Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 12             B"H   SEPTEMBER 2004             NUMBER 9

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

September 2004



ODE TO SHARON: A DEMENTED MONSTER...Poem....Bernard J. Shapiro
WHY DO WE SUPPORT ISRAEL?...Guest Editorial....Patrick O'Brian
THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION: ISRAEL AND JUDEA...Guest Editorial....Ariel Natan Pasko
COLUMN ONE: OUR SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS...Guest Editorial....Caroline Glick
AN INDEFATIGABLE UNDERMINER.....Guest Editorial....Elyakim Haetzni

THE AIPAC KERFUFFLE - Jerusalem Post Editorial

DRIVEN FROM OUR HOMES....Emanuel A. Winston
TEACHING RETREAT.....Emanuel A. Winston

U.S. ARMY'S THEL [Israeli "Nautilus"] Shoots Down Mortar Rounds Again Showing Versatility of Northrop Built System
CHECKMATE ......Ross C. Leiber
IT JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE...For Kurds....Gerald A. Honigman


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





Some Observations

By Bernard J. Shapiro

1. It is apparent to many people that, despite his exalted military career, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is showing cowardice in the face of Palestinian attacks during the current war. While IDF soldiers and officers certainly are personally brave in the face of the enemy, Israel's political leadership is indecisive and non-aggressive. I ask you: When in Israel's military history did its forces not attack and occupy enemy positions from where live fire was coming? Only today is the IDF entangled with rules that prevent its ability to defeat the enemy decisively. The failure to engage the enemy with force and aggressiveness has led to a massive loss of deterrence on the part of Israel.

2. The repeated cease-fire talks and restraint demanded by the Americans have made the Israelis look like a "banana republic" as well as fools for expecting Arafat's signature on an agreement to mean something tangible.

3. The level of lying on the part of the Palestinians about Arafat's war is an indicator of how unreasonable and "anti-peace" they really are. Of, course, they are truthful about their ultimate goal of destroying Israel and committing genocide against its Jewish population.

4. It is clear to me that Sharon is using Arafat's war for the purpose of causing the Jews of YESHA to evacuate their homes. This was meant to save himself the difficulty of personally taking charge of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the area. Unfortunately today, he leading the forces demanding the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Eretz Yisrael. Sharon has already given the green light to Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, by his actions in not suppressing the war and destroying Israel's enemies.

5. Sharon's giveaway of Gaza and the Shomron and his plans to make all of YESHA Judenrein should have brought down his government, yet he still rules. I am very disappointed at this. Where is the nationalist camp?

6. There is talk of international observers for YESHA. This would be a great victory of Arafat and justify his war against Israel. The Israeli response should be a deafening no. From experience of 56 years, we all know that the UN, its bodies, and all International Forces are biased against Israel and in the pocket to the Arabs. The only purpose of such a plan would be to diminish Israel's rightful sovereignty in the area.

7. Sharon's constant warnings and threats, for which he never acts, further reduce Israeli deterrence.

8. Allowing the news media to photograph teenagers throwing stones is bad for Israel's image. It is well know that these very same photographers avoid taking pictures of Palestinian gunfire. The print journalists avoid references to live fire from the Palestinian side. Many rioters wait for journalists to arrive before rioting. Others actually collaborate with journalists to start riots strictly for the anti-Israel propaganda it inevitably brings the Arab cause. It is past time to remove journalists from the areas of clashes.

9. Oslo, Camp David, Road Map, Geneva, and the Disengagement (Retreat -Appeasement to terror) must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

10. Israel must annex immediately all of YESHA. Then the Palestinians must be told that those who engage in hostile activity against Israel will be expelled from the country. If hostility is widespread then the entire population should make a new home in Jordan.

Bernard J. Shapiro is the executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of The Maccabean Online and the Freemanlist.

P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail <>




By Bernard J. Shapiro

Oh Land of my Fathers, lovely land of freedom,
Where has thou gone?
To a
New Middle East of retreat and appeasement, across a sea of fog.
Deep into the fantasy world of Beilin & Peres goes Sharon.
Oh love of my fathers, hope of my people,
What has become of your promise of Zion?
Why do you wander drunk and sick?
What has become of thee?


I see no more a land of freedom, love and justice.
I see no more the hope and prayer of the Jew.
I see a monster, a demented monster.
Tell me oh beast, oh mighty beast of prey,
How many dirty deals did you make with our enemies today?
How many Jewish villages did you put in harms way?
How many Jewish homes and families will you bulldoze?
How many Jewish prayers for
Eretz Yisrael did you wreck and bury?
And tell me, how many children will die at the
Hands of the murderers you appease and have set free today?
Tell me the truth, oh beast, oh mighty beast of prey.


Oh demented monster, why did you come?
When will you go?
You'll go when the settlers are all gone.
You'll go when religious Jews are no longer in your way.
You'll go when all Zionists have forsaken Zion.
You will go when Israel is Judenrein.
You'll go when
They are all dead.
Oh beast, oh mighty beast of prey.
It is
We, the people of Israel, who are They.



ISRAPUNDIT - August 13, 2004


Does The Average American Understand What's At Stake?

By Patrick D. O'Brien

The United States and Israel have many mutual political interests. Ethical and altruistic considerations aside, this is the primary impetus behind international alliances. I do love Israel, and I am proud that my nation is Israel's best friend, but I know that it's not for purely noble reasons. Geopolitical maneuvering and backroom deals are part and parcel of the international political landscape. However, so long as such practical matters of utility are necessary, I am very glad that such a fortuity has brought our two nations and peoples together. As an average citizen, I don't need to understand in great detail every facet of our complex relationship with Israel, but I've learned that the Jews of Israel have much in common with us culturally, politically, and economically. I consider them to be my brothers and sisters, and I can't imagine not having Israel as our friend. Sadly, not all Americans understand this special bond.

I've noticed over the years how many of Israel's most ardent critics here in the U.S. decry the amount of foreign aid that the United States gives to Israel (this year's estimate is about $2.7 billion, down from last year's $3.7 billion). It seems to be their favorite point of criticism because it is a hard, established number. One also notes how a lot of these same people are of the opinion that the "Palestinians" are engaged in a legitimate conflict against an aggressive occupying force, and so they take issue with the fact that much of the assistance provided to Israel from the U.S. is in the form of military aid (about 80% this year). I have heard on more than one occasion the mournful plaint, "I don't know about you, but I don't like knowing that my tax dollars are being used to fund the military of a country that kills children." Of course, the fact that Israel is only trying to protect its own children -- all too often from these same Arab children -- is wholly lost on these people. I won't comment right now on the implicit value judgments in such selective affinities.

Personally, I would support Israel no matter what. It's abundantly clear to me that it is only just to do so. Not all of my fellow citizens get that, though. So I'd like to make a more practical and compelling case for why the United States should and must support Israel.

To begin with we are both democratic states trying to maintain order and stability in a disorderly world which sometimes has all the stability of a drunkard on stilts. Interestingly, many of Israel's American detractors don't seem to consider just how little the United States gets in return for its aid to other states in the same region as Israel. Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, and the Palestinian Authority together receive U.S. aid comparable to that of Israel, which is in large part, to placate them. Egypt is basically paid not to attack Israel. If one looks into the matter at all, it becomes clear that Israel actually earns its U.S. foreign aid, and then some. The double standard employed by Israel's American critics in this matter is somewhat disturbing. This article is an appeal to my fellow Americans who do not understand why it is not only moral, but also imperative for the United States to do its part to ensure Israel's welfare, and indeed, survival.

Among the most important assets that Israel provides the U.S. with in return for financial assistance are:

-- invaluable intelligence information: The war on terror is a euphemistic title which really means "the war on Islamofascism." Israel is on the front lines of this war every day, and has been for some time now. Rabid antisemitism is more or less de rigueur in Arab/Muslim society, accounting for some of the hatred fueling the terror. Israel is also despised for bringing democracy, success, and the rule of law to an area which knows very little about such things. In the hate-polluted and culturally stagnant waters that are modern Arab/Muslim affairs, Israel has been the local target of choice for the irrational fury of Islamic terror. As a consequence, Israel has excelled at combating terror like no other nation on Earth.

A crucial part of neutralizing Islamic terror is having good, actionable intelligence. Useful and current data needs to be gathered and properly analyzed before it can be acted on. Since Arabic is one of Israel's official languages, Israeli agents are on the ball with electronic, on-the-ground, and print intelligence. They've got agents all over the Arab world. And since 9/11, U.S. intelligence agents and special operations soldiers have begun to pay especial attention to the Israeli playbook, because Israel knows better than anyone how to fight fourth generation warfare. We've participated in joint exercises with Israel in spheres of warfare that are somewhat alien to us, since we haven't had to deal with vicious criminals trying to blow up our kids every day. To be frank, we are pretty damn fortunate to have Israel's expertise to help guide us in these matters. Now more than ever, America needs this sort of tutelage and intelligence support. In my book, that's worth about a billion.

-- technological/economic gains: Not only does Israel easily rank among the world's elite in intelligence gathering and analysis, but its citizens are brilliant and highly educated. Beyond the cultural Jewish spirit for excellence, they have the incentive to succeed in unique ways economically because of Israel's scant natural resources. So, Israelis have tapped into their greatest and most reliable resource: themselves. In fifty-six short years, Israel has accomplished what many nations haven't been able to do in centuries. With a driving demand for survival and success against all odds, Israelis developed an energetic and ambitious entrepreneurial enthusiasm.

This attitude has helped to propel Israel to world leadership in the fields of medicine, scientific research (many disciplines), agriculture, telecommunications, high-tech electronics & software (the country's leading industrial sector), and more recently, the biotechnology industry. To quote industrialist Efi Arazi, "Israel now has a critical mass in high technology that is far ahead of anything in Europe." The United States is deeply involved in many of these enterprises and derives enormous benefits from Israel's unrivaled supremacy in many of these fields. And of course, many American businesses will be given preferential treatment in securing joint venture contracts for Israeli projects. Many Americans have no idea how many Israeli contributions are part of our life. The drug Copaxone, which gives hope to those suffering from Multiple Sclerosis, was developed by Israelis at the Weizmann Institute. ICQ instant messaging was invented by four young Israelis in their twenties, and bought by AOL. Israel's drip irrigation systems save between 40-50% of water usage, while giving a 300% return in crop increase. Israel's innovation and supreme industrial feats confer massive benefits to their economy and to America's. Another billion here, I'd say.

-- a democratic presence in the Middle East: I think it's pretty hard to put a price on this, especially when considering the totalitarian states in that area whose people hate America and the west. Having moved past its strategic role as America's democratic foothold in the Middle East against the "Red Menace" of Soviet Russia, Israel is now viewed by some to be our bulwark against the area's "Green Menace" of militant Islam. I don't personally believe that Islam will ever be an insuperable threat to western civilization. I optimistically like to think that we'll (all) eventually deal with it, if for no other reason than to save ourselves and our freedoms (not to mention the millions of Muslims who might not be averse to a departure from grinding misery, repression, and poverty). However, until the rest of the free world gets its tolerant and multicultural head out of la-la land, it's a good idea for both Israel and the United States to have a strong and defensible secular democracy in the region. The Middle East is hardly the most stable place in the world, and poses severe, if not long-term challenges to democracy. With the psychotic mulllahcracy of Iran, the oil-drunk Saudi terror sponsors, and various other erratic and violent regimes in its immediate neighborhood, Israel has some experience dealing with this sort of thing. We can only gain from this experience.

Below the strata of our governments, I see a mutual affinity among American and Israeli citizens with regard to shared values like: freedom of speech, the rule of law and due process in court, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, equality between sexes, and all of the other worthy advantages of democracy. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if hateful Muslim Arabs look at Israel and its democratic principles with scorn and enmity. Israel is a reminder of what sort of governance truly works for its people, offering freedom and happiness. It's high time the Arab world got beyond its visceral rejection of innovation based upon a backward and anachronistic amalgam of religion, tribal values, entrenched statism and xenophobia. There are other considerations of security which make having a democratic ally in the Middle East an idea that behooves the United States. Cha-ching! -- there's another billion. Israel's U.S. foreign aid has now more than paid for itself. But wait, there's more.

-- peace through superior firepower: The cooperative military ventures between Israel and the United States are nothing short of spectacular. The strategic value derived from these joint projects is hard to measure, and the lives they save makes them priceless. The Arrow missile, as was shown recently, promises to be an indispensable replacement for the useful, yet not quite useful enough, Patriot missile system. From the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) and satellite technology, to Israel's state of the art Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAVs) and down to more mundane military matters, the U.S. takes advantage of Israel's technological prowess and pioneering spirit. In today's world, military supremacy is of paramount importance for free nations, and the U.S. and Israel are a step ahead of everyone else. This is all the more important to the U.S. when we now have the same monsters hammering on our door as Israel's. Also, I'm sure there are also a few black book projects that we don't yet know about. Heck, that's got to be worth another billion, at least.

And when it comes to military might, Israel reigns supreme in the Middle East. The IDF has approximately 150,000 active duty strength troops and another estimated 500,000 regularly trained reservists which can be mobilized inside of 72 hours. This formidable fighting force is also equipped with the best available equipment, armaments, intelligence, and logistical support. And Israel's Air Force has a fleet second in size only to the United States.

After having had to defend Israel in five major wars, the IDF is among the world's most seasoned and battle-trained armed forces. With fresh hostilities each day, Israel's sons and daughters in the IDF are regularly tested and retested in battle. Israel is also in possession of (openly) secret nukes. In the unlikely event of America needing a "helping hand" in the region, isn't it good to know that Israel's first-rate military is on our side? They're numerous, well-trained, disciplined, armed to the teeth, and they're already there -- no deployment. It may well prove to be quite a godsend one day.

The value of the peace (and peace of mind), however tenuous, that all of these military factors buy for the United States, through a powerful deterrent to our enemies, and as a potential front line in a future American offensive in the area is truly incalculable. As arrogant and contentious as it may sound, there truly is something to be said for the accessiblity of peace through superior firepower.

I am obviously not an expert in geopolitics, economics, or foreign policy. I know a thing or two about these matters, though, because I think it's important to understand at least a minimum of what goes on in ones government, and what sort of relations ones country has with others. For practical and personal reasons, I've grown quite fond of Israel over the years, in great measure because I've discovered how tightly knit, on many levels, our relationship with them is. The bottom line here is that dollar for dollar, Israel gives back to the U.S. far more than other nations, especially Arab states, which receive more or comparable aid (and which consistently vote against us at the UN, by the way). I'm almost willing to describe Israel's role in our relationship as being on the United States' payroll; certainly not as a "puppet," but as a valued and crucial friend whose services are indispensable. Israel earns our foreign aid, whereas other countries take our money and give nothing back, or worse, actively work against us.

And anyone who thinks that Arabs hate us primarily because we support Israel is either ignorant or looking for another specious justification for slandering the U.S. and/or Israel. Or worse, they are seeking a way to excuse Islamic terror. If this is what you believe, you need to look into this matter more objectively, turn off your emotions, and rethink your position. The United States is the Great Shaitan and Israel is the Little Shaitan. And if you think that Europe is not hated by those who think that shari'ah is a good idea, all I can say is stay tuned, and perhaps prepare for dhimmitude. It makes sense for us to support Israel. It is in a nation's best interests to do what makes sense for its well-being, for its standing in the world, and for the security of its citizens.

Beyond all this, I just love Israel. The values of Israel's people are more consonant with American values than any other people I know of. I have no issue with the vast majority of my nation's values. I love it here, and I think that in the balance, we are a just nation, like Israel. I am grateful to live in a free and open society where what I do as an individual counts, if only a little a bit. Israelis seem to have a similar outlook, and I am truly glad to live in a nation that supports such people. Despite the material reasons for our alliance, at the end of the day, I am absolutely convinced that there is also pure, human worth in our unique mutual friendship.

I think it's also important to remember that Israel is trying to lead a modern, secular, democratic, existence in the middle of a region comprised mainly of hostile and combative totalitarian regimes. This means that Israel holds itself to standards that its enemies don't. I think many westerners are resentful of Israel's perceived transgressions against liberal democracy because they don't take into consideration just how much adversity Israel is up against. Israel is not in the midst of like-minded nations as European states are, and they are not the global powerhouse that the U.S. is. Such an attitude against Israel is, of course, hypocritical coming from Americans. And in some instances I regret to say that, yes, it certainly appears to be antisemitic.

The fact is that for Israel to lose just one battle against its pugnacious neighbors, is to lose all battles. That will be the end of the short story of the Jewish homeland's rebirth. When I need to explain to others, as I've done here, what's in it for us, then I have to face the fact that some people don't seem to care if the Jewish state is wiped off the map by the Arabs who seem to have all the patience in the world to make that happen. I find it unsettling, just sixty years after the Holocaust, that some of my countrymen have forgotten one of the principal reasons why Israel must be defended -- this is the only place in the whole world that every Jew can call home. This tiny strip of land that comprises about two percent of the Middle East is all that stands between the Jewish people and an ocean of Arabs/Muslims clamoring to spill their blood. This isn't hyperbole either; this is the reality for Jews in israel. For me, this is the best reason for the United States to support Israel -- because it's the right thing to do.

So, some of my fellow Americans are apparently uniformed or willfully ignorant in their one-sided criticism of Israel when it comes to this U.S. foreign aid red herring. They don't seem to object to Arab states which take the same American money that Israel gets, while giving back little outside of hatred and death. Some of my fellow Americans are blind. Just three years after deranged Arab/Muslim savages killed 3,000 of us on our own soil, they still don't seem to see how critical our alliance with Israel is. They wonder how we can afford to send so much foreign aid to our one true friend in all of the Middle East. I wonder how we could afford not to.




By Ariel Natan Pasko

Back in 1989, the radical Rabbi and former Knesset member Meir Kahane, members of his - still then legal - Kach Party, and an assortment of other miscellaneous - what are euphemistically called today - right-wing extremists, met in Jerusalem, to found the State of Judea. Their program, based on the assumption that an - as yet unknown -Israeli-Palestinian peace process of the future, would call for the expulsion of Jews from parts of the historic Land of Israel, specifically the 1967 liberated territories called Yesha, i.e. Judea, Samaria (the West Bank), and Gaza. In case of this eventuality, they proposed that Jewish settlers declare independence from Israel and establish their own Jewish state, to be called the State of Judea. This idea, was to provide a political and defense alternative to the Jews of Yesha, since the Israeli government, it was believed, would be abandoning them, and turning over sovereignty of the land to an Arab entity.

In juxtaposition to the commonly heard phrase, "two states for two peoples," i.e. Jews and Arabs or Israelis and Palestinians, one can summarize their idea in the phrase, "two states for one people," i.e. Jews-Judeans and Israelis. Let me point out here, there is a historic precedent for it, just open the bible to the Book of Kings, and you can read about the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.

Be that as it may, 15 years ago, this idea - of two Jewish states - was the purview of those exclusively on the right side of the political spectrum in Israel, but not anymore.

Referring to Sharon's disengagement plan from Gaza and areas of Samaria, and the forced expulsion of Jews from their homes and communities, American academic, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, suggested a different type of strategy to avoid a civil war in Israel, "Should the [Israeli] government go ahead with the forcible removal of Jewish residents of Gaza, intra-Israeli violence appears to be a distinct possibility. Which in turn makes me wonder why the Israeli authorities do not take quite a different track and merely stop providing security for them."

This idea has also been proposed in an article in the left-leaning "intellectual" Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz entitled, "If they do not evacuate voluntarily". In it, the author referring to Sharon's Gaza Plan states, "Israel cannot afford a national trauma of this magnitude. Therefore, the disengagement must not be carried out by force. The government had better announce in advance and unequivocally that there will be no forced evacuation, and plan the implementation of the disengagement accordingly. If there were any chance of it succeeding, it would be preferable to negotiate with the Palestinian Authority over the possibility of allowing the settlements, or some of them, and the settlers who so wish to remain under Palestinian rule..."

Speaking of the compensation process and the final date of evacuation the author continues, "One can hope that by that date, not many settlers will remain. But those who do choose to remain - and this must be said regretfully, but decisively - will do so on their own responsibility...Does this mean that Israel is 'abandoning' the settlers? This question cannot be considered out of context. The settlers' fate is not the only thing at stake: The fate of the entire state is...The settlers cannot expect the Israeli majority to agree to subordinate its destiny to theirs..."

So, along with promoting the constant threat of a civil war, writers, thinkers, politicians and generals from the Left, are beginning to define "settlers," as being from another group, whose "destiny" is different. For example, Ha'aretz has in the past few months promoted the "two-state idea," with such lurid titles as, "Land of Israel vs. State of Israel" and "The other Jewish state".

In the "Land of Israel vs. State of Israel," the author states, "Still, the extreme right can't be portrayed solely by means of the debate with Sharon. Its activists act on behalf of another country: the 'Land of Israel.' That country has for years been engaged in subverting the State of Israel...It's part of the great battle between the State of Israel and the Land of Israel, where the residents [i.e. settlers] are not bound by any democratic game. The Land of Israel is a messianic-religious nationalistic entity, in part racist, and it has a lot of clout among the people who live in the State of Israel."

And in "The other Jewish state," the author, in discussing the State Comptroller's Report writes, "In fact, we have to think in terms of two Jewish states, one within the Green Line, living according to Israeli law, and the other across that line...The gap between the two Jewish nation-states is quite clear from the other data scattered in the report. This refers not only to the amount of money that has been invested in the settlements, but to the method..."

Referring to Israel's investment in building Jewish communities in Yesha, the author complains, "It involves the creation of a different Jewish identity - and hence a different culture - from the one that exists in Israel. Underlying this identity is a concept of territories; Jewry as an elite that deserves the best and for which the whole existence of the State of Israel is no more than a feed-line...The comptroller seeks to, almost begs to, apply Israeli criteria to a population that from the outset established its foundations on divine law."

But it's not only the Israeli Left that sees settlers and settlements as "different" from Israel...

For over a year and a half now, the European Union has been arguing with Israel over the inclusion of products from Yesha, under its Free Trade Agreement with Israel. The Europeans began demanding that products produced in the settlements, since they don't originate in "Israel," don't qualify for import tax-free status. Although the Foreign Ministry's policy had been not to give in to European pressure on this matter, Trade and Industry Minister Ehud Olmert last year began working on a "solution". His solution? Israel will label all products for export with the geographic location in which they were manufactured, for example, Made in Israel - Tel Aviv, or, Made in Israel - Gush Etzion, thus enabling the EU to identify and tax products from Yesha. It also will enable pro-Palestinian consumers in Europe to more easily boycott Yesha products, something the far-left Israeli "peace" group Gush Shalom has been promoting for a number of years.

And elements of the Israeli government are facilitating this...

Then there's the recent 14th Ministerial Conference of the 115-member country Non-Aligned Movement, the largest international body outside the United Nations.

According to their "Declaration on Palestine," they wrote, "The Ministers welcomed the Advisory Opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice on the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'". They referred to the "contravention of relevant provisions of the Hague Regulations and the Fourth Geneva Convention" and stated, "The Ministers further underscored the Court's conclusion that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, have been established in breach of international law..."

And then in section 5b state, "With regard to Member States, the Ministers called upon them to undertake measures, including by means of legislation, collectively, regionally and individually, to prevent any products of the illegal Israeli settlements from entering their markets consistent with the obligations under International Treaties, to decline entry to Israeli settlers..."

They called on their 115 member countries to boycott products from Yesha communities and to forbid entry of Yesha residents into their countries.

Israeli officials quickly brushed off the boycott call. "We are sorry for this decision," said one official, "But we think this political decision will be impossible to implement." And about the ban on settlers, they said that, "Israeli Passports don't have local addresses." But that's not entirely correct, most countries require visa applications, which will require Israeli home addresses. What will an Israeli wannabe tourist from say Ma'ale Adumim or Ariel do? Fill out the form with his real address when he wants to go to India, Thailand, Chile, or Kenya and be denied entry? Or, lie on the form, go there, get arrested for a traffic violation, and if found out where he really lives, be held for prosecution for lying on a visa application as well?

Clearly, the international community, Israel's Left, and the Israeli government are making a distinction between Jewish settlers and settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, and Israelis in Israel proper.

And if all this weren't enough, Israeli Attorney-General Meni Mazuz - based on an Israeli Justice Ministry legal team study - has recommended to the government, that it "carefuly examine" the possibility of formally applying the Fourth Geneva Convention - which governs the treatment of civilians in an occupied territory - to Yesha. This would reverse the policies of all Israeli governments since 1967 - that the territories are not "occupied" as defined in the convention, but rather "disputed". Though Mazuz intends it to apply to the treatment of the Palestinians for humanitarian purposes, it could give the Jewish residents of Yesha, the international status of "war criminals," since another section of the convention has been used to define settlements as illegal. With all this effort on the part of the international community to define two different groups of Jews, class A and class B, and the Israeli government acting as a willing accomplice, and with the Israeli government pursuing a policy to expel Jews from their homes, or simply remove Israeli Army security and abandon them, will Jewish settlers decide to declare their independence from Israel? Only time will tell.

Ariel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. He is also a research associate and member of the Board of Directors of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at:

(c) 2004/5764 Pasko



The Jerusalem Post - August 27, 2004


by Caroline Glick

The Non-Aligned Movement's decision over the weekend to bar Israeli tourists who live beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines from visiting their countries was greeted at the Foreign Ministry with an irritated yawn. No doubt our diplomats should have mustered a bit more revulsion in their reaction to this affront to our national honor, rights and legitimacy. But it is equally true that the NAM declaration will doubtlessly have little impact on the vacation spots chosen by Israelis who live in eastern and northern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and Judea and Samaria.

Just last week it was reported that Israelis make up the largest group -- in absolute numbers -- of tourists in Kashmir. The second largest group of tourists to that war-torn Indian state comes from China. That is, Israelis visit Kashmir in larger numbers than Chinese do even though China's population is 216 times larger than Israel's. No doubt, India, Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Kenya, Tanzania and countless other states who are members of NAM would have serious qualms about voluntarily losing millions of dollars in tourist revenue annually by placing restrictions on travel by Israeli tourists in their mountain villages and marketplaces.

And lose them they most assuredly would. Because the truth is that Israelis don't like being treated badly. We don't like it when other people tell lies about us or when they try to selectively accept or reject us. In making our holiday choices, Israelis who are safely ensconced in Haifa and Tel-Aviv and Beersheva would think twice -- actually, 75 times -- before visiting a country that barred their brothers from Ariel and the French Hill and Gilo neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Despite what Peace Now would have the world believe, Israelis don't make distinctions between the blood of "bad settlers" who live in land controlled since 1967 and that of "good Israelis" who live in land controlled since 1949. And make no mistake, even if they do so with a stutter, our diplomats serving in NAM countries will make this point sufficiently clearly to their hosts.

A similar situation holds in the European Union. Like their NAM counterparts, EU member states believe it is to their political advantage to curry favor with the Arabs by condemning Israel and taking a passive-aggressive attitude toward the US. But so far, their talk of sanctions against Israel has been spoken in whispers that have been quickly silenced by cooler heads. As European sources well-versed in the policies of several EU member states assured me this week, the chance of the EU placing sanctions on Israel is small. Individual EU member states are barred from enacting trade sanctions unilaterally and Britain, Germany, Italy and the Czech Republic (among others) oppose them. Without consensus on the issue, it will never be adopted. Even with its original 15 members, the EU was never able to reach a consensus on suspension or abrogation of its association agreement with Israel. Now with 25 members and a new European Commission that is far less anti-Israel than its predecessor, the chance of the EU taking any concrete steps against Israel is virtually non-existent.

This is not to say that Israeli diplomats can rest on their laurels. This state of affairs must be cultivated. In spite of the well-known incompetence of Israel's diplomatic corps in making the case for Israel publicly, its members can take some pride in behind the scenes machinations that so far have prevented an anti-Israel consensus from forming in Europe.

All of this is important to bear in mind when examining the legal opinion submitted by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and to the editorial offices of Ha'aretz last week on the issue of the legal ramifications of the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion on the security fence. Mazuz made a series of claims in that brief regarding what he views as the perils to Israel emanating from that non-binding ICJ opinion. Incorrectly referring to the ICJ's brief as a "decision," Mazuz wrote, "The decision creates a political reality for Israel on the international level that may be used to expedite actions against Israel in international forums, to the point where they may result in sanctions." Mazuz did not give any evidence to support this claim. He simply asserted it. And on the basis of this far-fetched assertion, he reached some of the most radical and nationally destructive conclusions ever made by an unelected civil servant in Israel.

It should be noted that as a non-binding legal opinion, the ICJ's assertion that Israel has no right to take defensive measures in land it liberated in the 1967 Six Day War (or indeed any defensive measures against terrorism whatsoever), adds nothing substantive to the international legalistic onslaught against Israel that was officially inaugurated with the UN General Assembly resolution 3379 from 1975 equating Zionism with racism. There is nothing new in the ICJ's anti-Israel opinion that will in any way substantively change the hostile international political and pseudo-legal environment in which Israel has been operating for three decades.

Yet in spite of this, Mazuz reacted to the ICJ's opinion with hysteria. In order to placate the ICJ, as Mazuz fervently, though irrationally, believes Israel must, he recommends that the government "thoroughly examine" the formal application of the Fourth Geneva Convention from 1949 on the territories. This view flies in the face of the consistent policy of every single Israeli government since 1967. As former UN Ambassador Dore Gold puts it, "Even a theoretical discussion about the Fourth Geneva Convention appearing on the front page of Ha'aretz with its English website will undercut fundamental Israeli foreign policy positions held for over thirty years." Israel's position on Judea, Samaria and Gaza has not changed since 1967. Israel claims the right to assert sovereignty over these lands by virtue of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine from 1922. The Mandate specifically designated all of these areas as part of what Britain was to develop as the Jewish homeland. As neither Gaza nor Judea and Samaria have been legally redesignated since, Israel is the lawful claimant to sovereignty in these areas.

Additionally, as Gold puts it, "The Fourth Geneva Convention is not applicable in the West Bank and Gaza because previous occupants [Jordan and Egypt] entered those territories illegally in 1948 during the Arab invasion of Israel." Since the Fourth Geneva Convention seeks to protect the sovereign from the occupying military power, and there has not been a recognized sovereign in the territories aside from the Jewish people since 1920, there is no factual basis for its application to the territories.

Perhaps as a result of this simple matter of fact, the ICJ judges felt it necessary to rewrite history in their opinion in a manner that erases the uncomfortable fact that the League of Nations determined that the Land of Israel was to become the Jewish state. In Gold's words, "The entire advisory opinion completely undercuts the fundamental rights of the Jewish people to national sovereignty. From its rendition of the history of the British Mandate one is to conclude that the League of Nations never made even a reference to the creation of a Jewish homeland but instead set up the Mandate for the Arab population alone." Yet, on the basis of this completely biased and legally and historically inaccurate non-binding opinion, the sole goal of which is to groundlessly criminalize the Jewish state, Mazuz has determined that the government should summarily discard its solid legal positions and throw itself at the mercy of a hostile yet not acutely life-threatening UN.

Mazuz is not alone in preferring historically groundless, legally perverted opinions rendered by toothless international forums of not particularly noted jurists to the laws and policies of Israel's democratically elected governing authorities. Our self-appointed Supreme Court shares his view. In an apparent attempt to pre-empt the ICJ's non-binding advisory opinion to the UN General Assembly, the Supreme Court preferred the prescriptions of the irrelevant Fourth Geneva Convention to the security concerns of Israel as manifested in the route of the separation fence determined by the responsible military authorities. Dismissing the army's security concerns and Israeli law, Supreme Court President Aharon Barak based his decision from June 30, to reroute the fence closer to the 1949 armistice lines on the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the territories.

Commenting on the new route, forced on the IDF by the Supreme Court, Yuval Steinitz, the Chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee said this week, "It is a dark day for Israel's national security." When we take into consideration the low level of threat that UN General Assembly resolutions pose to Israel -- a threat we have been living pretty well with now for 29 years -- and combine it with the security threat constituted by our Supreme Court's reckless preference for its own international reputation over the legal rights and security concerns of the state, we come to a most discouraging conclusion that makes sense of Mazuz's unhinged legal opinion.

Our self-appointed and self-perpetuating legal elites have detached themselves from the rest of the country. Answerable to no one other than themselves, they have created a post-nationalist world view where the greatest threat to Israel's (read "their") well-being is our government and people's stubborn attachment to Israel's legal rights, laws and national interests.

It is not simply international pressure, hypocrisy and prejudice that have kept Israel from pursuing the war that was launched against it four years ago to a conclusive victory. When we look at our imperial legal fraternity we must come to the conclusion that our deepest wounds are self-inflicted.




By Elyakim Haetzni - August 18, 2004

Sometimes, one can find tomorrow's news in old newspapers. Urit Struck of Hevron sent me two articles that appeared in Haaretz in December of last year, and they are truly enlightening. Amnon Lord quoted from them in Makor Rishon and I will do the same here because of the importance of the matter; so that we will know how the dark conspiracy to destroy the settlement enterprise was born and who is the dark figure pulling the strings, the figure who will this week or next pop out of the shadows to reap the rewards of the destruction and devastation that he periodically sowed. You guessed it: Shimon Peres.

Ostensibly, what chance did the man have, he who is responsible more than any other for the 1,500 Oslo War dead and thousands injured, to appear out in the open and to again ascend the public stage, in order to again obtain a central role in the national leadership? What chance did he have, essentially, to manage, with or without the title of Foreign Minister, the foreign policy of Israel?

An architect who designed a building that buried its tenants underneath it, a doctor who caused the death of his patients - who would allow the former to design a prestigious government project or the latter to run the national health system? And we have yet to expose the depths of the absurdity. This bad man has been exposed time and again in public as an "indefatigable underminer" and as the master of "dirty tricks", as the late Yitzchak Rabin called him, as a conspirator, as a liar and incorrigible schemer, as well as being obsessed with honor and publicity to the point of illness. What does it say about our society that we are again allowing this dangerous man to lead, to represent us?

Chamberlain, he of the umbrella, brought the world the "Oslo" known as "Munich", assuaged the Yasser Arafat of those days, Hitler, groveled before him and appeased him, and caused, by his foolishness, stubbornness and short-sightedness, the deaths of perhaps 60 million people in the Second World War; and all in the name of "peace". Is it at all reasonable that the English people would place in his hands the running of the country in its war against Hitler, against the results of his own actions? The British, a sensible people, brought in Churchill - Chamberlain's rival, who had warned against Chamberlain and his policies - and forced Chamberlain to resign shortly after the outbreak of war. Since then, he disappeared from view, from any position, from memory - with the exception of the memory of disgrace - he became a symbol of negative, despised and held in contempt.

The people of Israel is no less sane and normal than the English. When the terrorist war exposed for all the embarrassment of Oslo, and thus that of its wise men, its architects and its initiators, Shimon Peres above them all, the people were repelled by them and chose instead someone who was seen to be, and who presented himself as, the diametric opposite of Peres, just as Churchill was the opposite of Chamberlain: Ariel Sharon.

And it was here that the people of Israel fell into the trap. With the entry of Peres into the government, the century's greatest bluff is exposed - a fraud, deceit and misrepresentation for which it is difficult to find historical precedent.

As it turns out, above Sharon, pulling the strings the whole time, was... who, if not that selfsame Shimon Peres? Oslo he brought upon us openly, and the Palestinian state on the ruins of the Jewish settlement enterprise he brings upon us disguised as Sharon.

Hannah Kim, in Haaretz, raised the curtain a bit for us, so that we might witness the construction of the plot to steal the heartland of Eretz Yisrael from us, to divide the nation and bring it to the edge of civil war. Avi Gil, Peres' right-hand man in the past and currently, who was a director under Peres and works closely with him until today, is also a close friend and confidante of whom? You guessed it: Omri Sharon. This selfsame Gil organized a meeting with the millionaire industrialist Dov Lautman whose purpose was to influence Sharon to begin the dismantling of the settlements in the Strip. They believed, writes Hannah Kim, "that the moment even a single settlement will be evacuated, the rest will fall like dominoes." Who took part in the meeting? Their names speak for themselves:

Dan Meridor, Ami Ayalon and Yaakov Perry, Danny Rothschild, Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, Dalia Rabin-Pilosoff, the publicists Moshe Teumim and Tal Zilberstein, and Uzi Baram.

There, at that meeting, was born and there originated the demand to withdraw from Gaza. Not American pressure, not an American initiative - we did it all to ourselves. The plot originates with Peres, Sharon carries it across the ocean and it returns as American pressure.

The meeting with Lautman was before Sharon and Olmert went public with their declarations. The group threatened to start a public campaign attacking Sharon if he would not come out with his own initiative to dismantle the Jewish settlement in Gaza.

I still remember the birthday party Peres arranged for himself at the Tel Aviv Cultural Center. In his speech there, with Sharon seated beside him in silence, he one, single demand, as if it was a personal birthday wish, was to withdraw from Gaza; that is, to extinguish the Jewish settlement there.

Avi Gil reported on the Lautman meeting to Omri Sharon, who reported to his father. Among other things, Lautman and friends passed along to Sharon poll results, among them one survey according to which most Likud members support uprooting the Jewish communities of Gaza. It is well worth noting this point, how polls are played with. Afterwards, of course, we went and directly asked all the Likud members, and it turned out that the poll was false. But by then, it was too late. Peres already achieved what he wanted.

Sharon responded immediately and asked Omri to check with the Lautman group if the Labor party would join his government if he went with uprooting the settlements. Matters were so far advanced that Avi Gil and Sharon Jr. already sat to plan the division of portfolios in the national unity government. Note: we are talking about December of last year, eight months ago.

And that is how the famous "disengagement" plan was cooked up - in Peres' kitchen.

In a different article, Hannah Kim says that the famous Road Map, the pernicious document according to which the whole world (America, Russia, Europe, the UN) commits itself to take everything from us - including Jerusalem - and return the refugees, and according to which we accept upon ourselves control and oversight of the "Quartet", and essentially relinquish our very sovereignty. This Road Map was also born in Peres' ailing mind. It was Peres who sold it to Condoleezza Rice, it being nothing other than a reincarnation of the Peres-Abu Mazen agreement of 2001, reached with Sharon's approval and according to lines Peres developed beforehand with Sharon, as Sharon himself admitted.

Why is it dangerous "to knock on the devil's door"? Because Satan might open the door. After Peres, as himself and disguised as Sharon, sold George Bush the "vision" of a temporary Palestine in all of Gaza and half of the territory of Judea and Samaria, it became the "Bush vision" for all of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem. Matters went so far that when Sharon's representatives, among them Dov Weisglass and Giora Eiland, asked that same Condoleezza to write explicitly in a letter to Sharon from Bush that at least the blocs of Ariel, Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion will remain ours, she simply threw them out of the room, according to a report by Nachum Barnea. And Barnea gets his information right from the source.

Sever Plotzker wrote in Yediot Aharonot this April in connection with the corruption in the Palestinian Authority, that even the idea of "donor nations", which transferred to Yasser Arafat four billion dollars thus far, was thought up by - guess who - Shimon Peres, of course. And now that it seems that all that money disappeared, Peres is again meandering among people in the American and European administrations in order to convince them to pour more billions into the Palestinians. As you read how the World Bank is being made a guarantor to receive the property of the Jews in the communities targeted for uprooting, and how a financial celebration is being prepared for the Palestinians on the occasion of our flight from the Gaza coast, which will be called "an international operation for the development of the Gaza Strip", for otherwise a terrorist state will arise there after our retreat - be aware that it is all at the instigation of Shimon Peres. That is precisely how he justified the Oslo agreements.

As we see Sharon eat away at Judea, Samaria and Gaza like a pathogen -we just heard that he cancelled all of the construction plans that Sha'ul Mofaz alreaddy approved, among them in Ariel, Maaleh Adumim and Beitar Elite, "privileged" places, supposedly secure - it is important that we remember: Sharon is Peres. And when we hear about the subversion and dark plans of Peres, it is important that we remember: Peres is Sharon; just as Avi Gil is Omri Sharon and vice versa.



The Jerusalem Post Editorial - August 29, 2004


Spy. Israel. Pentagon. AIPAC. Pollard. Iraq. Iran. Mix these words together and you have quite a story on the weekend before the Republican convention in a hotly contested election campaign. The question is whether the smell that is in the air is that of a spy scandal or of a Washington political and policy war run amok.

On Friday, anonymous FBI officials leaked aspects of an ongoing investigation of Larry Franklin, a mid-level Pentagon official specializing in Iran. Franklin reportedly shared a draft memo on Iran policy with staff from AIPAC, an organization that lobbies to strengthen the already close relations between America and Israel. Those staffers reportedly "may" have passed that information on to Israel.

We are told that the FBI has been investigating Franklin for a year, giving the impression of heft to the story. But as our news pages reveal today, the two AIPAC staffers who are the supposed conduits for Franklin's information have not even been interviewed by the FBI. It can further be assumed that no Israelis have been interviewed either, making one wonder how much substance is behind both the Franklin-AIPAC link and the assumption that the information went further. Finally, the story itself has been watered down in many quarters from handing over classified information to "mishandling documents."

We, of course, do not know whether Franklin did inappropriately release classified information. American authorities have every right to find out, and if he did, to punish him accordingly.

We do know that Israel and the United States, as two countries on the front line in the struggle against militant Islamism should, routinely and officially share intelligence of the most sensitive nature. We do know that the idea of painting routine exchanges of information between Israel and the United States as sinister, or tinged with espionage, is itself sinister.

Let us not, as the media, be na ve. There are two parallel and bitter struggles raging in Washington, now reaching a crescendo. One is between Democrats and Republicans over control of the White House. A spy scandal at this time obviously harms the incumbent's chances of getting his message out in the main week set aside for doing so, the week of the Republican convention.

At the same time, there is an equally passionate and closely related struggle within the Bush Administration and outside over the president's post-9/11 foreign policy. Was ousting Saddam Hussein a critical centerpiece of the wider war or a festering mistake? Should Iran's nuclear weapons program be stopped and if so how? These debates have swirled around a handful of officials, all of whom are "pro-Israel" and some of whom are Jews.

It should not be surprising that the greatest overhaul in American foreign policy thinking since Harry Truman introduced containment after World War II would meet with resistance. There is ample room for debate over how aggressively and by what means the new doctrine of preemption and the new focus against state support for terrorism and for democratization should be implemented. But rather than fight these issues on the merits, the other side has at times stooped to conspiracy theories that are, let's face it -- anti-Semitic.

There may be substance behind the current scandal. Yet even in the most incriminating scenario, it is hard to imagine that the information released about US policy was that far removed from what appears in a serious newspaper. The more likely scenario is, as Newsweek quotes knowledgeable officials, "the political damage to Bush and the Pentagon may prove to be more serious than the damage to national security."

Actually, this scandal does threaten US national security in a different way: by emboldening those who believe that the entire post-9/11 American paradigm is a Jewish conspiracy imposed on the president, and who relish the prospect of a chill in the US-Israeli relationship.

AIPAC ends its statement on the current controversy thus: "We will not let any innuendo or false allegation distract us from our central mission -- supporting America's interests in the Middle East and advocating for a strong relationship with Israel."

Well said. Come what may, American and Israeli security demands that we not succumb to those who view our alliance as a conspiracy and our shared democratic cause as a threat.



Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post - August 29, 2004


Allegations of Israeli spying in the United States are false and may be the result of internal conflicts between the Pentagon and the CIA, Diaspora Affairs minister Natan Sharansky said Sunday, but analysts admitted that even so, damage has been done to crucial ties between the two countries.

American officials said Saturday that the FBI has spent more than a year investigating whether a Pentagon analyst funneled highly classified material to Israel.

The material described White House policy toward Iran. Israel says Iran - and its nuclear ambitions - pose the greatest single threat to the Jewish state.

Sharansky, the first Israeli Cabinet minister to speak in public about the matter, told Canadian Broadcasting Corp. television that Israel enforces a ban on spying in the United States.

"I hope it's all a mistake or misunderstanding of some kind, maybe a rivalry between different bodies," he said, singling out "the Pentagon and the CIA."

Sharansky said the ban on espionage in the United States dates to the scandal over Jonathan Pollard, an American Jew caught spying for Israel in 1985. Sharansky, who belongs to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's ruling Likud Party, said he has "personal experience" with the ban, but he did not elaborate.

"There are absolutely no attempts to involve any member of the Jewish community and any general American citizens to spy for Israel against the United States," he said.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office issued a denial late Saturday, saying "Israel does not engage in intelligence activities in the U.S."

The scandal dominated Israeli news media on Sunday. In numerous interviews, both current and former Israeli intelligence officials said it was highly unlikely that Israel would have to spy on the U.S. government.

Legislator Ehud Yatom, chairman of the parliamentary subcommittee on covert intelligence, said he expected the allegations to be quickly withdrawn.

"I imagine that within a few days the United States will come out with an announcement that Israel has no connection whatsoever with the supposed spy and his activities," he told Israel Radio.

Uzi Arad, a former senior official in the Mossad spy agency, said the allegations were leaked to hurt the pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

"They way it was reported, they pointed out in which office (Franklin) worked," Arad told Israel Radio. "They pointed at people like Doug Feith or other defense officials who have long been under attack within the American bureaucracy."



The Jerusalem Post - August 29, 2004


by Gerald Steinberg

By their very nature, allegations of espionage and abuse of classified material get huge headlines, although the evidence -- if any -- usually remains murky and hidden from public scrutiny. This is particularly the case regarding the US and Israel, reflecting the wide security cooperation that has developed in response to terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and other mutual threats. Mixed with hints of conspiracy and dual loyalty, such cooperation presents a huge target for the relatively small number of American officials and journalists who want to see this relationship halted.

For many years, claims involving Israel and spying have been manipulated in the effort to drive a wedge between Washington and Jerusalem, particularly after the Pollard fiasco. The damage to relations in that case was extensive, and its echoes are still being felt today, making another "affair" the dream of all those who wish to disrupt US-Israel cooperation. But the lessons from Pollard appear to have been learned by both the Israeli government and the US. At the same time, the absence of real and juicy spy scandals has spurred the invention of fictitious ones.

A few years ago, false charges that Israel was stealing and selling the Pentagon's technical secrets to China were later revealed to have been part of a personal campaign of revenge involving two American officials working for different branches of the government. And headlines claiming that Israel was eavesdropping on the US were also exposed as nonsense. In another case, the head of the CIA -- George Tenet -- sent an apology to then Mossad head Danny Yatom apologizing for accusations linking Israel to espionage.

These periodic leaks and allegations, including the current case, reflect a wider agenda. The Arab lobby in Washington is gaining influence and access to the media, and peddling such stories is one means of moving the focus away from terrorism and the growing pressure from many Americans to end support for the corrupt regimes in the Middle East. In addition, fringe Republican Pat Buchanan and his adherents cling to the classical anti-Semitic myths in which Jews are portrayed as all powerful, and secretly manipulating US policy.

The post-war complications in Iraq and the charge that a neo-conservative kabal (code for Jews and Zionists, even though the top two neo-cons -- Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney are neither) led America into this confrontation have revived these myths. This may explain the attempt to involve AIPAC -- the "powerful" pro-Israel lobby -- and the timing of this leak at the height of the US election campaign.

Yet despite these efforts and short-lived headlines, US-Israel security cooperation has become stronger, reflecting an understanding of the necessity of sharing resources and knowledge in order to counter the threats to both. In addition, the underlying shared values of democracy and freedom remain central, and mark the difference between American and European attitudes towards Israel.

As a result, in the earlier alleged espionage cases, including the Pollard affair, after the dust cleared, this common core remained intact, and there is no reason to expect the outcome to be different this time. Indeed, investigations into the sources of the allegations and the embellishment added by CBS News may deter the next round of this game.

Prof. Gerald M. Steinberg directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University.



Jerusalem Issue Brief - Vol. 4, No. 3 -- 29 August 2004

Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Institute for Contemporary Affairs founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation

Israeli Responses to the FBI's Espionage Investigation Leak

A Compendium

1. Israel's security establishment insists there is no Israeli involvement in allegations that a Pentagon analyst provided Israel with secret documents relating to White House deliberations over Iran -- as reported by CBS News.

2. MK Danny Yatom (Labor), who served as head of the Mossad in the 1990s, disclosed on Israel Radio that there are rigid rules against any Israeli espionage activity on U.S. soil, particularly since the 1985 Pollard affair. Yuval Steinitz, chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee which oversees the Israeli intelligence services, said he was confident that Israel had not abandoned this more than twenty-year-old decision not to spy on the U.S.

3. Following a similar accusation in the late 1990s, CIA Director George Tenet found the charges baseless and wrote Israel a letter of apology.

4. The CIA, unlike other U.S. intelligence agencies, has political differences with Israel over the Arab-Israeli conflict. CIA relations with Israel have cooled lately over al-Qaeda operations in Africa and Israeli information about the hiding of Saddam Hussein's non-conventional weapons outside Iraq.

5. The background to these allegations is the domestic American debate over foreign policy, with the leak timed to embarrass President Bush on the eve of the Republican convention.

Sixty Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl was the first to report on an ongoing FBI investigation into whether a Pentagon analyst fed Israel secret materials about White House deliberations over Iran, by using the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Both AIPAC and the government of Israel have strongly denied the allegations. Israeli Embassy spokesman David Siegal stated: "We categorically deny these allegations. They are completely false and outrageous." Furthermore, Mossad chief Meir Dagan and the chief of security of the Israeli defense establishment, Yehiel Horev, informed the Foreign Ministry that there was no Israeli involvement in this affair (Ha'aretz, 29 Aug 04). AIPAC issued a statement saying that "any allegations of criminal conduct by AIPAC or our employees is false and baseless" and announced that it was "cooperating fully" with U.S. authorities.

Despite all the denials, parts of the U.S. intelligence community have repeatedly suspected Israel of spying on the United States. Former Mossad head Danny Yatom revealed that former CIA Director George Tenet believed that Israel was engaged in such activity in 1997-98; Yatom flew to the U.S. for a one-on-one meeting with Tenet to prove that the charges were baseless. Tenet dropped his suspicions as a result and wrote Yatom a letter of apology (Ha'aretz, 29 Aug 04).

CIA relations with Israel have indeed cooled lately, according to Ha'aretz commentator Ze'ev Schiff, as seen by the CIA's refusal to cooperate on al-Qaeda terrorism in East Africa and its ignoring Israeli information about the hiding of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction outside Iraq. The CIA, unlike other U.S. intelligence agencies, has political differences with Israel over the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Diplomacy involves a regular exchange of assessments between officials from different countries. As former Israeli Ambassador to Washington Itamar Rabinovich pointed out on Israel Radio-Reshet Bet, a U.S.-Israeli dialogue about how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was dealing with Iran's clandestine nuclear program would be normal; he also observed: "Professional levels in both countries exchange materials and intimately consult one another regularly" (Ma'ariv, 29 Aug 04).

The background to these allegations, according to Rabinovich, is the domestic American debate over the Iraq War, and the charge made in political circles that American Jews pushed the Bush administration to launch the war on behalf of Israeli interests. Presently, a new debate is being conducted over Iran, with the accusation being made that the U.S. is again being pushed to act militarily because of Israeli interests.

Many Israeli commentators, such as Eytan Gilboa writing in Yediot Ahronot (29 Aug 04), are convinced that the leak of an FBI investigation to CBS News was timed on the eve of the Republican convention to embarrass or even slander President Bush. Alternatively, they see a power play between officials representing the traditional pre-9/11 State/CIA approach to the Middle East and the counter-terrorist policies advocated by the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. Both the CIA and the FBI are fighting a "battle for survival" after repeated U.S. commissions have attacked them for failing to prevent 9/11 -- Israel, according to Amir Oren (Ha'aretz, 29 Aug 04), has been "caught in a crossfire" between these agencies and their Pentagon rivals.

This Jerusalem Issue Brief is available online at:


Dore Gold, Publisher; Yaakov Amidror, ICA Program Director; Mark Ami-El, Managing Editor. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Registered Amuta), 13 Tel-Hai St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972-2-5619281, Fax. 972-2-5619112, Email: In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Studies, 5800 Park Heights Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21215; Tel. 410-664-5222; Fax 410-664-1228. Website: © Copyright. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.




by Emanuel A. Winston



THIS JUST IN ON AUGUST 27TH: An accusation has been floated, presumably by the U.S. State Department, to the effect that information on Iran's nuclear capability has been "subversively" passed on to Israel through AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. You will find the timing and purpose of this leak quite interesting. When the pro-Arab State Department leaks accusations against Israel, you have to look beyond the mere hostile dirty tricks of this Arabist institution. So, let's look deeper, little by little.

At this time the Saudis have launched an expensive PR campaign to take away the image of the Saudis being 'deep pockets' for Terror, including Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden. They would like us to forget that 15 of the 19 hijacking suicide bombers on 9/11 were Saudis. (The other 4 were Egyptian).

The State Department would like us to ignore the fact that the Saudis fund 'Madrassas' (school of strict Islam) in America that teach the 'Taliban/Wahhabi' type of Islamic religion to children, to hate America and eventually make America into a Muslim nation.

The State Department, having been deeply penetrated by radical Islamists, would find it an ideal time to engineer an attack on the Jewish lobby to equalize the pressure away from the Saudis. Even today, the State Department - after 9/11 - allows Saudis in with barely a glance at their affiliation with Terrorist groups. So, that's Phase One of the benefits the State Department and the Saudis expect out of their engineered accusation with their "Blame the Jews" syndrome. But, that is comparatively minor as we probe deeper.

The next level down in our search is the subject of the leak or at least a well-molded accusation.

The accusation is that the 'always convenient and secret mole has leaked information' about America's discussions on Iran's nuclear enterprise to AIPAC to be passed on to Israel. AIPAC has, of course, denied the allegation, knowing that our various Intel Agencies watch AIPAC - as they do all lobby groups of all nations. AIPAC being squeaky clean would not deter the Arabist State Department from floating one of its infamous accusations through the back door channels of its media leaker connections - this time CBS TV News. So, let us examine the leak:

Israel and the U.S. are committed to exchanging Intelligence on mutually threatening problems. Israel, for example was the U.S. Humint (Human Intelligence) for America's attack on Iraq. Israel also assisted the U.S. in the 1991 attack against Iraq after Saddam had invaded Kuwait because America just didn't have human resources on the ground. So, in effect, Israel has proven herself time and again as an invaluable source of Intelligence for America and has discharged her obligations to the exchange far and beyond what could be expected of a small nation.

The U.S. and Israel have been routinely exchanging information on Iran as a growing nuclear threat to the region and well beyond. That includes America and Europe. This is no great secret unless a leaker out of State wishes to characterize this exchange as "stolen information" which is what seems to be their goal.

Clearly, the Bush Administration and State would like to avoid angering the Arab oil world by unilaterally taking out Iran's Russian nuclear reactor and the spread out, underground nuclear development sites in Iran. We would like Israel to do the job and, of course, take the heat. The Arabs would most certainly wish to direct their anger at Israel instead of at their business partner, the United States.

We buy their oil; we sell them prodigious quantities of arms; we have provided technology on WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) including NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons which, of course, are now threatening our cities; they bank with us; we sell them goods and services from road-building to massive airports. Here enter the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, Bechtel and hundreds of other U.S. companies. Well, you get the idea.

But, Israel is still a small nation with limited reach with respect to striking nuclear targets in Iran. The United States, on the other hand, has the capability to project massive military power, using sea-based aircraft and cruise missiles, land attack and the unlimited budget to carry out such a strike. However, Israel would be pounded by the U.N., the E.U. and the Arabist State Department should she save the world by striking Iran's nuclear plants - like she did when she hit Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, just before it went operational. These same nations could not embargo the U.S. if it undertook the project.

If the U.S. is indeed planning such a strike, it would be convenient to have an alternate target of Israel against whom the Arabs could vent their fury. Remember, in the Arab world, adjusting history to whatever is claimed is no problem. Some may recall how the Arabs explained away their defeats in successive wars against Israel by telling their people that it was the Americans they were fighting and not the Jews. Losing to a Superpower did not carry the shame of losing to a small army of poorly equipped Jews.

There are auxiliary benefits to blaming the Jews.

First, it forces AIPAC to lower its profile in lobbying Congress for Israel.

Next, it intimidates Jewish leaders NOT to challenge U.S. government policy when it supports Saudi Arabia, Syria or Arafat.

Moreover, it generally successfully panics Israeli leadership to be more compliant on such issues as giving up more territory and allowing a State Department team to go to Israel as authorities to decide borders for Jewish settlements. Such accusations of disloyalty are beneficial just before an election where Jewish voters generally vote Democratic.

If the voters can be sufficiently intimidated to either vote Democratic or not at all, the game plan of intimidation will have worked. I think of the reported statement of former Secretary of State Zbignew Breshinsky, later denied, when he said: "A little anti-Semitism is a good thing" - presumably for keep Jews in their place.

Another ancillary benefit of this current accusation was to impugn the integrity of Doug Feith who advocated and coordinated an investigation of Saddam's linkage with Al Qaeda. Here again, the State Department and other Arabists in the Government were furious over Feith's probe of Arab Muslim links to Global Terrorism. In essence, the State Department was cut out of the loop and thus unable to offer its usual protection of Arab Muslim allies by sidelining investigations against them.

Other Intel Agencies were also angry that the results of their investigations were to be reviewed by Feith's group which was set up by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. So, Feith was targeted plus whatever benefits could be squeezed out of an intimidated Israel.

Floating a story and a scenario engendered by the Arabist State Department to the effect that the Jews had obtained secret information about Iran is mildly clever - if not transparent. The PR campaign will guide Arab thinking, particularly that of the fanatic Ayatollahs of Iran against the State of Israel as its most imminent enemy.

Perhaps part of the thinking is to provoke the Iranians into a pre-emptive strike against Israel so Israel will have to respond in force - which will also allow the U.S. to intervene.

Intervention in this case would be to save Israel after a saturation missile attack by Iran. It would give the U.S. to follow on with its own cruise missile attacks on Iranian nuclear sites as if to her rescue. In the meantime Israel would suffer as the bait and 'raison d'etre' for the Iranian attack. The reason for the timing of this accusation is anyone's guess but, it would certainly be detrimental to the incumbent, George Bush, coming prior to the Republican Convention leading on to the November elections in eight weeks.

Mind you, I do think that Iran's nuclear capability must be eliminated before it goes operationally nuclear. I wrote about Iran's obtaining tactical nukes from East Germany though under Soviet control when the Soviet Union collapsed. Four to six tactical nukes went missing and, in my opinion, were purchased by Iran. Disinformation was soon floated in the American media that nothing was missing and we could all sleep peacefully.

When Israel blew up Saddam's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, the world condemned Israel but, behind closed doors, the champagne corks were popping. Much, much later there was a reluctant acknowledgment that Israel had done the world a great favor. But, at the time, that didn't stop then Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman from cutting off all exchanges of Intelligence with Israel both as a punishment to Israel and as a favor to the Saudis.

The story of how deep the Saudis have penetrated the State Department and the other American Institutions, especially the Intelligence community is yet to be revealed. Even the 9/11 Commission avoided deep questions of the State Department for allowing thousands of Saudis and other Arab Muslims into our American laboratories, universities where sleeper cells were established in deep cover.

I cringe when I hear Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 Commission tell Americans how we must reach out to the Arab Muslim world, winning their hearts and minds. Somehow the 9/11 Commission has decided that the radical Islamic Fundamentalism endemic in the world of Islam must be the fault of the Free West - and that the dictators of Arab nations are not to be blamed for keeping their people backward, uneducated and hostile to America. For Lee Hamilton and others of the 9/11 Commission, it must be America's fault for not reaching out and perhaps bringing more Muslim 'Jihadists' into America through the portals 'guided' by the gate-keepers called the State Department.

Let us watch "The State Department Hustle" to blame the Jewish nation for whatever we are about to do to protect ourselves from Iranian nukes. If they can just get the media to cooperate, the focus of enmity will be on Israel, instead of Iran, the Saudis and Arabist State Department.

Emanuel A. Winston is a research associate and member of the Board of Directors of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



The Jerusalem Post - Aug. 28, 2004


By Janine Zacharia and Arieh O'Sullivan

The FBI is broadening its investigation into whether a mid-level Pentagon official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense passed classified material regarding internal policy deliberations on Iran to two staffers at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), who in turn provided the information to Israel.

According to the Washington Post, officials in the Pentagon say that is not yet clear whether the case will develop into a charge of espionage, or whether investigations will result in lesser charges such as improper release of classified information or mishandling of government documents.

Israel vehemently denies having any intelligence agents working in the US. "We are not aware of any Israeli spies in the United States. Israel is not employing any intelligence assets on American soil," an official in the Prime Minister's office was quoted as saying on Channel 2 TV.

Larry Franklin, the alleged informant, worked as a mid-level Pentagon official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Reportedly Franklin had traveled to Israel a number of times, and spent a period of time during his service in the US Air Force Reserve in Israel working as a specialist in foreign political-military affairs.

Security sources in Israel confirmed Sunday morning that Larry Franklin, the suspected "mole" in the Pentagon, did in fact have work ties with Jerusalem, but declared that the relationship most certainly did not deviate from standard diplomatic contact, Israel Radio reported.

CBS Evening News led its broadcast Friday night saying the FBI has a "full-fledged espionage investigation underway" and that the FBI believes it has "solid evidence" that a "suspected mole" in the Pentagon "supplied Israel with classified materials that include secret White House policy deliberations on Iran."

Israel immediately denied the espionage allegation. "We deny these allegations. The United States is Israel's most cherished friend and ally. We have a strong, ongoing, working relationship at all levels and in no way would Israel do anything to impair this relationship," said David Siegel, spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Earlier, the embassy described the allegations as "false and outrageous."

AIPAC, the leading pro-Israel lobby, also denied any wrongdoing. "Any allegation of criminal conduct by AIPAC or our employees is false and baseless. Neither AIPAC nor any of its employees has violated any laws or rules, nor has AIPAC or its employees ever received information they believed was secret or classified," the group said in a statement.

"AIPAC is cooperating fully with the governmental authorities. It has provided documents and information to the government and has made staff available for interviews."

Israel's defense establishment said it conducted a thorough examination over the weekend with all security and intelligence bodies to verify the veracity of reports that a Pentagon employee passed on secrets to Israel.

"The examination revealed what we expected," said a senior defense official. "There are no sanctioned espionage operations going on against the United States. There is no truth to these reports."

The official, who spoke to The Jerusalem Post on condition of anonymity, said that the entire story was dubious from the outset. He noted that Israel and the United States are very close strategic allies and there is enormous sharing of intelligence between the two countries.

"We have very good, excellent working relations with the Americans, and we are very discreet about it. There is no need to operate (spies) in the Pentagon or anywhere else in the United States." The senior official said. "Also, it wouldn't be in our interest to take actions that would jeopardize these relations that we've built up over the years," he added.

The official added that they were speaking in the name of the Defense establishment, and that any official statement from the government needed to come from the prime minister's office or the foreign ministry.

The investigation has been ongoing for a year, according to several news reports. And the Pentagon, in a statement issued late Friday, said it has been cooperating with the Department of Justice on this matter "for an extended period of time."

"It is the D.O.D (Department of Defense's) understanding that the investigation within the D.O.D is limited in its scope," it said.



The Jerusalem Post - Aug. 26, 2004


By Sarah Honig

On a Saturday, 75 years and three days ago, hordes of Arabs descended on the tranquil and ancient Jewish community of Hebron. At the end of the rampage, 67 Jews - men, women, children, babies - lay dead. They weren't neatly executed. Some were decapitated and disemboweled. Limbs were severed, eyes gouged, and all manner of ghastly, unthinkable mutilation practiced. A preteen girl was raped by 13 heroes of that Palestinian revolution (before there was a state of Israel or an occupation to rage against) and then hung upside down over an open flame to roast slowly to death.

All this is quite unpalatable for Israel's Left, renowned for its impeccably refined tastes and humanitarian sensibilities. The mention of Arab bestiality is off-putting and may, heaven forefend, even serve the dastardly purposes of the real enemy - Jewish political rivals. Remembrance can call attention to undesirable truths about the Arabs' genocidal anti-Jewish hysteria and offer a clear glimpse into what would have happened to this country's Jews had their self-defense failed.

This explosive stuff mustn't reach the tender ears of younger Israelis.

Retrospection is counterproductive for enlightened post-Zionists, "new historians," and a former education minister, Shulamit Aloni, who had done her darndest to expunge from the curriculum any mention of Arab wrongdoing.

Obviously Aloni can't abide the thought of memorial rallies for the slain. Somebody who didn't realize the gross faux pas sent her an invitation to the official commemoration last week in Hebron.

The ceremony got her goat enough to dispatch a livid op-ed to Yediot Aharonot, railing against the "wicked, cunning provocation" calculated to perpetuate "the role of the Jew as the ultimate eternal victim." To make her case, Israel's ex-No.1 pedagogue leads us through Historyland.

The 1929 pogrom, she fulminates, "began when a zealous right-wing bunch Brit Habiryonim burst onto the Western Wall on Yom Kippur eve and blew the shofar." Fear that "Jews will destroy al-Aksa," she authoritatively determines, "kindled the riots." She then wonders "why we don't hold memorials at Dir Yassin, where on April 9, 1948, rightist thugs committed terrible murder, obliterating an entire population - men, women, children, livestock - the whole village was erased."

THE FORMER top educator is either ignorant or a deliberate falsifier. Brit Habiryonim (named after a Second Temple group) was established in 1930 and could hardly have bestirred an Arab bloodbath retroactively.

The shofar-blowing at the Wall was an annual Yom Kippur tradition between 1921-1947. It began after the Muslim Wakf, aggressively engaged in disrupting prayers at Judaism's holiest site, complained about the horn's resonance. The British, eager to please and dispense international justice, outlawed the annoying blasts in 1921.

Revisionist youths, judging this wasn't exclusively a religious issue but one of national self-respect, made it a point to defiantly sound the shofar at the close (not the eve) of each Yom Kippur. They hardly burst on the scene. British undercover agents infiltrated the narrow alleyways to apprehend transgressors. The forbidden instruments had to be secreted in women's bras, and the blowers were always jailed for their crime.

Said crime's prescribed and expected punishment, Aloni seems to intimate, is indiscriminate slaughter. It's the inescapable spontaneous response to Jewish temerity.

The Hebron massacre, however, was perpetrated on August 24, 1929. The previous Yom Kippur was on September 24, 1928 - giving the infamous Haj Amin el-Husseini (later Hitler's avid collaborator) a full 11 months to carefully orchestrate incensed spontaneity. He even prepared postcards with photomontages of Herzl (then dead for 25 years) on the Temple Mount.

Yet while Arabs are capable of no premeditated evil, Jews are capable of nothing else. Enter the Dir Yassin calumny, well exploited early in the state's days by the Left to besmirch political opponents, never mind the damage to Israel's case. Dir Yassin, a veritable vipers' nest, controlled a portion of the Jerusalem road and participated in the strategy of starving Jerusalem's Jews, in preparation for a larger scale Hebron-like bloodbath.

The IZL tried to take it. To avoid civilian casualties, its men warned inhabitants by loudspeakers to surrender or leave. Having thereby lost the element of surprise, they entered a firetrap, were shot at from each house, and even attacked by men in women's garb. One-third of the Jewish force was hit. The count of Arab casualties varies from fabrication to fabrication. But this wasn't intentional murder, just as Hebron's Jews weren't collateral damage. Dir Yassin's residents were caught in a conflict of their own instigation.

Hebron's Jews were slaughtered for being Jews. By whitewashing this, we not only distort the past - we unwittingly become active accomplices in shaping a dismal, tragic future.

We perhaps even facilitate our own destruction, still the goal of the implacable hate enveloping us. That's what makes Shula's saunter through Historyland so dangerous.



Associated Press - August 27, 2004


By Ramit Plushnick-Masti Associated Press Writer

[Freeman Center Questions: If we control all the money, why am I so broke all the time? If we control all the governments, why do they hate us so much? If there is NO anti-Semitism, how can Theodorakis exist? Can he be stopped from spreading such nonsense which is like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater resulting in murdered Jews? I am very confused!]

JERUSALEM - Greek composer Mikis Theodorakis, who outraged Jews in November by calling them "the root of evil," is at it again, this time saying Jews control the world's banks and the mass media.

Theodorakis, best known for the score of the 1964 film "Zorba the Greek," called himself a "true friend of the Jewish people" in an interview published Friday by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Theodorakis said he granted the interview to try to soothe the feelings he hurt in November.

"And I was very much hurt by the Jewish reaction to what I said. It was not a civilized reaction," he told the paper. He said he had received hundreds of "poisonous e-mails from Jews all over the world. I couldn't understand this hatred toward me."

But Theodorakis went on to reiterate his earlier comments and used common anti-Semitic invectives.

He said he doesn't hate Jews, but rather Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's policies regarding the Palestinians, which he described as Nazi-like. Sharon -- and other Jews in influential positions -- persuaded U.S. President George W. Bush to go to war against Iraq, he added.

Theodorakis' comments in November led Israel to complain to the Greek government, which distanced itself from the composer's remarks.

In March, the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish advocacy group, urged Jews not to visit Greece, saying: "There is no country in Europe that matches the intensity of anti-Semitic invective."

The composer -- who wrote the Palestinian national anthem -- also said there is no anti-Semitism in Europe, despite a recent wave of anti-Jewish attacks.

He called Jewish claims of anti-Semitism a "masochistic reaction" by a people who like to be "the victim."

Theodorakis claimed Jews control banks, the mass media and the United States.

"They hold world finance in their hands, so it's only natural that they would see themselves as very strong," Theodorakis said. "In America the Jewish community is very strong. It controls much of the economy, certainly the mass media," he said.

Theodorakis said Jewish control of orchestras has prevented him from holding concerts.

"The Jewish people now appear to control the big banks. And often the governments. So whatever bad or evil comes from the governments, it's natural for ordinary people to associate that with the Jewish people," he said.

After describing how his religious grandmother believed Jews drank the blood of Christian boys during Easter, the composer said the problem was that Jews didn't accept Jesus.




by Emanuel A. Winston

For centuries we Jews have been driven from our homes simply because we were Jews!

The reasons and accusations are no longer relevant. The people, the nations, the religious orders who uprooted and expelled Jews were all assured by their current leaders that they were doing the work that would please their gods. Their teachings were perniciously evil and reached deeply into the minds of men.

Usually before such an expulsion, there preceded a period of forced conversion, torture and burnings of the recalcitrant Jews who refused to accept another religion before Judaism. The sacred scrolls of the Jews (The Torah) and later sacred books were burned to erase the word of G-d. The destructors had never talked with G-d as did Abraham and Moses or accepted the obligations of His Covenant but, nevertheless they maintained they were the rightful heirs to G-d's Covenant with the Jewish people.

Instead, they borrowed bits and pieces of these laws, claiming that the 'lowly' Jews did not deserve such an exalted position of being G-d's Chosen servant and a 'light unto the nations'. They all drove Jews from their homes, falling on the Jews' confiscated properties as carrion eaters always do.

Often the Jews had lived in those nations for hundreds of years before those then in power came to dominate them and drive them away. Nevertheless, despite long-term established residency, the Jews were viewed as separate and apart - and so we were. A remnant of Jews escaped from the graveyards of Europe and the newly created Arab states, only to be followed and attacked by the pagan Arabs - assisted by the killer nations of Europe.

Jews are obligated to retain their separateness and not accept foreign gods and ways of other peoples. Jews were committed to keeping G-d's Laws and, as His keepers, they were to be the role models both in their behavior and by teaching the sacred Laws of Torah to those who would listen.

Now, once again, we Jews are being prepared to be forced from our homes by non-Jewish Jews in collaboration with the same savage nations who murdered us in countless numbers. Special Jewish Forces are being assembled in the Israel Defense Forces who have been screened for their non-Jewishness, their lack of commitment to the Land of Israel, and their disdain for Torah and for observant Jews. Some say they have been selected because they have an amoral nature - sometimes called sociopaths and in that no different than such leaders as Shimon Peres.

Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel (Arik) Sharon has bonded together with Shimon Peres to resurrect the Rabin, Peres, Beilin Oslo plan to drive Jews from their homes. This is not the first time Jews have turned on their own people. Too often through the centuries Jewish leaders have joined with foreign forces to evict Jews from their homes, nations and finally take their lives.

The 'Judenrat' (Jewish leaders) of Germany and other occupied European nations acted as collaborators with the Nazi SS to gather up and assist in transporting Jews to the Nazi death camps. They maintained they were doing it to save Jews but, they were really doing it to save themselves but, were killed in the end. They had their counterparts in the United States who refused to intercede with the Government under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, lest it provoke anti-Semitism in America.

Presently, Ariel Sharon is preparing to drive the Jews who have lived in Gaza for 30 years out of their homes, leaving synagogues, schools, yeshivot, farms, factories, water and infrastructure - all of which are intended to be given over to the Arab Muslims Palestinians 'cum' Terrorists. The Jews arrived in Gaza at the urging of the then Leftist Labor government after the 1967 Six Day War to re-unite it with the rest of Israel. It was then barren, empty of people with only sand dunes no one but the Jews wanted. The Jews built greenhouses, tilled the sandy land and created a fertile cornucopia of vegetables (without bugs), fruits and flowers for internal consumption and export. Sharon and the Leftists ignore the prior centuries of Jewish presence in Gaza so the de-Judaization and re-partition can proceed.

Now Sharon wants the Jews out and the Palestinian Terrorists in. This was from a man temporarily elected to office, who has no mandate to re-title the Land but has assumed Pharaonic-type powers as a man-god on earth.

Sharon, Peres and the non-Jewish Jews of the Left are following the long-established custom of allowing the enemies of the Jews to drive them from their homes. Our enemies have always offered a litany of excuses for driving Jews out so the Sharon/Peres rationale merely adds to the list of excuses. Sharon and the Left have determined that Israel is not to be a Jewish State in practice but rather a secular Jewish State, theoretically acceptable to Arabs and Europeans.

Sharon and all past leaders of the Left had/have one hidden agenda. That was to de-Judaize the nation and to insure not one holy location remained for Jews to be drawn to or rally around. Thus, you see the Temple Mount handed off to Arabs or the Marat HaMachpelah (Cave of the Patriarchs - where Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rivka, Ya'acov and Leah are buried) - among other holy sites disposed of by the non-Jewish Jewish leadership.

The coming harassment may very well have such features as concentration camps for those Jews who resist ejection from their homes. Some, perhaps many, will be shot if their resistance is too firm. We already observe the build-up of disinformation by Sharon and his politically controlled GSS (Government Secret Services). The propaganda is that there are "dangerous settlers planning to assassinate Sharon" which, once accepted by the public will allow the round up of all the Jewish leaders in YESHA - especially those in Gaza/Gush Katif and probably the Golan Heights. This was a ploy used by Rabin, Peres, Beilin to demonize all those who correctly objected to the subversive Oslo plan.

IF they can imprison the leaders under the archaic British law of "Administrative Detention", they can more easily drive the Jews out of their homes with less resistance. This was the technique used by Hitler's SS: First imprison the leaders and ordinary citizens will be terrified and follow orders like sheep.

So once again, another chapter is being written in the History of the Jews being driven from the land, from their homes - leaving all they have built so others (their self-declared enemies) can take the fruits of industrious Jewish work. This time it is the non-Jewish Jews who have virtually captured the leadership of the Israeli Government and turned it into an authoritarian regime which parallels any of the Arab Muslim governments in the region. If ever there was a more evil and soulless regime, it is Sharon's current Administration which most certainly need purging.

Having conspired with foreign nations during a War of Terror is, indeed, nothing less than treason. Successive Israeli administrations have shown that they simply have no interest in what their public thinks. This arrogance has ramped up since Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres discovered they could make unilateral decisions with little resistance from the Knesset (Parliament). As for the people, they only exist to pay taxes and the bloated salaries that include months of vacation for the Members and Ministers of Knesset.

Perhaps the secret Oslo debacle was the first major leap away from any normal democratic control over their actions. Their discovery of the 'no checks and balances' over elected governmental officials shows a drift into dictatorship under the guise of being a democracy.

Even the Israeli Courts have created an internal mind-set that leans Left and against the nationalistic Pioneering Settlers. For instance, the Israeli Supreme Court under Chief Justice Aharon Barak has ruled that the Barrier Security Fence must be re-built to accommodate the comfort of the Arab Palestinians more than for the Israelis' security.

The dissolution of the Jewish State has been the goal of the members of the so-called "Quartet", the anti-Israel U.S. State Department, the anti-Semitic E.U. (European Union), the hostile U.N. (United Nations) and Russia, whose history of anti-Jewish pogroms are legendary. Regrettably, we now see a Jewish government join these corrupt nations thinking they will be allowed to exist as a secular State.

To accomplish this destruction of the Jewish State of Israel, they needed to recruit unworldly and naive Israeli leaders to go along with what will be the re-partition/dismemberment of Israel. It was not difficult to flatter such naive, unworldly leaders as Rabin, Peres, Bibi Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and now Sharon. Those who elected Arik Sharon were assured that his brilliance as a General also insured he would be a competent Statesman. He has failed in the one thing he was elected for - mainly ruling the nation and understanding the world at large.

Unlike the Europeans who have experienced centuries of political manipulation and long-term planning in their history, Israel has only 56 years. Her short-sighted leaders have small talents to parade before their voters who themselves are rather insular with little understanding of world affairs and don't begin to understand why even our so-called friends want us off the map of the Middle East.

If you look into the backgrounds of most of Israel's Prime Ministers, you would find shallow small thinkers, unsuitable for the job of Prime Minister. But, through party affiliations they were pushed up the political ladder until they were appointed by their party as the nation's leader. Some were intelligent but had little or no wisdom. Their best thoughts in terms of future planning were a week or possibly a year ahead but, mostly, they were consumed with keeping the power of their office. The fate of the nation always ran a distant second unless it had something to do with advancing their Party finances and keeping their job. That kind of thinking may be acceptable in large countries with no nearby enemies but, Israel is surrounded by millions of hostile Muslim Arabs who simply want to kill them.

To further demonstrate the corruptions of the Sharon regime, it has been reported that prior to the recent vote among Likud, Sharon sent his son Omri to Arab villages to recruit them to "temporarily" join Likud so they could vote for re-partition and, after having done so, resign their Likud membership, reverting to their normal hostile loyalties to Yassir Arafat.

Larger nations can survive incompetent leaders and parliamentarians who cannot think clearly. Their nations can survive stupidity but Israel is tiny and mistakes on security can too easily be fatal. Leeching up to the leaders of larger nations who massage the weak egos of Israel's inept leaders and take advantage of their ignorance as man-children is pure evil - but effective.

Can we really blame these almost Jewish leaders for their ignorance, greed and selfishness? Indeed, we can. While they are stupid in their administration of the nation's security, they were not so unaware that they avoided plundering the nation's treasury for themselves and their party. As a nation and a people, Jews cannot bring themselves to jail or hang political criminals. The most we can do is to pray that HaShem (G-d) brings justice to these people.

As for the nations who wish us dead and buried, may HaShem plague them with incurable disease, drought and floods (some of which is actually occurring now). For their evil planning, let their land burn in the sun and their cities crumble when the earth shakes. Hopefully, they will understand that Nature has become the hunter and the instrument of their punishment from a G-d whose patience has worn thin. Sending a plague of howling Muslims across the planet blowing up what they can, ought to be a recognizable message.

We see today the Leftist Jews become as the Vichy French collaborators were to the Nazi conquerors or, in this case, any Superpower. In the case of Israel, we see the Left as collaborators with the Arab Muslims, the Europeans and the anti-Israel U.S. State Department in the manipulation of Israel to surrender through a succession of incremental retreats.

There is a difference.

The Germans wanted the French to live under their domination whereas the enemies of Israel want the Jewish State destroyed and every Jew dead. The crime of the Jewish Left is that they not only collaborate but, they lead Israel on to self destruction. Perhaps then, a civil war is necessary with the Jews who hate the Jewish nation and their own Jewishness being driven out to lands where they will feel more comfortable, more assimilated and more non-Jewish.

Keep a diary of those who betrayed the Jewish Nation and the Jewish people. Should the nation fall because of their subversion, hunt them to extinction in the lands to which they will flee - hoping to hide from their crime. However, it is likely that G-d will place the mark of Cain to mark them as untouchables who wander the earth as killers of their brothers.

If the Jewish State of Israel falls to Leftist Jews collaborating with our enemies, then all Jews will be hunted to extinction in any land they may flee to. The World could not bear having Jewish witnesses looking at them, day after day, as the criminals they would be. Every Jew in America, Europe - wherever - would have to be murdered so the last witnesses of the crimes against G-d and His Chosen would not be there to testify. No witnesses - no crime = no guilt.

The Jewish people are often called "The People of the Book" and thus recorders of history. Regrettably, we Jews carry this to an extreme. We Jews believe that if we identify the problem and write about it, all others will thereby be informed and act appropriately on our revelations. While ideas are grand, we truly believe we have solved problem by writing about them. For some, however, writing turns into action and decides the day. When Arab and/or Muslims write and harangue their people about "Jihad" (Holy War for Islam), they actually convert the writing into murder of Jews.

When Jews stop writing and rise up to defend their rights to the Land G-d gave them to live, only then will Jews stop running from their shadow and anchor themselves to the Land without apology and without requiring anyone's permission. Then the Jews in the Jewish State will have both security, sovereignty and dignity.

Clearly, it is time to eject Sharon from office and elect One Honest Man for Prime Minister. He is there and, although he does not want the job, as a patriot, he could be recruited to save the Jewish nation.

Emanuel A. Winston is a research associate and a member of the Board of Directors of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




by Emanuel A. Winston

There can be no forgiveness for the Jewish leaders and Generals who taught the failed tactic of retreat to the embattled Jewish people. Even more unforgivable was to teach the enemy that Israelis can be made to run from the field of battle.

In direct proportion to our infamous retreats, our enemies grew more confident and thus more Jews were murdered and maimed.

The Politicians and Generals who chose Retreat and Abandonment of the Land of Israel were and are traitors to their people. They should be brought to trial before a Peoples' Court and tried for crimes against their own people. If found guilty, they should be imprisoned for life at hard labor.

For all the Jews they made it possible to murder, you would think that hanging would be the correct punishment but, that would end their penalty too soon.

These Politicians and Generals taught Retreat to the Jews while teaching the Arab Muslim Terrorists to advance. None are above reproach.

The Sinai Desert was given up to Egypt - who had never ever owned that land.

Oslo taught the Jews that their leaders could scurry around in secret and give away their Land to howling savages - who also never owned (or deserved) the Land.

With each Retreat, the Muslim Arab Terrorists learned they could too easily get away with murder of the weak Jews.

Jewish leaders made corrupt deals to let thousands of Arab Muslim Terrorists out of prison for virtually nothing in return for a bad bargain. Most simply rejoined their Terror cells and commenced killing Jews. Prison had merely been a convenient place to improve their Terror skills from their co-Terrorists in jail. They had been taught that being caught for committing Terror acts was merely a matter of awaiting another mass release.

Now Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has offered and pledged the next lesson of Retreat as he dismembers the nation in his so-called "Disengagement Plan".

Behind his declaration to the Arab Muslim Palestinians that he will cleanse Gaza/Gush Katif of Jews, he speaks of making the rest of YESHA (Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza) also "Judenrein".

We learn that he works with the infamous Shimon Peres to accomplish this Retreat.

In the Arab Muslim culture, even the willingness to discuss peace is considered as a defeat for the enemy and a victory for the Muslims. Given that they would never abandon their Land, when their self-declared enemy agrees to cut and run, their expectations and pride swell, knowing their enemy is on the run - so they raise their ante.

Israel's Politicians and Generals try to use the tactics of Western civilization where you can negotiate a peace with an enemy - as the Free West did with Germany and Japan - AFTER they beat them soundly.

Not so with Arab Muslims. The credo of Retreat for Peace is merely an acceleration of War to the Muslim Arabs.

Even the political leaders in America and Europe are beginning to learn that you cannot win the hearts and minds of Muslim Arabs. They are in a permanent State of War "Dar al Harb" with the unbelieving 'infidel' (all non-Muslims). They are on the march to achieve their Great Caliphate, where all the planet will accept Sharia Law (strict Islam - like the Taliban) and worship Allah. They aim for nothing less than world domination for Islam.

When the Jews or Christians Retreat and give up Land as a gesture for Peace, for the Muslims it is a signal of weakness and, therefore, they attack. While the Americans are just beginning to learn that radical Islam has declared war with it, the Israelis have had 56 years of lessons as a State and at least another half century of Terror attacks before Statehood was declared in 1948.

There is no excuse that relieves Israel's Politicians and Generals of their blindness in advancing the cause of Final Arab Muslim Conquest.

They are simply traitors to the Jewish State who have often engaged in treason with the enemy in time of war. (There has never NOT been a time of war by the Muslims against the Jews.) Worse yet, these same politicians had a plan from the time of David Ben Gurion to de-Judaize the Jewish State into a secular state. As they gave away our religious holy sites such as the Temple Mount, they taught the Jews that they had no ancient claims to our ancient homeland.

The national memory of our Patriarchs and being the People of G-d's Covenant was shoved aside, insuring that they emptied the nation of purpose and pride in being Jewish. The Arab Muslims saw that the spirit of the Jews was fading at the teachings of their own leadership.

Conversely, the Muslim Arabs belief in their Allah grew and gave them greater courage in battle. They had an anchor in radical Islam while Israel's Politicians taught that being Jewish was simply of no consequence.

Most of the Israeli people soon followed their role models. With the exception of Menachem Begin (and perhaps Yitzhak Shamir) none of the so-called Jewish leaders had any belief in their Jewishness and, therefore, in their rights to the Land gifted to them by G-d. These non-Jewish Jews tore the heart out of the Jewish people and replaced their Jewish faith with Retreat and Surrender of our Land.

Observe the contemptible cowardice of the non-Jewish Jews of Israel's Supreme Court. Their rulings for the Arabs rights to encroach on Jewish Land and against Jewish security is a distinct part of their lessons of Jewish Retreat.

I have little doubt that, one day, they, the Politicians, the Political Generals and the Supreme Court will have to stand before a Peoples' Court, charged with treason and betrayal of the Jewish nation.



The Jerusalem Post - August 24, 2004


by Gerald Steinberg

The 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism was the opening shot in the political war to dismember Israel through what Palestinian leaders refer to as "the South African strategy." The process has continued, most notably in the 2001 Durban conference against racism and in the propaganda campaign that attempts to label Israel's anti-terror barrier as an "apartheid wall."

On August 24, Haaretz reported that South African law professor John Dugard, "the special rapporteur for the United Nations on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories," told the UN General Assembly that "there is 'an apartheid regime' in the territories 'worse than the one that existed in South Africa.'"

Although the comparison between Israel and the apartheid regime that ruled South Africa is entirely fictitious, the demonization efforts are propelled by repeating and reinforcing this analogy. The attempt to label Israel as an illegitimate "apartheid state" is the embodiment of the new anti-Semitism that seeks to deny the Jewish people the right of equality and self-determination among the nations.

The South African strategy is not simply based on rhetoric, academic boycott calls, and waving placards at Israel-bashing demonstrations so common in Europe and elsewhere. There is a vast network of powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, Christian Aid, and their Palestinian and Israel Arab allies, that are the main channels for spreading the big lies of "war crimes" and "apartheid." Similarly, the repetition of the rhetoric of demonization by Palestinian and Arab officials in the media helps to propel this strategy.

Their long-term goal is to use the UN to impose economic sanctions on Israel, widening the Arab boycott to encompass much of the world. Economic measures contributed to the downfall of the real apartheid regime in South Africa -- thus the appeal of this approach. The recent exploitation of the UN to indict Israel for building a security barrier, followed by a pseudo-legal endorsement from the misnamed International Court of Justice, are important elements in this game plan. Next on the agenda will be the introduction of a UN resolution to impose sanctions, citing Israeli rejection of the ICJ advisory opinion.

In reality, the analogy and rhetoric are absurd, and they demean Black victims of the real apartheid regime in South Africa. Zionism and the revival of national sovereignty in the Jewish homeland are not manifestations of European colonialism, in contrast to the white settlers (Afrikans, English, and others) who created Johannesburg and Pretoria. And while Black labor was exploited in slavery-like conditions under apartheid, in contrast, Palestinians are dependent on Israeli employment due to their own internal corruption and economic failures. Israel does not benefit from cheap and unskilled Palestinian labor -- rather, Palestinian dependency is a drain on both societies.

Similarly, while South African apartheid was based on denial of sovereignty for the Black population, Israelis accepted the "two-state solution" from the beginning, including the 1947 UN partition plan. Arab citizens of Israel have the same democratic rights as Israelis, including full parliamentary representation and free speech -- in sharp contrast to the Blacks under apartheid, or minorities in most Arab countries.

The politicized claims of Israeli "apartheid" distort the historical record and denigrate the suffering of Black South African victims of the real thing.

Indeed, the racism and denial of legitimacy characteristic of apartheid are actually applicable to Arab and Islamic rejection of Jewish rights. In the Middle East and the rest of the world, Jews are a tiny and oppressed minority, struggling to maintain cultural identity and survive in a hostile and violent environment. But these basic facts are politically incorrect and inconsistent with the demonization of Israel.

The "Zionism is apartheid" propaganda is also used to justify Palestinian terrorist attacks and the efforts to deny Israelis the basic human right of self-defense against being ripped apart in bus and caf bombings. In effect, the relentless barrage of the term "apartheid wall" by Palestinian propagandists, including Dr. Hanan Ashrawi, UN representative Nasser Al-Kidwa, and NGOs such as B'tselem, Mossawa, Adallah, the ISM, seek to keep Israelis exposed to terror attacks.

By screaming "apartheid" at every opportunity, the leaders of this campaign have succeeded in burying data showing that this barrier has saved the lives of many Israelis. In today's immoral political doublespeak, protecting Israelis from terror has become "apartheid."

At the same time, while there are legitimate differences over the wisdom of Israeli settlement policy in the areas captured in 1967 in the wake of Arab aggression, these differences are also unrelated to the political rhetoric of "apartheid." Ethno-national disputes, occupation, and charges of discrimination against minorities are also part of the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, Kosovo and Bosnia, Sri Lanka, India/Pakistan, etc., but the demonization campaign is unique to Israel.

Clearly, the South African strategy designed to propel the political war against Israel has many weaknesses. For instance, faced with a campus divestment campaign, Columbia University president Lee Bollinger called the comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa "grotesque and offensive."

It is necessary to expose the big lie at the center of the apartheid campaign. Beyond exposing the absurdity of the charges against Israel, it is time to put Arab and Islamic racism -- as shown in Sudan and elsewhere -- at the center of the international agenda. In political warfare just as on the military battlefield, the best defense is a good offense.

The writer directs the Program on Conflict Management at Bar-Ilan University and is the editor of the NGO Monitor.




By Moshe Feiglin

The criticism we expressed of the Arrow project as well as of the separation fence causes people to ask: "What is your alternative?" Our criticism did not address the technical aspects of the project, but its basic concept.

The Arrow is a first-rate technological achievement and its technical developers deserve to be congratulated. But the basic concept lying behind the Arrow is a disastrous one that has led Israel to invest tremendous sums in white elephants that can never meet their strategic aims.

Consequently the alternative we seek does not lie in the field of technology. We shall not propose a more successful weapons system. The required alternative must be found in the overall defense concept of the country.

Last week an article appeared in Makor Rishon, describing in a comprehensive manner Israel's nuclear policy and the Iranian threat. The article included interviews were held with the heads of the organizations responsible for the subject, and all of them, without exception, agreed that an Israeli military attack on the Iranian nuclear industry was not possible. The reason was not Iranian military superiority, but the dispersion of the Iranian nuclear facilities and their proximity to concentrations of population. An Israeli attack would be liable to cause a great number of casualties amongst the Iranian civilian population, and official Israel does not believe that it can permit itself to do so. In fact Israel, facing Shihab 3 missiles and the development of Iranian nuclear capability, lies in precisely the same dilemma as when facing the Kasam rockets fired from Beit Hanun. The obstacle is not military capability but moral considerations and international pressure. The Israeli leadership does not feel that it can justify to its own citizens a massive attack on others, nor does it feel capable of withstanding the international pressure that would result from such an attack.

Some people hold the view that Israel must come to terms with reality and deliberately enter the era of the balance of nuclear terror in the Middle East. One of the supporters, a professor from Tel Aviv University, even explained in a radio broadcast that this would be a desirable situation which would bring an end to conflicts and bloodshed. It seems that this terrible idea is gradually being absorbed (because of the lack of an alternative concept) by the heads of the defense establishment, and in the non too distant future we shall find ourselves facing extremist Moslem countries (followed by terrorist organizations) armed with nuclear weapons.

Any comparison made between the cold war waged between the East and the West, and a situation that could exist between Israel and its nuclear-armed neighbors, is totally unfounded. In order that a balance of terror can exist, it is necessary for there to be opponents having both rationale for survival, and an inability to achieve total destruction in a first strike. In contrast to the case of the former Soviet Union, Israel's nuclear neighbors will lack these two elements. (The Arab regimes have an instinct for survival, but the countries themselves do not. Can anyone name Mubarak's successor?)

A single nuclear-tipped missile cannot destroy ordinary countries. At most it is capable of destroying a large urban neighborhood, and of neutralizing broad circles in its proximity (depending on weather conditions and the dispersion of nuclear fall-out). Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only two of countless cities systematically destroyed by Allied carpet bombing. The psychological effect was tremendous, but the immediate real effect did not differ greatly from the bombing of Dresden.

The major difference between Israel and an ordinary country lies in the fact that most of Israel's population, economy, and reservist soldiers are concentrated in a single city called the Dan Metropolitan Region. Israel is a single soft target that if destroyed means the end of the Israeli story. The proliferation of nuclear arms in the Middle East will not lead to a balance of terror but to the end of the balance currently existing and to terror for Israel only. In the Second World War cities were destroyed one after another. The Arab world can sustain such things, but Israel can't.

Let's not forget that the most important consideration for the Arabs is not human life but the survival of the regime. Anwar Sadat, referred to as "moderate", announced that he was ready to sacrifice a million soldiers in a war against Israel.

Any Arab leader who defeats Israel at the price of a few of his cities which evaporate in a nuclear mushroom cloud will become a modern Saladin, the leader of the Arab world. This presents a serious temptation.

In the light of the threat to survival, and of our vanishing military superiority, why don't we say to hell with the world, the lives of our children are more important than those of the enemy population, and remove the threat at any price?

Isn't it logical that we should prefer our lives to those of a hostile population?

At this stage we inevitably go over to a debate about values. We are no longer discussing atomic piles and nuclear warheads. We are now talking about fundamental values, about the basic ethos of the State of Israel. This discussion will indicate that the defense concept must be based primarily on ethical values and only subsequently on technical considerations.

Israel was established on a basis of Western/ Christian ethical values. This concept does not recognize absolute truth, and consequently justice, that serves the truth, is subject to compromise. How therefore does the Christian/ Western system of values differentiate between the good and bad elements in the issue? It's very simple -- the weak one is the good guy and the strong one is the bad guy. The cross and the icons forming the basis of Western culture (even in its secular form) represents weakness, suffering, the underdog. (By the way, in Islam the strong and cruel person is in the right. See the life of their prophet. But Israel acts according to the Western code and we shall therefore concentrate on this culture.) As long as the Auschwitz crematoria were still warm, and as long as Israel, up to the Six Day War, appeared as the weak side in the story, we managed somehow to make the Zionist ethos match Western culture. We continue to drag every poor VIP who lands in Ben-Gurion Airport to Yad Vashem, but we've squeezed the last drop of juice out of the Holocaust lemon, and we can no longer justify by our suffering that of the Palestinian nation.

IDF soldiers in checkpoints do not give the impression of being the weak party and we have remained with a fundamental contradiction between the Western/ Christian system of values on which the Zionist State has been based, and the basic capability of guaranteeing our survival.

The average Israeli tends to believe that which is permissible for an Arab (terror, murder of civilians, etc.) is forbidden for a Jew, simply because the Western world is afraid of the numbers and strength of the Arabs. This is not at all accurate. The Western world accepts any behavior, even that of remote tribes, if such behavior forms part of the culture of those acting in that manner.

For example, even in Israel lenient punishments are meted out to Bedouins who murder their sisters for reasons of family honor.

In other words, it is not that Western strength constrains Israel's capability of retaliation to the cultural norms customary in the West, but, on the contrary, Israel's cultural dependence on the West chains its to its conditions.

Totalitarian countries, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that scorn the concept of human rights, receive far greater military and economic aid than Israel. (Not many people are aware of this, but of every six American dollars invested in arms for the Middle East, only one dollar reaches Israel. If the US were to impose an embargo on arms shipments to the Middle East, this would greatly improve our security situation.)

The cultural dependence obligates Israel to adopt hopeless defensive strategies, such as the Arrow, the separation fence, and the justification of a nuclear balance of terror. Analysis of this situation indicates that because of the current Israeli consciousness, Israel has no chance for long term survival.

If some form of passive action is self-evidently essential, this should primarily be dispersion of the Israeli population and accelerated rural construction in the Negev, Yesha, Galilee, and the Golan. Israel should simply prohibit further construction in the Dan Metropolitan Region, and develop the periphery and its infrastructures as a top-priority national assignment.

Obviously Israel must destroy the Iranian nuclear enterprise, even if this means civilian casualties. Obviously Israel must immediately demand an insufferable price from any Islamic Arab regime that deploys strategic missiles within range of Israel. This is the sole possible defense concept, and it will inevitably lead to the strengthening of Israel's international status, as happened after the "slaughter" of the Egyptian Army by the IDF in the Six Day War. However, there's no point in discussing what we should do, before we replace the cultural basis of the country. As long as we fail to understand that we are the just people in the story, not because we are weak, but because we are Jews, we cannot act from internal conviction, and we will certainly fail to convince the world of this.

It transpires that the strategic solution must first be based on culture and only afterwards on the technology of the military industry.



The Washington Times - August 19, 2004


By Louis Rene Beres

The core of Israel's active defense plan is the Arrow anti-ballistic missile program. On July 29, an Arrow ABM successfully intercepted and destroyed its target at a test range in California. This was the 12th Arrow intercept test and the seventh test of the complete Arrow system. According to Israel's Ministry of Defense, "The target trajectory demonstrated an operational scenario and all the Arrow system components performed successfully in their full operational configuration."

These test results are significant. They indicate not only continuing close cooperation between Washington and Tel Aviv, but also the intrinsic technical promise of Israel's ballistic-missile defense. But now very serious decisions need to be made. Still, faced with a steadily nuclearizing Iran, Israel must consider whether it can rely upon a suitable combination of deterrence and active defenses or whether it must also prepare for pre-emption.

On its face, it would now appear that Israel's pre-emption option is substantially less urgent. If the Arrow is truly efficient in its reliability of intercept, even an irrational Iranian adversary armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons could be dealt with effectively. If Israel's nuclear deterrent were immobilized by an enemy state willing to risk a massive "countervalue" Israeli reprisal, that state's ensuing firststrike could still be blocked by Arrow. So, why pre-empt?

The answer lies in untenable assumptions. Ballistic-missile defense cannot be appraised simply as "reliable" or "unreliable." Operational reliability of intercept is a continuous variable, and any ballistic-missile defense system -- however successful in its tests -- will always have "leakage." Whether or not such leakage would fall within acceptable levels would depend primarily upon the kinds of warheads fitted upon the enemy's incoming missiles. Moreover, the Arrow's recent success in intercepting a Scud might not be as easily replicated with faster and more advanced Iranian targets. In evaluating its pre-emption option vis-a-vis Iran, Israeli planners will need to consider the expected "leakage rate" of the Arrow.

A very small number of enemy missiles penetrating Arrow defenses could be acceptable if their warheads contained only conventional high explosives or even chemical high explosives. But if the incoming warheads were nuclear and/or biological, even an extremely low rate of leakage would be unacceptable. A fully zero leakage rate would be necessary to protect Israel adequately against nuclear and/or biological warheads, and such a zero leakagerate is unattainable. This means that Israel cannot depend entirely upon its antiballistic missiles to defend against any future WMD attack from Iran, and that even a very promising Arrow system would not obviate Israel's pre-emption option.

A rational adversary will need to calculate that Israel's secondstrike forces are substantially invulnerable to first-strike aggressions. And this adversary will now require many more missiles for an assuredly destructive firststrike against Israel than would be the case without Arrow. Israel's Arrow will at least compel a rational adversary to delay any intended first-strike attack until this adversary can deploy a fully robust nuclear and/or biological offensive missile force.

Israel still faces a number of state enemies whose undisguised preparations for the Jewish state are authentically genocidal. Nowhere is it written that Israel must sit back passively and simply respond after a nuclear and/or biological attack has been inflicted upon its civilian populations. Israel has the same right accorded to all states in world politics to act pre-emptively when facing certain forms of existential assault. Known formally as "anticipatory self defense," this general right is strongly affirmed in the national security strategy of the United States, issued by President Bush on Sept. 20, 2002.

Israel must continue to develop, test and implement an interception capability to match the growing threat dictated by enemy ballistic-missile capabilities. Simultaneously, it must continue to prepare for possible preemptions and to enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrent. Regarding such enhanced credibility, Israel must fully operationalize a robust secondstrike force, sufficiently hardened and dispersed, and optimtized to inflict a decisive retaliatory salvo against high-value targets.

Arrow is necessary for Israeli security, but it is not sufficient To achieve a maximum level of security, Israel also will have to take appropriate preparations for pre-emption and deterrence. Together with the United States, Israel exists in the crosshairs of a far-reaching Arab/Islamist jihad that is profoundly theological and that will not conform predictably to relevant rules of international law.

Under no circumstances can Israel and the United States now afford to allow this seventh-century view of the world to be combined with 21st-century weapons of mass destruction. It must be a matter of highest priority for the president of the United States to recognize and reaffirm this country's fully overlapping security interest with the state of Israel.

Contrary to the advice given in a recent report issued by the Council on Foreign Relations, this presidential imperative should extend to any lawful and presumptively effective acts of anticipatory self-defense that Israel would need to undertake for its national survival.

Louis Rene Beres is professor of International Law at Purdue University and chairman of Project Daniel. He is also the academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



The Jerusalem Post - August 26, 2004


By Arieh O'Sullivan

With verbal tensions rising daily between Iran and Israel, Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee head Yuval Steinitz said the West should not expect "little Israel" to take pre-emptive action to save the world from Iranian nuclear weapons.

It is the free world, led by the United States, that must stand behind its pledge not to let Iran get the bomb, Steinitz said.

He warned that Iran aims at becoming a global nuclear power with long-range Shihab missiles that would put Europe and NATO forces in range.

"This is a problem of the leaders of the civilized world. One shouldn't expect little Israel to solve a global problem like this," Steinitz said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.

"The United States itself has said that it won't hesitate to use any means at its disposal to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. If, God forbid, the free world, led by the United States, doesn't stand behind these words, then a dark curtain will descend on the world raising the possibility of nuclear terror against us and Europe and NATO," Steinitz said.

"Iran is a totally irresponsible and unpredictable totalitarian regime that is ready to sacrifice millions of its people for its crazy ideology," Steinitz said.

His comments came after a week of nearly daily warnings by Iran against Israel for staging a pre-emptive strike against its widespread nuclear infrastructure. The rhetoric came amid reports that the IAF and commandos have completed rehearsals for attacking Iranian nuclear sites such as the reactor in Bushehr. The reports said Israel would under no circumstances allow Iran to "go critical."

After taking a back seat in the diplomatic war against Iranian nuclear endeavors, Israel has again become the loudest voice warning that Iran is trying to manufacture nuclear weapons in the guise of peaceful nuclear power industry.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, who is visiting Paris this week, urged France, Germany, and Britain to intensify their pressure on Iran.

The latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on its investigation into Iran's nuclear program is due to be released in the coming weeks. The White House is expecting a strong statement from the IAEA board and sanctions or nuclear weapons inspections may ensue.

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, who has issued daily threats against an Israeli strike, said Thursday in Manila that Iran is pushing for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Earlier this month, Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani warned that Iran retains the option of pre-emptive strikes to prevent an attack on its nuclear facilities. His warning was followed by a test of an improved version of its Shihab-3 missile, which is capable of hitting Israel.

But Steinitz said Israelis have nothing to fear from the Shihab rockets... yet.

While Israel is within the Shihab's 1,300-kilometer reach, Iran only has an arsenal of about two dozen, and they can only be armed with 700-kilogram conventional warheads.

"The missiles are very inaccurate, and are completely ineffective against a military target or the nuclear reactor in Dimona," Steinitz said. "We shall intercept most of them with our Arrow missiles."

Steinitz maintained that Iran is developing its Shihabs solely for the purpose of arming them with nuclear warheads.

"Conventional wisdom says you don't develop a missile with a range greater than 1,000 km. for conventional warheads. This is one of the signs that they are aiming to achieve nuclear capacity in the future," Steinitz added.

According to military intelligence, the Iranians are currently developing the Shihab 4 and 5, with ranges of 3,000 km. and 6,000 km., putting Europe under Iranian missile threat.



August 28, 2004

U.S. Army's THEL [Israeli "Nautilus"] Shoots Down Mortar Rounds Again Showing Versatility of Northrop Built System

(Source: Northrop Grumman Corp.; issued Aug. 26, 2004)
[With thanks to ]

1. REDONDO BEACH, Calif. --- The Tactical High Energy Laser, built by Northrop Grumman Corporation for the U.S. Army, shot down multiple mortar rounds Aug. 24, proving that laser weapons could be applied on the battlefield to
protect against common threats.

In tests representative of actual mortar threat scenarios, the THEL test bed destroyed both single mortar rounds and mortar rounds fired in a salvo at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

The tests were conducted by the Army as part of the Mobile THEL (MTHEL) program. The MTHEL program is the responsibility of the SHORAD Project Office under the U.S. Army's Program Executive Office for Air, Space, and Missile Defense. The purpose of the MTHEL program is to develop and test the first mobile Directed Energy weapon system capable of detecting, tracking, engaging, and defeating Rockets/Artillery/Mortars (RAM), cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles. The Army is collaborating with the Israeli Ministry of Defense in the execution of the MTHEL program.

"These successful tests once again prove the versatility of the THEL test bed to counter a wide range of threats, particularly low-tech weapons like mortars," said Patrick Caruana, vice president of Space and Missile Defense for Northrop Grumman Space Technology. "For the first time, we have a way to protect our forces, and those of our allies, against almost daily mortar attacks. Together with the U.S. Army, we have overcome the technical hurdles and we're ready to move laser weapons onto the battlefield."

As the nation's only laser weapon, the THEL test bed has shot down a variety of threats since 2000, showing its versatility by destroying about three dozen targets, ranging from Katyusha rockets to artillery shells and large-caliber rockets, and now mortar threats as well.

"In the foreseeable future, MTHEL is the only directed energy program we can depend on to counter threats posed by rockets, artillery and mortar rounds," said Joe Shwartz, MTHEL program manager for Northrop Grumman Space Technology. "The MTHEL prototype, when developed, will put directed energy into the warfighters' hands as early as possible. MTHEL could serve as a pathfinder for the Army to incorporate directed energy into its plans because it offers all the building blocks required to insert speed-of-light technology into the U.S. Army's Future Combat System and Future Force architectures."

The THEL demonstrator was designed, developed and produced by a NorthropGrumman-led team of U.S. and Israeli contractors for the U.S. Space & Missile Defense Command, Huntsville, Ala., and the Israeli Ministry of Defense. The THEL demonstrator has evolved to the THEL testbed for the MTHEL program. In addition to Northrop Grumman's Space Technology and Mission Systems sectors, U.S. companies involved in testbed development are Ball Aerospace, Boulder, Colo., and Brashear LP, Pittsburgh, Pa. Israeli companies that supported THEL ACTD development are Electro-Optic Industries, Ltd., Rehovot; Israel Aircraft Industries, Ltd., Yehud Industrial Zone; RAFAEL, Haifa; and Tadiran, Holon.

Northrop Grumman Space Technology, based in Redondo Beach, Calif., develops a broad range of systems at the leading edge of space, defense and electronics technology. The sector creates products for U.S. military and civilian customers that contribute significantly to the nation's security and leadership in science and technology.




by Ross C. Leiber

This article is dedicated to all Jews killed, maimed, harmed, harassed and persecuted over the last 2,000 years.

It is appropriate reading for those who understand there are a number of ways through which Israel may be destroyed in the not so distant future, ranging from demographics to capitulation to total annihilation. It is targeted at those who have concluded that the existence of Israel as a Jewish State in the Jewish land is not accepted by the Arabs, and, therefore, come hell or high water, she must either disappear or surprise a foe or two, by breaking away from existing paradigms.

The reader may consider playing Antonin Dvorak's Symphony #9, "From the New World", while going through the document.

First Movement: Adagio - Allegro molto


This essay presents how Israel can save herself and help the world. It provides the necessary rationale, followed by a decisive way out for Israel, without her using weapons of mass destruction. She protects her population, punishes the Arabs, and teaches a lesson to the West for 2,000 years of anti-Semitism. Can it be done? The answer is yes, and the timing could not be more propitious. However, time is short.

On the other hand, if Israel forgets that Judaism is a religion based on reason, and continues to abide by western dogma and miracle doctrines, she may be doomed. Miracles are neither easy to come by, nor are they cheap these days. Using reason also means understanding, accepting, and acting upon the realization that it is not possible to reason with certain groups and individuals loaded with borrowed or self-developed hate and fanaticism. This applies even when such entities are supported by a major power.

The "peaceful" intentions of Iran were clearly detailed by its former President, Hashemi Rafsanjani, in 2002. He suggested that the purpose of Iranian nuclear weapons would be to erase the "Zionist appendix" from the map of the Middle East. He said: "If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in its possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate, because application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel, but the same thing would just [cause] damage in the Islamic world. The Islamic world could suffer any blow Israel would give and still survive, while one nuclear weapon would put an end to Israel." (my emphasis)

Sorry, "Hashi Rafsi", the underlined sentence is wrong. The Islamic world may not survive. For non-nuclear reasons you can not even imagine. It's up to Israel to show how.

The difference between terrorist organizations and established Arab States is only in the approach, as far as Israel is concerned. Their intention is the same. Existing Arab states are more dangerous to Israel. She can't wait until it is almost inevitable a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) will be launched and then retaliate. It is better to do something meaningful to deter the threat, to send a hard message now. Never has an opportunity been so favorable to Israel. The present situation of the world due to terrorism is a blessing in disguise. It is a chance not to be missed.

If the US fails in Iraq, the urgency of following through with this article's recommendations will increase even more. Those afraid of alienating the US should recognize that changing America's foreign policy would be all to the good. Expelling the settlers and creating a Palestinian state to please the US State Department is at worst suicidal, and at best a suicide attempt. No matter which party the US President belongs to, the policies of the State Department to encircle, shrink, and jeopardize Israel's security never change. They must be changed against their wishes. The American people are very supportive of Israel. So is the US Congress. Unfortunately, its resolutions on the matter are non-binding on the Administration. Furthermore, Israel does not have oil.

A good friend of Israel would have cautioned the Prime Minister (PM) against pursuing the flagrantly undemocratic policy of disengagement. This is how things are done in the Arab world, not in Israel. To my knowledge, no journalist has commented that the US, by nudging Sharon along this undemocratic path in the name of "democracy", has made a mockery of the Administration's proposals for democracy in the Arab world. Arab leaders must be watching and laughing all the way to the oil bank. Just as they were when "respect" for Israeli democracy was shown by the US, EU, and UN, during the Geneva Agreement "world tour" - another dagger in Israel's back by the world community.

Where is it written that Israel must be eternally on the defensive. Particularly at present, after the last 11 years since Oslo? Where does it say that Israel can not turn the situation around?

It would be extremely dangerous for Israel to bide her time until the oil runs out in Arabia. Even if this were to happen tomorrow. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is but a small subset of the Arab-Israeli struggle. No Jew should, at this day and time, believe it is the other way around. No matter how many international politicians say so. The world would have easily solved a boundary dispute a very long time ago, in 1948, or even earlier.

History has shown through comparative examples how easy it would be from a logistic point of view to relocate most Arab Palestinians, end the carnage, and allow enough breathing room for the peoples of both religions who don't fancy living together at the best of times. But it can't be done as proposed by so many supporters of transfer. And it may be too late for that.

For the Arabs, the point of no return may have been reached. The patient - the Arabs - may be beyond psychological help. As the Arab civilization decays morally, politically, and technologically, Israel will be more and more a tempting target. If it looks like the choice for Israel is either a quick and painful annihilation or a slow and painful destruction, then this essay offers a third option.

Following on the footsteps of Lavoisier's law of the conservation of the mass - in nature nothing is created, nothing is destroyed, but everything is transformed - Israel will neither create nor destroy, but simply rebalance the worry of survival in a more equitable way.

Israel's mistakes

The outright hostility towards Israel by most of the West, and the unrelenting Muslim desire to destroy the country and its inhabitants is known. The British seized over 75% of the land destined for the Jews in order to create a fictitious state across the Jordan River to "reward" the previous custodians of Muslim holy sites, the Hashemites, who were superceded when Saudi Arabia became an independent nation. Brand new Arab states were created at that time, monarchies instituted, and while today they've all failed their citizens, Israel is still coping with the consequences. Unfortunately, Israel was the last state to receive land. In this domino game, it was the last piece remaining on the board to get whatever remained of the Promised Land. But Jews living on this tiny portion of less than half of what was left was not acceptable to the Arabs. They went to war.

Israel's greatest strategic errors were to allow the return of Arafat and tacitly recognize the Palestinians as a unique people different from their neighbors, the countries where most came from. This followed the mistake of not calling on Jordan and Egypt to put up some of their land for Palestinian Arab settlements. She had the opportunity. Oslo and the Road Map are markers on a downhill slope. Even if peace were achieved tomorrow with a Palestinian state in the whole of the 1967 borders, over a short time the demographic pressure would make it non-viable.

People are now being led to believe that the US gave two guarantees to Israel - which the State Department denies - and that the relationship between the countries will suffer if the PM doesn't fulfill his commitment to surrender Gaza and foster a Palestinian state. All Jews, both in Israel and in the Diaspora, are paying and will be paying for years to come for the weaknesses of the last Israeli governments.

Stupidly, every new PM offers the Palestinians a basket of goodies filled with delicious concessions. Consequently, the Arabs have no reason to make peace and, in the process, create bigger problems for themselves.

Israel does not forcefully counter Arab propaganda and this is a mistake. The Arab nations and the Palestinians make unsupported claims while rewriting history to deny Israel's links to the land. Moreover, the government leaves open the subject of Jerusalem. Certainly, the holy part of the city will be taken away, with the full support and pressure from the international community. The remote past is a lot easier to deny than the Holocaust - and incredible as it may seem, there is a cadre of holocaust deniers. The whole Arab world is on a war footing regarding these issues, including the right of the Jews to even live on the planet.

Of course, the Israeli system of democratic government - where their people do not have representatives directly accountable to the local citizens - is a national disgrace, and a danger to her existence.

A word on PR

Consistency in policy making has not been a strong Israeli asset lately. This is reflected in her PR, such as it is. What should Israel's message be? Sharon is committed to a Palestinian state. But if there isn't a Palestinian people - and there isn't - why recognize any rights for a state or homeland? Out of charity? In Jerusalem, Gaza, the West Bank? In Jordan? What about the Arab countries trying to destroy Israel by all means? What about international laws being misapplied? What about falsification of history? What is the message? If there is no firm government policy, how can there be a message? And what is the target audience?

The so-called PR battle for more world acceptance of Israel's motives and rights is not likely to produce the desired results. Most people don't care about the history of either ancient or modern Israel. Others are against her anyway, or due to their governments' positions or anti-Semitism in their press.

The world doesn't want Israel to win the PR battle. The Arabs don't bring up ridiculous accusations like the Protocols, blood libel, and Holocaust denial because these don't work. They know they do work. The EU and the UN act as if they were all true. Therefore, they must be. That's what being an accursed people is all about. "Zionism is racism" is back again. For a large segment of the world, no Israel with all their Jews killed would be better than no Israel with the Jews exiled, because once again they would have to be put into ghettos, restricted, and discriminated against.

Jews should fight this PR battle, as long as Israel does not lose the war. History will take care of the rest. It always does. After 9/11 Bush called Islam a religion of peace, and he's apologized to the Arabs for the recent prisoner abuses. Israel must act, and then let him say that Judaism is a religion of peace. Or not. Remember, when the foreign policy of most Western countries is anti-Israel, there is just so much good PR can accomplish. People tend to believe their own. No PR has led to the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem. No PR is likely to stop the US from pressuring Israel to give up holy Jerusalem and the Temple Mount for peace as the last step on the road map. No PR will pressure the Palestinians to do so, instead. No PR has made the Red Cross accept Israel's Magen David as a partner, because the Red Crescent opposes it.

Arab plans for Israel

Arafat and his crowd deserve some credit. They mislead everybody in terms of their intentions, strategies, and tactics, but not about their ultimate goal of destroying Israel. Press them at the appropriate places and the truth comes out. With over twenty Muslim states in the neighborhood, they still ask questions like "Who has ever heard of a Jewish state?" Jewish history in the land is discarded, denied, and destroyed. On the other hand, they were probably not wrong when replying negatively to Ehud Barak's offer. Indeed, who has ever heard of one people owning the Temple Mountain above ground, and another people owning the underground? They also openly admit all refugees must return. What else does Israel need to hear? The Arabs don't just destroy other people's holy sites and replace them with their own, they don't even admit the former have ever existed. And that applies to people, as well.

Of course, with the so far unofficial Geneva Agreement, the previous issue is solved. The Palestinians get to keep the whole Temple Mount, lock, stock, and barrel. Another step in the denial of history would be completed. Historical evidence? Archeological findings? Nothing seems to matter. If the Jewish Temple is not going to be rebuilt when Israel is in control of Jerusalem, then the Arabs states, the UN, and all other terrorists have already won. Meanwhile, mosques are popping up and down the Temple Mount. Even Barak's nonsense offer must now be changed. At best Israel can only own the sub-underground.

To those who believe the whole of Israel belongs to the Jewish people, the solution of the refugee problem must be in the hands of the Arab states and their allies around the world. They created the problem and they must solve it now, but not in Israel. More than one Palestinian leader has admitted that the Palestinian people don't exist, and that once Israel is gone, the area will be reunited with Jordan.

If the Arab refugees are allowed to return, an independent Palestinian state in place of Israel would not last the month. After all the defeats they suffered in the wars against Israel, countries like Egypt and Syria will take by force what they rightly "deserve". Egypt will take over Gaza and the Negev, in order to have a link to the east. It will likely treat Palestinian Arabs as badly as it did until 1967. Syria would take the Golan and the whole of northern Israel. It might absorb Lebanon entirely in the process. Jordan, if allowed, would take its reward as well. Poor Palestinians again. There is no justice among thieves. No one should expect a UN resolution in favor of the Palestinians.

Unfortunately, Muslim leaders realize Israel is weaker now, both internally and abroad, due to Muslim control of so many international institutions and even organizations they are not members of - the EU, for example. Concepts of right and wrong have no meaning in a world that manages to be both immoral and amoral. "Right" prevails because the winners of war declare they're right. Nazi race theories were wrong because Germany lost the war; otherwise they would be "right". As the Arab press reminds us every day.

Israel wasn't created on the back of any existing country. Therefore, when one sees how the Arabs have denied her any rights of existence, even today, one is well advised not to engage in debate, but to accept it as fact, and act on this information. An American Congressman from New York, Jerrold Nadler, commenting on Palestinian suicide bombings, said that any country facing a similar situation would carpet bomb the enemy. He suggested that if it were happening to America, B-52 bombers would be used. Israel, however, has bigger fish to fry.

It is time to stop being sensitive about Arab honor. Honor is nobody's inherited privilege. People either have it or they don't. Collectively or individually. It is being used as a political slogan. If the Arab countries want to believe they won in 1973, that's fine. Let the Christian world kowtow to Arab honor. Israel had better not.

Second Movement: Largo

What to expect from the UN, Europe and the USA

Two thousand years of Christianity led to many holocausts: these contained inventions about Jews, plots, conspiracies, accusations of witchcraft, inquisitions, and most resulted in murder, exile, and ostracism. Ironically, the Holocaust is a detail of history. A big detail in terms of its magnitude, but nothing new in terms of outcome. The same thing could happen again in the Muslim world. One must pay attention to the conspiracy stories and inventions, which assess all Jews as unfit to live, of not being humans, and call for their annihilation. Whose enlightenment is Israel waiting for?

There have been too many tragedies. Millions died because the allies didn't want to bomb the concentration camps in WWII and house the prisoners. Few Jews were accepted as refugees, even in Palestine itself. High-level betrayals took place in the Arab-Israeli wars. It is time to use all this as examples to protect Jews from having to deal with similar issues in the future.

Unfortunately, what most foreign analysts and experts suggest for solving all these pending problems work only from a Western perspective. The idea of Israel not being allowed to win because outside powers don't permit it must cease. It is time to end this inferiority complex. When the oil goes, anti-Semitism will remain. Oil was not a factor during most of human history.

The UN does not stop Sudan and other countries from committing genocide, because it is too busy thwarting Israel. Does anyone expect the UN to realize this and tell the public? Can't anyone see the UN Secretary General telling the world, with approval from the General Assembly, that the reason so many millions were dying from malnutrition, neglect, abuse, pogroms, and religion wars is because the UN was kept busy making Israel behave herself?

The Palestinian refugees are not likely to be going to Gaza or even the West Bank in any significant numbers. There is no room. They are not wanted there. The West doesn't want them, either. The Arab states don't want them. In their majority they've never been to Israel. But they are one of the best weapons for the destruction of Israel. This farce, over 56 years old, abetted by the world community, has reached such absurd proportions that the UN now needs the play to be completed by ending Israel as a Jewish State. Of course these refugees don't want to live under Jewish rule, should Israel make the mistake of allowing them back after decades of brutality and brainwashing in the camps. But encouraging the 'right of return' is a way for the world to save face. And the world will do it.

Europe has always been a very anti-Semitic land. The level and intensity varies from place to place, even when "legally" suppressed in communist Eastern Europe. Anti-Semitism in Europe is like the frog game, where different frogs keep popping up from different holes at different times, and no matter how often one hits them with a hammer, the game never ends. In order to win, Israel must destroy the mechanism. History explains why no matter how much hate and terror against Israel and themselves, so many Europeans continue to blame her.

During the period leading to the creation of Israel, the British, after being responsible for the death of so many European Jews, did their best to reduce her area to minimal proportions. The Negev desert was to be denied, under the flimsy excuse that it was needed as a place for a British air base to counter the Soviets. Today, at the same time he preaches friendship, the current British PM openly says he doesn't recognize Israel as a Jewish state, because "it is not helpful". To what? To whom? She'd better not expect the brutally anti-Semitic countries of Eastern Europe to be her new buddies, either.

The US people are not against Israel. The US State Department is. It is up to Israel to find ways to offset it, working with those influential Americans who support her. But if this doesn't work, Israel must act on her own behalf. While they need oil, the US will never allow Israel to have final control over the Promised Land. The US supports Saudi Arabia, and this means the State Department supports terrorism. It is an example of the theater of the absurd applied again. Unfortunately, one must conclude that should another 9/11 tragedy, perpetrated by similar elements, befall it, the US may invade another country for all good reasons, while still continuing to press Israel for concessions. The Saudis have powerful connections in America, after all.

Israel is not "allowed" to retain any land beyond 1967, because the US State Dept. won't "permit" it, even though UN resolutions such as 242 are clear about it. Eventually the US may force Israel to get out of the Golan, although it was part of the Promised Land. And then there is the issue of Jerusalem. The US has 2 consulates there, but no embassy. Furthermore, since the US can't control the Palestinians' high birth rate, it controls Jewish immigration by keeping Israel as small as possible, weaker than it would be otherwise, making it less attractive to Diaspora Jews who might have gone there otherwise. It's once again a way of partially satisfying the Saudis, of course.

Ideology can not compete with oil. A pledge is a pledge, says the US Secretary of State, to ensure Israel's PM will not harm Arafat. A pledge is a pledge as far as Israel leaving its settlements. But a pledge is not a pledge when it comes to the US moving its embassy to Jerusalem.

Several people say that Israel can not displease the US, her only ally. But virtually the whole world is against the US in many ways, including friendly countries in Europe and the Middle East. The US hasn't sidelined them. Why such a great fear? Fear of saving the country from annihilation? Fear the US will only give weapons to Egypt, knowing well that this would force a pre-emptive attack by Israel? The worst fear is fear itself.

The US State Dept. in the mid-90s declared the Iranian National Council of Resistance (NCR) a terrorist organization, at the request of the Iranian government, when it was trying to normalize relations with that country. But the US was supporting the NCR at the time. Is there a lesson to be learned? How does an Israeli leader know that tomorrow the US will not support a one-state solution, and then something else even worse? The Israeli card is played in different ways. Israel is helped, then let fall, and picked up before she hits the ground. This is done via military aid to her enemies, threats of withholding aid, and sometimes voting for anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, and some that ever slowly strangle the nation, like the road map. However, it is not fair to see the US as an enemy of Israel.

The State Dept. and European politicians are not fanatic ideologues. They are very pragmatic. Pure political ideologies don't carry the day. Business, big business, and in this case mainly oil business, but also weapons manufacturers, banks, and others, are the ones responsible for the anti-Israel policies carried out by governments. Either through direct lobbying and influence peddling or through a revolving door, they get their executives in and out of government - and at all levels. Understanding this point is crucial, because it provides Israel with the phenomenal opportunity of getting back at the West and at the Muslims, with relatively low risk when compared to a nuclear assault against her. Why? Because the West's pragmatism is militarily and economically stronger than Muslim fanaticism.

There are other diplomatic and political alliances in the making, besides the EU, and Asia-Japan. Emerging countries like Brazil, South Africa, India, and China will create new regional and global bodies to offset the US and the EU. These are not likely to be Israel's greatest supporters, whether or not US influence wanes. First world countries versus second and third world countries is not a battle that will help Israel. Quite the contrary, it is something that can be exploited by the Arab nations. In his recent visit to the Middle East, Brazilian president Lula's attacks on Israel were there for anyone to see. So is South Africa's, and now Turkey's and India's.

Israeli politicians got us all into this existential threat. Israeli politicians have to get the nation out of it. Not the US. They'd better think of the Kurds when trying to understand US and British foreign policies, and why these foreign policy bodies support a Palestinian state but not a Kurdish one. "Trust but verify", said Reagan to Gorbachev. That should be an understatement, as far as Israel is concerned.

What to expect from the Arabs

With the ideological and military competition between the old USSR and the US over for now, the Middle East is the "darling" area for world leaders, and simply trying to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict is the shortest path to a Nobel Peace Prize. The outcome for Israel of this prize given to the Oslo players has been more war and less peace, more dead, and a renewed desire by the Arabs to destroy her.

'No peace, no negotiation, no recognition' was a simple but complete summary of Arab strategy. Now there are a plethora of peace initiatives, peace plans, "hudnas" of different lengths, and, as a result, Israel is at more risk than ever. The new solution is to expel more Jews. How many diplomats and politicians does it take to change a bulb, sorry, to bring peace to the area? One can't even check the latest edition of the Guiness Book of Records. The number increases daily.

There's a reason why the PA and the Arab countries brainwash their people and children - to ensure that even if they are forced to coexist in one way or another with Israel, the enmity will continue, until Israel's destruction. Nobody follows recipes to make dishes one doesn't like. The Arabs neither recognize the Jewish Holocaust, nor any ancient and religious rights to the land. This is not a recipe for peace, but for annihilation and denial. By abandoning territory and expelling Jews from the land, the Israeli government is assuring the future generations of a very frightening coexistence with terrorism.

Recently, Jordan asked the Israeli PM to acknowledge that east of the Jordan River is not the land of the Palestinians - meaning it is not the land of any Arab planning to reside on the West side of the river when Israel is destroyed. For Jordan's king this is a swell situation, preferably with Israel patrolling the border. This means Palestinians can attack her soldiers from both sides of the river. The Israeli population, of course, would continue to be targeted as before, from Gaza and the West Bank. In other words, Israeli troops will be playing the role of foreign troops so often wanted by the Palestinians. They will be protecting Arabs on both sides, while they themselves and the Israelis are attacked. It's the theater of the absurd all over again.

Israel and the world have accepted the lie that there was a Palestinian nation or people. The price to pay will be a heavy one, if a Palestinian state is created in the West Bank and Gaza, as opposed to Jordan or elsewhere. Because these people have been brainwashed to deny the Jewish connection to the land, Israel will be faced with: 1) a neighboring population desiring to destroy her to claim the land back; 2) a new country going nowhere, if any kind of education and historic normalization occurs there, because their people will realize they have no history of their own, and are trapped in large numbers in a tiny territory, unable to immigrate to even other Arab countries where most of their predecessors came from, because nobody would want them, after all the trouble to give them a state. Furthermore, where will the refugees go? If all Palestinian refugees in Syria, for example, were to sign a petition, unanimously asking the Syrian government to let them stay as Syrian residents and stating they no longer want to return to a place most have never been to, it would be denied under the allegation of a Zionist conspiracy.

It has always been a Muslim policy, when conquering any area, to take over the holy places of the local inhabitants and to turn them into mosques. It is a way of putting down the conquered people - to show them that Islam will take away the most important things to them, and there's nothing they can do about it. They have done this extensively not only in Israel, but in Europe, India, and even, recently, in Afghanistan, destroying the magnificent Buddhist statues in that country. When the Jordanians took over East Jerusalem in 1949, they destroyed centuries-old synagogues, the Jewish Quarter, kicked all Jews out, and forbade visits to the Western Wall. Fundamentalists in Egypt have said that once in power the Pyramids will be gone, since they are pagan symbols. Tiny Israel is considered 'infidel" and can never be accepted.

With some Israelis even talking about trading land in the Negev with the Egyptians, the theater of the absurd is performing again. Israel is supposed to create a contiguous Palestinian state. She may help create a contiguous Arab world from the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf. It is a fantastic insight. The world could also see four independent Palestinian states one day: Jordan, Gaza, West Bank, and Israel proper. Actually five, if Jerusalem is turned into an independent Palestinian city-state, the jewel of the crown. After all, the UN and the EU have never seen a Palestinian state they didn't like, as long as it occurs at Israel's expense.

The world has trouble accepting a Jewish state that in 50 years has accomplished more than virtually any nation, almost on her own, and while in a permanent state of war. To minimize success, many people say that Israel benefits from well-educated Jews from other nations. It looks like Israel has invented a new concept: immigration. The Western countries don't actually stop it physically these days, but some of their leaders call the whole thing a failed experiment. The Arabs, in turn, deny the rights of Diaspora Jews to come home. It seems one has found two more definitions for the word "jealousy".

What to expect from Saudi Arabia

After WWI, the British used most of the designated Jewish land to create the kingdom of Transjordan, as consolation to the Hashemites for the end of their role as protectors of Mecca and Medina. In spite of it, an agreement was reached between the Zionists and the Hashemite family, for the creation of two states, one Jewish and one Arab, with the Jordan River as the border. Jerusalem, of course, was a backwater place, never essential to the Arabs until Israel conquered it. Had that agreement, which called for friendship and cooperation, been respected by the British, the Jewish state would have been born 30 years earlier. Unfortunately, the House of Saud, with Ibn Saud as the first monarch of Saudi Arabia and custodian of the two holy cities, was allowed and helped by the British Foreign Office to oppose the creation of any Jewish State in the area whatsoever. A supporter of Hitler's solution to the "Jewish problem", Ibn Saud, with the cooperation of the then mufti of Jerusalem, Arafat's uncle, was the precursor of all that was to come. Until today, the Saudis are using their oil money to promote anti-Semitism in the Arab world and beyond, with the undisguised aim of destroying Israel. Other wealthy sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf follow suit.

The theater of the absurd reinvented itself again, when, after 9/11, President Bush invited Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to his ranch in Texas, and told him: "You are our ally in the war against terrorism". The Saudi royal family has been extensively linked to the funding of Al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, and a plethora of other organizations and causes to spread Wahhabism everywhere. Even the Saudi ambassador to Britain has published poems in British newspapers praising suicide terrorists. The power of the oil companies in the Western world is such that the role of the House of Saud as the main supporter of extremism and international terrorism continues to be covered up. Saudi peace plan after Saudi peace plan attests to the previous statement. Saudi proposals at the UN are worth their weight in oil to the world.

Saudi Arabia - the land of public executions; the land where 50% of the population is considered as inferior human beings. If they treat their women like this, no wonder they consider Jews as descendants of monkeys and pigs. Saudi Arabia is the land of abducted children of Saudi fathers and foreign mothers; the land of documented torture of foreigners living and working there; a country that, fortunately for Israel, holds the key to Israel's success. If Israel doesn't do what needs to be done now, after almost 100 years of Saudi abuses against her and all Jews, then maybe Israel should pack it in.

But let's give credit when credit is due. The Saudis, as the princes of oil, know how to be consistent in their leadership. No compromises with Israel, no recognition of her right to exist anywhere, no recognition of Jews as human beings. Any and all of their "peace proposals" are death warrants against her. They also know how to connive with the world against Israel - but that's the easiest part. Overall, the Saudis are far more consistent than the last half a dozen Israeli governments. When they offer "serious" peace proposals and road maps, the reader had better remember that Saudis believe the Zionists are the ones responsible for the latest attacks on Saudi soil, with a 95% degree of certainty. The pressure is relentless.

Why do smart Israelis to the right of center continue to see this issue as mainly an Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What do they think the final outcome is going to be? Israel, as the decades progress, and dependence on Arab oil starts to dwindle while WMDs proliferate, could, Palestinian state or no Palestinian state, be on the receiving end of a last and concerted Saudi-led effort to destroy her. Since the end of WWII, the country mostly responsible overall for the death of Jews, directly or indirectly, including the financing of wars, has been Saudi Arabia. If Israel ceases to exist, it will be because of Saudi Arabia.

Third Movement: Scherzo (Molto vivace)

A scenario for the destruction of Israel

No potential Holocaust has ever been stopped. Massacres always occur before any halting is possible. World wars, Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenians in Turkey, the list goes on and on. The Arabs and the Iranians know that. They know that if they can neutralize Israel's response, they will get away with genocide. Even Hitler, brutal at home before the war, didn't kill Jews outside his Reich before starting the war. The Arabs, however, do it all the time to their own different peoples, in a variety of ways, with the world watching. Hitler wanted the number of European Jews left over in Europe to fit in a car, in order to parade them. The Arabs can certainly do without it. During the Cold War, Western Europeans worried that the US would not risk Chicago's destruction in order to save Hamburg. Why do Israelis think the US will risk it all for Tel-Aviv?

What if the Saudis or other "peace loving" Arab countries work in total secrecy with Muslim terrorists to plant a few very powerful non-conventional weapons across the US, say, ten bombs in ten large cities? Suppose that these terrorists quietly approach the US government and reveal the whereabouts of three of these weapons to prove their lethal intentions. They could then proceed to blackmail the country with the threat of millions of deaths, in case the US retaliates against an Iranian, Syrian, Egyptian, or Pakistani attack on Israel, using conventional weapons or not.

Let us explore this scenario even further. The terrorists could simply demand, before or after attacking one of their US targets, that the US invade Israel and start the process of removing Jews and transferring assets and land to Arab forces. It doesn't have to be done overnight. In theory nobody needs to die. Unless, of course, the US calls their bluff, resulting in millions of Americans dead. What does anyone think the State Department's recommendation is going to be? The scenario can become even more realistic considering the ongoing pressure on Israel to abandon its non-conventional weapons. Such pressure can only accelerate, as the "peace" negotiations continue.

And if the US were to come to the military rescue of Israel regardless, risking Chicago for Tel-Aviv, the price afterwards might be so high that it is probably not worth it.

The Perils of De-nazification

Many people have commented on the need for the de-nazification of the Palestinians, meaning the reform of their institutions, propaganda vehicles, and education system, in order to eliminate the hate and paranoia they have been inculcated with over the years, including the refugees in the neighboring countries. There are many difficulties with this approach.

After WWII, Germany and her allies in Europe were soundly beaten. These countries were by no means backward entities with distorted religious views. Leaving aside for a moment the interest of the West in stopping as many nations as possible in the area from falling under Communism, it was well understood that the axis countries and some of their allies in Eastern Europe during the war were there to stay. A process of economic reconstruction, a degree of punishment against some of the perpetrators of war crimes, combined with the previous quasi-democratic past, made de-nazification fairly successful. The intent of stopping Germany from ever causing WWIII was also a strong motivator. Religion may have played a contributing role, as well. Guilty over the Holocaust may have helped. It didn't, however, stop a few million Germans from being transferred from the Czech Sudetenland to Germany, or Poland acquiring some German land. But the world survived.

What is overlooked, however, is that few Jews were left in the most affected countries, such as Germany, Austria, Poland, the Baltic states and Hungary. Let us suppose, for example, that instead of the creation of Israel, the Allies had decided to form an independent Jewish State in Central Europe, against the wishes of the affected nations. They would certainly have a point claiming that there was never a Jewish state in the area. Why not move the Jews to Palestine, they would have said. Furthermore, anti-Semitism didn't die just because Germany lost the war.

Under this fictitious scenario, what would have happened if a small Jewish homeland had been forcefully established in land annexed from Austria and Germany, Austria and Hungary, Poland and the Baltic states, the Ukraine, or any other permutations, in countries requiring a certain degree of de-nazification? The only commodity of which there was no shortage of after the war was anti-Semitism. Can anyone imagine a peaceful Jewish state surviving in the area, with or without the Cold War? How long until the affected countries decided they wanted their land back and the Jews out? Wouldn't it be an even more precarious situation for the Jews than the one the Kurds face today, their ancestral land straddling four hostile nations? In other words, would de-nazification have worked well, then? That's food for thought.

Let us extrapolate this scenario to the Middle East, with the understanding that Israel is the natural land of the Jews. The first problem is that all the Arab countries in the area are unpleasant places. Extremely cruel, both to Jews and to their own populations, and bent on destroying Israel. There is no right for Israel to be on the land, period. The second problem is that these countries, although European or Ottoman colonies for many years, did not suffer the debacle of losing two world wars, as Germany did. Israeli victories have been mild by comparison. The world has made sure of that. So much so that Egypt even celebrates finishing second to Israel in 1973. The third problem is that Arab kings and presidential dictators, in the Persian Gulf, in Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and many other places, give power to their children once they leave the scene. The hundreds of little princes in Saudi Arabia are well tutored by their royal elders on the need to destroy Israel and the Jews. So they are all up to the job, no matter who turns out to be king. The same thing happens in other monarchies in the area. In Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, for example, Mubarak, Assad, and Hussein taught their would-be successors well. Their children take power full of hate. This is not a function of the education system. This is taught at home, at palaces and mansions. How easy is it to de-nazify?

Because the Palestinians do not live in a vacuum, one can not simply propose to de-nazify them without doing the same elsewhere in the region. It makes more sense to de-nazify the neighboring states first, since they are sovereign countries engaged in terrorism. How does one do it? The Bush plan for democracy? Good luck. Unfortunately, analogies with Germany and Japan after World War II don't work very well. One can not disregard little things like nationalism, Islam, terrorism, the power of the existing Arab system to distort anything, xenophobia, ethnic hatreds, lack of local democratic experience, and a dozen other issues.

It doesn't have to be Israel's problem, though.

Furthermore, who will de-nazify most of the world nations, as illustrated by the UN's posture towards Israel? Remember, Britain was not a country in need of de-nazification after WWII, but look at what they did to the Holocaust survivors trying to get to Palestine. The same behavior was shown before and during the war. The difference is that they set up their concentration camps in Cyprus.

Transfer is part of the solution, but not as proposed

We've seen that de-nazification, as a way for peace, is not likely to work very well. Besides, Israel would still be giving up part of the Holy Land permanently, having already lost the "Jordanian" side.

The Ellon plan, an alternative offered by Benny Ellon, suggests

"the establishment of a cease-fire and negotiations under international auspices to relocate refugees in Arab countries and the dismantling of refugee camps, along with the establishment of a Jordan-Palestinian state with Amman as its capital.

"Arabs who remain in Judea and Samaria would be offered citizenship in the Jordanian-Palestinian state. Arab citizens of Israel also would be offered such status. If the Arabs of Judea and Samaria breach the terms of the agreement, they would be forcibly deported to the other side of the Jordan River."

The obvious problems with the plan are that the demographic threat is still there, the Palestinians won't agree to live on Israeli land while being citizens of another country, the Arabs won't accept it, the world won't accept it, therefore, no negotiations under international auspices are going to occur. Another nasty war is a more likely outcome. Its result? The same status quo.

That leaves the transfer of the Palestinians from Gaza, Judea and Samaria to Jordan, Egypt, or elsewhere, as an option. Let us imagine a peaceful transfer, supported by huge amounts of money, to ensure a far superior quality of life than they have at the moment. This could also involve resettling the refugees among several countries. By comparison with other similar examples, the distances involved are very small. And the population swap forcefully initiated by the Arab states in 1948 - when Jews who had lived in Arab countries before the Arabs came were expelled - would now be completed.

Several works regarding "Transfer" have been produced. Some of the ideas introduced seemed very fair, such as doing it in stages, town by town, village by village, using economic incentives and disincentives, carrot and stick approaches, jobs and residences awaiting the Palestinians, to be completed over a year or two. Many Palestinian are not likely to be thrilled, however, the other party, the Jews, has nowhere to go. Unfortunately, the ideas as proposed are non-starters.

The problem is not the timing of the proposal's implementation, but time itself. Not even Israeli technology has been able to stop the passage of time. In other words, nobody will sit idle while this is happening. The probability of world cooperation or at least compliance is statistically insignificant. What is significant is that no peace treaty can be signed under this proposed outcome. The probability of Israel being hit by a WMD from a sovereign country or terrorist group while this process is taking place is very high. Does anyone expect the Muslim world to extend red carpets for the Palestinians to walk on during transfer, in order to make Israel's task easier? Does anyone expect the new Iraqi government to offer flying carpets from Baghdad's market for the Palestinians to fly on during transfer, in order to make Israel's task faster?

In order to offer a valid comparison with the following segment, let us briefly identify some of the likely responses to a forced transfer as proposed by so many people, notwithstanding the fact that predicting the future accurately in any context, let alone the Middle East's, is a very difficult proposition.

The Arab leaders could not sit idly, since by doing so, and as a result of their own propaganda, they would probably be overthrown and killed. All neighboring countries to Israel would be forced to launch a war, even if they were likely to lose it. Peace treaties would be abrogated. Iran might join the war directly. Hizballah certainly will. The war could come at any time during this lengthy transfer process, therefore, Israel would lose the surprise factor. The use of WMDs, chemical or biological, could not be discarded, even before a war, forcing retaliation. The Arab leaders would unite in order to save their own skins, a bloodbath would take place in Gaza and the West Bank between Israel and Palestinian forces, and an Arab oil embargo would likely occur.

The world community would come together to punish Israel severely, besides perhaps officially calling for her termination. Among many resolutions to be passed, the UN would reinstate "Zionism is racism", and vote for expelling Israel. The US would, at the very least, approve most of the anti-Israel resolutions, and place a military and economic embargo against her. Terror attacks against US targets and citizens at home, and against US interests and troops abroad, would increase. Europeans and other nations would be targets, as well. The intensity of attacks against Jews in Europe would increase manyfold, causing panic and death. Many might leave, under frightening conditions, to live in a weakened and alienated Israel. The country's WMDs might have to be let go as the result of an American ultimatum. The transfer of Palestinians might or might not be completed, but the number of casualties would definitely be very high. The internal political and economic situation of Israel would likely be disastrous. International troops might come to Gaza and the West Bank, or at least to the international borders, with orders not to let any Palestinians out.

So much for "Transfer" as generally proposed. "Checkmate" will attempt to show that the likely outcomes of its actions by all parties are better for Israel than the above. It is all a matter of control.

Fourth Movement: Allegro con fuoco


The Arabs at present have Israel trapped in a number of fronts. Pressure to eliminate her nuclear and other weapons, to concede land and parts of Jerusalem, to return the "refugees", these all move in tandem, or one by one, but the important factor is that these take away not only the country's legitimacy, but also its raison d'etre. They can win in all these fronts over time. What should Israel negotiate under these circumstances? A slower demise? What should the Arabs negotiate? Their victory?

She is almost on her own, Israel. Humane transfer is the best she can offer to the world, in order that she can stay alive and exist, and this is a lot more than the hand she's been dealt. One can't be 100% moral when one is dead.

If something spectacular and catastrophic is coming, then Israel had better be the one to do it. The timing and the opportunity are almost perfect. There is no USSR, the Arab states are in relative disarray, US troops are already in the area (Iraq), and terrorists are fighting against the West. Why wait until the enemy gets some serious WMDs? Let Israel save the world and be blamed for it. If she does nothing, she will be blamed, anyway.

In order to save Israel, her most powerful enemy must cease to exist in its current form. That's Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia must be transformed, not necessarily democratized. And Saudi Arabia is weak now. In his own way, Bin Laden is right. Israel and Bin Laden have their own reasons for destroying the Saudi monarchy. It seems bizarre. "Checkmate" will not lead to warm Arab-Jewish relationships, but at the same time it requires little cooperation by the world.

"Checkmate" must be initiated in total surprise, without warning anyone, principally the US, of course. Variations on the concept are possible. The strategic planners in Israel can come up with changes. It is better than using WMDs. Less people will die than if the present situation continues and leads to disaster.

"Checkmate" is a blueprint.

The first step is for the Israeli Air Force to attack and destroy the holy mosque in Medina. It is the closest to Israel, and not as important as Mecca's. Destroy the mosque using conventional weapons. Don't touch the city. Don't touch the people. Do it at first light, because Israel may need as many hours of daylight as possible, on that day. Do not do it during a Muslim holy day. Acting very early in the morning ensures fewer casualties. It also ensures the Western leaders will be disturbed from their precious sleep to "handle" the crisis. She should also destroy a Saudi oil rig - only one - as a message to the world.

At the same moment, have the IDF destroy the two mosques on the Temple Mount. Once again, almost nobody needs to get hurt. If possible, set up a close circuit to Ramallah, so that Arafat can watch it without knowing what it is all about. Then within one minute or two, kill him. It is better this way. Arresting and putting him on trial is likely to lead to many deaths or kidnappings of Jews in Israel, and attacks against Israeli interests abroad, in order to free him. On the other hand, it might not.

Why attack both Medina and the Temple Mount? Why not only one? Because if Israel destroys only the Jerusalem mosques, the Muslim reaction will be one of rage. While if Israel destroys only the Medina mosque, the Muslim reaction will be one of fear. Israel needs both feelings to be present - rage and fear.

At this point, planned military and political preparations will be put into action. It would be desirable to have the fence completed, but it is not strictly necessary. There will be no million martyrs on the way to Jerusalem. Not even one hundred. When dealing with Arabs, fear is the greatest psychological inducement to compliance.

Israel must at once release prepared warnings, both publicly and in private, to all Muslim countries in the world, as well as to the US, EU, and UN, as to why she was forced to take this course of action, accompanied by a series of non-negotiable demands. For example, she will announce that: "You Muslims still have your most important religious site, Mecca. We Jews only have Jerusalem. Please think about it, think very hard about it". She will tell the governments of Pakistan and the US that if the former launches a nuclear bomb in retaliation, both Mecca and Pakistan will be destroyed. It will announce a similar message to all Arab countries and Iran. Any non-conventional attack against her will lead to the destruction of Mecca and the offending nation(s). She will announce that in case of a retaliatory conventional attack or war, she will reserve the right to destroy Mecca and the offending nations by any methods of her choosing, should her defeat look likely. She will include Mecca, always Mecca, in all her communiqués. She will hint that no oil fields are safe, if she isn't. This will ensure no NATO country will be foolish enough to try something "heroic".

She must put the country on a state of alert, and have her forces in position to control both Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Arabs. There will be protests, but mostly are likely to be manageable, given the magnitude of what she has done and what she is threatening to do. Surprise, determination, and troops on the streets are needed. At this point, meaning right away, she should fully engage the US to reinforce her messages. The US will strongly disapprove, but pragmatism will prevail, as it normally does. The oil is important. There will be clashes with Hizballah and Palestinian terrorist groups, but once again, Israel has the advantage of surprise. And yes, there may be a regional war, but it will be easier for her to win than under the regular "Transfer" proposals, since now she has the control, the momentum, and the initiative.

Israel will also issue the same kind of warnings to terrorist organizations trying to smuggle WMDs. If any is used, Mecca goes, and maybe a few Arab countries, as well. It is as simple as that. The intention is to have Muslims policing Muslims in order to save Islam. For a very long time.

Israel can now specify her terms. It will involve the organized transfer of as many Palestinian and Israeli Arabs as she deems necessary to regain control of her land, including the Golan, Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem. It is a decision to be made in advance, of course. The fence will be moved to the Jordan River.

Israel may also want to have a say where the Palestinians go, to Jordan, Egypt, Syria, and maybe even to Saudi Arabia. Now is the time for the world community to get involved and facilitate the task. And to convince the Arabs that they'd better cooperate. Let the British, who helped create the original problem, discuss with King Abdallah of Jordan whether the Palestinians moving in should be integrated or given an independent country. Distance-wise this will be the shortest and the most humane human migration in history.

On an ongoing basis, Israel will determine the threat level to Mecca and to the oil fields according to the danger of attack either by sovereign nations, or terrorist suicide bombings. There won't be a lot of diplomatic relations between Israel and the Muslim world for a long time to come. Issues like saving the Dead Sea will need to be mediated by the US, who will be looking for a constructive role to play. It may be better to all concerned. Mecca will exist only as long as Israel exists and is safe. It goes without saying that Israel will announce that should a future war against her be launched, and any enemy territory conquered by her, it will then be annexed in perpetuity. No peace treaties, and no "hudnas".

Time has always been on the side of the Arabs. Furthermore, the last few years have shown that from a strategic perspective any unforeseen action by Israeli leaders has been towards surrendering. That's why "Checkmate" has the additional benefit of removing the time advantage against Israel. After "Checkmate", time is on nobody's side, anymore.

Judaism survived 2000 years without a home, and without Jerusalem and a temple on the Temple Mount. How long can Islam survive without Mecca? Why find out?

Is the world really interested in whether Israel is a light unto the nations? Can this concept be put on hold for a few generations in return for Israel continuing to exist? After all, there are corrupt Jewish politicians in Israel, organized crime, common thieves, family abuse, just like anywhere else. The US nuked two cities in Japan, at the end of the war, alleging that it was saving the lives of a million of its soldiers. It killed hundreds of thousands, with more fatal consequences over several generations. Rightly or wrongly, the US at that stage was under no existential threat. Compare the two situations and decide if "Checkmate" is not preferable to WMDs launched by either side out of hate or desperation.

The US can be very predictable. That's the country that led a coalition in1991 to liberate Kuwait, while all the royal family ran away, living in luxury, and attending parties abroad. Then the US brought the same royal family back, and nothing changed. Actually, besides expelling 300,000 Palestinian workers, the government declared 300,000 Kuwaiti nomads as non-Kuwaitis, even though they had been in Kuwait for generations. They were fired from their jobs, their children forbidden from attending schools, and now live in settlements, some surrounded by leftover Iraqi mines. Checkpoints ensure these poor souls can't reach Kuwait City (information taken from "Price of Honor", by Jan Goodwin). Another "good" deed from a Muslim state going unrecognized by the world. Meanwhile, Israel is called racist. That's why "Checkmate" can't be shared with anyone in advance. "Checkmate" is designed to bring some normalcy to the world, to save Israel, to solve the Palestinian issue, and have these human beings find a better life. That's what the world will be engaged in, while having more control over the oil fields.

All future Arab leaders will understand that they could be targeted in case of a war. How many brave Arab leaders are there? Is there one who has led his men into battle, instead of sending others to their deaths, or cheering terrorists and suicide bombers? No, and why not? Because these are dynasties, whether monarchies or dictatorships. These are families determined to enjoy their control and wealth, not to die, not to lose power or money. And that's why nothing will happen to Israel.

Expected Consequences

The Saudi monarchy won't last a week. The king of Saudi Arabia calls himself the custodian of the two holy sites. Since one is gone, and the other is in peril, he would have failed in his task. The regime will be quickly overthrown, probably by the military. Should a religious person or even Bin Laden himself take power, nothing changes as far as Israel is concerned. Her conditions are clear. But Bin Laden is not likely to prevail, either. With the Saudi monarchy gone, it is more likely the country will have a US-backed Musharraf-type leader, or split along tribal lines. For Israel, that's immaterial; peace with Saudi Arabia is not important. There will be other governments overthrown in the Persian Gulf, and, hopefully, in the countries neighboring Israel. This time the world may show some muscle and make sure the old dictators are gone. It will be in the interests of the international community to protect Israel.

Of course, the US will have to move its troops from Iraq towns to protect the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. They will get a lot of help from the EU and the UN, this time. Therefore, no oil crisis should occur. Having US troops leaving Arab cities to patrol the oil fields will decrease the number of attacks on them, and greatly reduce fatalities. This is the kind of PR Israel can take advantage of with the help of her friends, to endeavor herself to the American public. If the US play its cards right, it will be in a stronger moral position. Pressure will be put on the Administration in charge not to allow the State Department to act in such a dishonorable way again. It should work for a while. Americans know when they see a winner, Israel, and how to turn a threat into an opportunity.

Jihad will change its meaning from offensive to defensive struggle, from destroying Israel and taking over the world to protecting Mecca and the religion of Islam. Muslim countries will police each other and themselves, to make sure noone makes a terrible mistake to jeopardize Mecca. Two great religions, two holy cities, we'd better think of each other as equals, from now on.

The families of the victims of 9/11, and the victims of terrorism in Israel will get a measure of closure.

Israel should make Jerusalem its religious, as well as political, capital, and offer no explanations to UN member countries. They've done their share of terrorism. The country is small. Embassies can stay in Tel-Aviv, or anywhere else. Their having their embassies anywhere on the land is a privilege they don't deserve. Why make Jerusalem an even more expensive city than it already is?

Saudi and Gulf money stashed abroad and "belonging" to their royal families can be used in part to pay for the settlement and betterment of the Palestinians refugees and those transferred. The UN will gladly agree, because their executives can take a cut, like the oil for food program. Most of the money should be returned to the people of those countries.

As per Jan Goodwin's "Price of Honor", since 1974 Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE have had a confidential agreement with the US, under which their massive petro-dollar investments in America are to be kept secret. Otherwise, the oil flow would allegedly stop. As Goodwin points out, this "flight capital" ensures the royal families involved of total control of their citizens' oil wealth - robbery, in other words, courtesy of the West, and at the expense of Israel. This is a chance for the US and Europe to look good and do a transfer of this stolen wealth back to the owners. And apologize. It is the best recipe to avoid terrorism in the future.

International terrorism will suffer a blow, because the conditions will have changed overnight. The rationale for supporting these organizations will be gone. There will be deportations of Muslims considered dangerous by the Western nations back to their countries. The ones remaining will be expected to abide by the laws of the country they live in. Most of them already do. That's all anyone can ask for.

Will Jews continue to be attacked in Europe? Potentially yes. Certainly European Muslims will go on a rampage. Many Christian Europeans might join in. It is a calculated risk all Jews must accept. Nevertheless, in order to maintain order and avoid chaos, these governments will likely deploy enough forces to maintain order. What other alternative will they have? They must get tough for their own sake. If the situation of the Jews in some European countries becomes untenable, then moving to Israel is the solution. A stronger Israel, that is. Maybe the one million Jews desired are coming home, after all. This time they are free to go. This time the British can not set up a naval blockade outside Haifa with impunity.

Let the Europeans replace any Jewish brain drain with young Saudis with degrees in Islamic studies.

The UN is likely to cease to exist as is. A different model will need to be developed, in which international crises are handled with the purpose of saving people regardless of whom they are.

There will be economic sanctions against Israel. After all, politics is a game. But these are not likely to be too long or harmful. Israel will have done the world a lot of good, and nobody needs to say "thanks".

Conclusion: Importance of people versus structures and holy sites

Consider the consequences of the destruction of a nation, her people, and all they have built. Then reflect on whether "Checkmate" or a variation of it is appropriate.

Absurd? Make a relative comparison. Why is it absurd? Are WMDs against Israel better? Just because the Arabs and the world have (correctly) assumed that Israel won't do certain things, unless she is nuked, is on the verge of military annihilation, or something similar? They have eroded her, little by little, decade after decade, encircling her, undermining her, under the thinly disguised cover of perpetual Arab dictatorships and Western cowardice. Therefore, they must all now be taught a lesson.

When others compare Israel's plight with the situation in Northern Ireland, for example, the main point is missed. Nobody is threatening to drown or exterminate anyone there. If worst comes to worst their citizens hold Irish or British citizenship. During the Cold War, ideology made the world unsafe. However, neither the US nor the USSR had planned to occupy each other's country, push the local population into the sea, and move their own people to colonize the loser's land.

Muslims traditionally have turned other people's holy sites into mosques, or destroyed them and built mosques on the same spot, burying the former and replacing them with the symbol of the "true faith". They respect nothing. Everything is done in the name of Islam, and anything else is either denied or considered work done by infidels. In Israel's case, they claim she has never existed - neither her history, nor the Temple - and today's Jews are not even Jews, although they should be killed just to be on the safe side. Let's reverse the process without mass killings, and rebalance the worry of survival more equitably.

Of course, in the end, the US and Israel will agree that the former should take credit for saving Mecca and Islam. Some things, after all, never change.

Are structures worth sparing, when we have hundreds of suicide bombings, the State is slowly being undermined, and her people threatened with annihilation? Who but the victims should have the right to decide what is right and wrong? Think about it for a second. We're talking destruction and genocide all over again. Is a holy site more important? What if "Checkmate" could have been done in time to save 3000 people's lives from 9/11? Is the Medina mosque worth more than the life of the person reading this article right now, his family, her people? Non-Muslim holy sites certainly don't seem worth much - look how the Arabs vandalized and destroyed Joseph's tomb when it was put under Muslim protection. Who decides? Why should Israel not do certain things when the other side wants total annihilation? Because of oil? Because of Arab pride and honor? Who decides?

Ross C. Leiber is an engineer living in Canada. He invites comments to this article - please address them to




by Yoram Ettinger

1. Israel constitutes 0.2% (11,000 sqm) of the Arab League members (5.56MN sqm), which are 150% and 130% larger than the US and Europe respectively (and that does not include the 643,800 sqm of Iran). The L-F-P formula assumes that Israel should concede its scarcest asset -- territory -- while the Arabs are expected to accord Israel that which they have not shared with one another since the 7th century -- compliance and peaceful co-existence.

2. L-F-P assumes that -- while located in the most conflict-ridden, violent, unpredictable region of the world -- Israel should cede its most security-significant real estate to its sworn enemies, who have yet to establish inter-Arab comprehensive peace and compliance with agreements.

3. L-F-P has ignored Mideast reality: The only possible (inter-Arab) peace is based on DETERRENCE, which is severely undermined when belligerence is rewarded by territory. The Mideast defines L-F-P (e.g. "Disengagement") as "loss of national respect", "cave-in", "battle-fatigue", "cut&run". L-F-P has convinced the Arabs/Palestinians that they can get away with murder.

4. Post-WW2 L-F-P forced belligerent Germany to cede land to its intended victim-nations, which then agreed to conclude peace with Germany, thus bolstering moderate Germans. Forcing an intended-victim (Israel) to concede land to aggressors (Arabs/Palestinians), rewards extremists and fuels violence. Forcing L-F-P upon Czechoslovakia set the stage for WW2. A logical, moral, strategic application of the rarely-employed L-F-P formula would force the Arabs to cede land to Israel, which would then reciprocate with peace.

5. L-F-P falsely assumes that the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict is TERRITORIAL in nature, while the Arab/Palestinian war on the Jewish State has been EXISTENTIAL. L-F-P has ignored the annihilationist nature of official/mainstream anti-Israel (K-12) education, clergy and media in the PA and Arab countries, which is the most authentic reflection of ideology and long-term goals.

6. L-F-P falsely assumes that Arab/Palestinian terrorism is driven by deprivation/despair, while the post-1993 terrorism has been driven by HOPE for a Jewish collapse. It was ignited when Israel gave hope to the PLO, snatching Palestinian terrorists from oblivion in terrorist camps in Iraq, Yemen, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria and Tunisia, providing them with land and guns, tolerating hate-education and the manufacturing and smuggling of explosives and weaponry.

7. L-F-P is based on a FALSE PARITY: Full territorial concession by Israel in return for full peace. Would that mean that when the Palestinians -- once again -- violate agreements, Israel would be allowed to retrieve territory?

8. The 1922 L-F-P (ceding to the Hashemites 77% of the Balfour Declaration Jewish Homeland) produced exacerbated anti-Jewish terrorism. The 1947 L-F-P UN Partition Plan (chopping 20% from the designated Jewish State) triggered the 1948/9 War. The 1949 L-F-P (Israeli withdrawal from parts of Sinai, Judea&Samaria and So. Lebanon) and the 1957 L-F-P (ceding the entire Sinai, 3 times larger than Israel) set the stage for the 1956 and 1967 Wars. The 1979 L-F-P (withdrawal from the whole of Sinai) yielded a peace treaty with Egypt, which still conducts official anti-Jewish/Israel hate-education, facilitates Palestinian terrorism, incites against Israel at the UN and prepares its military to overwhelm Israel. The 1993/4 L-F-P (Gaza and 40% of Judea&Samaria) has produced the world's largest terrorist base.

9. L-F-P ignores the most critical feature of nationalism: CRADLE OF HISTORY is the essence of national liberty, history, memory, experience. It is the prerequisite for national preservation, the cement which overcomes domestic frictions, superior to any national goals (peace, prosperity, etc.). Rarely would nations agree to cede land to aggressors; never would nations contemplate a giveaway of their cradle of history, lest they lose their future.

10. L-F-P calls for the establishment of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River. It would undermine vital US values and interests, constituting a lethal threat to Jordan, which has the largest Palestinian community in the world (70% of its population and 80% of Amman) and controls 75% of British Mandate Palestine. Wouldn't that amount to the establishment of a second Palestinian State at the expense of the only Jewish State?




By Steven Shamrak

It started two millenniums ago. Zionism -- the Jewish people inspiration to return to the land of the ancestors. The promises that the barren land of Palestine will be returned to Jews had been given many times, by various rulers. Unfortunately, promises to Jews are often not kept! Compromise after compromise, more and more Jewish land was given to Arabs. Desperate and politicly paralysed, by leftist ideology, Jewish leaders accepted humiliation from Europeans, Americans and United Nations. As a result, since 1946, Jordan and Syria have been occupying 82% of Jewish land. Any International acceptance of this fact does not make it right or fair!

After 56 years of independence Jews still are not able to take control of their own destiny in their own country. It is hard to imagine what would happened if Zionists leaders settled for creation of Jewish state in Tasmania or Uganda, where Jews have no historical or legal grounds at all. We must be grateful to Jabotinsky and his Russian Zionist fraction for rebuking those ridiculous ideas.

Israel has never been given a chance to consolidate her victories and establish peace. Time after time the International community robbed Jewish people of their victories over aggressive Arab states. In retrospect, it has proven to be an erroneous policy. Arabs are not enemies of Israel only. The language of power is the message they understand. And, now all Western societies are paying price for this mistake!

During the last twelve years many ridiculous plans and agreements were pronounced and even sighed. None of them are advancing the prospects of peace, only obliteration of the Jewish state. Most ludicrous ideas are still coming from self-doubting Jewish leadership. Only recently we heard of the 'Gaza Disengagement'. The plan will not bring peace but encourage more Arab terror and International presser on Israel to make more concessions. It will destroy whatever residue of Jewish national unity remains!

Now, the Israeli Attorney General recommends that the government seriously consider adopting the Fourth Geneva Convention. The US lead coalition has free hands in fighting 'insurgents' and supporting them population in Iraq and Afghanistan, existing countries. At the same time, Palestine had never existed and Arab Palestinians are supporting terrorism. The International status of territories is not changed. They are still 'Disputed Territories', only because Arabs made illegitimate claims. Why impose double standards on Israel? Why should Israel treat Arab terrorists differently?

When will this stupidity of Israel's political system stop? Those Israeli politicians and public officials who do not believe in the Jewish state on Jewish land should put their personal ambitions aside and leave the office. Let others do the job!




by Gerald A. Honigman

National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, spoke at the U.S. Institute of Peace on August 19, 2004. Some of what she said was morally indefensible...real politik at its worst.

Thirty million Kurds, living in adjacent territories now designated as parts of other peoples' lands, remain stateless. This was not supposed to be.

With the break up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I, the Kurds--native to the region for thousands of years (Guti, Kardu, Kassites, Hurrians, Medes, etc.)--were promised independence in the Mandate of Mesopotamia. They were sacrificed, however, on the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism after Britain received a favorable decision on the Mosul Question from the League of Nations in 1925. Arab Iraq emerged instead with the oil-rich Kurdish region encompassing Mosul and Kirkuk attached to it.

Its navy having recently switched from coal to oil, the British Empire decided it was against its best interests to allow the separation of the Kurdish lands from what their oil-rich Arab friends claimed to be purely Arab patrimony. A similar problem was brewing in the Mandate of Palestine; indeed, Arabs would later claim that they would view the birth of Kurdistan as another Israel.

So, in an era in which other peoples were gaining national rights, the Kurds were told they were unworthy of such aspirations. Dr. Rice told them the very same thing not long ago. So, on this issue, there is no disagreement between the Oval Office and Foggy Bottom.

Sandwiched between two regional powerhouses, Ataturk's Turkey and Reza Shah Pahlavi's Iran, the only real option left was independence in at least part of Mesopotamia. Denied this, frustrations caused by suppression, massacres, subjugation, and such led to periodic, explosive Kurdish revolts.

Among other things, Kurds found their very language and culture outlawed in Turkey and Iraq--with similar goings on in Syria and elsewhere as well. Besides the Jews, if ever a people needed the protection of their own nation state simply for their own survival, certainly it was/is the Kurds.

Regardless, while Dr. Rice was delivering her words of wisdom regarding the necessity of creating a 22nd or 23rd state for Arabs in the region (second--not first--Arab one within the original 1920 borders Mandatory Palestine) at the Institute of Peace, she totally shot down questions relating to Kurdish fears, anxieties, and aspirations in Iraq. Here's some of what she had to say about those Arab aspirations, however:

"The President believes that the Palestinian people deserve not merely their own state, but a just and democratic state that serves their interests and fulfills their decent aspirations."

Despite the bloodshed and turmoil in the Arab areas of Iraq; despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been killed by Iraqi and other Arabs over the decades; despite the fact that the Kurds have been marked as traitors because of their close ties to America; despite the fact that the most stable and democratic areas in Iraq are in the Kurdish areas...indeed, despite all of this and more, Dr. Rice brushed off a question regarding a Kurdish referendum on independence (which showed that at least 80% of the Kurds wanted this) with the following disdain:

"...It's the role of leadership to convince people that they really ought to stay in the same body."

A sickening disgrace.

While all nations have to consider "reasons of State," America is strong enough to truly be a shining light and beacon of hope more often than not. And I say this not out of naivete.

Did Condy advise Yugoslavia to remain intact while Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Albanians, Macedonians, and others were doing a number on each other?

Unless my memory fails me, not that long ago, the United States hastened the process of the dissolution of that nation by taking sides in a conflict that has been going on ever since Stephan Dushan of Serbia tried to stop the Turks centuries ago...the first Battle of Kosovo in 1389. The war was not as clear cut as, for public relations purposes, America made it out to be. Many a jihadist from the Middle East joined the fight for the further Islamization of the Balkans. Yet Condy brought the issue of Bosnia and such up at the August 19th presentation.

This is not to say that all those diverse folks should have been forced to live as one. The glue that held them together--however reluctantly--was Marshall Tito. When he died in 1980, Yugoslavia's fate was predictable.

But, if America went to war to help bring about this dissolution process in Yugoslavia--allegedly because of the atrocities and ethnic cleansing occurring among different ethnic groups who were doing a number on each other (though we unfairly singled out the Serbs)--then how is it possible to look at Mesopotamia/Iraq and not see that a similar situation exists there? Besides the age-old animosity between the Arabs themselves, Shi'a and Sunni, the Kurds and others--Chaldean Christians, Jews, etc.--have been in an even more precarious situation because of an earlier forced union born of British petroleum interests. Most of Iraq's Jews, by the way, have fled to Israel, where they now number in the hundreds of thousands. And many got there with help from the Kurds.

The excuse offered that granting Kurds independence in the Kurdish areas of Iraq won't work because it will be too destabilizing in the area-- i.e. it will tick off the Turks and Arabs--is pure hypocrisy.

True, one fifth of Turkey is Kurdish...but one fifth of Israel is Arab.

Thirty eight Israels can fit into Turkey, and Turkey's population is eleven times that of Israel's. But this doesn't stop Dr. Rice, the State Department, and others from demanding that a miniscule, 9-mile wide Israel allow yet another rejectionist Arab state, dedicated to its destruction, to be created in its own very backyard. And Israel has consented to this...fool that it is...but, in all fairness, not that it has much of a choice in the matter given that its best friend insists that this must occur.

"Justice," after all, demands that Arabs have two dozen states and Kurds none...don't you know?

Regardless of America's best intentions--and we were right in going into Iraq to remove Adolph, er Saddam--the Kurds will be in for serious trouble when we leave, as we will do so sooner or later. Decades of previous history and Arab subjugating, murderous actions and attitudes forecast this. And with more Arabs--dominant Shi'a as well as Sunni--speaking out against the American occupation, the future is indeed frightening for those who supported America the most...the Kurds. Arab spokesmen have already let this be known.

At the beginning of the American war for the liberation of Iraq (or for oil, depending on how you look at all of this), there was talk about the creation of a federal system whereby the rights of the various ethnic groups would have some semblance of security. Those days are gone. The majority Shi'a, rid of Saddam and their Sunni masters, now have "other" plans. Assuming that the "moderates" emerge on top when the dust settles--which is by no means a given--this still changes little regarding the Kurds. And we may quite possibly wind up with the Islamic Republic of Iraq--like its Iranian neighbor to the east.

Think how the course of history could have been changed had Israel been reborn prior to World War II.

Must additional hundreds of thousands--or more--Kurds be gassed and slaughtered in other ways yet again?

Long before Saddam, the supporters of Arab nationalism had won over those of a multi-ethnic Iraqi nationalism in the country. Nothing has changed, except that the forced Arabization process has become even more intensified. Furthermore, America is well aware of this.

No one says that there will not be risks associated with doing, at long last, what is right for thirty million much abused, stateless people. The Foggy Folks and such don't seem to worry too much about the risks tiny Israel will be forced to take so that Arabs can get yet another state. But the birth of Kurdistan is long overdue. And it can occur in such a way that its own future is tied to not allowing some of those fears--by the Turks, in particular, regarding their own Kurdish population--to become reality. Indeed, Turkey may lose some of its own "headaches" by allowing them to move to the new Kurdish diaspora Armenians moving to Armenia, Jews to Israel, Greeks to Greece, and so forth. Additionally, a formula can be worked out to share the vast oil wealth of Iraqi Kurdistan with others as well...Shi'a and Sunni Arab Iraq, but Ankara also. The latter has felt that it was robbed of the Mosul fields by the Brits in the 1925 decision by the League of Nations. The Turkmen of Iraq need their rights protected as well, but unlike the Kurdish situation, there are already a number of independent Turkish lands. Turks are not stateless.

Again, despite America's best intentions, given the fact that an autonomous Kurdistan within a united, federal Iraq is apparently no longer a real option, America must think long and hard about very possibly becoming an accomplice to to a future, even more tragic fate for its consistently loyal friends, the Kurds. We betrayed them several times already over the past century. We must do better this time.




By Daniel Pipes

The Middle East is undergoing ethnic cleansing -- again. Does anybody care?

"What are the Muslims doing?" asked Brother Louis, a deacon at the Our Lady of Salvation, an Assyrian Catholic church in Baghdad minutes after it had been bombed. "Does this mean that they want us [Christians] out?"

Well, yes, it does. Our Lady of Salvation was just one of five churches attacked in a series of coordinated explosions in Baghdad and Mosul on Aug. 1, a Sunday, between 6 and 7 o'clock in the evening. In total, these car bombings killed 11 persons and injured 55. In addition, the police defused another two bombs.

The timing of the assault guaranteed a maximum number of casualties. August 1 is a holy day for some Iraqi Christian denominations and because Sunday is an ordinary workday in mostly Muslim Iraq, Sunday services take place in the evening.

The five bombings were by no means the first attacks targeting Iraq's Christian minority since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Others, according to the Barnabas Fund (an organization assisting persecuted Christian minorities), were bunched together at the end of 2003 and included a missile attack on a convent in Mosul; bombs placed (but defused) in two Christian schools in Baghdad and Mosul; a bomb explosion at a Baghdad church on Christmas Eve; and a bomb placed (but defused) at a monastery in Mosul.

In addition, Islamists have attacked the predominantly Christian owners of liquor, music, and fashion stores, as well as beauty salons, wanting them to close down their businesses. Christian women are threatened unless they cover their heads in the Islamic fashion. Random Christians have been assassinated.

These assaults have prompted Iraqi Christians, one of the oldest Christian bodies in the world, to leave their country in record numbers. An Iraqi deacon observed some months ago that "On a recent night the church had to spend more time on filling out baptismal forms needed for leaving the country than they did on the [worship] service. ... Our community is being decimated." Iraq's minister for displacement and migration, Pascale Icho Warda, estimates that 40,000 Christians left Iraq in the two weeks following the Aug. 1 bombings.

Whereas Christians make up just 3 percent of the country's population, their proportion of the refugee flow into Syria is estimated anywhere between 20 and 95 percent. Looking at the larger picture, one estimate finds that about 40 percent of the community has left since 1987, when the census found 1.4 million Iraqi Christians.

Although Muslim leaders uniformly condemned the attacks (Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani termed them "criminal actions," while the interim Iraqi government bravely declared that "This blow is going to unite Iraqis"), they almost certainly mark a milestone in the decline and possible disappearance of Iraqi Christianity.

This seems all the more likely because Christians, due mainly to Islamist persecution and lower birth rates, are disappearing from the Middle East as a whole.

At present rates, the Middle East's 11 million Christians will in a decade or two have lost their cultural vitality and political significance.

It bears noting that Christians are recapitulating the Jewish exodus of a few decades earlier. Jews in the Middle East numbered about a million in 1948 and today total (outside Israel) a mere 60,000.

In combination, these ethnic cleansings of two ancient religious minorities mark the end of an era. The multiplicity of Middle Eastern life, most memorably celebrated in Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet (1957-60), is being reduced to the flat monotony of a single religion and a handful of approved languages. The entire region, not just the affected minorities, is impoverished by this narrowing.



The Jerusalem Post - August 19, 2004


By Caroline Glick

The drumbeat of anti-Semitic and anti-American incitement marches on in the Egyptian government-controlled press. In recent weeks, the media in Egypt has come out with a series of articles that, like the long and continuous stream of their poisonous predecessors, dehumanize Jews, and criminalize both Israel and the United States.

In one recent piece in the ruling National Democratic Party's newspaper Al-Liwaa Al-Islami, Dr. Rif'at Sayyed Ahmad wrote a dirge of Holocaust denial entitled "The lie about the burning of the Jews." Like most Holocaust denials, this one argues that the Jews made up the Holocaust in order to blackmail the world into giving the Jews a state where they proceeded to carry out a "holocaust" against the Arabs.

In another article, in the government's religious magazine Aqidati, columnist Hussam Wahba penned a long blood libel against the Jews in which he argued repeatedly that the Talmud demands that Jews murder non-Jews wherever they are to be found. And, of course, that Jews murder non-Jews in ritual killings to make Passover matzot.

Less graphically, two Egyptian government magazines, Al-Ahram Al-Arabi Weekly and Al-Ahram Weekly published articles claiming that US concern about the genocide being carried out in the Darfur region of Sudan is really just a ruse for Washington to gain control over the Sudanese oil fields.

Unfortunately, if it weren't for the Middle East Media Research Institute's painstaking translations of these articles, there would be almost no way for us to know about the Egyptian government's continuous campaign to hammer deep and enduring hatred of the Jews, Israel, and the US into the hearts and minds of the Egyptian people.

The Israeli government rarely bats an eyelash in response to these expressions by Hosni Mubarak's media. It certainly doesn't link Israel's willingness to treat Egypt with deference to the cessation of this Nazi-like dehumanization of the Jewish people. And it doesn't seem to consider that the deep and abiding hatred for all things Jewish that is so studiously inculcated into the Egyptian consciousness may have policy implications for the stability of the cold war that exists between our two countries.

To the contrary, as Egyptians ingest their daily diet of venom, Israeli generals are vigorously engaging their Egyptian counterparts in discussions on the role that the Egyptian military will play in a post-Israeli withdrawal Gaza.

Earlier this month a high-ranking delegation of Egyptian generals, led by Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman, was treated to televised embraces by Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and his underlings at the Defense Ministry. Next month, our generals are scheduled to fly to Cairo for a reciprocal visit. The aim of these friendly parleys is to work out the Egyptian role in Gaza after an IDF withdrawal.

Egypt's engagement of Israel is part of its two-pronged strategy for Gaza. At the same time that it discusses altering the 1979 treaty with Israel in a manner that will allow the Egyptian military to deploy up to 15,000 troops along the border with Israel, and perhaps in Gaza itself, it is holding discussions with the PA, Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad to put together a plan for what Gaza will look like after these terrorists take full control of the area.

Both Egyptian and Israeli sources involved in the bilateral security talks have informed the press that Egypt has laid down four conditions for its support for Sharon's unilateral Israeli retreat from Gaza. These conditions involve (1) the transfer of control over the 10-kilometer-long Gaza-Egypt border to Egypt; (2) full Palestinian control over the Rafah border terminal with Egypt, the PA airport in Dahaniya, and the Gaza seaport; (3) the reopening of the "safe passage" route connecting Gaza and Judea to enable uninhibited Palestinian travel through Israel; and (4) an Israeli commitment not to reoccupy or attack the Gaza Strip after an IDF withdrawal.

These demands, breathtaking in their effrontery, would endanger the national security of Israel. Yet Mofaz did not cancel the talks, indeed the government continues to behave as if the Egyptians are being helpful.

Maj. General (res.) Doron Almog, who commanded the Southern Command from 2000-03 authored an article in the current issue of The Middle East Quarterly entitled "Tunnel Vision in Gaza." Almog argues that transferring control over the Gaza-Egypt border, or the so-called Philidelphi corridor to the Egyptian military, would be disastrous not merely to the stability of Gaza, which he claims is liable to quickly deteriorate into a "mini-Afghanistan" as a result. The move, he writes, could well destabilize the entire region by encouraging Egypt to abrogate the peace treaty.

Almog writes that Egyptian "[t]olerance for smuggling and infiltration, like anti-Israel demonstrations in Cairo and incitement in the media, appears to be designed to relieve some of the pressure exerted by anti-Israel public opinion in Egypt." Taking his analysis a step further, the Egyptian government encourages anti-Semitism and enables terrorism against Israel in order to promote domestic stability in Egypt itself.

As Almog notes, Egypt "is an authoritarian and inefficient state that has failed to meet even minimal goals of political and economic reform." If they didn't have Israel to hate, the frustration of Egyptians with the failure of their government to enable their national advancement and promote civil liberties would turn on the regime itself. So regime stability is dependent on anti-Semitism and support for Palestinian terrorism.

Given this state of affairs, Almog argues that Israel must not provide Egypt with a role in Gaza after the withdrawal. Rather, he concludes that Israel must retain total control of the international crossing points and border zones in Gaza even though doing so will provide the Palestinians with a rhetorical basis for claiming that Israel has not withdrawn. Like Hizbullah with the Sha'ba Farms, the Palestinians will use Israeli control of the borders to justify further terrorism emanating from Gaza itself.

Almog's view of Egypt is strengthened by the Egyptian-brokered deal between the PA, Fatah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad for the post-IDF withdrawal period in Gaza. Reports of the deal vary but they all boil down to a few common elements. Hamas, Fatah, and Islamic Jihad will not be dismantled. Rather, they will either continue to operate autonomously but in a coordinated manner with the PA militias, or they will join the Palestinian army in Gaza that Cairo is set to train. Terrorism against Israel will not cease, but its focal point will likely move to Judea and Samaria to provoke further Israeli retreats.

Several reports this week have claimed that Marwan Barghouti, the head of Fatah in Judea and Samaria who is now serving six consecutive life sentences in Israeli prison for six separate murder convictions of Israeli citizens, has played a large role in organizing the Egyptian-sponsored agreement. Yediot Aharonot reported this week that Barghouti, who is in solitary confinement, was able to conduct these negotiations with Hamas and Islamic Jihad leaders in Damascus and Beirut through meetings he has held in recent weeks with 48 different attorneys.

According to Ofer Lefler, the spokesman for Israel Prisons Service, prison authorities have no legal ability to prevent Barghouti from holding such meetings. But this is a willful misreading of the law. According to the Prisons Service Regulation 29(B), "if suspicion arises that a meeting between a prisoner and his lawyer will enable the commission of a crime that endangers the well-being or security of another person or the security of or well-being of the public or national security, the head of the Prisons Service or the prison warden may order the prevention or interruption of such a meeting." Barghoutis's actions are motivated by clear goals. He wishes to strengthen his own position and he wishes to continue to coordinate cooperation between Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas in the conduct of the war against Israel as he has been doing since the planning stages for the war in the summer of 2000.

Egypt's two-pronged strategy of engaging Israel and the terrorists in separate negotiations is also clear. Egypt wishes through its coordination of the various terror factions to promote relative stability in Gaza among Palestinian terrorist groups to prevent Palestinian refugees from moving into the Sinai.

At the same time, it wishes to provide a framework for cooperation to ensure that all terrorist factions remain directed against Israel and only Israel to prevent destabilization of Egypt and promote destabilization of Israel.

Finally, Egypt seeks to enhance its position in the Arab world by extending its support for global jihad from the diplomatic sphere to direct sponsorship of terror against Israel even as it wins plaudits for its "constructive role" from both Israel and the US.

While the impetus driving Egypt and Barghouti in their moves to turn Gaza into a "mini-Afghanistan" are clear, Israel's policies on the issue are incoherent yet familiar. In planning for the retreat from Gaza today, as with the Oslo accords 11 years ago and Israel's view of Egyptian intentions at the Suez Canal in 1973, Israel's strategic planners are seized by wishful thinking about the intentions of our enemies as we voluntarily abandon the means to defend ourselves. Those earlier strategic misconceptions based on fantasies caused us thousands of otherwise preventable deaths. We can only hope that our leaders and strategists will get wise to reality this time, before we are forced to pay yet another unthinkable price for their willful blindness to reality.