Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 16             B"H   December 2008             NUMBER 12

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

December 2008


  • FREEMAN CENTER MESSAGE TO ISRAELI VOTERS..............Bernard J. Shapiro
  • WE NEED HEROES TODAY - LET US BE LIKE MACCABEES..............Bernard J. Shapiro

  • MUMBAI IN ISRAEL..............Emanuel A. Winston

  • SAVE US FROM LIARS..............Professor Paul Eidelberg
  • ISRAEL'S SICK PRIME MINISTER..............Professor Paul Eidelberg
  • OLMERT'S CLOSING ACT..............Steven Plaut
  • THE NEXT POLITICAL WAR IN ISRAEL..............Emanuel A. Winston


  • A NEW PLAN FOR JERUSALEM'S OLD CITY..............Moshe Phillips

  • ISLAM-SPEAK..............Henry Kadoch

  • WHAT A PM NETANYAHU FACES FROM WASHINGTON..............Caroline B. Glick

  • INEQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW..............Caroline B. Glick

  • REPEATING FAILURE IN GAZA..............Caroline B. Glick


    THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
    P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
    E-Mail: ** URL:
    Copyright 2008 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




    Let Us Be Like Maccabees

    By Bernard J. Shapiro
    Freeman Center For Strategic Studies

    December 17, 2008

    The year is 70 C.E. and a young Roman legionnaire stands on a hill overlooking Jerusalem. While he watches it burn, he says to his comrades in Latin, "Judea Capta Est" (Judea is conquered).Yet like the legendary phoenix, rising from the ashes of its own destruction, Israel burst onto the world's stage 2000 years later, with the cry of a lusty infant yearning to breathe free. Five Arab armies tried to destroy that new life before it could take hold. With blood and fire, including the sacrifice of one per cent of its population (6000 of its best young people), besieged Israel secured its independence.

    Just nine short years earlier, European Jewry faced its most devastating experience, the Holocaust. In the areas under Nazi occupation, the Jewish death rate was 90%. Despite revolts in dozens of camps, and heroic resistance with the partisans of free Europe, the Jews were unorganized, unarmed and ultimately became victims. During both the Holocaust and Israel's War of Independence, the world and its leaders were indifferent, if not hostile, to the fate of the Jews.

    Jews in their own land, with their G-d, have great power, much more than the sum of arms and men. During Chanukah we should recall the legacy of the Maccabees. Remember how two "Hellenized Jews," Jason and Menelaus tried to destroy Judaism and force assimilation on the Jewish population. For generations we have taught our children about the evil Antiochus and his attempt to suppress the Jews. In reality, there were traitors among our own people who led the way for Antiochus.

    There arose in Israel an almost similar situation when Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin led a leftwing coalition that was blatantly hostile to everything Jewish. They forced Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin to go along with their nefarious schemes. They pushed through the Oslo Accords in the Knesset which surrendered the heartland of Eretz Yisrael, promised in perpetuity to Abraham and his descendants by G-d. The educational system in Israel was then revamped to eliminate the study of Jewish sources like the bible. They cultivated hatred of all things Jewish and especially religious Jews. Units of the Israel Defense Forces were recruited from the non-religious population for the sole purpose of suppressing and possibly destroying the religious villages of YESHA.

    Peres, Yossi Beilin, Avraham Burg and other extreme leftists, anxious to win favor with the Arabs, much like Jason and the Greeks, planned to give away Israel's strategic assets. Territory is not important if your new god is economics. While the Israeli government renounced anything Jewish, including Holy Sites, the Arabs sought strength and comfort in a revived Islam. Nothing portrays the difference better between the Arabs and the Jews than how each views his religion. Young Arab men, promised paradise, cry "ali Akbar" (G-d is Great), then sacrifice their lives to kill Jews in one great jihad. Jewish soldiers filed to respond to the enemy, uncertain about their open-fire instructions, demoralized by a government, which lies to them about the advent of peace.

    Unfortunately there seems to be no passion for Zionism in Israel today. It is true there are many good Zionists, both religious and secular. But where is the passion, the action. I hear a lot of excuses for non-action. I am told:

    1. The Secret Service, the police, the IDF and the courts are too strong. They will suppress any action.

    2. Building settlements is better than any other form of action.

    3. We need more Jews to come on aliya to solve the problem

    While all of the above are true, they are still excuses.

    I have heard all of the above for 16 years. In that period Israel’s political and strategic situation has declined dramatically. Its deterrence level is so low now that we are close to an existential defeat.


    1. Annex all of Eretz Yisrael from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, from the Golan to Gaza.

    2. Return all JNF land to the Jewish people and allow free Jewish development without government controls. The land should be sold at fair price to Jews and the money should go into a fund for national water, environmental and park development.

    3. Loyalty oath and national service for all citizens of Israel, including Arabs.

    4. Change the courts, police, secret service to be pro-Jewish instead of pro-Arab

    5. Fully take over the Temple Mount, ousting the Moslem quasi-rulers, but allowing peaceful Moslem prayer. Jewish prayer in all appropriate areas without restriction.

    6. Turn the IDF back into a feared force in the Middle East. Create a correct Jewish ethics that protects Jewish soldiers even when terrorists operate in civilian areas. As this applies to Gaza, the Hamas terrorist state should be subject to massive artillery fire and aerial bombardment followed by invasion to totally annihilate the terrorist infrastructure.



    1. Demonstrations -- the larger the better. Demonstrations will not in and of themselves bring down a government. Good media coverage is essential to give the population a feeling that the tide of history is turning against the regime.

    2. Civil disobedience --
    the key to success. There is one essential requirement for destabilizing a government and that is for a determined group of people to be willing to go to jail, be beaten by police, and possibly be killed in the pursuit of their political aims. More will follow later on organizing civil disobedience.

    3. The Wrench In The Machinery Of Government

    A Physical -- roads and bridges can be blocked by slow or stalled cars.

    B. Electronic -- computer networks, telecommunications can be adversely affected [10,000 people calling government offices at the same time can paralyze the system].

    C. Psychological -- photos can be taken of police and military personnel who become involved in violent action against peaceful demonstrators. Available now are miniature video cameras that can be worn inconspicuously and send live feed to distant computers. At a time and place of your choosing their names can be revealed - you can compromise those security officers involved in non-democratic violence against demonstrators. Their names and photos can be publicized, leading to fear and a sense of insecurity.

    4. Self Defense - ONLY TO DEFEND ONE'S LIFE
    A. Armed resistence to non-democratic police and military actions is not the best course of action since the military, police and security services will always be stronger and better equipped.

    B. Open revolt against authority - Democracies are primarily based on voluntary compliance with the legal system. When that democracy ceases to govern in the best interests of its citizenry, with its security and survival, then it is lawful and justified to resist authority. This includes refusing to pay taxes, following illegal orders of the non-democratic army, traffic regulations etc.

    C. Mass demonstrations, including the right of self-defense, are meant to intimidate the police and the government. The horrible vision of civil war will restrain the government. Knowing that the Zionist/Right will not physically resist, gives the government strength to pursue suicidal policies. The policy of not striking back at the Left (as experienced during the "season") begun in the pre-state days by Menachem Begin has had the effect of emasculating the Right in its relations with the Left.


    While it is preferable to wage a non-violent campaign, there are certain lessons one can learn from the Israel Defense Forces.

    1. Most important: Do not give the enemy time to rest and re-group. The IDF always advances in one massive push to victory, never allowing the enemy a respite. The same must be true of the demonstrations against Olmert, Livni and Barak. It is a mistake to agree to a truce. This time will be used to organize special police units including female police officers to handle demonstrators. The government has already learned that reservists do not like this heartrending undemocratic task.

    2. Attack in many places at once, causing physical and psychological stress on the enemy. Demonstrators should not just take over hills in YESHA, but should take over government offices from Eilat to Metulla. Roads should be blocked all over the country. In Jerusalem, with its many government offices and a supportive religious population, you should be able to create and sustain chaos.


    Half measures will not work. Either we want to bring down this government or we don't. You can not be both meat and milk. It was the IDF's failure to destroy the intifada that led to much of our trouble. Remember the principle of vaccinations: a tiny doze of the disease that allows the body to build its immune system. Half-measures allow the Olmert, Livni and Barak tyranny to develop a resistance to the demonstrations. We must take the momentum and build continuously to the day of victory. The decision is ours.

    Let us be Maccabees again. Let us go into battle with the Maccabee cry, "All who are with G-d, follow me!" With the words: "Who is like untoThee O G-d (the acronym of which spells out he word Maccabee in Hebrew) inscribed on their flags, the G-d inspired Jewish army swept the much larger enemy from the field in a great victory. It is this victory for which we celebrate Chanukah and not just the miracle of the oil burning eight days.

    There is a simple but crucial lesson for us all in the above events. If we as Jews turn our backs on our religion and our G-d, we can expect disaster. The current government of Israel has brought down the wrath of G-d on the Israeli people for turning its back on our heritage. Like Judah Maccabee, angered by the treason of Jason and Menelaus, and outraged by Antiochus, we must revolt against Olmert, Livni and Barak.. The nationalist opposition in Israel must unite behind one Zionist banner. They must fill the streets and jails with protesters. City after city must be shut down.

    Victory will not fall into our lap. It must be fought for and won. We must demonstrate that the strength of our will and the power of our belief can not be defeated. Don't just believe in miracles. BE THE MIRACLE. Only then will victory come.


    Bernard J. Shapiro is the Chairman of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the Editor of its publications.



    by Emanuel A. Winston
    Freeman Center Mid East Analyst & Commentator

    As we watch the horror unfold, information just released indicates that the Muslim Terrorists rented rooms at the Chabad Nariman House, posing as Malaysian students. That would also entail smuggling in weapons, explosives, grenades for pre-positioning.
    No doubt, the same technique was used to infiltrate the hotels. Then they could reconnoiter best entrances and exits.

    Recall how long and difficult it was for the Indian Commandos to find the Terrorists? Many of the Police First Responders and the Commandos were killed in the ambush with interlocking fields of fire.
    So, what have we learned from this massacre?

    How many targets are now being prepared in America, England and Israel? We already know that Israel s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (resigned but still in power) has been preparing the Jewish nation with a weakness that invites a "Mumbai" type operation.
    The same is true in America and England. Each nation has a large population of Muslims dedicated to "Jihad" - holy war against "infidels" (non-Muslims). Each of the nations has acted the apologists for Islamic Terror. President George W. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the U.S. State Department has kicked the door wide open to every sleeper cell straight from the bowels of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, among other Arab Muslim nations.
    In Israel, Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and President Shimon Peres have opened the cities of Israel so Muslims of the "Jihad" can smuggle in explosives, armaments and anything else that they may need for a "Mumbai" type operation but on a much larger scale.
    In England large sections of London are too dangerous for the British Police to dare to enter. The streets are owned by hostile Muslim immigrants. The British government is intimidated, even to the point of considering the implementation of Sharia Law along with English law.

    I wonder how many buildings in America, Britain and Israel are already warehousing tonnage of explosives and other armaments which are useful to a Muslim "Jihadist" coordinated operation as in Mumbai.
    Every Intelligence organization in the West has been expecting an attack preceding a full scale uprising by Muslims, demanding that all nations adopt Islam as their religion. They understand that, even peaceful Muslims must rise to the call as commanded by Koranic law and Muhammad s Hadith.

    When the Terrorists of Mumbai appeared to be only first coming in rubber dinghies from the Port, few expected that "Jihadists" had been sent ahead to stock up weapons and prepare to receive the main force.
    What is of key importance may be that the organization of this multi-pronged attack on 10 sites indicates that there are probably many more than the 10 known Terrorists who were involved. Remember that 9 were killed and one was captured.
    Carry that thought further and you find a culture driven by religious fanaticism now spreading around the planet with vast amounts of advanced weaponry vulnerable to theft, sale for huge funds or by blackmail.
    They have no fear of dying since they believe that dying in the cause of killing "infidels" in a "Jihad" for Islam bring them immediately up to the courtyards of Allah with all the pleasures denied to them on earth - 72 virgins, rivers of honey and all that they wanted.
    The infectious plague of Islam is far greater than such biological disasters such as weaponized anthrax, small pox, ebola since Terrorists would use their biological toxins to carry on their Bio-Terror - even if it kills them and their families also.
    Mumbai was merely one contained Terror strike. All of that is presently incubating in the cities of the world. The enemy cannot be appeased or pacified because they are in it to the death - ours or theirs - it doesn t matter to them.
    How then does civilization cope with a plague that comes into our cities on two legs, camouflaged with the words of "Peace"?



    Save Us From Liars
    By Paul Eidelberg

    Judea and Samaria activist Yechiel Leiter, a possible candidate on the Likud Party list in the February elections, is promoting a plan that calls for immediate steps that will lead to the annexation of 50% of Judea and Samaria .

    Since Leiter has served as an adviser to Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, it's reasonable to assume that his proposed plan expresses Netanyahu's position.  If so, this plan corresponds to Netanyahu's policy of "reciprocity" in dealing with the Palestinian Authority.

    What is more significant, however, is that Leiter's plan -- he's religious -- may be a political consequence of Netanyahu's secular mentality, manifested in a statement he made before a joint session of the United States Congress shortly after becoming Israel's Prime Minister in May 1996.   There he baldly denied any "clash of civilizations" between Israel and her Arab-Islamic neighbors.

    This denial reflects a widespread inability in the secular democratic world to acknowledge the true nature of Islam. By the "true nature of Islam" I mean the demonstrable fact that Islam is, in the words of Bat Ye'or, a "culture of hate" -- a culture that engenders intolerance, violence, contempt for human life.  No wonder Syrian-born psychiatrist Dr. Wafa Sultan denies that Islam  is even a civilization.

    In any event, only an ignoramus or intellectual coward denies the civilizational clash between Islam and Judaism.  This denial therefore disqualifies, in principle, any Israeli who aspires to serve in the Knesset or in the Government of Israel .

    Returning to Leiter, what assumptions underlie his plan to annex 50% of Judea and Samaria ?  Are we to conclude that the Arabs would agree to this plan when all the world and even Israel 's Supreme Court have virtually declared that all of Judea and Samaria belongs to the Palestinians?

    Does Mr. Leiter regard his proposal as a "peace plan" or the first stage of a peace plan?  If so, I ask: What good is a peace plan when Israel is at war with an enemy that defines "peace" as the destruction of Israel ?

    What good is a peace plan when the maps of the Palestinian Authority omit Israel from the Middle East ?

    With all due respect to Mr. Leiter, who I know is an intelligent and honest man, I wonder if he fell and had a slight concussion before he concocted this plan. For idiots and scoundrels aside, only a person suffering from some mental disorder would believe that genuine peace is possible between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, whose leaders have educated generations of Arab children to hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers.

    Mr. Leiter aside, for he may not be in his right mind -- perhaps only serving as Netanyahu's trial balloon -- what Israel needs is not a peace plan but a war plan.  But a war plan requires a general -- and not any general, but a warrior general, a virtually extinct species in Israel .

    Israeli generals have become humanists and play actors.  They seem to be more concerned about impressing the media than about killing enemy soldiers. This is called non-heroic warfare.  Israeli generals religiously adhere to the Jewish concept of pikuach nefesh, saving human life.  But they seem to have enlarged the meaning of this concept. 

    In obedience to the political echelon, they have extended pikuach nefesh to Israel 's enemies by avoiding "collateral damage."  This is the pathological consequence of worshipping in Alice 's wonderland of "peace."

    The Prophet Jeremiah warned us of those who cry "Peace, peace, when there is no peace."  He did not call them "doves"; he called them "liars."



     [Freeman Center Note: Turnabout is fairplay. Perhaps Jews, Christians, Hindus and other suporters of Israel should boycott all products and travel to Britain.]


    Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism 

    No. 76, 1 January 2009 / 5 Teveth 5769


    Trade Union and Other Boycotts of Israel
    in Great Britain and Ireland

    By Ronnie Fraser


    The United Kingdom more than any other country in the world has embraced the Palestinian call for academic, trade union, media, medical, architectural, and cultural boycotts of Israel.[1] The current status and history of the academic boycott have been well documented,[2] and this essay focuses on the other British boycott calls as well as Irish boycott activity. The driving force for the campaign is Britain's trade union movement and its anti-Zionist activists on the far Left, such as the Socialist Workers Party (SWP).

    None of the boycott campaigns have yet succeeded in gaining mainstream support. Yet, in terms of international policy for trade unions or professional bodies, these campaigns have created an atmosphere in which Israelis-whether they are academics, trade unionists, or professionals such as doctors or architects-can easily be shunned, with possible negative implications for trade, cooperation, research funding, and invitations to conferences. This has also affected Jewish and non-Jewish union members who are opposed to boycotts by creating an atmosphere of discrimination against Jews and Israelis. That atmosphere has been most pronounced in the academic boycott campaign of the University and College Union (UCU), which has resulted in many members resigning from the UCU.[3] 

    The Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC) in Britain has understood this and in recent years has employed a fulltime trade union organizer to forge links with the unions and publicize their cause. As a result, many of the resolutions passed at union annual conferences use similar wording and rhetoric. The far Left and their partners in the PSC are not concerned that a boycott may not be effective, but seek the publicity value of yet another union decision to boycott Israel. Their campaign, which depends on media coverage, aims at continually telling the world to boycott Israel and that Israel is a racist apartheid state so that eventually people will believe this. The PSC is part of the worldwide boycott, sanctions, and divestment movement, which is not concerned with reasoned criticism or debate on Israeli policy but, rather, with the state's delegitimization.


    As a consequence of their links with the PSC, many of the unions have direct contact with their Palestinian counterparts. Far fewer, however, have any real contact with the Israeli trade union movement, the Histadrut. This survey concentrates on groups supporting an Israeli boycott as well as union resolutions to boycott Israeli goods or services. It does not deal with the many trade union motions passed since 2002 that solely address Israeli actions toward the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, the settlements, the security barrier, Palestinian refugees, or the right of return.  


    The Trade Union Movement

    The British trade union movement, which is the oldest and most respected in the world, has a long historical tradition of providing solidarity with any cause in the world where a trade union or working people find themselves under threat. The boycott movement has won much support in Britain because the British unions are more organized than in the United States or Western Europe and they allow the activists, many of them left-wing, to decide their policies. Other reasons include the linkage of Israel with Britain's colonial empire, guilt over the Balfour Declaration, and Britain's longtime support for the Arab nations of the Middle East.

    The Left's support for the Palestinian independence movement began during the 1960s and was complete by the time of the First Lebanon War in 1982. This in turn has led to outspoken criticism of Israel by the trade union movement, which sometimes has crossed the line into anti-Semitism. Many left-wing union members who support a boycott of Israel deny the existence of anti-Semitism from the Left or the Middle East, believing instead that anti-Semitism only exists on the Right. They also reject many of the recommendations of the UK's All-Party Parliamentary Committee Inquiry into Anti-Semitism.[4]

    In 1982, nearly thirty-five years of often unquestioned British trade union support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine and for the Histadrut came to an end when the Trades Union Congress (TUC), the umbrella body for Britain's trade unions, passed its first-ever resolution critical of Israel, which also recognized the Palestinian people's right to self-determination.[5] This was the turning point for the UK trade union movement; subsequently most of the unions have given their support to the Palestinian people rather than Israel. Since the 1980s many unions have sent delegations to the "occupied" territories and have passed resolutions highly critical of Israeli actions there. Yet at the same time there has only been limited criticism of Palestinian actions.

    The unions' current willingness to pass boycott resolutions contrasts with the TUC's attitude in 1982. At that time the Transport and General Workers Union (TGWU) proposed a boycott of Israeli aircraft and shipping until all Israeli forces were withdrawn from Lebanon. The TUC decided not to support the call because, though it had occasionally supported international boycotts in pursuit of trade union and overseas objectives, it had never done so for a political purpose.[6]


    The British Labour Party

    The British Labour Party was established in 1900 as the political wing of the trade union movement in order to protect workers' rights through political action. In return the unions supported Labour financially and were able to control its policies for the next seventy years through the block voting system at the party's conferences. The unions' power and influence within Labour was eventually curbed by Tony Blair, who moved the party away from its socialist roots and into the political Center. This change in status, along with the unions' current inability to successfully look after their members' interests, led the unions as well as some left-wing activists to look elsewhere for issues where they could make a difference. The two issues where they have focused their energies are globalization and the Middle East conflict.

    Although the trade unions no longer have the sort of political clout and influence they had in the 1940s and 1950s, they are still important in today's Britain because they represent 6.5 million workers and are involved internationally in bodies such as Education International or the International Trade Union Confederation. The work of groups like the Trade Union Friends of Israel (TUFI) is vital because they publicize the activity of the Histadrut as well as Palestinian-Israeli union cooperation, which often involves UK unions.[7] 

    The PSC campaigns for a general boycott of Israeli goods as well as a cultural and sports boycott of Israel.[8] All the major UK trade unions are affiliated with the PSC and are members of the PSC's Trade Union Advisory Committee. Affiliating with the PSC does not commit the unions to unquestioned support for all PSC policies as some unions favor a two-state solution, but they are all committed to some extent to promoting PSC policies and literature.[9] Most of the trade unions and their leadership, however, do not want their unions to suffer similar problems to those of the UCU, which faces possible legal action over possible infringement of UK discrimination legislation by its academic boycott campaign.[10]

    Instead they have gone out of their way not to pass boycott motions as such but instead affiliate to the PSC and promote PSC policies that include boycott and divestment. This is effectively a backdoor endorsement of the boycott strategy. Many senior union officials are aware of this arrangement, which allows them to work with the Histadrut and the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions (PGFTU) while at the same time supporting the PSC.[11] The 2008 motion on Palestine by the clerical union TSSA is typical of this trend toward boycotts as it calls on the TUC to organize a boycott of Israeli goods.[12]


    The PGFTU has welcomed the support and solidarity shown by British trade unions and asked that activity such as boycott campaigning should focus on the occupation and the sustaining of the occupation. The PGFTU has specifically suggested focusing on the arms trade and on those companies that have been involved in building the security barrier, the checkpoints, and the "settler-only" roads, and that this could be coupled with boycotting Israeli goods produced in the West Bank.[13]

    However, according to TUFI, the Histadrut and the PGFTU are involved in many mutually supportive activities. The Histadrut's 2007 annual congress included an official PGFTU delegation that affirmed its commitment to maintain and extend constructive relations with the Histadrut. They also declared their wish to cooperate in campaigns to improve the economic and social wellbeing of both Israeli and Palestinian working people.[14]


    Trade Union Activity

    The TUC, which is the umbrella body for the British trade union movement, has in recent years pursued a policy of working with both the Histadrut and the PGFTU while at the same time encouraging unions to affiliate with the PSC.[15] Since 2002 many UK unions have been highly critical of Israeli policies, but before 2007 with the exception of the academic unions they rarely called for direct action or anything other than a general boycott of Israel. In 2007, however, the journalists union (NUJ), the transport workers union (TGWU),[16] and Unison, Britain's largest union, all passed boycott resolutions.

    The NUJ voted at its annual meeting in April 2007 for a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a protest against the 2006 war in Lebanon.[17] Three months after the initial vote and under pressure from many journalists including several at the BBC, the NUJ Executive Council committed the union to continuing to work with Israeli journalists unions and stated it would take no action on the boycott motion.[18] The motion was formally overturned by an overwhelming majority at the NUJ's 2008 conference.[19]


    Unison Ignores Fresh Calls for a Boycott

    Unison supports and funds trade union projects in many parts of the world.  Along with the lecturers union NATFHE, Unison has supported the Palestinian trade union movement and the PGFTU since the 1980s. Its current work includes the training of Palestinian trade union officials and the development of an education pack designed for UK trade union members that explains why Palestine is a trade union issue. This work has the full support of Unison's leadership and is led by them rather than by the activists as in other unions. As a consequence Unison does not have a boycott policy; they acknowledge that they neither have the power to enforce a boycott nor the ability to adopt one especially as a boycott would be divisive among their membership. They do, however, support a two-state solution and generally follow PGFTU advice.[20]

    Since 2002 Unison has adopted a series of resolutions at its annual conferences that have included calls for an arms embargo on Israel, for Israel to withdraw to its 1949 borders while allowing the 1948 refugees to return, for the demolition of the security barrier, and for the removal of all West Bank settlements. Their 2007 motion states that "ending the occupation demands concerted and sustained pressure upon Israel including an economic, cultural, academic and sporting boycott."[21] Shortly thereafter Unison's general secretary wrote to the Histadrut to say the motion was not really a boycott motion and hopefully they could continue to work together in the future.[22]

    At its next conference in 2008, Unison adopted a composite motion supported by 65 percent of the delegates that did not include a boycott call but instead instructed their leadership to continue working with both the PGFTU and the Histadrut to promote civil society, dialogue, and the peace process. The resolution also called on the union to give the PSC maximum publicity and support and raise the issue of Palestine with unions abroad and the global and European trade union federations to which Unison is affiliated.[23]

    The UK transport unions including Unison are aware of and support the work of the International Transport Workers' Federation (ITF), which in June 2007 hosted a number of meetings between the Histadrut and the PGFTU that have improved the passage of lorry drivers at West Bank checkpoints and roadblocks.[24]


    RMT Abandons Boycott Policy, GMB Adopts Balanced Resolution

    The realization that boycotts do not help the Palestinians has been reflected in the actions of both the Rail and Maritime Transport Union (RMT) and the GMB, the general workers union.

    At its 2008 annual general meeting, the RMT voted by a two-thirds majority for a two-state, prosolidarity, antiboycott, anti-Hamas position on Israel/Palestine, overturning existing proboycott policy. The motion rejected "passive and divisive tactics such as boycotts," which it called "inconsistent with the principles of unity and solidarity between workers that our union stands for and wishes to promote."   

    The GMB does not have a policy on boycotts, never having voted on the issue. In 2008 the GMB's annual congress passed a motion calling on the union to actively campaign to relieve the "desperate suffering" in the Gaza Strip as well as demanding that the "ruling leadership of Hamas act decisively to prevent further Qassam rocket and mortar attacks being launched from within Gaza against civilians targets within Israel."[25] 


    The Scottish TUC

    The Scottish TUC (STUC) has since 2001 been very critical of Israeli actions toward the Palestinians and in 2002 called for a temporary boycott of Israeli goods and services until Israel complied with UN resolutions.[26] As a result of the call made at the 2007 conference to explore the issue of boycott, disinvestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, the STUC General Council has begun a process to consider the implications and practicalities of such a move. A motion calling for a boycott of Israeli goods was remitted at the 2008 conference because the General Council argued that, as there had been no clear call for a boycott by the PGFTU, the STUC needed to investigate the situation further and continue working with its Palestinian and Israeli counterparts. In addition, it is currently organizing a delegation to Israel and the Palestinian territories.[27]   


    Boycott Calls in Ireland

    Irish attitudes toward Israel are not straightforward.

    In Irish politics sympathies are very much with the Palestinians.... Yet Irish politicians are pragmatic. Many believe that Israel has much to offer their country in the economic field and thus think Ireland should not burn its bridges with it. Moreover, Irish politicians would not be willing to break ranks with the EU and adopt a tougher position on Israel than its European partners.[28]  

    The Irish gave the English language the word boycott when in 1880 the Irish Land League successfully called on the Irish farmers to ostracize Captain Charles Boycott, an English land agent. Since that time boycotts have been used as a strategy to try and force change, and the British trade union movement was one of the main supporters of the boycott movement against South Africa in the 1980s.


    In Ireland as in Britain, the most prominent supporters of the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) are the academics and the trade union movement. The similarity does not end there; many of the activists in both the Republic and Northern Ireland are on the far Left with several involved with both the unions and the IPSC. The call to boycott Israel has been endorsed by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ITUC); IMPACT, the largest public-sector union in the Republic of Ireland; and the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA), the largest public-sector union in Northern Ireland. 

    At its 2007 annual conference, NIPSA unanimously passed five motions on Palestine. These claimed it was "outrageous that the Palestinian people should be forced to recognize as legitimate" an Israeli state that had defied numerous UN resolutions, and that Israeli policies were akin to those of apartheid South Africa. NIPSA also called for divestment from Israeli companies and a boycott of Israeli goods and services. Its counterpart in the Republic, IMPACT, passed two similar motions at its 2008 biennial conference. 

    The Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) is a unique organization in the British Isles as it is the umbrella body for fifty-five trade unions in both the Republic and Northern Ireland. At its 2005 biennial conference, the ICTU committed itself to "campaign in solidarity with the Palestinian people."[29] The next biennial conference, in 2007, approved two motions proposed by the Belfast Trades Council and by the Derry Trades Council that were highly critical of Israeli actions toward the Palestinians.[30] They committed the union to a series of measures, one of which was an ICTU delegation's visit to Israel/Palestine in November 2007. Their fifty-two-page report on the visit recommended supporting and promoting a "boycott campaign of Israeli goods and services and a policy of disinvestment from Israeli order to encourage Israeli compliance with International Law and to cease its violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people." The critical stance was not surprising as the delegation included the leaders of the ICTU, Impact, and NIPSA as well as two IPSC representatives.[31]

    Israel is a soft target in Ireland as there is very little organized opposition to the boycott calls.  Individual trade unionists, academics, and members of the Jewish community write to the newspapers, but overall the small Irish Jewish community has a policy of keeping quiet.[32] It is a very similar situation to that in Britain six years ago when the boycott calls first surfaced. Britain's TUFI helps Irish trade unionists wherever possible as there is no similar body in Ireland. As in Britain where the call for an academic boycott of Israel has been abandoned at the moment because of concerns that a boycott may violate discrimination and equal-opportunities legislation, a similar situation may also apply in Ireland as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.


    The Architects' Boycott

    A group called Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine (APJP), which included prominent architect Lord Rogers and the architectural critic Charles Jenckes, met for the first time in February 2006. The meeting discussed boycotting Israel and targeting Israeli-made construction materials, Israeli architects, and construction companies. The group issued a call for an economic boycott of Israel's construction industry in protest of the building of Israeli settlements and the separation barrier.[33] Shortly afterward, as a result of pressure from the United States, Lord Rogers dissociated himself from the APJP.[34]

    Since 2006 the APJP, which receives regular exposure in the UK architectural press, has placed an advertisement in The Times calling on the Israeli Architects Association to end their participation in the building of settlements.[35] It also presented a petition to the Venice Biennale art exhibition to protest the inclusion of the display "Life Saver: Typology of Commemoration in Israel."[36] In 2008 the APJP attempted unsuccessfully to persuade the International Union of Architects to expel the Israeli Architects Association.[37]


    A Cultural Boycott

    The current Palestinian cultural boycott campaign is inspired by the 1980s cultural boycott of South Africa when musicians and artists from around the world were discouraged from performing there. The PSC regularly publishes open letters to musicians and artists asking them not to perform in Israel and uses its worldwide connections and the Internet to publicize its efforts; most recently it failed to persuade Paul McCartney not to perform in Israel.[38]  Previously in December 2006, ninety-six authors, filmmakers, musicians, and performers published a letter in The Guardian calling for a cultural boycott of Israel.[39]


    The Medical Boycott

    The medical campaign has its origins in the First Intifada. Its main support comes from the field of psychiatry and it is led by psychiatrist Derek Summerfield, who has published a number of articles and letters in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) charging Israel with war crimes. The medical campaign is not a boycott call as such but accuses Israeli physicians of complicity in the use of torture against Palestinian prisoners. This is similar to the charges of complicity against Israeli academics to justify the academic boycott call. The medical campaign also focuses on the humanitarian crisis in the territories, which also affects medical care for the Palestinians. 

    There have been several unsuccessful attempts to have the Israeli Medical Association banned from the World Medical Association.[40] Although this boycott campaign, like others, is supported by the PSC, it has never had the worldwide impact of others such as the academic boycott. It is limited to the medical world where Summerfield and his colleagues regularly hold events in the UK and publish articles and letters in The Lancet [41] and The Guardian as well as BMJ.[42]

    In July 2007 BMJ held an online poll and debate on the question "Should we consider a boycott of Israeli academic institutions?" Tom Hickey of the SWP and proposer of the academic boycott was asked to make the case for a boycott of Israeli physicians and Michael Baum, professor emeritus of surgery at University College London made the case against. The proposal was soundly defeated with 93 percent of the 8500 votes cast opposing a boycott.[43]


    The Future

    Supporting a boycott of Israel is often a token gesture that does not involve any effort or commitment, especially if like the majority of union members one does not have any direct contact with Israel. However, the trade union movement by promoting a boycott of Israel could find themselves in the position of the UCU, which found out that by actively promoting a boycott they could be liable under discrimination legislation. It is much easier for a union to pass a general motion condemning Israel or expressing support for the Palestinians, which are symbolic gestures.

    If the unions really want to help the Palestinians, though, they can do so in much cheaper and more practical ways as some unions have already discovered. Some unions such as Unison have already realized that there is no point in pursuing a boycott policy if it does not help the Palestinians or does not have the support of the PGFTU. It is, however, clear that whereas the unions welcome input from groups such as the PSC, they are not inclined to involve either the Histadrut or TUFI, restricting their contact with the Histadrut to union-related issues. Although the National Union of Teachers has been highly critical of Israel's actions in the past, they are currently working on separate projects with both the Palestinian Teachers Union and the Israeli Teachers Union (ITU). Their work with the ITU involves joint meetings of teachers from the UK and Israel and develops materials for teachers in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. 

    In any case, the British trade union movement remains the driving force behind the British obsession with boycotting Israel. Being affiliated to the PSC they actively promote PSC boycotts, divestments, and sanctions policies. If the unions can be persuaded that boycotts will not work, are counterproductive, and harm the chances of peace and reconciliation, then the British obsession with boycotts should diminish and the unions will adopt other causes. Argumentation against boycotts should, however, be planned in terms of the legitimacy and legality of a boycott. Since there are no calls for professionals in other countries to be boycotted, it is up to those favoring a boycott to prove beyond doubt that Israel is more blameworthy than any other country and that a boycott would promote peace in the Middle East. It is certainly not up to Israel to prove its innocence.

    What is clear is that if a union's leadership actively supports working with the Palestinians, such as Unison has done over the past twenty years, then they are more likely to realize that a boycott is divisive and cannot be enforced. If, however, moves to call for a boycott are led by activists rather than leadership, the call is unlikely to succeed. The Irish call for a boycott is especially worrisome as it is led by its leadership. The British unions have no problem in dealing with the Histadrut on trade union matters and are regularly in contact with them; it is, however, the political issue on which they disagree with the Israelis. They are unlikely to call for a boycott so long as the Histadrut and the PGFTU continue talking to each other, which is what is happening at present.  It is therefore more important than ever that both the leadership of the Histadrut and TUFI maintain regular contact with their counterparts in Britain.

    An internal note recently circulated to the twenty-seven European Union member states by the British government suggests that among measures "aimed at curbing settlement building" they should follow Britain's example by running more thorough checks to see whether goods from the West Bank settlements are "illegally" entering the EU without paying the required duties. The government has been under pressure from nongovernmental organizations to prevent goods being designated as being from the West Bank in ways that could lead consumers to believe they have a Palestinian origin.[44]

    This appears to be part of a new Palestinian strategy to concentrate on the settlements as the PGFTU has also recently asked

    that [union] activity such as boycott actions should be focused on the occupation and the sustaining of the occupation. They suggested that the arms trade might be a focus for attention, together with those companies who were involved in building the Wall, the checkpoints and the "settler-only" roads and that this action could be coupled with a boycott of goods produced by Israel in the West Bank.[45]

    A strategy for dealing with this development has to be a priority for Israel and the Histadrut especially as union cooperation with the PGFTU is likely to increase in the future.

    Most people only have a passing knowledge and interest in the politics of the Middle East and what they do know is usually gained from television, newspapers, and the Internet especially in times of crisis. The Lebanon wars of 1982 and 2006 are examples of intense media concentration on the conflict that resulted in increased pro-Palestinian union activity. From the grass roots to the leadership the UK unions are gravely lacking in knowledge about Israel, which is why the priority for pro-Israeli activists must be to start educating the unions about Israel, its achievements, and joint Israeli-UK-Palestinian projects. TUFI does its best but like many of the pro-Israeli groups in the UK it is sorely underfunded.

    The political situation in Britain could also have an effect on future boycott calls. Although support for Israel within the Labour Party waned during his premiership, Tony Blair was steadfast in his backing for Israel. Current prime minister Gordon Brown, less secure than his predecessor as Labour Party leader, cannot afford to ignore opinions of the party and the unions. This means that those, especially on the Left of the party, who see Israel as an obstacle to peace may ultimately influence future British government policy toward Israel and may generate increased support for the PSC and its boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaigns against the Jewish state.

    In August 2008 an agreement was announced between the Histadrut and the PGFTU that may help ease the tension. It aimed "to protect the rights of Palestinian workers employed by Israeli employers, and to base future relations on negotiations, dialogue and joint initiatives to advance fraternity and coexistence between the two peoples."[46] This agreement draws on the terms of an initial 1995 agreement that could not be fully implemented in the intervening years and allows for the remittance of 50 percent of the union dues of Palestinians legally employed by Israeli employers, an arrangement that exists nowhere else in the world.

    Since the agreement was signed the PGFTU has received a payment of NIS 11,485,682 from the Histadrut for outstanding dues for the period from September 1993 to May 2008. It is not widely known, either, in trade union circles that the Histadrut petitioned Israel's Supreme Court on behalf of a Palestinian workers' complaint of discrimination. On 10 October 2007 the court ruled that Palestinians working for Israeli employers in West Bank settlements should be given work benefits provided by Israeli rather than Jordanian law.

    Some UK unions have recently called for highlighting the British support for the Palestinian cause at the international trade union confederations such as the International Trade Union Confederation or the ITF. This is not a new idea as these bodies were first targeted by Arab trade unions from the 1950s onward in their campaign against Israel. Although the TUC no longer gives the Histadrut its unquestioned support, it seems unlikely in the current climate that any of the UK unions would be willing to make a stand at these confederations especially as the British government opposes boycotts and the TUC policy is to work with both Israeli and Palestinian unionists.

    Nevertheless, a successful trade union and PSC boycott, divestment, and sanctions campaign would affect the UK Jewish community by increasing discrimination and anti-Semitism. As with the UCU, which has failed to recognize that its boycott motions have brought with them anti-Semitic rhetoric, other anti-Israeli boycott campaigns will do likewise. This is a threat that Anglo-Jewry ignores at its peril; nor should they overlook a poll of key business, cultural, and political leaders finding that 15-20 percent were in favor of boycotts against Israel.[47]

    There is, however, a glimmer of hope in that in the current climate of boycott calls possibly being in breach of discrimination legislation, the unions could be persuaded to work positively for peace by promoting joint Palestinian-Israeli projects. However, as today's trade union movement includes very few Jewish activists who oppose boycotts compared to sixty years ago, any antiboycott education campaign within the unions will mainly depend on the underfunded TUFI, which will have to convince unions to work with them even though many are already affiliated to the PSC.  

    The British trade unions appear to have reached a turning point. Their future attitudes toward Israel will be influenced, first, by whether there is more UK-Palestinian trade union cooperation, and second, by how the conflict will be portrayed in the world's media. This will in turn be reflected in the type and tenor of any resolutions and policies discussed at their annual conferences that may include renewed calls for a boycott of Israel.


    *     *     *



    [1] "Palestinian Civil Society Calls for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel Until It Complies with International Law and Universal Principles of Human Rights," 9 July 2005,

    [2] For a history of the academic boycott campaign, see Ronnie Fraser, "The Academic Boycott of Israel: A Review of the Five-Year UK Campaign to Defeat It," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism 66, March 2008, For current developments in the campaign against the academic boycott, see the Academic Friends of Israel website:

    [3] "Who Is Responsible for the Resignations from UCU?"

    [4] "Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism,"    

    [5] TUC International Committee meeting, 4 October 1982, TUC archives MSS 292D/901/23.

    [6] TUC International Committee meeting, 4 October 1982, TUC archives MSS 292D/956/511.

    [7] "Trade Union Boycott Motions against Israel: Weakening the Prospects of Peace,"

    [8] Future PSC plans discussed at a June 2008 workshop in London include supporting the academic boycott and the Palestinian call for a cultural and sports boycott, a divestment campaign directed at pension and investment funds, and working through Jewish communities to support the consumer- action, cultural, and divestment campaigns. See

    [9] See There, the UK trade unions ASLEF, BFAWU, BECTU, Connect, CWU, FBU, GMB, NUM, NUT, PCS, RMT, TSSA, UCATT, UCU, UNISON, UNITE, and UNITY are all listed as affiliated to the PSC.

    [10] On 26 September 2008, Mishcon de Reya Solicitors wrote to the UCU on behalf of a group of UCU members to formally threaten legal action unless the boycott motion is abandoned. See also Peter Kingston, "Lecturers Threaten to Sue Union over Israel Boycott," The Guardian, 14 October 2008; Peter Kingston "Universities Union Denies Israel Motion Overstepped Mark," The Guardian, 15 October 2008. In addition, the Stop the Boycott campaign obtained and published a legal opinion on the legality of UCU motion 25, which was passed at the union's annual congress in Manchester on 28 May 2008. The legal advice states that "it would be unlawful for the union to pass the motion,"

    [11] The National Union of Teachers (NUT) passed a resolution at its 2008 conference that committed the NUT to work with the PSC and distribute PSC literature to its membership. The NUT is also currently working with the Histadrut on a joint education program for Israeli and British teachers.

    [12] The TSSA motion can be found at

    [13] Report of PSC trade union delegation to Palestine, January 2008, p. 9,

    [14] "Trade Union Boycott Motions against Israel Weakening the Prospects of Peace," April 2008,

    [15] See 2007 TUC international report P112-3,

    [16] TGWU conference, July 2007,

    [17] For more on the 2007 NUJ campaign, see the article on Engage at

    [18] "NEC Unites over Israel Motion Boycott Israel Call,"

    [19] NUJ 2008 conference motion:

    [20] Author's discussion with Unison International Department official, November 2008.

    [21] For the Unison 2007 motion, see; for all other motions, see the Unison website:

    [22] For the text of a letter from the general secretary of Unison to the Histadrut saying they did not support a boycott, see

    [23] For the full motion, see

    [24] ITF press release, 13 February 2008,

    [25] Leon Symons, "Major Union Rejects Israel Boycott," Jewish Chronicle , 13 June 2008,

    [26] STUC P73 Emergency Resolution No. 4, 2002,

    [27] STUC General Council report to congress, 2008, P64, 

    [28] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Rory Miller, "Irish Attitudes toward Israel," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism 49, October 2006, 

    [29] ITUC 2007 congress proceedings,

    [30] ITUC 2007 congress agenda, motions 70 and 71,

    [31] Report of ITUC delegation to Israel and Palestine,

    [32] Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Rory Miller.  

    [33] Oliver Duff, Rob Sharp, and Eric Silver, "Architects Threaten to Boycott Israel over 'Apartheid' Barrier," The Independent, 10 February 2006.

    [34] Eli Lake, "Javits Architect Cuts His Link to Group Pushing Israel Boycott," New York Sun, 2 March 2006.

    [35] A copy of the advertisement can be found at

    [36] "Palestinian Group Objects to Israeli Biennale Exhibition," Building Design, 8 September 2006.  

    [37] Marcus Dysch, "Attempt to Expel Israeli Architects Fails," Jewish Chronicle, 1 August 2008.

    [38] Two examples of PSC open letters are (1) to Paul McCartney, 4 February 2008, and (2) to Morrissey, 15 April 2008,

    [39] Charlotte Higgins, "John Berger Rallies Artists for Cultural Boycott of Israel," The Guardian, 15 December 2006.

    [40] Derek Summerfield, "In Support of a British Campaign for a Medical Boycott of Israel," Bulletin of Transcultural Special Interest Group (TSIG) of Royal College of Psychiatrists, Winter 2006.

    [41] C. Green, "Medical Ethical Violations in Gaza," The Lancet, Vol. 370, Issue 9605, 2102.



    [44] Donald Macintyre, "Israelis Bristle at Attempt to Limit Exports," The Independent, 17 November 2008.

    [45] Report of PSC trade union delegation to Palestine, January 2008, p. 9,

    [46] ITUC press release, 6 August 2008,

    [47] Jonny Paul, "Poll: UK Elite Oppose Academic Boycott," Jerusalem Post, 27 June 2007.

    *     *     *

    Ronnie Fraser is director of the Academic Friends of Israel, which he founded in 2002. He is a lecturer at Barnet College in London, a member of the UCU, and a part-time doctoral student at Royal Holloway College in London. His research focuses on the attitudes and policies of the British trade unions, the Left, and the Trades Union Congress toward Israel from 1948 to 1982. He also has contributed "The Academic Boycott of Israel: Why Britain?" to Manfred Gerstenfeld, ed., Academics against Israel and the Jews (Jerusalem: JCPA, 2007) and "Understanding Trade Union Hostility towards Israel and Its Consequences for Anglo-Jewry" to Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin, eds.,  A New Anti-Semitism? (London: JPR, 2003).



    Other related articles:


    Irish Attitudes Toward Israel - Interview with Rory Miller


    The Academic Boycott of Israel: A Review of the Five-Year UK Campaign to Defeat It - Ronnie Fraser


    The UCU May 2007 Boycott Resolution and its Aftermath - Manfred Gerstenfeld


    Antisemitism Embedded in British Culture - Interview with Robert S. Wistrich



    A New Plan for Jerusalem's Old City
    By Moshe Phillips

    Jerusalem's Old City is the holiest part of Judaism's holiest city. What we now call the "Old City" is what the Bible means when it refers to Jerusalem. There should be little doubt that the new Obama/Clinton policy for Israel will include pressure on Israel to negotiate away Israel's full control of the Old City and other parts of Jerusalem. Benjamin Netanyahu now has the opportunity to, as he has so often put it in the past: "change the facts on the ground".
    Netanyahu is projected to bring Likud electoral victory. But what new ideas is he advancing? Netanyahu should announce now, before the Knesset election, that the next Likud led government will relocate the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister's official residence to Jerusalem's Old City and it will begin the process upon the first day he takes office.
    Support for such a dynamic move would come from Jews the world over and other friends of Israel. It could also lead to more pressure being put on the Obama Administration to move America's Embassy. In a 1996 letter the late Senator Jesse Helms wrote to a Jerusalem based policy group that "I look forward to working with you … to encourage all nations to move their embassies to Jerusalem, and to recognize that Holy City as Israel's eternal capital."
    The U.S. government has failed to relocate the American Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv for the last ten years. The Jerusalem Embassy Act was passed by the U.S. Congress on October 23, 1995 and the law reads that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999".
    The active and vital American Evangelical community would certainly see a strengthening of the official Israeli presence in the Old City as positive. Christian Holy sites in the Old City would surely be more secure under this plan.
    By repositioning the Prime Minister's office and official residence Netanyahu will not just "change the facts on the ground" he will change the focus of the so-called Peace Process and future talks. Negotiations will no longer start with the so-called "status" of the Old City. The so-called Quartet, the U.N. and the Arabs would first have to petition for20the removal of the Old City's Prime Ministerial infrastructure before any "status" talks could proceed.
    The reason that Netanyahu should do this now is that there is no better time than now. As President George Bush leaves office and as the Obama Administration is ushered in the opportunity hit the reset button on the entire Arab-Israeli reality is but a brief moment in history that is pregnant with possibility.
    Lastly, and perhaps most importantly by moving the Prime Minister's office and residence now Netanyahu guarantees that future Prime Ministers will have a tough time offering any concessions on Jerusalem's "status". No Israeli politician will find it as easy to retreat from the Old City after such a strategy is in place.
    Let no mistake be made moving the Prime Minister is not just a gambit. Jerusalem is too important for games. Jerusalem is at risk. The entire Zionist enterprise is at stake. The Israeli Right simply must step it up. Stating that Judea and Samaria are lands deeded to the Jewish People by G-d as delineated in the Bible and settling the entire land is just part of an answer. There must be more.
    An honest examination of Likud history shows that it has not been setting the agenda. It has been reacting, and far too often that reaction has tragically included retreat.
    Menachem Begin himself retreated from Sinai through the Camp David Accords. No one in Likud offered more than token opposition. Shamir abstained from the vote on Camp David. Sharon personally carried out the plan to make Sinai free of Jews and oversaw the forced removal of young Jewish families from their homes and neighborhoods in Yamit. Shamir later retreated from Taba and under his leadership the Madrid talks were started that eventually led to the Oslo Accords and the Oslo War. Sharon's so-called "disengagement" from Gaza was a reaction to the Intifada there.
    A basic flaw in Likud thinking has been that by maintaining the status quo that they have achieved something positive. This goes back over twenty years to Shamir's time. As Time Magazine reported on September 30, 1991 "…Shamir is perfectly satisfied with the status quo" and the New York Times reported on March 13, 1988 "…if Mr. Shamir's Likud bloc remains committed to the status quo, it will damage Israel's security over the long run.
    Shamir responded to these accusations in a March 5, 1989 saying: "One hears everywhere accusations leveled against us and particularly against me. Everywhere they say, 'Shamir is a status-quo man. Shamir is opposed to any change, he is satisfied with things the way they are.' And when they say status quo they include the intifada, terrorism, and so forth, and the danger of war. And I say explicitly: I am not in favor of the status quo, because it is lacks the element of peace. And we are in favor of peace."
    Netanyahu can change Israel's destiny, lead pro-actively and protect Jerusalem. He should pledge now to move to Jerusalem when he becomes Prime Minister. He can change the status quo and honor the words of the Psalmist (Psalm 137): "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy."


    Moshe Phillips is a member of the executive committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI. The chapter's website is at: and Moshe's blog can be found at



    Israel's Sick Prime Minister*
    By Prof. Paul Eidelberg

    Virtually everyone knows by now that something is terribly wrong with Israel's prime minister.  Even President George W. Bush suspects that Ehud Olmert's eagerness to yield the strategically vital Golan Heights to Syria is not rational.   Many people say that Olmert's failure to resign after the Winograd Commission Report of his incompetence during the Second Lebanon War marks him as shameless -- more so after repeated police investigations of his unethical and perhaps illegal financial transactions.   
    The truth is, and as I shall soon illustrate, Ehud Olmert is suffering from a mental disorder.  If the Knesset, as a whole, was not itself infected by the same mental disorder, Olmert would have been forced out office two years ago.   I call this mental disorder "demophrenia", and I see its symptoms across Israel's political spectrum. 
    Demophrenia is a form of schizophrenia manifested especially in democratic societies where moral relativism permeates academia and therefore the behavior of politicians who, after all, are college and university graduates.  However, as the World Health Organization points out, schizophrenics, despite their vulnerabilities, are in the full sense responsive social beings like the rest of us.  Put simply, schizophrenics or demophrenics are subject to one or another delusion, by which I mean a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence.
    Various researchers distinguish between positive- and negative-symptom schizophrenia.   Positive-symptom schizophrenia includes hallucinations, delusions, and thought disorder.   Negative-symptom schizophrenia includes escapism, stereotypic behaviors, apathy, flattened emotional reactions, and impairment of volition.  Obviously, these negative symptoms exist on a continuum with normal behavior.  They are quite evident among otherwise normal people who persist in a false belief despite overwhelming contradictory evidence. 
    I see escapism, stereotypic behavior, apathy, flattened emotions reactions, and impairment of volition in politicians eager to negotiate with Arabs dedicated to Israel's destruction.  I see escapism, stereotypic behavior, apathy, flattened emotional reactions, and impairment of volition in politicians as diverse as Binyamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni eager to negotiate with Arab leaders who are responsible for the murder and maiming of thousands of Jews year after year since the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993.
    What applies to Livni and Netanyahu obviously applies to most Jewish members of the Knesset, for they elected Shimon Peres President of Israel even though he is responsible for the Oslo Agreement, whose fatal consequences continue to this day. 
    This said, I must now demonstrate the sickness of Israel's current Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert.  Here is what I have written about Olmert in the latest version of my book, Demophrenia: Israel and the Malaise of Democracy.
    On June 9, 2005, Olmert, then Israel's Vice Premier, addressed the Israel Policy Forum in New York. Israel's Government, then under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was in the process of training some 50,000 soldiers and police to implement Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza and expel its 8,000 Jewish residents.   Olmert described the planned Gaza withdrawal as "a remarkable process" that will have an enormous impact on everything that will happen thereafter, in the State of Israel and in the Middle East. He emphasized its unilateral nature and proceeded to make two self-revealing statements, one boastful, the other a paradoxical combination of egoism and self-effacement:
    (1) First statement: "We don't have to wait anymore" we really don't need the United States to lead the [peace] process in the Middle East, we will lead this process.  We will lead it because it's good for us. And we will lead it because it may do good to the Palestinians. It will bring more security, greater safety, much more prosperity, and a lot of joy for all the people that live in the Middle East."
    (2) Second statement: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors."
    What remarkable irony! The Second Lebanon War broke out in July 2006, less than a year after the Gaza withdrawal.   By then Olmert had become Israel's Prime Minister.   Despite Israel's failure to defeat Hezbollah in that war, and despite the Winograd Report, which attributed that failure to the ineptitude of Israel's Government, Olmert nonetheless boasted of Israel's success!  This delusion was dramatized in May 2008, when Hezbollah gained control of Lebanon's government! Iran now had one proxy, Hezbollah, on Israel's northern border, and another proxy, Hamas, on Israel's southern border.
    So, how is one to describe the mentality of a Vice Premier whose nation is at war and yet confesses, in public, "we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies"?  It seems to me that Olmert's confession is symptomatic of degeneracy stemming from a bizarre fusion of egomania and self-effacement. This would be the diagnosis of Dr. Max Nordau, a psychiatrist of remarkable breadth of learning.
    In 1895, Nordau published a heavy tome entitled Degeneration. Republished in 1968 by the University of Chicago Press, Degeneration has since been the subject of several doctoral dissertations. Of profound significance, Nordau regarded the connection of egoism and amorality (or moral relativism) as the basic cause of psychological degeneration. His book provides insights relevant to Israel's ruling elites and their fixation on the policy of land for peace.
    Nordau finds that nearly all de gene rates "lack the sense of morality and of right and wrong" (p. 18). This amorality conduces to "egomania," which Nordau discusses at great length (pp. 241-372).  Surprisingly, Nordau finds that in many de gene rates, egomania coexists with "self-abhorrence" (p. 20).  Nordau sees that the fusion of egoism and self-loathing in de gene rates conduces to impulsiveness, lack of balance, and weakness of will (pp. 19, 22, 23, 257-261).
    Degenerates, says Nordau, also lack a sense of honor as well as a diminished sense of outrage at the suffering of others (p. 260). (Notice how Israeli prime ministers consort with Arab terrorists and shake their bloodstained hands. Notice how Israeli prime ministers have so often failed to retaliate against terrorist attacks and suicide bombings, which have reduced Jewish women and children to body parts.)
    Nordau claims that the de gene rate is "incapable of correctly grasping, ordering, or elaborating into ideas and judgments the impressions of the external world...." He "surrenders himself to the perpetual obfuscation of... fugitive ideas" (p. 21). He is given to "fixed" ideas, however visionary or unrealistic [such as the idea of land for peace] (p. 242). Moreover, "facts which do not please him he does not notice, or so interprets that they seem to support his delirium" (p. 31).
    Nordau anticipates the renowned psychologist Harry Stack Sullivan's concept of "selective inattention." Thus, despite the fatal consequences of Oslo, and contrary to the warnings of Israel highest military and intelligence officials, the government persisted in its evacuation of Gaza.
    This selective inattention raises the question of whether de gene rates compulsively misrepresent or consciously lie about reality. Nordau contends that they believe in the truth of their fabrications (p. 25). It seems to me, however, that conscious but habitual liars will eventually believe in the truth of many of their lies. In any event, bearing in mind that fear governs many de gene rates (p. 19), such is their inability to face reality that even their instinct of self-preservation, according to Nordau, is crippled (p. 31).
    Now let us return to Ehud Olmert's speech to the Israel Policy Forum where he said "we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies."  This curious blending of egotism and self-abasement corresponds to Nordau's assessment of degenerates.  I contend that Israel's prime minister is a sick man, a very sick man.  He should be removed from office before he does any more harm to the people of Israel.
    *Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, December 8, 2008.



    Likud Gains in First Post-Feiglin Poll; Bibi Tries to Bump Him
    Kislev 13, 5769, 10 December 08 10:04
    by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

     Polls show no negative 'Feiglin effect' 
    ( The first post-Likud primaries poll dispels chairman Binyamin Netanyahu's fears that Jewish Leadership faction leader Moshe Feiglin's victory will hurt the party, but Netanyahu and his allies are appealing to the party's court in an effort to dump him.
    The Likud actually would gain two seats if elections were held today, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll, while a Yediot Acharonot survey shows the party would lose one Knesset Member. However, the same poll also shows that the Kadima party would win two seats less than in the previous survey, while Labor would gain two.
    Following are results of the Haaretz-Dialog poll in the first column, with the second column showing the number of seats according to the previous poll taken three weeks ago. Each party's present strength is listed after its name.
    36 34   Likud 12
    27 28   Kadima  29
    12 10   Labor 19
    11 11   Arab parties 10
     9  10   Shas 12
     9  10   Yisrael Beiteinu 11
     6    6   United Torah Judaism (Agudah) 6
     6    7   Meretz 5
     4    4   Jewish Home 9
    The Green, Pensioners, HaTikvah and Meimad parties would not win enough support for Knesset representation, according to the polls.
    A Likud-led coalition including nationalist and religious parties would include 64 MKs compared with 45 for a coalition led by Kadima, not including the Arab parties.
    The poll also revealed that nearly half of the respondents do not know if Feiglin's winning the 20th place on the party's list of Knesset candidates will affect the party in the general elections February 10. Twenty percent thought that the results would be positive, and 27 percent said the party would be hurt at the polls.
    However, Netanyahu and his allies are not accepting the Feiglin victory quietly (Is this kosher?) and have appealed to the party's court to change the placements of several candidates who won places higher than the spots that had been reserved for them. If the appeal is accepted, Feiglin and other strong nationalists would move further down the list.
    Israeli media, particularly Yediot Acharonot, Haaretz and Voice of Israel government radio highlighted anti-nationalist views that the victories of Feiglin, former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon and Benny Begin have turned the Likud into "an extreme right-wing" party. Haaretz published an article by former Meretz Knesset Member and party leader Yossi Sarid that made comparisons with Hitler and stated that Feiglin is a fascist. (Freeman Note: This is coming from the anti-Zionist, pro Arab Left).
    Feiglin's victory came at the cost of Netanyahu's favorites, such as Asaf Hefetz and Uzi Dayan, whose distant places on the Knesset list mean they will enter the legislature only if the Likud can score a large victory in the general elections.
    Haaretz noted that the "Feiglin effect" may take time before it is reflected in the pre-election polls, but Feiglin has claimed that his winning a high place on the list of candidates will attract national religious voters. The new Jewish Home party, a spin-off of the National Union party, would win only four seats, compared with nine in the current NRP-National Union party.
    © Copyright


    Feiglin: I'm Right-Wing. —So What?
    Kislev 13, 5769, 10 December 08 08:07
    by Maayana Miskin

    ( Moshe Feiglin, head of the Likud's Jewish Leadership faction and in the 20th spot on the party's list of Knesset candidates, responded Tuesday night to charges that he is more hawkish than others in the party. “Of course I am to the right of [party head Binyamin] Netanyahu. So what? What's the problem?” Feiglin asked.
    "The Likud needs to stop being ashamed of the fact that it's a nationalist party,” Feiglin said. The party “is constantly being swept to the left,” he added, pointing out that the Likud originally supported the establishment of a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan River.
    Feiglin rebuffed claims that Likud will lose voter support because he and other strongly nationalist candidates are relatively high on the party list. Such fears are “mud slung by Kadima and Labor... If the Likud does not spread the mud around, it won't stick.”
    Feiglin advised Netanyahu to stick to the Likud's nationalist ideology. “Netanyahu was elected and is going to get a lot of mandates in order to create an alternative to the path set out by the Left. If you deny your ideological approach, you're in trouble.”
    Earlier on Tuesday, Likud candidate Ofir Akunis filed an appeal to move regional representatives to higher slots on the party list. The move would bump Feiglin and some of his chosen candidates further down the list, and it was widely seen as an attempt to keep Feiglin out of the Knesset.
    © Copyright



    Olmert's Closing Act
    By Steven Plaut
    Posted Dec 10 2008

    Ehud Olmert, facing criminal prosecution for corruption, is using his final days in office to subvert Israeli security and impose his own policy notions on the country - notions rejected by the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens.

    Olmert has agreed to release scores of Hamas officials, including Hamas members of the Palestinian "parliament" and Hamas "cabinet ministers," as a reward for Hamas's refusal to release kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. When Shalit was first kidnapped, Israel grabbed some Hamas leaders and tossed them into the clink, promising to keep them locked up until Shalit was released.

    Shalit has not been released, but since the Hamas terrorists were jailed under an initial sentence that is set to run out in 2009, the Olmert people want to let them go early as a goodwill gesture.

    Now, regardless of what the original sentence was for these people, they could always be retried and given an additional sentence, and this can be done over and over until Shalit is released. Once released, these terrorists will return to bombing and rocketing Israeli civilians. Holding them in jail is also a way to pressure Hamas to stop shooting rockets at Sderot. But Olmert does not want to be bothered with such arguments. He wants the history books to remember him as something other than a petty crook.

    Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the atrocities in Mumbai, the Olmert clique is still pushing for withdrawal from even more territory - including turning the Golan Heights over to Syria. Israeli law happens to make that illegal, but if the lawyer Olmert were careful about obeying the law, he would not now be facing criminal prosecution for bribery.

    Even President Bush dressed down Olmert for his Golan proposal. Here we had the spectacle of an American president lecturing an Israeli prime minister for being too lax on Israeli security.

    It is amusing to imagine what was going through the minds of Israel's leaders as they watched the news coverage of the Mumbai barbarism. Were they thinking how primitive those Indian politicians and military leaders are?

    After all, the Indians dealt with the terrorists by shooting them down like dogs. The terrorists were not read their rights before being arrested, assigned public defenders, and granted long drawn-out trials. The family members of the terrorists were not granted survivor benefits from India's social security system, such as those granted by Israel to families of murderers.

    The Indian press did not lecture the country about how the terrorism was their comeuppance for being insensitive and selfish. Indian politicians did not pontificate about how one can only make peace with one's enemies, and that there is no military solution to the problems of terrorism. They did not issue calls for talks with the terrorists or for granting them funds and arms so that they can suppress the "real" extremists.

    Indian professors did not lead marches of solidarity with the terrorists. Indian poets and writers did not take out ads in the papers endorsing the demands of the terrorists. Conferences were not held on Indian campuses demanding that Punjabi Muslims be granted a "right of return" to homes they once had on Indian soil.

    Hindu academics did not insist that Muslims inside India be granted the right to set up their own new sovereign Muslim state on Indian land, nor did they demand that all Hindus be expelled from Muslim areas. In the land of Ghandi, no one was demanding that India respond to the atrocities by turning the other cheek because retaliation would escalate the cycle of violence.

    In short, Israeli politicians were no doubt wondering why the leaders of India had not chosen to emulate Israel's Oslo strategy of seeking peace with Islamofascism through endless appeasements and goodwill concessions.

    On another front, Olmert has had much to say recently about domestic law and order. He is all in favor of it - but only when it comes to settler protesters.

    One of the more amusing pastimes in Israel these days is watching the government suddenly get indignant when it comes to lawbreaking. The Left in Israel has never believed the obligation to obey the law applies to itself. For decades it has promoted mutiny and insurrection among soldiers, urging them not to serve in the army until Israel adopts policies advocated by the Israeli Communist Party. Leftists were never prosecuted for this. The Israeli press hails the mutineers as great ethical role models and people of conscience.

    Similarly, many in the Israeli media cheer on the "heroic" thugs and hooligans who attack Israeli police and soldiers every week next to the security fence. Those leftists try to vandalize the fence so it will be easier for the suicide bombers to get through to murder Jews. They also do not get prosecuted.

    So why is the Israeli political establishment all of a sudden so righteous in denouncing lawbreaking? Because the lawbreaking in question involves some West Bank settlers.

    All the ruckus has to do with efforts by the Olmert people to evict Jews from a house in Hebron they bought and legally own. The fundamental operating axiom of the cult of Oslo has always been that peace with the Palestinians can only be based on creating a judenrein lebensraum for the Palestinians, areas in which no Jew pollutes the place with his presence.

    Some of the hotter young Jewish heads in Judea have reacted with non-non-violence. In part, they were responding to the ease with which the police themselves have used force against settlers. Some hotheads threw rocks at soldiers trying to evict Jews, others cursed or threw punches. It was not pretty and it discredits the Right.

    If anyone were to suggest that a black American family be denied the right to live in a neighborhood of white Americans, liberals and Israeli intellectuals would be taking to the barricades in conniptions of outrage and indignation.

    But when Jews take to the streets to defend the Jewish right to settle in Hebron, the outrage and indignation are turned inside out. Heavens, scream the Olmert people and the Israeli leftist media, such bad behavior! Don't they realize they are violating the rule of law?


    Steven Plaut, a frequent contributor to The Jewish Press, is a professor at Haifa University. His book "The Scout" is available at He can be contacted at



    By Henry Kadoch | 12/9/2008

    It has become very clear that in the West, we have a fundamental
    misunderstanding of Islam. Its history, guiding principles, and more
    importantly, what it means to a Muslim when he uses certain terms.
    In order to understand what Muslims mean when they use a certain word, we
    must remember that in their minds and cultures, certain words do not mean
    anything like the accepted meaning we have for them in the West.
    For Muslims, the meaning of any word is very closely related to the
    traditional meaning of that word in the Koran and their other holy texts.
    Unlike most of us with the Bible, for a Muslim the Koran is not just a
    prayer book, it is the complete guide to his life, and the absolute
    guiding principle for the world, and all who reside in it, religious and

    Because of this, we in the West are often dumbfounded by their words vs.
    their actions, because for us the words mean one thing, and for them they
    mean something entirely different. They are thus able to manipulate the
    uneducated listener into believing they agree, when in fact for the most
    part, they do not agree.

    Here then, is a short guide to real meaning of certain key words, when
    used by a Muslim.

    An Islam-speak glossary:

    Peace - The state of cessation of all resistance to Islam. Peace only
    exists when Islam rules politically and religiously, and all Islamic
    principles are established as the law of the land.

    Freedom - Freedom exists when Islam and its principles attain complete
    dominance and constitute the entirety of religious belief and political

    Justice - The state when Sharia law is the law of the land, and all
    judicial decisions are based on it and it alone. Justice exists when
    non-Muslims have no standing before a court, and when the testimony of two Muslim women is equal to that of one Muslim man.

    Equality - Equality is achieved when Muslims are the only leaders of
    society, and are given their rightful place as the best of men, leading
    all institutions, political and religious. This does not extend to
    non-Muslims or apostates.

    Tolerance - The state when non-Muslims are properly subdued and
    subservient to Muslim rule, agree to their second-class Dhimmi status, and
    duly pay the Jizya to their Muslim overlords.

    Truth - Truth is the accepted Islamic version of events, as laid out in
    the Koran and the Sunna. Anything beyond that is merely hearsay, and in
    many cases blasphemy. (see Lies).

    Democracy - The state when Islam is the absolute law and religion, and all
    peoples conform to Islamic law and customs. (see Freedom).

    Freedom of Speech - Freedom of speech is achieved when Muslims, and only Muslims, are free to espouse their beliefs, and non-Muslims are prohibited from commenting on or criticizing anything Islamic.

    Just Society - A society ruled by Muslims under Islamic law.

    Koran - Allah's final word, perfect and un-altered, superseding all others
    and the true and only guide for mankind in religion, law and politics.

    - The rule of a state by non-Islamic law; actions of resistance
    to implementation of Islamic law and Muslim rule.

    Racism - The state where anything Islamic or any Muslim is criticized or

    Infidel - Any and all non-Muslims. Subject only to conversion,
    subjugation, or death under Islamic law.

    Slavery - The rightful and lawful status of any infidel captured in battle
    against Islam.

    Treaty - A non-binding and temporary agreement between Muslims and
    non-Muslims, valid only until such time as the Muslims have the power to
    achieve by force or other means what they have momentarily failed to

    Lies - The act of hiding the truth, permissible by Islamic law for a
    Muslim when in fear for his safety or when it advances the cause of Islam.
    With these definitions in mind, we will be better prepared to answer or
    debate a Muslim statement.



    Jewish World Review
    December 12, 2008 / 15 Kislev, 5769

    What a PM Netanyahu faces from Washington

    By Caroline B. Glick

    The "international community" is eagerly anticipating the incoming Obama administration's policy towards Israel. It is widely assumed that as soon as he comes into office, US president-elect Barack Obama will move quickly to apply massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a "peace process" with the Palestinians and the Syrians. Giving voice to these expectations this week was this year's Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Martti Ahtisaari. The former Finnish prime minister used his prize ceremony to call on US president-elect Barack Obama to make contending with the Palestinian conflict with Israel his chief focus during his first year in office. This is the same Ahtisaari who recently demanded that the West recognize Hamas as a legitimate political movement.
    People who have been in close contact with Obama's foreign policy transition team have privately acknowledged that the widespread belief that Obama will move swiftly to put the screws on Israel is fully justified. According to one source who has spent a great deal of time with his transition team since last month's elections, Obama's people are "scope-locked" on Israel.
    The source reports that General Jim Jones, Obama's designated national security advisor is Israel's most outspoken critic. The source, who held a two and a half hour meeting with Jones, told his associates that Jones is keen to deploy NATO forces, perhaps including US forces to Judea and Samaria. Jones's plan, which is vociferously opposed by the IDF, would make it impossible for the IDF to carry out counter-terror operations in the areas. As a practical matter, the lives of hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens in who live in the areas would be imperiled. Just as Hizbullah has used UNIFIL forces in southern Lebanon as a shield from the IDF behind which it has rearmed and reasserted control over the border zone, so too a NATO force would facilitate the empowerment of Hamas and Fatah which would unify, arm and organize free from the threat of IDF counter-terror operations.
    Jones's plan is not new. In a 2002 interview, Samantha Power — who has served for years as one of Obama's closest foreign affairs advisors and now serves as a member of his transition team for the State Department — called for US forces to be deployed to Judea and Samaria in what she referred to as "a mammoth protection force" to protect the Palestinians from Israel which she claimed was guilty of "major human rights abuses." Obama's team, like its supporters in the international foreign policy establishment, is dismayed by the Israeli opinion polls which show that Likud, led by Binyamin Netanyahu is favored to win the upcoming February 10 general elections by a wide margin.
    In anticipation of Likud's expected electoral victory, they have been piling on against Netanyahu and Likud. This was most recently evident at last week's Middle East policy conclave in Washington organized by the pro-Obama and post-Zionist Saban Middle East Forum at the Brookings Institute. There, both secretary of state-designate Hillary Clinton's surrogate, former president Bill Clinton, and current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice castigated Netanyahu's assertion that peace must be built from the bottom up through the liberalization of Palestinian society rather than from the top down by giving land to terrorists.
    Netanyahu foresees Palestinian liberalization coming about through economic development in what he refers to as an "economic peace process." Both the former president and Rice attacked his plan claiming that it is antithetical to the sacrosanct "two-state solution." As far as they and their many colleagues are concerned, the only thing that remains to be discussed is when Israel will vacate Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. The fact that there is no significant Palestinian constituency willing to peacefully coexist with Israel is irrelevant.
    In light of the incoming Obama administration's palpable hostility towards Israel, and particularly towards Israel's political realists, the results of Likud's primaries this past Monday were especially significant. In selecting the party's slate of candidates for Knesset, Likud members favored sober-minded politicians who use their common sense to guide them over those with records of support for the fraudulent "peace processes" so favored by the local media, Kadima, Labor, and the international jet set.
    Likud politicians who warned of the dangers of then prime minister Ariel Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza and expel some ten thousand Israelis from their homes in Gaza and northern Samaria were elected to the top of the Knesset slate. Those who supported Sharon's withdrawal and expulsion plan — which is now widely recognized to have been Israel's most disastrous strategic move in recent history — were either rejected out of hand, or demoted.
    The men and women selected by Likud's voters will provide Netanyahu with the political strength to stand up to pressure from the Obama White House. They will support him when he is forced to reject US demands that Israel give away vital territory to Fatah and Hamas militias and to Syria's Iranian-sponsored regime. They will support him when he is compelled to refuse US demands to deploy NATO forces to Judea and Samaria. They will back him up when he says that Fatah is not a peace partner for Israel but Hamas's partner for war against Israel.
    That the general public shares the sensibilities exhibited by Likud primary voters is made clear by the fact that Likud's standing in the polls has not significantly diminished since the primaries. If, as the media warned, the public would reject a list comprised of sober-minded realists, one would have expected that support to drop. Instead, it remains steady even as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni castigates Likud as naysayers and opponents of peace and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert scandalously invites the nations of the world to turn against Israel if Likud wins the elections.
    One might have intuited that the striking contrast between the sober-minded Likud party and the delusional and defeatist Kadima and Labor parties which was brought so prominently to the fore by the Likud primaries would have been the central message that Netanyahu chose to convey in the days that have followed Monday's primaries. But sadly, one would be wrong to think that.
    Disturbingly, rather than drawing distinctions between his party and its rivals, Netanyahu has spent the days since the primaries drawing distinctions between himself and a minor player in his own party. Both ahead of the primaries and in the days since, Netanyahu has devoted the majority of his time to attacking his sharpest critic in Likud itself - Moshe Feiglin, who heads the far-right Jewish Leadership Forum in Likud and won the not-particularly-senior twentieth position in Likud's Knesset slate.
    Feiglin has more in common with the Left he abhors than with his party members. Like the Left, Feiglin bases his strategic and economic notions on a complete denial of reality. Whereas the Left ignores the Arabs, Feiglin ignores the West. Feiglin's religious adherence to his views has made him few friends in Likud or elsewhere in Israeli politics. The threat he constitutes to Netanyahu is negligible.
    Given Feiglin's inherent weakness, Netanyahu's post-primaries focus on him is shocking. Netanyahu has argued that Feiglin will lose votes for Likud. But assuming that is true, the last thing Netanyahu should be doing is placing a spotlight on Feiglin. Rather Netanyahu should be emphasizing his strongest suit: the clear distinction between Likud on the one hand and Kadima and Labor on the other hand.
    In focusing the public's attention on Feiglin, Netanyahu appears to be reacting to foreign pressures rather than domestic ones. One of Netanyahu's most difficult challenges during his tenure as prime minister from 1996 to 1999 was handling his relations with the hostile Clinton administration. From the moment Netanyahu was elected until the moment he left office, the Clinton administration's Israel policy was devoted entirely to bringing down his government. In close collusion with Netanyahu's political opponents and the local media, for three years Clinton worked steadily to overthrow him. Clinton's assault culminated in the 1999 elections when he sent his own campaign managers to Israel to lead the Labor Party's election campaign against Netanyahu and Likud.
    No doubt, it is in the hopes of building better relations with the incoming Obama administration that Netanyahu now seeks to distance himself from Feiglin and advocates forming a broad governing coalition with his political foes in Kadima and Labor. Apparently, in his view only such a broad coalition will insulate him from a US presidential assault. In the interests of forming such a coalition, while highlighting his disputes with Feiglin, Netanyahu has sought to obfuscate his ideological differences with Kadima and Labor.
    Although Netanyahu's motivations are understandable, his mode of operation will bring him results exactly opposed to the ones he seeks. It is true that to withstand pressures and even an all-out assault by the Obama administration Netanyahu will need a broad coalition. But that coalition cannot be based on a simple will to power as Olmert's coalition and previous leftist coalitions have been. To survive a hostile While House, Netanyahu will require a broad coalition founded on support for his ideas and his party's policies, not a broad coalition populated by political and ideological opponents dedicated to undermining his ideas and policies. Rather than obfuscate the differences between Likud and Kadima/Labor, Netanyahu must highlight them. He must convince the Israeli electorate to vote for Likud on the basis of these distinctions. Likud must be perceived as the party of common sense ideas and clear-minded policies that inspire, attract, and convince the Israeli public to support it. And Netanyahu and Likud have those ideas and policies.
    On a strategic level, Netanyahu and Likud have made clear that they stand for three main principles. First, they are committed to establishing defensible borders for Israel by securing Israeli sovereignty over all of greater Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley, the Samarian hills and the Golan Heights.
    Second, they recognize that the Palestinian society which elected a terror group to lead it is a society that is uninterested in peace with Israel. Consequently, any future negotiations must be preceded by a full reorganization and reform of Palestinian society.
    Third, they reject the Kadima/Labor fantasy that foreign militaries and international forces can be expected to protect Israel in place of the IDF. If Netanyahu runs on these policies, he will not merely win the elections. He will win a clear mandate to govern. And only if Netanyahu runs on these policies will he have a chance of blunting the pressure that will certainly be brought to bear by the Obama administration. For although it is clear that like Clinton, Obama will have no problem opposing the will of an Israeli government, he will be hard pressed to oppose the will of the Israeli people.


    JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.



    by Emanuel A. Winston
    Freeman Center Mid East analyst & commentator

    Strong indicators demonstrate that the Kadima mob is planning a theatrical attack sometime between now and the February elections. I observe Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (resigned for pending criminal indictment BUT, wielding the high powers of PM) visiting Sderot and making heroic speeches about his knowing when to strike a retaliatory "pose".
    Given Olmert has artfully avoided responding to years of Kassam Rocket, missile and mortar attacks on Sderot and Ashkelon, does he now think that time has arrived? Of course, he does - because national Israeli elections are coming in early February.
    Ehud Barak, as Minister of Defense, has restrained the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) from responding to Kassam, Mortar and Grad missile attacks. Now Barak needs to show his good "Generalship" in order to remain as the Head of his Labor Party faction - also in the coming elections. Keep in mind Tzipi Livni, current Foreign Minister, and Shimon Peres, current President - as planners and colluders with the U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to get approval for this limited assault on Gaza and Hamas.

    It will likely go something like this:
    Barak will be in touch with Hamas and smooth the way by transferring $25 million dollars for Hamas Terrorists salaries. Hamas will, at a certain agreed time, fire off salvos fo Kassam Rockets and other ordinance.

    They will shoot - and run.
    Then Barak and Olmert will make a public announcement of "We have had enough." We must protect our citizens in Sderot and Ashkelon." They will stand next to each other, looking very authoritative with Barak looking like a General abut to go to war.
    The Army, under obedient Gen. Ashkenazi will shortly begin moving pre-positioned troops into Gaza. Keep in mind that all of these players knowingly allowed Hamas, with guidance from Hezb Allah building deep concrete bunkers, with interconnecting tunnels for men and weapons - as they did in Southern Lebanon.
    The Israeli troops moving forward will be faced with road bombs that blow up tanks, road-side missiles to destroy any vehicle, snipers positioned in interlocking fields of fire, mortars already sighted in to kill soldiers and buildings mined for possible Israeli soldiers to trigger. All of this and more was being built under the eyes of Olmert, Barak, Livni and Peres but, no attempt was made to stop it.
    The Israeli soldiers will cautiously move forward, taking anticipated losses. The Muslim, Arab Palestinians will be in protected positions taking fewer losses. Besides, both were expendable because this is the arrangement.

    The Israelis will move into Gaza a few miles, using artillery and tank guns but, under orders not to hit civilian target. Since the enemy has used civilian cover for all its operations, grateful for losses so they could weep to an accommodating Media, the going will be difficult.
    At a time agreed upon with Hamas and U.S. overseers, the Israelis will stop their advance, stay put for awhile and then declare victory for the "camp followers" (the Leftist Media) and then order a withdrawal.

    Naturally, Olmert, Livni, Peres and especially Barak will be dashing about, giving interviews and posing for photo-ops. The U.N., the E.U., and the U.S. will be protesting the attack as inhumane. Olmert and Barak will say they had to do it - to save Israeli lives - which until now have made little difference to them.
    From a time point of view, the kick-off to maximize political benefit before the election, should be sometime before the end of December or the middle of January. That should be sufficient time to get the full benefits of the follow-on propaganda by the Leftist Media.
    What heroes these political criminals will be made out to be. All the false speeches and the exciting photos and video film showing advancing tanks will slip smoothly into the pre-election public relations. Kadima will be the glorious pretorian guards going to war and beating the enemy. In the meantime, Hamas will have Barak s $20 million dollars already shipped and received. Their war mechanism will remain mostly untouched in the Gazan deep concrete bunkers. (The concrete was shipped in from Israel - along with the humanitarian aid Israel shipped into Gaza.)
    The Muslim Arab Palestinians will stop firing missiles until after the elections and then will start up again - as agreed. It will be a war, not to win, but to advance politicians. Soldiers will have to give up their lives for nothing but a temporary pause.
    Nothing like a war to excite the voters. One more benefit could assist Kadima and the thinkers of the State Department. If the voters lift the Kadima vote while lowering the Likud vote, then Likud will be weaker and more malleable to pressure for the two-state plan - presumably moved forward by Obama.
    If this were a normal country, those who planned and acted as the enablers would be tried in a military trial and ordered shot for collaborating with the enemy.
    But, Israel is not a normal country and the Quislings will merely be elected again.

    ### 1. "IDF PREPARING FOR MAJOR GAZA OPERATION" BY Ron Ben Yishai, ISRAEL NEWS December 11, 2008,7340,L-3636726,00.html



    Dec. 15, 2008

    Our World: Inequality before the Law
    By Caroline Glick

    People who are concerned about maintaining the rule of law in Israel have great reason for worry these days. The sine qua non of a society ruled by law is the principle of equality under the law. In a society governed by the rule of law, individual citizens can trust that the state's law enforcement arms will treat them in the same manner as their fellow citizens.
    When instead, a society's law enforcement arms determine how a citizen will be treated on the basis of his or her political convictions, religious orientation or any other extraneous factor, then the rule of law is trampled. The principle of equality before the law is replaced by the tyranny of law enforcement arms.
    Disturbingly, both recent events and empirical data indicate strongly that today Israel is not ruled by law. Instead, and to an alarming degree, Israel has become a society ruled by politicized law enforcement bodies that selectively enforce the law based on an individual's political affiliation and ethnic origin.
    Last week, a government-appointed committee charged with assessing the phenomenon of massive illegal seizures of state lands in the Negev by Israeli Beduin submitted its recommendations to Housing Minister Zev Boim. The committee, chaired by retired Supreme Court Justice Eliezer Goldberg, recommended "legalizing" 50,000 illegal buildings constructed on state-owned lands and giving legal recognition and state funding to 42 illegal settlements constructed over the past several years by Beduin on state-owned land.
    Boim enthusiastically accepted the Goldberg Committee's recommendations and pledged to bring them before the government for a vote before the February 10 elections.

    Both the Goldberg Committee's report and Boim's embrace of its findings are stunning. They represent a complete capitulation of state authorities to criminality of unprecedented dimensions. This lawless behavior, in which vast tracts of the Negev have been stolen from the state, has been actively abetted by the state itself - and particularly by its legal bodies.
    The Supreme Court, in response to petitions on behalf of the Beduin lawbreakers submitted by far-Left organizations, has repeatedly prohibited the state from taking any action against the land thieves. And the state prosecution has refused consistently to open criminal investigations or file indictments against the Beduin, not only for their illegal seizure of land, but for their massive criminal activity which spans the spectrum from polygamy, to agricultural theft, extortion, racketeering, drug trafficking and treason.

    Responding to the Goldberg Committee's report, right-wing members of Knesset called for the government to legalize all the Jewish Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria that were built without proper authorization over the past decade. Their reasoning is clear and sensible: If the state has decided to ignore the law with relation to the Beduin, then it must also ignore the law as it relates to Jews.
    BUT THAT'S the thing of it. The non-enforcement of law towards Israeli Arabs and indeed towards Palestinian Arabs is one side of the coin of the politicization of law enforcement by Israeli legal officials. The other side of the coin is over-enforcement of the law against right-wing Israelis who reside in Judea and Samaria and their political supporters throughout the country.
    At Sunday's cabinet meeting, Defense Minister Ehud Barak excoriated the lower courts for what he claimed is unjustified leniency in their treatment of Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. "We must be more severe in punishments meted out to lawbreakers in Judea and Samaria," he said to his colleagues. He then mapped out how the Defense Ministry, the IDF and the police are working together to clamp down on Jewish residents of the areas.
    What apparently got Barak's goat was the decision by Jerusalem Magistrate Court judge Malka Aviv last week to release Zeev Baroudah from jail. Baroudah was arrested in the wake of the legally questionable and violent expulsion of some 200 Israeli Jews from the Jewish-owned Peace House building in Hebron on December 4.
    The police claimed that Baroudah had shot two Palestinians without provocation. The police based their contention on a video of his purported crime that was filmed by the pro-Palestinian far-left B'tselem organization. The video, which was shown repeatedly by the local media in prime time news broadcasts, portrayed Baroudah as a cold-blooded, would-be killer. And on the basis of this interpretation of the video, he was remanded to custody for a week.
    Yet Aviv noted that the video itself did not show what either the police or B'tselem claimed it showed. Rather, it showed that Baroudah was the victim of an attempted lynch by Palestinians. As she put it in her decision, "From the film I saw, it is clear that the attempt to lynch the suspect [Baroudah] took place while he was lying down helpless on the ground while in the film we see Palestinian residents coming and joining in the attack against him without provocation or justification, simply with the goal of kicking and hitting the suspect."
    Aviv accused the police of negligence for not arresting any of the Palestinians filmed attacking Baroudah. Arguing that he shot off his gun in an attempt at self-defense, she released him to his home in Kiryat Arba.

    Both the police and the state prosecution immediately sought to force Aviv to cancel her decision. According to a statement she released later that day, both representatives of the State's Attorney's office and police commanders paid unsolicited visits to her chambers and demanded that she revise her decision. They argued that her decision stood in contradiction of media reports alleging Baroudah's guilt that were published in both Israel and abroad and that as a consequence, she was likely to cause grave damage to Israel's international image if she did not send Baroudah back to jail. In explaining her refusal to back down, Aviv explained that her job is to adjudicate on the basis of facts and not on the basis of media reports.
    Later that day, the District Court bowed to massive pressure by the police and the State Attorney's office. While agreeing with the Magistrates Court's assertion that Baroudah was the victim of an attempted Palestinian lynch, Judge Orit Efal-Gabbai allowed that he might be a danger to Arabs and so remanded Baroudah to house arrest. Supreme Court Justice Elyakim Rubinstein upheld the District Court's decision, after the State Attorney again appealed the decision not to send him to prison on Sunday.

    On the face of it, it seems strange that the police and the State's Attorney's office would go to such lengths to remand a suspect to custody in the face of documentary evidence, pointed out by Aviv, showing that there is significant doubt as to both his guilt and the danger he manifests to society. But unfortunately, this is routine practice.
    LATE LAST week the right-leaning Organization for Human Rights in Judea and Samaria published a report which demonstrated that Israeli Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are discriminated against by law enforcement agencies including the police and the state prosecution as a matter of general policy. This is true in comparison to the general population of the country and even more blatant in comparison to the state's treatment of both Palestinian and leftist Israeli lawbreakers in Judea and Samaria.
    The report was based entirely on data published by the police and the state prosecution, court records, official state prosecution regulations, and official statements by police commanders and representatives of the State Attorney's office. Among other things, it shows that the number of policemen per Israeli citizen is four times larger in Judea and Samaria than in crime-infested Acre, and five times larger than in equally crime-infested Netanya.
    The tendency of police to open criminal investigations against right-wing Israeli Jewish suspects in Judea and Samaria when no complaint has been filed against them is 80 percent greater than the tendency of police to open such investigations in the rest of the country.

    In Judea and Samaria, 38 percent of criminal investigations against right-wing Israeli Jews end in indictments. The national average is 14 percent. On the other hand, the conviction rate for indictments against right-wing Israeli Jews in Judea and Samaria is a mere 54 percent, while the national conviction rate is 97 percent. As the report's authors point out, this finding is particularly devastating as it shows that the first instance where Israeli Jewish suspects are considered innocent until proven guilty is in the courts themselves.
    EVERY FRIDAY, leftist activists descend on Judea and Samaria where they conduct violent riots against IDF forces and border guards involved in the construction of the security fence. Yet, of the 400 criminal investigations opened for disturbance of the peace in 2008, only 38, or nine percent, were opened against leftists. And none have led to indictments.
    Even more disturbingly, the State Attorney's office operates a special forum, the "Follow-up and Coordination Team," chaired by Deputy State Attorney Shai Nitzan. Team members include representatives of other departments in the state prosecution, the IDF, the Shin Bet and the Civil Administration. Its purpose is to oversee the collection of intelligence against Israeli Jewish residents of the areas, to prepare investigations, open investigations following media reports critical of Israeli residents of the areas, and reopen investigations that were closed.
    The team meets in spite of the fact that it was officially disbanded by then attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein in 1998 following Knesset and government orders declaring the forum, whose existence had been kept secret, a serious abrogation of the principle of equality under the law.

    According to the left-leaning Israel Democracy Institute's annual Democracy Index, between 2004 and 2008 the public's trust in the state prosecution has nearly halved descending from 66 percent in 2004 to a mere 35 percent in 2008. Public trust in the Supreme Court has similarly plunged from 79 percent in 2004 to 49 percent in 2008.
    In light of all of this, it is disturbing that whenever politicians speak of the necessity of upholding the rule of law in Israel, they state in the same breath that it is vital to uphold the extraordinary powers of the Supreme Court and the State prosecution. Whether these statements - by politicians across the political spectrum - stem from agreement with the legal fraternity's radical political agenda, or fear of its unbridled power and its willingness to undertake politically motivated prosecutions, the fact of the matter is that these statements exacerbate the current, unacceptable situation.

    If Israel is to become again an open democracy ruled by law, ahead of the elections, it behooves all citizens to demand that our political leadership rein in our law enforcement arms and require them treat all citizens equally before the law.

    This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1228728209360&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



    Dec. 22, 2008
    One World: Repeating failure in Gaza
    By Caroline Glick

    If additional proof is needed that Israel is in desperate need of a new government, one needs to look no further than the situation in the South.

    After the Olmert-Livni government failed to defeat Hizbullah in the 2006 war, the public demanded that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert resign and enable the people to elect a new government capable of defending the country and fixing the damage that he and his colleagues had just wrought. Olmert refused. He justified his contempt for the public by claiming that since he was the one who had failed, he was in the best position to fix the mess he created.

    His reasoning was not simply self-serving. It was strategically devastating. His stubborn insistence on remaining in power made it impossible for the country to embark on a new course.

    And today, with the South under siege, the hollowness of Olmert's assertion that he and his colleagues could be trusted to learn from their mistakes is unmistakable. On Sunday the IDF was forced to order schools around Gaza to bar children from playing outside. And as Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) director Yuval Diskin acknowledged at Sunday's cabinet meeting, their fate may soon be shared by hundreds of thousands of other children. Diskin announced that over the past six months of Israel's one-sided cease-fire with Hamas, Hamas expanded its rocket range from 20 kilometers to 40 and is now capable of attacking the outskirts of Beersheba, Ashdod, Gedera, Kiryat Gat and Kiryat Malachi in addition to Ashkelon, Sderot and Netivot. So due to the so-called cease-fire, Hamas now has more than a million Israelis at its mercy.
    SINCE IT abandoned Gaza in September 2005, the government has more or less stood down and allowed Hamas to build its armies and terror arsenals unchallenged. But with the February 10 general elections swiftly approaching, and with public anger at their abandonment of the South daily rising, on Sunday Olmert's ministers decided that the time has come to launch a military offensive into Gaza.
    To prepare the ground for the promised offensive, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has ordered the diplomatic corps to build international support and understanding for the planned military action. Of course, as Likud Knesset candidate and former chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon pointed out on Israel Radio Monday morning, the very fact that Israel today lacks international support for defending the country against Hamas's illegal terror offensive shows how empty pledges made by Livni and Olmert on the eve of the 2005 surrender of the Gaza Strip truly were.
    At the time, Livni, Olmert and their colleagues promised that after Israel left the area, if the Palestinians dared to attack the country, Israel would have full international backing to defend itself. Now, with an Iranian proxy in control of its southern border, Israel finds itself condemned for every action it takes to secure its citizens from murder.
    At any rate, the cabinet decided whenever Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Olmert feel comfortable with the international climate, the IDF will gradually escalate its currently anemic operations in Gaza. Currently the IDF is not even going after Hamas targets, just Islamic Jihad ones. And on Monday morning Barak announced that every additional operation will require prior approval by the government.
    While the government is congratulating itself on its willingness to defend the country after three years of negligence, the fact is that its strategic aim is not to defeat Hamas. This fact was made clear in the summary of the government's decisions reported in the media on Sunday afternoon. The government made clear that the aim of both the diplomatic and military offensives is to pave the way for the "international community" to intervene in Gaza to protect Israel from Palestinian terrorism.
    IF THAT sounds familiar, it is because it is. It is the same strategy, and the same strategic goal, that the government adopted during the 2006 war with Hizbullah. After reacting helter skelter to Hizbullah's initial aggression which began the war, Olmert and Livni decided that Israel shouldn't bother trying to defeat Hizbullah. Instead of ordering the IDF to defeat the enemy, they ordered it to put on a sound and light show replete with aerial bombing and some good photo-ops of ground forces raising the flag in Bint Jbail and other villages. The aim of their military extravaganza was to convince the "international community" to deploy forces to Lebanon's borders to protect Israel in place of the IDF.
    In defending their strategy to the public both during the war and in its aftermath, Olmert and Livni refused to acknowledge the prohibitive cost of surrendering borders to terror armies. Instead, they spoke darkly of the cost to Israel of controlling its own borders as part of an ongoing "occupation." In Lebanon, Olmert and Livni succeeded in expanding the size of the UNIFIL force deployed along the border. And they presented the expanded force as proof of their strategic genius. But UNIFIL is a disaster.
    It has consistently refused to lift a finger to prevent Hizbullah from rearming and reasserting its control over the border area. Rather than contend with Hizbullah, UNIFIL devotes its time to condemning the IAF for conducting surveillance flights over Lebanon. Those flights enable Israel to keep tabs on the Iranian and Syrian weapons shipments to Hizbullah that UNIFIL has refused to prevent.
    Under the protective gaze of UNIFIL forces, which Livni and Olmert promised the public would protect Israel from Hizbullah, Hizbullah launched a successful coup against the pro-Western democracy forces in the country in May and gained control over the Lebanese government. And under UNIFIL's protective gaze, the Lebanese army - which has both the US and Russia standing in line to sell it state of the art tanks, fighter jets, helicopters and precision bombs - has actively colluded with Hizbullah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in south Lebanon.
    AND NOW, rather from learn from their mistakes in Lebanon, Livni, Olmert and Barak are seeking to repeat them in Gaza. In moving to implement their tried and failed "war" strategy in Gaza, Livni, Olmert and Barak are abandoning their tried and failed and tried again and failed again "cease-fire" strategy. Unlike their war strategy, which has only been tried and failed in Lebanon, their cease-fire strategy has been tried and failed in Lebanon and Gaza.
    Barak was the first leader to adopt the cease-fire strategy. He implemented it in Lebanon after he surrendered Lebanon's southern border to Hizbullah in May 2000. At the time, as prime minister, Barak announced that Israel would use overwhelming force to combat Hizbullah if it dared to attack after the withdrawal. But then when Hizbullah kidnapped three IDF soldiers along the border in October 2000, Barak refused to take action.
    Barak's one-way cease-fire with Hizbullah was exploited by the group to build up a formidable missile arsenal, to organize and train its forces and to construct its warren of underground bunkers and command and control centers which it used to such great effect in the 2006 war. Moreover, emboldened by successive Israeli governments' refusal to lift a finger against Hizbullah, the Iranian-proxy trained, funded and directed Fatah terror cells in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in their attacks against Israel.
    In Gaza, the Sharon government first enacted the one-sided cease-fire with Palestinian terror groups led by Fatah in June 2003. In exchange Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas promised to take action against Hamas and Islamic Jihad rocket squads. Of course he never did. And of course, all Palestinian terror factions used the cease-fire to rebuild their forces and expand the range of their rockets - at the time from six to eight kilometers to 15-17, placing Ashkelon under attack from the first time.
    ISRAEL FINALLY decided to end its non-aggression pledge in the aftermath of a joint Hamas-Islamic jihad massacre of 20 children and their parents travelling on a bus on their way home from the Western Wall in August 2003. The response involved taking out a Hamas terror commander in Gaza.
    Not surprisingly, supported by Egypt, the EU and the Israeli media, all Palestinian terror groups were quick to blame Israel for ending the "truce." The unilateral cease-fire strategy in Gaza was never replaced by a plan to have the "international community" deploy forces to defend Israel. This was the case mainly because no one ever expressed any interest in sending forces to Gaza. In the absence of a foreign deus ex machina to save the country, Ariel Sharon, Olmert and Livni decided to follow the path blazed by Barak in Lebanon and simply surrender Gaza to the terrorists.
    Before the government sends IDF forces into harm's way to put on a pre-election show for the public and invite an international force to come to Gaza and protect Hamas from the IDF, the public would do well to consider whether we are truly limited to repeating failed strategies over and over again. Is there perhaps an option other than failure we could choose? The answer to that question is yes. There is an alternative strategy, and it has already been tried. And it succeeded. That strategy is the strategy of victory adopted in Judea and Samaria during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. In Defensive Shield, IDF forces were sent into Palestinian terror centers with orders to defeat enemy forces. And they did. In succeeding months and years, IDF forces were ordered to remain in place and prevent enemy forces from rebuilding their capacity. As the absence of rocket arsenals in Judea and Samaria and the near disappearance of suicide bombers from Israeli cities shows, the strategy has worked.
    THE PROBLEM with repeating the successful strategy used in Defensive Shield in either Gaza or Lebanon is that doing so would require politicians to admit that they have made mistakes. Livni, Olmert and Barak have all based their careers on their advocacy of the view that Israel must not "occupy" land to defend itself, but rather should subcontract its security to peace treaties, to its enemies and to Europeans and Americans.
    They cannot implement a strategy that requires them to recognize that the price of defending ourselves is smaller than the price of surrendering our security to our enemies. Doing so would be tantamount to acknowledging that they have led the country astray. And as they demonstrate through their stubborn maintenance of tried and failed strategies, this is something they will not do.
    But then, as Ya'alon noted in his radio interview Monday, that's why Israel is lucky to be a democracy. On February 10 we will have the opportunity to make clear our view that leaders who have failed cannot be expected to clean up their messes.

    This article can also be read at /servlet/Satellite?cid=1229868818936&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull



    by Bernard J. Shapiro

    The Freeman Center is made up of many Israeli and non-Israeli supporters of Israel. In this time of war and crisis we urge unity among all supporters of Israel.
    However, there are some important things that must be remembered by Israeli voters.
    1. Please don't be fooled into thinking that the current government of Livni, Olmert and Barak represent a true Zionist government.
    2. While the current military operation in Gaza is necessary, it SHOULD have be done much earlier. Hamas has had over two years to build up its strength and prepare for battle. Following Hezbollah tactics and with Iranian support, it has stockpiled missiles (anti-tank, anti-air and ground to ground) and built underground bunkers and communication tunnels. They have prepared booby traps and hidden bombs to kill Israel soldiers if they should invade.
    3. In fact, do you remember that when this government committed population transfer of Jews from Gaza, they promised immediate retaliation should there be hostile action from the terrorists. THERE WAS NO SERIOUS REACTION AS THE ISRAELIS ON THE BORDER OF GAZA SUFFERED AND BLED.
    4. Please do not forget that this government plans to give away for pieces of paper and photo ops the heart of Eretz Yisrael.
    5. Please do not forget that  by giving away this land they will render Israel indefensible. They will destroy its water supply and make every part of Israel vulnerable to rockets.
    6. Please don't be fooled into thinking that by some magic they have become Zionists. They can talk tough, they can talk like Zionists, they can act tough when it suits them politically. But they are NOT tough. They delight in persecuting religious Jews and settlers. It took over 2 years to fight the Arabs of Gaza but they jump at the chance to abuse and imprison teen age Jewish girls and Jews defending themselves against Arab attack.
    7. When the war in Gaza is over, there will be Israeli elections. The Freeman Center will not tell you who to vote for. But we will tell you that there are some parties that are not Zionists and a vote for them could lead to serious damage to Israelis ability to survive into the future.
    8. The Israeli Parties NOT to vote for are:
    ***Kadima - a pro-Palestinian State party that has destroyed Israel long term deterrence level in the World. It has had a pro-piece of paper policy in exchange for Israeli territory. Avoid a vote for them like the plague.
    ***Labor - Even worse than Kadima in its pro-Palestine stance. It is headed by a megalomaniac named Ehud Barak. It is also very Socialist and will prevent the continued growth of the Israeli economy.
    ***Meretz - this is the party of Peace Now that has lead the attacks worldwide  on Zionism and the right of Israel to security.
    ***Arab Parties - Treasonous pro-terrorist parties who delight celebrate when Jewish blood is spilled.
    Israelis should vote for parties that believe in Justice of the Jewish State in the Land of Israel. They should vote for parties that will enforce the laws justly and not use the law to persecute the Jewish people in favor of the Arabs. They should vote for parties that will keep Israel a Jewish State and not some bi-national entity. They should vote for parties that encourage the emigration of Arabs and the immigration of Jews. This can be done through economics and the equal enforcement of the law.
    Israelis should vote only for parties that will renounce Oslo and its evil successors. They should vote for parties that will totally cease negotiations on a Palestine state or withdrawal from any part of Eretz Yisrael. They should vote for parties that will stop releasing terrorists.
    There are more things to be said, but that is enough. Most important, you should go to the polls and vote. Only your vote can change the Israeli government.
    Bernard J. Shapiro is Chairman of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies  and Editor of the Maccabean Online.