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"





Morris J. Amitay, Yotam Feldner (MEMRI),

Reed Irvine & Cliff Kincaid, Dr. Irving Kett, Prof. Eugene Narrett, Steve Rodan,

Jay Shapiro, Boris Shusteff, Bernard Smith, Gerald Steinberg, David Weinberg,

Emanuel A. Winston & Sidney Zion.....



MAY 1999

AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND ISRAEL.....An Editorial.....Bernard J. Shapiro

I AM OUTRAGED.....Guest Editorial...Emanuel A. Winston


YOM HAZIKARON.....Rachel Gold




PALESTINIAN LONG RANGE PLANS....Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI)

JEWISH MANKURTS....Boris Shusteff


SACRIFICES FOR PEACE....A Satire....David Weinberg







CHECKS AND BALANCES....Gerald Steinberg

SHARON WARNS AGAINST KOSOVO STATE....Liat Collins and Danna Harman



RUDE AWAKENING....Boris Shusteff



FACING THE TRUTH....Boris Shusteff






Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro Published Monthly by the


P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661

Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016 E-Mail: freemanlist@aol.com

URL: http://www.freeman.org Free with Freeman Center membership



Outside USA: $50

© 1999 Bernard J. Shapiro


An Editorial


A Maccabean Perspective

This article is quite critical of American Foreign Policy, therefore, I would like to say a few positive things up front. The American people when properly polled come out consistently in support of Israel. There are at least 50 million Evangelical Christians who are friends and dedicated supporters of Israel. Many of America's presidents have bucked the US State Department to help Israel with arms and money. The US Congress and Senate have consistently been friends of Israel. Martin Luther King, Jr. expressed his love of Israel many times. My own grandfather, for whom the Freeman Center was named, expressed his love of America upon his arrival on our shores:

"But what a change in life upon arriving in America - Free America. Here I suddenly found myself unbridled, the air free, no stifling, atmosphere - I could give free expression to the cravings of my soul! Life began to have a different meaning. What a blessing to have free assemblage, free speech free press! Can an American who has always enjoyed these blessings appreciate what it means to one who was deprived of them until manhood?"

Unfortunately there are institutions in America that don't love Israel as much as most of us do. Israel's relations with America go back even before statehood in 1948. During the critical years of WWII, the Zionist community of both America and Israel appealed to President Franklin Roosevelt to take action to stop the Holocaust. They were rebuffed at every turn. It was apparent that neither America nor any of its allies were very interested in saving Jewish lives. England was the most persuasive when arguing that the Jews saved would want to go to Palestine. This would anger the Arabs and should be avoided at all cost. It is true that European Jewry would have been a vast reservoir of new citizens for the emerging State of Israel. Their sheer numbers would have eliminated the Arab demographic problem in the new State. American policy came down solidly on the side of dead Jews as opposed to live Jews.

When Israel declared its independence in 1948, we were all pleased that the American president, Harry S. Truman, made America the first nation in the world to recognize the Jewish State. Yet even here there was a dark side to American Foreign Policy. The State Department had argued in vain against the recognition of Israel. When they didn't succeed at that they successfully placed an embargo of arms to Middle Eastern States. Seemingly neutral it only affected Israel since the British and French were arming the Arabs. So we have the spectacle of American recognition of Israel's independence while at the same time refusing the arms it needed to survive, to defend their lives.

Following Israel's Sinai Campaign in 1956, Eisenhower and Dulles forced Israel to withdraw with little political gain. Two "benefits" appeared to be: a UN Force in Sinai to guarantee free passage for Israel in the Gulf of Eilat; and an American promise to guarantee such free passage. In 1967 the UN Force disappeared, as did the American promise, which the State Department claimed they could not verify.

In the period since 1967, the US State Department has devoted an excessive amount of time developing and promoting plans to force Israeli withdrawal to the 'suicide' borders of pre-1967. With amazing regularity, the State Department has failed to be honest about violations of the agreements it has negotiated between the Arabs and Israelis. The US has been blind to Arab violations from the failure to see missile movements in Egypt (1970-76) to the failure to see Palestinian violations of the Oslo and Wye Agreements. This US blindness has always been one way. The Israelis are subjected to constant misinterpretations of agreements. For example, never having agreed to a freeze in Jewish building, US spy satellites are active daily counting houses in YESHA. And then publicly rebuking Israel for a normal activity of a sovereign country.

In order to pressure Israel, stories appear on a regular basis claiming that Israel is transferring American technology to third parties. In every case they are proven false, but the constant repetition is meant to weaken Israel diplomatically. The State Department has orchestrated a media campaign to damage Israel's reputation in general and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular. A few examples:

1. Netanyahu is the "hardline" PM of Israel while other world leaders are Statesman. Arafat is a 'leader'

2. Ethnic cleansing is bad in Kosovo but the ethnic cleansing of Jews from YESHA is good

3. All disputed land in YESHA 'belongs' to Arabs even when Israel has clear title

4. All foreign capitals are recognized 'except Jerusalem'

5. Israeli soldiers defending themselves from attack have been treated by the media as the 'bad guy'

6. Rock throwers who can crush you skull have been treated as 'demonstrators or protesters' by the media

7. Jewish villages are 'settlements' and 'illegitimate' while Arab villages are all considered legitimate

The list could on but now we must say something that should have been said years ago. It is very important for Israel to disengage from its close embrace with American diplomacy. It should be obvious to all that American and Israeli interests differ markedly in relation to the negotiations with the Palestinians. America has by its own admission ceased to be either pro-Israel or a neutral mediator (the Americans claim to be 'even-handed'). American policy in the final analysis will leave Israel with indefensible borders and an irredentist Palestinian neighbor yearning for all the land "from the river to the sea." Then, of course, they will also want Jordan.

Much more can be gained for Israel by negotiating directly with the Arabs. This used to be Israeli policy. In reality, Arafat has ceased negotiating with Israel and now is negotiating only with Washington.. It may be necessary to give up American aid dollars and possibly weapons to break out of the current US embrace. It will certainly be difficult, but in the end, there will exist a truly free and sovereign Israel. The alternative is to learn nothing from history: placing Israel's destiny in America's hands as was done during WWII. America won the war, but 90% of Europe's Jews were already dead. I would prefer Israel to survive.

.....Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor



"This is a blockbuster that should be read by every Jewish leader, diplomat or anyone who really wants to understand the Arabs"....Bernard J. Shapiro


By Yossef Bodansky

Yossef Bodansky is the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), and is also the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the U.S. House of Representatives. As well he is a Special Consultant on International Terrorism for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He is also a Senior Editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications. He is the author of six previous books (Target America, Terror, Crisis in Korea, Offensive in the Balkans, Some Call It Peace and Arafat's "Peace Process"), as well as several book chapters, entries for the International Military and Defense Encyclopedia, and numerous articles in several periodicals, including Global Affairs, Jane's Defense Weekly, Defense & Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy, and Business Week. [The opinions expressed in this book are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, U.S. Congress, or any other branch of the U.S. Government.]


Copyright (c)April 1999 - Yossef Bodansky - Price per copy: $12.00 paper [postage and handling $2.00]

is published by

In Israel: The Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR)
P.O.B. Shaarei Tikva 44810 Israel
Tel.: 972-3-906-3920 * Fax: 972-3-906-3905 * E-mail: acpr@inter.net.ilInternet Website (URL): http://www.acpr.org.il


In the USA: The Freeman Center for Strategic StudiesP.O.B. 35661
Houston, Texas 77235-5661
Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail:
Internet Website (URL): http://www.freeman.org [or] http://www.freeman.org


Guest Editorial


By Emanuel A. Winston

There is a time for anger and outrage.

I am outraged that temporary electees (mere politicians) in Israel feel that have the power of office to literally give away significant parts of Israel - ours by the right of Jewish patrimony which we have established over the ages, 3000 years.

I am outraged that Leftists and Socialists, when in power, are always in the vanguard of assisting nations on their way to collapse when under their care.

I am outraged that, after several thousand years of having been cheated of a peaceful life, pacifistic Jews still are first apologists for our dedicated enemies' acts of terror or abrogation of agreements.

I am outraged that, unlike other nations and people, Jews seem to have no national memory of the things done to us by the so-called civilized world - as follows:

All over the world there are people and races who do not forget what was done to them. When the opportunity presents itself...it is called quite properly "Revenge" and "Taking Back what is Stolen". Not so the Jews. Our level of remembrance is limited to museums and holidays set aside to mourn our dead...which is a growing practice among the Jews.

When a Jew is murdered in Israel or there is a suicide Arab bombing killing many, the event makes it into the Leftist Hebrew news journals for a few days, its politicians make useless speeches and it's all gone in a week. The Leftists, in collusion with the media, begin to create a rationale and apology for the 'poor' Arabs who are under so much pressure that they just must let it out in violence. Suicide bombing is "psychologically acceptable" to Israel's Leftists, so-called American Jewish leaders and the Clinton Administration's Jewish Arabists. This is an aberrant pathology.

I am outraged that there are Jews who themselves identify more with the goals of Arafat and the Palestinians than the goal of keeping Israel alive. Perhaps we need a gigantic Freudian couch to heal the sniveling, hand-wringing Jew in us. A good example would be the gaggle of pacifistic liberal Jews who have become Clinton's human shield as he/they conspire with Arafat to cut Israel up like salami slices. Can we ever forget or forgive Sandy Berger, Martin Indyk, Dennis Ross, Dan Kurtzer, Aaron Miller, Madeleine Albright, et al?

I am outraged that an amoral President expands his absolute corruption as he makes common cause with Yassir Arafat...a war criminal who has directly ordered the killing of Americans (as well as Israelis).

I am outraged that our US State Department is so deeply saturated with anti-Semitism that is also works with Israel's enemies to destroy the Jewish State. What's even worse, the politicians of Israel and the pacifistic American Jewish leadership accepts the repeated betrayals in trembling silence. No Pride - No Shame - No Memory!

I am outraged that Prime Minister Netanyahu and General Ehud Barak have signed a contract which required the winner of the elections to bring the loser aboard as part of a Unity Government. In effect, the ballots and choice of the people are cast aside. And yet, no one has yet filed suit to stop this travesty of a stolen election - stolen from the people.

It gets worse!

The underlying reason for this power grab is that a Unity Government could too easily override the Israeli majority against giving away YESHA (Yehuda, SHomron, GAza), the Golan Heights, and pieces of Jerusalem. Edna Arbel, a confirmed Leftist and State Prosecutor under Elaykim Rubenstein, is reportedly preparing police and troops for the coming implementation of Wye with the "ethnic cleansing" (evacuation) of Jewish residents in YESHA.

The Justice Ministry is focusing on "how to deal with the troublemakers [among Israelis settlers]". In other words, people who resist being forcibly removed from their homes are "trouble-makers". I think the removers are the ones making trouble.

I am outraged because the media is rightfully sympathetic with the Kosovar refugees, but has been irrevocably hostile to the next upcoming group of ethnic refugees, Jewish settlers from YESHA.

I am outraged by the United Nations who, for the last 50 years has been the advocate for Arab aggression. We now only await the next "Green Light" by Arafat to start another uprising - with major weapons and Police Force/Army of at least 50,000 or more. Israel's Defense Forces will counterattack. Then the UN can convene the General Assembly to vote sanctions against Israel - as planned.

The "provocateurs" and "planners" are President Clinton and his anti-Semitic State Department, the EU (European Union) - nations who turned in their Jews and confiscated their properties and the Arabs who are still smarting from losing 6 wars against the Jewish State and a people they hate with a vicious contempt.

I am outraged at this and more. Why aren't you outraged too?

If you are, raise holy hell with your weak-kneed self-elected Jewish leaders, including those rabbis who are dedicated to appeasement. Call your Congressmen and ask them to interfere with and object to the President's foreign policy linked to Arab hostile plans for Israel.

Start yelling and don't stop until Israel is safe.


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst & commentator and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



By Rachel Gold

· The number of IDF (Israel Defence Force) fallen from November 1947 until today is 18,939.

· The number of fallen between prior to 28.11.47 (non-IDF personnel) is 1,593.

· The number of fallen in Israel's wars from 1860 until the present day is 20,532. (This number includes disabled IDF veterans who later died from their wounds and non-IDF personnel who fell in the line of duty).

· There are 17,967 members of bereaved families, as follows: 3285 widows, 4457 single bereaved parents, 4029 bereaved parents (couples) - 8058 individuals, 2167 orphans.

· There are 79,239 disabled veterans.

· The total population of bereaved families and disabled IDF veterans cared for by the Defense Ministry Rehabilitation department numbers is currently 97,206.

After reading this report, it is difficult to put my feelings into words. Although I live outside of Israel, I look to Israel with hope and pride. This day of Yom Hazikaron, is a time for all Jews to recognize the huge sacrifice made by those who died and bled, fighting for the State of Israel, as well as the price they and their families have paid, so that Israel could grow and flourish as its own nation.

The Talmud says, "Kol Yehudim aruvim zeh leh zeh."...All Jews are responsible for one another." As a Jew outside of Israel I feel that Israel's loss is my loss too. War is very costly...the highest price being life. Israel has fought for survival...for a right to exist, (and continues to do so today). Through this high cost came triumph and hope for the Jewish people.

As a result of those we remember and reflect upon today, Israel celebrates her 51st birthday tomorrow. It is with a bittersweet semblance that I say, "HAPPY BIRTHDAY ISRAEL...ISRAEL ADMATENU!"


Editor's Note: The Freeman Center back in September of 1993 warned the Jewish community that Oslo was the 'thin edge of the wedge' that would lead to a diminished and insecure Israel. Indeed Oslo has been a "PANDORA'S BOX" which has and continues to release forces that will devastate Israel and her people. Since 1993 we have published over 30,000 pages of commentary and analysis explaining step by step the damage being done to Israeli sovereignty and security. Many in leadership positions in Israel and America have failed to heed our words. Below is an important WAKE UP CALL for those who have doubted us.....Bernard J. Shapiro


By David Makovsky, Ha'aretz April 28. 1999

The UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva passed a resolution yesterday, with European support, calling for Palestinian self-determination on the basis of the UN partition resolution of 1947 (181) and the resolution calling for the right of return for Palestinian refugees (194), without any explicit mention of the peace process or its foundation in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

Israel's lobbying efforts to modify the resolution failed, and the U.S. was the only country among the 53 in attendance which opposed the measure. Israel is not a member. The Foreign Ministry issued a statement last night blasting the resolution, and expressed particular disappointment at European support, saying such a move "distances Europe from involvement it could have in the peace process."

"In the past, 181 and 194 have been referred to in UN resolutions, but there has generally been reference to 242, 338, the Oslo agreements, or a general commitment to the peace process. This time it is 181 and 194 alone. We see this as part of an orchestrated campaign by the Palestinians to press 181," said Dore Gold, Israel's ambassador to the UN.

In comments reported in the el-Yam daily last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) Planning Minister Nabil Sha'ath said, "In his tour through most of the world's countries, the president spoke of the right to a Palestinian state, a right that is based on Resolution 181 of 1947 and not on the resolution of the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords."

Israeli officials say they are alarmed by the focus on 181, which they see as an attempt to shrink Israel to an area even smaller than its 1967 borders. Yet US officials say that from their conversations with the Palestinians, PA officials cite Resolution 181 as a basis for statehood, but in no way do they view partition as the blueprint. In the White House statement issued two days ago, the U.S. position is unmistakable: Resolutions 242 and 338, passed in 1967 and 1973 respectively, which call for trading land for peace and negotiating recognized borders, are the basis for the peace process.



From: media@actcom.co.il [4/28/1999]

David Beden (Bedein), MSW, Media Research Analyst;
Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News

On April 27, 1999, our TV crew covered the Palestinian Legislative Council when it met in special session in Gaza to determine the nature of their independent state that will be established over the next year.

The PLC made a decision: The date of their Palestinian state's formal declaration will probably wait until a Papal visit to the Holy Land at some point during the year 2000, leaving the precise date and venue up for discussion.

However, the PLC also decided to reject the idea of a "west bank-Gaza" state, declaring instead that the future Palestinian state must be inclusive of all the areas promised by the UN resolution #181 in 1947 - which would include Tzfat, Beersheva, Jaffa, Naharia, Ashkelon and two hundred other Israeli municipalites and communal farming villages.

The PLC also legislated that the Palestinian state would also demand the enforcement of UN resolution #194, which demands the repatriation of 3 million Arab refugees to the villages that they left in 1948, where the majority of Israel's population. Indeed, the Palestinian Arab refugees, living in the squalor of UN refugee camps since 1948, have lived with the premise and promise of the "right of return" since 1948, a commitment that has been reaffirmed by the new Palestinian Authority and all member states of the United Nations. The Palestinian Arab refugee camps were therefore not included in the development plans of the Palestinian Authority, because, according to the PA and the UN, they have homes to return to which are temporarily occupied by Jews within Israel proper, in places like North Tel Aviv.

In other words, the PLC, with international support, declared that its purpose remains the dismemberment of the state of Israel. To put it even more clearly, the PLC decisions of April 27, 1999 represent a declaration of continued war against the state and people of Israel.

Most of the media have decided not to report the essence of the PLC decision, preferring instead to focus on the more tangential issue of whether or not the Palestinian state will be established on May 4th or not.


Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio Broadcast on April 13 / Nisan 27, 5759


By Jay Shapiro


It would be difficult, it not impossible, not to have some mention of the dramatic events now occurring in the Balkans. Let me state at the outset that these events are not simple. The flashy pictures and sound bites only scratch the surface of a conflict extending back hundreds of years. There have been unspeakable atrocities carried out by all sides against each other at some time in their history. At the moment, the Serbs have the upper hand in the ongoing internecine warfare between Christian Serbs and Moslem Albanians. In any case, I would like to focus upon the implications of the crisis for the Jewish people and for Israel. What is most relevant for Israel is the behavior of the western powers, particularly the United States and the European Union.

To begin, let us take a close look at the strategic and technical acumen, as well as the overall dependability, of US President Bill Clinton and his foreign policy advisers. Keep in mind that the team responsible for American activity in Kosovo is roughly the same group that has been charting the course of US Middle East strategy for quite some time. It is the selfsame "peace" team that has been twisting Israel's arm, forcing it to relinquish ever greater tracts of its territory to the Palestinian terrorists, that is the brains behind the Administration's campaign in the Balkans. This includes Sandy Berger, the President's national security adviser and, of course, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

Consider the Wall Street Journal editorial of April 2: "It now seems clear that the President went into this military commitment without having thought it through and is getting himself, his troops, his nation, and the NATO alliance into a deeper and deeper mess. It is well established by now that bombing an adversary's army while ruling out ground troops is a recipe for irresolution. Absent ground troops, the only option is bigger bombing, inevitably of civilians. The lesson of war is that if you are compelled to use force, use it overwhelmingly. This is also the responsible course. What save lives is getting the war over quickly. There is no reason to be surprised that the United States has arrived at this awful moment."

This editorial begets two interesting conclusions. We can see that even in today's modern warfare, there is no substitute for territory. Yet the Americans keep pressing Israel to relinquish its territory to our enemies. People who are out of touch with reality - like Shimon Peres - agree with the Americans. Nothing could be more preposterous. And regarding force, once you decide to use it, do so overwhelmingly. If we would have followed this prudent advice, the ten-year spree of Palestinian Arab violence (the "intifada") would have been over within two days. But our generals, those fellows who now are running for office here in Israel, did not understand how to use the force available to them. As a result, we are now in the bind that we are in.


Regarding the team that advises Mr. Clinton and which is incessantly goading Israel: Michael Kelly of the Washington Post noted that the most revealing glimpse of the Clinton Administration's thinking about Kosovo occurred earlier this month in a private meeting between the Italian prime minister and the president. As reported by the Post, Massimo D'Alea asked Clinton a simple question about the contemplated NATO bombing of Serbia:

What would the US do if Slobodan Milosevic did not back down, but rather boosted his assault on the Kosovar Albanians? The President was stumped by the question. He did not answer, but rather turned inquiringly to his national security adviser, Sandy Berger. Berger hesitated, and then replied: "We will continue the bombing."

It must have been disconcerting for the Italian leader to discover that the chief executive of the world's sole superpower was about to launch a war without a plan that extended beyond next Sunday's talk shows, or without a thought to one of bombing's most likely consequences. The NATO air campaign against Serbia began on March 24, and five days later, at least 130,000 Kosovar Albanians had been forced by the resultant Serb ground campaign to take refuge in Albania, Montenegro, and Macedonia. Serbian troops were continuing their systematic campaign against the ethnic Albanian population, reportedly bombarding and torching entire villages, executing civilian leaders, and sending women and children into exile.

It turns out that the American strategy in Kosovo, such as it is, is rooted in a series of remarkably careless assumptions: (1) That it would be possible to get Milosevic to agree to accept foreign troops on Serbian soil and to place Kosovo, the historical and cultural heart of Serbia, on a path to independence; (2) That Milosevic would swiftly back down in the face of, or under the punishment of, bombing; (3) That, if necessary, the US could accomplish what it did in Iraq. It would simply declare the bad guy's military to be "degraded" and triumphantly go home; (4) That it was realistic to promise at the outset that no American ground assault was forthcoming, thus giving Milosevic reason to think that he could wait out the bombing - and that he might as well take the opportunity to slip in a bit of ethnic spring cleansing.


The American approach to the Israeli-Arab problem is just as unwitting. Clinton and his advisers - as well as the European Union - postulate that there is a real estate problem between the Jews and Arabs, one that can be solved by Israel endowing the terrorists with a few thousand square miles which they will then use to build a peace-loving and democratic state that will live in harmony with its neighbors. To talk about the PLO and democracy in one breath is to reveal unfathomable depths of ignorance. One of our problems is that not one of Israel's leaders have stated to the Americans what the real dilemmas are. The reason that our so-called leaders have not done so is not the subject of this article. But suffice it to say that no one has disabused the Americans of their colossal ignorance of the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Gerald Steinberg of the Begin-Sadat Center has pointed out that the events in the Balkans provide an important reminder of the crucial role of military force and territory, even in the post-Cold War era. If Israel is reduced further in size and power, as the result of overly optimistic agreements with the Palestinians and Syria, and we are confronted again by an Arab coalition intent on annexing "Palestine" for the Arabs, our fate would be far worse than that of the Kosovars. In such circumstances, the international community might very well meet in solemn assembly, and perhaps even wag its collective diplomatic finger at the Syrians, Iraqis, Palestinians, and others. It is even possible that the Americans would provide weapons and assistance to Israel, as they did following the Arab states' surprise attack against Israel on Yom Kippur, 1973.


No such assistance should be expected from the Europeans, who have apparently neglected to recollect the laws of realpolitik that were enshrined by Castlereagh, Metternich, and Bismarck - not to mention the harsh lessons of Sarajevo, 1914. Western Europe, and Germany in particular, is responsible for the breakup of the former Yugoslavia. The German government launched the Balkans on the road to hell, encouraging Croatia to become an independent state, while many other governments were attempting to avoid war by keeping the federal Republic of Yugoslavia together.

Today, the European Union, under German leadership, finds the time to preach to Israel, while its diplomats bumble along in Serbia. Hiding behind simplistic slogans of "humanitarianism," the Europeans lack any realistic vision of the future. Of course it is facile and cost-free to engage in sweet rhetoric about Palestinian rights, support a Palestinian state, and advocate the redivision of Jerusalem. The Europeans may press Israel for concession after concession, but they will not be anywhere to be seen when the consequences must be faced.

The war in Kosovo should give us all pause. The popular cliches and politically correct views about war and peace have again been exposed as hollow false prophecies. For Europe, these events provide a sober reminder that in the absence of a balance of power, whether in the Balkans or the Middle East, there is no stability. Just as Serbia attacked Kosovo (and, under different circumstances, the Kosovars might well have joined other forces in attacking Serbia), if given a chance, the hatred among Palestinians and much of the Arab world would again be a direct threat to Israel.

It is revealing that certain columnists in Israel have suggested that the world community should know by now, in the century that produced the Holocaust, how to deal with "criminals" like the Serb leaders. They allege that condemnation of the Serbs, in order to be effective, should be translated by the world community into a license to assassinate Milosevic and the other political leaders who are responsible for the mass killing of innocent people. This is what some of these left-wing ideologues are saying publicly. It is not clear, however, why they consider Milosevic to be a befitting target for assassination while Arafat, the murderer of their very own innocent women and children, should be considered the partner in a "peace" process. But I assume that this is another aspect of the left-wing blindness that characterizes them.


A friend of mine showed me an op-ed piece in the local English-language paper. The article was written by someone not known to be a right-winger. He said, "To our shame, as members of the human race, there are times and situations in which two groups of peoples living in contiguity become such deadly enemies to each other that there is no other solution to continued mass killings but the forced separation of the populations. This is what was done in the forced expulsion and resettlement of two million Greeks and one million Turks in the early 1920s. Today it would be called 'ethnic cleansing'. At the time, the Norwegian diplomat Fridtjof Nansen, who fathered the League of Nations, sponsored forced population exchange and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. When one thinks of the worse alternatives, something along that line would seem the best solution for both Kosovo, and Bosnia, Serbia and Croatia. Population exchange, forced or otherwise, is called Transfer. The nasty 'T-word'."

If some of our left-wing friends are starting to take note that the T-word might be the best solution as far as the Balkans are concerned, it should not take too long - if they are honest with themselves - to note that it may also be a good solution for hostile populations outside of the Balkans. Maybe Israel will receive another Nobel Peace Prize winner in this generation when population exchange, the more acceptable name for the T-word, is brought up seriously to solve the problem we have here with our neighbors. You never can tell in this topsy-turvy world, where truth is often stranger, and always more captivating, than fiction.


Jay Shapiro <jay@a7.org> is the author of several books on Israel, and is a former Aliyah emissary in the U.S. He lives in Ginot Shomron, and hosts Arutz-7's English Broadcasts every Thursday night.



MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 31 --April 23, 1999

 Since the signing of the Wye Agreement, the Palestinian leadership has attempted to strengthen UN General Assembly Resolution 181 the 1947 Partition Resolution. Over the last five months, Resolution 181 has been transformed from a marginal demand that was only discussed in local forums in the Palestinian Authority's areas, to the centerpiece of Palestinian diplomacy in the UN and around the world.

MEMRI, the first to report this change (1), revealed the PA's operative plan that aims at implementing the 1947 Partition Resolution. The plan was presented earlier this week in a Gaza press conference, by the PA Minister of International Cooperation and member of the Palestinian negotiating team,Nabil Sha'ath.

According to Sha'ath , in his meetings throughout the globe, Arafat reemphasizes that the Palestinians base their claim for independence on the 1947 Partition Resolution: "in his tour through most of the world's countries, the president spoke of the right to a Palestinian state, a right that is based on Resolution 181 of 1947 and not on the resolution of the Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords...." (2)

Sha'ath revealed that according to the PA's diplomatic plan, the PA will attempt to replace the Oslo Accords, which will expire on May 4, 1999 and are based on the UN Security Council Resolution 242, with General Assembly Resolution 181. By doing so, the bilateral framework for the negotiations will be replaced by a UN multilateral framework, which the PLO prefers.

The PLO aims to apply the 'Model of Namibia'- a model frequently alluded to by Arafat in the past - within the borders of the 1947 Partition Resolution. In accordance with this model, all the territories Israel occupied beyond these borders since 1947, including East and West Jerusalem, will be temporarily transferred to the UN. Then, the UN will determine their final status through a referendum among the Palestinian people. "An international action will be taken in the UN Trusteeship Council," (3) says Sha'ath, "to implement the UN General Assembly resolutions, including Resolution 181 which has been1 reconfirmed yearly in the UN, with US consent between 1947 and 1974, when the PLO was accepted for the first time as the representative of the Palestinian people." (4)

"If Resolution 181 is applied," Sha'ath added, "all Palestinian land Israel occupies beyond the Partition Resolution borders will be transferred to the UN, including Jerusalem in its entirety, both East and West. The UN will then act, as it did in Namibia, and hold a referendum among the Palestinian people regarding this land."

Sha'ath rejected the argument of a reporter from the Palestinian daily Al-Quds that Resolution 181 is dangerous for the Palestinians because it decrees the internationalization of Jerusalem: "we have no interest at this moment inundermining the legitimacy of Resolution 181." (5) Sha'ath said that the Palestinians aspire to conduct the negotiations over these lands with the UN and not with Israel. Therefore, the Palestinian leadership accepts the internationalization of Jerusalem as a temporary act until it is transferred to the Palestinians: "It is essential [first of all] to release Jerusalem from the Israeli claws... If we conduct the negotiations over the final settlement with the UN rather than Israel, it will significantly help us reach a solution that is not imposed by the Israeli occupation." (6)


(1) MEMRI's previous publications examining the PLO's focus on the Partition Resolution of 1947 include:

- "The Independent Palestinian State and the Partition Resolution of 1947," MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis, No. 7, November 30, 1998, by Yotam Feldner.

- "Abu 'Ala: 'The Borders of the Palestinian State That Will be Declared on May 1999 Are Those Set By the 1947 UN Partition Resolution, '" MEMRI Special Dispatch, No. 18, December 21, 1998.

- "Changes in the EU's Positions on Jerusalem and the Palestinian State,"

MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis, No. 17, April 12, 1999, Yotam Feldner.

(2) Al-Ayyam, April 23, 1999. Arafat himself made this statement in a press conference in Moscow on April 6, 1999.

(3) A United Nation's body that carried out the transfer of sovereignty in Namibia.

(4) Al-Ayyam, April 23, 1999.

(5) Al-Quds, April 23, 1999.

(6) Al-Quds, April 23, 1999.

The Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI)
1815 H Street, NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Materials may only be cited with proper attribution.



By Boris Shusteff

. . . If you love your mother, would not you hate the man who sought to kill her: would you not hate him and fight him at the cost, if needs be, of your own life?......(Menachem Begin, The Revolt)

In his novel The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years the famous Kirghiz writer Chingiz Aitmatov recalled an ancient Kirghiz legend about the mankurts. The legend tells of a tribe, long ago, that was extremely cruel to enemies that it captured. Sometimes they sold their prisoners into slavery, and this would be very lucky for the captives since sooner or later the slave would have a chance to escape and return to his homeland. Meanwhile, the fate of the prisoners who remained in the hands of this tribe was far worse. The tribesmen destroyed their memory through a terrible torture. After tying their hands and legs, they would place raw camel hide on the prisoners' shaven heads and abandon them in the steppe without food and water for several days in the full blaze of the sun.

Most of the prisoners would die within several days. They succumbed not to thirst or hunger but to the unbearable, inhuman tortures of the sun. The raw hide dried out fast and compressed their heads like an iron hoop. These vices that gripped their heads would squeeze the last sparks of memory and sanity out of them. After five days of this torture, if any of the prisoners were still alive, they were untied, fed, and given water. A lot of effort was devoted to their recuperation. They were called mankurts. Aitmatov wrote:

"A mankurt did not know where he was from. He did not know his name, did not remember his childhood, his farther and his mother - to say it more simply, a mankurt did not realize that he is a human being. ...He was just like a speechless creature and therefore subdued and harmless. He never dreamt of escape. For any slave-owner the worst thing is a slave's revolt. Every slave is a potential rebel. A mankurt was the only exception; he made no attempts whatsoever to rebel, to be disobedient."

Forcefully purged of all memory, the mankurt, like a dog, acknowledged only his master. He needed only to be fed. This was enough for him to perform the most unpleasant and difficult work without complaint. Therefore, there was a rule among the tribesmen that the compensation for a killed slave-mankurt was three times greater than that for a killed free fellow tribesman.

Although this legend is several hundred years old, it is not irrelevant, since there was an attempt in this century to recreate these mankurts. During the rule of the Third Reich in Germany, Nazi scientists experimented with drugs trying to find a formula that would allow them to produce these mankurts in vast amounts. They wanted to create people without memories, human machine-slaves that would perform different sorts of work. One can learn about the attempts to create these men-horses, men-blacksmiths, men-weavers, men-bakers from the famous documentary movie "Ordinary Fascism," directed by Michail Romm.

Fortunately, the Nazis did not succeed. It is extremely difficult to destroy one's memory. Aitmatov wrote in his novel, "It is much easier to decapitate a person, to harm him in any cruel way than to deprive him of memory, to destroy his mind, to extract the roots of something that remains with a human being till his last breath, that is his only acquisition, that will disappear together with him and that is inaccessible to others."

How has it happened that the Jews have arrived at a situation when they are ready to give up their memory voluntarily? How is it that a people that has survived against all possible and impossible odds only by preserving its memory, has turned into a people without memory, a people of mankurts?

We want to forget everything. We want to forget that God told us to conquer and settle the Land. We want to forget twenty centuries of yearning for the Land. We want to forget the millions of our brethren massacred, tortured, slaughtered, butchered, and gassed without having the chance to return to Eretz Yisrael. Moses warned us, "When you have all you want to eat and have built good houses to live in and when your cattle and sheep, your silver and gold, and all your other possessions have increased, be sure that you do not become proud and forget the Lord your God who rescued you from Egypt, where you were slaves" (Deuteronomy 8:12-14).

We never completely cast off the yoke of slavery from our souls. We forgot our God and embraced the gods of the Western civilization. We forgot that we are Jews, the people chosen by God to live as a moral "light unto the nations" (Isaiah 49:6), and that our "chosenness confers neither privilege nor superiority, only obligation and suffering - 'Since I have known only you of all the people of the earth, I will visit upon you all your sins' (Amos 3:2)" (1)

Judging by the amount of suffering that has befallen us, we are definitely the chosen people. Why, then, accepting these sufferings, do we want to forget the other parts of the Covenant between us and God? Let us have at least our Land intact in our possession. Let us settle it as we were ordered by God. Let us show to the world that we remember who we are and what our destiny is. Then, as Moses said, "You will live a long time in the rich and fertile land that the Lord promised to give your ancestors and their descendants" (Deuteronomy 11:9).

There is a terrifying epilogue to the mankurt legend. One mother did not want to believe that her son, who had became a mankurt, would not recognize her. Although it was unbearably painful for her to see her son's empty eyes with no glimpse of memory whatsoever she attempted to perform a miracle. With all her motherly love and patience, for two long days, she tried to restore in the mankurt's head the events of his forgotten past. All was in vain. Then the mankurt's master noticed her. He told the mankurt that the woman was dangerous and gave him a bow and arrows. When, on the third day the mother returned, an arrow sent by the mankurt's hand pierced her heart - the son killed his mother.

Eretz Yisrael is the mother of the Jewish people. She gave us our name. She lead us through our childhood. She gave us our culture and our holidays. It is with her that we received our Book. All that has made us unique we have gained thanks to her. When we were torn away from her, when we were forcefully separated from her, all our thoughts and desires were directed towards returning to her bosom. We shed oceans of tears dreaming of her. Her name was on our lips with our last breath.

It is one thing to be forced to abandon her. It is another to forget about her. However, nothing can be worse than to return to her, embrace her, use her bread and water, and then to strike her with a knife. No human being can do that. A mankurt can. A mankurt can cut her body piece by piece not hearing her weeping, her howl of despair. A mankurt can do this because he is deprived of memory, and has no feelings; he is not human but a scarecrow that only looks like a man. [04/14/99]

1.. Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin: Why the Jews? p.43


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

It is doubtful that the name Marek Schwartz means anything to the vast majority of the dwellers of Jerusalem. However, this man's contribution to Jerusalem's history was extremely important. If he had carried out the orders of Jemal Pasha, the Turkish commander during the First World War, Jerusalem's fate could have been different.

Pierre van Paassen described this fateful event in his book Days of Our Years, published in 1937.

Marek Schwartz had been left in charge of a sacrifice unit of artillery when Jemal Pasha was forced to abandon the Holy City to General Allenby, with instructions to "blow Jerusalem to hell" the moment the British should enter. On the personal orders of Jemal Pasha, Schwartz had his batteries trained on the Mosque of Omar, and ammunition laying ready for a forty-eight-hour intensive bombardment. When Jemal left for Meggido to make his last stand before Damascus, captain Schwartz, rather than destroy Jerusalem, walked into the British lines.

It was a Moslem who gave the order for destruction of the third holiest place for the Islamic religion, and it was a Jew who prevented the destruction of the first holiest place for Judaism. One could only guess what sort of structure there would be standing today on the Temple Mount if this place had sustained a forty-eight-hour bombardment.

The Moslem shrines remained intact and the Jewish presence at the Temple Mount remained unwelcome. Only fifty years later, on June 7, 1967, we were able to return to this place, the holiest of holies for the Jewish people. Colonel Motty Gur's exclamation upon reaching the Temple Mount will forever be engraved into Jewish memory: "The Temple Mount is ours. I'm standing near the Mosque of Omar right now. The Wailing Wall is a minute away."

The Jews had been waiting for this moment for 1,897 years. On August 16, 1967, on the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, a fast day in commemorative mourning for the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Shlomo Goren led a group of Yeshiva students in a service on the Temple Mount which ended with the blowing of the shofar. It seemed that the words of the Prophet had come true: "And it shall come to pass on that day the great trumpet will blast forth and those abandoned in Assyria and the outcasts in Egypt shall come to bow down before the Lord on the Holy Mount in Jerusalem" (Isaiah 27:13). Alas, this was the one and only public Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount since the time of our return to this sacred place.

Moshe Dayan, in the autobiographical Story of My Life, wrote that on the morning of the first Saturday after the war he visited the Al Aksa Mosque. He told the Moslem religious delegation headed by Sheik Abdel Hamid Sa'iah, the chief Moslem judge, that now there will be unrestricted "Jewish access to the compound of Haram esh-Sherif . This compound. was our Temple Mount. Here stood our Temple during ancient time, and it would be inconceivable for Jews not to be able freely to visit this holy place now that Jerusalem was under our rule."

Dayan wrote that "his hosts were not overjoyed at [these] remarks, but they recognized that they would be unable to change my decision." It was up to Dayan at that moment to tell to "his hosts" that the Jews would pray on the Temple Mount forever from that day on, and the Moslems would have acquiesced to this "inability to change his decision." However, for the agnostic Dayan a Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount was of a little importance. Instead, as he wrote, "precisely because control was now in our hands, it was up to us to show broad tolerance . We should certainly respect the Temple Mount as an historic site of our ancient past, but we should not disturb the Arabs who were using it for what it was now - a place of Moslem worship."

Countless times in our history we have shown "broad tolerance" and made goodwill gestures towards our enemies. How much of our blood was spilled! How much more will be spilled. Why do we like our enemies so much? Why not grant one hundredth of our "broad tolerance" to our fellow Jews? How is it possible to comprehend that the Jewish leaders did not want to "disturb the Arabs" and cared a lot about a "place of Moslem worship" and at the same time were indifferent and even hostile to the religious feelings of the Jews?

Dayan was wrong when he wrote that the Temple Mount was "an historic site of our ancient past." The Temple Mount was and STILL IS the holiest place for the Jews. Even after the destruction of the Temple our uninterrupted presence on the Temple Mount, though greatly diminished, continued for almost fifteen centuries. Eliyahu Tal wrote in Whose Jerusalem? that the "Jews were actively involved with the service in the Dome of the Rock: they were in charge of lighting the candles, preparing the wicks for the oil lamps and cleaning the sanctuary." Tal mentioned an astonishing fact that, "for substantial part of Islamic history, the religious ceremonies at the Dome of the Rock were held on Mondays and Thursdays, not on Friday which, for Muslims is the public day of prayer." This is because "to begin with, the Dome was not built as a place of prayer. . Abd al Malik wished to build a dome over the Rock of the Holy Temple to protect the Muslims from the heat and the cold."

It was not the Arabs who restricted the Jewish presence on the Temple Mount but the Jews themselves. Almost until the end of the fifteenth century the Jews had access to the Temple Mount. Karen Armstrong wrote in her book Jerusalem that the Italian traveler Obadiah da Bertinero pointed out when he visited Jerusalem in 1487 that "Jews now refused to set foot in the Haram .. Sometimes the Muslims needed repairs there, but Jews would never take these jobs because they were not in the required state of ritual purity." It is worth mentioning that Maimonides, who held similar views, nevertheless felt able to enter the Haram when he visited Jerusalem.

Although the Jews voluntarily limited their presence at the Temple Mount, until this century the Moslems did not contest the Jews' connection with Jerusalem. In the book Customs and Traditions of Palestine published in 1864, the Italian scholar Ermette Pierotti, who spent many years in Jerusalem, and served as chief architect to the Ottoman governor, the Pasha of Jerusalem, wrote.

On 8 July, 1861,...the Jews waited with all formalities on the Governor, Surraya Pasha, and requested him to restore to them the keys of Jerusalem according to a right on the death of one sultan and the accession of another. At the same time, they brought forward such proofs of the justice of their demand that the Pasha did not refuse it but referred to his ordinary counsel consisting of the Mufti,...the Cadi... and other persons of distinction natives of the country. Their decision was in favor of the Israelites, the whole Council being aware that they were the ancient owners of the country.... Said Pasha, the general of the forces ...went to the Jewish quarter where he ... was conducted to the house of the Chief Rabbi who received the Pasha at the door and there was publicly presented with the keys.

For two thousand years, in Eretz Yisrael and in exile, we clung to Jerusalem with our nails and teeth. Unwillingly, the Moslems, and the world community as well recognized that we are the "ancient owners of the country." However, after reestablishing the state we became generous and complacent. We lost the yearning that we had had for two millennia. We succumbed to humiliation, and we allowed others to spit in our faces.

One defeat followed another. We swallowed the relocation of foreign embassies from Jerusalem. We did not create a media storm when on June 26, 1991 Binyamin Begin showed the Knesset a map that displayed all the capital cities of the region except Jerusalem. This map was part of a press kit carried by US Secretary of State James Baker when he visited Israel in March 1991. We permitted others to label our primordial land "an occupied territory."

With the signing of the Oslo agreement our acceptance of humiliation spread like a metastatic cancer. The list is endless. One can mention, for instance, the Palestinian police that freely roams in the eastern part of Jerusalem; and the control by the Palestinian Authority of the schools and the hospitals in this part of the city; and the visits of foreign dignitaries to the Orient House, the PA's headquarters; and the Palestinian flag flying above this "Foreign Ministry;" and the ban on Israeli flags imposed there .

If we behave like slaves in our own homeland, why should anybody else treat us any differently? Why do we expect others to treat us as an independent nation when we betray our ideals, squander our land and are indifferent to our holy places?

When we respected our religion and traditions others respected us too. This is exemplified by the following incident, which happened in the aftermath of the Six-Day War and is described by Martin Gilbert in his book Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century. The Jewish religious seminary Torat Hayim, located on Via Dolorosa was "abandoned by its occupants after the riots of 1936, and left in the care of its Arab janitor. This janitor had died just before the war in 1948 but had given the keys of the building to his brother." While renting the lower rooms to Arab tenants, the brother managed to "seal off and preserve the synagogue and library on the upper floor." Rumors of this story reached Chaim Herzog, the Israeli Military Governor at that time. He went to the building "and found that the synagogue and its library of 3,000 books were intact. The Arab janitor was asked: 'Weren't you afraid to watch over the synagogue when all the other synagogues in the old city were demolished?' To which the janitor replied: 'The holy place watched over me more than I watched over it.'"

When are we going to understand that if we really want Jerusalem to be our undivided capital, then we need to watch over its holy places. The Babylonian Talmud instructs, "When you pray, you are to face Jerusalem, if you are in Jerusalem; you should direct your heart toward the Temple" (Brachot 30a). The surest way to direct our hearts toward the Temple is while standing on the Temple Mount. Only through establishing our presence there we will watch over our holiest place and God will watch over us. It is inconceivable for Jews not to be able freely to pray on the Temple Mount now that Jerusalem is under our rule. [04/21/99]


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


Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of April 25, 1999


By David Weinberg

The withdrawals from Lebanon and the Golan are behind us, and final-status talks with the Palestinian state have been completed. The left-wing Israeli government elected in 1999 is busy making important sacrifices for peace, implementing the treaties that have been signed.

May 2001: Minister of Jerusalem Affairs Uri Savir cuts an agreement with Faisal Husseini over reparations for homes previously owned by Arabs in San Simon and Katamon. The funds are to be raised by a restitution tax on homeowners.

"This hurts, but we must sacrifice for peace, and act to strengthen our moderate partners in the Arab world," Savir tells the press.

July 01: The Israel-Palestine deal to jointly administer Jerusalem is rocked by the city's 14th firebombing in one month. President Shimon Peres urges the government not to make too big a deal of the matter. "We must not let the enemies of peace sidetrack us, or lead us into rash action that might weaken Yasser Arafat's central government," he says.

September 01: After being closed for a month due to Ramadan, the Western Wall plaza re-opens for Jewish-only prayer throughout the month of Elul and the Ten Days of Repentance. Haredi Jews, however, complain of humiliating body-searches by Palestinian security guards participating in joint security patrols in the area.

Religious Affairs Minister Avraham Burg expresses concern, but claims that "compromise is a central theme in Judaism, and we are courageously sacrificing for peace."

November 01: Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai surprises with a "major Palestinian concession": Israeli food-and-medicine relief conveys will now be able to resupply some 40 isolated settlements every 7 days, instead of every 21 days as per the peace treaty.

In addition, he negotiates 350 State of Palestine permits for residents of the isolated settlements Talmon and Dolev, allowing them to expand their bathrooms and kitchen porches in accordance with family size.

"We, too, sacrifice for peace," avers Saeb Erekat.

January 02: Terrorists strike on the outskirts of Kfar Sava, roiling public opinion. Palestinian Affairs Minister Uzi Baram says on TV that "the enemies of peace are behind this. We have to understand the root causes of terrorism and act to redress these causes."

He suggests a 600 meter Israeli pullback along the eastern border of Kfar Sava, which lies in too-close proximity to Kalkilya - so as not to provoke Arab residents of that city.

At the funerals, government ministers speak sadly, once again, of "the victims of peace."

March 02: Full administrative and cultural autonomy for Galilee Arabs is declared by Interior Minister Ahmed Tibi. Press reports indicate that land transfers in the Negev are also under consideration something proposed years back in the Beilin-Abu Mazen plan. The international community hails Israel for "its inestimable, boundless sacrifices for peace."

May 02: Military Intelligence reports joint Fatah-Hamas military maneuvers outside Jericho and hostile activity in the Iranian Embassy in Ramallah; it also discovers Palestinian ground-to-air missiles in the hilltops overlooking Ben-Gurion Airport - clear violations of the peace accords.

President Peres discusses the matter with President Arafat, and dismisses IDF concerns as "Old Middle East paranoia."

"Territory and missiles are not important in the New Middle East," Peres says. "Tomatoes over tomahawk missiles; General Motors over General Dynamics! Economic cooperation cements our peace, not archaic security provisions."

Peres then gaily announces a French-, Belgian- and Austrian-sponsored, Jimmy Carter-endorsed, and Norwegian-funded Israel-Palestine hi-tech wheat-growing project outside Nablus.

July 02: Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin announces that in return for an Egyptian and Jordanian abstention on a UN resolution decrying Israeli "obstructionism" in the development of Palestinian national institutions, Israel will agree to admit 250,000 more Palestinian refugees with claims going back to 1948. Up to 15,000 will be allowed to return to Jaffa.

The accord allows Israel to absorb a similar number of new immigrants from Russia, providing that the immigrants have first-degree relatives already in the country.

"The smart thing to do is to sacrifice for peace and strengthen the Arab moderates in this region," Beilin explains.

Beilin also initiates the importing of water from Turkey, to offset the shortages incurred as a result of peace-treaty provisions providing 70 percent of the Samarian aquifer reserves to Palestine.

August 02: For the new school year, Education Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami introduces a high school study unit on the Nakba. The Israel Prize for history is awarded to two "new historians" whose books were central proof-texts in the refugee return accord. Peres wins another Nobel Peace Prize.

Is this to be our national fate after next month's vote?



By Yotam Feldner*

MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 17 -- April 12, 1999

Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI)

Important changes have recently occurred in the European Union's (EU) positions on two of the subjects that were left in the Oslo Accord for the Final Settlement: the issues of Jerusalem and the permanent status of the Palestinian entity. As the end of the interim period draws near, and particularly since the signing of the Wye Memorandum, the Palestinian leadership has attempted to shift the focus of the territorial disputes from the legal authority specified in the Oslo Accord - Security Council Resolution 242 - to the Partition Resolution of 1947. The EU's new positions strengthen the status of the Partition Resolution over that of the Oslo Accord as the legal authority for the peace process. The European position also coincides with the longstanding Palestinian attempt to shift the process to the international arena, and away from the bilateral framework preferred by Israel.

The EU Rejects Israel's Sovereignty in Jerusalem

The dispute began with a letter sent by the Director General of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, Eitan Bentsur, to foreign ambassadors to Israel, demanding that they avoid visiting the PLO offices in East Jerusalem located in the 'Orient House.' Such visits, explained Bentsur, contradict the Oslo Accord and the Wye Memorandum. The letter was sent after the ambassadors had been invited to a political briefing there by the Palestinian Authority (PA) Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, Faisal Al-Husseini. The ambassadors were warned that Israel viewed these visits as "an external intervention in the Israeli elections," (1) because of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement he had put an end to foreign diplomats' visits to the 'Orient House.'

In his response, which was leaked to the press, the German Ambassador to Israel, stated that the European Union adheres to "its familiar position regarding the specific status of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum." This Latin term refers to the UN General Assembly's Resolution 181, the Partition Resolution, which states that "the city of Jerusalem shall be established as a corpus separatum under a special international regime and shall be administered by the United Nations." The German Ambassador concluded his letter, "This position corresponds to the international law."(2)

Although the European countries never recognized Israeli sovereignty in East Jerusalem, they did recognize, de-facto, Israeli sovereignty in West Jerusalem, as manifested in official visits of European leaders to Israeli government institutions in Jerusalem and in the acceptance of European ambassadors' credentials by the Israeli presidency in Jerusalem. Also, the EU supported the Oslo Accords, in which, the issue of Jerusalem is scheduled for the Israeli-Palestinian bilateral negotiations, thus, waiving the 'separated status' of Jerusalem.

The EU's legalistic and rigid position is uncommon and has not been presented by Western officials for decades. The direct implication of this statement is that the EU does not officially recognize Israeli sovereignty over all of Jerusalem - including the Western part. Israeli Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon, and Ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold, responding on behalf of the Israeli government, stated that the Partition Resolution became null and void when it was rejected by the Arab side in 1947. The Israeli government also reiterated that Jerusalem would remain unified and under Israeli sovereignty forever.

Chairman of the Palestinian National Council (PNC), Abu 'Alaa, reacting to these statements, declared that "any Jew, Zionist, or Israeli," who thinks that there can be peace without Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem is "a fool... a fool." In a speech he delivered on behalf of Arafat at the opening of the Jerusalem branch of the Fatah youth movement, held in Ramallah, Abu 'Alaa said that, "the claim that Jerusalem is [Israeli] forever is unfounded." He continued, "it would be a big stupidity for anyone to think that there would be peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis without Jerusalem." "Who do these fools think they are," Abu 'Alaa concluded, "Jerusalem is the eternal capital of the State of Palestine." (3)

The EU's statement created a problem for the Palestinians as well, because the internationalization of Jerusalem as a corpus separatum, as decreed in the Partition Resolution, damages their demand for Palestinian sovereignty in the city. Therefore, several days after the German Ambassador's letter was published, PA Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, Faisal Al-Husseini, rejected the new European position, and called on the EU to "adopt a more courageous position and recognize East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian State, instead of the current European position calling for internationalization." (4)

The Palestinian Leadership Demands to Negotiate over West Jerusalem and the Borders of 1947

Despite the EU position that contradicts the Palestinian demand for sovereignty in Jerusalem and the PA leadership's rejection of the European position, senior Palestinian officials viewed the European adherence to Resolution 181 as a positive development, because it opposes the Israeli consensus over a unified Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty in the future and it opens a channel for the Palestinian demands to West Jerusalem. Abu 'Alaa for example, said, "the [EU's] letter stated that both East and West Jerusalem are occupied land. The EU told Israel: we do not recognize any of your resolutions. Anyone who wants peace should present both parts of Jerusalem for negotiations." (5) Faisal Al-Husseini, added: "Both parts of Jerusalem will be negotiated in the framework of the Final Settlement [negotiations]... Israel must withdraw from the lands it occupied and immediately start negotiating over the destiny [of Jerusalem] - East and West alike. The mere acceptance by Israel [in the Oslo Accords] of negotiations over the issue of Jerusalem is a recognition on Israel's part that there are question marks regarding both parts of Jerusalem and that the occupation of Jerusalem in 1948 is unacceptable according to the international resolutions." (6)

Another reason for the Palestinian leadership's positive view of the EU position is the consequence of a European adherence to Resolution 181 over the possibility of a unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state. Resolution 181 was mentioned as a source of authority for the Palestinian state in the "Palestinian Declaration of Independence" in Algiers in 1988. Resolution 181 has been invoked on important national occasions, such as the fiftieth anniversary for the Nakbah (7) and in Arafat's speech before American President Clinton and the PNC in Gaza in December 1998. Recently, and more so since the signing of the Wye Memorandum, senior PA officials, led by Abu 'Alaa (8), have presented a demand for a Palestinian state in the borders of the Partition Resolution. This demand contradicts the territorial framework of the Oslo Accord, that decreed that the goal of the negotiations is to implement UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which refer only to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Because of the advantages of the EU position, the PA leadership's response was ambivalent. While rejecting Resolution 181 as a source of authority for the solution of the Jerusalem issue, the PA was happy to adopt Resolution 181 as a source of authority for the independent Palestinian state and the negotiations over its borders. An editorial in the popular Palestinian daily Al-Quds, threatened that if Israel rejected Resolution 181 "the Arab and Palestinian side would have the right to re-examine its positions regarding the forging of a just and comprehensive peace. Then, Israel would have to be responsible [forthe consequences.]" (9)

In a letter sent to the UN Secretary General, Kofi Anan, the Palestinian observer to the UN, Naser Al-Qidwa, described the Israeli government claim that Resolution 181 is null and void as "pathetic statements involving illegal positions." In his letter, Al-Qidwa stated: "For the Palestinian side, and since the strategic resolution to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable... We believe that Israel must still explain to the international community the measures it took illegally to expand its laws and regulations to the territory it occupied in the war of 1948, beyond the territory allocated to the Jewish State in Resolution 181 (II)." (10)

In other words, the Palestinian representative to the UN views the geographic boundaries of the Partition Resolution as a platform for the current negotiations, in contrast with the territorial framework of the Oslo Accord. When addressing the issue of Jerusalem in the same letter, Al-Qidwa presents a tactical position that the position of the Partition Resolution will be considered: "According to the [181] resolution, Jerusalem should become a corpus separatum, which the Palestinian side is willing to take into consideration and reconcile with the Palestinian position that East Jerusalem is part of the Palestinian territory and the capital of the Palestinian State."


On March 26, 1999, the EU published its "Berlin Declaration" supporting an independent Palestinian state. The declaration reflects a qualitative change in the official position of the EU in that the Palestinian right to a state is not subordinated to the negotiations with Israel and/or to the existing agreements between Israel and the PLO which are now to serve only as a preferred alternative. In fact, the "Berlin Declaration" opens the possibility of European recognition in an independent Palestinian state, even if this state is declared unilaterally, following a failure in the bilateral negotiations. Although a senior European diplomat, who remained anonymous, said the document "does not guarantee an automatic recognition," the British General Consul in Jerusalem, in a ceremony in Ramallah said "the EU is ready to recognize the Palestinian State if it is declared." These changes in the EU positions are part of the "reward" the West pays the Palestinian leadership for postponing the intended unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State on May 4, 1999.


(1) As reported by Akiva Eldar, Haaretz, March 11, 1999.

(2) Ibid.

(3) Al-Ayyam Internet, March 14, 1999. Abu 'Alaa's extreme statement appeared

on Al-Ayyam's electronic bulletin on the Internet, but was censored in the

paper itself the following morning.

(4) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 17, 1999.

(5) Al-Ayyam Internet, March 15, 1999.

(6) Al-Ayyam, March 15, 1999. Also, the Arafat appointed Palestinian "Governor of Jerusalem," Jamil Othman: "Both parts of Jerusalem are under Israeli occupation and we Palestinians have the same right to it as the Israelis." Al-Ayyam, March 15, 1999.

(7) Nakbah, which literally means catastrophe, is the Arabic word used by the Palestinians to describe the events of 1948. Abu 'Alaa wrote in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 21, 1998, that the Palestinian State has "internationally recognized borders, those drawn by the Partition Resolution."

(8) Al-Quds, April 2, 1999.

(9) According to official UN text, March 25, 1999.

(10) Haaretz, March 26, 1999.

(11) Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, April 4, 1999.

The Middle East Media and Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization providing translations of the Arab media and original analysis and research on developments in the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available upon request.



By Morris J. Amitay

A recurring theme in the media is Israel's alleged military superiority over all its potential Arab foes. But when did little David become the giant Goliath? The answer is the Six-Day War. It was precisely as a result of this war that little Israel became a military giant of mythical proportions, in the eyes of the media and most Middle East commentators. It remains so notwithstanding the Arab successes in the Yom Kippur War, and Israel's troubles in Lebanon.

Nowadays, those making the case for Israeli invincibility invariably allude to Israel's reported nuclear capabilities. In doing so they conveniently overlook the impressive conventional capabilities and high tech weapons in the hands of Israel's potential foes which has lead to the steady erosion of Israel's qualitative edge. These become crucial factors in any non "doomsday" scenario.

It is a reasonable assumption that Israel will only use its alleged nuclear arsenal as a last resort if the State and its Jewish population are threatened with destruction. A growing number of nations who have nukes have, thankfully, have never used them. But Israel with less than 6 million people and only 10,000 square miles - including the so-called West Bank - is especially vulnerable to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) compared to 3 million square miles of Arab territories and almost 200 million Arabs - not counting Iran. What are the emerging threats Israel faces today?

On a macro level, Israel is surrounded by non-democratic despotic regimes - only one country has ever had an election with more than one candidate for President running. And that was Algeria -but not in the most recent election where six of the seven candidates dropped out charging fraud. Syria's Assad recently ran and won with 99.8% of the votes - the .2% deserve to be listed in "Profiles of Courage". A resurgent anti-western Russia is back in the Middle East through arms sales, and the hyperactive diplomacy of Prime Minister and former KGB operative Yevgeny Primakov. Relations between Russia and China are warming up which should be yet another warning to the Clinton Administration.

Islamic fundamentalism is alive and kicking in the region and not only in Afghanistan. The crazies are still calling the shots in Iran and are well represented in Algeria, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia - and the PNA, especially in Gaza. As for the Palestinians, they are now talking about Israel's 1947 borders under the U.N. Partition Plan - not the pre-1967 borders. If anyone thought that Israel's pre-1967 borders were not defensible - the 47 ones are laughable. But given the EU's recent resurrection of General Assembly Resolution 181 - this is no joke.

In recent years there has been the spread of sophisticated U.S., Russian, British and French weaponry throughout the Middle East. This region is still the world's biggest buyer with active missile and WMD programs in just about all the Arab States -notably Iran and Iraq. Israel's ability to defend its population, and any conceivable borders it winds up with - becomes more problematic each day. But you'll rarely hear about this from our media or the think tanks.

In Mr. Rodgers' CNN Neighborhood -Israel is the big bully on the block. This is what CNN's Walter Rodgers had to say in an interview: "Israel is a superpower. It has a huge nuclear stockpile. It has a huge chemical and biological warfare stockpile. It has 4,000 tanks. More than anybody else around. It has the sixth largest air force in the world. It has a huge army. Everybody here is in the army. Don't tell me Israel is a little country."

Actually, compared to its adversaries in the region, Israel is not "little" - it is tiny. Even with the whole West Bank there is hardly any strategic depth. Last year Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu had a meeting with a former American general who once commanded the U.S. armored forces in Germany. The P.M. asked him how much of an area he needed in order to maneuver his armored divisions to meet an attack. The general said - "Oh. about three to four hundred miles but we could do it with 150 miles if we had to." Netanyahu laughed and said "150 miles -we'd have to be out in Cyprus!"

Israel's small size creates other special problems. With only a dozen air bases that can handle aircraft, and with Syria deploying hundreds of advanced SCUDs which could hit these air bases and mobilization centers early in a conflict - Israel's ability to defend itself will be seriously constrained. As for Israel's vaunted armor corps, only 2,210 tanks are considered high quality, and the IDF still maintains 40 year-old Centurions, antique M-48s and captured Russian T-62s. Israel's "huge army" has been holding steady at 187,000, and it is still basically a citizens army with 444,000 reserves. The number of divisions, 16, has been the same since 1993. Meanwhile Israel's potential foes have not been sitting still - and some - particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt - are increasingly getting more top of the line U.S. equipment. The numbers help to tell the story. Egypt counts 440,000 regular troops and 254,000 reserves, along with 3,390 tanks and 505 aircraft to Israel's 613 planes. Iraq numbers 382,000 regular, 650,000 reserves, 2,700 tanks and 330 aircraft. Iran's 750,000 troops are less important than its long range missiles which can hit Israel. Syria has 42l,000 regulars, 500,000 reserves, 4,600 tanks and 520 aircraft, and Saudi Arabia with l05,000 regulars, 57,000 reserves and l,055 tanks has 322 modern aircraft -including over 100 F-15s. Besides the recently announced U.S. arms sales to Egypt, openly hostile Syria will soon be re-armed with the latest Russian S-300 air defense system, SU-27 fighter bombers, and T-80 tanks, and it has been amassing a large arsenal of ground to ground missiles. Iraq has now been more than eight months without even non-intrusive inspections. And no one thinks that Saddam has been busy in the meantime with public works and welfare projects. The Saudis, thankfully, had to cut back on buying the latest American weapons because of lower oil prices, but they will soon be getting U.S. AMRAAM long range air to air missiles. Iran is devoting much of its resources to acquiring long range missiles and nuclear weapons, not only with Russia's help - but also with Chinese and North Korean aid. As for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons, the CIA has been saying 5-10 years -but it seems they have been saying this the last 5-10 years.

Of the five countries we list as rogue nations - four, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Syria, are still bitter enemies of Israel, and the fifth, North Korea, is happy to supply all of them. The only relative bright spots in the region are Jordan and Turkey. But in Amman there is an untested young monarch who may not have the nine lives of his father - and who has Syria, Iraq and the PNC as neighbors. As for Turkey, the recent elections will hopefully result in a more stable secular government there. But with a growing militant Muslim element, and its economic woes, the future is uncertain.

Down the road, of course, there will be some kind of a Palestinian State, but don't count on it being "demilitarized". Already Arafat is stockpiling anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weaponry prohibited by Oslo. His so-called police force of 40,000 are training - certainly not how to give out traffic tickets, but to assault Jewish settlements. And once a State of Palestine comes into being, who realistically will enforce any restrictions on its sovereign right to have an air force, armored corps - or stationing foreign "advisers" on its soil? Will the so- called "international community" do it? Already high Palestinian officials are looking at NATO intervention in Kosovo as a precedent for "the international community to intervene to end Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and to expel the settlers from it".

So looking at these trends in the region, along with diminishing U.S. support, we can paint a very gloomy picture for the future of Israel. But don't expect to hear much about it in the media. It is easier to cite the conventional wisdom describing Israel as a military powerhouse, intimidating its neighbors and oppressing the poor Palestinians. Contrary views are too easily dismissed as just more Jewish paranoia. But more paranoia now could avoid real dangers later.


Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of April 13, 1999


By Bernard Smith

The word seems to have more therapeutic value than Valium or Prozac.
But it can have lethal side effects.

With May 4 approaching, Israelis will be focusing on the possible declaration of a Palestinian state. Subjected for 50 years to the burdens and pressures of a stifling socialist socioeconomic system compounded by terrorism, periodic war and the threat of national extinction, Israelis long for relief. Peace through the Oslo process is the palliative seducing them to accept an Arab state on land they claim as their own. Even a section of Jerusalem may ultimately not be too high a price.

Yet, there is an undeniable problem. Israelis are also apprehensive, disturbed by the vision of an irredentist, undemocratic, corrupt, unstable state, which, in combination with the armies of other Arab countries, could pose a danger to their very existence. How to resolve the conflict? Simple. Introduce a factor which alleviates the anxiety by denying one aspect of the problem. Demilitarize the new entity. No army, no weapons platforms - no threat.

There's that wonderfully reassuring, calming word again. Demilitarization. We hear it every time a politician, academic or reserve general advocates territorial concessions. The word seems to have more therapeutic value than Valium, Prozac or sleeping pills. Worse yet, people believe demilitarization acts like a vaccine. Inject it and the body politic is immune to war. But, beware. It can produce a lethal side effect.

History reveals that demilitarized territory is eventually remilitarized. There is no reason to suspect any future deviations from this trend. The Egyptian example offers a prognostic and a warning. The Egyptians have attempted to restructure the demilitarization of Sinai by seeking the elimination of the Multinational Force and Observers - the guarantors of the military limits in the desert set down by the peace treaty - and the positioning of Egyptian soldiers along the border with Israel. (They also practice large unit crossings of the Suez Canal - not a treaty violation, but hardly a peace-loving gesture in the spirit of demilitarization.)

A more obvious indicator is the Palestinian Authority's flagrant violation of the demilitarization clauses of the Interim Agreement of September 1995. According to Israeli sources, the PA is stockpiling weapons prohibited by the accords. Its embryonic army - also forbidden - is "training in the use of formations of teams and squads for defined missions like gaining control of an area of land, holding down a post, and attacking an IDF post or settlement." (Gal Luft, The Palestinian Security Services: Between Police and Army)

Only the naive believe that Yasser Arafat is not building an army. In fact, he recently confirmed what Israeli sources already revealed when he declared that the PA is prepared for armed conflict should Israel employ force to prevent the creation of a state. For such warfare to be politically productive, Arafat's military must hold out long enough to inflict sufficient IDF casualties and induce international intervention. This cannot be achieved with assault rifles, pistols and light machine guns. By issuing his threat, Arafat is admitting he possesses heavier weapons, such as anti-tank missiles, anti-aircraft missiles and land mines.

Usually, prophecy is a risky business. But if a weak PA is already breaching the demilitarization clauses of the Oslo Accords, there is no doubt that a sovereign state of Palestine, a United Nations member no longer in fear of Israeli intervention, would fracture the demilitarization terms of a final agreement with Israel. Within five years of independence, there will be a well-trained Arab army west of the Jordan River, equipped with mortars, artillery, advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and after 10 to 20 years, with tanks and fighter planes. This army - which many Israeli politicians still aver will not emerge - could very well tip the balance in favor of an invading Arab coalition. It is patently evident that demilitarization will not deliver Israelis from their dilemma. If they decide to yield territory, they will have to search for a different, more effective, guarantee of security.

Israelis had better rethink the results of creating an Arab state carved out of 70 to 90 percent of the territories. It is not the means to achieve lasting peace and a less pressured existence.


Bernard Smith is a member of the board of directors of the Jerusalem Institute For Western Defense.



By Emanuel A. Winston

The process of evacuating the Jews from YESHA (YEhuda, SHomron & GAza) began in the early 1980s. The planners and deciders then were leaders of Labor who met with Yassir Arafat to decide how to advance an experimental peace plan which called for the territories of Judea Samaria and Gaza to become Judenrein (without Jews) and turned over to the Palestinians with all its Jewish built housing and its infrastructure. When Oslo was explained to the public, Rabin-Peres-Beilin claimed that, if the Gaza/Jericho first experiment failed, we would get it all back. Need I say more about that deliberate misleading of the public? So far the Left's aberrant plans for peace have failed, along with the objective of displacing the Jews of YESHA now numbering 250,000. However, in a way, the plans still move forward under the moribund guise of the failed so-called "Peace Process".

Presently, many analysts in Israel feel that an amalgam of powers using NATO bombing of Kosovo is establishing a precedent or dress rehearsal for entering conflicts in any sovereign country - although the rules of the UN prohibit and cite such an incursion into a sovereign nation as illegal. There is a reasonable fear in Israel that the American Administration, the EU (European Union), the UN General Assembly would like to find a justifiable excuse to do to Israel what is being done to Yugoslavian Serbs or, if that level of violence was unacceptable, to execute an economic embargo as was done earlier to the nation of South Africa. The underlying concept would be to force compliance of prior agreements by Israel regardless of non-compliance by Arafat's Palestinians.

On March 22 a 2 part report was issued on Email through (Freeman Center) www.freeman.org by Mordecai Sones describing Arab first strike preparations in YESHA, including the arms in PA hands, as follows: "122 confirmed or suspected armored vehicles; frequent weapons fire and rehearsals for night attacks near the yishuvim; and specialized gathering of critical intelligence by Arab day laborers on the unprotected yeshivim communities. The number of armored vehicles indicates an overnight or daylight first strike capability against as many as 40 yeshivim. There was a partial IDF admission of Sones charges in MA'ARIV 12/18/98."

This, of course, does not account for what is a far larger volume of illegal heavy weapons including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles smuggled in over the last 10 years. Neither Clinton nor Albright have objected to the total abrogation of Oslo/Hebron/Wye by Arafat in his growing accumulation of smuggled illegal weapons or to the 40,000-60,000 or more of "Police", a real Army, 2 to 3 times what is allowed in Oslo. Arafat also has 9 separate "Secret Security Forces". One is reminded of the desperate imbalance of forces in 1948 where the Arabs overran Israeli settlements. The new settlers there simply didn't have the fire power to defend. They died before help could arrive.


Since it's highly unlikely Israeli observers would sleep through a mass movement of Arabs from their cities along with the transport of heavy weapons, a strong counter attack by the IDF would be inevitable, provided the civilian government released the military to defend the residents of YESHA. This is the 'Machiavellian' objective of those considering a "Kosovo Syndrome" for Israel. A strong defensive response by the IDF is the main goal and purpose of the attack - to paint the defending Israelis as aggressors to be punished.

If you doubt that such thoughts motivate these actions, ask yourself this question: "Would the Labor Left, along with a lame duck President and a hostile State Department collude with Arafat to rid the West Bank (Judea, Samaria) and Gaza of its Jewish inhabitants?" The answer must be "Yes", given the past recorded collusion to achieve this goal. Arafat's PLO Army will try to capture and consolidate whatever they could hold hostage. Even one or two communities and hostages captured by the PLO gunmen would be a catastrophe. This, of course, would be one part of the orchestrated plan to evict all the Jews. Arafat would then await the swift intervention of the UN, the US, the EU and probably Russia. The attacking Arabs will unlikely know these long range objectives, but their leaders and foreign collaborators will. This planned action to use the Palestinians attack capability is linked to an Arabist White House, a hostile European Union and perhaps the Russians who wish to please the Arab nations for access to their arms' markets. A full uprising initiated by a green light from Arafat and Hamas will be needed. There must be a wide and coordinated burst of hostile action by the Palestinians to insure the kind of attention they require.

Whether such an attack succeeds or fails may be entirely irrelevant. It appears to this writer that the game plan is to create a flash point with very many casualties so the clash will draw immediate attention from the international community, covered intensely by the usually hostile media. The prime objective would be to put the issue directly into the UN General Assembly, using the precedent now established for Kosovo - with modifications. That would quickly establish the fiction that this is now an official and, therefore, a legitimate problem on their agenda to control the Mideast. They will push the UN to the conclusion that they, the UN/US/EU may legitimately and logically enter the conflict with military intervention. Here again, the rules of the UN would be abandoned because a hostile majority of the UN has always sided with the Arabs against Israel in almost every single vote...except the 1947 vote to declare an independent Jewish State in Palestine.

Those most involved will be President Clinton, the US State Department, Tony Blair and Robin Cook of England, Jacques Chirac of France, Gerald Schroeder of Germany, and others of the European Union, ultra Left Israelis and, of course, Arafat with the other Arab nations. As has been the past practice of the UN, they will immediately convene an emergency meeting of the Security Council, followed by one of the General Assembly. Israel will be condemned for its defensive response (called excessive) and a UN Observer Force will be sent to monitor the situation. The more Palestinians casualties that Arafat can generate, the faster the expected response by the UN/US/EU.

In the meantime, the EU nations, in collaboration with the White House and State Department will hourly produce a volume of slanted propaganda designed to push a UN vote to action - much the same as was done with Kosovo. Of course, the media will be primed to accuse and blame Israel, facts notwithstanding. The concealed fact, however, will be that this unholy cabal will have first provoked and collaborated in the attack by the now well-armed civilian Palestinians and their Police Force/Army, resulting in a strong counter defense by Israeli citizens of YESHA and, hopefully, the IDF.

To prepare US citizens to accept a US/UN decision to move against Israel, the propaganda will, of course, show sympathetic video of injured Palestinians but not explain that they had been given the "green light" to come en masse to attack peaceful Israeli villages. The Jewish victims and the aggrieved nation of Israel will suddenly be cast as the aggressor, facts be damned. Go fight the combined might of the ever hostile Media propaganda machines in the US, UN and the EU. I cannot help but wonder if the Leftist Hebrew Press and the Labor/Meretz extremists will join the NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, etc. to condemn Israel's government should she put up a lively and effective defense of YESHA residents.

A UN vote to move against Israel will proceed with the pre-planned follow-on economic embargoes driven by the US and especially the EU which will be made to look like a legitimate and reasonable response to Israel's "cruel" defense. The objective will be to blame the victim and applaud the aggressor. Having used the Orwellian trick of Double Speak before, they will demand that Israel fully withdraw, to the '67 and then '47 borders - despite lack of reciprocity by Arafat. Even as this report is being written, Madame Albright is demanding that Israel carry out the Wye Memorandum, knowing Arafat has by word and deed refused to carry out any of their commitments.

They will also likely demand that Israel give up to Syria the Golan Heights down to Lake Kinneret with its irreplaceable water sources and demand the "right of return" for 5+million Palestinians into cities and villages across Israel. From the beginning of the staged assaults to the demand that all the requirements of the "New State of Palestine" be met, it will all be one neat package, sending Israel over the precipice of destruction.

The attack/uprising can come at any time, irrespective of the May 4th date wherein Arafat may or may not proclaim a Palestinian State. The Clintons and the EU have already given "it" de facto recognition. The subsequent clash will give the world's nations the sought after excuse to pull off a modified Kosovo - with a touch of the South African embargo in the mix. While Israel will probably not be bombed by NATO, we can expect her to be clubbed into submission by sanctions - followed by UN/US "peacekeeping" troops and the enlargement of the American CIA mission implanted to keep a non-existent peace at the "new" borders. Recall the efforts by the US to find any excuse to place sizeable numbers of American troops and equipment on the Golan Heights to create a secure US base of operations in the Middle East next door to Saudi Arabia's oil fields and overlooking Israel. Congress saw through the scheme and stopped it.


We are now observing the Clinton controlled NATO rescue go sour as the bombing increased the massive population transfer of Kosovars, rather than halting it. Some in the media are beginning to catch on that the Moslem KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) armed by Iran and Afghanistan started the killing of Serbs with the goal of a separate Islamic State. For Israel an unavoidable civil war started by the Palestinians (as in Lebanon) would signal Syria, Iraq, Iran and probably Egypt to take advantage of internal fighting in Israel to attack. Further, as Israel begins to fight back, the evasive unity under an Islamic umbrella sought for many years by various Arab leaders could coalesce. For Israel it's Ein Breira (no choice) but to win. Other nations may believe it would be in their self-interest to sacrifice Israel on the mistaken theory that this would pacify Arab Islam. Unification of Islamic countries with their massive numbers scares the wits out of Christian dominated West and Russia. Should they succeed in stirring up a renewed intifada against Israel with major weapons for the short term benefit of pacifying the Arabs, they will find that they will have instead triggered the unification of Islam against the West - which is their greatest fear.

What drives Mr. and Mrs. Clinton to place a radical Palestinian State in close reach of such easily subverted nations as Saudi Arabia, Jordan or linked to the radical nation of Iraq and Syria? Why would the European Union, so anxious for trade, agree to another disruptive radical State which would link the radicals in the North with the Islamic Brotherhoods in Egypt, Libya, Sudan to the South - endangering Morocco and Algeria with rabid Islamic fundamentalism? These nations my be forced to convert into the virulently hostile form of Islam dangerous to all the nations of the region. We know that the Clintons have accepted campaign contribution funds from various wealthy regions of the world, including the Middle East. We know that the EU and Russia are desperate to sell arms and unconventional weapons' technology of mass destruction, including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) to the radical Arab nations. What they believe they need is first for Israel to be reduced in size and military effectiveness, and finally removed as the last phase of ethnic cleansing of the Jews from the Middle East. The absence of Israel is supposed to make the Arabs peaceful and no longer a threat to each other, thereby smoothing the playing field for commerce.

As mentioned earlier, there is another and deeper reason for the Christian West to offer Israel as a delaying tactic to forestall a far greater threat. The intelligence agencies of the Western nations, now including Russia, have long projected deep and threatening problems with Moslem nations as they ramp up their call for Islamic unity against the West, with catastrophic weapons sold by the West.

There is a fear that Islamists will use the focused hatred against Israel to spark a coalition of Moslem nations which will not bode well for the West and Russia, especially from their break-away Islamic Republics. A short term solution is to pacify the Arabs by sacrificing Israel in the hope that the West can offer sufficient trade to keep radical Islamic fundamentalism from boiling over. This will not work, but the interim payment of Israel would be considered a cheap price for the West to pay, provided Israel can be persuaded to put her head on the block "for the good of all". While Islam may briefly pause to make a meal of Israel, they would advance against what they consider the "unholy" Christian West with renewed confidence, vigor and their new super-weapons of mass destruction.


In 1982 I published an analysis stating that the Arab nations were deliberately holding unwanted Palestinians in squalid refugee camps and would be delighted to dump "their" Palestinians, when Arafat could provide a holding area. This first area selected was in the so-called West Bank where, according to reports from Asharq al-Awsat (Saudi-owned daily based in London, 1/29/99) 5 million Palestinians would be dumped in the West Bank - whether they wanted to go or not. Arafat would then have his unstoppable political base and future army. Look at the Kosovo refugees and picture them as Arabs claiming to be displaced Palestinians, arriving at the "new" borders of the "New State of Palestine". What a fantastic staged photo-op as crowds of Arabs pushed out by their brother Arabs mill about and line up for food, etc. Would the US/UN/media blame Syria or Arafat - or would they blame Israel and insist that Israel absorb this hostile mass?

Various American and European interests, supported by naive Jews of the Left are diligently working toward a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital. Arafat proclaims this goal in every speech. Every map, every symbol shows "Palestine" covering all of Israel. An American President desperate for an elusive respected place in history is pushing this unworkable scheme - regardless of its probability of igniting a full scale regional war much as he is doing in Kosovo. It is relevant to note that Clinton, having to face charges of accepting campaign financing from China plus the now withheld Cox report on the President approving the transfer of technology, including nuclear, to China, was probably delighted to start the Kosovo bombing - even if it provokes regional war.

The President and Vice President Al Gore, through the US State Department is using every means possible to trap Israel into a situation where they must send in American/UN troops to quell either the Palestinian uprising or the Israeli defensive counter attack. The Propaganda machinery, with a total disregard for the facts, will tell the public that Israel is being brutal and unfair. Fearful American Jewish leaders will be too easily recruited as they will baskin the attention of Clinton and Albright summoning them to the White House for special briefings, telling them how they must convince the Jewish community that the "peace process" is the only way to "save Israel in spite of herself".

The Palestinians may be able to pull the attack off in part, given the fact that the YESHA communities are restricted to having only light arms. They also know that the men leave for work with only the women and children left home. If the PLO, in fact, attacks as many as 40 communities and succeeds in holding as few as one or two communities and Jewish hostages, it will be a catastrophe. Taking Jewish hostages has become a high priority goal of the Arabs because they know we value our people and will trade hundreds of convicted Arabs for even one of our. The tonnage of arms smuggled into Gaza and the 7 other Arab cities given over to Arafat is enormous, despite Oslo's restrictions. Some may recall Arafat's massive weapons accumulations stacked in captured tunnels in Lebanon, intended to supply the PLO and Syria according to the battle plans also found there for an assault through Lebanon. Such a collection of arms in the Palestinians' hands provides the sure inevitability of their use. Israeli intelligence knows all of this and have reported it upward to a series of Prime Ministers who seems to have accepted a well-armed hostile Arab army assembling in Israel's heartland and on her borders. Pre-emption to save Israeli lives is no longer considered an option in the Prime Minister's office. We have read that when new Israeli Prime Ministers emerge from their first security briefing of the real facts, they are "pale and shaken". What mighty stick isbeing held over the heads of erstwhile staunch defenders of Israeli sovereignty in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - not to mention all of Jerusalem?

The question is: "Should there be a staged Palestinian uprising, would the Israeli Prime Minister hesitate to release the Army and proceed to accommodate a hostile UN backed by an Arabist White House?" (Recall when Golda Meir accommodated Kissinger prior to the Yom Kippur "surprise" war by holding back from a pre-emptive attack which resulted in excessive Israeli casualties.) The EU is impatiently gnashing their teeth as the German rotating President of the EU issues a dictum telling Israel that "Jerusalem is NOT their territory or capital." These hostile nations and pro-Arab financial interests have carefully set the stage for the next move. They need and want a Palestinian uprising with a mix of illegal heavy weapons which Israel cannot avoid unless they immediately evacuate 250,000 people from YESHA to first the '67 borders and later the '47 borders. Arafat is now basing his spurious claims on the 1947 UN Resolution 181 partitioning Israel into a minuscule Jewish State and a larger Arab State. The Arabs rejected 181 violently when 7 Arab armies invaded Israel May 16, 1948.

If there was ever a time for a pre-trial discovery of evidence for a carefully planed war, it is now. Let the questions be put to this PM along with the IDF top brass. Let us also question Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, et al to determine if the Left was and is collaborating in any schemes with foreign nations or with the PA to advance the "peace process" the PA refuses to implement. Let us sort out our friends from our enemies and any Jewish collaborators willing to advance their political philosophy by facilitating the deaths or eviction of their fellow Jews in YESHA.

Please make this outline available to your Congress and local media. Presenting the case in full view will make it difficult for the initiation of a Kosovo Syndrome in the Land of Israel. For Israelis, please translate into Hebrew for the various political parties and, above all, the Hebrew press - who seem to be carefully avoiding these issues.


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East analyst & commentator and a research associate of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.


Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of April 16, 1999


By Gerald M. Steinberg

One of the positive features of the American system of government is that when one branch gets something very wrong, there is a chance that another branch will limit the damage. This is the case with the American policy on the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In their craving for a foreign policy success, Clinton administration officials have created a mythical Middle East, but Congress, with participation from both parties, is attempting to prevent them from straying too far from reality.

The Clinton administration has been a foreign policy disaster, as the president flits from issue to issue with short periods of high-intensity attention, but little follow-through. This pattern is clearly evident with respect to Kosovo, Iraq, and the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. The process that began in Oslo had been collapsing for years, and the Wye Plantation summit (amidst the impeachment process) was too late to reverse the rot.

Knowing that changes in Palestinian behavior would be very difficult to accomplish, the White House took the easy route by blaming the Netanyahu government. However, members of Congress, who justify their role in foreign policy by keeping a close watch on the Executive Branch, were not convinced, and began to examine the details.

A few weeks ago, Republican Senator Connie Mack (from Florida) came to the area to learn the details for himself. Mack returned with one basic question: "How is it possible to engage in peace negotiations with people who maintain the right to obliterate you, who are filled with hatred toward you, and who harbor the dream of one day destroying your homeland?"

Mack did not come as a supporter of the Netanyahu government, and his report is properly outside the framework of the Israeli election campaign. He came with a common-sense approach to the evidence. In a speech delivered on the Senate floor, he presented his stark conclusions. "What I saw convinced me that the Palestinian leadership does not want peace. They want, first, their own state which they can control with total power. Then they want to use that state to eliminate the State of Israel."

In the wake of Senator Mack's report, and while Yasser Arafat was being welcomed again at the White House, 50 members of Congress wrote a stinging letter to Clinton on Palestinian incitement to violence. Placing the issues in their proper context, they noted that "The issue here is not disagreements over certain aspects of the permanent agreement, but the incitement and indoctrination of a whole generation to hate Jews to such an extent that irrespective of existing formal agreements, genuine reconciliation and peace may be impossible to attain."

By an overwhelming majority, Congress also passed resolutions opposing a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, warning that such a move "would be a grievous violation" of the Oslo Agreement that "would not be recognized" by the United States. Thus, while Arafat was collecting rewards in Europe and the White House for agreeing not to take this step (and destroy any chance of eventually gaining control over more territory), Congress was reminding the Palestinian leader of the costs of such a move.

The contrast between the Congressional assessments and those coming from the State Department (known, for good reason, as Foggy Bottom), could not be sharper. In their eagerness to salvage something from the shattered Middle East policy, officials of the Clinton administration seemed to have gone from supporting Israel to "even handedness," and then to a pro-Palestinian bias. They have apparently given up on efforts to change Palestinian and Arab "hearts and minds," and have focused on what appears to be easier - changing Israeli policies and its government.

However, there are still enough people in Congress who understand that Israel, like the United States and in sharp contrast to the rest of the Middle East, is a democracy. In 1996, the Israeli public rejected the simplistic myth that Palestinian terrorism and incitement were somehow compatible with the concept of peace. Clinton's anti-terrorist summit at Sharm e-Sheikh transparently designed to rescue Shimon Peres's election campaign, did not change any votes. Congress recognizes that the Palestinian rejection of Israeli legitimacy still constitutes the main obstacle to progress. The evidence is too strong to be ignored, even by those who would prefer to see Netanyahu and his policies replaced in the next Israeli elections.

The central problem with all of the agreements, from Oslo through Wye, is that they have not changed these deeply rooted attitudes. Mack also got this one right, noting that "There will not be peace until hearts and minds are changed, and we must focus our attention on these issues. If the Palestinian leadership fails to abandon incitement of hatred, persecution, and terrorism, then we are all dreaming, only dreaming."

The question is whether anyone in the State Department or White House is listening.


Excerpted from The Jerusalem Post of April 8, 1999


By Liat Collins and Danna Harman

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday night announced he has decided Israel will take in 100 refugees from Kosovo. The refugees will be able to stay in Israel for six months, after which they can decide for themselves whether to remain here or not. He described this as "a first group." Speaking to reporters at the Mimouna celebration he attended in Beit Shemesh, Netanyahu said: "This is simply our moral obligation as Jews. Half a century ago, nobody held out a helping hand and we of course must do this and are doing this today."

He again distanced himself from the remarks of Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon, who has warned against creating an independent state in Kosovo, saying it could turn into an international base for Islamic terror activities. Netanyahu said Sharon was talking about long-term issues which are not relevant and do not reflect current Israeli policy. He noted that Sharon was among the first people to initiate the policy "of helping the refugees and supporting NATO's efforts to end the tragedy."

Netanyahu said that Sharon's statements on Kosovo - which were made Monday in New York before the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations - were "a reflection of his own opinions and do not represent the government stand." The State of Israel, continued Netanyahu, "is not involved in the future workings of Kosovo and gives its full support to the activities of NATO."

Sharon, meanwhile, taken to task for his comments, clarified his position in a statement, saying that "there are two problems at hand - one is the immediate human crisis taking place in Kosovo, which must be stopped. The second is of a long-term nature." Sharon said Israel will do all it can to help ease the plight of the refugees and that he expects the US and NATO will "bring an end to the human tragedy, and bring the sides to the negotiating table as soon as possible."

However, in the long term, continued Sharon, while he is for "every people's right of self expression and the freedom to decide on their way of life," he has some concerns. "If a big bloc of Islamic states develops in this region, it could serve as a base for extreme Islamic terror - a seed of that is already apparent on the ground - [and] this could lead to instability in Europe and elsewhere," he said in a Channel 2 interview on Tuesday night. Sharon insisted his comments do not constitute an interference in the internal working of another country.

"What we are talking about here is a situation in which global instability could be created - and every instability has an effect on Israel and its people," he said. "I see it as my responsibility not only to initiate humanitarian aid to the Kosovo refugees, as I have done, but also to warn of the possible future dangers there."



By Steven Plaut

The Russian news agency Itar-Tass reports that an unexploded NATO bomb in a Serbian village now sports a graffiti message written by local residents: "Thank you, Mrs. Albright, for the gift sent to us in exchange for our hospitality." The story behind the message is summed up in a 60-year-old photo, published in the Cyprus Mail at the end of last week, showing a little girl hugging a little boy. The boy in the picture, now Mr. Lutko Popich, explained that the girl is now Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State of the United States of America. He told a Cyprus Mail reporter, Louisus Antonio, that in 1939, Madeleine Albright's family escaped from the Nazis in Czechoslovakia and found refuge in his father's home in the Serbian village of Varnatchka Bana. This same village, 60 years later, was bombed last week by NATO forces, led by the United States, and the same villagers who hosted little Madeleine and her family were forced to flee.

Antonio reported that he recently visited various areas in Yugoslavia that were bombed by NATO, together with a group called "Doctors for Peace." He wrote that he found much evidence, including photos, of Ms. Albright's presence in the above-mentioned village of Varnatchka Bana during the specified period. Popich - the "boy" in the picture - said that he wrote a letter to Secretary Albright, asking her to stop the bombing on his birthplace that had served as her refuge. He said that he had not received a response. Varnatchka Bana, famous for its hot springs, is located 80 kilometers from the city of Kraljevo.


ACCURACY IN MEDIA - April 7, 1999



Jeff Tuomala, a former Regent University law professor, isn't the only expert who says that President Clinton's war in Yugoslavia lacks a clear legal basis. Jim Hirsen, a law professor at Trinity Law College in California, says bluntly that "it is clearly in violation of international law." He explains, "There is nothing in writing in any diplomatic charter, any international treaty that would authorize this kind of military intervention."

The administration has claimed that various U.N. Security Council Resolutions authorize this war. But Hirsen points out, "In each and every one of those resolutions, there is a provision affirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Yugoslavia." Those resolutions also require a peaceful resolution of the crisis. Hirsen adds that Article 2 of the U.N. Charter prohibits the use of force against a sovereign state unless it has committed aggression on another state. Yugoslavia, he points out, did not commit such aggression. When force is used, he adds, the Charter requires that the Security Council be consulted in advance. That was not done in this case.

For Jim Hirsen, this should not be that surprising. He says, "It's quite interesting that this administration, which at the international level always brings up the rule of law, has now had the same approach to the rule of law at the international level as they've had at the domestic level. That is, it's de facto law. It's not real law." In other words, a president who can't be trusted to obey our domestic laws cannot be expected to comply with international laws and treaties. The difference is that Clinton has been a big booster of the U.N. and its charter in the past.

Regarding the use of NATO to lead the intervention, Hirsen also finds the administration's legal case to be seriously deficient. On its face, he points out, the NATO Charter sets up a defensive organization. In the preamble to the treaty, the members are "resolved to unite their efforts for collective self-defense." The use of force is authorized only when a member of NATO is attacked. "So, being a self-defense charter," Hirsen says, "the NATO treaty is violated" in the Yugoslavia case.

To make matters worse, Hirsen says "there are treaties that specifically prohibit this kind of action." He says that the 1980 Vienna convention on the law of treaties prohibits any kind of coercion to compel a nation to sign a treaty. Yet the United States exerted that kind of pressure on Yugoslavia to sign the so-called Ramboulliet agreement on Kosovo, which could have led to independence for that province of the country. When Yugoslavia refused to sign it, the U.S. and NATO went to war.

So why did the Administration go to war? Hirsen believes it was politics, noting that many of the administration's recent military actions have corresponded with a significant news story that embarrasses President Clinton. In this case, the Juanita Broaddrick rape story was still causing problems for the president and the Chinese espionage scandal was gathering momentum. "In each case," he says, "[military decisions are] made with haste and not the proper planning." That has certainly been proven in this case.


Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, speaking at the Brookings Institution on April 5, intensified her efforts to portray Slobodan Milosevic as a modern Hitler. She denied that the mass flight of refugees from Kosovo was precipitated by NATO's bombing and missile attacks. She said that the bombing attacks were ordered to halt the terrible atrocities that Milosevic was inflicting on the Albanians in Kosovo, but the only specific example that she cited was the alleged massacre of 45 Albanians in the village of Racak in mid-January.

Albright accused the Serbs of breaking the cease-fire agreement that was reached last October. We have not been able to get any verification of that claim from the State Department, but the Institute for Balkan Affairs says that the cease-fire was broken by the Kosovo Liberation Army, which kidnaped and killed two Serbian policemen. The Institute says the KLA has been killing police and officials in the Serbian province of Kosovo for over a year. The Serbs have retaliated, and it has been reported that between one and two thousand people died in the fighting in 1998.

The State Department says this figure includes soldiers, police, guerrilla fighters and civilians on both sides. The Institute for Balkan Affairs says that the American media have virtually ignored the reports of KLA killings of Serbian police and civilians, including an attack on a refugee camp holding some of the 300,000 Serbs forced out of Croatia. In an earlier commentary we reported that an administration official said last year that the one thing that might trigger armed intervention in Kosovo would be an intolerable level of atrocities. When it was reported that 45 ethnic Albanian villagers had been slaughtered by Serbian police in Racak in mid-January, that became the intolerable level. This is the only alleged massacre that Albright could cite in her Brookings speech. The State Department now says that the killing of 24 KLA guerrillas in Kosovo at the end of January was combat-related.

We said in that commentary that the French press had cast doubt on the claim that this was a massacre perpetrated by Serbian security forces. They reported that there was a battle between Serb police and the KLA and that there was reason to believe that 22 bodies laid out in a ravine may have been KLA guerrillas killed in the firefight. They said that journalists saw little blood and only a few cartridges around the site of the alleged massacre. They speculate that the KLA gathered some of the bodies killed in the fighting and tried to make it look like a massacre.

In that commentary, we erred in saying that Clinton said he was ordering the bombing to "halt this rolling genocide." It was a senator who said that. In the 12 weeks leading up to the bombing there were nearly 200 newspaper stories that associated Kosovo and genocide. In the week after the bombing began there were over 900 stories, many of them reporting Clinton's use of the term. The numbers of those killed in the year ending March 24 do not support the genocide charge.


By (AIM) Reed Irvine & Ciff Kincaid - April 23, 1999

On April 18th, both the Washington Post and the New York Times ran long stories about how the Clinton Administration got involved in the no-win war in Yugoslavia. Both papers said that the key incident which sparked U.S. military involvement was the alleged Serb massacre of Albanians in the village of Racak in Kosovo. We say "alleged" because it's not at all clear that what happened was a massacre. In fact, some evidence suggests that Kosovo Liberation Army terrorists attacked the Serbs and then dressed up some of the victims to make them look like civilians. But "massacre" is how the Post and Times described it.

The point is that this incident is what started the U.S. on the road to deeper and deeper military involvement. In other words, the Clinton Administration may have gotten the U.S. involved through an incident that was manipulated and staged for propaganda value.

The Times said that NATO commander General Wesley Clark was so outraged about this alleged massacre that he met with Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic and presented him with photographs of the victims. The Times reported that Milosevic said the killings had resulted from a firefight between Serb security forces and the KLA. Here's how the Times reported how Milosevic described what happened then: "The rebels, he continued, rearranged the bodies and dressed them to make them look like peasants and farmers, shooting the bodies through the heads and necks to make the incident look like a massacre."

The Times didn't report how Clark responded to this, and the paper didn't explain what was wrong with Milosevic's explanation. But the fact is that his explanation of what happened is consistent with how some foreign newspapers reported the incident.

Unfortunately, this isn't the only dubious report or claim that has come out of the White House, NATO or the American media during this war. Some other phony reports include NATO's claim that two Albanian Kosovo leaders had been executed by the Serbs, the alleged transformation of a soccer stadium in Kosovo into a death camp, and blaming the Serbs for the bombing of a refugee convoy. One of those Kosovo Albanian leaders was the subject of a recent article in the Washington Post. The Post said he was sitting in a friend's living room when he heard the news of his death broadcast live from NATO headquarters. NATO apparently based the report of his death on the fact that his offices had been ransacked and his security guard killed. Obviously, however, NATO released the "news" of his death publicly without having a shred of hard evidence to justify the claim.

It is quickly becoming apparent that NATO, at least in some cases, has been less than forthcoming in reporting the truth. In a related matter, a Bosnian Serb TV station in the NATO-occupied state of Bosnia has been ordered to stop broadcasting because its coverage of the war was deemed inflammatory and inaccurate. The order could be enforced by a NATO-led Stabilization Force, whose troops could literally take over the station at the point of a barrel of a gun.



By Boris Shusteff

The military interference of NATO into the age-old land dispute in Yugoslavia should be a rude awakening for those who believe that Israel can rely on outside help in the matters concerning her existence. Los Angeles journalist Tony Snow wrote on March 25 that NATO's war against Serbia makes sense only if it is based on "the right of global elites to impose their tastes on lessers [sic] through the force of arms."

It appears that we live in an age when many words have lost their original meaning. This is especially true for the word "peace." One can easily draw a parallel between the Oslo "peace process" and the "peace process" that has been unleashed against the Serbs. In both cases the word "war" is replaced by the much more attractive word "peace." In both cases this "peace" is imposed on a small sovereign country by the "global elite" whose taste calls for carving off a piece of this country's territory to establish one more Muslim state.

The March 25th, Berlin European Council Declaration on the Middle East Peace Process confirms this tendency. The Declaration states that "The European Union reaffirms the continuing and unqualified Palestinian right to self-determination including the option of a state and looks forward to the early fulfillment of this right."

The European Union's generosity at Israel's expense is striking. It lavishly grants the Palestinian Arabs the primordial Jewish land and demands that Israel conclude the surrender "negotiations within a target period of one year." The declaration warns Israel that the Palestinian Arabs' option of a state "is not subject to any veto" since "the European Union is convinced that the creation of a democratic, viable and peaceful sovereign Palestinian State... would be the best guarantee of Israel's security."

Some observers have named this Declaration the "Palestinian Balfour Declaration." They are totally wrong. If the Balfour Declaration had included "the option of the Jewish state," and if Britain strove towards "early fulfillment of that right," and if "the target period" for establishing the state had been one year; and if Britain had declared that the sovereign Jewish state "would be the best guarantee of Arab security," then, today, there would have been peace between the Jews and the Arabs. There would have been only two states on the mandated territory of Palestine: Israel and Jordan, and no one would have spoken of the so-called "Palestinian people."

Instead of this, Britain did everything it could so as not to allow the Jewish state to happen. Avi Shlaim wrote in The Politics of Partition that in August 1926 Transjordan's King Abdullah "had made an impassioned plea for Jewish involvement in the development of Transjordan: Palestine is one unit. The division between Palestine and Transjordan is artificial and wasteful. ...Please come to Transjordan. I guarantee your safety. Together we will work for the benefit of the country."

Shlaim wrote that "in favoring the entry of Jews into Transjordan, Abdullah was expressing the wishes of many of his subjects..." Moreover, in May 1933, the head of the most important Bedouin tribe, shaikh Mithqal Pasha al-Faiz established a Unity Party that "openly voiced its conviction that only Jewish settlement could save the country from the scourge of starvation which have afflicted it in recent years." In obvious violation of the Mandate's provisions, which required Britain to "facilitate Jewish emigration" and "encourage close settlement by Jews on the land," the British authorities acted against "the persistent efforts of the Bedouin shaikhs to put their barren lands to some profitable use." They tried to introduce a law "restricting the sale or lease of land to foreigners." However, the Permanent Mandate Commission of the League of Nations pointed out that "the mandate could not prevent either the emir or the shaikhs from voluntarily permitting their land to be colonized, and the Transjordan Legislative Council rejected the draft law and affirmed its support for an 'open door' policy for the Jews." Nevertheless, the British managed to find another way to prevent Jewish settlement to the East of the Jordan River. They enacted a "nationality Law, which prohibited the leasing of land to non-citizens, thereby closing to the Jews the gateway to the Arabian peninsula."

History reminds us of certain events with unusual twists. It was also on March 25th, in 1938, that American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called together thirty-three nations to participate in an international conference on the Jewish refugee crisis. Apparently, "in the best interests of Jewish security," the European countries at this Evian Conference demonstrated that they do not need the Jews. In Witness to the Holocaust Michael Berenbaum quoted German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop's memo to Adolf Hitler, written several months after the Conference, where he described a conversation he had with French Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet:

  • Bonnet said that in the first place they did not want to receive any more Jews from Germany and [asked] whether we could not take some sort of measures to keep them from coming to France, and in the second place France had to ship 10,000 Jews somewhere else... I replied to Mr. Bonnet that we all wanted to get rid of our Jews but that the difficulties lay in the fact that no country wished to receive them.
  • There is no need to explain what sort of "measures" where taken by the Nazis "to keep Jews from coming to France." Almost sixty years after the Holocaust, knowing that the Palestinian Arabs "want to get rid of the Jews" France puts forward a proposal "to automatically recognize a Palestinian state after one year, regardless of the state of final-status negotiations." Nazi Germany, the country that did not participate, was the victor at the Evian Conference. Learning that nobody would come to the Jews' rescue the Nazis began to implement their policy of making the Reich Judenrein - free of Jews. The Palestinian Arabs did not participate in the Berlin Council meeting either, however, they are the real winners, since they have learned that nobody will come to Israel's rescue and, hence, they can start implementing their policy of making the land of Israel Judenrein.

    There is nothing new in all of this. The countries that did not care about the Jews before do not care about them now. Apparently they think that sixty years after the Holocaust is a long enough term to erase their guilt from the Jews' memory and start their anti-Jewish policy all over again. This time, however, they are acting not against individual Jews but against the Jewish state.

    On March 30, in an interview with Arutz-7 radio Prime Minister Netanyahu said: "We now see again the same age-old principle that we must not forget for even a second: If a people cannot defend itself, it is doubtful that others will be able to do it for them." This is not only doubtful, it is obvious, and no logical reason can be found to contradict it. [04/02/99]


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


    New York Daily News -- April 6, 1999


    By Sidney Zion

    NATO, this war's for you. Not for the Kosovar Albanians. Not for peace in Europe. It's a war being fought for your own credibility, NATO, and that's the trouble. Now that we're in, we must win. Even those who opposed the bombing - Henry Kissinger, Sen. John McCain - have adopted that as their mantra. The fact that our bombs have made things geometrically worse for the Kosovar Albanians only makes us want to escalate the war. It's too late to save the people. So now let's save NATO.

    Unless we destroy the tin-horn dictator Slobodan Milosevic, NATO will lose its "credibility." And if that happens, no bombs will prevent the sky from falling on the free world. When did we hear that before? Vietnam, of course. It's the "domino theory," resurrected today by Bill Clinton, who spent the Vietnam War in Oxford and marched against it together with many of the people in his administration. Today Clinton sees Kosovo as Jack Kennedy saw Vietnam. Ironies iron out, but first I wish to ask just what the hell NATO is doing in Belgrade? Indeed, why is NATO necessary? It was set up to protect Europe against the Soviet Union. With the demise of the Soviets, logic dictated that it would be honorably retired. Instead, Clinton expanded it to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. And this was only the first stage in the proposed enlargement of NATO.

    Why and wherefore? The answer is clear: The Clinton administration wants to do exactly what it claims it doesn't want to do - police the world, run a "forward foreign policy" that can take America anywhere it deems proper to go for whatever reason. But never to go it alone, for that will appear to be "imperialism." The United Nations is the best bet to approve our policies, but in this war we did not go to the Security Council, because Russia would have vetoed the attack on Serbia. So we went directly to NATO. In the Gulf War, we had the United Nations, but here we have NATO - and the funny thing is that NATO can only go to war against states who attack other NATO states.

    Yugoslavia is not a NATO state, and Kosovo is part of Yugoslavia, of Serbia. This is a civil war outside of NATO authority. But forget legalisms. The fact is that Milosevic is committing terrible crimes against the Albanian Kosovars. Are we to ignore this, are we to do nothing? It is a horror, for sure, and as a Jew I am the last to say that America should shrug its shoulders. But those who make this a replay of the Holocaust have got it wrong, that's for sure, too. The Jews of Europe had no little Jerusalem to repair to, just for starters.

    The Albanian Muslims of Kosovo have Albania and Macedonia. It's not great, but it ain't Auschwitz. Nor did the Jews of Europe have a liberation army. There happens to be a Kosovo Liberation Army, which had plenty to do with provoking the Serbs through guerrilla warfare. The KLA is armed by Iran and Hezbollah, they are the Islamic warriors who want to set up a Muslim state inside Serbia. The Clintonites and NATO support them on the grounds of "self-determination" of peoples. What this means to the cynics in the State Department and the United Nations is the right to be ruled by a dictator of your own ethnicity.

    It doesn't mean that we ought to sit back and relax when ethnic cleansing goes on in our face. On the other hand, we ought to acknowledge that this is also going on in other parts of the world where we don't want to see it - in Lebanon, for instance, where Syria destroys the Christian Maronites. Anyway, let's not send in our soldiers simply to defend the credibility of peacemakers who failed to bring peace.

    NATO über alles cannot be our flag.


    Reprinted from the New York Daily News of April 13, 1999


    By Sidney Zion

    This is Holocaust memorial day. Yesterday was the 54th anniversary of the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The calendar delivers its ironies sparsely - but deadlier than NATO delivers bombs over Kosovo.

    Today, the Kosovar Muslims compare themselves to the Jews of Europe, while the Serbs call Kosovo their Jerusalem. Bill Clinton feels the pain of the Six Million as he sits under the portrait of FDR - who collaborated in the death of the Jews - while he orders the destruction of the Serbs, whose fathers fought off Hitler and refused to turn over Jews to the Nazi death camps.

    Israel delivers great humanitarian aid to the Kosovars, whose Kosovo Liberation Army is financed by Hezbollah, Iran and the drug trade. The Israelis get no credit for this from Clinton, who says nothing about the failure of the Arab world to help the Muslims of Kosovo. Beautiful.

    It is right for Israel to help people who are loaded into trains and expelled from their homes. But the calendar delivers lessons to Jews, not just ironies. And the fundamental truth comes from the psalmist: "Place not your faith in princes."

    American Jewish leaders placed their faith in FDR, who refused to lift a finger to save their people from Auschwitz. The only thing they delivered was the Jewish vote to Roosevelt. Then, in 1948, the Jews helped elect Harry Truman, who recognized Israel, but immediately embargoed arms to the Jewish State while knowing that the British had fully armed the Arabs.

    Not one American rifle was delivered to Israel until after the Six-Day War in 1967. In 1977, when Egypt's Anwar Sadat went to Jerusalem to make peace, Israel's Moshe Dayan ran to D.C. to help deliver the Sinai to the Egyptians. The result was a cold peace, delivered by Jimmy Carter, whose hatred of Israel is now documented in his memoirs.

    In 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres came to Clinton with the Oslo Accords in hand. They would turn over the Land of Israel for peace with Yasser Arafat, but only under American auspices. The assumption was that only America could broker the deal. And the underlying belief was that America was Israel's friend.

    Why Israel needed a broker to turn over land to its enemy was never explained. But hate the Oslo deal or love it, the one thing history shows is that America is not and has never been in the back pocket of the Jews and Israel. Whether the Arabists in the State Department wear yarmulkes or the Cross, they have one thing in common: they ain't for the Jewish State.

    Today, the tilt for the Palestinians would make a rabbit hug a hound. The Clintonites are so intent on establishing a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital that on April 25 there will be a rally for an undivided Jerusalem in Washington, sponsored by Americans for a Safe Israel. Thirty-two years after Jerusalem was liberated we need a rally! And this rally is not supported by the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, who say it is "too political."

    Perfect! The calendar goes backwards to the early 1940s, when the Jewish Establishment refused to support Ben Hecht and his Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe, on the ground that FDR, as the best friend the Jews ever had, was doing all he could to save the Jews.

    So now Kosovar Albanians are pictured as the Jews of the Holocaust by Clintonites who say Kaddish for the Jews of Europe. And Israel has put itself in the hands of this crowd, who surely make the Western Wall wail.



    By Boris Shusteff

    It does not matter how many times one repeats that a black car is in reality a white one; it will not change its color. If it is black, the only way to make it white is to send it to an auto shop and paint it white. It is equally useless to perform surgery on one's knee, if one has appendicitis, in order to cure the illness. The more one tries to hide the truth, the more difficult the situation gets. Israel's predicament today arises from her unwillingness to admit that the Oslo accords are simply the continuation of a struggle for land that started not in 1967 and not at the beginning of the century, but far earlier.

    It is the same battle that the Jews have fought since the destruction of the Second Temple. It is the same battle that had among its milestones the Balfour declaration, the San-Remo Conference, the British White Paper and the United Nations Partition Resolution 181. It is the same battle that brought forth the revisionist movement in Zionism. It is the struggle for sovereignty over the land. It is the battle for the Jewish state.

    States are not born through design of nature. They are born through the conquest of land. This truth has been known for millennia. In our enlightened age no nation likes to be reminded of the way it came to possess the territory it occupies today. Perhaps this is the reason why Israel's existence is uncomfortable to so many nations. As Avi Erlich wrote in Ancient Zionism, "The ancient Hebrews may be the only people who preserved stories that present ancestors as intruders in their own land. They told detailed stories of how Abraham, a native of Ur in Sumeria, ingratiated his way into Canaan and then bought his first toehold; they also faced squarely the bloody details of Joshua's conquest of lands that had belonged to others."

    Other nations fought for their sovereignty with much greater brutality and savageness but neither of them documented their deeds in a book that was granted to all of mankind. Moreover, while the Jews did not even dream of conquering any other lands, after settling in Eretz Yisrael, the majority of other people mercilessly obliterated their neighbors in order to expand their domain and build vast empires. As Erlich wrote, contrary to other people the Jews understood that "nations represent ideas and values, not merely powers and interests." The Hebrews many thousand years ago "possessed a unifying idea that made a Land out of disparate territories."

    The Hebrews also understood that these ideas and values could not be separated from the Land. Erlich wrote, "The Land was not to be taken for granted. Its terms were rigorous: The ancient Hebrew had to apprehend the Land in order to conquer and hold it." The monotheistic idea of the Jews was inseparable from the Land. One served as a justification for the other. Avi Erlich wrote:

    "The ancient Hebrews told themselves that God gave them the lands of Canaan, but only on condition that these lands be used to represent a set of ideas. The Hebrews also told themselves that God explicitly forbade them other lands - so there could be no empire - and they told themselves that if they failed to use the lands of Canaan to represent monotheism, they would lose both the signifying Land and civilization for which it stood."

    This constant link - God - Land - the Jewish people - is the answer to the miraculous unprecedented survival of the Jews. The dream of the return to Eretz Yisrael was that eternal flame that kept the Jewish people alive against all possible and impossible odds. The fifty years of reestablished statehood somehow blinded a lot of Israeli Jews. Some of them preferred to forget, and some did not even learn the magic formula God - Land - the Jewish people. These people were ready to abandon any element of the formula and often all of the elements. They replaced Judaism and Zionism with Universalism trying through this to escape their own Jewishness. They became ready to share Eretz Yisrael with their enemies, completely ignoring the enemies' intentions.

    Contrary to the Jews, hallucinating peace mirages, the Arabs are extremely realistic and explicit in their words and deeds. On April 7, 1998, the Gaza Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi said in an interview with IMRA:

    "There is this area called Palestine which you call Israel around which a struggle is going on. According to historical facts and religious ones we are the owners of this land. The Israelis say that they came here three thousand years ago and it is their right to establish their state here. We will not give up this land to the Israelis and they won't give it up to us. Accordingly, the struggle and conflict will continue."

    The Arabs are not afraid to be accused of "racist and genocidal" policies. In every suitable forum they loudly call for a war against the Jewish state. On April 7, 1998, in Mecca, Abdel-Rahman al-Sidess, one of the three imams at the Grand Mosque, declared in a sunrise sermon, "How can Muslims stand idle in front of this bunch of aggressors? We have to raise the banner of jihad to liberate our holy Jerusalem from the malicious Zionism and we hope that day will be soon."

    The Arabs lead the struggle for the land on all levels: military, propagandistic and political. On March 25, 1998, in Cairo, the Arab League Council adopted a resolution in which it "asked the Arab countries to try to persuade the Vatican to sign an agreement with the Palestinian Authority affirming the Palestinians' sovereignty over the Holy Land."

    The Arabs call it "Palestinian land," "our land," and "land occupiedby Israeli aggressors." The Israeli government shyly calls it "administrated territories," "territories required for security reasons," and "specified military locations."On April 1, 1998 in an article published in London's Arab newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat Yasser Arafat's adviser Bassam Abu-Sharif, rebutted Israel's "security approach,"

    "The theory (of Israel's security), which is based on occupying the land of others and regarding the Jordan River and its valley as a security necessity for Israel, has ... collapsed. ...The security of states in this age can only be achieved through political agreements. Occupying others' land will never achieve security for any state; in fact, such occupation would be the main source of insecurity and violence."

    Abu-Sharif is absolutely right. It is a must for Israel to stop running away from the truth and admit that Judea, Samaria and Gaza is not some sort of a territory but an indispensable part of the Jewish homeland. Israel should immediately master a wide propagandistic campaign to prepare the world community for Israel's annexation of Yesha.We made a terrible mistake by allowing the world to think that we do not care about Yesha. Our excuses and apologies for living in Yesha swung world public opinion toward the Arabs. For two thousand years of exile we never renounced our claim to Eretz Yisrael. When we reunited with it, we started selling out. This policy of land betrayal will bring us only to disaster. It is like an avalanche. One little stone brings another, then another, then a bigger one, and soon a morass of stones and boulders impetuously rushes down the hill sweeping away everything it encounters on its path. So the abandonment of Yesha will drag with it Golan, the Gallilee, Jerusalem and inevitable demise of the Jewish state. Yesha is Jewish land. Yesha is our land. Yesha is the land we longed for.

    We must not give it to anyone. It is the heart of Eretz Yisrael. It is bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh. We do not need to look for any explanations to prove this. This is self-explanatory. As man needs the air to breathe, as the trees need the sun to grow, so the Jewish people need Yesha to stay alive. [4/9/98]


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


    SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM -- Friday, April 9, 1999



    By Steve Rodan

    JERUSALEM - Two weeks after the NATO offensive against Yugoslavia, Israeli and Palestinian officials are separately concluding that NATO and the West might very well intervene in a future conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Last month, Italy's ambassador to Israel, Gian Paolo Cavarai, raised such a possibility during a meeting of diplomats with Foreign Minister Ariel Sharon.

    Ministry sources said Sharon was stunned that a NATO ambassador would raise the prospect of NATO intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict just several days after the March 24 launch of the alliance's campaign against Yugoslavia. The sources said that in a subsequent meeting of senior officials, Sharon said Israel could face a similar situation to Yugoslavia.

    Sharon's scenario was that the Israeli Arab minority -- comprising 20 percent of the country's population -- would call for autonomy. Many Arab towns in north skirt the West Bank and in the southern Negev are minutes away from the Hebron area. At least one Arab party in the current elections campaign has called for Arab autonomy.

    "They way Sharon sees it is that the West would find Yugoslavia a precedent to intervene in our part of the region," a senior government source said. Israel's response to the NATO offensive, government sources said, is intentionally vague. On one hand, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consistently expresses support for the NATO air offensive. On the other hand, Sharon warns of the consequences of the NATO strikes and an independent Kosovo.

    For U.S. officials, Sharon's warnings could serve as a basis for a Jewish lobby against the NATO campaign. In his meeting with U.S. Jewish leaders on Monday in New York, Sharon said the Kosovo Liberation Army has obtained significant aid from terrorist organizations backed by Iran, including the mujahadeen fighters in Afghanistan, Hizbullah and Osama Bin Laden, accused of blowing up two U.S. embassies in Africa last year.

    Sharon said an independent Kosovo would enable Islamic terrorism to spread throughout Europe. He appealed to U.S. Jewish leaders to call for an end to the fighting in Kosovo. "As faithful friends of the United States, we are expecting from it and NATO to do whatever they can to stop the suffering of innocent people and to renew as soon as possible negotiations and a mutual agreement between the parties," Sharon was quoted as saying.

    U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is expected to seek clarification of Sharon's remarks. Officials expect the issue to be fully discussed next week when U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk holds talks with Israeli leaders. Netanyahu's office issued a statement that said Sharon was expressing a personal opinion. But in a radio interview on Thursday Netanyahu refused to criticize or disagree with his foreign minister.

    As the prime minister put it, Sharon was looking ahead when he warned of the dangers of an independent Kosovo. "Minister Sharon raised speculation that could happen in the long term," Netanyahu said. "We are not right now in the long term. This concerns his personal assessments."

    Many Israeli analysts said Netanyahu and Sharon appear to be playing a game of good cop and bad cop. "It is reasonable to assume that there was talk of this with the prime minister and meetings of the inner Cabinet," Foreign Minister David Levy said. "But it is characteristic of Mr. Netanyahu to say something that completely contradicts his foreign minister. The question is if there were consultations and this was the result then the government is speaking in two voices."

    Knesset member Yossi Sarid of the opposition Meretz Party said he doesn't understand what the government policy is achieving. He said Sharon's warnings of an Islamic Kosovo has not won Israel any friends. "He's acting like an elephant in a china shop," Sarid said in a radio interview on Thursday. "It is simply not understandable and irresponsible. Netanyahu and Sharon are discovering America.

    Palestinian officials have been more circumspect. Most PA officials, including PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, have refused to reflect on Kosovo. The exception has been Communications Minister Imad Falouji, who is connected to the Hamas movement and supports Islamic efforts in Kosovo. At a meeting on Wednesday night, PA sources said, senior officials acknowledged that they have not drafted any positions on the NATO air strike and its affect on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. One minister, the sources said, confessed to switching the television channel every time the news focuses on Yugoslavia.

    "At this point, there is no thinking whatsoever in the PA [on Kosovo]," a PA source said. But there are exceptions. PA Cabinet Secretary Ahmed Abdul Rahman has been thinking about the ramifications of a NATO strike. His conclusion is that the Palestinians can only benefit. His scenario is that the Palestinians, bolstered by support for and recognition of a state, could press NATO and the West for intervention if a conflict erupts between the Palestinians and Israel.

    "There is a new international situation," Abdul Rahman said. "We must make it clear that what is happening in Yugoslavia must serve as a lesson to Israel to withdraw from its current policies before something similar happens it as what is now taking place in Yugoslavia." At first, senior PA officials played down Abdul Rahman's remarks, first made on PA radio on Monday. But by Tuesday, officials decided they were worth highlighting and several Palestinian dailies published his remarks on their front page. Al-Qaq, the Palestinian analyst, warns against viewing NATO strikes as helpful to the Palestinians. In the short term, he said, NATO intervention in the Arab-Israeli conflict appears tempting in balancing Israel's overwhelming military superiority in the region.

    But NATO might be called to settle other conflicts that involve minorities in Arab countries, Al-Qaq said, in an assessment that echoes that of Arab League officials. A few examples, he said, the Coptic Christian minority in Egypt, the Christians in southern Sudan, the Shi'ites in Saudi Arabia. "The long term is that this will have an effect on Arab national security," Al-Qaq said.


  • International Law and Internationalism:

    A Snare For Israel, A Deformation of Judaism

    By Eugene Narrett, PhD

  • The leaders of the mighty nations of the world have enflamed the Balkans again and are busily managing the crisis for their own profit and prerogatives. Once again, like the chorus of sheep in Animal Farm, the global media echo the pieties of the diplomats. The bombing is a "humanitarian mission" to "avert another holocaust." Slobodan Milosevic is "another Hitler" who must be tried before an International Tribunal. On and on drone the cliches, a thousand, ten thousand, a hundred thousand times a day from hundreds of millions of television sets in the hypnopedia of our Brave New World. Just as in Huxley's version, their goal is that "ten thousand repetitions make one truth."

    The First World War was a watershed demonstrating that Modernity had become the paradigm of West Civilization that since then has spread worldwide. The Godless epistemology of this era is relativism, the dogmatic belief that truth does not exist. The consequent ethic is might makes right, the law of the jungle because if nothing is true, everything is permitted, -- to those with power and correct ideas. (The post War therapeutic state is refining this dictum: soon, everything will be either forbidden or mandatory.) Having mocked tradition and degraded the family by rhetoric, law and in "entertainment," the ontology of Modernity is loneliness and fear. Its metaphysics is the rule of impulse and sensation: forgetting trumps memory, feminized bureaucracy crushes manliness. The Modern age is the dominion of Egypt.

    Modernity, the Modern State and internationalism are the antithesis of Judaism and have been lethal for the Children of Israel. They ought to be anathema to Jews and yet internationalist slogans and assumptions continue to exert a strange and dangerous hold for the descendants of Jacob. One major reason for this tragic misperception was that the Enlightenment brought the promise, and to a limited extent (more illusory than real) the fact of emancipation from centuries of systematic gentile persecution. It also promised to remove the weight of Jewish moral and social traditions. That some of the latter had distorted Torah and made it seem joyless, irrational or petty only whetted the appetite of Jews for the new light, a cold glare that soon deformed all upon which it shone. Like most people, Jews are readily corrupted by the exaltation of human reason, its appeal to universal justice and the supposedly exalted passions that follow in its wake. Was this after all not the vision of Abraham, Moshe, Isaiah and the other prophets, as revealed by the LORD?

    It was not, nor is it now. Deification of the intellect is the original sin and like it, leads promptly to the dominion of the passions and the subordination of reason into their slave and pander. The French Revolution had scarcely begun when it devolved into terror, orgies of mass murder and sexual transgression that prefigured the 20th century. This is what happens when God and Godliness is removed from joy. It was because of this deadly bargain that the leader of Russian Jewry in 1812 directed his people to remain loyal to and pray for the Czar, despite the centuries of brutal and official persecution that was the lot of Russian Jewry. For all his promises of liberation and re-establishing Israel (promises unfulfilled) the Torah masters of that day saw the Revolution and Napoleon for what they were, forces of atheism and disorder that not only negated Judaism but that threatened new and unprecedented dangers for Jews. The 20th century confirmed their vision as the legacy of the French Revolution birthed militantly secular centralized states (1918 and 1933) that made themselves into gods, tyrannizing in the name of "the people" and specializing in the murder of Jews.

    Woodrow Wilson won re-election in 1916 by promising to keep America out of WW I. Within a month of his inauguration, he broke his pledge. Wilson was driven by another secularized corruption of Isaiah's prophecy, an internationalist vision of peace dictated and policed by the great powers in the name of "self-determination," a high-sounding phrase as alluring as the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Careful listeners could have detected the appeal to radical autonomy at the core of this modern self-worship. Every individual, every town and mini-state would decide for itself who would rule. Law would become lawlessness and in the name of the autonomous self, the State would dominate. Borders and patterns of authority worked out over hundreds or thousands of years would be re-designed by the new masters of creation. Thus ensued the Treaty of Versailles and its "peace to end all peace" as historian David Fromkin called it.

    British and French imperial maneuvering, complicated by the half-hearted moral preaching of American politicians lit the fuse for World War II. For Jews, the lessons of Versailles about the hubris of secular internationalism were even more immediate. When the empire of the Ottoman Turks was carved up by the victorious powers, the tireless work of Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky and the supportive idealism of numerous British officers led Britain to secure a League of Nations Mandate over Palestine to "create a National Home for the Jewish people." It soon became apparent that the main intent of the British Foreign Ministry in taking the Mandate was "to biff the French out of Syria" as one diplomat said and to link the new British protectorate of "Iraq" (another artificial state with no historical substance) to the Mediterranean. Within a year of formally receiving the Mandate in 1921, Winston Churchill let T.E. Lawrence and others persuade him to sever Trans-Jordan from Palestine as a temporary "administrative measure." The real intent was clear when Jews were forbidden to own land or settle there. Even before the pitiless and treacherous "white paper" of 1939 restricting Jewish immigration to 15,000/year (if the Arabs agreed), the British suspended aliyah a dozen times and actively fomented Arab attacks on Jews, particularly in 1929 and 1936-8. At the same time the global empire of that day forbade the Jews to possess arms for their own defense, an invitation to others to murder Jews that was elaborated by the nations from 1948-67, the first twenty years of the reborn state's life.

    This treachery was not unique to the British. As Boris Shusteff recently noted, in March 1938, Franklin Roosevelt convened an international conference at Evian at which thirty-three nations decided that none of them would take Jewish refugees from the looming Nazi threat. The British response was to close off Palestine, despite their duty to "facilitate Jewish emigration...and settlement of the Land." In 1942, the world watched for months while the ship "St. Louis," carrying nearly 1000 refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe sailed up the East Coast of America pleading for the right to land. Roosevelt's government refused and the ship eventually returned to Hamburg. The refugees went to horrible deaths.

    Was there or will there be justice from the powers, from the "coasts and islands" and "great mountains" of the world? Late in 1941, British cryptographers cracked the German wireless codes and from then on, the British and American governments knew the numbers and fact of genocide against the Jews. While the passengers on the St. Louis went to their fate, the leaders of the major Jewish organizations in America placed their fearful hopes in the righteousness of the leader of the international coalition. They saved their bile for the brave Jews who urged an assertive approach. During the last two and a half years of the war, American and England ruled the skies over Europe. Day and night they bombed cities and factories and airfields ringed with lethal anti-aircraft weapons that took a heavy toll of airmen. They even sent squadrons as far as the Ploesti Oil refineries in Rumania. Yet they never bombed the undefended railroad tracks leading to the death camps of whose operations they knew. To leave absolutely no doubt that the Jews were not intended to be part of their new world order, after they won the war, the British, with American acquiescence, interned the survivors in camps rather than let them go to "Palestine." Thousands died in misery while the level of Arab violence and British oppression of the Jews in the Land intensified.

    Yet many Jews continued to be entranced by the cold light of internationalism, including its Marxist-Leninist variety. They poured energy and hope into the United Nations that would serve them in place of Zion as a source of teaching and moral example. After all, the internationalist project seemed to justify itself at the Nuremberg Trials. Hollywood even made a film, the imprimatur of what serves for official history. But despite the just satisfaction of seeing some Nazis hanged, the Trials were worse than nothing. They provided an illusion of recompense for the millions of victims and gave to the presiding powers a fund of (self) righteousness they did not merit. Having condemned six million Jews at Evian (and encouraged Hitler's regime to launch a war that would kill millions of others, too), the powers preened themselves at Nuremberg (even as their governments were absorbing thousands of Nazis and helping thousands of others escape to the Western Hemisphere). More dangerously for the future, they established the principle that a self-selected group of powers would indict, judge, sentence and execute sentence on other sovereign powers less powerful than they were.

    Having been murdered by the millions during the war, Jews in their new state were to be among the first and most consistent targets of this new internationalism. Many Jews still revere the United Nations for having recognized Israel in 1948, awarding it, -- as if it was their right to give or withhold -- a tiny, indefensible territory. It was like hanging a sign on the Jews that said, "here they are, kill them." When by the grace of Hashem and their own faith and courage Israel survived, the nations turned a cold shoulder. After each of Israel's subsequent victories in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982, the nations, not least the false friend, Laban-America, exerted intense pressure through their diplomatic and media channels to un-man and reverse Israel's progress toward its true borders.

    The snare of internationalism now is closing around Israel's neck. The failure to immediately annex all of Judea and Samaria in 1967 and to clear the Temple Mount of foreign domination and religious imperialism was compounded at Camp David, Madrid, Oslo and Wye River, the list denoting the legacy of undying gentile hatred and fear of Israel and its promise. Despite this animus, many Jews (not least in America) remain enamored of international diplomacy, the pretensions to justice and peace of international law and the raw force that imposes its dictates. As ought to be abundantly clear in Kosovo, international law is a faux-moral fig leaf for the great powers. They impose it when it suits their purposes and abrogate it with impunity when they wish. Underscoring the danger, on April 16, one of Arafat's advisors, Ahmed Rahman announced that "the war in Yugoslavia is a new development in international relations by which the international community uses force to impose its agreements." He added, "we [the PA] will ask the international community to intervene to end the Israeli occupation and expel the settlers." The penultimate warning for Israel was the March 30 declaration by the European Union (its NATO branch now bombing the Serbs as an admonitory lesson to Jews) that Israel is not sovereign in Jerusalem. (This also is the official position of the U.S. State Department, as Shoshana Walker has discovered in the omission of Israel from the passports of her children, born in Jerusalem). Acting with their long time Arab allies, the Europeans have served notice that they expect Israel to expedite a Palestinian State in Judea. Mach schnell, Juden! Juden aus!

    International law imposed by a culture sick with relativism and self-loathing is lawlessness and gangsterism. No wonder that, like the British Foreign Office before it, it allies itself with the most violent and aggressive elements in the Islamic world and with the brutal despots of China. The century had to end this way, since the moral pretensions of the New World order are an apelike parody of Israel's obligation to illuminate the world with the transcendent truths of Torah. To do this, Israel must secure its boundaries and drive out trespassers and invaders who contest Jewish sovereignty in the Land. This process, as Hashem instructed, also includes gathering in Jerusalem for every pilgrim feast. "I will broaden your boundaries when you go up before Me to celebrate my pilgrim feasts."

    If Israel continues to look to the Babel Tower of Nations and to the Goliath among them it will become a UN protectorate and branch of the Vatican. The alternative as David told the Goliath of his day unites peace with glory in the Eternity and Victory of Israel. This imperative is not across the sea for Jews to ask, "who can cross the sea to do it for us?" Rather the matter is very near to us, in our hearts and in our mouths to perform it and dwell upon the Land that the LORD swore to our forefathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob, to give them, and us.


    Eugene Narrett, PhD teaches writing and Literature at Boston University.



    By Dr. Irving Kett

    Assimilation has dominated supposedly enlightened Jewish circles since the first wave of emancipation on the heels of the French Revolution in 1791. Many Jews looked upon this development, not as a belated act of justice toward a long persecuted nation, but rather as a munificence bestowed upon them by the ruling Christian nations in exchange for the destruction of their national identity. These Jews seized the opportunity to become members of modern society, despite the fierce hatred that they were aware still existed towards them. They willingly bartered away their heritage so that they might appear to be, at least in their own eyes, like the ruling majority in whose midst they resided. These non-Jewish Jews invariably threw themselves into the vortex of national life and frequently came to dominate the so-called "liberal" spectrum of political thought in which milieu they felt somewhat more acceptable.

    Germans, Frenchmen, and others resented the "pollution" of what they deemed to be an insidious subversion of their race and culture by alien elements. Jews wishing to assimilate even became involved in an array of fiercely conflicting nationalities within the same territorial arena as was the case in pre-World War I Bohemia. The result was an intensified hatred of Jews on the part of both the Czechs and the Germans living in what is now the Czech Republic.

    The distinguished Jewish scholar, Solomon Schechter, in 1901 wrote about "the ancient chosen people of G-d going about begging for a nationality and clamoring everywhere 'We are you!'" By the middle of the 19th Century the traditional religious anti-Semitism became the modern and more deadly anti-Semitism based not upon belief but upon race. This was the response of Western, Christian society to the assimilation and widespread conversion of Jews which was at the same time both encouraged and bitterly resented.

    The disappointment at these developments in Western, Christian societies and the reaction that Jewish assimilation had provoked did not deter the assimilationists from their beliefs. It is interesting to note that in Eastern Europe, where the majority of Jews remained loyal to their traditions, anti-Semitism never quite developed the murderous philosophical dimensions of the more enlightened countries of Central and Western Europe that almost a hundred years before Hitler heard voices calling for the mass extermination of all Jews. Yet even after the Holocaust and the eventual Jewish disillusionment with the Bolshevik usurpation of power in Russia, the worldwide phenomenon of Jewish assimilation and devotion to what is described as liberalism proceeds at a pace never before witnessed in the 2000 years of dispersion.

    One may ask what is wrong with becoming an assimilated, liberal Jew? Is there anything objectionable about him as a human being? For the answer I turned to the Nobel Laureate of Jewish literature, Isaac Bershevis Singer. In a book entitled, "Conversations with I. B. Singer on Jewish Life", by Richard Burgin that was published by Doubleday in 1985, I. B. Singer answered the question in the following manner:

  • "In one sense he is the salt of humanity with his tremendous energy and ambition. But being salt, he gives humanity high blood pressure. He's neither a real Jew or a real Gentile. He has no roots in any group. He digs all the time in other people's soil, but he never reaches any roots. He tries consciously and subconsciously to wipe out the individuality of nations and cultures."
  • The Ideology of the Self-Hating Jews

    We shall now proceed to identify the particular characteristics of the type of Jew to whom we refer. He identifies unconditionally with the majority culture in which he resides, to the point of denying his own heritage and substitutes the current politically correct ideas of what constitutes liberal values for a new definition of Judaism. If we may coin a word that most accurately identifies the life philosophy of such an individual it is "Jewmanitarianism." This distinguishing quality has for the past two hundred years increasingly infected not only large numbers of Jews in the Diaspora countries but also in Israel. In the latter it has resulted in the loss of the will for national survival and is the major contributing factor that places Jewish existence in jeopardy today. How else can one explain a nation that was threatened with physical annihilation by an overwhelming military force, miraculously succeeds in defeating the aggressors, and then proceeds to sue for peace?

    When the following concepts are encountered, one has every reason to suspect an assimilated, liberal, non-Jewish Jew:

    1. Readiness to become involved in the aspirations of every racial, ethnic, religious, behavioral, or national group on the face of the Earth except for one, the Jews. Jewish concerns have always held the lowest possible priority for the assimilated, liberal Jew who in essence does not really believe that Jews as a people even have a right to exist. That there are Jews with a diametrically different viewpoint and especially ones who are threatened or persecuted is an embarrassment to them. They can sympathize with every group's aspirations but their own. Jews who are proud of their heritage, concerned with Israel, and possess a Zionist outlook are condemned as being narrow minded and ethnocentric. While possibly not outright deniers of the Holocaust, the self-hating Jewish leftists prefer to obliterate the memory of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis. The tenets of their insidious religion precludes any sustained manifestation of sympathy for those who suffered in history's most horrendous paradigm of human cruelty simply because the victims happen to have been Jews. Their concerns and tears are reserved only for misfortunes of the world's Hottentots.

    2. A book by Ben Stein entitled, "A View From Sunset Boulevard" explains the attitude of many, perhaps a large majority, of the Jews in the entertainment industry. He shows that overwhelmingly these non-Jewish Jews gravitate toward the identifiable political left. They are overwhelmingly against patriotism, hostile to the U.S. military establishment, anti-family, atheistic, anti-flag, and anti-police. In other words they are opposed to all elements that stand for stability in society. In their sick minds the United States along with Israel represent the greatest evils in the world. Of course within the human society, white males constitute the worst element. On the other hand all the nations and political forces that challenge them, even the cruelest and most oppressive, are good. The ones whom they fanatically support are the rootless, the homosexuals, "the people of color," the criminal elements, and the single persons who shun all responsibility to society. They are the strongest advocates of affirmative action, and of racial, ethnic and sexual orientation quotas, irrespective of an individual's capabilities or training. They are for the rights of groups as against the rights of individuals. Emphasis upon the latter concept has long been the historic position of true liberalism. These attitudes emanate from their total alienation and rejection of their own heritage and are contrary to constructive human impulses inherent in a democratic society. They unfortunately represent what the brutal, anti-Semitic Russian dictator, Josef Stalin, quite accurately denounced as "Jewish cosmopolitanism."

    3. In our day Israel has become the touchstone of attitudes toward the Jewish People. Instead of changing the fate of the Jews, Zionism and Israel now embodies the fate of the Jews. By the same token anti-Zionism has become the main and most relevant form of anti-Semitism and concomitantly of Jewish self-hatred. A dangerous form of the latter disease is referred to as "post-Zionism." The exact date and origin of this term is possibly in doubt but its obvious focus of infection are the ivory towers of the Israeli academic world. From that source it has proceeded to infect the media and the consciousness of the so-called remaining intellectual elite. After over thirty years of such subversion it has come to pose a serious threat to the survival of Israel and, by extension, the continuity of the Jewish People. What these people want is the termination of Israel as a Jewish State and its replacement with a bi-national country, freed of all vestiges of Jewish and Zionist content, in which Jews may live as a minority. These post-Zionist non-Jewish Jews abhor the feeling of being Jewish. Yet they are successfully using their credentials as Jews, as Israelis, and supposedly as Zionists, to spread their venom in the Western World, and particularly in the upper echelons of United States universities.

    The agenda for Israel of the post-Zionists duplicates the Arab agenda aimed at Israel's destruction. They are for repeal of the law of return; they favor changing the Zionist national anthem, Hatikvah, so as to include the Arabs; they want to modify Israel's flag so as to eliminate its identification with Zionism; they propose an Arab state in the historic homeland of the Jewish People; and they blatantly state that the Oslo Agreement of 1993 was not sufficiently generous to the Arabs.

    Moshe Zimmerman who is a professor at the Hebrew University compared Jewish children in Hebron to "Hitler Jugend." The late Yeshayahu Leibowitz, also an acclaimed professor at the Hebrew University, had the temerity to compare the Israel Defense Forces to the Nazi SS. Another great "intellectual," the sculptor, Yigal Tumarkin, once blithely remarked to the effect that when he sees haredi families he can sympathize with what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Another Hebrew University professor, Ehud Sprinzak, has even had the audacity to find justification for the Arab terrorists who have massacred Jews. The concentration of other post-Zionists who are professors at the Hebrew University such as, Zeev Sternhell, Uri Avnery, Avishai Margalit, and Menachem Brinker causes one to wonder about that institution which at one time was the pride of the Zionist world and is probably still considered the most prestigious university in Israel.

    Self-Inflicted Painless Holocaust of Diaspora Jewry

    4. So much for the Jews of Israel. Let us turn our attention now to the assimilated, liberal Diaspora Jews who can readily be identified from the following list of political orientations:

  • a. With regards to Israel they identify completely with the post-Zionist ideology. These non-Jewish Jews in the United States even set up their own fund raising arms such as the New Israel Fund which in effect encourages anti-Israel Arab activities in Israel.

    b. The South African Nobel laureate for literature, Nadine Gordimer, years ago joined the African National Congress in spite of its justification for violence, approval of communism, and deep seated enmity towards Israel. Most South African Jews were either Zionists or Communists. Ms. Gordimer fell comfortably into the latter category. Yet she enjoys high moral credibility among assimilated liberal Jews even in Israel because of her demonstrated "idealism."

    c. An article entitled, "The Role of the Jews in the Russian Revolutionary Movement" by Leonard Schapiro appeared in the SLAVONIC and EAST EUROPEAN REVIEW IN 1961. In Russia in the 1870s a pre-Marxist revolutionary movement called the Narodniks arose which attracted many Jews who had severed their Jewish identity. Many of the Narodniks were violently anti-Semitic. This minor inconvenience, however, did not deter the Jews in that populist Russian movement because they would not risk alienating the anti-Semitic peasants. Jewish leaders, therefore, even participated in bloody pogroms out of concern to maintain their revolutionary solidarity with the peasants. Edmund Silberner wrote an article in 1949 for the publication HISTORICA JUDAICA, entitled, "Was Marx an Anti-Semite?" Silberner points out that Karl Marx had many racial phobias, especially against Slavs and Negroes but that none were as deeply rooted in his heart and mind as his aversion to Jews. It must be recalled that Marx's maternal and paternal grandfathers were both revered Orthodox rabbis. In a letter to his lifelong friend, Frederich Engels, Marx refers to a former Jewish admirer of his, Ferdinand Lassalle, as "the Jewish nigger." More than a century ago, the great political philosopher and first president of Czechoslovakia, Thomas G. Masaryk, drew attention to "the anti-Semitism of Marx." Yet Marx's contempt for Jews in no way deterred large numbers of self-hating Jews from being his slavish worshipers. For that matter the generally anti-Semitic tradition of modern socialism deterred few non-Jewish Jews from becoming ardent adherents.

    d. Early Jewish reformers in Western and Central Europe blamed anti-Semitism on the dress and behavior of traditional Jews; Jewish Marxists blamed anti-Semitism on Jewish middlemen and capitalists; assimilationists of all stripes still blame anti-Semitism on Jewish ethnocentricity and nationalism (Zionism). In other words the liberal, assimilated followers of the Enlightenment continue to place the blame for the persecution of Jews not upon the haters but rather upon the hapless victims.

    e. Who are some of the leading personalities and organizations of the liberal, assimilated Jews in the United States? Michael Lerner and Arthur Woodstock of the magazine TIKKUN; Arthur Waskow and the Reconstructionist Movement; Leonard Fein of MOMENT magazine; the Religious Action Center along with most of the rabbis of the Reform Movement. In whatever still remains of the radical left, be they Marxists, Maoists, Trotskyites, etc., liberal, assimilated Jews are very well represented. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the non-Jewish Jews searched and found still another cause, environmentalism. Needless to state that the latter are over represented among those who constitute the most fanatic of the environmental whackos.

    f. That most Jews in the United States are liberal and assimilated is shown by their voting pattern. About 80% of Jews vote consistently for Democratic candidates even when their Republican opponents have shown themselves to be friends of Israel and of Jews as was the case of President Ronald Reagan. Only Blacks have a comparable voting record despite the widespread anti-Semitism that is known to exist among them. Now the non-Jewish Jews may on occasion feel a slight twinge of discomfort about the avowed anti-Semitism of Black leaders such as Farrakhan, Reverend Sharpton, Black Studies professors such as Leonard Jeffries of the State University in New York City. But then the non-Jewish Jews always point out that Jews are racists anyway since many Jews still continue to oppose racial preferences, affirmative action, and busing to achieve school racial integration.

    g. Then let us consider inter-faith relations. That is where assimilated, liberal Jews really shine. When inter-faith week is observed, they are in their glory even though they are supinely ignorant of their own religious faith, Judaism. During that one week they feel that they are really understood and accepted by the Gentile world and what could be more flattering than that to a non-Jewish Jew? One rarely finds traditional Jews involved in such charades. If people harbor hostility to Jews for 51 weeks of the years, they should at least have the decency to be anti-Semitic for the entire year.

    h. In the United States there are no more consistent supporters of public education than assimilated, liberal Jews. Rarely, however, do they enroll their children in the public school system. One of the luminaries of the radical left in the United States for almost the past half century is another non-Jewish Jew, Grace Paley. The latter in the strongest terms castigates leftists who send their own children to trendy private schools instead of to public schools. They have consistently supported the busing of children to achieve "racial integration." How else are Black children going learn the fine bourgeois values of the non-Jewish Jews? The shame of it is that many of the parents of the poor white children who are suffering from these convoluted social engineering schemes are accused of being racists because they resent their children being manipulated like hapless pawns. Since non-Jewish Jews generally possess a high income level, they can enjoy the luxury of also being vociferously and hypocritically against school voucher proposals since that would benefit only the lower classes who must now of economic necessity send their children to the public school system.

  • The Jewish Death Wish of the Non-Jewish Jews

    In April 1936 a serious Arab revolt broke out in Palestine during which hundreds of Jews were killed. It was suppressed during the time of the Peel Commission investigation in 1937-1938 but was not finally brought under control by the British Army until the outbreak of World War II in September 1939. Other outbreaks of widespread Arab violence against a Jewish presence in Palestine were a recurrent feature since the beginning of Zionist settlement. Large numbers of Jewish lives were lost in these attacks. In 1929, for example, 133 Jews were killed, including 67 in Hebron, where many young students were stabbed to death by local Arabs. Of these attacks, Christopher Sykes, a British journalist who at best was ambivalent about Zionism wrote "that it is difficult to believe that this sudden outbreak of savagery was unplanned." None, however, was as deadly and as widespread as the one instigated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, in 1936.

    It may be interesting to note how the seeds of trouble amongst the intellectual elite in Zion even preceded the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. In an address delivered to a gathering on May Day 1936, the distinguished Labor Zionist leader, Berl Katznelson, in despair, posed the question, "Is there another people on the earth whose sons are so emotionally and mentally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape and robbery committed by their enemies fills their hearts with admiration and awe? As long as a Jewish child can come to the Land of Israel and here catch the virus of self-hatred, let not our conscience be still." Unfortunately, after 1967 what Berl Katznelson diagnosed as a sick aberration of his own son became the normal condition for a large segment of Israeli intellectuals. The self appointed defenders of Jewish morality, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, came to the conclusion that in being victorious in a defensive war, which if lost would have meant a second Jewish Holocaust within twenty five years, Israel had bartered its soul for a piece of land. The assimilated, liberal Jews in Israel and the world over, together with their Arab allies, seized upon this "progressive" viewpoint to undermine the existence of Israel and the Jewish People. In conclusion, I will relate two stories about the danger posed by non-Jewish Jews to the cause of Jewish survival and how it has been foreseen and feared even by knowledgeable Jewish atheists.

    This is a story about a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz on a Yom Kippur Day. The Hashomer Hatzair movement had as the backbone of its ideology a Zionist-Marxist orientation. As late as the 1950s, the movement still clung to its pro-Stalinist attitudes. Two elderly kibbutzniks were sitting on a bench. They observed two youngsters from the kibbutz passing by and eating ice cream. "What a shame," one of the elderly men observed, "look at them eating on Yom Kippur." "Well, what is wrong with that," answered his elderly friend, "don't we eat today?" "Of course we do," answered the other, "but at least we know why, because it is Yom Kippur. They are eating only because they are hungry."

    Many years ago I read a story about Pinchas Sapir, Israel's first Finance Minister, and Josef Burg who was a veteran religious Zionist and a long-time member of the Knesset from the Mizrachi Party. Sapir reminded Burg how often the latter chided him about his indifference to Jewish tradition and concern for the Jewish future. Sapir said to Burg, "You complain that people like me of my generation are not sufficiently observant Jews. However, we all grew up in an intensely Jewish environment and we all possess a strong national identity. Wait until our children and grandchildren take over the reins of power in Israel. Then not only will you have something to really lament about but so will I."

    There are those who insist upon taking an optimistic view of the Jewish future as did Charles E. Silverman, the author of "A Certain People", that was published in 1985. Before accepting Mr. Silverman's fatuous thesis, it would do well to remember that two thousand years ago the number of Jews in the world was estimated at ten million. We, the Jews of today, are part of that tiny remnant who have survived the Jewish ordeal. Had the remainder not disappeared from the Jewish scene, there would now be several hundred million Jews on the Earth. Instead our present small numbers and ever shrinking demography points up our vulnerability for survival.

    We now live in the age that Pinchas Sapir foresaw and feared. Many secular Israeli non-Jewish Jews today are in reality Hebrew speaking Gentiles of Jewish lineage with no patriotism for their country, no feeling for the Land of Israel, and no concern for the Jewish People. Unfortunately, the future of Israel and of the Jewish People is now largely in the hands of these assimilated, liberal non-Jewish Jews. We are witnessing the fruits of their labor in the vanishing Jewish communities in the United States and elsewhere as well as a demoralized Jewish community in Israel whose defensive capabilities, at a time of national peril, will have long been eroded by years of subversion and appeasement.


    Dr. Irving Kett is a Colonel, U.S. Army Retired and a professor of Civil Engineering at California State University.




    "This is a blockbuster that should be read by every Jewish leader, diplomat or anyone who really wants to understand the Arabs"....Bernard J. Shapiro


    By Yossef Bodansky

    Yossef Bodansky is the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA), and is also the Director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare of the U.S. House of Representatives. As well he is a Special Consultant on International Terrorism for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. He is also a Senior Editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications. He is the author of six previous books (Target America, Terror, Crisis in Korea, Offensive in the Balkans, Some Call It Peace and Arafat's "Peace Process"), as well as several book chapters, entries for the International Military and Defense Encyclopedia, and numerous articles in several periodicals, including Global Affairs, Jane's Defense Weekly, Defense & Foreign Affairs: Strategic Policy, and Business Week. [The opinions expressed in this book are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, U.S. Congress, or any other branch of the U.S. Government.]


    Copyright (c)April 1999 - Yossef Bodansky - Price per copy: $12.00 paper [postage and handling $2.00]

    is published by

    In Israel: The Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR)
    P.O.B. Shaarei Tikva 44810 Israel
    Tel.: 972-3-906-3920 * Fax: 972-3-906-3905 * E-mail: acpr@inter.net.ilInternet Website (URL): http://www.acpr.org.il


    In the USA: The Freeman Center for Strategic StudiesP.O.B. 35661
    Houston, Texas 77235-5661
    Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail:
    Internet Website (URL): http://www.freeman.org [or] http://www.freeman.org


    (Freeman Center price in parenthesis, postage & handling (U.S. only) $2 first book + $1 each additional book).

    THE MURDER OF YITZHAK RABIN by Barry Chamish ...Feral House... $12.95

    THE KORAN AND THE KAFIR (Islam and the Infidel) by A. Ghosh $7.95

    PEACE NOW: Blueprint For National Suicide By Dan Nimrod, 1984, Dawn Publishers $10.00

    WHY BE JEWISH....Rabbi Meir Kahane $8.95

    EYE ON THE MEDIA by David Bar-Illan $14.95

    FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine By Joan Peters.

    Harper & Row (pa) $16.95 (12.95)

    ISLAM, THE ARAB NATIONAL MOVEMENT... Anwar Shaikh...The Principality Pub. $7.95

    WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE..Ed Alexander ($10)


    THE WRATH OF ALLAH...Robert E. Burns $12.95 ($10)

    The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely

    on private contributions which are fully tax deductible.


    VISIT THE FREEMAN WEB SITE: http://www.freeman.org



    Click here to subscribe, and here to see the list archives.


    "The primary purpose of the Freeman Center is to improve Israel's ability to survive in a hostile world. This will be accomplished through research into the military and strategic issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict and the dissemination of that information to the community. Essential to Israel's survival, is the preservation of its present secure borders including Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and the Golan Heights. We will seek to improve Israel's image in this country as well as counteract Arab propaganda in the community and on college campuses. In pursuit of these goals we intend to maximize solidarity with Israel among the community and combat media bias. We will also work to strengthen Jewish communities in the Diaspora and help ensure their survival."


    THE MACCABEAN is totally independent. It may be a voice crying in the wilderness, but it will never be silent. Where the safety and security of Israel are concerned, we will bring you the truth no matter how harsh the reality. With Freeman Center membership you receive THE MACCABEAN free each month. If you are concerned with the threats to Israel's survival and wish to play a role in defense of Eretz Yisrael Hashlama (The Land of Israel in its present defensible borders) please join with us at the Freeman Center. Through our publications, speakers and other educational activities we will make you better informed and more effective in the battles ahead.........Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor




    _______I would like to join the Freeman Center ($65 for U.S.A. $85 overseas) includes subscription to THE MACCABEAN.

    _______I would like to subscribe to the THE MACCABEAN ($45 per yr. USA, $50 overseas)

    Enclosed is my check to the Freeman Center for $________a tax deductible contribution

    Mail to: The Freeman Center, P.O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661