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"



MAY 2000

OH L-RD, HOW SHALL I MAKE THE BLIND SEE?...Editorial.....Bernard J. Shapiro 2


NIGHTMARE OR DREAM....Eugene Narrett, PhD 9

A PALESTINIAN STATE NOW?.....Zalman Shoval 13

PESACH MESSAGE TO BARAK....From the Women in Green 14


Barak's J Curve as G String....Dr. Steven Plaut 17










....Louis Rene Beres 28


IMRA'S WEEKLY COMMENTARY ON ARUTZ 7 - 13 April 2000....Dr. Aaron Lerner 31


OF MASTERS AND SLAVES....Boris Shusteff 35




ISRAEL AND THE CAMEL DUNG....A Jewish Parable....Bernard J. Shapiro 44


Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

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


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

(c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro



An Editorial (This was written a few years ago and is still true and needs repeating)


OK, sometimes I do get frustrated. I spend all my time and energy bringing the truth about the harsh realities facing Israel and the Jewish people. Many good people, like the readers of THE MACCABEAN, understand my feeling of despair at our total lack of influence in centers of power in Israel. We are searching for a new course of action that is more effective. Short of a miracle I don't know what to do. For the sake of history this editorial will review the relevant facts. It is my fond hope and prayer that some one in the Prime Minister's office will read and understand our message:


 We all want peace. We pray for peace in our Sabbath services every Friday night. After thousands of years, being victims of persecution, expulsion, extermination, and discrimination, it is natural that we yearn for peace with every ounce of our bodies and souls.

It is because our hunger for peace is so strong that we must be doubly cautious not to fall for a psuedo-peace that is really the wolf of war wrapped in sheep's clothing. Today none of us believe Chamberlain really negotiated "peace in our time" with Hitler. Why do some Jews believe that Peres and Rabin really negotiated PEACE with Arafat, one of today's Hitlers?

Israelis my age have fought in four wars and I understand their desire to be free of constant conflict. Unfortunately there is no magic cure. I wish I could write more optimistic words. Beyond the neighboring states that Israel is negotiating with now lies another ring of unmitigated hostility led by Islamic fundamentalists like those in Iran.

As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. The only peace the Arabs are prepared to give us is the peace of the grave.

In blood and fire was Israel born and on a hot anvil was she forged. The brave young soldiers of Israel must take a quick glance back to the crematoria of Auschwitz and then go forth to face the enemy knowing that there is still no alternative (ein briera).


Just as bigots obscure reality about certain groups in an evil way, reality can be obscured by the seemingly well-meaning, who are deluded. This self-delusion, or self-deception, can sometimes have tragic consequences. Unfortunately, Jews throughout history have deluded themselves about their position in society. They pursue utopian solutions to complex political problems and disputes. Jews rejoiced as the enlightenment spread across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many were eager to give up their Jewishness and become German, French, Italian, and English. In the final analysis those societies viewed them as Jews. Self-delusion came into collision with reality and left us with the stench of burning flesh from the ovens of Auschwitz. Many Russian Jews eagerly supported the communist idea of a worker's utopia with no nationalities and no religion. Reality taught them that their neighbors still considered them Jews.

The left-wing in Israel suffers from gross delusions about Arabs. In the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary they believe peace is possible. In the book Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu (1963-1976), Jonathan Netanyahu, the fallen hero of Entebbe and brother of Benjamin, said it best:

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, it it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish people is!"

I wish someone would explain to me why ANY INTELLIGENT Israeli could believe the nonsense (PLO/Israel deal) its leaders are expounding. Professor Mark Steinberger (Department of Math and Statistics, State University of New York in Albany, New York) supplied the best answer I have ever heard:

"I would say that leftists must inhabit an alternate universe, except that we wind up having to pay the consequences for their detachment from reality. But while we do live in the same objective world, their vision of it seems to have nothing in common with ours. They do not comprehend reality as we see it, and when challenged with evidence that would seem to buttress our view, they seem either to dismiss it for theoretical reason or ignore it completely. One can list various dangers in the agreement, and give objective evidence that Palestinians have no desire for peace, but still want to drive our people into the sea. What is the reaction? They will tell you that self-determination and prosperity will change the Palestinians' outlook and behavior. On what do they base this? Not on evidence from Arab societies. Rather it is based on theory.

To me, this looks like an unwillingness to deal with reality, and it echoes the unwillingness of the Jewish community of the thirties to recognize the threat posed by the Nazis. Indeed, it seems we have learned nothing at all from our experience with Nazism. The Holocaust has become little more than a tale to frighten children: demons in a morality play. They have turned the Holocaust into an image divorced from real world happenings. Millions more Jews could die in Israel, but they refuse to even imagine the possibility. They will not allow reality to interfere with their myths."


The answer is YES -- But only after mind-boggling changes in the Arab world. True peace can only be made after the Arab world undergoes democratization. Simply put, democracies rarely go to war with one another. All our major wars of the last two hundred years have been between dictators or between democracies defending themselves from dictators. When a ruler is elected by the people, he has a natural restraint preventing him from sending their sons and daughters into combat in an aggressive war. No such restraint exists anywhere in the Arab world.


The second major change required of the Arab/Moslem world is to create secular states not subservient to the rule of Islam. The problem for Israel with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the very hostile attitude that Islam has toward Jews and any non-Islamic person. Islam is all encompassing and guides behavior, law, religion and attitudes and relations with non-Moslems. Islam perceives the world as two separate parts:

1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam

2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war -- that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

The concept of JIHAD or Holy War has been understood by most of us but there is another concept in the Koran with which few of us are familiar. But it is essential to understand this concept when relating to Moslems. That is the law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non-Muslims." This applies to business, personal life and politics. Would a peace treaty be worth much if the other party is Moslem?

Islam divides the world between Believers and Infidels. Jews and Christians are relegated to the status of Dhimmis or second class citizens. The Koran clearly calls on Moslems to degrade and humiliate both groups.

The Arab/Moslem world will have to develop a tradition of respect for women, minorities, and human rights in general before they will be ready for peace with Israel. It seems a bit odd that our State Department is pushing democracy and human rights from one end of the globe to the other -- WITH THE REMARKABLE EXCEPTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Why are the Arabs insulated from pressure to democratize their societies?

It is obvious that no peace agreement would be worth anything with people believing in the above Islamic tenets, failing to practice democracy or show respect for minorities and human rights.


Great issues of war and peace as related to Israel are being debated by Jews in Israel and America. There are strong opinions on both sides of the Atlantic as well as both sides of the major issues. Professor Paul Eidelberg of Bar-Ilan University, reviews the historical facts:

"Between 1945 and 1978 the longest time without a war going on someplace was a mere 26 days. On an average day there are 12 wars being fought somewhere on earth. The consensus of scholars has been that the norm of international relations is not peace but war. As Eidelberg reports, "Indeed, the occurrence of 1,000 wars during the last 2,500 years indicates that "peace" is little more than a preparation for war. Which means that peace treaties are WORTHLESS, to say the least."

Eidelberg then quotes from a book by Lawrence Beilenson, entitled THE TREATY TRAP, saying, "After studying every peace treaty going back to early Roman times, Beilenson concludes that treaties are made to be broken. In fact, he shows that treaties for guaranteeing the territorial integrity of a nation are useless to the guaranteed nation, and worse than useless insofar as they engender a false sense of security. Such treaties can only benefit nations governed by rulers intending to violate them whenever expedient."


Midge Dector on "peace"-- "What I want to say is something that virtually the whole history of the 20th century teaches us and yet something we refuse to learn. And that is , when applied to the affairs of nations, peace is an evil word. Yes I said evil. And the idea of peace as we know it is an evil idea. From the peace of Versailles to "peace in our time" at Munich...each declaration of peace or expressions of longing for peace ended in slaughter. Not necessarily immediately and not necessarily directly, but slaughter all the same..."

"For there is no such thing as making peace. Nations who are friendly do not need to do so, and nations or people who are hostiles cannot do so. To cry peace, peace when there is no peace, the prophet Jeremiah taught us long a go, is not the expression of hope, not even superstition but a reckless toying with the minds and hearts of people whose very future depends on their capacity to rise every day to the harsh morning light of the truth."


The Land of Israel was given to Abraham for the Jewish People in perpetuity. David Ben Gurion, Israel's first Prime Minister and founder of the Labor Party, said the following about the Jewish People's connection to Israel:

"No Jew has the right to relinquish the right of the Jewish People over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish People has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."


We find all the expressions of horror at the recent Rabbi's ruling concerning a soldier's obligation to avoid abandoning army bases and settlements to terrorists, to be hypocritical, self-serving, and unfortunate. The Israeli government is in rebellion against everything that Israel, Zionism, and Judaism are all about. They are the ones causing the rift in the body politic and they will be totally responsible for any resulting violence.

When will the Nationalist Camp realize that we are "at war already" with the PLO supported tyranny that rules Israel? At what point will Israelis realize that the CIVIL WAR they fear, IS ALREADY TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE LOSING? The monopoly on power must be broken or there is no hope.

History is usually written by the victors but truly there are seldom universally accepted moral standards. We can say with absolute certainty, however, that the Jewish return to Zion and our struggle today for Eretz Yisrael are more righteous than any other struggle for national liberation in the history of the world.

The government plan to post soldiers in every settlement in YESHA is nothing more than a TROJAN HORSE. They will be there to give the Jews a FALSE sense of security thus nipping in the bud attempts by YESHA to achieve the military means necessary for self-defense. Some will be spies and agents to seize and confiscate Jewish arms. At the right moment they will be withdrawn and the terrorists will be in charge. Jews will have a choice: being massacred or abandoning their homes. Their ability to defend themselves will have been thwarted by the government in collusion with the terrorists.

Following my five weeks of research in Israel, I spelled out (May-June 1994 issue of THE MACCABEAN) the nature of this inevitable conflict:


1. The Palestinians expect and will demand that every Jew be removed from their areas of control including the whole of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

2. The Jews of YESHA not only plan to stay in their homes but will fight for them militarily. This obviously conflicts with #1.

I also stated: "The number of Jews in YESHA is about 144,000 (now over 200,000). Not counting women, children, and men over 50 leaves about 40,000 men capable of resisting a PLO armed force. These men are all IDF veterans and reservists with army issue UZI's or M-16 with at least two clips (30 rounds per clip) of ammunition per gun. All Jewish villages are on the hills with a commanding view of the area. The Arab villages control the roads creating a strategic situation similar to the pre-state fighting of 1947-48. During my visit I toured the whole area, and emphasized the need to get past the shock of the government's disregard for their interests and make serious preparations for the coming battles."

Six years have passed since that report and events are playing out exactly as I predicted. Arafat's PLO terrorists will soon take over Judea and Samaria under Phase Three of the Oslo Plan. The military struggle is about to begin in earnest. If anyone believes this to be unlikely, stay posted and we will see how the future plays out. The Jews of YESHA should not leave their physical well-being to the good graces of Arafat or Barak.

The Jews of YESHA must not be passive pawns in the political surrender of their homes. They must fight the Arabs, where necessary, to maintain their travel, water, and land rights. When the Israeli government retreats, leaving them behind PLO battle lines, they must be prepared to go on the offensive militarily to secure safe contiguous areas of Jewish control. The defeatist Israeli leaders, who have surrendered our Jewish rights to Eretz Yisrael, should be told that there are still proud Jews in YESHA who will give up neither their inheritance from Abraham nor their right of self-defense.

Exercising one's right to self-defense is a moral imperative. There is a lot of hypocritical talk coming from the government about the danger of Jew fighting Jew. These warnings are coming from the likes of Ehud Barak and Yossi Sarid and the late Yitzhak Rabin who delighted in shooting Zionist (Betar) teenagers swimming to shore after his forces sank the Altalena in 1948. These same hypocrites are putting the Jews of YESHA in life threatening peril. They care nothing about Jewish lives!

Should the Jews of YESHA be forced into military combat they would be fully justified. They will be fighting for the security of Israel and the future destiny of the Jewish people. These brave Jews would be continuing the long tradition of Hebrew Warriors, including Joshua, David, the Maccabees and Bar Kochba, who fought against all odds to save their people and their country.

The glorious Hebrew Warriors who defeated five Arab armies in 1948, three in 1967, and two in 1973 must not surrender their Jewish homeland to an evil terrorist, who delights in killing Jewish babies. The Brave Heroes of Zion must not limit themselves to passive civil disobedience. At this great time of trial and apocalyptic threat, the safeguarding of the future of the Jewish people's right to Eretz Yisrael must take precedence.


[Parts of the above article were the cover editorial in the August 1995 issue of THE MACCABEAN.]



(1) The most fundamental flaw is the renunciation of Jewish claims to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel is God-given and cannot be renounced by a transitory Israeli government. The present government has no right to deprive future generations of Jews and Israelis of their legal patrimony.

(2) Yasir Arafat's PLO is incapable of providing Israelis with the cessation of violence they so dearly crave. There are ten rejectionist PLO factions plus Hamas and other Islamic fundamentalist factions that will continue to kill Jews.

(3) Without the presence of Israel's internal security force (Shin Bet) inside Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it will be impossible to halt terrorism or even keep it within present levels. The Israel Defense Forces maintain tremendous power but are of little importance in day-to-day terrorism.

(4) Arafat's signature on the agreement and the PLO acceptance is of no consequence as Arafat is a documented liar. Muslims are permitted to lie to to non-Muslims and break agreements with them under the Koranic law of HUDAIBIYA. Treaties and contracts with them are worthless.

(5) By virtue of this agreement, the Israeli government has validated Arab claims to the Land of Israel. Decades of fighting Arab propaganda and distortions of history are trivialized and discounted.

(6.) This agreement puts the status of Jerusalem on the negotiating table. Every previous government of Israel steadfastly stood by the principle of Jerusalem being non-negotiable.

(7) All of Israel's military and civilian communications will now be easily monitored from the hills of Judea and Samaria.

(8) While Israeli radar and military installations are not affected by this current agreement, the future is less certain. Eventually the Arab population will force the Israelis out.

(9) Whether they admit it publicly or not, Israeli leaders know that this is the first step to a Palestinian state.

(10) The "Palestinian right of return" has been acknowledged for the first time by the Israelis and could result in a flood of Arabs to Judea and Samaria.

(11) The inevitable increase in Arab population will result in tremendous pressure on Israel's water supply. As Arab wells are dug in the Judean and Samarian hills, the natural mountain aquifer that supplies much of Tel Aviv and the coastal plain with water will be serious depleted. Such depletion will cause the salt water of the Mediterranean Sea to penetrate Israel's coastal strip, thus destroying all water supplies. This process can be witnessed in California, where sea water has already penetrated five miles into the coast.

(12) Some 70% of Israel's population and industry is concentrated in a small strip of coast and greater Tel Aviv. That population will be immediately threatened by Kaytusha rockets. Fired singly from the hills of Judea and Samaria, and set with timers they will be virtually impossible to stop. The Israeli government plan to coordinate with the Palestinian police is akin to working with the fox to guard the henhouse. The Palestinian police are being recruited from among the terrorists who delight especially in murder and mutilation of bodies. Will they arrest and turn over a terrorist who kills Israelis and then escapes to Gaza?

(13) The Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will no doubt be victims of ethnic cleansing. The Arabs will insist on a Jew-free country like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The government has already begun confiscating the weapons of Jews, which could cause them to become vulnerable to massacre like the Bosnians.

(14) The air and seaports planned for Gaza will facilitate the entry of weapons and terrorists, threatening the security of Israel.

(15) The proposed "safe passages" for the PA will facilitate the movement of terrorists and weapons from Gaza to Judea and Samaria.

Is there any need to say more? Please copy and distribute this information as widely as possible. Please urge Prime Minister Ehud Barak to read it and respond correctly and urgently to the dangers presented.

.......Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor (Updated from THE MACCABEAN -- November 1997)


Our first press release............

Page SIX Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) September 2, 1993

Freeman Center says rush to embrace
PLO is foolish and ultimately dangerous

'...nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel'

Asserting that the rush to embrace the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is both foolish and ultimately dangerous, the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies has declared: "The pro-Israel community should react with extreme caution to the moves in Jerusalem to recognize the PLO."

Bernard J. Shapiro, director of the center also said: "The proposed Gaza-Jericho plan worked out between Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and representatives of the PLO, a terrorist organization, is nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel. We should not forget that the PLO has violated and trampled on every agreement it has ever made during its nearly 30-year history. This includes agreements and solemn pledges made to the Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the United States and the United Nations."

According to the Freeman Center, the PLO instituted a reign of terror, rape and murder locally as well as attacks on Israel in the two Arab countries where it gained a kind of 'self rule.'"

Shapiro continued: "Despite the media hype surrounding these developments, let me make something very clear: A leopard does not change his spots. You can say a berachah (blessing) over a ham sandwich, but that doesn't make it kosher. And a deal with the PLO is like a dance on quicksand - before you realize it, you have sunk into the muck and slime."


Please note that this Press Release was issued on September 2, 1993, a full 11 days before Oslo was signed on the White House lawn (September 13, 1993). Everything it said has come horribly true. We at the Freeman Center properly analyzed the momentous events in the Middle East and we have been fighting the Oslo Appeasement Agreement ever since.

Please help us in our battle to save Eretz Yisrael.

Bernard J. Shapiro, Director
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies




By Eugene Narrett, PhD

12 Nisan 5760 (04-16-00)

"When Hashem returns the captivity of Zion, we will be like dreamers" (Ps. 126)

As Barak the Incredible soars on the hot air of the peace process, untethered from his halachic link to the earth and sanity, too, a tiny bump may recently have troubled his bottomless doze. Aloft toward Cairo to explain his latest concession to his Egyptian friends so they could suitably nuance their Jew-hating rhetoric, his pilot was forced to sheer off to the north. Egyptian air traffic control would not allow Barak to fly over the Sinai (1). The rebuff brimmed with historical lessons.

A sane response to this insulting incident was hinted in the plane's having to swoop down from the north, coming in over the Mediterranean as the Israeli air force had when it pounded Egypt in 1967, insuring victory. That victory consisted in redeeming Jewish Land west of the Jordan, on the Golan and in the approach to Goshen. The last named was given by the Lord God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Israel's possession of it was confirmed by Pharaoh ("the best of all the land of Egypt, it is yours!" Genesis 45:17-20, 46:28-47:6), and re-conquered by Joshua (Joshua 10:41, 11:16). There is, however no sign as yet that the pattern, forced on Barak's plane by Egypt (as were the wars of 1967 and 1973) awakened the memory, faith or sobriety of Clinton's toy.

The PM of Israel still founders in the sleep of reason though every day the fraud of the peace process becomes more obvious. Subordinates of Arafat like Abu Ala and Ahmed Rachman called for "actions" and "a new and more dangerous intifada" if Jews continue to settle in Judah and Samaria (2). There duly followed bombings in Gush Katif and a week of shootings against Jews near Netzarim. As in 1947, Jews in Israel must travel in convoys and under guard to avoid certain death.

Egyptians continue helping Jews come back down to earth by demonstrating Arab attitudes toward "peace." Israelis visiting Cairo to attend a seminar on "Jews, Judaism and Zionism" were barred from Cairo University and informed that Egyptian institutions continue to oppose "normalization" (as do all of the professional associations in Jordan) [3]. Egyptian professors describe Israel as essentially in contradiction with that of Egypt [which] has respect for territory, history, heritage, nationalism and [its own] civilization." When Jews in Israel speak of honoring "history, heritage and nationalism" they become "right wing extremists" who risk "incitement" and prosecution by the High Court (4). It indicates the decrepitude of Israel that Egyptians see the antipathy between the two nations as based in Egypt's "respecting the sense of belonging to the land," while the government of Israel does not.

The same reversal of history and destiny occurs in relation to "Jordan," a nation that in its entirety belongs to the Children of Israel by divine covenant. Having foregone the chance to assert that sovereignty, it is left for "Jordanians" to speak of "the unity of what remained of Palestine [after the Jews 'stole' some of it in 1948] and Jordan. Jordanian nationality was formed through the continued geographic and demographic contacts and close interests of people on both banks over the past generation. Unity became a fact on the ground that cannot be denied" (5). Israeli nationalists used to insist on "both banks" but that position came to be considered so "extreme" that Menachem Begin himself implicitly renounced it as part of the Camp David Agreements by ratifying the fiction of a "Palestinian people." And so the slide began, and continues. A few days after the "unity" of Jordan-Palestine was asserted in Amman, Israel's 'best friend in the Arab world' declared that it must "prepare for war with Israel lest Jerusalem be lost to the Muslim world" (6).

It is the self-contempt of some Jews for their own heritage and grace, that enflames Arab hostility. In the southern suburbs of Jerusalem, Jews recently began building on land they own but have prevented from developing because it may harm the "process." "Here is a neighborhood close to Jerusalem, with all the necessary building approvals, and work is stopped simply because Arafat makes a phone call to Barak. This is a national weakness unheard of in other countries" (7). When Israelis began the work despite Arafat's distress, Jews from "Peace Now" demonstrated and disrupted it. "Tell me, are they crazy," asked an Arab observing nearby. "Those guys fighting against their own nation, are they nuts?" (8). In the current talks on the "third stage" withdrawal, as throughout the Oslo process and, indeed, since the withdrawal from the Litani in 1948, '"the issue is whether or not Israel wishes to feel pressured" (9).

The "Peace Now" sleep walkers help Barak remain somnambulant. They don't seem to notice or mind when Arab students at Universities in Haifa and Jerusalem wave Palestinian flags and shout, "death to the Jews" (10). These same Arabs have their tuition covered by Israeli taxpayers. When Jews try to collect other debts from Arabs, the same ingratitude emerges, not just from the Arabs, but enforced by Israeli courts where "the chances for a Jew [to prevail] are nil. Unrecoverable private funds for this year are $140 million (570 million shekels)" while Arafat demands more subsidies from the state he insists he will destroy (11).

These problems are not mainly about money or even the settlements in Judah (after all, the West Bank was not "occupied" in 1948 or May 1967). Sheik Nasrallah of Hizbullah demands that "the Zionist project that brought forth the state named Israel is the source of all [Muslim] problems. Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon will not end our struggle because it is our duty to liberate Jerusalem and all Palestine" (12). These sentiments are expressed even more vividly in Israel's peace partner, Egypt, where Barak checks in frequently to explain and apologize to Pharaoh for his tardiness in surrendering the remainder of the Zionist project. "Every Zionist, in every place in the world is a target that should be hit. Jihad is the ideal way to deter Jewish Nazism," say Pharaoh's priests (13). "Jews will face torments of Hell unfathomable to the human mind. It will be the Holocaust again, only this time an eternal Holocaust with no hope of salvation" (14). For relief from these love taps, Jews who stamp their feet and demand "peace now" can turn to Syrian high school textbooks whose latest editions instruct, "justice obligates the application of a single verdict on the Jews from which there is no escape, that they be exterminated" (15).

Most Israeli environmentalists also prefer to sleepwalk over the cliff with Barak and the Court. Professor Ya'ir Parag was shunned when he demanded that his colleagues join him in opposing surrender of the Golan ("don't we have to protect the Kinneret from destruction," he demanded of his fellow 'Greens'). "During Oslo 2 and Wye we knew about the dangers to our aquifers and rivers, but we kept our mouths shut, [and] we ignore the enormous damage to the Temple Mount, one of the most important historical sites in the world." The response, Parag says, has been along the lines of, "for peace, I am even willing to accept destruction of the Kinneret" (16). Thus does ecology severed from nationalism reveal itself as a death wish that prefers surrender to Asad to a redeemed Land with all its pure water.

The official response is just as troubling. The government has given the PA a few hundred more assault rifles and Barak has offered Arafat 20% more of Yesha now if his Excellency would allow Jews to retain 10% of the re-conquest of 1967. But this won't appease Arafat who can smell Jewish guilt from afar. "Please don't refer to PA forces as policemen," says journalist Roni Shaked. "We are talking about an army, a light infantry division. They have the beginnings of a navy, air force and military academies and have recently opened an expanded training facility in Jericho. Arafat may follow Ben Gurion's example of declaring a state and then fighting for it" (17). And note that a state is free to make alliances, import and export goods and receive immigrants. Forget about assurances and "notes for the record."

As head of a presumptive state, Arafat has just issued five red lines for continuing the covenant with death to which Barak & Company are wed. Withdrawal to the June 4 (pre six day war), 1967 borders; removal of Jewish settlers, return of Arab "refugees" and "no Israeli presence within the Palestinian State," for example, at the Jordan River (18). "Thanks to the actions of others," writes Aaron Lerner, "Barak has stumbled into a position that many believed could be achieved only by a government of the left." That is to say, the Arabs from Damascus and Beirut to Cairo have handed Barak many reasons to call off the game. But even now, he zooms to Washington to knee the imperial throne.

At the very end of the film, Exodus (1960), Paul Newman ("Ari ben Canaan,") stands over the grave of his boyhood friend, the Mukhtar Taher and declaims, "I swear, the day will come when Arab and Jew will live in this land in peace!" The vow was and is vain. Even in the film it was the Arab who spoke truly. The previous night, Taher himself had rejected Ari's appeals to remain in the newly independent Israel, insisting that it was impossible for two people to have sovereignty in one land. "I am a Muslim. I must live with my people," said Taher, by which he meant, in a land where Muslims rule. Committed to integration and to democracy at the expense of Judaism, "Ari" could not hear him, nor could his real life predecessors or successors. In 1948 they begged Arabs to remain in the land and took the blame for driving them out. In 1967, Dayan physically returned them to Hebron and the rest of the heartland. Now his ideological descendants are completing the betrayal of the Jewish people and God. Why do they still refuse to honor not only their own heritage, faith and people but the repeated and explicit demands and threats of the Arabs?

The pathology has been analyzed succinctly. Because they take the Torah with a grain of salt (if they tolerate it at all), the arrogant and nervous secular utopian Jews that dominate Israel accept Arab arguments that the Land is Muslim. They hope (and used to insist) that it also be a refuge for Jews but "don't want to rule over another people." So they demand that other Jews surrender their land and rights to Arabs. But because the utopians retain their own property and status, their guilt festers. So they make concession after concession to the Arabs, begging in return a crumb of forgiveness, a handshake, a smile, a promise of peace, however empty. Lack of faith soon reveals itself as self-contempt, and guilt turns into active self-hatred that cowardice directs at Jews who refuse to be segregated out of their heartland. Utopian Jews believe in integration and democracy above all. Arabs believe in segregation and Islam, or at least, in supremacy over the Jews. This is a one way street to Jewish exile, as the Katzir decision indicates.

Will Barak awake before the dream of a restored Zion becomes the nightmare of another exile? Let us call his attention to the declaration of Ben Gurion on the exclusive and inalienable Jewish Right to the entire Land. "No Jew is entitled to give up the right of establishing the Jewish Nation in [all of] the Land of Israel. No Jewish [governing] body has such power. Not even all the Jews alive have the power to cede any part of the homelandThe Jewish Nation is neither bound nor governed by any such waiver. Our right to the whole of this country is valid in force and endures forever" (19). This divine gift must more than ever be kept in the forefront of mind as the UN declares that "sovereignty may be forfeited on humanitarian grounds" (20). As so often before, these pious declarations are directed toward wiping out the name and memory of Israel and its Sovereign.

The undying envy and malice of the Arabs against Israel continues to provide opportunities for the decisive victory that will reclaim the Land and bring peace and genuine security. "Joshua waged war for a long timeit was from Hashem, to harden their hearts toward battle against Israel, in order to destroy them [the Canaanites]." The more fully Israel inhabits its true boundaries, and seals them "like iron and copper," the more expansive will be Zion's heart, the more room her children will have to breathe and the safer they thus will be from both conventional and missile attack. Deterrence too will grow as the force of Israel is deployed where it best should be, at the far reaches of our Land in near proximity to enemy capitals. "Thus Joshua took the entire Landand gave it to Israel as a heritage, according to their tribes. And the Land rested from war" (Joshua 11:18-23).

This joyous dream of redemption is the alternative to the nightmare of surrender and death. The latter will make Israel a byword and mockery over whom her neighbors will wag their heads. Short of the war rapidly approaching, it is difficult to see how Israel will be redeemed from the death grip of the moral and spiritual drunkards now ruling the courts, media and even the armed forces. The IDF senior Command does not want an "overwhelming victory" for fear the enemy would resent it. A modest victory presumably will lead Ishmael and Esau to love Israel (21). The surging staff will sweep away this refuge of lies and leave a precious cornerstone of truth as the foundation of a lasting Home centered on Judah and Jerusalem. "Then they will declare among the nations, 'Hashem has done greatly with these'" and the captivity enforced by an impoverished regime will reverse like a stream in the Negev after a thunderstorm turns it into a torrent. Those who have sown in tears of sacrifice and humiliation will reap the gratitude of every Jew and of the entire world as Israel becomes what it is meant to be, settled, fortified, planted and abundant, a beacon to the nations.


Eugene Narrett teaches at Boston University.


1. Arutz 7, April 14, 2000.

2. Ibid.

3. Al Ahram, Omayma Abdel Latif, April 08-14, 2000.

4. Ibid. & A-7, April 10, 2000.

5. Speech by former Prime Minister Taher Masri, March 27, 2000, reported in Jordan Times, March 31, 2000.

6. "Prepare Against Israel," Dr. Musa Keilani, Jordan Times, April 09, 2000.

7. MK, Tzvi Hendel interviewed by Kobi Sela at Har Gilo, A-7, 4-12-00.

8. Ibid.

9. Zalman Shoval, former ambassador to America interviewed by A-7, 04-10-00.

10. A-7, April 04, 05, 2000.

11. A-7, April 13, 2000.

12. L'Orient du Jour, April 11, 2000.

13. Adel al-Jojari, "Expel the Israeli Ambassador," Al-Ahrar, al Sha-ab, March 03, 2000, MEMRI #78, March 17, 2000.

14. Dr. Mustafa Mahmoud, Al Ahram, April 01, 2000. MEMRI # 86, 4-12-00.

15. Islamic Education for 10th Grade," (1999), page 116. Quoted by American Jewish Committee in ads in New York Times, etc.

16. Jerusalem Post, March 2000. A-7, interview with Yosef Zalmanson, 04-03-00.

17. Shaked, "Training the Palestinian Police to be an Army," Yediot Ahronot, April 11, 2000. A-7, interview with Shaked, April 11, 2000.

18. Dr. Aaron Lerner, "Commentary on Arutz-7 for week of April 13, 2000. IMRA April 14, 2000.

19. David Ben Gurion, "Declaration on Jewish Right to the Entire Land," 20th Zionist Congress, Basle, Switzerland, 1937. Quoted by Howard Greif, ACPR, #77, page 95 in "Petition to Annul the Interim Agreement."

20. UN University Report, UPI, March 20, 2000.

21. "Senior Command Does Not Want too Great a Victory in War," Amir Oren, Ha'Aretz, April 07, 2000.



The Jerusalem Post - April 21, 2000


By Zalman Shoval

(April 21) - Inspired leaks in Washington and Jerusalem, and an array of ministerial interviews indicate that the Barak government has decided to recognize a Palestinian state in September of this year - or even earlier. Israel has come a long way in this matter since the signing of the Oslo agreements in 1993.

Before that, Israel's position had been clear: No second state west of the Jordan river. Indeed, the very concept of a "functional" compromise as espoused by Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan (and for a certain time, Shimon Peres) among others, as opposed to "territorial" compromise, was based on the principle that though the Palestinians would run most of their own affairs independently of Israel - this would not occur within the framework of separate statehood.

This wasn't only Israel's position, but that of America as well; in its letter of assurance to Israel in preparation of the 1991 Madrid Conference, the US specifically stated that it would not support the establishment of a separate Palestinian state; that commitment was conveniently forgotten during President Clinton's visit to Gaza in 1998 when he made a number of statements which indicated at least a quasi-recognition of statehood.

There are now rumors that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has been promised America's outright recognition in September. For the sake of fairness, it must be said that Clinton and his administration are only following in the tracks of senior Israeli politicians who have said more than once that Israel would not object to a Palestinian state.

There are those who believe that a Palestinian state will be the solution to all the problems relating to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - but conversely, it could also be the creation of a much more serious and long-term problem.

"But isn't a Palestinian state by now inevitable?" - many will ask. The answer probably is "yes." However, there are events throughout history, which may be deemed to have been inevitable - but "inevitable" does not necessarily mean desirable. The Bolshevik revolution in Russia or Khomeini in Iran may have been inevitable, but in retrospect, were they desirable? Surely not.

What sort of country will that Palestinian state be? It is not very realistic to expect it to be altogether different from the political culture in most of the Arab countries surrounding it.

It suffices to look at the administrative, political and economic record of the PA to expect that this "state" will be another undemocratic, and economically non-viable entity. As the Washington Post wrote some months ago: "Many Palestinians are deeply resentful that the autonomy they wanted for so long brought corruption, mismanagement, favoritism and an obtrusive police and security apparatus."

But there could also be a far worse scenario, the creation of another Middle Eastern rogue state, perhaps repressively Islamic - certainly anti-Israel, probably anti-American, possibly identifying with the most extreme regimes in the region. It could also be a breeding ground for international terrorism, as the PLO semi-state in Lebanon was at the time. Christian Arabs, by the way, have already seen the writing on the wall: Tens of thousands of Palestinian Christians have already left the country, especially Bethlehem - and more will follow.

It is no secret that views on the Oslo agreement are divided. Some saw it as a significant step towards Palestinian-Israeli peace - others as the beginning of the countdown to the next Arab-Israeli war.

The Netanyahu government had achieved a major strategic victory in redefining some of the terms of reference of "Oslo" and in lowering the Palestinians' expectations to more realistic levels, but if the aforementioned "leaks" are true, the present government may now be squandering its predecessor's achievement.

This is so with regard to the tactics employed - practically offering the Palestinians their most cherished goal, recognized statehood, without demanding anything in return - and more importantly in the matter of the geographical dimensions of a future state.

Some ministers speak of handing over to the Palestinians 90% of the territories, others of "only" 80%. Geography and topography continue to be vital factors in Israeli security - even more so in the missile age - and there is a widespread consensus that even for purely military reasons, Israel's future borders must be very different from the pre-'67 armistice lines.

What do we hear now? That though most of the settlements located in large "blocs" will remain under Israeli sovereignty, those areas will not necessarily be contiguous - thus becoming isolated and vulnerable "islands" inside the Palestinian state.

Conventional political wisdom has it that Clinton is determined to have an Israel-Palestinian agreement before his term ends - but I have no doubt that he would not consciously put pressure on Israel to make decisions which will endanger its very existence in the future.

 As Henry Kissinger put it: "The Arab side must shed the illusion that it can, with American help, maneuver Israel into yielding, step-by-step, most of its ultimate program. Such a strategy is more likely to lead to an explosion than to a settlement."


Zalman Shoval is a former Likud MK and ambassador to the US.




From the Women in Green

Jerusalem, April 18, 2000

The following is a translation into English of a letter sent by registered mail to Prime Minister Barak and to Deputy Minister Efraim Sneh.


Tuesday, 13 Nisan 5760 April 18, 2000

A Message from the Women of Israel to the Prime Minister, in Honor of the Pesach Holiday

To: Mr. Ehud Barak
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Efraim Sneh
Deputy Minister of Defense

On the eve of the Pesach holiday we wish to convey a message from women in the national camp, and especially from the women of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Today, we all know that you intend to implement ethnic cleansing in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. You intend to destroy dozens of settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and to transfer tens of thousands of Jews from there. Another part of the settlers of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will presumably be able to remain where they are. You hope that the latter will evacuate their settlements "of their own accord" after the PLO Authority has embittered their lives with intolerable terror. The recent transferal of hundreds of Kalashnikovs from Israel to the arch-murderer Arafat is apparently supposed to make their job easier.

We, the women of Israel, will not let you implement your wicked plan.

The people of Israel continued to exist in Egypt by the merit of the courageous women who, selflessly, at great personal risk, let the male children live, contrary to the decrees of Pharaoh. You should know that, today as well, the spirit of bravery and self-sacrifice has not left the women in Israel. The women of Israel will fight, putting their lives at stake, against your decrees that threaten the continued existence of the people of Israel in its land.

On the eve of Purim we held in Netzarim a conference of the women of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Attached is the public statement that we issued that evening, that has already been signed by hundreds of women. In the coming weeks additional tens of thousands of women will sign, and we shall thereby convey a clear message to you and to the entire world:

  • "Eretz Israel belongs to the Jewish people for all time, and only to it - thus our Torah has established. There is no legal or moral validity to the handing over of parts of Eretz Israel to foreigners. This is a betrayal of Judaism for all time. We will not allow our being uprooted from our homes and from our land. We shall not permit the destruction of our life's work. We shall stand resolute at the gate, with our children, against those who arise to destroy us, EVEN IF THEY ARE OUR BROTHERS."
  • With the hope that you reverse your malicious intentions, Hag Sameach - have a happy holiday!

    Ruth and Nadia Matar

    Co-chairpersons, Women in Green

    [Attached to this letter was the Women's Manifesto that we sent to our e-mail list around Purim time]

    P.O.B. 7352, JERUSALEM 91072 Israel
    Tel. 02-624-9887, Fax: 02-624-5380



    Reprinted from Haaretz of May 1, 2000


    By Moshe Arens

    "The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft a gley [often go awry]" wrote the Scottish poet Robert Burns. Our prime minister might find this poem worth reading. Ehud Barak had a plan that at first was hailed as brilliant by many, but has in the meantime turned to ashes. A year ago, during the election campaign, Barak announced that the IDF would be withdrawn from the security zone in southern Lebanon a year after he took office. According to his scheme, this action would bring Syrian President Hafez Assad to the peace table. With the threat of an IDF withdrawal hanging over his head and enticed by Barak's readiness to turn all of the Golan Heights over to Syria, Assad would quickly agree to a peace treaty with Israel. As part of the accord, Assad would make sure that the Lebanese-Israeli border would be peaceful after the IDF withdrawal. Having achieved peace with Syria and brought peace to the Galilee, Barak expected that the treaty would be approved in a national referendum by a "sweeping majority." Then, from a position of strength, internationally and at home, Barak would negotiate a treaty with the Palestinians, who were to wait patiently until their turn came.

    But things did not go according to plan. Although Barak at one time said that he could reach agreement on the terms of a peace treaty with Syria in the course of a half-hour meeting with Assad, the Syrian president never granted him a half-hour meeting - he simply refused to meet him. Syria's foreign minister was sent to Shepherdstown with instructions not to shake Barak's hand.

    By the time of the meeting between Bill Clinton and Assad in Geneva, the deadline Barak had set for the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon was drawing near. In a last-minute effort to salvage his plan our prime minister threw in another concession: Hammat Gader, Israeli territory that had never been Syrian, was offered in addition to the Golan Heights. But Assad stuck to his guns, and there is no deal. That is, unless Barak also decides to turn the northeastern shore of the Kinneret over to Assad.

    Israel is now faced with an impending IDF withdrawal from the security zone, at most only two months away, with no assurance that Hezbollah and its associates will desist from attacking Israeli targets after the withdrawal. As a matter of fact, there is little reason to believe that, flushed with their "victory" over the IDF, they will decide to turn themselves into a peaceful political party. Encouragement from their Syrian and Iranian patrons to continue their attacks on Israel will probably not be lacking.

    Barak has trapped himself. Our northern towns and villages are about to be moved into the line of fire. Barak's recent statements that, in any case, the security zone did not provide additional security for the civilian population in the north is certainly not believed by those residents. That a reinforced UNIFIL contingent will be able to provide those people with the protection that the IDF and the SLA provided them with until now is most unlikely.

    Israel is about to abandon the SLA, which has been our ally for the past 20 years. The negative effect this will have on Israel's reputation in the region can already be gauged by the reaction of the self-proclaimed spokesmen for Israel's Arab citizens, who have "forbidden" selling or renting houses in Israeli Arab villages to those who they refer to as the "collaborators" and "traitors" of the SLA.

    But worst of all for Israel is the lesson that our Arab neighbors, first and foremost the Palestinians, will draw from this withdrawal under fire from the security zone. Violence against Israel appears to pay off. Their goals can be attained by violent means.

    Barak's negotiating position with the Syrians and the Palestinians has been seriously undermined. Under circumstances that he himself has engineered, his remaining option is to give in to Arab demands. Giving up the Jerusalem airport, the Jordan Valley, the Judean Desert, 70, 80, 90 percent of Judea and Samaria to the Palestinians, or the northeastern shore of the Kinneret to the Syrians?

    Eitan Haber, the late Yitzhak Rabin's aide-de-camp and a supporter of Ehud Barak, advised Barak in a recent article in Yediot Aharanot that the people of Israel do not have the stamina they had in past years to withstand the trials and tribulations of challenges. He added that the impending IDF withdrawal from the security zone, if carried out without a parallel arrangement with Assad, would lead to a mass flight of Israelis living in the north. His advice to Barak is to give in to Assad's demands to avoid this catastrophe.

    It may be that Barak's "One Nation" party has really become the Am Ayef party - the party of the tired Israelis.

    (c) copyright 2000 Ha'aretz. All Rights Reserved



    Barak's J Curve as G String

    By Dr. Steven Plaut

    Barak admits unilateral withdrawal may result in escalation in attacks. (IsraelWire-4/3) During a Sunday meeting with members of the Shinui opposition Party, Prime Minister/Defense Minister Ehud Barak admitted that a unilateral IDF troop withdrawal from the security zone of southern Lebanon may result in increased Hizbullah hostilities.


    SO now even Barak is admitting that all the Pollyanna Peresian posturing regarding peace and tranquility after Israel conducts its unilateral pullout of Lebanon is poppycock. In fact, Barak and his boys and girls know what is coming. They know the Syrians and their Hizbollah puppets will conduct ethnic cleansing and will massacre the Southern Lebanese population, which is why Barak is suddenly scrambling to find refuge sites in Israel to put them.

    So what happened to the idea that the whole problem is Israeli military presence in Southern Lebanon? I thought the Osloids KNOW that the Hizbollah will behave itself after the withdrawal since - after all - they will have no further reason in the world to dislike Israel or shell it? Oh and since Barak KNOWS how the Hizbollah will behave, how come the sudden panic and drive with building bomb shelters and trenches in all the villages and kibbutzim along the border? I thought we had Barak's scout's honor the Hizbollah would not shell Israel. After all, why should they? Israel will have withdrawn unconditionally from Lebanon and THAT is all the Hizbollah is fighting for, right? Could it just possibly be that Barak KNOWS what the rest of us KNOW? That a bloodbath is coming?

    Meanwhile, the above citation can be regarded as yet another proof that all of OSLO "thinking" rests upon belief in a mystical J-curve. Indeed the entire theory of Oslo may be summed up as an application of the theory of the "J Curve". Let me explain.

    In economics there is a commonly-accepted theory about certain things called a "J Curve". The basic idea is that when something changes, it may first make the problem worse and then make it better later. That is why it is called a "J Curve", going down a while and then up. For example, if a country has a problem with a deficit in its balance of trade, a devaluation of its currency first makes the deficit worse and then better. You can find other examples.

    J-curves are always counter-intuitive. Linear trend lines are the simpler and thus preferred explanation except where overwhelming evidence exists to the contrary. Occam's Razor usually favors linearity.

    The entire "theory" of Oslo has by now been reduced to an assertion of a "J Curve" relationship in the Middle East. Every single gesture and concession by Israel has made the situation worse until now. Israeli concessions produced a bloodbath of terrorist atrocities, PLO calls for Jihad, the Engineer, PLO open threats to eliminate Israel, PLO calls to Saddam to annihilate the Jews with chemical weapons, PLO calls to the Arab countries to wipe out Israel, Arafat's beatifying suicide bombers, demands that Israel give up Jerusalem, Holocaust denial by PLO officials, escalation in Lebanon, nazifization of Israel's own Green Line Arabs, etc. etc.

    But the Oslo advocates dismiss all that with the clarity of sight of Ray Charles. All this is part of the J Curve, they insist. It is expected, indeed wonderful, beautiful. A few more concessions and the curve will reverse itself. Just wait and see. True, until now Israeli concessions and goodwill gestures produced violence and xenophobia, down to and including PLO praise for Hitler, but a few more concessions and we will cross the Rubicon, invert the J Curve, and the PLO and Assad will pursue peace and coexistence.

    In other words, Israel can buy peace, they insist, in exchange for 300 well-defined concessions, including of course withdrawal to the 1949 borders and creation of an armed belligerent PLO state with Jerusalem as its capital. And the problem is that Israel has only made 299. So according to the J Curve theory, the first 299 of these concessions only make the Palestinians and Syrians more bloodthirsty, but that last 300th is a doosy. That last one will bring peace and tranquillity and brotherhood of man. And the only reason we do not have peace and tranquillity now is because the obstinate opponents of Oslo and peace are resisting making that 300th concession.

    So we need more Peace Now and Dor Shalom bumper stickers, we need to tell Israelis how wonderful peace would be. We need to nudge the doubting Thomases of Zion into making those remaining concessions, ride the J curve to peace. And Arafat and his storm troopers and the rest of the fascists of the Arab world will then allow us to live in peace ever after.

    Which is why the first six years or so of Oslo have produced nothing but deterioration and increasingly clear Palestinian blood-lust and extremism. All part of the plan you see. Things have to get worse before they get better.

    This is the alternative offered by the Oslo camp to "linear thinking".


    Dr. Steven Plaut teaches business at Haifa University. [4/3/2000]



    Editor's Note: The Freeman Center urges its members and subscribers to help the Ariel Center financially so that it can continue these excellent ads....Bernard

    1. The following text was published on April 4, 2000 - as a Full Page Ad - by The Ariel Center For Policy Research in the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz. The 11th Full Page Ad was published this morning in Ha'aretz. Beginning May 10 we will publish similar Ads in the largest Russian daily in Israel, Vesti. Your comments and assistance would be highly appreciated.

    Yoram Ettinger



    FORMER PRESIDENT LYNDON JOHNSON: Israel should not have to withdraw its forces to the pre-June 5 armistice lines. "This is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities." (Address, June 19, 1967). "It is clear however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders..." (Address, Sept. 10,1968).

    FORMER PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: "In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again." (Address to the Nation, September 1, 1982).

    FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE, GEORGE SCHULTZ: "Israel will never negotiate from, or return to, the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders." (Address to the Washington Institute For Near East Policy, Sept. 16, 1988).


    "The former British Ambassador to the UN, Lord Caradon [the chief-author of 242], tabled a polished draft resolution in the Security Council and steadfastly resisted all suggestions for change... Kuznetsov of the USSR asked Caradon to specify 'all' before the word ' territories' and to drop the word 'recognized.' When Caradon refused, the USSR tabled its own draft resolution [calling for a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines] but it was not a viable alternative to the UK text... Members [of the UN Security Council] voted and adopted the [UK drafted] resolution unanimously..." (UN Security Council Resolution 242, The Washington Institute For Near East Policy, 1993, pp 27-28).

    Arthur Goldberg, former US Ambassador to the UN, a key author of 242: "...The notable omissions in regard to withdrawal... are the words 'all', 'the' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'...There is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from all of the territories occupied by it on, and after, June 5, 1967... On certain aspects, the Resolution is less ambiguous than its withdrawal language. Resolution 242 specifically calls for termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty of every State in the area. The Resolution also specifically endorses free passage through international waterways...The efforts of the Arab States, strongly supported by the USSR, for a condemnation of Israel as the aggressor and for its withdrawal to the June 5, 1967 lines, failed to command the requisite support..." (Columbia Journal of International Law, Vol 12 no 2, 1973).

    Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State, a key author of 242, international law authority, Yale University: "UN SC 242 calls on Israel to withdraw only from territories occupied in the course of the Six Day War - that is, not from 'all' the territories or even from 'the' territories...Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawal from 'all' the territory were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly one after another. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the 'fragile and vulnerable' [1949/1967] Armistice Demarcation Lines..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, p. 17). The USSR and the Arabs supported a draft demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 Lines. The US, Canada and most of West Europe and Latin America supported the draft, which was eventually approved by the UN Security Council. (American Society of International Law, 1970).


    Syria rejected UNSC Resolution 242 because it did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1949/1967 cease fire Lines. Syria was joined by the other Arab States, claiming that the 1949/1967 Lines were not final borders.


    Prof. Eugene Rostow, former Undersecretary of State: "...The Egyptian model fits neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian case...Former Secretary of Defense McNamara has said that if he were the Israel's Minister of Defense, he would never agree to giving up the Golan Heights...UNSC 242 authorizes the parties to make whatever territorial changes the situation requires - it does not require the Israelis to transfer o the Arabs all, most, or indeed any of the occupied territories. The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty awards [to the Arabs] more than 90 percent of the territory Israel captured in the Six Day War...[242] permits a transfer [of all the territories] if the parties accept it, but it does not require it..." (UNSC Resolution 242, 1993, pp 18-19).


    A few days before the UNSC vote on 242, President Johnson summoned UN Ambassador Arthur Goldberg and Undersecretary Eugene Rostow to formulate the US position on the issue of 'secure boundaries' for Israel. They were presented with the Pentagon Map, which had been prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Earle Wheeler. The map displayed the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes," which included the entire Golan Heights and the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria. The participants of the meeting agreed that the Pentagon Map fulfilled the requirements of 242 for 'secure borders.' (Prof. Ezra Sohar, A Concubine in the Middle East, Geffen Publishing, p. 39; Makor Rishon weekly, March 10, 2000).



    ***242 does not refer at all the 1949/1967 Lines;

    ***242 mandates negotiation - give and take, rather than give and give;

    ***242 never refers to withdrawal from ALL the territories, which would negate the principle of negotiation;

    ***242 calls for the introduction of a NEW reality of 'secure and recognized borders', which indicates that the OLD reality of the 1949/1967 Lines is neither secure nor recognized.



    Golan Heights Weekly Full-Page Ad #11

    (Ha'aretz, April 11, 2000)

    Pre-Ad reflections:

    1. Barak's chief negotiator with Syria, Uri Saguie, said on April 14th (Voice of Israel interview) that "Holding on to ethos has been the main hurdle on the road to peace." He added that "Israel - just like Syria - STILL (emphasis by Saguie!) possesses the ethos of the northeastern shores of the Lake of Galilee." The Barak-Clinton Spin Team is shaping the p.r. strategy to "cure" Israelis of their ethos!!!

    2. Away from the limelight, in an attempt to instill a false sense of victory in the hearts of Golan Defenders, the Clinton-Barak Team persists in the attempt to conclude an Israeli-Syrian Accord, which would entail a Golan Giveaway. As it has happened with Israel-PLO negotiation, so will Israeli concessions (otherwise known as Confidence Building Measures) produce "progress" in the negotiation.

    3. Some observers suggest that the expected July 2000 Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon may set the stage for the Israel-Syria Accord. Others point at Clinton's sand-glass, which runs out in November. And then there is Barak's comment - to his cabinet - ridiculing the importance accorded to a few hundred meters along the Lake of Galilee!!!

    4. This is not the time for complacency!!! The time to EDUCATE the Israeli public is NOW, when logic prevails over emotions. Resting on our laurels plays into the hands of the Golan Giveawayers, who want us to withhold our activities until an accord is signed. Resuming activities while euphoric events are produced by the Clinton-Barak Spin Team will not accomplish The Mission.

    5. While publishing the Weekly Full-Page Ads in the Hebrew daily Ha'aretz (catering to Barak's voters!), the Ariel Center For Policy Research (501C US organization) is launching - beginning May 16 - a Weekly Full-Page Ad campaign in the leading Russian daily in Israel, Vesty. Your assistance would be welcome!

    Yoram Ettinger





    LESSONS OF THE 1991 GULF WAR: Some 8,000 tons of missile and bombs per day couldn't defeat Saddam Hussein. He surrendered only when the US ground forces joined the war. The crucial role of the ground forces suggests the critical importance of ground features (geographical depth and topographical edge). About 70% of the missiles and bombs missed their targets. They couldn't destroy a single Scud launcher, despite the lack of an effective Iraqi air defense.

    PENTAGON'S REPORT TO CONGRESS: "...Air Power [and missiles] alone could not have brought the war to so sharp and decisive a conclusion...The ground offensive option ensured that the Coalition would seize the initiative. A protracted air siege alone would not have had the impact that the combination of air, maritime and ground offensives was able to achieve. Without the credible threat of ground and amphibious attacks, the Iraqi defenders might have dispersed, dug in more deeply, concentrated in civilian areas, or otherwise adopted a strategy of outlasting the bombing from the air...Such a strategy would have prolonged the conflict and might have strained the political cohesion of the Coalition. Given more time, Iraq might have achieved Scud attacks with chemical or other warheads capable of inflicting catastrophic casualties on Israeli or Saudi citizens or on Coalition troop concentrations...A failure to engage on the ground would have left Saddam Hussein able to claim that his army was still invincible..." (Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, Final report to Congress, April 2000)

    US GENERALS ON STRATEGIC DEPTH IN THE AGE OF MISSILES: "...Even though missiles can fly over the highest terrain feature, including the Golan Heights, they do not negate the strategic significance of territorial depth...The principal threat to Israel's existence for the foreseeable future will remain the danger of a physical invasion and occupation by heavily armored forces...Achieving military success in a war requires more than lobbing a few score (or even a few hundred) missiles of limited accuracy at soft targets...To win a war against Israel, Syria must move armor, infantry and artillery forward and down into Israel proper, and then destroy Israeli forces on the ground. This was true in 1948, it was true in 1967 and 1973, and it remains true in today's Age of Missiles..." (US Forces On The Golan Heights? A special report by The Center For Security Policy in Washington, DC, October 25, 1994). General (ret.) John Foss, former Commanding General of Training and Doctrine Command; General (ret.) Al Gray, former Commandant, US Marine Corps; Lt. General (ret.) John J. Pustay, former Ass't to the Chmn, Joint Chiefs of Staff; General (ret.) Bernard Schriever, former Commander US Air Force Systems Command; Admiral (ret.) Carl Trost, former Chief of Naval Operations; Admiral (deceased) Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., former Chief of Naval Operations; Douglas J. Feith, former Ass't Secretary of Defense; Frank J. Gaffney, former Acting Ass't Secretary of Defense; Richard Perle, former Ass't Secretary of Defense; Eugene V. Rostow, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs; Henry S. Rowen, former Ass't Secretary of Defense;


    as a result of a Golan Giveaway, AT A TIME WHEN THE BALLISTIC THREAT IS GROWING?! The US maintained its conventional edge - during the Cold War - while staying ahead of the USSR in the non-conventional and nuclear race.

    THE US RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF TERRITORY IN THE BALLISTIC ERA: The US, the leading ballistic power in the world, controls some 100 overseas military bases and installations, situated at strategically vital locations. The US has recognized the fact that all wars have been conventional, focusing on ground features (India-Pakistan, US-Iraq, US-Panama, Russia-Chechnya, Britain-Argentina, Ethipia-Eritrea, Serbia-Bosnia, etc.)


    Israel's capabilities to fend off a surprise attack depend on its ability to rapidly deploy reserve force, which amount to 75% of its total military force. Until deployment is completed, invading Arab armored force (75% regular) could enjoy a 7:1 advantage! The more sophisticated the in-coming Arab missiles, the more vulnerable are the main road junctions, military depots and air force bases in Israel, which are critical for rapid deployment of reservists and for the containment of an armored Arab offensive. The more disrupted is the Israeli deployment process and the more vulnerable are Israel's air force bases to Arab missiles, the greater is the importance of ground barriers, which enable Israel's regulars to contain the invading armored forces. In 1973, it was the mountain ridge of the eastern Golan Heights overlooking Damascus- and not the slopes overlooking the Lake of Galilee(!) - which enabled 177 Israeli tanks to hold off a surprise attack by 1,400 Syrian tanks, until the arrival of the reservists. Conceding the eastern mountain ridge - a most unique natural tank barrier - would enable a surprise Syrian tank offensive, assisted by a barrage of missiles, to reach the Galilee in 3 hours!




    By Elyakim Haetzni

    On the day the newspapers played up the story of a sexual harassment complaint which led the accused to commit suicide, they buried the prime minister's assent to a Palestinian state in a forsaken corner of the page. Thus with an intolerable insouciance, a principle emblazoned in Labor Party platforms as well was abandoned. Labor's leaders had always explained that a Palestinian State would only arise upon the fall of the Jewish State since by its very being a Palestinian State negates first of all our right of existence and subsequently our existence itself. A fundamental instinct above and beyond internal politics, motivated all Zionist parties to totally reject a Palestinian State.

    There can be no clearer testimony to the erosion of the Israeli Jews' desire for life than the resounding silence with which the Israeli public on both the left and the right greeted Barak's recognition of a Palestinian state. A short while after Barak's words to Clinton "Israel will be the first to recognize a Palestinian State" were made public, Abu-Ala, one of the architects of the peace, provided an authoritative commentary: "We are the cancer in the Israelis belly."

    Since of all the possible holidays, Barak chose precisely the Passover holiday to celebrate the Palestinian "festival of freedom" it would be productive to remind him of the ten plagues which this state will visit upon the Jews in Israel and they are as follows:

    1. TERROR "No connection with peace" (Peres); will continue until the completion of "revolution to victory" as per the "strategy of stages". Any obligation tendered by the Palestinians to combat terror, will be violated as has occurred to this date.

    Casus Belli: A huge blast on the model of the Beirut car bombs, followed by a Retaliatory action against Shechem. Palestine will invoke the Pan-Arab Defense Pact.

    2. REFUGEES First to arrive will be 350,000 from Lebanon to facilitate the withdrawal. Any quota agreed upon in the peace agreement will not be honored just as it was not honored in the interim agreement (about 200,000 infiltrators). Millions more are on the way.

    Casus Belli: A march of women and children towards Lod and Ramleh. Such a march was employed by the late King Hassan II of Morocco to liquidate Spanish Morocco. To survive, Israel will have to employ force.

    3. WATER When the world, courtesy of CNN, will view thirsty refugess counterposed to watered lawns in Ramat Aviv, it will support wildcat Palestinian drilling which will destroy the mountain aquifer, on the precedent of the prohibited Gaza drilling which salinated the wells in Gaza.

    Casus Belli: Israel becomes desiccated, and forcibly intervenes to seal up the wells. Whoever surrenders the land will shed his blood for water.

    4. MILITARY PACTS Just as it violated the interim agreement prohibiting the establishment of diplomatic relations, so Palestine will conclude military treaties with Arab countries and with Iran with a view to serving as a tripwire for a pan-Arab attack to exterminate Israel.

    Casus Belli: A perpetual Palestinian threat which will compel Israel either to swallow every violation or risk a general war.

    5. ARMS RACE The demilitarization agreement will be violated as were all the limitations on arms in the interim accords. Arafat is armed today with tens of thousands light and heavy machine guns, missiles and mines, "an armed peace" (Barak).

    Casus Belli: An Israeli attempt to destroy Palestinian armor, artillery and surface to air missiles to remove a military threat at the outskirts of Israel's cities.

    6. A TROJAN HORSE Today, Israeli Arab students hoist the P.L.O. flag, tomorrow they will demand autonomy. Israeli Arabs will function as a fifth column on behalf of the Palestinian state to undermine orderly life and government from within and turn the Zionist clock back.

    Casus Belli: An internal uprising, subdued by the Israeli army, prompting Palestinian intervention from across the border, on the model of the Sudetenland Germans in 1938.

    7. A GLOBAL ANTI-SEMITIC FOCAL POINT Palestine will serve as a refuge and base of operations for anti-semites in the Christian west who chafe under post-holocaust limitations. Today only the Palestinians are entitled to deny the holocaust, to negate the Jews' identity as a nation and appropriate their history from Abraham to Jesus. "Mein Kampf" is a best seller in Palestine. Palestine will earn millions from the dissemination of Nazi literature.

    Casus Belli: Neo-Nazi groups operating out of Palestine.

    8. PIRACY Like a leech Palestine will suck the Israeli economy. Refugees, workers and thieves will infiltrate via the boundaries. Sewage and other hazards will pollute the area. Debts won't be paid, rights won't be honored. Israelis will be arrested and harmed.

    Casus Belli: Having given up on their handcuffed police force, Israeli citizens will act in self-defense.

    9. IRRIDENTA Palestine will seek to expand, at first to the 1947 boundaries (U.N. Resolution 181). The spearhead will be Israeli Arabs attempting to settle in every town and village that they abandoned in 1948.

    Casus Belli: Jerusalem, the focal point of the dispute.

    10. RIFT Palestine will strike at Israel via the "Jeroboam Complex" who divided the country and the nation. Bitter quarrels will arise concerning who should be blamed for the irreversible trap, caused by Palestinian statehood and these quarrels will envenom the political atmosphere. Embittered members of the right will emigrate blaming the left for implanting the Palestinian dybbuk but sympathizers of the left, dissappointed with the frustration of their peace dream will depart as well. Post-Palestine Israel will know no peace, only hatred.


    The ten plagues are already with us now, in the era of the Interim agreements. But as long as they are confined within these strict limits, they are still an internal matter. One can annul an interim accord, one cannot annul a state. The difference is the difference between abortion and murder. Ehud Barak assumes the responsibility, that from now on the unsolved Palestinian demands will be backed up by a state, an army and international guarantees - i.e. perpetuated and suffused with the danger of war, just like the withdrawal which he is engineering in South Lebanon. It will be a lamentation for generations.


    Elyakim Haetzni is an attorney and former Knesset member who lives in Kiryat Arba.




    Reprinted from the Jerusalem Post of April 14, 2000


    By Sara Honing

    Most people selectively filter out what belies their beliefs. They would rather not see what unsettles them, like the ostrich with its head in the sand. Ostrich-like, we downplay the ample warnings that Palestinians - on both sides of the Green Line - systematically serve up. Yasser Arafat, for instance, pulls no punches and disguises no intentions. He couldn't have outlined his strategy more candidly than in his address to 40 Arab diplomats at Stockholm's Grand Hotel on January 30, 1996 (several years after Oslo).

    So spake Arafat: "We Palestinians will take over everything including all of Jerusalem The compensated rich Jews will all journey to America. We of the PLO will now concentrate on splitting Israel psychologically. We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. I have no use for Jews: they are and remain Jews."

    Official Israel preferred not to take Arafat at his word because his words embarrassed it. So while we bury our collective head, Arafat busily goes about keeping his word. His impressive track record cannot be underestimated it. Its signs are over the place. Palestinian flags fly at full mast at Arab school graduation ceremonies within Green-Line Israel. Most gatherings in Israeli Arab towns open with the Palestinian anthem.

    PA auspices are conferred upon a whole host of mundane events inside Israel - educational, athletic, religious, etc. The bottom line is inescapable. Even those Arabs encumbered with Israeli rule owe their allegiance to Palestine.

    They openly identify with the state's enemies. They praise the Hizbullah, but refuse refuge to South Lebanese Army soldiers. Knesset member Hashem Mahameed exhorted Land Day protesters to "learn from Hizbullah. As it kicked Israel out, so we will protect our land."

    In Umm el-Fahm they stand at attention in memory of suicide bombers.

    They vote as the PA instructs. They consider themselves Arafat's subjects, and do his bidding. This is what allowed Arafat to boast recently that without his help, Barak wouldn't have been elected. The more Israel appeases its Arabs, the more Arafat succeeds in pulling them away.

    A recent opinion poll showed that 67% of Israel's Arab citizens define themselves as Palestinians rather than Israelis, as compared to only 27% a mere five years ago. Knesset member Abdul-Malik Dahamshe speaks of " this country, currently called Israel "

    Presumably he envisions a time when the name would be different.

    This coincides with the now overt demand in the Arab sector for autonomy in the Galilee, Negev and Triangle. The only debate is whether to start with mere cultural separation or go for full territorial self-rule right off. Eventually these areas are to be annexed to the burgeoning Palestinian state.

    Increasingly, Israel's Arabs imply they sense the beginning of the end of the Jewish state. Judea and Samaria are already beginning of the end of the Jewish state, Judea and Samaria are already being wrested from it, and sizable chunks of Israel proper will be next.

    ISRAELI OSTRICHES would rather not see such unpleasantness. But without this background they cannot put into context recent Land Day marches and the corollary Haifa and Hebrew University riots. Instead, they heaved a sign of relief that things weren't worse, and that another Land Day elapsed without bloodshed.

    But feeble responses invite escalation. Propagandists don't crave quiet. They gleefully harped on the death of 72-year old Sheiha Abu-Sallah of Sakhnin, and attributed it to Israeli tear gas. The fact that their claim held as much water as Suha Arafat's well-poisoning speech mattered little. The lady's name was ceremoniously inscribed on a monument for Land Day martyrs, and her kin proclaimed pride in her sacrifice for the cause.

    It was to decry her "murder" that Arab students rioted at Haifa U. a few days later. They boisterously sang the Palestinian anthem, hoisted the Palestinian flag, yelled "death to the Jews" and wielded brass knuckles and knives.

    Those Israelis who dared counter with defiant renditions of "Hatikva" (a near-illegitimate provocation in the Jewish state) were brutally beaten. It was patently clear who was in control of the campus and who was on the defensive.

    The next day, when four cops attempted to detain the ringleader, the Arab students rioted again, roughed up the officers and then trapped them in their squad car. The police were plainly humiliated and the lawmen were eventually whisked out by Hadash Knesset member Issam Mahoul, a past student rioter himself.

    His agitation and violence obviously paid off. Virulent anti-Israel rowdyism is considered heroic in his milieu, while the risks of Israeli retribution are laughable.

    Unintimidated rioters entertained no doubt about what righteous wrath would be rained upon Jewish students had they dared rampage like their Arab counterparts, with the same whooping war-cries and incitement to homicide. All the outspoken spokesmen for politically correct causes would clamor for their immediate expulsion. They would be driven off campus as vile miscreants.

    No one would for a minute condone mollycoddling them.

    Only vis--vis Arabs do Jews turn into ostriches. But zoology students would probably protest the comparison; it's unfair to ostriches. Persistent myth notwithstanding, they don't bury their heads when cornered, but put up a fierce fight.

    A more valid analogy would be to another bird-brain - Jemima Puddle-duck. With her eyes wide open she took up with no less than a fox. She should have known that the intentions of the wily unreformed predator towards her were far from friendly.

    But Jemima wouldn't let facts interfere with her grand conception. So she gullibly accepted his dinner invitation and even brought the herbs and onions for his roast.

    She recklessly ignored all danger signs, like the feathers strewn all over the floor of his ramshackle shed.

    The difference between Jemima and the Jews is that Beatrix Potter took care of her and sent a pack of dogs to rescue the fool at the very last minute. But our peril, alas, isn't the figment of a benign author's charming whimsy. She cannot devise the happy ending to save us from our stupidity.





    By Helene Klein

    1. Stop all negotiations with the Arabs right away. This is the most important move because the Arabs have no intention of making peace with Israel. All they want is to weaken Israel to such a degree that they can come and destroy the Jewish state.

    2. Realize and resolve that giving Arabs land is not going to lead to peace. Why did the Arabs attack Israel when the state was tiny, weak and could barely survive? Because they assumed that Israel was then weak enough that they could destroy our Holy Land for good.

    3. Reorganize and retrain the military. Teach them that this land belongs to the Jewish people for all time. Their duty is to defend this land and its people with all their might and with all their strength. An attack on Israel from an Arab country or Arab individual should be forcefully counter-attacked by Israel and her armed forces.

    4. Every Israeli soldier should have the right to defend himself including the decision to strike back at Arab attackers as soon as he sees that the Arab wants to attack him. To strike first is the best defense. The duty of every Israeli soldier is to defend and protect the Land and its people including himself.

    5.Dissolve the present Israeli Supreme Court. Take away the absolute power of the Supreme Court Justices. Give the Knesset the power to investigate and nominate Supreme Court Justices.

    6. The Arabs should not be allowed to vote in elections in Israel. No Arab should have the right to be a member of the Knesset. No one who wishes that the Jewish State should destroy itself and plots actively to accomplish this, should have the privilege to sit on the public committees where this could do harm to Israel.

    7. Restrain the police. They should be taught that the Arabs are our enemies and not the Jews. Jews in Israel should have the right to demonstrate and voice their opinions in all matters concerning Israel.

    8. Reorganize the school system. Teach Jewish children the history of their homeland including the true history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Children need to know the truth and all the truth. Do away with the lies that Israel was strong and mean to the Arabs during the War for Independence. This is Arab propaganda in its purest form. Above everything else, teach the children about our beautiful religion which is so full of wisdom. Make the children proud to be Jewish.

    9. Make all citizens of Israel aware of what the Land means to the Jewish people. Have speakers come and talk to the public. Arrange for free courses in Jewish history and Jewish religion in all areas of the country.

    10. Promote the belief in Hashem. Tell people belief in G-d does not mean that you accept your lot. On the contrary, it means to fight for justice. If you read the Jewish Scriptures you will find out that Hashem is not one to demand blind obedience, on the contrary, G-d wants everyone to get involved.

    Take for example the story of the Exodus from Egypt. When the Jews came to the Red Sea and couln't cross. G-d waited till everyone went into the water until the water reached the point between the mouth and nose of everyone. (This is the highest point any person can go without drowning). Then G-d parted the water. Hashem wants every Jew to be courageous and active in the pursuit of their rights. And this includes their right to Eretz Yisrael.


    Helene Klein is chair of the Northern California chapter of Americans For A Safe Israel and is a member of the Board of Directors of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



    Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of April 28, 2000


    By Dore Gold

    For more than 30 years, Israeli diplomacy has sought to avoid withdrawal to the vulnerable 1967 armistice lines in the West Bank, and struggled to obtain recognition for the right to defensible borders instead.

    The late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin described his version of defensible borders before the Knesset on October 5, 1995, when he brought the Oslo II Interim Agreement for approval. It was not surprising that Rabin`s description closely followed the contours of his mentor from the Palmah, Yigal Allon, who prepared a map, right after the 1967 Six Day War, of what Israel needed to be secure.

    The heart of the Allon Plan was Israeli control of a strategic desert zone rising from the Jordan Valley up the steep eastern slopes of the West Bank hill ridge. According to Allon, this area encompassed about 1,813 square km., or 33 percent of the 5,439 sq. km. that make up the West Bank. Additionally, Allon wrote in July 1967 that Israel needed to include the road connecting Jerusalem to the Dead Sea as well as a widened Jerusalem corridor west of Ramallah. Rabin himself stressed the importance of Greater Jerusalem. These additions could easily bring the Allon Plan to about 40 percent of the West Bank.

    The original Allon Plan was conceived when Middle Eastern armies were relatively small (Iraq had 7 divisions and not today's 30 divisions) and were mostly slow infantry formations, rather than the current, rapid-moving armored and mechanized divisions. Indeed, after Iraq recovers from UN sanctions, Iraqi expeditionary forces, which attacked Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, could forcibly cross Jordan in less time than it takes Israel to complete its reserve mobilization. In fact, the Israeli army's definition of its vital strategic interests in the West Bank is now even broader than what was proposed by Allon three decades ago.

    Given the legacy left by Allon and Rabin, recent statements concerning massive Israeli territorial concessions, attributed to Prime Minister Barak`s ministers, are disturbing. Instead of Israel retaining more than 40 percent of the West Bank for secure borders, according to repeated leaks, Israel may only be seeking 10 or 20 percent.

    Israeli claims to the Jordan Valley and Jerusalem's suburbs are changing. What happened? Did Israel make peace with Iraq and Syria? The Jordan Valley is today more important than ever since it serves as a buffer preventing the Palestinianization of Jordan by a dissatisfied PLO and the creation of a politically contiguous line from the suburbs of Tel Aviv to the Iraqi border.

    As Israel slides down the slippery slope of new concessions, the PLO seems to be digging in its heels. After Syrian President Hafez Assad walked away from President Clinton in Geneva because Syria could not obtain what it defined as the June 4, 1967, line, how can Arafat now agree to compromise on the Palestinian demand for the June 4 line? Arafat cannot ignore the fact that Assad`s firmness earned Syria broad admiration in much of the Arab world.

    In truth, Arafat was reluctant to compromise in the past: in the fall of 1995, when shown the Beilin-Abu Mazen paper on final status that entailed Israel conceding 95 percent of the West Bank (yet no recognized Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem), Arafat refused to agree with the

    proposal. He was only willing to call it a "basis for further negotiation." Abu Mazen subsequently disowned the plan that bore his name.

    WHAT does Israel have to lose if it keeps making concessions and Arafat doesn't budge? There is a big difference between the Syrian and Palestinian diplomatic tracks: Assad may prefer the status quo, but Arafat plans to change the status quo this coming fall when he declares a Palestinian state. Israel will be entering a major diplomatic struggle over its future borders with the Palestinians.

    Arafat has considerable advantages. Already, a majority of members of the UN General Assembly vote yearly for resolutions that call the West Bank and East Jerusalem "occupied Palestinian territory." In 1999 the German presidency of the EU resurrected UN General Assembly Resolution 181 from 1947, with its internationalization of all of Jerusalem. In March 1998, British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook stated in London: "International law requires Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories, southern Lebanon, and the Golan Heights." Cook was inserting the definite article that was left out of UN Security Council Resolution 242.

    Israel's main counterclaim is its right to defensible borders, backed by past US secretaries of state. But if Israel begins to shave down its concept of defensible borders in a fruitless attempt to win Palestinian approval, then how can it turn to its friends abroad and seek their support against Palestinian unilateralism?

    Successful diplomacy requires flexibility and creativity, but most importantly it requires a consistent message. Prime Minister Barak would be best served by disassociating from the trial balloons of his ministers and by returning to the legacy left to him by Rabin and Allon.


    Dore Gold served as Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and is an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Insititute.



    Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of April 21, 2000



    By Louis Rene Beres

    There is always a calm before the storm, and for Israel, this calm is about to end. Sometime soon, sometime even sooner than Israel's giant thinkers may anticipate, Arab terrorism will resume, probably with a vengeance and with a ferocity unseen for the past several years. Although this Palestinian return to indiscriminate violence might appear inconsistent with the ongoing "Peace Process," and even seem irrational in view of the impending declaration of "Palestine," new terrorist assaults upon Israel will actually represent an altogether predictable expression of the sacred.

    For Israel's enemies, violence and the sacred are always inseparable. To understand the rationale and operation of coming Palestinian terrorism against Israel, it is first necessary to understand PLO/HAMAS/ISLAMIC JIHAD conceptions of the sacred. From these pertinent conceptions it will become clear that Arab terror against Jews is, at its heart, a manifestation of religious worship long known as sacrifice.

    Speaking to Palestinian security forces in Gaza a short time ago, Yasser Arafat remarked: "They will fight for Allah, and they will kill and be killed, and this is a solemn oath... Our blood is cheap compared with the cause which has brought us together... but shortly we will meet again in heaven...." Central to this revealing remark is the duality of sacrificial behavior; the fighters "will kill and be killed..." Victory for the Palestinian people will come when both the Jews and the Arab "martyrs" suffer death. But while death for the Jews will be final and unheroic, a confirmation of Jewish limitations, death for the Palestinians will be only a temporary inconvenience on the way to immortality. What is more, it is only by killing Jews and subsequently being killed by them that true freedom from death can be realized.

    This is the true meaning of Islamic terrorism against Israel; it is a form of sacred violence oriented toward the sacrifice of both enemies and martyrs. It is through the purposeful killing of Jews, today through terrorism, tomorrow through war, that the Palestinian embarked upon jihad can buy himself free from the penalty of dying, of being killed himself. It is through such killing, not through diplomacy, that God's will may be done.

    Only when Israel has understood that terrorism is an activity related to sacrifice will it be on the way to effective counterterrorism. Until now, this is an understanding - like other aspects of Israeli security planning - that has lent itself to insubstantial theorizing. For the future, Palestinian terrorism should be approached, at least in part, as a violent and sacred act of mediation between Arab sacrificers and their deity.

    Recently Arafat said: "The Palestinian people are prepared to sacrifice the last boy and the last girl so that the Palestinian flag will be flown over the walls, the churches, and the mosques of Jerusalem." Here the PLO Chairman was not speaking of a purely political kind of sacrifice. Rather, pointing toward death in the context of "holy war," it is a sacrifice wherein authentic disappearance will befall only the Jews and where "the last boy and the last girl" will find eternal life.

    For the Palestinians who now regard terrorism as sacrifice, it is a sacred violence that rewards doubly. Killing the despised Jew while simultaneously killing death for the Muslim, Palestinian sacrificial terror is the altogether optimal fusion of religion and politics. Moreover, such terror also fulfils the timeless function of sacrifice, which is to quell violence within the community and to prevent intracommunal conflicts from erupting.

    What lessons can be learned by Prime Minister Barak and his security chiefs for more effective Israeli counterterrorism? One answer emerges from a more generic investigation of sacrifice. Looking over several thousand years of history, all sacrificial victims are invariably distinguishable from nonsacrificeable beings by one essential trait: between these victims and the community a crucial social link is missing, so that they can be sacrificed without fear of reprisal. The practice of sacred violence via sacrifice is always one that can be undertaken without risk of vengeance. In sacrifice, the victim, who lacks a champion, is struck down without fear of reprisal.

    Ironically, this feeling of immunity from Israeli and Jewish vengeance now thoroughly permeates the Palestinian terrorist community. By responding to each act of terror with self-criticism and degrading submission, the Jewish nation of terror victims has reinforced the PLO/HAMAS/ISLAMIC JIHAD idea that the Arabs are engaged in genuinely sacrificial behavior. Revolted by a stooped-over people that refuses to fight back, and that even scrapes its own flesh and blood from sidewalk altars without planning for punishment, these Arabs know that what they do must be sacred.

    For Israel under Barak, it is time to recognize that terrorism and the sacred are closely linked. Before the Jewish State can protect itself from Palestinian terrorism, its policies will have to convince would-be attackers that Israel will not allow itself to become a sacrifice. To accomplish this all-important goal, these policies will have to express the certainty of vengeance whenever Jews are slaughtered by Arab terrorists. Although such an expression of justice would seem easy enough, it remains inconsistent with the prevailing self-sacrifice of Israel mandated by a huge wooden horse called "Oslo."

    There is one last important observation about sacrifice and terrorism. For the Palestinians who act upon linkage between violence and the sacred, the strength of their sacrificial behavior is drawn from concealment. Religion serves to shelter the terrorists from expectations of reciprocal violence just as their own violence against Israel seeks shelter in religion. To the extent that Israel can persuasively demystify the sacrificial harms of its enemies, openly de-linking these murders from consecrating Islamic institutions, it will stand a better chance of bringing its shielded enemies within a required circle of Jewish vengeance and punishment. While such demystification must lead to escalations of Israeli-Palestinian violence in the short run, it can at least reduce the likelihood that the Jewish State as a whole will ultimately be sacrificed upon the bloodstained altar of Arab terror.


    LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D. Princeton, 1971) Professor , Department of Political Science, Purdue University is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and counterterrorism. His work in these areas is well-known in American and Israeli intelligence communities. Professor Beres very recently participated in TERRORISM AND BEYOND... THE 21ST CENTURY, an international conference in Oklahoma City sponsored by the Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism.21 April 2000




    Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post... March 31, 2000


    By Daniel Pipes

    The cabinet voted unanimously to withdraw by July all IDF troops from southern Lebanon, where they have been stationed for two decades. The contrast between the Israeli and Arab reactions to this move was telling.

    In Israel this vote was seen as a flexing of muscle and a challenge to the country's enemies. Foreign Minister David Levy declared that the pullout would weaken Syria's position; Internal Security Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami asserted that Assad is very stressed by Israel's decision to withdraw from Lebanon. Just yesterday, Dan Margalit wrote about the threat of a unilateral withdrawal and suggested that Maybe the sight of Israeli tanks returning to Metulla will have an effect and spur Syria to come back to the negotiating table.

    In Lebanon, Hizbullah whooped it up on hearing of the cabinets vote. Likewise, in Syria, the president's son called this an Israeli defeat, the first since the creation of the state. The Syrian defense minister remarked that it amounts to a victory for the Lebanese resistance.

    Which side had it right?

    The Arabs did. Common sense dictates that an army that retreats has lost and its opponents have won. The Nazis won when British troops fled Dunkirk. North Vietnam won when American troops fled Saigon. The Afghans won when the Soviets abandoned Kabul. The Allies won when Iraqi troops ran from Kuwait.

    Likewise, Syria wins when Israel retreats from southern Lebanon. It's obviously a victory for Hafez Assad and his Lebanese allies. The pullout means he no longer faces a rival for influence in Lebanon. He has also broken the dream of his Lebanese subjects that Israel will save them from the Damascene jackboot. He has shown Israel's Arab allies how readily Israel abandons its cause. And he will have a direct shot at towns in the North, which will no longer be protected by the southern Lebanon security zone.

    ISRAELIS TEND not to see these facts. They have convinced themselves that their retreat poses dangers to the Assad regime. As Barry Rubin of Bar-Ilan University puts it, "The irony is that a unilateral pullback is a defeat for Syria and a victory for Israel even though on the surface it should be the exact opposite." This mistaken view is based on the idea that pulling back to the border deprives Hizbullah of a justification to attack Israelis. Accordingly, this will end hostilities along the border. and eliminate the main lever Damascus wields over Israel to evacuate the Golan Heights.

    But this charming faith in Hizbullah's respect for international borders ignores that organizations oft-repeated intent to take the conflict into Israel proper. Significantly, its leader recently demanded the return of seven Jewish settlements in the Galilee situated on the lands of Palestinian villages. Hizbullah has also proclaimed its intent of liberating Jerusalem for Islam.

    Nor is this just words: the director of the General Security Service has announced that Teheran has directed Hizbullah to prepare an infrastructure for terrorism inside Israel. Beyond that, the Lebanese government has put Israel on notice that it plans to deploy its Palestinians against it. We should soon, in short, expect guns, rockets, and terrorists to target the newly-exposed northernmost towns.

    THE ISRAELI consensus that sees retreat as strength fits an unfortunate but venerable Middle Eastern pattern of self-delusion. In 1973, for example, the Arabs managed to convince themselves that a near-disastrous war with Israel was actually a famous victory. To this day, the name October 6 dots the landscape in Egypt and Syria.

    In a similar act of imagination, Hamas claims Israel has forgotten that our people defeated it in every one of its battles. Even more dramatically, Saddam Hussein claims his crushing defeat at the hands of the allies in 1991 was a monumental triumph. In the last days of the war, Radio Baghdad told the Iraqi forces, "You have triumphed over all the chiefs of evil put together."

    It would seem that the orientalization of Israel has gone so far that it, too, convinces itself that defeat is victory. This does not augur well for the country as it tries to deal with its real problems.


    Daniel Pipes director of the Middle East Forum and the author of three books on Syria.


    As we approach Passover and re-tell the story of the Exodus, let us think about what Moses would say today. The Freeman Center believes he would say: "Let my people know the truth and not be misled by the golden idol of Oslo which leads to destruction and not peace." The Freeman Center exists for one purpose only and that is spreading the truth no matter how politically incorrect the truth may be. We need your help to carry out this mission. All contributions to the Freeman Center are fully tax deductible under IRS code 501(C)(3)



    13 April 2000

    By Dr. Aaron Lerner

    #1 A troubling poll result

    Instead of telling you what I think Israeli Arabs think, I would like to share with you what a representative sample of 500 Israeli Arabs told pollsters last November in a survey carried out by Dr. Assad Ganem of the Institute For Peace Studies at Givat Haviva.

    Which of the following options would you choose as a solution to the problem of the Arabs in Israel?

    24.8% Replace Israel with a Palestinian state.

    62.2% Israel ceases to be a Jewish Zionist state and the Jews and Arabs will be recognized as different groups.

    8.2% Israel will continue to be a Jewish Zionist state and Arabs in Israel will enjoy democratic rights and receive their relative share in the budgets and manage their educational, religious and cultural institutions.

    That's right. The overwhelming majority of Israeli Arab REJECT Israel continuing to be a Jewish Zionist state EVEN if they enjoy democratic rights and receive their relative share in the budgets and manage their educational, religious and cultural institutions.

    This in no way means that the Israeli Arabs should not enjoy democratic rights or their fair share. The survey however does indicate, and I say this with a heavy heart, that this will not satisfy them.

    #2 Sales to China

    I recognize that many good friends of Israel in the United States are not happy with the planned Israeli sale of our equivalent of the AWACS to China. I can only hope that this provides them with at least some appreciation as to how we feel about the top of the line American weapons systems being sold to our enemies or potential enemies.

    Our survival depends on our ability to use a technological edge to overcome the numerical superiority of our enemies. And since we must be prepared to face American technology on the battlefield we have no choice but to develop our own system components so that we can have something petrodollars can't buy.

    #3 5 Nos

    In the official negotiations taking place in the States, the PA has presented a document laying out it's five "red lines," an apparent response to recent statements by Barak in support of annexing settlements. The document was described in the Palestinian press as the "Five Nos" - a play on the infamous "three nos" after the 1967 Six-Day War. The PA demands that Israel withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders, including from east Jerusalem. The PA will not accept any Jewish settlements, nor will it put off discussion of any of the final-status issues like Jerusalem and refugees, or accept a partial framework deal. The document also rejects any solution that would accommodate Palestinian refugees outside their homeland, and rejects any Israeli military presence inside the Palestinian state (eg. No Israeli presence on the Jordan River).

    The Palestinians complain that there has been no progress in the talks because Israel hasn't bowed to the 5 Nos. The Palestinians make it clear that if they do not get what they want via negotiations that they will pursue other goals via other means. (e.g. violence, terrorism, intfada)

    And the Israeli response? Israel recently transferred another 200 assault rifles to the PA and another 100 are on the way.

    The Palestinians speak with a clear voice and all I hear from our government is mumbling about "hard sacrifices" and "difficult decisions". When it comes to domestic policies, Barak's clumsy poor planning and administration is plainly obvious because our economy and society in general is already paying a dear price in the form of crippling stupid job actions, unemployment and a mindless series of emergency measures - some of which will actually increase rather than decrease unemployment.

    In many ways the fog that surrounds negotiations with the Arabs makes it a far more friendly environment for the incompetent since the glaring mistakes may only really become known to the public at the end of the talks. As long as the ball is still in the air there is always room for the benefit of doubt that maybe - just maybe - what may be reckless stupidity is actually a carefully designed maneuver.

    One thing is certain: That it is incumbent on the Barak Administration to get the message out that the PA's Five Nos are the true obstacles to peace. President Clinton should understand that all the American bridge proposals in the world can't deliver Arafat even one of his Five Nos.




    By Boris Shusteff

    The Israeli leaders have invented a slogan that they use as an argument in order to relinquish the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha). Explaining why they so desperately want to establish one more Arab state on the primordial Jewish lands, they declare, "We do not want to rule over another people." While this slogan could be a great title for a Utopian novel, in reality it is an attempt to shun responsibility and to put it on somebody else's shoulders.

    Just imagine for a second if America were to use the same slogan in reference to some of her states with a predominantly Spanish speaking population, and if the American president were to come out with the idea of establishing another Mexican country since Americans do not want to rule over the Mexicans. Or picture a German Chancellor who does not want to rule over the Turks living in Germany and, hence, offers them another Turkish state. While nobody thinks that such imaginary actions of the American and German leaders are even remotely possible, many Jews accept the Israeli argument at its face value.

    It is important to note that Israel did not even try to rule "over another people" when she liberated the lands of Yesha in 1967. First of all, this was because Israel did not know that this people exists. The Arabs in Yesha did not know this either, since their national identity had not developed yet. In 1967 the whole world, including Israel, called them "the Arabs," and the Jewish state was unsure about what to do with them at that time. Instead of annexing the territories outright and making all the people dwelling there Israeli citizens, the Jewish state started to behave like a parent that has adopted a child and does not care about it. Israel allowed the child to be influenced by a bad neighborhood, bad company, other grownups, and then was surprised when the child demanded independence.

    But independence given to one child will lead to demands for the same by another one. Why does Israel think that it is reasonable for her "not to rule" over the Palestinian Arabs in Yesha, but why, at the same time, does she want to rule over the Palestinian Arabs living in Israel? A poll conducted by Dr. Assad Ganem of the Institute For Peace Studies at Givat Haviva among a representative sample of 500 Israeli Arabs demonstrated that despite being citizens of Israel only 4.2% among them consider themselves to be Israelis. All the rest call themselves Arabs or Palestinians. So how can Israel justify to them the necessity of "ruling over them?"

    By deciding "not to rule over another people" Israel not only diligently works to support the myth of the separate (from the Jordanians) "Palestinian" people, but also adds to the fragmentation of Eretz Yisrael. At the same time the Arabs are not hiding the fact that they view the territory which was once under the British mandate as an indivisible unit. In a recent lecture delivered in Amman on March 27, 2000 former Prime Minister of Jordan Taher Masri said,

    "Citizens of Trans-Jordan have always believed that Palestine is part of their country, and they have provided weapons and refuge to the freedom fighters. It is for this reason that the 1948 unity between what remained of Palestine and Jordan was established. It was an attempt to re-establish unity between the people on the two sides of the river."

    While the Arabs try to cement unity between the Palestinian Arabs that live in Jordan and in Yesha, Israel tries to help the Arab nationalists by emphasizing the uniqueness of a separate "Palestinian" people. The problem here is that the Arabs do not see any difference between the so called Palestinian "refugees," Palestinian Arabs from Yesha and Palestinian Arabs from Israel, or as the Arabs call them "Palestinians of the territories occupied in 1948."

    It is because the Palestinian Arabs consider Yesha and Israel to be one territory that on February 29, Dr. As'ad Abd al Rahman, member of the PLO Executive Committee and official in charge of the refugees issue, said that:

    "when the PLO talks about the right of return, it means the refugees' right to return to behind the Green Line in accordance with Resolution 194. When we talk about return, we are talking about the return to Yafo, Haifa, Akko, Al 'Abbasiyah, Nazareth, and all Palestinian cities and villages behind the Green Line."

    When Barak neglects Rahman's comments and says "We have to think about this realistically, and ask ourselves whether we are ready to rule over a smaller piece of land in exchange for not having to rule over a people," (1) he is actually being very unrealistic. He is completely wrong when he says that by giving the lands of Yesha to Arafat Israel will reach "a final territorial separation." Vice versa, by doing this Barak will bring the Arabs closer to the "Palestinian territories occupied in 1948" and thus will only whet their appetite.

    Barak is not only disregarding the comments of Arafat's cronies, but what is much worse, he completely ignores what the "Palestinian street" thinks about the "peace process." An extensive survey conducted on December 16 and 17, 1999 by Jerusalem Media & Communication Center on "Palestinian and Israeli Attitudes Towards The Future of the Peace Process" painted a very worrisome picture. When asked: "How genuine do you think the present Palestinian Authority is about reaching peace with Israel?" 73% of the Israeli Arabs, who know their brethren much better than Barak does, answered "not genuine and not genuine at all"(2).

    Even more frightening are the answers to the last question of the survey. After being asked "From the point of view of the Palestinians, will an agreement [based on a two states-two people solution - i.e. Barak's version] mean the end to their historical conflict with Israel?" 19.3% of Palestinian Arabs answered "Probably No" and 41.5% said "Surely No." (2).

    The results of the survey can be summarized by one sentence, taken from Article 19 of the Constitution of "Fatah", the main faction of the PLO that states:

    "Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated "(3).

    By helping the Arabs to "liberate" part of Palestine by relinquishing the lands of Yesha, and by expressing his reluctance "to rule over another people" Barak provides for the conditions when the "other people" will rule over Eretz Yisrael. Moreover, by doing this Barak and the Israeli leaders are not only shunning their responsibility for the people living in Yesha - both Jews and Arabs - but are also relinquishing the responsibility for Eretz Yisrael itself.

    They are well aware that in 1937, during the 20th Zionist Congress, David Ben-Gurion's warned against "giving up the right of establishing [i.e. settling] the Jewish Nation in [all of] the Land of Israel." They know his famous statement, "Even if at some particular time, there are those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have no power nor competence to deprive coming generations of this right."

    By ignoring Ben-Gurion's words and relinquishing this right the Israeli leaders put the responsibility of returning the land to Jewish possession on the shoulders of the coming generations. We should not doubt that the coming generations will fulfill their duty and return Eretz Yisrael to the bosom of the Jewish people, but they will never forgive today's leaders for their spinelessness, betrayal of the land and lack of Jewish pride. [04/07/00]


    1. The Jerusalem Post 2/28/00

    2. IMRA , February 28, 2000.

    3. (


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




    Boris Shusteff

    On March 17, in an interview given to the Israeli daily "Ha'aretz," writer Amos Oz, one of the stalwarts of Israeli left, demonstrated his vision of Israel's soul when he said: "our problem, the problem both of the Jewish people and of Israel not merely a problem of land and security, but an emotional problem. Our feeling of isolation, of humiliation. The feeling that they won't talk to us, only about us. "He said that when Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem he conquered Israeli hearts when "he shook our hand and spoke to us. He was in fact telling us that we were a part of the family of nations. That we were human. That we were not lepers."

    In his "exciting recollection" of Sadat's visit Oz forgot to mention where the emotional problems of the Jews come from. He completely neglected to mention that the feelings of "isolation and humiliation" were instilled in the Jews as a result of living for centuries among the Arabs in the capacity of "dhimmi," the same capacity that Arabs want to reinstate for the Jews. He did not mention the Charter of Omar - the twelve laws under which a dhimmi, or non-Muslim, was allowed to exist as a nonbeliever among believers. "The demeanment [sic] of Jews as represented by the Charter has carried down through the centuries, its implementation inflicted with varying degrees of cruelty or inflexibility" (1).

    Those who today follow Arab propaganda and say that the Jewish problems with the Arabs began only after the establishment of Zionist Israel, and that prior to that there was serenity in their relations, simply repeat the Arab Orient stories that do not have a grain of truth in them. Just a few facts should be enough to recall how the Jews became so downtrodden.

    Sir Thomas Hickinbotam, who was in Aden from 1931 and was appointed Aden's governor in 1951 wrote about relations between the Arabs and the Jews:

    "The Arabs consider that the Jews are their social inferiors and, provided they kept their own place, or what the Arabs consider to be their place, there is no trouble at all and the two communities may live side by side in peace for years; but as soon as the Jews tended to forget that they were Jews and began assert themselves as men, then there was always a likelihood of serious trouble" (1).

    A similar picture of Arab-Jewish relations was presented by the British vice-consul in Mosul (in Iraq) at the beginning of the twentieth century:

    "The attitude of the Moslems towards the Jews is that of a master towards slaves whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed "(1).

    In Egypt, the country most "tolerant" of the Jews, the attitude toward them was the same as in the rest of the Arab world. Egyptologist Edward Lane wrote about the first half of the nineteenth century, asserting that "the Jews are under a less oppressive government in Egypt than in any other country of the Turkish empire"(1). He described this "less oppressive" attitude of the Egyptians:

    "They [the Jews] are held in the utmost contempt and abhorrence by the Muslims in general the Jews are detested by the Muslims far more than are the Christians. It is common to hear an Arab abuse his jaded ass, and, after applying to him various opprobrious epithets, end by calling the beast a Jew"(1).

    Is it not surprising that, knowing this background, Amos Oz was so impressed by Sadat's arrival in Jerusalem? Shouldn't the slave be excited when his master visits his dwelling? When Sadat came to Israel the Jews completely forgot that it was the same Sadat who was proudly mentioned by Gamal Abdel Nasser in 1964, when he "declared, in an interview, that Egypt still pledged allegiance to the old Nazi cause: 'Our sympathy was with the Germans.' Nasser gave an example of the loyalty: 'The president of our parliament, for instance, Anwar Sa'adat, was imprisoned for his sympathy with the Germans'" (1).

    The Israelis did not notice that Sadat was behaving like their master when he made the "lordly" declaration, "What is peace for Israel? It means that Israel lives in the region with her Arab neighbors in security and safety. Is that logical? I say yes. It means that Israel lives within its borders, secure against any aggression. Is that logical? And I say yes. It means that Israel obtains all kind of guarantees that will ensure these two factors." (2). The Jews did not even think at that moment that Sadat was offering them the "protection" that was offered to a dhimmi. "As a grateful payment for being allowed so to live and be 'protected,' a dhimmi paid a special head tax and a special property tax"(1). The Jews did not notice this, though Sadat was more than direct when he said, "we should revive the spirit of Omar ibn Khtab,"(2) the same caliph Omar who delineated, in one of his twelve laws of "dhimmihood," that the Jews were "compelled to wear a yellow piece of cloth as a badge"(1).

    Sadat even told the Israelis what the "special tax" should be. Although the Jews were the victims of constant Arab enmity, Sadat declared: "I tell you, you have to give up once and for all the dreams of conquest and give up the belief that force is the best method for dealing with the Arabs... There are Arab territories that Israel occupied and still occupies by force. We insist on complete withdrawal from these territories including Arab Jerusalem" (2). Didn't Sadat sound like a master when he said: "I have not come to you under this roof to make a request that your troops evacuate the occupied territories. Complete withdrawal from the Arab territories occupied after 1967 is undisputed fact. Nobody should plead for that" (2).

    Sadat insulted the Jews by saying, "If you have found moral and legal justification to set up a national home on a land that did not all belong to you, it is incumbent upon you to show understanding of the insistence of the people of Palestine for establishment once again of a state on their land"(2). Sadat dared to tell the Jews that Eretz Yisrael was not their land. He lied in saying that a "Palestinian" state existed there before, and the Jews applauded him. The dhimmi attitude was deeply ingrained in the souls of the Jews. The same behavior was characteristic of the Yemenite Jews in 1910, "If they are abused, they listen in silence as though they had not understood; if they are attacked by an Arab boy with the stones, they flee" (1).

    Perhaps the "slaves" should be pardoned for not being as smart as their masters? Apparently, at the time of Sadat's visit the Israelis did not know that, already in 1971, Mohamed Heikal, an important spokesman of Egypt's leadership and an editor of the semiofficial Al Ahram "called for a change of Arab rhetoric - no more threats of "throwing Israel into the sea" - and a new political strategy aimed at reducing Israel to indefensible borders and pushing her into diplomatic and economic isolation. He predicted that "total withdrawal" would "pass sentence on the entire state of Israel" (1).

    Following Heikal's advice the Arabs achieved results that have surpassed all their expectations. Israel is shrinking in size like a punctured balloon. At the same time the Arab hatred toward the Jews is not disappearing. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak explained in an interview on March 29 why this is happening,

    Israel, although it has been in the Arab world for quite a long time, till now [does not] understand the Arab mentality. They should understand from the culture of the Arab countries, their mentality, how they think They cannot understand how to deal with the Arabs without making them hate them or be on bad terms with them (3).

    If we translate what Mubarak said into plain language, we end up with the idea that if the Jews "keep their own place, or what the Arabs consider to be their place, there is no trouble at all and the two communities may live side by side in peace for years." For Israel that would mean that she should obey her Arab master and stop being a Jewish and a Zionist state. That this is what the Arabs are dreaming of was proved during a survey conducted among a representative sample of 500 Israeli Arabs carried out by Dr. Assad Ganem of the Institute For Peace Studies at Givat Haviva during November 1999. When asked what option they would choose as a solution to the problem of the Arabs in Israel, only 8.2% said that they could live in Israel that "will continue to be a Jewish Zionist state and Arabs in Israel will enjoy democratic rights." 62.2% wanted Israel to stop being a Jewish and Zionist state and 25.8% wanted to establish a pure Palestinian state in all parts of Palestine (4).

    Those Jews who think that by dropping her Jewish and Zionist essence Israel will gain acceptance by the Arabs, at least by the Israeli Arabs, should first attend to the words of Mohhamed Heikal. On March 3, the veteran writer gave an extensive interview to the Egyptian weekly Al Ahram where he spoke about "the possibility of the de-Zionisation of Israel." He did not altogether dismiss the possibility, which would "provide a new basis for Israel's relations with the Arab world," but wondered what would "remain of Israel if it is de-Zionised?" He saw this question as the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Israel's existence, "for if you remove its Zionist basis, you remove the foundations of the state" (5).

    Isn't it interesting that Heikal, the Arab writer, understands that Zionism is the basis of the Jewish state, but Oz, the Jewish writer, is ready to get rid of it in order for them "to talk to us and not only about us." Well, on the other hand, maybe it should not be surprising: the mentality of a master and a slave are light years apart.


    1. Joan Peters, "From Time Immemorial," Harper &Row, Publishers, New York, 1984.

    2. "The Israel-Arab Reader," Walter Laquer and Barry Rubin, editors, Penguin books, 1995.

    3. Charlie Rose Show interview with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak Subject: Israel-Syria peace negotiations. Time 1:00 PM. Date: Wednesday, March 29, 2000.

    4. Survey of Israeli Arab Attitudes, March 30, 2000,".

    5. IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis), 3/19/00.



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




    By Boris Shusteff

    Many years ago the people of what was then the Soviet Union behaved so slavishly and submissively that the following joke became popular: "A group of people is called for a general meeting. They are told that next day they will all be hanged, and they are asked if they have any questions. One person stands up and asks: 'What about the ropes? Do we have to bring our own, or will the trade union provide them?'"

    From the actions of Israeli Jews, it appears that they are asking this question almost every day. The level of national degradation is absolutely impossible to comprehend. It is even more noticeable in comparison with the behavior of the Arabs, who proudly use the word "MY" when talking about the land, in contrast to the Jews who are so easily relinquishing this most precious of man's commodities.

    "The Jerusalem Report" wrote in its May issue about Fuad Rian, an Arab who has been sleeping in his wheat fields since April 5, protesting the building of the Trans-Israel Highway. For Fuad - "Land is life." For the Israeli leaders - land is just a bargaining chip. The haggling associated with the squandering of the Jewish lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) is absolutely shameful. "The Jerusalem Post" reported on April 25 that the "PA sources said Clinton conveyed to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat that Barak is ready to hand over 80% of the West Bank and withdraw from Jerusalem suburbs"(1). Another "Palestinian official" said that "in back-channel talks, Israel has offered the Palestinians more than 90 percent of the West Bank, if they agree to delay the issue of Jerusalem for a few years"(1). At the same time "other sources said Barak expressed a willingness to concede 70% to 80% of the West Bank to a Palestinian state"(1).

    While the Jewish press is ashamed to use the real name of the primordial Jewish land, calling it "the West Bank," the Arabs speak absolutely differently about the land that fell under their control (the Sinai was conquered from Turkey by Britain in 1917 without any Egyptian help and simply given to Egypt by the British government). On the anniversary of the "liberation" of Sinai Samir Ragab wrote in the Egyptian Gazette, "Egyptians believe it unthinkable that we could relinquish an inch of Arab land, because that land is the nation's pride and dignity"(2).

    What for the Arabs is a matter of the "nation's pride and dignity" for the Jews is spare change that can be easily given away. The Associated Press reported on April 24 that Ehud Barak was planning to convene his Security Cabinet meeting on April 27 during which "the Cabinet will consider an additional withdrawal from 2-3 percent of the West Bank as a goodwill gesture to the Palestinians while the sides are discussing larger withdrawals." It is obvious that the Arabs should not be in a hurry to come to an agreement on a "larger withdrawal" since a couple dozen "goodwill gestures" will give them all they are looking for pretty soon.

    The Arabs have already learned that time is on their side and the Jews themselves will give up everything. A good proof of this is the issue of prisoners. Israel has exhausted all of its "goodwill gestures" releasing Arab prisoners "without blood on their hands" so, apparently, the time came to let the others go, too. Israeli Minister of Internal Security Shlomo Ben-Ami put it in this way, "There are no remaining terrorists who have not killed Israelis, so, as the process with the PLO Authority (PA) moves forward, there will be no other alternative but to release security prisoners with blood on their hands"(3).

    Ben-Ami's logic is so simple that one can easy predict what is going to be said by the Israeli leaders after they relinquish all lands of Yesha. Some Minister will state then: "There are no remaining territories outside the green line, so as the process with the PA moves forward, there will be no other alternative but to relinquish the land of Israel proper."

    The virus of national degradation has infected all Israeli institutions. On April 24 the General Security Service (GSS/Shin Bet), the organization that should know all about the Arabs, recommended that the "government release terrorists from prison who have killed and/or injured Israelis in terrorist attacks. The GSS has called for terrorists affiliated with Yassir Arafat's Fatah faction be released from Israeli prisons"(3). It is one thing when the Israeli man in the street suggests to release Fatah members from prison but it is completely different when this is recommended by Shin Bet.

    It is hard to believe that Shin Bet is not familiar with the text of Fatah's Constitution, recently placed on the Fatah Web site. Hence, it is puzzling that Shin Bet calls for the release of people whose movement's essential principles consider "liberating Palestine as a national obligation" (article 5), for whom "the Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base" (article 8) ; whose goal is "complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence"(article 12) ; for whom "armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine" (article 17) and that advocates "opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine" (article 22) (4).

    One must admit that the Arabs have done an excellent job in convincing the Jews that they, the Jews, are the occupiers who are responsible for all the sufferings of the Palestinian Arabs. The Arabs have managed to instill in the Jews the complex of guilt and now demand that the Jews acknowledge "their responsibility in the expulsion of nearly one million Palestinians from their homes in 1948" (5). The editorial on the official PA Web site declared that the "Palestinians, so far, have been denied the basic right to see their suffering recognized by its perpetrators"(5). Reuters reported on March 13 that Hanan Ashrawi, a prominent PA legislator, speaking in Washington, demanded that Israel should "make a public historical apology to the Palestinians for the grave historical injustice they have suffered"(6). As Ashrawi said: "An apology to the Palestinian people is long overdue -- a recognition of the historical fact of 1948 and the ongoing victimization of the Palestinians"(6).

    Ashrawi is right, it is a "grave historical injustice" that the Israeli leaders do not want to allow the world and the Israeli Jews to learn the real facts. It is a pity that the Israeli propaganda machine is completely rusted. Otherwise, it would have emphasized that Khaled Al-Azm, who was Syria's Prime Minister after the 1948 war, deplored the Arab tactics and the subsequent exploitation of the refugees, in his 1972 memoirs, where he wrote:

    "Since 1948 it is we who demanded the return of refugees while it is we who made them to leave We brought disaster upon Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave. We have rendered them dispossessed. We have accustomed them to begging. We have participated in lowering their moral and social level. Then we exploited them in executing crimes of murder, arson, and throwing bombs upon men, women and children - all this in service of political purposes"(7).

    Khaled Al-Azm was not the only Arab leader who pointed his finger on the real perpetrators of the sufferings of the Palestinian Arabs. The late King Hussein of Jordan said in 1960 that "since 1948 Arab leaders have approached the Palestine problem in an irresponsible manner They have used the Palestinian people for selfish political purposes. This is ridiculous, I could say, even criminal."

    While the official Palestinian propaganda does its best to obfuscate this issue, it is important to note that the Palestinian Arabs know that their leaders are guilty of creating the refugee problem. While it would be unrealistic to expect that rank and file Arabs blame only themselves, it is revealing that in a recent survey 30.4% Israeli Arabs and 36.1% Palestinian Arabs said that "Israel and the Arab side are to the same extent responsible for the creation of the refugee problem in1948" (8).

    Lacking knowledge of history, the Israelis think that perhaps through submissiveness and appeasement they will pacify the Arabs. If this is so, they simply demonstrate a complete ignorance in understanding the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Israelis can relinquish land, they can free Fatah "fighters," they can even admit their "guilt" but none of these will change the Arabs' attitude towards Israel. As Hizbullah secretary general Sheik Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview with "Time" Cairo bureau chief Scott MacLeod, "Let us be clear. In our opinion, the Jewish state is an illegitimate and illegal state and will remain so in the eyes of the Arab and Muslim people, even if it is 50 years, 100 years, 200 years" (9)

    The Arabs have learned the lingo that is acceptable to the world community and constantly use it in order to reach their goals. This is why, while leading a war against the Jews, they call it peace. This is why they suddenly fell in love with democracy, so cherished by enlightened mankind. As Nasrallah said:

    "We are not saying that we want to throw the Jews into the sea. There are some Islamic scholars who gave a proposal: let the Palestinian people return to Palestine and let us have a referendum inside Palestine with the Muslims, Jews and Christians. And then we will decide about the destiny of this land. This is a democratic solution" (9).

    While it is questionable that the state that Nasrallah has in mind is going to be democratic, one thing is perfectly clear - it is not going to be a Jewish state. What can be better proof than the words of Chulud Badawi, the chairwoman of the Arab students' organization of Haifa University, who was quoted in an article published on April 28 in the local Haifa District newspaper "Echo of the Suburbs" ("Hed Hakraiot"):

    "We shall not stop our struggle until Israel, in order to become a State of all its citizens, will cease to exist as a Jewish State. And because symbols are important, then our struggle is also about the annulment of "Hatikva" as the national anthem, and the disappearance of the blue and white flag with the Star of David in it as the State's flag."

    If Israel continues at the same pace along the road of national degradation Chulud Badawi will not have to wait long for her dream to come true. [04/29/00]


    1. The Jerusalem Post, 4/25/00

    2. IMRA 4/24/00

    3. Israel wire 4/25/00


    5. Official PNA Editorial: The Last Mile;

    6. Reuters News Agency, 3/13/00.

    7. Joan Peters: "From Time Immemorial." Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, 1984.

    8. Jerusalem Media & Communication Center Public Opinion Polls. #35, Published on February 2000. IMRA 2/28/00.

    9. Hizballah's secretary general Sheik Hassan Nasrallah discusses the prospects for peace in the Middle East. 4/03/00.


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




    By Dr. Steven Plaut

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that Arafat would pursue peace.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that Hamas would be more of a threat to the PLO than to Israel.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that Arafat would fight the Hamas and Islamic Jihad "with no Supreme Court or 'Betselem'" (in Rabin's words).

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that terrorism would decrease.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that hostility to Jews in the Arab and the Western media would decrease.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that trade between Israel and Arab countries would flourish.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that the Palestinian Authority would be disarmed.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz supporters assured us that the PLO would cooperate strategically with the Israel Defense Forces.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that there would be an economic peace dividend.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Israeli Arabs would demonstrate increasing moderation due to the "peace process".

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the Hamas and Jihad would be persecuted and suppressed by the PLO.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that PLO arms would never again be used against Jews.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO leadership would speak in terms of peace with the Jews.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would cease its efforts to delegitimize Zionism and Israel.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would denounce and renounce anti-Semitism.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would encourage normalization and daily peaceful commerce between Arabs and Jews.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would introduce democracy in the Palestinian zones.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would be forced to spend all its energies on resolving domestic social and economic problems.

    But they were ever so wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would have so many internal troubles that it would not have the time or ability to pursue confrontation with Israel.

    G-d, but they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the US would back Israel if the PLO reneged on its obligations or displayed duplicity.

    What a joke, they were so wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the US would cease to pressure Israel to endanger its security and fundamental interests.

    But they were mega-wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the Europeans would rush forward to support Israel.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the Japanese and Saudis would pour money into regional investments, including into Israel.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the Egyptians would end all animosity towards Israel, Zionism and Jews.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the non-Arab Moslem countries would gush friendship for Israel.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Arab military expenditure would drop significantly.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Arab verbal threats against Israel would end.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Nazi-like propaganda in Arab countries would end.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the Israeli Left would lead the retreat from the Oslo experiment it if proved to be not working.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the PLO would never show itself as a tin cup Third-World kleptocracy if granted power.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Jews remaining in Moslem countries would see their treatment dramatically improved.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Russia would act as a stabilizing force for peace.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that liberals and leftists around the world would congratulate Israel for taking risks for peace and rush forward with goodwill and support.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that the majority of Palestinians would denounce all violence and terror.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Israel Arabs would cease to support political parties dedicated to eliminating Israel.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that Palestinian chants of "Death to the Jews" and "Massacre the Jews" would end.

    But they were wrong.

    When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Labor/Meretz lemmings assured us that no longer would the PLO chant be "In blood and fire we shall redeem thee Palestine."

    But they were wrong.

    Sounds like the Dayenu song in the Passover Hagaddah? Where even one of these should have been enough to cause the Labor Party and Meretz lemmings to retire from politics permanently and admit their destructive errors that threaten Israel's very existence?

    But surely the Labor and Meretz lemmings have learned from their errors? Hey, I said Passover, not Purim or April 1.




    A Jewish Parable

    By Bernard J. Shapiro

    On his deathbed Neville Chamberlain, former British foreign Secretary, said the following to his son:

    "Everything would have worked out OK if Hitler had not lied to me."

    The circumstances which led to this tale of ISRAEL AND THE CAMEL DUNG were first predicted by the wise men of Chelm sometime in the 18th century. It took 200 years and the revival of the Jewish State for this prediction to come true. At the time these wise men were dismissed as fools.

    Sometime in the early 1990's there was a wise King of Israel named Peres the Brilliant. The most serious threat to Israel came from evil man named Yasser the Bloody. Now Peres wondered how he could make peace with Yasser so that Israel would be loved throughout the Middle East. He and his favorite advisor, Beilin the Poodle, set out the make peace and change the Middle East forever.

    First they sent emissaries to Yasser and when they found that he was receptive, a meeting was scheduled. They couldn't meet in Israel so they chose the next best place, Oslo. When they all entered the meeting room, everyone noticed a smell coming from a package held by Yasser. Peres didn't want to insult Yasser but was very curious and the odor was a bit overpowering. As was normal, Peres whispered to his Poodle to ask the delicate question. So Beilin asked Yasser and the rest is history.

    You see Yasser revealed that a gypsy had sold him a pot of camel's dung that had magical powers. Yasser agreed to sell it to Israel for a price. That price turned out to be the Oslo agreement. According to Yasser, who got it straight from the gypsy, Israel could use the power of the camel dung to wish for peace. Peres and his Poodle were very excited and concluded the Oslo deal with Yasser the Bloody. They then went back to Israel with the camel dung and said that they now had the power to create a peaceful New Middle East.

    In the years that followed, peace never came to Israel. Israel had done everything right. They gave up land, water and Holy Sites to Yasser's bloody gang of Arabs. Periodically they checked with Arafat and complained that the camel dung wasn't working. The new King of Israel, Barak of the Wet Diaper, was told by Arafat that Israel must give him Jerusalem, the Golan, and the right of return of 25 million displaced Arabs. Since Barak was getting diaper rash and becoming very cranky, he decided that he must go along with Arafat to bring peace to Israel.

    The rest is history. All those returning Arabs drove the Jews into sea. No country would allow the Israelis to emigrate to their country. Who needs Jews said the British? The Americans didn't have any room for Jews since millions of Hispanics were coming without permission.

    There in the great sea, sitting on a raft that was starting to sink, Peres the Brilliant, Beilin the Poodle, and Barak of the Wet Diaper were discussing the horrible disaster befalling Israel. Peres summed up the situation in a very brilliant way: "Camel dung does not have magic powers. Everything would have worked out OK if Arafat had not lied to us.."


    Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of THE MACCABEAN ONLINE and the freemanlist (email)

     HOME  Maccabean  comments