Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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






THE TEMPLE MOUNT FAITHFUL, Fanatics or Jewish Patriots?...A Reissue.....Bernard J. Shapiro 2



BATAT'S 'J'ACCUSE'....Uri Dan 4

STATE IN TURMOIL....Ariel Sharon 6


THE NEW MIDDLE EAST - STILL....Louis Rene Beres 8













THE MACCABEAN * [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE: URL:

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

Copyright (c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro

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




By Bernard J. Shapiro

The great under-reported story in the Jewish and national media including the Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) is the continued deterioration of Israel Prime Minister's Ehud Barak's mental state.

In the past months Barak has done the following:

1. Began the process of ethnic cleansing (a war crime under the Geneva Conventions) for Jews from 96% of Judea and Samaria and Gaza.

2. He has offered to give up sovereignty on the Temple Mount and half of Jerusalem to terrorist anti-Semites. Arafat demands also the Old City plus the Western Wall and Barak will give him what he wants as the record proves.

3. Just this week, Barak agreed to give Arafat control of $3 Billion of oil and gas off the coast of Gaza

4. He has agreed to give up the Golan Heights with it strategic mountains and 35% of Israel's water supply, already at drought conditions.

5. He has agreed give Arafat control of the strategic Jordan Valley and the Judean-Samarian mountain ridge that protects Israel from invasion from the east (Syria, Iraq, Iran).

6. He has agreed to turn over the following Jewish Holy places to Arafat's gang of Jew murderers: Tomb of Rachel, Tomb of Jacob, Cave of the Macpala (Tomb of the Patriarchs).

7. Barak has cease governing the country, does not consult with anyone that does not agree with him.

There is an obvious psychiatric diagnosis for such behavior: the grandiose phase of mania. People in such mental state take wild gambles with money and behavior. They believe themselves above the law, super intelligent and capable of doing anything. Eventually they crash and burn having lost their fortunes and their health.




Editor's Note: Arafat and the entire Moslem World are demanding full control and sovereignty over the Temple Mount. At the same time they are denying any Jewish connection to the Temple and the Israeli government of PM Ehud Barak is agreeing with them. I felt it necessary to revive this older article for the record.

A Timely Reissue First Published on July 15, 1993 in the Jewish Herald-Voice, Houston


Fanatics or Jewish Patriots?

By Bernard J. Shapiro

I got a call a few weeks ago from a friend and supporter who lived in Clear Lake. She told me with much enthusiasm that Gershon Salomon, leader and founder of the Temple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful, would be in Houston for just one day. Did I want to meet him? I said yes immediately and began calling a few of my friends to join me for that meeting.

I was fairly ignorant about what the Temple Mount Faithful stood for. I knew they wanted to rebuild the Temple of Solomon or the Third Temple but not much else. When I started inviting people to the meeting, I discovered quite a lot of negative feeling toward them. Rabbi Moishe Traxler was very helpful in explaining to me the Lubavitch position regarding the rebuilding of the Temple. They very clearly prohibit any activity on the Temple Mount until the coming of the Messiah. The Israeli Consul General Meir Romem was quick to tell me about the horrible international conquenses of attempting to rebuild the Temple. Romem also told me that he went to school with Salomon and that he was a charming person and Israeli war hero.

Others, including Rabbis of great note, told me the rebuilding of the Temple would require the introduction of animal sacrifices. My wife, a vegetarian and animal rights activist, was horrified by such a prospect. Obviously, there was a lot to discuss with Salomon and I looked forward to our meeting.

In his private life, Salomon is an expert researcher and lecturer in Middle Eastern studies, specializing in the history of the national movement of the Kurdish people. He is an officer in the Israel Defense Forces and a 10th generation Jerusalemite. He is descended from Rabbi Avraham Solomon Zalman Zoref who settled in Jerusalem in 1811 and was one of the first Jewish pioneers dedicated to the redemption of the Holy Land. Rabbi Zoref was assassinated by Arabs who thought they could stop his Godly mission. Salomon has fought in all of Israel's wars. Badly wounded on the Golan, when a tank ran over his legs, he walks now with crutches.

It was in one of those battles, as he lay dying, that he felt God telling him that He was not through with him. Salomon understood that this was a divine call to consecrate himself to the Redemption of all of Israel including the Temple Mount. The Mount came back into Israeli hands as a result of the Six Day War liberation of Jerusalem. In an act of great stupidity, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, a few days later, gave control of the Temple Mount to Moslem religious leaders. His reasoning was that this would prevent panic among the newly defeated Arab population. He also made great efforts to prevent Arabs from fleeing to Jordan. Today, as these same Arabs plot our demise, we realize how mistaken his policies were.

Gershon exploded all the myths about his group. Quoting Rambam, he explained that animal sacrifice is not necessary if the Temple is rebuilt. He talked about a process of REDEMPTION. First regain control of the Temple Mount. Second remove the Moslem buildings that desecrate our Holy Mount. Then the Temple (Beit Hamikdash) should be built. He was very clear on this: Building the Temple is preparatory process for Redemption. It is not an end in itself. Worship at the Temple would still await the Messiah. It is important, Salomon kept reiterating, that we PREPARE and WORK for Redemption. In other words, the Messiah will not come to Israel and reclaim the Temple Mount and rebuild the Temple. We must do those things BEFORE the Messiah comes, in order to CAUSE him to come.

What about the Arabs? Wouldn't they object to the removal of the Mosque of Omar (Dome of the rock) and the Al Aqsa mosque from the Temple Mount? Of course they would, but they have no legitimate rights in the area. From my Hindu friends I have learned how Moslem conquerors built mosques on Holy Places of other people in every part of the world. They did it to humiliate and degrade their subject nations. Salomon stated it bluntly, "There is no reason the sovereign State of Israel, needs to allow this desecration Jewish Holy Places to continue."

Today on the Mount, the Arabs are supreme. They are destroying all archaelogical remnants of Jewish sites. They are storing weapons in their mosques to kill Jews. They have built a museum to Palestinian nationalism, including gut-wrenching pictures from the battles of Sabra and Shatila. Tourists from the world over are told Jews committed these killings (It was Christians).

Salomon was a gentle, inspiring and very religious person. His firm belief in the coming Redemption made the discussion of politics seem irrelevant. He is not a fanatic but a Jewish patriot of the highest rank. I am not competent to discuss Halacha with reference to the Mount. I do know that it is wrong for us to allow the Arab desecration of our people's most Holy Site. What about the consequences of our asserting our rights to the Temple Mount? The Moslems cannot hate us anymore, and the Christian world will be electrified with anticipation of coming of the Messiah. In fact, Christians the world over will raise millions of dollars to help us rebuild the Temple. As in the days of Solomon, the nations of the world will send their best architects, artisans and materials to help build the Temple. Jews in the diaspora will be inspired to "go up to Jerusalem" and join in the sacred process of Redemption. (From my mouth to G-d's ear).



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of August 24, 2000


By Uri Dan

One righteous man arose from this
governmental Sodom - Shimon Batat.

If Flavius Josephus had wished to add a tragicomic chapter to his monumental work, The Jewish War, he could have used the revelations of the deputy manager of the Prime Minister's Office, Shimon Batat, which were published in last Friday's edition of Ma'ariv.

Shim'on Batat got up and declared that the Emperor is naked or, as he put it, "Barak is acting like the leader of an Afghan anti-tank section." At present, no Roman legions besiege Jerusalem while the Jews attack one another, as Flavius Josephus, commander of the revolutionary forces in Galilee, described in his recounting of the destruction of the Second Temple. However, Lieut. Col. (Ret.) Batat, who was once a member of the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit, gave an excellent description of the comedy where the state's opponents, and even its enemies, are already fighting within the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem.

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has the cheek to declare that he "does not recognize" that the remains of the Temple are located on the Temple Mount, but he is generously prepared to discuss the arrangements for Jews to pray at the Western Wall. Egyptian President Hossni Mubarak has declared that if Barak does not relinquish sovereignty over East Jerusalem, there will be no agreement. King Abdullah of Jordan says he does not recognize Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem. The EEC is waiting for Barak's concessions. The US supports the division of Jerusalem, a move initiated by Barak himself.

While this siege continues, a battle is taking place in the Prime Minister's Office between the internal advisors (civil servants), and Barak's secret advisors, who during the Camp David summit became a propaganda ministry.

When, at the summit, Barak expressed his readiness there to uproot thousands of settlers from the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria, and share the Temple Mount with Arafat, the Jews in his office were ready to eat each other alive.

According to Batat's testimony in Ma'ariv, external PR man Moshe Gaon prepared the slogans for brainwashing the public, and National Security Adviser Danny Yatom blocked all opposing views from experts. It comes as no surprise that Reuven Merhav, of the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, was flown in to serve as Barak's ad hoc advisor. He arrived with a new map of Jerusalem and three alternatives, all of which gave at least partial sovereignty to the Palestinians, in his pocket, to the amazement of those present.

IF BARAK had acted like a serious prime minister, instead of like the "leader of an Afghan anti-tank section," this new international siege of Jerusalem that he initiated would have dispersed, and it would still be possible to break down the wall of threats Arafat and his supporters have created.

It is no wonder that every shadow of a threat leads to a retreat by Barak. His external PR people make sure to clean up after him and announce "tremendous progress," "a breakthrough," and other well-worn catch phrases about "our children's future."

This is at a time when not only the future of our children, but also that of our grandchildren, is in danger, if Barak fails to take note of Shimon Batat's warning. Most of the press knew of the chaos Barak had created in his office, but preferred to keep quiet.

General Staff officers and senior officials in the GSS and the Mossad have known for months that there is something unhealthy about Barak's management and leadership. But no one has dared to say a word, since most of them are slaves - to their salaries, cars, mobile phones, secretaries, social benefits and pensions. They are slaves to their status symbols and to their careers.

But then one righteous man arose from this governmental Sodom, and refused to keep quiet any longer - Batat. It may be he was not right about everything he said, because of his lack of experience. But he tore the official veil of secrecy away from Barak's circus, and exposed him in all his nakedness. It was as though he shouted: Hey, Ehud, you're walking on a tightrope without a safety net, and the rope (the nation) is about to break.

Batat's cry shook the foundations of the Prime Minister's Office. They knew right away that this cry harmed Barak, who had often prided himself on his excellence. Instead of repairing the foundations, they hurried to carry out damage control. Barak angrily phoned Batat and demanded that he "find a way" to correct his remarks. PR man Eldad Yaniv and Yatom themselves hurried to Kol Yisrael to announce that Batat would shortly be "expressing his regret" for what he had revealed. Yatom even accused him, to no avail, of "lies and slander."

Instead of attempting to correct what was fundamentally wrong, Barak and his PR people preferred to paper over the cracks. Batat's immediate superior, a faithful and honest person himself, Haim Shaked, had his head chopped off because of a headline attributed to him in Yediot Aharonot, which confirmed Batat's guilt.

If Barak wants to get back on the right road (and he still can), he must examine Batat's "J'accuse." There is still no medal in Israel for civil courage. Barak, who takes such pride in his five decorations, ought to establish such a medal, and award it to Batat. This would distinguish between the common wage slave and the uncommon civil servant; between a wretched political poodle and a government wolf; between a political beast and a human public servant.

(c) Jerusalem Post 2000


Uri Dan is an author of The Mossad: Secrets of the Israel Secret Service and other books on the Middle East.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of August 18, 2000


by Ariel Sharon

Barak is deepening animosity and internal hatred
and thus, endangering us all.

Black clouds loom over the clear skies of Israeli democracy this week. On the other hand, US democracy has demonstrated its strength as a system that provides equal opportunities to any candidate for the vice presidency.

Anyone who observed this past week the brutal, inconsiderate way ambassadors and officials were removed from office - apparently on order from the Prime Minister's Office - must be concerned with democracy. You can fire someone; you can remove a person from his post, but there is no need to insult, to hurt, to trample on a civil servant's honor and dignity. This is despicable. A real shame.

Democracy is in a state of turmoil. There is a prime minister without a government, without a majority in the Knesset, and without a majority among the public; a prime minister who violated the pledges that got him elected. On top of all that, the Knesset has already passed with a 61 majority vote the preliminary call for an early dissolution.

In any viable democracy a prime minister who vows to safeguard his country's security, protect its holy sites and uphold its unity, and who then violates them, simply goes home. The prime minister violated his security promises and agreed to hand over the vital Jordan Valley to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat. Ehud Barak has promised to keep and protect the holy shrines, but accepted the American ideas of handing over sovereignty of a large part of the Old City to the Palestinians; offering them control of the Temple Mount, an office for Arafat, and free access without Israeli inspection!

As for Hebron, we were told about Barak's proposals and non-binding exchange of ideas - an exercise in deception designed to remove the Jewish community from the city. He wants to expel Jews from the Cave of the Patriarchs, a national monument like no other nation on earth has.

THE HOLY shrines have suddenly disappeared from Barak's pledges. He has crossed a red line no government ever did: agreeing to make concessions in Jerusalem. What was once firm and unequivocal has now become soft and flexible. This, I am afraid, will only invite more pressure in the future.

No government and no prime minister has the right to decide by itself to hand over the Jewish people's holy shrines. We are dealing here with national and historical assets of the Jewish people. Whoever decides to give them up must first obtain the people's consent. Barak simply has not got it.

Barak speaks about unity but creates a critical division among the people, a cleavage that will only become wider and deeper. I am fearful of what this may bring about.

I know that the Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza will not evacuate themselves, and no one can say today what dire consequences may result if it is decided to abandon them. Barak is deepening animosity and internal hatred and thus endangering us all.

Contrary to his statement that what was discussed in Camp David is null and void, Barak continues to conduct clandestine negotiations, and is ready for additional concessions, from the same point where the Camp David summit ended. Apparently, he is using an artificial crisis planned by both Israel and the US in order to adjust the negotiations to a more convenient time schedule based on US domestic political considerations.

A prime minister in any democratic system that does not speak truth to his constituencies is usually forced to resign. In a healthy democracy, a prime minister who patronizes and despises the Knesset and the people's elected representatives, would be on his way home, and fast. Prime Minister Barak hurries to report to the president of Egypt; is quick to update the king of Jordan; he sends emissaries to the Gulf States and around the world to brief them about the details of the negotiations. But at the same time he bypasses a Knesset law by refusing to report and update, as required, the head of the opposition party. ln any other democracy such practices by the prime minister would serve as a case for removal.

In order to survive and develop, a stable democracy requires secure and lasting peace. Therefore, we must take all the necessary steps for early elections with a government based on broad national consensus that will work to bring real and secure peace, peace with Jerusalem, peace that will safeguard the vital national interests of Israel and protect the historical rights of the Jewish people in its one and only homeland, Israel, and in its undivided capital, Jerusalem.

Only such a government is capable of restoring the confidence of the people in the viability of democracy.


Ariel Sharon is the chairman of the Likud Party.

(c) Jerusalem Post 2000



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of August 17, 2000


By Uri Dan

For the first time, a prime minister of the Jewish State agreed
to divide sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

Eliahu Ben-Elissar couldn't believe what he heard during a meeting last month in Paris between the Israeli and French leaders. Prime Minister Barak was informing President Jacques Chirac of the package of concessions he was planning to present at the Camp David Summit.

Ben-Elissar knew Barak had never brought these concessions for the approval of the government and/or the cabinet. Later, Ben-Elissar naturally reported to foreign minister David Levy, describing Barak's concessions as a "general sale" and a "complete striptease." At Camp David, Barak continued his striptease even further, and beyond what he had planned: Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, and US President Bill Clinton himself, explained to him that he wouldn't achieve even half of what he wanted if he refused to also discuss the issue of sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

Barak was not prepared to negotiate on this issue.Despite this, for the first time, a prime minister of the Jewish State agreed to a proposal to divide sovereignty over the Temple Mount: the upper part for Arafat, and the lower part, in which the remains of the Temple are buried, under Israeli sovereignty. Arafat was also asked to agree to Barak's request that a small synagogue be constructed adjacent to, but not on, the Temple Mount.

On the seventh day of the summit, Arafat replied to Clinton in writing with a definite no. He wrote, inter alia, "I shall not accept any reduced sovereignty over Jerusalem, even if we have to wait another 50 or 100 years to liberate it, and raise the Palestinian flag. I am a religious man, and I shall never permit it to be said that I sold the Haram [the Temple Mount]. Even if the State of Palestine were to be established on 100% of the land of Palestine, including Jerusalem, we shall never admit that the Temple lies under the Haram."

With his mathematical logic, Barak was convinced that Arafat would agree to dividing sovereignty over the Temple Mount, over the Holy of Holies of the Jews. The question arises: how did Barak reach the situation in which Arafat dared to deny the existence of the Temple? Despite Barak's official declaration that everything discussed at the summit is now null and void, his representatives are now feverishly discussing his request to construct a token synagogue, and the Palestinians are stubbornly maintaining that only they will be responsible for the security of Jews going to pray at the Western Wall. Barak still refuses to understand, in his arrogant blindness, that he is leading Israel to national destruction.

In short, we shall soon return to the days before the establishment of the State, when Jews requested permission from the mufti, Haj Amin el-Husseini, to blow the shofar near the Western Wall, were refused, and were arrested by the British when they did so anyway. It therefore came as no surprise that Barak acted like a bull in a china shop when he purged the Foreign Ministry of Levy's people.

Ben-Elissar heard about his dismissal on the radio - a few days before he died. "Up till this moment, I have not received an official letter," Ben-Elissar revealed to numerous friends about 24 hours before his dismissal. "I knew I was about to end my job, but the way in which it was done was very hard and offensive."

Jerusalem Post 2000


Uri Dan is the author of The Mossad: Secrets of the Israel Secret Service and other books on the Middle East




By Louis Rene Beres

Professor, Department of Political Science, Purdue University

In essence, Israel's Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, resurrects the Shimon Peres cry for "a New Middle East." This New Middle East resembles "The New World Order." It never did exist. It does not exist. It can never exist. It will never exist. What is more, to believe that it does or will exist is conceivably very dangerous, as such a belief will generate policies built upon sand.

Israel, it seems, still believes in The New Middle East. It builds not only its current foreign policy, but also its very existence, upon this particular bit of fiction. Not surprisingly, unless it is turned around in time, Israel, like The New Middle East, will not exist. Here, the Jewish State, wedded to yet another government for which fantasy is de rigueur, would dissolve into the centuries. Exeunt omnes!

Some time ago, Arieh Stav, one of Israel's most gifted intellectuals and editor of the distinguished publication NATIV, opened an exhibition titled "The Peace - An Arab Cartoon." Displayed in Be'er Sheva for a month,this exhibition - tied to Stav's very important book - revealed some salient features of The New Middle East. In this utopian universe, as we learned from Arab cartoons, the Jew is demonized in ways that might have made Julius Streicher blush. Indeed, if one were to extrapolate present Arab attitudes toward Israel from their officially sanctioned drawings, we would see little difference between The New Middle East and the world of Der Sturmer.

The New Middle East is The Old Middle East. In 1972 Yehoshafat Harkabi published a major book titled ARAB ATTITUDES TO ISRAEL. At that time, in the days of The Old Middle East, Harkabi cited the Arab use of scurrilous language about Israel to include "the Zionist monster;" "the Zionist plague;" "the purulent abscess;" "the illegitimate daughter of Europe;" "a cancer in the heart of the Arab nation;" "the Zionist cancer;" "the gang of hypocrites and criminals;" "the focus of evil;" "dirt;" "filth;""sewage;" "the octopus;" "the spider;" "the bacillus of evil;" etc, etc, etc. Presently, as Stav's brilliant exhibition revealed, nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed. As for Hamas, its Charter still calls unambiguously for Muslims to deal with Jews in only one way: "Assault and kill; assault and kill; assault and kill."

Let us return to the Nazis. As objects of their propaganda, Jews were notorious because they allegedly devalued German life, threatened its "racial purity," and threatened its very physical survival. Hence, theJews were "pests," "parasites," "bloodsuckers," "child murderers," "molesters," etc, who exploited "real Germans," despoiled "Aryan" purity and, of course, always conspired to acquire power. These are precisely the same themes adapted by Arab propagandists against Israel, in The Old Middle East and in The New Middle East.

Shimon Peres, the creator of The New Middle East, remains - like his creation - a phantom that has worn out its shadow. By refashioning truth, the former Prime Minister transformed his considerable conceptual deficits into a shadowy new faith. Profoundly superficial, without any sensibility for the intrinsic, Peres offered a seductive vision for Israel that undermined Zionism's already precarious future. Before anything resembling a New Middle East could be born from the Old, a gravedigger would have to wield the forceps. It should hardly come as a surprise, therefore, that what we have today is not a New Middle East, but an ugly and lethal "Post-Zionism."

Diderot, in his political writings (Histoire des Deux Indes) describes the history of civilization: "The history of civilised man has been only the history of his misery. Every page has been covered in blood, some with the blood of oppressors, others with the blood of the oppressed." Failing to understand this, visionaries arise in every generation who wish to transcend human misery without first making the essential human changes. Thus, they focus incorrectly on structures of human governance and economics rather than upon the beings who must ultimately make these structures work. In the end, such incorrect reasoning must always lead to disappointment and to despair.

In The New Middle East, Israel's Arab and Islamic enemies remain committed to ridding the region of all Jews, to making The New Middle East judenrein. As long as this does not change, there is no point in pretending that there are overriding political/economic interests or systemwide commitments to "peace." In politics, as in every other sphere of human activity, all things move in the midst of death, and where death of "the other" is all-important there can be no reasonable talk of life.


LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University, and Military and Strategic Affairs analyst for THE JEWISH PRESS. His writings are well-known to the current Prime Minister and to Israel's political, military and intelligence communities.



Arutz-7 Israel National Radio - - August 14, 2000 / Av 13, 5760


By Atty. Elyakim Ha'etzni


After the collapse of the Camp David summit, it is hard not to be amazed at how the so-called "Peace Camp" continues to adhere to its fervent religious belief in the promise of peace with our Palestinian neighbors. All those of the "Peace Camp" who dismiss Israel's religious-Zionist public as being "messianic," or "not being in touch with reality," have apparently just been projecting their own shortcomings on others.

At Camp David, it became abundantly clear that the traditional mantra, "the Palestinian problem is the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict," is, in fact, baseless.

Ehud Barak had to initiate new, unexpected diplomatic junkets to Egypt and Jordan, in order to plead with leaders there to agree to allow Arafat to relax his stance on Jerusalem. Even Arafat himself declared: "I'm not in charge."


Evidence of the pan-Arab "claim" on Israel was evident in 1987; at a summit in Amman, Jordan, the late Syrian dictator Assad, said: "Palestine is mine, it is a part of Syria. There was never an independent state called Palestine." To this, Jordan's late King Hussein responded: "The appearance of a national Palestinian identity has developed to respond to Israeli claims that Palestine is Jewish. But the truth is - it is forbidden to depart from the national Arab framework." (Ma'ariv 30.11.87)

Zohir Muhsein, Chief of Operations of the PLO's Fatah wing told the Dutch newspaper Trouw in 1977: "We are careful to stress our Palestinian identity only for tactical purposes, in order to challenge Zionism. The establishment of an independent Palestinian state is simply a new tactic in the ongoing struggle against Israel."

(It is only the Jews, those chiefly threatened by the Palestinian entity, who are "more Palestinian than the Palestinians." It was Jordan that felt most threatened by Barak's plan to forfeit the Jordan Valley and to agree to establish Palestinian-controlled border crossings in the Valley!)


The blindness of the "Peace Camp" can be perhaps best understood by Israel's decision to import from Tunisia Yasser Arafat - a move that just served to accentuate the refugee problem. What is the basis of the "Peace Camp's" belief that Arafat would disappoint - and even rebel - against those in whose name and on whose behalf he acted for almost 50 years?

In this regard, it is interesting to note the surprise of the kibbutzim of the secular, leftwing Shomer Hatza'ir movement. Its members simply fail to comprehend how entire gangs of Arabs - previous owners of the land on which the Jews' homes are situated - have suddenly appeared at their doorsteps demanding the "return of their land."

Only a Peace Camp "true believer" cannot see that the AK-47's provided by Israel to the PLO are now aimed back at us. The believer has not yet digested the existence of the (Palestinian) Tanzim force or the steady calls for "Jihad;" he overlooks the open declarations by the PLO that the peace strategy represents simply a brief hiatus between periods of violence, and that, for the Palestinians, it does not constitute an independent and absolute value.

What normal person can ignore what the Palestinians continue to write in their official press on the ultimate goal of destroying Israel, or what they continue to teach their children from pre-school on up? "He did not have to say that," piped Shimon Peres after reporters cited for him a terrifying quote uttered by Yasser Arafat. Peres, unfortunately, did not ask himself whether or not Arafat meant what he said.


In a recent history corner on Army Radio, a noted professor stressed the elements of religion in Stalinism. If it were not so, he remarked, how could it be that an entire sector of the very intelligent people "believed in" Stalin blindly? It is important to note that many who held this belief were, in fact, Jews. The religious quality of Stalinism is perhaps best reflected by the following anecdote: Of two Jewish Communists executed at one point during the Stalin era, one cried out "Shma Yisrael", the other, a General Yakir, yelled, "Long live Stalin!"

It is also worthy to note a few striking similarities between the delusions inherent in Communist thought and the ideology of Israel's "Peace Camp." Both are supposedly intellectual and realistic in orientation, and both supposedly despise mysticism. But both also ironically share qualities of messianism and blind faith. Leaders of the kibbutzim and urban intellectuals, once champions of the Marxist cause in Israel, are, not surprisingly, now at the forefront of the Peace Camp.

There are also similarities between the axiomatic slogans, the mantras: In former days, man was told, "When you chop down trees, splinters fly!" in an effort to justify the Russian terror of the early twentieth century. Today we are told, in an effort to come to terms with the atrocities of Arafat, "Peace can only be made with enemies." Both systems of thought claim a monopoly on "the future." Opponents are "people of the past," "reactionaries." The name of a famous Bolshevik newspaper was "The New Era." Today, the Peace Camp dreams of a "New Middle East."

After the Camp David collapse, anyone who still dreams of normalization, of peace with the Palestinians, anyone who continues on the path of concessions and withdrawals with the goal of achieving the "end of the conflict," shares a quality with a believing Jew who awaits the "end of days." And yet, even an avowedly secular person would admit if the religious Jew's vision did not materialize, no damage would have emanated from this belief. Such cannot be said for the Peace Camp faithful, whose beliefs and resulting policies are no less than an suicidal gamble.


Atty. Elyakim Ha'etzni is a resident of Kiryat Arba, is a columnist in Yediot Acharonot and a member of the Yesha Council. He was formerly a Knesset Member from the Techiyah party.



NEWS FLASH: Gore picks Jewish running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman, following a long-standing Clinton policy of using Jews to implement anti-Israel policies. Beware!!


By Boris Shusteff

The obsession of American Presidents with "peace" in the Middle East has a much longer history than most people realize. Those who think that several years ago Hillary Clinton was the first to advocate a "Palestinian homeland" are wrong. It was President Carter who, in the middle of March 1977 in a town meeting at Clinton (!), Massachusetts "created a sensation by his spontaneous and unexpected public statement that 'there has to be a homeland provided for the Palestinian refugees who have suffered for many, many years' " (1).

It was in 1975 that America formulated her policy for the "new Middle East," which is almost undistinguishable from the one that Shimon Peres dreams of today. Like the Oslo agreement, it was created in quiet academic circles by a study group convened at the Brookings Institution. The report generated by this group was entitled "Towards Peace in the Middle East." Professors Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Quandt, who later joined the National Security Council staff in Carter's administration as National Security Adviser and Office Director for Middle Eastern Affairs respectively, were among the sixteen members of the study group.

The content of the "Brookings Report" became the blueprint for America's policy in Arab-Israeli relations. William Quandt presented its main points in the book "Decades of Decisions." Of major interest today are the items related to the Palestinian state, border issues and Jerusalem. Quandt described them as follows:

1. Palestinians: The Palestinians, provided that they are prepared to accept the right of Israel and Jordan to self-determination, should be accorded the same right. In addition, Palestinian refugees should be helped to resettle in a newly formed Palestinian entity if they so choose and to be compensated for lost property.

2. Boundaries: In accordance with principles laid down in UN Resolution 242, Israel, in exchange for the establishment of peaceful relations and suitable security arrangements, should agree to withdraw to the pre-June 5, 1967, lines with only such modifications as might be mutually accepted.

3. Jerusalem: Any settlement should meet at least the following criteria: unimpeded access to all holy places; no physical barriers to free circulation within the city; substantial political autonomy for each national group within the city in those areas where it predominates (2).

It is clear that in today's political language, the authors of the 1975 study envisioned the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state, the return of the Palestinian refugees, Israel's withdrawal to the pre-June 5, 1967 borders and the political division of Jerusalem. It is exactly this policy that America has tried to implement in the Middle East for 23 years.

Throughout the duration of the Clinton administration America's attempts in "helping" Israel to achieve peace with her neighbors have transformed into an obsession. Shoving the "peace of the brave" down the throat of the Jewish state became its favorite occupation. To the detriment of America's interests and after miserably failing in all other international endeavors, President Clinton has devoted his greatest efforts to building his legacy on the remnants of the Jewish state.

In the eight years of Clinton's presidency the world has become a much more dangerous place. It is not the intent of this article to remind readers of the many American failures in the international arena during this period. Here are just enough examples to point at the reality that America's prestige among the world's nations has reached its all-time low. U.S. relations with India, China, Russia, Greece and scores of other countries are definitely below a satisfactory level. Nuclear weapons have spread into India and Pakistan. Rogue states like North Korea, Iran and Iraq are continually developing weapons of mass destruction and missiles for their delivery. America's patrolling of Iraqi airspace costs millions of dollars every month to American taxpayers but can do nothing to prevent Saddam Hussein from recovering his might.

Against this background America's obsessive preoccupation with the Arab-Israeli conflict is just another blunder in its international policy. Edward Luttwak wrote on July 30 in the Sunday Telegraph (London):

"Today, what is left of the Arab-Israeli dispute... does not pose a threat to world peace. The global threat comes from Saddam Hussein. Nearly a decade after his crushing defeat everything coming out of Iraq, including Saddam's own declarations, shows that his priorities have not changed one iota since he sent his troops into Kuwait" (3).

Instead of seriously dealing with Iraq and scores of other important international issues that threaten America's leading position as the world's only superpower, Clinton's administration has devoted an absolutely disproportional amount of its time to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Incapable of reaching a success in dealing with other countries, Bill Clinton has directed all his energy to transforming Israel, a staunch American ally, from a big asset into a liability.

It is obvious that the current American administration does not understand that, if forced into the "Auschwitz borders," as Abba Eban called its pre-June 5, 1967 boundaries, Israel will become a country without a reason for existence, without a soul and without a future. It will be unable to defend itself due to a complete lack of strategic depth. Its borders will be indefensible. Zbigniew Brzezinski already knew this in 1977. He wrote in his memoirs that the Arabs and the Israelis "must recognize the basic incompatibility between acceptable and secure frontiers for Israel. The two were in fact a contradiction in terms: genuinely defensible frontiers could not be acceptable to the Arabs, because they would have to involve major acquisition of territory by Israel, while what would be acceptable to the Arabs, would definitely leave Israel vulnerable" (1).

The scheme developed by the American professors was piously followed by all American administrations; the "peace process" speeding up when a Democratic President was in power and slowing down slightly with a Republican President at the helm of the country. While the original plan, developed in 1975, was in America's interests at the time (since it allowed the US to sidestep the Soviet Union in its attempts of hegemony in the Middle East), with recent changes in the international arena, the situation in the Middle East also changed. As Luttwak wrote:

"In the 1970s, when the United States and the Soviet Union were each backing local sides, the struggle between Jews and Arabs had the potential to ignite a nuclear war between the superpowers. What is left of the Arab-Israeli conflict is no longer the focus of regional politics, let alone of world politics" (3).

However, the Clinton administration has completely missed the point that since the Soviet Union cease to exist, the threat of nuclear war today comes from a different direction. Obsessed with the "peace process" it has not realized that there is no reason to weaken Israel any more by forcing it to retreat. It did not occur to Clinton that a strong Israel with "genuinely defensible frontiers" is the best way to guarantee America's position in the Middle East.

America cannot expect Egypt or Saudi Arabia, which spend several billion dollars every year on military equipment, to play a significant role, if needed, in opposing the threats to America's interests from Iraq, Iran or Pakistan. It is only Israel who will be ready to shoulder this responsibility, since it is Israel and no other country in the Middle East that shares many common values with America.

It appears that George W. Bush and his advisers are the first to understand that the disintegration of the Soviet Union has completely changed the Middle East and that the American policy there should be changed as well. On May 22, speaking at the AIPAC Conference in Washington, Bush indicated that there could be a reevaluation of the Brookings Institute study if he becomes the President of the United States. He said:

"My support for Israel is not conditional on the outcome of the peace process. America's special relationship with Israel precedes the peace process. And Israel's adversaries should know that in my administration, the special relationship will continue, even if they cannot bring themselves to make true peace with the Jewish state."

Bush's intentions to put this special relationship with Israel above the "peace process" were confirmed on August 2 in Philadelphia, during the Republican National Convention by former secretary of state George Shultz. He recalled a speech made by Vice President Al Gore last year in which Gore said that America should stand by Israel when it takes risks for peace. Shultz told the audience of about 150 Republican Jewish activists and leaders, "I said I didn't agree with that. I think the US should stand by Israel. Period. When you say 'risks for peace' you are saying 'risks to your security.' I've discussed this at some length with Governor Bush. I know he has the same view I do."

These recent declarations from American politicians are a first step in the right direction. Now the Israelis have to make next step. As George Schultz said "it is up to the Israelis to decide what is best for them." The best thing for them is to tear apart the Oslo agreement. It has been null and void for many months already. It is time to build a strong country with strategic depth and defensible borders, not a banana republic, but one that is a reliable and an equal American partner. [08/03/00]


1. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Power and Principle. Memoirs of the National Security Adviser 1977 - 1981. New York, 1983.

2. William B. Quandt. Decades of Decisions: American Policy Toward the Arab-Israeli Conflict 1967-1976. University of California Press. 1977.

3. Edward Luttwak. Never mind Jerusalem, what about Saddam? Sunday Telegraph (London), 30 July, 2000.


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





FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Eric Rozenman

202) 582-1234 Ext. 5935/6

Washington, D.C. (August 28, 2000) "My support for Israel is not conditioned upon progress in the [Arab-Israeli] peace process," Texas Governor George W. Bush told delegates to the B'nai B'rith International Convention 2000. The Republican presidential candidate reiterated his position that if he is elected the "special relation" between the United States and Israel "will continue even if Israel's neighbors cannot bring themselves to make peace."

In a 15-minute speech live via satellite, Bush asserted that "Israel wants peace . and like all Americans of goodwill, I want peace for Israel and the Middle East." But Washington should not impose specific policies on Jerusalem, the governor added. "America should not interfere in Israel's democratic process .and it won't when I take office."

Bush, who was interrupted by applause several times, also repeated his campaign pledge that, if elected he would "begin the process of moving the U.S. ambassador to the city Israel chooses as its capital." Only El Salvador and Costa Rica currently maintain embassies in Jerusalem. Most nations, including the United States, have their embassies in Tel Aviv, 35 miles from Jerusalem; the American ambassador's residence is in a suburb of Tel Aviv.

The Republican nominee warned that "rogue nations" in the Middle East were arming with weapons of mass destruction and noted that "Israel has taken the lead in missile defense." Bush, already pledged to intensify America's own ballistic missile defense efforts, said the United States should follow the Israeli example.

The governor praised B'nai B'rith for its long record of community action projects and humanitarian relief. "We share so much in common," he said, adding that a Bush administration would "rally the armies of compassion that exist across America" to inspire cooperation in ways that government programs, although necessary, cannot.

Referring to B'nai B'rith's emphasis on promoting inter-group tolerance, Bush said no American, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim, should be excluded from the larger civic culture or made to feel unequal. "We don't believe in tolerance in spite of our faith," he stated, "but because of it."

On other issues, Bush:

* Vowed to "take down the toll booth on the road to the middle class," in particular by bringing "economic relief" especially to lower income groups;

* Convert Section 8 subsidized low income housing "to a home ownership program";

* Continue the movement toward educational reform, accountability and "better schools in every neighborhood"; and

* "Work to restore respect and civility to our national politics."

Approximately 450 delegates and guests, from several dozen countries, are attending the biennial convention. Hadassah Lieberman, wife of Democratic vice presidential nominee Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), is scheduled to address the gathering at the Grand Hyatt Hotel shortly after 9 a.m. tomorrow.

B'nai B'rith International -- with leadership and members in 58 countries -- is the world's largest Jewish human rights, community action, and humanitarian organization.

Without the contributions [which are fully tax deductible] of everyone on
our list we may be forced to discontinue our broadcasts.





A True American Hypocrite And Danger To Israel

Assorted Excerpts and Comments


A Voice from Hebron -- August 11, 2000

Joe Lieberman, A Danger to Jews

By Gary M. Cooperberg

I watched Larry King Live on CNN as he interviewed Vice Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman. The local media here seems quite ecstatic at the thought of a Jewish Vice President of the United States. I am sure that a great many American Jews are proud and delighted at the prospect as well. I have been living in Israel now for about twenty years. In that time I have never voted in an American election, even though that is my right since I am still an American citizen. I never really found it appropriate to participate in American elections in that my only real political concern is here in my country. But I think that I will make an exception in this election. I am not thrilled with either Presidential candidate, but I am terrified of Joe Lieberman and the negative affect he will certainly have upon Jews both in the United States and the Jewish State. That's right. If I do vote, it will be for George Bush Jr. only because I shudder to think of the affects upon Jews, both in the United States and Israel, should Lieberman become Vice President.

It is not my intention to endorse any political candidate, nor to examine their merits or liabilities. My concern is much simpler. Joe Lieberman presents himself as an orthodox Jew. Although I must admit that his repeated announcements of gratitude to the Creator sincerely touched me, there were other remarks which caused me grave concern.

Ever since the rebirth of the Jewish State the question of conflict of loyalty has haunted Jewish politicians, and American Jews in general. Not that there should be any reason to assume such a conflict, none the less, the question always hung in the air. Lieberman touched upon this concept in his interview and gave the clear impression that his primary loyalty lies with the United States. I do not doubt him for a minute. As a matter of fact, I am convinced that any time a situation presents itself that might in some way cause him to choose between American and Israeli interests, that he will choose American interests every time, if only to prove his loyalty. His hesitance to move the American Embassy before peace is achieved; his verbal reminder that he met with Arafat and Assad and that he found them to be reasonable people; his stated need to violate the Sabbath in order to vote for the Gulf War and participate in other state matters; and his deliberate refusal to address the facts of the Pollard scandal all are clear indications that this fellow will be a danger to Jewish interests both in the United States and in Israel.

On a more personal note, as an observant Jew myself, I will be affected by Joe Lieberman's definition of Jewish observance. By setting the example of what an observant Jew is permitted to do, such as: violating the Sabbath for the good of the nation; appearing without a head covering; participating in prayer in conservative and reform synagogues and even churches, will cause non-observant Jews and non-Jews to question my refusal to behave likewise when I am in the States. It will also present significant difficulties for truly observant Jews in American society.

In addition, the very fact that Lieberman's candidacy is so overwhelmingly viewed by Jews all over the world as evidence that a major barrier to acceptance of Jews in American society has been overcome will only encourage further assimilation and distance Jews from the dream of Zion which we have nurtured for over two thousand years. When a Jew thinks that his home in Exile is his real home, and that Israel is a foreign country we invite tragedy upon our own heads.

No matter how nice a guy Joe may be; no matter how well-intentioned his personal and national goals; should he get elected with Al Gore it will be a disaster for Jews.



Pollard Predicted Lieberman Flip Flops

August 16, 2000 - Justice4JP [For Pollard] Release

'Lieberman said in 1996 that if Clinton didn't move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, "I will go there and build it brick by brick." Now, he says it's not the time.' (It's All Monica Now, Joe - Sidney Zion - NY Post - 08/15/00)

When the candidacy of Joseph Lieberman was announced, Justice4JP released a statement (08/08/00) citing the Pollard case as "an example of what voters can expect of Joseph Lieberman as Vice President of the United States."

Justice4JP cautioned: "... there is much to be concerned about. Where will such a man stand on matters related to Israel and the Jewish community? Will he continue to do what he has done in the Pollard case?

Will he continue to advocate to the detriment of his own kind to prove that he is a true and loyal American?"

The very next day, after the Justice4JP broadcast, Lieberman began a series of public flip-flops to pull his "principles" in line with his political ambitions. A Wall Street Journal editorial (08/11/00) states: "Sen. Lieberman is already and unhesitatingly trimming centrist Democratic positions he once supported. Social Security privatization now troubles him. His support for school vouchers for all schools has faded, replaced by a approved enthusiasm for charter public schools, a stance that abandons Orthodox Jewish schools' hope for vouchers."

Justice4JP does not endorse or oppose any candidate in the Presidential elections. Justice4JP does however see it as our responsibility to the public to reveal how any candidate's position on the Pollard case is a reflection of that candidate's commitment to the truth, or alternately a reflection of his willingness to subvert principles of honesty, justice, and fair play to political goals.

In the case of vice presidential candidate Joseph Lieberman, a wealth of evidence exists which demonstrates that Lieberman's unprincipled, politically-driven position on the Pollard case should serve as a cautionary tale for American voters. Lieberman continues to demonstrate in a variety of ways - from his subversion of the orthodox Jewish imperative on abortion to the reversal of his position on affirmative action - that principle for Lieberman can be twisted to serve political ends as needed.

Justice4JP is making material available on the web to help readers decide for themselves whether Joe Lieberman really is "Mr. Morality", or just another political opportunist. Some of the articles Justice4JP will be making available on the web [] include:

The Left Pays but the Right Prays: Michael Medved

It's All Monica Now, Joe: Sidney Zion

Lieberman Backtracks on Embassy Issue: Janine Zacharia

"Vice President" Joseph Lieberman?: Paul Eidelberg



August 15, 2000 - New York Post

It's All Monica Now, Joe

By Sidney Zion

AND the ticket is ... Gore and Lewinsky!

You simply can't think of Joe Lieberman without thinking of Monica. And in case your mind wanders, the television and newspapers will immediately bring you back to reality.

Because in reality, the only reason Al Gore picked Lieberman was for his famous spanking of Bill Clinton over that Oval Office yakahoola with the fair Lewinsky. There were great risks involved - would the choice annoy the goys? - but in the end, Gore worried more about the dress and the DNA. "Out damn spot!" was the call that won the day for Joe, who was the only dry cleaner who could get it done. Instead, all it did was throw it back up on the screen in living color.

On the Sunday news shows, you had to check the TV guide to be sure that the networks weren't on reruns. I half expected the House Managers to show up with the mantra: "It's not sex, it's the perjury."

Tim Russert conducted a cross-examination of Lieberman that would have been the envy of Clarence Darrow. When Joe said that Gore approved of his attack on Clinton's morality in the Monica speech, Russert immediately ran a clip of Al calling Bill one of the greatest presidents in history.

This continued with point after counterpoint, until Lieberman said, "That's some research staff you have."

Russert asked whether Lieberman thought that Pat Buchanan was an anti-Semite. Joe said "No." This was an answer Bill Buckley couldn't agree with after writing a book on the issue.

Poor Joe Lieberman. He had no idea he'd be put on the witness stand by Russert and his Beltway media friends. They loved him for being the only virgin in the whorehouse. What he didn't realize was that then he was a tourist. Now, he runs with Al Gore, whose only hope, say the Beltway Puritans, is to cleanse the party of Dirty Bill.

Gore bought this line; his pals and his polls told him so. If he goes down with Joe, they'll say he made the "courageous" choice. Spell that Jew.

But if Gore wanted to break ground, he'd have picked Robert Rubin, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury. Rubin's message would have been clear: "It's the economy, stupid." Rubin would not have been vulnerable to the questions now being put to Lieberman, who has backed off major positions he took on everything from Social Security to taxes to health care.

Plus Israel. Lieberman said in 1996 that if Clinton didn't move the American Embassy to Jerusalem, "I will go there and build it brick by brick." Now, he says it's not the time. And he praises Arafat, lunches with Jesse Jackson and announces that he wants to meet with Louis Farrakhan to prove that he's America First.

If all of this is what Al Gore had in mind, a mate who runs the gamut from Monica to Farrakhan, the gentleman C at Yale has a lot more up there than the Harvard guy with the A. Now if only W. would start drinking again with the Dekes, this Jew will start thinking twice.


Democratic platform calls Jerusalem Israel's capital

By Seth Cory, M.D.

This is total BS.

they have had 8 years, 8 years, to move the embassy to Jerusalem

on the contrary, they prevented the US Ambassador to Israel from attending Jerusalem 3000 activities.

they have prevented and thwarted the will of the Senate in moving the Embassy

they have forced Israel to surrender parts of Jerusalem to PLO

they want to divide Jerusalem.

Clinton is an inveterate liar. Now Gore-Lieberman debase themselves with lying over Jerusalem.

Seth Cory, M.D.
Pittsburgh, PA


WORLD NET DAILY (c) 2000 -- AUGUST 17, 2000

Arab-Americans Side With Democrats:
Discuss Position On Lieberman As Jewish V.P. nominee

By Julie Foster

LOS ANGELES -- On the day of his address to the Democratic National Convention, vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman was praised by a panel of Arab-Americans that assembled to discuss how the Middle East peace process factors into the 2000 presidential race.

"Joe Lieberman fought for us on occasions when other people wouldn't. I remember that," said Dr. James Zogby, president of the Arab-American Institute. Zogby was one of three panel members at the forum, which took place in downtown Los Angeles' Westin Bonaventure Hotel. "I have concerns about votes he's made, about resolutions he's sponsored. ... But having said that, I've had discussions with Joe Lieberman about those votes, about those resolutions."

"He's thoughtful, he's open, and when we needed somebody to fight for us when people were excluding us from the party, Joe Lieberman was the guy who picked up the torch and fought and opened the door for us. I don't forget that," Zogby continued. "I don't forget that when we took a resolution on Islam that called the Senate to task for negative stereotyping of Islam and bad-mouthing of Islam in the Senate, other guys wanted to modify the resolution -- literally gut it. Joe Lieberman signed it on the spot and led the fight on the Democratic side to get endorsements for it. I don't forget that either."

WorldNetDaily asked the panel, which also consisted of Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich., and Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat chair for peace in Maryland, whether the Arab-American community had concerns over Lieberman's influence as a Jew over policy concerning the Middle East.

"It's logical that (between) two communities that have these kinds of fears and paranoia and insecurities, Arab-Americans are going to be concerned," answered Zogby. "Will we support Joe Lieberman? I will," he continued. "He's been a fair guy. But will we insist that the party be more responsive to us? Yes. Do they have to be more responsive to us if they want to win our support? Yes." ...Attendees at the forum seemed to agree that U.S. sanctions against Iraq only contribute to Saddam Hussein's regime...

...Telhami -- who is an adviser to the Gore campaign but was careful to note he was not speaking on behalf of the campaign -- believes there will be virtually no distinction in the way a Gore-Lieberman administration will handle either a rollback of sanctions or a collapse in the peace process versus a Bush-Cheney White House. Differences between the two camps could be expected, however, in the event of a successful peace negotiation between Palestine and Israel.

"I think if there is an agreement between Israel and Palestinians, then, you know, the implementation of the agreement isn't going to be an easy thing. And it's going to require a lot of resources. It's going to require for the United States to make it a priority issue, and in that extent, a Gore administration will have a lot more invested in the peace process. And it's likely to be a priority for them even if the global priorities shift." ..."If there's a collapse in the peace process, I think there's no question in my mind that the Arab side would pay the heavier price in American politics than Israel, no matter who wins. That's just an analytical assumption about how the town operates and what is likely to happen," Telhami concluded.

Please don't overlook the mitzvah of supporting the Freeman Center's information services. All contributions are fully tax deductible.






by Dr. Aaron Lerner

While Barak presses forward to work out a way to carry out massive withdrawals - including in the Jordan Valley and makes overtures to Syria to restart the talks to completely withdraw from the Golan, it is noteworthy that continuous reports of the breakdown of Israeli security relations with the US are ignored. A breakdown that means any deal that trades Israeli security for American assurances is based on a false premise.

Ha'aretz Military Editor Ze'ev Schiff wrote this week that America continues to insist on putting a stranglehold on Israeli military sales. With elections heating up in America, efforts are underway to make the situation appear better than it is, but the fact remains that the US insists on veto power over any and all Israeli military sales to Israel's most important markets even if the items being sold do NOT contain American components.

America goes even a step further, warning that it reserves the right to extend that veto power at a later date (after the elections) to cover sales to additional countries.

The object of the American action is threefold:

First: To prevent Israel from competing against American weapons manufacturers.

Second: To kill off the independent Israeli arms industry so that Israel will be a captive customer of the American arms industry.

Third: To ultimately reduce Israel into a totally dependent state unable to follow any policy in any area that does not meet with the approval of the U.S. (e.g. only American made planes for El Al, agriculture policy favoring American suppliers, ban on cheaper alternatives to American made brand name drugs, etc.).

Of course, while America claims that it only wants a veto on Israeli arms sales out of security concerns, the U.S. also refused to commit to consult with Israel on the massive American weapons sales Israel's enemies.

And it gets worse.

Schiff reports, for example, that the Americans have issued the blunt statement that if an American force arrives in Israel to help with the anti-aircraft defense system, they will not comply with the IDF's request for an Israeli liaison officer to be present in the coordination module that would be stationed here on Israeli soil!

Theoretical? The U.S. still refuses to allow an IAF representative to participate in the team monitoring the U.S. radar system that will be installed in the new F-16 fighter jets Israel has purchased. A radar system Israel was FORCED to take instead of the more appropriate Israeli-made ELTA system. This will make it impossible for Israel to make quick adjustments and upgrades to the system as required by changing conditions. Instead Israel's security will rely on the good will and quick action of American technicians - who may very well be servicing the VERY SAME equipment in Arab air forces!

To top it all off, it turns out that the U.S. apparently lied a few weeks ago when American officials claims that the Pentagon protested the Phalcon deal when they first learned of it 1996.

Here is what Ze'ev Schiff wrote in Haaretz on 13 August 2000: "Finally, A sought-after document relating to the Phalcon airborne warning system has been located. The elusive document records an initial discussion, from August 20, 1996, between U.S. and Israeli officials about the sale of the Israeli plane to the Chinese.

While the Americans claim that they submitted an official protest to Israel about the Phalcon deal, the document shows that no U.S. complaint was registered during the discussion, with officials discussing only technical aspects of the transaction during the meeting."

So a major feature of the American campaign to kill the Chinese Phalcon deal was a barefaced lie.

This was how America treated Israel at the very same time that Ehud Barak was offering to serve up Israel's security on a silver plate so that Clinton might go in the history books as a Nobel Peace Prize winner rather than a womanizer. Schiff wrote that "The feeling in the Israeli camp is that Clinton's promises at the end of Camp David are not being translated favorably into deeds by administration officials." What an understatement.

There is a clear message here that the Israeli leadership - and public - must come to grips with: If in an election year, when Israel is also bending over backwards to sacrifice its security, the U.S. makes it clear that it has no intention to safeguard Israel's independent military edge, then Israel must do everything in its power NOT to trade independent security for American promises.


Dr. Aaron Lerner is theDirector IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
mail: POB 982 Kfar Sava
Tel 972-9-7604719
New Fax 972-3-548-0092




By Emanuel A. Winston,
Middle East Analyst & Commentator

If there ever was one clincher that Barak is in the U.S. pocket, it was the recent announcement that Israel would cancel the building of its own famous Merkava Battle Tank to purchase the American Abrams M1A1 Tank. This decision was tentatively announced by Chief of Staff Gen. Shaul Mofaz as a budget cutting measure - or so the story goes.

The Merkava was built as a superior fighting vehicle whose first priority was to protect its crew. The Merkava was created and built by Maj. Gen. Israel Tal whose vision of a tank as a combination of rumbling destruction and something a Jewish mother could love succeeded. Every component of the Merkava plays a role to insulate the crew from hostile attack as well as enhance the comfort of the crew, creating a vehicle conducive to high morale and "fightability". This Jewish juggernaut fought and conquered the dreaded Soviet T-72 tank, which the U.S. and Europe thought was unbeatable. To their astonishment in Lebanon, 1982, the Merkava with its 105mm cannon and special Israeli-made kinetic energy shells destroyed the Soviet's prized technology. (1)

The Merkava Mark 3 appeared on Independence Day May 1989. It is now modular, meaning that more than 50% of the Mark 3 protection system is modular and can be upgraded as improvements are made. The 105 mm canon is now a 120 mm. smooth bore, plus 3 machine guns. Apart from the engine, all major systems and components in the Mark 3 were developed and produced in Israel. Delivery of the Merkava Mark 3 began March 1990. It was considered the most advanced of all present generation Main Battle Tanks. (2)

The Israeli Merkava Tank has out performed the American Abrams hands down, a critical fact which has remained unannounced for a long time. For several years there have been field trials where the Merkava units vied with the Abrams units in field competition. This included firing on the move, night operations, survival, accuracy for rounds fired, etc.

The results were embarrassingly and consistently unbalanced and thus were never made public. The Merkava outperformed the Abrams in every way that a battle tank can be tested. Electronics, tank hours without repair, survivability under fire, suspension stability, engine life - but, it all came down to competition in simulated combat field maneuvers. The Merkava Tanks with their Israeli team beat the Abrams' American teams hands down. So, what's going on?

Israel, under Ehud Barak has, indeed become a banana republic. The American arms industry has ordered Israel to stand down her capability in developing and manufacturing anything that competes with U.S. sales. This has been going on for a long time. These hungry American industries have ruthlessly attempted to crush, even destroy, any competitor in a shrinking arms market. True, they can't step on Russia, France, England but they can direct a Bill Clinton and the State Department to threaten a small friend, now acting like a banana republic on a short leash.

In 1986 the political military/industrial complex killed off Israel's operative prototype of her Lavi aircraft which was a dual purpose air superiority jet fighter as well as a close ground support aircraft. The Lavi was cheaper per plane, about $15.5-17 million compared to at least $45 million each [by 1994] for the F16 including spare parts, the closest comparable American plane. (3) The Lavi was capable of fulfilling both missions which neither the American nor the European planes were able to achieve - even up to today. [See articles by Emanuel Winston about the Lavi - information following:] (4)

While still in R&D, the Lavi employed 4000 Israelis and 736 American subcontractors employed many thousands more. At the time Rep. Charles Wilson, Dem.-TX, said the Lavi "will help Israel stop her dependency on the U.S. as Israel learns to rely on her own high technological infrastructure." Then Defense Sec. Caspar Weinberger (under pressure from General Dynamics who manufacturers the F-16) blocked the technology transfer licenses required by the American companies bidding for Lavi contracts on the composite wings, engine and fly-by-wire system. Israel's Sec. of Defense Moshe Arens (called the father of the Lavi), called Sec. of State George Shultz for help and within 48 hours the licenses were approved. Regrettably, it didn't help because the decision to eliminate the competitive Lavi had already been made.

The story behind the cancellation of the Lavi is instructive today. At the time in 1985, Congress was in favor of Israel building the Lavi because of the jobs created in America since so many sub-contractors were involved in the co-production with Israel. It was the forces behind the military-industrial complex who engineered the Lavi's demise.

Dov Zakheim, representing General Dynamics for Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, convinced some influentials in Israel to lobby against the Lavi. These Israelis claimed it was too difficult, too expensive, too high, too much for ‘little' Israel. [This is called the "Rosh Katan" (little head) syndrome.] Pushed by Zakheim, they lobbied heavily in the Israeli media and Cabinet members.

Before Israel's final decision-making Cabinet meeting, the U.S. Congress had voted to appropriate the next year's funds for the Lavi. When the Rabin/Peres Cabinet voted the Lavi down by one vote, the U.S. Congress felt justifiably betrayed. I believe that from that point on the faith and confidence the outside world held for Israel's ability to produce and deliver high level equipment diminished. Several of Israel's major weapons' were canceled, ordered canceled... etc., one after another.

Ultimately America could have been the greatest beneficiary of the Lavi. Co-production of the fighter made good sense. The Lavi concept was initiated as a direct result of Soviet missiles that downed more than 100 aircraft in the first 72 hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Three prototypes of the Lavi were actually built and flew. The Lavi was lighter than the F-16, 10% faster on the deck; her radar cross-section was smaller; she carried a heavier load of weapons and fuel; she had avionics that proved their superiority in the Lebanon war; she flew farther; had a smaller turning circle and could take out air superiority aircraft. The Lavi was also configured as a "hot trainer" that becomes operational at the flip of a switch. In tests against the American F-16, the Lavi out-performed the F-16.

From the 1967 French embargo on all weapons' sales to Israel, when France was Israel's primary arms supplier, Israel decided that, for her own survival, she must be able to produce on her own, at least one tank, one naval vessel, one missile from each family, and one fighter plane.

Many countries tried to design a close-ground-support (CAS) aircraft with high survivability in a missile-infested environment. But, they weren't even at a prototype stage and no CAS was expected to be available until 2000-2025. Then the cost estimate was $30 million each, which has since skyrocketed. The U.S. alone needed 300-500 planes.

To maintain air superiority into the 21st century, the U.S. may spend $950 Billion for 650 F-22s, the new fighter aircraft. It will possess Star Trek electronics, Mach 2 sprint speed and nearly invisible to radar. Then Defense Sec. Dick Cheney was responsible for development of the F-22. (5)

The Japanese introduced their FSX (Fighter Support Experimental) fighter in 1995, with production costs for 70-130 aircraft expected to surpass $100 million each. (6) All have surpassed their estimated production costs and none can perform the dual role as the Lavi did.

The same powers-that-be in America killed off the Phalcon sale to China, knowing that Russia can and is now selling China a comparable aircraft to serve the same function. ‘They' claimed that the Phalcon would enable China to target American planes or ships who were assisting Taiwan against a Chinese attack and, therefore, would be used against American soldiers. They lobbied very heavily to convince Congress that the Phalcon sale by Israel to China was dangerous to American soldiers.

However, eliminating the Phalcon and encouraging the Russian substitute provided no actual benefit to American in defending Taiwan, nor did killing off the Phalcon eliminate a threat against American aircraft or ships. In fact, China, using Russian surveillance aircraft, also links into Russian satellite surveillance, doubling the threat to U.S. defenders.

Stopping Israel's sale of the Phalcon merely stifled Israel's defense industry in all its component technology used for development of surveillance aircraft. This was the intent of the Clinton White House, the U.S. State Department and Pentagon who support America's military-industrial complex. (6) That sale was for as many as 7 Phalcon AWACS type planes at $250 million each, therefore, potentially worth $1.75 Billion.

Israeli officials fear the U.S. will also shoot down (and probably has) India's request to purchase 2 Phalcon reconnaissance aircraft from IAI (Israel Aircraft Industries) for $250 million each. (8)

The U.S. has also successfully canceled an Israeli/Russian sale to Turkey of 145 helicopters worth $4.5 Billion dollars to Israel. Bell Helicopter will be the likely beneficiary. Similarly, Turkey canceled their order to receive satellite photos from Israel's Ofek Satellite in deference to U.S. orders, to benefit American satellite companies. (9)

How will Israel ever reach economic and military self-sufficiency if her biggest friend keeps undermining her development and sales of defense equipment? How will Israel ever be able to achieve peace in what remains as a hostile neighborhood if she is dependent upon a friend and supplier who sells her self-declared adversaries the same and even more advanced equipment in greater total quantity and perhaps superior quality? And WHY has America assumed this double role of restricting Israel's sales and development?

Israel has more highly educated and technically proficient minds per capita than almost any other country. Israel's defense industries and innovative creativity could be excellent partners with America in all fields of endeavor, saving money and time in man-hours of R&D - IF these talents were encouraged instead of stifled.

The U.S. has announced a $900 million arms deal with Egypt and a $500 million deal with Saudi Arabia. Included is the improvement of 35 Apache helicopters and sale of advanced detection equipment for the Egyptian Air Force's F16 planes. Saudi Arabia will receive 500 AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, while Kuwait has purchased $190 million of artillery and tank ammunition. (10)

The proposed sale to Egypt will upgrade its anti-armor day/night missile capability by upgrading 35 AH-64A to AH-64D model attack helicopters, including 35 Target Acquisition Designation Sight/Pilot Night Vision Sensors (TADS/PNVS) plus 2 spares and extra repair parts, support equipment and technical documentation, U.S. quality assurance teams, training of personnel, U.S. government and contractor technical support and logistics support. (11)

Saudi Arabia will receive 500 AIM-120C Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missiles (AMRAAM), LAU-128 missile launchers, Captive Air Training Missiles, spare and repair parts, technical documentation, maintenance and pilot training, and other logistical support to enhance the air-to-air defense capability of its F-15 fleet. The proposed sale of this equipment and support technology is claimed by the State Department to NOT affect the basic military balance in the region. (12) These biased assurances cannot be comforting to Israel who has fought 6 wars with these same nations who intended to annihilate the Jewish State.

Clinton and Company have insisted on having oversight over any sales or negotiations which Israel may be engaged in with any of 27 nations which the U.S. considers a threat to their business interests. This advance knowledge, of course, would allow U.S. arms manufacturers to then put in their lower bid, undercutting any other Israeli bid by the use of America's easy access to long term credit.

I wonder why Clinton hasn't made this demand of Russia or France? I wonder why Israel doesn't get the same privilege of assessing similar threats when America's military/industrial complex sells missiles and combat aircraft, AWACS radar aircraft, etc. to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, Kuwait, Jordan and perhaps, later Syria?

Of course, it is fair business practice to use every advantage over your competitors. However, Israel is called America's close friend and ally as the only democratic country in the Middle East. And, Israel's defense industries purchase countless parts and full assemblies of parts from American manufacturers. Israel is required to spend almost all of the military aid she receives from America in America. Therefore, most of Israel's military/defense output produces hundreds of thousands of jobs in America, creating a tremendous force multiplier of benefits to the American military/industrial complex.

The U.S. State Department and Pentagon (the voice of the arms' industries) invariably release statements which shrug off any threat to Israel, claiming the particular sale in question won't shift the balance of power against Israel. This is a blatant lie. The U.S. is now proposing to sell "Block 60" F-16s to Arab countries, a plane so advanced that it exceeds everything in the U.S. and Israeli Air Forces. (13)

However, during a May 20, 1993 press conference with the American Jewish Press Association, when he was Israel's Chief of Staff, Gen. Ehud Barak said: "Israel's qualitative edge has disappeared as the West arms the Arabs with top-of-the-line planes, tanks and missiles - the same models Israel receives in much smaller numbers. Israel can't afford to maintain present defense levels and has cut its defense budget from 15% of the GDP to 9%; in dollars from $7.2 Billion to $5.8 Billion and going down." (14)

The old adage of: "Why don't you pick on someone your own size?" clearly doesn't apply to small friends of the U.S. like Israel. It doesn't represent the true spirit of the American people and their support of a free and safe Israel. But, it does represent itself much the same as the multi-national oil industry. This psychological weakness of greed may effectively hide behind the American flag but it will still crush any friendly nation that gets in its way - if it can. It simply picks up the phone to the President or the State Department and sets them into motion. It's nice to have friends in high places, particularly when they are grateful for large campaign contributions.

Barak, like Yitzhak Rabin when he agreed to scuttle the Lavi for the sake of U.S. interests, will now kill off what many say is the best tank in the world. Barak will also squelch all the sub-development industries that support construction of the Merkava Tank, just as Rabin was ordered to kill off all the hundreds of industries that were burgeoning around the Lavi. Israel was simply supposed to continue in her role as a supplicant or client, purchasing only what U.S. industries offered and in no way was Israel to try and manufacture for herself.

Israel's armament industry has simply shown too much promise, too much initiative, too much creative development. She has become a player even though she ranks as far down on the list of world arms' suppliers so that she's off the charts and no real challenge to U.S. sales. Naturally, the U.S. ranks first. Being first is good for business but since America's real competitors are Russia, France, England, and Germany, why crush the excellent weapons' capabilities of such a small competitor. The answer may be that Israel is the only competitor under American control and small enough to step on.

Some Congressmen have expressed concern when the U.S. sold, or rather gifted, $25 Billion American taxpayers' dollars to Egypt to buy U.S. equipment, making Egypt the military colossus of the Middle East and a powerful threat to Israel.

Congress expressed even greater concern when Clinton tried to arrange a deal with Syria where Clinton would gift $30 Billion dollars which would come back to the U.S. arms industry in the sales of aircraft, missiles, tanks, etc. Unknown to the public, this is an actual transfer of American tax dollars through the loop of foreign sales which literally comes back to support the arms industries. It is a sweet arrangement. In effect, American tax dollars go directly to the U.S. arms industries so that weapons can be gifted to such nations as Egypt to, presumably, influence foreign policy. (Blackmail by equipment rarely works.)

As for the matter of the Merkava tank, clearly the intent is to eliminate this superb Israeli battle tank so that the manufacturing line for the U.S. M1A1Abrams can stay open and profitable. Like the Lavi when it was killed off so the old F16 line could stay open, the Merkava is now targeted for the junk yard.

Ehud Barak has become Clinton's boy toy in all ways and in all things. Once you accept black money to achieve high office, you become the money-givers' plaything. America has no need to crush a small ally's arms industry. But, the U.S. arms industry which operates like a separate nation wants every sale it can beg, borrow or steal.

Israel has become an extraordinary resource for the development of technology. The arms industry would like to keep it limited to what amounts to a captured resource of brains, slaved to its own sales. Regrettably, corrupt leaders like Barak, Rabin, Peres and Beilin have allowed Israel to slide into the category of a begging Banana Republic. I cannot help but wonder if Congress is in agreement with this process of insuring that Israel remains dependent upon U.S. aid forever.


1. "Tank A Jewish Mother Could Love" by Emanuel A. Winston ISRAEL TODAY 12/12/83

2. "Merkava, Mark 3 - A Milestone in Tank Design" by Shlomo Baum, z'l BULLETIN of the JERUSALEM INSTITUTE for WESTERN DEFENSE January 1990

3. "Lockheed Offers Israel Longer Range F-16" by Barbara Opall U.S. DEFENSE NEWS 1/10/94

4. By Emanuel A. Winston Regarding the Lavi:

"Building Israel's Front-Line of Defense" SENTINEL 9/11/96

"Lavi: A Look Ahead, A Leap Forward: Co-Production of Fighter Makes Good Sense for America, Israel" U.S. DEFENSE NEWS April 6,1987

"Israel's Lavi Fighter: Good for America, Too: Israeli Innovation, American Genius: A Partnership" U.S. DEFENSE NEWS 7/13/87 & JERUSALEM POST 7/16/87

"Rejection of Lavi Haunts U.S. in Gulf" U.S. DEFENSE NEWS February 11, 1991

5. "F-22 = $95 Billion" by Leslie Gelb NEW YORK TIMES 5/22/91

6. "A New Warplane's Murky Horizon: Controversy & Costs Dog Plans for Joint U.S.-Japan et Fighter" by Andrew Pollack NEW YORK TIMES 1/13/95

7. "Selling Arms to israel's Enemies" by Emanuel Winston JEWISH PRESS May 25, 2000

8. "India is Interested in Purchasing 2 Phalcon Reconnaissance Aircraft: U.S. Opposition Expected" by Yossi Melman & Amos Harel HA'ARETZ July 23, 2000

9. "U.S. Defeats Israel in $4.5 Billion Helicopter Deal with Turkey" by Amnon Barzilai HA'ARETZ 7/23/00

10 "U.S. to Supply Advanced Arms to Egypt & Saudi Arabia: Says Sale Won't Hurt Balance" by Amnon Barzilai HA'ARETZ 7/23/00

11. "Proposed Foreign Military Sale to Egypt Announced" U.S. Department of Defense - Public Affairs # 424-00 July 20, 2000

12. "Proposed Foreign Military Sale to Saudi Arabia Announced" U.S. Department of Defense - Public Affairs #428-00 July 20, 2000

13. "U.S. to Sell F-16 More Advanced than its Own" by Jim Wolf REUTERS 3/14/00

14. "Barak Quotes U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff on Borders" by Gail Winston JEWISH PRESS 1/26/96


Emanuel A. Winston is a Middle East Commentator and research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.

 HOME  Maccabean  comments