Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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






HYPOCRISY....Jan Willem van der Hoeven 5
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH....Boris Shusteff 5

MESSIANIC JEWS....Elyakim Haetzni 16
ROBBERY....Boris Shusteff 18
WHEN IS UP REALLY DOWN....Moshe Arens 21




[ISSN 1087-9404]

Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro *

Published Monthly by the FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE: URL:

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

Copyright (c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro

The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely on
private contributions which are fully tax deductible.




By Bernard J. Shapiro

The current violence in Israel related to the Temple Mount is, of course, totally unnecessary. It is a direct result of Israel's neglect of its sovereign rights there. The riots and the IDF response has been pitiful. Riots like we are seeing now should be crushed with the minimum of restraint. Barak brags that he uses maximum restraint, a policy perfect for Arab propaganda and media bias. One should bear in mind the old Jewish saying: "If you are merciful to the cruel, you will end up being cruel to the merciful."

We respectfully present our plan to sole this tragedy:

1. The Temple Mount is the holiest of all Jewish sites and should visited daily by government officials and everyday citizens as befits a sovereign country.

2. The Islamic Waqf will not be happy with this arrangement and should therefore be thrown off the Mount. Full Israeli control should be instituted.

3. Jewish antiquities should be fully protected. and illegal construction stopped.

4. Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount should be stored.

5. Maximum military force to crush anyone who attacks Jews or IDF soldiers.

6. No more policy of moderation with Arafat. When he unlocks terrorism, a ton of sanctions should land on his head including rabid building YESHA.

Apparently Albright has summoned Barak and Arafat to Paris to try to stop the violence. Barak will under tremendous pressure to give up Jewish rights to the Mount. He should agree to NOTHING. The violence can be stopped with one word from Arafat and he should not be rewarded by this bloodletting. These riots indicate the direction of the Arabs in asserting their control of the Jewish Temple Mount. We should dedicate ourselves to prevent this and save our holiest site for Am Yisrael and Eretz Yisrael for all future time and every future generation.




Her Excellency Mrs. Madelaine Allbright
Secretary of State
The State Dept.
Washington DC

Monday October 2, 20000

Dear Secretarv Allbright:

I deeply regret, and I find it totally unacceptable that your spokesman was quick to make a false statement that my visit to The Temple Mount "may have caused tension," insinuating that it ignited the riots and disturbances in Jerusalem that spread to Judea, Samaria and Gaza and later, to Israel itself.

I find it most regrettable and disturbing that your spokesman has been swayed by slanderous propaganda on the part of the Palestinian leaders and media, intended to put pressure on Israel and the US to make additional concessions in the negotiations, under threat of violence if their demands are not met.

I have expressed my concern and regret at the widespread violence and the senseless loss of lives and injuries on both sides. But it must be clearly understood that it wasn't my visit to The Temple Mount the holiest site for Jews and under full Israeli sovereignty - that ignited the current outbreak of violence.

Israel's Security Establishment has publicly presented its conclusions that the violent riots and armed confrontations, are part of a premeditated and organized campaign initiated by the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). This campaign began over ten days ago in the Netzarim area in Gaza, starting with stone throwing and escalating to the use of firearms and explosives against Israeli soldiers and civilians travelling there.

These riots have spread out through the deliberate incitement (prior to the visit) by the 'Tanzim' (the armed militia of Chairman Arafat's Fatah organization). Last Friday Arafat instructed the 'Tanzim' to escalate the riots. Moreover, Palestinian Security Chiefs have been directly involved in inciting the violence and in ordering Palestinian Police to open fire on Israeli soldiers, Police and civilians.

Arab Members of the Knesset (MKs) have contributed to and joined this violent campaign by repeated incitement calling Arab Israelis as well as Palestinians to resort to violence prior, during and after my visit to The Temple Mount.

This is not the first time I'm visiting The Temple Mount. The Inspector General of the Police has explained that the large Forces which the Police deployed to safeguard the visit, were required due to Palestinian threats prior to the visit to resort to large scale violence in order to take control of the Western Wall area below The Temple Mount.

I wish to emphasize, Mrs. Secretary, that Prime Minister Barak has already stated very clearly that every Israeli citizen, be it Arab or Jew, has a right to visit any place which is under Israeli sovereignty.

The united city of Jerusalem, which you are all very familiar with, as well as The Temple Mount, are under full Israeli sovereignty. Neither I, nor any Israeli citizen, need to seek permission from the PA or from any foreign entity to visit there or any other site which is sovereign territory of the State of Israel.

As for myself, I wish to assure you that despite the recent violent events I remain fully committed to achieving peace with all our Arab neighbors including the Palestinians.

I believe we can reach peace, but it must be durable and real peace based first and foremost on complete negation of violence. Furthermore, it requires Arab Palestinian recognition and acceptance of the historical inherent rights that Jews have on their land in their undivided Capital Jerusalem and particularly sovereign rights and free access to our most sacred site on The Temple Mount. This right is granted and has only been safeguarded to every Israeli citizen as well as visitors, regardless of race, creed or religion since Israel united the city in 1967.

Sincerely Yours.

Ariel Sharon, Chairman
Likud Party
38 King George St. Tel Aviv 63298 ISRAEL
Tel. 972-3-5252925 Fax 972-3-5252932




by Dr. Manfred R. Lehmann

The Moslem "claim" to Jerusalem is based on what is written in the Koran, which although Jerusalem is not mentioned even once, nevertheless talks (in Sura 17:1) of the "Furthest Mosque": "Glory be unto Allah who did take his servant for a journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque." But is there any foundation to the Moslem argument that this "Furthest Mosque" (Al-Masujidi al-Aqtza) refers to what is today called the Aksa Mosque in Jerusalem? The answer is, none whatsoever.

In the days of Mohammed, who died in 632 of the Common Era, Jerusalem was a Christian city within the Byzantine Empire. Jerusalem was captured by Khalif Omar only in 638, six years after Mohammed's death. Throughout all this time there were only churches in Jerusalem, and a church stood on the Temple Mount, called the Church of Saint Mary of Justinian, built in the Byzantine architectural style.

The Aksa Mosque was built 20 years after the Dome of the Rock, which was built in 691-692 by Khalif Abd El Malik. The name "Omar Mosque" is therefore false. In or around 711, or about 80 years after Mohammed died, Malik's son, Abd El-Wahd - who ruled from 705-715 - reconstructed the Christian- Byzantine Church of St. Mary and converted it into a mosque. He left the structure as it was, a typical Byzantine "basilica" structure with a row of pillars on either side of the rectangular "ship" in the center. All he added was an onion-like dome on top of the building to make it look like a mosque. He then named it El-Aksa, so it would sound like the one mentioned in the Koran.

Therefore it is crystal clear that Mohammed could never have had this mosque in mind when he compiled the Koran, since it did not exist for another three generations after his death. Rather, as many scholars long ago established, it is logical that Mohammed intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque." So much for the Moslem claim based on the Aksa Mosque.

With this understood, it is no wonder that Mohammed issued a strict prohibition against facing Jerusalem in prayer, a practice that had been tolerated only for some months in order to lure Jews to convert to Islam. When that effort failed, Mohammed put an abrupt stop to it on February 12, 624. Jerusalem simply never held any sanctity for the Moslems themselves, but only for the Jews in their domain.


DR. MANFRED R. LEHMANN was a writer for the Algemeiner Journal. Originally published in the Algemeiner Journal, August 19, 1994.




By Jan Willem van der Hoeven

It is unbelievable how quickly the criticism has come, both from inside as well as outside of Israel, against Ariel Sharon, as if he is the one responsible for the wanton destruction and violence that has erupted all over the land of Israel, just because he as opposition leader wanted to visit the most holy place of Judaism on one of the high holy days of the Jews.

How would British people react if their Buckingham Palace or the St. Paul's Cathedral had been taken over by invading Muslims who by building four Mosques around these places as the Muslims have done on Israel's most holy and important place - would henceforth claim Buckingham Palace as their sole property being unwilling to even allow the British to visit their own historical royal residential site or bar them from even praying at St. Paul's Cathedral?!

Would there not be an outcry in Britain especially when on a British high holiday a leader of the Conservative opposition party would finally muster enough courage to visit one of these sites at a moment that a present Chamberlain-like British government would be willing to forfeit sovereignty over these two historic British places in order to placate the increasingly violent and dangerous Muslim population in England.

Would also then the BBC scold the British Conservative leader for even daring to want to visit Buckingham Palace or St. Paul's, as they did Sharon!


Jan Willem van der Hoeven,
P.O. Box 49063
91490 Jerusalem, ISRAEL
Telephone/Fax: +972 (0)2 540 0133
Email Address:




By Boris Shusteff

The ongoing violent and bloody confrontations between the Palestinian Arabs and the Israeli soldiers and police have permanently destroyed the myth of an approaching era of peaceful coexistence between the Arabs and the Jews. It is clear that the Arab leaders do not want their people to leave peacefully with their Jewish neighbors. They are ready to tolerate the Jews for a certain period of time and only under certain conditions, but not to coexist with them.

The pretext for the current bout of violence, Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, only demonstrates once again that the house of cards termed the "Oslo peace process" was built on the sand of futile hopes of blind and deaf Jews. The hurricane of Arab hatred is able to destroy it in a second, transforming the incitements and lies of the Palestinian Arab leaders into torrents of blood streaming all over Eretz Yisrael.

The violence associated with the construction on Har Homa, the opening of the Hasmonean tunnel, and now with Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, used by Arafat to demonstrate the "spontaneous reaction of the Palestinian people," took place only because the Arabs know that the Jews are afraid of this Arab tactic. Scores of dead and maimed Arabs are a very cheap price for the Arab leaders in their struggle against the Jewish state. Arafat will not hesitate to sacrifice hundreds of times more in order to gain control over Jerusalem.

Sharon's visit to the holiest Jewish place has nothing to do with this new wave of violence. It started prior to Sharon's visit with the death of an Israeli soldier David Biri in an explosion in Gaza and the cold-blooded shooting murder in Kalkiliya of Yossi Tabaja, an Israeli Border Guard policeman, by his Palestinian "colleague." The Palestinian patience ended before the Arab blood was spilled in the capital of the Jewish state.

Nevertheless, the world community blamed the Jews, as usual. On September 29, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher declared that "We ... were quite concerned that the visit by Sharon to this site risked creating tensions, and in fact it did." How shameful it is that America, Israel's "best friend," dares to question the intent of a Jew to visit the holiest Jewish place? Maybe the Clinton administration meant that Sharon was supposed to disguise himself in torn clothing, grow a beard in order not to be recognizable, and in the middle of the night, when no one was looking, sneak into the Temple Mount area? Perhaps Boucher has forgotten that he is not dealing with a medieval Jew attempting to venture outside the ghetto walls?

The reason for the latest outbreak of violence is not Sharon's visit but the existence of Israel itself. The way the Arabs see events is absolutely different from the way that the Jews see them . Nothing can better prove this than the September 12 Charlie Rose Show interview with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa and Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami. Moussa explained it all when he said: "We all know history. You read it in your way, but we read it in our way" (1). It is worth listening to the argument about Jerusalem between Ben-Ami and Moussa to understand the futility of any attempt to reconcile the Jewish and the Arab positions,

MIN. BEN-AMI: It [Jerusalem] was never the capital of any other state in history. This is a fact. A, --

MIN. MOUSSA: No, no, it is not a fact.

MIN. BEN-AMI: Yes, it is a fact.

MIN. MOUSSA: No, it is not a fact.

MIN. BEN-AMI: No, it is in the books of history.

MIN. MOUSSA: No, no, no, you announced that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel after they established Israel. When? Fifty years ago. That is all" (1).

For the Arabs, nearly five thousand years of Jewish history simply do not exist at all. History started only in the 20th century with the "attempts of the Zionists to conquer Arab Palestine." There are no facts whatsoever that the Jews can bring in support of their historic rights to Eretz Yisrael in order to change the Arab perception. The Arabs will not accept them. They do not want to accept them. Period. They have their own reading of history.

For the Arabs, the Jews are the aggressors. The Jews think that by giving the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) to the Arabs and by agreeing to share Jerusalem they are doing the Arabs a big favor. Ontheir part, the Arabs consider it to be a tremendous favor to the Jews if they agree to accept only the land that the Jews are giving them, since "all the land of Palestine belongs to the Arabs." Therefore, despite the amount of land they will receive, the Arabs will continue to see the Jewish state as a usurper of Arab land. It is for this reason that on August 22, an editorial on the official Palestinian National Authority web-site stated, "Most of all, the end of the conflict is linked to historical reconciliation, which implies, if not absolute justice, at least the acknowledgment of what happened: the truth. For Israelis, this means recognizing that the State of Israel was created through a military campaign of ethnic cleansing which inflicted a gross and massive injustice upon the Palestinian people" (2).

Even if the Jews give 100% of Yesha to the Arabs, divide Jerusalem, allow the "Palestinian refugees" to invade Israel proper, and crawl on their knees begging forgiveness for the "ethnic cleansing which inflicted a gross and massive injustice upon the Palestinian people," the Arabs will not agree to end the conflict. As the editorial clearly puts it "without a change in the whole system of Jewish-Arab relations, including the system of representations, the use of symbols and the production of images, within the state of Israel itself, as well as in its relations to others, there can be no definitive end to the conflict"(2).

Isn't it time for Israel to stop pretending that she does not realize what price she must pay to be "accepted" by her Arab neighbors? Isn't it time to stop deceiving ourselves that peace is just around the corner? Isn't it time for the Jewish state to stop living in the Oslo dreamland and to start using its formidable force without restrictions?

Since the beginning of the Zionist enterprise the Jews have tried to establish peaceful relations with the Arabs, but their overtures have been constantly rejected. The Jews tried all possible and impossible options of appeasement but never thought of relying completely on brutal force.

Stones and boulders so efficiently used by the Arabs should be placed by the Israelis into the category to which they belong - they are weapons, used by the Arabs to kill or inflict harm. Thus Arab stone-throwing should be met not by rubber bullets and tear gas but by live ammunition. The Israelis should make it clear to the Arabs and to the world community that from now on they are going to use their force. If the Arabs are suicidal and want to be killed, their desires can be satisfied.

Enough is enough. The Jewish state cannot afford her weak posture anymore. It is in a state of war and must use all of its might to defeat the enemy. Those who dream of peace must understand that peace can be achieved only as the result of a victorious war. War has an ugly face, but this is its nature, one cannot change it. Being in a state of war, Israel can either win it or lose it. As it was in all other wars Israel cannot afford to lose this war. The defeat will mean not only the destruction of the Jewish state but the physical eradication of the Jews as well.[10/03/00]


1. Transcript of Charlie Rose Show interview with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa and Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami: 11:00 PM, Date Tuesday, September 12, 2000. e-mail posting on Middle East discussion group. 9/14/00.

2. Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI). No. 130, September 28, 2000.


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




A Voice from Hebron -- October 3, 2000

The Fruits of our "Peace" Process

by Gary M. Cooperberg

I first learned about the current uprising by the Arabs against the Jewish State when my children, who were on their way back to Jerusalem after spending the holidays with us in Kiryat Arba, were turned back by the IDF because the roads were too dangerous to drive. So, thanks to Arafat, I had the good fortune to have my children spend another evening with us.

It is hard to fathom why anyone would be surprised at the recent violence we have experienced and continue to experience in Israel. Only a self-deceiving fool would imagine that the negotiations in which Barak and Arafat are engaged are a genuine effort to compromise in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Barak expresses surprise that, while he is fully prepared to make "painful" concessions for "peace", Arafat seems unwilling to do so. What our Prime Minister will never understand is that Arafat has pride and self-respect. Those terms are completely foreign to our Prime Minister. Genuine Jewish leaders have always been prepared to sacrifice their lives for their country. This is the first era in Jewish history which finds our leaders prepared to sacrifice their country for their lives.

President Clinton made a remark which remarkably echoed that which I heard from Shimon Peres last night on Israel television. "This violence shows us what the alternative to the peace process can be". Clearly both gentlemen suggest that, as terrible this violence is, perhaps it can lead us back to the negotiation table. It would seem that such thinking, in and of itself, not only justifies this violence, but actually encourages it! Give Arafat what he wants, and he will stop throwing rocks and shooting bullets at you. This was the kind of demonstration which Al Capone would arrange prior to asking storekeepers for "protection" money. Surely a few bucks every month is better than getting your head bashed in.

Last Friday, when a PLO "policeman", serving on a joint patrol, murdered his Israeli partner in cold blood, perhaps we should have convened a special committee of inquiry to find out just what caused such an incident to occur. If that sounds ridiculous, how does one react to the fact that our brilliant military hero-turned-prime minister, Ehud Barak, not only has failed to put down the outright insurrection which has embroiled the entire country, but has actually been seeking an audience with the very fellow who is orchestrating it in an effort to try to appease him?

If anyone is listening, the alternative to sitting down and watching as a cancer eats away at you, is to take a knife and cut it out before it totally devours you. The world and even local media has already condemned the victims for being violent. So what do we have to lose by actually employing genuine violence, once and for all, and ending the madness? What virtue was there in failing to rescue our wounded soldier in Shechem when he was under siege by the PLO? How is it conceivable that the mighty Israeli Army allowed that soldier to die rather than force their way to Yosef's Tomb and rescue him? Is this the same army that sent its forces half-way across the world to rescue Jewish hostages in Entebbe?

Arafat has given us a present and we refuse to take it. He has given us complete justification to do that which we should have done long ago. He has made it abundantly obvious that the process in which we have been engaged is nothing less than step one in his overall plan to take Israel from the Jewish People. Arafat and the PLO are engaged in war while Barak is busy making peace. The logical results of such a combination would be that Arafat and the PLO win and Barak and the Jewish People lose. Fortunately for us logic does not rule in this country. No matter how great the odds against us may be, the Living G-d of Israel continues to watch over us and protects us both from our enemies, and from our (mis)leaders.

The good thing about this insurrection is that it permits the Jewish people to see with their own eyes that which they refused to admit to themselves. The constant lies fed to us by our own media and government had many actually believing that Arafat and the Arab world really want to make peace with Israel. I am amazed at the shock which I hear expressed at the fact that "Israeli" Arabs joined in the rioting. When we watch our television screens and see "our own Israeli" Arabs throwing rocks at our soldiers while waving the PLO flag perhaps we can begin to question the unlikely premise that any Arab could be happy with or loyal to a Jewish State. Even now, as the rioting rages, Israel television grants tremendous amounts of air time to Achmud Tibi, (Arafat's right hand man turned Israeli Knesset Member) as well as other outspoken Arab Knesset Members who are all, by definition, rabidly anti-Israel. It is an outrage that such a concept as an Arab Knesset Member exists! It is like asking the wolf to be involved in planning the defense for the sheep.

The G-d of Israel has given us all the tools to bring immediate redemption. It is now up to us to use them. The longer we pretend that we know how to make peace better than He does, the more grievously we will suffer, G-d forbid. It is true that one of G-d's Names is Shalom, Peace. But we would do well to remember that He is also called a Man of War. There is no honor in a peace which would have us denying our obligations to G-d. And there is no shame in fighting a war to uphold those obligations. If Mr. Barak is prepared to make painful decisions, then let him decide to rid our country of the cancer which is destroying us from within. Anything less will only make the current war to destroy Israel even more violent and bitter.



Jerusalem, October 3, 2000


By Nadia and Ruth Matar

Ariel Sharon is to be commended. Visiting the Temple Mount on the eve of Rosh Hashana was a timely and intelligent move. It is a refreshing bit of leadership, something this Country needs desperately. True, it should have been done long ago. In that way, the intolerance towards other religions that many Arabs clearly demonstrate, including Arafat and his band of terrorists, would have been revealed to the whole world. Better late than never!

That is a significant difference between Sharon and Barak. Barak is hopelessly secular, without a trace of a spiritual connection to the God of Israel or the religious nature of his homeland. So is the Communist indoctrinated Ephraim Sneh, Barak's defense assistant and "apologist", whose father led the Israel Communist Party for many years. Barak is preparing to share Jerusalem with the terrorist murderer Arafat.Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount, from time immemorial, have always been sacred to the Jewish People. Sharon's decision to visit this sacred site, contrasts sharply with Barak's immoral hosting of Arafat at his own home. Arafat daily teaches hatred and violence against the Jews in his schools and in his media, despite the fact that he readily and continuously signs Agreements to the contrary.

The sad crew of Barak, Beilin, and Ben Ami is pitiful. Each of them has no appreciation of, or loyalty to, their magnificent Jewish Tradition, and Heritage. They present a picture of helplessness and weakness to everyone in their handling of the present Arab riots. Their off-note chorus has been joined by the hypocritical U.S. State Department, led by the self-denying Jewess, Albright, putting the blame on Sharon for the unprovoked Arab terrorist attacks. The Arabs, of course, are using the same typical false claims that their holy place on the Jewish Temple Mount, the Al Aqsa Mosque, is threatened with attack by the Jews. The world, CNN and the Israeli immoral and irreligious Left, are willing to promulgate this garbage. Over the years, distorting the news always has been "fair game," when it comes to Jews.

What about the basic concept of freedom of religion, which everyone agrees is vital to any society? That fundamental value is one of the bedrocks on which the U.S. democratic society was founded. Who among the media dare point out that the Jews have at least the same right as the Arabs to worship on their historical Temple Mount in their own Jewish Homeland? A review of Jewish Prayer Books over the centuries will reveal that for over three thousand years that Holy Site has been the spiritual focus of the Jewish Religion. It is groundless, and an attempt to avoid the merits of the real issue involved, to blame Arik Sharon and other Members of the Knesset of this Jewish State, for visiting the Temple Mount. What more appropriate and natural act is there? It should have been done by Jewish leaders of this nation from the very outset in 1967, when the miracle of its recapture first took place. Do not the Baraks, Beilins, and Ben Amis realize that their cowering concessions won't satisfy Arafat, nor his Arab supporters? The inescapable conclusion is that the lack of national, and spiritual feelings of such "Jewish" leaders, is a national tragedy.




By Louis Rene Beres

Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University

In an editorial column ("An International Conference for the Mideast") back in July/August 1987, TIKKUN Magazine endorsed a Palestinian state, but only conditionally. Said editor Michael Lerner: "TIKKUN continues to stress that the Palestinian state we would support could only be created on conditions similar to those imposed on Austria after World War II - total demilitarization and political neutrality enforced by the Great Powers." Moreover, continued Lerner: "Israel would have to have treaty rights to invade the moment there was any introduction of tanks, planes, or heavy weapons. We have no illusions about the PLO itself and would never agree to a Palestinian state that significantly threatened Israel's security."

Today, some thirteen years later, it is apparent that TIKKUN no longer imposes such conditions and that its endorsement of a Palestinian state is manifestly unconditional. Of course, even in 1987, Lerner was explicitly not worried about threats to Israel's security that were insufficiently "significant." Now the presumed imperatives of Palestinian "self-determination" are so overriding for TIKKUN that the magazine's most palpable concern seems no longer to be Israel's safety. Rather, this concern now seems to be the prevention of an Israeli aggression against a weak and pitiable Palestine.

By itself, TIKKUN'S opinion on such matters is altogether unimportant. And far more important than TIKKUN'S turnaround on conditions for Palestinian statehood is the publication's underlying naivete about "demilitarization." The presumed military constraints that would be placed upon Palestine by such a "remedy" would be utterly toothless, a convenient fiction to make a bad agreement look good. In the end, the "demilitarization" of Palestine might not even be supported by international law. For reasons which we shall now summarize briefly, it could be entirely lawful for the new state of Palestine to refuse compliance with pre-independence commitments.

As a fully-sovereign state, Palestine would not necessarily be bound by any pre-independence compacts, even if these agreements were to include U.S. guarantees. Because treaties can be binding only upon states, an agreement between a nonstate Palestinian Authority (PA) and the State of Israel would have no real treaty authority and no real effectiveness. Consider the American case of Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic (1984). Here, the Court ruled that any agreement between a state and a nonstate authority must always pose "unequal obligations," that is, lesser obligations upon the latter.

What if the government of Palestine were willing to consider itself bound by the prestate, nontreaty agreement, i.e., if it were willing to treat this agreement as an authentic treaty? Even in these seemingly favorable circumstances, the new Arab government would have ample pretext to identify various grounds for lawful "treaty" termination. It could, for example, withdraw from the agreement because of what it would describe as a "material breach," an alleged violation by Israel that reportedly undermined the object or purpose of the agreement. Or it could point toward what international law calls a "fundamental change of circumstances" (rebus sic stantibus). In this connection, if the Palestinian state declared itself vulnerable to previously unforseen dangers - perhaps even from the forces of other Arab armies - it could lawfully end its codified commitment to remain demilitarized.

There is another method by which a treaty-like agreement obligating a new Palestinian state to accept demilitarization could quickly and legally be invalidated after independence. The usual grounds that may be invoked under domestic law to invalidate contracts also apply under international law to treaties and treaty-like compacts. This means that the new state of Palestine could point to errors of fact or to duress as perfectly appropriate grounds for terminating the agreement.

Any treaty or treaty-like agreement is void if, at the time it was entered into, it conflicts with a "peremptory" rule of general international law (jus cogens- - a rule accepted and recognized by the international community of states as one from which "no derogation is permitted." Because the right of sovereign states to maintain military forces essential to "self-defense" is certainly such a peremptory rule, Palestine, depending upon its particular form of authority, could be entirely within its right to abrogate any pre-independence agreement that had "compelled" its demilitarization.

Thomas Jefferson, who had read Epicurus, Cicero and Seneca, as well as Voltaire, Montesquieu, Holbach, Helvetius and Beccaria once wrote about obligation and international law as follows:

The Moral duties which exist between individual and
individual in a state of nature, accompany them into
a state of society and the aggregate of the duties
of all the individuals composing the society
constitutes the duties of that society towards any
other, so that between society and society the same
moral duties exist as did between the individuals
composing them while in an unassociated state, their
maker not having released them from those duties on
their forming themselves into a nation. Compacts
then between nation and nation are obligatory on
them by the same moral law which obliges individuals
to observe their compacts. There are
circumstances however which sometimes excuse the
nonperformance of contracts between man and man:
so are there also between nation and nation. When
performance, for instance, becomes impossible,
nonperformance is not immoral. So if performance
becomes self-destructive to the party, the law of
self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation
to others.

Here it must be remembered that, historically, demilitarization is a principle applied to various "zones," not to the entirety of emergent states. Hence, the new state of Palestine might have yet another legal ground upon which to evade compliance with pre-independence commitments to demilitarization. It could be alleged, inter alia, that these commitments are inconsistent with traditional bases of authoritative international law - bases found in treaties and conventions, international custom, and the general principles of law recognized by "civilized nations" - and that therefore they are commitments of no binding character.

Israel, early TIKKUN opinion notwithstanding, should draw no comfort from the allegedly legal promise of Palestinian demilitarization. Indeed, should the government of the new state of Palestine choose to invite foreign armies and/or terrorists onto its territory (possibly after the original Arafat authority is displaced or overthrown by more militantly Islamic, anti-Israel forces), it could do so without practical difficulties and without violating international law. In the final analysis, of course, the overriding danger to Israel of accepting Palestinian statehood contingent upon demilitarization is more practical than legal, and stems preeminently from Israel's persistent unwillingness to acknowledge openly- stated Palestinian objectives. At a minimum, it would seem reasonable for Prime Minister Barak to ask Yasir Arafat: "Why does the official PA map of Palestine include all of Israel?"


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international law. His work is well-known to Prime Minister Barak; to his immediate predecessors in the prime minister's office; to the Legal Adviser's Office (Ministry of Foreign Affairs); and to the IDF General Staff. He has co-authored several scholarly law journal articles on Palestinian demilitarization with Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli Ambassador to the United States.




By Louis Rene Beres

It has now been more than two years since Pakistan's formal entry into the nuclear club. Although Islamic nuclear threats to Israel are assuredly emerging independently of Pakistan's atomic status, Jerusalem now confronts an acceleration and enlargement of these threats. Moreover, Israel now faces the additional danger posed by Pakistani direct transfer of nuclear assets to certain regional enemies.

How shall Israel prepare for the unprecedented hazards created by an "Islamic Bomb?" Are these hazards likely to be magnified by an almost moribund Middle East "Peace Process?" What precise synergies exist between Oslo and the Islamic Bomb? And how might Israel adjust its survival obligations to support and sustain the Oslo Accords?

What if there should be an actual nuclear war on the Indian subcontinent? What would such a war imply for the Middle East? Would there be a corresponding lowering of the nuclear threshold in Israel's own neighborhood? Would there be a lifting of the nuclear "taboo?" If so, would such a lifting be to Israel's overall security advantage or disadvantage?

There are many questions that need to be asked, quickly, fully and insightfully. One particularly important set of questions should deal with U.S. strategy and policy. How will the Clinton administration, or its successor, propose to deal with inevitable weaponization of Pakistan's nuclear capability? How will the United States assist India and Pakistan in reducing fears and conditions that heighten the prospect of nuclear exchange in South Asia? Can Washington deal effectively with the dangers of India-Pakistan nuclear war created by mechanical accident, miscalculation or inadvertence? What about war risks associated with shaky command/control procedures and unauthorized commands? And what would be the consequences of an American failure in this realm for Israeli security and survival?

There are many problems to be considered? Does the appearance of an Islamic Bomb suggest a need for even more rapid Israeli development of anti-tactical ballistic missile (ATBM) defenses? Or would such accellerated development merely hasten the development of new offensive ballistic missiles to be used against Israel? It was, of course, this fear - that defense in the nuclear age encourages arms racing - that first led to anti-ballistic missile treaties and protocols decades ago.

Should Israel enlarge its efforts to deploy the Arrow (Hetz) ATBM, or would the Jewish State be better served by a policy of strengthened nuclear deterrence and/or selective non-nuclear preemptions? Can Israel rely on the Nonproliferation Regime of treaties, national laws and declarations, or is the primacy of Realpolitik over international law now overwhelming, incontestable and irreversible? Should Jerusalem rely more on promises for safety from Washington, or -in view of recent events - rely even less on such promises? Can nuclear deterrence serve Israel if the Jewish State is faced with irrational nuclear adversaries, or would such irrationality immobilize the dynamics of nuclear deterrence? If Israel does need to undertake various forms of preemption, can it do so entirely with conventional weapons, or will it need to use nuclear weapons to ensure destruction of very hardened enemy targets? If the latter, could Israel continue to endure in the community of nations after embracing such an unpopular (however indispensable) strategic option?

To lower the nuclear threshold in the Middle East, should Israel, confronting the consequences of an Islamic Bomb, concentrate on improving its conventional deterrent? Facing constant pressure from the Arab world, especially Egypt, to denuclearize altogether, should Israel prepare to give up the bomb - an idea once considered publicly by Shimon Peres - or would it be better for Israel to multiply, harden and disperse further its pertinent nuclear forces? In view of the test explosions in South Asia, should Israel maintain its stance of "deliberate ambiguity," or would it be better to bring the bomb out of the "basement," thereby removing possible doubts about the vulnerabilities and capabilities of Israel's nuclear deterrent? If it chooses to bring the bomb out of the basement, should it be done merely by careful sorts of disclosure, or should Israel follow the testing examples of India and Pakistan?

The questions are daunting. The answers are elusive. But for Israel, the time for questions and answers can no longer be postponed. For Israel it is time to embark upon a broadly conceived strategic dialectic in which capable scholars and officials ask and answer hard questions, again and again and again, until the full complexity of issues can be understood and be taken into account. For Israel, the Islamic Bomb exploded by Pakistan two years ago last May is more than just another warning. It may be the Final Warning.


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is the author of many publications dealing with nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Two of his books are APOCALYPSE: NUCLEAR CATASTROPHE IN WORLD POLITICS (University of Chicago Press, 1980) and SECURITY OR ARMAGEDDON: ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR STRATEGY (D.C. Heath/Lexington, 1986). He is also the author of "In a Dark Time: The Expected Consequences of an India-Pakistan Nuclear War," AMERICAN UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW, Vol. 14., No. 2., 1998. Professor Beres's work on Israeli nuclear strategy is well-known in Israel's military and intelligence communities.



Jerusalem, September 18, 2000


By Ruth and Nadia Matar

The latest stabbing by young Arabs of Jewish residents of Neve Yaacov in Jerusalem is the certain forerunner of greater tragedies throughout the country in the future, unless our Jewish leadership musters up the necessary courage to take appropriate, swift, and decisive action. Ehud Barak has been ominously silent throughout these and similar developments, and by his patent inaction and "looking away", should be held fully responsible for these and future tragedies.

Daily we hear and read about the Palestinian Authority's hostility and hatred towards Jews and Israel. They persist in this approach in their world wide propaganda and at the UN, but also in their radio and television broadcasts to the Arab population. We know that this hostility and hatred is presently being taught to Arab youngsters in the Arab school system. There they teach that Israel has no right to exist. It certainly does not exist in any map of the area from which they learn. Yet we ignore these unpleasant and disturbing facts, and continue on with the illusory "peace process" notwithstanding. The illogical rationale given to us is that "we have no other alternative."

Daily we read of the treasonous activity of Arab Members of the Knesset, and their murderous incitement of their fellow Arabs to spill Jewish blood. Yet a vocal minority of "liberal" Jews spring to the defense of these Arabs, led by some in our own Media, and especially writers in HaAretz. They attempt to whitewash the traitorous actions of these Knesset Members by ludicrously claiming it to be an integral part of their" fundamental right of free speech."

When we finally hear the courageous voice of Alik Ron, the Police Commander of the Northern District, it is like a breath of fresh air. He arrested 45 Israeli Arabs who planned to attack targets in Israel, and urges the investigation of an Arab MK who is actively engaged in inciting Israeli Arabs to shed Jewish blood. The Israeli press and radio, however, attack not these Arabs, nor their uncritical Arab communities in which they live, but, amazingly, only Alik Ron. What is distasteful is that no one in this present Government, which depends on the Arab vote for its survival, and certainly not Ehud Barak, has either the courage or the proper perspective to come out publicly in support of Police Commander Ron.

It is shortsighted and timid of this Barak Government to continue to bury its head in the sand, and to cast a blind eye to the acts of violence, incitement, espionage, and traitorous activity of a large segment of the Arab population. In failing to deal with this problem, Barak is patently and seriously remiss.


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



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post


By Yisrael Medad

Since 1967, Jews have not been permitted to pray on the site,
either as an individual or in a prayer quorum

One of the most resonating declarations in the history of the State of Israel, originating as if from the nation's soul, was that of Motta Gur, Paratroop Division commander, on the morning of Wednesday, June 8, 1967. His voice was heard over the army walkie-talkies and then, recorded, over the radio announcing that "The Temple Mount is in our hands!"

And now, 33 years later, the Temple Mount, as a Jewish sacred site, continues to slip through our fingers, as our hands open to achieve a dubious peace with the PLO's Yasser Arafat. The place which Prime Minister Ehud Barak termed the "nation's sanctified treasures" was almost immediately shunned after 1967 and its Jewish character relegated to benign neglect. Moshe Dayan symbolically handed over the key to the Temple Mount gates to the Moslem Wakf officials on June 17 and committed the site to their administration.

Throughout the three decades since then, Jews have not been permitted to pray on the site, either as an individual or in a prayer quorum. If he is too overtly recognizable as a Jew, if his fringes are outside his trousers or if he is carrying a Bible or other religious book, he will be banned from entrance. If he does succeed in passing through the green doors, he will be accompanied by an Israeli policeman and a Wakf guard, lest he murmur a Psalm.

A JEW, Jewish law dictates, does not belong on the Temple Mount, except if he de-Judaizes himself and assumes the form of a neutral tourist. The Chief Rabbinate doesn't want him there. The police do not want him there. And his government doesn't want him there.

The Antiquities Department cannot excavate there but volunteers of the Islamic Movement together with the Wakf employees bring in bulldozers and gouge out tons of earth containing artifacts and debris from over 2,000 years ago. Jewish history in dirt and stones are desecrated, both religiously and scientifically.

The same Barak who left the negotiating table at Camp David over the Temple Mount issue, allows the destructive activity to continue unabated while claiming in a conversation with Norwegian Foreign Minister Thorbjorn Jagland last week that "We are barred, for religious reasons, from conducting excavations on the Temple Mount." Barak's office later added that Israel wants an arrangement that would ban all archaeological excavations there. But Moslem digging and construction continues unabated.

The law of the land guarantees free access to the site. But the High Court of Justice, which backed women's wishes to pray at the Western Wall, denied that same basic freedom and right of prayer at a site most respected by them. How easy it is for the judges to ignore the secular law they have elevated to near-sanctity when Jewish sensitivity is the issue.

The camp of political progressives and liberals, normally so critical of clericalism, have championed any and all proposals that would wrest Jewish sovereignty from the site, including the idea of a "Divine sovereignty," which even arch-visionary Shimon Peres has ridiculed.

The Temple was twice destroyed by enemies of the Jews. We are now witnessing another effort to erase its memory from our national consciousness. How odd of Jews to be so confused.

(c) Jerusalem Post 2000


Yisrael Medad is active in promoting Jewish Rights on The Temple Mount.




By Elyakim Haetzni

After the failure of the Camp David Summit it is difficult to suppress one's amazement over how the Peace Camp can persist in sustaining its quasi-religious faith and devotion to an impossible peace. Whoever scorns Religious-Zionists as "Messianic" and detached from reality, is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

It was proven at Camp David for example that the old mantra which proclaims that "the Palestinian problem is the heart of the conflict" is not credit-worthy. Suddenly Barak was reduced to an itinerant pan-handler, knocking on Egyptian and Jordanian doors, and beseeching them to allow Arafat to make concessions in Jerusalem. As Arafat himself announces: "I am not the proprietor."

In 1987 at a conference in Amman, Assad stated: "Palestine is mine - part of Syria. There was never an independent state called Palestine." And Hussein responded: "The appearance of a distinct national personality emerged for the purpose of rebutting the Israeli argument that Palestine is Jewish. But the truth of the matter is that one cannot deviate from the national Arab framework".(Maariv 30.11.87).

Zuhir Muhsein. head of the Operations Department of the P.L.O. related in an interview with the Dutch paper "Trouw"(31.3.77). "We take pains to emphasize our Palestinian identity only for tactical purposes, because it is in the national interest of the people to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in order to counterpose it to Zionism. The establishment of a separate Palestinian state is a new tool in the continuing struggle against Israel."

Only the Jews, against whom the Palestinian Golem was fabricated, are today more Palestinian than the Palestinians, and it is precisely Jordan that considers itself threatened by Barak's assent to forego the Jordan Valley and create a Palestinian-controlled border on the Jordan.

Another example: Those who consider themselves realists never wished to understand that they had imported from Tunis to Israel the very incarnation of the refugee problem. From where did they draw their faith that Arafat would betray those in whose name and for whose sake he lives and breathes for almost 50 years? In this manner, to his utter stupefication, the refugee problem blew up in Barak's face. Just as the Hashomer Hatzair Kibbutzim cannot grasp how entire Arab clans, the previous owners of the kibbutz lands, suddenly descend in the kibbutzniks' backyards these days.

Only a true believer refuses to see the Kalashnikov rifles which we bestowed on the Palestinians firing at us, doesn't understand - despite Arab violence upon the opening of the temple tunnel or commemorating the Palestinian "Nakba-day of disaster" (a.k.a. Israel's Independence Day), despite the armed Fatah Tanzim militia and Arafat's calls for "Jihad" - that the Palestinians conceive of peace merely as an interlude between acts of violence. That the Palestinians don't view peace as we do. That for them, peace is not an independent fundamental, an absolute value, fit to serve as a substitute for Security, as epitomized in the Peace Camp's mantra "Peace equals Security."

Only a sight-afflicted person can ignore what the Palestinians write in their press about the extermination of Israel and what their children are taught from kindergarten age. "He shouldn't have said that", responded Peres when they cited to him one of the ghastly statements made by Arafat. Did he ever ask himself, what if Arafat also means what he says?"

In one segment of the "Historic Hours" series, broadcast on Armed Forces Radio, Professor Michael Har-Segor identified in Stalin-worship religious features. For without religious traits, how could it happen that an entire intellectual stratum all over the Western World blindly believed in Stalin? It is not superfluous to add that many acolytes of this "religion" were Jews. Take the case of two (of many) Jewish Communists who were executed during the Stalinist terror: The one murmured - "Shma Yisrael"-"Hear O Israel", the second, General Yakir, shouted: "Long live Stalin". There has to be either a synagogue or a red church in the vicinity, for without some sort of faith a Jew apparently can't make it.

A similarity exists between the illusory Marxist-Stalinist dream and the ideology of the Peace Camp. Both pride themselves as sagacious realists who abhor mysticism("religion – opium for the masses"), and yet both display tendencies towards messianism and blind faith. The very same Kibbutzim, the same intellectual circles in the cities, which were once Marxist citadels, are today the bastions of the peace militants. A similarity also exists between the axiomatic slogans, the "mantras": In bygone days they chanted "When you chop down trees- chips fly" - to justify Stalinist terror. Today, they recite: "One makes peace only with one's enemies", to reconcile the people to Arafat's terrorism. Both arrogate to themselves proprietorship to the future, deride their opponents as "the people of yesterday" ("the forces of reaction" in the idiom of yesterday's purges). Both view themselves as the "world of tomorrow". "New Times" was the title of a major Bolshevik journal, a "New Middle East" is the dream of the Peace Camp, and this is mere echo to the refrain in the Communist-socialist hymn, the "Internationale": "To its very foundations, the old world we will destroy."

After the Camp David cave in, whoever still dreams of a formal peace, whoever pursues the path of concessions and withdrawals, so that his eyes may behold the "Solution" and the "End of the Conflict", resembles the believer who hopes to behold the "End of the Days". But the latter's belief, if proven false, is harmless, whereas the former's belief involves a suicidal wager.


Elyakim Haetzni is an attorney and Jewish activist who lives in Kiryat Arba.




By Boris Shusteff

"Let no Gentile hand abuse our rights, but first and foremost, let not Jewish hands forfeit those rights which are eternal and indivisible. (Zeev Zhabotinsky, 1937)

In order to better understand Israel's current tragic situation, one should revisit the events that led to the reestablishment of the Jewish state. In the beginning of the twentieth century it was obvious to the international community that the Jewish people needed a National Home. The "recognition [of the] historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" raised the hope that the eternal wandering of the Jews would end. By giving the Mandate to Palestine to Great Britain, the world community recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish "colonization." The word "colonization" was not a dirty word at that time. As Zeev Zhabotinsky said, addressing the members of the British Parliament: "The history of the world is a history of colonization. Every civilized country, except perhaps Germany, is the result of some colonization in the past" (1).

The League of Nations put the stamp of approval on Jewish "colonization" by "encouraging close settlement by Jews on the land." The fact that in the middle of the nineteenth century the "estimated population of the whole of Palestine was between 50,000 and 100,000 people" (2) made the task of the Jews easier. Zhabotinsky said that "there has never been in the whole history of the world, which is a history of colonization, one example were the population on the spot 'agreed' to their country being colonized." He continued in his speech to the members of the British Parliament:

"That is how all colonizations have been done - and, should that be a crime, then it follows that America is a crime, this country is a crime, all Europe a crime, and our Bible history is the story of a crime, because it is the story of the colonization of a country against the will of the population that lived there. Therefore the question is: is the Jewish colonization necessary or not? Is it just or not?" (1)

The answer to both questions was an unequivocal and loud "Yes." Nobody at that time questioned the necessity of the Jews to settle again in their historical homeland. The issue at stake was not the question of whether the Jews should take procession of Eretz Yisrael, but whether they would be able to establish their state there. Lord Balfour said in 1918, "My personal hope is that the Jews will make good in Palestine and eventually found a Jewish State. It is up to them now; we have given them their great opportunity" (3).

Balfour uttered these words with an absolutely clear conscience. He knew well enough that while the Jews were given a tiny sliver of land, the Arabs received territory 170 times bigger in size. Several years later, after carving out Transjordan from Palestine, when the Arab portion of the land became 680 times bigger than the one slated for the Jews, British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote in his memoirs:

"No race has done better out of the fidelity with which the Allies redeemed their promises to oppressed races than the Arabs. Owing to the tremendous sacrifices of the Allied Nations... the Arabs have already won independence in Iraq, Arabia, Syria, and Trans-Jordania, although most of the Arab races fought throughout the War for the Turkish oppressors" (4).

However, it was not any moral hesitation that stopped the Jewish leaders from exercising their more-than-legitimate rights of establishing the Jewish National Home in all of Palestine. It was their internal weakness and the lack of faith in the Almighty and the Jewish people. The Jewish leaders behaved like serfs, ready to pick up any crumbs they were dropped from the Master's table, while the Master (Britain at the time) did not hesitate to reduce the size of the scraps handed to the Jews. First, in 1922, Britain severed Jordan from the Mandate, taking away with one sweeping move 76% of the Mandate's territory. Later, in 1938, she proposed the Partition Plan, according to which the future Jewish state was to receive only four percent (!) of the original territory of the Mandate.

Those who are surprised today by Israel's territorial squandering should recall that in 1937 at the Zionist Congress in Zurich the official Zionist movement adopted the Partition Plan and even welcomed it. Zhabotinsky, outraged by this submissiveness said on July 12, 1938 in his speech in Warsaw:

"The remainder of the Land of Israel - all that embraces the soul of the Bible, the Zionists wish to give to the Arabs - and all that for the sake of Partition. But why in fact is it called Partition? If I have 25 guilders and 24 are taken away from me, this is not partition but outright robbery. What the Peel Commission has proposed and the Zionists have enthusiastically acclaimed is not Partition but the Arab state in all of Palestine with the exclusion of four percent" (1).

The leaders of the Zionist Organization not only welcomed the Partition of the mandated territory, they were silent about Arab immigration to Palestine as well. While the Arabs and the British were counting every single incoming Jew, the huge increase in the Arab population went practically unnoticed. Speaking before the House of Commons, on May 23, 1939, Winston Churchill told the truth, "So far from being persecuted, the Arabs have crowded into the country and multiplied till their population has increased more then even all world Jewry could lift up the Jewish population" (5).

It was not so much the Gentiles who abused the rights of the Jews, but the Jews themselves who were easily forfeiting their rights in Palestine. Fighting against the Partition Plan, on July 19, 1938, in his speech in Warsaw, Zhabotinsky explained the major danger of this shortsighted policy,

"I don't believe in the implementation of Partition and am convinced that it will not be accomplished But what will remain in this great wide world is the fact that the Jews were prepared to give up 96 percent of their country" (1).

All those who today demand that Israel give up land for "Peace" simply obfuscate the truth. The Jews do not have much land. What they still have is a pitiful remainder of their forgotten glory. The Jews were robbed of their land. By constantly carving pieces out of Eretz Yisrael, mankind committed a terrible injustice against the Jewish people.

This eventually led to the current situation, in which the Jewish presence in the heart of Eretz Yisrael is termed by the world community as illegitimate. A situation in which the same world community, via the UN, invites Yasser Arafat to its Millennium Summit, and he declares that he has "accepted a Palestinian state on less than a quarter of the historical territory of Palestine," well aware that this is the current size of Israel including Yesha. Although, why should anyone be surprised? In July of 1982, UNESCO, one of the UN's agencies, "passed a resolution demanding that the history related by the (Jewish) Bible be rewritten so that the Jews were left out of it"(6). Perhaps robbing the Jews of the Jewish land is a first step in this direction?

To be accurate, the Jews themselves are even more at fault: they are accomplices in the robbery themselves. It is the Jewish indifference to their land in 1922, 1938 and 1947 that has allowed the Palestinian Arabs to demand the Jewish patrimony. It is the Oslo-initiated readiness of the Jewish state to forfeit the lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (collectively known as Yesha) that will be remembered by the world community even if the Oslo process is stopped. And it is the betrayal of Jerusalem by Barak, Beilin and Ben-Ami that will leave eternally festering wounds in the soul of the Jewish people, even if an undivided Jerusalem remains under full Israeli sovereignty.[09/09/00]


1. The Political and Social Philosophy of Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Selected writings. Vallentine Mitchell. London 1999.

2. Jacob De Haas. History of Palestine, the Last Two Thousand Years. New York. Macmillan, 1934.

3. Colonel R. Meinertzhagen. Middle East Diary 1917 - 1956. London. The Cresset Press, 1959.

4. David Fromkin. A Peace to End all Peace. Henry Holt and Company. New York, 1989.

5. Martin Gilbert. Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 1996.

6. Jillian Becker. The PLO. St. Martin's Press, New York, 1984.


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



Ha'aretz - 5 September 2000


By Moshe Arens

Ehud Barak is downgrading the strategic relationship
between the United States and Israel

Ehud Barak's latest project is to upgrade the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel. However, at the rate he is going, we are likely to find that he is actually downgrading a relationship of great importance to Israel. The first blow to this relationship came when Barak caved in to the peremptory demand voiced by U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen a few months ago that Israel cancel a contract, signed with China five years ago, for the supply of the Phalcon, an early warning and control aircraft produced by Israel Aircraft Industries.

Now Barak is negotiating an agreement that would give the U.S. veto rights over the export sales of Israel's defense industries, a move that would be disastrous to the industry and severely damage Israel's defense capability. The additional financial aid for purchasing equipment in the U.S., which Israel is supposed to get in return, is likely to further throttle Israel's defense industry. It is only in the upside-down world of Ehud Barak that this can be called an upgrade of the strategic relationship between the two countries. By any Israeli measure, it is a substantial downgrading of this relationship.

To understand this, one must recall that Israel's ability to defend itself is based on the attainment and maintenance of a quality edge in weaponry against what could well be an enemy far superior in numbers. In the days when Israel's defense industry was in its infancy and the Soviet Union was the major supplier of weaponry to Israel's potential adversaries, this qualitative edge was secured primarily by means of weapon systems purchased in the U.S. However, in recent years, as Israel's defense industry matured and the U.S. increased its sales of advanced equipment to Arab countries, the task of providing the IDF with a qualitative edge in weaponry fell more and more on the shoulders of Israel's defense industry.

Purchases in the U.S. ceased to be the mainstay of Israel's qualitative edge in weaponry. At the same time, Israel's defense industry, with its advanced products, became dependent on sales in the export market, coming into head-on competition with the defense industries of the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, and Russia, which also depend on export sales in order to be commercially viable.

Thus, while benefitting the U.S. defense industry, severe restrictions on the export sales of Israel's defense industry would threaten the continued existence, at its present level of technological excellence, of Israel's industry, thereby endangering the maintenance of Israel's qualitative edge over the military forces of its neighbors.

In the strategic upgrade-downgrade agreement presently being negotiated with the U.S., the compensation for a U.S. veto on export sales of Israeli defense products is supposed to be additional U.S. financial aid for Israeli purchases in the United States. Barak has to ask himself just what is the value of those U.S. dollars and can they possibly serve as compensation for the damage inflicted on Israel's defense industry.

Whereas in cabinet debates on Israel's defense budget, each of these dollars is considered the equivalent of four Israeli shekels, even a cursory examination reveals that in reality, their value is far less - the reason being that most of these funds are not convertible and can only be spent on purchases in the United States, purchases that in many cases are not the best buy for Israel's Ministry of Defense and frequently end up as inferior substitutes for purchases from Israel's industries.

An in-depth study to evaluate the real value of the U.S. aid-dollar should be carried out by a team of economic experts before any agreement is signed. It may well turn out that the real value of the present level of yearly U.S. defense assistance of $2 billion is not the equivalent of some NIS 8 billion, as one might conclude from the commercial shekel-dollar exchange rate, but closer to NIS 2-3 billion, i.e. a real exchange rate of one or one-and-a-half to one.

If this turns out to be the case, Barak must answer the question whether this aid can compensate for the damage done to Israel by the decrease in the Ministry of Defense's acquisitions from Israel's industry and the constraints that the United States wants to impose on the export sales of Israel's defense industry.

The cancellation of the Phalcon deal is an excellent example of the destructive effect of an incorrect decision by our Prime Minister in this area. The aircraft, possibly the best of its kind in the world, has a sales potential of billions of dollars. These sales would permit IAI and the Israeli industries associated with this project to continue developments that would reinforce Israel's qualitative edge, keep Israel at the forefront of radar technology and establish a foundation for commercial high-tech industries based on this and similar technologies. How can Israel be compensated for the damage to its defense posture and its economy in light of the cancellation of the sale?

Not to be disregarded is the damage inflicted on Israel's relations with China. On his recent visit to Beijing, Secretary Cohen managed to rub it in when in response to a question on the cancellation of the Phalcon sale, he replied: "Israel's decision on the Phalcon sale is, of course, a decision that Israel made."

This decision can still be reversed.


Moshe Arens has been defense minister of Israel three times and is active in the Likud Party.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments