afraid of threats. He will go about strengthening Israel's military and preparing it for any eventuality. You can also expect him to restore internal security and crush terrorism in Israel.


Both President George Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have warmly indicated that they will work with Sharon on regional Middle East issues. I believe that there will be much less pressure on the Palestinian-Israel negotiations and more on issues dealing with Irag, Iran and oil supplies. My gut feeling is that President Bush will not put pressure on Israel to comply with specific policy guidelines. I foresee cooperation on a multitude of strategic issues and a much greater flow weapons technology to Israel.

The one thing I worry about is the attempt to cast problems with the Palestinians as morally equivalent. Powell recently called for restraint to avoid an escalation of violence in the region. The violence is all of Arab origin so what is he saying? Israel should "turn the other cheek," not protect its soldiers and civilians, and not stop terrorism. This, by the way, is an international problem dating back 53 years. The United Nations regularly condemns Israel for acting in self defense. The immoral bias of the UN would cause me to reject every one of its resolution out of hand.


European leaders who grovel before the terrorist Arafat are urging Sharon to renew the peace negotiations despite the backdrop of continuing Arab violence. I suggest that he politely tell them to mind their own business.


The ascent of Sharon to Prime Minister is more than a reward for a lifetime in the service of his country. It is an opportunity for Israel to restore Zionism and Jewish pride. It is an opportunity restore Israeli military deterrence in the Middle East. Without such deterrence war would be more imminent. Sharon will prove that a tough stance on security issues, without appeasement, will win respect in the region and lead to a relaxation of tensions.

Where Barak wasted his time on the "peace process", I expect Sharon to devote time to solving Israel's socio-economic problems. He will try to bring together different parts of Israeli society, secular and religious, rich and poor, urban and rural, Ashkanzi and Sephardic.

The Freeman Center wishes Sharon success in his efforts for Israel. May he move from strength to strength.




(An open letter to Ariel Sharon)

By Boris Shusteff

When WorldNetDaily staff writer and talk show host Geoff Metcalf interviewed Joan Peters, the author of the book "From Time Immemorial," he asked her what she saw "as the most crucial, compelling challenge in the Mideast right now?" Peters answered:

"The most crucial, compelling problem in the Mideast is standing history on its feet from its place turned on its head, and trying to get justice turned back on its feet. The history of the region has been so distorted by the flames of a politically motivated force. There is no way to right this unless people just stop and say, "Whoa!" (1).

The Israeli people have made a first step in this direction. The election of Ariel Sharon was followed by a loud "Whoa!" from the whole world. His more than landslide victory should be a more than sufficient reason for Israel to take the second crucial step and finally abrogate the Oslo agreement. The Israelis are fed up with it. A January Peace Project survey, which also included the Israeli Arabs, showed that only "27.8% of the Israelis still support the Oslo agreement, although 72.4% of them said that they are peace supporters"(2) .

During his pre-election campaign, in an interview with the Orthodox Jewish weekly Kfar Habad, Sharon announced that the Oslo process is dead, and the tsunami of the Israeli election brought him to power in the Jewish state. Now, as the elected leader of Israel, Sharon must announce the death of the Oslo process to the international community as well.

The handcuffs and shackles of Oslo must be destroyed and thrown in the dustbin of history. The truth must be spoken loudly and unequivocally. The term "peace process" was a blatant lie and the Arabs did not hide it. Their whole purpose was to bring Israel to its 1967 "Auschwitz borders" and to flood it with so-called "refugees," thus bringing an end to the Jewish state.

The Arabs keep repeating this mantra ad nauseam. One can fill dozens of pages with the statements of Arab leaders declaring it. In the wake of the Israeli elections Dr. Saeb Erikat, the Palestinian Authority's Minister of Home Rule, in a meeting with ambassadors from Japan, Turkey, Romania, Norway and South Africa and EU representative Miguel Moratinos just did it again, saying that "Israelis must realize that there would never be regional stability without the return of the refugees to the homes from which they were evicted, as well as Israeli withdrawal to the June 1967 lines, first and foremost in Jerusalem"(3).

How terrible it is that it took Israeli leaders seven and a half years to realize that the Arabs will not compromise on their demands. Dan Meridor, chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, spent long hours at Camp David in all sorts of talks with the Palestinian Arabs

"His abiding impression was of deep, wall-to-wall Palestinian conviction that Israel has no historical case to justify its existence. It was this doctrinaire adherence to their view of history, and rejection of the Jewish view, that convinced Meridor a full, permanent-status deal was beyond reach. 'It was a laboratory situation,' he says. "Before, I had my theories. There, I saw that permanent status was not possible'"(4).

Ehud Barak himself admitted the blunder when he said in one of his last interviews:

"I learned a few things in the past nine months. Because we had these great experts on the Palestinians who knew for sure where you could cut a deal. But it turned out that they didn't know. They were wrong. Because the Palestinians really do have intransigent national attitudes."(5).

Perhaps the Israeli Jews understood this before their leader and this is why his defeat in the election was so merciless. It appears that the voters realized that the only thing Barak still can do, if he stays in power, is to try to offer something more to Arafat and in response to have even more murdered and maimed Israelis. Barak also knew that his efforts were in vain. What can be better proof of this than the following statement:

"One of two things will happen: Either there will be a settlement along the lines we put forward, which creates some sort of equilibrium, or at least it will be clear to honest Israelis from the left that if there is no settlement, it is because the Palestinians are not ready for a settlement of two states for two peoples. Because the Palestinians are still clinging to the 'phased theory' as a practical plan"(5).

Several hours after the news of Sharon's victory stunned the world, CNN commentators were still arguing trying to determine what Sharon can offer to the Arabs if they were not even eager to accept all the goodies offered to them by Barak. It never occurred to them that Sharon will give the Arabs the one and only commodity that really counts in this situation. He will offer them PEACE! He will not give them Jerusalem, or more land in Judea, Samaria or Gaza, or the Golan; he will give them only peace and nothing else. So it will be peace for peace.

What can be greater than the peace that he will offer to them? However, if they do not accept it and continue their war against the Jewish state, which since the beginning of Oslo has taken the lives of over 530 Israelis, then the Jewish state will finally use all its formidable military force, and it will be war for war.

By offering the Arabs peace Sharon will start the process of turning history and justice from its head back onto its feet. It will be a formidable task to repair the damage inflicted on the truth during the last several decades. Sharon will need to put Israel's best propagandistic forces on constant propagandistic assault all over the world to bring the truth back to life. The term "occupied land" in reference to the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza must be eliminated from the dictionary of humankind. The term "Palestinians" must be replaced by the proper term "Palestinian Arabs." The truth must be spoken about the so-called "refugees." The world must know that they are a weapon in the hands of the Arab leaders, who have made their lives miserable, while fighting a 52-year-long war against the Jewish state.

While political analysts are concerned with Sharon's ability to put together his Cabinet because of the multitude of parties in the Israeli Knesset, they should rest assured that Sharon has a simple solution to this problem. It actually does not matter whether he has a national unity government or a "narrow" Cabinet. The only thing that he must do after the Government is sworn in, is to declare that he is open to any vote of no-confidence. Any dissolution of the Knesset will lead to a new election in which the Likud and the other nationalist parties will only gain more power.

Sharon should tell the Israelis that he is going to implement a strong, non-defeatist Zionist policy in order to restore pride and honor to the Jewish state and the Jewish people. He will restore in the Jews a solid Zionist ideology, since as he explained, "We are missing basic things which for other peoples are self-evident. And the fact is that a people that is not willing to defend what belongs to it cannot, in the end, withstand any campaign anywhere"(5).

The Oslo process is dead. The era of empty threats is over. Israel will not be humiliated anymore. 02/07/01


1. "Finding truth in the Mideast ," Geoff Metcalf interviews author, journalist, historian Joan Peters. 02.04.01.

2. Peace Project January 2001 Survey. IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis). 05/02/01.

3. Official PA radio news- P.B.C. VOP (Voice of Palestine) Radio-February 3, 2001.

4. Leslie Susser: " Which Way Forward Now?" 01/09/01.

5. Ari Shavit: "Israel According to Sharon". Ha'aretz , 02/02/01.


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



Reprinted from Ha'aretz of February 22, 2001


By Ari Shavit

The security situation that Ehud Barak's peace government has bequeathed to Ariel Sharon's peace government can be more or less summed up in the following manner: Hezbollah attacks on Har Dov (to which Israel refrains from responding), Tanzim attacks on Har Gilo (to which Israel is incapable of responding), a suicide attack at the Azur junction (to which Israel does not know how to respond), shots fired at Israeli vehicles on the Modi'in Highway, shots fired at Israeli vehicles on the Tunnel Road, and approximately sixty Israelis and more than 300 Palestinians killed within less than five months.This kind of security situation can only be described as close to catastrophic. It would be unthinkable to imagine such a security situation existing in any other self-respecting democracy. This state of affairs, which has not been experienced in this country since the mid-1950s, can be directly attributed to the melt-down of two concepts: The Grand Concept of Oslo and the Mini-Concept of the Withdrawal from Lebanon. In line with the Grand Concept of Oslo, it was assumed that the flooding of the land with fifty thousand AK-47 Kalashnikov assault rifles for the Palestinians would usher in an era of peace for the Middle East. In line with the Mini-Concept of the Withdrawal from Lebanon, it was assumed that the deployment of Hezbollah rocket-launchers along the line on which Kibbutz Menara is situated would usher in an era of peace for Israel's northern frontier.

Both conceptions are the brain-child of the same genius. The records of the Registrar of Patents documents in detail the fact that the Israeli who invented the alchemist's formula of Oslo ("If we say that this is peace and if we sing out loud that this is peace and if we keep on saying the 'Abracadabra' of peace then, perhaps, all this will truly lead to peace") is the very same Israeli who thought up the lame-brain idea of the Israel Defense Forces pulling out of Lebanon at any price ("If they defeat us, chase us out and humiliate us, immediately afterwards they will certainly leave us alone in peace").

However, this famed inventor cannot be held solely responsible for these two concepts. Granted, the outgoing justice minister did turn Israel into a country that is incapable of granting even a modicum of personal safety to its own citizens, and has gambled twice on Israel's fate and has twice lost. Granted, he still refuses to acknowledge that all his efforts have had disastrous consequences and that his mistakes have been paid for in blood and have produced hundreds of graves. But responsibility must also be shared by thousands of other Israelis - intelligent individuals occupying key positions in Israeli society - who were his partners in the scandal of these two concepts. Thousands of Israelis who are the champions of and determined crusaders for peace, are unable to muster the courage to stand up and publicly declare that they have led Israel into this situation, that they have brought Israel to the very brink of an abyss.

When prime minister Golda Meir, defense minister Moshe Dayan and the members of the elite group who surrounded them led Israel into the fire of the Yom Kippur War of 1973, they were called to account. When prime minister Menachem Begin, defense minister Ariel Sharon and the members of the elite group who surrounded them led Israel into another fire, the War in Lebanon in 1982, they were called to account. When prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert unnecessarily placed Israel on a bed of nails in 1996 over the Western Wall Tunnel, many Israelis demanded that they be called to account. However, today, when it is crystal-clear that the Oslo-Lebanon elite has led Israel into a true conflagration, has led Israel to face a wall of fire that has already scorched acres and acres of land, no one is calling the members of that elite to account. One Israeli after another has been killed and yet no one is demanding that this elite group be called to account. One Palestinian after another has been killed and yet no one is demanding that this elite group be called to account. Granted, the government has fallen, but none of its leading lights has been toppled. None of them is seen to have made any error, none of them has blundered, none of them bears any responsibility for the present situation.

The refusal by an entire stratum of leadership to assume responsibility for its actions is an ugly and extremely grave phenomenon. Nonetheless, what is needed now is not the collective deposing of all the members of the Oslo group. Nor should the elite that was responsible for the serious blunder of the two concepts, and which ruled this country with such arrogance for the past seven years, be thrown out into the cold. The political culture of public commissions of inquiry and public beheadings has run out of steam. The political culture of mutual mud-slinging and mutual exclusion has demonstrated its limits. Thus, a different kind of punishment must be meted out to those responsible for the serious blunder of the two concepts. A reverse form of punishment is what is called for. They must acknowledge that they have made a tragic mistake and they must be forced to remain where they are, to face the music, to assume responsibility. They must be full-fledged partners in a national rescue project aimed at pulling Israel out of the two minefields into which they have led it.

All this means that today, when Sharon is extending his hand in peace on the domestic front, the Israeli left does not have the moral option of staying on the sidelines. If Sharon's invitation is rejected and if, as a result, he finds himself plunged into a war with the Palestinians, this armed confrontation cannot be called Sharon's War. It will, instead, be the Oslo War - the war that was built into the absurd framework that the Oslo elite set up here. Similarly, if Sharon becomes entangled in a war on Israel's northern frontier, this armed confrontation cannot be called Sharon's War. It will be the Four Mothers' War - the war that was built into the humiliating process in which four Israeli mothers forced the country to flee from Lebanon. Thus, if war breaks out in the North, no leftist will be entitled to stand in Tel Aviv's Yitzhak Rabin Square and protest. If war breaks out in the North, no leftist will be entitled to sit and count the dead beside the Official Residence of the prime minister in Jerusalem. Because, this time around, those dead soldiers will belong to us. They will belong to the Israeli left

(c) 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved




By Louis Rene Beres

"Do you know what it means to find yourselves face to face with a madman," asks Luigi Pirandello's Henry IV. "Madmen, lucky folk, construct without logic, or rather with a logic that flies like a feather." What is true for individuals is true for states. In the always unpredictable state of nations, constructions which rest upon the foundations of ordinary logic may crumble before madness. Understood in terms of Israel's precarious dependence (however implicit) upon nuclear deterrence, this suggests that security built upon threats of retaliatory destruction could fail altogether.

For the moment, no single Arab/Islamic adversary of Israel would appear to be irrational. That is, no such adversary would appear to be ready to launch a major first-strike against Israel with weapons of mass destruction - in the future, possibly even nuclear weapons - in the expectation that it would elicit a devastating reprisal. Of course, miscalculations and errors in information could still lead a perfectly rational enemy state to strike first, but this decision would not be the product of irrationality.

What is true today, however, may not be true for the indefinite future. Certain enemy states, Iraq and Iran come immediately to mind, could ultimately decide that "excising the Jewish cancer" from the Middle East would be worth the costs, however massive. In principle, this prospect might be avoided by Israel by timely "hard target" preemptions, but such expressions of anticipatory self-defense (the term used in international law) are now exceedingly problematic for both tactical and political reasons.

Strictly speaking, an Iraqi and/or Iranian "bolt-from-the-blue" CBN (chemical, biological or even nuclear) attack upon Israel with the expectation of city-busting reprisals would not necessarily exhibit true irrationality or madness. Rather, within these states' particular ordering of preferences (that is, their particular hierarchy of wants), the presumed religious obligation to annihilate the "Zionist Entity" could be of absolutely overriding value. Here, the expected benefits of such annihilation could exceed the expected costs of Israeli reprisal, however overwhelming the latter.

To a certain extent, an enemy state with such orientations would represent the individual suicide bomber writ large. Just as tens of thousands of young Arab males are willing to die to achieve "martyrdom," so might certain individual states be willing to sacrifice themselves to fulfil the presumed will of Allah. In the second case, however, it is conceivable that Iraqi and/or Iranian leaders making the decision to strike at Israel would be more willing to make "martyrs" of their own peoples than of themselves. Here, it would be perfectly alright to sacrifice huge portions of their respective populations, but only while the leaders were already underway to Switzerland or Saudi Arabia.

What is Israel to do? It can't very well choose to live, indefinitely, with enemies who might not be deterred by usual threats of retaliation and who are themselves armed with weapons of mass destruction. It can't very well choose to preempt against pertinent Iraqi and/or Iranian military targets because the tactical prospects of success are very remote and because the global outcry would be deafening. It assuredly cannot rely upon the United States, which - in the context of such Arab/Islamic first-strikes, would be helpful only in helping to bury a million Jewish dead. And it cannot place too much faith in anti-tactical ballistic missile defenses, which would require a near-100% reliability of intercept to be purposeful (an inconceivable requirement).

The opportunities available to Israel are very limited; the consequences of failure are nothing short of national extinction. What shall the Government of Israel do? If Israel's enemies were all presumably rational, in the ordinary sense of valuing physical survival more highly than any other preference of combination of preferences, Jerusalem could begin to exploit the strategic benefits of pretended irrationality. Here, recognizing that in certain situations it can be especially rational to pretend irrationality, it could create more cautionary behavior among its relevant adversaries. In such a case, the threat of an Israeli resort to a "Samson Option" could be enough to frighten away an enemy first-strike. If, however, Israel's pertinent adversaries were presumably irrational in the ordinary sense, there would likely be no real benefit to feigned irrationality. This is the case because the more probable Israeli threat of massive counterstrike associated with irrationality would be no more compelling to Iraq and/or Iran than if they were confronted by a fully rational State of Israel.

It follows from all this that Israel could benefit from greater understanding of the "rationality of pretended irrationality," but only in particular reference to rational enemy states. In these circumstances where such enemy states are presumed to be irrational in the ordinary sense, something else will be needed - something other than nuclear deterrence, preemption or ballistic missile defense. Although many believe the answer to this quandary lies in far-reaching political settlements, it is an answer born of frustration and self-delusion, not of deliberate and informed calculation. No meaningful political settlements can be worked out with enemies who seek only Israel's "liquidation" (a word used commonly in Arab/Islamic newspapers and texts).

So what is Israel to do? "In the end," we learn from the poet Goethe, "we depend upon creatures of our own making." What shall Israel "make?" To begin, Israel must understand that irrationality need not mean craziness or madness. Even an irrational state may have a consistent and transitive hierarchy of wants. The first task for Israel, therefore, is to ascertain this hierarchy among its several state enemies, especially Iraq and Iran (and soon to include "Palestine"). Although these states might not be deterred from aggression by the persuasive threat of massive Israeli retaliations, they could well be deterred by threats to what they DO hold to be MOST IMPORTANT.

What might be most important to Israel's prospectively irrational enemies, potentially even more important than physical survival as a state? One answer is the avoidance of shame and humiliation. Another is avoidance of the charge that they had defiled their most sacred religious obligations. Still another is leaders' avoidance of their own violent deaths at the hand of Israel, deaths that would be attributable to strategies of assassination and/or "regime-targeting" by Jerusalem.

These answers are only a beginning; indeed, they are little more than the beginning of a beginning. What is needed now is a sustained and conspicuously competent effort to answer in greater depth and breadth.

This effort cannot be confined to Israel's established centers of strategic studies. Rather, it must take place wherever informed and intellectually capable friends of Israel can be found.


LOUIS RENE BERES is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. Educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) he is the author of many books and articles dealing with Israeli security matters. Professor Beres's work is well-known to Israel's academic, military and intelligence communities. BERES@POLSCI.PURDUE.EDU




By Boris Shusteff

"Listen to the truths that lie within your hearts, and be not afraid to follow them wherever they may lead you." (Clarence Thomas, in his Francis Boyer Lecture, Washington D.C. 2/13/01).

One should not be surprised that the election of Ariel Sharon has brought a sharp increase in terrorist activity among Arafat's cohorts. This is the typical way that cowards behave. Arafat knows that Sharon's actions will be much stronger than Israel's "actions" during Barak's tenure as a prime minister. Therefore, as long as the new Israeli government is not yet in place, meaning that Barak is still in charge, Arafat is trying to inflict as much damage as possible on Israel.

Arafat hopes that the more Jews are murdered during the transition of power in Israel, the stronger his "negotiating" position will be when Sharon's rule starts. After this happens, he will curtail terrorist activity for a period of time, while appealing to the world community to bring Sharon, the "hard-liner," to the negotiation table. However, this time Arafat has lost. There should no longer be any negotiations. Only a strong and unequivocal use of Israeli force can be an appropriate response.

The negotiating phase is over. There is nothing left for Israel to talk to Arafat about. Ehud Barak's limitless offers clearly demonstrated that Arafat's plans have never changed. His famous statement - "peace for me means the destruction of Israel and nothing else" - is better than any other explanations of his "seemingly unexplainable" behavior during the suicidal Oslo process of the past seven and a half years. The only thing that he will accept from Israel will be Israel itself. Nothing else is sufficient.

Israeli society is ready for the proper move. Israel must fight the war that the Arabs are leading against her with all her formidable force. It has long been time to stop declaring that "Israel is at war," as the Israeli leaders do after every terrorist attack with a large number of casualties, but to declare this war through military actions.

If the Israeli leaders have any doubt that the Israeli people will not support them, they should listen to them more carefully. When Israelis were asked in a December 29, 2000 Gallup Poll, "Do you agree with the assertion that 'only Sharon can bring peace?'" 26% of them said "Yes," and 65%, "No". When the question was put more precisely - "Do you agree with the assertion that 'if you choose Sharon you choose war?'" - 70% answered "Yes" and only 23% said "No." Knowing these poll results and bearing in mind that Sharon's victory in the elections was more than a landslide there are no doubts as to what sort of actions the Israelis are expecting from their leaders.

Ehud Barak had lifted the masks from Yasser Arafat and his cronies. The terrorists and murderers remain terrorists and murderers. They were forced on the Jews and the Palestinian Arabs alike by people like Yossi Beilin and Shimon Peres through the Oslo accords. The time has come to destroy the terrorist gang disguised as peace-lovers whose only goal is Israel's destruction.

For those who look in awe at any international agreement, it should be mentioned that the Oslo agreement between Israel and the PLO cannot stand any legal ground in any international court, since, as Professor of International Law Louis Rene Beres has explained many times, it is not a treaty between two legitimate bodies. It is an agreement between a country, a member of the UN, and a terrorist organization, whose "frozen" Charter still calls for Israel's destruction.

Moreover, the ill-conceived Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles states in its fifth article that "the outcome of the permanent status negotiations should not be prejudiced or preempted by agreements reached for the interim period." That means that nothing prevents Israel from reversing the situation on the ground. Israel is not obliged to allow PLO gangs to freely roam in the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Israeli retired Brig.-General Efi Eitam said recently:

"Main strategic goals of Zionism have been lost .... Israel was supposed to be a place of shelter for Jews all over the world, so that there could never be another Holocaust. But Israel has become the most dangerous place in the world for Jews young and old. Instead of Israel being a shelter against anti-Semitism, Jews in Israel are being bombed and tortured because of who they are."

Israel's main task right now is to recover the deterrence capability that she lost in the last decade. There are different scenarios that Israel can follow. It should be clear, however, that all of them will require returning, even if temporarily, to the areas designated today as areas under full Palestinian control. This was the mantra of the supporters of the Oslo agreement who constantly repeated that if Oslo failed we would always have the option to return. Oslo has failed, so it is time to return.

As soon as Sharon's government is assembled, Israel must issue an ultimatum to Arafat to collect all the weapons that were given to the Palestinian Authority (PA) by the Jewish state as well as all illegal weapons within a week. If Israel's demand is not honored in a week, the Israeli army should enter any city among those under the control of the Palestinian Arabs and leave it after confiscating all the weapons. This action should serve as an example of what will follow if a second ultimatum that must follow immediately after this action is not fulfilled by the PA.

If the weapon surrender request is disregarded again the Israeli army must reenter all the territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza currently under PA control or joint Israeli-PA control. The Jewish state should not be afraid to overuse force in order to achieve her goals. The terrorist PLO, Hamas, Islamic Juhad and other such groups must be destroyed. While it is expected that Israel will try to avoid casualties among civilians it should be clear that this should not be done at the expense of the lives of Israeli soldiers.

The outcry of the world community that will obviously follow must be countered by an Israeli informational campaign that must first of all emphasize mankind's hypocrisy. If it is quiet during eight years of brutal slaughter of more than 100,000 Arab men, women and children by fundamentalist Muslims in Algeria, it has no right to shed crocodile tears over a war that causes the death of another group of Arabs, whose leaders day and night infect their minds with hatred towards the Jews.

If America can bomb Iraq and Serbia for "security reasons," why should Israel not be allowed to defend herself from people who in the past seven and a half years have murdered more than 550 of her people and maimed and wounded several thousand others? February 13 was the anniversary of the bombing of Dresden by the allies at the end of the WWII. There were no important military or industrial targets in Dresden; the outcome of the War was already determined; nevertheless 800 bombers for many hours continued to drop their lethal loads onto the city. More than 40,000 people perished during this bombardment, including, women children and the elderly. This was done with only one purpose - to break the morale of the Germans. We know very well what was done later in order to break the morale of the Japanese.

If we translate the percent of the Israeli population murdered since the beginning of the "peace process" into an equivalent number for the USA, it will amount to over 25,000 murdered Americans - almost half the number of casualties that America suffered during the Vietnam War. But this was a WAR, whereas in this situation civilized mankind wants to convince Israel that she lives in PEACE. Does this not mean that since Israel has not used weapons during this "peace" she still has the opportunity to use half of the amount of bombs and ammunition that America used in the Vietnam War?

It is vital for Israel to restore her deterrence capabilities. It is much better if the Arabs and the world know that the Israeli Jews can sometimes behave like ferocious dogs instead of like pussycats. The Lion of Judah must wake up. Israel's enemies must know that as long as they do not respect the right of Israel to exist, the Jewish state will not allow them this right either. 02/17/01


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




by Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

Are Israeli citizens prepared for war? The brief answer is a resounding "No!" Only civilians in the territories (YESHA: Judea, Samaria, and Gaza) are even partially prepared for an attack initiated in the promised next Arab war against Israel. These Israeli citizens have had to face continual attacks by the Arabs even before Arafat's Rosh Hashana War 2000 which the Arab ‘Hasbara' mechanism has successfully coined by the name ‘Al Aksa Intifada'.

The pioneering settlers took seriously the promises of Arafat's terrorist leaders and the frequent call of the religious clerics for the Muslims to attack the Jews, particularly those pejoratively called ‘settlers'. These Israeli civilians have tried to build up their equipment stores such as rifle scopes, night vision equipment and ammunition with desperate appeals to Jews and Christians across the world for funds to buy such equipment denied them by Ehud Barak's regime. One is reminded of the vicious world wide embargo against selling arms to the newly born Jewish State in 1948. Now this boycott comes from the leaders of Israel's Left.

Today this syndrome is so pervasive that the American Jewish establishment's fund raisers refuse to give money to Jews "over the Green Line" or in parts of Jerusalem - even if these funds are for humanitarian needs such as schools, health and religious institutions.

But, still the inventory of exposed and vulnerable communities on the front lines with hostile Arabs is woefully short should the Arabs attack the various towns and villages (called Yeshuvim) as Arafat's Palestinians promised they would. Areas inside of Israel, particularly those near the ‘new' Oslo borders, have virtually no protection from Arab incursions, sharp shooting snipers or bombings set off by remote control devices.

We know the PLO Palestinian Army, Police and militia of 50-60,000 plus at least 9 Secret Services have illegal weapons including machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades; anti-tank missiles; shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, cannon, bombs, mortars, rockets and sophisticated explosives. Regrettably, they have grown proficient with the assistance of CIA training, much the same as was done to train Muslims sent to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.

In the event of an attack there are simply not enough soldiers or even police to protect these areas. They are on their own. Worse yet, the civilians are almost totally vulnerable and without training or sufficient weapons for any protracted battles.

How did all this happen?

In the early 1980s those who led the Labor Party concluded that Israel should withdraw, first to the 1967 cease-fire lines and later to the partition lines of 1947. They began an insidious program of re-directing the availability of weapons away from the Israeli public. The main targets were the settlers but, these suicidal policies also affected the general civilian body all over Israel. Those settlers on Israel's frontiers guaranteed the protection of all Israel, the kibbutzim, the cities, the coast, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. They are the first line of defense. The Labor Party's ‘conceptzia' (conception) was that, if the Israeli population did not have the means to defend themselves, there would be fewer incidents of Israelis shooting hostile Arabs even when Jewish civilians or soldiers were attacked by mobs of armed Arabs. If Israelis are murdered or maimed, they were to become what Yitzhak Rabin called "Sacrifices for Peace".

Very slowly a program was initiated of stripping weapons from the hands of Israeli civilians. Where there were once small armories in the Kibbutzim and Moshavim, with weapons provided by military, these armories were emptied of their weapons and stand-by ammunition. Some of this has since been reversed (but only marginally) as the Oslo process failed and shootings of Israelis increased.

Some weapons were allowed to civilians but that became more of a political cover-over so the government could not be charged with totally disarming the civilian population. For an individual to get a gun license for self-defense became a deliberate bureaucratic nightmare. The Leftist Courts played a contributing role so that, even when a civilian was trapped by a mob and, fearing for his life or that of his family, if he shoots, he became a victim of government harassment. Then the Police might arrest him and/or confiscate his weapon - leaving him and his family vulnerable. He might be held in jail for a long time, and then the Courts would virtually bankrupt him with time-consuming trials, attorneys' fees and even jail. This well integrated system was driven by the Leftist Governments, Police and Courts.

Soldiers who shot in self defense faced court martial and possibly jail. The purpose of the Left/Labor party was to instill a greater fear of Israel's Justice system than the necessity to protect your life and those of the civilians who depended upon you. The system worked even to the point where Israeli soldiers were prepared, even taught, to run away rather than take the risk of firing against a life-threatening mob. Here again, politically correct officers who adhered to the Dovish line of the Left were in positions of control. Under some commanders soldiers were taught to run by a blizzard of regulations in thick, incomprehensible manuals.

Now, with Arafat's ‘Green Light' of his contrived ‘al Aksa intifada' (a.k.a.: the Rosh Hashana War of 2000), there may be a real war. Arafat's Palestinians are now close to Israeli population centers and surround many of the towns in YESHA (the territories). They have caused severe casualties to Israelis on the roads and shooting across Israel's borders. Even Israeli civilians in the heart of her main population centers have found that Israeli Arabs are a danger to Israeli Jews as they demonstrate their first loyalty to Arafat.

Regrettably, the plan of Labor worked so well that most of the civilian population is wholly unprepared to defend themselves today. In YESHA many civilian communities do not have the weapons and, except for those in or recently in the Army, they don't have the necessary training. There is insufficient ammunition to hold off a concerted assault until a hoped for rescue of soldiers. The soldiers may never come since they may have to defend the borders from outside Arab armies, such as Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Lebanon - even Egypt. The Police know that they cannot provide sufficient protection because they are too few and not trained for actual combat.

Many individual communities have recently assumed the responsibility for upgrading their defensive weapons and training. In coordination with the Army, they have evaluated their inventories, listed what is needed and proceeded to raise funds from outside the country to supply the night vision, rifle scopes, generators, lights, binoculars, communications and medical emergency needs.

Various Leftist governments made stripping Israelis civilians of their weapons one of their top priorities. Conversely, they have allowed Arafat to smuggle in top quality weapons, including long range telescopic sights for sniping from distances. Israelis are not allowed to bring in really long range scopes or night vision scopes because the Left has passed laws prohibiting importation of such equipment except for military use. The military has been trying to provide arms to some of the settlements but it is mostly old equipment with insufficient ammunition. They cannot go against Labor's orders.

Except for individual communities' initiatives, there has been little or no effort to equip or train civilians - even to walk guard patrols like the Shomrim of past pioneering days. At this time, in the February 6th elections Arik Sharon was elected by 25% margin due to the specific failure of Ehud Barak to protect the Israeli people. Saddam Hussein is threatening to send missiles with atomic, biological or chemical warheads and increasing the possibility of war on Israel's borders. The Barak government never even called on Israelis to clean out their bomb shelters or safe rooms. (This was due to his personal political considerations so as to not further alarm the voters during the election campaign.)

If there are successful attacks on the civilian population then, clearly, Barak, Peres, Beilin and all those who collaborated on the plan to disarm the civilian population must be brought before an impartial, non-political Blue Ribbon Commission of Inquiry for trial with penalties for the guilty. They would be directly responsible for whatever murders or maiming due to the planned vulnerabilities of the people at large and for whom they are responsible. Could anyone even dream that Jewish Leftists would deliberately hold back defensive arms, allowing fellow Jews to be killed in order to advance their fraudulent ‘peace process'?

They have encouraged and accelerated Arafat's war timetable. Now they do not want to carry the legacy of having incited the Arab nations into a full scale war, with catastrophic weapons of mass destruction. So they do what Labor has always done, namely, blame it on someone else. In this case, the fall guy is Arik Sharon, the newly elected Prime Minister.

Now that the Labor Left has put Israel into her worst military position since 1948, perhaps it is just as well that a real General was elected to save Israel once again. If there has to be a war, then clearly it is better in the hands of Arik Sharon than anyone like the Doves of Labor. And it is better that it begin with Israel holding as much land as she has now, rather than later when she has been forced to give away more land, strategic depth, water and Holy Sites.

If and when the next war starts, it would be a good idea to round up the Oslo gang and place them where they cannot communicate with Arafat until the battle is won. Having communicated Israel's negotiating plans to Arafat in the past, they are simply not to be trusted with defense secrets! Barak as Prime and Defense Minister has told Arafat to clear out of targeted positions because he was going to send in helicopter gun ships to hit them.

The Left led by Barak, Peres, Beilin, Sarid, Ben Ami have now entered their denial phase or "Don't blame me!" for the war that's coming. Labor as early as 1982, cut a deal with the Arafat to use his Arabs as ‘shock troops' as the final persuaders to push the settlers out of the territories. The Left Labor/Meretz parties are ultimately responsible for the 546 Israeli deaths by Palestinian terrorists (as of February 12th) because of the Left's concessionary appeasement policies since the Oslo Declaration of Principles. And the Left Labor/Meretz parties will be responsible for the coming war which they nurtured.

Having fed Arafat's vultures, the vultures now want more. The guilt lies with the leaders and sub-leaders of the Labor and Meretz parties so don't let them shift the blame for the war they encouraged. Having deliberately supplied the Palestinians with many of the weapons which have been used against Israeli soldiers and civilians, they cannot now claim innocence.

In closing, while it may be politically advantageous to offer Barak the portfolio of Defense Minister, clearly Barak is not competent for the job. A Dove cannot conduct defense let alone offense. As for inviting Shimon Peres to be Arik Sharon's Foreign Minister, that is a critical mistake. As the fomenter of the secret Oslo negotiations, he has a well known reputation as a liar in addition to his conniving behavior against every government and Prime Minister he worked for. Peres is a poor choice to represent Sharon's policy to the world's leaders and influentials. Worse yet, sending Peres to America and/or Europe to speak for the Sharon government, one can be certain that he will twist Sharon's message and likely call for concentrated pressure on Sharon and Israel. Recall that numerous times, he and Yitzhak Rabin went to France, England and the U.S. asking for those nations to pressure Israel to accommodate Arab demands. Shimon Peres is, was and always will be a twisty man whom no one trusts.

Hopefully, the new Israeli Prime Minister, Arik Sharon, will immediately undo the treachery by the Left Labor/Meretz parties and prepare the Israeli public for what may be their greatest test. They need a training program for civilians (both women and men) in weapons, guarding and medical emergencies. The negative lessons of fearing the government and the Leftist Court system for defending your life and your family's safety must be reversed.

As for world opinion as expounded by CNN, NPR, the NEW YORK TIMES, WASHINGTON POST and other journals, the more they howl, the more certain we can be that the Israelis are doing it right.

There is much to accomplish to prepare Israel's Army and civilian population for the war that Barak and crew have made inevitable by conceding so much strategic land that Israel has been tactically weakened. There is much to accomplish to undo the Arab world's perception that Israel is weak. There is little time to do both. Arik. . .start NOW!



The Jerusalem Post EDITORIAL of February 15, 2001


Once again the front pages are filled with pictures of young faces on a black background and snippets from the funerals are interspersed between anguished commentary and subdued, melancholy music on the radio. The purpose of terrorism is to instill a fatalistic sense of inevitability and defenselessness. Yet those who claim that terrorism cannot be defeated are wrong; we will defeat terror because the Palestinians have left us with no other choice.

Thanks to Ehud Barak, Israelis now know that the Palestinians are not fighting to obtain a state in virtually all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza - they turned that down at Camp David and Taba. Now they are fighting for the right to return to Haifa, Jaffa, Acre, and Lod. As Abdullah Horani, a veteran member of the PLO's executive committee, wrote last month in an open letter to Yasser Arafat, "Tell [the Israelis] that Jerusalem is part of the problem, but the refugees are the entire problem; and that Jerusalem is part of the homeland, while the refugees are the homeland itself." Palestinian leaders know that virtually all Israelis consider conceding the "right of return" to the Palestinians tantamount to national suicide.

The violent Palestinian attempt to press this claim can only have one of two purposes: to prevent any Israeli-Palestinian agreement or to raise the price of an agreement even further than the extreme concessions offered at Camp David and Taba.

Either way, the Palestinian attack must not just be defended against, or stoically tolerated, but defeated. The mantra heard both on the Israeli Left and in foreign ministries all over the world - that the violence only has a political solution - is exactly backward: Without defeating the Palestinian terror offensive, no political solution is possible.

Though military measures obviously are important in defeating Palestinian terror, two non-military prerequisites are at least as critical: Israeli unity and American honesty. Israeli unity is critical because it will signal that Israel has stopped blaming itself for the lack of peace and has shifted the burden where it belongs, on those who refuse to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. By now, the need for unity is well understood, and seems soon to be implemented on the political level. Less appreciated, however, is the damage caused by the American refusal to distinguish between victim and aggressor.

Commenting Tuesday on Israel's killing of a colonel in Yasser Arafat's bodyguard who masterminded Hizbullah-style attacks in Gaza, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "The use of Israeli helicopter gunships, Palestinian attacks against settlements and motorists, the use of mortars by Palestinians, and the targeted killings by the Israeli defense force today are producing a new cycle of action and reaction which can become impossible to control... Both the Israelis and the Palestinians need to do everything they can to stop the violence..."

It is not clear why the Bush administration would continue the failed Clinton policy of moral equivalence between terrorism and the fight against it. The policy of willful moral obtuseness was considered necessary by the Clinton team when the US was hip-deep in brokering an Israeli-Palestinian final-status agreement. Now that the Palestinians have chosen to blow up the negotiating table, there is no possible rationale for rewarding terrorism by placing it on par with self-defense.

President George Bush, while condemning the bus attack, missed an opportunity to do himself and the region a tremendous favor by some plain speaking: Terrorism must be fought, and the US stands behind Israel in fighting terrorism. Such a simple statement would send a powerful signal: The US will no longer blame Israel for defending itself, it will blame the Palestinians for scuttling peace.

Moderate Arab states, while publicly criticizing such a shift in US policy, would privately breathe a sigh of relief. They know that the continuation or escalation of the Palestinian attack could well boomerang against them in the form of internal unrest. It is no coincidence that the Arab states are not rushing to save Arafat from the financial collapse that threatens his mini-war just as surely as Israeli military actions.

The Bush team has barely had time to find their offices, and it is tough to turn the American ship of state on a dime. We hope that the continuation of Clinton's counterproductive "cycle of violence" rhetoric is not deliberate, but a case of an unexamined policy continuing on autopilot. On this side of the ocean, however, real people are losing their lives waiting for new governments in Israel and the US to decide that Arafat's attack must be defeated, not accommodated.



The following Op-Ed article was published, on January 11, 2001 by Ynet, the Internet daily of Yediot Achronot, the largest circulation newspaper in Israel. Enjoy it, Yoram (Ettinger).


The Bible and Judeo-Christian values have played a major role in shaping the state of mind of President George W. Bush and his wife Laura, as well as their positive gut feeling toward Israel.

At a January 21, 2001 Senate reception for President Bush, he was introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell as a leader who follows in the footsteps of Joshua and Kalev [the two courageous Jewish leaders, who adhered to faith, conviction and long-term strategy, rather than to short-term convenience and "pragmatism."]. During a January 21 sermon at a Washington DC church, Bush was compared to King David, "who united the Jewish Nation, leading them during the strongest ever chapter in Jewish history." And, Marc Craig, Bush 's personal pastor at the Austin United Methodist Church, compared the president to "Moses who just crossed The River, leading his People to the Mountain and from there to the Promised Land."

The long-term nature of Bush's deeply-held belief and values – despite changing political considerations – constitutes a unique opportunity for Israel. President Bush's view of the Land of Israel as the cradle of shared Judeo-Christian values could soften disagreements with Israel. It could, also, mellow the impact of some advisors who have been critical of Israel, thus strengthening the Commander-In-Chief's recognition of the joint interests and mutual threats, binding together the leader of the Free World and its sole soul ally in the Mideast.

While President Bush credits his wife Laura, and his religious faith, with the crucial transformation in his life, from Dolce Vita to a meteoric success in the public and political arena, he is not a religious fanatic.

His approach toward religion is representative of most Americans. According to a New York Times poll, published on December 7, 1997, 96% of the US public believes in God, 90% pray a few times annually, 41% attends church each Sunday, 63% (43% in 1947) say Grace, 93% of US households possess at least one copy of the Bible and 33% of US households read the Bible at least once a week. The Tennessee publisher, Thomas Nelson, sells about 8 million copies of the bible each year. And, there are 257 religious TV stations in the US, compared with 9 in 1974. These data put President Bush as the heads of one of the most religious nations in the Free World!

-The 34th President considers himself a successor of Thomas Jefferson, a principle-driven role model of harmony and moderation. Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers, referred to the American revolutionaries as the 1776 Israelites, to the British rule as Pharaoh and to America as the 1776 Promised Land. Furthermore, Jefferson proposed that the official seal of the American Republic would be the parting of the Red Sea. Benjamin Franklin, who studied Hebrew, suggested that the inscription on the seal would be in Hebrew. In denouncing the Tea Act, Benjamin Rush stated: "What shining examples of Patriotism do we behold in Joshua, Samuel, Maccabeus and all the illustrious princes, captains and prophets among the Jews." The successors of the Founding Fathers have recently issued, annually, Chanukah and Christmas stamps.

The Old Testament – and particularly the legacy of Moses – has played a major role in the shaping of the world view of the Founding Fathers, religiously, socially, judicially and politically, including the concepts of Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances and the Bill of Rights. In fact, "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof" (Leviticus, 25, 10) was engraved, by the People of Pennsylvania upon the Liberty Bell.

The decision to locate the capital of the US outside the territory of the individual States, was influenced by the precedent of Jerusalem, which was located outside the territory of the individual 12 Jewish tribes. A marble plaque of Moses features in Congress, which opens its daily business with a morning prayer, conducted by its Chaplain. Moreover, on June 17, 1999 a 248:180 majority of the House of Representatives approved a bill, which would allow the display of the Ten Commandments in public schools and public buildings, as a means to curtail youth violence. President Bush, as did all his predecessors, concludes his speeches with "God Bless America," and the motto "In God We Trust" is printed on the US dollar bill.

President Bush, just like most Americans, does not regard Israel as a typical foreign policy issue. They view Israel as a special valued ally, deeply rooted in the American tradition. Such an affinity between the two Peoples constitutes a major reservoir of support, for Israel, constituting a viable foundation for an effective strategic alliance in face of mutual threats.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of February, 20 2001


By Evelyn Gordon

If I could pose one question to a group of senior American and European government officials, it would be the following: Is there any action at all that you would deem legitimate for Israel to take to defend its population against Palestinian attacks - and if so, what?

The answer to the first half of the question would probably be yes, because in principle, both America and Europe agree that countries have the right to defend their citizens. But the second half would be a poser - because both the Europeans and the Americans have proven over the last four months that when it comes to Israel, they oppose translating this principle into practice.

During this period, Israel has tried a wide variety of tactics in response to the war of attrition that has been the Palestinians' answer to unprecedented Israeli concessions at the negotiating table. Yet every one of these tactics has been unequivocally denounced by the US and the European Union.

Initially, Prime Minister Ehud Barak opted for the simplest tactic of all: telling soldiers to just shoot back when fired upon. But since Palestinian gunmen made a practice of stationing themselves in the midst of crowds of civilians, and since even the most sophisticated weapons are rarely perfectly aimed in the heat of battle, this tactic resulted in the deaths of many civilians as well as gunmen. The result was universal excoriation of Israeli brutality, and the implicit message that it would be preferable for IDF soldiers to simply let themselves be used for target practice.

Barak then decided to try targeting property rather than people. In response to Palestinian attacks, he began ordering the IDF to destroy buildings belonging to the organizations responsible, after first warning the people inside to leave and giving them several hours to do so. Highly sophisticated weapons were used to ensure, as far as possible, that no innocent bystanders were hurt. And the result? Israel was again universally condemned, this time for having used heavy weaponry such as combat helicopters - even though the main purpose of this hi-tech weaponry was to prevent civilian casualties.

Israel has also made extensive use of economic pressure. This has included barring Palestinians from working in Israel, in order to keep potential terrorists out, and not transferring money to the Palestinian Authority, to deprive it of cash with which to buy weapons to use against Israel (according to IDF intelligence, the PA has been engaged in massive arms smuggling for the past several months).

Keeping enemy aliens out and freezing enemy assets are both completely standard wartime measures, even though they undoubtedly hurt the innocent as well as the guilty. Nevertheless, Israel has been universally assailed for taking these actions.

Then, finally, Barak came up with one tactic that hurts only the guilty: the targeted killing of known terrorists. These killings have produced almost no civilian casualties, because the IDF can choose the time and place of the attack, and it tries to choose times and places when no innocents are nearby.

This usually necessitates picking a time when the terrorist is not actually engaged in military activity. In theory, there is nothing wrong with this: The rules of warfare permit taking an enemy by surprise; they do not state that you can open fire only when the enemy is actually shooting at you. But again, the normal rules apparently do not apply to Israel: Rather than applauding a tactic that prevents civilian casualties, both America and Europe have objected vociferously to the targeted killings, with the European Union even terming them "executions without trial" and declaring them a violation of international law.

But if all of the above tactics are completely unacceptable, just what tactics would America and Europe consider legitimate - other than for Israel to let its citizens be sitting ducks, without lifting a finger to protect them?

If America and Europe want to exert an influence on Israel's actions, they owe the government a straightforward answer to this question. There has never been an Israeli government that would not prefer to use tactics acceptable to the West, if such tactics exist.

But the evidence to date seems to indicate that there are no such tactics - that in practice, Europe and America are unwilling for Israel to take any measures in its own defense. And if this is the case, then the government has no choice but to simply ignore world opinion and do what it thinks best. For no Israeli government - and indeed, no self-respecting government in any country - could agree to sit by and do nothing while its citizens are subjected to daily shooting attacks.




By Emanuel A. Winston

"U.N. ENVOY Ambassador Terje Road-Larsen seeks $1.2 Billion dollars to prevent collapse of Arafat's Palestinian Authority...$50 million per month plus the $54 million in taxes Israel has withheld to prevent Arafat's arms stockpile from increasing." (1 & 2)

The Palestinian Authority is imploding in on itself. The PA, under Yassir Arafat's authority has finally matured or blossomed into an incorrigible Terrorist regime - which is what it was intended to be from its earliest beginnings. The medical world understands that until a cancer ripens and declares itself, it cannot be properly diagnosed or treated.

The PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) came about in 1964 as an interim Arab response to losing 3 full scale wars against the Jews whom they considered worthy of elimination. Therefore, at the leadership levels the PLO attracted certain personalities who thrived on violence. Perhaps such pathologically warped people - if not having a terrorist organization to join - would have become military thugs, corrupt policemen, organized crime members or merely street hoodlums selling and using drugs.

There never was a shortage of terrorist movements to join - all of whom had a grudge against society. A particularly virulent form of terrorism married itself to radical Islamic Fundamentalism. Religion and claims of denied justice created a witches brew of terrorism wreaking havoc around the world.

The PLO and its child the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Yassir Arafat evolved into a series of powerful, nefarious organizations, dedicated to terror. They adopted various cloaks of legitimacy but underneath those disguises were merely cruel terrorists who had little concern for the people they claimed to represent. In vile, immoral actions, they matched any other criminal organization - sometimes called the Mafia, Murder Incorporated, Organized Crime, etc. Their Product was Murder, Terror, Extortion, Paid or Unpaid Assassination, Torture, Suicide Bombing, Blackmail, Bribery, Linkage to Terror Nations, Drugs, etc. Whatever evil one could name, terrorist organizations, like Arafat's PLO, had engaged in it - but always cloaked with the false nobility of ‘saving their people'.

It should come as no surprise that the Palestinian Authority is running out of money (if, in fact, they really are). Arab donor nations always knew that their contributions went directly into the pockets of Arafat and his terrorist leaders. This was acceptable to them as long as they needed the PLO to terrorize Israel. But, that need changed for some of the Arab donor nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the Gulf Oil States and Egypt. Now they really wanted their generous donor money to go to the so-called Palestinian people to build their state - if for nothing more than to protect their own dictatorial regimes from radical Palestinians.

The Palestinian refugee issue only exists because the Arab states need a place to dump the Palestinians they've kept in fetid refugee camps to fester in anger and resentment as a growing weapon against Israel and the West. The Billions of dollars Arafat extorted could have easily been used to settle the refugees wherever they are now, just as Israel absorbed the jews ejected from the Arab countries where they lived for thousands of years.

The Arab states don't want to absorb the Palestinian Arabs because they have demonstrated great ability to subvert their host regimes. Note that after the Gulf War, both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia each deported approximately 350,000 Palestinians to Jordan because they were considered a dangerous fifth columns although they had lived in Saudi and Kuwait for decades. When Saddam's Iraqi forces entered Kuwait, the native Palestinians guided them to the rich Kuwaitis, the deposits of gold and valuables, while joining in the rape, pillage and murder of Kuwaitis. Wherever Palestinians live, somehow at the critical time, they betray their host nation in an act of violent solidarity with Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

In Israel the Israeli Arabs danced on their roofs applauding Saddam's SCUDs and urging him to bomb Tel Aviv and burn the Jews. And yet, Israeli Arabs have been fully absorbed with voting rights, their own elected Members of Knesset, a high standard of living and 7 college level educational institutions created for them by Israel.

When it became clear that most of the donor money was siphoned off and was unaccounted for by the PA, they (the Arab nations) stopped giving. Money for Terror, however, did continue to flow from Iran, Iraq and Syria to various other Terror groups like Hezb'Allah (Party of God), Hamas, Tanzim, Fatah, Islamic ‘Jihad', Osama bin Laden's organization and other factions as yet unknown and unnamed. Arafat received some of this money when he operated with these organizations as he is doing now in Southern Lebanon with Palestinians who are to join Hezb'Allah in the anticipated coming assault they plan against Israel.

Arafat's Palestinian organizations cannot become what the Americans and Europeans wanted, namely a peaceful democratic mechanism that could lead a nation in peaceful endeavors. Terrorists simply could not or did not build roads, cities, schools, run utilities like sewage plants, maintain water plants and all the things needed to build an organized and just society. They could only extort money from companies, terrorize and suppress the populace as is common in most Arab countries.

Every Palestinian businessman suddenly had a ‘protection' partner connected to the PA - in the tradition of Al Capone. All the materials brought in included a series of bribes. The economy was bled dry and areas like Gaza became a ruin - as they were when Egypt ruled Gaza - a ruined economy with no jobs. When Israel controlled Gaza, the Arabs got their first decent medical care and education since 1948. Mortality, especially infant mortality, decreased and literacy increased under Israel's control.

That, of course, all deteriorated when Arafat re-opened his latest terrorist war of attrition which he called the ‘Al Aksa Intifada'. Palestinian workers could not enter Israel because some already carried Arafat's terror into the heart of Israel. At least 555 Israelis have been killed by Arafat's terrorists since the signing of Oslo in September 1993, with thousands more wounded - some maimed for life.

At some time after Arafat's ‘Green Light' orders to his Tanzim (fighters of the Fatah) to shoot and bomb Israelis, Israel cut off the transfer of taxes collected on sales taxes and customs duties going into Arafat's areas. No point in funding a rebellion where the monies were being used to buy weapons, bullets and bombs.

The collapse of the Palestinian Authority may be the best thing that could happen for the Palestinian people. The Palestinian public at large is just beginning to recognize the depths of corruption that spreads across Arafat's regime. Some of the more blatantly corrupt functionaries are being targeted for assassination by various Palestinian opposition factions who feel the money should filter down to them.

When there is no more money to pay Arafat's salaried terrorists cum policemen, perhaps other more ethical leaders will rise to take their place.

In 1992 British Intelligence assessed Arafat's personal money accounts at $8 to $10 Billion U.S. dollars plus $11/2 to $2 Billion per year interest income and profit on money-laundering businesses. (3) These accumulated dollars were not intended for the Palestinian people nor were they ever spent for humanitarian projects or infrastructure in the Palestinian Authority.

Arafat's own people have categorically objected to his immoral acquisition and misuse of Donor monies contributed by America, Europe, Arab nations and Israel. Today the accumulation from his lucrative interest income plus all he has skimmed from the donor nations (Arab, European and American) could exceed $15 to $20 Billion dollars. If this could be recovered and used for its original intention, Arab towns and villages in Gaza, Judea and Samaria could have factories, hotels, roads, more schools, more health clinics. Perhaps, as after the death of Ferdinand Marcos, the illegally skimmed monies could be recovered and used for its intended purposes but, none of this will happen until Arafat is dead and his terrorist network cleaned out.

It was a terrible miscalculation by American Arabists and Israeli Leftists to build Arafat and the PLO into a power structure when they had virtually self-destructed in Tunis before Oslo. This colossal mistake has blossomed into a true tragedy for the Palestinian people and a fuse lighting the next war. Clearly, a new doctrine must emerge. It is time to allow this rotten regime to collapse of its own weight and corruption.

Re-direct the money flow back to the benefit of the Palestinian people so that the terrorist leaders will lose their fine apartments, cars and luxurious perks. Let the people rise up against them and drive them out of business. The American Congress ought not pour any more American taxpayers dollars down Arafat's rat hole. The European Donors must also recognize the waste and futility of sending their new funds into this lost cause.

The Arab Donor countries have finally recognized that Arafat's terrorists are soon to join forces with Saddam Hussein as Arafat seemed prepared to move to Bagdad. This coalescing of Terror has been recognized by the so-called moderate Arabs regimes as a very real and immediate threat to their own rule. Saddam is sending huge amounts of money to support Arafat's war in Israel and is threatening to bomb Israel again.

The new Bush Administration must recognize these realities in dealing with a corrupt radical Islamic Fundamentalist global terrorist movement. The new American Secretary of State Colin Powell (speaking for Bush) has made the error of strongly recommending to Israel that she release the impounded tax dollars to Arafat, knowing the funds would only go to increase the huge military stockpile of sophisticated and illegal weapons.

Powell and Dick Cheney, operating on the old paradigm that the Arab oil nations must be pacified by supporting Arafat must be changed. Crude oil from Africa, the Caspian Sea and other new oil fields has dramatically changed our need to appease the Arab states. Oil from the Middle East to America declined to 15% by 1998.

The U.S. State Department also cannot accept this sea change and continues its hostile vendetta against Israel. We understand they are about to release a critical report of Israel's response to Arafat's War. (It is not a spontaneous uprising, nor could the attacks be called riots or disturbances.) Congress has grown accustomed to the false State Department reports particularly when they submit altered data, attesting that Arafat has met his obligations to prior agreements to cease terror. This allows Congress to then continue funding Arafat and the U.S. State Department's failed peace plan. They are about to lie to Congress again in their next report.

The new Bush Administration must come to the realization that Arafat's regime is hopelessly evil, unredeemable and a distinct threat to the region. He and his staff, down to the lowest Terrorist Policemen must be swept from power. Warlords do not build responsible civilizations.


1. "In About-face, Barak Rejects Sharon: New doubts Raised on Unity Quest in Israel" By Hugh Dellios CHICAGO TRIBUNE 2/21/01

2. "UN Envoy: Palestinian Authority Faces Bankruptcy & Collapse" DEBKAfile Political Analysis, Espionage, Terrorism, Security 2/22/01 <www,debka/body_index.html>

3. "Don't Underrate Arafat's Bank Account" by Rachel Ehrenfeld, WALL ST. JOURNAL EUROPE, December 2, 1992


Emanuel A. Winston is also a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of February, 12 2001


No Peace, No Money

Ariel Sharon has not yet taken office, but the sweeping vote of the Israeli people has already done its work: George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Ehud Barak have all stated that the Clinton parameters (and by extension, the Taba meetings) are not a binding basis for negotiation in any future talks. If the prospects for peace are to be revived, however, distancing from the Clinton parameters is not enough: The reasons for the failure of the Clinton-Barak approach need to be internalized, so that a new approach to peace can be built on its ruins.

Contrary to its indefatigable boosters, the Clinton-Barak approach did not fail because political clocks ran out in the US and Israel. It failed because, as even New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has concluded, it is "increasingly clear that [Yasser] Arafat and his colleagues cannot unequivocally accept Israel." In the Palestinian mind and on the Palestinian lips, the "return" to Israel proper has not been removed from the agenda. While Israelis debate almost daily which Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza must be evacuated, Palestinian leaders have not begun to prepare their people to give up Haifa, Acre, Jaffa, and Lod. The key - the emblem of the return to homes within Israel - remains among the most powerful and ubiquitous symbols of Palestinian nationalism, and was never downplayed, let alone repudiated, during the seven years since the Oslo process began.

On October 13, the day after two Israeli soldiers were lynched in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority-appointed cleric Dr. Ahmed Abu-Halabia said in a sermon broadcast live on official Palestinian television, "Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them... they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine. They created it... to be the sword of the West and the crusaders, hanging over the Moslems in this land." Such statements cannot be dismissed as isolated extremism because, far from being condemned, they are amplified and never contradicted by the PA. The cardinal error of Oslo, as it was implemented, and of the Clinton-Barak peace strategy was to ignore the total lack of Palestinian preparation for living in peace with Israel.

For the peace process to be rebuilt, the failure to enforce the anti-incitement provisions of Oslo must be corrected. This means there is no point to talking about borders, Jerusalem, and refugees until the most fundamental basis for Palestinian statehood is established: a Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

A corollary to the need to come to terms with Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state is the need to learn to negotiate without violence, as did Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Jordan's King Hussein. The principle of negotiations without violence is another provision of Oslo whose non-enforcement doomed the final efforts of Clinton and Barak.

It is not enough, then, to set aside the Clinton parameters; the Clinton-Barak tolerance for the combination of terrorism and negotiations must be utterly rejected by Bush and Sharon. Clinton and Barak believed that acceptance of Israel and the principle of peaceful negotiations were products, not prerequisites, of a stable peace agreement - they were wrong.

The Oslo process was predicated on the principles of mutual recognition and of non-violent negotiation; Oslo's failure was not the omission of these principles but the failure to enforce them. If the Mideast peace process is to open a new page, both principles must be revived.

The first necessity is for the Palestinian attack against Israel to end, not escalate as Marwan Barghouti and other Tanzim leaders are now threatening and seemingly doing, as evidenced by last night's fatal shooting on the Jerusalem-Gush Etzion tunnel road. The simplest way to end this attack is not to finance it.

The PA is in dire financial straights because Israel is withholding the tax revenues it collects for the PA, the closure is crippling the economy, and the Arab states are not sending the aid they pledged. The Arab states are reportedly withholding their assistance because they are concerned about corruption within the PA.

In their first conversation, Yasser Arafat reportedly asked Ariel Sharon to ease the PA's financial situation - the equivalent of stretching out one hand for money, while the other holds a machine gun. Sharon correctly told Arafat that the matter is entirely in his hands. He may not be able to shut down terrorism instantly, but he certainly has the ability to shut down his own incitement, to give orders to Fatah and the Tanzim, and to publicly call for an end to the attacks on Israelis.

Unfortunately and somewhat incredibly, the US State Department has publicly urged Israel to ease the PA's economic situation, regardless of the terrorist attacks Israel is enduring daily. The US should instead be telling Arafat that he can forget about economic relief until he does everything he can to stop the shooting. Such a statement would be the surest sign that the fuzzy thinking that destroyed the prospects for peace is changing, not just in Jerusalem, but in Washington.




1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y.
10128; Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717;
Contact: Helen Freedman, Executive Director



Herbert Zweibon, Chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel, asserts, "The United Nations, that expends so much energy and time condemning Israel, has once again shown its hand. The U.N. Human Rights Commission, presently touring Israel, "has been dogged by persistent accusations of pro-Palestinian bias," according to a report in the Feb. 15 Jerusalem Post.

Zweibon continues, "There is no wonder that the accusations fly, since Prof. Richard Falk, one of the three men on the delegation, is notorious for his anti-Israel writings." As a member of "The Jewish Committee on the Middle East," he advocated U.N. sanctions against Israel for the various "massacres" Israel has perpetrated. Furthermore, in a release dated 9/26/96 he called for the suspension of U.S. aid to Israel because of Israel's "policies of repression and occupation."

In Prof. Falk's article, ‘International Law and the al-Aqsa Intifada' printed in ‘Middle East Report- Winter 2000', written after the Commission was formed, he writes, "in international law, Palestinian resistance to occupation is a legally protected right...In essence, we argued that the first intifada was a valid expression of this right of resistance—not illegal or criminal behavior on the part of the Palestinians." He continues in that same report, "Equally importantly, the flagrant violation of international law daily accentuates the injustice to the Palestinian people, intensifies their suffering and cannot be ignored in any approach to conflict resolution. The severity of these violations and their persistence and frequency, also establishes the foundation for an inquiry into whether an abusive structure of illegal prolonged belligerent occupation does not itself amount to the commission of crimes against humanity, beyond the specific wrongs alleged in relation to Geneva IV and international humanitarian law."

"It is clear," affirms Zweibon, " that Prof. Falk was chosen to be on the U.N. delegation especially because of his pro-Arab bias. We further believe the Israelis are right to refuse assistance to the Commission. With its mandate to "gather and compile information on the disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force committed by the Israeli occupying power against innocent and unarmed Palestinian citizens," with the possible recommendation that Israel be indicted for war crimes, a conclusion reached even before the commission began its work, it is clear that the findings of the Commission will be invalid. We suggest that, in light of the above, the Senate Foreign Relations committee take another look at the United Nations and its position regarding U.S. allies before releasing money to the U.N."




The following document may be of an interest to your friends and relatives, your own House Member and Senators, community leaders, clergy, radio talk show hosts, editor and columnists, etc. Please visit for previous issues of Straight From The Jerusalem Cloakroom, which have been shared with some 2,100 movers and shakers in the DC area.


1. 630,000 Palestinian, and 820,000 Jewish, refugees were produced by the 1948 war, which was launched by Palestinians, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon against Israel.

2. The Jewish refugees - from Muslim countries - were absorbed (590,000 in Israel), as were millions of European refugees in the aftermath of WW2. In contrast, Palestinian refugees have been confined to camps, by Arab and PLO leaders, fomenting terrorism. None of the financial aid received by the PLO, from the US and other countries, has been directed at the refugee camps!

3. 810,000 Arabs resided in Israel (defined by the 1949 ceasefire lines) on November 30, 1947. At the end of the war there were 168,000 Arabs in Israel (including 14,000 Bedouins, down from 66,000 before the war). Considering the 1%-2% war fatalities (Israel lost 1% of its people!), the 52,000 displaced Bedouins, who joined tribes in Jordan and Sinai, the Palestinians who rejoined their families in Lebanon and Syria (please see below) and the wealthy Palestinians who were resettled in the Mideast and in other parts of the globe, the actual number of Palestinians in refugee camps, in 1949, was no more than 550,000!

4. Many Palestinians are descendants of Egyptian, Sudanese, Syrian and Lebanese migrants, who settled in the current boundaries of Israel during 1830-1945. Migration by Arab citizens of the Ottoman Empire did not require any permit until WW1. Migrant workers were imported by the Ottoman and (since 1919) by the British authorities for infrastructure projects: The port of Haifa, the Haifa-Qantara, Haifa-Edrei, Haifa-Nablus and Jerusalem-Jaffa railroads, military installations, roads, quarries, reclamation of wetlands, etc. Illegal Arab laborers were also attracted by the relative boom, stimulated by Jewish immigration, which expanded labor-intensive enterprises (construction, agriculture, etc.).

5. The (1831-1840) conquest, by Egypt's Mohammed Ali, was solidified by thousands of Egyptians settling empty spaces between Gaza and Tul-Karem up to the Hula Valley. They followed in the footsteps of Egyptian draft dodgers, who fled Egypt before 1831. The British traveler, H.B. Tristram, identified Egyptian migrants in the Beit-Shean Valley, Acre, Hadera, Netanya and Jaffa. The British Palestine Exploration Fund indicated that Egyptian neighborhoods proliferated in and around Jaffa: Saknet el-Mussariya, Abu Kebir, Abu Derwish, Sumeil, Sheikh Muwanis, Salame', Fejja, etc. Many of those who fled in 1948 attempted to reunite with their families of origin.

6. "30,000-36,000 Syrian migrants (Huranis) entered Palestine during the last few months alone" ("La Syrie" daily, August 12, 1934). Syrian rulers have always considered the area as a southern province of Greater Syria. Az-ed-Din el-Qassam, the role-model of Hamas terrorism, who terrorized Jews in British Mandate Palestine, was a Syrian, as were Said el-A'az, a leader of the 1936-38 anti-Jewish pogroms and Kaukji, the commander-in-chief of the Arab mercenaries terrorizing Jews in the thirties and forties.

7. Tristram, and other travelers, identified over 15 Arab nationalities who settled in Jaffa. Libyan migrants and refugees settled in Gedera, south of Tel Aviv. Algerian refugees (Mugrabis), escaping the French conquest of 1830, settled in Safed, Tiberias and other parts of the Galilee. Their leader, Abd el-Kader el-Hasseini, headquartered in Syria! Circassian refugees, fleeing Russian oppression (1878), Moslems from Bosnia, Turkomans, Yemenite Arabs (1908) and Bedouin tribes from Jordan (escaping wars and famine) diversified Arab demography there.

The aforementioned data are contained in the book The Claim Of Dispossession (Arieh Avneri, 1982) and by From Time Immemorial (Joan Peters, Harper, 1984).

8. Habib Issa, Secretary General of the Arab League: In 1948, Azzam Pasha, the former Secretary General, "assured Arabs that the occupation of Palestine, including Tel Aviv, would be as simple as a military promenade...Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land," (How York, June 8, 1951).




Part 2

1. Haj Amin Al-Husseini, the Palestinian leader in 1948, drafted a proposal during WW2 (1940), requesting that Germany and Italy acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of the Jewish elements in Palestine, and other Arab countries, in accordance with national and racial interests of the Arabs, and along lines, similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy." (Fritz Grobba, Peoples and Powers in the East, pp. 194-7, 207-8, Berlin, 1967; Joan Peters, From Time Immemorial, p.37, Harper, 1988).

2. Jamal Al-Husseini, actin Chmn of the (Palestinian) Arab Higher Committee threatened on Nov. 24, 1947 that "Palestine shall be consumed with fire and blood," if the Jews get any part of it. The Nov. 29, 1947 partition Plan was violently rejected by the Palestinians and the Arabs as they did with the partition proposals of 1921 and 1937. Then ensuing war, launched by Arabs and Palestinians, resulted in 630,000 Palestinian, and 820,000 Jewish, refugees.

3. Most 1948 Palestinian refugees were from the coastal plane and the (Jezrael, Beit She'an and Hula) valleys of Israel, as it was (in smaller numbers) during previous periods of inter-Arab economic, social and military volatility (40,000 left in 1936-39). Unlike most Galilee Arabs, their roots were tenuous, being descendants of Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese and Sudanese migrants, who arrived to the area during 1830-1944 (Please see Cloakroom #98: Many felt more secure in their countries of origin. Most Palestinian political and financial leaders left, accelerating the refugee phenomenon.

4. Jordanian daily, Filastin (Feb. 19, 1949): "The Arab States...encouraged the Palestinians to leave their homes, temporarily, not interfering with the invading Arab armies." Khaled al-Azam, Syrian Prime Minister in 1949 (memoirs, 1973): "We brought destruction upon the refugees, by calling on them to leave their homes." London Economist (Oct. 2, 1948): "The most potent of the factors [in the flight] were announcements made by the Palestinian-Arab Higher Committee, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit, intimating that those remaining would be regarded as renegades." Arab over-confidence prior to the war (600,000 Jews vs. 27, 000,000 Arabs) was crashed by defeat, intensifying the flight of Arabs.

5. Almost 200,000 refugees left BEFORE the large scale war erupted in May 1948, while the Arabs had the upper hand! Arabs left Haifa and Jaffa, while British troops were still there, pleading with them to stay.

6. The British Mandate ordered Arabs and Jews to evacuate towns, where they were a minority. Arabs left (e.g. Tiberias), with encouragement of Arab countries, while Jews remained (e.g. Safed and its Arabs of Algerian origin). Arab evacuation - and the fall of Abd al-Kader al-Husseini in the Castel battle - was highlighted by Arab media, triggering a Domino Effect of further evacuations.

7. "Arab leaders were responsible for the [Arab] flight, disseminating exaggerated rumors of Jewish atrocities, in order to incite the Arabs, thus instilling fear in the hearts of the Palestinians." (Jordanian daily, al-Urdun, April 9, 1953). Ismayil Safwat, Commander of Palestinian Operations (March, 1948): "The Jews haven't attacked any Arab village, unless attacked first."


Data supplied by Dr. Yuval Arnon-Ohana, a top expert on the Palestinian issue (HaUmma Quarterly #141 and 142, autumn and winter 2000).


By Joseph Farah

Another day, another terrorist attack.

This time, eight dead and 20 hurt near Holon. Technically, Hamas claims responsibility for the bus assault. Technically, Yasser Arafat and the Palestine Authority have plausible deniability. I emphasize the word "technically."

Just read what Arafat actually said about the attack for yourself to see how he not only excuses it, he continues to condone this type of terrorism.

"The combined attack on the Palestinian people by (Prime Minister Ehud) Barak and (Prime Minister-elect Ariel) Sharon has a direct effect on the mood of the people. The Israeli escalation is what brought about the attack," he said in Jordan.

Arafat has mastered a propaganda technique known as "turnspeak." Turnspeak is achieved when you attack someone but claim, with some success, to be the victim of the attack. Over and over again, we see this happen in the Middle East on a daily basis.

In effect, a purveyor of turnspeak disseminates information that is the exact opposite of the truth -- making it difficult for the real victims to respond in a way that is clearly understandable to the world.

Guess where turnspeak was first employed as a propaganda tool? In March 1939, some enterprising journalists recognized that Adolf Hitler was using "the big lie" in justifying Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia.

Whose fault was it that Germany was forced to invade? It was the fault of the Czechs, of course. They were trying, Hitler claimed, to provoke a regional war by attempting to claim their land as their own.

"Thus the plight of the German minority in Czechoslovakia was merely a pretext... for cooking up a stew in a land he coveted, undermining it, confusing and misleading its friends and concealing his real purpose... to destroy the Czech state and grab its territories," wrote William L. Shirer about Hitler's gambit.

How did much of Europe respond? They bought the big lie -- hook, line and sinker. They didn't want to risk an all-out war. So they rationalized that Hitler had some legitimate claims on Czechoslovakia.

Tell a big enough lie often enough and some people -- often many people -- will believe it. That is the lesson of turnspeak. And Arafat has learned it well -- from his masters.

What do I mean? It's not uncommon for the Arabs today -- Arafat included -- to refer to the Israelis as "Nazis" or fascists. Why do they do that? To provide cover for their own similarities and ties to the Nazis.

As Joan Peters points out in her Middle East history, "From Time Immemorial," Hitler's crimes against the Jews have frequently been justified in Arab writings and speeches. In 1940, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, requested the Axis powers to acknowledge the Arab right "to settle the question of Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries in accordance with the national and racial interests of the Arabs and along the lines similar to those used to solve the Jewish question in Germany and Italy."

Yasser Arafat's given name, as an Egyptian, was Abd al-Rahman abd al-Bauf Arafat al-Qud al-Husseini. That's right. He called the former mufti his "uncle."

Arafat will continue to say day is night and war is peace. We should expect it from him. That is the way the big lie works.

But how many more body bags do we need to see from terrorist incidents before the whole world recognizes Arafat for what he is -- a bold liar whose ultimate goal remains as always the annihilation of the Jewish state?

Oh yes, Arafat will continue to maintain plausible deniability with regard to Hamas and Hezbollah and other terrorist operations. He will portray himself as a reasonable man, a man of peace. He will wax persuasively about his own victimhood. He'll tell you that the Israelis are the true obstacle to peace.

Understand what all that means when you hear it. That's just the way turnspeak works. He's practiced at the art of deception. He moves quickly in an effort to remain at least one step ahead of the truth. What he says is usually the exact opposite of reality -- and he knows it.


Joseph Farah is editor and chief executive officer of and writes a daily column.



"If the shoe fits" story

by Emanuel A. Winston

When we wrote the above castigation of the media, an honest journalist who writes for an honest, upstanding top flight journal, was offended and asked to have his Email address deleted from our list. As an honest journalist he felt insulted but did not have the personal courage to investigate and report on this commonly known practice in his industry. You out there who write honest, historically accurate reports and commentary, know who you are. Don't feel falsely accused. But, it should be worth a Pulitzer at least to do the necessary exposé to prove our point from the inside.

When they write about the Jews, the media are not merely passive witnesses or dispassionate observers but, they have been direct participants in our grief. When Yassir Arafat speaks of non-violence while at the very same time his orders mandate violence, there ought to be doubt - at least scepticism. Instead, there is a common practice of ‘artful avoidance' by the media about issues which should rightfully be called lies.

But, the media, knowing that Arafat has issued orders, (known as green lights) for violence, accept his misleading statements and carry them into the information network as his solemn, not-to-be-questioned word. We already know that Arafat is operationally connected to Hamas, Hezb'Allah, as well as the Iranian, Syrian, and Iraqi intelligence. The journalists know this because they have been briefed. Despite this knowledge, they orchestrate their stories to appear that it was not the Palestinians and Arabs who started all current attacks but, somehow, the Jews are at fault - always. In the parlance of media spin, they present an action in terms of "Moral Equivalence". The victim and the aggressor are one and the same. When Israel responds to Arab terror attacks with force, the media always calls this "excessive force".

At staged riots the mere presence of the media, the cameras, both video and still, perpetuate the Arabs' warfare. Pictures are available on the web at and which show the Media arrayed in their bullet-proof vests and helmets behind the rock throwers. The "spontaneous" uprisings are scheduled so that the Media knows where and when to come. The media has helped to stimulate this latest war of terrorism.

The myth that over the centuries Arabs have always been tolerant of non-Muslims and have treated them well is just a myth. The Muslims called Christians and Jews, by the word "Dhimmi", a term which demeans them as lowly people. Somehow this derogatory term was not exposed to the public by the working media. Throughout their history from the seventh century, the Muslims have treated their ‘Dhimmis' as second-class citizens and worse. The Muslims have a long list of laws which the ‘Dhimmis' (Jews and Christians) must follow to keep them lowly. The Media seem to have been able to shut out or slough off this information as they set the tone and inaccuracy of their stories.

When Arafat claims Jerusalem as Islam's third holiest site, the Press who have all the authoritative, historical information at their fingertips, resolutely refuse to even look at the data. They accept without question the babble of Arafat's claims as gospel - even as they, knowingly and with deliberate effort, shut out the knowledge of scholars heaped upon their desks or in their computers' data-base. 3000 years of solid historical documentation is cast aside by journalists willing and even anxious to denigrate Jewish history.

This is not merely the cooking of a story to spice it up in order to sell more papers or increase TV ratings - although that is certainly a benefit. This is a bizarre contempt and often hatred for the Jews that one can track back through the Inquisition, the Crusades and well beyond. This is a pathological sickness that pervades much of our society but is given voice though the ubiquitous and willing Media.

The reporters, journalists, editors, TV directors and the companies they work for are swimming in some kind of polluted stream of sewer water that has been flowing downhill, seeking its own level, for centuries. The garbage in this tainted stream comes from many sources: the Church, the Red Cross, the nations driven by twisted dictators, all have eagerly become contributors to this sickness.

Yes, the media, those who twist and spin the news are at gut level carriers of a pathology that despises the Jewish nation of Israel. These purveyors and disseminators of hatred deserve no respect, no honor because they are active, knowledgeable participants in murder. Perhaps you think that the appellation of co-conspirators to murder is exaggerated, nonetheless, the Media does prepare the minds of normal people to accept and even engage in Genocide because they, the Media, make it seem all right.

It does not matter to the Media that stones or fire bombs are thrown or bullets shot at Jews because their mere presence encourages the Arab street performers and the Media know it. They create a wall of excuses for the guns that will kill Jews simply because it falls into line with their childhood teachings that Jews are ever guilty. Once properly demonized, the Jews' deaths are somehow okay - perhaps even justified...Right?

Clearly, those who incite others to kill Jews through their well-crafted and misleading stories are a clear and present danger to the Jewish people. Strangely enough, many of those who write this way are Jews, who just want to fit in, like those in the past called ‘court Jews'. They sit at the right hands of killers. How do we know this? We Jews are the world's leading experts on dying violent deaths simply because we are Jewish. We recognize the syndrome of appeasement and concessions.

There is no reason to treat the media as distant participants without guilt. Their hands are equally bloody as the most savage, merciless terrorists. They walk in lockstep with terrorists when their words encourage murder and then create justification where there is none. The media has the understanding and has knowingly entered the battlefield on the side of terror and become willing actors. They must share the consequences of their actions because they are not blameless innocents as they would have us believe. They have trivialized our dying, making it seem commonplace and acting as the apologist for those who swing the sword.

A case in point is the story of the Arab bus driver who used his bus as a deadly weapon to crash into a crowd of young soldiers, killing 8 and wounding another 20, at a bus stop south of Tel Aviv February 14th. Eyewitnesses describe the severed body parts.

I knew that the hostile media would find a way to justify this act of pure murder of the 8 young people. If there was ever a reason to put the media under "Mouth Arrest", it is now. I felt sure that, somehow, the media would find moral equivalency by speaking of this poor man's frustration and agitation which turned this simple honest man into a killer. (And they did.) No doubt, he will claim that it was an accident even though he accelerated to smash into the crowd and then tried to escape the police by speeding away to sanctuary in Arab-controlled Gaza.

As expected, Arafat stated "we are against violence, but this was just an accident." even as he refuses to publicly call for a cessation of terror. The driver's family admitted that he did it on purpose.

The Palestine Media Center called the bus attack an expected response to Israel's shelling and assassinations of key terror leaders. The general media will take it from there, excluding the small fact that the initiating act of war was that of the Palestinians after getting the ‘Green Light' from Arafat. The Arabs continuing terror is the reason for Israel's justifiable response. Over 60 Israelis have been murdered since the Rosh Hashana War 2000 began in October. More than 555 Israelis (including 14 Americans) have been murdered since Oslo was signed September 1993, with thousands more injured, some maimed for life. So many children have been orphaned.

Israel has engaged in surgical strikes to hit the Arab leaders of this ongoing war of attrition. The Press as pacifists bleat that only a political solution will lead to peace. They cannot find anything in their archives which prove this point. There is no political solution to terror, even though the liberal media would foist this idea upon the public.

This is why I characterize the Media (at least those who falsely report that Middle East violence is ‘Israel's fault') as the enemies of the Jews.


Emanuel A. Winston is a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and a political analyst for Winston Mid-East Analysis and Commentary.

Please disseminate & re-post. If you publish, send us a copy. Please see our web sites at &



To our readers:

TIME magazine this week (issue of February 26, 2001) has a five page article (Waiting For History) praising Yassir Arafat. It includes a full-color, full-page portrait. It is slick Arab propaganda. It is filled with inaccurate history and should be countered by the pro-Israel community.

The Freeman Center recommends that as many of you as possible write to TIME. Below is my letter:

Time & Life Building
Rockefeller Center
New York, NY 10020

February 21, 2001


Re: Your unbridled praise of Yasser Arafat (Time, February 26, 2001).

Contrary to your authors commentary, Arafat has brought misery, poverty, human rights abuses and a ruthless dictatorship to his people. He runs a klepocracy where aid funds end up in his or his cronies pockets with the Palestinian people seeing none of it.

Despite your praise he has a history of murder and terrorism that continue even today. The intifadeh is no more than a pogram designed to kill or murder Jews. The daily incitement against Israelis and Jews can only be described as worthy of the Nazis. It is broadcast on TV, taught in the schools, and preached in sermons. American and Israeli intelligence are aware that roughly 80% of all terror attacks and shooting at Israelis is authorized by the Palestinian Authority under Arafat.

Since the Oslo Agreement was signed, Arafat has failed to live up to a single item of his obligations. His promise to end the violence is a mockery as he perpetuates more violence. He and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin promised to negotiate differences. "No more war, no more bloodshed," they said. Arafat refuses to negotiate, but only demands. If he doesn't get his way, he returns to violence.

The article fails to adequately tell the story of Arafat's bloody history from the civil war in Lebanon (100,000 killed), the attempted takeover of Jordan, and finally terrorism against Israelis and Americans.

The ultimate failure of the article is to ignore how much the Palestinian people could have gained by this time with better leadership. Everything from economic development, a state, human rights, and improved standard of living.

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

 HOME  Maccabean  comments