Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
VOLUME 17             B"H   September 2011             NUMBER 9

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

September 2011


  • LESSONS FROM THE EMBASSY TAKEOVER..............Caroline B. Glick
  • KILL FOR PEACE..............Paul Eidelberg

  • THE PALESTINIAN OBSESSION..............Caroline B. Glick


  • THE FAMOUS STATE OF PALESTINE..............Giulio Meottia

  • ISRAEL'S PATH TO VICTORY..............Caroline B. Glick

  • THE PLO-UN AXIS OF EVIL: PART I..............Paul Eidelberg

  • LEOPARDS DON'T CHANGE SPOTS, ONLY TACTICS..............Yoram Ettinger


  • A PRAYER FOR 5772..............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 © 2011 Bernard J. Shapiro
    Contributions are fully tax deductible (501(c)3)




    Lessons from the Embassy Takeover

    By Caroline Glick

    Originally published in The Jerusalem Post


    embassy attack.jpg
    We are able to consider the lessons of the weekend's mob assault on the Israeli embassy in Cairo because the six Israeli security officers who were on the brink of being slaughtered were rescued at the last moment and spirited out of the country. If the Egyptian commandos hadn't arrived on the scene at the last moment, the situation would have been too explosive for a sober-minded assessment of the rapidly deteriorating situation with our neighbor to the south.

    Any assessment of the weekend's events must begin by recounting a few key aspects of the assault. First, this was the second mob attack on the embassy in so many weeks. During the first assault, an Egyptian rioter scaled the 20-story building where the embassy is housed, tore down the Israeli flag, and threw it to the frenzied mob below which swiftly burned it. Rather than being arrested for the crime of assaulting a foreign embassy, the rioter was embraced as a hero by Egypt's military regime. The governor of Giza awarded him an apartment and a job.

    Second, for six hours after the assault on the embassy began on Friday evening, Israel's leaders tried desperately to contact the leaders of the Egyptian military junta to request their intercession on behalf of the trapped security officers.

    Field Marshal Muhammad Tantawi refused to speak with either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

    Third, Egyptians authorities refused to intervene to save the lives of the Israeli security officers until after the Americans intervened directly on their behalf.

    That is, Israel's entreaties, and Egypt's international legal obligations were insufficient to move the Egyptian authorities to act to save the embassy personnel from the mob. Only the apparent threat of direct US action against Egypt convinced them to act.

    The behavior of the Egyptian mob and military junta alike served as a wake-up call for two key constituencies.

    Until last weekend, both the Israeli Left and the US foreign policy establishment believed the situation in Egypt was not significantly worse than it had been under deposed president Hosni Mubarak.

    Most Israelis awoke to the fact that Israel's border with Egypt is no longer a peaceful one three weeks ago. After the Egyptian-Palestinian terror cell infiltrated Israel from Sinai on August 18 and massacred eight Israelis on the highway to Eilat, most Israelis recognized that relations with Egypt had been ruptured.

    But until the weekend, Israel's Left insisted there was a distinction between the lawless Sinai and the more orderly situation in Cairo. They argued that all that was needed to calm the situation in Sinai was for the military junta to assert its authority in Sinai as it does in the rest of Egypt. Hence, the Left argued that it is in Israel's interest to amend the peace treaty and allow the Egyptian military to remilitarize the Sinai.

    Since the weekend, these claims have been notably absent from the discourse. After the Egyptian military allowed the mob to take over the embassy, residual leftist faith in the junta's moderation and commitment to the peace with Israel is swiftly evaporating.

    As for the Americans, unlike Israel, American foreign policy hands from across the conservative-liberal divide supported the mob in Tahrir Square that called for Mubarak's overthrow. The Americans hailed Mubarak's demise as a triumph of liberal democratic forces in the Arab world. But in the aftermath of the weekend's assault on the embassy, voices from across the political spectrum in the US are calling for a reassessment of US relations with Egypt.

    For his part, Obama's willingness to intervene on behalf of the besieged security guards at the embassy was probably not divorced from his assessment of the political fallout likely to ensue from the slaughter of Israeli embassy guards by the Egyptian mob.

    In such an event, the American public would immediately equate Obama's support for the "democratic, revolutionary" mob against longstanding US ally Mubarak with his predecessor Jimmy Carter's support for the "democratic, revolutionary" Iranian mob against the US-allied Shah of Iran in 1979.

    The fact that Obama recognizes the political significance of the developments in Egypt signals that he too may be willing to consider adopting a different policy towards Egypt in the months to come.

    All of this is important.

    In the absence of a reassessment of the situation in Egypt by the Israeli Left and the American policy establishment alike, the chance of anyone adopting rational policies towards the strongest Arab state would remain small.

    Any rational policy must be based on an accurate assessment of the dynamics of the post- Mubarak political situation. Specifically, is the junta part of the mob or is it simply unable or unwilling to manage it?

    Apparently it is a bit of both.

    Like its treatment of the rioter who tore the Israeli flag from the embassy building two weeks ago, the regime's arrest in June of the dual Israeli- American citizen ` on trumped-up espionage charges is an example of the junta acting as part of the mob.

    On the other hand, the regime's decision to try Mubarak and his sons in contravention of Tantawi's solemn pledge to Mubarak is an indication that Tantawi and his generals are led by the mob.

    As for Grapel - and to a lesser degree Mubarak - the US's ultimate success in forcing the junta to rescue the Israelis trapped at the embassy demonstrates that the US still has significant leverage against Egypt. When it is sufficiently adamant, Washington can force the junta change its behavior.

    It is not clear how much this leverage is dependent on continued US financial and military assistance to Egypt. Obviously, an assessment of its significance should guide any US consideration of reducing or cutting off that aid.

    As for Israel, the mob's ability to determine the course of events in Egypt and the junta's refusal to stand up to the mob on Israel's behalf is a strong indication that the peace treaty is doomed.

    After the junta stood back and allowed the mob to storm the embassy, it is impossible to believe the junta will defy the mob's demand to abrogate the treaty.

    The fact that the treaty is doomed doesn't mean that Israel will immediately find itself at war with Egypt - although the prospect can no longer be ruled out. The US's continued leverage against the regime - like NATO's leverage against Turkey - may very well convince the Egyptians to maintain a ceasefire with Israel.

    On the other hand, US leverage may end after November's elections. The Muslim Brotherhood and its allies are expected to win a parliamentary majority and the presidency.

    Given the explosiveness of the situation, it is imperative that the US not repeat its rush to action from January where without considering the consequences of its actions, Washington hurriedly sided with the Tahrir Square mob against Mubarak. The US shouldn't support elections or oppose them. It shouldn't cut off aid or increase it. It shouldn't condemn the junta or embrace it.

    The Americans should simply monitor the situation and prepare for all contingencies.

    As for Israel, it must prepare for the possibility of war. It must increase the size of the IDF by adding a division to the Southern Command. It must train for desert warfare. It must expand the Navy.

    Thankfully, all Israeli personnel were safely evacuated from Cairo. But this happy circumstance must not blind anyone to the dangers mounting in Egypt.

    * * * * * * *



    The Palestinian Obsession

    By Caroline B. Glick

    Jewish World Review 

    16 September, 2011 / 17 Elul, 5771


    If nothing else, the Palestinians' UN statehood gambit goes a long way towards revealing the deep-seated European and US pathologies that enable and prolong the Palestinian conflict with Israel.
    In a nutshell, the Palestinian Authority — or Fatah — or PLO initiative of asking the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly to upgrade its status to that of a sovereign UN member state or a sovereign non-UN member state is an act of diplomatic aggression.
    Eighteen years ago this week, on September 13, 1993, the PLO signed the Declaration of Principles with Israel on the White House lawn. There, the terror group committed itself to a peace process in which all disputes between Israel and the PLO — including Palestinian statehood — would be settled in the framework of bilateral negotiations.
    The Palestinian Authority was established on the basis of this accord. The territory, money, arms and international legitimacy it has been given was due entirely to the PLO pledge to resolve the Palestinian conflict with Israel through bilateral negotiations.
    By abandoning negotiations with Israel two years ago, and opting instead to achieve its nationalist aims outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel, the Palestinians are destroying the diplomatic edifice on which the entire concept of a peace process is based. They are announcing that they have no intention of living at peace with Israel. Rather they intend to move ahead at Israel's expense.
    In truth, there is little new in the Palestinians' behavior. They have been using the UN to weaken Israel diplomatically since the early 1970s. Moreover, even if their bid does provide them with upgraded diplomatic status, it won't change the reality on the ground, nor are the Palestinians particularly interested in changing the situation on the ground.
    As the PLO ambassador in Lebanon Abdullah Abdullah made clear in an interview Wednesday with Lebanon's Daily Star, in the event that the UN recognizes some form of Palestinian statehood at the UN, the new "State of Palestine" will still expect the UN to support the so-called Palestinian "refugees." This is true, he said, even for the "refugees" who live in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. That is, the same UN that the Palestinians seek recognition of statehood from will be expected to provide relief to Palestinian "refugees" living inside of "Palestine."
    As he put it, "Even Palestinian refugees living in [refugee camps] inside the [Palestinian] state, they are still refugees. They will not be considered citizens."
    So if nothing will change on the ground, why do the US and the EU care what the Palestinians do at the UN next week with their automatic General Assembly majority?
    Why have the senior peace processors of Washington and Europe descended on Jerusalem and Ramallah, begging and pleading with the Palestinians to cancel their plans?
    Why have the Americans and the Europeans been pressuring Israel to make massive concessions to the Palestinians in order to convince them to put out the diplomatic fire there have set at the UN?
    Why are the White House and the State Department telling the media that the US will consider it a major diplomatic embarrassment if the Palestinians go through with their threats?
    Why in short, do the Americans and the Europeans care about this?
    The Palestinians have certainly never given either the Americans or the Europeans a good reason to support their cause. Just this week, the PLO representative in Washington told reporters that the future state of Palestine will ban Jews and homosexuals.
    And yet, the Obama administration and the EU have made the establishment of a racist, homophobic Palestinian state the greatest aim of their policies in the Middle East.
    Every single Palestinian leader from the supposedly moderate Fatah party has rejected Israel's right to exist and stated that they will never set aside their demand that Israel accept millions of foreign born Arabs — the so-called Palestinian "refugees" -- as citizens. They say this with the full knowledge that this demand is nothing less than a demand for Israel's destruction.
    And yet, both the US and the EU, which certainly do not support the destruction of Israel, insist that it is imperative to strengthen and support the supposedly moderate Fatah party which seeks the destruction of Israel.
    Every year, the US and Europe transfer collectively approximately a billion dollars in various forms of aid to the Palestinian Authority and yet, the PA has failed to develop a market economy capable of supporting the Palestinians without foreign assistance. Rather, they have developed a welfare society where most economic activity stems from foreign handouts.
    Rather than feel embarrassment at their failures, PA leaders use their economic corruption to continuously threaten their patrons. If aid is cut off, they say, the PA will disintegrate and the far more popular Hamas movement will take over, and then, woe of woes, the peace process will be destroyed.
    Of course, Hamas is also sustained by Western aid dollars. Every month, the same PA that warns of the dangers of a rising Hamas transfers tens of millions of foreign aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza to pay salaries of Hamas "government" employees.
    Yet despite its mafia economy, and its exploitation of their aid funds to support a terrorist organization, the US and EU insist on maintaining the PA's status as the largest per capita foreign aid recipient in human history. And they do so even as the Euro zone is on the brink of collapse and the US is descending rapidly into a new recession.
    Finally, in the interest of maintaining the peace process, aside from periodic pro forma statements, the US and the EU have turned blind eyes to the PA's routine and institutional glorification of terrorist mass murderers and Nazi-style anti-Semitic indoctrination and incitement of Palestinian society.
    Given their absolute commitment to the so-called peace process, it would be reasonable to expect the US and the EU to oppose the Palestinians' decision to move their conflict with Israel from the negotiating table to the UN. After all, in acting as they are, the Palestinians are making clear that they are abandoning the sacrosanct peace process.
    Alas, this is not the case.
    The Obama administration is engaging in desperate eleventh hour diplomacy to convince the Palestinians to cancel their UN plan because it does not wish to oppose it. For their part, most EU member states are expected to support the Palestinian bid at both the Security Council and the General Assembly.
    The fact that the US and the EU are reluctant to oppose the Palestinian UN initiative despite the fact that it destroys the foundations of the peace process tells us two things about the Americans and the Europeans. First, their support for the Palestinians has more in common with a psychological obsession than with a rational policy decision.
    The Obama administration, the EU bureaucracy and most EU member states are obsessed with the Palestinians. There is nothing the Palestinians can say or do to convince them that the Palestinian case is anything other than wholly and completely just.
    There are many possible explanations for how they arrived at this obsession. But the fact is that it is an obsession. Like all obsessions, their faith in the justice of the Palestinian cause is impermeable to contrary facts or rational interests.
    The flipside of this obsession is of course, a complementary obsession with blaming Israel for everything that goes wrong. For if the Palestinians are always in the right, and they are fighting Israel, then it naturally follows that Israel is always in the wrong.
    This "Blame Israel First" mindset was exposed in all its madness in a New York Times editorial on Thursday. Despite the Palestinians' refusal to negotiate with Israel, despite Fatah's unity government deal with Hamas, and despite their rejection of Israel's right to exist, the Times argued that Israel is to blame for the current crisis in relations.
    In the paper's view, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu "has been the most intractable," party to the conflict. Netanyahu's crime? He has permitted Jews in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to exercise their property rights and build on land they own.
    Of course, that is not how the Times put it. In the Times' words, Netanyahu has been "building settlements." Intrinsic to the Times' claim, (and to the Obama administration's EU-supported demand that Israel disregard Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria), is an embrace of the Palestinians' bigoted position that Jews must be banned from the future Palestinian state.
    That is, like the administration and the EU, the Times' support for the "just Palestinian cause" is so comprehensive that its editors never even question whether it is reasonable for them to be completely committed to the establishment of a racist state. It is this inability to consider the significance of their actions that removes Western support for the Palestinians from realm of policy and into the sphere of neurosis.
    The second lesson of the US and European unwillingness to oppose the Palestinians' UN statehood bid is that the Obama administration and the EU alike are obsessed with getting on the right side of inherently anti-Western international institutions.
    Here too, the reason that the position is an obsession rather than a considered policy is because no conceivable rational US or European interest is advanced by strengthening the UN and similar bodies.
    Administration officials have repeatedly stated that they do not wish to veto a Palestinian statehood resolution at the Security Council because they do not want to isolate the US at the UN. It is due to their aversion to isolation that the administration has worked so intensively in recent weeks to convince the Palestinians to cancel their UN plans by pressuring Israel to give them massive concessions.
    It never seems to have occurred to anyone at the White House that standing alone at the UN more often than not means standing up for US interests and that standing with the crowd involves sacrificing US interests.
    As for the EU, their automatic support of the UN is somewhat more reasonable. Although the UN majority systematically empowers states and forces that are hostile to Europe, many EU member states share the UN majority's anti-Israel and anti-American positions. So by voting with the majority, EU member states are able to act on their prejudices without having to own up to them. Moreover, many EU states have irredentist Islamic minorities. Joining the Israel bashers at the UN is a low cost way to appease them.
    Thursday Netanyahu announced that he will address the UN General Assembly in New York next week and put the truth about the Palestinian cause on the table.
    Perhaps someone will be moved by his words.
    Perhaps not.
    But whether he makes a difference or not, at least reason will have one defender at the UN next week.
    * * * * * * *
    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, where her column appears.




    Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy

    By Alan Baker

    Jerusalem Issue Brief

    Vol. 11, No. 16 18 September 2011

    • A concerted campaign is being waged against Israel to question its 
    very legitimacy in virtually every aspect of its historical, political, and 
    cultural life, with the aim of undermining the very foundations of Israel’s 

    • In response, several world-renowned experts have joined to present an 
    authoritative exposition of Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in 
    International Diplomacy, published jointly by the Jerusalem Center for 
    Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress.

    • The volume includes: “The National Rights of Jews“ by Prof. Ruth 
    Gavison, “From the Balfour Declaration to the Palestine Mandate“ by Sir 
    Martin Gilbert, “Self-Determination and Israel’s Declaration of Independence“ 
    by Prof. Shlomo Avineri, “The United Nations and Middle East Refugees: The 
    Differential Treatment of Arabs and Jews“ by Dr. Stanley A. Urman.

    • “Israel’s Rights Regarding Territories and the Settlements in the Eyes 
    of the International Community“ by Amb. Alan Baker, “The Historical and 
    Legal Contexts of Israel’s Borders“ by Prof. Nicholas Rostow, “The 
    Misleading Interpretation of Security Council Resolution
    242 (1967)“ by Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, “Defending Israel’s Legal Rights to 
    Jerusalem“ by Amb. Dore Gold.

    • “Palestinian Unilateralism and Israel’s Rights in Arab-Israeli Diplomacy“ by Dan Diker, “Is the Gaza Strip Occupied by Israel?“ by Col. (res.) Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, “The Violation of Israel’s Right to Sovereign Equality in the United Nations“ by Amb. Alan Baker, and “Countering Challenges to Israel’s Legitimacy“ by Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz.As the United Nations is about to be manipulated by a Palestinian attempt to impose its statehood on the international community in a manner that undermines a vital negotiating process based on the UN’s own resolutions, a concerted campaign is being waged against Israel by Palestinian, Muslim, and other non-Arab elements in the international community to question the very legitimacy of Israel in virtually every aspect of its historical, political, and cultural life, with the aim of undermining the 
    very foundations of Israel’s existence.

    In response, several world-renowned experts have joined to present an authoritative exposition of Israel’s Rights as a Nation-State in International Diplomacy, edited by Alan Baker, former legal counsel of Israel’s Foreign Ministry and former ambassador to Canada, and published 
    jointly by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and the World Jewish Congress.

    The National Rights of Jews

    Prof. Ruth Gavison, Professor (emerita) of Human Rights at the Faculty of 
    Law of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and recipient of the Israel Prize 
    in Law (2011), challenges the often- repeated denial by the Arabs of the 
    rights of Jews to establish their own nation. The Jews have always had the 
    characteristics of a nation, both ethnical and cultural, and not only 
    religious. This was true before Israel was established and it is true today. 
    It is justified for Jews to have sought revival of their political 
    independence in their ancient homeland – Zion.

    Zionism is not a colonial or an imperialist enterprise. The Arab population 
    in pre-state Israel had never enjoyed or established political independence, 
    and Jews were at liberty to seek political revival in the only place in the 
    world that had been their homeland.

    “An Overwhelmingly Jewish State” - From the Balfour Declaration to the 
    Palestine Mandate

    World-renowned British historian and author Sir Martin Gilbert, who is 
    Winston Churchill’s official biographer, discusses how Great Britain viewed 
    the right of the Jews to a national home in Palestine. The Times of 
    London declared on September 19, 1919: “Our duty as the Mandatory 
    power will be to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling State, but one that 
    is capable of vigorous and independent national life.”

    Winston Churchill announced publicly on March 28, 1921: “It is manifestly 
    right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a 
    national center and a National Home where

    some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in the land 
    of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately 
    and profoundly associated?”

    On June 3, 1922, the British Government issued a White Paper, known as the 
    Churchill White Paper, which stated: “During the last two or three 
    generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community, now numbering 
    80,000....It is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of 
    right and not on the sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that 
    the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be 
    internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to 
    rest upon ancient historic connection.”

    Churchill told the 1937 Palestine Royal Commission: “We committed ourselves 
    to the idea that someday, somehow, far off in the future, subject to justice 
    and economic convenience, there might well be a great Jewish State there, 
    numbered by millions, far exceeding the present inhabitants of the country 
    and to cut them off from that would be a wrong.”

    Self-Determination and Israel’s Declaration of Independence

    Israel Prize recipient Prof. Shlomo Avineri, Professor of Political Science 
    at the Hebrew University and Director-General of the Israel Foreign Ministry 
    in the first term of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, analyzes Israel’s right 
    to self-determination in the context of its Declaration of Independence. He 
    notes that the Arabs of Palestine and Arab states went to war not only 
    against the emerging Jewish state, but also against a UN resolution in the 
    only known case when member states of the UN not only did not abide by a UN 
    resolution but went to war against it.

    Had the Arab community gone through a profound internal debate and come out 
    of it – as did the Jewish community – with an acceptance, however reluctant, 
    of the compromise idea of partition, be it on moral or realistic grounds, or 
    both – history would have been different: on May 15, 1948, two states – 
    Israel and Palestine – would have been established. There would have been no 
    1948 war, no Palestinian refugees, no nakba, no further Arab-Israeli wars, 
    no terrorism, and no Israeli reprisals. This could have happened – but it 
    did not. The moral and political responsibility rests on the shoulders of 
    the Arab side. Had the Palestinian Arabs and the countries of the Arab 
    League chosen a different path, this would have made the Middle East a 
    region of prosperity, mutual respect, progress and abundance for all its 

    Despite the difficult war situation, the practical steps taken by the newly 
    established, independent State of Israel reflected the country’s willingness 
    to abide by obligations inherent in the UN partition plan. Israel adopted a 
    multicultural approach toward its Arab minority, maintaining the status of 
    Arabic as an official language. Israeli Arabs send their children to schools 
    which teach in Arabic, with the curriculum tailored to their culture.

    The acceptance by most Israelis today of a two-state solution – of a Jewish 
    and a Palestinian state living in peace with each other – is a testimony to 
    the fact that, despite decades of war and siege, the fundamental decision adopted by the Jewish community in 1947 continues to guide the moral compass of the Jewish state.

    The United Nations and Middle East Refugees: The Differential Treatment of 
    Arabs and Jews

    Dr. Stanley A. Urman, Executive Director of Justice for Jews from Arab 
    Countries (JJAC), contrasts the considerable diplomatic advocacy and 
    discussion concerning the Palestinian refugee issue with the utter lack 
    of consideration for the Jewish refugee issue. The mass violations of 
    the human rights of Jews in Arab countries and the displacement of over 
    850,000 Jews from their countries of birth has never been adequately addressed by 
    the international community, although on two separate occasions, the United Nations High 
    Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) specifically declared that Jews fleeing 
    from Arab countries were indeed refugees “who fall under the mandate” of the 

    From 1949 to 2009, General Assembly resolutions focused much greater 
    attention on the issue of Palestinian refugees (163 resolutions) – some 20 
    percent – than on any other Middle East issue. There were never any General 
    Assembly resolutions that even mention Jewish refugees from Arab countries. 
    Since 1947, billions of dollars have been spent by the international 
    community to provide relief and assistance to Palestinian refugees. During 
    that same period, international resources provided to Jewish refugees from 
    Arab countries were negligible.

    For the United Nations or other international entities to continue to ignore 
    or reject the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab countries is to validate 
    past and continuing injustice.

    Israel’s Rights Regarding Territories and the Settlements in the Eyes of the 
    International Community

    For over 40 years, it has been persistent UN practice to repeat in parrot 
    fashion the phrases “Israel the occupying power,” “the occupied Palestinian 
    territories,” and to refer to Israel’s settlement activity as illegal, 
    irrespective of the facts and the correct legal situation. Amb. Alan Baker 
    stresses that the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement of 1995, signed by 
    Israel and the PLO, was witnessed by the United States, the European Union, 
    Egypt, Jordan, Russia, and Norway, and supported by the UN. This agreement 
    changed the status of the territory and the status of each of the parties to 
    the agreement as well.

    Israel’s continued presence in Area C of the West Bank, pending the outcome 
    of permanent status negotiations, enjoys the official sanction of the 
    PLO. It cannot, by any measure of political manipulation or legal 
    acrobatics, be considered “occupied territory.”

    Construction activity by each side in those parts of the territory under 
    their respective control was expressly permitted in the agreement. Israel’s 
    presence in the territory of the West Bank, pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations, was with the full approval of the Palestinian leadership and thus is not occupation.

    Furthermore, analysis of the introduction to the 4th Geneva Convention as 
    well as the official International Red Cross Commentary to it makes it very 
    clear that Article 49 of the Convention was never intended to apply, and 
    cannot apply, to settlement activity carried out by Israel.

    The Historical and Legal Contexts of Israel’s Borders

    Prof. Nicholas Rostow, senior director of the U.S. National Defense 
    University’s Center for Strategic Research, addresses the claims against 
    Israel’s rights to defensible and recognized borders. He notes that UN 
    Resolution 242 left open for negotiation where Israel’s final boundaries 
    would be in exchange for withdrawal from Egyptian, Jordanian, Syrian, and 
    disputed territory, rather than requiring a restoration of the 1949 
    Armistice Demarcation Lines as the international boundary of Israel. The 
    resolution thus treated that boundary only as marking a minimum Israeli 
    territory. Resolution 242 arguably entitled Israel to more territory than 
    that. Adjustments were contemplated, as implied by the requirement for 
    “secure and recognized boundaries.”

    The Misleading Interpretation of Security Council Resolution 242 (1967)

    Israel Prize recipient Prof. Ruth Lapidoth, former legal adviser to Israel’s 
    Foreign Ministry and member of Israel’s negotiating team, analyses the way 
    in which Israel’s rights are being consistently negated through misleading 
    interpretations of UN Security Council Resolution 242. The resolution does 
    not request Israel to withdraw from all the territories captured in the 1967
    Six-Day War and does not recognize that the Palestinian refugees have a 
    right to return to Israel.

    The establishment of secure and recognized boundaries requires a process in 
    which the two states involved actually negotiate and agree upon the 
    demarcation of their common boundary. The UN Security Council did not regard 
    Israel’s presence in the territories as illegal. As an act of self-defense, 
    this military occupation was and continues to be legitimate, until a peace 
    settlement can be reached and permanent borders agreed upon.

    Defending Israel’s Legal Rights to Jerusalem

    Israel’s rights regarding Jerusalem are perhaps one of the most sensitive 
    issues on the agenda of the international community. Amb. Dore Gold, former 
    ambassador to the United Nations and currently President of the Jerusalem 
    Center for Public Affairs, sets out Israel’s rights regarding the city. The 
    Jewish people restored their clear-cut majority in Jerusalem not in 1948 or 
    in 1967 but in 1863, according to British consular records. This 
    transformation occurred well

    before the arrival of the British Empire in the First World War and the 
    Balfour Declaration. It even preceded the actions of Theodor Herzl and the 
    First Zionist Congress. Indeed, in 1914 on the eve of the First World War 
    there were 45,000 Jews in Jerusalem out of a total population of

    In the last seventeen years, a number of key misconceptions about Jerusalem 
    took hold in the highest diplomatic circles in the West as well as in the 
    international media. When Israel signed the Oslo Agreements in 1993, for the 
    first time agreeing to make Jerusalem an issue for future negotiations, that 
    did not mean that Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin planned to divide Jerusalem. 
    On October 5, 1995, one month before he was assassinated, he detailed to the 
    Knesset his vision for a permanent status arrangement with the Palestinians: 
    “First and foremost, united Jerusalem, which will include both Ma’ale Adumim 
    and Givat Ze’ev – as the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty.”

    In the years of the Arab-Israeli peace process, proposals were raised and 
    considered for the re- division of Jerusalem, but no binding agreements were 
    actually reached and brought to the Knesset for ratification. Israeli 
    opinion remained firm about the rights of the Jewish people to retain their 
    united capital under the sovereignty of Israel. The recognition of those 
    rights in the future by the international community will depend on Israel 
    demonstrating that it alone will protect the Holy City for all faiths.

    Palestinian Unilateralism and Israel’s Rights in Arab-Israeli Diplomacy

    Dan Diker, Secretary-General of the World Jewish Congress and Adjunct Fellow 
    of the Hudson Institute in Washington, addresses the attempt to deny Israel’s 
    rights to settle the conflict through bilateral negotiation. UN support for 
    or endorsement of Palestinian unilateral actions would clearly negate the 
    principles of negotiated settlement of disputes as set out both in the UN 
    Charter and in the major Security Council resolutions regarding the Middle 
    East peace process.

    A unilateral declaration of statehood by the Palestinians robs Israel of all 
    its rights and negates the peace process’s validity in its entirety. The 
    Palestinians’ rush to unilateral statehood cannibalizes the basis of all 
    past agreements including those that established the Palestinian Authority, 
    and ignores and dismisses the concessions already made by Israel during the 
    Oslo Accords and in later agreements.

    Is the Gaza Strip Occupied by Israel?

    In light of the attempts to represent Israel as if it is still occupying the 
    Gaza Strip, even after having evacuated its forces and citizens from the 
    area, Col. (res.) Pnina Sharvit-Baruch, former head of the IDF 
    International Law Department who served as legal adviser to the 
    Israeli negotiating teams during Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Syrian peace 
    negotiations between 1993-2009, places the legal status of Gaza in the correct perspective.

    The evacuation of Israeli citizens and IDF forces from Gaza was aimed to 
    reduce friction with the Palestinian population and improve Palestinian 
    living conditions. The hope was that the Palestinians would take advantage 
    of the opportunity created by Israel’s disengagement to break the cycle of 
    violence and reengage in a process of dialogue. Israel is clearly not an 
    occupier of Gaza. Israel has fully withdrawn and carries out no governmental 
    authority over the population in the area.

    According to the Supreme Court of Israel: “Israel is under no general 
    obligation to provide for the welfare of the residents of the Gaza Strip and 
    to preserve the public order there, according to the body of laws pertaining 
    to belligerent occupation in international law.” Israel does not possess 
    full control over the external perimeter of Gaza and has no effective 
    control over the area. Thus, there is no valid legal basis to regard Israel 
    as the occupying power of the Gaza Strip. The Hamas government exercises 
    effective powers of government there. Consequently, the laws of occupation 
    do not apply.

    The Violation of Israel’s Right to Sovereign Equality in the United Nations

    Amb. Alan Baker notes that since becoming a member of the UN in 1949, Israel 
    has been denied its Charter-based right to “sovereign equality,” and is the 
    only UN member state that is excluded from the UN geographical 
    groupings and that cannot be elected to the Security Council, the 
    International Court of Justice, or any other major UN body. Sovereign 
    equality in the UN – judicial equality, equality of voting, equality in 
    participation in all UN activities and processes, and equality in membership 
    in all forums – break down with respect to Israel, which is clearly 
    discriminated against.

    Since Israel has been excluded from its geographical regional group – the 
    Asian Group – by vote of the Arab and Muslim members of that group, and is 
    not accepted as a full member in the Western European and Others Group 
    (WEOG), Israel is being denied its UN Charter-guaranteed equality.

    In such a situation, Israel can never put up its candidacy for membership in 
    the Economic and Social Council or other major UN organs. It is denied any 
    chance of having its jurists chosen as candidates for the major juridical 
    institutions, tribunals, and courts within the UN system, and it cannot 
    participate in consultations between states, organized within the regional 
    group system, to determine positions and voting on issues, resolutions, and 
    other matters. In 1998, the UN Secretary-General called “to rectify an 
    anomaly: Israel’s position as the only Member State that is not a Member of 
    one of the regional groups....We must uphold the principle of equality among 
    all UN member states.”

    Sir Robert Jennings, former President of the International Court of Justice, 
    wrote in 1999: “Exclusion of one member from an essential part of 
    the workings of an international organization in which all other members 
    are entitled to participate is a crude breach of the rule on 
    non-discrimination.” He continued: “I venture to suggest that Israel’s 
    exclusion should no longer be tolerated; and that it is now an issue of 
    primary importance for the [UN] Organization itself to see that it be 

    Countering Challenges to Israel’s Legitimacy

    Persistent and oft-repeated charges against Israel’s legitimacy, such as the 
    charge that Israel is an illegitimate, “colonial” state; that it secured its 
    statehood unlawfully; that it is an apartheid state; and the claim for a 
    “one-state solution” are analyzed by the eminent U.S. jurist Prof. Alan M. 
    Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He notes that the Jewish 
    refugees in Palestine had established their homeland without the assistance 
    of any colonial or imperialist power. They relied on their own hard work in 
    building an infrastructure and cultivating land they had legally purchased. 
    These Jews had the right to determine their own future consistent with the 
    Wilsonian principle of self-determination.

    Israel’s statehood was secured lawfully by, among other instruments and 
    acts, the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, 
    the 1937 Peel Commission Report, the 1947 United Nations partition 
    resolution, Israel’s Declaration of Independence, subsequent recognition of 
    the State of Israel by numerous world powers, and Israel’s acceptance into 
    the United Nations. What other country has its origins so steeped in 
    international law?

    A bi-national state would not only imperil Israel’s Jewish population, but 
    would eradicate the one state in the Middle East that affords its Muslim 
    citizens more expansive civil liberties and political prerogatives than any 
    other. Israeli Arabs are better off – as measured by longevity, health care, 
    legal rights, even religious liberty – than other Arabs in the Middle East.

    * * *

    This book will serve as a vital tool for all those who are genuinely 
    interested in looking through the shallow and clichéd attempts by those in 
    the international community who are determined, for whatever reason, to 
    question Israel’s legitimacy and to deny its rights.

    View the full study online

    This Jerusalem Issue Brief is available online at:

    Dore Gold, Publisher; Alan Baker, ICA Director; Mark Ami-El, Managing 
    Editor; Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (Registered Amuta), 13 Tel -Hai 
    St., Jerusalem, Israel; Tel. 972 -2-561-9281,  Fax. 972-2-561-9112, Email: In U.S.A.: Center for Jewish Community Stu dies, 7 
    Church Lane, Suite 9, Baltimore, MD 21208; Tel. 410-653-7779,
     Fax 410-653-8889
    Website: © Copyright. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

    The Institute for Contemporary Affairs (ICA) is dedicated to providing a forum for Israeli policy discussion and debate.

    To subscribe to the Jerusalem Issue Brief list, please go to link:
    To unsubscribe to the Jerusalem Issue Brief list, please go to link: 



    MK Evokes Jabotinsky: For Peace, Build 'Iron Wall'

    National Union MK Aryeh Eldad Speaks at AFSI Ze'ev Jabotinsky Memorial Event in New York.

    By Fern Sidman, Arutz Sheva New York Correspondent

    19 September, 2011


    Arutz Sheva photo
    On Thursday evening over 200 people joined Americans For a Safe Israel (AFSI) and The Nordau Circle as they commemorated the 71st yahrzeit of Revisionist-Zionist leader Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky at the Congregation Ohab Tzedek on Manhattan's trendy Upper West Side, known for its high percentage of New York professionals.
    AFSI's executive director Helen Freedman explained that "Jabotinsky's ideology is the bedrock for those who believe in a greater Israel, with its biblical, legal and historical entitlements and is the driving force for AFSI." 
    MK Dr. Arieh Eldad (National Union, a member of the Israeli Knesset since 2003, spoke of the incalculable impact of Jabotinsky's ideals on modern day Israel. "The defense policy of Israel was created 30 years before its birth, as it was based on Jabotinsky's short essay entitled "The Iron Wall", said Dr. Eldad.
    "In 1923, Jabotinsky wrote, 'Except for those who were born blind, it was realized long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Arab world for converting 'Palestine' from Arab land into a country with a Jewish majority. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character, it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall."
    Jabotinsky was not referring to 'Palestinians', who did not yet claim to be a people, but to the Arabs living in the Middle East, who later attacked the fledgling state of Israel. 
    Adding that the first prime minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion, also adopted this policy, Dr. Eldad said, "When the Arabs will be convinced that they can't break this wall then we can have peace. Jabotinsky saw the future much clearer than any of us today and this is why his "Iron Wall" vision is so vitally essential now." 
    Dr. Eldad castigated the mentaliity of the "apologetic Jews who do not really believe that the land of Israel belongs to the Jewish people" and referred to Zionism as an abnormal liberation movement in that it represented a double mission of sorts. "Not only did Zionism call upon us to return to our land but we also were called upon to liberate it from foreign occupiers", he said. 
    Debunking the claim of a territorial conflict, Dr. Eldad said, "To the Muslim world this is a religious war. What motivates the Arab hatred against us is their scrupulous dedication to the execution of Shariah law." Calling for the Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria and the end of the Muslim occupation thereof, Dr. Eldad called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a weak leader" who needs to summon up the courage to stand up to President Obama and his pressure on Israel to retreat to the indefensible borders of 1967. 
    Jabotinsky, born in 1880 in Odessa, Russia to a liberal Jewish family,left home at 18 for Italy and Switzerland to study law and journalism. The horrific 1903 pogrom against the Jews of Kishinev led him to focus his energies on his people and the nascent Zionist dream of establishing a Jewish state in the land of Israel.
    He spearheaded a campaign to reestablish the first Jewish army in Israel in nearly 2,000 years, was elected as a delegate to the 6th World Zionist Congress in 1923, and founded the Betar Zionist youth movement in honor of his friend and fellow Jewish soldier Yosef Trumpeldor. Young Betarim were taught to defend Jews against their enemies and devote their energies to helping create a new Jewish state. Derided as a "fascist" by his detractors because of his nationalist zeal and scorned and ridiculed as an alarmist when he traveled through Europe in the early 1930s urging Jews to evacuate Europe, Jabotinsky was only posthumously credited for his foresight.
    "Jabotinsky was a man of uncanny vision, principle and fearlessness," declared Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the American Center for Security and columnist at The Washington Times. Gaffney underscored the dangers posed by the radical Islamic movement; the implementation of "stealth jihad" and the egregious repercussions of the proliferation of Shariah law that has permeated Western civlization. Quoting from a scholarly study entitled, "Shariah: The Threat to America" published by the Center for Security Policy, Mr. Gaffney said, "Never has Israel been in sa much danger as it is today and the objectives of the Islamists is still to drive the Jews into the sea."
    The "Arab Spring" Gaffney said, "means within a year's time, there will be another big war for Israel's survival." Noting the hostility of Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Latin America towards Israel, he said that the common denominator that binds the ideological directives of these nations is adherence actualizing Shariah law. 
    Taking issue with President Obama, Gaffney said, "We need to punish people who threaten Israel. We need to deny funding to the United Nations and we must put on notice that any nation that thinks about attacking Israel will be an enemy of the United States. 
    G-d only bestows the power of prophecy upon a wise person of strong character. The biblical commentator, Rashi, tells us in the first verse of the Torah that G-d created the world and as such gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Hashem showed His might to our nation so that we would have the courage to mightily possess it, without apologies. This gives strength to the prophecy of Ze'ev Jabotinsky", said the synagogue's Rabbi Alan Schwartz.




    Working to ensure that Never Again remains more than a mere slogan 


    The Famous State of Palestine
    Giulio Meottia - Arutz Sheva - 9/19/11



    What would Arab state number 23/ Muslim state number 58 be like? 
    Giulio Meotti takes a good look.

    Global leaders are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a “State of Palestine” to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists in practice in the Palestinian Authority. Since the Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, the contours of the “State of Palestine” that they wish have taken form in front of our eyes.
    So what will this famous “State of Palestine” be like? 
    It will be a racist state ethnically cleansed of Jews, as the PLO representatives proclaimed the last week.
    It will be a state led by Holocaust enablers like Hamas or by a Holocaust-denier like Mahmoud Abbas, who in a book downgraded the number of Jewish victims and denied that the gas chambers were used to murder Jews.
    In any case, it will be a state committed to the destruction of the nearby Jews’ homeland. 
    A state that will banish freedom of conscience for artists, journalists and writers. A state that will drive away Christians from the land, while proclaiming Jesus “the first fedayeen”.
    A state that will stone to death Arab homosexuals and prostitutes, who are now finding a shelter in Israel. A state that will torture Arab inmates in prisons and that will throw political dissidents from the roofs of public buildings.
    A state where the Iranian clergy will preach the Khomeinist ideology. A state that will accept checks and support from the genocidal Muslim Brotherhood in the name of “the caliphate or death”, as the Islamists who assassinated Egypt’s Anwar Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages. 
    A state where the sharia – the Islamic code – will be the only rule of law. A state that will be put to death human beings simply because guilty of apostasy (conversion to Christianity). A state where the women will be obliged to wear headscarves. A state where “honor killings” will terrorize the female population.
    A state that will commemorate terrorists, human bombs and baby killers in public squares, streets and monuments. 
    A state that will not hold democratic elections, but that will be a combination of corruption, dictatorship, Islamic theology and “binladenism”.
    A state where terror militias will cut fingers off smokers.
    A state where public libraries will become the largest global archive of anti-Semitic books.
    A state that will ban drinking in public buildings. A state where liquor stores will be blown up by terror groups.
    A state where men will be banned from women’s hair salons. 
    A state where security forces will arrest people for expressing opinions unpopular with the regime, as well as punishing media organizations and journalists for their coverage of such statements.
    A state where the ratio of militiamen/men- under-arms to civilians will be higher than in any other country. A state where worshipers in mosques will be gunned down by terrorists.
    A state that will encourage a new category of Arab refugees, those who would gladly escape oppressive and murderous Palestinian control. 
    A state where ambulances will be stopped on the way to hospitals and wounded will be shot in cold blood. A state that would be a heavily armed union of rejectionists all dedicated to destroying the shards of Western values.
    A state where young couples will not walk hand in hand in the Al Manar Square of Ramallah and where plainclothes officers will halt them in the streets, demanding to see marriage licenses. 
    A state that will declare war on Judaism, depicting Jewish history in the Middle East as no more than an insignificant, brief sojourn by arrogant colonizers. 
    Who would live in such a state? So why the world is dribbling at the mouth about the creation of a “State of Palestine”?
    Is it because Arab state number 23 and Muslim state number 58 will be the perfect tool for the evaporization of the lone Jewish state in the world?
    6 miles is the distance between the Israeli city of Afula and the “State of Palestine”. 9 miles to the city of Netanya. 11 miles to reach the skycrapers of Tel Aviv. 4 miles to bomb the Ben Gurion International Airport. Just a mile to the city of Kfar Saba.
    Building the small Palestinian caliphate on Israel’s shoulders is the first step of throwing the Jews in the sea. 
    Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is a weekly columnist for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror vicitms, published by Encounter. He lives in Italy. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage, YNet, Makor Rishon and Commentary.
    Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors(CJHS) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit tax exempt organization committed to the promotion of Western values against the dual threats of complacency at home and political Islam abroad. We believe that a safe and secure Israel, prospering as a Jewish State, is a prerequisite to long-term global peace. CJHS insists that the last Holocaust imposes upon all people of good will a moral and political imperative to prevent the next one.

    Or mail your tax deductible check payable to "CJHS"
    20058 Ventura Blvd., #198 
    Woodland Hills, CA 91364







    Israel's Path to Victory

    By Caroline B. Glick

    Jewish World Review

    23 September, 2011 / 24 Elul, 5771 



    The US Congress is providing the Jewish state with a path to security. So why is Netanyahu hesitating? 

    There is something surreal about the coverage of developments this week at the UN. The general tenor is akin to the showdown at the O.K. Corral. Either the Palestinians win recognition of statehood, or they don't. If they do, they win. If they don't, Israel wins.
    The problem with this message is that even if the Palestinians don't receive UN membership they still win. There is no scenario in which Israel wins at the UN. The reason is simple. The UN is profoundly hostile to Israel. It has a large, permanent, automatic majority of members that always supports harming Israel.
    In the present circumstances, the best case scenario for Israel is that the Palestinians bring their membership resolution before the Security Council and the US immediately vetoes it. If that happens, at least we'll have closure in this particular fight.
    But even such a "victory" will have little lasting effect. There is nothing preventing the Palestinians from reinstating their membership request whenever they want. And given the sympathy their current membership bid has won them, the Palestinians have every reason to repeat the process again and again and again.
    By Thursday, it appeared that the most likely outcome of their present statehood bid will not be a quick US veto in the Security Council, but rather something much worse for Israel. Wednesday morning talk had already begun of a long drawn out period of deliberation at the Security Council which could last weeks or months or even longer. The idea is that during that time, the US and the Europeans will place massive pressure on Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians in order to restart stillborn negotiations. And the specter of a Security Council endorsement of Palestinian statehood will loom over Israel's head the entire time like the Sword of Damocles.
    Rather than wash its hands of this loser's game and move its policies to a diplomatic battlefield where it has a chance of actually winning, the government is playing out its losing hand as if what Israel does makes a difference. Even worse, the Netanyahu government is refusing to consider crafting a strategy for victory that it can advance outside the hostile confines of the UN.
    This is not simply a failure of imagination. It is a failure of cognition. It is a failure to notice the significance of what is already happening.
    Israel's friends in the US Congress have put forward two measures that pave the way for just such a strategy for victory. By failing to recognize the opportunity they represent for Israel, the government is showing a distressing lack of competence.

    The government's behavior is probably due to force of habit. Since the initiation of the phony peace process with the PLO 18 years ago, at their best, Israel's governments have justified the Jewish state's control over territories it won control over in the 1967 Six Day War on the basis of our security needs. Without the Jordan Valley, Israel is vulnerable to foreign invasion from the east. Without Gush Etzion to Jerusalem's south and Gush Adumim to its north, the capital is vulnerable to attack. Without overall Israeli security control over Judea and Samaria, Israel's population centers are vulnerable to terrorist attacks. And so on and so forth.

    All of these statements are accurate. But they are also defensive. While Israel has been defending its right to security, the Palestinians have been on the offensive arguing that all the land that Israel took control over from Jordan in 1967 belongs to them by ancestral right. And so for the past 18 years, the conflict has been framed as a dispute between the Palestinians' rights versus Israel's security requirements.
    Like its willingness to place itself at the UN's mercy, Israel's willingness to accept this characterization of the Palestinian conflict with Israel has doomed its cause to repeated and ever escalating failure. For if the land belongs to the Palestinians then whether or not their control of the land endangers Israel is irrelevant.
    This is the reason the US's support for Israel's right to defensible borders has been reduced from support for perpetual Israeli control over unified Jerusalem and some fifty percent of Judea and Samaria in 1993 to US support for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines — including the partition of Jerusalem — in 2011. You can define "defensive needs" down. Defining rights down is a more difficult undertaking.
    The irony here is that Israel's sovereign rights to Judea and Samaria are ironclad while the Palestinians' are flimsy. As the legal heir to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, Israel is the legal sovereign of Judea and Samaria.
    Moreover, Israel's historic rights to the cradle of Jewish civilization are incontrovertible.
    And yet, because Israel has not wanted to impede on the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians, for the past 18 years it has avoided mentioning its rights and instead focused solely on its security requirements. Consequently, outside of Bible-literate Christian communities, today most people are comfortable parroting the totally false Palestinian claim that Jews have no rights to Judea, Samaria or Jerusalem.
    They further insist that rights to these areas belong exclusively to the Palestinians who did not even exist as a distinct national community in 1967.
    As for Israel's allies in the US Congress, they have responded to the PLO's UN statehood gambit with two important legislative initiatives. First Cong. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee introduced a bill calling for the US to end its financial support for the Palestinian Authority and drastically scale-back its financial support for the UN if the UN upgrades the PLO's membership status in any way. Ros-Lehtinen's bill shows Israel that there is powerful support for an Israeli offensive that will make the Palestinians pay a price for their diplomatic aggression.
    Ros-Lehtinen's bill is constructive for two reasons. First, it makes the Palestinians pay for their adversarial behavior. This will make them think twice before again escalating their diplomatic warfare against Israel. Second, it begins an overdue process of delegitimizing the Palestinian cause, which as is now clear is inseparable from the cause of Israel's destruction.
    Were Israel to follow Ros-Lehtinen's lead and cut off its transfer of tax revenues to the PA, and indeed, stop collecting taxes on the PA's behalf, it would be advancing Israel's interests in several ways.
    It would remind the Palestinians that they need Israel far more than Israel needs them.
    Israel would make them pay a price for their diplomatic aggression.
    Israel would end its counterproductive policy of giving the openly hostile PA an automatic seal of approval regardless of their treatment of Israel. Israel would diminish the financial resources at the PA's disposal for the advance of its war against Israel.
    Finally, Israel would pave the way for the disbandment of the PA and its replacement by another authority in Judea and Samaria.
    And this brings us to the second Congressional initiative taken in anticipation of the PLO's UN statehood gambit. Earlier this month, Cong. Joe Walsh and thirty co-sponsors issued a resolution supporting Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria.
    While annexation sounds like a radical formula, the fact is that Israel already implemented a similar move twice when it applied Israeli law to Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. And the heavens didn't fall in either case. Indeed, the situation on the ground was stabilized.
    Moreover, just Israel remains willing to consider ceding these territories in the framework of a real peace with its neighbors, so the application of Israeli law to Judea and Samaria would not prevent these areas from being ceded to another sovereign in the framework of a future peace deal.
    And while not eliminating the prospects of a future peace, by applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria, Israel would reverse one of the most pernicious effects of the 18-year-old phony peace process: the continuous erosion of international recognition of Israel's sovereign rights to these areas.
    With each passing round of failed negotiations, offers that Israel made but were rejected were not forgotten. Rather they formed the starting point for the next round of failed negotiations. So while then prime minister Ehud Barak for instance claimed that his offer to cede the Temple Mount was contingent of the signing of a peace treaty, when the so-called Middle East Quartet issued its roadmap plan for peace, Barak's ostensibly cancelled offer was the starting point of negotiations.
    By applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria, Israel would change the baseline for future negotiations in a manner that enhances its bargaining position.
    Perhaps most importantly, by applying its laws to the areas, Israel would demonstrate that it understands finally that rights need to be asserted by deeds, not just by words if they are to be taken seriously.
    Thursday the New York Times published a news story/analysis that essentially rewrote the history of the last two and a half years. The paper ignored Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas's open admission that US President Barack Obama compelled him to radicalize his own policies towards Israel when Obama demanded that Israel abrogate Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as a precondition for negotiations. This was a precondition the Palestinians themselves had never demanded. And by making it a US demand, Obama ended any possibility of resuming negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel.
    By the Times' telling, Obama is a victim of the combined forces of an intransigent Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby that holds sway in Congress. These nefarious forces made it impossible for Obama to bring the sort of pressure to bear on Israel that would have placated the Arab world and paved the way for a peaceful settlement. And in the absence of such presidential power, Israel and its lobbyists wrecked Obama's reputation in the Arab world.
    The lesson that Israel should take from the Times' borderline anti-Semitic historical revisionism and conspiracy theories is twofold. First, Israel will never be rewarded for its concessions. The Times and its fellow anti-Israel activists don't care that since 2009 -- and indeed since 1993 -- Israel has made one concession after another only to be rewarded time after time with ever escalating demands for more concessions. The Times and its fellow Israel baiters have a story of Israeli conspiracies and bad faith to tell. And they will tell that tale regardless of objective facts and observable reality.
    This brings us to the second lesson of the Times article specifically and the experience at the UN generally. Israel has nothing to lose and everything to gain from going on the offensive. Our friends in the US Congress have shown us a path that lays open to us to follow. And we must follow it. Since we'll be blamed no matter what we do, we have no excuse for not doing what is best for us.
    * * * * * * *

    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, where her column appears.




    The PLO-UN Axis of Evil: Part I*

    by Prof. Paul Eidelberg



    The PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, was founded in 1964, three years before the Six-Day War of June 1967, when Israel regained possession of Judea and Samaria, which Jordan named the “West Bank” to erase Jewish history. During the nineteen years that Jordan ruled Judea and Samaria (1948-1967), not a word was heard of a “Palestinian people.” In fact, Arabs began to flock into this area only after the Six-Day War, when this utterly desolate land came under Israeli management.[1]

    Now recall my previously mentioned meetings with Shimon Peres and his advisers ("My Talks With Israel's Leaders"). What prevented them from exposing the fiction of a Palestinian people and its fictitious right to self-determination or statehood? Surely Peres’ expert on Arab culture, Professor Harkabi, knew of the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti who, in 1946, described the common Arab view: “There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not.” Palestine was never “perceived as a distinct entity deserving national self-determination but as an integral part of a unified regional Arab order ….”[2]

    No Arab nation ever set its historical roots in this soil, and no national claim was ever made to the land by any national group other than the Jews. This is why the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate, having affirmed the land as the National Home of the Jews, charged them with guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of other inhabitants. No mention was made of anynational rights of other inhabitants if only because it was recognized that the only national claim to the area was that made by the Jewish people.

    But this confirms that the PLO is an Arab hoax. So again I ask: “Why didn’t Israel’s government expose this hoax—which could have been done before the PLO was given observer status in the UN General Assembly in 1975?” It is one thing for the UN to serve as a cover for con artists; but why did Israel’s policy-makers refrain from exposing a hoax that endangered their country’s existence? Why didn’t they combat this lie with this simple truth: the PLO is nothing more than a congeries of terrorist groups drawn from various parts of the Middle East and North Africa? Let's me dispel this noxious political atmosphere.

    Yasser Arafat, the notorious PLO chairman and godfather of international terrorism, was an Egyptian. Until his demise in 2004, Arafat also served as president of the Palestinian Authority (PA). He was succeeded by his second-in-command Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen). Abbas was implicated in the Munich massacre, when 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team in the1972 Summer Olympics were taken hostage and eventually murdered by Black September, Arafat’s personal security guard. Abbas was also implicated in the Ma’alot massacre of May 15, 1974 in which 22 Israeli high school students from Safed, ages 14–16, were murdered. Finally, and more recently, when Muslim riots broke in Jerusalem during the October 2009 annual Succoth holiday (the Feast of Tabernacles), Abbas, in an interview on Yemenite television, virtually called for another intifada.[3]

    Just as Arafat had been festooned as a “moderate” to justify Israeli negotiations with that terrorist, so the same script was adopted for Abbas (even while he exalted suicide bombers). Recall my meeting with Mr. Peres’ political adviser Asher Ben-Natan. To say “we can’t lie as well as the Arabs” implies that Israel’s political elites are quite capable of deceiving the public. Not only has Abbas been called a “moderate” by Shimon Peres, but Benjamin Netanyahu, upon becoming Israel’s Prime Minister after the February 10, 2009, expressed an ardent desire to negotiate with that “moderate”!

    Just as the PLO is a consortium of terrorist groups drawn from various parts of the Middle East and North Africa, the so-called Palestinian people consists of an aggregation of Arab clans and tribes drawn from these far-flung areas. One way of identifying these Arabs is by their family names, which refer to their places of origin: Masri (Egyptian), Mugrabi (Moroccan), Ajami (Persian), Haurani (Syrian), Halabi (Aleppan), Kurdi (Kurdish), and many more. The multifarious origins of these “Palestinians” involve family, tribal, and sectarian rivalries. These facts are seldom heard.

    The Palestinians are commonly referred to as the Arab inhabitants of the “West Bank”—the fabricated rendering of “Judea” and “Samaria,” both Hebrew names. These Arabs are portrayed as an oppressed minority seeking national self-determination. Not only do most of these Arabs carry Jordanian passports, but their brethren, the “Palestinian” citizens of Jordan, comprise a large majority of Jordan’s population. Mention should also be made of the “Palestinians” who are citizens of Israel. To these add the “Palestinians” in Lebanon and Syria.[4] Far from being an oppressed minority, these so-called Palestinians are part of the Arab Nation, of the Sunni-Arab-Muslim majority which has ever aimed to smother the non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities of the Middle East.[5]

    Who speaks for these ersatz “Palestinians”? Until the Oslo Agreement of 1993, it was the PLO. That agreement produced the Palestinian Authority, the PA, whose parent, the unreconstructed PLO, has a long record of terrorism, of hijacking civilian aircraft, kidnapping, drug-dealing, and cold-blooded murder, even of two American diplomats in Khartoum.

    The most powerful faction of the PA is al-Fatah, founded in 1959. Fatah itself underwent fission, most recently with the emergence of Tanzim and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Also competing in the leadership of the PA is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), a faction linked to Syria. To this welter add the leftwing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC) based in Damascus. Another faction is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), which was responsible for the assassination of Israel’s Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi on November 17, 2001.[6]

    It should also be emphasized that none of these or other terrorist groups could exist without state support. Various countries in the third world provide training grounds for terrorists, as Afghanistan did for Al-Qaeda. These groups would not survive were it not for the support of the United Nations and the appeasement and suicidal policies of the West, including the United States, which has bankrolled the Palestinians. Of course, Western ignorance about these Arabs also perpetuates their existence. But it beggars the mind that the government of the United States, a superpower, has kowtowed to the murderous thugs of the Fatah-led PLO.[7]

    But what about Israel’s government? It knew quite well that the 1966 version of the PLO Charter called for Israel’s destruction. The document may be summarized as follows:

    ● Principles: (1) Palestine is part of the Arab world, the Palestinians are part of the Arab nation and their struggle is part of the struggle of the Arab nation. (2) The Palestinian struggle is an integral part of the worldwide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism.

    ● Goals: (1) Complete liberation of Palestine and the economic, political, military and cultural elimination of Zionism. (2) Establishment of an independent, democratic state in all of Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital.

    ● Method: (1) Military struggle is the sole method of liberating Palestine. (2) This struggle will not be complete until the Zionist state is destroyed and Palestine in its entirety will be liberated.

    The 1989 version of the Charter was softened to facilitate Israel’s recognition of the PLO. It calls for Israel’s “replacement” by peaceful means. More significant than official documents intended for foreign consumption is the ceaseless propaganda in the Palestinian media calling for Israel’s destruction. Even while PA leader Mahmoud Abbas extolled suicide bombers as “martyrs,” he was called a “moderate” by Israeli prime ministers.” Their deviousness did not skip a beat when Abbas selected as his successor Muhammad Ghaneim, a founder of Fatah who rejected the 1993 Oslo Accords as too moderate!

    Israel’s annihilation is still on the agenda of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority, especially in view of the fact that Arab children are educated to hate Jews and emulate suicide bombers—hence to love death.

    Much more will be said about the insidious character of the PLO in the sequel, Part II.

    *Based on my book "An American Political Scientist In Israel" (Lexington Books 2010), updated September 2011.


    [1] According to George Gilder: “Under Israeli management, economic growth in the West Bank and Gaza surged for some twenty years at a rate of 30 percent in 1979, averaging 25 percent per year …” He goes on to say: “…without the presence of the Jews, there is no evidence that the Palestinians would particularly want these territories for a nation.” The Israel Test (Richard Vigilante Book, 2009), 26, 27. Gilder cites Professor Efraim Karsh: “…conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low, malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed … During the 1970s, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world … with per capita GDP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 … Life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 … By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population … had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967 … [Similar advances occurred in hygiene, healthcare, child mortality, immunizations, and communications, which all rose to levels equal or exceeding other Middle East countries]. The number of school children … grew by 102 percent … Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. [From zero in 1967] by the early 1990s, there were seven [universities] boasting some 16,500 students.” The Israel Test, 49-50. The growth rate began to decline with the ascendancy of the PLO (after the Oslo Accords) and the introduction of foreign aid, which increased the power of Yasser Arafat’s emerging kleptocracy.

    [2] See Efraim Karsh, Islamic Imperialism: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press 2006), 139.

    [3] See Caroline Glick, “The newest round of war,” Jerusalem Post, Oct. 9, 2009, 24.

    [4] See Dan Nimrod, “Inflation and the Refugee Problem,” Jerusalem Post, May 11, 1992, 6, which shows how the PLO inflates the number of “Palestinian” refugees. The Palestinian Arabs inflate their number to 6 million, perhaps to evoke in the public the idea of the 6 million Jews who perished in the Nazi Holocaust. See Adam Garfinkle, “Israeli and Palestinian Proposals for the West Bank,” Orbis, Summer 1992, 436.

    [5] See Mordechai Nisan, Minorities in the Middle East (Jefferson, NC: McFarland Publishers, 1991), 15.

    [6] See Neil C. Livingston & David Halevy, Inside the PLO (NY: William Morrow, 1990), 72-79, 289-294; Raphael Israeli (ed.), The PLO in Lebanon: Selected Documents (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1983), 182-185.

    [7] Fatah forces in Judea and Samaria, have received military training from the U.S. under Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton. See Jerusalem Post, Oct. 9, 2009, 24.



    [Freeman Note: Please look at Bernard's Press Release (1993) below this excellent article.]


    Leopards Don't Change Spots, Only Tactics

    Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

    "Second Thought"

    Israel Hayom Newsletter

    23 September, 2011



    President Obama's September 21, 2011 speech, at the UN General Assembly, reaffirmed his world view on global affairs in general, and on the Palestinian issue in particular. 

    For instance, the President reiterated his, and Secretary Clinton's, assessment that the seismic turmoil on the Arab Street constitutes "transition to democracy," featuring "[non-violent] youth delivering a powerful rebuke to dictatorship." Obama believes that "the patriotism that binds Bahrainis together must be more powerful than the sectarian forces that would tear them apart." 

    In reality, the stormy Arab Winter reflects intensified violent power struggles and fragmentation along tribal, religious, ethnic, ideological and geographic lines. In fact, the anti-Western Muslim Brotherhood terrorists are gaining momentum in Egypt; almost all Muslim women in Egypt are victimized by female genital mutilation; Al-Qaeda is emerging as a winner in Libya; and thousands of moderate Tunisians have escaped to the Italian Mediterranean island of Lampedusa. In February, 2010, the US elevated diplomatic relations with Syria "because Assad could play a constructive role." The expectation for a near-term Arab Spring could produce another victory of wishful-thinking over experience, yielding a delusion-based policy, which would further traumatize the Middle East. 

    President Obama highlighted the toppling of Mubarak as a major achievement. He lumps Mubarak together with Qaddafi, Ben Ali of Tunisia and Gbagbo, the ruthless dictator of the Ivory Coast. 

    In reality, Obama's attitude toward Mubarak reminds pro-US Arab leaders of President Carter's stabbing in the back of the Shah of Iran and the facilitation of the rise of Khomeini. Obama's policy toward Egypt has been perceived by pro-US Arab leaders – all of whom are struggling to survive systematic subversion - as desertion/betrayal and as yet more evidence of the erosion of the US power of deterrence. Obama's yearning for democracy in Arab lands is interpreted, by the Arab Street, as a lethal threat to every pro-US Arab leader and a tailwind to anti-US insurgents.

    President Obama takes pride in the pending evacuation of Iraq "at the end of this year" and Afghanistan "between now and 2014." He claims that "the tide of war is receding… we are poised to end these wars from a position of strength." 

    In reality, the expected evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan is seen by Muslim and Arab regimes as an extension of American retreats from Vietnam and Cambodia (1973), Lebanon (1983) and Somalia (1993), further eroding the strategic posture of the US and emboldening rogue regimes and terrorists. Moreover, the evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan could trigger a series of volcanoes, threatening the integrity of Iraq itself and the survival of regimes in Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Jordan, etc. Coupled with the tectonic Arab Storm, the rise of Islamic terrorism, the threat of a nuclear Iran, the increased penetration of the Middle East by Russia and China and the 14 centuries old tradition of Arab fragmentation, violence and terrorism, the evacuation of Iraq and Afghanistan may not reduce the warlike atmosphere in the region; it may add more fuel to the regional fire. 

    President Obama reiterated his Israeli-Palestinian strategy, considering the Palestinian issue to be "a test for American foreign policy." He insists that the issues of the 1948 Arab refugees [which refer to pre-1967 Israel] and[the repartitioning of] Jerusalem should be on the table. And, he applies moral equivalence to the Palestinians – a role model of international terrorism, hate education and alliance with US enemies – and Israelis – a role model of counter-terrorism, democracy and unconditional alliance with the US. 

    In reality, as evidenced by the New Arab Disorder, the Palestinian issue has never been a root cause of Middle East turbulence, of anti-US Islamic terrorism, of the Arab-Israeli conflict or the crown-jewel of Arab policy-making.Obama's strategy constitutes an insurmountable obstacle to peace. It signals to the Palestinians that they are not expected to pay – and, in fact, they are rewarded - for hate education, 100 years of terrorism and violation of commitments.

    Tactically, President Obama decided (in reaction to growing public and Congressional resentment of his attitude towards the Jewish State) to highlight Israel's predicament: "Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it…"

    However, one should focus on Obama's strategy rather than Obama's tactic and note that leopards don't change their spots, only their tactics.

    Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston)
    2 September, 1993

    "Freeman Center Says Rush to Embrace PLO Is Foolish and Ultimately Dangerous"



     ‘...nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel’ 

    Asserting that the rush to embrace the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is both foolish and ultimately dangerous, the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies has declared: "The pro-Israel community should react with extreme caution to the moves in Jerusalem to recognize the PLO."
    Bernard J. Shapiro, director of the center also said: "The proposed Gaza-Jericho plan worked out between Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres and representatives of the PLO, a terrorist organization, is nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel. We should not forget that the PLO has violated and trampled on every agreement it has ever made during its nearly 30-year history. This includes agreements and solemn pledges made to the Arab governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, as well as the United States and the United Nations."
    According to the Freeman Center, the PLO instituted a reign of terror, rape and murder locally as well as attacks on Israel in the two Arab countries where it gained a kind of ‘self rule.’"

    Shapiro continued: "Despite the media hype surrounding these developments, let me make something very clear: A leopard does not change his spots.You can say a berachah (blessing) over a ham sandwich, but that doesn’t make it kosher. And a deal with the PLO is like a dance on quicksand - before you realize it, you have sunk into the muck and slime."


    * * * * * * *
    Please note that this Press Release was issued on September 2, 1993, a full 11 days before Oslo was signed on the White House lawn (September 13, 1993). Everything it said has come horribly true. We at the Freeman Center properly analyzed the momentous events in the Middle East and we have been fighting the Oslo Appeasement Agreement ever since.
    Please help us in our battle to save Eretz Yisrael.
    Bernard J. Shapiro, Chairman and Editor of Publications
    Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
    PO BOX 35661 - HOUSTON TX 77235-5661




    A Critical Analysis of Netanyahu's September 23, 2011 Speech to the United Nations

    Prof. Paul Eidelberg, President

    Israel-America Renaissance Institute



    Part II. Perfidy

    At the conclusion of Part I, after referring to the forced expulsion of 8,000 Jews from their homes in Gaza, I asked Mr. Netanyahu: "On what empirical grounds, on what historical grounds, on what logical grounds, on what psychological grounds, on what theological grounds, had you any reason to expect peace after this display of defeatism and this unconscionable crime against the Jews of Gaza?"

    What else are we to infer from these questions but this: What motivates you is either fear or egoism—because you have no rational grounds whatsoever to expect peace from the disciples of Muhammad who have waged recurring genocidal wars against Jews and Christians and other non-Muslims during the past 1,400 years.

    In your speech you rightly decry the "wishful thinking" of fools who would have Israel withdraw to her pre-1967 borders to achieve peace with the Palestinians. But what shall we call your overture of peace to the unrepentant Palestinians who murdered and maimed some 10,000 Jewish men, women, and children since 1993? What is this overture but a grotesque display of wishful thinking? Will not these Palestinians continue to genuflect to the Quran which exalts the Muslim who “slays and is slain” for Allah (Sura 9:111)? 

    Have not these Palestinians educated two generations of Arab children to hate Jews and to exalt suicide bombers? Do you expect these Palestinians to renounce their political religion whose distinctive imperative is Jihad, and whose foremost military tactic is taqiyya, unmitigated deceit and dissembling? 

    You boast of Israel as a democracy. Who gave you the authority to endorse the creation of a Muslim Arab state in the heartland of the Jewish people? You did so without Knesset or public debate, didn't you, Mr. Netanyahu? How fitting, therefore, are these words of Ben Hecht in Perfidy: “In my own time,” he writes, “governments have taken the place of people. They have also taken the place of God. Governments speak for people … and determine, absurdly, their lives and deaths.” 

    "This was not so," says Hecht, "of the Jewish people in days of old, when our Prophets admonished kings and kingdoms, or when our Sages taught us the laws of piety and of public morality." In those days, “in the soul of the Jews, in his tabernacle and kitchen, there was only one Kingdom—that of God." 

    “What happened to this fine heritage," asks Hecht, "when Jews finally fashioned a government of their own in Israel; what happened to Jews when they became politicians, what happened to a piety, a sense of honor, and a brotherly love that 2,500 years of anti-Semitism were unable to disturb in the Jewish soul?” 

    What happened, Mr. Netanyahu, is that "Egoism and impersonal authority arose and removed piety and honor and brotherly love from public life." 

    Hence you had the arrogance to endorse a Muslim state in Judea and Samaria and thus place in question the future of 300,000 of your Jewish brethren. What will happen to these Jews, Mr. Netanyahu? Will these 300,000 Jewish men, women, and children be made homeless like the 8,000 that were expelled from Gaza by the Sharon Government of which you were a cabinet minister? And for what noble cause will they be sacrificed? Alas, "There is no devilish or disgraceful deed," writes Hecht, “that cannot be shined up into a patriotic necessity by the right propaganda [like the mendacity of ‘peace’ or the ignominious defeat called 'unilateral disengagement' or the fatuous ‘two-state solution’]. All that is needed is for people to believe in their duly elected leaders.” 

    If Hecht were alive today he would say, as he said in Perfidy: “The Jews have of necessity been good traders and bright salesmen, although they never before sold what a government clique has been selling … their loyalty to their dead, their moral judgment of their enemies.” 



    Kill for Peace: Introduction and Part II

    By Prof. Paul Eidelberg



    Part I. Analysis 

    The best analysis I have read of America’s foreign policy failings since the unfinished Persian Gulf War of 1991 will be found in the writings of Ralph Peters, a retired American army Intelligence officer who worked and studied in dozens of countries as well as in the U.S. Executive office. 

    If there is a single power the U.S. underestimates it is the power of collective hatred, meaning the hatred that animates the Arab-Islamic world. This failing applies to Israel. 

    Like their American counterparts, Israel’s ruling elites do not “understand the delicious appeal of hatred.” They will not face the fact that man is a killer. They have learned nothing from the genocidal wars and wholesale massacres of the twentieth century, not merely in Nazi Germany, but also in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Bangladesh, Iraq, Sudan—to name only a few. 

    There is at least a minority of human beings who enjoy killing. That minority may be small, says Peters, but it does not take many enthusiastic killers to trigger a genocidal war. The Arab Palestinian Authority consists of such killers. Indeed, they have educated a generation of Arab children to become killers. 

    Like the United States, Israel plays by rules, some encoded in its own laws or in international laws, others in long-established customs, which are part of the West’s collective consciousness. But Israel’s enemies don’t give a damn about our laws and customs. 

    Again and again we find that hard-won treaties or agreements mean nothing to our enemies. While we are word- or talk-oriented, out enemies are action-oriented. We mirror-image and think that our enemies are like us, that they want peace, even though they have repeatedly said, “peace means the destruction of Israel.” Israelis live in a state of denial. 

    Even the terms we use to describe the enemy—whether we name them “terrorists” or “Islamic fundamentalists”—are misleading.Such terms hinder the political and military echelons from developing an appropriate strategy against the enemy. Ralph Peters calls these terrorists “warriors,” because he wants Americans to take terrorists more seriously. He speaks of five different types of warriors—because if we do not understand the enemy, we won’t win the war against them. 

    ● One pool of warriors comes from the underclass, a male who has no stake in peace, a loser with little education and little legal earning power. It’s easy to recruit such warriors against the Great or against the Little Satan. These warriors are bloody savages.

    ● A second pool of warriors consists of youth and young men who join and fight for the Arab cause. Their savagery increases with the duration and intensity of the conflict.

    ● A third pool of warriors consists of opportunists, entrepreneurs who profit from the conflict. They traffic in arms and drugs.Their great strength is their cynicism. The Palestinian kleptocracy—Mahmoud Abbas belongs to this pool. They are chameleons and very dangerous. This type of warrior is the most likely to be underestimated, especially by wishful-thinking Jews.

    ● A fourth pool of warriors consists of true believers like Osama bin Laden, or like Abdullah Badran, the 21 year-old university student who blew himself up in Tel Aviv nightclub. These warriors fight out of religious conviction and become infected with bloodlust. They are the products of a failed civilization that blames the Americans or Zionists for its inability to adapt to modernity and compete with the West. They burn with resentment and the desire for revenge.

    ● Dispossessed or otherwise failed military men form the fifth and most immediately dangerous wool of warriors.

    But the greatest danger to Israel and the United States is when the cynic is working together with the true believer. 

    All of these warriors are habituated to violence; they have no stake in civil order. Unlike soldiers, they do not play by the rules of the Geneva convention; they do not respect human life; treaties mean nothing to them; and they regard compromise as equivalent to prostitution. Negotiation with warriors is sheer folly. We should not negotiate with them until they surrender. Until then, they must be killed. 

    Unfortunately, Israelis, like Americans, believe that all men want peace, that all conflict can be resolved through compromise and understanding. But many men have no stake in peace. Many would be bored by peace, and would lose honor or be out a job with peace. You find such men in the Palestinian Authority—in Fatah, Tanzim, Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and so on. 

    ● American and Israeli opinion-makers refuse to believe that many human beings thrive and profit on disorder and on killing other human beings.

    ● Americans, profit from peace; warriors profit from war, and Israelis suffer the consequences.

    ● Both American and Israelis talk about a war against “terrorism,” a war that is actually against Islam, a jihadic culture that breeds terrorists. 

    As Ralph Peters points out, we refuse to understand that certain human beings cannot accept that their culture is failing. These human beings do not realize that they are failing individually because of the mode of thought and behavior to which their culture has conditioned them. They want someone to blame, and they want revenge on that someone. 

    But our academics and intellectual elites—the educators of our politicians and judges—are so conditioned by the moral relativism that permeates all levels of education in the democratic world, that they cannot think of a failed culture such as Islam. They would accuse me of racism. One does not have to be a racist to recognize that Israel’s enemies have some nasty characteristics: 

    ● They regard Israeli peace overtures as a sign of weakness.

    ● They have nothing but contempt for Jews who advocate “land for peace.”

    ● They will not honor any form of agreement a moment longer than it suits their needs.

    ● Their contempt for human life inevitably leads them to commit atrocities. 

    We face an enemy whose sole motivation to refrain from killing is the fear of being killed; but since many of them love of death, the only deterrent is to kill them in sufficient numbers before they kill us.



    Part II. What Must Be Done 

    The Netanyahu Government is following the failed Oslo policy of “land for peace.” I propose a policy of “Kill for Peace”—a harsh policy, but one that would actually reduce Arab as well as Jewish casualties. The rationality and effectiveness of such a policy is substantiated not only by Ralph Peters but also by the greatest military theorists in history, Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu.Moreover, the thinking of these military geniuses is supported by principles of statecraft enunciated by the great 19th century Austrian statesman, Prince Metternich. Accordingly, I shall now enumerate ten principles of statecraft and rules of warfare required for the policy “Kill for Peace” vis-à-vis Israel’s Janus-faced enemies: 

    ● First Principle: A wise and courageous statesman must set forth a clear military goal. For Israel, this goal is the destruction of the entire Arab terrorist network in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. The statesman must tackle this goal vigorously. For this to happen it is necessary that the goal should not only be clear in the eyes of the cabinet, but it should also be made clear in the eyes of the public. 

    (Bear in mind, however, that Israel’s system of multi-party cabinet government is inherently incapable of pursuing a coherent and vigorous national strategy. This is why I have proposed a presidential system of government.) 

    ● Second Principle: In this age of publicity the first concern of government must be not only to be right, but, even more important, to see that everything is called by its right name. Israeli statesmen must stop talking about a “peace process” or about “peaceful coexistence.” Israel is in a war for its survival. In this war there is no substitute for victory.

    ● Third Principle: There is no compromising with an uncompromising enemy—an enemy that regards compromise as a sign of weakness. Israel is confronted by the most evil of enemies—warriors who lust for Jewish blood.

    ● Fourth Principle: Eliminate the evil at its source, that is, eliminate the enemy’s leadership, its supporting gangs and infrastructure. Disarming the enemy must be the immediate object of hostilities, for as long as the enemy remains armed, he will wait for a more favorable moment for action.

    ● Fifth Principle: Know that any strategy conceived in moderate terms will fail because the circumstances confronting Israel are extreme—its very existence is at stake. Therefore, where each of the possible lines of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best.

    ● Sixth Principle: Tell the people of Israel that there will be casualties to Arab non-combatants or civilians. Most of these civilians are not innocent: they allow terrorists to use them as human shields. Emphasize that the overwhelming majority of the Arab inhabitants of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza support suicide bombers and reject Israel’s existence.

    ● Seventh Principle: Impose rules of engagement that favor the IDF, not the enemy. Bomb terrorist havens from the air, rather than endanger Jewish soldiers by house-to-house combat.

    ● Eighth Principle: Operate offensively, never passively or defensively, and operate continuously. Give the enemy no rest.Hence, no cease fires, for they allow the enemy to regroup, obtain more weapons, and prepare for deadlier attacks.

    ● Ninth Principle: Sun Tzu, who actually hated war, warns that “to kill the enemy, men must be roused to anger.” This leads me to a tenth principle, for which I turn to King David.

    ●Tenth Principle: The statesman must exhibit hatred of Israel’s enemies. King David said, “I hate them, O God, that hate you” (Psalm 139:21). Here the haters of God means those who hate God’s people, or God’s Torah, because actual hatred has no meaning in terms of God’s essence. 

    Hatred, however, is futile if it does not issue in action. Therefore King David writes: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and returned not until they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they are not able to rise; …. I pulverized them like dust in the face of the storm …” (Psalm 18:38-43). 

    This is what must be done to Israel’s enemies. I therefore propose that the untried but rational policy of “Kill for Peace” replace the discredited, irrational policy of “land for peace.” Obviously this will not be done by the present government. Hence Israel needs a very different kind of government.



    Kill for Peace (cont'd) 

    by Prof. Paul Eidelberg



    Part I concluded with a simple message: "We should not negotiate with warriors until they surrender. Until then, we must kill them. 

    Unfortunately, Israelis, like Americans, believe that all men want peace, that all conflict can be resolved through compromise and understanding. But many men have no stake in peace. Many would be bored by peace, and would lose honor or be out a job with peace. You find such men in the Palestinian Authority, in Fatah, Tanzim, Hamas, Hizbullah, Islamic Jihad, and so on. 

    We just refuse to believe that many human beings thrive and profit on disorder and on killing human beings. Intensifying the problem today is Islam and global jihad. 

    Americans and Israelis refuse to understand that certain human beings cannot accept that their culture is failing and that they are failing individually because of the behaviors to which their culture has conditioned them. They want someone to blame, and they want revenge on that someone. 

    But our academic and intellectual elites—the educators of our politicians and judges—are so conditioned by the cultural relativism that permeates all levels of education in the democratic world, that they cannot think of a failed culture such as Islam. They would accuse me of racism. One does not have to be a racist to recognize the following characteristics of Israel’s enemies: 

    ● They regard Israeli peace overtures as a sign of weakness.

    ● They have nothing but contempt for Jews who advocate “land for peace.”

    ● They will not honor any form of agreement a moment longer than it suits their needs.

    ● Their contempt for human life inevitably leads them to commit atrocities.

    ● They will employ all available means to win the conflict. 

    Given their love of death, there is no civilized deterrent; only logical and rational deterrent is to kill them in sufficient numbers before they kill us. 

    Given the eighteen-year failure of the policy of "land for peace," propose a policy of “kill for peace”—a harsh-sounding policy that would nonetheless reduce Arab as well as Jewish casualties. The rationale for such a policy can be substantiated by the greatest military theorists in history, Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, as well as by principles of statecraft enunciated by Metternich, the great 19th century Austrian statesman. Here I will outline ten principles. 

    Hatred, however, is a futile if it does not issue in action. Therefore King David writes: “I pursued my enemies and overtook them, and returned not until they were destroyed. I crushed them so that they are not able to rise; …. I pulverized them like dust in the face of the storm …” (Psalm 18:38-43). 

    This is what must be done to Israel’s enemies. And so I propose the rational policy of “Kill for Peace” to replace the proven-to-be irrational policy of “land for peace.” Obviously this will not be done by the Netanyahu government. Hence Israel needs a very different kind of government—and this obviously does NOT mean a Labor or Kadima government.



    A Year of Stuxnet: Why Is the New Cyberweapon's Warning Being Ignored?

    By Mark Clayton 

    Jewish World Review 

    27 September 27, 2011 / 28 Elul, 5771



    Experts called it a 'wake-up call' when it was identified. But even as hackers study Stuxnet, there is scant evidence US utilities are bolstering their defenses against attacks.


    A cyberterrorist, foreign nation, or maybe just a hacktivist who wants all Internet information to be free, puts the lights out in a major American city with the click of a mouse button. For weeks.

    That may sound like the stuff of a movie script, yet it is precisely the kind of nasty threat posed by Stuxnet, which one year ago emerged as the world's first publicly confirmed example of a digital guided missile. It was built to cross cyberspace, zero in on a real-world computer-controlled target — and physically destroy it.

    Garden-variety computer viruses may steal your bank password, but Stuxnet is by design a military-grade cyberweapon — a computer "worm" built by an advanced cyberweapons state. It was designed to seek out and destroy Iran's nuclear-fuel refining centrifuges, and it wrecked at least 1,000 of them. But its implications go much further.
    Hackers, cybercriminals, or rogue nations can now download Stuxnet off the Internet and reverse engineer it — using its tricks as a digital template for crafting malicious software attacks that wreck industrial infrastructure, cybersecurity experts say.
    Inspired by Stuxnet's success, hackers are now known to be tinkering with Stuxnet code, say experts interviewed for this story. Iran also has Stuxnet now — as do other aspiring cyberweapons nations. Some experts call it a "Pandora's box" now loose on the Internet.
    A year ago, US officials and cybersecurity experts dubbed Stuxnet a "game changer" and a "wake-up call." Yet there is scant evidence today that the warning shot has been heeded — or that power plants, refineries, water treatment or chemical facilities in the US are leaping to bolster their defenses against a "son of Stuxnet" copycat attack, these experts say. Nor are the manufacturers of the software and hardware used in industrial control systems doing enough to make their systems less vulnerable, the experts say.
    "Probably the best thing Stuxnet did was to raise awareness among senior executives at large companies and industrial control system vendors," says Robert Huber, co-founder of Critical Intelligence, an Idaho Falls-based industrial control systems security firm. "But that awareness has not translated to a shift in dollars spent on security by control system software vendors or [electric] utilities. There've been no significant changes in how they operate."
    Among computer security experts in critical infrastructure industries in 14 counties, two-fifths reported they had found Stuxnet on their systems, according to a survey this spring by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)and McAfee. Among those, nearly half in the electric industry — which had the highest occurrence of Stuxnet — reported having to take action against Stuxnet.
    Despite this high penetration, those critical infrastructure companies did little to respond by adding security technology to detect and stop similar threats in the future. The discovery of Stuxnet on their systems "did not seem to galvanize companies to action," the survey said. Fewer than 20 percent of US critical infrastructure companies even bothered conducting cybersecurity audits.

    "A considerable percentage of those executives told us, basically — 'So what?' " says James Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy Program at CSIS. "Some said they had things under control — or this type of threat was a national security problem for government — not them. Bottom line: these guys are reluctant to spend money on things that don't generate a financial return. Cybersecurity doesn't make business sense."
    New cybersecurity standards for the electric utility industry are now in place. But loopholes allow US utilities to interpret the standards often as not applying to USB memory sticks, notes Joe Weiss, an industrial control systems security expert in a blog post. Yet infected USBs were exactly what Stuxnet's creator used to spread the attack to Iran's centrifuges, even though they were "air gapped" — separated from the Internet.
    "Stuxnet-like threats will require asset owners, technology providers, and homeland security organizations to think more broadly about how [to] develop more flexible, skilled, and adaptive security programs," says Michael Assante, former security chief of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which oversees grid reliability.
    Even so, there are at least a few positive signs that Stuxnet has started to change how utility professionals think, he and others say. In corners of industry there's a "new appreciation for the types of consequences that Stuxnet introduced [that] is beginning to drive decisions about technology designs and practices," he and others say.
    For example, Schneider Electric, a big Paris-based manufacturer of industrial control systems hardware and software is taking steps, says Eric Byres, chief technology officer for Vancouver-based Byres Security.
    "Schneider, and a few others, are definitely making a major push to create a security culture," he says. "But other companies seem to be doing nothing. It's all over the map. Boeing and Exxon are moving aggressively. For others, it's business as usual."
    In a recent interview, Timothy Roxey, NERC's director of critical infrastructure risk management and technology, says his group and the utility industry are keeping a watchful eye and taking steps to defend the US electric grid.
    "Stuxnet, especially at the beginning, had everyone exceptionally concerned," he says. As experts started to understand that Stuxnet was targeted at the Iranian centrifuges "a lot of the immediacy of the concern to the utility space kind of came off the table. It didn't mean that we at NERC were letting it off the hook, since we subsequently wrote an alert on it, but it did mean that we were apparently not the target."
    But there is also plenty of denial that Stuxnet represents a new threat.
    Although Stuxnet infected tens of thousands of machines worldwide, its payload activated only when it found the particular system it was after. Yet according to the man who first identified Stuxnet as a weapon a year ago, industrial control systems expert Ralph Langner, the next Stuxnet-style attack might be closer to a "digital dirty bomb" that simply turns off any industrial machine it infects.
    Stuxnet, he says, is a "Pandora's box" that provides ideas to hackers on how to build similar attacks.
    Since Stuxnet appeared, the Industrial Control System — Computer Emergency Response Team (ICS-CERT), a division of the Department of Homeland Security, has issued a number of alerts. Yet Mr. Langner and others criticize it for being slow and incomplete in its analysis and dissemination of useful information on dealing with Stuxnet.
    DHS officials, in interviews with the Monitor, have previously rebutted such criticism, saying it has done a lot — and can only do so much to protect US critical infrastructure when 85-90 percent of it is run by private industry.
    Meanwhile, signs are growing that the hacker community is keenly interested in developing Stuxnet-like capabilities — and that far less discriminating cyberweapons than the original Stuxnet are not far behind. Terrorists and cybercrime groups meanwhile are waiting patiently to evaluate such weapons when they emerge, experts say.
    "Right now people are playing with Stuxnet, seeing how it did what it did — and how might it affect control systems that run other civilian infrastructure," says Stewart Baker, a Washington lawyer and cybersecurity expert who served in the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency. "Free floating communities of amateur hackers who are working to deconstruct and democratize Stuxnet. They're saying,: 'Gee, this is cool. I could break the power grid.' "
    Others agree. The rate at which industrial control system vulnerabilities are being discovered by researchers and added to the national database has more than doubled since Stuxnet appeared, says Mr. Huber, whose company tracks them. That intensified research into control system weaknesses usually translates within a short time into "exploits" — attack software designed to penetrate those known weaknesses.
    "We've had signs that people were developing these things [industrial control systems attack software] for years," Mr. Assante, the former electric grid security chief, said in an earlier interview. "What Stuxnet has done is to increase their confidence it can be done. Expect to see Stuxnet-type attacks in 2012."
    A year after Stuxnet demonstrated the capacity to wreck industrial equipment, NERC's Mr. Roxey says the utility industry is busy conducting followup webinars and embarking on a fresh examination of systems to see if Stuxnet has reemerged.
    But not everyone is convinced that either government — or private industry — is doing enough.
    "There has been some recognition of the threat — yet we still haven't made the mental adjustment on strategy, policies, and the many things we have to do to guard ourselves," says Baker, the former DHS and NSA official. "We need to do a lot more — and sooner rather than later."




    A Prayer for 5772

    By Caroline B. Glick

    The Jerusalem Post

    28 September, 2011


    Obama addresses UN General Assembly 
    Photo by: Reuters 

    It's my prayer for coming year that US Jewish community will act with the majority of their fellow Americans to defend Israel. 

    Upon his return to Ramallah from New York, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was greeted by a crowd of several thousand well-wishers. They applauded him for his speech at the UN. There, Abbas erased Jewish history from the Land of Israel, denied Israel’s right to exist and pledged his commitment to establish a racist Palestinian state ethnically cleansed of all Jews.

    Many of Abbas’s supporters in Ramallah held posters of US President Barack Obama. On them Obama was portrayed as a monkey. The caption read, “The First Jewish President of the United States.”

    The fact that the Palestinians from Fatah and Hamas alike are Jew-hating racists should surprise no one who has been paying a modicum of attention to the Palestinian media and general culture. Since the PA was established in 1994 in the framework of the peace process between Israel and the PLO, it has used the media organs, schools and mosques it controls to spew out a constant flow of anti-Semitic propaganda. Much of the Jew-hating bile is indistinguishable from anti-Jewish propaganda published by the Nazis.

    As for their anti-black bigotry, it is enough to recall the frequency with which Condoleezza Rice was depicted as a monkey and a devil in the Palestinian and pan-Arab media during George W. Bush’s presidency to realize that the racist depiction of Obama was not a fluke. Moreover, and more disturbingly, it is worth recalling that like its fellow Arab League members, the PA has strongly supported Sudan’s genocide of black Africans in Darfur.

    To a degree, the willingness of African-Americans to turn a blind eye to Arab anti-black prejudice is understandable. Since the mid-1960s, oil rich Arab kingdoms led by Saudi Arabia have spent hundreds of millions of petrodollars in outreach to African-Americans. This outreach includes but is not limited to massive proselytization efforts among inner city blacks. The combination of a strong and growing African-American Muslim population and a general sense of amity towards Muslims as a result of outreach efforts contribute to a willingness on the part of African- Americans to overlook Arab anti-black racism.

    Unlike African-Americans, Jewish Americans have been targeted by no serious outreach campaigns by the likes of Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Arab world. To the contrary, as Mitchell Bard documented in his book The Arab Lobby: The Invisible Alliance That Undermines America’s Interests in the Middle East, these Arab nations have spared no effort in anti-Israel lobbying in the US. Among the Arab lobby’s goals is to undermine the legitimacy of American Jewish lobbying on behalf of Israel.

    Furthermore, the anti-Jewish atmosphere in the Arab world is far more comprehensive and poisonous than its anti-black prejudice. A Pew global opinion poll from 2008 showed that hatred of Jews is effectively universal in the Arab world and overwhelming in non-Arab Muslim states. In Jordan, Egypt and Lebanon, between 95 and 97 percent of respondents expressed hatred of Jews. In Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan between twothirds and three-quarters of respondents expressed hatred of Jews.

    Jew-hatred among Muslim minorities in the West is less overwhelming. But Muslim antagonism towards Jews vastly outstrips that of the general populations of their countries. According to a Pew survey from 2006, while 7% of British citizens express unfavorable views of Jews, 47% of British Muslims admit to such views. In France, 13% of the general population admits to harboring negative feelings towards Jews and 28% of French Muslims do. Likewise in Germany, 22% of the general population acknowledges anti-Semitic views and 44% of German Muslims do.

    More dangerously, the quantity of anti-Semitic attacks carried out by Muslims in the West far outstrips their percentage in the general population. According to Pew data, in 2010 Muslims comprised just 4.6% of the population of the UK but carried out 39% of the anti-Semitic attacks. Moreover, according to the Times Online, in 2006, 37% of British Muslims claimed that British Jews are legitimate targets for attacks. Only 30% of British Muslims disagreed.

    WITH THE overwhelming data showing that throughout the Arab world there is strong support for organizations and regimes which advocate the genocide of world Jewry, the American Jewish community could have been expected to devote the majority of its attention and resources to exposing and combating this existential threat. Just as the American Jewish community dedicated itself in the past to causes such as the liberation of Soviet Jewry and fighting neo-Nazi groups in the US and throughout the world, it could have been expected that from the Anti-Defamation League to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, that major American Jewish groups would be using the financial and human resources at their disposal to defend against this violent, genocidal hatred.

    But this has not occurred. Many leading American Jewish organizations continue to be far more involved in combating the currently relatively benign anti-Semitism of the Catholic Church and Evangelical Christians than confronting the escalating dangers of Muslim anti-Semitism.

    According to a Gallup poll released last month, 80% of American Jews have favorable views of American Muslims. Seventy percent believe that they are not supportive of al-Qaida. These data indicate that American Jews are second only to American Muslims in their support for Muslim Americans. Indeed 6% more American Jews than American Muslims believe that American Muslims face prejudice due to their religion.

    American Jewish championing of American Muslims is disconcerting when compared with American Jewish treatment of the philo-Semitic Evangelical Christians. Matthew Knee discussed this issue in depth in a recent article published at the Legal Insurrection website.

    In a 2003 Pew survey, 42% of American Jews expressed antagonism towards Evangelical Christians. In a 2004 American National Election Study, Jews on average rated Evangelical Christians at 30 out of 100 on a “feeling thermometer,” where 1 was cold and 100 was hot.

    A 2005 American Jewish Committee survey found that Jews assessed that following Muslims, Evangelical Christians have the highest propensity for being anti-Semites. And yet, in the same 2004 American National Election Survey, Evangelical Christians rated Jews an average of 82 on the 1- 100 feelings scale. Evangelical Christians rated Catholics at 80.

    Consistent survey data show that levels of anti- Semitism among Evangelical Christians is either the same as or slightly lower than the national average According to a 2007 ADL survey, the US average is 15%.

    There is a clear disparity between survey data on anti-Semitism among various American ethnic groups and American Jews’ assessment of the prevalence of anti-Semitism among the same groups. The AJC survey found that American Jews believed that 29% of Evangelicals are largely anti- Semitic. They assessed that only 7% of Hispanics and 19% of African-Americans are anti-Semites.

    As it works out, their perceptions are completely incorrect. According to the 2007 ADL survey, foreign born Hispanics, and African-Americans, harbor significantly stronger anti-Semitic views than the national average. Twenty-nine percent of foreign born Hispanics harbor very anti-Semitic views. Thirty-two percent of African-Americans harbor deeply anti-Semitic views.

    Like Jews, Hispanics, African-Americans and Muslims vote disproportionately for the Democratic Party. Evangelical Christians on the other hand, are reliably Republican. A 2009 survey on US anti- Semitism conducted by the Institute for Jewish and Community Research in San Francisco found that Democrats are more likely to be anti-Semitic than Republicans.

    The Gallup survey from last month showing American Jews’ deep support for American Muslims is of particular interest because that support stands in stark contrast with survey data concerning American Jewish perception of Muslim American anti-Semitism.

    THE 2005 AJC survey showed that American Jews believe that 58% of American Muslims are anti- Semitic. That is, American Jews are Muslim Americans’ strongest non-Muslim defenders at the same time they are convinced that most Muslim Americans are anti-Semites. What can explain this counterintuitive behavior? And how can we account for the apparent pattern of incorrect Jewish perceptions of anti-Semitism among Evangelical Christians on the one hand and fellow Democrats on the other hand.

    As Knee argues, the disparity may very well be due to partisan loyalties. The Democratic Party has openly engaged in fear mongering and demonization of Evangelical Christians in order to maintain Jewish loyalty to the party. Knee quotes then-Democratic national chairman Howard Dean’s statement that “Jews should feel comfortable in being American Jews without being constrained from practicing their faith or be compelled to convert to another religion.”

    As for Muslims, Knee cites a press release from the National Jewish Democratic Council from March attacking Congressman Peter King’s hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims. In the press release, the council claimed that such hearings “can and will” harm religious tolerance in America. That is, the council implied that by investigating the radicalization of American Muslims – and its concomitant transformation of American Muslims into supporters of the genocidal Jew-hatred endemic among radical Muslims worldwide – Rep. King is endangering Jews.

    If American Jews are most concerned with being able to maintain their loyalty to the Democratic Party, then it makes sense for them to wildly exaggerate Evangelical anti-Semitism. It is reasonable for them to underestimate African-American and Hispanic anti-Semitism, and ignore the higher rates of anti-Semitism among Democrats than among Republicans. Moreover, it makes sense for them to follow their party’s lead in failing to address the dangers of global Islamic anti- Semitism.

    None of this makes sense, however, if American Jews are most concerned with defending Jews – in America and worldwide – from anti-Semitic sentiments and violence.

    On Wednesday evening we begin our celebration of the New Year. Rosh Hashana marks a period of soul-searching among Jews. We are called upon at this time to account for our actions and our failures to act and to improve our faithfulness to our people, to our laws and to God.
    It is possible that American Jews are simply unaware of the disparities between reality and their perceptions of reality. But it is the duty of all Jews to educate ourselves about the threats that reality poses to ourselves and our people.

    At the UN last week, Abbas received accolades and applause from all quarters for his anti-Semitic assault on Jewish history and the Jewish state. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s remarks were applauded by Israel-supporters in the audience in the General Assembly.

    As Israel is increasingly isolated and Jews worldwide are under attack, it is my prayer for the coming year that the American Jewish community will come to terms with a difficult reality and the choices it entails, and act with the majority of their fellow Americans to defend Israel and combat anti-Semitism in the US and throughout the world.
    * * * * * * *