Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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













THE SOLDIER OF PROMISE.......... Jay Shapiro

FIRST STRIKE.....Mordechai Sones



THE NEW HISTORY.....Eliakim Haetzni




At Home, Abroad, Latest Twists In "peace process" Defy Reality....Eugene Narrett, PhD


CAMERA Alert.......Edward Said, The Liar as a Personification of Arabs

A GOOD CAREER MOVE .... Daniel Pipes

Yearning For The Slavemaster, Whiplash And Brownboots....Poetry....Evelyn Hayes


Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES, P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661,


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

(c) 1998 Bernard J. Shapiro

The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely on

private contributions which are fully tax deductible.






Freeman Center List Name: freemanlist

Owners E-mail Address:

To Subscribe: Please send a message to:

Message: SUBSCRIBE freemanlist

To Unsubscribe: Please send a message to:

Message: UNSUBSCRIBE freemanlist




By Bernard J. Shapiro

As an agreement nears completion, we have been asked by numerous sources to explain in a simple manner the true nature of the new Wye Agreement negotiated by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Broken into its essential ingredients this is what has been agreed to:

Palestinian Tactical/Political/Strategic Benefits

1. Increased land area for terrorist safe havens

2. Increased ease of access from terrorist safe havens to potential Jews to murder

3. Vastly increased vulnerability of Jewish communities to terrorist attack

4. Freedom from prison of a large number of veteran well-trained terrorists, who will be able to train a whole new generation of murderers of Jews [To protect Israeli's Barak is demanding that they sign a paper saying that they will not kill any more Jews. This Israeli form of mental masturbation could also be used to empty the overcrowded prisons in America]

5. A safe passage for terrorists to move from Gaza to Judea and Samaria

6. A port for Palestinian terrorists to bring in heavy military weapons for the future wars with Israel

7. An opportunity to sow discord among the Israelis

8. International recognition/aid/ and thanks from Europe and America for agreeing to accept these benefits

American Tactical/Political/Strategic Benefits

1. Increased influence in the Arab world for a few minutes

2. The State Department, which never supported the establishment of Israel in 1948, will finally get to "stick it to those pesky Jews."

European Tactical/Political/Strategic Benefits

1. They will get to "stick it to those pesky Jews" for the second time this century

Israeli Tactical/Political/Strategic Benefits

1. Post-Zionist Israelis will finally succeed in destroying their evil state

2. Shimon Peres will be able to push his grand idea of a very large boat to carry the Israelis on the seas. Land, as he says, is longer necessary...

3. As Israel self-destructs, suicide-prone individuals will be considered "prophetic" and great leaders.

Such a deal....Oy Veh........




By Boris Shusteff

After the grisly murder on August 30 of Sharon Shteinmetz and Yechiel Finfiter, even before the murderer was captured, Commander Alik Ron who heads the northern district of the Israeli police said "when local Arabs in the popular tourist area saw the two hikers from the Haifa region, the decision was made to kill them, [since] the male victim wore a kippa and it was easy to discern he was Jewish." (1)

When he was apprehended, the 20-year old Israeli Arab who committed the murders confirmed Ron's prediction explaining that "on the day of the attack, [he] did not feel well and left his home deciding to kill Jews." (2)

No, this is not 1942. No this is not the time of Bogdan Khmelnitzky in the Ukraine. No, the Jews are not in Nazi concentration camps or in a Nazi-supervised ghetto. It is much worse. Just try to comprehend this: the Jews are murdered for being Jews in the Jewish state! The Jews are stabbed, shot, and bombed by the Jew-haters in a country that is supposed to be a safe-haven for them. The Jews are maimed and wounded by anti-Semites in the country with the strongest military in the Middle East.

Is it possible that the Israeli leaders do not see the Arabs' anti-Jewish rage? No, they definitely see it. They know, for instance, that the life of the Jews of Hebron is in danger. Otherwise, why would Minister of Industry and Trade Ran Cohen threaten to uproot the Hebron Jewish community "should its representatives not agree to reinforce school buses and vans with bullet-proof glass"? He said that he does not "want to be responsible for people who are willing to offer their children as sacrifices."

But this approach is absolutely wrong. If we follow Cohen's logic Israel should use the 1.3 billion dollars of American aid intended for "advancement of the peace" to reinforce cars, buses, and windows in Jewish houses all over the country with bullet-proof glass, since the Jew-haters are operate throughout Israel.

Or perhaps all the Israelis should follow the advice of the military commanders for the northern area residents and start spending time in bomb-shelters and safe rooms? Then, when the Arab terrorists switch from bullets to bombs the Israelis will be relatively safe. Although rabbi Raanan was murdered in his home, while preparing to go to bed. So apparently the Jews are not safe in their homes, either.

It appears that Ehud Barak has found an absolutely unorthodox way to fight Arab animosity towards the Jews. The Israeli government has decided to free 350 imprisoned Arab terrorists and rely on their word that they will not target the Jews anymore.

Do not get the wrong idea. Some murderers of the Jews, for now, will remain in prison. Only the ones who have not spilled enough Jewish blood will be rewarded. Apparently it does not matter that they wanted to kill the Jews - as long as their victims are still alive, they can be freed.

It seems that the Israeli leaders do not understand that Arab Jew-hatred did not start in 1948 when the Jewish state was reestablished, nor in 1892 when the term Zionism was first used publicly in Vienna. The roots of this enmity can be followed to the very roots of Islam, during the time of the Prophet Muhammad.

Yossef Bodansky, in his recently published book, "Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument" enumerates countless examples of the Arabs' virulent anti-Jewishness and anti-Judaism. He writes that "the Qurannic depiction of the Jews and Jewish issues stresses that the main power struggles and fights the Prophet Muhammad had to endure before Islam consolidated its prominence and power, were against Jews."

If one reads Adil Salahi's book "Muhammad, Man and Prophet, a Complete Study of the Life of the Prophet of Islam," one easily notices that the Jews were the group of people especially mercilessly persecuted by the Muslims. If one were to go through the book and simply compare the numbers of Jews murdered and massacred by the Muslims with the numbers of victims among other groups with whom the Prophet fought, one would be shocked. During the battle of Badr the whole Quraish army (a former tribe of Muhammad's) lost 70 soldiers and during the famous conquest of Mecca the Quraish lost 20 soldiers and "the Prophet was keen not to shed a drop of blood." At the same time the only episode of a massacre that is described in the book is one during which the Muslims murdered from 600 to 700 Jews from the Quraitahah tribe.

Salahi's book is full of cases of "Jewish treachery." The Jews are depicted as "hardened enemies" who are geared towards "exterminating Muslims altogether." It is not surprising, then, that the Prophet dislikes the Jews. One episode deserves special attention. When Abdullah ibn Ubbai, one of the chiefs of Medinah, was close to death the Prophet visited him. Salahi writes "The Prophet realized that Abdullah ibn Ubbai was dying and said to him: 'I have told you not to love the Jews.'" So even if the dying man must not love the Jews, what must we expect from living Arab anti-Semites?

The Arab world is incurably infested with the virus of anti-Jewishness. Anis Mansour, editor of "October" and one of Anwar Sadat's closest advisers and friends put it simply: "The hatred of Jews is a spiritual national necessity for Arabs." (3)

This is why when the Jordanian authorities started a manhunt for senior Hamas officials, the Izzadin el-Kassim (the military wing of Hamas) issued a statement declaring "We will not hesitate to create torrents of Jewish blood in the streets of Jerusalem, Haifa, Beersheba and Tel Aviv if any of our leaders and our political and military figureheads are touched."(4)

This is why, on August 8, in the Egyptian newspaper Ahbar El-yum, which has a circulation of more than 700,000, an article appeared saying that the white supremacist Buford Furrow Jr. "has a goal: to annihilate the Jewish race in the U.S.'' The author of the article then added, "I ask God to assist him in his efforts to attain this goal. Let us all join together saying, 'May it be God's will.'" (5)

This is why in July,1998 Gazi Abu Mazer, a Palestinian Arab on trial in New York for plotting to blow up a Brooklyn subway stressed that his goal was "to kill as many, as much Jews as I could take." Therefore, it does not matter at all where the killer of Sharon and Yechiel comes from. What is important here is the group to which he belongs. And he belongs to the Arab people who, as Anis Mansour said, "cultivated hatred of the Jews." (3)

How is it possible that the Jews have forgotten what happens when this hatred is left unanswered? How is it possible that they have not learned the lesson of the Holocaust? Today the Arabs repeat verbatim the accusations against the Jews that Hitler and his followers used in their anti-Semitic propaganda. Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other similar anti-Semitic "literature" that was circulated in Nazi Germany has flooded the book markets in the Arab world. Everyone who wants to learn from history and still has common sense should understand what awaits the Jews next.

However, Israel still has time to prevent the disaster. Although it actions will be condemned by the UN and the world community, the Jewish state must use its formidable military power and instill such fear in the Arabs that they will not even dream of thinking about inflicting any harm on Israel.

The Palestinian Arabs cannot continue killing Jews while asserting their rights to equality. If they do not want to live as a minority in the Jewish state this does not give them the right to strive with all their might for its destruction. The enemy cannot be allowed to turn his anti-Jewish design into a reality. "No moral teacher has ever asserted, 'If one stands with a knife threatening to kill you, bare your heart for him to murder you.' There is no moral justification for self-destruction." (6). [09/04/99]


1. Israel Wire news service, 9/1/99

2. Israel Wire news service, 9/2/99

3. Yossef Bodansky, "Islamic Anti-Semitism as a Political Instrument."

4. AFP news service, 9/1/99

5. Reiters news service 8/20/99

6. Abraham Joshua Heschel, "Israel, an Echo of Eternity."


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




by Emanuel A. Winston

Prior to the death of King Hussein of Jordan, I published 4 articles which forecast a Palestinian Revolution in Jordan triggered by Yassir Arafat. I believed that sometime after the death of the King, Arafat would opt for a chance to have a full state by taking over Jordan plus whatever he could squeeze out of Israel. (1)

A recent report by Steve Rodan further convinces me that Arafat will be forced to advance that time table as follows: Rodan reports that King Hussein's son, Abdullah - the new young King, is merely nothing more that a boy trying to occupy a throne far too big for him in "The New Middle East" of wily dictators. The pro-Syrian Jordanian advisor, Abdul Karim Kabariti, who persuaded King Abdullah to keep Prince Hassan (King Hussein's brother) out of power was now directing the boy King into the hands of Assad of Syria. Prince Hassan was pro-Western, deeply experienced in Jordanian foreign affairs and regarded Israel as a valuable asset in keeping Syria from again attempting to absorb Jordan (as Assad had tried in 1970). Kabariti is steering King Abdullah toward relying upon Syria as a counter-balance to the dominant Palestinian population of Jordan (approximately 70%+).

King Abdullah visited Syria in May and signed agreements for the release of Jordanian prisoners in Syrian jails and for the supply of 8 million cubic meters of water during the summer months - 2 very powerful bribes for favoring Syria over Israel and the West. The price is full coordination with Syria and asking Syrian permission for anything regarding Israel. Syria has insisted on a downgrading of Jordan's defense relations with Israel. In addition to these Syrian contacts, Jordan's accent these days is on building links with the Palestinian authority. (2) This puts Jordan between dilemmas. If Abdullah drifts over to Syria, it will be absorbed - just as was Lebanon. If it distances itself from Israel, it will lose the protector who has kept it out of Syrian control.

Israel could not allow a Syrian-controlled Jordan on her longest border. Meanwhile, Arafat and his Palestinians - who want Jordan as a full state of their own - will be pushed to start their own coup/revolution earlier as they see Syria moving to control Jordan through King Abdullah. Arafat knows that once the Syrians have control, there is no way for them to defeat the Syrian military. Unlike Israel, who they discovered could easily be pushed around, the Syrians would like nothing better than to massacre the Palestinian population and be rid of that problem for all time. Of all the factions in the Middle East, the Palestinians are the most astute and aggressively motivated to seek power and hegemony.

Therefore, shortly after the Palestinians, with Clinton's assistance, force Israel to give up her defensive high ground, they will start implementing a coup de stat against the boy King Abdullah.

Israel, under Ehud Barak and a pacifistic government will be busy trying to keep the peace along her now porous borders as the local Palestinians and Israeli Arabs raise hell inside of Israel and on her borders. While Israel dithers under her confused Leftist government, Jordan will be forced into a full civil war. Syria will find this an irresistible opportunity to move its troops into Jordan to "assist" the boy King Abdullah. Of course, they will occupy as much of Jordan as they can during the confusion.

Israel, having been neutered by Clinton, the American State Department and CIA will not know what to do and, when they finally get their act together, will find that Syria is already deeply entrenched. Now, in order to get Syria out of Jordan, Israel will have to sacrifice thousands of Israelis soldiers but, even then, there is no guarantee they will succeed.

As always, look to the Americans, Europeans, and Russians to step in and stop any successful Israeli advances, in effect, giving Syria exactly what she wants - namely, a stand in place cease-fire line which gives Syria whatever ground she has conquered to that point.

As for the Israelis, theirs will be a diminishing role as their critical land mass shrinks to a tinier dot on the map, only staying alive if the UN decides to protect the remnant with their troops. No doubt, there will be hearings and trials within Israel to punish those leaders who failed the nation, a re-run of the failures and trials of the Yom Kippur War. Regrettably, those hearings and trials, as before, will mostly be the 'ole boys' protection club' where the guilty are either overlooked or given a symbolic slap on the wrist. Some will be forced to resign their political posts, only to be reinstated later in some other patronage job. This would, of course, cover both the political and military leaders.

Having given up defensive positions to the Palestinians, not only will the losses be horrendous in taking back those positions, the delay in getting men and armor to the Heights overlooking the Jordan Valley to meet the Syrian advance, will result in even greater casualties. The rage that the people will feel against their politicians and the pacifists appointed as military officers by previous Leftist governments will be incalculable. These officials who risked the safety of the nation on their speculative visions of peace and their operational cooperation with Yassir Arafat and Hafez al Assad will be seen by the people as the ultimate betrayers of the nation's security. After they bury their dead and deal with their grief, I believe that their only thought will be vengeance against those who so frivolously sold their children to the enemy on a dream.

Because there will a be such a massive loss of lives (has v'sholom), I fear that many citizens will take the law into their own hands and begin a personal hunt for those who caused the deaths of family members. But, as in Kosovo, vengeance will rule and the occupying soldiers will not be able to stop the retribution killings. The Leftists will try to leave the country but there will likely be a re-play of World War II, where the nations of the free world closed their borders to escaping Jews. Even in America and Europe the spread of revenge killings will likely continue for years until the memories fade as they did in Europe after the Great War (World War I).

The reader must understand that the scenario I have just laid out is (hopefully) merely speculative. Nothing herein is stated as a recommendation. As in previous articles where dire events are forecast, they are intended to encourage discussion and pro-active forward planning.


1. "Fall of Jordan" Part I: August 21, 1998; Part 2: January 1, 1999; Part

2. "Jordan's Weak King Worries U.S., Israel" by Steve Rodan Mid East News

Line JEWISH PRESS July 30, 1999

3: February 5, 1999; Part 4: February 13, 1999


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




A Voice from Hebron - September 3, 1999

Wye Do We Continue To Negotiate With Terror?

By Gary M. Cooperberg

Two beautiful young Jewish lives were snuffed out like candles in the darkness last Sunday. What was the terrible crime that cost 25 year-old Yechiel Finfiter and 21 year-old Sharon Shteinmetz their lives?

If one is given to pessimism, now is a good time to quit. Jews are being shot at and murdered while the Israeli government is negotiating with the murderers! Bargains are being made concerning how many Arab terrorist prisoners will be set free, and how much Jewish land will be turned over to Arafat.

How did we ever get into this mess? Would any of us have imagined, even ten years ago, that it would be official Israeli government policy to sit down with the likes of Arafat and his PLO to negotiate the terms of our self-destruction? That last phrase, by the way, was originally coined and asked by former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, of blessed memory, who accurately described the absurdity of such negotiations.

The deeper we become entangled in this web of deception, the weaker our arguments seem to be. Futile attempts are made to logically explain why it is wrong to "honor" Oslo and Wye. There is no logical reason why either of these agreements ever saw the light of day, yet we seem to treat them as some kind of mandatory obligation to honor a commitment to destroy ourselves. It is not within the context of such agreements that we will find a solution. We will only begin to rescue ourselves from pending doom when we openly declare that the entire so called "peace"process is a fraud. Not merely should it be entirely abandoned, but we must undo the tragic mistakes we have made.

First and foremost, let it be said, loud and clear, and over and over again, Arafat and his PLO are terrorists. They are not a legitimate political entity, nor is there a legitimate nation called "palestine". The government of Israel violated its most basic obligation to its constituents when it first entered into negotiations with these murderers. It is comparable to the government of the United States having entered into negotiations with Jack the Ripper, offering to make him ruler of his own country within the continental United States and giving him weapons and having his fellow murderers be given recognition as policemen, being armed and trained as well. It is an unthinkable concept, yet it has happened here in Israel.

There is no other alternative than to recognize this blunder and undo it. Any other attempt to find a solution will result in tragedy. Every day that "negotiations" continue we are guilty of perpetuating this perfidious hoax

The real tragedy is the fact that nearly everyone involved knows that the entire process is one of self-deception. I am not sure about Peres, but certainly Rabin, Netanyahu and Barak never seriously felt that Arafat has been magically transformed into an angel. The deceitful process of Oslo has taken on a life of its own and has incredibly dragged along those who are responsible for running our country upon a path of self-destruction which has seen them abandon their most basic survival instinct.

It is as if our leadership has fallen into a deep sleep. Should they be nudged by an annoying murder or attempted murder, they just roll over and continue sleeping. It is the obligation of every one of us who is still awake to try to splash cold water on our leaders. We must repeat, again and again, the fact that there is no peace process. When you negotiate with terrorists you only encourage more terror. Unless we destroy those who seek our destruction, they will continue to seek our destruction. There is no concession imaginable that will make the terrorist love us, other then our agreement to commit mass suicide. And, in fact, that is exactly where these negotiations are leading.

It is not the freeing of terrorists that should be of primary concern. It is the self-delusion that the King of Terror is the Prince of Peace which is the bubble we must work to burst. As we approach the climax of the Biblical process of Zionist redemption, Jew and Gentile alike have an obligation to consider the ramifications of what is happening in Israel today. The fact is that it affects all of Mankind. Zionism is not a political movement. It is a Biblical process which will continue unto completion because it is the Will of G-d. To treat Israel as just another country is to abandon Mankind's only hope for redemption. Holiness may be accepted or denied, but it may never be negotiated.

Let the government of Israel at long last recognize that it has an awesome responsibility, not only to the People of Israel, but to all the nations of the world. Peace is not a commodity that can be purchased by denying Divine obligations. It will only come as a result of fulfilling those obligations even when it seems difficult or even impossible to do so. As it is written in this week's parsha, Deuteronomy XXXI 6: "Be steadfast and be strong; do no fear them or be frightened of them, for it is your G-d who goes with you. He will not abandon you or forsake you."




By Emanuel A. Winston

After the 1993 staged spectacle of Oslo signed in the Rose Garden, 300 Jews were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Then at the surrendering of Hebron, Bibi thought he would receive the applause of the nations for daring to give away this most Holy City (second only to Jerusalem) where the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the Jewish people are laid to rest. More Jews were killed after Bibi surrendered 80% of Hebron but, nevertheless, Clinton-Arafat immediately demanded more land. Then there was Wye, where the arrogant Bibi was warned he would be ambushed by the corrupt Clinton and Madame Albright.

Each signing was a loser and now comes the staged signing of the next withdrawal agreement with Albright and Hosni Mubarak in Cairo, Egypt. Only a defeated Jewish leader would go back to Egypt as a debased supplicant, having once been released by Moses in ancient times. Regrettably, neither 40 years in the desert - nor several thousand years in exile have erased the slave inside the Jew. As Moses led us out of Egypt, Barak leads us back in.

Yes, I know. Barak is holding out to keep 50 Arab prisoners with blood on their hands. This is the choreographed, phony gift back to the Jewish people, hoping they will ignore the 450 terrorists that he will free to once again prey upon the Jewish people. When will the Jews learn that most of their leaders have no spine, no belief in their own people; no belief in Judaism and G-d's promises and are perfectly willing to match Arafat lie for lie to the Jewish people?

Did you really believe that all of this was recently negotiated? Know this...Clinton and Albright have been pounding on Barak to carry out the Wye Agreement for months. This was to be his partial pay-back for their assist in getting him elected, including financial assistance and Clinton's election gurus led by James Carville. Albright was to have arrived in Egypt with theatrical elegance for a photo op and a well-publicized signing ceremony. She was to have brought back to Clinton the "bacon" or Barak's hide nailed firmly to another one-sided surrender agreement.

The news media was fed the arranged day-to-day struggle, showing Barak and Arafat nose to nose, fighting for the best deal. Barak knew his role and that was to show he put up a fierce struggle right to the very end. The problem, dear reader, is that the script had been written long ago, with Clinton, Albright, Barak and Arafat signing off. Yes...Barak is scheduled to take a dive but not until the last round. There will be a vast vomiting out of media hype, where the American news will sing Hosannas over Clinton's triumph (which Clinton hopes will erase his egregious corruption of the Presidency) and the Leftist media in Israel will also meet the challenge by telling the people: " Peace has finally come" - guaranteed by Arafat and, of course, Clinton.

Dear Jews: How long will you be such abysmal suckers? How long will you believe everything you are told - if the phrase "Peace Process" is tacked on? Did we really lose all of our sechel (smarts) in the death camps of Europe.

I wonder how long the cheers will stay in our mouths when Arafat asks for and receives half of Jerusalem and several million hostile Palestinians come into Israel under their new "law of return". I suppose if you have no pride in your Jewishness; if you do not value the land of Israel as G-d's promise to the Jewish people, then it will pass to Arabs who do have pride in being Moslems and who seem to want the land more than the Jews.

A People with no pride or self-esteem will be treated with contempt and pursued like game in a hunt. You may plead for mercy, but receive none. You will beg for peace, to be left alone, but your adversaries will be encouraged to chase you harder. Only the strong and the brave will win respect from our enemies - but you have shown them you are not that!

As for those of you who refuse to grovel before an unrelenting enemy: Kol HaKovod - All honor to you! So, now all we have to do is wait for the Triumphal March of as in the opera Aida, appropriately set in Egypt. You will know it is all over when the fat lady sings!


Emanuel A. Winston is a MidEast Analyst & Commentator and research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of August 24, 1999


By Evelyn Gordon

Could anyone believe that blowing up buses or planes full of innocent people is justified in name of a "national interest?"

With another mass release of Arab terrorists growing increasingly likely as a "good-will" gesture to the Palestinians, right-wing circles have once again raised the demand that in the name of "balance," Jews who murdered Arabs be released as well. Justice Minister Yossi Beilin has rightly concluded that acceding to this demand would be a grave error - but for all the wrong reasons.

Beilin's reasoning, in fact, is even more detrimental to the cause of justice than the demand he is opposing, as it would actually justify the commission of additional murders. But ironically, it also provides the best possible illustration of why the Arab prisoner release he does favor creates a travesty of justice.

The correct reason for opposing a release of Jewish murderers alongside Arab ones is simple: Any decent society ought to favor having as few murderers on its streets as possible. The more murderers of any nationality are released, the worse off the rest of us will be. If the government does decide on an unjustifiable release of Arab killers, the situation will not made any better by an unjustifiable release of Jewish killers as well.

But Beilin was not content to leave it at that. Instead, he tried to draw a distinction between Arab and Jewish murderers: The former were justified - or at least condonable - while the latter were not."There is no connection between Palestinian security prisoners, who acted in the service of organizations which have [since] signed an agreement with us, and Jews who were sent by no one, who did not act on behalf of any Israeli national interest and who acted on their own to kill Arabs," Beilin declared last Wednesday.

There are two egregious flaws in this argument. The first is the implication that murdering at the behest of an organization is somehow more justifiable than murdering on one's own initiative. One would have thought that the "I was just following orders" excuse had been laid to rest for all time by the Nuremberg trials following World War II. To see it being revived by an Israeli justice minister, of all people, is little short of tragic.

The second flaw is the implication that any act, no matter how foul, is acceptable as long as it was committed in the name of a "national interest." This, too, is a blatant contradiction of the lesson of Nuremberg: That some actions are simply crimes against humanity, no matter what the perpetrator's motive.

Does Beilin truly believe that blowing up buses full of schoolchildren or planes full of innocent tourists is justified in name of any "national interest?" IF the monstrosity of this assertion is too difficult for Beilin to grasp, perhaps he should try a universal application of this principle. For instance, one must certainly find the Serbs' ethnic cleansing in Kosovo unexceptionable by this standard. They, too, were sent by their leaders in the service of a declared national interest: restoring the greater Serbia that had been lost in the fourteenth century. American southerners who enslaved blacks must also be acquitted under this standard: They were serving the national interest of building up their weak young country's economy.

Indeed, there is virtually no horror that could not be justified under this standard - including, incidentally, the actions of those Jewish murderers whom Beilin so despises. They, too, will claim that they were acting in the national interest: trying to rid the country of hostile Arabs, or trying to ensure Israeli control over the historic Jewish heartland of Judea and Samaria.

Beilin is not the only one in the current government who erroneously tries to present the release of Palestinian terrorists as a natural consequence of Israel's peace agreement with the PLO. Internal Security Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami made a similar statement last week. All peace treaties are followed by an exchange of prisoners, he said. Why should the Oslo Accords be any different?

There is only one flaw in this analogy. Ordinary prisoner-of-war exchanges cover prisoners who were shooting at the other side's soldiers. Under the rules of modern warfare, people who deliberately target civilians are considered not POWs but war criminals. They are not set free to go to home to a hero's welcome; they are tried and punished accordingly.

If the government wants to say that Israel's agreements with the PLO justify releasing Palestinians who killed Israeli soldiers, this would be understandable under the POW model. But there is no justification whatsoever for releasing those who murdered innocent civilians. Like their Jewish counterparts, whom Beilin justly favors keeping in jail, these Palestinians are nothing more than the lowest type of criminal. (c) Jerusalem Post 1999


Evelyn Gordon frequently comments on public affairs.



A Voice from Hebron -- August 19, 1999


By Gary M. Cooperberg

Logic is a strange thing. It is consistent, even when we prefer not to be. There is a lot of fuss being made these days about the likelihood of Israel releasing Arab terrorists who were convicted of murdering Jews. There can be no question but that such a concept is immoral by any standard. Yet, logically, given the present situation in Israel, it is perfectly legitimate to do so.

Yasser Arafat is, undoubtedly, a murderer of Jews. He is a leading terrorist who still plots the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. The political leaders of the Jewish State elevated this murderer to the status of statesman and man of peace. It is the biggest and best known lie of the century, yet few have the courage to admit it. When Arafat talks about the "peace of the brave", what he really means is the "peace of fools". I am sure that no one was more amazed than he when Shimon Peres suggested that Israel was prepared to help him create his PLO state on Jewish soil. Why should he not sit with Israelis and talk peace? He talks and Israel gives him land and weapons with which to destroy us. It is a nightmare come true for us, and far beyond the dreams of the low life terrorist.

The concept of "making peace" with terror has been repeated so often in the media that a great many people already consider it a legitimate concept. If the Israeli government has decided that Arafat, who has always been the veritable symbol of terrorism, is now a man of peace, then how can anyone not agree that his underlings, who are sitting in prison for obeying his commands to murder Jews, should now go free?

Before we protest the freeing of murderers we must go back and fix the axiom from the beginning. If Arafat is a legitimate leader of a legitimate people whom we accept as such, then we are saying that his acts of murder were legitimate, as was his cause. If this is really true, then we should not be conducting a peace treaty, we should simply reject our right as Jews to a Jewish homeland and hand over the entire country to Arafat and his murderers! Why can we not see the absurdity of what we have already done? We are lying to ourselves. We have a national policy to pay blackmail to murderers and call it "peace". When the blackmailer comes back for more, rather than smash him and take back all that belongs to us, we offer to "negotiate". While, "negotiations" may take a bit longer then war, history has shown that Israel can win wars, but always loses in "negotiations". Our enemies have taken a long time to discover this fact, but they are now getting pretty good at demolishing us in "negotiations" for "peace".

Any honest observer knows that Arafat does not seek peace with an Israel of any size. It is clear that all "peace" negotiations, from the Arab point of view, are designed to weaken the Jewish state to the point where she can be physically destroyed. Everyone knows this, including the government of Israel. But rather than be honest, our leaders are playing a very dangerous game which jeopardizes Jewish lives even more than a real war would. The minute we hand over the last piece of land we are willing to part with and have no choice but to tell our "peace partners" "We are sorry, but that is all we can give", that is when the war will begin. As long as we continue to give and to promise to give more, the Arabs will be patient with us.

So we are playing a waiting game which sees all the cards stacked against us. One would expect that a prime minister who is also a professional military expert would act in the best interests of his country and stop this madness immediately. There is no justification to continue upon the path of self mutilation which can only lead to self destruction. If it is clear that we will eventually go to war for our very survival, and it is clear, then why do we insist upon assisting our enemies in their efforts? If everyone can see that the day will come when we will have no choice but to say "NO", then why wait until we have nothing left to fight with? Why can we not stop and say "NO", right now?

There is only one path to peace and that is not by surrendering to an enemy who seeks your destruction. Peace will only come when the Jewish People recognizes its role in this world. G-d did not give us back our homeland in order that we parcel it out to Arafat, or anyone else for that matter. He gave it to us to prove to the world that He is in charge. We are His instrument to bring genuine peace to all of Mankind, not by violating His Will, rather by submitting to it. When we merely sit down and discuss the possibility of giving away part of our holy inheritance all we do is invite tragedy.

One does not "negotiate" with terror. The only way to deal with terror is to crush it completely and relentlessly. No one will ever turn Arafat into a saint, not even Shimon Peres. The first step to real peace will be "negotiate" with Arafat on his terms and ruthlessly destroy both him and his followers. All lands under his present control must be taken back and the PLO must be completely driven out from our homeland with no exceptions.

President Clinton might see this as the work of "enemies of peace", but, in reality, those who conduct negotiations whose only result is capitulation to the demands of murderers are the real enemies of peace, and that includes Mr. Clinton himself.

So, to my friends who rightfully reject the suggestion that murderers be released from Israeli prisons, while I agree with your cause and even support it, the real problem lies in the first part of the axiom. If Arafat has legitimate claim to any part of my country and therefore is forgiven for murdering Jews in order to take what is his, then his murderers should go free. But if he is a low life murderer who seeks the destruction of the Jewish State and the Jewish People then his henchmen should be executed, and so should Arafat. You can't have it both ways.




Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio -- Broadcast on August 12, 1999 / Elul 1, 5759


By Jay Shapiro


It is interesting that during the recent election campaign for prime minister, Ehud Barak was advertised as Israel's most decorated soldier. His record is indeed commendable. No one can question his personal bravery and sacrifice. However, this type of soldier-boy candidate packaging - a rather hoary tradition in Israel - has for some time now been dysfunctional and detrimental to the national interest.

In the First World War, the US produced a genuine hero by the name of Alvin York. York was a farmer from Tennessee who performed the remarkable feat of capturing 132 German soldiers - single-handedly. In the Second World War, America produced another genuine hero named Audie Murphy, who was awarded just about every medal the armed services had to offer. So why were Sergeant York and Audie Murphy not made candidates for the presidency? Very simple: There exists no proof that there is a direct relationship between bravery on the battlefield and the ability to govern or to make major decisions for a nation. Or the vision, if any, that the hero has for the future of the state.

Nevertheless, our present prime minister was packaged as Israel's military star. One of the campaign television advertisements that was repeated ad nauseum showed the young Barak on the wing of the Sabena airplane that was liberated from terrorists. Despite seeing these demonstrations of his bravado, I still fail to comprehend the link between his ability as a warrior and his success as prime minister. His actions thus far confirm that there is no such connection.


Part of the explanation for the soldier/politician pattern may lie in Israel's complex relationship with its army and its recent military history. This relationship has developed into a sort of twisted, love-hate syndrome that defies all logic. Alongside its embrace of a plastic "peace" and its incessant public rituals of shame over Israel's past exercise of military power, so much of the secular Left still insists on clinging to the apron strings of its most renowned field marshals.

It might be that the top army brass are perceived as the personification of the Second Aliyah, kibbutz, Ashkenazi, anti-religious, socialist elite. Or perhaps it is because in the final analysis, the self-image of the secular Left is in perfect tune with the hollow and superficial persona of Barak, Rabin, and Weizmann. These links have been exquisitely understood and exploited by the propaganda apparatus of the Labor Party, selling the treachery of the Oslo process - and who knows what vulgar variations still await us - by channeling it through the mouths of the generals.

It would seem that Barak has become to Israel what Nelson Mandela was to South Africa. Allow me to explain. When I was a child in America, the Second World War was raging. As a child, I was given to understand that all the hardships that we endured, even in America, were because of the war. The lack of toys, the lack of fuel for automobiles, the scarcity of numerous products--all these things that loom large in the eyes and the mind of a child were blamed on the war. And it was true.

But to a child, it meant that when the war was over, everything immediately would become available. I remember that on the day the war ended, when people were celebrating in the streets, I triumphantly declared to my mother that now, the very next day, we could have all the things that were lacking because of the war. I remember that my mother laughed and said that things would take time. This was difficult for a child to understand.


The same thing happened recently in South Africa. The people there, in childlike fashion and with lack of sophistication and experience, thought that upon the election of Nelson Mandela, all the things that they wanted and dreamed of would immediately materialize. I believe that one of the reasons for the breakdown in law and order in South Africa today is because of the disappointment of the people.

Closer to home, back in May, when Benyamin Netanyahu conceded defeat in the election, crowds raced into the streets to dance and cheer. The hate mongers popped open the champagne. The peace process would start again, jobs would be created, college tuition would be abolished. There was no limit to the beautiful world about to sprout from the seed planted by Barak's defeat of Netanyahu. Now, still only weeks after the new government took office, it is beginning to occur to people that nothing really has changed.

On the contrary, the stock market has declined because of fear of the new government's fiscal policies; the government is calling for huge cuts in the budget; Arafat is still shrieking for jihad. Barak, of course, is expected to make good on all his promises. He promised 300,000 new jobs, free education, and lots of other goodies. This does not sit well with the proposed budget cuts. It is finally beginning to dawn on those who were the loudest merrymakers when Netanyahu was defeated that Barak indulged in a festival of blandishments that were forgotten by him the morning after the election.

He ran on a platform of domestic reform, hardly mentioning foreign affairs. Since the election he has spent most of his time zipping around the world, preoccupied with international relations. The Labor Party and the media, thus far blinded by their hate for Netanyahu, are now sensing the new reality. Until now, the only open attacks on Barak have come from the disappointed politicians of the Labor Party. When it begins to really sink in that Barak promised much more than he can deliver, there probably will be a reaction, the form of which cannot yet be predicted.


I would like to discuss the Oslo agreement in the larger picture. Beyond the fact that Arafat and the PLO have not changed one iota since Oslo, there is an additional point to consider. All the "experts" said in unison that an agreement with the Palestinians also would lead to peace with the Arab and Muslim world. But today, seven years after we signed the Oslo accord and starting carving up our homeland and handing it over to our sworn enemies, the Prime Minister and Chief of Staff are warning us that we face an existential threat greater than anything we have faced previously. This threat comes from nonconventional weapons that can be mounted on long-range missiles and launched from distant Muslim countries, such as Iraq and Iran.

In theory, the Palestinian problem is being resolved and these remote countries have no border disputes with us or any other tangible conflicts. Then why are the Muslim countries arming to the teeth? Where did it come from all of a sudden?

Israel is also arming considerably in this so-called era of peace. After Oslo, Israel purchased F-15 fighter planes capable of carrying out long-range strategic missions. Now that peace is 15 months away, says Barak, Israel has decided to purchase another series of similar, expensive planes. And we are all aware of the development of the Arrow missile and know practically everything about the strategic options of the Dolphin submarine.

Something is very wrong with the vision of peace that has been preached to us by the likes of Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. With the advent of peace, it was predicted by the dreamers that there would no longer be a need for huge defense expenditures which come at the expense of education, immigration, neighborhoods, infrastructures, industrialization of development towns, and advancing the Arab sector. And now, in return for Oslo and Hevron and Wye, our neighbors in the "New Middle East" are preparing ballistic missiles that can carry nuclear warheads. Israel's withdrawal is boosting, not reducing, the existential threats; and the concessions and weaknesses are boosting, not reducing, the motivation to destroy Israel.


So it appears that all those who claimed that the Palestinian problem is the heart of the conflict in the Middle East were completely wrong. The heart of the conflict was and remains the very existence of a Jewish state in general, and in the Middle East in particular. Yet these developments do not have any affect whatsoever on the politicians. They would be well-advised to begin listening to the words of Arafat. He does not lie to his own people; if we choose to ignore what he is saying to them, we can only sink further into the quicksand.

One of Netanyahu's most regrettable mistakes was not drawing the line just as he came into office. He should have halted the phony peace process and required the other side to meet all the obligations of Oslo before continuing. The PLO would not have done so because they are incapable and unwilling to renounce their very raison d'etre - the destruction of Israel. Now it is Barak's turn. If he continues the phony process, he will lead us into more danger. Now is the time to stop before the price of stopping gets higher. The sooner Barak puts his foot down, the better off we will all be.


Jay Shapiro heads a consulting firm dealing with United States Government contracting. Host of a popular current events show on Arutz-7 English broadcasts, and the author of several books, he has worked extensively to promote aliyah to Eretz Yisrael.




By Mordechai Sones


To all Jews and Friends of Israel, Peace and Blessings,

In the past 2-3 weeks, the sound of marksmanship and attack training from the Arab villages surrounding outlying Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria has resumed, after a lull of several months. The gunfire is mixed with fireworks to mask the nature of the noise. This week and the end of the last, the gunshots have been heard during all hours of the day as well, when fireworks are not used.

Since releasing the report, "Understanding Arab First Strike Preparations in Yesha," a steady flow of corroborative testimony from both civilian and military channels has reached the author. Until now, Israeli officials and media have avoided publicly facing the issue of Arab first strike capability in Yesha, giving the public the impression that it is not an issue. But to the hundreds of thousands of troops of the PA militia, this is the issue for which they have been training, equipping, and organizing for the past three years.

In a country under a security threat such as Israel, it is appropriate that the public at large should be loyal to agencies such as Moetzet Yesha (the Yesha Council) in its effort to protect its constituents. This is called "unity of command" in professional military doctrine and is a time-honored principle of crisis leadership.

However, the principle of "unity of command" can be abused to suppress information needed for sound decision making. For example, before the '73 war, Israeli officials suppressed "early warning" information about the impending Arab attack. The resulting "mechdal" (breakdown) pushed Israel close to the brink of destruction.

Ending the abandonment of Yesha requires a separate political mechanism for a temporary period outside of the bureaucracy. Once the people of Yesha draw the line to articulate and adopt a new security vision, the "unity of command" can and should be restored. Some officials in the Israeli government are assuming that many Yesha residents will cut and run during the difficult months ahead. Assuming that the Jews of Yesha will not draw the line, they plan to continue trading away pieces of Israel one at a time.

The fate of us 200,000 residents of Yesha hangs in the balance. Our lives, the lives of our families, and our homes are tied up with the potential loss of Israel's historical heartland and defensible borders along the Jordan river. Thus, Israel's fate may be tied to ours.

There are many Jews in Israel and in the Diaspora, and even some of our own neighbors, who do not yet understand the importance of Yesha to Israel's military, economic, and cultural survival. But as the showdown over the peace process approaches, an opportunity to force the Jews and friends of Israel both here and in the Diaspora to confront the issue of Yesha's importance to Israel's fate will occur. It will be up to us to insure this opportunity is not lost. A political medium is needed.

Residents of Yesha have not yet been given a set of practical steps to deter or defeat a first strike attack because they have not yet had the opportunity to clearly express where they stand at this fateful juncture. Two bottlenecks have prevented a clearcut Yesha decision so far, keeping Yesha from expressing its voice:

1) The official suppression of information on the threat and official acquiescence to it has precluded Yesha residents from making an educated decision regarding their fate;

2) The lack of a formal, established political mechanism to achieve and express a consensus of Yesha residents concerning their own future.

An independent voice may be temporarily needed. One thing is clear, however. For Yesha to survive, most if not all of us will have to stand united. Is Yesha's survival truly worth the risks and difficulties involved? It is up to us to decide this, and to decide it in a way that will compel Jews and friends of Israel both here and in the Diaspora to support our choice.

Although the risks of making a public commitment to stay and defend Yesha are clear, given the preponderance of weaponry and trained fighters in the PA's hands, there are a number of practical steps which could legally be taken to greatly enhance our survivability once we have taken such a step.

It is possible that Yesha's drawing the line will help prevent Jerusalem, and later the rest of Israel, being forced into drawing the line from a much less defensible position. If we neglect to draw the line here, shall we then draw the line down the middle of downtown Jerusalem? Do we want to draw the line staring up at a Syrian-controlled Golan Heights? Do we want to draw the line as batteries of Katyusha missiles and 120mm mortars from Kalkilya and Tulkarm pound the beaches of Herzliya and Netanya?

If we defend the line that G-d has assigned us here, it may require a moment of personal risk and commitment on our part. But the later lines could involve greater risks, and possibly loss of far more Jewish lives, G-d forbid. Furthermore, they may be insufficient to save Israel itself.

So today it is up to us, the Jews of Yesha; can we draw the line - together for the undivided territorial integrity of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza? Our homes, our lives, and possibly even the lives of the people of Israel may hang in the balance. The G-d of Israel will help and protect us if we act within nature according to His Will.


Mordechai Sones
l Nachliel, Israel



Reprinted from Yedioth Ahronoth,of August 30, 1999


By Eliakim Haetzni

No American teacher would even consider teaching the Kosovo war from the viewpoint of the Serbs, but in Israel pupils are asked to understand the Palestinian side. A question for the readers who have schoolchildren: Is it conceivable that in an American school the pupils would be presented with a question such as this: "How, in your opinion, did the Serbs relate to the NATO bombings? Could they accept the concept of a 'war to end the Serbian genocide' for the Kosovo war?" I was not the one who invented such an impossible question. I borrowed it from the new ninth grade history textbook by Eyal Naveh, which received the approval of the Israeli Education Ministry: "How, in your opinion, did the Palestinian Arabs relate to the establishment of the State of Israel? Could they accept the concept of the 'War of Liberation' or the 'War of Independence' for the 1947-48 war?" In 1982 Britain and Argentina waged war with each other over the Falkland Islands. Where is the English textbook that will impart to the children of England the Argentinean viewpoint regarding the war? Naveh explained to a New York Times reporter that, until now, "we were not mature enough" to show the Palestinian side to the pupils. Are the Americans and the English also not "mature enough" to educate their children regarding the viewpoint of the opposing side in the current conflicts in which they are involved? There are exceptions, and these, so says Naveh, were before him: "Now we are capable of treating these controversial issues in the manner in which the Americans treat the Indians and the slavery of the blacks." But the blacks were kidnaped, put on ships under horrendous conditions, and sold in the United States in the slave markets. The conquerors of the "New World" did not "return to the home of their fathers." They invaded a foreign land and systematically annihilated its inhabitants. The self-image that Naveh seeks to implant in the pupil is that of the Jews as an occupying colonial power with a formidable advantage in power. The Arabs (100 million, tremendous territory, oil) we interpret as the Indians and the blacks. In short: we are Goliath. This is exactly the Arab nationalist image that regards the slaughter of 1929 and the murder of the children of Avivim and Maalot as "David's slingshot." Also on the question of the flight of the Arabs who were not expelled, Naveh does not express himself, for example, as the conclusion of a European research group from 1957:

"Already in the first months of 1948 the Arab League issued orders to seek temporary shelter in the neighboring lands, in order to afterwards return to their places in the wake of the victorious Arab armies, and to receive their share of the abandoned Jewish property." Naveh tempers this in favor of the Arabs: "Tens of thousands fled to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, in the hope that with the assistance of these states they would sometime return to their places." According to Naveh, the Jews in 1948 had "an advantage over the Arabs," among other respects, "in terms of the number of soldiers." Naveh merely omits a small detail, that we fought with Sten [submachine] guns against tanks, and with rifles against cannon. For Naveh, the terrorist organizations were not "terror organizations," but rather "political organizations" and "fighting organizations opposed to the occupation and to the State of Israel," that also "conducted acts of terror." In a radio interview Naveh explained that Trumpeldor did not fight for the homeland: this was not the homeland, because this was not within the bounds of the Mandate.... For him, Eretz Israel was something archaic. He was a "Russian romantic."

When Naveh was asked whether Eretz Israel is not the inheritance of our fathers, he responded with a question: "Who said so?" The interviewer suggested: "The Bible" (in 1936 Ben-Gurion declared to the Peel Commission: "The Bible is our mandate"). Not so for Naveh: "There are those who do not think so, who do not accept the Bible as unquestionable truth." An exercise in the book by Naveh: "Write about the Six Day war from three viewpoints: an Israeli soldier, an Egyptian POW, and a woman inhabitant of a refugee camp in Gaza that was conquered by Israel." What will be the answer of the pupils who have internalized Eyal Naveh's teachings? They will look at their parents and their teachers with alien eyes, they will regard them as conquerors, oppressors, and dispossessors, and they will relate to Eretz Israel as a land that is not theirs. If this is the generation that we will raise, all that is left to ask is: Why shouldn't we pack our bags and take our children from here, so that they will no longer be able to fight for this land as their homeland?




By Rachel Gold

Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, is ready to recognize a Palestinian state as early as next January.

And in return, the Palestinians will...?

Israel is now willing for the number of security prisoners released to go as high as 50 percent of the total number of prisoners and that it is willing to release 650 prisoners in September in two rounds, as a gesture to the Palestinians. This is in addition to the agreement to release prisoners who were accessories to the murder of Jews but did not actually commit murder.

And in return, the Palestinians will...?

Israel has agreed to allow the work on deepening the Gaza port to begin immediately.

And in return, the Palestinians will...?

Senior negotiator, Saeb Erekat said after a four-hour session with Israeli counterpart, Gilead Sher, "I have to say that these people intend to implement the agreements.''

And in return, the Palestinians will..."

For weeks we have heard what Israel will do toward working out an amicable agreement toward peace. One item not mentioned, however, is Israeli insistence on Palestinian compliance.

PM Barak, what will the Palestinians concede? What guarantees have they given for the security of Israel's citizens? Why are you ready to give away the land that Jews fought, bled, and died for...the land that you fought for, the land whose history you lived to shape?

During the 1967 Six Day War, Prime Minister Barak, you served as a reconnaissance group commander, and in the 1973 Yom Kippur War as a tank battalion commander on the southern front in Sinai. These are only two of your numerous contributions as a strategist... as a soldier, for the preservation and sustenance of Eretz. Your capability, your intuition, your discernment is equal to none.

One final question remaining: How many more concessions as the Arab shouts ITBACH-AL-YAHUD (Slaughter the Jews)? <>



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of September 5, 1999


By David Weinberg

For more than a decade, a group of self-styled Israeli "new historians" has been ruinously deconstructing some of this country's most cherished founding "myths," questioning the justness of Israeli actions back in 1948, even the legitimacy of Israel itself. Now, it seems, the roaring scholarly debate is seeping dangerously into our children's classrooms, draining into the halls of justice, and oozing corrosively into the corridors of major political decision-making.

Quietly passed over this summer with barely a murmur of dissent was the introduction of new history textbooks in our high schools that undermine the moral case for Zionism. The New York Times noticed; the Israeli press was apparently asleep. The textbooks suggest Israeli responsibility for the Palestinian refugee problem and raise questions about the assertion that Arab intransigence is responsible for the 50-year-long festering of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Did you know that we - the beleaguered Zionist minority in Palestine - had the military edge in the War of Independence against a dozen or more organized Arab forces? Yep. According to one of our new, ministry-sponsored history books "on nearly every front and in nearly every battle, the Jewish side had the advantage over the Arabs in terms of planning, organization, operation of equipment and also in the number of trained fighters who participated in the battle."

The subversive book then talks about Zionist expulsions of Arabs, and asks students to think about the Palestinian "nakba" (catastrophe), put themselves in Arab shoes, and consider how they would have felt about Zionism. I guess that Yitzhak Levy (NRP), the immediate past education minister, was sleeping, too. The scandalous project was completed mainly on his watch.

ENTER Justice Minister Yossi Beilin. Undoubtedly one of the smartest and most creative guys in Israeli politics, Beilin ambitiously has set out to rework his side of government in the "new historians" image. To begin with, Beilin froze legislation of the so- called "intifada law." The purpose of the law, supported by a large majority of Knesset members, is to preclude the filing of suits for compensatory damages against the state by Palestinians who were wounded during the intifada.

I guess that Beilin thought this law was simply, well, unfair to the Palestinians. Or perhaps he thinks that the intifada rock- and bomb-throwers were justified.Then Beilin announced that he was opposed in principle to distinguishing between plain old Arab security prisoners and Arab terrorists "with blood on their hands." In other words, Beilin favors the release of Arab prisoners convicted of murder as part of the peace process.

In the same breath, Beilin added that he strenuously objected to the release of Jews convicted of murdering Palestinians. I, personally, oppose both releases. But Beilin cerebrally explains that there is a difference. "Unlike Jewish murderers who acted on their own volition," he dithers, "Palestinian terrorists acted out of national interests."

Uh-huh. So if you're a card-carrying PLO member or Hamasnik, murder is more understandable. Because it is for a (legitimate?) cause. Sounds like post-Zionism to me. Moral obtuseness, too. Beilin now wants to revoke the Emergency Regulations, that permit the administrative detention of security prisoners; the Emergency Search Prerogative Law, which allows the police and army to search people in public places, like malls; and the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance, which allows the government to close the offices and seize the property of suspected terrorist groups.

The entire security establishment is opposed to the moves. But our justice minister is unperturbed. We don't need such "obsolete" security tools (Beilin's term). Not if peace is breaking out all over and anyway we won't be holding Palestinians "with blood on their hands" behind bars for long. As if this was Switzerland; as if the peace process isn't likely to be accompanied by terrorist threats, and as if there still aren't good reasons for potent Israeli counter-measures.

Beilin also has doubts about the pending "General Security Service law," a long-coming piece of legislation intended to codify the GSS's powers. Beilin is worried that the legislation gives "too much latitude and scope of responsibility" to the internal security agency. He is considering a ban on the GSS's use of "moderate physical pressure" in interrogations. Why? Because defending ourselves too toughly is not nice. They don't do it this way in Switzerland. Why should we be any different?

It's time to reign in the "distortiographers" and over-zealous human rights crusaders at the Justice and Education ministries. Otherwise, we'll all become ideologically-bereft Swiss neutrals, sheepish about our national rights in the Land of Israel and embarrassed by the ongoing, courageous effort to defend them.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999



Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio Broadcast on August 18, 1999 / Elul 6, 5759


By Ruth Matar


Good evening. Dear listeners, today we'll be discussing a very important subject. Israel's history books are being rewritten, and our youngsters are being brainwashed to adopt the post-Zionist orientation. These books are not ordinary books - they are textbooks, approved by Israel's Ministry of Education, and each student in the public school system must buy one of three new such textbooks, according to the decision of each school or district. The front-runner among the three books is, by far, one entitled The 20th Century, by Prof. Ayal Naveh.

Four days ago, the New York Times had a long front-page article, entitled "Israel's History Textbooks Replace Myth With Facts," explaining how the new books shed a "different light" on the Israeli-Arab conflict. Let's compare the new books with the old ones. I have a textbook published in 1984, entitled, "Not on a Silver Platter: From National Home to Sovereign State, 1939-1949" written by Yosef Ofek. He writes, "The numerical standoff [during Israel's War of Independence in 1948] was horrifyingly unbalanced. The Jewish population totaled only 650,000, while the Arab states together comprised more than 40 million people. The chances of success were doubtful, and the Jewish community had to draft every possible fighter for its defense."

OK, now let's see what the new book has to say on this topic. The book by Naveh, published this year, which many 9th graders all over the country are now buying, states as follows: "On nearly every front and in nearly every battle, the Jewish side had the advantage, in terms of planning, organization, equipment, and the number of trained fighters in each battle."


Where did Prof. Naveh get his facts to replace what he calls the old myths? After all, he was born only in 1952, four years after the War of Independence. He certainly has no first-hand information - so where did he get his facts? Naveh says that his book is "based on newly-opened state archives." When were these permitted to be opened? "In 1977," he answers - 22 years ago. In my book, that is not exactly newly-opened.

To find out what really happened during our War of Independence, we are privileged to have as our guests on our show tonight two men who were actively involved in it, and are able to give us a true picture of what really happened more than 50 years ago. First - Prof. Re'uel Shinar, a Professor of Engineering in City College in New York and presently an engineering consultant. He worked, as he put it, for the "nascent Israeli military industry, on the front and underground. I graduated before the war with a chemical engineering degree. During the war I dealt with explosives and demolitions, and we had a very difficult time with this at the time. We were very lacking in weapons all over."

Ruth Matar: "How did you feel when you read the NY Times article about the new books?"

Prof. Shinar: "I was very upset. I felt that this was such a falsification of experience that I can only compare to another similar falsification of history - I am referring to the denial of the Holocaust."

RM: "Really! That is quite a strong indictment."

Prof. Shinar: "- Because for me and most of my generation, the War of Independence was a very formative experience in our whole attitude to life. The first two weeks of the war seemed simply hopeless. The British had armed the Arabs, and they prevented us from arming ourselves. We had good preparation and good fighters, but we had very little to fight with. The fact that whole world was ready to sit by and watch, so soon after the Holocaust, how these large and well-equipped Arab armies slaughter the Jews - this was a major aspect of the formulation of my life. As an example, the Arabs had real planes and real bombs, and they could have overrun the whole country in the first two weeks. Only after a while did we receive arms from the one country who was ready to help us - Czechoslovakia. The British didn't allow us to prepare ourselves. Let me give you an example that will show you how hopeless our situation was. On the second day of the war, a Air Force officer came to me with a strange request -

RM: "I thought there was no Israel Air Force?"

Prof. Shinar: "Oh, we had a few small planes, like Piper Cubs-

RM: "You mean that small plane, the one in which JFK Jr. was just killed? But that only has one engine!"

Prof. Shinar: "Right, that's what we had in those days. The copilot would hold the bomb in his hand and throw it out the window. This was our Air Force. In any event, this officer came to me and said there weren't enough bombs. He said that they had an idea to use cases of empty beer bottles - because one of the purposes of bombs is not only to cause damage, but to cause noise so that they will be afraid, keep their heads down, and not see from where the bombs are coming. So the idea was to use these cases that would make a lot of noise when they crashed down. But, he said, there was one problem: beer-bottle cases don't shriek when they fall, as bombs do, and he asked if I could do something about it. I had had no experience in this, but I said I would try. In the end, we found some toy sirens, and we copied and enlarged them a bit, and within a day or two we had 20 of them.

I am still amazed now that the Arabs, in those first two weeks, didn't simply come into Tel Aviv and take it over. They were very incompetent, it's true, but we couldn't exactly rely on that. What this author wrote is irresponsible nonsense. He could have spoken to many people who were alive at the time, such as [former Techiyah Knesset Member] Prof. Yuval Ne'eman, who was working with the tactics team at the time."


RM: "What do you think is the motive of these people who are rewriting history?"

Prof. Shinar: "Young professors who need to make a reputation for themselves write outrageous statements so they will get their names into the papers... But this professor is not at fault - it's the fault of Education Minister Yossi Sarid, who put these books into the schools! He's misusing the schools for political purposes. Sarid has always fought for a different peace than that which Barak and Peres and Netanyahu have fought for, which is the only one acceptable to the majority of Israel. They wish to protect Israel's ability to defend itself, and not to give up. But Sarid knows that what prevents people from accepting his idea of peace is the memory of '48, so he wants to eradicate the memory. Those who were there at the time remember what happened, and he can't change that, but he can poison children in the schools and do it that way. This is a very old leftist idea, used by Hitler too, that people's idea of life is formed by history and their experience and that of their parents. Sarid wishes to change what people think by changing what they know of their history."

RM: "This is clearly a very dangerous situation. People like you, who were there, must speak up."

Prof. Shinar: "Yes, I will speak up, and contact my friends, and write...

But it is truly up to Barak: Barak knows Sarid, and knows what he's doing, and if Barak does not stop him, then he is not fit to be a Prime Minister, and his coalition must not allow him to do this.

[Ruth Matar thanked Prof. Shinar, and continued:]


Our next guest is Col. Bill Lichtman, retired U.S. Air Force pilot who volunteered in Israel in 1948. What impressed me about Col. Lichtman is that he does not portray himself in a heroic mode, but simply says that when he was approached by the Israelis to help in their desperate fight, he said that he thought long and hard about it, because he was already tired of war and he knew that his trip to Israel might be a one-way trip - but he decided to do it anyway. Many of you listeners fell in love with this crusty old warrior the last time he was on our show.

Col. Lichtman: "I would just like to make a quick comment first, if I may: I can't understand what drives these guys to try to rewrite history and compromise on the truth. Is it insecurity, Jewish self-hatred, guilt, hostility, or what? They never give a thought to what it will do to the children in the schools. OK, regarding the war itself: This guy simply doesn't know what he's talking about! We didn't have a military edge, or a military supply line. There was an arms embargo from the US. We got our arms in a very partisan manner, 'catch as catch can.' There were guys who walked around with suitcases with money, and they went wherever there were a couple of planes that they could get - Panama, Mexico, or wherever. The embargo from the U.S. was very strictly enforced. If you got caught smuggling a plane out of the U.S., you would have your passport taken away. Flying these WW2 planes to Israel from various corners of the world was very dangerous. The DC-3's that we had were usually used as cargo planes - we rigged them for war. We had bomb chuckers. An individual was roped to the bulkheads, and he would chuck the bombs out the door. Only after a while were they able to put regular bomb-releases under the wings..."

Lichtman continued to describe the difficulties that Israel faced in procuring arms and putting together a fighting army while in the midst of waging its defensive war of independence. "In short, everything this new book says is not true, and it certainly was not as easy as he writes."

RM: "Thanks for being with us, Col. Lichtman, but most of all, thanks for being with us in 1948 in our hour of need. You and the others must speak up." Col. Lichtman: "I do, and I write a lot, and I just want to say that this book is a terrible insult to myself and to my colleagues who fought at the time."

[Ruth Matar then read aloud several passages from the book written by Naveh.] One passage stated that the PLO was established after the 1967 war's conquest of the territories and their two million Palestinian inhabitants "which Israel refused to recognize as a national entity." This is of course part of the Big Lie, because the Palestine Liberation Organization was really founded in 1964 - what exactly were they trying to liberate at the time? The only "territories" at the time were the original State of Israel - and that's what the PLO was trying to liberate!

In addition, Naveh gives the students the standard left-wing empathy exercises: "Pretend you are an Egyptian soldier writing to his family from an Israeli prison," and "Pretend you are a woman refugee in a Gazan refugee camp conquered by Israel." It's very significant that in this whole empathy exercise, nowhere are the students asked to pretend to be an Israeli soldier writing home about how exalted he feels taking part in the return to our Biblical lands that G-d has promised us in our Bible. This, Naveh does not ask!


Fellow Jews in Israel and the Diaspora! This is your problem as well! 60% of Israel's students in the public school system will be indoctrinated with these post-Zionist lies - and then if they don't regurgitate these lies on their final exams and their Bagrut matriculation examinations, they will receive failing grades! School must be a place not only to learn facts, but also to be indoctrinated with a love for one's country and a spirit of Zionism! A new generation could G-d forbid arise that doesn't understand why they must defend Eretz Yisrael! Why should they, if they have been taught that it does not rightly belong to them!

This is not a small problem. The Jewish state is being destroyed from within by the brainwashing of our children. You can stop this madness by calling or faxing Prime Minister Barak and making him aware of what the Education Ministry is doing. His fax number is (972-2) 566-4838, and his phone number is (972-3) 670-5510. It is crucial that we raise our voice on this matter!


Ruth Matar is co-chairperson of the Women in Green organization, and hosts a weekly show on Arutz-7.



At Home, Abroad, Latest Twists
in the "peace process" Defy Reality

By Eugene Narrett, PhD

Having made the "peace of the grave" in the Balkans, the US foreign policy establishment fronted by Madeline Albright is in Alexandria, Egypt to squeeze Israeli Prime Minister Barak. The object of the globalists she represents is that more Israeli land in which Jews will henceforth be forbidden to live must be surrendered and further gifts of cash and infrastructure made to Arafat. The State Department also demands that Israel release 350 Arabs who are convicted murderers. The supposed result will be "peace" rather than increasing attacks on Jewish civilians culminating inevitably in war. The policy of America's Executive Branch policy continues to contrast strikingly with events in the Middle East as well as with the solicitude for Jewish Americans being professed by the Federal Government's brand new "National Infrastructure Protection Center."

The NIPC consolidates the FBI, CIA, NSC, Defense Department Intelligence and the Justice Department for surveillance of private electronic communications within America and potential seizure of all communications, transportation, health and energy production systems. Head of the NIPC, Michael Vatis justifies the new super Agency's powers in part as being "to protect the [American] Jewish community from violent activity by groups who believe that Jews are Satan's heirs." No groups were specified nor evidence of their plans presented. There was no attempt to explain how a few isolated lunatics (prompted by government agents as at "Elohim City," Arkansas) could justify turning the Federal government into an enormous and more efficient KGB. If the Executive Branch truly cared about religious violence it would sanction Egypt whose press routinely terms Jews "spawn of Satan" who murder Gentile babies to pour their blood into matzo. But one recalls that Egypt is a "peace partner" whose "friendship" Israel purchased by surrendering the Sinai peninsula. And if our Executive Branch really cared at all about Jewish life, here and in Israel it would scrutinize and correct the CIA's role in implementing the Wye Accords that surely are lethal to Israel.

On August 29, a chief of Israeli Military Intelligence told the Knesset that the technology, material and training the CIA is giving the PA is not being used against terrorists but to monitor Israeli communications and target Jews. Despite the evidence of the past 35 years, "the Americans refuse to see that Arafat and Hamas are on the same side," he said. Arabs continue to smuggle weapons and drugs via tunnels from Gaza to Egypt. "There is no assistance in monitoring or preventing the digging of these tunnels by the PA" commented an Israeli officer in Gaza. Yet this "partnership in preventing terrorism" is the rationale for Israeli concessions. In another violation the diplomats ignore, the PA has set up a Naval Commando force. Of course, if there is going to be a Palestinian state as Ms. Rodham-Clinton wishes, it will have a sovereign right to establish armed forces, but just who does the new Senate candidate think these forces will attack?

Arabs who care about Civil Rights continue to protest the violent behavior of Arafat and his "Authority" but their reports at best get lip service from America and the EU and nothing from their Arab "brothers" in adjacent lands. LAW, the Palestinian human rights organization noted that Arafat's Deputy Governor and Public Prosecutor are interfering with efforts to apprehend murderers. In response, members of LAW's staff and other Arab Human Rights leaders this summer have been assaulted, jailed without cause and threatened by Arafat's clique, like Gaza police chief, Ghazi Jibali. But this police-state brutality is not an issue for diplomats whose "process" is meant to produce crises they can manage to magnify their own power at others' expense.

Imagine being stoned or shot at every day as you drive to work. Imagine a child of yours being murdered and the government telling you to accept the assaults and release of the murderer as "a confidence building measure"? That is the medicine fed to the families of Jewish victims of Arab violence, like the young couple murdered August 31 while hiking in the Megiddo Forest. News reports would lead one to think the youth deserved it because he was wearing a yarmulke.

The city of Hebron in the Judean hills epitomizes all that is vicious about this lethal "land for peace" farce. In January 1997, President Clinton's aides pressured Israel to withdraw from 80% of the city, the dwelling place and gravesite of Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah. Numerous pledges of peace and security were given; all of them have been ignored. The main street bisecting the Jewish ghetto was just opened to Arab traffic, greatly increasing the danger to Jews living there yet Jews are forbidden to drive into the Arab section of the city. Ethnic cleansing seems to be a desired consummation when it is Jews who are to be purged form Judea. Jews who protest this bias are jailed to satisfy the Clintons who are calling in chits for helping Ehud Barak spin and buy his recent election.

The Arab mayor of Hebron has stated that once the city is fully under Arab control the tomb of the patriarchs atop Machpela hill will be closed to Jews. "It is a mosque," he says. "Jews may visit there as tourists, but not pray." It will be back to the seventh step near the base of the hill for the Children of Israel. Jews already are barred from the Hebron marketplace built over the ruins of the Abraham Our Father synagogue destroyed by the Jordanians in 1953 during their occupation of Judea. It is in the context of these events that the Clintons, barnstorming through New York say they "like the progress in the peace process during the last six years" but in truth, a quarter century of State Department pressure on Israel justified by depicting it as a bully has helped revive anti-Semitism.

Neither Arabs nor Jews will safely survive the loss of Israeli sovereignty over land west of the Jordan. But the charade plays on, pleasing dictators like Syria's Hafez Asad (in power for over thirty years) who often "consults" with Albright & Co. and awaits their forcing Israel to give him the Golan Heights. At that point, the plain of Megiddo will see more than isolated murders.


Eugene Narrett, PhD teaches writing & Literature at Boston University.



The Liar as a Personification of the Arabs

CAMERA Alert...Edward Said

Shalom CAMERA letter writers:

We wanted you to be aware of recent developments concerning Edward Said, the noted Columbia University Professor and leading anti-Israel propagandist. According to a long article in the current Commentary magazine by Israeli scholar Justus Weiner, Said's early personal history is almost entirely fabricated. Mr. Said has long portrayed his own family's story as a paradigm for the dispossession allegedly inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel.

Now it turns out that Said and his family are from Cairo, totally contradicting the very detailed claims he has long made that he was brought up in Jerusalem, that he attended St George's School there, and that he and his family were forced out of their home by the Haganah in 1947.

Following are two articles published today -- one from the New York Times, and one from the Wall Street Journal. It seems certain that pro-Said calls and letters will flood the media, so it is important to contact these outlets to reinforce the point that the lies Said has told are not just personal -- they mirror the blatantly false propaganda that has long been at the heart of the anti-Israel movement. Just as Said's family was not forced from Israel, neither were other Arabs the victims of Israeli ethnic cleansing.

Letter writers in the tri-state New York City area can also contact public television station WNET concerning the July 5th Said documentary they aired, In Search of Palestine. In the program Said actually stands in front of the home he has long claimed as his own, "remembering" his childhood there, etc. The documentary contained numerous other inventions and fabrications, both about Said's personal history, and about the larger history of the Israel-Arab conflict. In light of the recent revelations, WNET should publicly disavow the documentary and apologize to viewers for airing it.

Contact the Wall Street Journal to praise them for publishing the article below, and to underscore the larger meaning of Said's fabrications:

The Wall Street Journal
200 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10281



Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal -- August 26, 1999

Commentary: The False Prophet of Palestine

By Justus Reid Weiner

By Justus Reid Weiner, a scholar in residence at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. This article is adapted from the September issue of Commentary magazine.

Few spokesmen for the Palestinian cause in our day are as articulate, or as well-known, as Edward W. Said. The holder of an endowed chair in literature at Columbia University, president of the Modern Language Association, a prolific author of books and articles both scholarly and popular, a frequent lecturer and commentator on radio and television, a sometime diplomatic intermediary and congressional witness, Mr. Said has earned a reputation not only for polemical brilliance but for a fierce pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel zealotry. His most famous book "Orientalism," with its bold thesis that the Western study of Islam is itself a form of "colonialism," has had a profound and radicalizing influence on literary studies. A great deal of Mr. Said's moral authority derives from his personal credentials. As a living embodiment of the Palestinian cause, he has made much of his own birth, childhood, and schooling in Palestine, telling a story of idyllic beginnings and violent dispossession. Here is Mr. Said's own oft-recited outline of his early life (in Harper's, 1992): "I was born, in November 1935, in Talbiya, then a mostly new and prosperous Arab quarter of Jerusalem. By the end of 1947, just months before Talbiya fell to Jewish forces, I'd left with my family for Cairo."

And again (in the London Review of Books, 1998): "I was born in Jerusalem and spent most of my formative years there and, after 1948, when my entire family became refugees, in Egypt."This same rendering of his early years recurs many times in writings both by and about Mr. Said. It undergirds his self-definition as an archetypal exile--one who, like his people, was separated from his homeland in a sudden act of historic violence. But except for the detail of his birth, it is a tissue of falsehoods.

Here are the bare bones of the truth: Mr. Said's father, Wadie, grew up in Jerusalem but evidently emigrated in 1911 to the U.S. During World War I, Wadie reportedly served with American forces in Europe before returning to the Middle East with a U.S. passport to start what would become a successful business career. For at least nine years prior to his son's birth in 1935, Wadie Said was residing permanently in Cairo, where he and his family remained until 1962. And Jerusalem? In that city lived Wadie Said's sister and her family. To these relatives, as to other destinations throughout the Middle East, the affluent Cairo-based Saids made periodic visits. In November 1935, during one of those visits, Edward Said was born. On his birth certificate, prepared by the Ministry of Health for the British Mandate, his parents specified their permanent address as Cairo, and, indicating that they maintained no residence in Palestine, left blank the space for a local address.

As for the family residence in Talbieh (Talbiya), Mr. Said had this to say in an interview with the Jerusalem Times in March: "I feel even more depressed when I remember my beautiful old house surrounded by pine and orange trees in Al-Talbiyeh in east [he means west] Jerusalem. . . . I went there a few days ago and took several photographs." During a visit in 1992, according to Mr. Said, he was able to locate this house with the aid of a hand-drawn map and "a copy of the title deed." But if Mr. Said really had in hand a copy of the title deed, then he could not have helped noticing the absence on it of his parents' names, his siblings' names and his own name. The house in question belonged first to Mr. Said's grandfather and then to his aunt and her five children. Until 1942, it was wholly rented out to others, and thereafter one apartment in it was occupied by Mr. Said's aunt and her children (and, no doubt, occasional family visitors).

Nor is this the only way in which Mr. Said's account of an upbringing in "his" beautiful old house has proved baseless. He has spoken with characteristic vehemence about a famous later tenant. Pressing his role as victim, he has stated: "The house from which my family departed in 1948--was displaced--was also the house in which the great Jewish philosopher Martin Buber lived for a while, and Buber of course was a great apostle of coexistence between Arabs and Jews, but he didn't mind living in an Arab house whose inhabitants had been displaced."

The truth is the other way around. It was Mr. Said's aunt who evicted Buber, and not in 1948 but in 1942--the very period when the young Edward Said was supposedly residing in the house. That brings us to another element in Mr. Said's reconstruction of his Jerusalem childhood: his schooling. According to his standard version, he attended St. George's Anglican preparatory school in eastern Jerusalem. In a recent BBC documentary, Mr. Said is seen touring this school and turning the pages of an old, leather-bound student registry from his youth, where he points to the entry for one of his Jewish "friends."

Interestingly, we are not shown or told about any listing for Mr. Said himself in the St. George's student registry. And for good reason: Neither in the particular registry shown on camera nor in the school's other two registry books is there any record of his having attended this institution as he has claimed (although he might have been a temporary student on one or more of his brief visits with his Jerusalem cousins). Nor does the Jewish student he claims to recall remember Mr. Said. What about the family's departure as "refugees" from Jerusalem to Cairo? Mr. Said has repeatedly placed this event in mid-December 1947, citing the "panic" caused in Talbieh by the threat of Jewish forces. Yet, in the 51/2-month period leading up to the establishment of the state of Israel in May 1948, voluminous documents record only two incidents of intercommunal violence marring Talbieh's calm, and neither of these resulted in the permanent departure of local Arabs. The inevitable conclusion is that just as Edward Said and his immediate family were not long-term or permanent residents in Talbieh in the 1930s and '40s, so they were not resident there during the final months of the British Mandate. They cannot be considered "refugees" or "exiles" from Palestine in any meaningful sense of those two very weighty and politically charged terms.

Nor, of course, did they arrive in Cairo for the first time in late 1947. As scores of public records attest, Cairo is where the young Mr. Said grew up. There he resided with his family in luxurious apartments, attended private English schools, and played tennis at the exclusive Gezira Sporting Club as the son of one of its few Arab members until he was sent in 1951 to complete his schooling in America.

Mr. Said himself has now confirmed all this in his forthcoming memoir, "Out of Place." In this book, the man who for decades has presented himself to the world as a professional refugee, who has powerfully described the traumatic effect on himself and his family of their sudden, panicked exile from the beloved city of his birth and childhood, sharply reverses course. Jerusalem, it turns out, was not the soul and center of Mr. Said's youth; it was an occasional vacation spot. But nowhere in his new book does Mr. Said acknowledge that he is now telling a tale egregiously different from the version he has woven over three decades.

As Mr. Said would have it, his alleged 50-year exile from Palestine has been the "central metaphor" not only of his personal biography but of his very identity, driving his campaign for redress from Israel; he has repeatedly expressed interest in seeking reparations for "his" property in Jerusalem. In fact, he has no claim against Israel, and tellingly has never filed one. He does have one against Egypt, where his father's stores were first burned down by a revolutionary mob in 1952 and then nationalized by President Gamal Nasser. About these losses, however, Mr. Said has been silent. Edward Said has written that the intellectual's responsibility is "to speak the truth, as plainly, directly, and as honestly as possible." In his own case, the plain, direct and honest truth is radically at odds with the parable he has been at pains to construct over the decades. That parable, designed to augment the passions that have animated the revanchist program of so many Palestinian nationalists, is a lie.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of September 7, 1999


By Daniel Pipes

Edward Said, the famous Palestinian intellectual, it turns out, was actually raised in Egypt. So out goes his oft-repeated claim about the nasty Israelis expelling him from his "beautiful old house" in Jerusalem; he was living at the time in a luxurious apartment in Cairo.

Said had long presented his own story as a symbol of the Palestinian tragedy; learning that he found himself in Jerusalem only when visiting relatives certainly takes some of the edge off his story. Unexpected on its own, this dissimulation takes on additional meaning when it is seen as part of a pattern. Remarkably, at least two other very prominent Arabs born in Egypt, have falsely claimed to be Palestinian.

The first of them was the 1930s version of Said - a Christian Arab who mastered Western ways so well and wrote a book so influential (The Arab Awakening, 1938) that he singlehandedly changed European and American attitudes toward Arabs.His name was George Antonius and he was born in Alexandria in 1891 to a Greek Orthodox family of Lebanese origin. Like Said, he attended the most prestigious school in his home town and went off to the West for his higher education. In 1921 he settled in Jerusalem and became an administrator in the British Mandate for Palestine and, in the words of his biographer, "came to regard himself as a Palestinian" and "acquired Palestinian citizenship"

On leaving British employ in 1930, Antonius demonstrated his new loyalties by becoming informal adviser to Haj Amin al-Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem and the Palestinians' political leader. At the all-important London Conference of 1939, Antonius served as a key member of the Palestinian delegation. In short, he abandoned his Egyptian-Lebanese identity to became Palestinian. In the words of Fouad Ajami, he gave "the struggle between Arab and Jew all his loyalty."

The second Egyptian-turned-Palestinian is even better known.

On countless occasions, Yasser Arafat has regaled listeners about his Jerusalem birth and childhood. He fondly recalls his birthplace in a stone house abutting the Western Wall, then how he lived with his Uncle Sa'ud in Jerusalem. Like Said, Arafat presents himself as a victim of Zionism - someone who lost his wordly belongings and his place in the world due to Israel's coming me into existence. But in fact, as two intrepid French biographers, Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri revealed a few years, ago (in their 1997 book, Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat), "Mr. Palestine was born on the shores of the Nile."

The French researchers tell an amusing story of discovery. They went to the University of Cairo and innocently asked for the registration of one Muhammad Abd ar-Ra'uf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husayni at the School of Civil Engineering in 1956.

This, Arafat's birth name, means nothing to the Egyptian clerk, who "sits down behind a rickety wooden table, almost completely hidden by the pile of dusty files bound in black leather" and "blows off a layer of grime in a most professional way," then hands over the records. In a blue ink faded by time, the researchers find that their man, living at 24A Baron Empain Street, Heliopolis, "was born on August 4, 1929, in Cairo."With this information in hand, they dashed over to the State Registry and found Arafat's actual birth certificate, which confirms the date and place.

Arafat then lived in Cairo until the age of 28 and identified as an Egyptian. His first political affiliation was an Egyptian student organization closed to Palestinians. He fought for an Egyptian group against Israel in 1948-49 and subsequently served in the Egyptian military. He first traveled to Moscow, in 1968, on an Egyptian passport.

Arafat all his life has spoken Arabic like an Egyptian, something that has sometimes impeded his career; on first encountering him in 1967, a biographer recounts, "West Bankers did not like his Egyptian accent and ways and found them alien."

How is it that three men raised in Egypt decided at various points in the 20th century - the 1920s, 1950s, 1970s - to become Palestinians? The answer probably lies in the fact that for a politically ambitious activist, Palestinian politics has far more to offer than Egypt's. An intellectual can raise his profile much higher; where would Said be today were he advocating Egyptian causes? And a politician finds the path to power far more open; had Arafat made Egypt his life's work, he might today be a retired deputy from that country's rubber-stamp parliament.

Being Palestinian, in other words, is a good career move.


Daniel Pipes is director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum and author of 'Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.')



Yearning For The Slavemaster,
Whiplash And Brownboots

By Evelyn Hayes

Labor Day, 1999

Can it really be true

After Exodus I from Egypt and Exodus II from Babylon and Exodus III from Spain and Exodus IV from Poland and Exodus V from the holocaust of Europe that the people of the boot would create another booter??????

Weren't the Egyptians enough?

the Romans enough? the Crusaders enough? the Inquisitors enough?

the Polish enough? the SS troopers enough?

Can it really be true that they've elected even with their own army to be booted by an Egyptian trained by Hitler's protege the mufti who massacred the Jews of Hevron and Jerusalem and created pogroms among their friends, the Egyptian who invented "The Palestinian Race" and used the Big Lie to claim Jewish Palestine, an Egyptian whom even those in Arab Palestine (Jordan) would not want, an Egyptian who has messed up Lebanon and Bethlehem and is inciting in Nazareth and Acco and Megiddo, an Egyptian who cheers for Saddam Hussein?

Can they really be so insecure as they ask for security from the enemy who is blowing them up, invading their inner cities and ghetto-izing their outclaves? How can the Jews beg for slavery so hard?

Can their generals be so foolish to believe in the unbelievable and arm the PA terrorist army with more terrorists from their prisons and more guns for another army against the Jews?

Can their generals invite this army into the Jewish state, retreat fromtheir mountains, retreat as Guardians of their Jews? and let the whip lash and let their land brown and ignore their murdered and mutilated and their future?

Can they really recreate the slavemaster and give away what they created from a wasteland with their bare hands and what they inherited and welcome insecurity and hate and blood libel and pogroms and call it Peace?

When will they ever learn?

Why the bondage when they are free?