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"






JUST DON'T BE SILENT....Esther Wachsman
BARBARIANS AT THE GATE....Gerald M. Steinberg
(an open letter to Ariel Sharon)....Boris Shusteff
TO WAR, NOT TO COURT....Charles Krauthammer
Daniel Pipes

FINDING LOST JEWS....Michael Freund


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 2001 Bernard J. Shapiro

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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

"He who is merciful when he should be cruel will in the end be cruel when he should be merciful."...Midrash Samuel (Jewish rabbinic text from early Middle Ages)

From the very early days of the Haganah and continuing with the emerging Israel Defense Forces (IDF), there was a policy of self-restraint or havlagah. This policy mandated that defenders could only return fire, hold their positions, and never to engage in counter-terror. This policy was based on the false premise that the Arab masses did not support the war against the Yishuv (the Jewish population before independence) and then the State of Israel and would be brought into the conflict if Israeli forces were too aggressive. There were some good and practical reasons for restraint in the early days. There was legitimate fear that the British would cut off immigration if the Jews were to go on the offensive against the Arabs. Havlagah was essentially a Haganah (Labor/Socialist) policy and many supporters of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement broke off from them to form fighting units (Irgun Zvai Leumi and Stern) unrestrained by that policy.

The modern IDF was dominated by Labor and quickly adopted the policy of restraint and the concept of "purity of arms" as its official doctrine. The later reinforced the former by adding that a soldier should never have to obey an illegal order to commit some atrocity. The enemy, including prisoners of war, should be treated with dignity and civilian populations should be spared as much harm as possible, even if this causes greater Israeli casualties. There was some flexibility in this strict moral code.

This policy of restraint may have been practical during the pre-state days and even during the early years of Israeli independence. These periods were characterized by weakness and relative dependence on foreign goodwill. Following the Six Day War in 1967, the need for havlagah decreased and the damage it caused began to become more evident. Israel became the preeminent power in the Middle East, yet failed to grasp the strategic opportunities that came with such dominance. Here are some of the historical highlights of the failed policy of restraint:

1. Following the Six Day War (1967) and the capture of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan turned over control of Judaism's most sacred place, the Temple Mount, to Moslem authorities. He did it to appease their sensibilities to the Israeli capture of the city. Jewish rights were ignored to please the defeated Arabs, who had plotted our destruction. Dayan also prevented a mass exodus of Arabs from YESHA, which ultimately led to the problems we face today.

2. During the War of Attrition with Egypt (1969-70), the Israeli forces adopted primarily a defensive posture. They built a system of bunkers (The Bar Lev Line) along the Suez Canal. Israeli soldiers were heavily pounded daily by Egyptian artillery. Finally they began to use aircraft to strike targets deep into Egypt. The policy of restraint kept them from striking anything but military and minor economic targets. Israeli soldiers died because the government was inhibited from causing Egypt 'real' pain.

3. The Yom Kippur War of 1973 is a classic example of restraint run amok. Israeli military intelligence did not fail to recognize the approaching danger as has been the common account. In fact, Israel's leaders made the political decision not to utilize the great power of the IDF to crush the Egyptian and Syrian armies that they KNEW were planning to attack. Thousands of Israeli soldiers died needlessly.

4. The Camp David Accord with Egypt was another example of the failure to exert Israeli power. The oil fields of Sinai would have given Israel economic independence from America. The cost of redeployment from Sinai placed Israel in almost permanent debt to American diplomacy (often pro-Arab). Did Israel achieve anything worthwhile at Camp David? I think not and believe history will bear me out. Egypt has become one of the most ant-Semitic and hostile Arab countries in the world. As a result of Camp David, the Egyptian army now threatens Israel, having been equipped with the most modern American weapons.

5. During the War in Lebanon (1982), the IDF reached Beirut and then failed to complete the destruction of the PLO. Our enemies were allowed to escape and prepare to fight another day. Why didn't the Israeli Navy sink the ships loaded with PLO troops (including Arafat) as they fled Beirut? RESTRAINT!

6. In 1987 the intifada began and the Israeli forces showed great restraint and thus were incapable of crushing it. Of course, Israel received no credit in the Western media for such restraint. The failure to defeat this uprising began a process of demoralization among the Israeli population.

7. The Persian Gulf War (1991) and the SCUD attacks on Israel led to further demoralization. The failure to adequately respond to Iraq's aggression and the humiliating sealed rooms, led to a rapid decline in Israeli morale and desire to defend itself. More and more Israelis began to feel impotent, weak and fatigued with the continuous battle for survival. The Oslo Accords were the logical outcome of this depression and feeling that they could not sustain the struggle.

8. The Oslo Accords (1993) were the ultimate failure of the policy of restraint. Israel like America actually was very powerful. The IDF was unequaled in the Middle East while the US was the most powerful nation in the world. Yet despite this power, Israel's leaders, were ready to grant equal status to a band of murderers and ultimately create a state of "Palestine" which would challenge its right to the Land and its capital of Jerusalem.

9. Israeli forces in Lebanon should have been given a free hand to 'punish' all those who facilitate attacks on them including Syria, Lebanon, and Iran. There should be no more agreements that tie Israeli hands.

The damage caused by havlagah (restraint) has been immense and it far past time to reverse that policy. Americans have been viciously attacked in Africa, Yeman, and Saudia Arabia. The attempt to try to criminalize terrorism has been a dreadful mistake. Terrorism is sponsored by states who allow their territory and funds to help the organization of terrorist. The Oslo agreement allowed Arafat to set up terrorist headquarters near Israel's heartland. From there he sent terrorists to attack Israel.With plausible deniability he claims "he is not responsible."

Dr. Aaron Lerner of the Independent Media Review & Analysis in Israel reports that Palestinians are celebrating attacks against USA across the West Bank Israel Radio reported this afternoon that young Palestinians across the West Bank are celebrating the terrorist attacks against the USA - waving Palestinian flags and handing out candy. There are reports of shooting in some places but it is not clear if it is Palestinian police trying to clear streets of celebrants or Palestinians shooting in the air.The largest crowd, according to Israel Radio, is in the Balata refugee camp.

The American State Department policy of equating terrorist and defender equally must stop. This kind of moral equivalency allows the terrorist to believe he can do no wrong.

Both America and Israel must massively and disproportionately retaliate for terrorist attacks. The murderers of Americans and Israelis must be stopped. It is not impossible but it will be a long and difficult battle.


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




by Avi Davis

Donald Rumsfeld couldn't have had better timing. On the day before the most calamitous attack in United States history, the U.S Secretary of Defense told CNN how fortunate the world had been that, in 1981, Israel had bombed and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in Osirak. He was talking ostensibly about preventative attacks that might spare the world the devastation of a rogue nuclear assault. But he was also plainly referring to Israeli measures to counteract terrorism and the justification for pre-emptive strikes.

In the light of what occurred on September 11, it could be stated with certainty that there are few Americans who would now disagree with him. Pre-emptive action would have saved the lives of thousands of Americans and could unquestionably save even more now. With this in mind, the regular condemnation of Israel by the State Department and the incessant media outcry against Israel's surgical elimination of terror cells, now seem like ghostly murmurs from a distant past. They in fact belong to a different world - a world more engaged in moral relativism and one far less willing to draw the stark distinctions between good and evil that Israelis have been required to make for years.

But while the world has changed in ways still unknown, a regressive blind spot remains lodged in the world's consciousness. The French ambassador to Israel, Jacques Huntzinger, told Israeli reporters on Thursday that there could be no comparisons drawn between the acts of terror perpetrated in the United States and Palestinian terrorism in Israel. Such a view reveals how unwilling are many of the world's statesmen to make the association between acts of Islamic terror in Israel and those occurring elsewhere. But as mounting evidence links Yasser Arafat's terror campaign against Israel with other Islamic terrorist campaigns in Sudan, Lebanon and Afghanistan, that unwillingness will suffer decisive challenge. It will underscore the cold reality that the only difference between an Islamic fundamentalist who blows himself up in a Jerusalem restaurant and another who deliberately rams the World Trade Center, is that one of them knows how to fly a plane.

Similarly, anyone looking for the ideological underpinnings of the attack on the United States or anti-Americanism articulated with true socio-pathic bile, need look no further than the Palestinian Authority. Reports that an Associated Press cameraman was threatened with his life, as he dared to record the sight of 3,000 Palestinians celebrating the American tragedy in the streets of Balata refugee camp, are now ubiquitous. But who needs videotape? These recent quotes, fresh off the press from official Palestinian organs, should suffice:

"[The Palestinians must] harm American interests in the Arab world, with all possible means, in all places, at all levels, because the United States does not understand the language of logic and wisdom, but only the language of interests and force." [Omar Helm Ghul, Al-Ayyam, Aug. 30, 2001]

"The suicide bombers of today are the noble successors of their noble predecessors...the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught the US Marines a tough lesson in [Lebanon]... These suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history...They are the most honorable [people] among us..." [Al Hayat Al Jadida - Official Palestinian Authority daily, Sept. 11, 2001]

While it may well have been disarming to see a shaken Yasser Arafat muttering his condolences after the terrorist attacks, no one should forget that this is the man who wrote the manual on international terrorism and built a thirty year career on killing innocent civilians. For several years there had been hopes that Arafat would reform. In vain. The terrorist strain within him may well be implacable. Indeed, the past 12 month resort to violence and suicide bombs have revealed him to be no more a statesman than a ruthless overlord of a drug cartel. But Arafat's recidivism and anti-Americanism needs only drive one imperative home for the United States: that his recognized links with Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, the Sudanese and the Iranians converts Palestinian terror from a home product into one manufactured for export. There can be no greater warning for American security interests.

Many Israeli supporters recall bitterly how George Bush Snr. formed the Gulf War coalition by bowing to Arab pressure and excluding Israel. In that war the Israelis were asked to absorb multiple missile attacks and millions of dollars worth of damage without the ability to respond in any practical way. How reckless it would now be for that president's son, as he pieces together a new coalition, to fail to recognize Palestinian terror as also a war against the United States. How imprudent to disavow, not only Israel's seasoned capabilities as a combatant in that struggle, but its unenviable role riding shotgun in the world's risk-laden journey from Osirak to the ruins of the World Trade Center in New York City.

Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center and the senior editorial columnist for




By Carl Pearlston

After only three weeks, political correctness has obscured the nature of the terrorist threat we face. First, Reuters has dropped the term "terrorists" in favor of "alleged hijackers" in a overly-fastidious attempt to not prejudge the matter of legal guilt, as though this were a matter of crime, not war. Then, careful to not offend the sensitivities of the 6 million Muslims living in the US, and mindful of our dependence on moderate Moslem nations in building an anti-terrorist coalition, the President has advised that we should avoid describing terrorists as "Islamic", stating "The people who did this act on America, and who may be planning further acts, are evil people. They don't represent an ideology, they don't represent a legitimate political group of people. They're flat evil." Then both the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense solemnly told the public that the attacks had nothing to do with Islam. And when Italian Premier Berlusconi was so insensitive as to state that the values of Western civilization, with its tradition of respect for human political and religious rights, was superior to those of Islamic countries, which lack that respect, his remarks were treated with either shocked silence or righteous indignation and denouncement by his fellow Europeans.

True Islam, we are constantly being told by moderate American Moslems, means submission to God; it is a religion of peace, equality, and tolerance. Typical was Muslim doctor Al-Hazmi, quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that the 11 September attacks were "insane" crimes which have "nothing to do with any religion and it has nothing to do with Islam. The teaching of Islam is totally against violence" Another Times article informs that "Muslims don't proselytize", and quotes Nasreen Haroon, a Muslim who regularly speaks at churches and schools: "They [the terrorists] are not practicing Islam. ...Islam is a peace-loving religion." We are also informed that the concept of Jihad (struggle or holy war for Allah) is really a personal war for self-mastery, having nothing to do with waging war against others. In sum, we are being told that the "alleged hijackers" were not True Muslims, but deranged and aberrant members of some fringe cult foreign to Islam.

None of these depictions correspond with the facts.

While there is no dispute that these barbarians are evil, they are not insane. They are cunning, implacable, fanatic, and ruthless. They most certainly represent a specific ideology, albeit a minority one, within Islam. It is a view that is shared by some 165 million other Muslims (of 1.2 billion) in an arc running from Lebanon through Gaza, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan to Indonesia, who are busy burning American flags and pronouncing Jihad against us. That ideology is Islamism, a fanatical fundamentalist revivalist movement seeking to establish a theocratic Islamic Nation over all Moslems, one nation at a time. The first was Iran in 1979, when an Islamic fundamentalist religious revolt toppled the pro-western Shah in reaction to his "White Revolution" which allowed women to vote and hold jobs, built large cities, and created a more secular society with Western freedoms, much as Kemal Attaturk had done in Turkey beginning in the 1920's. After the Shah, an Islamic Republic under the Ayatollah was created; he promptly called the US "The Great Satan", and Western-type freedoms disappeared. Shortly thereafter, mobs seized the US embassy and its staff, holding them hostage for two years. In 1996, Afghanistan followed a similar repressive path under the Taliban. The goal is to eventually unite all Muslim states into one Islamic Nation, ruled as an Islamic anti-democratic and totalitarian theocracy. This ideology finds expression through many organizations whose names have become all too familiar -- Islamic Jihad, Al-Quaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, Moslem Brotherhood, Abu Sayyaf , Al-Gama'a Al-Islamiya -- and a host of others less well known but with similar objectives in every Moslem country. Their enemy is secular society, secular governments, and Western civilization, which they see as corruptive and destructive of Islamic values. They scorn "moderate" or secular Moslem governments such as Turkey and Egypt and even Saudi Arabia; there are active terrorist movements in all such countries seeking overthrow of the governments They are committed Moslems, praised in mosques across the world for their devotion to Islam and to the concept of the Khilafah, a term referring to restoration of the Caliphate abolished by Attaturk in 1924 after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and which has been defined as the total rulership of Muslims all over the world in a centralized unitary state that implements the Islamic Shariah (Koranic law) and carries Islam to all people as a global ideology.

The Islam of history began in violence, was expanded in violence, and even now practices violence. Three of the first four Caliphs or Khalifah(deputy of the Prophet or leader) were murdered. The fourth was Mohammed's son-in-law Ali, whose brief rule was marked by constant civil war. The forced abdication and mysterious death of his son Hasan and the subsequent defeat and massacre of the second son Hosain and his army, led to the great schism between the Sunni traditionalists and the minority Shiites (partisans of Ali) who believe that only the familial line of Mohammed could be the ruler or Caliph. They revere Ali as a saint; the anniversary of Hosain's death is observed as a day of mourning. Politically defeated and and persecuted, the Shiites became an underground movement marked by suffering and protest. They adopted an esoteric interpretation of the Koran, finding a hidden level of meaning beneath the explicit and literal meaning of the Qur'an (Koran) known only to the Imam (religious leader), who can reveal it to chosen followers. Modernly, Shiites are the majority in Iran , with large populations in Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan.

Within 100 years of Mohammed's death in 632 AD, Muslim armies had swept across North Africa, the Middle East, and India, bloodily conquering from the Atlantic almost to the Pacific, and into Spain and France where they were finally stopped at the battle of Poitiers. At that time, the Muslim empire was the largest the world had ever known. They remained in control of Spain until the 15th century, and, under the Ottoman Turks, laid siege to Vienna as late as the 17th century after the fall of Constantinople and occupation of the Balkans in the 15th and 16th centuries. This amazing military conquest arising out of Arabia over centuries was done in the name of religion. As Ibn Khaldun, the great Islamic historian of the 14th century wrote: "In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force".

As for tolerance toward Christians and Jews, known as "the People of the Book", Ibn Khaldun wrote "It is for them to choose between conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death". And the 14th century Imam and Islamic scholar Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya wrote, "... jihad is obligatory until the word of Allah reigns supreme, and until all are of the religion of Allah, until the religion of Allah triumphs over all religions and until they pay the poll tax while in a state of inferiority." Those in this state of inferiority were called dhimmis (protected minority), and were required to wear a distinctive garb so Muslims would know not to treat them as equals.. As Ibn Qyyim notes " The dhimmis are the most disobedient of His command and contrary to His word; consequently it befits them to be humiliated by distinguishing them from the comportment of the Muslims whom Allah has exalted through their obedience to Him and His Prophet above those that have disobeyed Him. These He has humiliated, belittled, and rendered abominable so that the sign of contempt is manifest upon them, so that they can be distinguished by their appearance." The imprisonment and trial of two American girls among eight Christians charged by the Taliban for speaking of Christianity is typical of Islamic tolerance to other religions.

Nor is the concept of self-martyrdom or suicide killings new to Islam. In the 9th through the 12th centuries, the secret Shiite orders of the Karmathians and Assassins disposed of their enemies by ruthless murder. The Devotees were marked by unquestioning obedience and by a fanatic disregard for their own safety. Self-martyrdom was sought as a guaranteed admittance to Paradise.

Modernly, Islam is at war with Hindus in Kashmir, with Christians and animists in Sudan, with Catholics in the Philippines and Indonesia, with Coptic Christians in Egypt, with Christians in Nigeria, and of course, with Jews in Israel. As the Ayatollah Khomeini stated: "We shall export our revolution, to the whole world. Until the cry 'Allahu Akbar' resounds over the whole world. There will be struggle. There will be Jihad . . . Islam is the religion of militant individuals. . . Islam will be victorious in all the countries of the world, and Islam and the teachings of the Quran will prevail all over the world . . . This is the duty that all Muslims must fulfill. . ."

Now, I assume that Muslim citizens and residents of the United States do not share the foregoing views, and are fully supportive of this nations' traditions of equality and religious and political freedom. Many if not most may have come here specifically for the freedoms that have been denied in the countries from which they fled. No one wishes to denigrate or insult Muslims or their religion. We must practice the tolerance that we preach and respect the rights and persons of Muslims. But so must the Muslims who are telling us how peaceful Islam is and denouncing terrorism as not part of Islam. They should be telling, not the American public, but the Arab, Iranian, Pakistani, Afghanistani, Indonesian public--all the Muslims of the world, all the Moslem countries--that to abandon the Islamic principle of peace is a desecration of their religion. That to endorse self-martyrdom or suicide bombings anywhere is a betrayal of the Koran and a defamation of Islam. American Muslims should be insisting that every Imam in every mosque in the world speak out against terrorism, mass killing, and jihad against our civilization as a perversion of the Islamic ideal of peace and equality. They should insist that Islam abandon its fiery rhetoric which only encourages more terrorism, and that Moslem countries cease their oppression of other religionists. When those messages are resounding around the world, then it will be time to praise Islam as peaceful.



The Jerusalem Post (September 28)


By Esther Wachsman

There exists in this world pure evil, and evil must be fought by evil. There could be no "sitting down and discussing things" with the Nazis, and the same is true of terrorists.

At the UN conference in Durban, we (the Jews - not necessarily Israelis) were victims of a verbal pogrom. Anti-Semitism, in the guise of anti-Zionism, has always lurked just below (and sometimes above) the surface, but it has now clearly "come out of the closet."

I was recently in New York and a taxi driver, a charming fellow from Argentina, began to discuss Middle East affairs with me. In a well-mannered and polite way, he nonchalantly said: "Well, I guess you Jews are paying for what you did 2,000 years ago." I was shocked into speechlessness, a rare occurrence.

Many of my friends and acquaintances are now buried under the rubble of the Twin Towers. The option heard recently in our country of leaving for safer shores is buried with them. My dentist, who vacationed with friends in Scandinavia, was beaten up by a bunch of Arabs in the middle of the street in broad daylight. Swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans and graffiti are appearing everywhere in the world. Have Jews ever been safe anywhere in the Diaspora?

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Shimon Peres, who huffily left Durban because he "would not participate in an anti-Semitic festival," is practically begging the greatest arch-terrorist in our area to meet with him. He also favors international observers, and we all know how unbiased they are in our area.

Hatred, incitement and revenge continue to pour out of mosques, schools, youth movements and the Palestinian media; a whole new generation is growing up with this ideology. What must we do?

As Samuel Johnson once said, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." My silence in that taxi was unforgivable. What has happened to the People of the Word, whose voices should be reverberating 24 hours a day, around the world, on every media station possible? They should be reminding the world what happens as the result of the verbal pogrom of the international community at Durban.

They should be repeating the famous words of Abba Eban, "The Palestinians never miss a chance to miss a chance." They should be teaching the world about the Jerusalem mufti's collaboration with the Nazis, about the UN proposal for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Palestinian state - answered by war.

They should be shouting from every rooftop about how we "conquered" the West Bank and Jerusalem in the Six Day War after begging Jordan not to join the attackers. Why didn't they establish a state then, with east Jerusalem - which they ruled - as their capital?

They should be explaining to the world how we were attacked on Yom Kippur, our holiest day, an act of such malicious hostility that even the Israelis, with our superior military intelligence, were unprepared.

They should be reminding everyone how the Palestinians danced on the rooftops during the Gulf war, when their leader, Yasser Arafat, made his unholy alliance with Saddam Hussein. And of course, though Arafat tried to suppress it, those same Palestinians and their offspring sang and danced and reveled with joy, when those cursed airplanes smashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Where is our hasbara - "propaganda"? Why is the world seeing a one-sided picture of the oppressed Palestinians, when Jewish blood has been filling our streets for the last year and longer?

We, who are believers, say "May God avenge their blood." But in these times of darkness and evil, I believe that man, too, has a very important role to play.

2001 The Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post (September 12)


By Gerald M. Steinberg

In thousands of years of history, the human race has passed through a number of long and difficult "dark ages," after the most advanced civilizations were suddenly eclipsed at the height at their power. Historians blame different factors, including internal corruption, external enemies and general overconfidence and arrogance.

The world interconnected as never before in a single economic civilization, sits on precipice of another devastating period of darkness. Many of the things that we now take for granted material wealth on an unprecedented scale, instant Internet communications, satellite television, world wide travel are all endangered. The lives of thousands and even millions of people are on the line, and the horror of the attacks against New York and Washington is only a minor taste of the type of devastation that would occur with the use of weapons of mass destruction against the major cities of the world.

Today's barbarians, armed with most modern technologies, are the international terrorist organizations, in all of their guises and forms. These groups are motivated by deep hatreds and jealousies, magnified by a distorted religious fanaticism that justifies the taking of innocent lives at random.

For many years, members of these groups have waged total war, in different forms and on diverse levels, against the world's democracies and leading powers. They have gathered weapons, raised funds and recruited suicide bombers, ready to die and kill many others in the name of various ideologies. Many receive direct assistance and protection from governments around the world notably, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority. The Osama Bin-Laden group, which is considered the most likely perpetrator of the atrocities in New York and Washington, is aided and abetted by a number of different partners.

For many years, the various terrorist groups were allowed to develop and multiply, often exploiting the free speech, open borders, humanitarian immigration policies, and other liberal democratic rights that they condemned and are trying to destroy. In contrast, the efforts to combat this modern plague were largely defensive and poorly coordinated. Narrow interests and competition for status and power between the democracies and weakened this effort, rendering it largely ineffective.

In many cases, excuses for terrorism were offered and accepted, and a policy of appeasement was adopted. Ten years after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and his programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction were uncovered, the minimum remaining sanctions have disintegrated. Similarly, Palestinian terror attacks were often rewarded with political recognition, and the minimal Israeli efforts to strike back were denounced as "excessive use of force," even at times - by the US government.

In America and the other democracies around the world, as well as in Russia and China, the inhuman attacks in New York and Washington should leave no questions regarding the need for powerful and consistent action to uproot terrorism from its foundations. As the leader of the modern world civilization, and as a result, the primary terrorist target, the US is the only force that can lead the campaign to rid the world of this threat.

In the past, the US spearheaded the allied counterattack in World War I, and after Pearl Harbor, applied all of its considerable resources for four years until the defeat the Nazis and Japan in World War. The same type of effort will be required now. No shelter for terrorism must be allowed to remain no quarter can be given, or the plague will resume with even greater fury.

Only such a total global effort will keep the modern barbarians away from the gates of civilization, and prevent another global eclipse of civilization.

2001 The Jerusalem Post




By Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

The hijackings of four planes that attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon might have been picked up by Israel's HUMINT (Human Intelligence) through the Mossad but that talent was killed off by the Bush/Baker Administration. September 13, 1993, Israel's then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and now Foreign Minister Shimon Peres moved into Oslo with a push by the Bush/Baker State Department.

Part of the deal was for Israel to turn over her intelligence gathering capability to Yassir Arafat's 9 Secret Intelligence Services. The more Israel gave up to Arafat, the more that her intel system collapsed. At one time, Israel had deeply penetrated the terrorist organizations under Yassir Arafat's Fatah. We gave up many of these assets to make conciliatory gestures to Arafat and the Arab oil nations at the directives of the U.S. State Department.

Israel let the CIA come in to train Arafat's Secret Services during the Bill Clinton years.

Israel gave Arafat's terror/policemen weapons - not light weapons as stipulated in the Oslo Accords, but also heavy weapons. Today, the Palestinian Authority's Police, permitted at 4,000 by Oslo - now are estimated as 60-80,000. Israel's government submitted an official list of the Palestinian arsenal includes anti-aircraft missiles and cannons. Other illegal weapons held by the Palestinian Police, militia and 9 secret services include: machine guns; rocket-propelled grenades; anti-tank missiles; shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, cannons and machine guns - and more. The greatest weapon, however, was Israel's gift of her on-ground HUMINT.

Israel could have discovered the WTC/Pentagon attack plans through their prior deep cover intelligence in the terrorist organizations. They could have warned us - as they often did before - to save such people as former King Hussein of Jordan and some Saudi princes. But, Americans like George Bush, Sr. and James Baker were more interested in weakening Israel in deference to the oil nations. But, in the end, these were oil men first, last and always.

Today's catastrophes could have been exposed but, we Americans, or at least a prior Administration (Bush and Baker) helped diminish this opportunity. If the Rabin/Peres government had not followed the American diktats to dismantle their Humint in 1993, it is highly possible that the Mossad would have picked up a clue on the World Trade Center/Pentagon suicide bombing plans. As they had in the past, the Mossad would have turned over their information to their counterparts in the CIA. King Hussein of Jordan was saved this way, as were Saudi princes.

But, Bush and Baker and the State Department were so anxious to please the oil sheiks that they pushed hard for Israel to cut back on their intelligence gathering. They carry much of the blame. I recall an incident when Secretary James Baker went to visit President of Syria, Hafez al Assad. It was reported that, in order to make his credibility firm, Baker dropped some highly secret information provided to America by Israeli intelligence. Shortly after that Assad used the information to roll up an Israeli deep penetration operation. These 3 or 4 Israeli agents were tortured and killed. Baker denied supplying the information that exposed the Israeli agents. We just heard a FOX NEWS interview with Congressman speaking about bringing back our ground intelligence - Humint. And on CNN Wolf Blitzer questioned Ambassador Brimmer, a former CIA operative: Ambassador Brimmer: 'How can you prevent case agents from engaging Terrorists or spies.' Wolf: 'Does it make any sense not to try to penetrate.' Ambassador Brimmer: 'Going to have to engage with unsavory characters.' Wolf: 'If running unsavory characters, paying them in your operations, what will Congress say?' Brimmer, CIA: 'That's probably what led to [restrictive] guidelines being imposed in 1995. Find out who did it. Retaliation against people who did it & any governments who were involved with who did. Tens of thousands of people injured & killed.' Wolf: 'Won't retaliation lead to 'cycle of violence;'. Brimmer: 'Can't fall into Hamlet syndrome when you say it won't work, therefore, do nothing. How many of our allies will stand with us?'

Tonight, September 11th James Baker is decrying the lack of Humint and urging that the American Intelligence Services re-instate our intelligence ability. If the Mossad retained her full 'Humint' capability they might have been able to warn us. We shot ourselves in the foot when we Americans deliberately compromised Israel's intelligence capability.

Before and during the Gulf War Israel provided the only on-ground intelligence for what was happening in Iraq. A commanding general was fired at the behest of Bush and Baker for thanking Israel on live TV for her invaluable assistance as an intelligence umbrella. Israel's intelligence actually protected the American and Allies' mobilization for 6 months. And then, President Bush, Sr. and James Baker refused to let Israel defend herself against Saddam Hussein's 39 SCUDs dropped on Israel's civilians. Bush and Baker would not give Israel's Air Force the IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) codes that would let them fly in and take out the SCUD launchers. Perhaps if Israel had been permitted to do so, that last Iraqi SCUD would not have hit the American Marines from Pennsylvania in their barracks, killing approximately 28.

The talk shows are full of restoring our intelligence and retaliation against the terrorists, but the officials being interviewed have almost all been culpable in reducing Israel's intelligence gathering ability. No country is more able to find these despicable perpetrators than Israel is. Israel has been under a terrorist siege for a full year. No country has been a more steadfast ally than Israel...even voting with the United States in the U.N. more often than any other country.

Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein says: "America cannot be a Paper Tiger. Work with our NATO allies, Russia, China, and the moderate Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan." No mention of Israel. We killed the goose that laid the golden intelligence eggs. What are we going to do about it?


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




By Louis Rene Beres

Terrorism, to be sure, is America's overriding problem for the immediate future. But terrorism is not really our underlying problem. It is rather the palpably barbarous tactic of a methodically planned and determinedly apocalyptic war. Directed initially against Israel and the United States, this fevered attack will soon spread - perhaps uncontrollably - to large cities in Europe and possibly even to various parts of Asia.

This war is a sustained and forseeably catastrophic Arab/Islamic assault against the West, a civilizational struggle in which a resurgent medievalism now seeks to bring fear, paralysis and death to "unbelievers."

It goes without saying that an overwhelming number of Muslims throughout the world are uninvolved in this assault, or even tacitly opposed to it (few Muslims will oppose it openly), but many millions of others in many countries are already prepared to enter Paradise by becoming "martyrs." In the next several months, the preferred terrorism tactic in this war is likely to involve chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.

Our truest war is not against Osama Bin Laden or even the particular Arab/Islamic states that nurture and encourage his program for mass murder. Even if Bin Laden and every other identifiably major terrorist were apprehended and prosecuted in authoritative courts of justice, millions of others in the Arab/Islamic world would not cease their impassioned destruction of "infidels." These millions, like the monsters who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon, would not intend to do evil. On the contrary, they would mete out death to innocents for the sake of a presumed divine expectation, prodding the killing of Israelis, Americans and Europeans with utter conviction and complete purity of heart. Sanctified killers, these millions would generate an incessant search for more "Godless" victims. Though mired in blood, their search would be tranquil and self-assured, born of the knowledge that its perpetrators were neither evil nor infamous, but heroic and "sacrificial."

For those millions engaged in an Arab/Islamic war against the West, violence and the sacred are always inseparable. To understand the rationale and operation of current terrorism against the United States, including the September 11th attacks, it is first necessary to understand these conceptions of the sacred. Then, and only then, will it become clear that Arab/Islamic terror against the United States is, at its heart, a manifestation of religious worship known as "sacrifice."

This is the truest meaning of Arab/Islamic terrorism against our country. It is a form of sacred violence oriented toward the sacrifice of both enemies and martyrs. It is through the purposeful killing of Americans, any Americans, that the Holy Warrior embarked upon Jihad can buy himself free from the penalty of dying. It is only through such cowardly killing, and not through diplomacy, that "Allah's" will may be done.

When America has understood that terrorism is only a tactic, and that it is a tactic related to Islamic sacrifice, it will be able to confront a particularly lethal enemy, one that already has within its capabilities the capacity to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of American men, women and children. Until now, this is an understanding that has lent itself to insubstantial theorizing. Now, immediately, Arab/Islamic terrorism should be recognized, at least in part, as a bloody and sacred act of mediation between sacrificers and their deity.

America is now routinely characterized as a "cancer" in the Arab/Islamic world. A recent article from an Egyptian newspaper speaks of "the cancer, the malignant wound, in the body of Arabism, for which there is no cure but eradication." Such references are far more than a vile metaphor. They are profoundly theological descriptions of a despised enemy that must be excised, that is, "liquidated." Where this "liquidation" would be accomplished by self-sacrifice, possibly even terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, it would be life-affirming for the killers. Naturally, some Arab/Islamic governments and movements would deny such end-of-the-world thinking, but it operates nonetheless.

What is to be done? The truth of the terrorist threat to the United States is vastly more grotesque than what is commonly understood. We face suicidal mass killings with unconventional weapons in the future not because there exists a small number of pathological murderers, but because we are embroiled - however unwittingly - in an authentic clash of civilizations. While we all wish it weren't so, wishing will get us nowhere.

Our only hope is to acknowledge the true source of our now existential danger, and proceed to fight the real war from there.


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) and is now Professor of International LawDepartment of Political Science Purdue University. He is author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and war. Professor Beres was recently appointed the Academic Advisor for the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




by Boris Shusteff

The Arab-Israeli conflict is so replete with lies, fictions, myths and half-truths that one might write a book just enumerating them. The hard facts that used to be common knowledge at the beginning of the twentieth century are today completely distorted and obfuscated. One of these myths pertains to the "struggle" of the "Palestinian people" for self-determination. The common misconception in this case is that Israel "owes" the Palestinian Arabs a state. Therefore the terrorist activity of the Arabs is to a certain extent excusable, since they are "fighting for their rights." However, nothing can be more remote from the truth. In reality, any land to which the Palestinian Arabs can claim any rights is already held by other Arabs. And the "struggle for self-determination against Israel" is simply a way for the Arabs to murder and maim more Jews.

The point of this discussion is not to prove or to disprove the existence of the so-called "Palestinian people." For our purposes it is sufficient to know that Palestinian identity did not exist before World War I, as convincingly demonstrated Professor of history Rashid Khalidi, himself a Palestinian Arab. He admits that "Palestinian identity" was the last garb that the Arabs of Palestine tried on when all other possibilities where exhausted. It was shared "by a relatively restricted stratum, and among them as well as among the rural and illiterate majority of the population, the new sense of Palestinian identity competed and overlapped with Ottomanism and Arabism, as well as older religious, local and family loyalties" (1).

The term "Palestinian entity" was introduced by the Arabs for the first time at the Arab League meetings in 1959. However, it was not recognized by the world and was not even mentioned in UN Resolution 242 after the Six-Day War. Moreover, the confusions associated with it became obvious during the voting for UN General Assembly resolution of November 5, 1970. "Among the aspects of this resolution, which split the United Nations and indeed the Arab world itself and marshaled the support of only 57 out of 127 UN members, was the reference to 'the Palestinians' as 'an indispensable element' of a Middle East Settlement" (2).

All this points to the fact that at the time of the distribution of formerly-Turkish territories, which encompassed the whole area of the Near and Middle East there was no distinctive "Palestinian people."

Julius Stone wrote in 1970 a must-read paper entitled "Self-determination and the Palestinian Arabs." His arguments are so clear and convincing that it is most effective simply to quote him in abundance. He explains that "it twists and parodies both history and justice to present the Palestine issue as a struggle between the Jews of the world on the one hand, and the Arabs of Palestine on the other, in which the Jews seized the major share" (2).

Stone continues,

The struggle was rather between the Arabs of the Middle East region (including some hundred thousand living in Palestine) and the Jews of the world, in which the Arabs took the lion's share from which in due

course a dozen and more Arab states emerged. Neither at the time of distribution, nor for decades later, moreover, was there any identifiable Palestinian Arab people, much less any center of Arab cultural or political life in Palestine" (2).

Reverend James Parkes reminded in his book "Whose Land?" that during the time of the Islamic conquest Palestine was never exclusively Arab or Muslim. Its Christian and especially Jewish elements of population were always present. The Jews never completely left it, even at the height of persecution and destruction. Parkes writes that,

"Jewish settlement had always been accepted by Moslem rulers until the end of the nineteenth century; and the Jewish population of the country had always been as large as its political and economic conditions made possible."

Therefore, at the end of the World War I, "when conditions made it possible," Jewish nationalism, or Zionism, proudly raised its head. This occurred at the time when a distinct "Palestinian people" did not exist. As Stone puts it,

"It is clear that Jewish nationalism and Arab nationalism, each embracing its own cluster of scattered populations, each sharing specific cultural, religious, traditional, and historical experiences deeply rooted in the Middle East region, came simultaneously as claimants, the former to the part, the latter to the whole, of the territories liberated by World War I from the Turkish sway" (2).

Stone clarifies further that "in historical fact the Arab claimants after World War I embraced Arabs of the WHOLE ARERA of whom... the Arabs in Palestine were merely a peripheral and in no way a 'distinctive' segment, whose interests as such were taken into account" (2). This statement completely coincides with Khalidi's comment that "Arab nationalism appeared to be the obvious successor to Ottomanism as the hegemonic ideology throughout the former Arab provinces of the now-defunct Ottoman Empire" (1).

Even if we assume, as Stone writes, that a specific "Palestinian" consciousness associated with the idea of establishing a "Palestinian entity" has recently arisen, "this factor could not now be a decisive one for judging the rights and wrongs of events which took place half a century or even a generation before, in 1917 or 1922, or 1948" (2).

Actually the Arab falsifiers of history have been trying to eliminate the element of chronology from it. If we compare the situation to a sport, it is as if in the middle of the game one team puts an extra player on the field. However, whereas in hockey, for example, this leads to a penalty for the offending team and a power play for the opposing team, in our case the Arabs instead of receiving punishment demand a reward for the "extra player."

Stone writes,

"A nationalism hypothetically just emergent cannot be treated as if it had emerged decades before, for the purpose of facilely overriding entitlements then fixed and acted upon. To ignore chronology in such a way would be an arbitrary reconstruction of events and rights of peoples..." (2).

Stone emphasizes several times that the Arabs and the Jews came forward with their claims to the land simultaneously. Therefore it is absolutely wrong to say that the Jews "invaded" a previously Arab estate.

During the time of land distribution, on January 3, 1919, Feisal, Emir of Mecca, one of the most prominent and influential Arab leaders, signed an agreement with Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the leader of the Zionist movement. The agreement specified conditions for the establishment of the Arab and the Jewish states. Although ten years later, when he became King of Iraq, Feisal was "unable to recall" the conditions stipulated in the agreement, the fact relevant to this discussion did not change. In all the articles of the agreement the future Jewish state was called "Palestine." Thus Article 2 of the Agreement stated,

"Immediately following the completion of the deliberations of the [San Remo] Peace Conference, the definite boundaries between the Arab State and Palestine shall be determined by a Commission to be agreed upon by parties hereto."

This fact is extremely important. It proves without the shadow of doubt that at the time of the Peace Conference, when the Jewish and the Arab sides came forward with their claims, the Arab claimants identified the Jewish side with Palestine. Thus confirming again that a separate "Palestinian people" did not exist at the time.

The emergence of Palestinian nationalism - a new Arab claimant - many years after the fact of the original land distribution, does not give it any right whatsoever to demand its "share" from Israel. The part of land that the Palestinian Arabs might lay their claim to has been, for more than 80 years, firmly in Arab possession. The Arab share of the land that was distributed at San Remo is a hundred times bigger than the sliver of Jewish land. The lands of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were from the very beginning incorporated into the Jewish share of the land and were never destined to become part of an Arab state.

By ignoring this truth the Arabs mix up two issues that must be clearly and thoroughly divided. Only by establishing a firm divide will it be possible to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The issue of Palestinian Arab self-determination has nothing to do with the Arab murderous policy towards the Jews. When the Arab terrorists brutally murder the Israeli Jews they commit acts of despicable barbarism, nothing else. Arab terror must be viewed completely outside of the context of the struggle of the Palestinian Arabs for self-determination. It then becomes obvious that terror against Israel is unleashed simply for the sake of murdering Jews and destroying a sovereign state.

Thus, Israel and the world community are obliged to declare War on terror against Israel just as they have declared it on terror against America. The PLO, Fatah, Tanzim, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and their infrastructure must be completely destroyed. Terror should be unequivocally condemned and ruthlessly rooted out. The Palestinian Arabs, manipulated and deceived by their leaders for several decades, must learn the unfortunate truth: they cannot legitimately lay claim to a single inch of Judea, Samaria or Gaza, nor any of Israel proper, since these territories, according to international law, were already allocated to the Jews in 1920. They have as much right to this land as they do to America, Russia, Spain or Germany. If we are to forget that the Palestinian Arabs already exercised their right to self-determination on the territory of Jordan, we might speak of the need to give the Palestinian Arabs one more chance. However, it should be an internal issue for Arabs, and the Jews and Israel should have nothing to do with it.



1. Rashid Khalidi. Palestinian Identity. Columbia University Press, 1998.

2. Julius Stone. Self-Determination and the Palestinian Arabs. From the book "Israel, the Arabs and the Middle East," Bantam Books, 1972.


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




(An Open Letter To Ariel Sharon)

by Boris Shusteff

"The truth must be known that there is a wider Arab sanction for this terror. Thus it is that in the most autocratic and iron-fisted societies of the Arab world, Palestinian terror is endorsed, and the figure of the 'suicide martyr' endowed with heroic attributes"

(Fouad Ajami, September 2001)

The terrible events of September 11 - simultaneous and devastating terrorist attacks in New York and Washington - made it clear to the whole world that the battle against terror is moving into a different stage. Encouraged by the complacency of the international community, the world terrorist consortium reminded mankind that it is a force to be reckoned with. It demonstrated that nobody is immune to this evil.

Though President Bush declared that America will lead the war against terror, it is the duty of the Jewish state to show mankind how this should be done. The truth must be spoken. Allowing itself to be manipulated by the interests of other countries, in its fight against terror the Jewish state has demonstrating the miracles of fighting with one hand always tied behind its back. Though it has used its other hand with awe-inspiring results, its lack of resolve to completely defeat the enemy has led to a situation in which certain individuals and organizations started to believe that they could achieve any goal through terror.

It took the horrible September 11 tragedy for the world to realize that terror is a type of warfare, and the only way to defeat it is to lead an outright war against it. And in today's changed perception the way Israel is fighting this war is absolutely unacceptable. It creates the impression that the Jewish state has acquiesced to a certain level of casualties considering them unavoidable as long as she can keep this level under control. This dangerous approach not only encourages terrorist activity but at the same time makes Israel's friends believe that Israel is comfortable with perpetual terror.

Jed Babbin, former deputy undersecretary of defense in the first Bush administration, wrote on September 12 in the "Washington Times," "We have to confront - and defeat - the threat of the well-organized, well-financed terrorists who now bring their wars to kill our friends, neighbors and loved ones. That's one choice. The only other choice is to accept life of constant terror as it is in Israel or Northern Ireland. We are a free people. We deserve better."

Israelis are a free people as well, and they, too, deserve better. This is why the Jewish state must not fall into the trap of a false anti-terror coalition. For her own political reasons, America can afford piling Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt into this coalition - countries that in truth dream of Israel's destruction, though they don't always declare it too loudly. However, Colin Powell's words that "he had been impressed by statements from Iran and Syria after last week's terrorism strikes" clearly indicate that some American leaders do not really understand the full gravity of the situation. Even more abhorrent is America's silence after Arafat's announcement on September 18 that his administration is ready to participate in the anti-terror coalition.

If America still does not understand, the Jewish state hopefully realizes that it cannot afford to accommodate America's political desires anymore. Israel has already tried to make the United States happy by acquiescing to Arafat's terror. On September 11 the terrorist attacks on American soil demonstrated how short-sighted this policy was.

Israel must become a beacon for America, demonstrating how to fight against terrorist gangs. Sharon himself said in the Knesset on September 16, that "everybody that encourages terrorism - is guilty." It is time for Israel to realize that, by handling Arafat and his groups with kid gloves, she encourages terrorism and therefore is guilty herself.

Although it is not clear who was directly responsible for the September 11 attacks, due to the complexity of the operation it is quite obvious that a number of groups and organizations were involved in its preparation and enactment. It would be wise to remember that it is one of the PLO terrorist groups that has the most experience in hijacking airplanes. It is Hezbollah and its operational head Immad Mugniyeh, who was extremely successful in terrorist operations against American targets. It is Yasser Arafat who, as disclosed by Moshe Peled in 1997, had a direct link with the Sudanese terror network responsible for carrying out the February 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Sharon said in his Knesset speech,

"It was Arafat who - dozens of years ago - legitimized the hijacking of planes. It was Palestinian terrorist organizations who began to dispatch suicide-terrorists. All extremist movements have received doubled legitimacy from Arafat since the murder of the Israeli athletes at Munich, and the murders of children at Avivim and Ma'alot."

Moreover, Mohammed Atta, named by the U.S. Justice Department as one of he September 11 hijackers, according to "Maariv" was a Palestinian Arab from Tul Karem. He was one of the organizers of the bus bombings in Jerusalem in 1996. Maybe if Israel had understood in 1996, in the midst of the "peace process," that it was time to eradicate terrorism and had destroyed the PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah, the beautiful Twin Towers in New York would still be standing.

Palestinian Authority Parliamentary Affairs Minister Nabil Amr said on September 15 that "Without quiet on the Palestinian-Israeli front, Arab states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt will not be able to join the coalition..." Nabil Amr is right. There should be "quiet on the Palestinian-Israel front." But this quiet can be achieved only through the eradication of the terrorist organizations and their infrastructures.

Israel must listen to the words of Jed Babbin and literally apply them to the PLO and her sister terrorist organizations. Babbin wrote,

"When America is attacked, as it was yesterday, it must strike back in a manner that is proportional to our strength, not proportional to the size of our enemy, large or small. Mr. Bush shouldn't listen to any talk of proportional responses. We have to be ruthless. We need to do whatever it takes to make the terrorists know that no matter where they go, no matter who helps them and no matter what they think they can do to us, we will hunt them down and kill them without mercy."

Terror declared War against the Jews and Israel long ago. On September 11 Terror declared War against America, as well. It is Israel's duty to demonstrate to America that Terror can be defeated. It must encourage America by destroying the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah and the scores of other terrorist factions that have sprung from them. It must show to the world community that evil can be destroyed and not only spoken about.

Babbin made it clear, the battle must be ruthless. Writing about the way America should hunt for bin Laden he wrote, "we'll carpet bomb the area we think he's hiding in. And if he's not there, we'll try another place." Neil Kressel wrote on September 14 in a "New York Post" op-ed column "How to Fight the Coming War,"

"But, make no mistake: This war will involve many thousands of civilian casualties. We must be prepared for some allies to desert us. We should try to move with them - but, if necessary, be prepared to go it alone... We should attempt to carry out air attacks with as few civilian casualties as possible. But we should expect many such casualties."

Many commentators indicated that the terrorist attacks of September 11 were a wake up call for America and the Western world. However, first and foremost it was a a wake up call for Israel. The Jewish state must understand that if terrorists are ready to raise their hand against the world's only superpower, they will not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction, and Israel will be their first victim.

The Jewish state must realize that it holds the keys to success in the coming war against terror. Nobody knows the enemy better than Israel. No other country in the world is as experienced as she is in fighting this brutal and merciless enemy. No country has a better chance than Israel of defeating it.

Perhaps this is why on September 13 Tom Ambrose gave the following advice to the Jewish state, writing in,

"And to the Israelis, I say this: Use this opportunity while it is within your grasp and before more of your people die. Drive Arafat and his supporters out of the land God gave to you and never let them return. Give them notice to pick up and leave peacefully and destroy those who defiantly remain. And, as in the days of Lot, don't look back." 09/18/01

The Jewish state must do this. If not now, when?


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



The Jerusalem Post September, 25 2001


By Evelyn Gordon

Immediately after the attacks on New York and Washington two weeks ago, pundits worldwide proclaimed grandiloquently that life would never be the same. Never again will the world turn a blind eye to terrorism, they said; from now on, terrorists and the governments that back them will be personae non grata.

It hasn't taken long for these lofty predictions to be confounded. Two weeks after the most devastating terror attack in memory, the Western world's approach to terror still looks remarkably like it did before. And ironically, it is an approach taken straight out of the book of the arch-terrorist himself, Osama bin Laden.

In an interview with ABC News in 1998, bin Laden explained that some terrorism is indeed "reprehensible," but other terrorism is "commendable." While no one in the West has yet gone quite that far, you need only substitute "understandable" for "commendable" to obtain the very distinction most Western countries have drawn for years - including during the past two weeks.

And what determines whether a given attack is "reprehensible" or "understandable?" Purely and simply, the respective nationalities of the victims and the perpetrators.

French Ambassador Jacques Huntzinger expounded the new-old criterion clearly at a reception two days after the World Trade Center was destroyed. It is "irresponsible" to compare the bombing in New York to suicide bombings in Israel, he said, because the former was an inexcusable attack on innocent civilians, while the latter are "linked to the conflict between the Israeli and Palestinian people."

In other words, murdering noncombatants in New York because you want US troops out of Saudi Arabia - the motive usually given by bin Laden for his war on America - is wrong. But murdering noncombatants in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem because you want the Jewish state out of the Middle East - the motive usually given by Hamas and Islamic Jihad - is "understandable."

Few Western officials would put the matter quite as crudely as Huntzinger did. But even the US, which has always had the strongest anti-terror stance of any Western democracy, has broadcast the same message via its actions over the last two weeks. The US is prepared to launch a military assault on Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. But it is simultaneously making overtures to Syria and Iran about joining its anti-terror coalition - even though both are veteran members of the State Department's club of state supporters of terrorism, and are the main financial backers of organizations that the US officially defines as terrorist, including Hizbullah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

The difference? The groups that Syria and Iran fund primarily target Israelis - in short, "understandable" terrorism.

The most radical change, however, has been in America's treatment of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Prior to the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush had sent a clear and consistent message: that Arafat's forgiving attitude toward suicide bombers and those who send them was unacceptable. But the new message from Washington is that Arafat's attitude toward terror no longer matters: Foreign Minister Shimon Peres must meet with him, and at once.

Never mind that Palestinian terrorists are still killing Israelis: On Thursday, two days after Arafat declared yet another cease-fire, a group affiliated with Arafat's very own Fatah faction killed a mother of three and seriously injured her husband in a drive-by shooting.

Never mind that the 130 civilian victims of Palestinian terror over the last year - as a percentage of Israel's population, slightly more than the death toll in the Twin Towers - died because Arafat chose to violate no less than five signed agreements in which he pledged to renounce violence.

Never mind even that Arafat has already rejected an offer of 97 percent of the West Bank, including eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, and that Israel has nothing left to put on the table except its very existence as a Jewish state. In the new world order, it seems, anyone who only kills Israelis is a fitting partner for negotiations, not a terrorist to be fought. Which makes the new world order look remarkably like the old one.

And yet, something has changed after all. Two weeks ago, Israel's prime minister was still refusing to negotiate under fire. Now, Ariel Sharon has dropped this demand. If we can just have a slight easing of the violence - shooting bullets rather than mortar shells into settlers' houses, for instance - then Peres and Arafat can meet, he declared. Israel is reportedly even prepared to resume fund transfers to the PA following such a meeting - something it has refused to do for the past year on the grounds that this money was paying terrorists' salaries. In short, Israel's already weak-kneed stance against terror is crumbling still further.

Altogether, it has been an impressive beginning for the grand new war on terrorism.

2001 The Jerusalem Post



The Washington Post, September 12, 2001


By Charles Krauthammer

This is not crime. This is war. One of the reasons there are terrorists out there capable and audacious enough to carry out the deadliest attack on the United States in its history is that, while they have declared war on us, we have in the past responded (with the exception of a few useless cruise missile attacks on empty tents in the desert) by issuing subpoenas.

Secretary of State Colin Powell's first reaction to the day of infamy was to pledge to "bring those responsible to justice." This is exactly wrong. Franklin Roosevelt did not respond to Pearl Harbor by pledging to bring the commander of Japanese naval aviation to justice. He pledged to bring Japan to its knees.

You bring criminals to justice; you rain destruction on combatants. This is a fundamental distinction that can no longer be avoided. The bombings of Sept. 11, 2001, must mark a turning point. War was long ago declared on us. Until we declare war in return, we will have thousands of more innocent victims.

We no longer have to search for a name for the post-Cold War era. It will henceforth be known as the age of terrorism. Organized terror has shown what it can do: execute the single greatest massacre in American history, shut down the greatest power on the globe and send its leaders into underground shelters. All this, without even resorting to chemical, biological or nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

This is a formidable enemy. To dismiss it as a bunch of cowards perpetrating senseless acts of violence is complacent nonsense. People willing to kill thousands of innocents while they kill themselves are not cowards. They are deadly, vicious warriors and need to be treated as such. Nor are their acts of violence senseless. They have a very specific aim: to avenge alleged historical wrongs and to bring the great American satan to its knees.

Nor is the enemy faceless or mysterious. We do not know for sure who gave the final order but we know what movement it comes from. The enemy has identified itself in public and openly. Our delicate sensibilities have prevented us from pronouncing its name.

Its name is radical Islam. Not Islam as practiced peacefully by millions of the faithful around the world. But a specific fringe political movement, dedicated to imposing its fanatical ideology on its own societies and destroying the society of its enemies, the greatest of which is the United States.

Israel, too, is an affront to radical Islam, and thus of course must be eradicated. But it is the smallest of fish. The heart of the beast -- with its military in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkey and the Persian Gulf; with a culture that "corrupts" Islamic youth; with an economy and technology that dominate the world -- is the United States. That is why we were struck so savagely.

How do we know? Who else trains cadres of fanatical suicide murderers who go to their deaths joyfully? And the average terrorist does not coordinate four hijackings within one hour. Nor fly a plane into the tiny silhouette of a single building. For that you need skilled pilots seeking martyrdom. That is not a large pool to draw from.

These are the shock troops of the enemy. And the enemy has many branches. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Israel, the Osama bin Laden organization headquartered in Afghanistan, and various Arab "liberation fronts" based in Damascus. And then there are the governments: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya among them. Which one was responsible? We will find out soon enough.

But when we do, there should be no talk of bringing these people to "swift justice," as Karen Hughes dismayingly promised mid-afternoon yesterday. An open act of war demands a military response, not a judicial one.

Military response against whom? It is absurd to make war on the individuals who send these people. The terrorists cannot exist in a vacuum. They need a territorial base of sovereign protection. For 30 years we have avoided this truth. If bin Laden was behind this, then Afghanistan is our enemy. Any country that harbors and protects him is our enemy. We must carry their war to them.

We should seriously consider a congressional declaration of war. That convention seems quaint, unused since World War II. But there are two virtues to declaring war: It announces our seriousness both to our people and to the enemy, and it gives us certain rights as belligerents (of blockade, for example).

The "long peace" is over. We sought this war no more than we sought war with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan or Cold War with the Soviet Union. But when war was pressed upon the greatest generation, it rose to the challenge. The question is: Will we?

2001 The Washington Post Company



The Boston Globe, September 13, 2001


By Jeff Jacoby

Now that it has happened to us, the White House is not calling for "restraint." The State Department is not concerned about "escalating the cycle of violence." There are no editorials imploring the parties to conduct a "peace process" and "sit down at the negotiating table."

Now that it has happened to us, the TV anchors are calling them terrorists, not "militants" or "activists." Washington is not being warned to avoid a "provocative" response, or cautioned against retaliation that is "excessive and disproportionate."

Now that it has happened to us, our eyes have finally opened. Now at last we understand that there is a war underway -- and we are in it. For years we have acted as if the front line were elsewhere, and as if our job was to watch from the sidelines and make sure our friends didn't defend themselves too aggressively. Now, after the worst massacre in US history, only the willfully blind can fail to see that the front line is here. The war between freedom and slavery, between hope and hopelessness, between the decent and the indecent, will be won or lost in America. For it is America that stands for everything our enemies hate.

To be fair, those enemies have not been shy about declaring their enmity. Time and again they have announced that they despise us; time and again they have called for our destruction.

They have announced it from the mosques of Gaza, as broadcast live by the Palestinian Authority: "Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them -- and those who stand by them. They are all in one trench, against the Arabs and the Muslims."

They have proclaimed it a religious duty, as in the fatwa of Osama bin Laden, publicized worldwide in February 1998: "To kill the Americans and their allies, civilians, and military is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it."

They have made it a national crusade, as when Hashemi Rafsanjani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament, exhorted Islamic militants in 1994 to "hijack planes," "blow up factories in Western countries," and "declare open war on American interests throughout the world."

How often have we seen them burning American flags? How often have we been demonized as "the Great Satan?" How often have they attacked US citizens, US embassies, US assets? For at least a decade it has been apparent that the most intense hatred of the United States and its values could be found in the world of Islamist fundamentalism. But too many Americans -- and too many of their leaders -- preferred not to notice.

"The suicide bombers of today are the noble successors of ... the Lebanese suicide bombers, who taught the U.S. Marines a tough lesson in [Beirut]" exulted Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Yasser Arafat's newspaper, on Tuesday. "These suicide bombers are the salt of the earth, the engines of history.... They are the most honorable among us." Over and over and over, our enemies have talked this way. Did we think they didn't mean it?

Upon releasing its annual report on global terrorism last year, the State Department observed that "the primary terrorist threats to the United States emanate from two regions, South Asia and the Middle East." That is, from the regions where Islamist fanaticism is concentrated. But the US government, it would seem, couldn't be bothered to listen to its own warning.

Or to the warnings of the enemy. In some ways, the worst thing about this week's slaughter is not that it occurred, not even that such obvious terrorist targets as the World Trade Center and the Pentagon -- the Pentagon! -- could be so easily attacked from the air. The worst thing is that we were so unprepared for it even after the attack on USS Cole last fall (17 murdered). Even after the bombing of the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (224 murdered). Even after the blowing up of the Khobar Towers barracks in 1996 (19 murdered). Even after the car bomb at the US military center in Riyadh (5 murdered). Even after the first World Trade Center bombing (6 murdered).

There were those who saw what lay ahead and tried to sound the alarm. In an interview with Daniel Pipes's Middle East Quarterly in 1997, Steven Emerson, the nation's leading expert on Islamist terror, was explicit: "If anything, the threat is greater now than before.... The infrastructure now exists to carry off 20 simultaneous World Trade Center-type bombings across the United States." As recently as this May, Pipes and Emerson wrote in The Wall Street Journal that Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terror network, was "planning new attacks on the US," and that Iranian officials "helped arrange advanced weapons and explosives training for Al-Qaeda personnel in Lebanon where they learned, for example, how to destroy large buildings."

War always seems to find Americans unprepared. We didn't see Pearl Harbor coming, or the sinking of the Lusitania, or Stalin's Iron Curtain, or Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. But we fought and won the world wars, the Cold War, the Gulf War. Now we must fight and win again.

2001 The Boston Globe




By Steven Plaut

Since the jihad against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, US officials and civic leaders have been wringing their hands over the "racist stereotyping" of Moslems, over assaults on Moslems in US cities, and insisting over and over that the "vast majority of Moslems" oppose terrorism and violence, that Islam is the religion of peace. Even the asslibs (assimilationists liberals) amongst US Jews have been spending more time on denouncing the "stereotyping of Moslems" and protecting Arab civil rights than on anything else.

Now let us be clear. Yes the word "Islam" comes from Salaam or peace. Yes there are some Moslems who have consistently opposed violence and terror, although they are a small minority. The vast majority of Moslems have condoned and endorsed terrorist violence, especially when directed against Jewish children and civilians.

And yes, for centuries Islamic civilization was the most advanced and most tolerant and most enlightened on the planet. Islamic civilization preserved the ancient Classical Greek and Roman learning, invented algebra and chemistry, led the world of scholarship. The great tragedy of Islam is that this brilliant civilization of the seventh through fifteenth centuries has long ago degenerated into savage barbarism, where violence is commonly worshiped. Where - aside from Turkey - no Moslem country has embraced democracy or freedom or tolerance or diversity.

One of the unchallenged axioms of American civic religion is that each and every group of people on earth must consist of an "overwhelmingly vast majority of decent hard-working honest people who want peace and are tolerant and freedom-loving and anti-violence."

It is an unchallengeable presumption of this theology that "vast majorities" of not only each and every racial/religious/ethnic group may be so described, but even vast majorities of each and any subgroup within society. Hence we even sometimes hear assertions that the vast majority of prisoners, prostitutes, drug users, gang members, etc. are also decent, honest, peace-loving, honorable people.

The one imponderable in American civic theology is the idea that somewhere out there someplace there just might be is a group of people, the majority of whom are NOT peace-loving or honest or tolerant. This belief in universal peacefulness in the minds of Americans is the main obstacle to Americans ever understanding the Middle East. The simple fact of the matter is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of Arabs, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of Moslems, are not peace-loving and are not opposed to violence.

Noting this could not be more timely. Commentator after commentator among the Western media discuss the reactions in the Moslem world to the US atrocities with self-righteous fawning observation that Islam is a religion of peace, that the terrorists are about as representative of true Islam as the IRA bombers are of Christianity, or as white supremicists are of Christianity. Each commentator goes out of his way to emphasize how we all understand that the vast majority of Moslems oppose terrorism and violence.

The only problem with this is that it is simply false and empirically disprovable. It is wishful thinking. The vast majority of Germans supported Hitler, supported wars of aggression, and supported genocide. The vast majorities of Hutus and Tutsis support massacres of the other. Similarly, the vast majority of Arabs support terror and violence and war. They do not see anything wrong with the blowing up of hundreds of civilians in an Embassy of the United States or in an office building of Argentinian Jews. They see any act of force taken against the perpetrators of such things to be itself a crime. (This is not to say that the vast majority of each and every subgroup of Moslems support such barbarism; the Turks and Indonesian-Malays come to mind as possible exceptions.)

True, Islam is a religion of peace and its very name derives from salaam - peace. But it is a religion of peace with other Moslems and for non-Moslems living under the clear domination of Moslems. True also, the vast majority of Moslems do not personally engage in violence and terror in their daily lives. The vast majority of Germans did not take personal part in the Holocaust. Indeed, as a blanket statement regarding Arabs in Israel, I would say that most Arabs behave in a far more polite daily manner than Jews, exhibiting on average far better manners and more consideration than do Jewish Israelis. But of course that is hardly the point.

The vast majority of Moslems support the random and indiscriminate use of terror and violence against Jews and against Americans. The reactions of Moslems everywhere are there on the TV screens for all to see and will be more unambiguously pro-terror the moment the US begins to attack Afghanistan and/or Iraq. Arab political thought is fundamentally Orwellian: murder is peace, prevention of murder or retaliation for murder is terror. Moslems are outraged by events in the Balkans because Moslems are being massacred; if Bosnians and Albanians were instead massacring Serbs they would have trouble hiding their approval and delight.

We have known for decades that the vast majority of Moslems also approve of Palestinian atrocities and bombings directly against Jews. There is no act of savagery directed against Israelis or Jews of which they will not approve by enormous majorities, and no act of defense by Israel that they will legitimize.

Public opinion polls are not conducted in most Moslem countries, but if they were they would no doubt reflect this popular approval. Polls ARE conducted among Palestinians and they show without exception that Palestinians approve of bombings and suicide bombs and atrocities committed against Jews, by enormous majorities. Their approval rates have generally increased with each Israeli concession to them under Oslo. The vast majority of Palestinians support Saddam Hussein. The vast majority probably support Bin Laden and the bombings of the Americans. The vast majority would approve if Iran or Iraq dumped chemical weapons or nerve gas on Tel Aviv. These are the people with whom Oslo is supposed to produce peace.

Oh, you might object, but Arafat has DENOUNCED Bin laden and even endorsed the US bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan. Well, yes he did, no doubt hoping thus to get the US to force Israel to make a few more concessions as quid pro quo, and he was no doubt as sincere as were the IRA folks who denounced the bombing of Omagh. But the Palestinian fascist hordes, taking their signals from the PLO, know he is posturing and winking and these folks support Bin Laden by overwhelming majorities.

All this week there have been massive anti-American marches by the Palestinian brownshirts. US flags have been burned throughout the Palestinian zones.

Now the entire Oslo "peace process" is based on the naive American civic dogma, adopted by Israeli politicians, holding that the vast majority of Palestinians want peace with Israel. They do not. Unless of course one means the sort of peace that prevailed and prevails in traditional Islamic societies, where the non-Moslems live as low-profile minorities with no political sovereignty. (The vast majority of Germans, one supposes, would have favored peace in 1940 if they could get it at Hitler's terms.)

The vast majority of Palestinians want to see Israel destroyed, and support all violence against Jews. Once Israel is destroyed and large portions of its population are killed or dispersed, no doubt the remainder will be permitted to live under conditions resembling those of the Copts in Egypt or the Armenians and Bahais in Iran. That is the only peace Arabs want by majorities.

Sweeney was the name of an Irish king who believed he was a bird and spent his life in treetops. (Really.) The Oslo "peace process" is the direct function of the Sweeneyization of the political establishment of Israel. Peres Sweeney and Beilin Sweeney adopted the wishful thinking of American civic religion, presumed that the vast majority of Palestinians prefer peace and prosperity to continuing war and violence. They took it as axiomatic that Palestinians would compromise over land and sovereignty because after all THEY were willing to do so. Their evidence that Palestinians would place peace above land is that Jews do so. Their belief that economic prosperity would interest Palestinians more so than irredentist aggression and terror is that decent honorable people anywhere should feel this way. In short, Oslo is the godchild of King Sweeney taking over the Israeli Labor Party, Meretz, and even swaths of the Likud.

These Sweeney weenies are the same people who refuse to even ponder the possibility that the vast majorities of Palestinians, other Arabs, and Moslems are not at all peace-seeking (at least not when it comes to Israel and the US), are not anti-violence, are not anti-terror. In other words, Oslo is based upon a fundamental denial of empirical reality. Like the old Peter and Gordon song from the 60's, it is based upon the Sweeneyish assertion that "I don't care what they say I won't stay in a world without love." And what happens to Sweeneys who live in unlit corners of the earth without love? They pretend to be birds and rise above such mundane things as reality to live in treetops of utopian dreams. Leaving the rest of us to face terror, murder, violence, Arab fascism, and threats of genocidal extermination.



The Jerusalem Post, September 20, 2001


by Daniel Pipes

The terror attacks on America could not have taken place without a sophisticated infrastructure of agents operating inside the United States that gathered information, planned, and then executed the four hijackings. That infrastructure, in turn, could operate thanks in large part to the protection provided by America's militant Islamic lobby.

The militant Islamic lobby impeded law enforcement's ability to devote special attention to Middle Eastern passengers, a procedure that surely would have caught the four suicide teams. The lobby also forestalled the closing down of Web sites and the expulsion of foreigners associated with terrorist organizations like Osama bin Laden's.

Which raises a question: How could a lobby protecting violent extremists acquire such influence? It has very carefully covered its tracks - saying one thing in private and another in public. To see how this duality works, consider the case of American Muslims for Jerusalem. This certainly appears to be a moderate organization. Founded in May 1999 and located near Capitol Hill, AMJ portrays itself as an innocent "association dedicated to providing a Muslim perspective on the issue of Jerusalem" and it movingly appeals for "a Jerusalem that symbolizes religious tolerance and dialogue." AMJ notes "the profound attachment Muslims have to Jerusalem" and reasonably calls for free access by all to the city's religious sites. Only somewhat more assertively does it repeat standard Palestinian rhetoric about the inadmissibility of sovereignty gained through force, the imperative to stop the building of Jewish housing, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

So tame is AMJ's public stance that it does not repeat the usual Palestinian claim to Jerusalem being the capital of Palestine, much less does it deny Jewish ties to Jerusalem.

Unfortunately, this public moderation hides a totally different private discourse.

At its closed events, AMJ reveals its true colors, purveying precisely the kind of hate that might inspire a suicide hijacker.

The pattern was set at AMJ's first major event, a fundraising dinner in November 1999, which one participant has described as "crudely anti-Jewish." Speakers like Nihad Awad and Abdurahman Alamoudi vied with one another in verbally assaulting the State of Israel and American Jews. In particular, they spun an elaborate conspiracy theory about Jewish control of the United States and Zionist brainwashing of American Christians.

Those Christians, AMJ speakers insisted, are now ready to rebel against this alleged Jewish domination - except that they fear going public out of fright of their Jewish "masters." Here Muslims have a crucial role in encouraging Christians to rise up to end their subjugation. Only a united Muslim-Christian front, led by Muslims, can break the supposed Zionist lock on America.

The dinner's keynote speaker, Issa Nakhleh of the Arab Supreme Council for Palestine (himself a Christian), proposed a specific scheme for achieving this goal. By his (fanciful) calculations, the Israel lobby spends $20 million a year to buy members of Congress and have them impose the "Jewish" message on Christians. Arabs and Muslims can easily do better, Nakhleh suggested, by sending fundraising delegations to Saudi Arabia and the emirates. "I am sure you will get $10 million from these two, and Iran will give you $10 million," thereby surpassing the supposed pro-Israel funding. (Never mind that it is illegal to lobby Congress with money that comes from abroad).

The evening's excess of inaccuracy, misunderstanding, conspiracy theorizing, fanaticism, and illegality is all the more noteworthy, because American Muslims for Jerusalem is no fringe outfit but a joint effort sponsored by six of the most powerful American Islamic institutions, including those most often invited to the White House and cited by the media. AMJ itself has won signal victories lobbying such American corporations as Burger King and Disney.

The covert radicalism of American Muslim organizations has two implications. First, AMJ and its six sponsoring organizations must all be systematically excluded and marginalized. Government and corporate policymakers should not meet with them. The media should not quote them as authorities. Immigration officials should study closely whom they invite from abroad. Tax authorities should scour their books for illegal transactions. Religious leaders should exclude them from ecumenical events.

Second, moderate Muslim Americans need to organize themselves and repudiate organizations like AMJ and its ilk. This task will likely become even more urgent as those organizations' role in easing the way for last week's terrorism is fully revealed.

2001 The Jerusalem Post


Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings approximately once per week.




By Professor Paul Eidelberg


Because Israel's secular and religious parties pander to Arab voters and Knesset members, Arab influence on the laws and policies of the supposed-to-be Jewish state will become even more decisive in view of the prolific Arab birthrate. Moreover, leftwing parties can always outbid the nationalist camp for the Arab vote. Indeed, given the diminishing percentage of secular versus religious Jews in Israel the Left must appease Arabs to gain and retain power.

Regardless of the future status of the "territories," the internal demographic problem will continue to fester. Unless this problem is addressed now, Israel will be Lebanized.

No plan addressed to the Arab demographic problem will succeed if it fails to use the lexicon of democracy, which today is indiscriminately egalitarian and manipulated by the Left. Our Plan not only uses democratic language, but any opponents of the Plan will appear anti-democratic and even racist! Hence the tables will be turned on the Left.

However, such is the magnitude of the demographic problem that no plan can be effective unless pursued by a well-financed organization. Such an organization will be necessary given the legislative actions, law suits, and international publicity specified in the Plan. Indeed, success requires that each step of the Plan be preceded and accompanied by extensive media coverage.



This law empowers the Minister of Interior to revoke the citizenship of any Israel national who "has committed an act involving disloyalty to the State." The law is vague and needs to be amended (as indicated below).

As in all other countries, naturalized citizens, as well as all public officials, are required to take an oath of loyalty. Accordingly, the amended Citizenship Law will require all citizens of Israel--Jewish and non-Jewish--to take the following oath:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully abide by the laws of the State of Israel. I do further swear (or affirm) that I will neither aid nor abet any political or religious party, group, or organization, or any foreign government, that advocates hatred or violence toward the State of Israel, its citizens or residents, Jewish or non-Jewish. I do further swear (or affirm) that I reject any political or religious precept that advocates hatred or violence toward the State of Israel, its citizens or residents, Jewish or non-Jewish."


Exempting Arabs from military and civilian national service violates the democratic principle of equality. This applies to religious Jews (such as the Haredim).

Those enjoying the rights of citizenship should fulfill the duties of citizenship. The objection that Israel's Arab citizens would have to fight other Arabs in any Middle East war is groundless. If the paramount loyalty of these Arabs is not to the State of Israel, then it is both reasonable and just that they forfeit their citizenship--at least their right to vote and hold any public office.

As regards the Haredim--some of whom do serve in the army--they may also serve in a separate military battalion and/or perform civilian national service.


After solid publicity, a select Knesset member (perhaps Michael Kleiner) will table a bill, the effect of which would require Arabs to serve in the IDF, just as Jews do. In other words, there will be no religious or ethnic discrimination as regards the duty of Jews and non-Jews to perform military and/or civilian national service. (The type of military service will be determined by the Defense Ministry.)

The probable defeat of the bill (or its being killed in committee) must be anticipated in the publicity preceding the bill's introduction. Indeed, it should be made known that if the bill is defeated (or ignored), a suit will be taken to the Supreme Court. At the same time, the public will be informed that the Court may dismiss the suit on the (specious) grounds that it involves a "political" rather than a justiciable issue.

Assume the bill will be defeated, primarily by votes of the Left. The Left can then be readily and rightly exposed as anti-Jewish racists, as anti-democratic, and as currying the favor of the Arabs for self-serving purposes. And if the Left raises the point about Israeli Arabs fighting other Arabs in any war, so much the better to expose the disloyalty of the former.

A "class-action" suit will be submitted to the Supreme Court by several Israeli soldiers and/or inductees, including American-born Israeli and Druze citizens. The suit will cite previous Court decisions based on equality. Nevertheless, even though the Court has declared that "Any discrimination on grounds of ... religion or ideological conviction ... is prohibited to every authority acting under law," the suit will probably be rejected as a "political" as opposed to a justiciable issue.

Our select Knesset member will then table a bill requiring those who fail to perform military service to perform civilian national service. This may pass if preceded by the right kind of publicity. Otherwise, a second "class-action" suit will be submitted to the Supreme Court. It will surely be more difficult for the Court to dismiss this suit.


Even if all the above measures fail, this will facilitate the development of a coalition of extra-parliamentary nationalist groups to rectify the Arab problem. Assuming success, however, the above mentioned loyalty oath would be required of all persons performing military or civilian national service.

Many Arabs will take these oaths. Those that serve loyally pose no problem--except to themselves, for they will be branded by other Arabs as "collaborators," a stigma having unpleasant consequences. Arabs refusing to take these oaths and serve in military or civilian national service will forfeit their citizenship as prescribed by law. Arabs that do serve but commit any act of disloyalty will be subject to the penalties of the law, including loss of citizenship.

As noted above, the Citizenship Law provides for the revocation of citizenship of any Israel national "who has committed an act involving disloyalty to the State of Israel." The term "act" is vague. It should be defined by an amendment to include (a) acts intended to impair Israel's security or welfare, such as serving in a terrorist organization whose aim is to destroy life and property in Israel; (b) aiding or abetting any terrorist who has committed, or plans to commit, an act of violence against the State of Israel; (c) advocating, or supporting any individual, group, or nation that advocates, the destruction of the State of Israel; (d) actively participating in any campaign of hatred toward the State of Israel.


Notice that the Plan does not entail any discrimination between Jews and non-Jews. Indeed, one can even exploit the Left's objective of making Israel a conventional, secular democratic state by insisting that the democratic principle of equality precludes religious or ethnic discrimination regarding military and/or civilian national service.

Given a well-financed organization, the legislative and legal steps outlined in the Plan can be executed in less than a year. Moreover, the mere initiation of this Plan could disrupt the murderous "peace process" and enable Israel to go on the ideological offensive in relation to Arab dictatorships.

Finally, whether the Plan succeeds or not, its execution will arouse public support for a Constitution that will resolve the Arab problem and preserve Israel's Jewish character. Such a Constitution has been designed by the present writer.



The Jerusalem Post September 12, 2001


By Michael Freund

As if listening to the latest news bulletins were not depressing enough, Israelis are now being warned once again that the demographic balance between Jews and Arabs in coming decades is looking increasingly bleak. Projections recently presented to the Knesset show that Arabs may outnumber Jews within pre-1967 Israel as soon as the year 2035 (The Jerusalem Post, August 6).

Demography is hardly the most reliable of sciences, as it is nearly impossible to foretell future events such as mass human migrations or natural disasters, all of which obviously affect the statistical models involved. But Israeli policy-makers would be ill-advised to overlook such dire warnings about the fate of Israel's Jewish majority. Indeed, it seems fair to say that, aside from the danger posed by non-conventional weapons in the hands of Israel's neighbors, the issue of demography might very well be the greatest threat to the future of Israel as a Jewish state.

As the percentage of Jews continues to decline, it will grow increasingly difficult for Israel, as a democracy, to ignore mounting calls by its Arab minority for cultural autonomy and perhaps even self-rule. And if the day were to come when Arab Israelis could elect more representatives to the Knesset than Jewish Israelis, the Jewish identity of the State would be in grave doubt.

To their credit, leading Israeli public figures are no longer remaining silent about the issue. On his visit last week to Russia, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called upon world Jewry to immigrate to Israel, stressing the vital need for mass migration as a way of bolstering the state's Jewish population.

But as the pool of potential immigrants from the former Soviet Union begins to shrink, and with mass migration from the West not yet in the offing, it is hard to see how such traditional calls for immigration will have any real or lasting impact on the situation. World Jewry is simply not rushing to move to Israel. While Israel must certainly continue to promote immigration, both as a means of achieving personal Zionist and Jewish fulfillment and as a national responsibility, it must also begin to think more creatively about how to address the ongoing erosion in the country's Jewish demographic profile.

The fact is that there are plenty of people out there in the big wide world who would like to move to Israel. The problem is that most of them are not Jewish. While many are no doubt motivated by economic reasons, there are countless others who are sincere in their desire to be Jews, and it is incumbent upon Israel to at least explore the possibilities that such populations present.

In northeastern India, for example, there are 5,000 members of the Shinlung tribe (referred to as Bnei Menashe because of their claim to descend from a lost tribe of Israel) who have been living observant Jewish lives for some two decades and anxiously wish to immigrate to Israel. In recent years, some 600 Bnei Menashe have immigrated and undergone formal conversion by Israel's Chief Rabbinate. They serve in the army, lead religious Jewish lives and work as productive members of society. Shouldn't those still in India be given a similar opportunity?

Other groups, such as the Lemba tribe of southern Africa and the Abayudaya of Uganda, also express a desire to join their fate with that of the people of Israel, as have other far-flung groups in countries as diverse as Peru, Mexico and Japan.

In recent years, untold numbers of Crypto-Jews (descendants of Marrano Jews who were forcibly converted in Spain and Portugal in the late 15th century), have begun returning to Judaism throughout Central and South America and the United States. Receiving little in the way of encouragement or support from the organized Jewish community, these people are heroically trying to rejoin the Jewish people, and more needs to be done to help them.

But rather than neglecting these people, it is time for Israel to start reaching out to them, assessing their claims to Jewish ancestry and acting to help those worthy of assistance. The various organs of the State, such as the Jewish Agency, the Chief Rabbinate and the Foreign Ministry, need to look more carefully at this issue and give it serious consideration. For a country struggling to find potential new sources of immigration, groups such as the Bnei Menashe and others like them might very well provide the answer.

(The writer served as deputy director of communications and policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)

2001 The Jerusalem Post

 HOME  Maccabean  comments