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"

VOLUME 10       B"H MARCH 2002       NUMBER 2

MARCH 2002

ORWELL MEETS ALICE....Bernard J. Shapiro

DETERRENCE...Guest Editorial....Christopher Barder

BEING A LEADER...(An open letter to Ariel Sharon)....Boris Shusteff
ARAB MYTHOLOGY Zippee-de-do-dah Zubaydah....Joseph Farah
A VACUOUS PROPOSAL....Major Shawn Pine
RESPONSE to: Israeli Leaders Welcome Saudi Peace Offer, by Joshua Brilliant, UPI.....Carl D. Goldin

SEALING OUR FATE....David Wilder

ONLY VICTORY WORKS The Jerusalem Post Editorial
DRAGGING OUT THE WAR....Prof. Paul Eidelberg


THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2002 Bernard J. Shapiro * Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3) *




Through The Mid-East Looking Glass

By Bernard J. Shapiro

During the last 18 months, we have been treated to the modern equivalent of Orwellian newspeak, not to mention a harrowing trip through Alice's looking glass. One could not help but notice how pure and innocent the Arabs were being portrayed. A casual observer would certainly think that all violence in the Middle East was a product of bloodthirsty Jewish settlers roaming the Judean hills looking for Arab prey.

The PLO leadership, its hands dripping with Jewish and Arab blood, demanded protection from the vicious Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (YESHA). It refused to return to the negotiations until its demands were met. The gullible international media took this whole charade seriously. The United Nations began debating a resolution to give protection to the poor vulnerable Palestinians. The PLO demanded that all Jewish communities of YESHA be ethnically cleansed of those rotten murderous Jews. At the very least they should be disarmed.

The high and the mighty beseeched Arafat to return to the talks with Israel. Israeli Prime Ministers Barak, Netanyahu and Sharon were all obviously anxious to please their PLO friends.

Reality Check: Are Arabs in danger from armed Israelis in YESHA? Some research reveals the following figures since the famous handshake on September 13, 1993:

Eight years before Oslo- Israelis killed by Arabs = 167

Eight years since Oslo - Israel's killed by Arabs = 547

Random attacks on innocent Arabs not planning or engaged in attacks on Jews = 29


It is clear that except for the attack by Goldstein, the Arabs have not been threatened by Jews and certainly need no special protection. If you travel to YESHA you will notice that every Jewish village needs a security fence, while every Arab village is open. Doesn't this tell you who is threatened and who isn't? All the talk about disarming the Jews is a cover for the Arab desire to murder them. And if you desire murder, wouldn't it be nice to disarm your victim first?

The media has begun to adopt another tactic which we should protest. In the New York Times, The Houston Chronicle, CNN and most of the other media Kach and Kahane Chai are being referred to as Arab-hating groups. This has even carried over to include all right-wing opponents of the deal with the PLO. Do you ever remember the PLO or Hamas ever being referred to as Jew-hating groups, although their covenants and speeches are filled with hatred of Jews? Arafat, who has been quoted on many occasions as referring to Jews as, "filthy, sons of pigs," is never referred to in the media as a Jew-hater.

Reality Check: To the best of my knowledge there is a distinct difference between Jewish feelings about Arabs and Arab feelings about Jews. Arabs are taught from the earliest grades to despise Jews and their clerics preach hatred (Itbach El Yahoud - slaughter the Jews) in every service. Jews, on the other hand do not preach hatred, but those that are not brain dead recognize, after 100 years of being attacked, that Arabs mean them harm. The media is totally obfuscating the truth about the conflict by the use of such terms as Arab-hating Jews.

Another problem with media coverage of the Israel-PLO deal (Oslo) is the way its opponents are described. Arabs oppose Oslo because they want to kill or expel all Jews from "Palestine" immediately. They are equated with Jews and Israelis who want Israel who to survive with secure borders. Jewish opponents of the deal are called anti-peace as opposed to supporters being pro-peace.

Reality Check: Most opponents of the deal with Arafat oppose it because it is suicidal for many strategic, historical, religious and objective reasons. None of us are anti-peace. We just recognize that the path chosen by the Rabin and all governments since will lead not to the hoped for and advertised peace, but to Israel's destruction.

Israel's leading peace group, Shalom Achshav (Peace Now), has urged Sharon to remove 200,000 Jewish inhabitants from their homes in YESHA. According to Peace Now, their continued presence would cause widespread bloodshed under Palestinian self-government." Is ethnic cleansing more moral if its Jews being ethnically cleansed and not Arabs.

Reality Check: The facts demonstrate that it is the Palestinians and not the Jews that are the cause of 99.9% of the violence. Why not remove the Palestinians? What Peace Now is really admitting is that there is NO PEACE or any prospect of PEACE.

The 100-year war of extermination launched against the Jews of Israel by the Arabs has had many twists and turns. Sadly it seems headed for Alice's looking glass and the world of 1984, where black is white, war is peace and good is evil.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the editor of THE MACCABEAN ONLINE.




By Avi Davis

As Yasser Arafat's leadership of the Palestinians enters its terminal phase, it might be illuminating to address the remarkable parallels between his career and that of an earlier Palestinian leader. The life and career of Haj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Palestinian leader of the 1920s and 30s, shares such an uncanny resemblance to Arafat's that it cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. It in fact establishes a pattern that is dooming the Palestinians to a cycle of catastrophe.

Husseini was born to one of the leading families of 19th Century Palestine in 1897. In 1921, following the death of his father, he was appointed by the British as Mufti of Jerusalem, a clerical title that conferred on him dominion over Muslim religious affairs in that city. But soon Husseini began to demonstrate an appetite for power well beyond that expected of a Muslim cleric. He pressured the British Mandatory Authority on Jewish immigration into Palestine and in 1929 inspired the riots that took the lives of hundreds of Jews throughout the country.

But his most formidable impact came in 1936. In that year he made a bid for power by initiating a revolt against the British. Over the course of three years, 2,652 Jews, 618 British and 6, 953 Arabs died. But the revolt did nothing to further the cause of Palestinian nationalism. Instead it ended with the Mufti's exile, the flight of the top echelon of Palestinian leaders, the collapse of the Arab community's economy and the consequent growth of Jewish economic and military strength. After his exile, the Mufti never returned to Palestine and died largely forgotten in Cairo in 1974.

Much like Arafat, the Mufti won great acclaim in his early years as a charismatic leader whom many foreign leaders believed would lead his people into statehood. Soft-spoken with a disarmingly polite manner, the Mufti could beguile his foreign visitors with assurances of peaceable intentions. But this veneer hid the psyche of an inveterate plotter and intriguer, a vicious anti-semite whose thirst for vengeance and blood-letting knew few bounds. Like Arafat, he held sole control over the finances of his organization, squandering funds to pay cronies and using bribes to keep underlings in tow. Like Arafat, he had no patience for either opposition or moderation and spent a majority of his resources during the revolt eliminating those who advocated conciliation. Arafat replicated this tactic during the first Intifada, assassinating or forcing into flight hundreds of Palestinian moderates, who were opposed to the methods of the PLO.

But the more impressive comparison is in the staggering strategic mistakes made by the two men. As early as 1929 it was evident that British policy was swinging firmly against establishment of a Jewish homeland and in favor of Palestinian nationalism. As the Second World War approached, the British desperately attempted to curry favor with the Arabs by severely restricting further Jewish immigration while recommending the creation of a Palestinian Arab state within ten years. The Mufti would have none of it . He rejected all overtures and even took up residence in Berlin from 1941-45.

Arafat's downward trajectory has been no less spectacular. Rejecting Ehud Barak's wide ranging offers at Camp David in July 2000, he chose instead to launch an insurrection that brought down the most favorable Israeli government to Palestinians in history. He then alienated his admirers on the Israeli left and aligned himself with terrorists, just as the acts of Islamic fundamentalists galvanized the western world into a united front against terrorism. Subsequent collusion with Hizbullah and Iran and sympathy for Saddam Hussein has only brought more grievous comparison with the Mufti's cultivation of Hitler.

Cursed with such vainglorious, ineffective leadership, the Palestinians' true tragedy will be if they are unable to winnow vital historical lessons from their defeats. That, sadly, does not look likely. Palestinian history books do not regard the Mufti as a failure but as a national hero. A similar apotheosis of Arafat, despite the scale of his own massive failures and betrayals, is likely to follow.

No one can tell the Palestinians how to choose their leaders and it is unrealistic to think that they will allow them to be imposed. But if Santayana could declare those who forget the past as doomed to repeat it, surely it is just as accurate to state that a people unable to candidly record their own history will forever remain its prisoner.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine




By Christopher Barder

This is a topic which just never appears to be mentioned in statements from Israeli officials and government members with the prominence it deserves. It was once a defence and security cornerstone which motivated many a policy decision. Ariel Sharon is more aware, one assumes, of Unit 101, the thinking behind it, and the subsequent history of punishing to deter, than most.

Analysts like Aharon Levran and Gal Luft are certainly cognizant of the degree to which Israel has lost this emphasis, and no doubt their published work on the matter has reached many ears, perhaps those of Uzi Landau. But the fact remains that the Oslo process has itself surrendered the principle insofar as it was a gamble on good will where there was no evidence except obscure talking among obscure figures (for example, the Israeli security establishment had little knowledge of Abu Ala) that any such good will existed towards Israel. But also, insofar as it rested on Arafat and his cohorts not leading but destroying the infrastructure and raison d'etre of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and so on, instead of Israel doing so - an improbable and irrational intention as time has proven and did so definitively within two years of the implementation of 'Gaza and Jericho first'.

The price paid for murder as afar as the PA areas go is less than for perhaps any other autonomous area under close scrutiny from the Western democratic powers. That is to say, parts of Africa and south and central America are accountably held to virtually no standard whatsoever; along with them and other Islamic countries, despite its massive EU financial sponsorship, nor is the PA. On any rational set of figures for punishments fitting the crime and on detection and cooperation with neighbours, this autonomous entity's reputation should be so low as to make it a regime whose existence is opposed by the West. It is a pariah and rogue entity and state in the making, a harbourer of terrorist organizations and is itself comprised of them.

Granted that its existence is a moral affront, then its murderous resolves must be confronted by a force sufficient to deter them. Such actions are enshrined affirmatively in international law and also remain the only means, as in the defeat of any aggressor, of bringing its evil ways to book and to an end of war-based policy options. The recognized failure of, for example, inter war appeasement of Hitler, the treaty agreements which have resulted from past conflicts won in battle, such as those against Napoleon, all bear testimony to these historical and international relations realities. There is no issue here of 'cycle of violence' - there is rather the failure to institute effective deterrence. The assault on pre-evacuated buildings results only in pay-offs to the building firms in hoc to the PA.

Therefore, arguing, as do so many, that there is 'no military solution' is a dishonest non sequitur. The fact is that until deterrence is made effective, there is no peace solution which, as time and ill-will in their media and school books have made abundantly clear, the PA will implement and accept. The reiteration of the 'Phased Plan' in Arabic is proof positive of this. So, in simplistic terms of deterrent possibility, the punishment (force) must fit the crime (constant murder and terror) such that the punishment is too great for anyone, however ideologically committed, seriously to consider paying the price.

In the academic writing on proposed solutions for suicide bombing, there is a somewhat left-leaning propensity to want to change Islamic society. This, whilst quite understandable, is flawed. Firstly, the solution needs to be posited now not in a future utopia, and secondly, the issue is not that: it lies in forcing accountability through deterrence and making the authorities under whose supposed auspices, such bombers are incubated, fear the tolerance of Islamic teaching and institutions which foster them. These approximate to military targets. Either the relevant PA closes them or the IDF does so. And that means there has to be clandestine not cultural inculcation of them, with punishment for the security forces which permit them to flourished or preached positively on Fridays from the mosques. No-one would accept terror institutions or the government which produced them as morally beyond the reach of their target's military in any other sphere than the Palestinian-Israeli one.

80% of Palestinians polled, regularly support violence against Israelis although 'the occupation' is a myth with 98% of Arabs under Arab (albeit mis-) rule. Therefore, loss of water, electricity, media and electronic communications might provide social and collective disincentive to violence, where peace offers and talks have not. If not, then the next phase is the arrest of all the heads of media and paramilitary organizations, who would stand trial for their crimes. It is no good removing the Israeli tanks and being seen to be half hearted and it is now all too far gone to offer the carrot of a Palestinian state. There is no worth or capability on record in 9 years by which to justify another rogue and pariah entity ruled by totalitarian and kleptocratic oligarchs. It must be brought to heal by deterrence that demonstrates that its entire ethos and behaviour cannot be and will not tolerated.

This kind of reasoning lies behind the US 'war on terror' but not behind the European and French appeasement of the PA. Israel is in no position to indulge in patta-cake ambivalence towards the murderers on its door step. It needs a hasbara effort to make all this plain. But it needs also to demonstrate resolve. While it fails to do so it advertises a will to be deflected. It does not look like it intends to deal effectively with the evil at its door. It is hard for its supporters abroad to argue the established case for self-defence while Israel fails to implement it. It is also hard to negotiate from a position which accepts amnesia as its starting point: a week of quiet is an insult to those families who have lost loved ones and undermines the horror in real life aspect of the low intensity conflict waged by the PA.

Sadly, this failure is a betrayal of government responsibility, damages political culture and means that it does not matter what happens so long as the dream marches on. Even to mention unlocking Arafat from Ramallah because three hoodlums are 'arrested' in the revolving door policy of the PA betrays a lack of willingness to grasp the nettle. This is: responsible and responsive government in the autonomy area or Israel actions to deter. The choice then lies with the Palestinian public - a prerequisite for democratic development, whose perverted and stunted Fatah fore-runner all the world, especially President Clinton, connived at in the corrupt 'elections' to the Palestinian 'assembly'. Since it is clear that proper government cannot be installed readily and has not been, then Israel must ensure a deterrent posture that makes violence a thing to be feared. Pronouncing Arafat 'irrelevant' is a feint. It needs punishment to fit the crime and it needs submission to 1967 through enforcement.

Submission to 1967? Israel won a defensive and just war, as Professor Walzer, a world expert on the subject, has pointed out. That means the Palestinians have enforced on them what they have refused to enforce on themselves: restraint, respect and fear of committing murder. If Israel does not teach them all this, since no-one else will, there is the danger they will never learn it - because they have never had to.


Christopher Barder is a scholar at Pembroke College in Cambridge and a member of the advisory committee of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




(An open letter to Ariel Sharon)

By Boris Shusteff

Mister Prime Minister, the time has come for you to assert yourself as a leader - a leader of Israel and the Jewish people in our eternal homeland. There have been a great many prime ministers and presidents all over the world throughout the last few centuries, but only a few of them demonstrated real leadership. You still have the chance to become one of those who will forever be remembered by the Jewish people.

Human beings are famous for the mistakes that they make - these mistakes are human nature. However, again only a few can honestly admit to making the mistake and then act to correct it. This is especially true for those who stand at the helm of a nation, since the whole world watches their every move. In such a position, it is far easier to sweep an error under the rug and only later, after leaving the position of power and scrutiny, to admit this or that failure.

The history of the Jewish state and its leaders have seen sufficient examples of such behavior. You were not immune to it either. We all remember Yamit and your role in evacuating this Jewish settlement. We also remember how you admitted that you were wrong to do that. And now, the people of Israel have entrusted you with their fate by electing you their Prime Minister, little more than a year ago.

Speaking at the Roosevelt Hotel in Manhattan on January 6, in memory of Rehavam Ze'evi, Moshe Feiglin said about you, "Sharon is the best figure on the Right that anyone could imagine. There has never been a greater military leader than him in Israel, and it would be difficult to find in Israel a politician who has made a greater contribution to the settlement cause."

What Feiglin said is true. However, if you allow the establishment of an Arab state even on a very small part of the lands of Judea, Samaria or Gaza, all your previous efforts will become Sisyphean labors. The enormous stone of Arab hatred will roll down, causing an avalanche of events that will lead to the destruction of the Jewish state.

You made a mistake, a tragic mistake when you changed your vision that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This mistake was exposed to the world on April 13, 2001 when Ha'aretz Magazine published your interview with Ari Shavit. You said, "The one thing that has changed is my view of Jordan as Palestine - and that only because there is a reality here. I never believed there should be two Palestinian states. That is the sole change that has taken place in my positions."

You did not elaborate - and Shavit did not ask - what the reason was for this change. And the answer is simple - geography. You do not want the enemy to obtain an overwhelming strategic depth. You do not want Jordan to become a hostile state. You are worried that if Arafat and his cohorts are pushed into Jordan, the Hashemite regime will topple, and Israel will have to face a contiguous front of militaristic aggressive enemy Arab states on her northern and eastern borders. This is, of course, more troubling than the current situation, in which Jordan serves as a buffer separating Israel from Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

There is very good logic to this approach, but great folly as well.You are not the Almighty. You cannot guarantee that Jordan will forever remain neutral and will not allow Israel's mortal enemies to attack her from Jordan's territory. History makes a very good example of Iran. Not so long ago the Iranian Shah was one of Israel's best friends. Today Iran is at a forefront of the Arab struggle against Israel. The most vitriolic hatred towards the Jewish state emanates now from this former "friend." No one can guarantee that one day Jordan will not follow a similar path.

At the same time a change in your worldview does not change reality. Jordan is Palestine and you know this better than anyone else. While lead by a Hashemite King, it was established as a state of Palestinian Arabs and for Palestinian Arabs. From its inception, this was the portion of British-mandated Palestine that was to be a home for the Arabs of Palestine, who are today labeled "Palestinians." Even as late as twenty-five years ago, before Arafat's new charade of "Palestinian self-determination" began to gather momentum, Arab leaders frequently affirmed the Palestinian nature of the state of Jordan. Examples abound. On March 2, 1976 the Observer reported that "Palestinian Arabs hold 75% of all governmental jobs in Jordan," and three days later the Egyptian Al Ahram reiterated that "Palestinian Arabs control over 70% of Jordan's economy."

Certainly you have not forgotten how on November 13, 1974, Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Yosef Tekoah explained to the UN General Assembly:

"[There is] an overwhelming preponderance of Palestinians of West Bank descent in the population of the East Bank, as well as in the Jordanian Government. For instance, Queen Alia, Prime Minister Rifa'i, more than half of the Cabinet ministers and of the members of Parliament, the Speaker of the Parliament, the mayor of Amman all hail from the West Bank" (1).

Tekoah's statements were both preceded and echoed by numerous Arab and Jordanian public figures. Nothing changed in the equation between Jordan and Palestine after August 23, 1959 when the Prime Minister of Jordan stated, "We are the Government of Palestine, the army of Palestine and the refugees of Palestine" (1). This is why on December 9, 1970, Dr. Kadri Toukan, a former Foreign Minister of Jordan,

and himself a Palestinian Arab, declared that "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan"(1). And this is exactly why another Palestinian Arab, former Jordanian Defense Minister Anwar Nusseibi stated on October 23, 1970, "The Jordanians are also Palestinians. This is one State. This is one people. The name is not important" (1).

The Arabs continued to repeatedly affirm on the world stage that the Palestinian Arabs are exercising their political and national rights as a people in the state of Jordan. Sherif Al-Hamid Sharaf, representative of Jordan at the United Nation's Security Council, declared on June 11, 1973,

"The new Jordan, which emerged in 1949, was the creation of the Palestinians of the West Bank and their Brothers in the East. While Israel was the negation of the Palestinian right of self-determination, unified Jordan was the expression of it."

Mr. Prime Minister, you were right, not to believe there should be two Palestinian states. Jordan is no less a Palestinian state today than it was a quarter century ago. This fact has recently become obscured by the noise of the "Palestinian struggle for self-determination" in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It is the time for you to reassert this position and admit that you made a mistake speaking about a second state for the Palestinian Arabs. You must eliminate any ambiguity in this question. In your remarks on February 7 at the White House, after meeting with President Bush, you said, " the end of the [political] process, I believe that a Palestinian state, of course, will be -- we would see a Palestinian state." The American President in his turn stated that, "We, too, of course, support a Palestinian state... one that recognizes that Israel's got a right to exist."

Mr. Prime Minister, you know perfectly well that the political process has nothing to do with the Palestinian state. It already exists. You could have shown courage right away by pointing out to President Bush that there is already a Palestinian state that recognizes Israel's right to exist - it is Jordan.

When a former Prime Minister admits his mistakes after leaving office he is unable to correct them. He does not have the power he once did, his potency is gone, and it no longer matters that he now understands his errors. It is only while still in the prime-ministerial chair that he still has the ability to correct a mistake made in that role.

Your concern about Jordan falling under Arafat's control is legitimate. However, you can kill two birds with one stone. You must first eliminate Arafat and his gangs, and afterwards you can advocate the resettlement of Palestinian Arabs from Israel, Judea, Samaria and Gaza into Jordan among their Palestinian brethren.

Two states cannot exist to the west of the Jordan River. Palestine was already unevenly split in two over half a century ago. The Arabs received the far larger part. It is three times bigger than the tiny sliver of land where the Jews are trying to exercise their right of self-determination. We, the Jews, are a people that dwells alone. By allowing the Arabs to remain in Eretz Yisrael we keep alive their hope of getting rid of us. It is a terrible disservice both to the Arabs and to the Jews. The Jews and the Arabs must be separated. Within the last fifty years almost all the Jews have already abandoned the Arab countries in which they once lived. It is long past time for the Arabs to leave western Eretz Yisrael.

Mr. Prime Minister, you have a great example to follow. "Moses is the highest example of the most successful kind of leader: a visionary who is willing and able to use force to accomplish his mission" (2). Maybe in the face of the deeds that you have to accomplish they will look to many people like evil. You will have to put to death hundreds of people who have been systematically programmed to seek Israel's destruction. You will have to uproot a couple million of men, women and children who are already suffering, for many years betrayed and manipulated by their leaders.

This is a task only for a great leader. Machiavelli had explained that "if Moses had said to the idolaters, 'Let us reason together,' he would have failed. In these circumstances, to do good - to adhere to the Sermon on the Mount - is to guarantee the triumph of evil" (2). This is the burden that a real leader must carry. "If you lead there will be occasions when you will have to do unpleasant, even evil things, or be destroyed" (2).

The actions that you will have to take must benefit Israel - the only country that the Jewish people has. You must lead the Jewish state to its survival, to guarantee its future in spite of Arab designs and desires. Immediate peace through negotiation might be a noble goal, but guaranteeing a future for the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael, leading to a more lasting peace in the long run is a much more noble task.

"Just as the quest for peace at any price invites war, and worse, than war, defeat and domination by your enemies, so good acts sometimes advance the triumph of evil. There are circumstances when only doing evil ensures victory of a good cause" (2)

Mr. Prime Minister, you do not have to take on the role of the Almighty in determining which way one or another Arab country will go. You should do what you can for your own state as the Prime Minister at whose disposal is the whole might of the country. As Machiavelli noticed, "All the armed prophets won, the disarmed went to their ruin." Mr. Prime Minister, do not forfeit your chance, while the Jewish people still trusts you. 02/11/02


1. Yosef Tekoah. "In the Face of the Nations: Israel's Struggle for Peace", Simon and Schuster, 1976.

2. Michael Ledeen. What Machiavelli (A Secret Jew?) Learned from Moses. Forward, May 14, 1999.


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



2002 February 21, 2002


Zippee-de-do-dah Zubaydah

Late last week the New York Times, Fox News Channel and other news agencies began to catch up with the DEBKA-Net-Weekly/WorldNetDaily report of the previous week on the hunt for Abu Zubaydah – the man believed to be in charge of operations for al-Qaida.

In case you missed it (though it was WND's lead story for most of the day Friday, Feb. 8), we reported that Zubaydah was reportedly seen in Lebanon and that operational plans were being made to capture or kill him. The New York Times didn't have that – even a week later.

But there was something troubling to me about the recent news reports about Zubaydah. He was consistently referred to as a "Palestinian."

If Zubaydah is a Palestinian, then so am I and so is the rest of the Arab world. There is no evidence to suggest Zubaydah has ever been in Palestinian territory. He was born in Saudi Arabia. Working with Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network has brought him to Lebanon, Afghanistan, Pakistan and much of the Arab world. But no one suggests he has ever visited Israel or Yasser Arafat's fantasy-land of "Palestine."

In fact, the New York Times reported: "His central goal has never been a Palestinian state. It's been the cause of Islamic extremism." So, what is this identification with Palestine all about?

What is a Palestinian? What's the definition?

Well, here are a few possibilities:

1. Anyone who Yasser Arafat, the Egyptian, says is a Palestinian.

2. Anyone who claims to be a Palestinian.

3. Any angry Arab.

Before 1948 and the creation of the new state of Israel, the term generally referred to Jews, ironically enough. The Jerusalem Post was called the Palestine Post. Since most of the people living in the region then, as now, were Jews, it was only natural to think of Palestinians as Jews.

As I've written before, there never has been an autonomous, self-governing Arab state in the history of the world – never. There is no distinct Palestinian Arab culture or language. Most of the people we call Palestinians today actually have their roots in other Arab countries.

The United Nations and others tried to address the definition of a Palestinian early in the refugee crisis. There were various efforts. Sometimes, according to Joan Peters' milestone book, "From Time Immemorial," the U.N. categorized as Palestinian anyone who had been in the region for two years or even less.

The Arab population of the region continually climbed along with the Jewish population – as economic and living conditions improved. Workers came from Egypt and Jordan and even non-Arab countries to capitalize on the opportunities Jewish immigration brought.

There were some 50 different languages spoken among the "Arab" population in pre-1948 "Palestine." By definition, Arabs speak Arabic. These non-Jewish Palestinians who spoke languages other than Arabic were, in most cases, as new to the area as any recent Jewish immigrant.

The so-called Palestinian leadership, from Arafat on down, are known for inventing the most creative stories about their families' long histories in Palestine. They tell you where they went to school. They tell you where they lived. They recall fond memories of the scents and flavors of Old Jerusalem. Yet, when you dig beneath the surface, you find most of the stories are fanciful myths worthy of the spinners of Arabian Knights legends.

Thus, Abu Zubaydah is the latest "Palestinian" in the news. What is his connection? One story suggested his wealthy Saudi parents were refugees – victims of the Palestinian "diaspora." The truth is, he's just another Saudi – not a member of the "oppressed class" of people we have come to know as Palestinians.

A friend in Winnipeg, Canada, told me he ran into an Arab friend, who calls himself a Palestinian, at a sled-dog competition recently. He asked him what he thought about the current conflict in the Middle East. "I hope it never ends," he said. "It has given me an identity."

And so it has. Now he can proudly tell people he is a Palestinian and get sympathy for his victim status. Is it true? Of course not. But perception is everything.

For Zubaydah. For Arafat. And, especially for the New York Times.




By Major Shawn Pine

The international community, and the Israeli left, has lauded the Saudi proposal as a significant breakthrough that will revive the dying peace process. However, in reality, the Saudi proposal for full normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a full Israeli withdrawal from the territories captured in the 1967 War, is little more than a facade and a Saudi attempt to extricate Arafat and the Palestinians from the abyss.

The Saudi proposal goes far beyond what was agreed upon under Oslo and even UN resolution 242. Unlike Oslo, and the language of UN resolution 242, this proposal does not contemplate a negotiated return of the territories captured in the June 1967 War. Rather, it calls for a complete withdrawal from all the territories. In return for these significant and tangible concessions the Saudis are offering the Israelis recognition and "normalization" of relations.

However, to understand what the Saudis are offering requires one to understand what the Saudis are saying. The Saudi rhetoric is reflective of the doublespeak of the Arab world. In essence, the Saudi proposal is analogous to the now famous statement that to know what they are really offering depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. For the Saudis, and most of the Arab people in the region, terrorism is not defined by the act. Rather, it is defined by the motives behind the act. In their surreal world, blowing up teenagers at a disco, attacking a pizzeria, blowing up buses, or attacking a Bat Mitzvah party is not terrorism.

For example, Saudi foreign policy minister Adel al-Jubeir appeared on national news shows promoting the Saudi proposal. During a February 24 interview he reiterated the Saudi position as condemning terrorism. However, what al-Jubeir failed to explain is that the Saudi definition of what constitutes terrorism is different than that understood by most Americans. While he was condemning terrorism, King Fahd and Prince Abdullah proclaimed that any definition of terrorism needs to "consider the right of the peoples under occupation to resistance." Additionally, on January 30, the Saudi Interior Minister Prince Naif, referring to Israel's presence in the territories, called for "a distinction between terrorism and the legitimate struggle for the defense of dignity and land." Ironically, this is the same logic and rationale used by the Bin Laden to justify his attacks on America. Bin Laden always proclaimed that his immediate goal was to secure the removal of Western presence from Islamic holy territories. Moreover, this is precisely the rhetoric that is used by Arafat to justify his failure to live up to any of the agreements he signed since Oslo and the Palestinians to justify their attacks on Israeli civilians.

At the core of the Saudi's proposal is that they are suggesting that Israel once make tangible concessions for some nebulous promise of normalization and recognition. In the final analysis, the one lesson from Oslo that the Israelis should have learned is that such agreements are vacuous absence a real commitment and desire for peace. The Saudi rhetoric, as well as that emanating from virtually every other Arab country in the region, suggests that the time is not propitious for such a proposal. What the Saudi's are essentially offering is an absence of war. Which is what Israel already enjoys with Saudi Arabia. While the establishment of an Israeli embassy in Riyadh may warm the insides of supporters of the peace process it will not represent a fundamental shift in either the attitudes of those countries or their desire or willingness to integrate Israel in the region.

If history is any indication, this current "breakthrough" will go the way of every other agreement with the Palestinians. Israel will make further territorial withdrawals, as part of a phased implementation of the new process, and issues of contention will be left for the final talks after the two sides have developed the requisite mutual trust (that was precisely how the Oslo process was designed). After Israel withdrawals from most of the territories, the talks will collapse and the Arab states will use this as a rational for not normalizing relations with Israel. In this respect, the Israelis would be wise to look at their experience in Lebanon and Hizballah where, notwithstanding a total Israeli withdraw from that country, Hizballah uses the Israeli presence at Shebaa Farms to continue its attacks on that country.

The one constant in Palestinian diplomacy is their unwillingness to face reality and to make the painful concessions that require a negotiated settlement. Arafat's and Palestinian support for Saddam Hussien's invasion of Kuwait, Arafat's categorical rejection of Baraks offer at Camp David, and the cheering of Palestinians over the attacks of September 11, make it clear that Palestinian radicalism is alive and well.

The United States, rather than seek was to reestablish the peace process, should tell Arafat that he either immediately, and unconditionally, rein in Palestinian terrorist groups or be prepared to go the way of the Taliban. The U.S. should unequivocally tell Arafat that he is either against terrorism, as defined by the US, or a supporter of it. Moreover, rather than try to get the Israelis to the negotiating table, we should be pressuring them to take more decisive action against. As far as the French and the Europeans are concerned, President Bush should remember that many of the current conflicts in the world were a result of the enlightened foreign policy of the Europeans. Moreover, twice within the last century we had to step in and end world conflicts that were precipitated by the Europeans. Given that history, a "simplistic" approach to terrorism may be what is needed.


Shawn Pine is a Major in the active US Army Reserves specializing in counterintelligence and is a military/strategic analyst. He has published a number of articles concerning the prevailing political, military, and strategic environment in the Middle East and is a research associate of the Israeli-based Ariel Center for Policy Research and the US-based Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



RE: Israeli leaders welcome Saudi peace offer,


Mr. Brilliant states "Israeli leaders yesterday expressed welcome ranging from lukewarm to enthusiastic for a Saudi peace initiative that would normalize relations between Israel and the Arabs in exchange for a withdrawal to pre-1967 lines."

In fact, most Israelis (and rational individuals) are very apprehensive at the rumored offer:

1) There has been no official substantiation from the Saudis that such an "offer" has been made.

2) There is no reason to believe that the offer is genuine, in light of the 54 years of Saudi opposition to the very existence of the State of Israel, and the presence of any Jews in the Middle East.

3) Further doubt is cast on Saudi sincerity by the anti-Israel, anti-Jewish, sentiments publicly expressed to crowds of millions in Mecca this week.

4) There is no evidence to believe that the "Arab World" is willing to agree to the rumored Saudi offer, and considerable evidence to the contrary.

5) There is no evidence to believe that the "Palestinian" Arabs are willing to agree to the rumoured Saudi offer, and considerable evidence to the contrary. "Palestinian" Arab spokesmen have already rejected the offer.

6) Saudi Arabia has no right to speak for the "Arab World", "Palestinian"

Arabs, or any country other than Saudi Arabia.

7) Barak made a similar offer to Arafat 17 months ago, without any conditions. Arafat patently rejected the offer, and began the current all-out war (described by the media as 17 months of violence) against Israel. Why would he accept it today?

8) History, and especially recent history, has shown us the worth of an Arab "promise". 83 % of the Jewish Homeland was given to the "Palestinian" Arabs, to establish the "Palestinian State of TransJordan" (now Jordan) in the first part of the 20th century. That huge territorial concession did not quell the Arab desire to make all of the Middle East "Judenfrei". In the past 9 years of the grossly-misnamed "peace process", the "Palestinian" Arabs have been given control over 97 % of the "disputed" (not "occupied") territories. That huge territorial and political concession has not changed the Arab goal of annihilating Israel and the Jewish populace, nor has it reduced the political and military attacks against Israel. In fact, it has exponentially increased Arab violence. There is absolutely no reason to believe that further concessions will have any different effect.

9) The magical "pre-1967 boundaries" were nothing but the cease fire lines, following the 1948 war, in which seven Arab armies invaded the newly-established State of Israel, with the declared intent of annihilation. There was no "Palestinian" state on the western side of the Jordan, and there was no "Palestinian" people claiming title to the land. Rather, Jordan, Syria, and Egypt were squabbling amongst each other as to how to divide Israel up, when they had driven the Jews into the sea.

10) The "pre-1967 boundaries" would leave Judaism's holiest cities (Jerusalem, Hebron) in the hands of those who would deny Jewish access. It would also leave Christian holy sites under the administration of those who have historically persecuted non-Muslims, and denied them freedom of worship. And it would leave Jewish "settlements", which have been rebuilt since 1967, subject to the same destruction and confiscation by the Arabs as occurred in 1948.

11) The "pre-1967 boundaries" would leave Israel extremely vulnerable to continued Arab attack. For example, from 1948 to 1967, the Syrians used the highly-fortified Golan Heights solely to stage continued mortar attacks against the Israeli communities in the Galilee below; the Jordanians used the high-ground in the West Bank to attack Israel with mortar fire, and to stage terrorist infiltrations; the Egyptians staged daily terrorist raids from Gaza.

12) In fact, since Arafat and the "Palestinian Authority" have been given control over most of the West Bank and Gaza, the pre-1967 sort of attacks have resumed — ten fold. This, despite Arafat agreeing to "reign in terror and anti-Semitic incitement" as a pre-condition of being given political control of these territories.

13) A number of years ago, Sadat of Egypt approached Israel with a professed desire for a permanent peace. Israel "returned" the Sinai Peninsula (which is of immense strategic and economic value) to Egypt, in return for the promise of peace, and normalization of relations with Egypt. Yet, Egypt has violated the conditions of that treaty, virtually since its inception. For example, Egypt has withdrawn its ambassador; the official Egyptian press continually published the most vile anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, inciteful, propaganda; Egypt has rebuilt and re-armed a huge army (which has only one possible purpose).

14) Why should we expect any different from an unofficial, unauthorized "peace offer" from Saudi Arabia? For that matter, why should we expect anything but non-compliance and further warfare, from a "peace agreement" with an Arab/Muslim entity? They have never adhered to any agreements in the past, but suddenly we should risk our very existence on the unlikely possibility that the leopards have changed their spots?

15) The Koran describes, and applauds, an incident where Mohammed makes a false peace treaty with his sworn enemy, and then, while they are lulled into a false sense of security and lay down their arms, regroups, re-arms, and attacks. Arafat and other "Palestinian" spokesmen have frequently described their agreements with Israel as such "temporary measures". In fact, it is the Arabic term describing the aforementioned incident which is used in lieu of the word for "treaty", when there are discussions of "agreements" with Israel.



Sharon has followed Barak in suggesting separation between Israel and the Arabs. It is not a new idea and as far back as 1995 I explained why it won't work. Today in 2002 there are even more reasons. Rocket and mortars can fly over them and terrorists have become adept at tunneling under obstacles or cutting through fences. Here is that original article.


The Primary Fallacy

By Bernard J. Shapiro

The idea of separation has much appeal to an Israeli population feeling threatened daily by hostile Arabs. The Israeli government recently advanced an elaborate plan to construct hi-tech fences and new military checkpoints between Israel and the Palestinian West Bank in an effort to reduce the risk of militant violence. Israeli security officials brought the plan before the Knesset a day after Islamic extremists opened fire on an Israeli bus near the West Bank town of Hebron, killing two Jewish settlers and wounding five. The separation plan involves building extensive fences, other barriers and restricting Palestinian access into Israel through eight to ten crossings points. The border would be heavily patrolled by Israeli soldiers and police. Cost estimates range from $300 million to $500 million. An economic report on the draft plan said the cost would be too high and separation would lead to political and economic instability in the PLO areas, perhaps intensifying the danger of attacks from opponents of the Israeli-PLO peace process. Analysts such as Dore Gold, Emanuel Winston and Ze'ev Schiff have discussed many of the reasons why it simply won't work.

For another reason why it is the wrong approach to security, it is worth repeating a story I wrote, which appeared in an article entitled, DETERRENCE OR DHIMMIZATION (THE MACCABEAN, January 1995): Back in 1965, in a small meeting room in Tel Aviv, former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gave a pep talk to a group of RAFI (Rishimat Poalai Israel) volunteers, myself included. At that time, RAFI, a breakaway faction of the Mapai Party, included such notables as former Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and former Defense Minister Shimon Peres. Peres and Dayan had been considered the "hawks" of Mapai and it was no accident that in the 1965 election they supported a strong defense and security policy.

Dayan was always interesting to listen to, but this talk was something special and we paid attention to every word. "The essence of Israel's security in this region (Middle East) is deterrence," he said. "When we formed the State in 1948-9, we were very weak. The Arab States had planes, tanks, heavy artillery and many more soldiers than us. We had very little heavy military equipment. In the period 1949-55, we absorbed almost a million immigrants. Tent cities sprung up all over the country. We were totally disorganized. Had the Arabs mounted another major invasion, we could have lost. We devised a solution to this problem. It was deterrence. Think about being lost in a forest and surrounded by hostile animals. If you light a torch, boldly approach them showing no fear -- they will retreat. But, if you show fear -- they will attack and you are lost. We used this principle to save Israel during those early years. Every time we were attacked, we retaliated ten fold. We showed daring and penetrated deep within their borders to attack our targets. We were fearless, brave, and even a bit bloodthirsty. You know the result. The Arabs were afraid and never attacked. Deterrence worked. By 1956 when we invaded Sinai, the Israel Defense Force was not just strong, it was invincible."

The story above was not told just for nostalgia. The lesson is extremely important for the survival of Israel today. Unfortunately Israelis are daily witnessing the consequences of seven years of declining deterrence vis a vis its Arab population. In 1987, the intifada presented Israel with a new challenge. It was a new kind of war, but with the same aim of driving the Israelis out of their country. The Israelis fought the intifada with many handicaps, not the least of which were their own rules of conduct. Israeli soldiers failed to cope with attacks by teenage Arab boys. In the course of several years, the Arabs learned that the soldiers would not aggressively retaliate for their attacks. They became emboldened. The Jews living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza showed great fortitude, enduring thousands of attacks and still tripling their numbers. The serious security failure developed as Arabs became accustomed to attacking Jews and Israeli soldiers. By trying to remain humane in the face of massive attacks, Israel emboldened the Arabs to more and more attacks. Throwing concrete boulders, Molotov cocktails, and then using firearms at Israelis became the norm of behavior among the Arabs. The Israeli government allowed its citizens to be attacked solely because they were Jews. In no other country of the world would such a policy be tolerated.

During the Persian Gulf War Israel allowed Iraq to fire Scud missiles into its major cities without retaliating. This was a major blow to Israeli deterrence in the Middle East. Then finally, the Oslo Appeasement Agreement of 1993 which resurrected a terrorist gang to the role of competitor for Eretz Yisrael.

Several weeks ago a reserve officer of the Israel Defense Forces made a wrong turn and ended up in the center of Ramallah, a Arab city. He was immediately attacked by a vicious mob of Arabs, murder in their eyes, who almost beat him to death. Deterrence had vanished.

While the Jews may not have been afraid like the man in the forest, the affect of multiple restrictions on the Israeli right of self defense had the same result. That result was to increase the bloodlust of the Arab population and to multiply the Jewish casualties. For Israelis to seek security behind a security fence is a total reversal of the traditional policy of deterrence. From the days of Orde Wingate during the Arab riots of 1936-9, Israeli military strategists have always emphasized the doctrine of striking the enemy deep within his territory. Retaliation, deep penetration raids were the hallmark of the IDF. To return to a siege mentality hiding behind electrified ghetto walls would be the beginning of the end of Israeli independence. No barrier whether the Bar Lev Line or the Maginot Line can resist a determined enemy willing to risk money and lives to breach it.

In conclusion, I believe that the only way for Israel and her beleaguered citizens to achieve security, both personal and national, is by reasserting those traditional methods of combat that will re-establish deterrence in the minds of the Arab enemy.

[This article was published in the Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) on April 5, 1995 and in the April 1995 issue of THE MACCABEAN.]




By David Wilder

The Jewish Community of Hebron

This is a Voice from Israel from somewhere in the Mediterranean.

Here is the news.

We are ecstatic to announce that the walls have been completed. Again, we repeat, the walls of Israel have been completed, covering seven thousand nine hundred and ninety two square miles, not including, of course East Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gazza.

This afternoon, shortly before this broadcast, the last hole in the huge ceiling was covered with concrete.

We now switch live to the Prime Minister, broadcasting from somewhere else in the world:

Fellow citizens, this is a day, which will live forever in history. Our security, and the security of our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are assured. Suicide bombers, missile attacks, and all terrorism are events of the past. No person, no enemy, no state, can threaten Israel's security. My fellow citizens, we are now safe.

I know there are those who objected, but a short glance back will prove our point.

The policy of fences and walls began as a post-Oslo procedure, intending to guarantee the lives of our brethren in Yesha. True, we signed a peace treaty with our neighbors, but there were isolated masses of terrorists who refused to accept the new era of mutual coexistence. Their tiny but massive opposition to reach a negotiated agreement left us no choice but to find a way to protect ourselves. The best way was to keep the terrorists out. In Yesha we attempted to accomplish this by walling in the various communities.

This was fine until the Israelis took to the streets, I mean, traveled from place to place. The streets too were vulnerable so we built them bypass roads. When that didn't work we built them tunnels.

However, our other cities, including Jerusalem were still under attack by the minuscule massive Arab minority opposing our good-will gestures towards a comprehensive settlement. So we had no choice but to first, fence in, and then wall in our capital, protecting it from unthinkable acts of barbarism. Unfortunately that attempt too was unsuccessful with the unimaginable occurring. Arabs holding Israeli citizenship, having been brainwashed by those few PA warmongers began participating in brutal attacks against our citizens, leaving us no choice but to close down the center of the city. The national debate concerning the exact borders of the Jerusalem city center reached such proportions that for an extended period of time the entire city was declared to be totally off-limits to all Israelis and tourists. As a good will gesture, we decided to leave the city open to Arabs who agreed to sign a peace pact with Israel.

The walling of Petach Tikva, Kfar Saba, and Haifa, led to major catastrophes in Tel Aviv. Then the infamous children's rebellion broke out, when bicycle-riding throughout the country was outlawed, due to suicide bicycle attacks in major population centers. The regrettable results of that revolt caused Israeli leaders to think long and hard about a permanent solution, leading to the decision to wall in Israel.

Such a decision was not easy to make, but was facilitated by allowing active population participation. The national contest, "Name the Wall," broadcast daily and nightly on Israel radio, won international acclaim. It was too bad that our popular radio announcers fought each other tooth and nail to broadcast the show. In the end, as you all know, the show was aired from the Knesset with the Knesset speaker hosting the program, refusing to relinquish his chair until a suitable name was declared the winner.

When it came down to the nitty-gritty, and two names were left on the ballot, the Knesset almost exploded, but finally it was decided to let the people choose. In a national referendum the name, "Back to the Ghetto" won overwhelmingly over the other choice, "Continue the Hope."

So, Back to the Ghetto it was.

Construction of such a wall, excuse me, ghetto, no, don't get me wrong, the ghetto wall, around an entire state, is a humongous job. The first major task was to determine the borders of the back to the ghetto wall. It was immediately decided not to include Judea, Samaria and Gazza, so as to keep the amicable. terrorists out. But then our neighbors demanded borders acceptable to UN resolution 181, leaving Beer-Sheva outside the wall. Finally, in a dramatic compromise it was decided to split Beer-Sheva in half, thereby preventing another bloody conflict.

The last, and most important factor, was the western border. Some believed that the back to the ghetto wall should be built on the beach. Our neighbors demanded that the beach be left for them. And yet others insisted that we should use our legitimate international rights, building the wall 20 miles out into the sea.

Unable to make a decision acceptable to everyone, Israel agreed to international arbitration, which determined that the real border was at least 20 miles inland, to which Israel was amenable.

The actual building was a tremendous undertaking. All citizens were drafted, from five years of age and up. Block upon block, stone upon stone, day after day, week after week, month following month, and at long last, the back to the ghetto wall was concluded. The laying of the ceiling was an engineering feat of genius. Thousands of huge pillars were erected around Israel in order to hold up the roof.

Of course a major crisis erupted when the plans showed a pillar to be constructed above the former Temple Mount, but Israel conceded without a fight.

And now, at long last, the one and only entrance is about to be closed. No longer will terrorists find a way to harm us. Some of our brothers and sisters, trying to take the easy way out, have jumped ship and are taking refuge in the sea, (of course, outside the 20 mile limits.) I myself have decided to take up temporary residence in Micronesia, whose people have so generously agreed to rename their capital, previously known as Palikir, to Jerusalem. I vow to stay here only until we can again break down the back to the ghetto walls.

Until then, our fate is sealed.




by Richard H. Shulman

A philo-Semitic European reader supposed that the EU is critical of Israel because it expects more ethical behavior from it. This common supposition rationalizes discrimination against Israel. I believe that the EU has other motives, that this is an excuse, and that what it wants of Israel is not to be more ethical but more foolish.

Acting in behalf of the Arab terrorists, the EU is promoting the most unethical behavior on the planet. That statement sounds extreme, but the behavior actually is. The EU subsidizes PA education and broadcasting, which it knows indoctrinate in suicide bombing. What is worse than bigoted murdering of innocents! The EU therefore sets low standards for itself, as it helps keep Arab standards low. Hence the EU is in no position to judge the ethical level of Israel.

What is the EU? It is a supra-national government, with a foreign policy. This policy is shaped by individual governments and elected delegates from their countries. The governments are influenced by a media beset with anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. Those phobias are prompted by religious tradition now ingrained in the culture, by prejudiced Arab field reporters and photographers who appease Arab rulers for reasons of access and safety. Local Muslim populations fan European bigotry. Ignorance and prejudice govern. European mercenary motives are notorious. (Some of these and other problems apply to the US, but the US is not our subject.) There also is some affinity for countries Europe used to occupy.

Ignorance about the Arab-Israel conflict leads to peculiar indignation against Israel. Although this indignation is unjust or baseless, it may have an idealistic origin. Much of what Europeans think of Israel derives from false propaganda. What are decent European citizens supposed to think of Israel, whom they are told doesn't let food into the PA, though it does; doesn't let hospital patients out of the PA, when it does; steals Arab land when the Arabs are stealing Jewish land; shoots Arab children down, when it is the Arabs that shoot Jewish children down; and on and on? The picture is cloudy but the misdirection is clear.

Millions of Muslim immigrants have moved into Europe, set up a separatist society within it, and spread a message of hate. Europe had better be careful. It must find ways to hold on to such ethical standards as it still retains. I am not impressed by a European claim to be an upholder of civilization, not in view of its underlying barbarism and centuries of murdering millions of my inoffensive Jewish brethren.

Does the foregoing necessarily mean that Israel has high standards of ethics? No! "A & I" has criticized Israeli ethics severely. However, Israel's abuse of ethics largely is against its nationalistic and religious sector, i.e., against its own interests and traditions. Israel has behaved towards the Arabs not only within the rules of war but with self-defeating appeasement. The Arabs have behaved towards the Jews outside the rules of war, which the Arabs don't recognize except as applied to themselves.

Having a Christian background, the EU ought to know that most key ethics are not relative. Bigotry, aggression, and war crimes are wrong, regardless of which side commits them. It is not fair to allow the Arab side to commit such wrongs, simply because it doesn't know better. Does perpetuating Arab sinning teach the Arabs right from wrong? Is it fair to accuse the Jewish side, which doesn't commit such wrongs, of doing the wrong things? This EU behavior serves to condone wrongdoing and punish right thinking. The EU hardly can be excused on moral grounds, as the rationalization seeks to do.

The rationalization is offered to parry Israeli complaints of being discriminated against. However, the excuse, in effect, admits to discriminating. Indeed, it claims to be discriminating against the more ethical side! How ethical or logical is that? That seems to be one of the only two types of instances when the EU praises Israel, small comfort that is. The other type is when Israel is making concessions to the less ethical side. I see no justification for discrimination and less than none for discriminating against, what for the duration of making the excuse, is the admittedly more ethical side. If the Arabs are substandard, let the EU say so sometimes. If Israel is above standard, let the EU say so sometimes. Why doesn't the EU ever praise Israel's higher standards at other times, cite some examples, and urge the Arabs to follow them? Answer: the EU does not care about ethical standards.

The rationalization has no specifics. Specifics would offer an opportunity for concrete rebuttal. I cited some examples earlier of slander that engenders a visceral dislike for Israel. Those examples are not covered by the rationalization, because the rationalization refers to: (a) Israeli behavior which is acceptable from everyone else but which the EU expects to be higher solely in Israel's case; and (b) Behavior by the Arabs, but which the EU deplores but doesn't expect to become higher.

The kind of Arab behavior that the EU hardly condemns includes, inter alia: (1) Bigotry, such as hating all Jews racially and considering Muslims superior to Christians, Jews, and everyone else; (2) Aggression, such as repeated wars on Israel, to eradicate it; (3) War crimes, such as using ambulances to ferry terrorists and arms and attacking Israeli ambulances, and other forms of terrorism, such as bombing school buses full of children; (4) Deceit, as in proposing phony truces and then violating them, considered a Muslim virtue when used against the infidel; and (5) Theft of land, building houses illegally, and rioting as the primary form of protest. Those are among the most outrageous forms of behavior possible. When perpetrated by the Nazis and Communists, the West severely condemned them. Does that mean that the West expected better behavior of the Nazis and Communists than it does of the Arabs? If so, please tell us! Does anyone maintain that the West hardly condemns such Arab behavior as shooting babies in the head, because it realizes that the Arabs are in a lower stage of civilization, so it cannot expect better of them? How low do they think the Arabs are?

On the other hand, they urge Israel to make sacrifices for peace, anticipating that the "lowly" Arabs will soon come around to seeing the virtues of peaceful coexistence. Doesn't that contradict the rationalization, that one cannot expect high standards from the Arabs?

Is the EU setting a snare for Israel, when it exhorts that victim of repeated aggression to make "sacrifices for peace?" There is no evidence there will be peace; there is evidence that an Israeli sacrifice means a greater chance of losing the war intended by the Arabs. That is not asking Israel to behave on a higher moral plane but to enable the Arabs to fulfill their baser ideology of conquest. Europe is asking Israel to pursue national suicide. Let it say so, not further insult Israel by claiming the EU policy leads Israel to a "higher morality."

The EU condemns Israel for two kinds of behavior: (1) What would be unethical if Israel did it, but Israel doesn't do it; and (2) What Israel does, but is ethical but falls short of the divine that those traditional antisemites in Europe suddenly feel is the Jewish potential. That second kind includes, inter alia: (a) Wanting to preserve more of its traditional and Mandated homeland and terrain strategic for blocking further Arab aggression; (b) Killing a couple of terrorist commanders in the field and bombing a couple of emptied terrorist headquarters as a "disproportionate" "over-reaction" to suicide bombings; (3) Searching Arabs and their vehicles, before letting them into Israeli areas; and (4) Clearing orchards used for conducting ambushes against Jewish drivers.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so I ask: (1) What major European country would cede key parts of its traditional homeland or strategic terrain to Russia? None. I thought so; (2) What is wrong with a disproportionate reaction to terrorism? Terrorism is an absolute wrong, and the international duty is to wipe out terrorism and terrorists. Would the EU prefer that Israel (a) make a full-scale war against all the terrorists and bomb their headquarters when occupied, as I would; or (b) Hope to apprehend the terrorists before they set off their bombs, but understand that more would get through; (3) Is the convenience of Arabs more important than the thwarting of terrorists among them? Let Europe stop searching at its airports, before it asks Israel, on the front lines of terrorism, to do what Europe is unwilling to do. What right does the EU suppose Arabs have to work in Israel, anyway? (4) Keep the trees, kill the Jews?

Why doesn't Europe, that sinkhole of sales of components of non-conventional weaons to rogue states, explain what higher standards for Israel it has in mind? To ask the question is to answer it. To sit still to be murdered, which is what it asks of Israel, is not superior behavior to Israel's lukewarm self-defense. And it is far inferior to Judaism's standard, which Israel unwisely hesitates to adopt. That standard is to slay those who come to slay you. It is a standard suitable for the entire West in this age of terrorism. Europe should decide whether it is on the side of the terrorists. Let Europe not help the terrorists against Israel, lest the bells toll for Europe.




By Major Shawn Pine

As the situation between Israel and the Palestinians continues to erode, Israeli decision makers are scrambling to come up with a coherent, effective policy to meet the current threat. Unfortunately, Israeli strategic analysis and political decision making has thus far proven inept. Since the Oslo Accords, successive Israeli governments, with the exception of the Netanyahu government, have failed to accurately access the political situation and formulate a coherent strategy based upon the fundamental premise that their primary function is the security of Israeli citizens.

Israeli participation in the Oslo process was predicated on a number of erroneous strategic assumptions. These included:

1. That Arafat's political isolation in Tunis, and his inability to control events occurring in the West Bank and Gaza Strip during the 1987 intifada, had made him willing to seriously negotiate an end to the Palestinian - Israeli conflict. From his signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, to his endorsement of the Tenet and Mitchell plains, Arafat has demonstrated time after time that he is unwilling to adhere to any of the agreements of which he is a signatory.

2. That Arafat's support for Saddam Hussein had marginalized him internationally thereby making him more willing to reach a peace agreement with Israel. While political realities prompted Arafat to sign a series of agreements he has never considered them more than a political tool for achievement of the goal he articulated in his 1974 plan which called for the phased destruction of Israel.

3. That the crux of the Arab - Israeli conflict was over the territories that Israel captured in the 1967 Arab - Israeli war. Arafat's categorical rejection of Barak's July 2000 offer of some 98% of the territories, including de facto Palestinian control over East Jerusalem, demonstrated that the core of the conflict is not territories captured in the 1967 Arab - Israeli war.

4. That the potential ballistic threat posed a much greater threat to Israel than that posed by the Palestinians. Israel's nuclear capability serves as a powerful deterrent to ballistic threats posed by its neighbors. However, the type of terrorist warfare that is now being waged by the Palestinians has mitigated much of Israel's conventional might. This is primarily due to an Israeli hesitancy to use its military power to protect its citizens.

Ironically, until July 2000, Arafat had proven himself far more adept in his strategic analysis than his Israeli counterparts. Arafat correctly assessed that:

1. The majority of Israelis had tired of the conflict and were willing to negotiate a territorial compromise over the territories captured in 1967. This fact was reflected in a myriad of polls that showed nearly two thirds of Israelis supported the peace process. This support continued up until the Fall of 2000 and the outbreak of the current intifada.

2. The intifada and his support for Iraq during the Persian Gulf War had eroded both his stature internationally and within the territories. Arafat correctly assessed that he needed a bold step to reestablish his control over his people and to regain his international stature.

3. That the political schism within Israeli society would prevent Israeli leaders from formulating a coherent effective strategy to counter his refusal to adhere to the peace accords.

4. That the Israeli Labor government, and its supporters, would ignore his violations of the accord. Arafat correctly assessed that he could manipulate the Israelis to continue the peace process while at the same time he supported and placated militant Palestinian factions. Even Arafat had to be surprised at the success of this tactic.

5. That the international community would ignore his violations of the accords in hopes of achieving a "final" peace that would serve the economic interests of the United States, Asia and the EU.

Ironically, Israel may have Osma Bin Laden to thank for saving them from themselves. The attacks of September 11, 2001, precipitated a fundamental shift in American perceptions of the conflict and ended U.S. tolerance for Palestinian terrorism. The American and European reaction to the attacks of September 11 highlighted the hypocritical nature of both the European and American positions vis--vis the Palestinian - Israeli peace process. The first months following the September 11th attacks, the U.S. continued to call for Israeli restraint and continued to claim that there was a fundamental difference between the unfettered U.S. war against Al Queda and the Israeli war against Hamas and Islamic Jihad. However, President Bush's belated recognition that there was no intrinsic difference between the struggle of the two countries against Islamic terrorism represented a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy. President Bush should be lauded for his recognition that Israel has the right to protect its citizens and that this may require the use of massive military force.

Israeli decision makers need to consider the following factors in formulating their strategic assessment of the current situation:

1. That the crux of the Arab - Israeli conflict is not over territories captured in the 1967 War. Israel is perceived by the Arabs as an alien, colonial occupier of Arab lands.

2. That Israel is engaged in an existential war with the Palestinians.

3. That Arafat is unwilling, or unable, to fulfill any commitments to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the dispute.

4. That the events of September 11, 2001, have changed the geo-strategic dynamics in the region. The attack on the United States engaged the world's only superpower in the struggle against Islamic terrorism. President Bush seems determined to eradicate Islamic terrorism and to minimize that threat to Americans. More important, the American people now understand what the Israelis have been experiencing over the last decade. The United States may continue to urge Israel to negotiate with Arafat and may even admonish it publicly for taking military action against the Palestinians. However, in light of the U.S. response against the Taliban and Al Queda this criticism will be muted.

5. That in a unipolar world, Israel's neighbors are not prepared to confront Israel militarily. Any military venture by Egypt, Syria, or Iraq would prove disastrous for those countries. Moreover, within the context of the current political environment, a broader regional war would leave the Arab countries bereft of the support of a superpower.

6. That the current policy of targeted assassinations and "measured response" is failing. Indeed, given the historical brutality and massacres that Arab leaders have perpetrated on their people, the Israeli response has been met with ridicule by the Arabs. Israeli restraint is perceived as weakness and a recognition of a lack of Israeli will to defend their country.

In the current political reality, the concept of "peace with security" is an illusion. Rather than inculcate the Palestinians with the concept of peaceful coexistence, Arafat has imbued them with the notion that they are engaged in a "Jihad" against Israel. The Palestinians believe they are weakening Israeli resolve. The unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, the destruction of an Israeli Merkava tank, the death of an elite Israeli commando, reservists refusing to serve, and the daily terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians are eroding Israeli morale. These events, coupled with the failure of Israeli decision-makers to decisively respond to Palestinian terrorism have convinced the Palestinians that they are winning their struggle to destroy the Israeli State.

As Sharon formulates an Israeli response to the latest terrorist attacks he needs to be reminded that tentative, targeted, restrained operations against terrorist organizations have rarely succeeded. From Indochina to Algeria history is replete with examples of indigenous terrorist organizations defeating modern armies because those armies lacked the political will to use the requisite force to fulfill their political objectives. This is precisely the rationale that the Israeli left uses for advocating Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. However, the problem with these historical analogies is that the Palestinians not only view the Israeli presence in the territories captured in the 1967 war as Western, colonial imperialism, they view the Israeli presence in the region as nothing more than colonial occupation of Arab lands. Unfortunately, Arafat has done nothing to disabuse his people from this notion. The time for restraint has ended and Sharon needs to disabuse himself of the notion he articulated last June when he proclaimed that restraint is a form of power.

In this regard, the Israelis should take a lesson from the U.S. and its response to the Taliban and Al Queda. What is needed is an Israeli military response that is massive, swift, and decisive. Similar to the 1978 Litani operations in response to the coastal road massacre. The intent of the operation should not be to reoccupy territories. Rather it should be to kill as many Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Force 17 and Tazanim members as possible. The operations should be of short duration, 48 to 72 hours, and they should be a massive display of Israeli military might with the understanding that there may be substantial collateral damage.

Initially, such a response will not eradicate terrorism. However, the Israelis should retaliate to each subsequent Palestinian terrorist attack in a massive, disproportionate manner. It should do so with the understanding that such actions will engender international condemnation and threats. However, most of these threats will be little more than vacuous posturing. In the current geo-strategic environment the only voice that counts is that of the United States. Consequently, Israel should initiate a massive publicity campaign directed at the United States to explain why Israel was forced to take such measures. In this respect, Israel need only repeat declarations made by U.S. political and military leaders regarding the U.S. war against Islamic terrorism. Given the American experience of September 11 Israel will find a very sympathetic ear within the American executive and legislative branches as well as the American people.

Only by doing so will Israel reestablish its deterrence credibility and achieve security with an absence of war. Finally, Peres is correct when he states that the Israeli - Palestinian conflict requires a political solution. In that respect, it is worth remembering the famous Clausewitzian dictum that war is an extension of politics by other means.


Shawn Pine is a Major in the active US Army Reserves specializing in counterintelligence and is a military/strategic analyst. He has published a number of articles concerning the prevailing political, military, and strategic environment in the Middle East and is a research associate of the Israeli-based Ariel Center for Policy Research and the US-based Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.






The Jerusalem Post, February 20, 2002


By Gil Hoffman

JERUSALEM (February 20) - The Right sent a clear message to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after last night's terror attack: Dismantle the Palestinian Authority or dismantle the government and resign.

Officials in the Prime Minister's Office promised an immediate, quick response to the attack and said the frequency of deadly attacks will definitely influence today's security cabinet meeting, but at the same time said this is not the time to make a rash decision. In a meeting with Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer and top IDF officers late Monday night, Sharon decided to take action using the same parameters employed in the past, but said the response could be more intense and more frequent.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres postponed his two-day visit to Spain, supposed to begin today, to attend the security cabinet meeting, where he will try to prevent the Right from forcing the kind of response resulting in international criticism.

The National Union-Yisrael Beiteinu faction called upon Sharon to "wake up and smell his lack of policy."

"No considerations justify the reckless abandonment that has enabled the slaughter of Jews," the faction said. "The prime minister was elected to bring security and if he cannot control the situation, he needs to make a decision about his future immediately." Deputy Absorption Minister Yuli Edelstein said Sharon cannot get by this time with just blowing up empty buildings. "The government must realize the lives of its citizens come before not only political considerations, but also international concerns," Edelstein said.

Herut MK Michael Kleiner said Sharon is haunted by the Lebanon war. He said this has hurt Israeli deterrence. "The future of the state is more important than the future of the government, so if the government does not decide to capture the PA territories, it should disband the Knesset and go to elections," Kleiner said.

Opposition leader Yossi Sarid said those who believe in responding to violence with further violence are mistaken. He said the PA has already been stripped of its power to the point it is powerless to act against terror. But Deputy Internal Security Minister Gideon Ezra said Sarid should applaud any decision to act against terror, just like the Democrats did in the United States.

National Religious Party leader Yitzhak Levy, who helped bring down the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, said before last night's attack Netanyahu disappointed him less than Sharon. Levy told Channel 1 Sharon has failed to display any leadership.

"If the prime minister cannot end terror, he should let someone else who can take over," Levy said. "He should say, 'I promised peace and security, I failed, I'm going home.' "

Copyright 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -



The Jerusalem Post, February 19, 2002


By Evelyn Gordon

It is no surprise that the past weekend was a bloody one, with six Israelis killed and dozens wounded in three separate attacks in the space of 48 hours. More violence is the textbook consequence of weakened deterrence - and "weakened deterrence" is a kind description of last week's laughable Israeli response to the latest Palestinian escalation.

For weeks, the government has been loudly (and in retrospect, foolishly) warning the Palestinians that rocket fire at cities would cross a "red line," forcing Israel into a response that was qualitatively different from anything that has gone before. Last Sunday, Hamas called this bluff by firing Kassam-2 rockets at two southern towns - though thanks to the missile's inaccuracy, both missed their targets and landed in empty fields.

But Israel's "qualitatively different" response quickly proved no different than its response to hundreds of previous terror attacks: The air force bombed a few empty buildings belonging to the Palestinian Authority, while ground forces - after waiting 60 hours to give the most wanted terrorists plenty of time to escape - entered three Palestinian towns, rounded up some junior Hamas operatives (most of whom were later released), and withdrew in less than a day. The Palestinians could scarcely avoid the obvious conclusion: Israel's talk of "red lines" is meaningless.

What is truly disturbing, however, is that this was not a one-time lapse on Israel's part. The sophistication of Palestinian attacks - and the consequent Israeli death toll - has increased steadily throughout the nearly 17 months of conflict, yet the response has remained virtually unchanged: The sole variables are how many empty buildings will be bombed and how many suspects will be arrested in any given retaliatory raid.

And since the Palestinians have made it clear that they deem this response an acceptable price to pay for the privilege of wreaking havoc through terror attacks, the result is that they have no reason whatsoever to desist from their quest for ever deadlier forms of terror - Israel has repeatedly proven that its response will never exceed the bounds they are prepared to tolerate.

This utter breakdown of deterrence has also had a predictably deleterious impact on the Israeli public. A year ago, an overwhelming majority was convinced that no peace agreement with the Palestinians was possible, and the only option left was to prove to them that terror does not pay. Today, an overwhelming majority still believes that no agreement is possible - but after a year in which Palestinian terror has steadily increased despite the government's claim that it is pursuing a policy of deterrence, some are beginning to despair of this option as well.

This despair was especially visible in two recent demonstrations demanding "an end to the occupation" - both of which were essentially calls for unilateral withdrawal. The message, in a nutshell, was that since we cannot stop the terror ourselves, the only alternative is simply to give the Palestinians whatever they want and then throw ourselves on their mercy.

Considering that the Palestinians refused just a year ago to concede either the "right of return" or the right to resort to violence in exchange for a state on 97 percent of the territories, including east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, the idea that peace can be purchased by making unilateral concessions seems so farfetched that it is hard to believe it has any adherents at all - yet the demonstrations drew crowds of a few thousand people each.

It is far more than organizers could have dreamed of a year ago. Such events merely encourage the Palestinians to believe that if they just ratchet the terror up far enough, a majority of the country will demand unconditional surrender.

What makes this despair heartbreaking is that it is utterly unjustified - because the problem is not that deterrence has proven a failure; the problem is that it has never been tried. Deterrence means ensuring that the consequences of terrorism are truly unacceptable. In other words, it means that if current tactics are insufficient, stronger measures must be taken - if necessary, up to and including a complete reconquest of the territories and the dismantlement of the Palestinian Authority.

It is high time for Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to start making good on his campaign pledge to fight terror via the only method that has ever proven effective: genuine deterrence. The alternative is an ever-increasing number of dead and maimed Israelis - and the deadly growth of despair.

Copyright 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -



The Jerusalem Post Editorial, February 18, 2002


After a particularly bloody weekend, including deeply painful defeats for Israel, a chorus of defeatism can be heard in the land. Casualties, however, do not change the truths that have accompanied the Arab-Israeli conflict since its inception.

There should be no papering over the fact that the destruction of a main battle tank and the killing of most of its crew, the killing of a soldier at a roadblock and escape of the attackers, the death of a senior IDF commander in an operational accident, and the suicide bombing in a shopping center all represent security lapses or operational failures of one kind or another.

Each incident must be thoroughly investigated and lessons learned for the future. The other side is always improving its tactics; Israel must never rest at the task of making both its defensive measures and offensive operations more effective. Yesterday's killing of two would-be suicide bombers near Hadera provided a welcome boost to morale.

But in addition to tactical improvements, it is important to understand why this Palestinian escalation is happening now and how it can be defeated. It is happening now, despite Yasser Arafat's latest attempts to ingratiate himself with the United States, for two reasons: the emergence of cracks in Israel's resolve and the perception that Israel is at least temporarily constrained from ending Arafat's rule.

On the domestic front, the handful of soldiers who refuse to serve in the territories, magnified by the international press and protesters who demand unilateral surrender by Israel, are reminding the Palestinians of the Lebanon war. The notion that a constant drumbeat of casualties can drive Israel out of territory was a major factor in sparking the current Palestinian offensive against Israel. For over a year, the Israeli public proved that the Palestinians were wrong to apply the Lebanese model, since the vast majority of Israelis saw no justification in the wave of terrorism launched against what was perhaps Israel's most dovish government in history.

Now, after about a year of stunned silence, Israel's extreme Left has picked up where it left off, as if Israel had not offered to "end the occupation" at Camp David. Even though the refusal to serve is a fringe phenomenon, the delusion that if only Israel were to meet Palestinian demands the attacks would stop is not. Meretz leader Yossi Sarid is opposed to refusing to serve, but has lapsed into full "blame Israel first" mode.

"Israel cannot lend its hand to the occupation much longer if it wants to hold onto democracy," said Sarid, who was recently seen handing out bumper stickers in Tel Aviv with the latest Peace Now slogan, "Get out of the territories, get back to ourselves." The notion that we can unilaterally withdraw and therefore shut out those who are trying to kill us is what Israel tried in Lebanon. Instead of reading the withdrawal as proving Israel's seriousness about peace, the Palestinians read it as a sign that what Israel would not yield in negotiations it would yield by force.

The essential mistake of the left-wing, which is now being repeated, is the belief that Palestinian demands are fixed and finite, and once those demands are fulfilled there will be peace. Lebanon was an ideal case to test this proposition, since there could not be something more finite than withdrawing from a foreign country to a border signed and sealed by the United Nations.

Yet we find that Hizbullah has no trouble finding excuses to continue fighting Israel. In the Palestinian case, there is no natural end point to demands made of Israel. Even if Israel withdrew to the 1967 lines, there would still remain the "right of return," which asserts Palestinian rights to pre-1967 Israel as well.

The fact is that there is no set of Palestinian demands that Israel can satisfy, because there is no form of justice in Palestinian eyes that is consistent with Israel's existence. Palestinian demands are not fixed; they are defined by what is possible. Any concession produced by defeating Israel will result in further attacks designed to produce more concessions.

The alternative model is that provided by Egypt, which tried to destroy Israel a few times, but made peace when defeating Israel no longer seemed possible. America is discovering in its war on terrorism that victory is the ultimate peacemaker: The enthusiasm of the Arab "street" for Osama bin Laden dropped as the Taliban fell in Afghanistan. Israel's current conflict with the Palestinians is not exempt from the rule that victory works and defeat does not.

The constant drumbeat within Israel declaring that "there is no military solution" is wrong, except in the most trivial sense. Yes, in the end a "solution" will likely be enshrined in some negotiated agreement. But a diplomatic solution of any kind is completely dependent on military-political realities. Those realities are defined by Israeli steadfastness and will, and by an American decision to stop protecting Arafat from Israel, even in the short-run.

Copyright 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Prime Minister Sharon has said he will not drag the nation into war. Excuse my simplicity, but I thought Israel has long been involved in a war with the Arafat's Palestinian Authority. Arafat may be a pathological liar, but he has not lied about waging war against Israel. Indeed, he declared war against the Jewish state when he was in Johannesburg, the day after he signed the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles on September 13, 1993!

Since then Arafat's army of terrorists have killed almost 800 Jews. His army fires rockets on Israeli towns. His suicide bombers kill and maim Jews in shopping centers, in wedding halls, in restaurants, yes, even in Jerusalem, the nation's capital. If this is not war, what is it?

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Sharon, unlike President George Bush, refrains from declaring all-out war against terrorism. Are Jewish casualties less significant than American casualties? Muslim terrorists killed 4,000 people when they hijacked American aircraft and flew them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Palestinian terrorists have killed 200 Jews since Sharon became prime minister. That number is equivalent to 11,000 Americans!

Whatever Mr. Sharon may say, Israel is at war. The former general is not dragging Israel INTO war; rather, he is dragging OUT the war. Various military experts contend that the PA's army can be eliminated in less than a week, and with few Israeli casualties. Far more Jewish lives will be lost under Sharon's inane or insane policy of self-restraint. And as the present author warned last year, the PA will obtain deadlier and deadlier weapons the longer this war is dragged out.

So what is Mr. Sharon afraid of? There is no longer any reason to believe he is being deterred by American pressure. Nor is there any solid reason to believe that elimination of Arafat and the PA will unleash a regional war. No Arab state will risk a war with Israel for Arafat's sake. So what prevents Sharon from eliminating the greatest enemy of the Jewish people since Hitler?

Some say he fears that destruction of the PA will result in the collapse of his so-called government of national unity, that this will lead to new elections and the possibility that his Likud Party will choose Benjamin Netanyahu to be his successor. It's hard to believe that Sharon's personal ambitions outweigh his patriotism.

On the other hand, perhaps he fears that the fall of the Government will cause serious rifts in Israeli society, even if new elections were to result in a decisive Likud victory. As long as Labor remains in the Government and enjoys the power and perks of eight ministries, the Left will not engage in unmanageable subversive activity—or so Sharon may think.

And then there are those who believe that Sharon feels tarnished by Sabra and Shatilla, that he wants to go down in history as the man who finally brought peace to Israel.

It seems to me, however, that Sharon's unwillingness to destroy the PA is to be explained primarily in terms of his inability to pursue an alternative to Oslo, that is, an alternative to a Palestinian state. The fact that he continues to advocate a Palestinian state even though some 80% of the "Palestinians" exalt suicide bombers is symptomatic either of willful self-deception or of intellectual sterility. The latter certainly characterizes his Likud Party: of its 19 Knesset members, only one voted to abrogate Oslo.

Of course, Sharon could say: "After abrogating Oslo and getting rid of Arafat and his PA, what do we do about the Arab inhabitants of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza?"

The present writer addressed this question in a paper published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research. All-too-briefly stated: Israel should (1) declare sovereignty over the areas in question; (2) move certain ministries in these areas; (3) sell small plots of land to Jews in Israel and abroad, and attract foreign capital to develop model cities in this heartland of the Jewish people. If all this was properly orchestrated—and I have not mentioned other required measures—Arabs will emigrate as they have in the past.

Trouble is twofold: Sharon lacks any grandiose vision, which presupposes a wise and dauntless Torah-oriented personality. But even such a personality would be hamstrung by Israel inept and divisive system of multi-party cabinet government.

Returning, however, to the subject of war, unless the PA is destroyed, Israeli society will disintegrate from within—precisely Arafat's objective. Disintegration will be hastened by fragmentary character of Israel political system—its multiplicity of parties, all devoid of any long-range national strategy to preserve Israel as a Jewish state. But no institution is more divisive than Israel's Supreme Court, whose secular agenda will further exacerbate the secular-religious rift. (The Court is simply out of touch with reality—the reality of war. Instead of fostering national unity and civic virtue, it renders decisions that promote moral anarchy and promiscuity!) Only an all-out war can purge Israel of its sickness and prevent it from being Arabized. Here a word from Rabbi Avraham HaCohen Kook, Israel's first Chief Rabbi, is in order. This peace-loving sage wrote:

"War deepens a country's self-cognizance, identity, and patriotism. War forces nations to define the reasons for going to war, and to take a passionate stand in defending the cardinal values which make up the nation's foundations. Whether it be a fight for survival, for land, for expansion, for honor, for religion, or for freedom, the willingness to die in battle sets these issues in sharper focus. In peacetime, these same questions are largely ignored. But with the outbreak of war, to repel an invading army, or to conquer a neighboring people and land, a person needs clear and deep-rooted principles to motivate him to fight. The war is not merely a battle of soldiers. It is a battle of values and principles. In the collision of opposing cultures and forces, each country is compelled to clarify it national aspirations and goals. To overcome the enemy, a nation is called upon to lift up its own cherished flag and defend it to the end."

Would that we had such a rabbi at the helm of state!



The Jerusalem Post, February 24, 2002


By David M. Weinberg

Military strikes on the Palestinian Authority are insufficient, and buffer zones are a chimera. The current, intolerable wave of terrorism demands an additional Israeli response; a policy that will truly punish, perhaps deter, Yasser Arafat's evil regime. Time to expand and strengthen our settlement presence in Judea and Samaria! Expand settlements, you ask in incredulity, when they are under the sharpest attack ever? Expand settlements - and bring down upon ourselves global condemnation?

Absolutely! Building up the Land of Israel is the right response to Palestinian terrorism. A Zionist response. It's also sweet revenge. In Palestinian eyes, the expansion of settlements is truly punitive; it is the one Israeli policy they fear most.

Understand: I'm not saying that Israel needs another 10 tiny, indefensible outposts near Jenin, nor need we spot isolated caravans around Ramallah. But indeed we ought to selectively strengthen the Israeli foothold in areas of national consensus and strategic importance across Judea and Samaria.

Fight fire with fire. The terrorists want to chase us off this land; in response, let's lay stake to more land each time they fire a shot.

Consider the alternatives. The government is not about to nuke Gaza nor retake Nablus. Sharon and Peres are running out of abandoned PA police buildings to bomb. They might try razing Palestinian homes that give shelter to terrorists, but our magnificent High Court of Justice is now blocking just such a demolition order. Remember too: The last significant demolition operation carried out, in Rafah, brought us more trouble than it was worth.

"Inhumane" it was, said the Left.

More roadblocks and the digging of trenches? Well, each group of soldiers manning a roadblock now has become a target in itself. Both needy Palestinian day laborers and the depraved suicide bombers somehow manage to get across the "seam." I doubt that "buffer zones" are likely to help much.

Then, there's Ariel Sharon's la-la idea to build a fence or a wall around Jerusalem. Don't forget the moat with crocodiles in it. Seriously: If such a fence is to be built, better that we should pre-dig the tunnels underneath it. That way, the IDF will know exactly where to look for Palestinian infiltrators.

The wall could be useful for two additional reasons. Its height would provide Palestinian gunners with a known trajectory, so that appropriate shooting angles can be calculated in advance for each weapon type - Iranian mortars, home-made Kassam rockets, Hizbullah-supplied Kat yusha rockets, etc. Jews may yet need the new edifice as an alternative Western Wall, particularly if Barak, Beilin, or Ben-Ami returns to power.

It certainly makes no sense to hand over more land to the PA, because appeasement is the worst policy and Arafat's terrorist gangs already have enough maneuvering room. Instead, with every terrorist outrage, we should take over more land, and build, build, build.

It is in our national interest to develop the French Hill-to-Ma'aleh Adumim continuum on Jerusalem's northeastern flank; to expand Givat Ze'ev southward to Ramot; to build Har Homa II; and to complete the eastern ring road - all of which will strengthen our hold on Israel's historic national capital.

It is in our national interest to promote settlement growth in the Jordan Valley, using economic incentives to attract new residents, and providing the financing to help kibbutzim in this strategic sector fill in the gaps between their farms.

It is in our national interest to "thicken" and promote rapid "natural growth" in the string of wonderful communities that line the Samarian ridge overlooking Gush Dan - from Alfei Menashe through Peduel, down to Nili and Kiryat Sefer.

The same expansion arguments hold true for the Dolev-Talmon bloc, which sits on the critical Yarkon-Taninim aquifer; as well as settlements in the southern Hebron Hills, from Eshkolot to Carmel, which are but a few minutes away from Beersheba and Arad. We should move rapidly to build the planned Beit Shemesh-Jerusalem mountain highway, intended to swing by Betar and nearby Gush Etzion.

With every terrorist outrage, the government should speed-up construction, increase the building budget, expropriate more "Palestinian" land, and ever more grandly celebrate the start of each new neighborhood. With fanfare. International and Palestinian press invited.

A policy of proud settlement in response to terrorism - alongside continuing military action where possible - will allow our country to regain the initiative, to recover from a dangerous loss of self-confidence, and to exact a real price from the Palestinians for their recalcitrance and barbarity.

And if it scares a sobered Palestinian leadership back to the negotiating table, so be it.

(The writer is director of public affairs at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.)


Copyright 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -



A Trojan horse, by any other name, is still a Trojan horse.


"I was born in 1918 on the ruins of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and was, to a certain degree, an inheritor of that great empire. As indicated by my name, Czechoslovakia, I was forged of two Slavic communities, Czechs and Slovaks, which together numbered 8.8 million out of the total population of 13.6 million inhabitants of my republic. These included various small minorities of Jews, Hungarians and Poles, all loyal citizens, but the main minority group, twenty percent of the population, were Germans, who subsequently showed their face as the fifth column that led to my downfall.

Throughout the forty years of my existence I was a model democracy, the only democracy in central Europe. I was one of the richest countries on the continent, at the forefront of technological and industrial progress, my security was assured in a number of international agreements, and my large army, well-equipped and trained, was the strongest in the region.

Today it is common knowledge that the large German minority living in our midst finally proved to be a fifth column which rose up against me, the mother-land, disintegrating it from within, until its final liquidation. The heads of my government were indeed alert to the German danger from within, but there was little they could do. After all, I was a democracy, and democratic principles, so we then believed, obliged us to allow the German minority to participate in the political system and give them the franchise.

I do not wish to burden you with a long, detailed account of my history, particularly since so much about it has already been written. But I would like, dear Israel, to bring to your attention just a bare outline, on one foot as it were, of the final years of my existence, up to its tragic end.

Well, Hitler knew that he had no chance of crushing us in battle in a direct manner, since we were the strongest army in the region. That was when he conceived his fiendish scheme: first an intifada, and then a peace agreement. The German minority living in our midst began violent disturbances and intifada, and although there was never a problem of overpowering them and quelling these outbursts, statesmen of vision and peace began to intervene, visionaries who fell straight into the devilish trap that Hitler had laid for them.

[Incidentally, much later, after the downfall, when all the relevant documents had become public, it transpired that on the very day, June 1, 1935, when the peace talks began, leading eventually to autonomy and the establishment of the Sudeten Authority, Hitler gave the army its orders to plan my final annihilation, specifying the precise date: October 1, 1938. He labeled this secret plan, a sequence of stages, the "Green Plan". Today, looking back, when I reflect on the reason for the selection of this particular label, I conjecture that it was not a random choice, but a description fitting the evil design of dismemberment by stages, first by forcing us to agree just to autonomy up to the green line, and then, when the German minority had achieved their independent Sudeten country -- which they then referred to as "their right to self-determination" – enabling them to join up with the Germans from without and conquer all of the land, including what was still within the green line, that is, all of Czechoslovakia. This accounts, perhaps, for the code "the Green Plan".]

As I noted, there began the intifada of the fifth column on the one hand, and the intercession of the European dreamers of peace on the other, headed by the great visionary Chamberlain, of exalted memory. These visionaries, to our great misfortune, were in complete control of the European media, which began to arouse public opinion against our alleged policy of subjugation and repression of the German minority, and our President was depicted as an obstacle to peace and a warmonger. We underwent a thorough brainwashing, in speeches in parliament and in the press, to the effect that our relinquishing the Sudeten areas to Germany would only bring us blessings, for by doing so we would effect a complete separation and be rid of a large and militant minority which endangered the Slavic character of our state. And when our President tried to argue that handing over the Sudetenland to Germany would lay bare our defenses vis-a-vis Hitler's armies, we were told by all the seekers of peace that in an era of goodwill there is no value attached to territorial assets, and in any case, so they promised us, the two great powers, France and Great Britain, would guarantee the integrity of Czechoslovakia in its redrawn borders.

In short, Chamberlain flew to a meeting with Hitler, and there, on the lawns of the Brown House, in Munich, the ceremony of shaking of hands and signing the pledges took place. The delighted Chamberlain returned home and proclaimed with great fervor that a hundred years of hatred in Europe had come to a close and a new page of peace had been opened that day. The British parliament was seized by an ecstasy of joy unparalleled in the Mother of Parliaments from its inception, and the man of vision, Chamberlain, was showered with praise from all. "He will be remembered in history, " declared the press, "as the greatest statesman of our times and of all time."

In the vote for approval of the pact (no, it was not called "the Oslo Agreement", but "the Munich Agreement"), the Prime Minister of Great Britain won an overwhelming majority: 366 voted for, with only144 against.

And when we had completed the stages of withdrawal (which we did very rapidly, within one week), it was already too late. We suddenly discovered that the 800,000 Czech settlers who lived in the areas on the other side of the green line had actually become hostages to Germany. We had lost a considerable portion of our strategic resources. Within one week we had changed from one of the richest and strongest states in Europe into an economically impoverished entity, lacking the ability to defend itself, betrayed by its allies, easy prey to the whims of a certified villain. This was the "peace with honor", as defined by Chamberlain.

After all the phases of our withdrawal had been carried out and they had taken over all the territory of the Sudeten entity, we managed to survive for 105 days, until March 14, 1939. On that date the German army invaded and occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia, all of the land within the green line. Everyone was amazed how a country with the strongest army in the region had allowed itself to fall into the trap of weakening by stages. But it was the irreversible end; it could not be undone. In the afternoon hours of March 15, 1939, Hitler arrived at the gates of Hradschin Castle, palace of the old Bohemian kings, ascended to the office of Edward Benes, sat himself down, and wrote on the desk of the former President of the republic: "Czechoslovakia has ceased to exist."

Yes, my dear Israel. I cannot be of much help to you today, but precisely because of that it is important to me that, at least, you should learn from my bitter experience.

All I wanted to do is simply to wish you many years of happiness and health -- in the hope that you will be able to stand firm. In sincere friendship and with best wishes,

The First Czechoslovakian Republic



The Jerusalem Post, February 20, 2002


Analysis by Arieh O'Sullivan

The Jerusalem Post, (February 20) - The disaster at Ein Arik in which six soldiers were killed without an apparent fight may go down in history like the 1987 "Night of the Hang Glider," when a Palestinian who glided into the North slipped into a base and killed eight soldiers. But in 1987, the soldiers were able to kill the gunman.

The Ein Arik incident has put the IDF into a trap. It will force the army to retaliate in such a way it can rebuild its image of a mighty cohesive army which believes in the justice of its mission. Since February 10, at least 14 soldiers, one policeman, and three civilians have been killed in what appears to be an unprecedented number of successful attacks.

The Palestinians' victories have never been so great as they have in the past week. Even as the helicopters rocket Hamas offices in the Jabalya refugee camp, F-16s bomb Palestinian Police barracks, and tanks are a few hundred meters from Yasser Arafat's Ramallah office, the Palestinians are gloating.

This week they have rejoiced over the destruction of the Merkava III tank and the accidental death of the commander of the Duvdevan undercover unit, two of the biggest symbols of the occupation.

The general public doesn't know this, but the IDF is out there in the territories on raids lasting for days as they hunt down terrorists. The Shin Bet, IDF, and police have been able to foil some 80 percent of the attempted terror attacks, a senior IDF officer said yesterday.

But the public only sees the mishaps, the pathetic performance of a paratrooper squad that allowed an unarmed Palestinian to sneak up on them, beat up one, and steal his weapon as another shot a soldier dead, then flee without a scratch.

And while the details of the assault at Ein Arik are still sketchy, it appears the soldiers were surprised and cut down without a fight. The gunmen were also able to flee, apparently because they wiped out all of the soldiers except one, who was wounded. When this sort of modus operandi first surfaced last August at the Marganit outpost in the Gaza Strip, it was clear the model would be copied.

Two gunmen killed three soldiers then. We saw it again at the Africa outposts in which three soldiers and an officer from the Beduin Desert Patrol unit were killed in December. The Palestinian Authority is doing nothing to stop these so-called terrorists, who are really behaving like well trained, highly motivated commandos.

Some in the military are saying the reason for the apparent poor performance of troops is fatigue, lengthy service in the territories, and the inability to be rotated out. This is true. On paper, regular army units are supposed to rotate out of the West Bank and Gaza Strip into training, but they are almost always called back for emergencies. In some ways - and many readers will not like to hear this - this is an indirect result of the country's hesitation to call up reservists for more than 25 days of active reserve duty in the territories.

The army is proud of the high attendance rate in reserve units, but it is a fragile statistic and there is already a phenomenon of "gray refusal." Not only that, but the number of refusers, while marginal, is another reminder the army cannot push reserve units too far and call them up for more time as they did in the first intifada. This means the small standing army is left to bear the burden.

A senior officer yesterday said the PA has "removed the bridle" from the terror organizations. The PA is not doing anything to rein them in or foil their attacks. It doesn't matter where or when - just make the Israelis bleed.

The defense establishment will now have to take quick action. There will be a lot of pressure to change the reality. In his first meeting with military reporters in 1998, soon after he took over as chief of General Staff, Lt.-Gen. Shaul Mofaz said he wanted an army with "a keener fighting spirit." There is no substitute for victory in every contact with the enemy, he said.

"Combat units need to know victory is a value. There can be no compromises in their contact [with the enemy], and they must be professionals," he said.

Copyright 1995-2002 The Jerusalem Post -




By Emanuel A. Winston

In the early 1960s' American President John F. Kennedy was faced with the Soviet Union arming Cuba with nuclear missiles - 90 miles from American shores.

Today, Israeli Prime Minister is similarly faced with a Palestinian Arab missile crisis, supplied by Iran to its proxies. There is a difference. America was and remains free to protect its mainland with all necessary force at its disposal.

Israel has been put on a short leach by America on the mistaken theory that such self-defense would interfere with America's plans to destroy Global Terrorism, all in good time. The problem is that Israelis are being killed by the same mix of Arab/Muslim terrorists that America via President Bush has promised to destroy.

For Israel, the time has come and is almost gone.

As the Soviets tried to sneak those nuclear missiles into Cuba, so too have the Arab/Muslim nations, in linkage with Arafat's factions of Tanzim, Fatah, plus Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, 'et al'. Now, Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda have joined these terrorist organizations in Lebanon and Iran.

The distances from such missiles to Israeli population centers are not 90 miles but 4 to 6 miles from the Kassem 2 rockets manufactured by Arafat's minions, as well as direct threats from the extended range missiles produced by Iran some with probable nuclear warheads.

America, through President Kennedy could convince the Soviet leaders to pull back their aggressive missiles but Israel cannot successfully negotiate with Yassir Arafat because he has broken every single agreement he ever signed. Arafat has daily made pronouncements that he will have a "new State of Palestine over ALL of Israel with ALL of Jerusalem as the capital of that state and only that state - and anyone who doesn't like it can go drink Gaza sea water". And that state will be achieved by "Jihad! Jihad! Jihad!" which is Arabic for Holy War, that is, the state of Palestine will be born through blood not negotiations or agreements.

Arafat steadfastly tells the world that he insists that the 3-5 million Palestinian refugees in the world must all be transferred into Israel. These are the inflated numbers of descendants from the 450,000 Arabs who left their homes in 1948 when six Arab armies attacked the new State of Israel.

All of these threats are existential dangers which would mean the end of the State of Israel IF she accepts any of these terms or any other the military threats which Arafat and his terrorist cohorts present.

While there are financial global interests, particularly among the Europeans, the U.S. State Department, the Arab/Muslim nations who are on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations, all of whom are willing - even anxious - to see Israel disappear. There is no reason for the Jewish nation to satisfy their desires - nor to accommodate their time lines.

There comes a time when a nation besieged by consummate evil powers must reject compromises that would inevitably lead to her ultimate destruction.

The Jewish people have from time immemorial experienced the cruelty and deadly aims of those who wish them gone. Today we see the Europeans blowing on the still smoldering ashes of the Holocaust at the behest of the Arab/Islamic nations. The thin veil of civility and pretense for their participation in the destruction of European Jewish is again being raised.

We see the so-called elite intellectuals leading the way with the logic and rationale that only those with a facility with words can make Genocide seem sane, even necessary. The Arab Muslims (and Muslims who are not Arabs like the Iranians) are a primitive people, driven by twisted view of Islam who heap all the troubles of their miserable existence on the Jewish people.

We Jews have seen all of this before as the Church, in league with the aristocracy deflected the misery of their rule by blaming the Jews. Once again, the world is in convulsions and has come to the point of crisis with each nation, each religion, each terrorist group looking for one common enemy to blame for what they have brought upon themselves.

The Christians have a word for what is about to occur: "Armageddon". Some call it the "End of Times". Whatever name - you can smell it in the air. They will start with the Jews and continue their rampage until they destroy each other.

This time, however, the Jews need not wait for the French to round up their Jews. This time the jews can face the min-Hitlers who saturate the nations and the religions of Islam and Christianity exempting those Fundamentalist Bible-believing Christians who would call themselves Zionist Christians because they have allied themselves with the Jewish State of Israel whole-heartedly.

The World has once again ramped up their self-inflicted misery to a point of global madness. Perhaps in years gone by, we would have been engaged in what we called a World War. But, now, with the hi tech introduction of WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction, small bands of crazies - with a grudge against the World, can blow up a city or spread bacteria that is so lethal it can destroy a civilization as it blows with the wind.

Is there a solution? Yes, of course. But, the civilized world will not use it until they have been struck such a devastating blow that they may never recover. There are those among us who cannot grasp the fact that murders and those committed to Genocide cannot be reasoned with. These naive fools are generally the first to rush to the gates of city to let in the attackers. These are the pall-bearers who lead civilizations to their demise and into the graves of history. Each nation is plagued with its Chamberlains, we Jews have the radical Left.

We have been left no choice but to use the expression to fight fire with fire.

That means that those nations considered civilized, must for a moment in time to themselves become uncivilized. To take the Weapons of Mass Destruction and eliminate those nations whose goals are to destroy humanity in the name of their god.

There is no reasoning with nations who are fanatically driven by their radical fringe of their religious teachings that they must dominate the World and install their own religion as the only religion. They cannot be reached by diplomacy and words of compromise. They have been, unfortunately, provided with Weapons of Mass Destruction produced in our own laboratories. We have trained their young scientists in our own universities to make NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons.

The so-called Civilized World has a choice. Destroy those nations targeting these weapons' facilities and the political dictators who can press the buttons or accept destruction for ourselves.

As for Israel, she owes little to anyone and should not accept self-sacrifice for the temporary good of others. It should attack those who attack her with all the ferocity she is known to posses and can muster at will. Israel's restraint or sporadic strikes on empty buildings have brought her no honor from the Arabs, Muslims or the Europeans.

Israel has her own Cuban missile crisis to deal with. Unlike America, with her huge land mass, it cannot sustain hits by radiation bombs, chemical or biological missiles on the narrow sliver of land on which she exists. Nor can Israel rely upon anyone to rescue her or cause the Arab nations to stand down their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

The choice of living or dying is upon the Jewish nation and her leaders - Right Now!


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

 HOME  Maccabean  comments