Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

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

VOLUME 10       B"H OCTOBER 2002       NUMBER 9



A ROAD MAP THAT LEADS STRAIGHT BACK TO OSLO...Guest Editorial....Natan Sharansky


ISRAELI LEFT: "Shut Up Or Maybe We'll Kill You"....Ariel Natan Pasko
PROVOCATION IN YESHA....Emanuel A. Winston

A ROAD MAP TO MISERY....Jerusalem Post Editorial
A TALE OF TWO REALITIES....Caroline B. Glick
EVIL IS EVIL.....Isi Leiber

BRING JONATHAN HOME....Professor Paul Eidelberg

WHY ISRAEL'S IMAGE SUFFERS.....Interview - GPO Director Danny Seaman




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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

I plan to discuss the Right of the Jewish People to Eretz Yisrael including Judea, Samaria and Gaza–Yesha for short. I also will discuss the strategic importance of Yesha and how the Jewish communities there contribute to Israel's security, prevent the establishment of a Palestinian terrorist state next door and fulfil Biblical commandments.

GENESIS 15:17-18:

And it came to pass, That day the L-RD made a covenant with Abraham saying:



DAVID BEN GURION, founding father and first Prime Minister of Israel, had this to say about territorial concessions:

"No Jew has the right to relinquish the right of the Jewish people over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish people has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."[Zionist Conference, Basle, Switzerland, 1937]

THE JEWISH RIGHT TO ERETZ YISRAEL was expressed in a letter from the Jewish leader Simon, the only survivor of the five Maccabee brothers to king Antiochus, whom they had just defeated. Antiochus demanded the return of the 'occupied territories' -- that is territories the Maccabees liberated during their recent war.

Simon writes: "We have neither taken foreign land nor seized foreign property, but only the inheritance of our fathers, which at one time had been unjustly taken by our enemies. Now that we have the opportunity, we are firmly holding the inheritance of our fathers."


Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his book A PLACE AMONG THE NATIONS writes the following when told that Judea and Samaria are foreign "occupied" lands:

"This land, where every swing of a spade unearths remnants of the Jewish past and where every village carries the barely altered Hebrew names of old; this land, in which the Jews became a nation and over which they shed more tears than have been shed by any other people in history; this land, the loss of which resulted in an exile of the Jews such as has been suffered by no other people and the spilling of a sea of blood such as has been spilled by no other nation; this land, which never ceased to live as a distant but tangible home in the minds of Jewish children from Toledo in medieval Spain to the Warsaw ghetto in our own century; this land, for which the Jews fought with unsurpassed courage and tenacity in ancient as in modern times -- this is the "foreign land" that world leaders now demand be barred to Jews and that Israel (should) unilaterally forsake."

The answer to such absurd demands must be a resounding NO!


The modern Jewish return to Eretz Yisrael began in 1882. Between 1882 and 1914 there were dozens of Jewish "settlements" ( I prefer the term Jewish communities both then and now). Some of the more important ones were Tel Aviv, Hadera, and Rischon Letzion,Hayelet Hashacher, Rosh Pina, Metula, Kfar Saba and Petah Tikva. Between 1921 and 1925 Jews settled throughout the Jezereel Valley. In fact, the return of Jews to Eretz Yisrael was the raison etre of the Zionist Movement and a commandment to Jews everywhere to return to Zion. This process continues today 120 years after it began.


Unfortunately, Jews throughout history have deluded themselves about their position in society. They pursue utopian solutions (like Oslo) to complex political problems and disputes. Jews rejoiced as the enlightenment spread across Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. Many were eager to give up their Jewishness and become German, French, Italian, and English. In the final analysis those societies viewed them as Jews. Self-delusion came into collision with reality and left us with the stench of burning flesh in the ovens of Auschwitz. Many Russian Jews eagerly supported the communist idea of a worker's utopia with no nationalities and no religion. Reality taught them that their neighbors still considered them Jews.

The left-wing in Israel believes in a common humanity of shared values with the Arabs. In the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary they believe peace is possible. In the book Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu (1963-1976), Jonathan Netanyahu, the fallen hero of Entebbe and brother of Benjamin, said it best: "I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish people is!"


In 1967 I traveled to Israel a few days after the Western Wall fell into Israeli hands. As 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 (but 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. Anyone who has followed the Arab-Israeli conflict must be aware of the rising cost paid for Jewish blood. Before Israel was established, nations of the world took Jewish lives with impunity. Today, Arabs have discovered that the iron fist of Zahal (Israel Defense Forces) exacts a high price for even one Jewish life. Unfortunately, following the signing of the Oslo Agreements, Jewish blood has become cheaper.

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.

A LETTER FROM SHILOH, by Yisrael Medad

"The faith of these "settlers" who should properly be termed "revenants," people who have returned to a place after a long absence", their commitment and their determination, are intangibles that some Diaspora Jews still find difficult to grasp. To some Diaspora Jews, especially those who have traditionally championed a more liberal or leftwing approach to Zionism, the Oslo process is still strong after nine years of abject failure. For them, it seems, my community is an impediment to fulfillment of the Oslo vision of two states, one Jewish, the other devoid of Jewish communities.

To those who still champion the Oslo process, peace requires that Jews be banned from the heart of the Jewish people's historic homeland, Judea and Samaria, as they were for 19 years after Israel's 1948 War of Independence. To them, the quarter-million Jews who reside there are always "the settlers." Their communities constitute "human rights violations," they are an "illegal occupation" and must be dismantled for their vision of peace to be fulfilled.

My home in Shiloh was never occupied, to use a phrase too liberally applied, by Arabs, though there are Arab villages nearby. Calling Shiloh a "settlement" implies something foreign, intrusive and temporary, something that is purposefully and maliciously imposed. To us, however, "settling" is the most natural thing for a Jew to do: to reside where his forefathers dwelled, where his kings ruled and his prophets spoke.

No, we are not violators of justice and international law. If there is any substance to the charges of ethnic cleansing and human rights violations so frequently tossed about, it relates to what the Arab leadership and its supporters have done and continue to do. We have done our best to avoid hindering Arabs as they continue to live here and in Israel, and have founded our communities almost exclusively on unused and unpopulated hilltops. Arab terrorists and their supporters justify killing our children and women just because we live here. "

The letter ends.


As I stand before you tonight, I must emphatically declare that the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is NO different from ethnic cleansing anywhere in the world.

The Arabs who wish to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors are welcome. They can even manage their own civil and municipal affairs.

THOSE, HOWEVER, WHO WISH TO TAKE UP THEIR BOMBS,GUNS AND KNIVES TO KILL JEWS OR THROW ROCKS TO CRUSH JEWISH SKULLS, MUST BE DESTROYED. Rabbinical authorities have long recognized the ultimate religious priority of saving Jewish lives. For example, the Israeli army is permitted to operate fully on Shabbat because it is necessary to save Jewish lives.


Too many Jews are obsessed with what will satisfy the Arabs. I doubt if there is a single Palestinian or Moslem anywhere that worries about what is good for Israel or the Jewish People. We must remember the words of Hillel when he said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am for myself alone, what am I?" Hillel's message is clear: First take care of yourself, your family and your people and then try to help others.


Remember it took the Christian world two thousand years to accept us as human beings, and this only after the mass murder of a third of our people.

It may take the Arabs a while, maybe decades or even hundreds of years -- but we have no choice but to be patient. The fact that we want peace badly does not mean that it is attainable. To strip Israel of strategic territory like Czechoslovakia before WWII in the pursuit of a phantom illusory peace will only lead to disaster.


In our Holy Scriptures we read about the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah, who anguished over the fact that his people believed in false prophets of peace and didn't see the dangers facing Israel, cries out in despair, "Peace, peace but there is no peace."

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

(7) All of Israel's military and civilian communications could be easily monitored from the hills of Judea and Samaria. The quick mobilization of the IDF could be rendered impossible by Palestinian attacks.

(8) Israel would lose control of the Judean-Samarian mountain ridge which protects it from attack from the east. The steep slope from the Jordan River to the crest of the rige is difficult to travers and can be blocked by a relatively small force of the IDF Should a Palestine State arise the Arab population will force the Israelis out.

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

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

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

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

(13) The Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will no doubt be victims of ethnic cleansing. The Arabs will insist on a Jew-free country like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

(14) The air and seaports planned for Gaza will facilitate the entry of weapons and terrorists, threatening the security of Israel. The air space above Israel including Ben Gurion Airport would easily threatened. A Palestinian State could NOT be demilitarized. Look at the PA today.

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


"Hitler, Goebbels and Goering were pathological and pragmatic liars. Arafat also lied at Oslo as he fully intended to carry out his staged plan of 1974. Under this plan he would accept any part of Palestine until he could conquer the remainder. The Nazis lied so convincingly and so hugely that most statesmen from other countries could not believe that what they were hearing was a lie... One of Hitler's biggest lies was constantly to assure the world of peaceful intentions while obviously planning war. Arafat has done the same.

The only reason that the Arabs have not yet done to the Israeli Jews what Hitler did to their forefathers in Europe is that they have thus far lacked the military means and weapons of mass destruction which were at Hitler's disposal, to do so.

That the Arabs have not done so to date has not been due to any reluctance on their part, but because, this time, there has been this difference: The Jews in Europe had no army to defend them. Thank G-d, the Jews in Israel have!

May Israel be wiser in relation to this death wish of her neighbours, than the Jews in Europe were. They belittled the writings and speeches of Hitler and the Nazis and were massacred as a result. May it not happen again with Arafat!

I am sorry that I can not offer you more encouraging words. What I present is:


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

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

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

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

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




By Avi Davis

There is a story told about Yitzhak Shamir's first encounter with James Baker immediately following the Gulf War. Approaching the Israeli prime minister with his hand outstretched, Baker, not known for his affability, exuded: Mr. Prime Minister, America, owes you a debt of gratitude for your perseverance in not retaliating against Iraq. Shamir looked at the hand then up into Baker's eyes and said tersely: You should know, Mr. Secretary, that being hit by 39 scud missiles makes a people look at the world in a very different way .

Although perhaps apocryphal, the statement nevertheless speaks volumes about Israel's attitude to the issue of retaliation. No one in Israel needs to be reminded of the frustration of absorbing six weeks of attacks, spending hours locked in dank, lightless bomb shelters, donning gas masks for protection and the feeling that they were paying the price for a war they did not start and for attacks to which they could not respond.

It cannot be too surprising then, that Israel is holding its cards close to its chest when it comes to assurances about its retaliatory intentions. During the Gulf War the first George Bush, according to then Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens, did not request, but actually demanded that the Shamir Government not retaliate. Placating Israeli fears, Bush's military men assured Shamir that the Scud missile launchers would be found and destroyed. But the U.S. military, despite its reputed sophistication, was unable to locate even one of the launchers and the Scuds continued to batter the Israeli heartland.

Notwithstanding this catastrophe of reconnaissance, the United States failed, abjectly, to fulfill what it had more or less assured Israel as its primary military objective - the elimination of the Iraqi menace. The Shamir government had accepted the Bush calculation that Saddam Hussein would fall from power and if not removed by internal putsch, then would be delivered by American military intervention. But a decade later Saddam Hussein is not only still in power, but can be found fomenting terrorism in Israel itself though both a network of provocateurs and a system of cash back rewards for homicide bombers.

The Israelis also expected political rewards to follow their willing sacrifices on behalf of the U.S. military campaign. It is forgotten by no one that the last Bush administration was the most unfriendly to Israel since the country's founding. Shamir had virtually become person non grata at the White House. When in 1990, (prior to the Gulf War) James Baker famously admonished the Israelis: call us when you are serious about peace and repeated the identification of settlements as the major obstacle to achieving it , he turned US- Israeli relations into a bitter slogging match between lobbyists. Many in the Israeli political establishment therefore felt certain that compliance with the Bush Administration's demands would win them points in Washington and would convert a cold shoulder into a warm embrace.

But not even this panned out. The first Bush Administration, flush with confidence in its new diplomatic muscle, railroaded an unwilling Shamir into a peace conference in Madrid. The conference was hailed as a diplomatic breakthrough, attended by the President himself. But it was far from achieving anything substantive. While it did bring the antagonists face to face, it also succeeded in revealing the depth of hatred for Israel (and, if we are to be truthful, for the U.S. itself ) in the Arab world. In the end, Madrid did nothing to jolt the rejectionist Arab world into acceptance of Israel. And when the party was over, it was Israel who felt left to pay the bill.

It therefore should not be startling that the Israelis are guarded about their likely response to an Iraqi attack. Monday's meeting between Bush and Sharon in which the President made clear his willingness to countenance an Israeli response, was a significant movement in position. But it is still fell short of a vital acknowledgement : That the United States has no better military, political or ideological ally in the Middle East. That the approaching war with Iraq will only be buttressed by the involvement of Israeli intelligence and military advisers who are both familiar with the terrain and skilled in combat against Arab militia. And that without a friendly coalition to protect from disintegration, the United States has no sound tactical reason to exclude Israel from a direct contribution to a military assault.

For allowing such an Israeli involvement would send a clear message to the Arab world: the balance of power has shifted. No longer will the United States feel beholden to perfidious Middle East oil barons who attest friendship one day and finance terror against US and democratic targets the next. No longer will it feel the need to placate brutal autocracies who decry supposed Israeli human rights abuses while subjecting their own peoples to manifest repression. It might finally acknowledge that the future of the Middle East lies in a quarantine of the region by a quadrilateral military alliance, linking those democratic countries such as Turkey, India, Israel and the United States, who feel most threatened by the export of militant Islam.

Seen in this context, the issue of retaliation is almost irrelevant. The real question remains whether the United States, in the cold light of victory, will be finally jolted, in Shamir's words, into looking at the world in a very different way.

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



The Jerusalem Post


By Natan Sharansky

(The writer is Deputy Prime Minister.)

This week Israelis got to look at the "Road Map to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli Palestinian Conflict" that was formulated by the diplomatic Quartet (US, EU, UN and Russia). Even a cursory reading of this road map shows that the only place to which it will lead is straight back to Oslo.

When I heard President Bush's speech on June 24, I thought that Oslo's flawed approach to peacemaking would be buried once and for all and that a genuine hope for peace was kindled. The president spoke then about the inextricable link between democracy and peace. He told the Palestinian people that America would support an independent Palestinian state if the Palestinians reformed their society and chose a new leadership not compromised by terror.

But unfortunately, the "road map" unveiled this week is a far cry from the vision of peace Bush articulated four months ago. For what he did is place the hope for peace squarely on the shoulders of the Palestinian people. The Quartet's road map, in other words, has returned to the illusion of peace with dictators.

The primary mistake of the Oslo peace process was that it implicitly assumed that a Palestinian dictatorship would advance the cause of peace. Arafat, the logic went, was to be strengthened as much as possible so that he would fight terror and provide security for the people of Israel.

Any measure that was deemed to weaken Arafat was to be conspicuously avoided for fear of undermining our "peace partner." This logic created a climate in which the pressure to preserve the "momentum" of the peace process and to adhere to fixed timetables had a far more powerful hold on world public opinion than did the need for Arafat and the PA to fulfill their commitments.

Arafat and the PA quickly realized that merely by paying lip service to peace in the outside world, they could build a terrorist autonomy inside Palestinian- controlled territory with nary a protest.

For nearly a decade, the international community failed to force Arafat and the PA to confront terror. The Palestinian regime was free to mobilize all the means at its disposal to incite the Palestinians against Israel in order to divert attention from their own corrupt and repressive rule. Even though some tried to point out the dangers, the momentum of peacemaking proved too difficult to overcome. By the time the Oslo illusion collapsed, Arafat and the PA had succeeded in creating a climate in which Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah and Tanzim could all compete with each other to see who could kill more Israelis.

DESPITE ITS good intentions, the road map unveiled this week is bound to yield the same results. Its call for a game of musical chairs among the current Palestinian leadership, the appointment of an "empowered" Palestinian prime minister, the enactment of a Palestinian constitution, and statements reiterating Israel's right to exist misses the point. These measures will not truly reform Palestinian society because they are being implemented from the top down, not from the bottom up.

Instead, this road map will only result in a new illusion whereby a new Palestinian dictatorship will be called upon to protect Israel's security and advance the cause of peace. Judging from this map, the Quartet believes that a Palestinian society poisoned for the last decade to hate Israel and Jews will be ready to freely choose a new leadership in a matter of months and be ready to peaceably join the community of nations in less than a year.

Once again, we are told, all that is needed to make peace a reality is resumed security cooperation, some money, and a little good will.

Rather than strengthening the Palestinian people and investing in their freedom, the Quartet document returns to the Oslo formula by placing its faith in a "reformed" Palestinian dictatorship. Such a dictatorship will be no more interested in the welfare of its people than any other.

Six months ago, I sent a plan to Prime Minister Sharon that I believe outlines the broad steps that must be taken to ensure that Israelis and Palestinians embark on a genuine path to peace.

It calls for a temporary administration to be established for the next two to three years so that Palestinian society can be "detoxified" and democratic institutions can be developed. Rather than call for elections at the beginning of the process of reform, elections must come only after that process is well under way.

After all, only when Palestinians are not afraid to speak freely will they have a real opportunity to freely choose a leadership that is not compromised by terror. And only with such a leadership can Israel hope to engage in constructive negotiations for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Last summer, Bush crossed a peacemaking Rubicon in his historic speech. But alas, the Quartet's road map takes us back to the other side. Rigid timetables, confidence building measures, and new Palestinian strongmen will bring us no closer to peace today than they did for the last decade.

The only hope for an Israeli-Palestinian peace remains investing in a free Palestinian society that will want to join Israel in building a common future.

(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post




by Boris Shusteff

(Part 1 of 3)

Fight against such of those to whom, the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true Faith. (Qur'an 9:29)

Every event in the life of the Prophet must be studied carefully in order to learn how to respond should one find oneself in similar circumstances. (Salahi, Muhammad: Man and Prophet, 382)

It is absolutely mind-boggling that people are often unable to see the simple truth, even when they are looking directly at it. A good example is A.B. Yehoshua, a stalwart of the Israeli liberal left. In a July 21 article in The Jerusalem Post, speaking about "a new wave of hatred towards Jews [that] swept across the Arab and Muslim world" he suggests that "the cause and motive of this outbreak of animosity and rejection [of the Jews] must be analyzed."

He writes that "we Jews [must] become more adept at deciphering reality, take pains not to delude ourselves." However, he then completely fails to do this, because he takes the Six-Day War as the starting point of the Jewish-Arab conflict. While criticizing traditional Orthodox Jewry for its refusal "to confront the issue of anti-Semitism and study its causes," he himself does not even touch the issue of Muslim Judeo-phobia, thus missing the only chance to "decipher reality."

He deludes himself and his readers by completely ignoring the religious component of the Arab "rejection of the Jews." Only by taking it into account can we understand why all efforts at appeasement in dealing with the Arabs will always fail. One must analyze the ways that the Prophet Muhammad dealt with the Jews 1,400 years ago in order to gain insight into what can be expected from Muslims today.

Professor Akbar Ahmed from Cambridge writes about the enormous role that Muhammad plays in the Arab world. Muslims revere him above any and all human beings. Ahmed wrote,

"As the Prophet is the messenger, the Qur'an is the message of God. Together they provide the basis for the ideal type of Muslim behavior and thought The Prophet himself had said in his last sermon: 'I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my example the sunnah [traditions about the words and deeds of the Prophet], and if you follow these you will never go astray" (1).

In our research on Prophet-Jewish relations we shall assign the role of adviser to Adil Salahi, a British journalist of Arabic origin, and will rely on his fundamental book "Muhammad: Man and Prophet." Salahi spent countless days studying various biographies of the Prophet. He writes "I could not put down the "Life of the Prophet" by ibn Hisham. I do not recall how many times I read that invaluable book, written over a thousand years ago" (ix). While writing the book he serialized the Prophet's history "attending to details and commenting on events. It took four years and a total of 200 episodes to complete." The book presents the "standard Islamic view in detail, trying to elucidate it as much as possible" (xi).

In the introduction to the book Salahi wrote: "There is always an example to follow, an attitude to adopt or a lesson to learn from the Prophet. Whether you are Muslim or not, a careful study of his blessed life will enable you to have a much better understanding of Islam" (x).

We begin our journey with Muhamad's arrival in Medina. At that time three main Jewish tribes lived there, "whose adult males numbered in excess of 2000" (208). These tribes were the Qainuqaa', An-Nadheer and Quraithah. The Jews lived in their own quarters and constituted almost half of the city's population.

While Salahi provides in his book examples of "good Jews" - i.e. ones that accepted the Prophet and converted to Islam - one will be hard pressed to find in the book good words about the Jews as a people. On the contrary, Salahi presents them in a very negative way. He writes:

"It was easy for the Jews to operate their usurious system. In their pawn shops, the Jews did not only accept valuable articles as pledges, but would also take woman and children as security against the repayment of loans. This system secured a strong financial position for the Jews, which enabled them to manipulate the market and exploit it to their own advantage. Hence, the whole population hated them for their selfishness, usury and for the means they adopted to get rich" (210).

Two major Arab tribes, the Aws and the Khazraj, lived in Medina at the time of the Prophet's arrival there. Salahi states that the Jews governed their relations with these tribes based on their own interests.

"They would do anything which ensured any material gain. Hence they tried to cause war to flare up between two tribes, whenever they judged that such a war would be to their own advantage. Indeed, it was the Jews who caused all the civil wars which considerably weakened both the Aws and Khazraj tribes" (210).

In his narrative Salahi constantly presents the Jews as the enemies of Islam. He writes, " Little did [the Prophet] think in the beginning that blind hatred of anything that did not emanate with the Israelites would determine the Jews' attitude towards Islam" (277). "Shas ibn Qais was an old Jew with unparalleled hatred for Islam" (282). "The Jews of Madinah [Medina] were fierce enemies of Islam, waiting for every chance to deal a devastating blow to Muslims" (283).

Let us follow the development of the events that lead to the expulsion of Qainuqaa', the first Jewish tribe. Salahi writes, "Despite the fact that the Prophet made a treaty with the Jews when he first arrived in Madinah, which stipulated that the Jews would support the Muslims in any fight against any enemy who threatened the Muslims in Madinah, it was soon to become clear that the Jews had no intention of putting that provision into effect" (283).

Salahi continues,

"Indeed, their hatred of Islam, which has no cause except the fact that the Prophet himself was not Jewish, became self-evident - so much so that when they realized that the Muslims had achieved a resounding victory at Badr, they felt very sorry for the non-believers and felt insecure in Madinah Hence the Jews gave every indication that they considered their peace treaty with the Prophet broken. Their poets started to ridicule the Muslims and belittle their victory. Unashamedly they also spoke ill of the Prophet and started a barrage of ridicule against him" (283).

Salahi continues to build his case against the Jews. "The tribe of Qainuqaa' [was] the closest to the Arabs in their quarters. It was perhaps this proximity that led the Jewish tribe of Qainuqaa' to show more hostility to the Muslims then the rest of the Jews. Any provocation would surely be enough to start a war between the two parties" (282). The "provocation" happened very soon when a Muslim woman went into a jeweler's shop in the Jewish market.

"In order to have a laugh at her, a Jew came from behind her and took the lower edge of her dress and stuck it to her shoulders, but she was totally unaware When she stood up the lower part of her body was visible and all the Jews around her laughed. She cried for help and a Muslim man nearby attacked the Jew who perpetrated this and killed him. Several men then attacked the Muslim and killed him" (284).

From this episode, it is hard to conclude that the Jews are on the verge of breaching the agreement, but it is exactly the conclusion at which the Prophet arrives. Let us listen to Salahi,

"The Prophet quickly came over and tried to calm everybody down. The Prophet called notables in the Qainuqaa' tribe and spoke to them, warning them against breach of their treaty: 'You had better guard against a calamity, like that which befell the Quraish. You will be well advised to adopt Islam' Their hatred, however, had become very strong and they would not listen. Their answer was far from conciliatory: 'Muhammad, do you think that we are an easy prey? If we were to fight you, you would certainly know that we are the true fighters' " (284).

Now the case is built. Salahi concludes, "The Jewish tribe of Qainuqaa' moved over to the enemy camp There was certainly no chance that the Muslims would feel easy about probable treachery by the Qainuqaa' Jews when the state of war still existed between the Muslims and the Quraish" (284).

It is important to note that these accusations against the Jews were based on assumptions, feelings and probabilities. So far the Jews had not really done anything criminal. However, this was enough for Muhammad. Salahi writes, "The Prophet received the following instruction from Allah: 'If you have reason to fear treachery from people with whom you have made a covenant, cast it back at them in an equitable manner. For, indeed, Allah does not love the treacherous.' (Qur'an 8:58)" (284).

Armed with this instruction the Prophet declared to [the Jews] that

"The treaty between two parties no longer has any value. He also warned them that he considered himself at war with them. They, on their part, went into their fortifications while the Muslims put them under siege. The siege continued for 15 days, during which the Qainuqaa' Jews received no help whatsoever from any quarter" (285).

As we'll see later, the fate of the Qainuqaa' Jews was the best of all three Jewish tribes. When they "realized that their case was hopeless, they were overtaken by fear and decided to ask the Prophet to let them leave Madinah. He accepted their offer to leave and let them go with their women and children, provided that they left behind their property and arms" (286).

Salahi explains the relatively mild "punishment" of the Jews. The Prophet stopped short of much more severe measures because one of the leaders of the hypocrites Abdullah ibn Ubbai asked him to spare the Jews, since they "are 700 fighters who always protected me against all my enemies". Before the Prophet came to Medina, Abdullah was very influential and Muhammad decided not to alienate the large non-Muslim community, hoping to attract them to Islam in the future.

The Prophet dealt out punishment to individual Jews as well. Salahi presents an episode in Muhammad's life that culminated in the death of "Ka'ab ibn Al Ashraf, a prominent personality of the Jewish tribe An-Nadheer." In this case, the straw that broke the camel's back was the fact that Ka'ab "wrote obscene love poems mentioning Muslim women. This was extremely offensive to the Muslims, who valued their honor very highly" (290).

The Prophet decided that Ka'ab must be stopped.

"He therefore said to some of his companions: 'Who will rid us of Ibn Al-Ashraf, for he has declared his hostility openly?' A man from the Ansar called Muhammad ibn Maslamah said: 'I volunteer for that. I will kill him.' This man requested and was granted permission from the Prophet to pretend to Ka'ab that he and his friends were against the Prophet and against Islam. It is important to note that the Prophet did not hesitate to grant them such permission" (291).

Ibn Maslamah went to Ka'ab with Silkan ibn Salamah. As Salahi explains, "Silkan was Ka'ab's brother by virtue of their both being breast-fed by the same woman. There was therefore an element of trust between them" (291). Silkan deceived Ka'ab and convinced him to meet his friends. The Prophet was involved in the final preparation for the killing. Salahi writes, "They all met at the Prophet's place. Then they set out and the Prophet walked with them part of the way. Before they left him, he blessed their mission and prayed Allah to help them" (292).

The Muslims lured Ka'ab out into the street. Salahi describes the killing,

"When they had walked for quite a while, Silkan suddenly held Ka'ab by his head and shouted to his friends: 'Kill the enemy of Allah'. They hit him with their swords, but he apparently has his armor on and they did not harm him. Muhammad ibn Masalamah, however, had a knife. He stabbed Ka'ab in the lower part of his abdomen and pulled the knife down. Ka'ab fell. When they had made sure that Ka'ab could not live, they started to run" (292).

One of the killers, Al-Harith ibn Aws was wounded during the mission. The other Muslims carried him and went "straight to met the Prophet He went out to see them and they told him of the success of their mission. He wiped Al-Harith's wound with his saliva and it cleared up The incident struck fear in the hearts of the Jews, who realized that the Muslims would tolerate hostility from no one" (293).

(End of Part 1 of 3)

The page numbers in parentheses are from source 2.

1. Akbar S. Ahmed, Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World. I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001. p.28.
2. Adil Salahi. Muhammad: Man and Prophet. A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam. Barn and Nobles Books, New York, 1995.


by Boris Shusteff

(Part 2 of 3)

The expulsion of the second Jewish tribe - the An-Nadheer - followed after the Prophet unearthed the Jewish conspiracy against him. Here are the circumstances of the story. The Prophet had to pay blood money to the relatives of the men killed by one of his companions. Since the Muslim state in Medina was a very poor one, he went to the Jewish tribe of An-Nadheer to ask for money. Salahi writes,

"He asked their chiefs to contribute to the blood money he had to pay. When he made his purpose clear to them they showed their willingness to meet his request. They were careful to show respect to him and addressed him by his title of Abu Al-Qassim, meaning the father of his eldest son, Al-Qassim, who, incidentally had died in infancy. They said to him: 'We will certainly help you in this matter'" (350).

The Prophet and his companions sat down close to a house belonging to a Jew waiting for the money. Then events took a bizarre turn. This is how Salahi describes them,

"The chiefs of the An-Nadheer tribe left them pretending that they were about to raise some money When they were alone, some of the Jews said: 'You will never find the man as easy a prey as he is now. Let a strong person go onto the roof of the house next to which Mohammad is sitting and drop a large stone or rock over his head and rid us of him.' One of them, Amir ibn Jihash ibn Ka'ab, volunteered to commit the treacherous crime. The Prophet was informed by Allah of the design of the An-Nadheer tribe, so he left his companions in their place, giving the impression that he was coming back soon, and went straight to Madinah" (350).

This is the famous episode, which all the Muslims keep reinvigorating, repeating for 1,400 years that the "Jews are the traitors that wanted to kill the Prophet". It is doubtful that nowadays any court would have taken this case for consideration based only on information submitted to Muhammad by Allah. However, Allah's words are the ultimate proof for Muslims. Besides, the Qur'an clearly says: "You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans" (Qur'an 5:82). And, "Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal" (Qur'an 3:118).

Salahi writes, that when the Prophet "escaped the assassination attempt there was no reason for the An-Nadheer tribe to continue with their plot" (351). However, for Muhammad the case with the An-Nadheer tribe was over. He sent one of his companions with the following message to the Jews,

"Betake yourselves out of my city. You are no longer allowed to share it with me now that you have plotted your treacherous action against me. I give you ten days' notice to carry out this ultimatum. Any one of you seen after this period in Madinah shall be executed" (351).

The Jews tried to resist. They were promised help by Abdullah ibn Ubbai, the man who earlier pleaded for the first expelled Jewish tribe of Qainuqaa'. The Jews again retreated into their quarters. The Muslims encircled them. The siege lasted for 26 days, nobody came to the Jews' help and they asked the Prophet to allow them to leave the city on the same conditions that were stipulated for the Qainuqaa' Jews. However, the Prophet replied that since they "wanted to join forces with others against the Prophet and Muslims [that] meant that they would do the same whenever a new opportunity presented itself" (353).

Therefore their punishment was harsher. They were told that they would have safe conduct to leave Medina with their women and children. However, each of them could have only a camel load of his belongings and no arms were allowed. Their farms and lands were to be given up.

Salahi concludes the episode of the expulsion of the An-Nadheer with following statement, "Thus the encounter with the second Jewish tribe came to its conclusion. Muslims did not have to fight and no blood was shed. The Muslim state was considerably richer now with the lands and the property that the Muslims had gained from the Jews" (354).

Salahi reminds us of another very important point about this expulsion. He indicates that "the Muslims themselves did not expect the Jews of An-Nadheer to be evacuated. This is because of the strength and forces that the Jews possessed." It was Allah who forced them out. "It was He that drove the unbelievers among the people of earlier scriptures Allah reached them when they did not expect, and cast terror in their hearts so that their homes were destroyed with their own hands and the hands of the believers" (Qur'an 59:2).

While the Jews of Qainuqaa' were simply expelled and the Jews of An-Nadheer were expelled and their possessions taken away, the fate of the third Jewish tribe - the Quraithah - was tragic. The Prophet's encounter with this Jewish tribe took place at the time when Medina was besieged by Mohammed's own tribe from Mecca - the Quraish, and the confederate Arab tribes which joined them. As Salahi writes, "this alliance is forged by the Jews." He painstakingly describes the efforts of the Jews to create this anti-Muhammad alliance. Salahi constantly stresses that Muhammad had two major enemies: his Quraish tribe from Mecca and the Jews. He often mentions Quraish and the Jews in one breath. "Indeed, neither the Quraish nor the Jews felt that they could score a victory in an open battle against Muslims." "Both the Quraish and the Jews, however, could only grow more bitter as they realized that Islam was getting stronger every day."

However, while the Quraish and the confederate Arab tribes are shown in the book as mainly marching and waiting to attack Medina, the Jews are constantly presented as the chief spoilers. The following example speaks for itself. Quraish leaders addressed Jewish chiefs,

"some of whom were Rabbis: 'You the Jewish people, are the people of ancient scriptures. You know our quarrel with Muhammad. We now want to ask you: which is better of the two religions - ours or his?' Unhesitatingly, the Jewish chiefs said to those who worshipped idols: Your religion is certainly better than his and you are nearer to the truth than he" (396).

Salahi writes that the Jews in order to persuade the Arab tribe of Ghatafan to join the anti-Islamic alliance promised them "the entire date harvest for a whole year after they have achieved their victory against Muhammad" (397). It is worth mentioning that the Jews who "worked hard to forge the alliance" were not those of the Quraithah tribe but from the An-Nadheer tribe that were expelled by Muhammad to Khaibar after they had been robbed of their possessions.

Salahi's story goes further, describing the siege of Medina by Quraish and other non-Islamic forces. They were unable to breach Muhammad's defense. Then Huyai ibn Akhtab, one of the Rabbis of the An-Nadheer, "realized that the only chance to achieve the goal of bringing about the collapse of Islam and the annihilation of Muhammad and his companions was to persuade the Quraithah to join forces with the Arabic polytheist and their Jewish allies" (405).

Very soon ibn Akhtab convinced Rabbi Ka'ab ibn Assad, the Quraithah leader, to join the anti-Muhammad forces. When that was done "the Quraithah followed their leader Ka'ab ibn Assad in his unilateral abrogation of their treaty with the Muslims" (407). Salahi writes that the Quraithah asked to be given ten days to prepare for the fight against Muslims. The Jews are presented in the book as the most dangerous element of the anti-Islam coalition. "Some of the companions of the Prophet [said] that they were much more worried about their women and children being attacked by the Quraithah than about facing the much larger force of the Quraish and Ghatafan" (412).

Salahi explains that "the Jews of the Quraithah had easy access to Madinah and apparently they sent some of their men to frighten the Muslim women and children. One of them was killed by Saffiyyah bint Abdulmutallib, the Prophet's aunt, when she saw the man moving suspiciously very close to the quarters of the Muslim women" (413).

Then a miracle happened. The Quraish and Ghatifan decided that they could not continue the siege of Medina any longer and left. The Muslims realized "that this was accomplished through no effort of their own, except their demonstration that they were prepared to give any sacrifice they were called on to give. As said earlier, it was accomplished by Divine Providence" (423).

The same Divine Providence told Muhammad to settle the score with the Jews. The next day after the departure of the Quraish, "the Angel Gabriel came to the Prophet to tell him: 'Allah commands you, Muhammad, to march to the Quraithah. I am now going there to shake their hearts" (423). In order to take the Quraithah by surprise the Prophet even permitted the postponement of an obligatory prayer. The Muslims imposed a siege on the Quraithah Jews. All attempts by the Jews to come to a peaceful agreement with Muhammad were refused by him. "They were told that their only choice was to submit to the judgment of the Prophet, whatever that might be - that is, an unconditional surrender" (427).

After 25 days of siege the Jews surrendered and "accepted the judgment of the Prophet." The Prophet told them "to choose any person from the Aws to be their arbiter. Their choice was the chief of the Aws tribe, Sa'ad ibn Mu'tah." The Aws used to be the Jews' former allies. Thus, one could have expected some clemency in their judgment. When the Aws people brought a donkey to Sa'ad, and sent him on his way, they told him, "The Prophet has chosen you to judge them in order that you be kind to them. You know that Abdullah ibn Ubai was kind to his allies." However Sa'ad was silent at their request and then when he became tired of their insistence he said: "It is time for Sa'ad to disregard all criticism when it comes to something through which he hopes to please Allah." (431). And Sa'ad pleased Allah.

"He asked Quraithah to give him their most solemn pledges and oaths that they would accept whatever judgement he made. When they did, he pronounced his verdict in these words: 'I hereby rule that all the men of the Quraithah are to be killed, their properties to be divided and their women and children be enslaved.' The Prophet endorsed the ruling and said it was Allah's" (431).

The Jews were taken into Medina. Moats were dug in the marketplace for the execution of the Jewish men, who were taken in groups and beheaded. "Some reports suggest that the number of men killed was 400. Others put it at 600 and other put it even higher at 800-900. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the number was 600-700 people" (432). Salahi explains that the punishment incurred by the Jews was just. Since "Ka'ab ibn Assad led Quraithah to perpetrate treachery which could have left thousands of Muslims dead in the streets of Medina and a fatal blow befalling their women and children" (434). "Had they been allowed to settle somewhere else in Arabia, they were certain to try to have another go at the Muslims by raising new forces and forging new alliances. No wise government would have allowed its enemy such a chance" (436).

(End of Part 2 of 3)

The page numbers in parentheses are from source 2.

1. Akbar S. Ahmed, Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World. I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001. p.28.
2. Adil Salahi. Muhammad: Man and Prophet. A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam. Barn and Nobles Books, New York, 1995.


by Boris Shusteff

(Part 3 of 3)

The slaughter of the Quraithah Jews was not the last encounter that the Prophet had with the Jews. Five days' travel from Medina by camel, about 100 miles away, the large oasis of Khaibar became the main center of Jewish concentration in Arabia, after the destruction of Medina Jewry. The land there was very fertile, with farms and orchards stretching over a very large area. After concluding the famous Al-Hudaibiyah agreement with the Quraish "the Prophet felt that the Muslims were now in position to neutralize the threat posed by the Jews in Khaibar. He therefore called on his companions to mobilize again and start the march towards Khaibar" (493). Salahi explains,

"This was the reason which prompted the Prophet to march on Khaibar. Had he not done so, the Jews of Khaibar would have continued to urge others to attack the Muslims. The pattern of raising Arab tribes against the Muslims would be repeated again and again. There was no other way of stopping the Jewish aggression except by attacking the Jews in their own castles" (495).

The Jews were besieged. In one of the attacks the Muslims forced the gates of one of the forts to open "and started to kill anyone who resisted them, or to take him prisoner" (499). When majority of their strongholds failed, the Jews offered to surrender in return for their safety.

"The surrender agreement stipulated that none of the fighters would be put to death. They would be allowed to leave Khaibar and its vicinity, taking with them their women and children. They would abandon all claims over their land, money, horses and arms. To these conditions the Prophet added: 'But all guaranties given you would be abrogated if you withhold anything from me'. Thus all Khaibar fell to Muslims who were now in possessions of all its wealth and land" (501).

However, when the agreement was made the Jews changed their minds. They asked the Prophet to allow them to remain and work in the farms and orchards, saying, "We are better in this sort of job than you, and the land would yield much better crops if we work on it." They offered to give Muslims half of the crops of all the land in Khaibar in return. "The Prophet accepted these offers and amended the peace agreement accordingly, but added the proviso that the Muslims would evacuate the Jews from Khaibar whenever they chose" (501). After conquering Khaibar the Muslims "smashed the political and economic power of the Jews in Arabia. As the power of Islam continued to increase, the Jewish influence paled into insignificance" (508).

There is no reason to question the validity of any episodes in Muhammad's relations with the Jews. It does not matter how much truth is in them. What matters is that they persist from one biography of Muhammad to another. They have been repeated for fourteen centuries by Muslims all over the world. The Muslims learn from them that the Jews are a treacherous and extremely dangerous people that must be either expelled, killed or enslaved.

The mass destruction of the Quraithah Jews is the only episode in Muhammad's life where his enemies were slaughtered in such terrible numbers. The Jews were the only people treated by the Prophet this mercilessly. A good comparison would be the fate of the Quraish people after Muhammad conquered Mecca. Before the attack "All commanders were under strict orders not to start fighting unless they were attacked. The Prophet was very keen not to shed blood in Makkah [Mecca]" (576). It was reported to the Prophet that one of his commanders Sa'ad "might be so carried away by the occasion that he would start killing the Quraish people. The Prophet was keen not to shed a drop of blood, if that was at all possible, so he replaced Sa'ad at the command of that division" (578).

When Mecca was conquered Muhammad addressed the Quraish and asked them: "What sort of judgement do you think I am going to pass against you? You may go free. You are all pardoned'" (580). Salahi explained that "the pardon granted by the Prophet to the people of Makkah was a general pardon which included all those who fought against him in the battles which had taken place between the Quraish and Muslims" (580).

What is even more important is that these people whose lives the Prophet spared were "indeed the very people who turned him out of their city after repeatedly plotting to destroy his life" (587). (Just recall that for an imagined plot against his life, Muhammad expelled all the Jews of the An-Nadheer tribe and confiscated their possessions).

Salahi writes that when Muhammad called on the Quraish to accept Allah they rejected his appeal. "They stopped at nothing in their hostility to him personally and to his cause. They accused him of being a liar, a sorcerer and a madman. They schemed against him and urged others to be hostile to him and to his companions. They forged alliances to meet his peaceful calls with force of arms" (587).

If one compares the deeds of the Quraish with the deeds of the Jews, the injustice of the punishment brought on the Jews becomes extremely obvious. Especially, taking into account that not in a single episode did the Jews actually inflict any harm on the Prophet. All accusations against them were based on the assumptions that the Jews "might do something." While the Quraish marched all the way from Mecca, without hiding their intentions to destroy Muhammad, the Jews were only "thinking" of inflicting harm on the Prophet and the cause of Islam, based on unproven accusations. This was, however, enough for their merciless treatment.

From Muhammad's relations with the Jews the Muslims can learn only one thing: that they must constantly fight the Jews, since this is what Muhammad was tirelessly doing. Muslims learned from Muhammad's encounters with the Jews that the Jews are the biggest enemies of Islam, that they will never stop battling Muslims, that they are an extremely dangerous people because of their treacheries nature, that they constantly caused wars, and that they attempted to kill the Prophet many times and only Allah saved him. Muhammad died in 632, but the Muslim hatred towards Jews never abated.

On June 14, Fox News published the transcript of an interview with a 3-year-old girl conducted by Muslim Woman Magazine with the host Doaa 'Amer on Iqraa [Saudi Arabia/Egypt TV channel] television. It deserves to be presented almost in its entirety.

'Amer: "Our guest is a girl, a Muslim girl, but a true Muslim. Allah willing, may our God give us the strength to educate our children the same way, so that the next generation will turn out to be true Muslims who understand that they are Muslims and know who their enemies are.
Toddler: Allah's mercy and blessing upon you.
'Amer: What's your name?
Toddler: Basmallah.
'Amer: Basmallah, how old are you?
Toddler: Three and a half.
'Amer: Are you a Muslim?
Toddler: Yes.
'Amer: Basmallah, are you familiar with the Jews?
Toddler: Yes. '
Amer: Do you like them?
Toddler: No.
'Amer: Why don't you like them?
Toddler: Because . . .
'Amer: Because they are what?
Toddler: They're apes and pigs.
'Amer: Because they are apes and pigs. Who said they are so?
Toddler: Our God.
'Amer: Where did he say this?
Toddler: In the Koran.
'Amer: Right, he said that about them in the Koran. Okay, Basmallah, what are the Jews doing? Did they love our master, Muhammad?
Toddler: No.
'Amer: No. What did the Jews do to him?
Toddler: [Pauses, struggling for the right answer.] The Prophet Muhammad killed someone . . .
'Amer: Obviously, our master Muhammad was strong and could have killed them. All right, you know the traditions about the Jews and what they did to the Prophet Muhammad? Is there a story you know?
Toddler: Yes, the story about the Jewish woman. There was a Jewish woman who invited the Prophet and his friends. When he asked her, "Did you put poison (in my food)?" she said to him, "Yes." he asked her, "Why did you do this?" and she replied, "If you are a liar you will die and Allah will not protect you; if you speak the truth Allah will protect you."
'Amer: And our God protected the Prophet Muhammad, of course.
Toddler: And he said to his friends, "I will kill this lady."
'Amer: Of course, because she put poison in his food, this Jewess.
'Amer: Basmallah, Allah be praised. May our God bless her. No one could wish Allah could give him a more believing girl than she. May Allah bless her and her father and mother. The next generation of children must be true Muslims. We must educate them now while they are still children so that they will be true Muslims.

According to Amer to be a true Muslim means to hate the Jews. Millions of little Basmallahs all over the world study the life of the Prophet learning how they need to deal with the Jews. They learn that the Prophet expelled the Jews and therefore, almost all the Jews today have been expelled from Arab countries. They learn that the Prophet robbed the Jews of their possessions, so they rob the Jews of their possessions, as well. They learn that the Prophet orchestrated killings of Jews and they are only glad to follow his example. All stories of Muhammad's life present Jews as dangerous enemies of the Prophet and Islam. This is the axiom that Muslim Arabs obtain with their mother's milk.

Muhammad was ruthless to the Jews, seeing them as his mortal enemies. As the Qur'an says: "the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews" (Qur'an 5:82). He had said in his last sermon: 'I leave behind me two things, the Qur'an and my example the sunnah, and if you follow these you will never go astray." Only those who do not understand Islam may believe that the Muslims will ever dare to question his last will.

The page numbers in parentheses are from source 2.

1. Akbar S. Ahmed, Islam Today: A Short Introduction to the Muslim World. I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2001. p.28.
2. Adil Salahi. Muhammad: Man and Prophet. A Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam. Barn and Nobles Books, New York, 1995.


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



The article below, reviews the Israeli Left's responses to the Gilad Farm issue (a paradigm for settlement expulsion), and takes a deeper 'look' beyond it, to understand the true meaning of their behavior and it implications for Israeli society. Ariel Natan Pasko works as an independent analyst and consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. He also has degrees in Economics, Politics, and Jewish History & Thought.

With the Love of the People, Torah, and Land of Yisrael... Ariel :)

"Shut Up Or Maybe We'll Kill You"

By Ariel Natan Pasko

As I sit down to write this, I wonder, am I putting my life in danger? According to Arutz Sheva's article, "Left's Hate Campaign Gaining Momentum"(Oct. 21), MKs and left wing notables "warn" that the actions aimed at preventing the dismantling of Yesha (Judea, Samaria, & Gaza) outposts are "setting the stage for another political assassination". 'Political Assassination' those words ring out in my mind. Considering what several spokesman of the Left have said in the last few days, I too worry, that some crazed person from the 'Looney Left' will try to murder a personage from the Right (Jerusalem Post Oct. 25, Minister Effi Eitam- NRP, received death treats by phone, e-mail, and fax Thursday, his office blamed incitement by the Labor Party).

After Monday's car bomb attack at Karkur Junction near Pardess Hanna, that killed 14 and wounded 65; unnamed officials close to Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer (Labor), partially blamed the settlers at Gilad Farm for the terrorist attack. "If the soldiers are not busy removing outposts, they can be used to defend the country," one official said. The IDF (Israeli Army) should be dealing with the crucial task of protecting the state and not wasting forces on marginal tasks it is forced into, like the outposts" (Jerusalem Post Oct. 22). Well, who gave the order to waste the troops on a highly divisive political action? DM Ben-Eliezer seems to be pushing the issue, ahead of the November 2002 Labor primaries. But more importantly, notice the not so subtle insinuation that the 'settlers' or Jewish towns are to blame for terrorism against Israel. It's virtually a 'blood libel'.

Quoting from Arutz Sheva (Oct. 21), one of the most extreme statements came from Meretz MK and opposition leader Yossi Sarid who said, "All of the settlements were created by law-breaking and violence and I hope the spread of this cancer will end quickly. The outposts are worse than suicide bomb belts." Jewish towns and villages are CANCERS? Well you cut cancers out, don't you? You kill cancers. Similar to MK Sarid's remarks, Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg (Labor) called the people at Havat Gilad "Jewish Hamas." And what are we supposed to do if we see a suicide bomber about to explode himself? Shooting him might be a reasonable response. Are MK Sarid and KS Burg urging people to shoot settlers? Worse than suicide bomb belts, Jewish Hamas. REALLY?

Ha'aretz (Oct. 21) reported that MK Yossi Sarid said the settlers' militias had started a revolt over the weekend that the government had to destroy. "If the settlers' revolt is not crushed, it will be the end of democracy and the beginning of chaos in which each man will attack the other," he said. Is he hinting that the Left will feel it necessary to attack people that don't agree with them, people who exercise their free speech and assembly rights? People who peacefully protest government policy in a democratic society (even through 'civil disobedience') don't need to be crushed or destroyed. The beginning of chaos and the end of democracy has started, through MK Sarid's verbal assaults.

Similarly, Arutz Sheva reported (Oct. 21), Agricultural Minister Shalom Simchon (Labor) said that the actions of the right wing over the past 48 hours "endanger the existence of the State of Israel." REALLY? Over 600 people killed and thousands injured from terrorist attacks in the last two-years, don't endanger the existence of the State of Israel? Arafat's War, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Syria, Iraq, Iran, they don't endanger the existence of the State of Israel? Only a bunch of idealistic kids on a barren hilltop somewhere in the middle of the Historic Jewish Homeland, endanger the existence of the State of Israel.

In a cabinet dispute Sunday (Jerusalem Post Oct. 21), Environment Minister Tzahi Hanegbi (Likud) accused Industry Minister Dalia Itzik (Labor) and other Labor ministers of using the Rabin assassination as an excuse to attack the right. Hanegbi reacted to an angry outburst by Itzik at ministers about the settler violence at Gilad Farm. "The settlers are trying to kill Israeli democracy." I told Sharon, "You saw what happened to Rabin, this they will do to you," Itzik said. The end of democracy; endanger the existence of the State of Israel; trying to kill Israeli democracy; KILL ISRAELI DEMOCRACY, KILL YITZHAK RABIN, KILL SOMEONE ELSE, that's the hysteria emanating from the Left today.

IBA TV and Arutz Sheva reported (Oct 21), that left wing activists on Sunday night demonstrated outside the Defense Ministry in Tel Aviv, demanding additional Yesha outposts be dismantled. Demonstrators called on Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, not to give in to "terrorism by the settlers." Legitimate (and I might add, legally protected if not violent) protest is terrorism now. Arutz Sheva adds, left wing politicians are calling on legal authorities, namely the State Attorney General, to declare the Yesha (Judea, Samaria, & Gaza) Council a rebellious illegal organization following its recent role in the resistance to the dismantling of Gilad Farm in the Shomron. Terrorism, rebellious illegal organization, it sure sounds like 'Orwellian Double-speak' meant to confuse people and stifle FREE SPEECH.

Yet Arutz Sheva (Oct 22) reported that Yesha Council leaders on Monday reiterated their position, calling for passive resistance only, explaining once again the council remains opposed to any and all violence against soldiers and police. Doesn't sound like much of a rebellious illegal organization, DOES IT?

Are these leftists the same people who recently, during Rabin Memorials (as they do constantly), reminded us that 'words can kill', and constantly warn against incitement to violence? Is it real caution and concern for verbal violence and its side effects, or is it a methodical attempt at curbing discussion and (G-D forbid) opposition to their 'pipe dream' of peace.


It seems a 'Soviet-style' dis-information campaign about the events leading to the expulsion from Havat Gilad has occurred. For example Ha'aretz reported (Oct 21), that Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer called Monday for the head of the Yesha Rabbinical Council, Rabbi Zalman Melamed, to stand trial for issuing a religious ruling forbidding settlers and soldiers from evacuating the illegal West Bank outpost of Havat Gilad. "I request that we not go back to the atrocious scenes from seven years ago [referring to the murder of prime minister Yitzhak Rabin]," the defense minister said at Monday's meeting of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. "You, the rabbis, who called upon settlers to refuse to evacuate the outposts, issued similar calls seven years ago which led to the murder of Yitzhak Rabin." Can he really say that with a straight face? Here they go again, blaming half the country for Rabin's death.

The TRUTH is, as reported on (Oct. 15), in a joint statement, signed by Rabbi Zalman Melamed, Rabbi Elyakim Lebanon, Rabbi Dov Lior, and Rabbi Daniel Shilo, the rabbis noted that Defense Ministry orders calling on soldiers to dismantle outposts take them away from security duties. The rabbis' statement said:

1. Every outpost in Eretz Yisrael (the Biblical boundaries of the Jewish State) was established as part of the commandment to settle the Land, and therefore it is strictly forbidden to evacuate its residents.

2. The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) is the People's army, and its mission is to prevent terror and to defeat Israel's enemies.

3. It is forbidden for any party, including an Israeli government minister, to misuse his standing and order the IDF to dismantle outposts, thereby bringing about a public debate on the issue.

Arutz Sheva reported (Oct. 21) that, Labor MK Tzali Reshef called the recent actions of the Yesha rabbis against the government "incitement to murder, the worst seen since the Rabin assassination" seven years ago.

Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in his comments concerning the Yesha Rabbinical Council also took the liberty to degrade many Torah scholars and spiritual leaders, without any consideration for their position in their respective communities. FM Peres Sunday called the rabbis "shitty inciters," blaming them for contributing to setting the stage for the Rabin assassination.

The TRUTH is that the rabbis suggested that soldiers ask their commanders to excuse them from evacuating Jews from their homes, saying that it contradicts their beliefs (according to Arutz Sheva Oct 15). I don't hear incitement to murder or rebellion against the state. I hear a Halachic ruling that advises to whomever cares, what Rabbinical opinion is on the matter.

But the 'Soviet-style' dis-information campaign continues, illegal outpost, illegal encampment, these terms have been used so frequently in the last few weeks and months, that we hardly question them. But is Havat Gilad truly 'illegal'? According to all accounts, Moshe Zar bought the land; it's privately (and legally) owned property, no disputes there. So what is illegal?

According to Aviad Visoli, head of the Headquarters on Behalf of the Land of Israel, Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer is in contempt of court for dismantling the Gilad Farm without granting a hearing to its residents (Jerusalem Post Oct. 21). Visoli quoted from a decision by Supreme Court Justice Tova Strasberg-Cohen regarding a petition by him that she rejected. Visoli petitioned the High Court on the legality of outpost evacuation in June of this year. Strasberg-Cohen rejected the petition, but in her ruling wrote, "I would assume the government will behave according to the law with regard to everything having to do with the evacuation of outposts, if it decides to evacuate them, and that outposts will not be evacuated without granting their residents the right to a hearing, if there is not a reason that has been clarified that denies them this right." According to Visoli, the government did not grant the residents of the Gilad Farm a hearing before evacuating the outpost. SO WHO'S BREAKING THE LAW?

Visoli also said that under paragraph 34 (4) of the Jordanian Planning and Building Laws (No. 79), which are in force in Judea and Samaria, the use of land for agricultural purposes is not defined as construction that requires a permit. Private land, no need for permits, so again I ask, WHAT'S ILLEGAL?

The Left continues its Bolshevik dis-information drive with accusations of massive violence on the part of 'settlers'. Did you see any violence? I've watched most of the news broadcast on IBA TV for the past week (Oct. 16-22), and have seen the same footage of police and soldiers pushing, pulling, and hitting people. I saw settlers passively resisting, being dragged away. I saw one scene of someone pushing back a policeman after being viciously shoved. I saw a little boy maybe 7-8 years old being shoved by a policeman. I never saw any rock throwing, or other attacks on police or the army. I believe if it was so widespread, they would have filmed it and shown us.

Oh yes, it seems no matter how long they choose to edit the footage, they always show (former Kach leader) Baruch Marzel being pushed by several policeman, backpedaling, almost tripping, and trying to walk past them again. By focusing on Marzel, I suppose the news is trying to make a parallel, to the 'famous' Kikar Tzion Protest (blamed by the Left for Rabin's murder), that footage always focuses on the Kach flag, Binyamin Kahane on someone's shoulders dancing, and the picture of Rabin in a nazi uniform. That picture, I remind you, was made by Shabak (General Security Services) agent provocateur Avishai Raviv. What ever happened with his trial anyway? Raviv passed out the picture with the express purpose of gaining media attention to prove the Rights violent intent. Although long since discredited as an authentic expression of the 'National Camp', the Left continues to use that footage to incite against half the country.

According to news reports, 2,000 protesters were at Havat Gilad last Wednesday, over 1,000 were there Saturday night; as of Sunday (Oct. 20), only 25 policemen, 17 soldiers, and 19 settlers were treated for minor injuries, on the spot. That's for what, cuts? Seven policemen were brought to the hospital with light injuries, and released. With what, sprained fingers from pulling too hard when trying to throw people off the roof of the building that they were 'defending' (i.e. passively resisting evacuation)? I saw it on IBA TV. It seems the Left equates 'civil disobedience' with outright revolt. Or a sprained arm from chocking someone, as the photo on the front page of the Jerusalem Post (Oct. 21) clearly shows. I think its terrible that anyone, citizen or member of the security forces, got hurt however minor. But, with the numbers of protesters so high, and the police & army determined to complete the expulsion, no matter what, I would have expected much higher figures for injuries, since it's been portrayed as a violent riotous event, a 'near revolution' by the Left.

According to Moshe Zar, owner of the Gilad Farm, who spoke to Arutz Sheva (Oct. 21), "First, to say that people are raising hands against policemen is simply not true; it's a total lie. Saturday night, we were sitting here about 120 people, boys, girls, and others. Suddenly 200 huge special-unit policemen, each one a gorilla, came and lined up about 80 meters from us. All of a sudden, they started running towards us like a swarm of bees, and started swinging and attacking and punching us horrifically. They didn't begin by asking us to leave, but just started hitting, like animals! There was not one policewoman amongst them [to deal with the girls]. Not one of us hit back; they started hitting us! The Prime Minister and everyone else talking about people who hit policemen are mistaken; none of us hit, except one case I saw where five or six policemen were on top of one kid, kicking and punching him; wouldn't you try to fight back in such a situation?"

"[Regarding Wednesday's incident], there were a few youths who threw rocks at cars, and this disturbed me greatly, but the ones who started a real war were the policemen! Not one of the policemen wore an ID tag or their ranks (isn't that illegal? A.N.P.), even the police commander of Ariel! When asked their names, they all said that their name was Shachar Ayalon (the commander of Shai). There is no bigger lie than to order policeman not to give their names!"

"Settlers' violence" does not appear to be the issue at all, not only according to Moshe Zar, but also according to Samaria-Judea District Police Chief Shachar Ayalon. Ayalon told Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein yesterday morning that none of the injuries were caused by the settlers. "He told me loud and clear," Goldstein told Arutz Sheva, "that none of the [policeman] were hit by settlers. All the policemen that were hit were hit (hurt) because they fell because of the darkness and they broke their glasses. No one of them was hit by settlers..." So, where's all the violence that's supposed to have happened?

The Last element of the Left's 'Soviet-style' dis-information program is its attempt to 'posul' (make unacceptable) Minister Effi Eitam. In an interview with Israel Radio on Sunday (Oct. 20), Eitam called Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer "a fool and a liar," (although not a proper Jewish way to speak, who hasn't seen Israeli politicians screaming, not listening to each other, and even calling each other names on the popular TV show- Politica). Eitam sharply criticized Ben-Eliezer for not accepting responsibility for the army's evacuation efforts, which began Saturday afternoon and violated the Jewish Sabbath. Eitam charged that Ben-Eliezer's decision to evacuate outposts at this time were part of his Labor Party re-election campaign (views echoed by Internal Security Minister Uzi Landau-Arutz Sheva Oct. 22). But in Sunday's cabinet meeting, Eitam took back his statements. In an official apology, Eitam said that he intended to criticize the Sabbath evacuation of Havat Gilad, and not Ben-Eliezer personally.

The Jerusalem Post reported (Oct. 21), that Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer said at the end of Sunday's cabinet meeting (based on Eitam's earlier interview with Israel Radio), "Eitam's charges are the kind of wild incitement that was rampant prior to the murder of Yitzhak Rabin." Again using Rabin's death to SHUT PEOPLE UP!

Arutz Sheva (Oct. 21) said that Labor Party Secretary MK Ofir Pines called on State Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein to take immediate action against rabbis, MKs, and cabinet ministers, who incited towards violence (what incitement? A.N.P.), in the recent dismantling of Gilad Farm. Pines called for acting "without silk gloves" against Rabbi Melamed, head of the Yesha Rabbinical Council and Minister (NRP) Effi Eitam. "It is unacceptable that they permit themselves to incite towards rebellious actions against the law and democracy," he added.

But in contrast to Pines' dis-information, Eitam at Sunday's cabinet meeting, emphasized that he was opposed to soldiers refusing to obey orders (to evacuate outposts) on the one hand, and also objected to settlers attacking soldiers during evacuation efforts. "I call on the settlers to refrain from confrontations with IDF soldiers and condemn all violence against soldiers and policemen," he said. I also heard him say this, on Sunday evening (in English), on Israel Radio. So, you tell me, where is Eitam's call to incite towards rebellious actions against the law and democracy or the kind of wild incitement that was rampant prior to the murder of Yitzhak Rabin, other than in the minds of people who want to frighten half the country into submission.

With all I have pointed out, I didn't even refer to the claim substantiated by the Israeli Army Chief Rabbi that he, in fact, didn't authorize transport of soldiers on the Sabbath and that soldiers were lied to by their commanders. As reported in Ha'aretz (Oct. 29), Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, after a thorough investigation, called the Sabbath desecration, "a serious lapse," and issued a review & revising of standing orders dealing with Sabbath issues. Or, the promise made to the Zar Family that would allow them to return to work the land during daylight hours, and that the army would station soldiers at the site. Which after last Wednesday's very peaceful evacuation, was vehemently denied by Defense Minister Ben-Eliezer, and the agreement broken by the army.

The Israeli Left having seen its 'pipe-dream' of peace with the Palestinians go up in smoke (from shooting, mortar attacks, and suicide bombers, in Arafat's War against Israel), is determined to use 'Orwellian Double-speak', false accusations, and to re-interpret events to fit their ideological views (might I say) emotional needs, to promote their false messianism. 'Soviet-style' Dis-information, otherwise called OUTRIGHT LIES are being used to turn one part of the Israeli population against another part. Threats of 'civil war', 'political assassination', 'rebellion' are used to frighten people from public & legal opposition to their failed 'peace policies', and stifle FREE SPEECH. The Israeli Left is saying, "SHUT UP OR MAYBE WE'LL KILL YOU." ARE YOU FRIGHTENED? I'M NOT!




by Emanuel A. Winston

Settlers are experiencing considerable concern that the Left, using rogue agents in Israel's Secret Service called Shabak (as it did with Avishai Raviv) may once again employ false provocations to turn the Nation of Israel against the Settlers. We all hope that Shabak has cleaned house of their political 'agent provocateurs' but, one never knows.

If, for example, while crowds of settlers are protesting the evacuation and uprooting of their homes, a shooter 'provocateur' is melded into the legitimate settler protesters. The shooter 'provocateur' then shoots a Jewish soldier or policeman from within the milling crowd. You can imagine the accusations from the Left. The Hebrew Leftist Media would feature the story as a proven accusation - as has happened in the past. Those of the Left are deeply committed to evacuating Jews from YESHA (Yehuda, Samaria and Gaza) as well as the Golan Heights and that part of Jerusalem occupied by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. The Left wants to turn over the YESHA heartland to the Palestinians with the excuse that this will pacify the radical Muslim Arabs and bring peace.

If shooting a Jewish soldier or policeman would assist in their prime goal, some would consider it a reasonable price to pay for what they view as the "greater good for all Israel". The question arises: "Is this to be a precursor to a future coordinated effort after the coming war against Iraq in order to uproot and evacuate the settlements for another Arab state called 'Palestine'?"

I am certain that there are rogue elements in the Left who would again use 'agents provocateurs' like Avishai Raviv to enrage the nation against the settlers. Hopefully, there are strong patriotic leaders within Shabak who will keep an eye on political elements within that organization so vital to Israel's survival to stop any plans of this nature. Such manipulation is ugly as well as illegal if it can take such an important organization and compromise its future effectiveness.

I am sad to say that the uprooting of Jewish settlements by Defense Minister Binyamin (Fuad) Ben-Eliezer must be laid at the doorstep of Prime Minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon. Clearly, Arik is allowing Fuad to uproot Jewish settlements for several reasons.

First, the U.S. is demanding a show of compliance and obedience by Israel as their gift to the Arab nations.

Next, Sharon is allowing Fuad to attack the YESHA settlements to impress his Labor Party coalition allies and maintain his status as Defense Minister. This benefits Arik in terms of keeping the unity government because Fuad now has a debt to re-pay for the favor of Arik's permission to uproot Jews. Of course, Sharon has, therefore, double-crossed the political Right and YESHA but, he has also put Fuad out in front as his buffer.

Dishonesty in politics is a natural state of affairs but, Sharon would be cheating the nation in this twisty solution. Sharon knows that dozens and dozens of Israeli towns started as Israel's answer to Jews being murdered by Arabs at those very locations. I was reminded of this by Col. (Ret.) Moshe Leshem who enumerated some of the towns and cities which started as the Labor Party's forthright stance to honor those murdered Jews.

In other words, the former Labor Zionists are now attacking (verbally) the current Zionists from the Right for doing what they did to build the country.

So, it works out like this:

Arik gifts the U.S. with the uprooted settlements as a 'good will gesture' for the Arabs to join the American coalition against Saddam.

Arik gifts Fuad for his political security as party leader for the Labor Party.

Arik gifts the Labor Party and its voters with a seeming win against the Right.

Arik, therefore, gifts himself with Fuad as his easily beaten political opponent in the upcoming elections.

Add to that: Ben Eliezer wishes to bribe Yassir Arafat with the withdrawal of troops from Hebron. That goes back to the much earlier program which called for the evacuation of Jews from Hebron on the pretext that they are being rescued.

I am deeply concerned that a series of cascading events are in the works to justify evacuating large areas of YESHA. That would require a certain amount of pre-planning and coordination between the U.S. State Department, leading E.U. nations, the Labor Left and the Left Liberal Media. Key players would be Shimon Peres via his Institute and Yossi Beilin being funded by the Europeans through his organization.

We are often condemned by the Oslo planners that saying or writing the above means only that we are "conspiracy buffs". However, when you read history carefully, you would note that every event was, indeed, the planning or conspiracy of men to achieve their goals - for good or ill. Nevertheless, when future 'conspiracies' are forecast, the doubters attempt to dismiss the blatant indicators as merely "the excited imagination of conspiracy buffs". Be assured, as you read this, there are those who are meeting and orchestrating your future as THEY would have it. That's called "conspiracy".

Other indicators go hand-in-hand with planned provocations as described above. Besides the actual act of 'false provocation', the conspirators need to harness the Media to spread the word and guide their audience to the conclusion of guilt. For example, the Hebrew Press has always been very close to the Labor/Meretz Left and, whenever possible, any story that can pillory the Right is played up in what professionals call "Spin".

Read the Friday, October 25th & 24th HA'ARETZ (a leading hard Left newspaper also printed in English within the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE - owned by the NEW YORK TIMES and WASHINGTON POST). They feature a slew of news articles, editorials and commentaries - all slanted to denigrate and castigate the "Hill Kids" in vile terms. An in-depth analysis of these many hostile pieces would demonstrate the pathological hatred the Left Media and their employees have for the Nationalistic Right, who believe in defending the Jewish State of Israel by pioneering empty, rocky hills in uncomfortable living conditions because these believe in the justice of the Jewish State of Israel and the dangers of eviscerating the heartland from their State.

HA'ARETZ (and, probably the other 2 Left wing Newspapers, YEDIOT AHRONOT and MA'ARIV - in Hebrew) are attacking those younger settlers who are defying the removal and uprooting of the lonely outposts by calling them names. By naming them as a special "Hilltop Youths", and creating the theme with that title, the spin is to make them seem violent thereby put a black mark on ALL settlers. It seems to me that the Media could be sued for malicious blood libel by labeling these young Jewish pioneers with such epithets as "Eccentric Dreamers"; "the most dangerous and most extreme elements in the territories"; "displaying blind hatred for the authorities and complete disregard for the rule of law"; "stuck on the fringe"; "a criminal element"; "all kinds of educational mutations that have spread out of control"; "unscrupulous"; "nihilists"; "violent and unpredictable"....(1)

Some of the mature leaders in the settlements are concerned about some of the youth on the "fringes", but, as noted above, it is possible that they have been planted there as part of the government's Left wing planned 'provocateurs'. Some of the leaders of the Left who ought to be mature are described as, for example, Dror Etkes, the Peace Now activists "was raised in a religious home but a few years ago he turned to secularism and began a fierce struggle against the settlements. He dreams that one day they will ALL be dismantled and that a Palestinian State will be established." This is from whence comes the danger of hatred of his fellow Jews. (1)

"They are Hamas youth," stated Avraham Burg repeatedly. "Skinheads," Uzi Benziman called those who, after being evacuated from Havat Gilad, hurried back to their volunteer work for Magen David Adom or care for the elderly. "The rabbis", said Shimon Peres, "are shitty inciters." "Hooligans," the Defense Minister called them. ...."horrific comparison Skinheads; a burning jealousy that translated into hatred that the vast majority of young people today willing to fight and sacrifice for ideals come from religious-Zionist homes." (2)

Yes, people were hurt at the uprooting of Havat Gilad, the farm owned by Zar family, but, why did the police and army have to use such force against them? Soldiers, police and settlers were injured in the melee. Apparently, Fuad reneged on an agreement with the Zar family who set up the outpost after one of their sons, Gilad, was murdered for voluntary evacuation but permission to work the land. The Defense Ministry denies this vehemently. However, in 2 other outposts, the settlers evacuated quietly and the soldiers took over as a defensive security outpost located on central traffic arteries. Unnamed YESHA residents had harsh criticism for the hilltop youth. But, the Army did order the soldiers movement on Shabbat and this was not a 'pikuah nefesh' (saving of life) issue. (3) Outright desecration of Shabbat has been sufficient to topple previous governments.

Now we hear from the political Left. Fuad Ben-Eliezer says, "Cut Settlement Funding or the Government will Fall". (4) Pure political dirty tricks. The only extras the settlements 'might' receive in funding is for armored buses - necessary to move their children and women to schools and work. IF the Government put down the 'Intifada' (uprising) as Egypt and Jordan did, with the proper strength needed, then the budget could be cut down for such armored buses, security patrols, search and destroy missions for terrorists and bomb factories, 'et al'. But, no. Fuad wants to blame the settlers for living, instead of reaching conclusions that his Ministry isn't doing the job right.

Clearly, whether preplanned or merely coasting on an opportunity to attack the Right, the Leftist Media is ramping up a campaign to persuade their readers that it is alright to attack these Jews and evacuate the settlements in YESHA. This would flag a coordinated effort, linked to other events, some instigated by "Agents Provocateurs" to push the public into hostile judgement against the Right generally and the entire Settlement enterprise specifically.


1. "Rubble-Rousers" by Daniel Ben Simon, HA'ARETZ October 25, 2002
2. "Nothing New Under the Sun" by Yisrael Harel, HA'ARETZ October 24, 2002
3. "The Settlers Think Again" by Yair Sheleg, HA'ARETZ October 24, 2002
4. "Ben Eliezer: Cut Settlement Funding or Government Will Fall" by Gil Hoffman, JERUSALEM POST October 27, 2002


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



The Jerusalem Post, Editorial , October, 2002


As US President George W. Bush's envoy to the region, it would seem reasonable to presume that Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs William Burns is committed to advancing his Middle East policy.

Standing on the White House lawn with Secretary of State Colin Powell at his side on June 24, Bush laid out his "road map" for the Middle East in great and eloquent detail. Since Bush is ostensibly the best authority on his foreign policy, let us recall what he said:

*There is simply no way to achieve that peace until all parties fight terrorÉ Peace requires a new and different Palestinian leadership, so that a Palestinian state can be born.

*When the Palestinian people have new leaders, new institutions and new security arrangements with their neighbors, the United States of America will support the creation of a Palestinian state.

*A Palestinian state will never be created by terror - it will be built through reform. And reform must be more than cosmetic change, or veiled attempt to preserve the status quo.

*True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics, and action against terrorism.

*The United States will not support the establishment of a Palestinian state until its leaders engage in a sustained fight against the terrorists and dismantle their infrastructure.

*Every leader actually committed to peace will end incitement to violence in official media and publicly denounce homicide bombings. Every nation actually committed to peace will stop the flow of money, equipment, and recruits to terrorist groups seeking the destruction of Israel.

*As we make progress toward security, Israel's forces need to withdraw fully to positions they held prior to September 28, 2000.

*As violence subsides, freedom of movement should be restored, permitting innocent Palestinians to resume work and normal life. And Israel should release frozen Palestinian revenues into honest, accountable hands.

Now fast forward to Ariel Sharon's meeting with Bush at the White House last week, during which Burns handed Sharon the State Department's road map for achieving the president's aims.

The road map calls for the IDF to withdraw to the positions it held on September 28, 2000, ahead of any Palestinian action to dismantle terror organizations and confiscate of illegal weapons.

The plan further dictates that Israel must hand over billions of shekels in tax revenues to the Palestinians now. That is, the funds must be given to Yasser Arafat's men, who today head the wholly unreformed Palestinian security services and dictatorial bureaucracy.

The road map calls on the IDF to cease all of its anti-terror operations immediately in order to ease the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians.

The plan further calls for Palestinian statehood without any benchmarks really being met to ensure that such a state will not simply be another state supporter of terrorism.

Prejudging the outcome of a mission still under way can be a tricky business. But given the absolute divergence of the State Department's road map from Bush's Middle East policy, the outcome is clear.

Over the past nine years more than 1,000 Israelis have been murdered and the Palestinians have been systematically disenfranchised, because the world turned a blind eye to PA corruption, terrorism, and incitement. Understanding this reality, Bush demanded that all future attempts to make peace be based on a fundamental transformation of Palestinian society, starting at the top.

There is so little resemblance between the Burns/Powell road map and Bush's sweeping rethink of American policy that we can only conclude that the president has not fully examined the matter himself. Perhaps he is simply allowing the State Department to go its own way, with a thought to engaging more fully when it matters, after the expected campaign in Iraq.

Yet even if State's road map is meant to be more of a place holder for a policy than a policy itself, it is disturbing that such failed formulas continue to be regurgitated as if Oslo never fell apart, as if Bush never spoke, and as if there was no American interest in placing democracy and freedom at the forefront of its policy toward the Middle East. The next time Bush sends his envoys out on a mission, he should check that his policy is being implemented, rather than the policy of his immediate predecessor.

(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post


By Caroline B. Glick

"Reality," John Lennon once quipped, "leaves a lot to the imagination." But he spoke truer than he knew.

Over the last seven days, two distinct dramas have unfolded, each containing, for a separate segment of the public, its own version of reality. On Saturday, at Gilad Farm, near Nablus, settlers and security forces faced off in a dispute over a handful of huts, which the government terms an illegal outpost and Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer claimed, "endangered the state." When it was all over, the security forces won, at a cost of 25 policemen, 17 soldiers, and 19 settlers injured.

Two days later, at Karkur junction, two Palestinian suicide bombers rammed a car full of explosives into a bus, killing 14 and wounding 65. Here was another reality: the reality of terror, of the Palestinian war against us, of our fight for survival.

Taken together, the two incidents tell us something interesting about the strange universe we have inhabited since the Oslo process began nine years ago. On the one hand, we have inhabited the reality of the Left, in which the essential conflict was Israeli vs. Israeli in a struggle for Zion's soul. On the other hand, we have inhabited the reality of the Right, where the battle was Israeli vs. Palestinian in the struggle for Zion's existence.

The story of Gilad Farm is the story of the Left.

It is generally believed that Oslo was about making peace with the Palestinians by cutting a deal with the PLO. Yet for those who supported it, Oslo really had very little to do with the Palestinians. Oslo was a quest by the Left to win the struggle for the country's soul by showing the rest of their countrymen that their messiah - Peace Now - was the true and only savior.

Oslo began to go awry in April 1994, when the Palestinians introduced the suicide bomber to civilians for the first time. Undeterred, the messianic Left found an excuse for this steep rise in violence. That excuse was the Right and, specifically, the settlers.

In two significant ways, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres contributed actively to this attempt to blame the settlers for everything wrong that happened after Oslo. First, both sought to play down the significance of Palestinian terror that escalated exponentially after the Oslo process began. Peres coined the Orwellian phrase "victims of peace" to describe terror victims. In so defining the victims, Peres was able to ignore the strategic implications of the fact that by the time Rabin was assassinated, two years into the process, 183 people had already been killed by Palestinian terrorism.

Equally important was both men's use of the term "enemies of peace." These "enemies" were defined as the internal opposition to the Oslo process on both the Israeli side and the Palestinian side. Thus, democratic opposition to a policy that - aside from the period immediately after Rabin's assassination - never enjoyed a clear majority of support among Israeli voters, was blithely equated with Palestinian terrorists who were murdering civilians.

Peres, Rabin, and their followers could only equate the Right with Hamas by maintaining complete indifference to the Palestinians. To compare those who rejected their messiah to terrorists demanded that Oslo advocates remain completely oblivious to what was happening in the territories turned over to Yasser Arafat.

By ignoring what was happening on the Palestinian side of the Oslo process, and dismissing the importance of suicide bombers, the Left was able to limit the national debate to an irrelevant dispute. This dispute - whether peace or the Greater Land of Israel is the messiah - had absolutely no value in a situation in which we were handing over territory and arms to an enemy who was using both to build a war machine against us. But framing the debate in this manner was essential to the continuance of Oslo, once it was clear that Arafat was not credible and the Left was evicted from office in 1996.

Fast forward to this past week at Gilad Farm, we see Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer back making open warfare on the same Right and for much the same reason. It is not that Ben-Eliezer, after two years of warfare with the Palestinians, believes that the war is the Right's fault. But he, who next month will face the fourth challenge to his leadership of the Labor Party, knows what his party members want to see. The unreconstructed Oslophiles hold the balance of power in the party. Those Laborites, whose spiritual guide remains Yossi Beilin, still blame the Right for the failure of Oslo more than they blame the Palestinians. To placate them, Ben-Eliezer needed to orchestrate a violent clash with their true enemy. And this he did on Sunday. As leading Labor dove Shlomo Ben-Ami's decision yesterday to endorse Ben-Eliezer's leadership shows, this ploy was successful.

For the settlers at Gilad Farm, the entire story is one of betrayal. To be sure, they had no business violating the law or confronting an army on whose protection they depend. Yet to the man, they claim that the entire dispute had ended last Wednesday. At the time, security officials reached an agreement with them whereby they would continue to farm the land, but not live at the farm. After that agreement, 2,000 settlers left Gilad Farm peacefully. Immediately after the compromise was reached, Ben-Eliezer denied it existed, and so the scene was set for the violent confrontations.

Because of Ben-Eliezer's renewal of the Left's open warfare with the Right over the outposts, for the past two weeks the entire country has been sent reeling back to the period before Camp David, where the Left felt it could still blame the Right for everything bad that ever happened. For a good five days, it seemed as if the past two years had never happened. At Sunday's Cabinet meeting, Peres cursed the rabbis in language he has never used against Palestinian terrorists. Labor MKs from Haim Ramon to Ofir Pines-Paz jumped on the bandwagon of accusing the settlers of incitement to murder, shamelessly conjuring up their libelous attacks against rabbis in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip in the aftermath of Rabin's assassination.

Now turn to the other reality, the reality of Karkur junction. On Monday, the Palestinians showed that they too are a side of the Oslo process, and that they care not a whit for the struggle for Israel's soul or how any of us define the messiah.

When the bombers incinerated 14 people on Egged bus No. 841, it was a case of back to the future, where a real enemy is fighting a real war against us.

The attack instantly rendered the entire battle over Gilad Farm passé. People who could think of nothing else on Sunday, suddenly couldn't have cared less on Monday evening, and this was a reasonable response to the carnage.

But we must understand what happened at Gilad Farm. In staging the showdown with the settlers in order to denounce them yet again as the enemies of the good, we learned that after two years of war the Left is willing to continue to ignore reality and that the settlers, to their shame, are willing to play along with them.

In order to win this war, we must recognize what happened over that past nine years. While the Left waged its messianic battles against the Right, it forced us to ignore the real dangers. At Gilad Farm this week, it reenacted this mistake. In the midst of a war for our national survival, the defense minister sent 1,700 soldiers and policemen to evacuate people from Gilad Farm - not because they were in danger, but because they were there. Monday's massacre was proof that this should never have been allowed to happen.

Oslo was an internal debate, and the 283 Israelis murdered between September 1993 and September 2000 were proof we ignore our enemy at our peril. The 641 people whom the Palestinians have murdered since, including the 14 this week, show that anyone not willing to recognize the mistake is not fit for office or a seat at the Cabinet table.

(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post, October 6, 2002


By Stewart Weiss

In eulogizing his son, Ari Yehoshua, who was killed last week in Shehem, Rabbi Stewart Weiss asked that all assembled return home and sing "Am Yisrael Hai." The following column appeared in The Jerusalem Post on April 19, 1996.

You might walk past it a thousand times even tread directly upon it and yet you would probably never take note of it. Amid the silent hills and grassy quietude of Mt. Herzl, a gentle spring wind blows over the grave of one Baruch Shapiro. Barely an echo of his name remains.

But the story of Baruch Shapiro, now itself buried by the years, begs to be retold. For his story mirrors the struggle of a whole people, encapsulating what it means to live and die as a proud Jew in the modern State of Israel.

Baruch was the last remaining son of Chaim Shapiro, native of Cracow and survivor of Auschwitz. By a combination of faith, strength, and luck, Chaim lived through the unspeakable hell of the death camp, emerging from it along with his son Baruch.

Chaim's wife and five other sons were less fortunate. They perished together with the multitudes of Jews we now refer to as the Six Million.

In a pitiful state, confused and shattered, father and son came here, along with thousands of other remnants of the ovens, to build a new life and restore hope. But their dream of piecing together a new beginning would have to be delayed.

Arriving on the shores of Palestine, young Baruch now 18 years old was handed a gun and a uniform, and drafted into what would become the Israel Defense Forces. There were those who planned to finish what the Nazis had begun, and a new war was about to erupt.

Chaim watched his son go off to war along with the other young men, and he tried to put his fears and foreboding out of his mind, busying himself with the difficult task of hewing out a place in the gritty new country now battling for its first breaths of air.

It was in the latter stages of the War of Independence that Baruch Shapiro fell, on the road to Jerusalem, defending the capital. He had distinguished himself throughout the war, and died guarding his post from enemy advance.

When a young captain informed Chaim of the death of his son, the father uttered not a word. He simply nodded silently and folded the official notification over and over in his hand.

Many hundreds of friends and comrades came to Baruch's funeral. The chief of staff was also there, for he had heard of the young man's distinguished service in his unit.

An overwhelming sense of loss pervaded the day, for those assembled knew of the unique circumstances of the Shapiro family and wished to demonstrate their solidarity with the aging father whose family line had come to a sudden, tragic end.

DURING THE brief ceremony, Chaim remained silent. He listened impassively as the appropriate Psalms and prayers were recited and as Baruch's commanding officer eulogized him as an exemplary soldier.

But when the flag-draped body was lowered into the grave, Chaim Shapiro suddenly began to sing, quietly at first, then more loudly.

He sang "Am Yisrael Hai" over and over. Then he began to dance, grabbing some of Baruch's friends and pulling them into a Hora.

The crowd looked on in horror, sure the father had lost his mind. Clearly the enormity of the loss of his last remaining child had finally pushed him over the brink.

Those standing closest to Chaim tried to calm him down, to console him. The chief of staff put his arms around him and urged him to sit down. But Chaim pushed the general away, and carried on singing and dancing.

After several minutes, the elderly man turned to the crowd and began to speak: "I am sure you think I have gone quite mad," he began.

"But I can assure you that I am in complete control of my faculties. I know you think it outrageous that I should sing at my boy's burial, but I want to explain why nothing could be more appropriate.

The crowd stood mesmerized. "You see," the father went on, "when the rest of my family were murdered in Poland by the Germans, their lives ended in silence. They vanished, in the wink of an eye. They were snuffed out like candles, and no one saw or heard. No one took notice of who they were, what they had done, or what their lives had meant.

"To live and die in Poland was an empty and barren experience, containing only sadness and regret. It was a waste of precious life.

"But this son," Chaim continued, pointing at the grave, "this son is different. Baruch lived to walk upon the holy earth of Eretz Yisrael, and he died defending Jerusalem Jerusalem! a place we never dreamed we would see in our lifetimes. Baruch gave his life for all the people of Israel, so they could be free, and safe, and independent.

"That is not the waste of a life. It is the celebration of a life and that is why I sing today, as I say shalom to my son. And that is why all of you should sing with me."

With that Chaim Shapiro began to sing "Am Yisrael Hai" once more, and the assembled throng began to join in, until every voice in the cemetery was raised in a surrealistic song of sadness and joy, the tears of each emotion mingled on every face.

For a long time they sang thus together, until the hills of Jerusalem themselves seemed to be joining in the chorus.

You might walk past the grave of Baruch Shapiro a thousand times even tread directly upon it and probably take no notice. A gentle wind blows on the grave, and the story of Baruch Shapiro is no more than a fading memory, a distant echo.

But the epic story of the Jewish people goes on, unabated. It is a story written in the blood of our young men and women, on pages of pain and heroism, engraved in stone with quills of iron will.

That story describes a profound stoicism and suffering, one that that cannot be contained. It must inevitably burst out into song and dance, until we all affirm: Am Yisrael Hai.

(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post




By Avi Davis

Why is it these days, that I feel the footsteps of terror pounding dangerously close to home? Only ten days ago I traveled on the same bus - No. 841 - that exploded Monday in Hadera in Israel killing 14 people. Three months ago I rode on a bus in Jerusalem that two days later exploded in flames. Three days ago a gunman opened fire at my former university in Melbourne Australia, killing two students. In July, a gunman opened fire at Los Angeles International airport, the day after I had passed through exactly the same area of the terminal.

It is not because I am taking unusual risks or that I am a marked man. It is because terror is here. It is all around us and it is waiting.

Last year, soon after the bombings of the World Trade Center, a friend emailed me from Melbourne. He told me that in the light of what happened in New York, he feared to send his children to synagogue on the Jewish New Year. I chuckled to myself when I read what I thought to be extreme over anxiety. After-all, Melbourne is 1,000 miles closer to the South Pole than it is to New York

I am no longer laughing. The terrorist bombings in Bali, in which nearly 100 Australian holiday makers lost their lives, should make it clear to all of us that there are no citizens of Western aligned countries who are not open targets of terrorism. While the Australian mainland may not have been struck on October 12, no one who knows Bali can believe for a moment that it was not Australians the terrorists had in mind.

Yet if Australia must mourn then so should Lisbon Portugal, Reykjavik Iceland, Montreal Canada and San Diego, Chile. Because much like the sinking of the Lusitania in the First World War or the attack on Pearl Harbor in the Second, the Bali attack crossed a threshold bringing the free nations of the world into collision with forces whose perceived purposes are global debstabilization and destruction.

Despite this bitter reality, most of us have yet to appreciate terrorism as a truly global conflict verging on world war. But the methods and mechanics used successfully in one theater of the war are already being employed by others in another and assaults once considered unthinkable are gaining encouragement from terrorist successes elsewhere. But some observers are now making this point and doing it loudly.

Louis Anemone, the security chief of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Port Authority police chief Joseph Morris, returning from a visit to Israel announced this week that Israel-style bus bombings will occur in New York. This stuff is going to be imported over here, said Mr. Anemone. It already has, and I want people to sit up and take notice.

So too with both physical and psychological preparedness. Greg Evans, the director of the Center for the Study of Bio-terrorism and Emerging Infection at St. Louis University recently returned from Israel and reported in the St. Louis Post Dispatch that the US is woefully unprepared for a chemical or biological attack. Evans was particularly impressed with the Israelis' network of volunteers and the way hospitals have developed a disaster plan for conventional chemical and bio-terror attacks that is integrated with the army, police, emergency medical system and other area hospitals. Nothing like it, observes Evans, has appeared in the United States.

If this in the United States, a country that only a year ago suffered the most devastating terror assault in history, then what of the rest of the world? Anybody who wants to know the state of psychological preparedness elsewhere needs only read the Australian papers. There they will find evidence of shock that makes the reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 in the United States look like mild disapproval.

Evidence of the emergence of a truly global conflict streams in. Reports of bombings in the Philippines, in Kuwait and in Malaysia pepper our morning newspapers. Even as I write these words, I hear a report that Chechen rebels have commandeered a theater in Moscow with several hundred patrons inside threatening to destroy the building. The unnerving postscript to the story is rendered by a telephone call from within the theater.

The terrorists, says an alarmed captive, are wearing suicide belts. Those words can't help but ricochet around the world with a desperate, chilling familiarity.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies in Los Angeles.



Creators Syndicate, October 23, 2002


By Ben Shapiro

With the latest attack on Israelis by Palestinian terrorists, it is time to re-evaluate Israel's current strategy with regard to the intifada. And it is time for America to re-evaluate its plan for peace in the Middle East.

Israel's strategy under Ariel Sharon has been one of defensive retaliation. Mass movement of Israeli troops into Palestinian controlled areas has occurred only after Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis. It has not been completely unsuccessful. With each incursion, Israeli troops have been able to target and either arrest or kill Palestinian terrorists and scatter others from their comfortable nests.

Still, it hasn't been enough. Sharon, like other Israeli prime ministers before him, returns to the illusion that he can negotiate with the current Palestinian regime. Each time Sharon makes diplomatic overtures to the Palestinians, terrorist groups are immediately given the go-ahead to attack Israelis. It is a never-ending cycle: Israeli incursions followed by a period of calm, Israeli attempts to negotiate followed by a wave of terrorist attacks.

The Israeli government has also made the mistake of naming Yasser Arafat as the sole personage behind the terror. The United States has accepted this idea, calling for the Palestinian people to replace Arafat in a free and open election. Unfortunately, the situation is not as simple as one man. Polls of Palestinians show that the plurality supports the destruction of the state of Israel and continued suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. The Palestinian problem is not one of individuals but of collective support for terror. Terrorism is not a perversion of the Palestinian ideal but an integral part of the Palestinian end game.

It is very clear that the actions taken by Israel and America have not procured any peace beyond the intermittent. If America wants an end to the Israeli-Arab conflict, it must support Israel in the implementation of a tough new anti-terror campaign. Here are three practical measures that can and must be taken to end the violence.

Exile Arafat. This plan has been on the table since Sharon came into office, and it is time that it was used. Israel has consistently targeted the Palestinian leadership but, due to international pressure, has not taken out the kingpin of terror, Arafat himself. Without a leader, terrorist groups like Fatah, Force-17, Hamas and Hizbullah will begin internecine warfare, fighting amongst themselves for control of the Palestinian-controlled territories. Let them kill each other off.

Turn off the water and electricity. Israel has been supplying water and electricity to its enemies since the start of the intifada, free of charge. The Palestinian Authority owes Israel millions in utility bills, yet Israel forgives the debt. If Israel stops supplying water and electricity, the PA will fall. The groundswell of support for terrorist groups among the Palestinian people will dissolve once they realize that their support means they can no longer flush their toilets.

Institute a new land-for-peace deal. Since the Oslo Accords in 1993, Israel has forked over land in return for violence. It is time that Israel changed the equation back to what it was supposed to be: land for peace -- if there is no peace, Israel will take back land. After each attack on Israel, Israel should catch the culprits and find their place of origin. The Israeli Defense Force should then broadcast to the residents of that city that they have 48 hours to evacuate their homes and take whatever belongings they need and that after that the Israeli Air Force will destroy the city. Israel should then annex the territory, and take it off the negotiating table -- permanently. Some would call this collective punishment, but the Oslo Accord was a collective treaty giving collective benefits -- if the Palestinians fail to uphold their side of the bargain, they must be collectively punished. Either the Palestinians will realize that violence reaps no reward and return to the negotiating table, or Israel will have its land back and the terrorists will have no bases.

The above measures are hardly extreme. Just listen to the founder of the Oslo Accord, Yitzhak Rabin: "(T)hey know very well that if they use these guns against us once, at that moment the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will return to all the places that have been given to them. The Oslo Accord, despite what the opposition claims, is not irrevocable." It is time that Oslo is revoked.



The Jerusalem Post


By Isi Leiber

Although in all likelihood we will still undergo more bloodshed before we see the dawn, all indicators suggest that we are moving in the right direction.

Those who insisted that military responses have no impact on terror have been proven resoundingly wrong. Operation Defensive Shield not only substantially reduced the terror toll; it also brought many Palestinians to the realization that our chaotic exit from Lebanon was not after all a dress rehearsal for our expulsion from the territories and ultimately our disappearance from the map.

Many Palestinians are now questioning the direction in which Yasser Arafat has led them and beginning to realize that terrorism has been a prescription for self-induced misery and brought them to the brink of disaster.

But that should not blind us to the enormously difficult challenges that still face us on the political and diplomatic fronts. As we have seen over the past week, our identity of interest with the United States has its limitations. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that once the Iraqi threat has been overcome, the Bush administration may feel pressured to rebuild its bridges with the Europeans and others, including the so-called moderate Arab nations, at the expense of our security needs.

Any return to negotiations with the Palestinians, using Taba or even Camp David as a benchmark, would be disastrous. Yet there are still a number of politicians in Israel who would support such a course - despite the fact that the irresponsible ministers who orchestrated these negotiations during the chaotic dying days of the Barak government were acting without the endorsement of their prime minister and the Knesset, not to speak of the people.

There is therefore an urgent need to mount a campaign to convince our friends - and many Diaspora Jews - that we can never return to the Taba formula.

We should also explain that it could be suicidal for us if we acceded to pressure from the international community and prematurely endorsed statehood for the Palestinians before that society has undergone truly fundamental changes.

Two years ago we were deeply divided over how to deal with the Palestinians. Not so today. The consensus now shared by the vast majority is that we have no ambition to rule over the Palestinians, but we still oppose territorial concessions until such a time as the Palestinians become reconciled to our right to exist in peace and security as a sovereign Jewish state. To display that, they must first demonstrate that they can elect a government with new leaders who exhibit the will and ability to impose law and order and are prepared to ruthlessly root out terrorism.

Today if we are to effectively promote our cause, we must once and for all put an end to our inclination to understate the virulence of the hatred that suffuses Palestinian society at all levels. Since Oslo, a tendency to sanitize the true objectives of the Palestinians has been a hallmark of Israeli foreign policy. Everything negative was swept under the carpet by government spokesmen more eager to promote the virtues of Arafat as a peace partner than confront unpleasant realities.

We must therefore convince the world that what we face is not a conflict between two people over territory or "occupation." That was clearly demonstrated when Arafat rejected prime minister Ehud Barak's offer to cede 97 percent of the territories over the Green Line.

Nor are we merely a party to "a cycle of violence." What we face is an existential struggle with neighbors who time and again clearly verified that their overriding objective is to destroy us even if this is to be achieved in phases over a long period.

THIS IS not paranoia. It is chapter and verse of the Palestinian war against the Jewish state. And since the intent of that war is evil, those who conduct it are evil.

Indeed the Jews have faced no such evil since the Nazis. That should not be construed as a racist statement or a primitive demonization of an entire people. It is calling a spade a spade. US President George W. Bush refers to evil states. Our Palestinian neighbors who seek the destruction of the Jewish people represent the essence of evil and barbarism. And now is the time for us to say so to the world at large, loud and clear. We are not suggesting that the Palestinian people are intrinsically or genetically any more evil than the Germans were under Hitler. We are saying that, like the Nazis, the Palestinian leaders have succeeded in indoctrinating their people and transforming them into a society which is inspired by evil.

It is evil when a society extols as heroes those who target civilians at gatherings such as a Pessah Seder, a bar mitzva, or a discotheque.

It is evil when a society sanctions the revival of the ancient custom of child sacrifice.

It is evil when a people bestows the highest level of merit on suicide bombers whose objective is to kill the maximum number of Jews.

It is evil when mothers display themselves on television conveying pride that their children have become "martyrs" and expressing the hope that their younger offspring will follow in the same tradition and also die killing Israelis.

It is evil when the proud parents of "martyrs" are publicly rewarded for sacrificing their children by being provided with $25,000 from Saddam Hussein and lauded for their contribution by Arafat himself.

It is evil when children in kindergarten are taught songs and poems which extol the virtues of killing Jews. When four year-olds are taught at summer camps how to shoot Jews and indoctrinated into accepting as role models the "heroic martyrs" who died in order to kill the "wicked" Jews who "usurped" their land.

One video repeatedly shown on Palestinian television incorporates a children's song with the lyric "How pleasant is the smell of a martyr, how pleasant the smell of the land, the land enriched by the blood, the blood pouring out of a fresh body."

It is evil when an entire religious establishment calls on its faithful to hate Jews because they are Jews; to "have no mercy on the Jews wherever they are, in any country. Fight them wherever they are. Whenever you meet them, kill them... because they established Israel here, in the beating heart of the Arab world, in Palestine." That extract from a Gaza mosque sermon broadcast on Arafat's television station, is typical of the daily diet of Islamic fundamentalist incitement directed against Jews.

And if not evil incarnate, how can one explain or justify the joyous street celebrations that erupt as soon as there is news of Israeli women and children having been blown apart by one of the heroic "shahids"?

How else to view such behavior other than as evidence of a truly evil society?

Recent statements by some Palestinian leaders suggesting that in view of international revulsion to these killings, Jews living beyond the Green Line should now become the primary targets - as opposed to those living within it - in no way detracts from this evil.

There are no protests or expressions of dissent to the targeting of innocent civilians. Of course the mafia-like summary executions of men and women accused of collaboration do not encourage those opposed to the regime to raise their voices.

But the truth is that the majority have been sufficiently brainwashed from an early age by the religious and cultural environment to endorse the evil. Palestinian polls show that 80% of the people enthusiastically support suicide bombers.

This is why we must convince our allies and all people of goodwill that while most of us would be delighted to separate ourselves from the Palestinians immediately, no fences or borders would be able to provide us with security from neighbors committed to such evil behavior. To simply walk away and permit a people so suffused with blind hatred to create a state on our doorstep would be a prescription for self-destruction.

THIS IS not to say that peace and accommodation with the Palestinians can never be achieved. On the contrary. It must remain our ultimate objective.

But we must face the truth that as of now, our neighbors are no less suffused with evil than were the people of Germany under Hitler. And just as the Germans were eventually de-Nazified, so must the Palestinians be de-Arafatized and obliged to elect leaders able to enforce law and order. If in the absence of such a change we were to agree to a Palestinian state or grant territorial concessions which would become launching pads for even more intensive efforts destroy us, we would simply be recycling the mistakes of Oslo and once again gambling with the lives of our children. Israel was and remains a just and democratic society committed to Jewish and universal humanistic values at the heart of which lies respect for upholding the sanctity of life.

In any war innocent bystanders die. But in stark contrast to our enemies who deliberately target women and children, many of our soldiers lie in graves because we sought to minimize civilian casualties and refrained from using the awesome military power at our disposal.

The vast majority of us yearn for peace and have no desire to rule over another people. On the day the Palestinians decide to reject evil, we will be willing to make generous compromises with them. But until then, like any nation facing an existential threat, we are obliged to do whatever is necessary to defend ourselves and protect the life and limbs of our citizens.

That is the message we should be promoting to the world.

The writer is senior vice president of the World Jewish Congress.


(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post



Kol Ha'Ir, October 11, 2002

[Translation by the Israel News Agency]


Interview with GPO Director Danny Seaman

Danny Seaman knows exactly why the State of Israel looks so bad on television screens around the world.

"At the direct instruction of the Palestinian Authority," explains the director of the Government Press Office (GPO), "the offices of the foreign networks in Jerusalem are compelled to hire Palestinian directors and producers. Those people determine what is broadcast. The journalists will certainly deny that, but that is reality."

Q: What makes you so sure?

"A lot of sources that, if exposed, will be compromised professionally. Those are people who were outraged by the events in those offices."

Q: Which offices are we talking about?

"The most senior are the Associated Press and Reuters, which provide information to hundreds of millions of people around the world. On the second level are the major television networks, CNN and the BBC, and the American stations, ABC and CBS."

Seaman claims that the Palestinian workers at the various networks work with complete coordination. But that is nothing. "Three senior producers," alleges the GPO director with deep internal conviction, "were coordinated with Marwan Barghouti. He used to call them and inform them about what was about to happen. They always received early warning about gunfire on Gilo. Then they shot for TV only the Israeli response fire on Beit Jala. Those producers advised Barghouti how to get the Palestinian message across better."

Q: After the accusations give me some names.

"I'm not prepared to divulge details. Everyone who deals with this knows who they are."

In his professional capacity Seaman mediates between the foreign journalists and the various authorities in Israel. While the latter receive ample representation, the former are perceived as a rather bothersome nuisance. Seaman is not ashamed to admit it. He considers the foreign correspondents to be a bunch of spoiled brats that until now has received privileged conditions and has repaid that by giving back the finger. "They've grown accustomed to being treated very freely in Israel," said Seaman, "but the liberty that we gave them was abused."

Seaman, a civil servant, does not mince words when he describes the foreign media's conduct in Israel. He levels harsh accusations at the foreign correspondents, some of which sound rather odd. Not only are they entwined with the Palestinian Authority by means of a Gordian knot, but they also steal Israelis' livelihoods. But things here will be A.O.K soon enough. Seaman will set those gentiles straight.

Last week Ma'ariv reported that the GPO would issue press cards to foreign photographers and production staffers only if they obtained a work permit from the Labor and Welfare Ministry and a visa from the Interior Ministry. At stake is an old law that has never been enforced until now. It means that the number of foreign workers in offices in Israel is expected to be cut substantially. But even before Seaman decided to revoke the press cards from all the residents of the territories.

Officials at the news agencies and the networks find it very difficult to understand, or at least feign innocence, as to what exactly it is that Danny Seaman wants from them. Israelis, after all, are barred from entering the territories, say the office managers and, therefore, without foreign photographers and Palestinian reporters it is very difficult to work and perhaps even impossible. They reject with disdain Seaman's allegations about pro-Palestinian coverage. "I've had Palestinian workers for years already," says Charles Enderlin, the veteran France 2 TV correspondent, "and they have proven their professionalism. Regardless, there is no bureau chief who allows his Palestinian assistant to decide what is broadcast. I deny that allegation outright."

"We don't make the news, we only broadcast it," say the foreign journalists defensively. Quite a few of them feel, even if they won't say so explicitly, that someone who didn't like the message has decided to kill the messenger.

Seaman, 41, was born in Germany. His father was a member of the US Airforce, and his family followed him around across the world. In 1971 they immigrated to Israel and settled in Ashkelon. Seaman served in the paratroopers, and after his discharge studied political science in New York.

At the same time he also began to do public relations work for the Israeli consulate in New York. When he returned to Israel in 1990 he found work in the GPO. He spent two years with the IDF Spokesman's Office, and in January 2001 was appointed director of the GPO. "I am the first director who was not appointed for political reasons," he says proudly.

Seaman defines his job as "dual and restrictive. On the one hand, I need to represent the State of Israel and its interests to the foreign media, and on the other hand, I am supposed to represent the foreign reporters to the government and to create an appropriate media atmosphere for them. Sometimes the one role supersedes and other times the other does."

Q: Which is more dominant now?

"Today there is a greater need to look out for the State of Israel's interests because we are in an emergency situation."

The impression is that Israel has nothing to be concerned about, Seaman is doing his job. He always arrives at the scenes of the major terror attacks and tries to help the journalists gain access as quickly as possible to the material. Seaman has also made a point of attending Marwan Barghouti's trial. "The GPO is not covering the trial," he explains, "but it would be negligent were we not to capitalize on this event for public relations. Our job is to allow coverage." MK Ahmed Tibi, who also has used the trial for public relations purposes, is angry at Seaman. "Seaman's behavior in the court room is beyond the pale," says Tibi. "He asks the journalists to interview the families of terror victims. That is none of his business, that is an editor's job."

Seaman fought back: "Ahmed Tibi would be pleased were the State of Israel not to exist at all," says Seaman. "So he finds it jarring that the state is doing its job. I would urge him to learn to respect the courts before he comments to me about how to do my job."

Seaman has a clear understanding about how the Palestinians succeeded in seizing control of the television screens. He said that in the 1980s the Palestinians began to nurture young people who would work with the foreign press. He also alleges that all of the Palestinians who work with the media took a course in media manipulation at Bir Zeit University.

The effort paid off, if one is to believe Seaman. "For years," he explained, "the foreign reporters created a kind of romanticism surrounding the Palestinians' struggle. They adopted their point of view and their terminology." Seaman, who claims to be apolitical, said this process was exacerbated also by the "discourse in Israel. From the moment that the old Land of Israel lost the elections in 1977 the delegitimizing that was done to all the right wing leaders, Begin, Shamir, Netanyahu and Sharon, contributed to the struggle to delegitimize that the Palestinians launched in 1964."

Seaman is convinced that the foreign journalists were able to move about the territories freely and speak with whomever they wanted before Arafat's arrival. "From the moment Arafat arrived," explains Seaman, "their dependence on Palestinian media staffers grew. And the more the PA tightened its hold on the ground and the closer the date of the conflict grew, the Palestinian hold on the foreign press became firmer. Four years ago began the threats on the Israeli staffers, including Arabs from East Jerusalem.

The Palestinians let the foreign journalists understand: if you don't work with our people we'll sever contact with you, you won't have access to sources of information and you won't get interviews."

Seaman is certain that the overwhelming majority of the media bowed to this pressure. He is not prepared to give any credit to the Palestinian journalists who work in the foreign networks. "Today we know," Seaman says in a heated tone, "that the entire Mohammed a-Dura incident was staged in advance by the Palestinian Authority in collusion with Palestinian photographers, who worked for the foreign networks. In my opinion, that is the incident that really began the Intifada. Until then it hadn't caught on."

Palestinian stills photographers are also part of the game. "They always stage photographs," says Seaman unequivocally and states that he is prepared to be taken to court for libel. "The IDF announces that it is going in to demolish an empty house, but somehow afterwards you see a picture of a crying child sitting on the rubble. There is an economic level to that. The Palestinian photographers receive from the foreign agencies 300 dollars for good pictures; that is why they deliberately create provocation with the soldiers. They've degraded photography to prostitution." Seaman gives the foreign media a five on a scale of one to ten for its coverage of the events in the past two years. As noted, he believes that nearly all of them are infected. "They're hostile," he says, and itemizes: they being the French, the Spaniards, the BBC. The hostility manifests itself in the writing, the tendentious footage, the automatic adoption of the Palestinian version and the immediate suspicion of the Israeli version. In the course of the siege on Bethlehem the Palestinians claimed that we killed a monk. No one bothered to pick up the phone and speak to the Pope's representative to hear from him that nothing of the kind had happened."

Seaman has no problem harping on the Europeans' conscience. "I accuse," he says without a moment of hesitation, "particularly the European press. The correspondents reported about every slander against Israel as if it were a fact. The negligence of their coverage contributed to the anti-Semitism that is now making rounds on the continent, and that ought to lie heavily on their consciences." Four Western journalists received special attention from the GPO.

Actually, at issue was a lack of attention. Seaman has no problem naming names: Suzanne Goldberg from the British Guardian, Lee Hockstader from the Washington Post, Sandro Contenta from the Toronto Star and Gillian Findlay from ABC. Seaman accuses each one of the four of inaccurate reporting, to understate things. Now, none of the four are in Israel any longer. "We simply boycotted them," recounts Seaman. "We didn't revoke their press cards, because this is a democratic country. But in the name of that same value I also have the right not work with them. The editorial boards got the message and replaced their people. When the Washington Post saw that a smaller newspaper, such as the Baltimore Sun, was getting exclusive material, they understood that they had a problem."

Some of those who were ousted have come out ahead. Suzanne Goldberg was promoted to Washington, and the one reporter who made it big is Rula Amin. The famous Palestinian reporter for CNN whose reports from here in Operation Defensive Shield were perceived by many as being authored by the Palestinian Information Ministry, now reports from Baghdad and has a lot of screen time. Seaman tries to stay calm. "When the CNN executives visited here," he says, "they led us to understand that if we drop the issue of her, she would find herself on the way out. The fact that she is now in Baghdad attests to the professional level of the network and to the [value of] the word of its executives."

When the Kol Ha'Ir photographer asked to take Seaman's picture against the backdrop of a television screen, he agreed only if the television was turned to Fox, the cheaper alternative that the cable companies found to CNN. Seaman says he does not regret the impending loss. "Personally, I don't like CNN's broadcasts in Israel," he says, "because it is their European network.

If it were the American network maybe it would disturb me more." Foreign reporters and editors at the JCS building on Jaffa road in Jerusalem, where the offices of some of the leading foreign media services in the world are located, were rather stunned this week by Seaman's statements. "I cannot believe," says Charles Enderlin, "that Mr. Seaman, the director of the Government Press Office, would make those kinds of accusations. If that is how they want to do public relations here then I don't understand a thing about the country that I've been living in for the past 34 years."

Enderlin says that there were isolated instances of Palestinian pressure on local issues. He said that the Foreign Press Association in Israel found an appropriate response: "We decided that if a photographer from one of the networks captures a picture that the PA wants to confiscate then everyone is allowed to use it." Another senior journalist admits that some of the Palestinian journalists must naturally support the Palestinian national struggle, but he stresses that he encounters far more often displays of courage. "It is very difficult to produce free media in the territories today, but they succeed in doing that," says the journalist.

In response to this article, Tim Heritage, the bureau chief at Reuters, said "Seaman's accusations are absurd and baseless." Andrew Steele, the BBC Jerusalem bureau chief, said: "The BBC has an international reputation because of its objectivity and balance. The thought that a few of our more experienced journalists suddenly developed complete dependency on Palestinian sources and that the Palestinian workers decide which news will be broadcast abroad could be funny if it were not so insulting. It is even more infuriating when one bears in mind that Mr. Seaman's office has been barring press cards from our Palestinian staff members."



Ha'aretz, October 30, 2002


By Amos Harel

The intelligence branch of the Israel Defense Forces is due to present its annual assessment to the inner cabinet today. Major General Aharon Ze'evi, director of military intelligence, yesterday presented the assessment to the defense establishment headed by Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer.

The assessment says Israel does not have a partner for diplomatic agreements at this stage - most certainly not in Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. There are no signs of Arafat agreeing to step down in the coming months, nor of a potential successor, the military analysts believe.

In fact, there are no signs of an end to the confrontation with the Palestinians in the coming year.

For these reasons, the IDF thinks Israel must concentrate on managing the conflict in such a way as to avoid it escalating or slipping into a conflict with other Arab countries. On this point, Ben-Eliezer expressed a difference of opinion.

He said that, despite the overall pessimism of the intelligence analysts, he considered it strategically important for Israel to show the Arabs a blueprint for peace.

"The question is not just how to manage the conflict but also how to come out of it," Ben-Eliezer said. "If we provide the Palestinians with a good, serious option, a partner might come out of this on the other side."

Ben-Eliezer thinks Israel's military action in the territories has exhausted itself.

At this point, there is no choice but to continue taking an activist role in the West Bank since this is the only means to prevent terrorists from leaving, but he does not believe the continued pressure will break the Palestinians.

Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon believes, however, that this could be the "decisive year" in which the Palestinians lose the will to continue the violent conflict. For this reason, he would like to see the IDF keeping up pressure on the Palestinians.

The most central issue of the coming year is expected to be an American attack on Iraq and its repercussions on the entire region, the military analysts say.

It is possible the operation will be put off until the beginning of next year.

Ben-Eliezer said he believed the war would have positive regional effects since other countries such as Syria and Iran would restrain their hostile intentions for fear of American action against them.




By Professor Paul Eidelberg

How are we to understand the grossly prolonged and cruel incarceration of Jonathan Pollard, and what may be done to liberate this suffering Jew and bring him home, to unite him with his devoted wife and the country he has served?

To begin with, let us consider some of the principals responsible for Jonathan's unduly long imprisonment-decreed for life even though he conveyed classified information to a friendly state, cooperated with his prosecutors, and by all that is fair and just should have received a relatively short term in prison for violating American law.

First, a word about three American officials. One is former Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger. Perhaps to prove his detachment from his partly Jewish ancestry, Weinberger publicly exaggerated the gravity of Jonathan's crime and secretly and unlawfully prejudiced his trial. Another is Ruth Bader Ginsberg, now a justice of the Supreme Court. As a member of the Apellate Court, Judge Ginsberg, whose reputation as a liberal is impeccable, proved how thoroughly liberated she is from Judaism by voting against Jonathan's lawyer's appeal for a retrial. And then there is Bill Clinton. This flamboyant president let Jonathan languish in jail yet pardoned an escaped felon, Mark Rich, who had contributed to a Clinton campaign fund.

More shameful, the heads of American Jewish organizations have failed to rally to Jonathan's cause in their well-publicized meetings at the White House. Apparently, urging the occupant of the Oval Office to pardon Jonathan Pollard might make them too appear too conspicuous as Jews. And so Jews in America have been rather silent about this modern Dreyfus.

And there have been various prime ministers of Israel who have forsaken their duty to liberate Jewish captives and bring them home. Jonathan, betrayed by Israel's embassy in Washington, which turned him over to the FBI, has become a citizen of Israel. Nevertheless, Israel's current Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, has avoided the Pollard issue in meetings with President George W. Bush. Sacrificing Jews for "reasons of state" - however irrational these reasons may be - has become habitual with this prime minister, who rejects zero tolerance for Arab terrorism. Jews just don't want to appear too "pushy" lest they disturb the "goyim."

So, if Jews will not do what is necessary to liberate Jonathan Pollard, perhaps the "goyim" may be prompted to do so. It was Christians, not Jews, who shamed France for the unjust trialand imprisonment of Alfred Dreyfus. Here I am reminded of a former colleague of mine,Professor Angelo Codevilla, a devout Catholic and former staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who bravely denounced the American government's skullduggery in Jonathan's trial and the unprecedented length and cruelty of his incarceration.

And yet, because the Jewish State of Israel exists, it remains for Jews to bring Jonathan home, and they dare not shirk this responsibility. Timid and myopic Jews do not see that Jonathan's lonely imprisonment and the world's indifference to his fate is symbolic of Israel, the maligned, abandoned, and ever "suffering servant of the Lord." Little to these Jews realize that their timidity arouses the contempt of Gentiles, not only for them but for Israel as well. They do not see that Jonathan Pollard's bondage is linked to Israel's bondage. Indeed, until Israel brings Jonathan home, Israel will remain the scapegoat of nations, and Jews in this country, like Jonathan, will remain expendable.

BIO NOTE: Paul Eidelberg (Ph.D. University of Chicago) is the author of ten books on American politics, the Arab-Israel conflict, and Jewish philosophy. Prof. Eidelberg is on the Editorial Board of Israel's premier journal, Nativ, and on the Advisory Council of the Ariel Center of Policy Research.


Pollard and Israel, "Sitting Ducks" for the US?

The True Motives Behind the Sentencing of Jonathan Pollard: An Interview with Angelo Codevilla

The Dreyfus-Pollard Parallel

Exposé: Using Pollard to Get Rich: Yediot Achronot Exclusive Investigation

Sharon and Katsav Refuse to Help



ATTENTION!! Palestinian Computer Virus

Satire by Jon Elchanan Axelrod

A new virus has been detected that you may want to take precautions against. This is the Palestinian Virus - a virus that settles in our PC, claims it was there before your PC was built or Bill Gates was born, then demands parts of your hard drive. If you want the virus to leave you and your PC alone, you can try to give the virus the hard drive space it wants, but it will refuse the deal and start killing data on your computer.

Some people have suggested a solution for this virus problem is to give the virus its own PC. As stated above, this virus has been known to refuse the offer. Other nearby PCs won't take the virus either, even if the virus is compatible the other computers. The virus seems to want nothing less than to take over your entire computer and with the removal and destruction of all your data.

Software based anti-virus solutions have been proposed, but so far only hardware solutions have had any impact. The only solution we have been able to determine that may work is physical removal of the virus from your computer. The only problem with this solution is all the other computers will object, and you will be castigated in the media and by the UN.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments