LETTERS TO THE FREEMAN CENTER
THE ART OF THE FAIT ACCOMPLI: A New/Old Military Doctrine For Israel....Bernard J. Shapiro
LIES AN ARAB THINK-TANK ESPOUSES....Avi Davis
THE EDUCATION OF MARWAN BARGHOUTHI....Avi Davis
AN OPEN PLEA FOR SUSTAINED ANGER...Guest Editorial...Helen Freedman
THE FACE OF ANTISEMITISM....Jeff Jacoby
THE WAR ON CAMPUS....Daniel Pipes
MORE ON OSLO, ARAFAT AND TERRORISM AND IRAQ
AFSI: "RUMSFELD WRONG TO REQUEST ISRAELI RESTRAINT"
A CASE FOR WAR....Shawn Pine
THE SPEECH HE COULDN'T GIVE....Benjamin Netanyahu
TIME: Israeli Intelligence Says Hamas In State Of Ruin.....Ha'aretz Service
PUT ARAFAT ON TRIAL....Alan M. Dershowitz
"THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH QUESTION"....Emanuel A. Winston
AN ISRAELI VIEW...The Case for Toppling Saddam....Benjamin Netanyahu
THE LAND OF ISRAEL BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL....Ruth and Nadia Matar
THE CASE FOR KILLING ARAFAT....Steven Plaut
THE BULLDOZER'S BULLDOZERS....Uri Dan
SADDAM MAY GET FIRST STRIKE IN: Israel Is Prime Target....DEBKAfile Military Analysis
ARAFAT-SADDAM-BINLADEN LINKS SURFACE....DEBKAfile Expose
GARIBALDI STREET, RAMALLAH....Michael Freund
ISRAEL BETWEEN WATER AND FIRE....Uri Dan
TAKE BACK JOSEPH'S TOMB....Michael Freund
DEPRIVING THE ARABS OF THEIR PREY....Emanuel A. Winston
MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J.
LETTERS TO THE FREEMAN CENTER
Subj: Congrats! FREEMAN CENTER
Date: 9/10/2002 6:17:37 PM Central Daylight Time
FYI, the Freeman site has a Google ranking of "7" according to my Google Toolbar (see http://toolbar.google.com). This number is based on the number and "quality" of links to a web page from other pages in Google's index. Very roughly, a page is a "4" if it has 1-10 links to it, a "5" if it has 11-100 links to it, a "6" if it has 101-1000 links to it, a "7" if it has 1001-10,000 links to it and so on. (These numbers are actually only approximations, since as I said "quality" of links matters as well.)
A very low percentage of web pages are 7 or better, perhaps 1% or less. Since a page with a good Google rank will tend to be ranked closer to the top of the search results for a search at Google, this means that the Freeman home page has a big advantage over 99% of the web sites out there, and probably even more of the Israel-related ones. Congratulations! This means more site traffic to the Freeman Center.
On a related note, there has been more traffic to the site since July, possibly because of this increase in the Google ranking. We should keep an eye on the bandwidth usage at the site by checking the reports at http://www.freeman.org/io-reports/ . I think we are ok for now but if you get billed for going over your bandwidth allocation please tell me immediately.
Freeman Center Webmaster
Excellence Internet Services
Subj: Your article re: lack of shame for blame
Date: 8/18/2002 2:56:13 PM Central Daylight Time
This email has been sent by Reni Roberts to the Freeman Center webmaster via the WWW:
You are to be congratulated for stating facts as they are without the hypocrisy of shame for self defense. Keep up the good work and spread the word.
THE ART OF THE FAIT
A New/Old Military Doctrine For Israel
By Bernard J. Shapiro
Israel in recent years has seemed to have forgotten many lessons of the past. I call those "lessons" the art of the fait accompli. Today we have the sorry example of:
1. Israel taking military action
2. Not completing the action
3. Pausing in the middle of the action allowing public opinion and US and world pressure to interfere with an ongoing action
4. Retreat from the action allowing the appearance of weakness in the face of pressure
In the past Israel's Defense Forces performed many heroic acts that cat can only be described as fait accomplis or "creating facts on the ground." Some outstanding examples:
1. Orde Wingates' night squads
2. Illegal immigration of Holocaust survivors into Israel
3. Retaliatory raids into Arab countries in response to attacks on Israel
4. The Sinai Campaign 1956
5. The Six Day War 1967
6. The rescue of Jews at Entebbe
7. The assassination of the PLO Munich murderers
8. The bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak
9. The Peace for Galilee war in Lebanon
Of course there are many more examples, but the common denominator among them is that the world and the US disapproved of them all. And if they were not carried out Israel's deterrence and security would have been greatly diminished.
One of my great disappointments in the last two years is the restraint exercised by the IDF. The effect of this restraint is to allow the Arabs to constantly adapt to Israel's strategy. They have a very high learning curve. In order to stamp out terrorism it is necessary to excise the whole institutions that support it. Just like a cancer that must be cut out completely to prevent it from metastazing, the terrorists must be destroyed completely.
I am not a military expert, yet my observations seem like common sense and I hope Israel will begin again to follow them.
Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of THE MACCABEAN ONLINE.
LIES AN ARAB THINK-TANK ESPOUSES
By Avi Davis
Last March many in the West began to believe that the Arab world was finally relenting in its five decade long rejection of Israel's right to exist. This belief was occasioned by a much ballyhooed peace proposal, hammered out at a Beirut meeting of the Arab League in which recognition was conditioned on Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza . Columnists such as Thomas Friedman, who had earlier broken the story, referred to it as a milestone and " one of the most important developments in Arab-Israeli relations in history."
I have to wonder if there are others like myself who now actually long for the old days of Arab enmity. Times when Zionists weren't Jews but merely "imperialists" ; when Arab rejection of Israel had nothing to do with anti-semitism but simply with "colonialism"; when the Holocaust was still regarded as historical fact, even if, in their over worked intransigence, a greatly exaggerated one.
Of course these were not better days for either Israel or Jews in the Arab world. But they make the appalling rage of anti-semitism and vilification that today pours out of both the Arab press and Arab intellectuals seem tame by comparison. The fundamental change was given stark emphasis last week at a conference sponsored by the Zayed Center for Co-operation and Follow Up in Abu Dhabi, a conference sponsored by the same Arab League who passed the March resolution.
The specific purpose of the conference was to " expose the fallacious claims and concocted legends of the Zionists and to counter the nefarious propaganda against Arabs and Muslims." In other words, it was to be another anti-Zionist conference. This was, of course, nothing to get terribly excited about. Anti-Zionist conferences have been a staple of Arab think-tanks and academic institutions for five decades. But the event indicated a decisive shift in opinion about the nature of Israel and the Jewish people revealing a deepening, regressive antipathy.
It began with Executive Director Mohammad Khlaifar Murar's comments that " Jews claim to be God's most preferred people but the truth is that they are enemies of all nations. They are not Semites and therefore having nothing to do with Semitism or Palestine." The Arab League's representative to the group Ahmad Jaleem Jarad, fueled the fire by endorsing Murar's view.
" If the phrase anti-semitism is taken literally it means hostility toward Semites or members of the Semitic race whose majority is comprised of Arabs. Therefore only a handful of Jews can claim to be Semites."
The upshot: a wholesale redefinition of Jewish identity and an eclipse of the former Arab distinction between Zionist and Jew. This can have only one meaning. Not only is the Zionist state illegitimate but so are the Jewish people. In addition, since the Jews are not Semites, any attacks against them cannot be regarded as anti-semitism, which affords the Center a convenient means of sidestepping intellectual responsibility for vicious attacks on Jews.
The lesson has not been lost on thoughtful commentators such as Harold Evans, a former editor of England's Sunday Times, who wrote (on June 28) that this campaign aims to create "the dehumanization of all Jews" and this "frenzied, vociferous, paranoid, vicious and prolific propaganda , which came after the Oslo Accords and Camp David - has generated a rising wave of anti-Semitism throughout the Muslim world."
Even members of the Israeli left are finally getting it. On Monday, Amnon Rubinstein, a wrote in Ha'aretz that: " One day Israel is committing a massacre, the next day it is disseminating false accusations that the Palestinians spread rumors of a massacre. The new Arab and Palestinian propaganda shares common characteristics with the old (Nazi) hatred - obsessiveness and monstrousness."
The Zayed Center is an improbably respected Arab think-tank. Jimmy Carter recently lectured there and former French President Michel Rocard is scheduled to attend one of its seminars. But one has to wonder how its primary objective of contributing "to the formulation of an Arab strategic vision to meet present and future challenges" can possibly be fulfilled by an agenda filled with hatred and palpable intellectual dishonesty. It questions the future of the Arab world and is certainly a warning to the West about the paranoia that has engulfed the region and is every bit as threatening to freedom as passenger-laden jets flown intentionally into tall New York buildings.
Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine Jewsweek.com
THE EDUCATION OF MARWAN BARGHOUTHI
By Avi Davis
Somewhere along the serpentine path he has padded into history, Marwan Barghouthi learned a lot of Hebrew. He picked up the language after years spent incarcerated in Israeli jails. He also picked up smatterings of Yiddish, some idioms that punctuate daily Israeli conversation and insight into the functioning of Israeli society.
But it is what he didn't pick up that was on full display outside a Jerusalem District Court three weeks ago. Photographs revealed a defiant Barghouthi railing in Hebrew about his people's fight for freedom and vowing vengeance for his incarceration. It was, however, a very different Barghouthi who was captured in Ramallah in April. Then, according to an IDF source, a disheveled and clearly frightened Barghouthi pleaded, not for the Palestinian cause, but for his life.
The Israeli soldiers who cornered Barghouthi in Ramallah were not a hit squad. They had come to bring the Palestinian security chief / turned outlaw into custody. It is a fair question to ask why Barghouthi was not simply assassinated, as other arch terrorist leaders of both the PFLP and Hamas had been earlier. Not only did the IDF have plenty of evidence linking him directly to the murder of Israeli citizens; they knew he operated as the central command of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure. His killing might have been a salutary message to the Palestinians that no one can claim immunity when it comes to the killing of Israelis.
The Israeli government decided against this course for reasons that may confuse Barghouthi and would perplex the Palestinian Authority. Putting Barghouthi in front of a jury means exposing a terrorist network as insidious and as well financed as Al Qaeda. Barghouthi, who represents himself as a moderate to the Western press (and has even been granted the benefit of op-ed pieces in distinguished American periodicals) has used his position as a front to foment incitement against Israel and approve terrorist atrocities against Israeli civilians. Palestinian records, uncovered by the IDF in April and May implicated Barghouthi directly in coordinating with his counterparts in Hamas and Islamic Jihad and becoming a focal point for the resistance. In his knowledge of Hebrew, his familiarity with Jewish traditions and his profound contempt for Israel and everything it represents, Barghouthi has much in common with another Jew killer whose fate he should now be studying.
Adolf Eichmann was brought to trial 41 years ago in Jerusalem. He was found guilty of all the charges brought against him and was sentenced to death. His trial riveted world attention and galvanized Israeli society - exposed for the first to the intricacies of the Final Solution via the testimony of a zealous practitioner. The most significant ruling to emerge from the trial was the claim by the Jerusalem District Courtthat it was entitled to administer justice on behalf of the Jewish people. There was, claimed presiding justice Moshe Landau, "a link between the State of Israel and crimes against the Jewish people, enabling the State to prosecute malefactors on the Jewish peoples' behalf. "
There can be little doubt that the terrorist apparatus of which Barghouthi has been a prime facilitator and Yasser Arafat a spearhead, is as pernicious, if not nearly as successful an instrument as Hitler's attempted liquidations 60 years ago. The killing of Jews because they are Jews remains a central feature of the Palestinian terrorist campaign and makes Bargouthi no more a freedom fighter than a common Nazi thug. And it makes him no more deserving of justice before an Israeli court than Adolf Eichmann.
But the fact that Eichmann was given his day in court 41 years ago, with opportunities for a full defense and an appeal, should be a lesson to his nominal successor. This will be his chance to demonstrate his innocence before the Israeli people, a privilege Barghouthi's murderers never gave the hundreds of Israeli men, women and children they have slaughtered over the past two years. It will be an opportunity for the Israeli government, on the other hand, to prove that there are still " crimes against the Jewish people" that will be addressed by law - a law that the world came to respect when the full extent of evil embodied in Adolf Eichmann's war time activities became widely known.
Eichmann became the last man in Israeli history to be sentenced to death. Barghouthi's education will begin when he understands that the supreme value Jews place on law and human life, will not always shield mass murderers from final retribution.
Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for Jewsweek.com
AN OPEN PLEA FOR SUSTAINED ANGER
By Helen Freedman
"Do not go gentle into that...night...
Rage, rage against the dying of the light"
On this sad memorial day of 9/11/02, when we pay tribute to the more than three thousand killed in the attack on America on Sept. 11, 2001, we recall countless other innocents who have suffered at the hands of militant Muslims throughout the world. The list is a long one, including Serbs, Greeks, Afghans, Indians, Sudanese, Lebanese, Indonesians, Europeans, Canadians, Americans, Israelis, and more. All have been targets of Islam - the religion that preaches jihad until it succeeds in conquering the world.
Israel and the Middle East are at the center of the conflict today. In the face of hundreds of Israelis murdered each year, and thousands seriously wounded, the Sharon government must take its lead from America, declare war on terrorism, and go after the enemy until it is defeated. Yasser Arafat has proven himself to be as evil a man as Osama Bin Laden, and on a par with the despots controlling Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia. It is ludicrous for Israel to be debating the fate of Israeli Arabs who have betrayed their citizenship and joined the terrorists. It is criminally lax for Israel to stand by helplessly while the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is threatened by collapse because its southern wall was carved out by Arabs building a mammoth underground mosque. It is inconceivable that in the face of repeated expressions of unmitigated hatred and statements about the destruction of Israel, the Sharon government continues to pretend that there can be "negotiations" and an eventual "Palestinian" state. Even Jerusalem may be placed on the table, with enough knives at the place settings to satisfy the appetites of the Muslim world. All of this is a formula for failure and defeat. Every thinking person understands that appeasement of terror only fuels the appetites of the terrorists. Only strength and clear purpose, and the willingness to recognize and speak the truth can conquer evil.
The words of Dylan Thomas take on greater meaning today as Americans, Israelis, and good people throughout the world steel themselves for the battle ahead. May we not go softly into the night of willful blindness and wishful thinking, bowing our necks to the swords of the murderers. Instead, we must use our righteous anger like an eternal flame, to rage against the dying of the light of freedom and justice and truth. We must pursue those who would destroy the good, and eradicate them. Anything less will lead to the discovery that the light at the end of the tunnel is that of the oncoming train.
The Boston Globe, September 26, 2002
THE FACE OF ANTISEMITISM
By Jeff Jacoby
When Lawrence Summers became the president of Harvard last year, not even his greatest admirers predicted how resolutely he would make the university's motto -- "Veritas" -- his own. Almost from the day he was inaugurated, Summers has insisted on speaking unpopular truths: about the disrespect shown to Americans in uniform, about the rot of grade inflation in Harvard's classrooms, about the absence of "mainstream values" among "coastal elites" -- even about the failure of a celebrity professor like Cornel West to do serious academic work.
Last week, voicing another unpopular truth, Summers spoke out against the spread of Jew-bashing -- not only in Europe and at UN conferences, but at American universities.
"There is disturbing evidence of an upturn in antisemitism globally, and also... closer to home," he said on Sept. 17. "Profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are antisemitic in their effect if not their intent."
Actually, even antisemitic intent can be found on American campuses these days. At San Francisco State University, for example, pro-Palestinian demonstrators recently confronted supporters of Israel with signs reading "Jews = Nazis" and chants of "Hitler should have finished the job." Earlier this month, anti-Israel rioters at Concordia University in Montreal smashed windows and hurled furniture to protest a scheduled speech by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Fortunately, such naked Jew-hatred is still rare in academia. What Summers had in mind was something less blatant but no less disgraceful.
"Some here at Harvard and some at universities across the country," he said, "have called for the university to single out Israel among all nations as the lone country where it is inappropriate for any part of the university's endowment to be invested. I hasten to say the university has categorically rejected this suggestion."
The divestment campaign Summers was referring to demands that Israel be treated as a pariah, a country so toxic that American universities shouldn't even own stock in companies that do business there. It is modeled on the anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and 1980s, and its planted axiom is that there is no important moral difference between Israel -- a free and tolerant democracy at war with dictatorial enemies bent on genocide -- and the former white-ruled South Africa. That is a position only a moral idiot could endorse.
Supporters of the divestment effort at Harvard and elsewhere were quick to condemn Summers for his "McCarthyesque" attack. "This is the ugliest statement imaginable," fumed John Assad, a neurobiology professor at Harvard's medical school, "to paint critics as antisemitic."
But Summers didn't "paint critics" as antisemitic or anything else; he characterized their *actions* as "antisemitic in their effect." He was not ascribing base motives to those who support the divestment campaign. He didn't presume to read their hearts. Rather, he was pointing out the impact of their behavior. One who supports a campaign that singles out Israel for demonization and obloquy is taking an antisemitic action, whether he intends to or not.
Are Israeli policies fair game for criticism? Of course. But it is not "criticism" to falsely smear Israel as racist -- not when the Arab world seethes with a hatred of Jews more rabid even than the Nazis'.
It is not "criticism" to portray Israel's lawful presence in Gaza and the West Bank as an illegal occupation, yet never murmur a word of objection to China's occupation of Tibet, or Syria's of Lebanon, or Turkey's of Northern Cyprus, or Russia's of Chechnya.
It is not "criticism" to lay the blame for the violence of the Middle East at Israel's doorstep while ignoring the immense risks that Israel has taken and the sacrifices it has made in pursuit of peace with the Palestinians.
It is not "criticism" to accuse Israel of apartheid, when it is the Arab world that preaches "Kill the Jews!" and dances in the street when terrorists do so.
This is not criticism -- it is calumny. It butchers the truth and subjects Israel to an outrageous double standard. It abets the cause of the world's foremost Jew-haters -- people whose explicit goal is the liquidation of the Jewish state. A professor who signs his name to something so grotesque is committing an antisemitic act.
"In our own day," Norman Podhoretz once wrote, "Israel has become the touchstone of attitudes toward the Jewish people, and anti-Zionism has become the main and most relevant form of antisemitism." Antisemitism used to express itself in demanding that good Aryans boycott Jewish shops. Today it demands that good universities boycott the Jewish state. It may look different on the outside, but it's the same old poison underneath.
Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.
New York Post, September 17, 2002
THE WAR ON CAMPUS
By Daniel Pipes
Last week, two prominent Middle Easterners traveled to two North American campuses to deliver speeches mainly about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both met protests. One succeeded in giving the speech; the other did not. Therein hangs a tale.
On Monday, former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to Concordia University in Montreal to explain why "there is no alternative to winning this war [on terrorism] without delay." But he never spoke at Concordia - indeed, he never made it onto the campus - because a thousand anti-Israel demonstrators staged a mini-riot with the intent of preventing him from speaking; "Benjamin Netanyahu is coming to Montreal. Let's make it clear he's not welcome," read their signs.
The anti-Israel forces physically assaulted the would-be audience. A female professor of religion at Concordia recounted how some of them "aimed their punches at my breasts."
They smashed a plate-glass window and threw objects at the police inside. They hurled furniture at police from a mezzanine. As Toronto's Globe & Mail put it, "By lunchtime, the vestibule of Concordia's main downtown building was littered with paper, upturned chairs, broken furniture and the choking aftereffects of pepper spray."
The police, saying they couldn't assure Netanyahu's safety, canceled the event. To which Wassim Moukahhal, an Arab leader at nearby McGill University, crowed: "The man is a war criminal. We don't want our city and our universities to be the harbor of such a war criminal."
Nor was this the first time Netanyahu has been prevented from speaking on campus. In November 2000, "hundreds of raucous protesters" managed to cancel his appearance at the University of California/Berkeley.
On Thursday, Hanan Ashrawi, the former spokeswoman and colleague of Yasser Arafat, went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs to give a keynote speech at a symposium on "September 11: One Year Later."
Protestors noted that Ashrawi is smack on the side of America's enemies in the War on Terrorism. For example, while the U.S. government formally designates Hamas a terrorist group, Ashrawi states she doesn't "think of Hamas as a terrorist group." Also, she considers Israeli civilians living on the West Bank to be "legitimate . . . targets of Palestinian resistance" - that is, legitimate targets for deadly violence.
The many objections to Ashrawi's being honored at Colorado College centered on her obnoxious presence at an event dealing with the aftermath of Sept. 11. Colorado Gov. Bill Owens spoke for many when he said, "It's outrageous to be bringing this woman, who has done so much to divide the Middle East and has applauded terrorism." Both of the state's U.S. senators objected. Rudolph Giuliani added: "I wouldn't have invited her. Cancel it."
But she did speak, without any interference. The protests were completely non-violent, including nothing more than scattered boos, hand-held signs and a rebuttal after the speech (given by this writer).
These two parallel yet contrasting episodes point to several conclusions:
* Both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict are seeking to shift the terms of the debate. The pro-Israel side wants to delegitimize speakers who effectively call for the destruction of the Jewish state. The anti-Israel side wants to block speakers sympathetic to Israel.
* Both incidents point to profound problems in the university, and why Abigail Thernstrom calls it "an island of repression in a sea of freedom." In Colorado, the administration made the morally idiotic choice of honoring an apologist for terrorism. At Concordia, a weak-kneed response let thugs inhibit free speech.
* The incidents also point to the differing faces of pro- and anti-Israel activism, with the former acceptably political and the latter crudely violent. The first resembles the restrained actions of the Israeli armed forces. The second represents a North American face of the suicide bombings.
Or, in the most elemental terms, we see here the contrast between the civilized nature of Israel and its friends versus the raw barbarism of Israel's enemies.
It promises to be a hot political year on campus. How things turn out will depend on which form of activism prevails - the holding of pink sheets of paper with "I disagree" written on them, or the throwing of chairs from balconies.
AMERICANS FOR A SAFE ISRAEL/AFSI
1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128
Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sept. 24, 2002
Contact: Helen Freedman, Executive Director
AFSI: "RUMSFELD WRONG
TO REQUEST ISRAELI RESTRAINT"
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in addressing the House Armed Services Committee on September 19, was quoted as saying in response to a question about Iraq attacking Israel with a 'dirty bomb' "that it would be in Israel's overwhelming best interests not to get involved." Senator Richard Shelby (R-Alabama) and Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) have weighed in with the opinion that an Israeli response would anger the Arab world. Of course, there is general understanding in the Congress that if Israel is attacked and there are "massive" numbers of casualties, there might be tolerance for Israeli retaliation. But short of that, Israel is expected to do a re-run of its performance in 1991. Then, Israelis remained locked in their "safe" rooms with their babies and children "protected" by gas masks, while 39 scud missiles landed on Tel Aviv. There was no retaliation, at the demand of the U.S. government.
AFSI maintains, "It is our understanding that the United States has assured Israel that it will eliminate all scud launchers so that Israel cannot be attacked as it was in the Gulf War. If the U.S. fails in this guarantee, it is the belief of AFSI that Israel must retaliate. To do less would feed the appetites of the Arabs committed to Israel's destruction. The 1991 experience merely served to weaken Israel in the eyes of the Arab world. To repeat that fiasco would simply legitimize Arab claims that Israel has no right to exist and as such has no right to defend itself.
"It is absurd for the U.S. and Israel to be guided in their policy against Iraq by considerations of whether or not the Arab world will be "angered." It is clear, following Sept. 11, 2001, that the Muslim world views America and Israel as the Satans that must be destroyed. This despotic world will be "angered" by any action that brings success to "infidels" and failure to Islam. It is the task of America and Israel and all democracies to stop worrying about what will please or displease our enemies. Instead, wee must work at changing the nature of the Middle East from a terrorist training ground into an area where democracy can begin to grow. The first step in the process is recognition that if Iraq attacks Israel, it is in Israel's overwhelming best interests to get involved."
A CASE FOR WAR
By Shawn Pine
From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots. --Thomas Jefferson
As the United States turns its attention towards Iraq a number of critics have publicly militated against U.S. military operations in Iraq. They have offered a number of reasons not to attack the regime of Saddam Hussein. These arguments have included: The unclear link between Saddam Hussein and terrorism; the ambiguity surrounding his development of weapons of mass destruction; the lack of allied support for military operations; and the cost in both human and economic terms. All of these arguments have been proffered for reasons not to undertake a military efforts against the regime of Saddam Hussein. In reality, these arguments are spurious, morally vacuous, and only serves to diminish the credibility of the United States to defend its natural security interests.
No clear link between Hussein and terrorism: This argument was most recently advanced by Brent Scrowcroft, former National Security Advisor to George Bush Senior. Scrowcroft wrote in an August 15, 2002, op-ed in the Wall Street journal, "There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the September 11 attacks." He further suggested "an attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counter-terrorist campaign we have undertaken."
Ironically, Scrowcroft made this claim the same week that it was reported that Abu Nidal, one of the world's quintessential terrorists, had been killed after having secured sanctuary in Iraq. It has been clearly demonstrated that Hussein has provided the families of Palestinian Islamic suicide bombers with over $10 million in payments since the beginning of the intifada. Not only have the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad been identified as terrorist groups by our State Department, they promote the same Islamic agenda as that of al-Queda. The argument that a clear connection must be established between Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists is vacuous. Hussein has a long history of supporting terrorism and Islamic terrorist groups. Consequently, and contrary to Scrowcroft's assertion, an attack on Iraq is totally in keeping with the global counter-terrorist campaign.
The ambiguity surrounding his development of weapons of mass destruction: The thesis underlying this argument is that the U.S. should not attack Iraq until there is clear evidence that Hussein actually possesses weapons of mass destruction. This position has been articulated most recently by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger when he stated "I'm prepared to concede, from the beginning, that if the evidence is clear that Saddam Hussein has these weapons of mass destruction at his fingertips and is ready to use them, then we have no choice, we must go. I don't think that evidence is there."
Of all the arguments against attacking Iraq this is the most bizarre. There is a plethora of evidence that Saddam Hussein has been seeking, developing, and fielding non-conventional weapons. Iraq has produced and weaponized a myriad of chemical and biological weapons including sarin, tabun, VX nerve gas, boutlinum and ricin. Not only has Hussein developed these weapons he has used them against his neighbors and his own people. It appears that chemical and biological weapons, and a demonstrated proclivity to use them, are not considered enough to constitute a casus belli for Mr. Eaglebuger. Yet, he implied that if it was clear that Hussein was close to developing a nuclear capability that would be a compelling reason to attack. While it is unknown the exact extent of Hussein's nuclear research, we know that over 64 different factories, and thousands of scientists, are working on the development of such weapons. We know that the U.S. realized that they had vastly underestimated how close Hussein was in obtaining nuclear weapons prior to the Gulf War. A 1991 German intelligence report estimated that, if left unfettered, Iraq would have nuclear weapons within three to five years. More important, that same report estimated that he could develop ballistic missile delivery systems that could reach the U.S. and Europe as early as 2007. The evidence that Hussein is developing, producing, and fielding non-conventional weapons is overwhelming. Consequently, the longer the U.S. waits to confront the threat the greater and more problematic it will be.
Lack of allied support: When the United States led a coalition against Iraq in 1991 it was joined by some 34 countries and had the support of the international community. Thus far, there has been vociferous opposition against U.S. military operations against Iraq. Opposition to U.S. military operations has included both U.S. allies in Europe as well as its Arab allies most directly threatened by Iraq. Opponents of U.S. military operations argue that unless the U.S. can garner the support of the international community it should not proceed.
This argument is without merit for a number of reasons. The international community is a conglomeration of nation states all pursuing their own self-interests. In this respect, it is clear that the European countries, Russia, and Arab States are pursuing their short-term, myopic self-interests. The European countries have extensive financial interests in Iraq, and the Russian economic interest in Iraq was underscored by its recent $40 billion economic deal with that country. When addressing European concerns over attacking Iraq, the President should remember that it was these same countries that plunged the world into two world wars and are largely responsible for the current geopolitical morass in the Middle East and Africa. The same greed that prompted these countries to colonize most of the world are now arguing restraint so that they can continue pursuing their myopic, economic self-interest. The U.S. should tell these 21st century Neville Chamberlain's that their failure to support U.S. operations would result in an American withdrawal from Bosnia and Kosovo, a reassessment of the U.S. role in NATO, and the exclusion of these countries in the formulation of any post-Saddam regime.
The Arab "allies" oppose the war because they fear the destabilizing effect on the region. However, these fears are not based upon a fear of chaos. Rather, it is a fear of the possibility of having an Arab democratic regime in the region. A pro-US regime, possessing the oil resources of Iraq, would stabilize oil prices and insure a constant supply of oil to the United States. More important, the U.S. could promote stability into the region by reducing the amount of weapons that are finding their way into the region. The Middle East has led the world in weapons imports every year for the last decade, largely based upon the perceived threat from Iraq. A pro-Western regime in Iraq would remove the rational for such weapons imports as Iraq would serve as a buffer between Iran and the GCC States.
While international support is preferable, it is not a prerequisite for military operations. As the leader of the free world, the United States has an obligation to lead the international community. In this respect, the Bush administration would do well to remember that the international community, including the United States, universally condemned the Israeli daring 1981 attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor complex in Osarik. Yet Israel's attack greatly retarded Iraqi attempts to develop nuclear weapons. If not for the success of the Israeli attack the dynamics of the 1991 Persian Gulf War would have been greatly different. Finally, it is likely, once our allies realize that we have the determination and resolve to carry the mission through until the end, there will be a bandwagon effect as no one will want to be left out to divide the "spoils."
It would cost too much in both human and economic terms: A basic premise in military strategic planning is never to underestimate your enemy. However, it is hard to envision a scenario in which Iraq would pose a greater conventional military threat than it did in the first Persian Gulf War. Iraqi forces are a fraction of what they were on the eve of the Persian Gulf War. Operationally, the Iraqi ground forces are ill prepared for conventional war. Their equipment is in disarray and they have conducted very few significant military exercises since the Gulf War. Conversely, the United States is in a much better position militarily. U.S. forces have flown missions over Iraq for the last decade and know the area extremely well. Moreover, U.S. forces do not need to invade and occupy Iraqi cities, They only need to isolate the command, control, and communications capabilities of the regime. In the 1991 conflict, the United States suffered 148 battle casualties, one-third of which came from friendly fire. A U.S. strategy based upon capturing the country, isolating the regime, and turning the Iraqi people against the regime should minimize casualties. The economic cost of the war can more than be offset by reduced oil prices following the aftermath of military operations and bringing a pro-Western Iraq to full production capacity.
While Iran and North Korea potentially present a more substantial long-term threat, it is sound foreign policy to go after Iraq first. Out of the three countries identified as the "Axis of Evil," Iraq presents the most immediate threat. It is Iraq that has attacked two of its neighbors in the last two decades. It is Iraq that has used non-conventional weapons against another country and its own citizens. North Korea is geographically contained and the ayatollahs of Iran are trying to keep the lid on an explosive democratic backlash from its young citizenry. Taking out Iraq will create a credible deterrent and may prompt both North Korea and Iran to reassess their own policies of proliferation and supporting terrorism. Replacing the regime of Saddam Hussein with a pro-Western government would create a potential axis between Iraq, Turkey, and Israel. Such a dynamic could also prompt Syrian President Bashir Assad to reassess his support for Hizballah.
By articulating a policy goal of removing the regime of Saddam Hussein, the President has crossed the Rubicon. Failure to remove Saddam Hussein would greatly debilitate American credibility and prestige. This would prove much more destabilizing to the region and U.S. strategic national interests. Left in power, Saddam Hussein and Islamic extremists would be emboldened to pursue their agendas. It is ironic that much of the criticism of the administration's position vis-a-vis Iraq is coming from the same individuals whose geopolitical acumen left Hussein in power in 1991. Whether their opposition to the war is a function of their attempts to vindicate their bankrupt policies that created the current situation, or whether they continue to believe the positions they are articulating is irrelevant. What is clear is that when they were in a position to influence events they failed to secure the region, and world, from the threat of Saddam Hussein. One of the more scathing criticisms came from retired marine general Anthony Zinni when he proclaimed "It's pretty interesting that all the generals see it the same way, and all the others who have never fired a shot and are hot to go to war see it another way.'' To this, the President only needs to heed the words of Georges Clemenceau that "War is much too important to be left to generals."
Shawn Pine is a military/strategic analyst who served for 9 years on active duty in the U.S. Army specializing in counterintelligence. He has published a myriad of articles and policy papers concerning the prevailing military and strategic environment in the Middle East. His works have appeared in Israel Affairs, The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, The Jerusalem Post, and Nativ and the Maccabean.
THE SPEECH HE COULDN'T GIVE
By Benjamin Netanyahu
The speech he couldn't give - Violent protesters at Concordia University in Montreal prevented former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu from addressing students on Monday. This is what he planned to say.
The Globe and Mail, Wednesday, September 11, 2002 - Page A13
I have come here to voice what I believe is an urgently needed reminder: that the war on terror can be won with clarity and courage or lost with confusion and vacillation.
International terrorism depends on the support of sovereign states, and fighting it demands that these regimes be either deterred or dismantled. In one clear sentence, President George W. Bush expressed this principle in his historic speech a year ago: "No distinction will be made between the terrorists and the regimes that harbour them." Such strategic clarity was applied with devastating effect to the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that supported al-Qaeda terrorism.
But that is only the first step in dismantling the global terrorist network. The other terrorist regimes must now be rapidly dealt with in similar fashion.
Israel has not experienced a terrorist attack like the one the world witnessed on that horrific day last September. That unprecedented act of barbarism will never be forgotten. But, in the past two years, Israel's six million citizens have buried more than 600 victims of terror -- a per capita toll equivalent to more than half a dozen September 11ths. This daily, hourly carnage is also unprecedented in terrorism's bloody history.
Yet, at the very moment when support for Israel's war against terror should be stronger than ever, my nation is asked by many to stop fighting. Though we are assured by friends that we have the right to defend ourselves, we are effectively asked not to exercise that right.
But our friends should have no illusions. With or without international support, the government of Israel must fight not only to defend its people, restore a dangerously eroded deterrence and secure the Jewish state, but also to ensure that the free world wins the war against terror in this pivotal arena in the heart of the Middle East.
Instead of praising Israel for seeking to minimize civilian casualties through careful and deliberate action, most of the world's governments shamelessly condemn it.
For many months, many of these governments have rightly supported the war against Afghan terror. Yet their patience for the war against Palestinian terror ran out quickly. The explanations that are offered for this double standard are not convincing. First, it is said that war on Palestinian terror is different because a political process exists that can restore security and advance peace.
This is not so. There can never be a political solution for terror. The grievance of terrorists can never be redressed through diplomacy. That will only encourage more terror.
Yasser Arafat's terrorist regime must be toppled, not courted. The Oslo agreements are dead. Yasser Arafat killed them. He tore them to shreds and soaked them in Jewish blood by violating every one of its provisions, including the two core commitments he made at Oslo: to recognize the state of Israel and to permanently renounce terrorism.
With such a regime and such failure of leadership, no political process is possible. In fact, a political process can only begin when this terrorist regime is dismantled.
Second, it is said that waging war on Palestinian terror will destabilize the region and cripple the imminent war against Saddam Hussein. This concern is also misplaced.
Clearly, the urgent need to topple Saddam is paramount. The commitment of America and Britain to dismantle his terrorist dictatorship before it obtains nuclear weapons deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments.
But contrary to conventional wisdom, what has destabilized the region is not Israeli action against Palestinian terror, but rather the constant pressure exerted on Israel to show restraint.
It is precisely the exceptional restraint shown by Israel that has unwittingly emboldened its enemies and inadvertently increased the threat of a wider conflict.
I must also tell you that the charge that Israel, of all countries, is hindering the war against Saddam is woefully unjust. For my country has done more than any other to make victory over him possible.
Twenty-one years ago, prime minister Menachem Begin sent the Israeli air force on a predawn raid hundreds of miles away on one of the most dangerous military missions in our nation's history.
When our pilots returned, we had successfully destroyed Saddam's atomic bomb factory and crippled his capacity to build nuclear weapons. Israel was safer -- and so was the world. But rather than thanking us for safeguarding freedom, the entire world condemned us.
Ten years later, when American troops expelled Iraqi forces in the gulf war, then secretary of defence Richard Cheney expressed a debt of gratitude to Israel for the bold and determined action a decade earlier that had made victory possible. That is why there is no alternative to winning this war without delay. No part of the terrorist network can be left intact. For if not fully eradicated, like the most malignant cancer, it will regroup and attack again with even greater ferocity. Only by dismantling the entire network will we be assured of victory.
But to assure that this evil does not re-emerge a decade or two from now, we must not merely uproot terror, but also plant the seeds of freedom.
Because only under tyranny can a diseased totalitarian mindset be widely cultivated. This totalitarian mindset, which is essential for terrorists to suspend the normal rules that govern a man's conscience and prevent him from committing these grisly acts, does not breed in a climate of democracy and freedom.
The open debate and plurality of ideas that buttress all genuine democracies and the respect for human rights and the sanctity of life that are the shared values of all free societies are a permanent antidote to the poison that the sponsors of terror seek to inject into the minds of their recruits.
That is why it is also imperative that, once the terrorist regimes in the Middle East are swept away, the free world must begin to build democracy in their place.
We simply can no longer afford to allow this region to remain cloistered by a fanatic militancy. We must let the winds of freedom and independence finally penetrate the one region in the world that clings to unreformed tyranny.
TIME: ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE
HAMAS IN STATE OF RUIN
By Ha'aretz Service
Israeli intelligence officials assert that 98 percent of the known members of the Hamas military wing have been arrested or killed over the past five months, leaving the terrorist organization in a state of disarray, Time magazine reported Monday.
The report in the magazine, which quotes anonymous intelligence officials, also states that this situation has led to a debate within Hamas, with some activists calling for a temporary halt to terror attacks lest the group be "wiped out as a political as well as a military force."
Opposition to this view comes from Hamas activists mainly outside the West Bank and Gaza Strip, who maintain, that "It's more important than ever to show Israel that it can't stop Hamas," the magazine reports.
The magazine quotes the officials as saying that the Israeli military crackdown in the West Bank, which began in April after the suicide bombing on the first night of Pesach that killed 29 people at the Park Hotel in Netanya, has caused severe disruption to the group, making it "no longer possible for cells to organize across different areas."
The damage to the group's infrastructure is so severe that political figures from the movement have been drafted in to plan terror attacks, Time reports, citing the example of Abdel Khaleq Natshe, 48, former head of the Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron. Natshe was arrested by Israel several weeks ago in Hebron on suspicion of planning an attack on the Adura settlement in April, in which four people were killed.
According to the Time article, some in the Hamas leadership are concerned that the internal debate will lead to "a full-blown power struggle," particularly as the health of movement spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, long viewed as a "unifying figure," continues to deteriorate.
PUT ARAFAT ON TRIAL
By Alan M. Dershowitz
The rule of law requires that murderers be brought to justice. Yasser Arafat is a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer. It would seem to follow that he should be brought to trial. The incontrovertible evidence of Arafat's complicity in murder goes back to 1973, when Palestinian terrorists invaded a diplomatic reception at the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan and kidnapped two American diplomats and a Belgian diplomat.
The U.S. National Security Agency intercepted a communication between Yasser Arafat in Beirut and Khalil al-Wazir in the Khartoum office of Fatah. According to James Welch, an American security agent who overheard the intercept, Arafat was directly involved in the operation, which was code-named Nahr al-Bard, or Cold River.
The U.S. government has hard evidence that when the Americans refused the demands of the Palestinian terrorists - to free Sirhan Sirhan, the murderer of Robert Kennedy - Yasser Arafat personally ordered the murder of the three diplomats, one of whom was then the highest ranking African-American in the foreign service. The diplomats were taken to the basement of the embassy and tortured to death so brutally that "authorities couldn't tell which was black and which was white."
Arafat took credit for these murders during a private dinner with Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu two months later. The dinner was attended by General Ion Mihai Pacepa, a high-ranking Romanian intelligence officer who later defected to the United States. Pacepa wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal earlier this year in which he stated that "Arafat excitedly bragged about his Khartoum operation." According to General Pacepa, Arafat also claimed credit for the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics.
These are just some of the thousands of victims - American, Israeli, and others - of the godfather of Palestinian terrorism. Arafat, like Osama bin Laden, has also targeted Jews, just because they are Jews. These targets have included people at prayer in synagogues throughout Europe as well as children in nurseries and school buses. His killing continues up to the present time, as do his false denials.
One can only imagine how many innocent civilians would have been killed by the boatload of Iranian arms captured by the Israelis earlier this year. As General Pacepa wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well during my years at the top of Romania's Foreign Intelligence Service." This conclusion has been confirmed by many documents discovered by the Israel Defense Forces during Operation Defensive Shield.
Any experienced prosecutor, given access to the evidence - some of which is currently secreted in American, Israeli, and European intelligence files - could present an open-and-shut first-degree murder case against Yasser Arafat. In considering the various options available to Israel - exile of Arafat, continued negotiation with him, and even targeted assassination - scant consideration has been given to the most obvious legal option: arresting Arafat for murder and placing him on trial in a public courtroom with lawyers and witnesses of his choice.
The reason this option has not been seriously considered is the practical fear that a trial of Arafat would cause more terrorism and more hostage-taking by Palestinians determined to free him. In addition, putting him on trial could make him a martyr among Palestinians, and perhaps even among some Europeans.
In the end, the Israeli government must make the tough decision whether or not to bring Arafat to trial, weighing the claims of public accountability against the practical difficulties of achieving justice. Were I an Israeli, I would recommend a public trial, despite the risks. The world should see the hard evidence that terrorism has become the tactic of choice for the Palestinian Authority and that Yasser Arafat is personally responsible for the mass murder of innocent civilians. This is especially important today, when so many Europeans and American academics seem unwilling to see Arafat as a racist murderer.
Whether or not Israel chooses this option, one conclusion remains crystal clear: a fair and open trial of Yasser Arafat on charges of first-degree murder would definitely produce a verdict of guilty.
The writer is a professor of law at Harvard University and the author of numerous books, most recently "Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge" (Yale University Press, September 2002).
"THE FINAL SOLUTION
TO THE JEWISH QUESTION"
by Emanuel A. Winston,
Middle East analyst & commentator
Have you ever noticed that the nations, various religions 'et al' always seem compelled to meet and focus on what Adolph Hitler called his "Final Solution to the Jewish Question"? As a practical matter Jews as a minority should not even be a matter of discussion, but they are! Invariably, they are good citizens, industrious, and, therefore, not a burden but beneficial to any society in which they live. Mostly they strengthen the well-being of any country as they are disproportionate contributors to advancements in medicine, sciences, the arts, etc.
Granted, there may be some minor resentment, even envy, for their valuable contributions to society which makes it puzzling as to the high level meetings of supposedly civilized, educated and cultured people to decide the fate of the Jewish people, usually in the negative. Perhaps it all began with the Church of Rome and its struggle to separate itself from its own Jewish roots. That, too, has always been one of the great puzzles of the world's history. Why select a Jew to be your deity or passage to G-d and then proceed not only to make separation a tenet of a new religion but, actually make it Church policy to hunt down the blood relatives of the Jew they worshiped and whose approval they sought?
I have often wondered if being a Christian who accepts a Jew as their deity is not the first, unplanned step of becoming a Jew with all that the Jews agreed to in their Covenant with HaShem. It is an interesting question which may be answered in this life or the next. If the Jews are such an infinitesimal minority among the nations, why do these nations keep having hostile meetings about us? I am reminded of Arnold Toynbee's speculation as to why the Jews are still here at all when other 'greater' civilizations have trekked into extinction like the dinosaurs.
I suppose one could go back in History and recount the meetings in ancient Rome where the Roman Senate met to debate such matters as the rebellious Jewish people who refused to acknowledge their gods. We could cover the past history of when nation upon nation met to decide the fate of the Jews by invading Jerusalem in order to capture or rather subjugate the G-d of the Hebrew people and add Him to their panoply of gods. But, we have neither enough space nor enough of your patience to recount all those decision-making bodies who met to decide their contemporary solutions to the 'Jewish Question'.
Today we have such bodies as the United Nations meeting, voting, invariably condemning the only State of the Jews - Israel. Then there are individual associations like the Arab League who similarly meet to discuss their solutions and methods of choice to eliminate the Jewish State. There are individual Arab nations such as Iran, Syria, Iraq and even Egypt who, under the guidance of Islamic clerics and dictators often meet to decide which weapons are the best to totally eliminate the Jews of Israel. Here again, the Arabs, who track their lineage back through Ishmael and his father Avraham, are consumed with the 'Jewish Question' and how they can claim the Covenant G-d made with the Jews.
Recently, there were a series of meetings of what has come to been known as the "Quartet" consisting of various nations who again are empowered (or take upon themselves the power) to decide the fate of the Jews. The Quartet consists of America, led by Secretary of State Colin Powell, the E.U. (European Union), the U.N. and Russia. They met on September 17th at the U.N. and decided to create another Arab State called "Palestine" by 2005. Even as they met, they knew beyond question that a so-called Palestinian State would become another hostile terrorist base and soon link up with other Arab/Islamic nations of like thought in a continuing effort to eliminate the Jewish State.
On September 18th the American Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has pledged a "Palestinian Arab State by the year 2003! - to be followed by permanent status solution in 2005" despite Palestinian Arabs' failure to fulfill President George W. Bush's conditions. Powell seems to be the guiding coordinator of another "Solution to the Jewish Question".
This brings to mind the questions: What offends the world about Israel? What about Israel, offends Colin L. Powell, Kofi Annan, Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson, Idi Amin, Andrew Young, Juan Williams, and other prominent black men? Strangely. Over the years Jews were well out in front of the rest of the world demonstrating for racial equality in Selma, Alabama and other segregated places in America. Is this where the homily: "No good deed goes unpunished." Clearly people like Martin Luther King, Condolezza Rice, Alan Keyes and many others are the honorable exceptions.
Similar meetings occurred during WWII among the Allied governments. None of the participating nations themselves have ever allowed a hostile minority to claim or occupy a part of their homeland.
Of note were the Evian Conference and the Bermuda Conference led by the major nations of America, Britain, France, the Soviet Union, etc. Their discussions covered the war with the Axis, Eg., Germany, Japan, Italy. When the subject turned to the matter of the Genocide of the Jews of Europe, the cold calculating decision was made NOT to rescue, house, feed or clothe the Jewish refugees. In addition, all borders were closed to those Jews who managed to escape Europe. Regrettably, the Allies although fighting Hitler's Axis ended up joining him in his Jewish Solution by knowingly refusing to attempt rescue - even to the point of refusing to bomb the crematoria as the furnaces burned Jews day and night.
The statement to the public was that a rescue of sorts would take place after the Germans were defeated. The British and American Intelligence Agencies knew how many Jews were being "exterminated" each day in the 'concentration/death' camps. Even that belated rescue never materialized because the British, in deference to the Arabs, placed any Jews escaping to Palestine in concentration camps in Cyprus.
Don't you find it strange that the Jewish remnant left to the tender mercies of the civilized world could command such attention. There are now an estimated 16 million Jews left on this planet. Demographers estimate that, with normal birth, death, loss in wars, the Jewish people should number between 180-250 million. However, as a result of the numerous 'meetings' to decide the fate of the Jews throughout the centuries, and the resulting action of their decisions there are only 16 million Jews left in the world.
At the moment if the Arab nations and the Europeans have their way the 5 million Jews in Israel would become zero. As for the rest, presumably they would be pushed into assimilation - possibly out of fear. Of course, the major religions have been working diligently to either absorb or eliminate the Jews from time immemorial but, have not yet succeeded.
Let us assume for a moment that the various nations, religions, commercial oil interests, 'et al' are successful. What will they have in a world without Jews? What will they do with the laboratories and research facilities where Jews search for cures to disease? Will they again pounce upon the assets of Jews as did the Germans, French, other Europeans, Arab countries....? And, when those are gone, will they fill museums with artifacts of the 'extinct' Jews, evolving new history, exonerating those who drove them to extinction? Will they now have HaShem (G-d) to themselves, having only to fight each other to become the 'rightful heir' to G-d's Covenant with the Jews? Will, in the end, they discover that their greedy fist closed over nothing that they can hold?
Hitler wanted to create a vast museum of Jewish artifacts, attesting to his great deed of extinguishing the Jewish people. In Poland, some Polish people are trying to resurrect the image of Jewish culture in music, cafés, Yiddish and Klezmer music without Jews. They assisted Hitler in the liquidation of 3 million Polish Jews and, now, they want some of it back.
No doubt, they will keep meeting to decide our fate and the best solution suitable to them - not the Jews but them! I always wonder if G-d's promise to Abraham, that "I will curse those who curse thee; and I will bless those who bless thee!" will happen successfully in our time so that we can watch the retribution. I hope so.
Emanuel A. Winston is research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, 9/20/2002
AN ISRAELI VIEW:
The Case for Toppling Saddam
By Benjamin Netanyahu
The longer America waits, the more dangerous he becomes.
Sept. 11 alerted most Americans to the grave dangers that are now facing our world. Most Americans understand that had al Qaeda possessed an atomic device last September, the city of New York would not exist today. They realize that last week we could have grieved not for thousands of dead, but for millions.
But for others around the world, the power of imagination is apparently not so acute. It appears that these people will have to once again see the unimaginable materialize in front of their eyes before they are willing to do what must be done. For how else can one explain opposition to President Bush's plan to dismantle Saddam Hussein's regime?
I do not mean to suggest that there are not legitimate questions about a potential operation against Iraq. Indeed, there are. But the question of whether removing Saddam's regime is itself legitimate is not one of them. Equally immaterial is the argument that America cannot oust Saddam without prior approval of the international community.
This is a dictator who is rapidly expanding his arsenal of biological and chemical weapons, who has used these weapons of mass destruction against his subjects and his neighbors, and who is feverishly trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
The dangers posed by a nuclear-armed Saddam were understood by my country two decades ago, well before Sept. 11. In 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Began dispatched the Israeli air force on a predawn raid that destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Though at the time Israel was condemned by all the world's governments, history has rendered a far kinder judgment on that act of unquestionable foresight and courage.
Two decades ago it was possible to thwart Saddam's nuclear ambitions by bombing a single installation. Today nothing less than dismantling his regime will do. For Saddam's nuclear program has changed. He no longer needs one large reactor to produce the deadly material necessary for atomic bombs. He can produce it in centrifuges the size of washing machines that can be hidden throughout the country--and Iraq is a very big country. Even free and unfettered inspections will not uncover these portable manufacturing sites of mass death.
We now know that had the democracies taken pre-emptive action to bring down Hitler's regime in the 1930s, the worst horrors in history could have been avoided. And we now know, from defectors and other intelligence, that had Israel not launched its pre-emptive strike on Saddam's atomic-bomb factory recent history would have taken a far more dangerous course.
I write this as a citizen of the country that is most endangered by a pre-emptive strike. For in the last gasps of his dying regime, Saddam may well attempt to launch his remaining missiles, with their biological and chemical warheads, at the Jewish State.
Though I am today a private citizen, I believe I speak for the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike against Saddam's regime. We support this American action even though we stand on the front lines, while others criticize it as they sit comfortably on the sidelines. But we know that their sense of comfort is an illusion. For if action is not taken now, we will all be threatened by a much greater peril.
We support this action because it is possible today to defend against chemical and biological attack. There are gas masks, vaccinations and other means of civil defense that can protect our citizens and reduce the risks to them.
Indeed, a central component of any strike on Iraq must be to ensure that the Israeli government, if it so chooses, has the means to vaccinate every citizen of Israel before action is initiated. Ensuring this is not merely the responsibility of the government of Israel, but also the responsibility of the government of the U.S.
But no gas mask and no vaccine can protect against nuclear weapons. That is why regimes that have no compunction about using weapons of mass destruction, and that will not hesitate to give them to their terror proxies, must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. These regimes must be brought down before they possess the power to bring us all down.
If a pre-emptive action will be supported by a broad coalition of free countries and the U.N., all the better. But if such support is not forthcoming, then the U.S. must be prepared to act without it. This will require courage, and I see it abundantly present in President Bush's bold leadership and in the millions of Americans who have rallied behind him.
I recognize this courage because I see it on the faces of my countrymen every day. Millions of Israelis who have been subjected to an unprecedented campaign of terror have stood firmly behind our government in the war against Palestinian terror. We have not crumbled. We have not run. We have stood our ground and fought back.
Today the terrorists have the will to destroy us but not the power. Today we have the power to destroy them. Now we must summon the will to do so.
Mr. Netanyahu is a former prime minister of Israel.
Copyright © 2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
THE LAND OF ISRAEL
TO THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL
Ruth and Nadia Matar
To Our Dear Friends and Supporters,
We have begun a new and exciting campaign in which we are sure you will want to participate. The Oslo-ites in the past 10 years have done terrible damage to the nation of Israel. The Israeli Left and Media have brainwashed our youth and poisoned their minds. They told them that Israel has no right to the Land of Israel, and that peace was only possible if the Jews first gave large portions of their Promised Land to the Arabs.
Unfortunately, there are even many in the present Government who are impressed by the Oslo mindset. There are few voices recognizing that we must completely destroy the Palestinian Authority (PA) and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and all other supporters of terror, and instill Jewish sovereignty over all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. A large part of the Jewish People love their Biblical homeland and Heritage. However, our youth, because of the Leftist Media, have problems with such beliefs!
Women In Green are starting off our campaign to re-educate our youth with the printing of banners in Hebrew which read:
Eretz Yisrael L'Am Yisrael
(The Land of Israel Belongs to the Jewish People)
We aim to have these banners placed on the balconies of private apartments and homes throughout Israel. This was done successfully with regard to Israel retaining the Golan Heights some years ago, when signs on balconies all over Israel read: The People of Israel are with the Golan. Now we are fighting to retain possession of our Biblical Homeland.
The banners are 120 cm by 80 cm. They are made of strong plastic (winter is coming!) and have a reinforced hole at each corner. They are in blue and white, as were the car stickers we widely distributed heretofore. We are selling the banners at less than cost at 10 NIS shekels, and the nominal cost of mailing them. The banners are simply beautiful. They convey a message of optimism and faith in God, and our ancestral right to our homeland. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO SPREAD THESE BANNERS THROUGHOUT ISRAEL. Convince your friends, relatives and neighbors to place this banner on their balcony as well!.
We are in need of volunteers to distribute these banners. For instance, if you live in Rechovot, or Ashkelon, etc., we will deliver as many banners as you can handle, and you can have your young people, or yourself along with them, sell them from door to door.
To our Women In Green friends and supporters abroad, you can help as well. We need your donations so that we can order the huge quantity of banners we need, and to advertise our program in newspapers, and over radio and television. Go to our Website (www.womeningreen.org) and safely send us your credit card donation, or mail your check to us at P.O.B. 7352, Jerusalem, 91072, Israel. Demonstrate concretely your faith in God's Promise that the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
THE CASE FOR KILLING ARAFAT
By Steven Plaut
The entire world seems engrossed with the fate of Yassir Arafat, as he sits perched in the ruined headquarters of his Palestinian Authority, looking down at his pursuers like a terrorist Rapunzel.
And as the world contemplates the denouement of this drama, it seems that there is international consensus that Arafat - unlike Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein - must not be harmed physically. Even within Israel, it is almost impossible to find a single politician or commentator who suggests that Arafat should be killed. The working presumption of all is that the world will be outraged if Israel harms a whisker on Arafat's cartoon-like face. Some politicians in Israel are proposing simply expelling Arafat. Others suggest he be allowed to run off to some Arab summit or other and then be prevented from returning. Nearly all of them are in intense anxiety lest an Israeli bulldozer or IDF soldier accidentally cause harm to befall the imprisoned arch-terrorist.
All of which would be laughable if it were not so sad.
The fact of the matter is that Arafat should have been killed long ago. Israel actually had opportunities to kill him, such as in the 1982 siege of Beirut, but decided to let Arafat go free at the time. Hundreds of Israeli lives have been lost due to that decision. September 13, 2001 might also have been an opportune timing.
It is argued that the Palestinians will be outraged and go on a murder spree if Arafat is killed. But when Arafat was NOT dead, indeed when he was directing the mechanism of a Palestinian state-emerging, the Palestinians went on a barbaric killing spree. Was there any shortage of Nazi-like atrocities perpetrated by Palestinians when Israel was treating Arafat with red carpets and honor guards, as a statesman, and appeasing him with unbelievable concessions?
And it is argued that the world will denounce Israel if it kills Arafat and would demonize the Jews. But the world was denouncing Israel and demonizing the Jews as "Nazis" even when Israel was exercising "self-restraint" and self-abasement to degrees without precedent in human history. And when Ehud Barak offered Arafat absolutely everything at Camp David that the latter was publicly demanding, despite Arafat's having violated every single Oslo obligation to which he had ever committed, the entire world denounced Israeli "obstinacy" and "occupation". The world's reaction was to demonize Israel as being the "obstacle" to "peace". Western Europe and the developing world morphed into huge anti-Jewish Nuremberg Rallies. So what does Israel have to lose from killing Arafat?
But there is a far more important reason why Arafat should be killed.
Israel was created because in its absence Jews were mass murdered throughout history by savages with impunity. Israel was created in response to the events of World War II. Israel was restored to independence so that never again could someone commit mass murders of hundreds of Jewish civilians and be left alive. Israel was created to be a mechanism to kill any future mass murderers, any future Nazis. Israel's basic existence must be to deny impunity to mass murderers of Jews.
Arafat's stormtroopers have murdered nearly a thousand Jews, just since he signed the 1993 Oslo "Peace" Accord on the White House Lawn. To allow Arafat to walk is the same as conceding that Israel is willing to abandon its raison d'etre, that "Never Again" is just an empty slogan. To leave Arafat alive is to advertise to all that Jews are there for anyone with a grievance (real or imagined) to kill, that it is open season on them. It makes a mockery out of any program to deter terrorism. It denies the fundamental moral justification for Israel's rebirth.
The Jerusalem Post
THE BULLDOZER'S BULLDOZERS
By Uri Dan
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave US Secretary of State Colin Powell the reasons that caused his government to decide, unanimously, to completely isolate Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat in Ramallah. The long conversation took place last Saturday night, two days after a Palestinian suicide bomber slaughtered six passengers on bus No. 4 and injured another 60 in Tel Aviv.
"We shall not permit the Palestinians to continue murdering Jews, at the same time telling us they are introducing reforms," said the prime minister.
"Several countries have expressed concern to us and wanted to know why we are destroying the buildings in the Mukata, Arafat's headquarters. But not one wanted to know about the victim of the attack opposite the Great Synagogue in Tel Aviv who complained to a nurse in the hospital that he couldn't feel his hand. The nurse lifted the blanket and told him he had lost his hand. None of those who contacted us about the bulldozers took any interest in the innocent citizen whose head was blown off in the terrorist attack."
Sharon told Powell that it would be easier and faster for Israel to send its troops to the Mukata and extract the Palestinian terrorists by force. However, he explained, Israel preferred to use the bulldozer to save as many lives as possible. The operation could be ended rapidly, he said, if all the international pressure were directed at the leader of the terrorism, Arafat, in order to make him hand over the wanted terrorists.
Powell's concern in his phone call to Sharon was understandable. The US had succeeded in recruiting impressive support for its plan that the Palestinians elect a prime minister who would direct their affairs one who would in fact replace Arafat and be as far as possible from his sphere of influence. In the State Department's view, this was a strategic achievement.
But in Israel's view, Palestinian terrorism itself during the last two years of the war initiated by Arafat has become a threat that is also strategic.
Not prepared to let Arafat renew with full force the waves of terrorism that were reduced following Operation Defensive Shield in April, Sharon's concern is no less understandable. He is not prepared for Jews to pay with their blood in the interval until the Palestinians reform.
Sharon is also not prepared for Jews to continue to be murdered while Israel sits on its hands because of the approaching war against Arafat's partner, Saddam Hussein. It would be neither morally nor diplomatically justifiable to wait to deal with Arafat until it can be done amid the fog of battle in Baghdad.
After Hamas assumed responsibility for last week's slaughter in Tel Aviv, the media rushed to announce that Sharon had convened a security-cabinet meeting with the participation of the entire government in order to take a decision to attack Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
BUT SHARON is experienced enough not to fall into Hamas's dangerous trap, particularly after Israeli military correspondents alerted Hamas to the fact that the IDF would attack. Thus, after preliminary agreement with Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, Sharon brought to the cabinet meeting an objective that contained the element of surprise. The movement of IDF tanks and bulldozers toward Arafat's HQ came as a complete shock.
Arafat had done nothing to halt the terrorist offensive. On the contrary, he encouraged it with the total cooperation of the wanted terrorists to whom he has given protection. But he was tempted to believe that Israel wouldn't dare to renew the siege against him, and so he gave those terrorists refuge.
The bulldozers didn't begin the systematic destruction of the remains of Arafat's kingdom in Ramallah until the government had been persuaded to unanimously approve the prime minister's proposal. To his credit, even Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Arafat's 1994 Nobel Peace Prize partner, supported it.
Certain members of the media attempted to create a distorted picture, as if the razing of the Mukata and the isolation of Arafat would produce no benefit. They claimed Sharon had actually enhanced Arafat's status, when in fact it had already hit rock bottom.
"Sharon saved Arafat" was the headline of an article in Ha'aretz by Danny Rubinstein, a veteran PLO sympathizer. Anchorman Amnon Abramowitz on Channel 1 said that "Arafat has been given artificial respiration" by Israel." Yoram Binur on Channel 2 interviewed Palestinians who insisted Arafat would remain their leader forever. Kol Yisrael announcer Carmit Gai mockingly inquired about the connection between disconnecting the air conditioners in Arafat's offices and the war against terrorism, and asked why Sharon wasn't fighting Hamas.
During the years since the Oslo agreement these self-accredited geniuses have developed the slogan that Arafat is a "partner for peace," and therefore ought to congratulate Sharon for "saving" Arafat, their disappointing hero.
Let me assure them that their joy will be short-lived. The power of the bulldozer in the right time and place is greater than that of the tank. These journalists and their colleagues have never understood what Arafat really is, just as they have never comprehended who Sharon is, when he protects Jews against their murderers.
This human bulldozer, with his decisiveness and ability to taking care of business, is far more powerful that the bulldozers he sent to the Mukata.
During the last day of Succot in 1973, at the peak of the Yom Kippur War, when he commanded the 143rd Armored Division, Sharon prepared bulldozers to break down the high mound of earth on the east bank of the Suez Canal. There he erected a bridgehead for crossing the canal and turned Israel's defeat into victory. It brought Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem to ask for peace in 1977.
This Succot, Sharon's bulldozers are another step toward the defeat of terrorism.
The writer is the Mideast correspondent of The New York Post.
(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post
SADDAM MAY GET FIRST STRIKE IN:
Israel Is Prime Target
DEBKAfile Military Analysis
21 September: DEBKAfile's military sources point to the danger of Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein attempting to turn the tables on the American offensive against his regime by stealing a leaf from the Bush administration's newly- enunciated first-strike strategy.
An Iraqi pre-emptive could take three forms:
1. Nuclear, biological or chemical terror strike in a major American city or closer to home against Israel.
2. Military or terrorist action against one of the Persian Gulf nations that have made bases available to the United States, with Kuwait, Qatar and Oman first in line.
3. A large-scale missile assault on Israel.
The latest official pronouncements have played down any such threat to Israel.
US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Thursday, September 19, that he trusted Israel would not react if struck by Iraqi missiles, while the Israel chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon said last week that he is less worried about the Iraqi threat than he is by Palestinian terror. Nonetheless, neither official is oblivious to the possibility of an Iraqi first strike action and both the United States and Israel have made appropriate preparations. DEBKAfile reports as a certainty that, far from refraining to respond, Israel will reply to any Iraqi strike by making its military presence known to Iraq in the full strength.
The threat of an Iraqi military strike increases the closer the Americans come to launch-date for their overt war against Baghdad. Washington admitted Saturday, September 21, that a detailed Pentagon plan containing the military options for deposing Saddam had been delivered to the White House in early September.
In its latest issue, on September 20, DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported that, on September 10, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, and the head of the Central Command, General Tommy Franks, informed President Bush they had wound up the preparations for war and it was over to the president for the countdown to D-Day. The exclusive report noted that covert military operations are advancing stage by stage, concurrently with the White House's all-out bid for support in and outside the United Nations and in the US Congress.
"It is a kind of modular exercise" - one high-placed Washington source put it, "structured so that when it is completed, the commander in chief can signal the transition to open war without further preliminaries on the ground."
DEBKA-Net-Weekly 's military sources report that special forces units from the United States,Britain, Turkey,Jordan are operational inside Iraq. A steel ring furthermore encloses Iraq by land and sea, some of its links formed by bases in such countries as Saudi Arabia (despite its ifs and buts - as we first revealed on August 2), Egypt,Qatar, Bahrain,Oman, Kuwait.
Friday, September 20, President George W. Bush, when he hosted Russian defense and foreign ministers at the White House, opened the door to a compromise on Moscow's resistance to a new and tougher UN Security Council on Iraq that spelt out the consequences for Iraq's failure to disarm. This was confirmed in the US president's conversation with Vladimir Putin at his Black Sea holiday resort. In any case, US counteraction by veto is in the air. US Secretary of State Colin Powell warned Council members that if they refuse to endorse the American resolution, Washington will vote against sending UN arms inspectors to Iraq.
Baghdad has meanwhile announced that it will not admit inspectors dispatched in accordance with the American-formulated resolution.Cutting through this diplomatic cat's cradle, Franks stepped forward Saturday, September 21, to confirm his forces are ready to undertake whatever activities and actions may be directed as soon as the president makes the decision to go to war.
He spoke while touring US bases in Kuwait after calling two unscheduled training exercises that could quickly be converted into war action in neighboring Iraq.The evidence in hand at the moment points to the first or second week of October as the likeliest time for the overt side of the war to be launched by Washington barring any unforeseen Iraqi pre-emptive move.
With telling timing, the Bush administration unveiled Friday, September 20, its national security strategy, a document that emphasized military pre-emption as the prime means for maintaining America's political and military superiority against the newly-emerging threats.
"As a matter of common sense and self-defense", says the paper, "America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed". It is therefore willing to launch pre-emptive military strikes against perceived dangers posed by tyrant state and terrorist networks before they reach American shores. Terrorists and rogue states were identified as the common enemy of the world's great powers. "The greatest danger our nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and technology."
The paper addresses the transformation of national security institutions, stressing the need to improve intelligence.
24 September: DEBKAfile's readers were not taken aback by the Israeli Shin Beit's (Security Service) disclosure on September 23 that it had custody of a three-man Palestinian cell from Ramallah who trained in Iraq with Iraqi instructors in the execution of strikes against Israeli targets - in the company of al Qaeda terrorists.
Their admissions - which link Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in a collaborative relationship for the pursuit of terror were included in a sensitive file carried to Washington this week by a team of Israeli officers.
DEBKAfile pointed attention to this association right after the Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya on March 27, 2002. Three months earlier, in January 2002, we highlighted secret rendezvous taking place regularly in Amman between two childhood friends: Col. Tawfiq Tirawi, chief of West Bank General Intelligence and one of Arafat's most trusted aides, and another Palestinian terror executive, Mohammad Abbas, known as Abu al-Abbas, head of the Baghdad-based Arab Liberation Front. The two men were born and went to school in the village of Tirah north of Ramallah. From 1991, they have been meeting regularly in Amman, which is halfway between the West Bank and Baghdad, to trade directives, intelligence, funds and messages between their respective bosses.
Abu al-Abbas is better known for hijacking the Achille Lauro pleasure craft in 985 in an operation ordered by Arafat's and throwing the American Jewish Leon Klinghoffer overboard in his wheelchair.
Tirawi's importance to Arafat is such that is willing to see his government compound in ruins rather than hand his senior aide over with his pockets full of incriminating secrets.
According to DEBKAfile's military and counter-terror sources, the Israeli officers brought to Washington two further pieces of information:
1. The interrogations of Palestinian and Iraqi terrorists and agents picked up in recent weeks in the West Bank, at the Jordan Bridges crossings from Jordan and in Jordan itself, yielded the discovery that Yasser Arafat's hand was behind the assassination in Baghdad on August 16 of the terror master Abu Nidal, his notorious former partner turned rival, with four of his aides. Indeed, Tirawi and Abu al-Abbas were entrusted with setting up the murder. Arafat asked Saddam Hussein to get rid of Abu Nidal, claiming he was on the point of passing to American parties in the Persian Gulf evidence of the three-way partnership-for-terror forged by Arafat, Saddam and bin Laden. Arafat relayed his request to the Iraqi leader through Ahmed Azzam, Arafat's special envoy to Baghdad, together with Al-Abbas.
Saddam gave his assent at the beginning of August. The plan of operation entailed Abu Nidal's regular contacts in Iraqi intelligence calling on him and, when he opened the door unsuspectingly, standing aside for the Palestinians to burst in and do the deed..
2. The second piece of information relayed to Washington exposes another hidden facet of the working relationship binding Arafat and his PLO with Saddam and al Qaida. That facet surfaced after Italy seized a ship on August 5, carrying a suspected al Qaeda cell of 15 Pakistanis. The ship's smudged name appeared to be "Sara". The Pakistanis were detained in Sicily after US naval intelligence deciphered coded messages and gathered evidence on some of the men. One coded note used the expression "united in matrimony", which was similar to a reference intercepted during the first attack on New York's TwinTowers in 1993.
DEBKAfile 's counter-terror sources reveal exclusively one of the most telling discoveries of the Italian investigation: The "Sara" was owned by the same shipper as the Karine-A, the freighter captured by Israel last January with 50 tonnes of arms bound for the Palestinian Authority. Both vessels were also purchased by the same Palestinian-Iraqi company; the Palestinians negotiated the purchase with money put up by Iraq. Both ships flew the Tongan flag of convenience.
Whereas the Karine-A carried a cargo of contraband weapons provided by Iran, the Sara carried a suspected al Qaeda terrorist cell.
Arafat may protest he is innocent of terrorist activities and make a show of demanding a halt to terror. However, ample evidence continues to pile up demonstrating his hand in violence not only against Israel, but also in al Qaeda's global terror campaign and Iraq's machinations against the United States.
The Jerusalem Post, Sept 25, 2002
GARIBALDI STREET, RAMALLAH
By Michael Freund
After two years of relentless Palestinian terror, there is something refreshingly ironic about Yasser Arafat's current plight. Holed up in what remains of his Ramallah compound known as the Mukata, Arafat now finds himself surrounded by Jews in uniform, members of the very same people he has devoted his career to mercilessly killing and destroying.
With their rifles at the ready, these proud young defenders of the Jewish people stand prepared to bring the Palestinian leader to justice, if only Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will give the order.
This is a moment we should all be relishing.
Indeed, not since May 1960, when Israeli agents apprehended German mastermind Adolf Eichmann outside his Buenos Aires home on Garibaldi Street, has a mass murderer of Jews been so close to being captured.
In his account of the operation, The House on Garibaldi Street, Mossad chief Isser Harel explained the reason behind his determination to bring Eichmann to justice: "In everything pertaining to the Jews, he was the paramount authority and his were the hands that pulled the strings controlling manhunt and massacre... this man was pointed to as the head butcher."
By now, it should be clear to all that those words offer an apt description of Arafat, as well.
It is Arafat's hand that signed the checks to fund Palestinian terror attacks against Israel. And it is Arafat's voice that gave the green light to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and his own Fatah movement to launch suicide-bombing attacks against innocent men, women and children. And it is Arafat's mind that plotted and oversaw the present wave of Palestinian terror.
"His were the hands that pulled the strings..." As a result, more than 600 innocent Israelis have been murdered in the past two years by Palestinian terrorists. That is 600 compelling reasons to bring Arafat to justice. Which is not to mention the Munich Olympics massacre, the Achille Lauro hijacking or other various atrocities perpetrated over the years by the PLO.
The French are said to be "appalled," and the rest of Europe is hopping mad, that Israel now dares to turn up the heat on the leader of the Palestinian revolution.
LET THEM fume all they wish. They stood by silently as Eichmann's henchmen murdered Jews half a century ago, and they spoke out in protest only when Israel hunted him down and brought him to trial.
Then, as now, they do nothing to stop the killing of Jews, but everything to stop the State of Israel from seeking justice.
But, with Arafat in its crosshairs, Israel now has an opportunity to remind the world, and many Israelis too, about the meaning of Zionism and Jewish sovereignty: namely, that those who kill Jews can no longer do so with impunity.
It was a lesson that guided the state in its early years, giving rise to the daring operation that brought Eichmann to a courthouse in Jerusalem. But that lesson was largely brushed aside over much of the past decade, when the government chose to court Arafat rather than haul him before a court.
The Palestinian leader, of course, is no Eichmann, and it would be wrong to compare the Palestinians to the Nazis. The point here, quite simply, is this: anyone who murders Jews, as Arafat has done, must be made to pay for his actions.
In his last address to his men before the end of the Second World War, Eichmann is reported by one of his close associates to have said these chilling words: "I shall leap into my grave laughing, because the feeling that I have the deaths of five million people on my conscience will be for me a source of extraordinary satisfaction." Israel's task now is to ensure that Arafat knows no similar sense of contentment.
After pursuing him on and off over the past four decades for his lethal anti-Jewish terror, Israel now has Arafat in its sights, in the modern-day equivalent of the house on Garibaldi Street, in the heart of Ramallah.
Now is the time for Israel to finish the job. Now is the time to bring Arafat to justice once and for all.
The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.
(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post
The Jerusalem Post
ISRAEL BETWEEN WATER AND FIRE
By Uri Dan
Water is also a weapon in the terrorist war against Israel. Hizbullah, a terrorist organization supported by Syria and Iran, lies behind the attempt to steal the water of the Wazzani River, and certainly takes into account that this is liable to end in fire on the northern border.
Hizbullah apparently believes that in either case it will benefit. If Israel does not hinder it from stealing the water, in contravention of international law and the agreement in force between Israel and Lebanon for decades, Israel's water shortage will become even more extreme. If Israel does react with fire in order to prevent the pumping of the Wazzani waters, Hizbullah has set up thousands of rockets and missiles capable of causing damage to Israeli towns, and will attempt to disrupt the American campaign against Iraq.
Even US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State David Satterfield, who is not known for his support of Israel, said in an August 28 meeting with Foreign Ministry personnel: The US interprets the tremendous quantities of arms that Iran is sending to Hizbullah, with Syrian approval, as a potential for escalation.
Accordingly, the US intends to work to halt the transfer of these weapons, and specific requests have been made to the countries overflown by the supply flights to stop permitting these flights.
Satterfield added that the US is not threatening Syria but has made it clear that any use made of the arms supplied to Hizbullah will cause escalation that will first and foremost harm Syria itself.
In the light of the progress of the feverish work executed by Hizbullah on the piping project over many kilometers, it seems that Satterfield's messages and warnings have made little impression on Beirut and Damascus, and certainly not on Hizbullah.
Evidently, the Lebanese government, like southern Lebanon, is a hostage of Hizbullah, with the silent agreement, if not the encouragement, of Syria.
This is in fact a complex minefield. At the end of the day, however, Israel must ensure that the Lebanese, including Hizbullah's terrorist regime, do not pump the waters of the Hatzbani.
THIRTY-SEVEN years ago the Arab countries made a joint decision to attempt to divert the sources of the Jordan River. At that time the Syrians organized the heavy equipment and commenced work, protected by their army deployed on the Golan Heights. The pan-Arabic intention was to steal the water in order to make Israel as short of water as possible. In a series of brilliant military operations Israel destroyed the heavy equipment.
Maj.-Gen. Yisrael Tal, then an outstanding commander of the Armored Corps, made sure that the shells from his tanks reached unprecedented ranges and hit the Syrian bulldozers and tanks. This protracted battle for the sources of the water not only thwarted the Arab plan but also led to the Six Day War.
The problem is of course how to prevent the theft of the waters of the Wazzani without causing the outbreak of war in the north, for which the Shi'ite terrorist organization deployed in southern and central Lebanon is striving. There are still people in Israel who remember the lessons of the war for the water in the Sixties and who know very well what resources and options are held by Israel today.
The major difference is the international and geopolitical background to the Israeli-Arab conflict against which this latest affair is taking place.
In the Sixties some Arab countries struggled openly against Israel in order to attempt to steal the water, while the Soviet Union, as part of the Cold War, provided political support and military aid to Egypt and Syria. At that time the Soviets helped to cause the escalation of the water conflict into the 1967 war.
Now a terrorist organization, Hizbullah, is in the front line of the attempt to steal the water, while Iran and Syria hide behind it.
Today the world is run by a single superpower, the United States. Unfortunately for the terrorist organizations, President George W. Bush has identified the great deception of nations that support terrorism and given it a name: the axis of evil. Even if these nations are not always singled out by name, and even if they sometimes successfully hide their fingerprints, they are in America's sights.
In this global war against terrorism declared by the US, Israel will also find the way to prevent the theft of the waters of the Hatzbani becoming a new weapon in Hizbullah's arsenal.
The writer is the Mideast correspondent of The New York Post.
(c) 2002 The Jerusalem Post
TAKE BACK JOSEPH'S TOMB
By Michael Freund
This past weekend marked two years on the Hebrew calendar since a Palestinian mob seized control over Joseph's Tomb in Shechem (Nablus), ransacking the Jewish holy site and setting it ablaze.
Though a great deal has happened in the interim, it is difficult to forget the painful scenes of mayhem and destruction that were broadcast around the world at the time.
There was the smoke billowing from the tomb, as Jewish prayer books and other religious articles left behind by the retreating Israeli army were set alight by the crowd. And then there were the Palestinians with pickaxes and hammers, smashing the stone building which housed the site and tearing it apart, brick by brick, in a frenzy of hate and defilement.
Within two days, as an Associated Press dispatch (October 10, 2000) reported, "the dome of the tomb was painted green and bulldozers were seen clearing the surrounding area," as the Palestinians sought to transform the biblical Joseph's resting place into a Moslem holy site.
It was a shocking display, both of the Palestinians' lack of respect for Judaism and its sacred places, and of Yasser Arafat's unwillingness to comply with his commitments.
In the early hours of October 7, 2000, after days of relentless attacks by Palestinian policemen and Fatah terrorists, Israel withdrew the small contingent of soldiers who had been guarding the site. In exchange, the PA promised to protect it, in accordance with their obligation under the Oslo Accords. Within hours, Joseph's Tomb was reduced to a smoldering heap of rubble.
Israel's pullout from the site was a grave strategic error, marking the first time that the IDF had withdrawn under fire and surrendered territory to the Palestinians as a direct result of violence.
Coming barely a week after the start of the current intifada, the retreat from Joseph's Tomb only served to whet the PA's appetite still further, sending a dangerous signal to Arafat that in the face of unremitting attacks, Israel would capitulate. Who knows what inspiration and encouragement the Israeli withdrawal gave to the budding young terrorists of Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad? The pullback was also an affront to Jewish history and tradition, as Joseph's Tomb had long been a focus of Jewish pilgrimage and prayer.
THE LATE Dr. Zvi Ilan, one of Israel's foremost archeologists, described Joseph's Tomb as "one of the tombs whose location is known with the utmost degree of certainty and is based on continuous documentation since biblical times" ("Tombs of the Righteous in the Land of Israel", p. 365).
The Book of Joshua (24:32) states explicitly, "The bones of Joseph which the Children of Israel brought up from Egypt were buried in Shechem in the portion of the field that had been purchased by Jacob." Ancient rabbinic texts such as the Midrash mention the site, as did the early Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, who visited it nearly 1,700 years ago. Arab geographers, medieval Jewish pilgrims, Samaritan historians and even 19th-century British cartographers all concur regarding the site and its location.
Prior to the Palestinian takeover in October 2000, the tomb's compound was host to a yeshiva, and it was visited by thousands of Jewish worshipers annually.
Indeed, in recent months, with the IDF again operating in Nablus, there have been a number of unauthorized attempts made by Jews to reach the site and pray there, often at immense personal risk. Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of such efforts, the fact is that they seem to have worked: this past Saturday night, for the first time in two years, the army officially permitted some 100 Jews to visit the tomb and hold services there.
While that is a step in the right direction, it is hardly enough. The time has come for Israel to take back Joseph's Tomb once and for all.
To leave the site in Palestinian hands would be to reward mob violence. After 24 months of suicide bombings, shootings, stonings and mortar attacks, it is essential that the "original sin" of ditching Joseph's Tomb be corrected forthwith. Such a step would send a clear and unequivocal message to the Palestinians that nothing absolutely nothing will be gained from their resort to carnage and bloodshed.
Last week, the cabinet wisely decided to include Rachel's Tomb, outside Bethlehem, within the boundaries of the security zone to be constructed around Jerusalem. There is no reason for Joseph, Rachel's beloved son, to be left behind either.
Twice in Jewish history, Joseph was forsaken by his brothers and handed over to foreigners. The first time was in the biblical story, when he was tossed into a pit and sold to traveling merchants. The second time was in October 2000, when his tomb was surrendered to a crazed horde of Palestinian rioters.
Now, with the IDF active in the territories, we have a chance to right that historic wrong. And right it we must, because Joseph should not be abandoned yet again.
The writer served as deputy director of communications & policy planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.
DEPRIVING THE ARABS OF THEIR PREY
By Emanuel A. Winston
Middle East Analyst & Commentator
The Arab nations continue to whine and complain that America has unfairly deprived them of their victory over Israel since 1948. Somehow, in their fertile imagination where Arabs wander about in their fantasy land, they believe they are not to blame for losing six wars of intended annihilation to their hated enemy, the Jews. They claim that "It wasn't the Jews who met each attack with courage and fighting skills that beat them on the field of battle." Clearly, 'they' didn't lose to the despised Jews who, for centuries the Arab Muslims had designated as lowly habitants of most Arab lands. If it wasn't the Jews, who in the Arabs' fables and imagination were weak and cowardly, it must have been America, who they call "The Great Satan" that defeated them.
So, the Arabs, as is their custom, invented new realities and history. They, the Arabs, were not fighting a small number of Jews, who sent them running from the field of battle. It was those dastardly Americans. Being beaten by a Superpower is acceptable to their testicle-driven pride and, therefore, there is no shame in being beaten by a Superpower.
Note! At this point a bit of reality and history is called for. Not only did the Americans not assist Israel in 1948 but America, along with Europe, embargoed arms shipments to Israel. She had to scrounge the junkyards of Europe to accumulate obsolete arms that dated back often to WWI and the cast-offs of WWII. It was long after that Israel was allowed to "buy" arms, using monies contributed by Jews in America. The Jews of Europe, having been killed off by Hitler's Nazis who were assisted by most European nations, could not contribute. Any property the survivors might have previously owned, had been confiscated by the occupying Nazis and their European collaborators. Their assets had been grabbed by Hitler, the French, the Swiss, the Ukrainians - etc. Well, it's all there in the well-researched books about WWII.
So, the walking skeletons who came out of the graveyards of Europe and made it past the British blockade to Palestine supplemented the earlier Jewish pioneers, bringing the Jewish population in 1948 to some 600,000. This became the rag-tag army who were issued a vintage rifle, allowed to fire 3 bullets for training and sent to fight the converging armies from 7 Arab countries - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Yemen. These armies were all well-trained and well-armed by the British or French. The always perfidious Brits left their Taggart Forts and ammunition to the Arabs upon their departure for England. The Arabs met this ghostly army of Jewish survivors and were driven back in shock by the Jews. The Arabs never forgot this humiliating loss. They call it 'Nakba', the catastrophe - which it was for them, both physically and psychologically. This was a loss to their testicle-driven manhood and a loss to their vaunted pride in the fertile imagination of their invincibility.
Later, the Jews from Arab countries were evicted from homes and businesses with their lineage going back thousands of years. They lived in tent camps but, unlike Arab refugees, the Jews of Israel accepted their own people and they were eventually absorbed by a new country which had no money, no external resources and few natural resources except their own brains, grit and faith. The Arab refugees were kept in deliberate squalor and never allowed citizenship in the Arab countries - although they claimed a spurious brotherhood.
As history unfolds, there were more attacks and frequent Terrorism in between the six actual wars. The Arabs were beaten again and again, even more soundly. The Jewish people, who had not been warriors since ancient times, re-learned the arts of war. They often built their own arms when they were denied arms from the Western nations who were more concerned with sucking up to Arab oil then the survival of the tiny Jewish State.
In each war that Israel won, the Americans, Europeans and the Soviets would step in to insure that there was no final surrender by the Arabs. After all, how could the lowly Jews force the Arab world to its knees in a military victory?! Israel was time and again forbidden the fruits of victory to secure her sovereignty. Israel could not be allowed to be victorious as America was when she and her Allies defeated Germany and Japan, imposing a just and secure peace. Israel was never to be permitted such a victory or a full peace with a defeated enemy. Even now, the world screams when Israel dares to defeat Arafat's Terrorists and impose a peace which only power can maintain.
History continued to stumble on, with the Arabs hating the Jews, the Americans and the ever-present sniveling Europeans. What the Arabs could not win on the battlefield, they tried to win through Terror. Out of the Arab nations came their proxies: Iran sponsors Hezb'Allah in Lebanon under Syrian control. Syria hosts at least 10-12 Terror organizations. Egypt founded the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization) in 1964 - well before Israel had liberated Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights and that part of Jerusalem which Jordan had occupied for 19 years. Other Terror organizations, like Al Qaeda out of Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan - with some from Iraq -were fostered and trained in various Arab countries. The Soviet Union also ran immense Terrorist training camps, a fact exposed to the incredulous world during the First Yonatan Conference Against Terrorism in 1979.
Our U.S. State Department covered up these facts that their Arab 'allies', Eg., Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, etc., were incubators for Terrorists. Rogue nations such as Iran, Syria, Iraq were more open in their display of hatred for Christian America and all non-Muslims. The Arabs called Israel "The Little Satan" and America "The Great Satan". They had a few pertinent, folksy sayings, like "First the Saturday people; then the Sunday people" and "Kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off." These indicate the deep, enduring roots of the enmity that led to the 9/11.
Within days after 9/11, the FBI/CIA knew the perpetrators as 15 Saudi Arabians and 4 Egyptians, organized by Osama Bin Laden, a Saudi out of Sudan but then based in Afghanistan. So, America destroyed Afghanistan and the obvious Taliban Terror structure - leaving the warlords in control of their various areas and whatever Terrorists who could escape to the mountains or other countries - there to hide until opportunity calls them again for murder. They also thrive in the Free West, especially America, where they have set up "sleeper cells" awaiting their master Terrorists' calls for mega-attacks against their host countries.
Today, the radical Islamic Fundamentalists continue to turn history on its head, claiming that they only took up arms because it was the West, especially Israel and America, who attacked them, that is, who attacked Islam first. Arabs, when they revise history do not believe they are lying. The alteration of facts to suit their fantasies is simply a natural expression and custom of the way they see the world. A lie or a re-telling of the story is 'not a lie' but merely a 'new truth'. This is why the West cannot ever depend upon any agreement made with an Arab country. Everything is written on the sand which is quickly erased by the blowing wind and the laws of strict Islam.
When you hear an Arab Muslim say he is 'merely defending himself (or his country), be assured that he has already attacked his victim - particularly if he has lost the battle.
When you hear the Arab/Muslim nations bleat about why they are backward and poor, they blame America for their shortcomings. Be assured no one but their own leaders have whipped them down into the dirt.
The Lie is the Arab Muslims' best tool to explain defeat or excuse his planned attack against his enemies. As Carl Jung observed, the aggressor first blames his victim for planning to attack so that he can attack - with the claim that he is the supposedly injured party. The Leftist Liberal Media consume the 'Lie' as if it was candy - even expanding upon it.
So, losing wars to the Jews is merely the fault of the Americans who deprived them of their prey. To call the Arab Muslims "Terrorists" is not a racist statement. All the Terrorists in the last 10 years at least have been Arab Muslims. The Arab Muslim Terrorists are clever, deadly and have been trained and armed by the West. (We needed the money and the oil.)
Therefore, American had best be prepared to defend against malicious and nefarious Terror attacks of yet unknown magnitude. Winston Churchill once intoned: "The Hun is either at your throat or at your feet." So too, a radical Muslims, dedicated to a world dominated by Islam, will not stop until they are utterly defeated.