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"





DISORDER IN THE WORLD...An editorial...Bernard J. Shapiro
ISRAEL'S SACRED PLACES....An editorial....Bernard J. Shapiro

POLL: US (The People)-Israel Ties Stronger than Ever....Dan Izenberg
THREE TYPES OF ENEMIES....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
OSLO'S GIFT OF "PEACE": The Destruction of Israel's Security....Christopher Barder

Book Reviev....Dr. Mordechai Nisan


Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016

E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2001 Bernard J. Shapiro

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




Or Comparative Religion 101

By Bernard J. Shapiro

It would be instructive for many of you to have taken the comparative religion course I took from Dagobert D. Runes at UC Berkeley in 1962. He later published his work in a book called DESPOTISM: A Pictorial History of Tyranny, published by Philosophical Library, 1963, Library of Congress Catalog Card No. 62-22269 (pre-dates the introduction of ISBN).

In the course he explained that Jews and Arabs were meant to fight, Christian's meant to turn the other cheek, and Hindus to be peaceful and loving. In reality religions may be interpreted differently by their followers. For example:

1. Arabs continue to be brutal, aggressive and seek world domination under their prophet Muhammad.

2. Following the defeat of Bar Kochba's revolt, many Jews were minorities in other lands. They began to turn the other cheek like Christians until the rise of Zionism. [Historical note: It took four years and one half of all the Roman Legions to defeat Bar Kochba, a minor Judean warrior, without full support of his own people, in a tiny desert land. The effort expended defeating Bar Kokba was one of the major factors causing the fall of the Roman Empire.]

3. Hindus stayed loving and peaceful until the arrival of the British, who taught them war. Moslems began to advance into the Indian sub-continent, raping, pillaging and murdering the innocent Hindus long before the arrival of the British. Many nationalist Hindus resent the British. But the British were interested in plunder and domination BUT NOT MURDER. The British, in fact saved India from total Islamic control. They did try forced conversion to Christianity but failed. Islam had a more effective method, tried by Catholics in Spain. Convert or die.

4. The Christians (no reflection intended toward GOOD Christians of today. Remember this is history and speaks in broad terms), while claiming to be peaceful, have been histories greatest mass murderers. They have greatly surpassed Islam in sheer numbers. For examples:

a. The Native Americans were virtually ethnically cleansed (read exterminated) from the North American continent.

b. Runes estimates that the Jewish population of Rome at the time of the empire's conversion to Christianity was 33%. Jews throughout the ancient world were a substantial portion of the world's population. He estimated under normal demographics the Jews would have numbered 1 billion people by the early 1960's. But Jews faced different demographic threats than other nations. In the name of Christ (primarily by Catholics), they were murdered, raped, forcibly converted, expelled, and looted. Eventually the very efficient and techno minded Germanic Lutherans nearly exterminated the entire Jewish population. They did kill one third of the world's Jews as many claim, BUT 90% within their military grasp from France to Russia. Islam was in awe of German efficiency in killing Jews and beseeched Hitler to bring his 'solution to the Jewish problem' to the Middle East. Fortunately for my sake he did not win WWII but he lost (as did the Jewish people). Had he won I would not be alive to write this message to you.

That my friend is Comparative Religion 101, it should have taken you no more than 15 minutes to read and understand it. It took the Jewish people 2000 years. They apparently were very slow learners.



An Editorial


Why The Arab Thrust To Seize Control of Them

By Bernard J. Shapiro

When the late Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin, and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres signed the Oslo Accords on the White House lawn (September 1993), they initiated a process whereby Israel would lose control of its Sacred Places and its Holy Land. Even before Oslo, Moshe Dayan had surrendered the most sacred of Jewish Holy Places, the Temple Mount, to the Arabs. There is much more involved here than politics as ususal. I believe that there is something terrible dangerous about the removal of the Jews from their Sacred Places.

All over the world, from Stonehenge in England to the great temples of India, one finds Holy Places with great mystical power for the people who inhabit those lands. Some shrines of the East draw believers from across the globe. The power of these places can not be explained scientifically. One only needs to step onto Mount Abu in India to feel the presence of great mystical forces. And then there is Banares, the Hindu's Holy City of Light casting a warm glow over the sacred Ganges river.

Islam arose in the 7th century on the foundation of a pagan (Meccan) religion that worshiped a large black stone, known as the Kaaba. Muhammad learned the rudiments of Judaism from the many Jews living in Arabia. He created the Islamic religion by re-writing the Jewish Holy Scriptures (calling it the Koran) and fusing it with the local pagan customs. One pagan concept became horribly significant as Islam spread both east and west across the world. The reverence for the Kaaba and the belief that Arab power derived from it became a brutal principle in the conquest of other peoples. As Islam was spread by the sword, the Sacred Places of conquered peoples were destroyed and occupied.

It became a standard practice to destroy an Indian, Persian, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Jewish or Christian temple and build a mosque on its ruins. This was always interpreted by historians as a kind of one upmanship. A way to demonstrate the superiority of Islam and humiliate the defeated. Koenraad Elst in his recent book NEGATIONISM IN INDIA writes: "In all the lands it conquered, Islam has replaced indigenous places of worship with mosques. In Iran, there are no ancient Zoroastrians or Manichean shrines left. In Central Asia, there are no Buddhist temples left. Similarly, in India (except the far South where Islam penetrated rather late) there are practically no Hindu temples that have survived the Muslim period (over 10,000 destroyed). But there are thousands of mosques built on the foundations of Hindu temples (for example, the Ayodhya temple)." In my opinion, this Islamic behavior was more than an exhibition of cruel superiority. It was based on the pagan belief that they would acquire the power of the defeated peoples by absorbing their Holy Places and making them theirs.

Let's see how these forces play out in the Arab war of extermination against the Jewish people (incorrectly called the Arab-Israeli Conflict). After Israel was conquered by the Arabs armies, the Temple Mount was used to build the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the Rock) and the Al Aska Mosque. While Jerusalem is not mentioned even once in the Koran, modern Arabs make great pretense by claiming it as one of their holy sites. This, of course is nonsense.

The Arab claim that each and every Jewish Holy Place is rightfully theirs has become quite common and accepted by the western media. First Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, then Hebron and the Cave of the Patriarchs, and on to the Tomb of Joseph (Nablus), Ramat Rachel and more.

The Western Wall, the last remaining remnant of Solomon's Temple and sacred to Jews for over 2000 years, had been in Jordanian controlled Jerusalem since 1949. The Jordanians, acting with malice aforethought, had denied Jews access to their sacred Holy Place. I visited the Wall for the first time in 1967. When I placed my hands on this magnificent relic of our forefathers, I felt a surge of light and energy the likes of which I had never known. In what had to have been but the flash of a second, I felt at one with Jews from all periods of history. At the Passover seder we are told to thank G-d for delivering us from Egypt as though we ourselves had been brought out of bondage. At that moment in Jerusalem, this seder message was very real for me.

In an instant I saw the continuity of Jewish history and its unbreakable connection with Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel). I understood how modern Israel is the beginning of the Third Temple Period and the spiritual heir to Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, the Maccabees and Bar Kokhba. I frequently write about the security reasons for incorporating Judea, Samaria, and Gaza into the body of Israel. There is another side to this issue and that is the spiritual-religious side. The truth, which many find inconvenient, is that the Land of Israel was promised by G-d to Abraham and his seed in perpetuity. The Land of Israel is not speculative real estate to be bartered away for some high sounding (false) promises of peace. The hills and valleys of Judea and Samaria contain the collective memory of the Jewish people. It was here that the Israelites first entered the Holy Land. And it was here they fought the battles, built the towns, elected their kings and were preached to by their prophets and judges. And it was on this soil that they wrote the Holy Scriptures we call our Bible.

In my blinding flash of insight at the Wall, I also understood that Israel on its own soil was more powerful than the sum of its weapons and men. Jews who had wandered the earth powerless for two millenniums attained great power when re-united with the soil of Israel.

What about the Arabs? They are destroying the Jewish people by taking over their Sacred Land. There is something very real and awe inspiring about the Jewish connection to Eretz Yisrael and the Arabs KNOW it and seek to destroy that mystical connection. With profound stupidity and avarice the political Left in Israel is cooperating with this evil project. And worse, some religious Jews and members of the Right are also going along with the dismemberment of Israel. Some say it will save lives to appease the Arabs. Foolishness. The predatory Arabs already smell victory and each new concession makes their lust for Jewish blood grow.

Wouldn't the Arabs object to the removal of the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the rock) and the Al Aqsa mosque from the Temple Mount? Of course they would, but they have no legitimate rights in the area. "There is no reason the sovereign State of Israel, needs to allow this desecration Jewish Holy Places to continue." Today on the Mount, the Arabs are supreme. They are destroying all archaeological remnants of Jewish sites. They are storing weapons in their mosques to kill Jews.

One thing is clear to me: the L-rd has blessed Israel by re-uniting Jerusalem and bringing Judea, Samaria, and Gaza back under its control. It would be a horrendous sin against G-d and common sense for Israel to renounce this inheritance to which it is entitled. Israel holds these lands as a sacred trust for the Jewish people in perpetuity.

It would not only be sinful, but also criminal, to abuse that trust by denying future generations of Jews their Holy Land -- Land of their Fathers; the one tiny spot on planet earth given to them by G-d.




By Avi Davis

The crowd that gathered in Yitzhak Rabin Square in Tel Aviv this week, was smaller than in the past.. While political leaders mounted the stage and delivered their usual encomia to the slain leader, there was a sense that the annual ritual was losing some of its meaning. For years, throughout the Jewish world, communities have remembered Yitzhak Rabin's slaying as a dividing line between peace and war. It should be unsurprising then that since 1995, his commemorative services have come to resemble more campaign rallies for the peace process than dedications to the man himself. This has resulted in a curiously Jewish form of beatification: Yitzhak Rabin as patron saint of peace.

All of which, would have made Rabin sick to his stomach. A man who was both short on ceremony and suspicious of praise, he would have had no patience for the sycophantism that obsesses so many on the left whenever his name is mentioned. He would have been equally flustered by the projection of his policies into the future. It is well known that before his assassination, Rabin had already experienced grave misgivings about Oslo and the logic of the process he had initiated. Said to have described the Oslo Process as "the bastard child I was forced to adopt," Yitzhak Rabin was too smart a military man to ignore the calamity that awaited Israel if his gamble on Yasser Arafat's bona fides failed.

Five years down the line, not only has it proven ill founded, it has left Rabin with an image for bone headedness, not sagacity. Hoodwinked by both Peres and Yossi Beilin into an unjustifiably optimistic vision of peace, Rabin is a man who resembles the farmer who bought the hen , only to discover later that it was a hawk. Today's situation reflects his worst nightmare : Heavily armed Palestinians, who, in many cases, received their weaponry from the Israelis, can now shoot into Jewish homes on the edge of Jerusalem; Jewish holy sites are remorselesly sacked and dismantled; suicide bombers spread carnage in the heart of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. And more telling than all of this, not one iota of evidence exists that the kind of peace contemplated by Oslo has received its acceptance in other parts of the Arab world - where anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are more virulent as at any time in the past.

Rabin's apologists are quick to point out that Oslo was the inevitable consequence of the Israel- Egypt Camp David peace treaty and that the hope that the secular Arafat's relative moderation would be a foil to the extremism of Islamic fundamentalists. How misguided that view looks in retrospect Arafat's moderation was a guise for his open contempt for the peace camp. His many speeches in Arabic over the past seven years revealed the terrorist behind the peace maker, a leader willing to harness the extremism of Islamic clerics for his own political purposes. It is not surprising that Arafat now bestows approval on acts of martyrdom and tacitly supports terror. By counting on Arafat's moderation, Rabin's failed entirely to assess his potential for a relapse into a mode of behavior that at one time won him prestige in the Arab world. Today , Arafat's language and conduct suggest that Israel is facing an enemy as implacably committed to its destruction as at any time in the past. The difference this time is that the enemy is within the gates, not outside them.

It is not very fashionable to take a jaundiced view of Rabin's political career, but in the light of recent events, this is inevitable. Future historians may well look back on Yitzhak Rabin as an Israeli leader who took extreme risks with his country's security by betraying his own well honed instincts and pursuing a policy of appeasement. To posterity, this irony will overshadow Rabin's heroic role in both Israel's founding and in his brilliant (?) military successes. It will be the price the former prime minister and general will have paid for the mistakes of Oslo.


Avi Davis is the Senior Fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for




by Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The Arabists in the U.S. State Department have issued an ultimatum for Israel to cease its war against Terrorism because this defense will (supposedly) enrage Islam and the Arab world. The excuse they presently use is that, in response to the horrific attack by militant Muslims on that infamous 9-11 day in America, we will now fight Global Terrorism and we will enlist the Arab nations to assist.

This was not the first ultimatum issued to Israel by various Administrations and the U.S. State Department so closely connected and allied with oil rich Arab nations - who are not proving up their friendships. These self-serving, business-driven ultimatums only emphasize the fact that Israel has been under constant terror assaults since her birth in 1948 and before from the very same Arab nations who hate America and whose street demonstrators burn American flags.

Granted, for Israel sometimes the terror is at a low level, consisting of stabbings, rocks through car windows, gasoline bombs, etc. Other times Arafat ramped up the Terror, in coordination with other terror groups like Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), all funded by Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi Arabia and others. They reinvigorated the 'Fatwa' (Islamic decree issued by Muslim clerics) of 'Jihad' (Holy War) where they engage in suicide bombings, sniper attacks, drive-by shootings, road side and mortar bombs. Since Oslo these enraged Islamists have murdered over 655 Israelis (including 20 Americans), thousands wounded - some maimed for life. Now Islam can add thousands of more Americans who died in the World Trade Center, Pentagon and the four hijacked planes.

Their Islamic rage has always focused on America who they call the "Great Satan" but, they need America both as oil clients and the source of the high tech weapons they turn against us. We Americans, had our first taste of Terrorism on our soil by the Islamic-driven attack in 1993 against the World Trade Center by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, now serving a life sentence for masterminding the attack that was intended then to kill thousands. Our second attack of war by Terror bombings on our own soil by Muslim extremists now called Islamists was September 11th, now called 911 killed 4,777. And within a week, we were also facing Bio-Terror of a multiple Anthrax attack. Our authorities are warning us that there is definitely more to come.

When Bush and Powell issued a call for an international coalition to fight Global Terrorism, only a few nations actually stepped forward to offer real help. Britain, Israel, Italy and Russia (with a little bribery needed) but, conspicuous of their absence were the Arab nations, particularly Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

As happened during the Gulf War, the Bush Administration Arabists once again ordered Israel side-lined - although the Bush/Baker Administration quietly accepted their help in Intelligence. Then too, the State Department and Bush/Baker/Powell demanded that Israel not strike back at Iraq after Saddam hit Israel with 39 SCUD missiles. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir reluctantly accepted the Bush/Baker/Powell assurances that American aircraft would hunt down and destroy the Iraqi SCUD missile launchers. Israeli Intelligence who had ground teams in Iraq stated publicly that no attempts were being made by American pilots to hit the SCUD missile launchers.

The U.S. State Department under James Baker and Papa Bush's Administration denied these accusations. But, after the war, a report by the American GAO (General Accounting Office) indicated that American pilots were NOT tasked to strike Saddam's missile launchers. We lost some 19 Pennsylvanian Marines by a direct hit from an Iraqi SCUD - which just might have not happened had the Israeli pilots been given the IFF (Identify Friend and Foe) codes so as to avoid hostile encounters with American aircraft.

Then the excuse to keep Israel out of the picture was that the Arab world would be enraged and that threatened the phony coalition of Syria and Egypt, among the other Arab nations. Syria and Egypt lent their names to the Gulf Coalition but did absolutely nothing to assist America in its war with Iraq. This was acceptable to Bush, Baker and the dovish General Colin Powell.

Today Secretary of State Colin Powell is again desperately trying to put together another paper-thin Coalition of Arab nations, most of whom have offered verbal condolences but refuse to take any real military action. Powell and the State Department again threaten Israel to cease her war against the Terrorism. Powell is once again using the transparent excuse that Israel's battle against daily terrorism will enrage Islam and the Arab nations. Thus enraged, they will not join Powell's phantom coalition.

It is a Catch 22 with Colin Powell not only being ignominiously rejected by the so-called moderate Arab nations but, even the terrorist nations reject any show of support. Bush and Powell tried to bribe Syria and Iran by offering to take them off the American blacklist of nations who sponsor Terrorism. The Bribe was that we could then sell (or rather 'gift') them Billions of dollars in America's most advanced military equipment. Syria would be treated just as we do Egypt by gifting them the Billions in weapons but calling it "sales" so the American taxpayers won't know they're being ripped off. The weapons' industries become a government charity as they are paid directly from the national treasury with American tax-payers' dollars. That bit of gouging is a story yet to be told by any major media outlet.

Nevertheless, although rejected by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Iran, the State Department floats the disinformation that these nations are providing important intelligence on Osama bin Laden's Terrorist organizations. Perhaps that is why we bomb empty mountain ranges in Afghanistan, hoping to hit the elusive Bin Laden. As Joseph Stalin trusted Adolph Hitler, Bush and Powell rely on the word of terrorist leaders.

I just heard Tom Friedman, the ultra switch hitter of the Left Liberals explain why Israel should cease her attacks against the Palestinian Terrorists because it would 'pacify' the Arab nations and then they would be un-enraged. From Arafat's NEW YORK TIMES champion of disinformation, Tom Friedman, this phony pundit opined that, in order for America to succeed in the war in Afghanistan they must go in with ground troops to root out the Taliban. However, at the same time he castigated Israel for going in with ground troops to the areas where Arafat's Terrorists are holed up as they launch daily terrorist attacks on Israeli all across the nation.

On October 18th, even as the Israel buried General and Minister of Knesset Rachavam Ze'evi "Gandhi", a top Minister in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's security cabinet, Colin Powell, through a State Department spokesman issued another threatening dictum: He ordered Israel to cease her fight against the unbridled Terrorist attacks by Arafat's and Arab Terror and to 'IMMEDIATELY' pull out of the areas where they are rooting out Tanzim bombers and Fatah killers and never go back! Well, that's certainly a mouthful from an organization who, in deference to the Arabs tried to keep the U.N. from voting in favor of establishing Israel as a State in 1947. The same Arabist organization, closely influenced by multi-national oil companies has worked diligently for the last 53 years to re-partition Israel on the way to her extinction.

Although the nations of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Iran may be the front line enemies dedicated to Israel's defeat, the U.S. State Department may, in the end, be far more effective at accomplishing that than the Arab armies . (Do not be surprised that Egypt is included in the list of Israel's dedicated enemies as they are now well-armed for a full war with Israel, courtesy of American tax-payer's dollars. A few years ago during a "Bright Star" joint military exercise with the U.S., an Egyptian General said to then Secretary of Defense William Cohen that they were preparing for war with Israel. Cohen reportedly said nothing.)

Israel cannot take a time-out in her war on Terror as she is attacked several times every single day. While, no doubt, September 11th will be celebrated as a Muslim victory over the West, the Arabs are still trying to establish a similar day to be celebrated if and when they can defeat the Jewish nation. Islamic "Days of Rage" started centuries before September 11th and will continue no matter how much Bush and Powell grovel before their oily friends.

Some may recall Secretary of State Warren Christopher's 26 futile journeys as a supplicant to Hafez al Assad, President of Syria, to beg him to cease Terror. Assad made Christopher grovel in the name of America - much the same as Powell is presently doing. Christopher (and all the Secretaries of State before him) got absolutely nothing from Syria, Iraq or Iran.

During the era of Madame Madeleine Albright, she and Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller and Dan Kurtzer (current American Ambassador to Israel) made countless entreaties to Yassir Arafat. They begged and bribed him to cease terror - while trying to force Israel to quit fighting Arafat's Terror attacks as part of the Americans' attempted appeasement of Arafat, the Grand Master of Global Terrorism as well as the militant Arab nations.

It never worked and it never will! The rage of radical Islam and the radically militant Arabs is against something we Westerners cannot change by bribery, pleading and groveling. That something is called Democracy, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, the success of the West, our high standard of living and all the things the Arabs have failed at.

Where freedom is present, people advance. In places like Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Libya everyone except the elite lives in poverty. Wherever territory was turned over to Yassir Arafat, his despotic rule turned those areas into poverty-stricken villages which seethed with rage. But, although Arafat caused this poverty by attacking the Israeli population and thereby cutting off Palestinian access to jobs in and trade with Israel, nonetheless Arafat blames Israel. When Arafat terrorized his own people, American politicians, the Europeans and the United Nations remained absolutely silent.

It was ever thus among the Arab leaders. Israel was always their excuse for the poverty with which they oppressed their own people. Every war they lost, they blamed on outside forces. If Israel beat them, they blamed America. They always used the instrument of religion to whip up the rage of the people so they (the leaders) would not be blamed for the misery they caused.

But, they had help from the West. The Arabists in the American government, the Europeans all had their eye on Arab oil and the markets fueled by our oil purchases at inflated rates. They then encouraged the Arabs who hated the Jewish State, hoping their bias would assist them to get those oil leases. New Wars also sold Billions of dollars in replacement weapons so that also was good for business.

Now, we Americans are suffering because we sold those radical nations weapons and technology which came back to haunt us as Anthrax, perhaps nuclear suitcase bombs, and other horrors which were created in our own advanced Western laboratories. Of course, the President and the State Department cannot accept the blame and responsibility of creating the horror that haunts our streets.

We try to shift the blame elsewhere, to Israel but we never blame the real culprits: the radical Muslim Islamists and the radical Terror-supporting Arab nations. Instead, we invite them to join the Bush/Powell coalition so they will be safe from our attack against Global Terrorism.

We sowed the wind and we reaped the whirlwind.



The Jerusalem Post, October 15, 2001

POLL: US [the people]-Israel Ties
Stronger than Ever

By Dan Izenberg

JERUSALEM (October 4)- American support for close US ties with Israel is stronger than ever following the September 11 attacks, a poll conducted by International Communications Research (ICR) shows.

ICR, a leading American polling firm which does work for ABC News, The Washington Post, and the Associated Press, found that 92 percent of Americans endorse full cooperation between the US and Israel in combating terrorism, while 4% oppose such cooperation.

Seventy-four percent of Americans favor either strengthening ties with Israel or maintaining the current, close relationship. Only 10% favor distancing the US from Israel.

The poll was conducted under the auspices of the Institute for Jewish and Community research and the Center for Middle Eastern studies at the Hudson Institute.

According to the sponsors of the poll, which was conducted between September 14 and September 18, "If one purpose of the attacks in New York and Washington was to drive a wedge between the American public and Israel, the results indicate the terrorists failed to diminish American public support for Israel."

The sample consisted of 1,011 randomly selected adults throughout the US, with a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points.

(c) Jerusalem Post



U.S. [the government] to Get Tougher with Israel?
Terrorist Attacks Move America Closer to Muslim Nations


Editor's note: In partnership with Stratfor, the global intelligence company, WorldNetDaily publishes daily updates on international affairs provided by the respected private research and analysis firm. Look for fresh updates each afternoon, Monday through Friday. In addition, WorldNetDaily invites you to consider STRATFOR membership, entitling you to a wealth of international intelligence reports usually available only to top executives, scholars, academic institutions and press agencies. 2001

Geopolitical realities after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon will force the United States to back away from its relationship with Israel and favor Muslim allies such as Egypt and Jordan, as well as old foes like Iran and Syria. And Israel's guardian in Washington, the Jewish political lobby, is being challenged by a growing Muslim political power, according to STRATFOR, the private global intelligence company.

On the Sept. 28 one-year anniversary of the latest Palestinian uprising against Israel, King Abdullah II of Jordan met with President Bush to support the U.S. counter-terrorism campaign. The Bush administration was also courting Islamic support with separate meetings the previous day between Secretary of State Colin Powell, Abdullah and Turkish Foreign Minister Ismail Cem.

The tenor of relations between Washington and Israel will change as the White House gives the Israeli government the diplomatic cold shoulder. The United States will also continue to put significant pressure on Israel to clamp down on the violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Depending on how the Israelis react, this may be the beginning of a sea change in U.S.-Israeli relations.

The United States is negotiating with Iran and Syria in the hope that they join the growing international anti-terror coalition, or at least remain neutral. Damascus and Tehran are both cooperating to a certain degree, believing that U.S. gratitude will allow them sufficient political leeway in the future.

In responding to the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington needs Muslim cooperation, especially in obtaining intelligence on fundamentalist groups. A coalition with Muslim support would also give the United States political cover in carrying out operations against countries like Afghanistan.

But Washington's close ties with Israel make such cooperation difficult. Some Muslim states are holding Washington's feet to the fire, hoping to reduce U.S. concessions to Israel. Other regimes such as Egypt and Jordan face massive domestic pressure from fundamentalists, and in order to cooperate, need Washington to visibly reduce its support for Israel in order to avoid destabilization.

Two factors have pushed the United States toward Israel over much of the last half-century: the Cold War and domestic political pressure from Jewish groups in the United States. But times have changed, and Israel will no longer be at the top of U.S. strategy in the Middle East.

American support for Israel during the Cold War owed much to simple geography. Former Soviet allies Syria and Iraq surrounded Turkey, a key U.S. military ally, and by pumping military and economic support into Israel, Washington was able to ease the pressure on Ankara. At the same time, Israel's proximity to the Suez Canal offered some measure of security for American shipping companies.

The easing of the Soviet threat negated some of Israel's strategic utility to the United States. In fact, the U.S. government had already begun backing away from Israel in the early 1990s, but the process was interrupted by Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

The danger of domestic political consequences for a tough policy on Israel has been alleviated to a certain degree by the emergence of a Muslim voting bloc in the United States. In 1997 a group of national Islamic organizations formed the American Muslim Political Coordination Council, comprising the four largest Islamic organizations in the United States, to "bring Muslims off the political sidelines and onto the political playing field."

The group has made leaps and bounds in the past four years, and while Muslim political groups do not match their Jewish counterparts in funding or organization, they can match them in sheer potential voting power, according to William Martin, a religion and government professor at Rice University. Nearly all estimates place the numbers of Muslims in America at about more than 6 million. That amounts to about 3 percent of the population, similar to the number of Jews.

Martin said the key is that Muslim voters have shown a willingness to vote as a block. They did so in the last presidential election, giving George W. Bush about 70 percent of their vote after the coordination council endorsed him in late October.

That support included 28,000 key votes in Florida, compared to perhaps 6,000 for Gore. Large populations of Muslim voters live in key battleground states such as Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey.

The United States will still not completely abandon Israel. Washington needs access to Israel's human intelligence resources. The United States also won't ditch all the political, economic and military tools it uses to influence Israeli policy. And because the Israeli air and ground forces are the only significant military force between Germany and India, their support could become necessary if the U.S. military finds itself overextended.

But with the new calculus in both foreign and domestic policy, the United States is already putting more pressure on Israel. For example, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon became the focus of a recent withering White House push to approve a meeting between Palestinian Authority leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres to discuss a cease-fire.

Restarting the Israeli-Palestinian talks became a high priority for the Bush administration following the terrorist attacks. The White House believes that a Peres-Arafat meeting could be a first step toward improving the atmosphere in the region, which is crucial to its bid to pull together a global coalition against terrorism, according to American diplomatic sources cited by Haaretz, the Israeli daily newspaper.

Powell called Arafat and Sharon repeatedly in recent days, urging them to hold the talks. Last week Sharon rejected Bush's request that he permit Peres to meet with Arafat and proposed instead Israeli help for the anti-terrorism coalition.

According to Haaretz, Bush told Sharon in no uncertain terms that he was the only leader to have turned down a request from the United States since the attacks. Bush reportedly said, "...when I ask you for A and you suggest B, I consider that a refusal."

Soon after the conversation, the groundwork was laid for Arafat's meeting with Peres this week. And Sharon, who earlier expressed reservations about joining the anti-terror coalition, in part because of fears about possible concessions to the Palestinians, later reversed his statements after talking with Bush.

Washington appears to be pressing its point with the Sharon government by threatening Israeli pocketbooks. American officials are reviewing a proposal to immediately end all civilian aid to Israel, totaling nearly $900 million, in the context of a general review of America's foreign aid priorities, according to a senior Western diplomat cited by Haaretz.

U.S. civilian aid to Israel accounts for almost 1 percent of Israel's gross national product and is helping to keep the struggling Israeli economy out of recession. So far though, it appears U.S. military aid to Israel, which amounts to nearly $2 billion, would not be affected.




By Yehuda Poch

This has indeed been an entertaining weekend in Israel. Prime Minister Sharon, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz have provided live theater at its best. No Broadway troupe could have done better.

The action began on October 4, when Arab snipers opened fire from the Abu Sneineh neighbourhood of Hevron, attacking a crowd of Jewish visitors at the Machpela Cave. The visitors had come in honour of the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, and were in Hevron for two days of festivities. When the gunshots rang out, two women were injured, and the rest of the festivities were curtailed.

The IDF reacted swiftly, entering Abu Sneineh, and the nearby Haret-a-Sheikh neighbourhood, which had also been the scene of sniper attacks. This time, the IDF actually remained in the neighbourhoods, and quiet descended for ten days.

This past weekend, agreement was reached with the Palestinians that the neighbourhoods would remain quiet if the IDF pulled out, and an Israeli security cabinet meeting on Friday decided to approve the pullout.

Enter Mofaz. Yesterday morning, he issued a statement to the press condemning the decision and saying that it would hamper Israeli efforts to maintain security in the area. It so incensed Sharon and Ben-Eliezer that Ben-Eliezer told Sharon at the cabinet meeting that he was prepared to fire Mofaz.

Let us now take a step back and look at the background to this issue. In 1997, when Binyamin Netanyahu pulled the IDF out of Hevron, he told Hevron residents that if there were to be any attacks from Arabs against Jews in the area, the IDF would immediately re-enter the Arab neighbourhoods to re-impose calm. Over the next four years, there were sporadic attacks, but no effort on the part of Israel to fulfill Netanyahu's pledge.

Last March, a sniper fired from Abu Sneineh into the Jewish neighbourhood in central Hevron, killing ten-month-old Shalhevet Pass in front of her young parents. With all the accompanying horror that the killing invoked, calls were heard across the nation for the IDF to permanently re-enter Abu Sneineh. The IDF, under orders from the political echelon did not heed these calls.

Over the summer, the IDF did re-enter Abu Sneineh a number of times, but each time retreated after a matter of hours. Still, calm did not ensue, and two women were hospitalized earlier this month because of it.

Mofaz is very much a security-minded general. He has publicly stated that Yasser Arafat is an enemy of Israel, and that the current unrest is a war that must be fought with all necessary means.

He is also a man whose superiors are preventing him from doing his job. The boldness of his statement yesterday morning is proof of that. For rarely if ever does a senior IDF officer in uniform offer any opinion on matters political. That Mofaz saw the need to issue his statement shows that something is dreadfully wrong in paradise.

What is most interesting, though, is that Mofaz's statement might not really be all that surprising. There are many people who believe that the issue is one of security, not politics, and that as such it was Mofaz's duty to voice his opinion. One such person is the National Religious Party's faction chairman, Shaul Yahalom. Yahalom has not been heard from in a while, mostly because his party, such a natural partner for Sharon's Likud decided to marginalize itself in the opposition. But yesterday, Yahalom issued a statement to the effect that Mofaz's opinion was based on security considerations, and therefore it was proper and necessary for Mofaz to speak out.

And Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer added support, however unintentionally, to Yahalom's comment. In a statement from Ben-Eliezer's office, he said, "it can be derived from Mofaz's announcement that the politicians are harming the security of Israeli civilians and soldiers, while the Chief of General Staff is protecting them."

Those are tough words coming from one of the highest officials in the land. So let us examine them more closely.

"The politicians" signed the Oslo Accords in 1993 against the opinions of military leaders at the time. More than 600 Israelis have been killed since then by our co-signatories.

"The politicians" continued to sign agreements with these same killers, even as the killing went on. In 1994 in Cairo, in 1995 in Oslo, in 1997 to abandon Hevron, in 1998 at the Wye River plantation, in 1999 at Sharm-e-Sheikh, and almost another one in 2000 at Camp David. Throughout the process, more land, more resources, and more legitimacy has been given to terrorists, while in return Israel received more dead and injured victims, more broken families, mor orphans and widows, and more tears.

During that time, two successive Chiefs-of-Staff have turned into politicians, and both have supported a continuation of this process of non-peace.

Now, at long last, we have a Chief of Staff who knows security when he doesn't see it, and who is both bothered and courageous enough to stand for his principles. Those principles include maintaining what precious little security we have.

Perhaps Ben-Eliezer is onto something. The Chief of Staff actually has the security of Israelis as his top priority. What a concept. And as far as "the politicians" go, if the combat boot fits...

15-October-2001 Copyright 2001.


Yehuda Poch is a journalist living in Israel.




by Boris Shusteff

For more than half a century the American State Department has stubbornly tried to push through its pro-Arab policies, unable to realize that by doing so it has only been tightening the knot of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Already in 1948 the American Secretary of State threatened to resign, trying to prevent President Truman from recognizing the newly born Jewish state.

It is not surprising at all that the State Department is so unsympathetic to Israel. One of the reasons is simple arithmetic. Professor of Political Science William Quandt, who served in 1977 as Office Director for Middle Eastern Affairs, honestly admitted that,

"With nearly twenty embassies situated in Arab countries, the State Department inevitably produces more Arabists than it does specialists on Israeli affairs. In a general way, too, the experience of living in Arab countries and studying Arabic seems to make foreign-service officers more, rather then less, sympathetic to Arab concerns... Diplomats see their jobs as 'improving relations' between United States and the countries to which they are assigned, and this requires a degree of empathy and openness to other cultures and their concerns. Some of this stays with diplomats long after they left the Arab world" (1).

If we take into account the fact that the chief emotion the Arab world harbors towards Israel is hatred, it is clear that a love for Israel cannot be born within the State Department by itself. It could have been expected that the tragic events of September 11would have made crystal clear the gaping blunders of American diplomacy, which have helped to whet the appetite of fundamentalist Islam, the cornerstone of anti-American Arab terror. The tragedy of September 11-th was a wake up call. A call for America to reconsider the relations and attitude towards some of its Arab "friends." America should have remembered that Saudi Arabia is the homeland of Wahhabism -the brutal and irreconcilable variety of Islam that is preached by Osama bin Laden. And that it is no "secret" at all that Osama himself receives a great deal of support from his admirers in Saudi Arabia.

However, the State Department has chosen to remain blind to the reality. Sadly, its desire to ignore the facts and continued intention to maintain the anti-Israel orientation is first of all detrimental to America itself. By trying to be "politically correct" the State Department sends a signal to the terrorists that America is not yet ready to seriously wage war against them. Attempts to pay the terrorists off by forcing Israel to surrender create a fertile ground for new and more devastating terrorist attacks on American soil.

Recently, State Department policy has started to border on the absurd. Speaking in Washington on September 20 at a hearing of the House Government Reform Committee Tom Lantos, Democrat from California, presented an example of this policy:

"some months ago I introduced a piece of legislation calling for the government of Lebanon to secure its entire border with Israel, not allowing Hezbollah to engage in cross-border terrorist strikes. The Department of State saw fit just a few months ago to send two letters to all of my colleagues urging them to oppose my amendment and not to vote for it. It passed by the narrowest of margins: 216 to 212."

Even more shameful was the State Department's frontal assault on legislation to impose sanctions on the Palestinian Authority if it does not meet its commitments to fight terrorism. On September 28, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in order to stop an amendment to the Foreign Operations Bill, which was due for a final reading after already having achieved a majority in the House of Representatives, sent a letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. In the letter Powell stated,

"The Palestinian compliance legislation you introduced with Senator McConnell would be counterproductive to our coalition-building and peace process efforts and we would like to see it withdrawn... The bottom line is that we agree with the need for the Palestinians to comply with their commitments and control the violence... But in this critical period I ask you not to tie the President's hands and restrict our ability to engage with both parties to help achieve these goals."

Colin Powell did not elaborate what he meant by the word "ability." However, when Israel, devastated by the assassination of the Tourism Minister Rehavam Ze'evi started to act a little more decisively, the State Department did not even pretend to be "evenhanded." In a rude statement, its spokesman Philip Reeker demanded on October 22, that "Israeli defense forces... be withdrawn immediately from all Palestinian-controlled areas and no further such incursions should be made."

For all her unceasing devotion and staunch friendliness to America, the Jewish state was spat upon and received a kick from the master's boot. What unbelievable hypocrisy Reeker's statement was. "We deeply regret and deplore Israel Defence Force actions that have killed numerous Palestinian civilians over the weekend. The deaths of those innocent civilians under the circumstances reported in recent days are unacceptable."

At the time when hundreds of equally innocent Afghan civilians are killed by American bombs in Afghanistan and their deaths are accepted as "collateral damage," the State Department is suddenly worried about "numerous innocent Palestinian civilians." It is a pity that Mr. Reeker did not elaborate on the issue of their "innocence," and did not mention that according to a recent Palestinian Arab poll conducted between September 11 and 17 in the West Bank and Gaza strip "81.7% of the Palestinian Arabs supported military operations INSIDE Israel and 72.7% rejected a state limited to the occupied territories and Jerusalem" (2).

Speaking on October 19 at the National Press Club in Washington William Burns, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, said, "We have no monopoly on wisdom in the Middle East, and I have always thought that a little humility goes a long way in the exercise of American power and American leadership." What a pity that the State Department does not act in accordance with this statement.

How unfortunate that yet another of Burns's statements from the same meeting turned out to be completely empty words as well. He said, "The voices of publics are all too often ignored until they raise them to a shout." It is the American State Department that adamantly ignores the American public. A large majority of Americans believe that USpressure on Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians will only encourage more terrorism.

The results of a recent survey conducted by the New American Initiative and "The Chicago Sun Times" speaks for itself. In this national poll, carried out between October 12-14 by McLaughlin & Associates, "62% said that after the World Trade Center attack, forcing Israel to give up territory - including dividing Jerusalem - to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat for a Palestinian state, would encourage terrorism. 28% had no opinion, and only 9.7% thought that pressuring Israel would end terrorism." When asked if "the Arab world seeks the eventual destruction of Israel," 62% said they "believe the Arab world does seek to destroy Israel," and only 14.6% said they "believe the Arab world sincerely accepts Israel's right to exist."

Shamelessly ignoring the American and the Israeli public, the State Department betrays the only true American ally in the Middle East, well aware that Israel will always offer to America the hand of help when the war against terror becomes serious.


1. William B. Quandt. Decade of Decisions: American Policy Toward the

Arab-Israeli Conflict 1967-1976. University of California Press. 1977.

2. Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre (JMCC) Public Opinion Poll

No. 42 On Palestinian Attitudes Towards Politic including the Current

Intifada - September 2001. Quoted from Independent Media

Review and Analysis (IMRA), 09/28/01.



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




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Few people have grasped the dynamics of anti-Semitism as well as Vladimir Jabotinsky. His understanding of Nazi anti-Semitism applies to the Arab Nazis of the Middle East.

In his book, THE JEWISH WAR FRONT, written and published in 1940, the year of his death, Jabotinsky contends that Nazi Germany's drive toward world dominion would have been a nonstarter were it not for anti-Semitism. He writes: "Everybody knows that in propaganda the appeal of love is slow and lumbering in comparison with the appeal of hatred. Hatred is the piquant sauce which accelerates both the swallowing and the digestion of ideas and policies. And the 'sauce' can be fully effective only if the object of hatred is close at hand, familiar to all, and easily and safely attacked."

Compare the Jew-hatred of the Arab Nazi world. Ingrained from childhood on, this hatred can remain dormant for years, and, like some unseen explosive, be ignited at any time by Arab despots. Notice how Arab rulers in general, and Osama bin Laden in particular, blame American support of Israel for the destruction of the World Trade Center. Hence, if Washington would cease supporting the Jewish state, the Arabs would cease hating America. (How readily the Bush Administration succumbs to this propaganda, which cannot but arouse Jew-hatred in the United States should Israel's government resist the establishment of a Palestinian state.)

Returning to Jabotinsky: "Had the Nazi propaganda been confined from the beginning to preaching rebellion against the Versailles peace terms and the wickedness of the English or the French or the Americans, its theoretical appeal might have been still powerful, but its actual progress among the masses would have been so gradual that it is doubtful whether it would have gathered enough energy for an explosion."

Jabotinsky explains in the sequel: "A Versailles Treaty [like the Balfour Declaration] is not a tangible object of real and palpable hatred; the emotions of the masses cannot be stirred by an object which can only be seen in the public library. On the other hand, hating the English or the Americans ... is either a torture to the hater himself, so long as he dare not express his hatred by deeds, or a very dangerous enterprise, if he tries prematurely to translate his hatred into action. There is only one idealogject for mass training in collective hate, and that is the Jews."

The Jew "is everywhere in reach; ... and he can be insulted or assaulted with only the minimum of risk, or with none at all. To foster a movement of the Nazi type without the daily use of Jewish targets would be like staging a pageant without rehearsals."

Jabotinsky saw what few saw outside Germany: the extent to which the Nazi movement depended, during the two decades of its existence, on Jew-hatred for its vitality and driving power. Without referring to the Jews, National Socialism could have simply emphasized rearmament, the militarization of the Rhine district, the restoration of Germany's colonies, the Anschlussof Austria, and the annexation of the Sudetenland.

"All these aims could have been preached every whit as forcibly had their authors never thought of Israel and Judah. But they evidently felt, from the very beginning, that none of these aims would 'go down' properly with the masses unless they were duly seasoned. So not a single spoonful of this witches' brew was offered without the spice of anti-Semitism."

Now we can better appreciate why the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are disseminated throughout the Arab world, including Egypt. This is the "spice" of Jew-hatred that enables Arab rulers to finance Arab terrorism and plan the next war on Israel. But what of the Jews?

If Arab terrorists knew in advance that Israel's government would wreak upon them a degree of vengeance or loss far exceeding any Arab gains in killing Jews, Arab terrorism would soon cease.

Unfortunately, Israel has no such government. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can refer to Yasser Arafat as Israel's bin Laden, but lacks the courage to eliminate that Arab Nazi. Indeed, he is quite willing to negotiate with that Hitlerian Arab if only Arafat's band of terrorists would refrain from violence for seven days. But Arafat lives on terrorism and uses hatred of Jews as its lubricant. This is true of Arafat's patron, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose government-controlled media spew forth the most virulent hatred of Jews.

That Israeli politicians have truck with Arafat and Mubarak makes any man of taste want to vomit.




By Martin Sherman

(October 14) - The storm of protest created by the recent comparison that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon drew between the circumstances of Czechoslovakia in the 1930s, and those in which Israel finds itself today is more than a little puzzling. Indeed, if the analogy is to be faulted in any way, it should be because it did not go far enough in underscoring the disconcerting similarities between the two cases.

Although there are obvious differences in detail between the two cases, there also appear to be a significant number of striking similarities that relate to the general nature of the causal processes in both instances. For example, both events relate to beleaguered democracies located in inherently inclement regions, beset by hostile authoritarian regimes, which coveted areas within their borders.

Both events involve democracies confronted with demands for territorial withdrawal from strategically important highlands on their frontiers (the Sudeten Mountains in the case of Czechoslovakia and the highlands of Samaria and Judea in the case of Israel) - highlands that constitute a formidable natural barrier against invasion.

Both events involve democracies being pressured to forgo these highly significant strategic assets in order to acquiesce to demands from antagonistic ethnic group (the Sudetens of German origin on the one hand and the Arabs of Palestinian origin on the other), closely associated with tyrannical regimes in the regions, to remove "alien rule" over them in their long-standing historical homeland. Both events involve democracies being subjected to intense pressure by their self-professed allies, the leading democratic powers of the day, to comply with these demands - in the name of regional stability and world peace, in a transparent bid to appease unappeasable dictators.

It would be possible to carry on in this vein and continue to catalogue the points of congruence between the situation of Czechoslovakia in the past, and Israel in the present; the former under threat from a dictatorial German regime and pressure from its Western allies, the latter under threat from dictatorial Arab regimes and pressure from its Western allies. It would also be possible to draw further comparisons between the events that took place on the eve of World War II and those taking place today, with the world poised on the brink of new global conflict between the libertarian West and the propagators of a doctrine of intolerant, aggressive, and expansionist tyranny.

For example, one might point to the striking similarities between the demands for self-determination in the German enclave of Danzig and those for self-determination in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza (including the notion of a connecting corridor via sovereign territory of another state for "safe passage" to kindred homelands). One might be tempted to point to the parallels between the German takeover of Austria, and the Syrian takeover of Lebanon. One might even warn of the ominously emerging resemblance between the German violation of the demilitarized Rhineland area and the huge Egyptian arms buildup which can but undermine the feasibility of continued demilitarization of the Sinai.

In this limited framework, it is perhaps most important to focus on the criticisms leveled at Sharon's remarks - and to rebut them.

Firstly, those like MK Yosef (Tommy) Lapid, who alleged that one could not compare the supposed military "weakness" of Czechoslovakia with the might of Israel's IDF, are either genuinely misinformed or deliberately misleading. Indeed, before yielding the mountainous Sudeten region, Czechoslovakia had one of the strongest armies in Europe. It was precisely the surrender of this territory, together with the other provisions of the Munich Pact, that brought the country to its knees.

Thus, although Germany did have plans to invade Czechoslovakia before Munich, it refrained from doing so until the strategic terrain and its fortifications were yielded to its control.

Secondly, it would be inappropriate to take Sharon's remarks as an accusation that President George W. Bush is behaving as Neville Chamberlain did. Rather, it should be considered a warning as to the grave consequences that are likely to arise if he were to do so - as it seems some his administration officials would prefer. After all, it was not only Czechoslovakia which suffered the consequences of the cynical and myopic policy of appeasement, but the entire world - including the 40 million victims who paid the price of its failure with their lives.

Thus the prime minister did well to force the world leaders to confront the unpalatable realities of the day. He will err gravely if, due to his misguided critics, he backs away from the bold line he has taken, if he allows the West to evade facing up to emerging threats, and if he meekly condones repetition of the mistake of appeasing adversaries and abandoning allies.

(The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Policy and Strategy at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya.)



Jerusalem Post, Oct 16, 2001


By Louis Rene Beres

(The writer, a long-time expert in international law, is also the author of Security or Armageddon: Israel's Nuclear Strategy. (Lexington Books).) Professor Beres recently became the academic advisor for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.)


US President George W. Bush has given his blessing to a Palestinian state. Pressed to this destabilizing position by America's new Islamic "partners" in the impending coalition fight against terrorism, the president misses one rather important consequence: This new Arab state, heavy with the hatreds of other enemy states, will inevitably give rise to new and more deadly terrorism. Most ominously of all will be "Palestine's" causal effect upon nuclear warfare in the Middle East.

A Palestinian state should not be foolishly supported by the US for immediate and short-term needs. Because the creation of a State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel will heighten the risk of regional nuclear war considerably, this newest enemy state should be viewed with real apprehension. Indeed, it's creation could likely be a final step to bring an Islamic "Final Solution" to the region. Architects of the Oslo Accords suggested all along that a "two-state solution" to the Palestinian problem would substantially reduce the risk of another major war in the Middle East. But as we should have learned by now, especially from recurring Arab violations of the "peace process," the conventional Oslo wisdom was always unwise. For the most part, Iranian and Arab state inclinations to war against Israel have had absolutely nothing to do with the Palestinians. Even if Israel continued to make all unilateral Oslo concessions, and continued to adhere to unreciprocated agreements, these belligerent inclinations would continue, especially from Syria, Iraq and Libya, as well as from Iran and Egypt.

When Israel soon faces a new state of Palestine, the Jewish state's vulnerability to armed attack by hostile neighbors will increase markedly. If this diminished safety is accompanied by the spread of unconventional weapons to hostile states, which now seems certain, Israel could find itself confronting not only war, but genocide.

Why? Most importantly, the new State of Palestine will preoccupy Israeli military forces to a much greater extent - much, much greater than does the intifada. Even if it were able to resist takeover by one of the other Islamic states in the region, Palestine will surely become a favored launching-point for renewed terrorism against Israel.

Various promises notwithstanding, Islamic insurgents would continue to celebrate violence against Israel as the essence of "national liberation." Recognizing an "improved" configuration of forces vis-a-vis Israel, a larger number of Islamic enemy states will calculate that they now confront a smaller, more beleaguered adversary.

Further, they will understand that a coordinated effort by certain countries that possess or are in the process of acquiring pertinent ballistic missiles could possibly endanger Israel's very survival. Taken together with the fact that global support for Israel is always fickle, especially in perilous times such as these, and that individual or combined chemical/biological/nuclear warfare capabilities could bring enormous harm to Israel, the creation of Palestine will tip the balance of power in the Middle East decisively.

THE FULL strategic implications for Israel of an independent Palestine should now be carefully appraised. If, in the end, such independence becomes the cause of a nuclear war in the region, everyone, Palestinians as well as Jews, will lose.

But how, exactly, would a nuclear war begin in the reconfigured Middle East? One possibility would be by Arab or Iranian first strikes against Israel. These strikes could be nuclear (although this would likely be several years away) or non-nuclear. In either scenario, Israel - especially if it feels dangerously close to defeat - might resort to nuclear retaliation.

Alternatively, Israel, believing that substantial enemy attack - chemical, biological, conventional, or nuclear - is imminent, could decide to act preemptively. If, as we might expect, this preemption were entirely non- nuclear, it could still fail to prevent the anticipated attack against Israel. Here, Israeli nuclear weapons, having failed in their mission to support conventional preemption by deterring enemy retaliation, might also have to be used for purposes of nuclear war fighting.

Israel has much to fear - more perhaps than any other state on the face of the earth. Threatened by a growing umber of adversaries with ballistic missiles and with a corollary interest in nuclear warheads, Jerusalem should know that full and codified transformation of Judea/Samaria and Gaza into Palestine will provide its enemies with the means and the incentives to destroy the Jewish state once and for all.

Deprived of essential "strategic depth," and beset internally with hostile Arab citizens loyal only to "Palestine," Israel will become seriously vulnerable to total defeat. Anguished by a possible end to the Third Temple Commonwealth, the nation's leaders will begin to think seriously about nuclear weapons as a last resort (the so-called "Samson Option"). It follows that Bush's October 2 endorsement of a Palestinian state should be viewed with the most grave concern. Otherwise, Palestine, looking first very much like Lebanon, will wind up as Armageddon.

(c) Jerusalem Post




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The State of Israel has three types of enemies: overt, covert and friendly.

The Arabs obviously constitute Israel's overt enemy. Of these Arabs the most insidious and perfidious are those who are citizens of Israel. Although they possess all the rights of Jews and enjoy opportunities unequaled in the Islamic world, most of these Arabs regard themselves as "Palestinians." They identify with PLO chief Yasser Arafat and not a few participate in terrorist attacks against Jews. Moreover, their high birthrate coupled to the democratic principle of one adult/one vote will enable these Arabs, perhaps in two decades, to dominate the Knesset and transform Israel into an Islamic dictatorship. This grotesque eventuality could be prevented, however, if Israel had, in addition to honest and courageous statesmen, a well-designed form of government.

For example, if Israel, like 74 other countries with democratic elections for the lower (or only) branch of the legislature, were to have regional elections, this would significantly reduce the influence of the Arab vote on Jewish parties in general, and on those of the Left in particular. The Knesset would then more readily address the Arab demographic threat. It could eliminate large family allowances and leave it to the Jewish Agency to aid large Jewish families. It could also enforce the citizenship law, which empowers the Minister of Interior to nullify the citizenship of any Israel national that commits an act of disloyalty to the state.

However, because Israeli politicians fear the canard of "racism," they appease Arab citizens. In fact, one reason why Shimon Peres and his Labor Party are so disinclined to eliminate Arafat or put an end to Arab Palestinian violence is that this would alienate Arab voters. Only recall the "Grapes of Wrath" operation against Lebanon prior to the May 1996 elections. Because so many Arabs stayed home in that election, Peres lost to Benjamin Netanyahu.

From the preceding one may regard Israel's political elites as Israel's covert enemy! Consider their failings and deadly deeds:

1. They have failed to address the Arab demographic threat to Israel's existence as a Jewish state.

2. They have dignified and legitimated Yasser Arafat, the world's master terrorist. This they did by concluding and/or implementing the Oslo or Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles. As a consequence of which:

a. They abandoned 80% of Hebron and other parts of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

b. They released and armed tens of thousands of Arabs terrorists.

c. They failed to put an end to Arab terrorism (which, since Oslo, has resulted in the murder of some 700 Jews and the maiming of many thousands more).

3. They failed to stop Muslim desecration of the Temple Mount.

4. They have made Israel appear despicable and have thereby encouraged its enemies.

5. They have desecrated G-d's Name.

Turning to Israel's friendly enemy—of course I mean the Government of the United States, whose enmity is both overt and covert. Given its paramount economic and strategic interests in the Middle East, the U.S. has always and quite openly been committed to Israel's withdrawal to her 1949 armistice lines. But this would facilitate Israel's annihilation by Arab-Islamic states. American military aid to Israel does not nullify this terrible fact, especially when the U.S. also supplies Israel's Arab-Islamic enemies with an abundance of the most sophisticated military equipment.

The destruction of the Twin Towers by Arab-Islamic terrorists has not altered Washington's pernicious attitude. To the contrary, to secure its bizarre coalition of Arab and Islamic autocrats in the war against global terrorism, the Bush administration has called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. And when the Israel Defense Forces went into various Palestinian strongholds to suppress terrorists and to apprehend the murderers of cabinet minister Rehavam Ze'evi, the State Department crudely ordered Israel to "get out immediately and not return" to what are nothing but terrorist havens.

This recalls the Persian Gulf War, when the U.S. pressured Israel not to retaliate against Iraq's Scud missile attack. Mention of Iraq leads me to Washington's covert enmity toward Israel.

Consider what we know as a consequence of the Jonathan Pollard affair. Pollard provided Israel with classified information about Iraqi military developments—which information, however, the U.S. was supposed to have provided in accordance with its Strategic Cooperation Agreement with Jerusalem. The United States is not a faithful friend.

Now, let us ask why the State of Israel has these three types of enemies? They serve a single purpose, namely, to teach Jews that they cannot trust the Arabs, they cannot trust their own government, and they cannot trust their friends. Learning this perhaps Jews will then understand that their future depends solely on their fidelity to G-d.




By Louis Rene Beres

Afghanistan's government alleges multiple violations of humanitarian international law by American aerial bombardments. Yet, the Taliban practice of intentionally placing its military forces and assets in the midst of civilian populations is the only real war crime in this conflict. Although it is certainly true that the Law of War is designed to protect all noncombatants from armed attack, this body of rules also makes it perfectly clear that responsibility for harms must ultimately rest with the side that engages in "perfidy."

Deception can be an essential and acceptable virtue in warfare, but there is a meaningful distinction between deception or ruse and perfidy. The Hague Regulations in the Laws of War allow "ruses" but disallow treachery or perfidy. The prohibition of perfidy is reaffirmed in Protocol I of 1977, and it is widely and authoritatively understood that these rules are binding on the basis of general and customary international law.

What, exactly, are the differences between permissible ruses and perfidy? The former include such practices as the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and ambush. False signals, too, are allowed; as an example, the jamming of communications.

Perfidy, on the other hand, includes such treacherous practices as improper use of the white flag; feigned surrender or pretending to have civilian status. It also constitutes perfidy to shield military targets from attack by placing or moving them into densely populated areas or to purposely move civilians near military targets. Indeed, it is generally agreed that such treachery represents an especially serious violation of the Law of War, what is known as a "Grave Breach." The legal effect of such perfidy - the practice now engaged in by the Taliban in Afghanistan - is this: Exemption (in this case, for the United States of America) from the normally operative rules on targets. Indeed, even if the Taliban had not intentionally engaged in treachery, any Taliban link between protected persons and military activities would place all legal responsibility for civiian harms squarely upon Afghanistan.

The recent harms to civilians in Afghanistan caused by American bombs are tragic and deeply regrettable, but the legal responsibility for this tragedy lies entirely with those whose perfidious conduct brought about such harms. Moreover, the United States has the indisputable right of self-defense against terrorist attacks originating from Afghanistan, both the post-attack right codified at Article 51 of the UN Charter and the customary legal right called "anticipatory self-defense." This country has the right and the obligation under national and international law to protect Americans from criminal acts of terrorism. Should we decide to capitulate to perfidy and restrict essential bombardments accordingly, the United States would surrender this basic right and undermine this basic obligation. The net effect of such capitulation would be to make victors of the Taliban, an effect that would assuredly increase rather than diminish the overall number of civilian victims, in Afghanistan and in the United States.

"Just wars," we learn from the seventeenth-century legal philosopher Hugo Grotius (a major source for Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration of Independence). "arise from our love of the innocent." Recognizing this, the United States - confronted by Taliban-related terrorists who now seek to soften our country for much larger forms of civilian destruction - must continue to use all applicable military force within the boundaries of humanitarian international law. Although perfidious provocations by the Taliban might elicit American actions that bring harms to noncombatant populations in Afghanistan, it is these provocations, not America's response, that would be in serious violation of international law.

International law is not a suicide pact. Faced with a terrorist adversary that persistently follows an announced strategy of unrestrained barbarism, Washington cannot permit egregious Taliban manipulations of civilian populations to preclude needed uses of military force. Rather, we must now make the entire international community aware that perfidy is a crime under international law, and that it is the practicioners of perfidy, not those who are strategically disadvantaged by such a practice, that must be identified as war criminals.

In the final analysis, the United States and its allies have no alternative to maintaining lawful self-defense operations against the Taliban. Such operations need not be injurious to noncombatant populations so long as the Taliban do not seek to hide behind these populations as human shields. Bound by the laws of war of international law, these terrorists, whenever they choose to commit perfidy, are the responsible party for all resultant harms done to Afghan civilians.


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is now Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science Purdue University . He is author of many books and articles dealing with the Law of War. He has been a consultant on this matter in both Washington and Jerusalemand is now the acacemic advisor to the Freeman Cent For Strategic Studies.




Oslo's Gift of "Peace":
The Destruction of Israel's Security

By Christopher Barder

Ariel Center, 2001

A realistic document at a time of delusion and despair.

Book Review by Dr. Mordechai Nisan

Ever since the Six Day War and its aftermath in 1967, that shining Israeli victory has served as a catalyst and touchstone for the collective Arab strategy in their struggle against the Jewish State. With the help of unceasing international pressure, the Arabs are trying tirelessly to return Israel to the impossible borders preceding that war, as a first stage in destroying Israel, to culminate in its complete fall later on. In one way or another, the UN Resolution 242 in 1967, the Rogers Plan in 1969, the Camp David Agreement in 1978 and the Madrid Conference in 1991, and up through the Oslo Agreement in 1993, in their directives and their meaning, all become part of Zionist policy through formulations of Israeli surrender. Early on, the Israelis gave up the territorial fruits of the vital military and spiritual victory won in the war of June 1967.

With 285 pages of exciting and well documented narrative text, plus appendices that add to knowledge, Christopher Barder's book discusses the Oslo Plan in a lively and richly worded way. Actually, at issue is the critical contemporary stage of the global Arab-Islamic system, reflecting the iron will of the enemies of Israel. This is both research and a polemical book, without the personal opinion of the researcher undermining the strength of the convincing array of facts. Presented to the reader is a detailed document which traces the deterioration of the strategic environment of the State of Israel, and especially since the famous signature which aroused deep revulsion in every Jew whose identity with his people had not left him.

According to Barder, Oslo is a code name for bringing about the death of the Jewish poeple, integrated in a macabre way with a super-diabolical plan, in the orchestration by Norwegians and leftwing Israelis of a process termed "peace". To the contrary, its outcome is certainly liable to be the liquidation of the little state of the Jewish people in the Middle East. "Oslo" is not only an agreement, with further agreements amended after 1993, but mainly a distortion that ruled over Israel and pushes her to the edge of complete national destruction. Parallel to the essense of the agreement that obligates her to withdraw from parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Oslo serves as a background for the withdrawal of the IDF from South Lebanon and abandonment of Israel's friends, the SLA fighters and their families. The victory of Hizbullah in their Jihad (holy war) against Israel is linked by a strategic channel to a more distant circle that links Iran with Syria, and also the network between the Shi'ites in Lebanon and the Palestinians in their war in Israel.

The readiness of Ehud Barak as Prime Minister to give up the Golan Heights can be seen as strategic folly which favors the Damascus regime, and also as moral blindness toward the residents of the Golan. Barder spares no effort to present in great detail the topographical and military data, including explanations on the importance of the Golan water and the dangers of its being polluted if Israel exposes the Kinneret to Syrian polluters, with that country again on the heights above the Jordan and Hulah Valleys. Each agreement with Syria is clearly doomed to disgrace, failure and violation.

Later in the analysis, Barder gives an account of Yitzhak Rabin and the perverse perception that Israel must make peace with enemies, supposedly as a matter of far-sighted political wisdom. Withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, which in part has been taking place since 1993, has hurt everything dear to us as a nation and people. In spite of that, Barak offered Arafat an Israeli surrender of at least 90% of all the territories. Throughout the 90's and until now, Israel has received terror for land.

Barder's book does not falter over Egypt, which has a hostile and hard attitude regarding Israel. By striving to take advantage of the Palestinian factor in order to create a meaningful strategic weight in the entire Fertile Crescent, through Gaza and Palestine in general, Egypt could achieve a senior standing as in times past in the Arab world. But there is no peace with Israel on the Egyptian agenda.

Oslo undoubtedly injected confusion and complications in the ranks of the IDF and caused unsolved military dilemmas in facing more than 40,000 armed Palestinians in the streets of Yesha. Without the Jordan Valley in our hands, according to Barak's offer to Arafat, the IDF will have great difficulty in preventing free penetration of terrorists and weapons from Jordan westward into Israel. Iraqi forces will grab positions on the mountain range to fire on the coastal plain below. Barak also expressed readiness to divide Jerusalem and thus allow a demographic flood of Palestinians to endanger the lives of the Jews in the capital of Israel as a daily nightmare. Hand in hand with territorial withdrawal, carried out or proposed, we began to see the tendency toward continuous extremism among the Arab citizens of the State of Israel who identify openly with Hamas and the PLO [sic], as brothers in arms for the liberation of all Palestine - with no mention of the nation of Israel.

Barder's survey takes in the range of Arabs in the Middle East, and beyond to Europe and the U.S., as basic active factors in networking against any kind of Jewish state. The Palestinian Authority, terrorist for all practical purposes, uses every opportunity to find material aid and political justification for all its acts from the Western nations. We note that the Venice conference of the European Union recognized the PLO back in 1980. That was no mistake - recognition of Palestinian rights, and by implication casting great doubt on the rights of Israel to a nation of their own. The State of Israel is presented as unnecessary in the eyes of part of the American establishment in Washington, so that the terror campaign of the PLO fuels a wild uprising with no relationship to the Oslo Agreement and its obligations to peace and co-existence that come with it. The real byword in the current reality, says Barder, is not "land for peace" but "land for war".

Finally, the writer sounds a desperate alarm to Israel to come to her senses before it's too late, to vigorously oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state. If it arises, it will create an awful unprecedented demoralization in Israel. The meaning of Oslo is the end [literally, bankruptcy] of Israel in every sense and in every area related to the survival of the nation.

However, the architects of Oslo have a completely different picture and feeling. Uri Savir, Director of the Foreign Ministry under Shimon Peres during the euphoric period of negotiations with the PLO, was happy to greet the Palestinians, and his personal friend Abu Ala, upon their return from Tunis to Palestine [sic]. So great was his stupidity that he took pride when Peres acted energetically to raise funds for the Palestinians, and undoubtedly Savir believed that Arafat would fight fundamentalist Islamic terror. In his book, The Process: Behind the Scenes of a Historic Declaration, Uri Savir approaches the goal of settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with unqualified hope. Peres for his part clearly saw the need "to distance the ghetto from the Jewish ethos". But, just as Herzl deceived himself that establishing the Jewish State would put an end to antisemitism in the world, the visionary dreamers of Oslo imagined that a signature on an agreement with enemies would put an end to generations of terror and war - not that Oslo is a recipe for terror and greater war.

Meanwhile, the fulfillment continues of the age-old and unrepaired scenario of incompatibility between the uprooting [or possibly, detachment] of Israel and the storm of hate of the Palestinians. Yosi Beilin recommends Israeli recognition of the refugees' suffering and even expresses readiness for Israel to absorb tens of thousands of them within the Green Line. But at the same time, the Palestinians in Yesha refuse a cease fire. They don't believe that peace will be achieved by the efforts of Peres to meet with Arafat, and they vigorously oppose the participation of the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular on the side of the U.S. in the war on terror. This is Oslo and its fruit.

This writer does not know of a political book with such comprehensive and up to date content as that of Christopher Barder, who brings up data and explanations in a fluent and convincing manner. The book can hold its own with dignity against the many books of praise and applause written by politicians and academics from the Left in their humilating groveling before the Oslo idol. In this sense, the writer and the Ariel Center as publisher have done a kindness both to the people of Israel and to truth. In pointing to the absence of change for the better in the approach of the Palestinians and the Egyptians toward Israel and the Jews, the book breaks the barrier of lies and silence surrounding the wall of hate separating the Jews and the Arabs (or Moslems) in the Middle East. Accordingly, Oslo remains political decoration for the plot to liquidate Israel; but more than that, it is a strategic deception by parties who feel a deep rejection and deep [literally, down to the abyss] enmity for Israel in its land.

The mechanism of negotiations between Israel and the Arabs reveals itself not only as worthless but also as a deadly trap. Israel must not enter such a trap with hands raised in a move of surrender before the steamroller of international pressures on the side of the essentially destructive position of the Arabs. Besides Barder's advice to Israel, to stand against the demand to establish a Palestinian state as a bridge-head for continuing the war of Israel's enemies against what will (temporarily) remain of the Zionist entity, Israel must act with the greatest firmness. She must take a principled stand that does not in any way seek peace with enemies, neither the Palestinians nor the Syrians. We see the Egyptians and the Jordanians who signed peace agreements with Israel continuing to nurture a public climate that remains as before, charged with burning hatred for Israel. The opposition to normalization with the Jewish State stands unchanged.

But amazingly, every trend to make peace between Israel and the Arabs has so far not brought about a deep or fatal erosion in the ability of Israel to exist. The Golan Heights and most of the Yesha territories are in our hands. Jerusalem remains until now under Israeli control. On the Temple Mount, if there are not Jewish worshipers, at least there are Jewish policemen. In spite of the folly in the desire to withdraw in a pipedream of pseudo-statesmen [literally: as a wish by people on drugs who resemble statesmen...(!!)], history has been kind to the State of Israel. Gloomy forecasts of a inclusive withdrawal from the Golan and the mountain range in Judea and Samaria did not materialize. The IDF stands about 60 km from Damascus and protects the Jordan Valley and the slopes of the Samarian mountains, defending the security of the nation from an Arab front on the east.

Christopher Barder wrote an exciting document with the daring of the politically incorrect intellectual, and therefore, he is truly politically correct. He uses information sources of researchers and academics who have long been trying to raise awareness of the completely unreasoning [or possibly: unbalanced] adventure called "Oslo". What is guiding Barder is not a liberal ideology detached from the basic data of geopolitics and the violent Islamic culture, but what enlightens him is an open-eyed vision of what is being done in the political and military field. The reader will be very impressed with the writing of this responsible and serious researcher, who incidently doesn't live in Israel at all, but in England.


This excellent new book on Oslo should be in every fighter for Israel's library. It is available from The Freeman Center.

Please send check for $12.95 + $3.00 postage to

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

 HOME  Maccabean  comments