Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 12             B"H   NOVEMBER 2004             NUMBER 11

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

November 2004


A BLACK DAY FOR ISRAEL....Bernard J. Shapiro
A DIALOGUE ON REVOLUTION...Guest Editorial....Prof. Paul Eidelberg
LET'S DISENGAGE FROM ARIEL SHARON...Guest Editorial....Ruth Matar

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE LIKUD.... Prof. Paul Eidelberg





THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2004 Bernard J. Shapiro
Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)





By Bernard J. Shapiro

Yesterday was a BLACK DAY FOR ISRAEL. The consequences of the Knesset vote on the expulsion of Jews will be horrendous and is not fully understood.

The Jews have faced expulsions many times throughout their history - the largest from Spain in 1492. Today we witness the first time Jews have been expelled by a Jewish government from their own nation.

The immediate consequence of this vile act by the Sharon government is the total fracture of the national consensus. It is a rupture of the historical roots of Israel in Zionism. The ruling Likud Party will be split and there is a possibility that the anti-Zionist left will emerge as the most significant influence on Israeli politics after being defeated in the last election by a landslide.

Democratic principles are being undermined and critics of Sharon's policies are being threatened with imprisonment.

What can we expect in the future following the surrender to terrorism. For one, Gaza will be come a haven and training base for terrorists from all over the world. New weapons will be introduced in large number including rockets capable of reaching Israel's major cities. Just like the days before the Six Day War, terrorists will infiltrate into Israel from Gaza bringing death and destruction in their wake.

The most significant damage will be to Israeli morale. While the Arabs will feel elated at this victory over Israel, Jews will become depressed and their feelings of national pride will be greatly diminished. Many Jews will seek to avoid joining the IDF and its elite units. Many more will emigrate to other countries, disgusted with Israeli anti-Jewish policies.

The goal of improving Israel's demographic balance by leaving Gaza will fail as fewer Jews will immigrate to Israel as the security situation deteriorates. As increasing numbers of Jews emigrate and the Arab birthrate continues to grow Israel will find itself in the same difficult position. There are other answers to the problem like transfer, but the leftist government will refuse to even discuss it.


[Writer's Note: This editorial is conceptually based on the history of both the American Revolution and Martin Luther King Jr's struggle to emancipate the black population of the United States. Of course it is modern and on the struggle for Israel, but the voices of George Washington, Patrick Henry and Dr. King ring loudly in my heart and soul.]

It is clear to all of us that the present Likud government of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is leading Israel to disaster. It is also clear that nothing external is compelling this self-destruction. The only thing that will save Israel is new elections.


The only way to speed up elections and thus save Israel is by destabilizing the current government and causing it to fall. This would force new elections and stop the insane Oslo/Road Map process.


Over the last one hundred years, many governments have been destabilized by the action of a determined group of its citizens, not necessarily a majority. Two recent cases in this country are the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-War in Viet-Nam Movement. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson chose not to run for a second term because of the anti-war movement. There is also no doubt the Afro-American population would not have been able to throw off the yoke of discrimination without non-violent protest. In Israel it is obvious that the intifada succeeded, no doubt because of the Israeli government's reticence in crushing it.

It is this reticence by democratic regimes to crush popular uprisings that is the biggest weapon in the hands of groups wishing to destabilize their government. This principle does not work under autocratic governments as witness Syria (Hama) and China (Tiananmen Square).


1. Demonstrations -- the larger the better. Demonstrations will not in and of themselves bring down a government. Good media coverage is essential to give the population a feeling that the tide of history is turning against the regime.

2. Civil disobedience -- the key to success. There is one essential requirement for destabilizing a government and that is for a determined group of people to be willing to go to jail, be beaten by police, and possibly be killed in the pursuit of their political aims. More will follow later on organizing civil disobedience.

3. The Wrench In The Machinery Of Government

A Physical -- roads and bridges can be blocked by slow or stalled cars.

B. Electronic -- computer networks, telecommunications can be adversely affected [10,000 people calling government offices at the same time can paralyze the system].

C. Psychological -- photos can be taken of police and military personnel who become involved in violent action against peaceful demonstrators. Available now are miniature video cameras that can be worn inconspicuously and send live feed to distant computers. At a time and place of your choosing their names can be revealed - you can compromise those security officers involved in non-democratic violence against demonstrators. Their names and photos can be publicized, leading to fear and a sense of insecurity.


A. Armed resistence to non-democratic police and military actions is not the best course of action since the military, police and security services will always be stronger and better equipped.

B. Open revolt against authority - Democracies are primarily based on voluntary compliance with the legal system. When that democracy ceases to govern in the best interests of its citizenry, with its security and survival, then it is lawful and justified to resist authority. This includes refusing to pay taxes, following illegal orders of the non-democratic army, traffic regulations etc.

C. Mass demonstrations, including the right of self-defense, are meant to intimidate the police and the government. The horrible vision of civil war will restrain the government. Knowing that the Zionist/Right will not physically resist, gives the government strength to pursue suicidal policies. The policy of not striking back at the Left (as experienced during the "season") begun in the pre-state days by Menachem Begin has had the effect of emasculating the Right in its relations with the Left.


While it is preferable to wage a non-violent campaign, there are certain lessons one can learn from the Israel Defense Forces.

1. Most important: Do not give the enemy time to rest and re-group. The IDF always advances in one massive push to victory, never allowing the enemy a respite. The same must be true of the demonstrations against Sharon. It is a mistake to agree to a truce. This time will be used to organize special police units including female police officers to handle demonstrators. The government has already learned that reservists do not like this heartrending undemocratic task.

2. Attack in many places at once, causing physical and psychological stress on the enemy. Demonstrators should not just take over hills in YESHA, but should take over government offices from Eilat to Metulla. Roads should be blocked all over the country. In Jerusalem, with its many government offices and a supportive religious population, you should be able to create and sustain chaos.


Half measures will not work. Either we want to bring down this government or we don't. You can not be both meat and milk. It was the IDF's failure to destroy the intifada that led to much of our trouble. Remember the principle of vaccinations: a tiny doze of the disease that allows the body to build its immune system. Half-measures allow Sharon to develop a resistance to the demonstrations. We must take the momentum and build continuously to the day of victory. The decision is ours.


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

When will the Nationalist Camp realize that we are "at war already" with a PLO supported government that rules Israel? At what point will Israelis realize that the CIVIL WAR they fear, IS ALREADY TAKING PLACE AND THEY ARE LOSING? Why don't members of the Nationalist Camp understand that FORCE is being used by only ONE side and that is the government. The monopoly on power must be broken or there is no hope.

Under the Nazis, the Jews of Warsaw numbered over 500,000. They were depleted with regular deportations aided by Judenrats (Jewish leaders). The Revolt in Warsaw began when the Jewish population was down to 50,000 (or 90% murdered). At what point is it OK to rebel? When is civil disobedience OK? When is civil war a better course than suicide? All throughout history there have been rebels and loyalists. History is usually written by the victors but truly there is seldom a universally accepted moral standard as to what is a proper rebellion and what is not. We can say with absolute certainty, however, that the Jewish return to Zion and our struggle today for Eretz Yisrael are more righteous than any other struggle for national liberation in the history of the world.

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

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

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 women, children, husbands, sons and daughters. The Brave Heroes of Zion must not limit themselves to passive civil disobedience but must on the offensive.

While such internal Jewish fighting would be DREADFUL, it is a consequence of the government's disregard for the security and well being of its citizens. 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.




Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly Internet magazine, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE and its email broadcast, freemanlist.




by Yoram Ettinger


*Fact: The deeper the disengagement the larger the production, upgrading and smuggling of weaponry, ammunition, explosives and missiles of enhanced range and precision. A year ago, Palestinian missiles hit Jewish communities in Gaza, this year they hit Sderot and the northern Negev and very soon they will be able to hit the power station of Ashqelon and the port of Ashdod.

Fact: The disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria will transform Afula, Hadera, Netanya, Jezrael Valley and Heffer Valley into the "daily-bombarded-Sderot of the north".

Fact: The cut & run and the uprooting of Jewish communities will expand the missile arena into Judea & Samaria and will plague Jerusalem, Ben Gurion Airport, Kfar Saba and Ra'anana.

Fact: Two years ago, Israel apprehended the missiles, weaponry and ammunition loaded "Karinne-A" boat. The disengagement would facilitate many "Karinne-As", would severely erode Israel's intelligence and will provide the PA and Hamas with Hizballah-style capabilities.


Dahlan: "The disengagement constitutes a key achievement of the Intifadah" (February 22, 2004).

Muhammed Dief: "The disengagement signifies the beginning of the end of Israel" (March, 2004).

Hamas: The disengagement will lead to the return of the 1948 refugees. It will bring an end to the occupation of the entire Palestinian land [including Jerusalem, Galilee, Negev, Haifa and Jaffa]" (August 15, 2004).


Fact: Egyptian hostility, as revealed during the Oct. 2004 Taba Massacre, attests to Cairo's attitude toward Israel and toward Islamic terrorism.

Fact: Egypt's education system features anti-Jewish hate-education, and its school books are used by the hate-mongering Palestinian Authority. Egypt is has poisoned Israel's relations with the UN, Africa and Persian Gulf States.

Fact: Egypt considers Palestinian terrorism a cost-effective means to erode Israel's tenacity, and has facilitated the smuggling of weaponry, ammunition, missiles and explosives to Gaza. Poverty-stricken Cairo has launched a military procurement campaign, designed to become a potent threat to Israel.


Fact: The US would not finance the disengagement.

Fact: Uprooting Jewish communities in northern Samaria would require a multi-billion Shekel investment, in order to develop alternative water resources (Israel's Water Commissioner, "Globes", September 27, 2004). Exploiting the Samaria Aquifer, by the PA, would increase salination, would destroy the agriculture and would dismantle the Jewish communities of Israel's northern valleys. The resulting need for desalination facilities would deepen Israel's dependency upon importation of expensive energy and would exacerbate security risks.

Fact: The intensified missile and terror threats would require more large scale costly military operations in Gaza and northern Samaria, would drive away tourists and airliners, would escalate reparation to victims of terror and missiles, would freeze infrastructure projects, would decrease human services budget, would aggravate unemployment and would raise taxes.

Fact: Disengagement resembles a bottomless keg, financially, militarily and politically ("Globes, Oct. 11, 2004).




By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

American: You Israelis never cease to amaze me. Since Oslo you have suffered more than 10,000 casualties -- Jewish men, women, and children killed, wounded and maimed for life. Yet you do nothing. If this were not bad enough, your government plans to uproot countless Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and turn this land over to your enemies! Why haven't you people rebelled and thrown the rascals out?

Israeli: Just a minute. We like to believe Israel is a democracy; so if the public is not happy with the government's policies, we need only wait for the next election and change the prime minister or party in power.

American: But don't you see it makes no difference which party or party leader is in power: you are still retreating toward your indefensible 1949 borders. Americans would never tolerate this state of affairs. Certain Mexican nationalists are now making territorial claims on Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California -- once Mexican territory. If the American government yielded any part of this land to Mexico, rest assured there'd be a revolution.

Israeli: But you forget we are Jews, and for a Jew to shed the life of another Jew -- inevitable in a revolution -- is simply out of the question. Look at what happened after Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated. This was a national trauma from which we are still suffering.

American: Well, let me tell you there are still Americans in the South who have not gotten over the Civil War, which saw families divided and involved in fratricidal conflict. But let me pursue my Mexican example. Suppose year after year a few hundred square kilometers of the increasingly Hispanic southwest were returned to Mexico, and that thousands of Anglo-Saxon Americans were expelled from their homes each month. We Americans would be up in arms, animated by the revolutionary zeal of those who signed our Declaration of Independence. Let me quote a few passages from that document:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. -- That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future security.

American (continued): Perhaps some will say that these immortal words do not justify a revolution in Israel. It seems to me, however, that your government's four-year failure to put an end to the murder of Jews by Arab terrorists may well be deemed a "long train of abuses." And the same may be said if your government uproots thousands of Jews from their homes every month in pursuance of the Sharon disengagement plan. Besides, your prime minister's firing of cabinet ministers who oppose withdrawal from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and his ordering all cabinet ministers to be present in Israel to vote in support of his plan smacks of dictatorship. All his talk about democracy and peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians deceives only children. What do you say to this?

Israeli: Look, all that you say about revolution may be true when applied to America and perhaps other countries. As concerns Israel, however, you have to bear one obvious and one not so obvious thing in mind. Since the government obviously controls the army, the police, and the intelligence services, your proposed revolution would be nipped in the bud. Less obvious is this: even if ten thousand or more Jews were to march on the Knesset and had the wherewithal to withstand water-canons and tear gas, this would only lead to a civil war. So all your talk about revolution is futile. We Jews are a long-suffering people. Indeed, to endure suffering is part of our nature. We have had inept and wicked rulers before. Nevertheless, we have survived, and we shall survive those who now betray us in the deceitful names of "peace" and "democracy."

American: But how many Jews must perish before you cease being long-suffering and take your future into your own hands instead of behaving like sheep led to the slaughter? Don't you realize that, sooner or later, the Palestinians will obtain biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction? Don't you see that your government's policy of self-restraint vis-a-vis Arab terrorists means that your prime minister and the wimps in his cabinet are willing to tolerate the loss of considerable number of Jews, and that this cheapening of Jewish life can only make the Arabs more determined to annihilate you?

Israeli: You speak as if we are threatened by another holocaust!

American: That's right, but this time you will have no one but yourselves to blame for such a catastrophe.





Thursday, October 28, 2004

Dear Friends,

Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, made a speech to the 21st Zionist Congress, in Basel, Switzerland, in 1937. His words are as relevant today as they were then.

"No Jew is at liberty to surrender the right of the Jewish Nation and the Land of Israel to exist. No Jewish body is sanctioned to do so. Even all the Jews alive today have no authority to yield any piece of land whatsoever. This right is reserved to the Jewish People throughout the generations. This right cannot be forfeited under any circumstances. Even if at some given time there will be those who declare that they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to negate it for future generations. The Jewish Nation is neither obligated by nor responsible for any such waiver. Our right to this land, in its entirety, is enduring and eternal. And until the coming of the Redemption, we shall never yield this historic right."

Tuesday, October 26, 2004, 67 years later, will go down in Jewish history as a most tragic occurrence. Sharon's Plan to forcibly evacuate fellow Jews from their communities in Biblical Gaza was approved by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) on this date.

Our government has been hijacked by Ariel Sharon, who has turned into a clever manipulative dictator. He thumbs his nose at his own party, the membership of which had rejected his Unilateral Disengagement Plan (deporting Jews from their Biblical Homeland) by an overwhelming majority of 19.5% on May 3, 2004.

One cannot blame Labor, Yachad (formerly Meretz), and the Arab Knesset Members who voted for the Plan. They did what was expected of them. They had advocated surrender to the Arab enemy all along.

The "Revised Disengagement Plan" was approved in a 67-45 vote with 7 abstentions. 29 of the votes in favor of Unilateral Disengagement came from Left wing opposition MKs, who jumped jubilantly from their seats after the vote to congratulate Sharon that he now has Knesset approval to uproot Jews from their homes. Ironically, once upon a time, before Sharon betrayed his own Likud Party and the voters who had given him a landslide victory in the last election, these very leftists considered Sharon to be Public Enemy Number One.

Thus, there were few surprises in the result of the Knesset vote. Nevertheless, there were some heartening aspects. Seventeen Likud Knesset Members had the courage to vote against Ariel Sharon. The nation may be seriously divided as a result of Sharon's Plan, but it should be noted that there are those in the Likud Party who will not timidly submit to his dictates.

Bibi Netanyahu, Limor Livnat, Tzachi Hanegbi, Dan Naveh, and Silvan Shalom, our so-called "friends", all Likud Ministers in Sharon's Cabinet, have put a knife in the back of their own constituency - betraying all Zionist principles - in order to hold on to their ministerial seats of power. They have joined the camp of the enemy, the extreme Left, which brought us the disastrous surrender policies of the Oslo Accords.

Of the Likud Ministers, only Uzi Landau and Michael Ratzon had the moral integrity not to go against their own Likud Party Platform and the great majority of the Likud membership. They cast their votes against Sharon's Disengagement Plan. As promised, they were immediately fired by Sharon, just as he had previously fired Ministers Benny Elon and Avigdor Liberman, when they announced that they were going to vote against his Plan.

We will continue to fight Sharon's evil immoral Plan to forcibly evacuate Jews from their Homeland. The People of Israel will not accept this shameful vote of the Knesset. NO ONE, NO PRIME MINISTER, AND NO PARLIAMENT, HAS THE RIGHT TO GIVE AWAY ANY PORTION OF OUR G-D GIVEN BIBLICAL HOMELAND.

Most importantly, the Women in Green will continue our important work to educate the People of Israel as to THE RIGHT TO OUR LAND, and to resist government suppression of dissent to Sharon's manipulative Plan to surrender to terror.

We are in desperate need of a leader who believes in the ultimate destiny of the Jewish People at this crucial period in our history. May the G-d of Israel send us such a leader.


With Blessings and Love for Israel,




THE JERUSALEM POST - October 14, 2004


by Caroline Glick

On Wednesday, Army Radio reported the contents of a secret Foreign Ministry report which forecast the state of Israel's relations with Europe over the next decade. The picture it painted was bleak. Israel, the report's author claims, will be increasingly castigated by EU governments as a racist apartheid state.

In the sense that the leaked report does nothing other than project current trends onto the future, it is fundamentally uninteresting. What is interesting about it is how it flies in the face of the bravado-filled forecasts that Prime Minister Sharon's Svengali and outgoing Bureau Chief Dov Weisglass fed us last week through his long interview with Haaretz.

According to Weisglass, the downward trend in Europe's view of Israel will be halted by Sharon's withdrawal plan from the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria. By Weisglass's telling, the need to mollify and moderate Europe's view of Israel is one of the main reasons that Sharon chose the radical approach of withdrawal without an agreement and in the midst of war. In his words, the purpose of the withdrawal plan is to enable the US "to go to the seething and simmering international community and say to them, 'What do you want [from Israel]?'"

So, according to Weisglass, who speaks for Sharon, transferring territory to the enemy in the midst of war, while perhaps tactically problematic or even dangerous, is the right thing to do because it strategically and politically empowers Israel. This, of course was the assumption of Yitzhak Rabin in Oslo. By reaching out to the PLO and giving it arms, territory and political legitimacy, Israel was gambling with security in order to buy itself a political insurance policy. If things went well, there would be peace. If Oslo failed, the Palestinians would be blamed. Of course this turned out to be false. Oslo failed, our security was squandered, and Israel was blamed.

In speaking of the current plan, Weisglass echoes Rabin's mistaken assumption almost word for word as he says that the unilateral withdrawal plan "transfers the initiative to our hands. It compels the world to deal with our idea, with the scenario we wrote. It places the Palestinians under tremendous pressure It thrusts them into a situation in which they have to prove their seriousness."

Again, while he says this, as was the case throughout the Oslo years, we see on the ground that pressure on Israel since the announcement of the withdrawal plan has not abated. And we have the Foreign Ministry report -- written with full awareness of the withdrawal plan -- saying that pressure on Israel will increase and support for the Palestinians will remain constant throughout the coming decade.

Why is this? Although the leaked accounts of the report did not say, common sense has it that Israel, with all due respect, does not determine how the EU defines its interests. With oil now selling for $54 per barrel, and with the demographic challenges of growing Muslim and shrinking Christian populations in Europe motivating Bernard Lewis to say matter-of-factly that Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century, it should be fairly obvious that something other than the presence or absence of Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is motivating Europe.

Given this, we must ask, why would the Israeli leadership build its central policy initiative around the goal of influencing Europe?

Since Sharon unveiled his withdrawal plan last winter, we have heard a constant chatter of commentary -- sometimes whispered, sometimes shouted -- that things can't be as they appear; that Sharon must have something up his sleeve. Such talk also accompanied Ehud Barak to Camp David. The idea is that by pushing a radical leftist agenda, Barak then and Sharon today have both been pulling the wool over our eyes -- forcing the Palestinians to show their cards and in so doing, pointing to the emptiness of the Left's ideology of appeasement, thereby, indirectly, advancing the platform of the Right.

Weisglass's interview serves to demystify Sharon. In it he proves definitively that no, there is no hidden agenda. Disturbingly, Weisglass not only shows that there is no secret plan, he also admits that Israel under Sharon has had no influence on US policy, while he exposes the vacuousness of the prime minister's thinking and Weisglass's own vanity and inanity.

The Weisglass interview focuses on two separate issues. The first is Weisglass's personal relationship with US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. The second is his influence over Sharon's policymaking and the rationale for the decisions that have emerged from the Weisglass-Sharon duo.

In the first instance, Weisglass cannot stop congratulating himself for his friendly relations and constant communications with Rice. Yet what has Israel accomplished through this direct channel to the White House? The answer, according to Weisglass, is absolutely nothing. By his telling, Israel had nothing to do with the Bush administration's formulation of its policy toward the Palestinian Authority.

Weisglass states: "The Americans were here for four months in 2003 They saw the Palestinians' detailed working plans and their splendid diagrams and they saw how nothing came of it When you add to that the trauma of September 11 and their understanding that Islamic terrorism is indivisible, you understand that they reached their conclusions by themselves. They didn't need us to understand what it was all about."

So, rather than enjoying a near-symbiotic relationship with the Bush administration -- as Sharon likes to characterize his relationship with the Bush White House -- what we have in the Weisglass-Rice camaraderie is an Israeli gasbag who mistakes access for influence.

Weisglass's descriptions of Sharon's motivations for making the decisions he has made provide ample room for worry. According to Sharon's right-hand man, "When Arafat undermined [PA Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas aka] Abu Mazen at the end of the summer of 2003, we reached the sad conclusion that there is no one to talk to, no one to negotiate with. Hence the disengagement plan. Because when you're playing solitaire, when there is no one sitting across from you at the table, you have no choice but to deal the cards yourself."

Yet, if Israel is playing cards by itself, why would it give its aces (or any cards for that matter) to someone who isn't even playing -- to someone who blew up the card table? Barry Rubin pointed out in The Jerusalem Post this week that PLO legal adviser Michael Tarazi's recent op-ed in The New York Times calling for the destruction of Israel and a one-state solution marks a fundamental admission by the PLO that it is interested not in Palestinian statehood, but in the destruction of Israel. And yet, with this state of affairs self-evident, the prime minister has still decided to destroy Jewish communities in Gaza and northern Samaria and hand over land to PLO militias.

Weisglass said that by moving to the withdrawal plan, Israel would be ensuring that the US would continue to support Israel in spite of the absence of a peace process. In his words, "The Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

Actually, the withdrawal plan, like Sharon's decision to accept the Quartet's road map, has not cemented the administration's pro-Israel position; it has served to exacerbate its anti-Israel position. The Bush administration is the first American administration to support Palestinian statehood. And Bush's support for the road map and for Sharon's withdrawal plan has not attenuated US pressure on Israel to build the separation fence more or less along the 1949 armistice lines. Nor has the administration's support for his plans lessened American pressure on Israel to freeze construction in Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria with an eye towards eventually dismantling them all, down to Ma'aleh Adumim.

Finally, Weisglass argues that Sharon's withdrawal plan was necessary because public support for the conduct of the war against Palestinian terror was waning at the end of 2003. In his words, "Domestically everything was collapsing The Geneva Initiative garnered broad support. And then we were hit with the letters of officers and letters of pilots and letters of commandos [letters of refusal to serve in the territories]."

The problem with the extreme Left is both real and manufactured. It is true that there are those on the leftist fringe of Israel's political spectrum who have sided with the Palestinians. But they are few in number and not growing. Almost three years after their first public appearance on the cover of Yediot Aharonot's weekend features magazine, the pacifist soldiers and officers club has only garnered 628 signatures on their manifesto. And Yossi Beilin is so despised that he couldn't get himself elected to Knesset even though he ran on two separate lists.

The importance of fringe movements is largely determined by the agenda-setters. Yediot and Haaretz have adopted the pacifist reservists as their cause celebre and so they have received notice.

But the prime minister is also a major agenda-setter. Weisglass is right: Sharon's adoption of the plan to withdraw unilaterally from territory in the midst of war did take the microphone away from the likes of Beilin and David Zonshein of the pacifist reservists' club. But he could have taken away their microphone with any plan. Why did he have to choose theirs? Why did he feel that he had to move Israel backwards rather than lead it forward?

Weisglass no doubt gave the interview in a bid to mollify the right-wing critics of Sharon's withdrawal plan with his claim that unilateral withdrawal effectively ends US pressure for Palestinian statehood. Yet his own words belie the wisdom of those who oppose Sharon's policy. The rationale Weisglass provides for Sharon's decisions cannot stand up to scrutiny. Moreover, the great chemistry that Weisglass has cultivated with the Bush administration has made Weisglass personally popular, while rendering Israel effectively without advocate. No wonder Sharon has insisted for so long on holding his hand close to his chest. It turns out that he's not holding any cards.



Hebron/Arutz7-INN Commentary - October 18, 2004


by David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron

So, what's the answer?

Is the magic solution a national referendum? Can we legitimately decide the fate of Eretz Yisrael in a national election? Who can participate in such a crucial ballot? May 'leaders' of Yesha, and more specifically, those people participating in the 'Yesha Council' rightfully take responsibility to claim that 'we will accept the results of a referendum' dealing with chopping up our land?

The only answer to these questions is an unconditional NO!

Let's examine these questions, and their possible answers in greater detail.

First: Who has the right to take part in a referendum about Eretz Yisrael. Let's take into account that we're not talking about how high taxes should be, who must participate in active army service, or other such mundane issues. We are not even discussing whether or not a Jew has the legitimate right to live in Eretz Yisrael. We are talking about evicting Jews from Eretz Yisrael. We are talking about unilaterally abandoning our land to sworn enemies who have murdered, in cold blood, over 1,500 people in the past ten years, since the "Oslo piece accords" left our land in pieces. We are talking about fleeing a land area bordering Israeli cities, which will be controlled by a 'palestinian prime minister,' who said, only a few days ago, "Unfortunately, up to now the Palestinian security forces have not been able to control this situation and we bear a very big responsibility for this," Qurei was quoted as saying in al-Ayyam, a Palestinian daily. "There's still chaos, still killing." (Greg Myre -- The New York Times -- Friday, Oct. 15, 2004).

So, who has the right to vote? There has been much talk about who can vote. For example, can hundreds of thousands of Arabs, 'citizens' of the State of Israel participate in such an election. Or, what kind of majority is necessary for such an issue to be decided: a regular 50% plus one majority, or sixty percent of the population?

However, I'm not referring to these questions, as legitimate as they are. My sights are set on Jews who live in New York, Buenos Aires, Paris, Johannesburg, or, even in Oslo. Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jewish people, ALL the Jewish people, wherever they may be. Some live here, in the State of Israel, and many others, (unfortunately), still reside elsewhere. But that does not mean that these millions of people may be silenced, that their voices cannot be heard, when dealing with our land. It is theirs, just as much as it is mine. For many years I have told groups "Hebron belongs to you as much as it does to me. The difference is, we live here, and today, you don't. We are the keeper of the keys, ensuring that Hebron will always be accessible to whoever wishes to visit here.

So it is too about Gush Katif, so it is too about Homesh and Sanur in the Shomron, so it is too about Tel Aviv and Kiryat Shemona. Citizens of the State of Israel, living in our land, are the keepers of the keys, keeping our Eretz Yisrael Jewish, for the Jewish people. But it is our land, whether we live here or not.

How can we, in Israel, leave our brethren out in the cold? How can it be decided to amputate a living, healthy limb from a healthy living body, without consulting with the patient, whose limb is to be severed? The patient isn't only Avraham in US" , Yitzhak in Jerusalem, and Ya'akov in Eilat. The body, Eretz Yisrael, a G-dly possession, has been delegated to the Jewish people, including the Avrahams, Yitzhaks and Ya'akovs who live in Alaska, Melbourne, and Tokyo. What about them?

Second: Concerning the Yesha council (The Council of Judea, Samaria and Gaza). Yesterday a delegation of Yesha leaders met with Sharon about the planned 'disengagement.' Speaking after the meeting they, labeled it a disgrace, calling the Prime Minister 'unyielding and heartless.' One of them men was quoted as saying, 'either someone is controlling Sharon or he is taking Prozac or another tranquilizer.

One of the purported goals of this meeting was to convince Sharon to accept a national referendum to determine the fate of Gush Katif. One of the questions put to these men by various journalists is, "will you accept the results of such a plebiscite?" This morning, the Maariv-NRG web site quoted these men as saying, "we will honor a clear result of a national referendum." They did not guarantee to end all protest should the referendum pass, but did promise to conduct opposition in a 'more relaxed atmosphere.'

I have written before, and I reiterate here: Yesha council leaders have no mandate to decide whether or not Yesha residents will 'accept' or reject the results of such a referendum. A vast majority of Yesha council leaders are elected mayors of their respective towns or municipal areas. They were elected to provide municipal services to their constituents. They were not elected by the general Yesha population and have no collective power to make such fateful decisions 'in the name of Yesha citizens.'

Third and most importantly: Can the question of Eretz Yisrael be decided in a national referendum? The obvious answer: Of course not. Why? Very simply, Eretz Yisrael does not belong to us. What about our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc. How can we deny them their land? It belongs to them too. What right do we have to deny them their birthright, especially when the question is not whether or not to 'conquer the land' rather, it is to simply stay put. How can we give away what belongs to them too.

But most notably: Eretz Yisrael is a G-d -- given land, it belongs to Him, He gave it to us. One does not give away, abandon, or run away from G-d -- given gifts. A week ago we began reading the Torah -- the Five Books of Moses, from the beginning. The most important Biblical commentator, Rashi -- Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzhak, living in France almost a thousand years ago, understood, even then, the controversy surrounding Eretz Yisrael. His first Biblical commentary asks why the Torah beings with "In the beginning" and doesn't begin with the commencement of the Jewish people, in the days of Moses. His answers concisely, "Thus, should the nations of the world say to Israel, 'You are robbers, for you have taken by force the lands of the Seven Nations,' they [Israel] will say to them: "All the earth belongs to G-d. He created it and gave it to whomever He saw fit. It was His will to give it to them and it was His will to take it from them and give it to us." For this reason will read next Shabbat how Abraham was commanded to go -- to walk to Eretz Yisrael.

So, what's the answer? No elections, no referendums, no negotiations. Rather, to know, to understand, to internalize, once and for all, Eretz Yisrael is not for sale, not even to the highest bidder, not at any cost. None of it, not now, not ever.

With blessings from Hebron.




By David Basch

"Since Israel's existence runs counter to Muslim religious conviction and Arab nationalist passions, Arab population groups within Israel's perimeter of control will remain perpetually hostile to the existence of Israel. It is this larger threat that needs to be confronted in total, not merely that population component in Gaza. As noted, ceding Gaza offers no help in solving this larger problem but makes it worse by making Gaza the nucleus of a new Arab state whose mission is to combine all Arab populations in the effort to replace Israel...."

"Sharon's policy on Gaza -- at great Israeli cost in material resources and the destruction of the nation's unity! -- advances the Arab goal toward Israel's annihilation. A more effective policy would go counter to the Arab thrust of building a new Arab state and rolling back the existence of Israel.... A reverse Gaza policy thus provides an object lesson on how Israel can gain for her people greater security and assured hope for her future...."

"National suicide -- which will be the end result of allowing the establishment of a new Arab state on Israel's lands -- is hardly Israel's international obligation. Those theories of international law are to be seriously called into question that would allege that Israel's hostile Arab populations have a sacrosanct right to remain in Israel and avoid TRANSFER in spite of the fact that they are the vanguard of the designs of outside hostile, Arab powers to destroy Israel...."

A nation is a living organism that for its health must be served in all its dimensions, physical, psychological, and spiritual. Alas, Israel has suffered from technocratic leaders that deal not with the nation as a living organism but reduce it to their own one dimensional level of mechanistic thinking. To them the nation is nothing but an inanimate lump that can be that can be divorced from its culture and history, divorced from the longings, dreams, and aspirations of the Jewish people -- the very things that attach people to their nation and give them the incentive to build the nation and to sacrifice for its well-being. These are national spiritual resources of incalculable value that are being squandered by the visionless dolts that lead the nation.

The technocratic Sharon would embark Israel for the first time on an anti-Zionist course, a form of reverse Zionism, in Gaza and the territories for reasons that he deems to be practical, military considerations. In fact, these are grossly short-sighted expediencies that at the end of the day leave the nation worse off militarily and spiritually. Sharon would have Israel abandon lands and Jewish communities to which Israel has the most legitimate of claims and would create the obscenity of the very first phase of a new Arab state on Israel's territory. Such an Arab state that would be irredentist and a mortal danger. It is a formula for the slow but sure destruction of Israel.

Not only does this not make sense in terms of Israel's historic goals and Zionist aspirations, assaulting the very religious faith that has sustained the Jewish people, but it likewise makes no sense economically or militarily. The cost is horrendous and adds no new capacity for defense against the hostile Arab military forces already in the area. Rather, these enemy forces will be enhanced by opening up direct contact with Egypt and to weapon supply from an unimpeded Mediterranean coast.

The colossally stupid thought behind Sharon's surrender of Gaza is that it would win support for Israel from many nations of the world. But this is wholly an illusion. In fact, Israel's victory in the 1967 war made her more friends than all her appeasements and surrenders to the Arabs ever did. After all, nothing succeeds like success. Those nations that have not supported Israel up to this moment will not be more inclined to support the weaker Israel that would result from Sharon's surrender -- a weaker Israel menaced by the new hostile Arab state located within her very bosom that the Sharon plan puts in orbit. Where was the additional support of the nations when Israel returned the Sinai and its oil wells to Egypt? Where was this support when Israel surrendered to Arafat under the Oslo process and later offered to surrender to more than 95% of Arab demands? The alleged support that Sharon's new surrenders would bring is as unlikely to be manifest as before and even more so. Events have already shown Sharon's thesis to be false. Gaza is already an enemy military bastion and bombards Israeli cities while the world criticizes Israel for her spirited defense. Does Sharon imagine this criticism will abate when attacks spring from a legitimized new Arab state that seeks to liberate all its alleged lands -- all the lands of Israel -- from the "Jewish occupiers"? This savage darling of the U.N. will grow in support as Israel wanes.

Through Sharon's policy of surrendering Jewish lands, Israel will have acquiesced in the right of the Arabs to lands of the Mandate of Palestine that had been set aside for the Jewish people -- a major diplomatic setback. These lands, of course, will include Jerusalem which in no way differs in status from Gaza, both being Jewish lands included in the Mandate and liberated by Israel in the 1967 War when Israel victoriously defended herself against Arab attack. Either Israel has rights to all the lands that were assigned to the Jewish people under the Mandate or Israel has none. By relinquishing Gaza, Israel creates a precedent in the abandonment of her rights. In addition, Sharon's surrender also gives up the strengthening of Israel's rights to hold her territories gained from U.N. Resolution 242, which allows Israel to hold to secure borders.

Against these factors, Sharon and his fellow leftist technocrats pit the problem of the growing Arab population of Gaza. How is Israel to deal with this huge hostile population without abandoning the area? The question is a good one but it is no different from the same question posed concerning the growing Arab population of the territories (and even that of the Arabs of Israel). Since Israel's existence runs counter to Muslim religious conviction and Arab nationalist passions, these population groups will remain perpetually hostile to the existence of Israel. It is this larger threat that needs to be confronted in total, not merely that component in Gaza. As has been noted, ceding Gaza offers no help in solving this larger problem but makes it worse by making Gaza the nucleus of a new Arab state whose mission is to unite all these Arab populations in the effort to replace Israel.

How then to start Israel on a new path? Certainly Sharon's policy of gratuitously empowering the enemy by promoting his statehood and weakening Israel's claims to her lands is not the way. Sharon's policy on Gaza -- at great Israeli cost in material resources and the destruction of the nation's unity -- advances the Arab goal toward Israel's annihilation. A more effective Israeli policy would go counter to the Arab thrust of building a new Arab state and rolling back Israel. In this way, while the Arabs seek to progressively reduce the size of Israel and gain ever greater control of her physical resources, it makes sense that an effective Israeli policy must do the reverse: make it ever more evident that there is to be no new Arab state and that it is the Arabs that have no future in the Jewish land.

While it is disingenuously alleged that such a policy will preclude peace with the Arabs, there is absolutely no evidence that giving into Arab demands brings peace. Clearly, the opposite is true. It is Arab advances at Israel's expense that is guaranteed to promote war and further stimulate Arab efforts to destroy Israel.

A reverse Gaza policy thus provides an object lesson on how Israel can gain for her people greater security and hope for her future. Such a policy would begin by continuing Israeli strikes against the hostile Arab forces in Gaza that seek through Kassam rocket attacks to depopulate Israel's Southern cities like Sderot and Ashkelon. But what would be different is that Israel would make a "no man's land" of the intervening area from Gaza city to Sderot to the extent necessary to bring cities like Sderot out of range of Arab rocket launchers. Were rocket range to increase by improved Arab weaponry, so would Israel increase the extent of the new no man's land. What is more, these would be permanent changes in Arab holdings and would be just the beginning of such defensive action rolling back the Arab enclaves.

The other aspect of this new Israeli defensive program would seek to make the Jewish communities of Gaza more viable than before. Instead of removing the Jewish communities near the Mediterranean adjacent to Egypt as surrender artist Sharon plans to do, Israel would clear the Arabs from a ten mile wide corridor that runs North-South between Rafah and Kfar Dorom ending on the Mediterranean, a corridor that would encompass the Jewish Gaza communities and would connect them directly to Southern Israel. (If ethnic cleansing is valid for Jews, so is it valid for Arabs and for a better and more just purpose to boot.)

This would divide the Gaza strip in two, with one side in a tiny strip near Egypt and the second side beginning ten miles further Northeast, beyond Kfar Dorom. This division would effectively cut the Egyptian tunnel connection to inland Gaza. (Let the Egyptians try to build a ten mile long tunnel.) In this way, the Gazan Jewish communities on the Mediterranean would become integral parts of Israel, an area with a Jewish future and a barrier to the supply of weaponry from Egypt.

But what about the massive and growing Arab population in the Gaza City portion of the strip? The answer to dealing with this populationis the same as that for dealing with the Arab enclaves of Israel's Eastern territories in Judea and Samaria. These Arab enclaves will be confronted by progressively increasing pressure as a result of their own growth and scarcity of resources. It will become evident that it is these Arab enclaves that will have no future in the land of Israel, Israel being the nation with the prior claim to the territory.

While the Arabs are used to the idea that their growing enclaves will one day overrun Israel and absorb it into the Arab realm, Israel will make it clear with firm barriers to emphasize the point that this will not happen. The only future for these Arabs in both cases will be the greener pastures of any of the 22 Arab countries. It is Israel's future that will take precedence in the Israeli territories as the resident Arabs are encouraged and assisted toward one-way passage out of the land.

This situation is unavoidable since a cooperative existence between Jews and Arabs in Israel is clearly an oxymoron. Transfer, the relocation of the Arab population, is the long-term solution to the problem of lasting peace in the area. The alternative to transfer, letting the implacably hostile Arabs remain to grow and gobble up the lands and resources of Israel and eventually attack Israel, means Israel's certain destruction. Israeli politicians that tell their people that this is not the case go against reality and betray the future of the nation. The dye has long been cast so that there is no other choice than transfer.

As difficult intellectually and emotionally to the obsessed Israeli leftists as such a pro-Israel solution may initially seem, in the long run it is the most charitable way since it will save lives on both sides. The Arabs, cut off from weaponry supply and compressed into receding enclaves inversely proportional in size to their resistance,will be forced to cease their war because they will have lost the strategic conditions to wage it, saving Arab lives. Arab nations that would seek to enter the fray would find the price of warfare ruinous with the strengthened Jewish state. The Arab hordes that have been cultivated for the purpose of replacing Israel's Jewish population will be the responsibility of the Arab nations and their supporters that have contributed to this situation. Again, should the adjacent Arab nations attempt to block the movement of the Arab population departing from Israel, Israel would do what it reasonably could to help this population go around it to a better future, but any suffering of this Arab population would be upon those who attempt to restrain their pursuit of a better life. Israel, under the necessity of providing for her own continued existence in safety and security, finds this to be the inescapable situation forced upon her by her Arab neighbors. But is transfer legitimate? In fact, it happens to be a time honored mode of solving certain difficult international problems when the goal has indeed been peace and the prevention of future wars. This policy was used even by the Western Allies after World War II to transfer 12 million German ethnics to Germany for the sake of peace in Europe. Since any other policy will bring Israel certain defeat and the destruction of her people, transfer becomes most legitimate as the least destructive of all the possibilities. National suicide, which is the irrevocable end result of the establishment of a new Arab state on Israel's lands and a growing irrepressible hostile population, is hardly Israel's international obligation. Those theories of international law must be seriously called into question that allege that the residency of hostile Arab populations are sacrosanct despite their mortal threats to the existence and future of Israel, a legitimate U.N. member state. Those international theories are farces, just not designed to confront the situation of an Israel menaced by her Arab neighbors that use resident Arab populations as tools of enemy states to destroy her and are irrelevant.

It will not do for critics to deny the gravity of Israel's situation and Israel's desperate need to confront a lethal and hostile Arab population that threatens her existence. As we have recently seen, those -- like president Bush -- who have failed to anticipate the obdurate realities of the nature of hostile Arab populations, as has just happened to U.S. armies in Iraq that face the grave consequences of such ignorance and lack of foresight, should not be lecturing an Israel that would attempt to do better than succumb to the same false, rosy scenarios of coexistence based on fictions of the nature of the enemy. In any case, Israel has no choice if she is to exist other than to confront her enemies effectively and realistically.

If Israel is to survive, the hostile Arab populations within her territories must be transferred. The demands of peace in the region are such that Israel can legitimately claim cooperation on such a project from external nations in making transfer possible. It is too late to consider other fanciful options based on false realities. If a stalemate occurs in Israel's pursuit of this policy, as it is expected it will, Israel, whose existence hangs in the balance, has the moral right to make the consequences bear far heavily on the other side than on her own people. Peace loving nations that recognize Israel's legitimate rights will come to Israel's aid in the interest of peace in the region.

With this policy accomplished, the region can go on to live in peace -- a peace assured by a strong Israel that cannot be overwhelmed by any combination of Arab forces without ruinous, unacceptable consequences to the other side. This is the only workable and realistic formula for the solution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.




By Arlene Peck

Lord, what happens to Israel's leaders, in just ten minutes after taking office? They all turn into " Barak" and want to give away the store. Is it because they want to be loved so much ? Well dear Israel it's not working. No matter matter how much you give in, newspapers like the Los Angeles Times, and many more, are going to insist that it's not enough. We'll get to that in a minute.

I used to think that it was only Arafat, the EU and United Nations who were determined to chop up Israel into little pieces, like slicing salami. However, that was before I watched with dismay how Ariel Sharon turned into a dictator, against his own people, no different from the ones who surround him in the third world Arab countries.

In addition, I will be frank with you. I live in a state, California, where we are flooded with referendums to vote on every issue from three strikes for criminals and the key is thrown away, for life, to making ferrets legal . The absolute power a few tired, retired, retreaded or retarded politicans are able to wield amazes me. Hey, even our Governor, Arnold Schwartznegger, was brought into power by a dissatisfied constituency. Therefore, knowing that, it is obvious why I have been conditioned to thinking that a vote by the people is the only way to go.

For one man to decide to turn over a chunk of his country to a foreign power would be the same as George Bush one day waking up and deciding to turn over the State of Texas to his good friend President Fox of Mexico. Because, he believed it historically belonged to them and was the 'right' thing to do. Furthermore, it actually might not be such a great loss?

However, we could not just do things like that in this country. An action such as a state giveaway would cause riots and chaos in our streets and there are people who would even miss Texas.

So, that brings me back to the 'love issue'. Hey, as a journalist, I've traveled to Gaza a few times and saw for myself what a disgusting, filthy, nest of hate it is. There are hordes of barbarian, savage terrorists living there as a result of largesses of their Arab brothers. All they have to do with their time is to burn tires, smoke that 'laughing water ', and plan how they can get into Israel for their homicide bombings of innocent civilians. Personally, to my way of thinking, it is a cancer in the middle of the country and needs to be cut out by transferring the Arab population. However, I never envisioned the transfer to be that of the Jews from the Jewish State. But, it is a problem. If they can't be expelled, and they can't be controlled, let them stew in their own filth.

So, let me tell you guys outside of the United States how this issue is playing out with the editors in my city. The Los Angeles Times reported Sharon's and the Knesset's actions as "A step toward a lasting peace between the Jewish state and the Palestinians. BUT much more is required: the actual evacuation of those settlers and many more in the West Bank . "

Get that guys? No matter what Israel offers ,too much is never enough. The PLO supporting Los Angeles Times also wrote in this searing editorial, "Several hundred other settlers will be removed from the West Bank under the plan, but more than 200,000 Israelis will remain---a major stumbling block to the peace process."

Personally, knowing their anti-Semitic leanings, they would not be happy until the entire state of Israel was given over to the PLO and I am not sure even that would be enough. Folks, they do not love Israel.

All the Arabists who are on the payrolls of the Arab states from our State Department would probably agree with them when the Times wrote, "The government (Israel) should work with the Palestinians ,to let them cross into Israel for the jobs they need: Gaza is heavily dependent on foreign aid, with more then half the population living on $2 a day or less. "

Why, in heaven's name is it Israel's responsibility to put these terrorists to work in the Jewish state and they don't feel the burden should go to any of the surrounding Arab states who have put them in their deplorable situation with their 'refuge camps' for fifty years instead of absorbing them into the population .

A follow-up editorial in the Los Angeles Times continued in this vein with "If Arafat is replaced with a transitional interim government, Israel can offer support by negotiating with it and letting more Palestinians into Israel to work, helping to relieve the poverty that has increased greatly since the renewal of fighting four years ago."

How about their Arab brothers offering to transport some of these carefully trained terrorists into their cities on a "guest worker program" as Bush wants to initiate here? Whose fault is it that they are living in poverty? I remember before their revered leader, Arafat turned up the flame of terrorism after they turned down all that Barak offered, which was pretty much everything, thousands came into Israel to work. They pretty much changed that when they used that opportunity to work to blow up everything in sight.

Anyway, the Times continued, "Israel should also agree to demolish more West Bank settlements. Many nations, (wow, could that be their good friends in the United Nations) believe that all of them are illegal because they were built on land seized in the 1967 war, and this territory is needed for a functioning Palestinian nations."

The ink is not even dry on Sharon's giveaway before the reaction from the world is in. It is just not enough. Bring the bulldozers in and clear out all the Jews from those 'occupied territories! No, I don't see any love there.

A little later in the same 'editorial' in the L.A. Times they speak of the civilians who were killed, Arab civilians naturally as nothing was mentioned about the victims of Arab terrorism in greater Israel. They do give Sharon credit though for his "regret for the loss of innocent Palestinian lives which was an important olive branch from a man known as one of the country's warriors."

Oh, if the Knesset vote was not enough for the day's editorials, they also slipped in a few choice comments about the "barrier" - between the "occupied territories" and Israel. Wow, do they mean that security barrier that has been proven to save lives?

Frankly, I wish my local papers would write a few of their editorials about how we ought to have such a barrier on our borders to stop the flow of illegal aliens flooding California.

Is Sharon wants love he's looking in all the wrong places. Maybe he should join a dating service?




by Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The chairman of your party, Ariel Sharon, castigates as "rebels" those of you who oppose his unilateral disengagement plan -- which he himself opposed in the January 2003 election campaign."

He has the audacity to tell you and the entire nation that he has not departed from his January 2003 campaign against unilateral disengagement, which garnered your party 38 Knesset seats! He threatens that new elections may leave many of you outside the Knesset, because those seats, he boasts, were brought to the party by him personally, when in truth it was your party's anti-disengagement campaign that made this impostor Israel's prime minister.

He has betrayed your Zionist principles, your voters, and the heritage of the Jewish people -- and for what? Nothing! That is precisely the value of the good will he expects from the United States and Europe.

And now he mocks settlers as having a "messianic complex," even though he was once their champion.

Such is his arrogance that he disregards the warnings of IDF Chief of Staff, Gen. Moshe Ya'alon and of Gen. Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, head of IDF Intelligence. He dismisses their warnings against retreating under fire from Gaza even while Hamas and Islamic Jihad are developing rockets that can reach Jerusalem. Would it not be ironic justice if their rockets struck the Knesset where you and your colleagues have so ignobly decided the fate of thousands of Jewish families?

You have a monster at the head of your party, who is bringing the State of Israel to the brink, and you do nothing more than call for a referendum. How contemptible! Bring the government down! You have 17 MKs who voted against disengagement, and at least 8 more who really oppose this criminal deed. Form a coalition with the four anti-disengagement parties, National Union, the National Religious Party, Shas, and Torah United Judaism, which together have 29 MKs -- a coalition that will now give you 54 seats, more than enough for the President to call upon you to form the next government!

Know well that retreat from Gaza will only heighten the Arabs' contempt and reinforce their commitment to Israel's destruction. Know well that the Arabs despise Sharon, precisely because they know he has the power to destroy them but refrains from doing so. Know well that the Arabs despise the Jews because they are willing to sacrifice what they call their birthright -- for peace.

There is no honor, there is no courage, among Jews whose leader is Ariel Sharon. Therefore, I call your attention to a former leader of your party, Menachem Begin, before he succumbed to the cult of peace or appeasement and proceeded to surrender the Sinai to Egypt -- today the primary arms supplier of Gaza's terrorists -- Egypt, which Sharon has invited into Gaza to train those Jew-killers!

* * *

At the height of the outpouring of joy on Israel's declaration of independence on May 15, 1948, Menachem Begin -- who had lived in the Underground for almost five years -- addressed the Jews of Israel over the secret radio station of the Irgun Zvai Leumi:

We went Underground, we arose in the Underground under the rule of [British] oppression in order to strike at oppression and to overthrow it. Now, for the time being we have Hebrew rule in part of our Homeland. And it is in this part that there will be Hebrew Law -- and that is the only rightful law in this country...

The State of Israel has arisen, but we must remember that our country is not yet liberated, and you see now the words of your Irgun fighters were not vain words; it is Hebrew arms which decide the boundaries of the Hebrew State. So it is now in this battle [the War of Independence]; so it will be in the future.

Our God-given country is a unity. To attempt to dissect it is not only a crime, but a blasphemy and an abortion. Whoever does not recognize our natural right to our entire Homeland, does not recognize our right to any part of it...

Citizens of the Hebrew State, soldiers of Israel, we are in the midst of battle. Difficult days lie ahead of us...we cannot buy peace from our enemies by appeasement. There is only one kind of peace that can be bought -- the peace of the graveyard, the peace of Treblinka. Be brave of spirit, and ready for more trials. We shall withstand them. The Lord of Hosts will help us; he will sustain the bravery of the Hebrew youth, the bravery of the Hebrew mothers who, like Hannah, offer their sons on the altar of God.

Now let me speak for myself. Members of the Likud: Unless you form the coalition mentioned above, the Third Commonwealth will disintegrate; indeed, it is already disintegrating. Know well, however, that Israel is eternal. Though you abandon Gaza, Jews will return. Though you abandon Judea and Samaria, Jews will return. They will pay a terrible price for leaving, and a terrible price to return. But the Fourth Commonwealth that will emerge in the coming chapter of Jewish history will be very different from the Third, for it will witness the spiritual redemption of the Jewish people.



October 22, 2004


His Great Obsession

By Yossi Verter
Haaretz, 22 October 2004

It was fascinating to hear the way Ariel Sharon's adversaries and his supporters talked about him this week. According to members of the Yesha Council of settlements, the prime minister is encased in a space of his own, cut off, almost a robot. "He's on Prozac," one of them said. Sharon's confidants spoke of a person who "looks neither to the right nor the left," who is in a mental bunker and is taking no interest in anything or dealing with anything apart from mustering a Knesset majority for his disengagement plan.

So there you are: for the first time, agreement has been reached between proponents and opponents. Both sides saw a man of 76, on the eve of the conclusion of his political career, who has known many disappointments and defeats and who, in the twilight of his life adopted a plan that is totally contrary to everything he said and preached his whole life. The plan, which Sharon was dragged into willy-nilly, has become his obsession. It has distanced friends who were by his side for a generation. It has wreaked havoc in the Likud, the party Sharon created. It is freaking out the entire political establishment, from one end to the other, and it could lead to Sharon's political demise. Or to his political resurrection.

Sharon spent most of his time this week putting out feelers to potential supporters and giving pep talks to others. He held a brief meeting with MK Shimon Peres, who emerged satisfied, according to sources close to the Labor Party chairman. Sharon apparently told him what he told other MKs he met with: that after the disengagement plan is passed by the Knesset he intends to start talks to expand the coalition. Others, though, ascribe to Sharon a different comment: that after the plan is approved the Likud rebels will calm down and go back to functioning as part of the faction. The National Religious Party will not leave the government, at least not in the coming months, and Sharon will be able to carry on with the current coalition until the end of the Knesset's winter sitting, next March, which will be the month of the cabinet votes on implementing the withdrawal from Gaza.

"Sharon wants to see how things look on Wednesday" - the day after the Knesset vote - "and then he will decide how to proceed," the prime minister's aides say. That's one way of saying that Sharon has no plan, no strategy. The main thing is to get the disengagement plan approved by the Knesset. After that, things will take their own course. It's very possible that the course they will take will lead to elections in mid-2005 or later next year. If it's up to Sharon, there will be no elections. There is nothing to be gained from elections now. He is not convinced that he will be elected Likud leader again if Benjamin Netanyahu decides to run against him. He knows he will have a hard time running an effective primaries campaign on a disengagement ticket, with the party split and torn between supporters and opponents of the disengagement plan. He knows that the next group of Knesset candidates that the Likud Central Committee will elect will make him nostalgic for the current crop.

"If we go to elections now, before disengagement, we will get 20 seats," said MK Michael Eitan in a meeting of the Likud Knesset faction on Monday. "How can I appear at an election rally together with Uzi Landau? What will I say to the people there?"

As usual, opinions are divided in Sharon's immediate vicinity. Some advisers are recommending that he go to elections now, precisely over the disengagement issue. Others would like to see him impose a new government on the Likud faction, one with Labor and the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) as partners. Still others are urging him to start forming a new party, a kind of all-inclusive center party, based on the vision known as the "big bang." Sharon is not keen on that idea. He finds it a bit fanciful, at his age, to embark on an adventure like that.

Shimon Peres this week made the following observation: "A moshavnik," he said, referring to a resident of a farming village, "never buys another house. He never buys more land. And he never goes to elections. Why? Because everything like that costs him money. Sharon is a moshavnik."




by Yoram Ettinger

Ynet, Oct. 20-22, 2004

The proposed Disengagement is a hybrid of the Oslo Process and the Land-For-Peace mentality, which have been flawed logically, strategically and morally.

The Land-For-Peace (LFP) school of thoughts expects Israel to disengage from its scarcest asset - territory, which is 0.2% (11,000sqm) of Arab territory (5.56 million sqm), which is 50% and 30% larger than the US and Europe respectively (not including Iran's 643,000sqm). In return, LFP expects Arab countries to accord Israel that which they have yet to share with one another - comprehensive peace, compliance and an end to violence and terrorism.

The logical/moral justification for LFP has been its, supposed, parity: The deeper the peace the deeper the territorial disengagement, full peace for full withdrawal, partial peace for partial withdrawal. Can one expect such a parity to be sustained during crisis time? Would the promoters of LFP demand that full non-compliance by the Palestinians would be matched by full retrieval of land conceded by Israel, and that partial non-compliance would trigger a partial retrieval?!

LFP has been rarely employed in the international arena, and then under circumstances which are at variance with the Arab-Israeli conflict. LFP is, ostensibly, designed to advance the cause of justice and peace, to weaken and deter belligerent regimes, to bolster moderate elements in a belligerent society and to compensate intended victims. For example, Germany was forced to dismantle its Nazi regime, to cede land to its intended victims (France, Poland and Czechoslovakia), which were then willing to reciprocate by extending peace. However, when applied to the Jewish State, LFPeacenicks aim at punishing the intended victim (Israel) and compensating the belligerent (Palestinian Authority). Thus, they reward a rogue Palestinian regime, undermine moderate Palestinians who yearn for the demise of the "Tunisian PA", fueling - rather than extinguishing - the fire of Palestinian terrorism. If such a version of LFP were applied to Nazi Germany, the entire Sudeten Mountains would still be under German sovereignty.

LFP has ignored a fundamental tenet of Mideast - and especially interArab - politics: Deterrence in face of threat advances security and peace, while restraint and concessions nurture violence and war. In fact, the only attainable (interArab) peace has been based on deterrence, which is severely undermined when belligerence is rewarded by territory. Would it be logical to expect Arab countries to treat Israel more gently than they do one another?!

Disengagement has been perceived by Mideast residents as an __expression of battle fatigue, cut & run and cave-in, which have further eroded Israel's posture of deterrence, adrenalizing the veins of Palestinian terrorists.

While the disengagement from Sinai has yielded a peace agreement with Egypt, one should not delude oneself:

*Egyptian school books are employed by the anti-Jewish PA hate-education system;

*Egypt is using Palestinian terrorism, in order to wear down Israel's resolve;

*Egypt has facilitated the smuggling of explosives, missiles, weaponry and ammunition to Gaza terrorists, and has poisoned Israel's relations with Africa, the Persian Gulf and the UN.

*Notwithstanding its deepening poverty and its weak Muslim neighbors, Cairo has been involved in a major campaign of military acquisitions, in order to establish itself as a credible threat to Israel.

One should note that while the demilitarization of Sinai - contiguous to the sparsely populated Negev - provides Israel with some 50 hours early warning time (in case of another Egyptian violation of agreement), a disengagement from Judea and Samaria - contiguous to Israel's Soft Belly - would accord Israel some 5 hours early warning time.

LFP assumes that the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict is territorial in nature, and that Palestinian terrorism has been driven by despair. However, Arab/Palestinian attitudes toward Israel have been annihilationist (as demonstrated by their official anti-Jewish education, media and clergy systems) and the unprecedented Palestinian terrorism (since Oslo 1993) has been driven by the hope for the deterioration of Israel's tenacity. For example, the PLO was established before the 1967 War, in order to do away with the "1948 Occupation" (Jerusalem, Galilee, Negev, Tel Aviv, etc.) and not with the "1967 Occupation" (Judea, Samaria and Gaza). In fact, Palestinian terrorism has reached its climax as a result of the 1993 Oslo Accord, when Israel snatched the PLO from oblivion in terrorist camps in Yemen, Iraq, Sudan, Lebanon and Syria, providing the PLO with territorial base (at the heart of Israel), with weaponry, with legitimacy at the White House and with unprecedented hope. Further Israeli disengagement from territory would ignore the lessons of the last 11 years, would inflame Palestinian hope, and would therefore add more fuel to the fire of Palestinian terror, driving the region farther from peace.



Text: Jonathan Pollard's Essay on The Case Against Nadia Matar

Justice4JP Release - October 24, 2004 [May be reprinted]


By Jonathan Pollard
FCI Butner, Butner NC, USA


Nadia Matar, leader of Women for Israel's Tomorrow, is being persecuted by the Government of Israel for being a good Jew.

Nadia did not foment a rebellion. She did not incite the People of Israel to revolt. Neither did she call for insurrection or political subversion. She did not commit any crime. All that Nadia Matar did was to call upon a fellow Jew to do tshuva, to give up his involvement in an immoral enterprise and return to the appropriate path for a G-d fearing Jew.

Nadia did so in the finest tradition of our holy Prophets. Our Prophets' powerful messages exhorting errant Kings to desist from "doing evil in the eyes of G-d" and to return to the correct path is an important part of our history, and an integral part of our national consciousness. Calling upon a public figure to do tshuva was not a crime then and it is not a crime now.

Nadia and I wrote separate but like-minded open letters to Yonatan Bassi, head of the Disengagement Authority. We both called upon Bassi to give up his immoral position as head of the Authority and implored him not to become the chief liquidator of Jewish homes and communities in Israel. It is ironic: Nadia is now being interrogated, threatened with indictment, and intimidated by the possibility of unlimited administrative detention for writing her letter to Bassi. I, on the other hand, sitting here in an American prison, have suffered no repercussions. My right to freedom of speech is guaranteed. Nadia's is not.

My wife and I make many sacrifices in order to make my voice heard outside of prison walls. We endure the hardship because Esther and I are determined never to give up the one freedom I do have. Even as a prisoner in America, I have the right to freedom of speech. As long as I refrain from discussing classified information, I am free to express my thoughts, opinions and ideas. Nadia and our fellow countrymen on the right side of the political spectrum, are not.


What is it that the government and security establishment see in Nadia Matar which makes them fear her so? Why are the authorities so determined to silence her? It is not because of anything she has done. It is because of what she represents.

Nadia is the head of one of the most effective citizens' advocacy groups in Israel. She is among a handful of natural leaders today, who have the will, the talent, and the strength of character to galvanize popular protest against undemocratic actions by the current Government of Israel.

Nadia represents everything a repressive regime fears in its citizenry. Her idealism and her enthusiasm are infectious and her determination is unyielding. She is a G-d fearing woman and a fierce nationalist, not easily threatened or intimidated. She is a thinker and resists following blindly. What is more, she is a powerful model and source of inspiration for others. In short, she is everything a dictatorial regime cannot tolerate if it is to retain complete and unquestioning control over its citizens.

Desperate to curtail Nadia's activities as a leader of one the most effective protest movements in the country, the Government seized upon her letter to Bassi as an excuse to take action against her. She was quickly hauled in for police interrogation and grilled for hours on end.

Eager to charge her with a crime - any crime - the authorities zeroed in on one part of her letter to Bassi. Nadia referenced a letter that Bassi had sent to citizens of Gaza urging them to cooperate with their own expulsion, and she compared it to a similar letter by the Judenrat during W.W. II urging Jews to cooperate and go quietly to the trains (which would take them to the death camps). Nadia wrote that Bassi's letter was worse than the Judenrat's since the Judenrat had no choice, whereas Bassi had accepted the immoral task of expelling Jews from their homes of his own free will.

The Israeli authorities decided that there must be a way to criminalize the insult of comparing Bassi's letter to the Judenrat's. Searching the law books, they came up with a law - totally unrelated and absolutely irrelevant - under which to prosecute Nadia.

The law they invoked -- insulting a public official in the course of his official duties -- was designed to protect policemen, firemen and other public servants from being abused in the course of their work. For example, this law protects a traffic policeman from being verbally abused by a person who has just received a traffic ticket. In their zeal to incriminate Nadia, the Government reinterpreted the law, stretching its application far beyond its intended purpose.

Why? Because even if they cannot make a case against Nadia, the public furor that they have created over this incident will make it easy to take other actions to silence her. For example, administrative detention is a far greater threat hanging over Nadia's head than any judicial proceeding that the Government may take against her.


It is more than possible that the Government plans to use its twisted interpretation of the "insult to public officials law" in a way reminiscent of America's infamous Internal Security Act of 1950. That law not only limited citizens' freedom of speech and freedom of association, but also permitted the President to lock up potential subversives indefinitely in concentration camps during times of perceived national emergency. Fortunately, there was a public outcry and this law was never implemented in the US.

However, the immoral use of administrative detention, without formal indictment and with no possibility of judicial review, still exists in Israel and it is routinely utilized. If the Government does indict Nadia, it can still lock her up in administrative detention before she is brought to trial. In other words, she can be placed in administrative detention indefinitely pending a trial -- a trial which may be deliberately delayed for months, weeks, or even years.

Even worse, if the Government refrains from indicting Nadia, it can still lock her up in administrative detention indefinitely, without judicial review.

Any attempt by the Government to place Nadia in administrative detention must be met with unlimited and overwhelming public protest. If the Government of Israel is permitted to lock up Nadia Matar before, during or after trial, on trumped up charges of insulting a public official, the country is headed for the kind of judicial authoritarianism that Senator McCarthy attempted to unleash in the US. This poses an immeasurable threat to all of Israel, including the cancellation of freedom of speech and the abrogation of Israeli civil rights.


According to the law, freedom of speech ends where its exercise threatens the public good. Shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is a crime. But this is only true if there is no fire!

If there is a fire, it is unforgivable not to cry out.

For those of us, like Nadia, who cherish Israel and seek to protect and defend the Land, it is glaringly obvious that the House of Israel is on fire. The flames are threatening to engulf us all! Now, more than ever, Jewish lives are at risk, and Jewish homes and communities are in mortal danger. Every day the enemy grows bolder and bolder in its attacks upon a beleaguered civilian population. The Government not only allows the flames to rage out of control but is also feeding the fire by offering up chunks of our homeland to our sworn enemies.

By orchestrating a very public campaign of intimidation against Nadia Matar -- who dared to cry "Fire!" - the Government is attempting to silence all dissention. It is using a pinpoint precision attack on Nadia to intimidate the entire nationalist camp. As it demonstrates its willingness and its ability to crush this popular leader, the Government is sending a strong message to all. It apparently believes that in this way it will succeed in breaking the back of the citizens' protest movements which bitterly oppose the Government's plan to uproot Jewish homes and communities in Gaza and Samaria and turn the land over to our enemies.


The Government is mistaken in its aims and in its calculations. All that it has accomplished is to destroy its own legitimacy and its right to govern. In democratic states, a government derives its power from the consent of the people. A government cannot replace consent with coercion and still be considered a democracy.

Nadia Matar represents the voice of legitimate dissent in Israel. If she is silenced through intimidation and harassment, any pretense that the State of Israel is a democracy is unequivocally dispelled. Every distinction between Israel and her non-democratic neighbors in the region is effectively blurred.

Moreover by relentlessly persecuting those who exercise free speech to express legitimate dissent, the Government is deliberately creating an atmosphere of fear and repression - the kind of atmosphere that invites rebellion. Thus, by taking Draconian action against selected individuals, such as Nadia, the Government is actually fomenting the very insurrection it claims it is trying to prevent; and which it will use to justify the use of even more repressive and dictatorial measures.

The imprisonment of a nation begins with the unjust incarceration of one citizen. As Israeli citizens, our right to live freely in the Land and our freedom of speech depend on how we as a nation respond to the Government's unwarranted persecution of any one citizen.

By going after Nadia Matar publicly, interrogating and harassing her; threatening her with indictment and arrest; holding the specter of administrative detention over her head, the Government is effectively threatening all of us. It is striking out at the heart of all that Jews hold dear: our right to live and act in harmony with G-d and Torah; our right to be a free People in our own Land; and our fundamental right to freedom of speech.

All of The House of Israel must unite to vigorously protect and defend Nadia Matar; to prevent the Government from singling her out for malicious persecution. We must fight this injustice as if our very existence were at stake. As G-d fearing Jews who love the Land, it is.

Justice4JP Note: Next month, on November 21, 2004, Jonathan Pollard will enter his 20th year of a life sentence for his activities on behalf of Israel.




by Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D. (Princeton, 1971)
Professor of International Law
Department of Political Science, Purdue University
Academic Advisor to the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies Houston, Texas

Prepared Especially For Delivery in Houston, Texas For The Freeman Center, October 2004


The Land and People of Israel are now in great peril.

Day after day, men, women and children are fiendishly murdered by Arab terrorists becuase they are Jews (ONLY because they are Jews).

And again, not all that many years after the Holocaust, the people of Israel are widely abandoned to villainous slaughterers - this time in a land wherein they were promised safety; a "Promised Land."

In a large scientific poll undertaken for the European Community just before the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the nations of that marvelously civilized continent proudly identified Israel - together with the United States - as the world's two most dangerous and evil countries.

Syria, Iran, Saddam's Iraq, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, North Korea barely even made the list.

So much for rational judgment in "civilized" Europe.


Arab terror in Israel has only one overriding purpose: Annihilation of the Jewish people in their own land, and transformation of the Jewish State into "Palestine."

This purpose is openly genocidal - even by the codified standards of contemporary international law - and it is not kept hidden from anyone.

The prevention of a second Holocaust, however, is not only a Jewish responsibility.

It is a Christian responsibility as well, an absolutely sacred responsibility.

I refer to G-d's Covenant with Israel and to the indisputable Christian view that Israel will be G-d's people forever.


I am a Jew, and I am also a university professor.

As a professor I could simply ask you to understand that the uniquely barbarous terror of Palestinians against Jewish civilians is morally and legally unforgivable, and that - merely as compassionate human beings - we must oppose such barbarism.

After all, there is no other single insurgency on the face of the earth where so-called "suicide bombers" intentionally direct their murderous violence against nursery schools, ice-cream parlors and municipal buses.

Nor is there any other insurgency on the face of this bleeding planet where the "martyrs" fill their explosive containers with nails and screws dipped in rat poison, to maximize the pain and suffering of primarily children.

Nor is there any other terror movement that is so filled with cowardice, as the plainest motive of the suicide-bomber is not to die, but rather to conquer death altogether.

It is only by killing Jews that this coward is able to convince himself that he shall in fact live forever. For him, the act of dying is merely a momentary inconvenience on his fiery way to heaven and the explicit promise of 72 virgins.

But I wish to speak to you this day in Houston not only as a university professor - and not only as Chair of "Project Daniel" (more about that later).

I also wish to speak with you now as a Jew - as the Jewish son of Holocaust survivors who fled Austria to Switzerland on their wedding night many years ago - on July 31, 1938.


The promise of the continuation of the people of Israel and their ingathering to the Land of Israel is revealed to all of you in Genesis (15:18): "On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abraham, saying, `To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates.'"

At the heart of G-d's covenant with Israel is the promise to the Jewish people - His People - to the land of Israel.

For Christians, this promise is the only "Road Map" of value.

No secular authority, not the Secretary General of the United Nations, not even the President of the United States, can revoke G-d's covenant with Israel.

Israel is not "Palestine."

Israel, if we are to take G-d's word seriously, is the place for ingathering of the Jews. Period!

Whenever the Jews are in their own land, the deserts bloom and water springs forth, exactly as foretold in G-d's promise at Isaiah (43: 18-21) and elsewhere.

As for the Palestinian Arab populations who wish to eject the Jewish People from their own land, their presence in the Land of Israel has surely not brought waters to the wilderness or rivers in the desert.

There are no gardens in Gaza or edens in Ramallah, only feverish preparations for bringing still more murderous violence to the Jews.


The Scriptures make it all very clear: The Lord G-d of Israel has regathered His people from the four corners of the earth.

Since June 1967, His holy city of Jerusalem is back in the hands of His people.

Sometime, perhaps sooner than we think, the great Jewish Temple will also be rebuilt - in Jerusalem.


"I will bless those who bless thee, and curse those who curse thee."

G-d's plan for those who stand against His land and His people is clear, in Genesis.

America's Bible-believing Christians shall not stand by silently and watch the persistent Palestinian assault upon Israel. (The Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches should take heed.)

So it is written.

Rather, they must show their care and love for G-d's people and land in every way within their grasp and with every fiber of their being.

There is no more sacred responsibility.


In the matter of Israel, our religious obligations - as Christians and Jews - are entirely consistent with our patriotic obligations.

The enemies of Israel are the enemies of the United States.

Make no mistake about it, all of the Palestinian terror groups are closely intertwined with Al Qaeda; all the Palestinian terror groups wept at our capture of Saddam Hussein (with whom they collaborated during the 1990-91 rape of Kuwait); and all the Palestinian terror groups celebrated wildly on 9/11.

Palestinian hatred of America is passionate and undisguised.

Israel's love of America, on the other hand, is evident in every corner of the Jewish State.

These unassailable facts notwithstanding, we give annually - from our hard-earned American tax dollars - several hundred million dollars to Yassir Arafat's Palestinian Authority - money which is converted directly into weapons for the mass murder of Jews in Israel and is also distributed meticulously to loyal Arafat henchmen involved in organized crime and narcotics trafficking.

In this way our very own American government - seeking a politically correct way to straddle the slippery fence of Middle Eastern politics - has now become directly complicit in serving the enemies of Israel.


"I will bless those who bless thee; and curse those who curse thee."

Yassir Arafat, whose hands are soaked in the blood of thousands of Jewish women and children (in some cases by his actual participation in killings and torture), was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

This is what we can expect from a world that places politics above G- d's promise.

Yassir Arafat is a billionaire; one of the richest men in the world. His family lives in unimaginable splendor as he doles out $10,000.00 rewards to the impoverished families of Arab suicide bombers.

This is the man whom Israel has been pressured to keep alive by our leaders in Washington.

Even for this president - although somewhat less than for his predecessor (President Clinton's influence on Israel's security was entirely nefarious) - the promise of Genesis has become less important than the promise of power.


Israel has been asked, again and again, to depend upon the hollow promise of international treaties and agreements.

But international law is not a suicide pact.

As even Thomas Jefferson once noted, in a scholarly essay on the French Treaties, no nation is obliged to comply with international agreements that would bring about its own destruction.

But whether one refers to the Oslo Agreements, or to the "Road Map," or even to the privately-negotiated (and especially repulsive) "Geneva Initiative," these human compacts have had only one purpose for the Arab side - that is, to remove the Jewish People from their own land.

There is ample and revealing evidence in Scripture for the kind of agreements still being extracted from a tiny and beleaguered Israel:

"We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement....We have made lies our refuge and under falsehood have we hid ourselves." (Isaiah 28, 15).


How big is Israel - G-d's own land?

It is half the size of Lake Michigan, or - for those who prefer less watery references - half the size of San Bernardino County in California.

Any comparison to Texas, of course, would make Israel's size even more incomprehensibly small.

The people of Israel - who include, of course, thousands of deeply committed Christian Zionists - live under not only hourly threats of extermination, but also under one of the most frenetic barrages of insidious propaganda in human history.

Every day the news media - in this country including THE NEW YORK TIMES; LOS ANGELES TIMES; CHICAGO TRIBUNE; CNN; etc - transforms the Jewish victims into victimizers, David into Goliath.

When, in desperation, the people of Israel build a fence to keep their children from being burned and disemboweled by Arab terrorists (disembowelment was prominently featured and secretly filmed in the Palestinian "police" lynchings of two Russian Jews who had lost their way in Ramallah), the World Court does not put Arab terrorism on trial - it puts the fence on trial.

Again and again, the world is reminded that the life of a Jewish child is substantially less valuable than the olive tree of a Palestinian farmer; that the Israeli fence crosses illegally into "Arab land;" that the Arabs must suffer no "inconvenience" or "humiliation" (President Bush). Better that Israel should suffer another bus load of murdered and burned Jewish children.

Even if we should discard the Scriptural "Road Map" - and we surely should never do that - there is ample evidence in international law, including the terms of the League of Nations Mandate and the results of repeated Arab aggressions from 1948 onward, that Israel and the so-called "territories" are Jewish land.

Indeed, if we can recall that Transjordan (later Jordan, in 1949) was illegally created by Great Britain from Mandatory lands in 1922, there is even good jurisprudential argument that Jordan is an integral part of Israel.


The Arab world is comprised of 22 states of almost five million square miles and 144 million people.

The Islamic World contains 44 states with one billion people.

The Islamic states comprise an area 672 times the size of Israel.

Israel, with a population of about 5 million Jews, is - together with Judea/Samaria and Gaza - so small that its name on maps must be printed off its own land mass, far out in the Mediterranean Sea.

Speaking of maps, there are no official maps anywhere in the Arab world that include Israel.

The official Palestinian Authority (PA) map of "Palestine" includes all of Israel.

For the PA, the PLO "Phased Plan" of 1974 is still fully-operational.

There is no "Two-State" plan for the Palestinians; no Israel living side- by-side with "Palestine."

There is only "Palestine."

The Palestinians continue to speak - together with their "civilized" European allies whose traditional anti-Semitism is now reinvigorated by Arab/Islamic Jew hatred - of "occupied territories."

Yet the PLO was formed in 1964, three years before Israel even took control of Judea/Samaria and Gaza - an inadvertent control dictated by an indispensable war of self-defense.

What, then, was the PLO planning to liberate between 1964 and 1967?


Not just Hamas and Islamic Jihad, but also "mainstream" and "moderate" PLO still calls for Israel's "liquidation."

To this very day - after all of the bowing and scraping of American presidents before the defiled altars of Arab terrorism - the PLO Charter still calls openly for Israel's elimination.

Unashamedly; self-righteously.

As for the Charter of Hamas, its position is rather unambiguous: "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one to be dealt with on this premise: ~I swear by he who holds in His hands the Soul of Muhammad: I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I promise to assault and kill; assault and kill; assault and kill.'"

These are the exact words from the published Charter of Hamas.

Are they ever even quoted on the evening news or in our most important newspapers?


Israel's conflict with the Arab/Islamic world has almost nothing to do with Arab/Islamic interest in Jewish lands.

Israel comprises 1.2% of the land in the Middle East. Arab/Islamic states take up 98.8 % of these lands.

Israel is despised in the Arab/Islamic world because it is Jewish. Period.


As painful as are the torments for Israel of suicide-bombings - the most blatantly cowardly forms of modern terrorism - there is an even far- greater danger.

I refer to the very real prospect of WMD terror attacks upon Israeli populations, or even of chemical/biological/nuclear war.

Presently, with Iraq immobilized by our own country's Operation Iraqi Freedom, the main nuclear threat to Israel lies in non-Arab Iran.

(And let us not forget that Israel's own preemptive destruction of Iraq's Osiraq nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981 is THE reason why we can't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq today - it is the ONLY reason).

Moreover, it is not out of the question that a nuclear-armed Islamic adversary of Israel might be irrational; that is, it might be the individual Islamic suicide-bomber in macrocosm - A state willing to "die" itself in order to achieve a religiously- desired outcome.

Nuclear deterrence is based upon assumptions of rationality.

Where such assumptions might be unfounded, deterrence could be immobilized.

With this in mind, Israel - preferably together with its only ally - the United States of America - must prepare, once again, for acts of anticipatory self-defense.

Alternatively, it could place all of its hopes in ballistic missile defense - in Israel the system is called the Arrow - but these would be decidedly vain hopes.

As we know from our own recent American experience with the Patriot ATBM system, even we are very far from achieving a minimally high probability of interception.

Best estimates are that in the first Gulf War our American reliability of BMD intercept was less than 10%.


As Chair of "Project Daniel," a small group that has been advising Israel's Prime Minister on existential security matters, I can confirm with some authority that neither we nor the Israelis are presently prepared to rely too heavily on ballistic missile defense.

In this connection, our Project Daniel final report to the PM - ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC FUTURE - emphasizes the legal and tactical imperatives of preemption, of striking first against enemy hard targets.

This is sometimes jokingly referred to in military and defense communities as "Pre-Boost Phase Intercept."


But we come back again now to Israel as G-d's land and the People of Israel as G-d's people.

In the end, the war for Jewish survival in the Land of Israel cannot be won entirely by superior armaments.

Indeed, a look at Israel's brief history reveals rather straightforwardly that victories in 1948, 1967 and even in 1973 cannot possibly be explained by military greatness alone.

True, Israel's armed forces are vastly better than the armies of their enemies, but the force ratios are so resoundingly unfavorable that quality should long ago have yielded to quantity.

Even Von Clausewitz, the classic Prussian writer of ON WAR, understands that there comes a time when "mass counts."

Israel's genocidal enemies have long had such mass; but they have nonetheless lost every major war against a country that is half the size of an American lake.

It seems that something else is going on here.


A popular Palestinian refrain today is this: "Today the Saturday people; tomorrow the Sunday people."

We are both now despised as "occupiers" in the imperiled Land of Israel - Jews and Christians alike - and we both have an obligation to protect and serve G-d's own chosen land.

None of us - Jew or Christian - now has any right to stand silently by as Israel suffers grotesque calumny from the Arab/Islamic world and growing threats to its physical survival from that world.

All of us must now recall from Isaiah a most sacred injunction: "For Zion's sake, I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem I will not be still."

What shall we do?

We - Jews and Christians - know full well that Israel and America are not the problem.

We know that Israel and America are the solution.

We - Jews and Christians alike - know full well that the Arab/Islamic world of the Middle East is largely animated by a resurgent medievalism - a giant leap backward into history that now seeks to replace coexistence with Jihad (Holy War) and to supplant Reason with hateful indoctrination.

The Christian world, along with its kindred Jewish world, has already seen the violence of militant Islam - not only in Israel, but in places like Lebanon; Egypt; Algeria; India; the Sudan; Ethiopia; and elsewhere.

Now is the time for Christians to stand by their Jewish brothers and sisters against a common and retrograde threat.


We together - Jews and Christians - have already borne witness to the fulfilment of Biblical prophecy in the Land of Israel.

We have witnessed the ingathering of the Jews to Zion and the recovery of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount.

We both know and recognize that Jerusalem is the exclusive and eternal capital of the Jewish State - even when that knowledge and recognition is denied by the President and Secretary of State of these United States. (Contrary to Congressional authorizations, our embassy remains in Tel Aviv).


Zionism and its corrolary protection of Israel must quickly become a LIVING article of faith for all Christians in this great land of America.

Christians believe that Zionism is a prelude to the Redemption.

For Christians, as for Jews, Zionism is necessarily understood as a great and holy movement.

Zionism is understood by all Christians as a divine process that cannot be turned back - and most certainly not by a resurgent medievalism that seeks to separate G-d's land from G-d's people through mayhem and murder.


It is time to end.

In conclusion, let me become more pragmatic.

America's Christians have an obligation to fight anti-Semitism wherever it rears its ugly and decidedly un-Christian head.

America's Christians must stand up for Israel in the newspapers, on the radio, on television, wherever the Jewish State is under propagandistic and violent attack.

This includes horribly misguided statements of "divestment" from Israel by America's Presbyterian and Episcopal churches.

America's Christians must recognize and condemn the altogether unique barbarism of Palestinian terrorism, acknowledging publicly that there is no "Cycle of Violence" in the Middle East - no "equivalence" between terror and counterterror - but only an endless cycle of Arab attacks upon Jewish civilians followed by unavoidable Israeli efforts at essential self-defense.

America's Christians should visit Israel, showing solidarity with the Jewish People.

America's Christians should have courage, and should now join together with other churches and movements that seek to protect Israel - e.g., the National Unity Coalition; Christians For Israel Political Action Committee (CIPAC); and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem. (Also, my current work with Gary Bauer, who is a great and heroic champion of Israel).

America's Christians should read beyond the mainstream press, both at internet sources and informed print media. Here, especially, they should read THE JEWISH PRESS, America's most honest and altogether best Jewish newspaper.

And they should read everything broadcast and published by Bernard Shapiro and his courageous Freeman Center right here in Houston.

America's Christians should become engaged politically in defense of Israel, speaking out against politicians who would themselves prefer personal power over Christian duty.

Finally, America's Christians must pray for Israel, for the Jewish People and for the Peace of Jerusalem - not a peace of surrender to the new and sinister forms of totalitarianism, but for a peace that would recall G-d's blessing upon Abraham:

"And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse Him that Curseth thee: and in thee shall all the families of the Earth be blessed."

Thank you.

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and international law. He is Chair of "Project Daniel," a small advisory group on nuclear matters to Israel's Prime Minister.




by Louis Rene Beres

Professor of Political Science, Purdue University
and Academic Advisor to the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, Houston, Texas

Prepared Especially for Delivery in Houston, Texas

October 17, 2004

Congregation Beth Yeshuran

Sponsored by: Freeman Center for Strategic Studies; Americans For A Safe Israel; Congregation Beth Yeshurun; United Orthodox Synagogues -------------------

Genocide against the Jews is an old story.....a very old story.

The purpose of Project Daniel - which is the subject of my lecture this evening - is to ensure that the Jewish People never again experience another Holocaust - never again.

"We are often asked," said the late Italian Jew and survivor Primo Levi in THE DROWNED AND THE SAVED, "as if our past conferred a prophetic ability upon us, whether Auschwitz will return...."

However we choose to answer this terrible but unavoidable question, our past seems sometimes to have conferred very little in the way of prophetic or even predictive abilities.

On the contrary, by often deluding ourselves that not seeing is a way of not knowing (e.g., "The Middle east Peace Process"), we have distanced ourselves from indispensable forms of warning.

"Project Daniel" was designed to help us all see.

The purpose of Project Daniel is to go well beyond slogans and sighs of apprehension to strong and sensible action - action that is desperately needed for Jewish survival.

Above all, I will emphasize this evening, it is vital to recall that the re-established State of Israel is always the individual Jew in macrocosm -the Jewish individual writ large - and that this State is now the focus of authentically genocidal intent.

In the minds of the genociders, the Jewish State has now replaced the individual Jew.

Like the individual Jew surrounded by mobs of would-be murderers, the villified Jewish State stands encircled by crowds of other states and by terror groups crying out for its extinction.

In the world of the early 21st century, the State of Israel is the most dangerous place on earth for Jews, as Jews.

In the world of the present moment, this inversion of Zionist dreams for safety is both horribly ironic and altogether intolerable.

That this inversion cannot be permitted to stand is a key rationale of Project Daniel.


Make no mistake about it, the ongoing intent of many Arab/Islamic organizations and states is the mass murder of every Jew in the State of Israel.

And neither the United States nor the United Nations can be relied upon to prevent this from happening.

Above all, we must recall that another Holocaist is distinctly possible -this time in the refashioned form of nuclear and/or biological aggressions against Israel - and that it is our responsibility (Jews and Christians together) to oppose such aggressions with all of our strength and all of our being.


Today, with an undiminished threat of selective Arab and/or Iranian nuclearization, the prospect of a Middle Eastern nuclear war involving Israel is real......very real indeed. Which brings us to the origins of Project Daniel...... --------------

Over the years I have been very closely involved with Israeli nuclear issues.

Lectures in Israel

Consultations at the Embassy

Books and articles

And about a dozen years ago I had a fateful lunch in Tel-Aviv with Yuval Ne'eman - one of the world's leading nuclear physicists and a principal figure in creating Israel's undisclosed nuclear armaments.

At that lunch Yuval Ne'eman and I shared a view that the single most ominous threat facing Israel - a genuinely existential threat - was an enemy (state or non-state) that had acquired nuclear weapons and was also irrational.

In such a dire circumstance, Israeli deterrence, by definition, would be immobilized and the only safe path for Israel would lie in some combination of ballistic missile defense and preemption (defensive first strikes).

The real problem here is that the so-called "safe path" - however fashioned - is itself almost surely unsafe.

Preemption against a capable nuclear adversary (e.g., Iran) would be an operational nightmare.

And ballistic missile defense, however well-perfected (e/g/., the "Arrow") would not be "leakproof."

(About the operational difficulties of preemption, I happened to speak with AMB. David Ivry - IAF Commander during the June 7, 1981 Osiraq raid near Baghdad - on the 20th anniversary of Osiraq.........he made it clear that Osiraq was a picnic in comparison to what Israel faces today.)

So, what is Israel to do?

This was the question that led me first to former Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval - with whom I discussed the idea of a special "brain trust" - and then to the five very special individuals who ultimately came to comprise "Project Daniel:"

Maj. Gen./Dr. Itzik Ben-Israel (IDF General Staff)

Director of Development for Weapon Systems/ Ph.D. in Philosophy and Mathematics

Naaman Belkind (sat at Begin's right hand for Osiraq decision)

Israel's atomic energy and intelligence communities/Including Irgun

Dr. Adir Pridor - former head of military analyses for RAFAEL.

Ph.D. mathematician and senior IAF planner

IAF COL (Res.) and Former MK Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto (fighter pilot/test pilot/IAF Chief of Planning)

Dr. Rand Fishbein, President of Fishbein Associaates and former senior Senate staffer.

and myself as Chair.


At our very first meeting we took up the "Beres/Ne'eman thesis," that is, that the greatest danger facing Israel today would be a fusion of nuclear capacity with a willful irrationality (the suicide-bomber in macrocosm).

At that same meeting - the first of several over a two-year period in New York and Washington - we decided that the truly greatest threat - from the standpoint of probability as well as of seriousness - was a "normal" or rational adversary with such WMD capability.

And, from here, we proceeded to study and make pertinent recommendations concerning:

1. "Countervalue" vs. "counterforce" targeting doctrines (no counterforce or war-fighting posture);

2. Proposed yield of countervalue/countercity- targeted missiles (very high-yield, aimed at enemy cities);

3. Identification of target cities;

4. Nuclear ambiguity vs. disclosure (there are clear deterrent benefits from certain limited and controlled forms of disclosure);

5. Importance of multilayered ballistic missile defense systems (including boost-phase interception);

6. A new "paradigm" emphasizing shift from classsical warfighting scenarios to enhanced counterterrorism and expanded protections from WMD warfare;

7. Maintaining (with US help) Israel's "qualitative edge" (Randy's domain, with US Congress);

8. Formal codifications of preemption doctrine (absolute imperative to prevent any enemy state or terror group from acquiring nuclear and certain biological kinds of weaponry)/ Based in part upon "Bush Doctrine" of preemption;

9. Harmonizing Israeli strategic imperatives with pertinent international law (e.g., preemption as "anticipatory self-defense;" and

10. Absolute rejection of nuclear warfighting whenever possible.


Writing in his very first book, NIGHT, Elie Wiesel said: "Everything is possible."

Today, most of the Arab/Islamic world focuses its genocidal hatred on the Jewish State exactly as Europe once focussed this hatred on individual (and stateless) Jews.

There is no greater Jewish responsibility than to prevent a second Holocaust - and it is nothing short of Holocaust that the Arab/Islamic world now wishes for Israel.

Israel is half the size of Lake Michigan.

Just how much of a nuclear beating could it take?

If an Arab/Islamic enemy state were ever to acquire nuclear weapons, it could conceivably calculate - rationally - the expected benefits of a first-strike against "the Zionist entity."

What would be the flesh and blood consequences of such a strike?

Consider the following:

Overwhelming health problems would afflict the survivors of any nuclear attack upon Israel.

These problems would extend far beyond the uncontrollable consequences of prompt burn injuries.

Retinal burns would occur in the eyes of persons as far as several hundred miles from the explosions.

Israelis would be crushed by collapsing buildings and torn to shreds by flying glass.

Others would fall victim to raging firestorms.

Fallout injuries would include whole-body radiation injury; produced by penetrating, hard gamma radiations; superficial radiation burns produced by soft radiations; and injuries produced by deposits of radioactive substances within the body.

After an Arab and/or Iranian nuclear attack, even a "small" one, those few medical facilities that might still exist in Israel would be taxed well beyond capacity.

Water supplies would become altogether unusable.

Housing and shelter could be unavailable for hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of survivors.

Transportation would break down to rudimentary levels.

Food shortages would be critical and long-term.


Israel's complex network of interlocking and interdependent exchange systems would be shattered.

Virtually everyone would be deprived of the most basic means of a livelihood.

Emergency police and fire services would be decimated.

All systems dependent upon electrical power could stop functioning.

Severe trauma would occasion widespread disorientation and psychiatric disorders for which there would be absolutely no therapeutic services.


Normal human society would cease in Israel.

The pestilence of murder and banditry would augment the pestilence of plagues and epidemics.

With the passage of time, many of the survivors would expect an increased incidence of serious degenerative diseases and various forms of cancer.

They would also expect premature death; impairment of vision; and sterility.

Among the survivors of Hiroshima, an increased incidence of leukemia and cancers of the lung, stomach, breast, ovary and uterine cervix has been widely documented.

Many of the delicately balanced relationships in nature would be profoundly upset by the extensive fallout.

Israelis who would survive the nuclear attack would have to deal with greatly enlarged and voracious insect populations.

Like the locusts of biblical times, mushrooming insect populations would spread unimpeded from the radiation-damaged areas in which they arose.

Insects are generally more resistant to radiation than humans.

This fact, coupled with the prevalence of unburied corpses, uncontrolled waste and untreated sewage, would generate tens of trillions of flies and mosquitoes.

Breeding in the dead bodies, these insects would make it impossible to control typhus, malaria, dengue fever and encephalitis.


Throughout Israel, the largest health threat would be posed by the tens or even hundreds of thousands of rotting human corpses.

In many areas of the country, radiation levels would be so high that corpses could remain untouched for weeks or months.

Even if it were operationally possible, in order to bury the dead, areas much larger than Israel's now uninhabitable cities would be needed for the cemetery.

And this is only the tip of the iceberg.

It follows - it follows very plainly - that Israel must now do whatever is necessary to protect itself from enemy nuclear aggressions, including timely preemptive attacks against relevant enemy hard target - even if the risks of failure are formidable.

Also, Israel must prepare for recognizable and massive countercity nuclear reprisals - as a credible deterrent to enemy nuclear attack.

International law is not a suicide pact.

Under authoritative international rules, such expressions of "anticipatory self-defense" and nuclear deterrence could be entirely permissible.

(Even the ICJ has said as much in its Advisory Opinion on nuclear weapons several years ago.)


Israel cannot afford to make the same security mistakes on this existential issue that it made earlier in the Oslo Accords and is now continuing to make with the so-called "Road Map."

Here, in the apocalyptic realm of nuclear weapons and nuclear war, mistakes would be final and unforgiving.

Iran and possibly certain Arab states could even become suicide bombers in macrocosm - willing to strike first even at the risk of absorbing devastating Israeli reprisals.

Tactically and politically, Israeli preemptions would best be conducted in tandem with the United States, but if there should be no alternative to acting alone, solitary defensive strikes against hard targets would be preferable to waiting helplessly for a second Holocaust.


Since the presentation of our original Project Daniel document to Prime Minister Sharon on January 16, 2003 (it remained secret until this past May), there have been a few relatively minor "victories" in the effort to control WMD proliferation among Israel's enemies.

The most obvious case in point - in addition to Iraq - is Libya.

At the same time, the circumstances in North Korea (which has ties to some of Israel's Arab/Islamic enemies), Iran and Pakistan remain very dangerous.

There is also evidence of expanding WMD ambitions in Egypt (so much for formal peace treaties), and Syria has been smuggling components for WMD weapons to Sudan - in an attempt to keep them hidden from outside inspection.

At the level of terrorist groups, which are sustained by several Arab/Islamic states, new alignments are now being fashioned between various Palestinian Organizations and al-Qaeda.

Regarding Iranian nuclearization, there is always a danger that these atomic weapons might be shared with Hezbullah militias in south Lebanon.


Our work in Project Daniel has been based on the following assumption:

Current threats of war, terrorism and genocide to Israel derive from a very clear "clash of civilizations."

These threats are far more than the result of narrow geo-strategic differences.

They stem from religion and culture.

Both Israel and the United States are in the cross-hairs of a worldwide Arab/Islamic "Jihad" that is fundamentally theological/cultural in nature.

This orientation to Jihad will not concede an inch to rational persuasion, to conventional legal norms of "coexistence" or "peaceful settlement."

This situation of existential danger to "unbelievers" is hardly a pleasing one for Jerusalem or Washington, but it is one that must immediately be acknowledged and understood.


In the best of all possible worlds, none of these dreadful scenarios would be plausible, and the tiny state of Israel could rely upon Reason and Justice to forge its secure future.

But we all know that this is hardly the best of all possible worlds. and that Israeli self-reliance is altogether indispensable.

In this connection, it is certainly important that Israel not ever allow itself to be lured into some plan for a regional "nuclear weapon free zone" (an actual proposal these days by prominent Israeli academics; e.g., Zeev Maoz).

Shimon Peres, as Prime Minister, once stated publicly that Israel would be "delighted to give up the atom" if only the entire region would embrace a comprehensive security plan.

It should be perfectly obvious, however, to anyone who thinks clearly, that in a scheme for regional

nuclear renunciation, only Israel would be disarmed.

It is also important, for Israel's survival, that the country prepare to end its policy of nuclear ambiguity on short notice.

If, as we note in Project Daniel, there should be any evidence that enemy nuclearization (state and/or non-state) had taken place, Israel must immediately bring its bomb out of the "basement."

This is because the credibility of Israel's nuclear deterrent in such circumstances would require a clear message that it has both the capacity and the intention to retaliate.

Before an enemy of Israel might be deterred from launching nuclear first-strikes at Israel, it may not be enough that it "knows" merely that Israel HAS the bomb.

It may also need to recognize that these Israeli nuclear weapons are sufficiently invulnerable to such attacks, and that they are aimed at very high-value targets.

In the Project Daniel Report, we recommend that "...a recognizable retaliatory force should be fashioned with the capacity to destroy some 15 high-value targets scattered widely over pertinent enemy states in the Middle East."

This strategy means that Israel's second-strike response to enemy aggressions involving biological and/or nuclear weapons would be directed at enemy POPULATIONS, not at enemy weapons.

At the same time, we assert: "The overriding priority of Israel's nuclear deterrent force must always be that it preserves the country's security without ever having to be fired."

Some of you will be disturbed by Project Daniel reasoning - thinking, perhaps, that it has a hint of "Dr. Strangelove."

Yet, the countervalue targeting strategy recommended by Project Daniel represents Israel's best hope for AVOIDING a nuclear or biological war.

It is, therefore, actually the most humane strategy available.

The very best weapons, the classical military theorist Clausewitz once wrote, are those that achieve their objectives without actually being fired.

This is especially the case with nuclear weapons.

Israel's nuclear weapons can succeed only through non-use.

Recognizing this, Project Daniel makes very clear that nuclear warfighting must always be avoided.


Generally, Jews don't like to be bearers of harm.

Until now, we have generally been victims rather than executioners.

But as much as we should like to be "neither victims nor executioners" (to borrow a phrase from Albert Camus's essay of the same title), this is simply not possible.

The will to mass murder of Jews, as we have learned from so many for so long, remains unimpressed by persistent expressions of Jewish "goodness."

It follows, especially for Israel, that Jewish "executioners" have their rightful place, and that without this place there would be entire legions of new Jewish and non-Jewish sufferers.


Medieval maps often portrayed Jerusalem at the center of the world.

>From the standpoint of nuclear strategy and world peace, such a portrayal >is very valid today.

Confronted with relentlessly genocidal state and non-state enemies, some of which energetically seek weapons of mass destruction, Israel must now fashion a sound strategic doctrine.

This is why the Project Daniel Group first undertook to prepare its unprecedented Final Report to the Prime Minister.


What can you do - you, the concerned Jews and Christians of this great Houston community?

For one, you can remain aware that the State of Israel is always the individual Jew in macrocosm, and that the fate of this Jewish State is therefore still precarious.

For another, you can recall that impending Israeli territorial surrenders must be evaluated along yet another dimension - the dimension of Israel's strategic vulnerability - and that there is therefore yet another reason to oppose these surrenders.

In many critical respects, Israel IS strong and powerful.....and there are many reasons to believe that Israel will certainly prevail.

But it is our individual and collective (and even Talmudic) responsibility not to take this strength and power for granted.

Rather, by facing Israel's existential difficulties squarely we will better ensure Israel's enduring survival.

Apocalypse was pretty much a Jewish invention, but there is now every reason to believe that we can still avoid an apocalyptic future for Israel.




By Lee Kaplan | October 29, 2004

On October 15-17, in sunny North Carolina, a strategy session for radicals, anarchists, anti-Semites and communists took place in the halls of an elite institution of higher learning, while under the benevolent gaze of university administrators. Billed as an "open dialogue" on Middle East issues, the Palestinian Solidarity Movement Conference proved to be an indoctrination and tactical training session for activists dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel and the support of Palestinian terrorists engaged in the effort to liberate the Holy Land "from the Jordan river to the sea."

In previous solidarity gatherings at Berkeley and the University of Michigan, the organizers of these conferences have featured known (and now jailed) Islamic terrorists and led participants in chants of "Kill the Jews!" Duke's Conservative Union ran an ad detailing the organization's violent history and agendas in an effort to dissuade their university from disgracing itself by defending the charade that this event had anything to do with an academic curriculum. But despite the clear evidence as to who the solidarity movement represents and what its agendas of violence and hate may be, the Duke Administration represented by its Vice President for Governmental Affairs, John Burness, ran interference for the radicals and went out of their way to make sure the event would take place exactly as the organizers intended.

Several Jewish organizations mounted a campaign to alert the Duke administration to the conference's destructive agendas. But presented with a petition of 92,000 signatures, the Duke Administration not only refused to turn away the PSM activists, but grossly whitewashed what went on during their gathering on Duke's campus and facilitated their activist agendas. Thus Students for Academic Freedom, a 135-chapter campus organization, appealed to Duke President Richard Brodhead to insist that all sessions of the conference be open to the public and to the press to no avail.

While presenting their events as "open dialogue" forums, the solidarity organizers have a consistent history of barring critics and observers from the press from their workshops and training sessions. At last year's conference, hosted by Ohio State University, the organizers used metal detectors to prevent attendees from bringing tape recorders or cameras. This practice allowed them to deny the promotion of violent agendas at previous conferences and to win the support of administrators like Burness who claimed that there was no evidence that the Michigan conference had featured chants of "Kill the Jews" for example, until presented with documentary evidence by critics who had secretly infiltrated and taped the event. Nonetheless, Burness allowed the Duke organizers to screen participants at this year's event, making a mockery of its claim to be academic or "open." Duke University allowed the organizers to use metal detectors and confiscate tape recorders, while providing $60,000 in Duke funds (according to a Duke administrator I interviewed) for added security for the event.

When FrontPage magazine assigned me to cover the previous Solidarity Conference at Ohio State, I witnessed first hand how the organizers presented one face to the press -- as a movement interested in Palestinian rights -- and quite another in its closed sessions, counseling its student attendees on how to infiltrate Israel by lying to immigration officials and how to justify violence when confronted by critics. When I covered the Ohio State conference, I was not known to the organizers. Since then, because of an article for FrontPage in which I filed an undercover report on a training session the Palestine Solidarity Movement held for activists to infiltrate Israel and obstruct Israeli security officials, I have become their public enemy number one. Therefore, when Vice President Burness refused all appeals to open the Duke conference to public scrutiny, I resolved to go under cover again to ensure that the organizers would not be able to hide their agendas. Disguised as a Pakistani, and carrying a fake ID and a hidden recorder, I attended both the open-press events and the meetings the organizers -- abetted by Duke administrators -- had declared "closed" to the press.


"We've come a long way in four years," boasted Fayyad Sbaihat on the first night of the PSM Conference. Sbaihat, the event's chief organizer, is a chemical engineering major from the University of Wisconsin at Madison and Palestinian radical. Sbaihat headed a panel that included Dianna Buttu, a Canadian lawyer who represents the Palestine Liberation Organization, a terrorist organization, and the Reverend Mark Davidson of the Presbyterian Church, whose leaders recently met with another Middle Eastern terrorist group, Hizbollah, and which has become the first major institution to support the divestment movement whose goal is to weaken and dismantle the Israeli state. This opening panel was titled "Divestment: The Weapon of the Global Fight for Justice," although the weapon was directled solely at the democratic State of Israel. It attracted about 250 people about a third of whom were Jews who had come to this open session of the conference to oppose the conference's mission. "Only in the fourth year of the divestment campaign has [this] idea been endorsed by a mainstream institution," Sbaihat said as he announced news that the Presbyterian Church had joined the movement to divest from Israel.

Until the announcement by the Presbyterians, the divestment movement's success had been extremely limited. It had been denounced as a not-so-veiled form of anti-Semitism by the president of Harvard. Only a few small stocks of companies doing business in Israel had been removed from the portfolios of the University of Wisconsin (Sbaihat's base of operations) and Michigan's Wayne State University, which has a large Palestinian population. These were disappointing results for an anti-Israel campaign heavily supported with Saudi money and funneled through chapters of the Hamas-related, Saudi funded pro-terrorist Muslim Student Association on U.S. campuses.

That is, up until now. Sbaihat was thrilled that the Presbyterian Church was in the process of divesting its $70-billion portfolio from investments in Israel. Pro-Palestinians were now preparing to agitate for divestment within the Episcopalian and Anglican churches. Davidson suggested that leaders of his church will exert pressure on local businesses and corporations that do business with Israel, in addition to the Church's own financial divestment. Although he doubted the boycott would bring peace, Davidson said that cutting off funds to Jews in the Middle East was nevertheless crucial to bringing "social justice" to the Palestinian people.

Reverend Mark Davidson holds a degree in Peace and Conflict Studies, an academic field devoted to anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-military (if the military is not part of a revolutionary guerrilla movement) agendas. Davidson belongs to a progressive Presbyterian Church faction that has met with Hezbollah, the Islamic terrorist organization that murdered 241 U.S. marines in Lebanon in 1983 and is today the second largest terrorist army in the world. Hizbollah wants to establish an Islamic state on the territory of Israel. On the panel, Davidson stated that he objected to the biblical interpretation by "Christian Zionism" that "awards Jews exclusive rights to the land." In the course of the evening, Davidson never explained his belief in Muslims' exclusive rights to most of the Middle East and North Africa, nor did he mention the persecution of his fellow Christians in that region.

The PLO representative, Ms. Buttu, a Stanford-educated attorney and Canadian resident of Arab descent, also attacked Israel in statements that went unchallenged at the event. Buttu described Israel as "grabbing Palestinian land and resources." Equipped with graphs and posters, she dimmed the lights and wove a circuitous trail of lines implying that Israel was dividing up the indigenous population into "bantusans," as in the formerly apartheid South Africa. Ms. Buttu never addressed the reason for the security fence -- the terrorist campaign against Israeli civilians -- or the temporary nature of the security fence, which will stand until final borders negotiations are complete. The Palestinian Authority, which Ms. Buttu represents, arms the suicide bombers attacking Israeli civilians and lavishly rewards them as Islamic "martyrs" who are headed for heaven and (if they are lucky enough to be male) 72 virgins.

Specious comparisons of Israel and apartheid South Africa became a running theme of the conference. If Americans can be persuaded to think that Israel needs to be dismantled as a human-rights impediment, as was done justifiably in South Africa, this myth will preclude the possibility of a two-state solution. In fact, 21 percent of Israel's population consists of Arabs who live peacefully in Israel. If their Palestinian brethren would stop murdering Jews with bombs, rockets, and guns, Israel would have no need for physical security barriers. Moreover, it is the Arab states that have been made Judenrein -- ethnically cleansed of their indigenous Jewish populations -- without a peep of protest from the rest of the world.

In accord with the most recent Palestinian demand for a "right of return" for 5 million Arabs (the number of Arab refugees created by the 1948 Arab war against Israel has been estimated at 600,000) Buttu claimed there was plenty of room in Israel to accommodate any Arab seeking to move across the 1948 ceasefire line. An influx of 5 million hostile Arabs would of course spell the end of the Jewish state -- which has always been the PLO's agenda. Buttu didn't mention that 76 percent of the West Bank, which is under PLO control, is still undeveloped and would easily accommodate the Palestinian population if the PLO spent its billions on internal development instead of on war against Israeli women and children and Swiss bank accounts for its billionaire leader.

Before the conference, I had enlisted as many pro-Israel Jews as possible to join me in attendance, specifically to counter such lies and misinformation. One such audience member asked Ms. Buttu why, given that human rights violations were so much worse in the Sudan, in China and elsewhere in the world, she considered it fair to single out only a tiny democratic state whose actual human rights record has been exemplary, and target it for divestment. In reply, Buttu said that while human rights abuses anywhere are deplorable (of course, "anywhere" did not include the human rights abusing Palestinian Authority she represents) Israel is "the greatest human rights abuser in the world." Israel is a civilized democratic state. The Palestinian Authority that Ms. Buttu represents holds public executions, murders its women for losing their virginity -- even when raped -- and promotes child sacrifice in a death cult that teaches schoolchildren to martyr themselves in the actt of killing Jews. These facts went unmentioned at the conference.

Buttu lied, not only by omission, but through her outrageous characterizations of Israeli culture. According to Buttu Israeli schoolbooks incite violence against the Arabs. In fact, as is well documented, exactly the opposite is true. Jew hatred and incitements to destroy the state of Israel are pervasive in Palestinian textbooks down to the elementary school level. The maps of the Middle East provided of Israel falsely erase Israel from a territory called "Palestine" which never existed. (The "Palestine Mandate" carved out of the Ottoman Empire includes the British-created state of Jordan, the West Bank and the present state of Israel and was never occupied by a people calling itself "Palestinians.") The role models offered to Palestinian schoolchildren are Islamic "martyrs" and suicide bombers.

At the previous Solidarity Conference at Ohio State, which I attended, an open-mike forum set the stage for a lengthy Israel-bashing session. The same happened at Duke, with speakers rambling at length about the evils of the Jewish state. One or two supporters of Israel did manage to voice questions and comments that challenged the dogma of the panel. A speaker from California told Rev. Davidson that his local Presbyterian minister in Los Angeles was ashamed of the actions of the main diocese.

Opponents of the Palestine Solidarity Movement's anti-Israel agenda came prepared to challenge key tenets of the conference, which was framed by a set of "Guiding Principles." Principle #5 appeared to be an indirect endorsement of suicide bombing and other acts of terror. It reads, "As a solidarity movement, it is not our place to dictate the strategies or tactics adopted by the Palestinian people in their struggle for liberation." When one pro-Israel advocate asked Ms. Buttu if the conference would clearly renounce suicide bombing, she employed the movement's standard doublespeak, skirting the question and characterizing the Palestine Solidarity Movement as a "grassroots" operation. It wasn't her place, said Buttu, to dictate policy. Such reticence was not evident concerning the actions of any other movement, state or individual. Only Palestinian terrorists were immune from criticism.

Addressing questions about Palestinian corruption and Arafat's diversion of millions of foreign aid dollars from his impoverished people, Buttu conceded that such abuses might take place, but she blamed them on Israel. One attendee asked why the Oslo and Taba peace agreements were abandoned by Arafat in favor of terrorism and murder. Buttu skipped over Israel's offer of virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza and outrageously dismissed these plans as their opposite --attempts to take "Palestinian land." Of course this made sense if "Palestinian land" included the whole of Israel.

Faced with direct questions, the speakers avoided responding when they feared the truth would damage their credibility. Stephen Miller, a Duke student who leads the campus chapter of Students for Academic Freedom, asked Fayyad Sbaihat whether he was a member of the terrorist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, as claimed by Israeli intelligence officials. Sbaihat denied the charge curtly, in six words, then cut Miller short and moved to the next question.

Many in the audience laughed at Miller's question. To Sbaihat's fellow travelers in terrorism, such an affiliation would be something praiseworthy, and not at all surprising. Sbaihat, a Palestinian refugee from the West Bank, has apparently unlimited funds to jet all over the U.S. and Canada, organizing conferences such as Duke's from his base at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Other major players in the Palestine Solidarity Movement, Mohammed Abed and Nasser Abufarha, also operate from Madison as part of the "Alternative Palestinian Agenda." These two were present at the Duke conference, leading and lecturing at sessions on the need to destroy Israel.

Finally, I decided to approach the microphone to expand on the question for Mr. Sbaihat, after he had blown off Stephen Miller. Seeing me approach the mike, Sbaihat hurriedly ended the question-and-answer period.

As I was leaving the panel session, a fellow reporter from the New York Sun asked me how he could get into the workshops over the weekend. He had been informed that the press would not be allowed in. I gave him some advice: "Get a disguise."


The Palestine Solidarity Movement (also known as the International Solidarity Movement) knows me well due to my earlier infiltrations of their events and training sessions as a member of the press. I gained access to the workshops at Duke by putting on my disguise as a Pakistani Muslim (I am a former actor by profession). My costume afforded me access to unscripted remarks and interviews I could never have otherwise obtained. I was equipped with a hidden camera and tape recorders. I smuggled these past the conference's metal detectors with surprising ease, given that Duke had spent nearly $60,000 to aid the PSM organizers in keeping out inquiring reporters like me.

The first workshop I attended on Saturday morning was given by this year's guest of honor, Mazin Qumsiyeh (a previous guest of honor at the Michigan conference, Sami al Arian, sits in jail today as the U.S. head of Islamic Jihad, a group that murdered over 100 people in Israel, including American citizens). Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda ("the Return"), a division of the International Solidarity Movement with cells across the U.S. and Canada which promotes the destruction of Israel through the right of return agenda. Qumsiyeh, a professor of biology at Yale, created a stir last year when he published a list of Jewish students on campus and attacked them as "pro-war" pawns of the Bush Administration. (In fact, many Jewish students at Yale are prominent opponents of both the President and the Iraq war.)

Qumsiyeh co-hosted the first session with Mohammed Abed, who is part of Sbaihat's cohort at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, organized as the "Alternative Palestinian Agenda." Last year, Abed also gave a workshop lecture at Ohio State, denouncing two-state solutions for the Middle East conflict and advocating the Palestinian "right of return." At Duke he repeated these points. Handsome, with a dignified English accent, Abed sounded educated and rational as he spoke about the impossibility of allowing Israel to exist. Neither he nor Qumsiyeh addressed the irony of their support for a "right of return" for displaced refugees while advocating the removal of Jewish communities in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. Or perhaps they did. Qumsiyeh declared that "Zionism is a disease," which would preclude those labeled Zionists from having any rights. Qumsiyeh denounced the Jewish state's existence and cited texts that he claimed proved "Nazi-Zionist collaboration" during the Holocaust. His intention was to undermine any justification for the creation of a Jewish state.

Qumsiyeh's perverse reconstruction of historical events included the claim that Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians nothing in the Oslo accords. In fact, Barak offered not only the entire West Bank and Gaza, but half of Jerusalem -- with authority over the Temple Mount, Israel's holiest shrine, which the Arabs immediately closed off to Jewish worshipperss. Barak's dovish predecessor, Rabin, had vowed to never give up any of Jerusalem before he was assassinated. But because the Clinton-Barak plan would ratify the existence of the state of Israel, Arafat left the offer on the table, broke off the talks and launched an Islamic jihad and a wave of suicide bombings in the second "Intifada" to destroy the Jewish state.

Qumsiyeh, a Christian Arab, played his collegiate audience by claiming that, "All movements of ethnic nationalism are a disease. I'd say the same about an Islamic state.". On the other hand he had nothing negative or critical to say of the Palestinian Constitution, which clearly states that Palestine is an Islamic theocracy, like Iran, after which it was modeled.

Next, Qumsiyeh lamented the high population density in Gaza, although its density is no greater than that of San Francisco. "In the West Bank," he complained, "there simply isn't enough room" for the Palestinian population. But, as noted, 76 percent of the West Bank is unoccupied and open for development, a fact which no one mentioned. "The UN never intended there to be a two-state solution" in 1948, Qumsiyeh preposterously claimed. "There is a peace process, but not peace. Colonization should be prevented until they (the Jews) all leave."

In this view, which pervaded the conference, Israel is an illegitimate colony, which must be destroyed and its population of colonizers removed. This conception is completely ahistorical, since Israel was created in exactly the same way as Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq, out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire, which had been ruled by the Turks for 400 years. In my best Pakistani accent, I posed a question to Qumsiyeh: Did the Jews not have a legitimate fear of such a one-state solution, given Palestinian terror attacks on their children? I also asked why the Palestinians could not first create a viable democracy and foreswear terrorism for five years, as in the original Oslo plan, before proposing a one-state solution, while exalting suicide bombers of innocent civilians as heroes in their media.

Qumsiyeh responded by ending the session. So much for "open dialogue."

I left the classroom and went upstairs where another workshop, "Divestment 101: Getting You Started," was being led by Wendy Ake and Eyad Khalaf. I caught the tail end of the lecture, and managed to get an interview with Khalaf, by telling him I was writing a book. Khalaf first told me that pro-Palestinian activists on campuses should always try to link Israel to South Africa. I asked Khalaf if Palestinians who are Israeli citizens have the right to vote. He said they did not. In fact not only do they vote but the Palestinian Arabs who are elected members of Israel's parliament openly call for the dismantling of Israel's democracy.

Khalaf also told me that Israeli Arabs are not allowed to own businesses. This too was a bald falsehood. He claimed that Israeli settlers in the West Bank were given Arab land for free. This was also untrue. After the 1967 war in which the West Bank came under Israeli control (it had been used to launch the Arab attack) Jews bought their homes on Jordanian "crown lands" which had no individual owners. When I challenged him with these facts, he persisted with the fiction that any land owned by Arabs was simply taken by Israelis without compensation. Even when the government of Israel confiscates land under eminent domain, the owner is compensated at real value. Some Palestinians have even sued in Israeli courts and overturned Israeli government appropriations.

Khalaf volunteered another complaint -- that Arabs in the West Bank are given different colored license plates than Israelis. This is true, but it is only because the Palestinian Authority requested the distinction to reflect separate sovereignty. As another example of Arab dispossession, Khalaf said that the West Bank features special roads accessible only to Jews. It is true that there are security roads for settlers who have been attacked and killed on main roads, but Arabs in the Palestinian Authority can apply for permits to use them.

I asked him if any Jews in Israel had claim to live in the Holy Land at all. He replied that the Jews were all settlers from Europe. This is another blatant untruth. Jews have lived continuously in the region for 3,000 years and a majority of Israel's population -- fifty-five percent -- is made up of Jewish refugees from Middle Eastern lands. He claimed that only Jews were allowed to immigrate to Israel to bbecome citizens. This was also false. Khalaf claimed that there were special Jewish Arab Palestinians who reside in the northern West Bank (there are none) comprising one percent of the Palestinian population. Only these special (and imaginary) Jews who live under the Palestinian Authority had a right to remain. All other Jews would have to go, including the Jewish refugees from Arab lands and their progeny born in the Jewish state.

Edward Said, the late anti-Israel professor at Columbia University, once said, "Truth doesn't matter; only emotions matter." Said urged Palestinians to "write your own history." Palestinians like Khalaf apparently believe that as long as an historical claim justifies the dismantling Israel, it's worth repeating. Khalaf, an ideological disciple of Said, now recruits the next generation of creative historians on American campuses.

To test the range of his fabrications, I asked Khalaf if the Palestine Authority has a law condemning to death any Arab who sells land to a Jew, which it does. He denied such a law existed. By now, Wendy Ake, who had co-lectured earlier with Khalef, had approached the place where we were standing and began to eye me suspiciously. Ake seemed to think I was asking too many questions, and she became wary after I asked for her name and email address. After snapping a few photos with my hidden camera, I decided it was time to move on.

Another Saturday session was devoted to the "Palestine Education Project (PEP): Bringing the Palestinian Struggle to School." It was led by Ora Wise, an anti-Israel Jew who had said at the previous solidarity conference at Ohio State that, "Zionism is racism." Ora is a Hebrew teacher at the Kolot Chayeinu synagogue in Brooklyn, NY. The daughter of a Cincinnati rabbi, she now advocates the destruction of the Jewish state. Nothing is more valued by the Palestinian radicals than a Jewish schoolteacher dedicated to furthering their destructive agenda.

This year, Ora led a workshop on how to induce young Americans, particularly minorities in inner-city schools, to hate Israel. She instructed the attendees to contact teachers all over the country with the goal of convincing children that Israel is a threat to the peoples of the Middle East. She advised them to avoid going through the principal's office in these schools but to contact teachers directly. "Here is how you teach Israeli oppression," she began. "Give a kid some water, but give other kids a lot of water. Give some kids toys, and other kids no toys. Talk about the comparisons. Tell them the Israeli kids have the toys, the water. The Palestinians have nothing -- and it is the fault of the Israelis." Wise reminded attendees to make sure they blamed the Israelis in front of the children.

"Get children to draw photos of their families in their homes," said Wise. "Then, show them all the photos of what a Palestinian child would draw, reflecting oppression." She explained, "You can order these special pictures" from various Palestinian activist sources. Another handy tip she offered: "Get a hula hoop. Get the classroom of kids to stand close together around the hula hoop. Then put a child in the middle of the hula hoop. The child in the hula hoop is the Israeli. He has lots of space. He has all the water. Everyone else is crowded and uncomfortable."

Another strategy session closed to the public and the press was, "From Birthright to the ISM: The Struggle against Roots and Walls." This session provided information on how to exploit institutions and individuals that supported Israel to further the International Soliddarity Movement's goals. Vicki Kaplan, a Duke alumna, Rann Bar-On, a conference organizer, and Jessica Rutter described how to get free plane tickets to Israel. The plans boiled to deceiving Jewish philanthropists, who provide money to send young Jews to the Jewish homeland on "Birthright" trips. Activists should apply for "Birthright" grants, then proceed to the West Bank to disrupt construction of Israel's security fence, which is the Solidarity Movement's latest project.

Rutter, the leader of Duke's anti-Israel divestment group, boasted that she herself had recently manipulated the Birthright grants with ease. She was able to do this because of the general lack of awareness of the sophisticated cynicism of Israel's enemies. Had the Birthright program's program planners searched for Jessica Rutter's name on the Internet, they would have discovered that she is an anti-Israel activist.

I had written about this manipulation of Jewish philanthropies and programs in my article on last year's Palestine Solidarity Movement conference at Ohio State. This movement was planning to infiltrate Jewish youth chapters, specifically Hillel groups, on college campuses, to gain access to their funding and to subvert them from within. This year, I got an intimate look at how the plan to use Hillel against Israel is supposed to work.

Radicals of Jewish descent in this strategy session (closed to all but committed anti-Israel militants) were told that Hillel is a democratic organization, operating under a "big tent" to encompass all points of view. The conference speakers advised young attendees to enter Hillel posing as Jewish progressives. Once inside, they should encourage divestment and weaken Israel "by any means necessary." It is an instance of what David Horowitz has called the "unholy alliance" between radical Islam and the American left. The Hillel infiltrators could also monitor pro-Israel activities on campus in order to disrupt them. When scholar Daniel Pipes came to speak at U.C. Berkeley, some students from the campus Hillel sought to disrupt his speech and had organized events critical of Israel. I joined some pro-Israel students who were concerned about these activities and expressed their concern on the Internet program, Israel National News. Instead of addressing the problem, Hillel's director ejected the pro-Israel students who had gone on the air to expose the radicals in their midst. On campuses like Berkeley, Hillel has created a monster -- a vehicle for anti-Israel activists funded by the Jewish state's most ardent supporters.

Another closed panel I attended was called "The One-State Solution and Bi-nationalist Politics' Impact on Activist Discourse." It featured Fadi Kiblawi, who has publicly expressed his wish to become a suicide bomber. Kiblawi advocates killing Jews in all countries to hasten the creation of a Palestinian state. He spoke to a full, eager audience; the room was so crowded I had to sit on the floor behind the panelists.

At one point a husky young man from the audience raised his hand to propose a topic shift. "One thing we need to discuss," he said, "is Jewish control of the media. The Jews are everywhere. Look at the governor of New Jersey. He even has a homosexual Jew, an Israeli, for his lover." Kiblawi agreed. "Yeah, isn't it disgusting?"

At no time during the conference were suicide bombings or terrorist attacks mentioned, let alone condemned -- by the panelists. Nor were critical views of Palestinian tactics tolerated. Inn one of the public sessions Duke student Stephen Miller asked whether the Jewish minority within a new Palestinian state will be treated equitably, given that an Arab who sells land to a Jew is put to death for his "crime." From her seat in the audience, Ora Wise shouted him down, calling his presence "sexist." Women were being excluded from a male-dominated conversation, she claimed. When she had gained control of the floor, she shriekd: "The land doesn't belong to them!"

A session titled, "A Palestinian Presence On Campus: How to Start an Organization," was hosted by Aseel Elborno, President of the Middle East North African Student Association at nearby North Carolina State University. Elborno began by encouraging everyone to start pro-Palestinian campus groups. Once the schools' paperwork procedures were met, she assured us, radical groups would have financial resources to promote the PLO's agenda. In other words, the good intentions of U.S. taxpayers in funding education could be exploited to underwrite their political message. "The universities have tons of money [that] you can get by requesting funds from student government allocations," Elborno said. "They never say 'no.'" Well, actually they do say no -- to conservative students -- but never to "Third World" leftists.

The conference was running half an hour behind schedule, so I rushed to the next meeting, an "Anarchist Caucus" given by Abe Greenhouse, the Rutgers student who smashed a pie Natan Sharansky's face when the Israeli Minister of the Diaspora visited the campus to speak. Greenhouse told us he became an anarchist at age 15. When I asked him to define what being an anarchist meant, he said that it was a form of Communism that rejected social hierarchy. Greenhouse described the International Socialist Movement as the "field operation for the anarchist movement based on its structure of using affinity groups" in the Holy Land. In other words, the Palestinian Authority has used U.S. anarchists and their tactics as another weapon against the Jewish state, rallying unaffiliated people to their cause and giving them something mainstream to oppose. The PLO uses young American anarchists as recruiters and activists in the West Bank and Gaza as defenders and human shields for Arafat. One such anarchist was Rachel Corrie, a student from Evergreen College in Olympia, Washington, who was run over by a bulldozer as she attempted to prevent Israeli security forces from demolishing a bomb-smuggling tunnel in Gaza.

A young Chicano spoke of his association with MECHA and the Azatlan Movement, a Latino organization that advocates reoccupying the western United States by force, if necessary, to create a Latino nation. Azatlan members call themselves "America's Palestinians." He identified himself as homosexual and pointed out that Greenhouse was, too; this seemed relevant to their alliance with the Palestinian cause. Neither acknowledged let alone addressed the fact that gays are brutally persecuted under the Palestinian Authority in contrast to Israel, where they enjoy full civil rights. Many gay Palestinians have actually sought refugee status in Israel, fearing for their lives under the Arafat regime.

An Israeli girl in her early twenties praised Greenhouse for his pie assault on Sharansky. "It was brilliant," she said. "They talked about it all over Israel when it happened. You really got your message out." She couldn't praise him enough. Greenhouse then left to conduct another workshop upstairs. This was "The Anatomy of the Organized Zionist Community in the United States," led by Greenhouse and Rachel Roberts of Jews Against the Occupation. These two Jews lectured on the history, leadership, operational methods and finances of the major Jewish organizations in the United States characterizing them as "the enemy" and always referring to them as "the Zionists." Greenhouse discussed Zionist Organization of America, Theodore Herzl, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC (America's Israel lobby), the Jewish National Fund, Hillel, B'nai Brith and all other Jewish groups in America as if they were part of a dangerous and powerful conspiracy.

With gravity bordering on paranoia, Greenhouse identified philanthropists, like Ron Lauder, who has restored synagogues and Jewish schools in Eastern Europe that were obliterated in the Holocaust, as sinister forces. "Don't buy Estee Lauder," Greenhouse admonished. Greenhouse concluded by discussing Hillel, which he said welcomes a diversity of opinion. Campus chapters are less interested in Zionism than in social and religious Judaism, he said pointedly. The acknowledgment of Hillel's liberalism was not a concession that his demonic picture of Jewish organizations might be flawed however. It was a tactical instruction. Hillel's openness meant that solidarity activists intent on Israel's destruction could rise easily in Hillel's ranks.

The relentless reference to Jews as Zionists at the conference -- indeed the interchangeability of the words "Jew" and "Zionist" -- was an unintentional confirmation that the anti-Zionism of the solidarity activists was in fact anti-Semitism as critics haave charged -- despite the presence of deracinated Jews like Greenhouse and Wise.


On Sunday morning, I spent two hours disguising myself as a Pakistani again before I set off for the final day of the Duke conference. I was able to get through the metal detectors with my concealed camera and recorder, and sat down in front of the morning panel: "What Palestinians Are Up Against: Oppression and Discrimination." The program identified the panelists as Brian Avery, a "human rights advocate," Rauda Marcos, a Palestinian poet and leader of a lesbian group, and Rania Masri, a local Palestinian writer and filmmaker also listed as a "human rights advocate."

Avery's face was disfigured -- the result of some ricocheting bullets that struck him one night when he violated curfew in a combat zone around Jenin. Thee program guide and Avery himself both blamed the Israeli army. But the Israeli army maintains the bullets came from Palestinian terrorists firing carelessly in the area. After the shooting, Avery received expert medical care in Israel -- free of charge. He dismissed Israel's charity to a dedicated enemy describing the treatment he received as a public relations stunt because he was a foreign national. Avery never detailed the work he allegedly did as a "human rights advocate." And it was clear from his remarks that Jews did not qualify for such protections. "Bush's signing of the Global Anti-Semitism Bill was special payback to the Jewish folk," he informed his audience. In a later outburst he told them, "Zionists control all the media."

One of the speakers who followed Avery, Rania Masri, urged "people of color" to boycott Jewish products and businesses. Like other panelists who harped on racial issues she ignored the fact that most Israelis have the same skin pigmentation as Arabs. Rauda Marcos another speaker said, "I would vote for a revolution. When is our revolution going to happen? The Palestinians still have the same problem no matter who they deal with-Barak, Sharon, it was all the same." She drew sweeping parallels between the Iraqi occupation and the conflict in Israel, blaming both on America. "Israel is a place for the U.S. to land in," Marcos declared. "Palestine? Iraq? What's next? What country will be invaded by the U.S. army and Israel?"

Gays are "not free" in the U.S. and Israel, said Marcos, a self-declared lesbian. A moment later she was complaining about the International Gay Pride Festival, which is scheduled to be held in Jerusalem in 2006. She urged everyone to "boycott" the festival. "We cannot be free as gays at the same time other people are being jailed, killed!" she cried.

This was the end of the panel. Wendy Ake came on the dais to announce a litany of resolutions passed by committees of the conference. Many of them dealt with new ways to promote divestment plans against Israel. A proposal to arrange a wider boycott against the Caterpillar Corporation also was adopted. Surprisingly, two resolutions had been introduced to condemn suicide bombings and terrorism. The resolutions proposed amending principle #5 of the conference principles, which currently fails to reject such attacks. An organizer announced that these anti-terrorist resolutions were the only ones that failed to gain approval. On hearing this, the audience erupted into wild cheers and applause. Some people stood up, screaming for joy.

Rann Bar-On, an organizer of the conference, was later quoted in the local Herald Sun, which provided an entirely positive review of the conference covering most of its front page. Said Bar-on, "We don't see it as very useful for us as a solidarity movement to condemn violence."

The final resolution designated the University of Wisconson-Madison as the venue for next year's Palestine Solidarity Conference. Madison is the home turf of the Duke conference's organizer Fayyad Sbaihat.

The resolutions over, the room cleared once for "strategy sessions" in which radical groups that had come to Duke from around the U.S. met to plan campus activities for the coming year. Members of the press were barred.

As I picked my my belongings to move, I was approached by Dovid Weiss, a rabbi from the Neteuri Karta, who commented he noticed I was taking notes and asked me if I'd like to interview him. The Neteuri Karta is an obscure sect of ultra-Orthodox Chasidic Jews who believe the state of Israel should be destroyed because it came into being before the arrival of the Messiah as foretold in scripture. Arafat has made good use of the Neteuri Karta; he pays their leader, Moshe Hirsch, $50,000 a year to be his "Minister of Jewish Affairs," which is a job in name only. For this payment, Hirsch lends the Neteuri Karta name to the Palestinian cause.

At Duke the previous day, on Saturday, I had seen Weiss and a Netueri Karta colleague participating in the conference workshops. A truly Orthodox Jew would never engage in such activities on the Sabbath. Dovid Weiss, I concluded, was little more than a terrorist fellow-traveler in rabbincal clothing.

As the room cleared, chairs were rearranged for the "strategy planning session." Representatives from radical groups and self-styled revolutionaries from all over the U.S. introduced themselves and began discussing their activities from the previous year and what they were planning to do in the coming year. Most were from chapters at American colleges. When my turn came, I said I was from Georgetown and working on a new project.

As I said this I noticed that John Burness, Duke's Vice President for Governmental Affairs, had joined the strategy session. Burness had had several run-ins with the faculty, students and alumni at Duke because of the interference he ran for the organizers of this event. Even after receiving a petition signed by 92,000 people asking Duke not to host the event, even after proof was submitted demonstrating that the terrorist supporting International Solidarity Movement and the Palestine Solidarity Movement were in fact the same entity -- something he had denied -- Burness continued to defend the conference, claiming that it was a matter of "freedom of speech." Burness also ensured thatt the organizers would be allowed to close their strategy sessions so as not to reveal many of their most destructive agendas to the general public and the press. After the conference, organizers were quoted by the local press as saying the event cost them less than $10,000 to put on. Another report claimed they spent less than $2,000. But Duke University officials conceded they had spent $60,000 to make the hatefest possible. This was the price of Burness' "free speech."

Throughout the disputes leading up to the conference, Burness seemed personally invested in seeing that the conference would take place. He presented the affair in a positive light on Duke's website, and obstinately dismissed the negative information passed on to him by its opponents. In addition to denying that there were any links between the Palestine Solidarity Movement and the International Solidarity Movement, even after organizer Ran Bar-On admitted he was a member-organizer from the latter, Burness also denied that "Kill the Jews!" had been chanted at the Michigan Palestine Solidarity Conference. He did make a partial and half-hearted correction after I sent him a legal affidavit and other evidence to prove it was true. Burness claimed on the Duke website that a major Jewish organization had endorsed the Michigan conference, which was a blatant fabrication, which he refused to correct until the Jewish organization itself corrected him.

While I was reflecting on the presence of Burness in the inner sanctum of these strategy sessions, my cell phone rang and I went to the back of the room to answer it. Burness followed me and said he knew who I was, and threatened to call the police. So that's why he was there. As an enforcer for the conference organizers, to protect the secrecy of their planning sessions. Burness said I was a member of the press and that I had to leave or I would be arrested. I had noted that organizations like the International Socialist Organization, which openly advocates the violent overthrow of the American government, were attending. I defended my presence at the session, but elected to leave. Once outside, I asked Burness whether he was aware that the agenda of the International Socialist Organization attending the event was the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Apparently the question struck a sensitive nerve. His answer was "You lying f -- k!" as though I had accused someone close to him of an embarrassing act.

Before I was able to file this report, David Horowitz, my editor at and the man who had sent me to report on the conference at Duke, received this email from John Burness:

From: "John F Burness"
Subject: Lee Kaplan
Date: Monday, October 18, 2004 1:27 PM

Hello Mr Horowitz:

We have communicated several times in the past and while we have disagreed on a number of issues, I have always felt we did so with respect for each others' views. That is why I write you now.

I enclose an e-mail I have just sent to Lee Kaplan, a reporter for your publication Several weeks ago, Mr Kaplan wrote to ask if I would assure him that he could attend the meeting of the PSM conference on campus since he reported that he had been denied entry to a similar event in California, the previous weekend. I sent him the enclosed email confirming that he could do so. You will note that his participation in the event was conditional---as it was for all other attendees from the media or the general public -- that he agree to honor the code of civility required of all registrants and that should he come as a representative of your publication, he agrees to respect the decisions of the student sponsors concerning media participation including restrictions on the use of cameras and recording devices at specifically designated events.

...Mr Kaplan ... had the option available to anyone who wished to attend the conference to be there as a private citizen. That would have permitted him to attend all sessions of the conference including those which the sponsors had declared off limits to the media. Mr Kaplan chose to register as a member of the media representing, which absolutely was his choice to make.

At one of the sessions that was closed to the media, Mr Kaplan attended in a Clouseau-like disguise with make up, dyed hair and a fake beard, wearing a Kaffiyeh. (At an earlier workshop, I realized that he also was in disguise and represented himself as a Muslim from Pakistan.) When the attendance sheet went around he signed it as Michael Dost and listed an email address as When one of the students asked him if he was Lee Kaplan, he told her his name was Michael Dost and showed her a fake drivers license from Rhode Island (which I believe to be illegal). After I checked at least showed a sense of humor with this email address) to determine if it was valid and of course it wasn't. I approached Mr Kaplan and told him he needed to leave since the event, as he knew, was not open to the media. He showed me the same driver's license he had showed the student. I told him that he nonetheless would have to leave and he did so not happily but without incident. In a subsequent conversation with him outside of the building, he acknowledged that he was carrying a taping device in his pocket. And shortly thereafter he had removed the fake beard and make up.

I have worked with many journalists over the years but never have I experienced one whose behavior has been so outside the norms of recognized ethical and journalistic standards as Mr.Kaplan. Since Mr Kaplan was at this conference as your reporter, were you or anyone associated with your publication aware of his deliberate decision to lie in agreeing to respect and comply with the rules of attendance that the student organizers of the conference had stipulated and to which all other reporters complied? I hope you agree with me that his behavior violates just about every appropriate standard of journalistic integrity that I assume you require of reporters for

I look forward to hearing from you.

John F. Burness
Senior Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations
Duke University

This is David Horowitz's reply:

Hello Mr. Burness,

As a preface to my reply to the concern you express about journalistic ethics that may or may not have been involved in Lee Kaplan's report on what transpired at Duke, allow me to put your letter in a more appropriate context. I, too, have concerns, and these are not only ethical but also practical, involving issues that affect the lives of innocent human beings. I am frankly amazed and appalled at the lengths you are prepared to go to deny the obvious and to defend the indefensible in this case. We are not after all discussing an academic conference at Duke concerned with intellectual matters of inquiry and interpretation. We are not discussing a medical convention dedicated to the development of practical techniques for improving human lives, where issues of patient privacy would be a legitimate concern. We are discussing a convention of radical and violent groups, practiced in the art of hate, who have been brought together for the purpose of dismantling and destroying a democratic state that was created as a refuge for the pitifully few survivors of one of the great crimes against humanity in recorded history.

In this matter, you and the Duke administration have gone out of your way to make possible and to defend at every turn a conference organized by individuals who are driven by a hatred of Jews and who are dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel by any means necessary -- including the murder of innocent civilians, which the attendees went on record refusing to condemn. In the report by LLee Kaplan, which can be verified by reference to the tapes he was able to make, the organizers of the Duke conference reveal themselves to be cynical liars about matters of life and death for the Jewish citizens of Israel -- which are not matters of reasonable disupte. These people are committed to techniques of manipulation and deceit for the sole purpose of subverting campus organizations in order to further a destructive agenda contrary to the intent of the members of these organizations, to be adept practitioners of slander for the purpose of demonizing Jews in general, whom conference organizers ritually referred to agents of a "disease" -- Zionism -- and the state of Israel in particular as an institution worthy of destruction.

In viewing these matters, I cannot be unmindful that the fate of six million Jews was sealed while German universities, not all that different from Duke, maintained their civilities while sponsoring "open dialogues" with the very anti-Semites who were preparing the slaughter. What is ethical in pretending that Jew-hatred did not have a field day at Duke in the sessions of the Palestine Solidarity Conference? Or that the conference itself was not defined by anti-Israel agendas? I'm curious, too: Would you have expended the kind of effort you did or the sizeable Duke resources you made available to these radicals if they had been members of the Ku Klux Klan and their targets had been African Americans rather than Jews? The Duke Chronicle, for which you are not directly responsible but which also bears the Duke name, censored an ad I placed in its pages and forced me to remove factual data about these conferences to protect the sensibilities of supporters of terrorism and the destruction of Israel. On the other hand, following the event, the Chronicle published -- unedited -- an anti-Semitic article by a Duke student who happened to be African American. Can you detect the pattern here?

As you were reminded in advance of the conference, the organizers of this event were members of an International Solidarity Movement whose purpose -- documented in the pages of this magazine and elsewhere -- was to aid and abet terrorists in Israel by obstructing the work of Israeli security forces while hiding under the cloak of "human rights" activism and the immunity they enjoy as citizens of the democratic West. There is no mystery about who these people are. Their conference at Michigan not only featured chants of "Kill the Jews," a fact you continue to remain agnostic about (whose agendas does that serve?), feature as its honored keynoter the North American head of Palestine Islamic Jihad (Sami al-Arian, whose organization is responsible for the murder of more than 100 innocent people in Israel). Sami al-Arian is no stranger to you and Duke, as we have discussed in previous exchanges. In 2002, he was the keynote speaker at a faculty-sponsored conference at Duke on "Terrorism and Civil Liberties." Al-Arian was presented as a spokesman for civil liberties. This was more than seven years after Al-Arian was exposed by the Miami Herald as terrorist who had ranted "Death to Israel" at terrorist rallies the FBI taped and a year after Judy Genshaft had removed Al-Arian from his position as a professor on her campus pending the results of the FBI's investigation. (Al-Arian was indicted and is now in jail.)

Now to your point. Lee Kaplan attended these sessions and revealed that their attendees are training students to deceive others, Jews mostly, such as the students and administrators and benefactors of campus Hillel organizations. You were present at these closed sessions and know this. Yet this was no more your concern then the wall of lies that the organizers put out in the first place about the nature of their agendas in holding the conference ("open dialogue" etc.), which you worked so hard to protect. If you had been successful in policing those who came to attend the conference, Lee Kaplan would never have been allowed to take his tape recorder in to these sessions and the organizers would be able to present their next conference -- to be held on the unsuspecting campus of the University of Wisconsin -- in the same deceptive way they presented this one. And administrators like you would be able to claim that there was no evidence that would be anything but an "open dialogue" and academic discussion of issues in the Middle East. They would then be able to to repeat the same deceptions and perhaps secure the same assistance from the administrators in Madison.

Now, however, thanks to the ingenuity and dedication of our journalist Lee Kaplan, we have tape recordings and copious notes of these proceedings precluding all but the hopelessly credulous from doubting his report. No administrator at Wisconsin will be able to pretend, as you did, that statements made were not made and that agendas pursued were not pursued, and that the conference organizers were anything but deceptive in their treatment of the public. Kaplan's report will alert the university community in Madison that their university's name and auspices and resources would not be used for an academic conference which intends "open dialogue" but for a conference whose agenda is to recruit and organize support for anti-Israel and terrorist agendas. This was not a conference "For Palestinians" as the Raleigh Sun-Herald falsely proclaimed, but against Israelis and Jews.

I think this pretty well sums up the importance and value of a free press, and we at FrontPage are proud to have been able to carry on and further this noble tradition. And that is how we see the issues of ethics and integrity as they were involved in the shameful conference you helped to facilitate and promote at Duke.


David Horowitz

HOMEThe Maccabean OnlineComments