Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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



APRIL 2000



A DEAL IN VAIN ....Evelyn Gordon 7


GOLAN HEIGHTS 7th FULL PAGE AD....Ariel Center For Policy Research 10
Assad: A Serial Violator of Agreements THE GOLAN HEIGHTS AND THE FACTS!....ACPR 12

DEADLY BORDERS.... Emanuel A. Winston 16



Public Manifesto by Women from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza....Ruth and Nadia Matar 25
To Know & to Do ....Professor Eugene Narrett 26
SPECIAL MAJORITIES ....Evelyn Gordon 30
Mi LaHashem Aylai (Whoever is for G-d, join me) ....Boris Shusteff 36
TWO VISIONS.... Jay Shapiro 38


A Purim Message from Professor Eugene Narrett. PhD 40
An Unprecedented Decent Into The Depths of National Self-Contempt.....Gary M. Cooperberg



Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

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


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

(c) 2000 Bernard J. Shapiro



A Reprint Of A Classic Article Written 90 days Before Oslo


By Bernard J. Shapiro

A Roman legionaire stands on a hill overlooking Jerusalem. He watches the city burn and proclaims proudly, "Judea capta est" Judea is destroyed. It will never rise again. Rome's rulers even decreed a change of name for Judea. Henceforth it would be named after the Philistines (or Palestine) and the Jewish connection would be obliterated forever.

Yet, like the legiondary Phoenix, rising from the ashes of its own destruction, the new nation of Israel burst onto the international scene in 1948, with the lusty cry of a newborn infant, yearning to breathe free. Five Arab armies rushed to invade Israel and crush the life from the new Jewish State. With unbelievable bravery and heroism the new state survived. Six thousand of its young defenders gave their lives that Israel might live.

In blood and fire was Israel born, and on a hot anvil was she forged. Her youth understood that life in the new Jewish homeland would require sacrifice. With stories of burning flesh from the ovens of Auschwitz embedded deep in their psyches, the young Israeli soldiers fought with the firm conviction that there was "no alternative" (ein brera).


1. Pre-state: Arab attacks on existing Jewish communities and Jewish resistance -- 1921, 1929, 1936-9, 1947.

2. War of Independence (First Arab-Israeli War) 1948-9 -- Israel victorious but at the cost of 6000 killed.

3. Fedeyeen attacks -- 1949-56 & Israeli reprisals

4. Sinai Campaign -- 1956

5. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) formed and modern terrorist war begins against Israel -- 1964 (three years before so-called "occupied territories").

6. Six Day War -- 1967

7. War of Attrition at the Suez Canal -- 1969-70

8. Yom Kippur War -- 1973

9. International terrorism e.g. Entebbe -- 1976

10. Lebanese wars -- 1978 and Operation Peace For Galilee -- 1982

11. PLO/Hamas Intifada -- 1987-to present

12. Iraqi SCUD Attacks -- 1991

13. PLO/Labor/Meretz Peace Offensive -- 1992 - War by Appeasement and Deception


Our history unfortunately is filled with sad and traumatic episodes. In 1968, I bought a book entitled THE WAR AGAINST THE JEW by Dagobert Runes. This book documents the Christian persecution of the Jew throughout history. I mention this now, not to cast aspersions on modern day Christians, but to illustrate the nature and severity of the Jew's war for survival through the years. Runes writes: "No group or nation or alliance of nations in all known history has ever perpetuated on a hapless minority such sadistic atrocities over so long a time as the Christians have on the Jews. What the Germans did to six million Jews in the Second World War is only a continuation of long-established Christian bestiality toward the Jewish people, practiced by European Christians and especially the Catholic Church EVERY DECADE OF EVERY CENTURY FOR THE LAST TWO THOUSAND YEARS." Thankfully most modern Christians have accepted the Jews and many are strong supporters of Israel. .

As we struggle against the Arab and Moslem world we find that a close connection exists between an old enemy, the Nazis, and our new enemy, the Arabs. Nazi anti-Semitic literature found wide acceptance in the Arab world before and after WWII. Haj Amin el-Husseini, the leader of the Palestine Arabs and Mufti of Jerusalem spent most of the War years in Berlin. He met with Hitler, Himmler and Eichmann and toured the gas chambers. He was so enthusiastic about the "final solution" that he lobbied Hitler personally to rid the Middle East of Jews after the war. Husseini suggested two death camps complete with gas chambers and crematoria: one near Haifa and the other near Tel Aviv, to carry out the "final solution" in Palestine. Husseini, also working for Hitler, organized the Bosnian Moslems into death squads which killed tens of thousands of Balkan Jews in the most brutal fashion possible, the details of which would sicken any audience.


The answer is YES -- But only after mind boggling changes in the Arab world. True peace can only be made after the Arab world undergoes democratization. Simply put, democracies rarely go to war with one another. All our major wars of the last two hundred years have been between dictators or between democracies defending themselves from dictators. When a ruler is elected by the people, he has a natural restraint preventing him from sending their sons and daughters into combat in an aggressive war. No such restraint exists anywhere in the Arab world.

The second major change required of the Arab/Moslem world is to create secular states not subservient to the rule of Islam. The problem for Israel with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the very hostile attitude that Islam has toward Jews and any non-Islamic person. Islam is all encompassing and guides behavior, law, religion and attitudes and relations with non-Moslems. Islam perceives the world as two separate parts:

1.The first is Dar el-Islam or the World of Islam

2. All the rest is Dar el-Harb or the world of the sword or the world of war -- that is those non-Muslim nations that have yet to be conquered.

The concept of JIHAD or Holy War has been understood by most of us but there is another concept in the Koran with which few of us are familiar. But it is essential to understand this concept when relating to Moslems. That is the law of HUDAIBIYA which dates back to Muhammad and states clearly that "Muslims are permitted to lie and break agreements with non-Muslims." This applies to business, personal life and politics. Would a peace treaty be worth much if the other party is Moslem?

Islam divides the world between Believers and Infidels. Jews and Christians are relegated to the status of Dhimmis or second class citizens. The Koran clearly calls on Moslems to degrade and humiliate both groups.

The Arab/Moslem world will have to develop a tradition of respect for women, minorities, and human rights in general before they will be ready for peace with Israel. It seems a bit odd that our State Department is pushing democracy and human rights from one end of the globe to the other -- WITH THE REMARKABLE EXCEPTION OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Why are the Arabs insulated from pressure to democratize their societies?

It is obvious that no peace agreement would be worth anything with people believing in the above Islamic tenets, failing to practice democracy or show respect for minorities and human rights.

Israel's left-wing government headed by Yitzhak Rabin is engaged in a dangerous and ultimately fruitless effort to achieve peace with the Arabs through territorial concessions. A quick look at the map shows that the Arab world contains over 6 million square miles as against Israel's 10,840 -- or roughly 547 times as great as Israel. Only a fool would believe that the way to peace in the Middle East is to give the Arabs more land. A look at history shows that the Arabs have tried to destroy Israel both before and after the 1967 war in which Israel acquired the land giving it the secure borders it has now.

A quick reading of Arab statements on Israel reveals that their determination to destroy the Jewish state has not changed one iota. It was not by accident that the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964, three years before Israel controlled Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Its National Covenant, its maps, its emblems, its stationery -- all call for the liberation of Palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean.

The left-wing Jews in this country and in Israel, personified by the Peace Now movement and the Meretz Party, have given the Arabs a wonderful opportunity. Unable to conquer Israel by military means, they have succeeded in splitting Jewish ranks and spreading their propaganda about "peace in our time." The Arab victory plan is simply this: Seduce Israel into believing that peace is possible and get her to voluntarily give up its strategic territories in the Golan, Judea and Samaria. Once Israel's borders are narrow and vulnerable, terrorists raids and katyusha rockets will be used to terrorize the population.

Arab control of the Golan, and the mountains of Judea and Samaria will allow them to cut off approximately 60% of Israel's water. Their positions on the high ground will allow them to eavesdrop and interfere with all Israeli telecommunications and radar. Large Arab standing armies can threaten to invade, causing Israel to mobilize its troops constantly -- inflicting severe damage on its economy. Within years the Russian immigrants will stop coming to Israel because of the poor conditions. Native Israelis will become demoralized and begin emigrating in droves.

Finally the Arabs will launch a surprise attack. Israel, lacking the buffer of the Golan and the mountains of Judea and Samaria, will be overrun. Most Jews will be killed, but some will escape thanks to American rescue ships. The US congress will pass a resolution condemning the Arab attack and President Clinton will say Kaddish for Israel at a Washington synagogue. The UN will promptly condemn Israel for polluting the soil of Palestine with Jewish blood.


Just like Hitler, who told the world of his ultimate aims in his book, Mein Kampf, the Arabs are not shy about telling us of their ultimate plans. The Islamic fundamentalists, like the Hamas movement or Islamic Jihad, want to destroy Israel in one stage. PLO has adopted a two-stage plan for Israel's destruction: first, get control of Judea and Samaria and second liberate the rest of Israel. Does this make the PLO "moderate?" Should we be negotiating our own demise with them?

Here is what the Palestinians say in their own words to their own people:

"I want to release a part of this Arab territory, and this cannot be done by war...Afterwards we would liberate the rest," Nabil Sha'at, Arafats's chief advisor in 1989.

Do you see his understanding of the need for a peace offensive with the aid of left-wing Jews and the US to force Israel's initial withdrawal?

Sha'at says later in 1989,

"If we achieve part of our territory, we will not relinquish our dream to establish one....state on all of Palestine."

PLO leader Abu Iyad says in 1988,

"The Palestinian state would be a skipboard from which we would be able to release Jaffa, Acre and all Palestine."

Later that same year Iyad says,

"The establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip does not contradict our ultimate strategic aim, which is the establishment of a democratic state in the whole territory of Palestine, but rather is a step in that direction."

Yassir Arafat put it best when he said,

"The victory march will continue until the Palestinian flag flies in Jerusalem and in all of Palestine--from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and from Rosh Hanikra to Eilat."

Faisel Husseini, leader of the PLO and head of the negotiating team with Israel in Washington, is the nephew of Haj Amin Husseini the Mufti, mentioned earlier. Both he and Arafat consider the activities of the Mufti during WWII as heroic and in the best Arab tradition. And both claim all of Israel as their country -- in their National Covenant, on their stationery, emblems and symbols.


Benjamin Netanyahu in his new book A PLACE AMONG THE NATIONS, a wonderful book you all should read, writes about the peace of deterrence. That is: the peace resulting from Israeli strength both in its army and in strategic territory. He says, and I agree that we must dig in our heels and remain steadfast, patiently waiting for our neighbors to accept and respect us on our present borders. Peace treaties reflect strategic realities. If Israel is weak, no treaty will protect it. He tells the sad story of how Czechoslovakia was forced to give up the strategic territory of the Sudetenland for "peace in our time" by Chamberlain at Munich in 1938. Netanyahu warns that the drive by the Labor Party to give up the Golan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza will have similar catastrophic results.

But you ask, what are we to do with the Arabs who live in those areas, who are clearly unhappy with Israeli rule? I believe they should have control over their municipal affairs but not over the land of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Labor Party seems to be in a mad rush to give up Jewish claims to this part of Eretz Yisrael. Rabin's Labor Party should pay attention to the words of its founder and father of modern Israel, David Ben Gurion, who said, "No Jew has the right to relinquish the right of the Jewish people over the whole Land of Israel. No Jewish body has such authority, not even the whole Jewish people has the authority to waive the right (to the Land of Israel) for future generations for all time."

The Arabs who wish to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors are welcome. They can even manage their own civil and municipal affairs.

THOSE, HOWEVER, WHO WISH TO TAKE UP THEIR GUNS AND KNIVES TO KILL JEWS OR THROW ROCKS TO CRUSH JEWISH SKULLS, MUST BE DESTROYED OR DRIVEN FROM THE LAND OF ISRAEL. Rabbinical authorities have long recognized the ultimate religious priority of saving Jewish lives (pituach nephish). For example, the Israeli army is permitted to operate fully on Shabbat because it is necessary to save Jewish lives.

Too many Jews are obsessed with what will satisfy the Arabs. I doubt if there is a single Palestinian or Moslem anywhere that worries about what is good for Israel or the Jewish People. We must remember the words of Hillel when he said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And if I am for myself alone, what am I?" Hillel's message is clear: First take care of yourself, your family and your people and then try to help others.

Remember it took the Christian world two thousand years to accept us as human beings, and this only after the mass murder of a third of our people. It may take the Arabs a while, maybe decades -- but we have no choice but to be patient. The fact that we want peace badly does not mean that it is attainable. To strip Israel of strategic territory like Czechoslovokia before WWII in the pursuit of a phantom illusory peace will only lead to disaster.

Some Jews in the face of all empirical evidence to the contrary believe peace is possible. In the book Self Portrait Of A Hero: The Letters of Jonathan Netanyahu (1963-1976), Jonathan Netanyahu, the fallen hero of Entebbe and brother of Benjamin, said it best:

"I see with sorrow and great anger how a part of the people still clings to hopes of reaching a peaceful settlement with the Arabs. Common sense tells them, too, that the Arabs haven't abandoned their basic aim of destroying the State; but the self-delusion and self-deception that have always plagued the Jews are at work again. It's our great misfortune. They want to believe, so they believe. They want not to see, so they shut their eyes. They want not to learn from thousands of years of history, so they distort it. They want to bring about a sacrifice, and they do indeed. It would be comic, if it wasn't so tragic. What a saddening and irritating lot this Jewish people is!"

In our Holy Scriptures we read about the prophet Jeremiah. Jeremiah, who anguished over the fact that his people believed in false prophets of peace and didn't see the dangers facing Israel, cries out in despair, "Peace, peace but there is no peace."

I am sorry that I can not offer you more encouraging words. What I present is:


We all want peace. We pray for peace in our Sabbath services every Friday night. After thousands of years, being victims of persecution, expulsion, extermination, and discrimination, it is natural that we yearn for peace with every ounce of our bodies and souls.

It is because our hunger for peace is so strong that we must be doubly cautious not to fall for a psuedo-peace that is really the wolf of war wrapped in sheep's clothing. Today none of us believe Chamberlain really negotiated "peace in our time" with Hitler. (Why do some Jews believe that Peres and Rabin really negotiated PEACE with Arafat, one of today's Hitlers?)

Israelis my age have fought and died in four wars and I understand their desire to be free of constant conflict. Unfortunately, there is no magic cure. I wish I could write more optimistic words. Sadly, beyond the neighboring states that Israel is negotiating with now lies another ring of unmitigated hostility led by Islamic fundamentalists in Iran.

As Jews we are all involved in this historic struggle to survive. It is not our fate or that of the Israelis that we should retire from this struggle. The only peace the Arabs are prepared to give us is the peace of the grave.

In blood and fire was Israel born and on a hot anvil was she forged. The brave young soldiers of Israel must take a quick glance back to the crematoria of Auschwitz and then go forth to face the enemy knowing that there is STILL no alternative (ein briera).


This article was a lecture by Bernard J. Shapiro as part of the Torah Learning College, Congregation Beth Yeshurun, Houston, Texas on June 23, 1993.



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of March 28, 2000


By Evelyn Gordon

Although a majority of Israelis now support much more far-reaching concessions than ever before, Palestinians still insist on all or nothing.

The fact that talks on a final-status agreement with the Palestinians resumed last week in Washington might seem rather uninteresting. After all, talks with the Palestinians have been occurring on and off for the last seven years.

Yet the event is noteworthy in light of an extraordinary document published by 120 Palestinian academics, intellectuals, artists, and legislators the week before. This document, entitled "An open letter to the Israeli and Jewish public," bluntly warns that any compromise Israel might reach with the Palestinian Authority will not lead to peace. "What is being contrived today is not peace, but the seeds of future wars," the letter declared.

The signatories explained that even if Israel and the PA sign an agreement, it will not be accepted by the Palestinian public. Instead, it will propel the outraged Palestinians to violence, which other Arab states might join.

There are only two types of agreements that might avert such an outcome, the letter said. "The first solution is based on the establishment of a Palestinian state, with complete sovereignty over the lands occupied by Israel in1967 with Jerusalem as its capital, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the recognition by Israel of the historic injustice inflicted on the Palestinian people. The second solution is the establishment of one binational democratic state for the two peoples on the historic land of Palestine."

There are three points worth noting about this document. The first is that the two solutions it offers are ideas that even the overwhelming majority of the Israeli left considers unacceptable. In other words, the authors see no chance for compromise; for the Palestinians, the only acceptable "solution" is unconditional Israeli capitulation.

The second point is that both proposals are identical to what the Palestinians were demanding when talks began seven years ago. Over this period, public opinion in Israel has shifted radically, and a majority of Israelis now support much more far-reaching concessions than would have been dreamed of a decade ago. But the Palestinians have made no concomitant steps in Israel's direction: They are still insisting on all or nothing.

The final point is that both proposals threaten the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The second "solution" would end the Jewish state explicitly; the first would merely create the possibility of doing so, through the mechanism of an unlimited right of return.

ACCORDING TO the Palestinians, there are about 3.5 million refugees (though Israel puts the figure much lower, its figure would undoubtedly not be accepted in any agreement along these lines). It is unclear how many would actually want to return to Israel to live - but they wouldn't necessarily have to live here in order to determine the country's future.

The phrase "right of return" is no accident; those who demand it will accept no less than what is granted to Jews under the Law of Return - automatic citizenship, which once bestowed remains valid even if the recipient later leaves the country. Under such an arrangement, all the refugees would have to do is come here to claim their citizenship, go back home, and then get back on a plane come election day in order to use Israel's own democratic rules to substantially alter its character.

The letter's authors may simply be living in a fantasy land. But if one credits them with any grasp of Palestinian reality, then "peace" could be achieved only via solutions that most Israelis consider unacceptable. More specifically, it could be achieved only by ending Israel's character as a Jewish state - without which there would be no point to the peace, because there would be no reason for the country's existence at all.

Already, we have given the Palestinians land, an army, and international recognition - and if the war predicted by the letter's authors does come, all of these will serve to make Israel far more vulnerable than it would otherwise have been.

Obviously, it is too late to retract what has already been given. But now that the cream of Palestinian society has informed us that all our gifts will be in vain, where is the sense in continuing to give - especially when this will only weaken us further?

This is a question the government does not seem to have considered before sending its delegation to Washington. The formula the Palestinians themselves insisted on was land for peace. If Yasser Arafat cannot deliver the promised peace, it is foolish to continue giving him the land.

(c) Jerusalem Post 2000




The Pope believes that the Palestinian Arabs should have a homeland. The Freeman Center believes that, in the spirit of Christian charity, he should offer them the Vatican for their homeland.




By Cal Thomas

(March 22, 2000 1:22 p.m. EST ) - Which is the greater threat: George W. Bush meeting with Bob Jones III, or President Clinton meeting with Syrian dictator Hafez al-Assad in Geneva to further grease the slope leading to Israel's ultimate demise?

State Department spokesman James Rubin betrayed the indefensibly flawed and fatal (for Israelis) philosophy behind resumption of the "permanent status negotiations" between Israeli and Palestinian delegates when he said March 17, "The Palestinian issue represents the core of the conflict." No, it doesn't -- and it never has. The core of the conflict is the rejectionist policies of Israel's enemies to the very existence of the Jewish state, which preceded even the 1948 reconstitution of Israel. A largely ignored article in U.N. Resolution 242 requires of the Arabs "termination of all claims and states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There has been no such termination. The Jerusalem Post, on Feb. 11, ran a picture of a small Palestinian child dressed as a suicide bomber taking part in a rally in Nablus observing the 12th anniversary of the terrorist group Hamas. The Post reported theatrical shows that included blowing up cardboard Israeli buses and setting mock Jewish settlements on fire. Do people who desire peace behave like this?

Is Assad a peacemaker? According to the Ariel Center for Policy Research, which published an ad in the Feb. 8 issue of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, President Assad provides safe haven to international terrorists and to Nazi war criminals, including Alois Brunner, one of Adolf Eichmann's senior henchmen. Assad is also a leading Holocaust denier. On Jan. 31, the editor of Assad's official newspaper, Tishrin, wrote: "Israel invented the legend of the Holocaust so as to blackmail the world and wield terror among intellectuals and politicians." This is a strategy of peace?

There's plenty of anti-Jewish sentiment in the Middle East, but Assad's brand is particularly venomous. On Nov. 27, 1999, the Syrian weekly al-Osbua al-Arabi ran this: "The Passover Matza is soaked with the blood of Iraqis, Lebanese and Palestinians ... the Talmud is drenched with hatred ... the hostility toward humanity is imprinted on the Jewish soul ... the Jewish Shylock spreads throughout the world and acts under American sponsorship."

Since seizing power 30 years ago, Assad has maintained his position by treating his opponents to execution, torture, imprisonment without trial and kidnapping. Assad has used various means to deter the Sunni majority, including poison gas, which he employed to murder 20,000 residents of the city of Hama. One out of 240 Syrians is employed in "security" organizations, their main purpose to keep Assad in power.

Syria is still defined by the United States as a terrorist state and is the axis around which much of the world's terrorism revolves. Iran, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba are among those that maintain terrorist ties to Syria. Assad has not been a peacemaker with his own Muslim neighbors. He supports and harbors anti-Turkish PKK Kurdish terrorism, claiming Syrian sovereignty over southeastern Turkey. He continues the 13-centuries-old conflict with Iraq. He occupies Lebanon, which he has turned into the world's largest terrorist camp, and is now ready to inflict even more death and destruction on Israel as it withdraws soldiers from the "buffer zone" between the two nations.

Syria is also one of the most active proliferators of weapons of mass destruction, especially the chemical and biological variety. Nothing that Israel or the United States may do will deter Syria or Israel's other implacable enemies from their appointed and, they believe, divinely mandated objective to eliminate from the region Israel as a nation and all Jews as a people. How can differences be bridged if terrorists and terrorist states hold steadfastly to this objective? There is no evidence that they are prepared to change. There is plenty of evidence they will use the leftist government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the strong-arm tactics of the Clinton administration to hasten Israel's apocalypse and realize Hitler's dream.

(c) 2000, Los Angeles Times Syndicate



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of March 17, 2000


By Daniel Pipes

The Syrian foreign minister recently gave an extraordinary speech. His talks with Israel had ended on January 10 and were supposed to resume nine days later. But they did not, because his own side put unexpected preconditions on the next round - requiring that Israel make huge concessions before it even started.

Then, to knock a few more nails in the coffin of the negotiations, Damascus published an outrageous Holocaust-denial article and Israeli soldiers were shot at in Lebanon (last count: seven dead). In this context came the speech by Foreign Minister Farouk Shara. It has a distinctly schizophrenic quality. In the first half he presents Israel as a regional superpower ("Israel is stronger than all the Arab states combined") beholden to hugely aggressive ambitions to expand far beyond its current borders.

Indeed, Israel is so expansive and aggressive, it threatens the very existence of the Arabs; in Shara's pungent words, it views the Arabs "as Indians that should be annihilated." Zionist power is so dangerous, in short, that Syria is better off ending the military conflict with Israel. This both neutralizes Israeli weapons and permits Syria to compete in the "political, ideological, economical, and commercial" arenas where it can do better in conflict against the Jewish state.

Then Shara abruptly switches gears and, in the speech's totally different second half, asserts that Syria under the leadership of Hafez Assad "is strong" and will never end the military conflict unless Israel agrees to return every meter of territory it took in 1967.

He denies recent stories and leaks that suggest Damascus's flexibility - that it would accept restrictions on its military, grant early-warning stations to Israel, expel Palestinian extremists, or make curriculum revisions. And should the "expansionist racists" in Israel not take advantage of the deal Damascus is offering them, it will be their loss, because thanks to Syria's own resources, Arab and international support, "our position is stronger than Israel's despite all its weapons."

Shara goes on to threaten Israel, announcing that the recovery of the 1967 lands is but the first stage toward "restoring Palestine in its entirety" - code words for the destruction of Israel. For anyone hoping Israel will reach a settlement with Syria, the foreign minister's remarks would appear to be a significant setback. He begins by accusing Israel of seeking to eliminate all Arabs; he ends trumpeting Syrian ambitions to destroy Israel.

NONETHELESS, in a recent article in Ha'aretz, Itamar Rabinovich - a leading academic specialist on Syria and Israel's former chief negotiator with Damascus - finds good news about the negotiations in Shara's speech.Rabinovich acknowledges it looks like a reversion to Syria's old rejectionist position but he finds it is actually "an attempt, albeit clumsy, to prepare the groundwork for a settlement with Israel."

How so? Rabinovich explains that where Shara seemed to be negative, he only "dug in his heels" as a bargaining position for future negotiations. In effect, "Syria is telling us for the second time through Shara that it wants to end the conflict with us and to replace it with a cold peace and with rivalry over the shape that the Middle East will take."

Now, I defer to no one in my admiration of Prof. Rabinovich's academic work. I praised his 1984 study of Lebanon as doing "an excellent job" of explaining its topic. I then lauded his 1991 inquiry into early Arab-Israeli negotiations for its "fine research and sensible conclusions." And I wrote that his 1998 book on Syrian-Israeli diplomacy is "a model of its genre."

But now this skilled and knowledgeable analyst is not seeing what is plainly in front of him. He has somehow turned Shara's threat about "restoring Palestine in its entirety" into a benign statement of a Syrian intent "to end the conflict." It appears that Prof. Rabinovich, along with many other Israeli leaders, is engaged in wishful thinking.

So badly do they want an Israeli agreement with Syria, they turn threats into concessions.

In a similar spirit, they insist that the Palestinian Authority has fulfilled its obligations. They even portray a unilateral Israeli retreat from Lebanon as a threat to Syrian interests. Such self-delusion is pleasant enough - until reality hits. And it always does hit. The only question is when and where, and how terrible the toll will be.


Daniel Pipes is director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum and author of three books on Syria.




1. The following is the 7th Full-Page Ad, published by the Ariel Center For Policy Research, in Ha'aretz. The Ads have been also disseminated - via mailers, seminars, door-to-door distribution, etc. - throughout the country by various organizations. The key target audience for the Ads consist of Barak voters (Center and Left of Center). Recent polls indicate that some 20% of Barak voters oppose the Golan Giveaway! A typical feedback - by the Center and the Left - to the Ads has been: "We didn't know that the Right can think and articulate...?!"

2. The Full-Page-Ad Campaign is the most cost-effective and time-efficient, when it comes to reaching the entire electorate in a short time!

3. The Ads are non-political(!), providing the readers with research-based data, which is required in order to make an intelligent decision on the fate of the Golan Heights. Previous Ads discussed The Indefensibility of the 1967/1949 Lines, the Irreplaceability of the Golan Heights by Sophisticated Technology and Military Systems, the Track Record Of Assad as A Serial Violator of Agreements, the "Peace Strategy" of Assad and The Real vs. The New Mideast.

4. Contributions toward these ads may be made through the tax deductible Freeman Center and will be transferred to the Ariel Center which is an approved educational institution.

The Golan Heights and the Facts

Is a Special Majority in the Knesset and in a Referendum A Democratic Procedure?

How Does the U.S. Constitution View a Special Majority?

- Article 5: A ratification of an amendment to the Constitution requires a majority of two-thirds in the House of Representatives, two-thirds in the Senate, and an ordinary majority in both legislative houses of three-fourths of the 50 states (38 out of 50!).

- Article 2: A ratification of international agreements, signed by the president, requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate (67 out of 100!). For example, on October 13, 1999 the Senate rejected the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, despite President Clinton's support of the treaty.

- Article 1: To override a presidential veto, on any proposed law, a majority of two-thirds is required in the House and two-thirds in the Senate. To impeach a president, cabinet secretary, judge, or legislator a two-thirds majority is required in the Senate.

- Article 4: A territorial change in any state of the United States requires a "double majority": in the Senate as well as in the legislative houses of the state in question.

In addition, Rule 20 of Congressional procedures stipulates that a 60% majority of the Senate is required for initiating a discussion on any controversial bill! Lack of such a 60% majority (Cloture) enables any senator to "kill" the bill with a Filibuster.

How Does Canada View a Special Majority?

Canada's Supreme Court ruled in August 1998 that a referendum requires a special majority: "Democracy is more than an ordinary majority"! The Court added that the question presented to the public must be clear, unambiguous about the critical issues in question, neither misleading nor vague. According to Prof. Irwin Cotler, member of Canada's Parliament and internationally known human rights activist, the Canadian Parliament is currently legislating an amendment to the Canadian Constitution in this vein, aimed at ensuring that a referendum does not cause a societal schism. In Cotler's opinion, an unambiguous question on the Golan issue would be: "Are you in favor of a peace agreement with Syria that entails giving up the entire Golan Heights?" On the other hand, Cotler claims that a misleading statement that obfuscates a crucial fact (withdrawal from the Golan) would be: "Are you in favor of a peace agreement with Syria?"

("From Today to Tomorrow," TV # 1, December 28, 1999).According to Article 38 of the Canadian Constitution (1982), any amendment to the Constitution (including territorial changes in any of the ten provinces that form Canada) requires a "double majority": the approval of the two national legislative houses as well as of two-thirds of the legislatures of the provinces that form the majority of the Canadian population.

Does a Special Majority Compromise Democracy?

Professor Vernon Bogdanor, international expert on referenda at Oxford University, in a discussion in Jerusalem: "A danger exists when a special majority is not required for referenda." He indicated that an example from French history illustrates this point (Referenda in Israel, Israeli Institute for Democracy, 1993, p. 66). In 1946 the Constitution of the Fourth Republic was approved by a majority of 53% to 47%; this meant that only 36% of the eligible electorate voted in favor, 33% against, and 31% abstained. This narrow margin caused a sustained crisis and brought the country to the verge of civil war in 1958. According to the late Professor Daniel Elazar, who was an expert on Western constitutions and head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, referenda are based "almost everywhere on a special majority . . . in all of the countries -- even the most homogeneous, and with no relevance to racism -- it is customary to require a larger majority than is required for ordinary legislation when a change in the constitutional framework is involved"

(Referenda: What Can Israel Learn from the Experience of Other Countries?, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1995, pp. 36-39).

Does a Special Majority Compromise Minority Rights?

A vote on an ordinary change requires an ordinary majority. But a vote on an irreversible change, a dramatic change in the status quo, a fateful and fundamental change, a change in basic values that deeply affects the security, territorial, and constitutional future of a democratic state, requires a special majority! A special majority helps maintain a system of checks and balances, constitutes a containment mechanism ( checking the Executive) and an instrument safeguarding (for the benefit of the minority) against hasty legislation that is enacted by a slim, tenuous, or fortuitous majority. The mood of voters is transient, sometimes in a volatile manner. A slim majority today may become a large minority tomorrow. Yet the outcome of the vote and the referendum (on the Golan Heights) is irreversible! A special majority reflects broad agreement and an in-depth examination. It neutralizes the influence of extreme or volatile groups, reduces the danger of a schism in the nation, and affords an advantage to logic over emotion.

An ordinary majority enables cynical exploitation of the government's resources (appointments, personal vehicles, and other perks to political marriages of convenience) and of transient moods, such as: exasperation (over a terrorist attack), euphoria (over the signing of an agreement), or temporary depression, to determine an issue that is irreversible and of crucial, long-term significance.

Does a Change in the Status of the Golan Heights Call for a Special Majority?

The application of Israeli sovereignty to the Golan was enacted -- according to a ruling of the Supreme Court (205/82, 1982) -- by the Golan Heights Law (1981), which extended Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration to the Golan Heights.

According to the Law of Governmental and Legal Procedures of 1999 any change in the status of the Golan requires three steps: a Cabinet decision, Knesset ratification, and approval in a referendum. The future of the Golan is a unique, fateful, and an irreversible issue that involves a drastic change in Israel's borders and sovereignty. It requires international treaties, causing a shock to the idea of Zionist settlement, and triggering a public controversy that is likely to cause a schism in the nation. The democratic tradition of the United States, Canada, and other democracies clearly indicates that the future of the Golan Heights requires a special majority both in the Knesset vote and in a referendum.



Full-Page Ad published by The Ariel Center For Policy Research (ACPR) in Ha'aretz

Assad: A Serial Violator of Agreements


Like every dictator, Assad considers agreements as a tactical-temporary means to achieve long-term strategic goals:

1. "Greater Syria" that includes Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel/Palestine;

2. Hegemony in the pan-Arab sphere.

Assad violates agreements with Jordan: Since 1953 Syria has violated all agreements it signed with Jordan for the supply of water from the Yarmuk River. Syria steals half of the Jordanian quota. King Abdullah complained to President Mubarak (in January, 2000) that Assad supplies Jordan with polluted water that is not even suitable for agriculture. The Yarmuk "faucet" serves Assad as a means of extortion for coercing Jordan to change its policy toward its Iraq, Iran, Israel, the US and the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite the official peace that prevails between the two states, Syria invaded Jordan in 1970 and threatened to invade in 1980 and 1989. Since his rise to power in 1970 Assad has worked to overthrow the Hashemite dynasty by means of terror and subversion (attempts to assassinate King Hussein and Prime Ministers, etc.).

Assad violates agreements with Turkey

Since 1987 three security treaties have been signed between Syria and Turkey. All have been violated by Syria. Assad undertook to cease his support for Kurdish anti-Turkish terrorism (the PKK) and to remove its bases from Syria and Lebanon in exchange for the supply of Euphrates water. Turkey has supplied the water, but Assad has persevered in his support for PKK terror, which has claimed 20,000 Turkish lives.

Assad violates agreements with Iraq

In 1975 Iraq threatened to invade Syria in the wake of Assad's violation of an agreement for the supply of Euphrates waters. In October 1978 Syria and Iraq signed a Treaty for National Cooperation. However, in 1979 they were on the verge of war after the revelation of Assad's alleged involvement in an anti-Saddam plot.

Assad violates Arab summit resolutions

Assad violates the Arab summit resolutions that call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon (the Riyyad/Cairo Summit -- October 1978, Fez -- September 1982, Taif -- October 1989). In defiance of the Taif resolutions of 1989, which called for the total evacuation of the Syrian army by 1991, Assad has strengthened his military presence in Lebanon. In October 1990 Assad exploited Iraq's invasion of Kuwait to carry out a massacre of the Christian leadership in Lebanon, entrenching his control of the country. Assad does not recognize Lebanese sovereignty (Syria has no ambassador in Beirut) and Lebanon does not appear on official Syrian maps of "Greater Syria," which also includes Israel.

Assad violates promises to the United States

In 1982 Assad made a commitment to Philip Habib, the U.S. envoy to the Middle East, to withdraw from Lebanon immediately after Israel did so. A year later, in May 1983, in a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz in Damascus, Assad brazenly denied making this commitment.

Assad violates agreements with Israel

In 1973 Assad violated the armistice agreement of 1967. In 1975 he made use of Palestinian terrorist organizations in northern Jordan to violate the Disengagement Agreement of 1974. In 1977 he violated the "Red Line agreement" that limited Syria's presence in Lebanon to a regiment and prohibited the entry of fighter planes, tanks, artillery, and surface-to-surface missiles. From 1977 to 1982 Syria crossed the "Red Line" several times. Contrary to its commitment Syria did not reconstruct Kuneitra and deployed banned weaponry into the area.

Assad's assistance to Hizbullah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terrorists constitutes a gross violation of the 1993 "Operation Accountability Understandings" that prohibit attacks on civilian targets and of previous agreements, regardless whether terrorism is carried out on the Golan or elsewhere.

When can one trust Assad? As long as agreements suit his interests or when he is threatened. In 1970 Syria gave up its attempts to conquer Jordan because of the mobilization of the IDF. In 1975 Assad stopped the wave of anti-Israel terror from northern Jordan following a strong response by the IDF. In 1977 he retreated to the "Red Line" in Lebanon as a result of an Israeli offensive.

In October 1998 he expelled from Syria the leader of PKK terrorism, Ojalan, fearing a Turkish threat to invade Syria. He refrains from terror through the Golan Heights because the IDF's tanks and artillery, there, are positioned 60 kilometers from Damascus.

Indeed, Assad is the ruler of a terrorist-state, a venomous anti-Semite who provides refuge to Nazi war criminals, mass murderer, trampler of human rights, leader of international terrorism, proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, chief drug trafficker, and serial violator of agreements.

Is this the person that Israel should reward with the Golan Heights?!




By Emanuel A. Winston

The attacks against Israel by the Arabs for Israel's planned withdrawal from Lebanon by July seems astonishing, even to such Arab apologists as Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin. What has been apparent from the beginning - and even before Oslo - is starting to penetrate the minds of the Leftists who are dedicated to the re-partition of the Jewish State. The Left Liberal fools joyfully rushed to open the city gates to allow in the savages screaming "Peace-Peace-Peace" and, once in, to cut the throats of the gullible Jewish inhabitants.

Somehow the Left thought that, even if many Jews had to be sacrificed in the grand experiment, it would be worth it because, with enough killing, the enemy would be finally satiated. But the more Jews the Arabs killed, the more Jews they wanted to kill. No gift of appeasement even slowed their demands or slaked their thirst for vengeance. Granted, those Jews who rose to political decision-making roles in the Israeli government may not have been towering intellects but, as graveyards filled, even the most dense pacifists should have recognized the futility of weakening their own country.

The ugly scramble for political power was left to the mediocre, the deficient and those who simply could not succeed as academics or businessmen. So the mentally inept (except for a few) became party hacks and military castoffs who rose into political power. So, those few who cannot balance a checkbook or successfully develop and run a corporation have become our rulers. We must listen to these mental dimwits discuss the future of the nations. They are asked "What is your vision for today?" Better to ask your canary or consult the Quiji Board because these adults with children's minds do not know. They have sudden flashes called "illusions" or "ideas" and are convinced that they have evolved a well-conceived idea. These ideas do not need to meet the test of reality but they do send the nation scurrying to accomplish something abysmally stupid, unpredictable and often suicidal.

The Rabins, Pereses, Beilins and their ilk had the delusion that they could change the cultural, religious, and other hysterical Arab responses to the Jews merely by agreeing with them. Give the Arabs what they want and the Arabs will soon tire of pursuing Jews with the idea that killing Jews will bring the killers a warrior's heaven. These shallow-minded Jewish politicians had ideas which met no test of reality. Most assuredly, they did not understand the irrepressible goals of Islam and the unalterable, often hostile commands of the Koranic mandate. Since they held their own religion in trivial regard, they assumed that Muslims felt as they did. But, at every occasion the Muslims shout "Itbach al Yehud (Kill the Jews)" and "In Blood and Fire, we will redeem you, O Jerusalem".

The Radical Left were voted into power and could practice their amateur plans to their hearts' delight. Never mind that Jews were being killed in the hundreds. There were more Jews where those came from. Pride of self was simply not part of their marginal and weak Jewish identities. They had no value for the Land and Holy Sites and they despised those who did as religious zealots. They gave and gave and gave and simply could not fill the pot of the Arabs' expectations. The Arabs simply brought bigger pots to the negotiations.

So now, one of their puffed up little Napoleons wants to retreat from a Security Zone set up originally to keep terrorists out of Israel proper. The Arabs refused the gift although they have been screaming for Israel to abandon their 'occupation' of the Security Zone. Now, to the astonishment of Barak, Peres, Beilin and their gaggle of empty minded Leftists, the Arabs are threatening even greater terrorism if Israel abandons their Security Zone.

I wonder why these Leftists so-called leaders are astonished since they worked out a deal to bring most of Arafat's hostile Palestinians right up to all of Israel's truncated borders. These erstwhile politicians cannot believe that Israel's nearby population will now be the subject of frequent cross-border terrorist attacks across the whole Eastern frontier and soon that of the North. It will, no doubt, be left up to those settlers who make up a majority of Israel's fighting officers who still believe in the Israeli leadership call: "Acharai (Follow me)" to deal with the assault. I cannot help but feel that leaders of the Left will be the first to seek permanent residency in any country that will allow them in when the casualties mount.

Will Ehud Barak send his politicized Left-wing dovish officers out in front of their soldiers to lead the charge? I don't think so. If they are there, they will probably be in the back of their men, urging them forward or leading them into retreat - as has been the case.

Would it be acceptable to put Barak, his Leftist Cabinet along with his Leftist officers up on the front lines as first shock troops? Clearly, it would be right thing to do since they initiated the entire 'Peace Process'.They surely expected all the rewards due to their efforts.

One must accept the 'bitter' with the 'better'. It's time they paid for the gamble they made with the lives of Israelis and for Land, Water and Holy Sites these temporary leaders never owned. They gambled the safety and even the existence of the nation of Israel for their ill-conceived ideas of peace through appeasement of irredentist enemies. Yes, it's time they paid for the Faustian bargain they made with the devil.

Surely, Ehud Barak, Yossi Beilin and Yossi Sarid will insist that they move, with their families up to those fresh new borders to have coffee and friendly chats with their Palestinian friends.

I am sure the families along the Northern border would be glad to share their underground shelters when the shells start falling.


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




Over the last year I have noticed that a lot of Israelis and Americans believe that they have only one choice related to giving up the Golan Heights. And that choice is Syria's Assad. I am perhaps a little cautious when it comes to making strategic decisions that will affect Israel's future for all time. I am therefore proposing the Freeman Center as a better recipient of the Golan than Assad (Syria).


1. Syria would expel all Jews from the Golan Heights and takeover their property

* The Freeman Center would lease the entire Golan Heights back to the residents for three bottles of Golan wine at Passover.


2. Assad is a terrorist, drug smuggler, Nazi loving anti-Semite and mass murderer who has killed tens of thousands of people.

* The Freeman Center has no ties with Nazis, terrorists, drugs and has never killed anyone.


3. Syria plans to attack Israel from its new improved strategic position on the Golan, overlooking Israel.

* The Freeman Center plans to set up a hang gliding tourist site with the Golan as the launching pad.


4. Assad never keeps his agreements

* The Freeman Center always lives up to its agreements.


5. Assad would divert 30 % of Israel's water supply.

* The Freeman Center would guarantee Golan water for Israel for all time.


6. Assad wants to shut down Israeli electronic surveillance site on Mount Hermon.

* The Freeman wants to improve the ski slopes on Mount Hermon and introduce fake snow for the off seasons.


7. Assad, upon receiving the Golan would then demand more concessions and more land from Israel.

* The Freeman Center, upon receiving the Golan, would request 4 additional bottles of Golan wine, realizing that they forgot to factor Purim into the negotiations.

It is obvious that the Freeman Center would be a better recipient for the Golan than the Syrians.

I would like ask you to take this short poll and then mail it to Clinton, Assad and Barak:

I believe that Israel should give the Golan to:

____________The Freeman Center

____________The drug smuggling, Nazi loving, anti-Semite, terrorist and mass murderer Assad


Bernard J. Shapiro, Executive Director,
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies




By Emanuel A. Winston

The respective governments of Rabin-Peres-Netanyahu-Barak, in their profound and misguided wisdom, have conspired to return Israeli families to the cease-fire borders which were established after 7 Arab armies assaulted the new State of Israel. These borders proved deadly from the birth of the State of Israel in May 1948 until the unification of Eretz Yisrael in May 1967. Death came by terror from within and by cross-border incursions from the hostile neighboring Arab states. Since 1993 these successive four governments have each taken actions that will again place Israeli families in harm's way. Thousands of Israel's best young people died and tens of thousands more were wounded, spending the rest of their lives crippled.

This matter is no longer merely one of excusable stupidity. It is possible to excuse a wrong decision and grumble about how a leader was too shallow to see the pitfalls. However, the excuse of stupidity crosses the line into criminality when their actions have proven to repeatedly kill their own people. More than three hundred Israelis are dead (including 12 Americans), with thousands wounded (some maimed for life) since Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin secretly created the abysmal Oslo Agreement, signed September 1993 - and yet they plowed ahead. After each killing they refused to reconsider this agreement, originally called an "experiment" that was supposed to prove that our adversaries, the Palestinians, could keep the peace.

But, in fact, each subsequent agreement and surrender of land only exposed the population to more killings. When each phase of each agreement was not implemented by the Palestinians, the Israeli leaders ignored each broken agreement and moved to accommodate the Palestinians, unilaterally and without reciprocity - exposing their own Israeli population to even greater levels of mortal danger. This is no longer a matter of poor judgement but has passed the line of sheer stupidity into criminality long ago. Having observed the increase in killings, there is no excuse for their continuing policies of appeasement of a remorseless enemy. These creators of Oslo had become co-conspirators in the deaths of their own people by accepting the abrogation of the agreements by the Palestinians at every level.

Some may say it wasn't criminal behavior but merely incompetence and an inability to grasp what was happening. But, Israel's so called "Peace Partner", Yassir Arafat, not only broke each line of the agreements, he announced his future plans to do even worse. Even as incompetent as these men might be, their peace partner stated plainly and often that he would continue to be Israel's adversary and then he followed his declarations by giving the "green light" to the killing of Israelis. This leaves leave no excuses for these supposed leaders. From Rabin, through Peres, onto Netanyahu - and now Barak, each has brought those deadly borders closer and closer to the Israeli population. With each killing, with each abandonment of Israel's rights the case file to prosecute these leaders and their collaborators grows.

In Neveh Yaacov, for example, the Arabs just across the invisible border feel free to cross the narrow wadi (valley), break into homes of sleeping Israeli families to steal valuables and to steal cars. These thieves then escape back into Area A or B. If, perchance, an Israeli were to shoot one of these intruders in his own home, there is no doubt that the Israeli police would put that home owner in jail. The successive Leftist governments have taught the people of Israel that its safer to risk death than face the Labor Left Courts for defending your life. From the bedrooms in Neveh Yaacov, you can see the broad expanse of buildings (illegal construction) in the Arab village A-Ram across that very narrow wadi, built like houses but with no windows - only open spaces that look like (and probably are) gun portals for the Arabs next planned attack. This is happening all over Israel under the watch of the Leftist governments.

It is interesting to note that, during the February International Jewish Media conference in Jerusalem, Oded Eran, Israel's chief negotiator with the PLO, said that: "Eleven out of ten (sic) Israelis do not know where A-Ram, al-Ayzariyah and Abu Dis are." These 3 Arab towns have been promoted for delivery to Arafat's security control in this upcoming withdrawal. That is, they are now Area B (in civil control by the Palestinian Authority). It is proposed that they become Area A (in full security control of the PA's armed forces). These ABC terms are meant to confuse, obscure, and deceive the Israeli public and world Jewry. ("C" refers to areas under complete Israeli control.)

At that recent International Media Conference in Jerusalem, Gail Winston produced the map of the PA-controlled areas to show the assembled world Jewish journalists that the Arab town of A-Ram caps the military entrance to North Jerusalem, while al Ayzariyah and Abu Dis close off the military entrance to Jerusalem from the East - as well as being meters away from the Temple Mount itself and the Mount of Olives. (1) Clearly, most of the journalists did not have a clue as to the location or impact these transfers would have on the future unity of Jerusalem - and, according to Israel's chief negotiator Eran, neither does the Israeli public.

Under the terms of Oslo, the Palestinian Authority was permitted 24,000 lightly armed police. The armed force of the PA is now at least 50,000 with 14 different services and they illegally hold hundreds of thousands of weapons, including fully automatic assault machine guns, RPGs (Rocket Propelled Grenades), armored vehicles, bombs, explosives, and more. If the PA army and/or any other hostile Arab armies from the North and/or East have such easy access to the City of Jerusalem, she and her residents on the confrontation lines are in great danger.

The Jerusalem neighborhoods of Neveh Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev with a combined population of over 60,000 residents, will soon be surrounded by Area A (complete Arab control) - areas in which any rapist, murderer or simple car thief can flee to PA control and the IDF cannot enter to pursue them after a terror attack. Arafat plans to connect A-Ram with the town of Shuafat (called a refugee camp) putting the northern Jerusalem suburbs under siege from all sides. (2) The attending world journalists should have been furious at being misled but they, like most of the Israeli population, were too confused to object.

There are several other towns under PA civil authority that will further encircle Jerusalem with hostile neighbors: Hizma and Anata would be linked, isolating Neveh Yaacov and cutting through Pisgat Zeev. Between Anata and A-Zaim the PA is building illegal structures (which they call "strategic construction") to disrupt Israel's intention to merge Jerusalem and Maale Adumim. There is also a PA attempt at linking Beit Sahur, Bethlehem and Tzur Bahar South of Jerusalem. The PA has built six to seven thousand new apartments without municipal permits, to house the more than 100,000 so-called refugees to be included in their demand for the Right of Return. (3)

The anti-Israel nature of the Oslo-Hebron-Wye Agreements forced on Israel by the American government have taught the Israeli people that the land of Israel is not their sacred land but is merely to be used to barter for a fragment of peace which may last only until the next bribe.

Clearly, the leaders who have been drawn to the office of Prime Minister have behaved in a manner contemptible to the Israeli people (with very few exceptions). They have become advocates for the Arabs and adversaries to their own people. With malice, they have secretly planned the evacuation (transfer) of their own people by surrounding them with hostile Arab populations. Knowing that Israelis can and have been killed where the Arab population is in close proximity to Jewish populations, makes the Israeli leaders co-conspirators when Jews are killed.

We have seen that the Courts of Israel have been slowly and steadily compromised by the appointment of politically Left judges. One day, no doubt, there will be a reckoning when objective, unbiased law comes back to Israel. Then, those who exposed the population to danger, injury and death will be tried for crimes against their own people. It has happened before when rulers, in their arrogance, used their people until the people refused to be used any longer.

We can all recall Jewish leaders assuring their people that all was well and to be calm as they obediently boarded the trains to Auschwitz. They should have been enraged and revolted (some did) but instead, most walked obsequiously into the showers. Only in those last moments, when they clawed at the walls, as they gasped for breath, did they react - but it was too late.

Is that an exaggerated comparison to today? I don't think so. Are we not aware that Assad has missiles loaded with chemical warheads?...Absolutely! Don't we know that Iraq still has nerve gas, with missiles and planes to deliver her missiles?...Of course! Why do we hear about Iran's long-range missiles and that Iran will be nuclear-capable in 2 - 5 - 10 years? Iran is nuclear-capable right now through direct purchase and, like Iraq, is developing its own capability to build nuclear devices. The Nazi gas chambers technology is 60 years in the past but the Jewish experience with attempted liquidation is centuries old. Why should we not face that history with strong defenses this time?

But no, once again Jewish leaders, acting in coordination with foreign interests, are leading the people into smaller and smaller sealed rooms (called borders).

I cannot help but wonder how or why four presumably sensible men, each with deep experience in the perfidy of our adversaries, advanced the decline of the Jewish State of Israel.

For a moment let us enter the Twilight Zone which is the everyday play land for spooks but baffling and improbable for ordinary folks. Was there a nuclear device planted in Israel? Were these men compromised in ways they did not know or understand? Will Israelis and the Jewish people once again wait until they are trapped by the perfidy of their so-called leaders before they react and say "enough"? The laws of man are not higher laws but merely accommodations which recognize mankind as imperfect and needful of structure to live together.

Jews in particular have died in vast numbers because of these imperfect laws. We Jews have no obligation to slavishly follow these laws to our deaths and the death of our one and only country - even when these laws are foolishly assembled by our own Jewish leaders. Civil disobedience is an obligation because a higher law tells us we cannot sacrifice ourselves or others merely to accommodate petty and foolish leaders who would experiment with the lives of their people. You are obligated to live, even if that means rejection of non-holy laws.

The hour is late; the doors are closing. If your choice is Not to live, then settle your affairs and die. If not, resist.



2. "Arafat's Plans for Jerusalem" by MK Benny Elon, ARUTZ 7 2/20/2000

3. "PA Plans Strategic Building for Jerusalem - Arafat advised to stall final-status to complete construction" by Nadav Shragai HAARETZ 3/13/2000


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




By Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA

A. Water

1. The Sea of Galilee supplies a highly significant portion of Israel's current consumption.

2. The water reaching the Sea of Galilee is the least contaminated of Israel's sources.

3. Agreements with Israel's neighbors have increased the importance of this source - the Palestinians draw from/contaminate other sources while Jordan is guaranteed an annual supply of water regardless of the situation.

4. Syria has not honored its agreements with other countries regarding water sharing.

5. Enforcement of agreements relating to pollution control

a. Difficult to enforce (consider Gaza experience)

b. Syria's domestic ecology record is a failure.

c. Consequences of failure disastrous

6. Desalination as an alternative:

a. Lack of a track record for operation of this magnitude to accurately project:

(1) Cost

i. Construction

ii. Operation highly dependent on energy costs

(2) Lead time to get on line

(3) Resolution of technical problems such as location of production sites and storage reservoirs (strategic reserves)

b. Strategic considerations

(1) Increased energy dependence

(2) Pollution

(3) Exposure to interruption

i. Target for attack against system or power plant

ii. Blockade on energy supplies

B. Strategic value of the Golan

1. Topography allows for a small force to hold back a large invading force.

2. Undisturbed line-of-sight surveillance of Syria.

3. Proximity to Damascus provides Israel the ability to strike without relying on missiles

a. More tonnage

b. Not dependent on technology sensitive to electronic countermeasures

c. Avoids immediate escalation to missile war.

4. Strategic depth provides crucial time

a. To call up reserves

b. To resolve situation without resorting to force.

5. Relevant lessons of 6 Day War and Yom Kippur War

a. Israel took the Golan in 1967 enjoying a combination of circumstances that cannot be expected to repeat themselves

(1) Air force effectively non-existent

(2) No technology to effectively respond to assault

(3) Allies decimated

b. In 1973 everything went wrong yet thanks to strategic depth a small force was able to delay the advancing Syrian forces

(1) The most important lesson: Even the best intelligence data is subject to human interpretation and requires a proper and timely human response.

(2) The same scenario repeated without the Golan would be considerably more disastrous.

C. Security arrangements in agreement

1. From strategic advantage to equality

a. Intelligence collection/Surveillance

(1) From independence (both in terms of technology used, targets observed, real time access, unfiltered) to dependence on third parties.

(2) Syrian access to intelligence against Israel will be raised to parity with Israel's information on Syria.

i. In the case of an Israel-Syria conflict either both parties or neither parties continue to get the surveillance feed.

ii. In the case of an Israeli conflict with a third party, Syria could forward their surveillance feed to the third party without Israel having no recourse.

b. The 'clash line' on the final border

(1) The difference in the sizes of the demilitarized areas only attempts to offset the Syrian advantage of holding the high ground.

i. Under the principle of equality, neither party is to have an advantage on the other in crossing the final border.

ii. To assume that Israel will be able to readily recapture the Heights in time of war is to assert that they Syrians will either be tricked at the negotiating table of make a concession that they have to date ruled out.

c. American from Ally to Arbiter

(1) In times of conflict America will focus on 'fact finding' and arbitration rather than aiding Israel.

(2) Israel's ability to take preemptive measures seriously hampered.

d. Syria's standing in the West raised towards Israel's

(1) Off of the list of states supporting terror, Syria will benefit from an improved image and ready access to Western technologies of all kinds.

(2) American public support for Israel over Syria as well as an appreciation of Israel's security needs eroded.

2. The critical assumptions

a. That technology can replace the advantage provided by the Golan

(1) Intelligence collection/Surveillance

i. Balloons have limited payload and subject to attack

ii. Satellites and Planes are expensive, limited coverage, subject to failure.

(2) Long range anti tank missiles and other equipment

i. GAO reports from Gulf war and result from Bosnia both show the equipment's performance highly overrated.

ii. Employment of the technology still relies on human judgement subject to severe time constraints imposed by security arrangements

b. That whatever technological advantage provided Israel after the withdrawal will be maintained in the future

(1) Technologies have lifecycles and become outdated.

(2) Syria will strive to close the technology gap.

i. Under the Egyptian precedent, Syria, over time can be expected to be supplied advanced American weapons and training.

ii. No longer a terrorist state, Syria will have access to Western technology from other Western countries. Payment for this technology may come from third parties or internal sources (Until recently it was assumed the Egyptians had no money to buy weapons and then they discovered their fossil fuel reserves were underestimated by XXX billion dollars).

iii. During a period of conflict third parties allied to Syria may introduce advanced Western equipment (in all previous wars x,y,z provided Syria with equipment). Some Arab states (e.g. UAE) are being equipped today with US weapons systems superior to Israel's.

iv. The future importance of Soviet weapons technology has been prematurely discounted.

c. That everything works in the case of conflict

(1) That a Syrian move is identified in a timely fashion.

(2) The action is properly and promptly interpreted.

(3) The decision-makers have the will to act promptly on the information.

d. That America as policeman will intervene

(1) The US track record in recognizing and acting promptly in such situations is discouraging

i. 1967 blockade of Straits of Tiran

ii. Egyptian violation of cease fire agreement during War of Attrition

iii. Iraqi invasion of Kuwait

iv. Iraqi violations today

(2) Contending US interests discourage action

(3) Technical limitations on America's ability to respond effectively and in a timely fashion

D. Towards Stability or Instability?

1. Danger of war by mistake since no time available to clarify situation when violation observed.

2. Assad does not honor his agreements

a. Agreements with Turkey

b. Agreements with Israel

3. It is not clear who will rule Syria in the future

a. Assad himself is minority Allawite.

b. Little is known about his son nor is the smooth hand over of power certain.

4. Israel is a ready scapegoat to divert attention from domestic tension/strife.

5. The fabric of Syrian society will be strained by the results of or coinciding with an agreement with Israel

a. Massive structural changes as Syria modernizes

(1) Majority of population currently engaged in subsistence agriculture.

(2) Backward economy now heavily controlled by state.

b. Impact of rise in Israeli and other Western tourism on public expectations regarding human rights as well as quality of life.

6. Agreement introduces tension and increases odds of successful attack

a. Interpretation of agreement in implementation as source of friction.

(1) Genuine disputes

(2) Artificial disputes to renege on unpopular concessions.

b. Greater odds of successful attack against Israel at less defensible line encourages taking the option.

7. Agreement with Syria does not mean peace with remaining Arab states and is conditional to peace with other holdouts.

a. Leaders contesting for popular support in the Arab world will use their anti-Israel position to advance themselves.

(1) Iran, Iraq, etc. to appeal over the heads of the leaders of countries with relations with Israel

(2) Opposition leaders within countries with relations with Israel

8. Jerusalem issue will remain focus of Moslem world.

9. Palestinian rights easy excuse for tension

a. Right of return

b. Other unresolved issues

c. Additional demands by rejectionists

d. Future demands by Israeli Arabs

10. Tension caused by Israeli competition for leadership/power/dominance of region

11. Continuing efforts to remove Israel's nuclear weapons capability.

12. External changes/events raise tension in region released by focusing it on Israel.

13. Even if Israel is treated like others in the region this does not mean long term peace as region has history of war between Arab states - not just Arab-Israeli.

II. Pro withdrawal arguments to be addressed

A. Syria-Israel border has been quiet for 26 years [reply that this due Israel's proximity to Damascus and that Syria has violated agreement]

B. Peace with Egypt has been stable for almost three decades [reply that Egypt has been patiently reaching military parity with Israel and pursuing goal of disarming Israel of nuclear capability - still gearing up for war]

C. Agreement with Syria only possible if withdrawal completely from the Golan [reply that a peace is a means - not a goal and that Syria has peace with Turkey despite Turkish control of Alexandretta].



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of March 3, 2000


By Ariel Sharon

It is well known that a person may be brave in the battlefield, but a public coward. It seems that Prime Minister Ehud Barak lacks the courage to tell the nation openly that he has given up everything. He does not have the strength to tell his people: "I have accepted the Syrian demand to withdraw from the entire Golan Heights all the way to Lake Kinneret. And to persuade Assad to accept my concessions, I even threw in Hamat Gader as a bonus."

Barak has decided to hide behind previous prime ministers and blame them for his own shortcomings. It is a mixture of lack of leadership, lack of credibility and inexperience. I believe he would have acted differently were he experienced. Because someone who shirks responsibility cannot be the leader of a nation.

The prime minister accused former prime minister Yitzhak Shamir of supposedly agreeing to retreat from the whole Golan to the June 4 lines. Shamir denied this fervently. As opposed to Mr. Barak, he was telling the truth. Barak accused the late Yitzhak Rabin, who can no longer answer. He relied on the testimony of aides who were never privy to the negotiations, and who suddenly remembered Rabin's stance on the situation. Advisers that Rabin nurtured were suddenly recruited to slander his memory by distorting his intentions. This is a place where only the past changes. We must remember that secretary of state Warren Christopher clearly stated in a letter to Netanyahu in 1996 that there was no promise by Rabin to retreat to the June 4 lines.

Even former prime minister Shimon Peres denies it. Mr. Barak accuses former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu of agreeing to the June 4 withdrawal. Netanyahu denied this. As the foreign minister in Netanyahu's government, I want to state: No map was given to the Syrians. Netanyahu did not intend to retreat from the cliffs to the shore of the lake. Netanyahu spoke of miles east of the international border. I personally stopped the negotiations when I heard about them, because even those demands from the Syrians seemed to me insufficient.

ALL of the former prime ministers whom Barak is referring to now - Shamir, Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu - did not act. They understood the great danger of retreating from the Golan Heights. The only one who is prepared to act and thereby endanger Israel is Barak.

"The window of opportunity" is about to close, Barak explains. Assad is on his last legs. (Is he still functioning as a leader?) This is a mistaken assumption. In the life of a nation there are no closed windows. One closes, another one opens. One only needs time and perseverance.To better understand the dangers toward which Mrs. Barak is leading us, you only need to remember what happened to the prime minister of France at Bir Zeit University when he dared call Hizbullah a terrorist organization.

You have to read the words of Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk Shara:"The return of all of Palestine is a long-term strategic goal which can not be achieved in one stage." "The confrontation with Israel will continue even in an era of peace." "Syria will not expel the rejectionist factions from its territory." "Syria will not impose any kind of normalization on its people. That is a red line."

All that along with incessant, vile incitement that has been going on for many years: Holocaust denial, Israel being called a Nazi regime, and more. This is the norm in Syria, Egypt and the Palestinian Authority. Meanwhile, Israel is expected to make irreversible concessions so that the Syrians can sit at the top of the mountain and we at the bottom.

I am in favor of negotiations; I am in favor of agreements. But the government must remember that the most important thing, especially in view of the atmosphere in the Middle East, is the dimension of time. Agreements should be based on solutions that are carried out over years. Even then, we should not leave the Golan.

They say: "Barak promised." So what. Barak promised to fight unemployment and did nothing. Barak promised to take care of the hospitals and did nothing. He promised to take care of education with no result. He promised to do something about socioeconomic gaps and they are only getting wider.

In the areas that count, Barak hasn't kept his promises. Why does Barak think he should keep the one promise that puts Israel in danger? Maybe this is the answer: Barak says Clinton wants to wrap it up by May. We all know why, but we must remember: Presidents come and go, but Israel must exist forever.

(c) 2000 The Jerusalem Post




By David Bedein

[March 12, 2000] The recommendation that Barak will bring to his cabinet will be for IDF withdrawal from Arab villages that are contiguous to Jerusalem and to free Arab killers who express no regret for their actions. That would invite the Palestinian Liberation Army to lay siege to Jerusalem. since the PLA would be deployed next to every Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, The Etzion Bloc and the Jewish communities in Benyamin.

Most people do not realize that changing status from area "b" to area "a" simply means that the PLA, an well armed and well motivated army, will move in. Ironically, these actions do not contradict the PR slogan of the Yesha council, which has campaigned for the Israeli gov't "not to uproot Jewish communities" nor to "divide Jerusalem".

All this does is to put Jewish communities in moral danger.

The options to influence government actions at this point:

*Sponsor forums for the press and the public to know what threat is posed by the PLA to Jewish lives.

*Sponsor forums for the press and the public to know what is being taught in the PA schools. While the curriculum continues to train a new generation of Arabs to kill Jews, Shimon Peres announced at the international Jewish media conference two weeks ago that the PA had adopted a new curriculum for peace. When I asked Peres about the fact that Arafat had vetoed that curriculum, Peres quietly said that he knew that.

*Finance a private investigator in Washington, DC to determine if the Clinton administration financed Carville to help Barak. That would make Barak a foreign agent.

*Send registered letters to Barak and to every member of the government. Do not send e-mails or faxes. They are not read. Registered letters are recorded in the government records.

*Participate in a vigil on Friday morning outside of the homes of MEIMAD Rabbis Michael Melchior and Yehudah Amital. Without their support, Barak cannot implement any program. Since Rabbi Melchior's son lives in Tekoa, which would have a PLA base deployed next to it, someone should carry a sign asking Melchior if he has a right to kill his son. Since Rav Amital is the ROSH YESHIVA of HAR ETZION in Alon Shvut, someone should carry a sign in which they ask whether Rav Amital has a right to kill his students.

*Bring a suit to challenge Barak's retaining Yossi Ginnosar as his private negotiator with Arafat, since Ginnosar earns a fee from businesses inside the PA, especially from the casino in Jericho.

*Whenever you see that there is not a policeman at the Solomon's Junction, get out of your car and check Arab cars to see if they have weapons or valid licenses.

*Call Barak's media office incessantly and express your feelings. Tel. 02-6524040.

*And always write to the media and express yourself.

This is the first time in 1900 years that Jews have welcomed a foreign army to the outskirts of Jerusalem, under the premise of peace, of course

It would seem that the Syrian track was Barak's diversionary operation whose purpose was to distract the people from his policies in Jerusalem.


DAVID BEDEIN is the Media Research Analyst and Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency, Beit Agron International Press Center, Jerusalem, Israel




March 14, 2000 7 Adar II 5760

Public Manifesto by Women from
Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza

By Ruth and Nadia Matar, Women in Green

Editor's Note: By all that is Sacred and Holy in the Jewish people, we must support these women in their struggle to save Eretz Yisrael....Bernard J. Shapiro

Political processes that threaten the Jewish people are being revealed before our very eyes. The Arab enemy (including those with whom we have signed "peace" agreements) does not conceal his preparation for a total war for the destruction of the State of Israel and the elimination of the Jewish entity in the Middle East. The enemy, who has learned the distorted psychology of the Israeli government, uses terror as a tool to soften us up, even during the presumed peace process. In a march of folly, the government of Israel is constructing for the enemy his very plans. In an obsessive manner, the government seeks to rid itself of the nation's lands, which will lead us, Heaven forbid, to a hopeless war. After the handing over of portions of the homeland that have become nests of terror, the government intends to uproot Jews from their homes and their settlements, and to give them over into the hands of the enemy. There is also a program for "voluntary transfer" that will leave settlements at the mercy of the enemy…

We have chosen to gather, in Gush Katif, specifically on the eve of the Purim holiday, in which G-d, rescued Israel by means of a courageous woman. The time has come for us to take part in the preparations for confronting a changing reality.

To the Prime Minister of Israel, the Government of Israel, the Knesset of Israel, and the people of Israel:

- WE DECLARE: Eretz Israel belongs to the Jewish people for all time, and only to it - thus our Torah has established.

-WE DECLARE: that no one is entitled to surrender a single bit of the soil of Eretz Israel to a foreign people. There is no legal or moral validity to the handing over of parts of Eretz Israel to the Arabs. This is a betrayal of Judaism for all time. We will never accept this crime.

-WE DECLARE: that not even a referendum will make this act legal and moral. We will not comply if, Heaven forbid, the people will betray its homeland.

- WE DECLARE: that we will resolutely oppose any program for the uprooting of settlements. We will not allow our being uprooted from our homes and from our land. If the government will adversely change the security situation, it will find us ready, resolute, combative, alongside our men.

- WE DECLARE: that we will not leave behind even the smallest of settlements. We will join with it, shoulder to shoulder, in the struggle for its existence.

- WE DECLARE: that we will take action for the continued construction and growth of settlement throughout Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, the Golan, and Jerusalem. Threats will not stop our magnificent Zionist enterprise.

- the new reality mandates that we be an integral part of the defense system of the settlements. WE CALL upon women to practice self-defense and the use of arms, and to purchase weapons, that are approved by the law. This is the hour of pikuah nefesh, the saving of life.

- as mothers, we appeal to you, our brother and son the soldier - do not uproot what has been planted! Do not be a partner in the crime against your people, against your homeland. The order to uproot Jews from their homes and from their land is a patently illegal order. Governments rise and governments fall, but what is sacred to Israel and its values will last forever.

-WE CALL upon the national camp, with all its organizations, and the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, to awaken and act.

Women in Israel have demonstrated bravery and resourcefulness, from the time of the Matriarch Sarah to the pioneering women of today - the pioneers of Beit Hadassah and those who dwell in the caravans on the desolate hills. We, too, with the help of G-d, shall be an example and symbol by steadfastness to the goal and self-sacrifice. We shall not permit the destruction of our life's work. We stall stand resolute at the gate, with our children, against those who arise to destroy us, even if they are our brothers. We shall not submit - and G-d, shall be our helper.


Under the sponsorship of Women for Israel's Tomorrow ("Women in Green")
POB 7352, Jerusalem
tel. (02) 624-9887 fax (02) 624-5380
Web site:


To Know & to Do

by Professor Eugene Narrett

"The Jewish character of the State of Israel is withered. It carries forward without any real conviction. Rejecting the very lifeblood of its Jewish identity, Israel exudes a kaleidoscope of shame and abjection for which no missile could ever compensate." (1)

Three thousand three hundred and twelve years ago, the Children of Israel brought offerings to Moshe for his officers to build the Sanctuary of the Lord in the Wilderness. Faithfully serving the purposes for which God chose them, they found the wisdom and insight to atone morning after morning for their doubts and fears. Through this human grace "there was more than enough" for the sacred work. "There was extra" (Exodus 36:1-8). Today, the leaders of the state and many of its people have confused this redemptive dedication. They have so badly confounded their place in the Middle East, the world and in history that the survival of the state is imperiled. As it was after the episode of the calf, today again Jews "must learn to take proper stands within themselves against what is garrulous and foolish" in favor of their unique mission (2). They need a return to history and identity founded in the sanctuary of an observant and complete Land.

Twice in February, members of the Israeli Parliament and of the Jerusalem municipal council attempted to visit the Palestinian "capitol" in Abu Dis, scarcely a mile from the Temple Mount. Each time they were rebuffed physically (3). On March 2, PLO officer Feisal Husseini announced that Arafat & Co. would meet with foreign diplomats at Orient House, their semi-official embassy that former PM Netanyahu several times vowed to close only to be undercut by the disloyal Labor opposition. Now that Labor (laughably re-named "One Israel") leads the government of the withered state, it shows its concern for law and Jewish life by issuing a statement. "Israel expects that the PLO will fully respect the agreements it has signed, and that foreign states will not support this measure" (4). It hollowly proclaimed that "Jerusalem in its entirety is not within the areas of PA authority" even as it hastened to assist the Arabs, international media and the Pope plan the latter's triumphal tour of Israel and the Temple Mount over which it has ceded control (5). It is the spiritual degradation of such empty words that leads Arabs to deride Jewish sovereignty as "a joke" (6).

While Barak appointees claimed to expect the PLO would "fully respect agreements it has signed" the speaker of the Palestinian National Authority (a 'Parliament' that rarely meets and has never passed legislation) stated that the Arabs would take land for their state "by force if necessary" (7). A few days later, Abu Mazen repeated the demand. The challenge was met by words from Israeli government officials already on record as saying that the way to pre-empt Arab violence is by hastening surrender to them of more land (8). It is a bad joke, a "demonic exchange with the murderers of Jewish children" (9).

Joining this raucous mockery was some whimsical tittering by one of Israel's most notable Amalekites. Journalist Nadav Shragai noted that "the Holy See is taking a stance as the ally of the PA in the place most holy to the Jewish people." It is a "fait accompli" that "requires some soul-searching about the status quo," he mused. "The religious autonomy granted to the Muslim religious authorities in June 1967 as turned into Palestinian autonomy that no longer answers to Israeli rule and sovereignty" (10). But the soul-searching he imagines should not lead to restoration of Jewish sovereignty. No; "perhaps it would have been better if in '67 the illusion had not been implanted in us that the Temple Mount is in our hands," he commented. But firstly, it was not an illusion but a fact, as it also was a fact that control was all but immediately surrendered in favor of the Western Wall and its association with dhimmitude. It was the failure of a Labor-socialist government and ruling elite that like a wayward daughter surrendered the heart of Judaism at its moment of triumphant return. Moshe Dayan formally surrendered Jewish control of the Mount itself with little public criticism by the Rabbinate who can improvise prayers instead of bullocks for every situation except Jewish ritual purity. Thus has fussiness and abjection contributed to spiritual degradation in many ways.

The varmints who revise Israeli history every day in schools trade cues with their fellow travelers in the major media. "Jerusalem was once the capital of the long memory of the Jewish people," Shragai pontificated. Correction: Jerusalem was the capital of the Kingdom of Israel and Judah. Its centrality was a living fact, not a matter of impotent sentiment. The memory did not create "an identity and a culture" in the kind of ad hoc idealism favored by counter-factual 'historians.' The identity, culture and sovereignty of the Jewish people and their kings sustained by faith, effort and blood created love and memory that survived exile but may not survive the ideological treachery and intellectual dishonesty of surrender parading as "soul searching." Instead of an illusion implanted and then uprooted by Jewish Amalekites, Israel (and the world) need the literal implanting and restoration of the fact of Jewish worship. Rather than "a de facto Muslim-Vatican state," work like that of the Alliance for Establishing the Temple can help restore a collective self-respect essential to Jewish survival in Israel (11).

For Jews, self-respect and insight require knowledge of history. Attacks on Israel from Lebanon by Arabs bitterly opposed to a restored "Jewish National Home" began by 1935 when "regions contiguous to [the Mandate] became staging areas and sanctuaries for bands of Palestinian Arab guerillas." International and Israeli attempts to secure Jewish security on the Litani River began in 1919 with the Meinertzhagen Line and continued with Israeli victories in 1948 (12). So did the bitter habit of Israeli withdrawal from territory within the God-given and human achieved borders of the Land in exchange for "assurances." It was the Labor Government in the mid-'70s who returned to create a Security Zone in "Operation Litani." It was "the repeated shelling of northern towns and border penetrations that caused the IDF to go in and create a larger security zone than exists today (13). And those who wish to live recognize that even with the constraints politicians have put on operations in Lebanon for five decades, the army has been remarkably successful in its mission. "Decades of terror attacks in the north are what led to the security zone, and it has proven effective to this very day," comments Maj. Gen. (Ret) Meir Dagan. "If we capitulate each time we have a conflict with an Arab entity, they will know they can use the threat of terror to force us to give in" (14). And the sequel to that message is more terror, whether the surrender is at the Temple Mount, Hebron Hill or on the banks of the Litani.

Surrender leads to death, first of the spirit, then of the flesh. Self-respect and self-knowledge (which means knowledge of where Jews have come from and the charge we are given) means deterrence, "an obligation to fight offensively," an Order of Battle and political courage "to carry out appropriate pre-emptive strikes" against enemies sworn to destroy the Jewish state (15). In the early, desperate days of the re-born state, when the stench of the ovens still hung in the air, there was a consensus acknowledgement that "the essence of Israeli security is deterrence. If you show fear, they will attack and you are lost," said Moshe Dayan in 1965. So "every time we were attacked, we retaliated tenfold. We penetrated deep within their borders to attack targets" (16). This was the spirit that won the 1967 war, so far as it went and that saved the hostages at Entebbe.

But now the flood of forgetting and lies sweeps away memory, truth and lives. Under the relentless battering of a world that will not forgive the Jews for bearing witness to the moral order, homegrown quislings have fashioned Jewish guilt into a "peace process" that panders to the Jew hatred rooted in the Koran and in Christian "replacement theology." This lethal "identification with the enemy" has become so pervasive that it takes American friends of Israel to decry the state's fall into "confusion and doubt" and to warn against becoming a client of the United States (17). A distinguished Marine General emphasizes that Israel can survive only by deterrence, retaining all its territory and complete independence of American technology and geopolitical plans. "To do less would border on treason," he said and the $6.5 billion sale in March of top-line F-16s by Lockheed-Martin to the United Arab Emirates underscored his point. The radar on the jets is superior to that used by the U.S. or Israel and history shows that the technology will become available to other Arab nations just as previously from the Saudis to Syria, Iraq and the Palestinians. And the more Israel relies on American weapons or dollars, the more American governments will be able to dictate Israeli policy. "The U.S. State Department is totally at odds with Israel's military views," comments a decorated retired Israeli Air Force Commander. His American friend added, "if the Golan is returned to Syria, it will be the first step in the death of Israel" (18). A nation that enters a desert of organized forgetting is on a death march.

But even as the waking warn against surrendering land and sovereignty, secular and religious 'leaders' in Israel "seem to live outside of history," eager to break bread with or excuse the agenda of those who deny the Jewish state (19). In his frenzy to defend the pope, Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau has shown an appalling ignorance of history and lack of insight. "It is inconceivable to turn a friendly pope into an enemy," he replied to those criticizing the papal visit and concordat with the PLO. "Millions of Jews live in countries where Catholicism is dominant," he claimed, incorrectly (does the Rabbi think America is a Catholic country?). "Any provocation against the pope could endanger Jews around the world" (20). Even if this were true, it would be far more dangerous to pamper and defer to Catholics, Muslims or anyone whose resentment at being denied dual reign in Israel would lead them to attack Jews. Lau here showed the same suicidal reflex that leads to surrendering to angry Arabs, thus endlessly whetting their demands. The Rabbi seems unaware that the Palestinians whose "legitimate national aspirations" in Israel and Jerusalem the Vatican has just officially affirmed are committed to the destruction of the nation and regard Jews and Judaising as "cancerous." Concern for Sabbath observance does not substitute for Jewish sovereignty in the Land. Without the latter, Jews die and others are driven to assimilate. Chief Rabbi Lau survived the Holocaust but seems to have missed its major lesson, the centrality to the Children of Israel of the Land whose borders are to be "sealed like iron and copper" (Deuteronomy 33:26). As if to prove that sovereignty, Sabbath and a Torah of Life are inseparable, early reports that the pope's office had changed his schedule in respect for Sabbath turned out to be erroneous (21). Error or not, the fact that what should be a simple logistical matter remained unresolved twelve days before the visit underscores Vatican contempt for Judaism in Israel as much (although not as dangerously) as the Vatican-PLO "Bilateral Agreement."

Two other incidents illustrate how forgetting and self-contempt feed on each other. Early in March, Israel issued a stamp commemorating King Hussein whose overt hostility was replaced after 1970 by cunning enmity (22). His son and successor, King Abdullah responded to the honor by stating that Hussein's commitment to peace was "based on restoring rights to the land's legitimate owners," familiar code for Palestinian Arabs whose very name is an imposture of the Roman Empire (23). But because the leaders of Israel continue their impossible dream of "acceptance" and "normal relations" with neighbors whose religion and ideology centers on hating Jews and denying Israel, they must create one "good" Arab to sustain an illusion of "normalization." In pursuit of the mirage of "acceptance" land, towns and wealth have been squandered since 1948, especially since 1973. On this road of blindness, self-respect and national purpose also has been lost. Other Israeli politicians lust to squeeze Arafat into the role of peace partner. Knesset Speaker Avram Burg was so stimulated by the prospect of lunch with the toad that his spokesman dismissed raising Israeli concerns about the routine "escape" of criminals from PA jails and suppressing terrorism. "When Chairman Arafat called last night and asked Avrum for a gala lunch and working meeting, since Avrum is a member of the peace camp he accepts" without reservations. "On the other hand," his spokesman said, "there are matters the Palestinians are concerned about." But don't worry, "Avrum is abreast of the situation. He knows everything" (24). Here is the utter defeat of wisdom, insight and self-respect by a puppyish identification with the enemy. Here is an utter failure of honor and honesty in confronting Arabs who are brutal and brutally direct about seeking to eradicate Israel.

Israel has misplaced its purpose for decades. Jews can survive only in a truly Jewish state centering on the practice and assertion of Judaism. It will not survive as a "state of its citizens" who may be Palestinians or other non-Jews or Jew haters. When Israel loses its Land or its way so too does the increasingly neo-pagan and disordered world. A sovereign Israel is intended to assert the sovereignty of God and to turn the world to holy purposes. When Israel betrays its mission, it tells the world there is no judgment and no judge.

When Solomon built the Temple, he honored his father David not by invoking current events or the diplomatic agenda of Egypt or Babylon. He looked to the singular history of the Children of Israel, the people God redeemed and created to declare His praise. He brought them to His sacred boundary, the Land, and to "the Holy Mountain His right hand acquired. He drove away peoples before them and appointed them a measured inheritance" not to be given away (Psalm 78:54-5) but that will be forfeit if they abandon His gifts and service. Today the watchword is "yesterday's gone" and "I'm tired of history." But Solomon vitalized his reign by making it a site for the eternal truth of the most decisive moment of history. "I have built the House for the sake of Hashem, the God of Israel. And there I made a place for the Ark which contains the covenant of Hashem that He sealed with our forefathers when He brought them out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 8:20-1). The Temple continued that faith, wisdom, insight and deeds that built the Tabernacle in the Wilderness. In the merit of this work, the clouds and glory of Hashem filled the Sanctuary and He dwelt amidst Israel and they walked as He directed (Exodus 40:34-8).

"Set your heart on the road that you are walking and return, O Israel, return to these cities of yours" (Jeremiah 31:20). This is the way for the leaders of Israel to "gird sword upon thigh and ride over enemies" as "nations fall beneath its sharp arrows." As Solomon indicated in invoking David, this is the way of "gladness and joy," the way "sons succeed fathers as leaders in the Land." It is the way of "mindfulness," the name of this Torah portion of triumphant completion and the psalm associated with it (25). This recovery of identity it the only way Israel "will be remembered in all generations and acknowledged by nations forever and ever" (Psalm 45:4-6, 16-18).

Eugene Narrett teaches Literature at Boston University.


1. The title is from Exodus 36:1, portion Vayakhel ("and he [Moshe] assembled") discussing the construction by the Children of Israel of the Tabernacle in the wilderness during the first ten months after receiving the covenant at Sinai. The epigraph is from Prof. Louis Rene Beres, "Israel & Enlightenment," March 07, 2000, Freeman List posting.

2. Beres, "Jewish Leadership," speech in NYC, Feb. 13, 2000, GAMLA posting.

3. A-7, Feb. 06 (group of Labor MK's) & Feb. 26, 2000 (municipal officials).

4. Foreign Ministry Spokesman, March 02, 2000, transmitted by IMRA.

5. Government Press Office, Jerusalem, March 07, 2000.

6. Adnan Husseini, Director of the Wakf, interviews on IMRA 02/07/00.

7. Ahmed Qureia quoted by The Jordan Times, "Palestinians set deadline for final peace deal," 03/05/00. Response by "Public Security Minister" Shlomo Ben-Ami.

8. Abu Mazen, 03/07/00, wire services.

9. Beres, "Jewish Leadership."

10. Nadav Shragai, Ha'Aretz Hebrew edition, March 05, 2000.

11. "Jewish Amalekites" is the title of an essay 02/27/00 by Prof. Paul Eidelberg and a subject he often analyzes. Rabbi Menachem Makover of the Temple Alliance has issued a commemorative coin to recall the mitzvah of giving a half-shekel "not only to build Temple instruments but to increase Jewish awareness of the importance of the Temple in our lives" and as part of "preparing the way."

12. Frederic C. Hof, Galilee Divided: The Israel-Lebanon Frontier, 1916-84 (Westview Press, London, 1985), 43-61, ff.

13. Meir Indor interviewed on Arutz-7, March 06, 2000.

14. Gen. Dagan interviewed by Haggai Segal on A-7, Feb. 11, 2000.

15. Beres, "Israel & Enlightenment."

16. Dayan to a group of RAFI volunteers, Tel Aviv, 1965, quoted by Bernard Shapiro, "Deterrence or Dhimmitude," The Maccabbean online, March 2000.

17. Beres, "Jewish Leadership" quoting novelist Aharon Meged. The warning was delivered by Maj. Gen. (Ret) Jarvis D. Lynch, Jr. U.S. Marine Corps, 02/27/00, "What Price the Golan," Seminar in Miami. Gen. Jarvis was Chief of Staff for the U.S. Pacific Fleet and Asst. Chief of Staff, NATO, European Command.

18. Col. Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto and Gen. Jarvis, 02/27/00.

19. Beres, "Toward a New Zionist Congress," 02/28/00, web posting.

20. Arutz-7, March 02, 2000.

21. A-7& Government Press Office, 03/07/00. Also disturbing were reports in Yediot Ahronot & other media that the Vatican (or some Israeli officials) had ordered Magen David Adom to remove the Jewish stars from the ambulances that would attend the pope.

22. Hussein's occupation and destruction of half of Jerusalem is well known though suppressed by Israeli officials, as are his attack on the demilitarized area in 1967 and his call for Arabs to "kill Jews wherever you find them." All but forgotten is that he did not sit out the Yom Kippur War. His self-serving "compromise" of refraining from attacking Israel along the Jordan (and get whipped again) was to send his armored brigades to Syria to join Iraqi and Syrian troops at Tel Hara. That's called war, assault and death. See inter alia, Netanel Lorch, One Long War (Jerusalem, 1976), 193-4.

23. Jordan Times, March 05, 2000.

24. Interview of Ayelet Frish, Burg's assistant by Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA 03/02/00.

25. The Torah portion describing the completion of the Tabernacle is Pekudei, "orders" or "mindfulness" (as in Genesis 50:24-5 and Exodus 3:4-14, "I have surely remembered you." Siddur Avodas Israel assigns one psalm as particularly fitting to each Torah portion. For portion Pekudei (Exodus 38:21-40:38) it is Psalm 45 that addresses David as the pattern of messiah.



Reprinted From The Jerusalem Post of March 7, 2000


By Evelyn Gordon

How the Justice Ministry managed to mislead us with the
truth. (The writer comments on current affairs.)

If there were an annual prize for the most misleading use of the truth, the document put out by the Justice Ministry last week on the use of referenda worldwide would win hands down. Based on its study of referenda in 22 countries, the ministry loudly proclaimed that almost no western democracy demands a special majority for a referendum on territorial concessions to pass. This is the truth.

What the ministry's document somehow neglected to emphasize, however, is that almost all western democracies do demand a special majority for territorial concessions. But unlike in Israel, where international agreements require approval by at most 61 of its 120 MKs, most democracies choose to demand their special majority at the level of the legislature.

Consider a few examples from the Justice Ministry's list of states that demand only a simple majority in referenda. Australia, for instance, does indeed demand only a simple majority in any referendum. But it also demands that the proposal in question be approved by two-thirds of its state legislatures. Austria demands a simple majority in the referendum, but a two-thirds vote in the lower house of parliament. Sweden, along with a simple majority in the referendum, demands that the proposal in question be approved by two consecutive parliaments. Switzerland requires a simple majority in the referendum plus approval by the legislatures of 12 of its 22 cantons.

Spain, which is also on the ministry's list, has the most stringent approval process of all: In addition to a simple majority in the referendum, it requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of parliament by two consecutive parliaments.

Nor was this the only way in which the ministry's report was misleading. The report also trumpeted the fact hat even in states which do demand approval by a certain percentage of eligible voters rather than a simple majority of those who vote, the threshold is generally less than the 50 percent stipulated in the opposition bill that passed its preliminary reading in the Knesset last week - against which the ministry's report was aimed. Again, this is the strict truth: Most of the countries that use this system do indeed require approval by 40% or fewer of their eligible voters.

What the ministry neglected to mention, however, is that all of these are countries where voter turnout is traditionally very low - 50% to 60% or even lower. With a voter turnout of 60%, requiring approval by 40% of eligible voters is the equivalent of requiring approval by 67% of those who actually vote. In Israel, however, voter turnout is consistently in the neighborhood of 80% - an extraordinarily high level by western standards. Therefore, requiring approval by 50% of eligible voters is the equivalent of requiring a "yes" vote from 63% of those who actually cast a ballot - a margin no greater, and sometimes even lower, than that demanded by western countries which use the 40% rule (such as Denmark).

Indeed, in a country where voter turnout is as high as Israel's, demanding approval by only 40% or fewer of the eligible voters would produce an absurd result: The referendum could pass with the support of less than 50% of those who actually cast their ballots.

THE simple fact that the ministry's many truths were designed to conceal is that almost all western democracies demand a special majority for hard-to-reverse decisions with far-reaching consequences, such as territorial concessions - not because they are "racist" or interested in negating the votes of a religious or national minority, but because they deem it divisive to make such decisions by a razor-thin majority.

Thus the only serious argument against the opposition bill that passed last week is not that "other democracies don't do that" - most of them do. Rather, it is that the particular mechanism chosen by the bill may not be the best one for Israel. This is because an unusually high percentage of eligible Israeli voters - around 10 percent - are permanent overseas residents. And since Israel, with a few exceptions, does not permit absentee balloting, a "50 percent of eligible voters" rule means that this large block of voters will automatically be counted as votes against.

It would therefore be preferable to require a special majority in parliament - which is also the most common practice in other western countries. A two-thirds majority in parliament would be far from an insurmountable barrier: The peace agreements with both Egypt and Jordan were approved by even wider margins. But the Knesset, for inscrutable reasons of its own, prefers to shift the burden of the special majority onto the referendum. And, as the collective wisdom of the rest of the democratic world teaches, this is far better than no special majority at all.

(c) Jerusalem Post 2000




By Emanuel A. Winston

It is 2007. Scholars from around the world have gathered to discuss the demise of the Jewish State of Israel. Some are Jewish but Christian scholars are also attending to bear witness and assist in compiling data to explain causes of what is now called "The Fall of the Third Temple". Extinction of a sophisticated and thriving society is being debated within many academic disciplines, including psychiatry, military history, war crimes and genocide, diplomatic secrets, international law, weapons of mass destruction and other relevant topics.

They conclude there is no one answer but agree that many separate events and Israeli governmental decisions led up to her demise. Most believe that the failed will of the Israeli people was the ultimate reason for Israel's fall but scholars are interested in what preceded this collapse of spirit. The following are components which are being studied - with an attempt to put them in some order of importance:

Let us begin with the Israeli military which necessarily dominated Israeli thought from her earliest formative days. Israel was surrounded with hostile Arab nations, each pledged to destroy a non-Moslem intrusion into their claimed land and a violation of the religion of Islam (which they believed to be one and the same). Between 1948 and 2000 the Arabs attacked Israel in six fully-fledged wars, continually interspersed with terrorism against Israel's civilians. This constant state of war welded the Israeli people into a solid cohesive fighting force who defeated the Arabs. These defeats shook the twin Arab pillars of Pride and Shame. Concurrently, this continuing state of conflict also led to a mass psychosis of hopelessness among the Israelis. The so-called civilized nations of the West supported spurious Arab claims to the land for expected trade, commerce and free-flowing oil.

During this time the political parties of the Left recognized the IDF as an invaluable asset for developing Leftist-oriented officers who, using these credentials, could be voted into political office upon their discharge from the army. This use of the military as an incubator for 'politically correct' officers gradually eroded the fighting spirit from within. In the beginning the fighting spirit was strong and the nation pulled together to meet the challenges that faced the new Jewish State. But, after 50 years of infiltrating her ranks with officers aspiring to political office, the mechanism from the top down through the ranks weakened. Compounding this fact, for some reason, officers with characteristics that fit the acceptable mold of the Leftist Labor party ideology also had a strong, dovish bent which, when co-mingled, created a personality not suited for the military.

Israel's military is a citizens' army. The prevailing attitude in the forces quickly filtered into the civilian population at large. Loss of spirit came directly from the Prime Minister's office, down through the Chief of Staff, through the officers' corps and finally down into the soldiers. They were ordered to fear and retreat as their entire 'raison d'etre' (reason for being) was diluted and dumbed down. Regrettably, a succession of Prime and Defense Ministers did not correct this misuse of the military, resulting in the spiraling down of motivation. As Pride diminished, there was a reluctance to join the military. This was not entirely true since those who vilified as settlers did volunteer to serve in disproportionate numbers.

Let us look at the years from 2002 to 2004. In 2000 P.M. Ehud Barak, under considerable pressure from President Clinton, withdrew from the 9 mile security barrier established in Lebanon. This withdrawal emboldened Hezb'Allah and other terrorist groups. Withdrawal was recognized as a defeat of Israel - with more territory to be acquired by the same terror methods. The border of northern Israel became a perpetual hot spot for frequent Katyusha rockets and terror incursions. Within two years this strip of land became a virtual no-man's land. The civilian population fled inland. Kiryat Shmona and Metulla become ghost towns except for a few hardy Israelis and military patrols. With longer range rockets, acquired from Iran and Syria by Hezb'Allah, northern Israel's 10 miles of battleground would, within a short time, be expanded, bringing Haifa within easy range.

Barak, while Prime and Defense Minister, ordered ineffective air and artillery reprisals against Syrian and Iranian backed terrorist forces gathered in the now abandoned Lebanese Security Zone. Hezb'Allah occupied the area and, as anticipated, slaughtered Israel's Lebanese Christian Allies. Christians world-wide finally condemned Barak and Clinton for the Syrian-inspired slaughter. In effect, Barak and Clinton had legitimized Syria's occupation of Lebanon. Neither the U.S., the European nations nor the U.N. condemned Syria for this massacre, nor were sanctions considered. Barak feared striking Syria directly, since the U.S. and the nations would bitterly condemn Israel's justifiable response of self-defense. The Israeli population, including the military, lost confidence in Barak and in themselves. The loss of national will seeped away rapidly.

Having blessed this absorption of Lebanon, Syria would confidently soon move against Jordan. This lesson and precedent was also not lost on other Arab nations. Saddam would once again move against Kuwait - only this time he would move under a nuclear and chemical umbrella and America would not have the stomach to risk America forces as it once did during the Gulf War. Kuwait would cease to exist and become the vassal servant of Iraq, like Lebanon's absorption by Syria.

Israel's critical mass was shrinking rapidly as Barak, in his last days as P.M. & DM, allowed establishment of a second Palestinian State. Under directions from then President Clinton, the Labor Left, led by Barak, completed their plan to evacuate almost all Jewish settlers from the Golan Heights, the areas of Judea, Samaria (popularly called the West Bank) and those remaining in Gaza. Barak had already compromised the security of the center of the country by giving the Arabs "safe passage" roads inside Israel.

The Labor Party secretly evolved this plan in the early '80s, calling for phases of pressure, ending with Jewish settlements to be surrounded by hostile Arabs who would force the settlers to abandon their homes and the land. Israel would be truncated to 10 miles wide at her mid-section and increasingly vulnerable to attack.

A succession of Israeli Prime Ministers had succeeded in reducing Israel's critical mass to such a degree that it became an irresistible target. Research shows that American Arabists in the White House and State Dept. had collaborated with various Arab regimes to undercut Israel's ability to resist and thereby eliminate the irritant that disturbed U.S. commercial interests. Our research indicates that the U.N. vote of 1947, which established the nation of a Jewish State in Palestine (which the Jews named Israel) was under attack from day one. Her adversaries were not only the Arab nations but also those same European nations who had assisted in the elimination of European Jewry.

In the year 2000, Ehud Barak pronounced that, under the authority of his joint offices of Prime Minister and Defense Minister, he was evacuating the Golan Heights. Here again, the pressures of Clinton and the State Dept. had accomplished their goals. Barak was viewed as a bought Prime Minister, having caved in on every demand made by Clinton, Arafat and Assad of Syria. The authority of law was pushed aside by Barak in his proclamation which was planned and assisted by U.S. State Dept. policy. Israel's Court system collapsed as Supreme Court Justice Aharon Barak accepted this proclamation as legal. Knesset voting and the promised Referendum for the people's approval vanished. Israel's court system became an extension of the Labor Left government's policy. Like the co-opting of the military, it was planned and executed by simply installing politically agreeable judges. Our research indicates that commercial interests in the U.S. drove American Administration policies to virtually eliminate the institutions of democracy in Israel. These forces used the cloak of U.S. Democracy to undermine the democratic institutions of Israel and hasten its downfall. In an Orwellian twist of these subversions, they accused any challenge by the opposition of being UN-democratic. The undermining of Israel's court system ranked quite high among the reasons for the inevitable failure of will among most of the Jewish nation.

Terrorism in the North and center of the country ramped up. Barak's government was voted out as casualties mounted. The dispirited people turned their fury on those they believed had brought them this catastrophe. Barak and his Cabinet went into seclusion after they were forced out of power when the Israelis finally realized the dangers the Left Labor Party had caused. There was no guarantee of safety in the streets for recognized personalities who had been active in Israel's dismemberment. Editors and journalists of the Leftist Media could no longer appear in crowds. Leftist Professors were escorted to class by armed guards - but soon chose to absent themselves. Many fled the country if they could get elusive entry visas in the democratic Free West. Jewish leaders in America who had espoused appeasement and withdrawal no longer appeared in public. The Jewish community did not approve of vengeance without law but grief over their losses produced unpredictable behavior.

Undermining of the Jews' belief in themselves also came from within. When the Left Labor/Meretz Parties were in control of the children's school curriculum, they taught that Jewish claims to the land were irrelevant in a democratic country and perhaps were not as good as the Arab claims. Those in power quickly gave up land, water and holy sites even when their adversaries (their so-called 'peace partners') maintained a steady vow that, once in control, they would cleanse the land of Jews - for the sake of Islam. Jews in America lost interest in preserving the Jewish State and most accepted the illusion of peace falsely painted by Clinton and Barak.

Every nation has its national memory and its heroes. The Left diligently worked to erase Jewish national memory - particularly in their effort to debunk and denigrate Biblical and Talmudic history. Here again, pride in the past was diluted or scorned in order to make irrelevant Jewish attachment to the land and the heroic efforts of those Zionists who settled it. The Revisionists of the Left introduced new textbooks which taught that the early settling of the Land was, in their view, a criminal act. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams - not able to understand that they were destroying the foundation upon which they and the nation stood. The Labor Left, claiming to represent the secular Jews, heaped abuse upon the religious Right including those who pioneered the settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Not surprisingly their verbal abuse closely matched the attack rhetoric of Yassir Arafat who claimed that Jews were Judaizing Jerusalem. The Labor Left expanded Arafat's complaint to include all of Israel. Attacks against religious Jews by the secular Labor Left were as vitriolic as those issued by Arab terrorists. Because they controlled the Media, including print, radio, TV and the education system, the Labor Left controlled the thought processes of Israelis. Religious Jews kept Jewish tradition alive through the centuries of 2000 years of persecution, pogroms, Inquisitions and finally the Holocaust. It was only their faith that enabled the Jewish people to remain the only ancient people still cohesive in the 20th century, to build a State, restore their ancient language and re-build an ancient people united around their religious faith. Unintentionally or not, by denigrating those who upheld Jewish traditions that unified all of Israel and the Diaspora Jews, Labor's manipulations successfully divided the country, further weakening her.

The nations of the world individually, or collectively in the U.N. and E.U., excluded Israel and voted angry condemnations under pressure from the Arab nations. Two prominent religions who were antithetical to each other (Christianity and Islam) agreed on one thing, namely that a Jewish State threatened their claim to be the sole and correct representative of G-d on earth. They even agreed that Jerusalem should be internationalized now that the Jews had successfully re-claimed her as their heritage and restored her beauty. As a mollifying stratagem, they promised the Jews peace and a cessation of terror and war.

Even as the Palestinians and the Arab nations were promising peace, they were publishing children's text books and televison shows rife with anti-Jewish material and cartoons reminiscent of the Nazis' 'Der Stermer'. Several generations were being taught to hate the Jews and continue to war as adults. There was very little official governmental objection - either from Israel or from America. Various Leftist organizations such as The New Israel Fund and Peace Now ignored these teachings which were intended to inculcate hate in the minds of young Arab children for generations. Instead, these so-called Doves continued to manipulate Israel to seek peace through appeasement.

Water, which had become a critical strategic problem, was ignored even as drought plagued the region. Israel gave up 30% of her water under the Samarian mountains and 40% under the Golan. The population was falsely soothed with irredeemable promises by the U.S. that desalination would replace their water shortfall.

In 2003-4 the embattled nation's destiny took a turn for the worse. Although Yassir Arafat had been finally forced to retire due to his illnesses, his successors charged that he had no right to establish borders and other agreements with Israel. They declared prior agreements null and void and demanded that Israel open her borders to between 3-5 million Arabs (now called Palestinian refugees). There were no appreciable objections by the U.S. or the U.N.

In 2005, with a well planned move, the Arab nations attacked Israel with all the accumulated high-tech equipment they had procured from the accommodating West. Syria, Iraq, Iran and Egypt launched a saturation missile attack.

Chemical and biological warheads rained down on Israel's population centers. The Arabs weren't concerned that, in addition to wiping out the Jews, they were also killing their Palestinian brothers. Later it was determined that the Arab nations intended to eliminate the Palestinian population since all agreed that they would be better off without these clever (and therefore dangerous) Palestinians. The new state of Palestine was not to last long. Israel was strongly warned by the U.S. State Dept. that, if they retaliated with nuclear weapons, the U.S. would launch nuclear missiles at Israel's launch sites.

Israel was keenly aware of the Arab nations' buildup of over 500 chemical-capable missiles by the year 2000 but chose not to do anything pre-emptive about this significant threat for fear of offending Clinton and the E.U. (European Union). A back-channel threat was issued to Israel that, if she was pressed to use her nuclear deterrence, that the U.S. would launch a nuclear strike against Israel to protect America's Arab markets. Israel was repeatedly advised over the years since the Secret Memorandum of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and other military experts up until 1993 not to give up her strong points: defensive high ground, water and sovereignty over the State and her capital of Jerusalem. Even General Ehud Barak, then Chief-of-Staff, in May 1993 said to the American Jewish Press that he held the military and strategic borders of Israel should be those in the 1967 advisory espoused by the American Joint Chiefs - including the Golan Heights, the western parts of Samaria and Judea, Sharm el Sheik and all the areas around Jerusalem. But, successive Prime Ministers' Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu and Barak ignored all such recommendations either out of hubris or reliance on the paper promises made by a President who would soon leave office to enjoy financial rewards from a host of companies who profited from trade with Arab nations.

Israel desperately called for intercession by the U.S. and Europe. Both agreed but 'somehow' could not actually assemble forces to intercede in time. They finally did come four months later but, of course, there were only a few survivors left alive. Many areas were completely uninhabitable due to residual toxic chemicals and rampant biological diseases.

Since 70% of Israel's population had lived in the coastal areas, these population centers were hit the hardest. The kill ratio was 80%. In Jerusalem the Arabs didn't use explosive warheads so as to preserve the Muslim holy shrines. Only chemical and biological substances were used by the Arabs in Jerusalem. The calculation was that they could occupy the City within 50 years since they had no immediate use for it anyway. The political hue and cry that Jerusalem was Islam's third holiest city was forgotten. Their value of Jerusalem reverted back to the status of pre-1967 wherein Jerusalem was not considered Mohammed's city of choice, which is why it was stricken from any mention in the Koran. The Muslims hated the very soil upon which they would walk in Jerusalem because it was so imbued with Jewish essence. This was well known but ignored as the West accepted the Arabs' claims that Jerusalem was their holy city and the Jews now had to share her.

As we assemble this symposium in the year 2007, we are trying to secure testimony from various Israeli principals who were responsible for Israel's policies. It is very difficult since most have assumed other names and identities. They are scattered across the planet in deep cover and are not anxious to come out of hiding. Jews in America (particularly the former Jewish leadership, are also keeping a low profile as anti-Semitism has escalated to extraordinary levels. Strangely, the existence of an independent Jewish State had given prestige and prominence to Jews in other countries. With the elimination of Israel, latent prejudices returned.

Doves and pacifists are no longer to be seen or heard, The organization of Peace Now activists has virtually disappeared - reminiscent of the French Nazi collaborationist Vichy regime where, after WWII all claimed they were really partisans fighting the Germans in the forests.

As was their habit, Jews in America are proclaiming various days of mourning and are busy building museums and memorials to their now departed Israeli relatives and friends. The Israeli government-in-exile is collecting funds to endure the long wait (once again): - "Next Year in Jerusalem".

The Clintons, Bill and Hillary, and the various Jews whom they recruited have faded from public life but are not forgotten. Israeli survivors are publishing books about their collaboration with the hostile Arab nations. They now play a role similar to that of Haman in the folklore and in the documentation of those responsible for the "Fall of the Third Temple". Israel has joined the list of advanced civilizations who the world could not tolerate.

The concluding sessions of this symposium will explore:

* The role of American intelligence in coordinating operations between the Arabs, Israeli Left, American Left as well as U.S. oil interests and the ongoing political agenda of the U.S. State Department.

* Methods employed to recruit Jewish individuals and institutions, using the irresistible bait of promised peace.

* The anticipated economic benefits of eliminating Israel's presence in the Arab/Islamic Middle East.

* The unanticipated ramping up of Arab/Islamic hostilities against the West.




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



Mi LaHashem Aylai

(Whoever is for G-d, join me)

By Boris Shusteff

The first words Moses spoke to the people after breaking the tablets -
"Mi LaHashem Aylai (Whoever is for G-d, join me)" (1)

How happy our enemies today must be, when they listen to the sound of the hammer that pounds nail after nail into the coffin of the Jewish existence in Eretz Yisrael. We ourselves, hold this hammer and diligently perform the suicidal work, and even provide the nails ourselves. Amazingly, it has taken us only fifty years to completely destroy the eternal dream of the Jewish people to settle again in our land and to live in it as a free people. It is our common fault, both those who preferred the "meat pots" of the Galut, and those who thought that they chose to live in a Jewish state and went to Israel. All of us will be held responsible for this crime committed in front of past and future generations of Jews. If a grain of Jewish soul is still alive anywhere deep inside us, we should be shocked by the depth of the tragedy that has befallen us.

The decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to allow Arabs to buy land anywhere in Eretz Yisrael puts an end to our national enterprise. "Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees" (Isaiah 10:1). The circle is complete. The Jews who left the Galut are ending their journey by establishing a new galut on their covenanted land. Hundreds of generations of Jews dreamt of living in their own country. When their descendents thought that they had fulfilled this dream, the Israeli government decided to deliver them to their enemies. Barak's government brought the galut to the Jews by proposing that Jewish settlements be allowed to remain on the land that is slated to be given to Arafat and Assad, by planning to transfer areas of Jewish settlements to "foreign sovereignty."

"Your land, strangers devour it in your presence" (Isaiah 1:7). How unbearably painful it is to realize that not long ago we lived in the lands of others, hoping one day to return to our land, and now our land is itself transformed into a land of others. Perhaps the transformation was not fast enough for the Israeli Supreme Court, and it decided to expedite this process of "galutization" by reducing the amount of land where Jews are allowed to live?

Did we not drink the cup of our humiliation to the end? Did we not reach the bottom of the abyss? What can be more disgusting than licking the boots of our enemies? Where is the Jewish leader who will stop this unbelievable process of self-annihilation, until now unseen in mankind's history? Where are the Jews that used to belong to the Jewish people, famous for its faith, wisdom, and courage? How will we be able to look into the eyes of our children after allowing this self-inflicted new Holocaust to happen?

When Moses, descending from Mount Sinai, ran into his people worshipping the idol he "was not only mortified by the worship itself. Nations, even the Jewish people, are prone to be swayed to do even unspeakable acts. This is natural, perhaps even expected. The essential cause of his dismay, however, was that there was no one ready to redirect the people. This being the case, Am Yisrael was capable of anything" (1).

Moses knew that "if even a small group would have stood up, many others would have rallied and the greatest sin in our history would have been averted" (1).

Jews! Wake up! Wake up and take your fate into your own hands! Don't you understand that by allowing your leaders to push you back in the galut you are stripping the skin of your brethren together with Khmelnitsky's Cossacks, you are hammering the nails into the eyes of the Jewish children with the bandits of Petlura, you are gassing innocent Jews in the ovens of Auschwitz on Hitler's orders. The khmelintskys, petluras, hitlers and countless other murderers of the Jews were destroying the People of the Land, and you are destroying the Land of the People!

"O My people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, And destroy the way of thy pass" (Isaiah 3:12). Who did you allow to become your leaders? Prime minister Ehud Barak who "feels the pain of having to part with sections of the Land of Israel" and is "moved to tears when [he] stands on the northern slope of Mount Ibal [north of Nablus]." President of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak who sells out the Jewish land and calls his decision "one of the hardest that I have ever encountered?" Minister of Education Yossi Sarid who wants your children to repeat with the Arab poet "[Jews] Get out of here, ... just get out of everything!"

Have you not already gotten out of everything? Did you not get out of your memory, your faith, your courage, your strength, and your wisdom? What did you allow to happen to your holy places? Why did you allow your enemies even to talk about Jerusalem? They dare to say that Jerusalem is an "occupied land" and you allow these words to be uttered by their lips? You talk to them after that? You smile looking into their eyes? You shake their hands?

Why, oh why do you like your enemies so much? They hate you, they despise you, they want to destroy you, but you crawl to them allowing them to spit into your soul. Why are you so eager to help them at your own expense? They do not care about you, so why do you care about them? Hanan Ashrawi said on March 3, speaking at the National Press Club in Washington that "we as Palestinians do not view our job to safeguard Zionism. It is our job to safeguard our rights." So why do you view it as your job to safeguard Palestinian Arabs? Isn't it your job to safeguard Zionism and Jewish rights?

Why are you so afraid to be accused of not caring about the Arabs? Why, if you want to build in Jerusalem, do you immediately announce that housing for the Arabs in Jerusalem will be built, too? You are so afraid of being accused of "racist" behavior that you bring the Arab members of the Knesset into the sub-committees that deal with the issues of your security. You have exchanged Judaism for political correctness and dearly cherish this new god. Shame on you!

Not understanding your predestination of being a chosen people you always want to be "like other nations." If you think that you are approaching this "ideal" you are dead wrong. The other nations, first of all, think about themselves, and only about themselves. Do not blame them for their hate and indifference. If you hate yourself and are indifferent to your own fate why should they treat you any differently? If you, yourself, do not need your land, why do you think that somebody will care to defend you, when your enemies decide to take more of your land?

Golda Meir told you once that when America comes to your defense Israel will already stop to exist. Are you ready to hear news that are even worse than Golda's prediction? America will not come to your defense at all. A recent poll showed that when asked "If attacked by another country, should the U.S. help defend Israel militarily, even though it could cost American soldiers their lives?" 59% of Americans answered "No." "To whom will ye flee for help? And were will ye leave your glory? They can do naught except crouch under the captives, And fall under the slain" (Isaiah 10:3,4).

Our enemies say that the Jews will "sell everything." We are proving them right by talking about monetary compensation for the retreat from the Golan, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. For how much are we selling our land? For $30 billion, for $70 billion? Do we want our enemies and "friends" to do the calculations and figure out that just for a few billion dollars they can buy all of Eretz Yisrael? People call their land motherland. So how can we think about selling out our mothers? We have fallen so low "For we have made lies our refuge, And in falsehood we have hid ourselves" (Isaiah 28:15).

The Palestinian Arabs, as well as the Jordanian Arabs consider selling land to Jews a capital offense - punishable by death. The land they are talking about is just another part of Eretz Yisrael that was unlawfully extorted from you by the British. Your land was always a bone in the throat of civilized mankind, and it was incapable of forcing itself to allow you to regain possession of Eretz Yisrael. When the nations of the world finally agreed to let you to settle on a tiny part of your land they hoped that you would lose in the inevitable war with the Arab hordes. So why do you now want to make happy all those anti-Semites who pretended that they cared about you?

They care only about themselves. They just want to listen to the sound of the golden rain that pours into their coffers. Don't worry, they will not filter out the sound of the screams and cries of agony from the Jews that will mix with the sound of the golden coins. They did not do so during World War II, nor will they do so now. Oh, yes, they will help to count some petty cash to compensate the survivors of the new Holocaust. "What then shall one answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord hath founded Zion, And in her shall the afflicted of His people take refuge" (Isaiah 14:32).

The castle of peace that you are building is a sand castle. You build it from the lies provided to you by your enemies. While you want peace they want only your land. The sand of lies has plugged your ears and you do not hear that your enemies call for your destruction. You want peace so much that you lie to yourself about your enemies' real intentions. How right was the Prophet when he warned you: "Stupefy yourselves and be stupid! Blind yourselves and be blind!" (Isaiah 29:9).

Enough! Enough deceiving ourselves. We are destined to live in Eretz Yisrael and we should not run away from our destiny. We were told by God to conquer this land and we did it. We were forced out from it and we returned. We regained our might only by renewing our ties with the land. The more land we lose the weaker we become. We cannot give it to anybody else, not a single inch of it. We have an eternal Covenant with God. "For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, And who shall disannul it? And His hand is stretched out, And who shall turn it back?"(Isaiah 14:27).

Rabbi Yisrael Meir HaKohen, known to Jews everywhere as the Chofetz Chaim taught that "every Jew has moments during his lifetime in which he hears an inner voice that cries out 'Who is for G-d, join me.' When you hear that calling - 'Mi LaHashem Aylai,' echoing deep in your heart, take action. Don't stand still. Don't repeat the mistake of your forbearers: Seize the moment." (1). [03/11/00]

1. Rabbi Hayim Leiter, "Towards a Transcendenent Judaism. The Jewish Ledger, 3/9/00.


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



Re-printed from Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio - Broadcast on March 2, 2000 / Adar Aleph 25, 5760


By Jay Shapiro


Some 20 years ago, Prof. Shlomo Avineri of Hebrew University wrote a book called "Variations of Zionist Thought." In his introduction, Avineri notes that the dream of "redeeming the Land" accompanied Jewish life throughout the long exile, but it never had a practical application. As long as we were able to survive as Jews, we gave little consideration to a major move back to Eretz Yisrael. As the Enlightenment scored a breach in the traditional world, those who wished to remain Jewish - but who were no longer sure that traditional Judaism was the proper way in which to do this- began to look for other solutions.

This is where the Land of Israel entered the practical thinking of the modern Jew. Although the goal of the secular Zionists was to liberate the Jewish people, they felt that a renewed national identity had to be related somehow to the physical, geographical cradle of the Jewish nation. For the early Zionist thinkers, however, Eretz Yisrael served only as a tool by which to help formulate a modern Jewish identity. The liberation of the land, for them, then, was not a goal in and of itself, but was merely the means to an end. For those Jews for whom the land possesses no inherent holiness, the Land of Israel could potentially be dissected, if necessary, as long as some territory - however small - remained.


When Shimon Peres first began talking of his "New Middle East," he declared that Israel would become the "Hong Kong" and "Singapore" of the region. These exotic places are largely business and tourism centers. Although Singapore does have an army, Hong Kong is wholly dependent upon the good will of its owner, China. The Hong Kong-Singapore model lay at the foundation of the Peresian proclamation that hotels perched on the banks of the Kinneret are more crucial for Israel than fortresses and tanks.

His vision prompted me to reflect on the differences between the religious and secular visions of redemption. Whereas the religious Zionist believes in the ultimate redemption of the Jewish people, the redemption of the land and the coming of the Messiah - his secular counterpart has two Messiahs: Hi-tech and tourism, and "peace." For the religious Zionist, Elijah will proclaim the coming of the Messiah; for the secular Zionist, "Peace" will herald the onset of hi tech and tourism - what I call the "ultimate secular redemption."

Peres, Barak and company probably would not mind if Israel were to be reduced to the area in and around metropolitan Tel Aviv. While serving as Minister of Interior, Barak outlined his plan for the future of Israel. Barak wrote in the September 20th edition of the Jerusalem Post that Israel would eventually house 12 million people, all packed into an area characterized by far fewer land resources and less green space. If the Barak vision comes to fruition, the Israeli urban octopus will extend its tentacles to Haifa in the north and Ashkelon in the south. Put simply, our beloved homeland would be transformed into a well-planned concrete, high-rise ghetto.


The ultimate secular redemption has been helped along by several subtle, behind-the-scenes forces. Writing in a recent edition of Commentary Magazine, Daniel Pipes explains that "fatigue takes many forms in contemporary Israel. The pervasive feeling that they have fought long enough and that the time has come to settle, leads many to express openly their annoyance with the need for military preparedness and the huge expense of maintaining a modern armed force At the same time, Israel's soaring economy has given many citizens a taste for the good life that cannot be easily reconciled with the need for patience and fortitude - and especially sacrifice... And Israelis are tired of the moral opprobrium their country has long suffered - at the UN, in western academic circles and in editorial boardrooms. Indeed, in an extreme reaction to this ongoing moral ostracism, some of the country's foremost intellectuals have, as it were, defected. They have accommodated sizable chunks of the Arab side's version of the Arab-Israel conflict, promulgating them as important new truths."


Pipes then examines the political and diplomatic implications of Israeli fatigue and self-absorption, noting "how little attention Israelis are paying these days to their Arab neighbors." Israelis, says Pipes, are convinced that the region's Arabs share Israelis' hopes and dreams for the future. "According to a survey conducted by the Jaffee Center at Tel Aviv University," Pipes writes, "fully two-thirds of Israelis now agree with the following dubious assertions: that most Palestinians want peace; that signing agreements will end the Arab-Israel conflict; and that if forced to choose between negotiations and increased military strength, Israel should choose negotiations. Prime Minister Barak perfectly sums up this outlook in his repeated invocation of a peace that will 'work for everyone,' the unspoken assumption being that Arabs no less than Israelis seek to resolve their conflict on harmonious terms..."

Pipes calls "a delusional but widespread assumption" the Israeli belief that peace in the Middle East is ours for the making, and that Israel can "solve" the Palestinian problem by acceding to the creation of a state in the West Bank and Gaza. A similar delusion is that Israel "can eliminate anti-Zionism by helping to funnel money to the Arabs, who will use their newfound affluence to become good neighbors or - in the post Zionist scenario - it can win Arab hearts by dismantling the Jewish character of the Jewish state." Such false illusions have prompted Israelis to be willing to transfer "hard earned the hope that their troubles will thereby disappear."

Whether such troubles will indeed disappear, time will surely tell. A better bet for a more promising Jewish future, in my view, involves a reversal of the post-Zionist doctrine. Instead of viewing our land as a mere tool, let's begin to appreciate the inherent holiness of Eretz Yisrael. Let us resume the historical Jewish longing for the ultimate Messianic redemption, instead of its shallow secular counterpart. Perhaps by readjusting our perceptions, we can once again regain our composure and our sorely-lacking national-self confidence. Should we choose to follow this recipe, perhaps we will experience a fresh appreciation of our Arab neighbors, and thus an alternate understanding of their vision of a "new Middle East."


Jay Shapiro <> heads a consulting firm dealing with United States Government contracting. The author of several books on Israel, he hosts an English-language program on Arutz-7.




A Purim Message from Professor Eugene Narrett. PhD that the Freeman Center seconds and supports.

"And the Jews won for themselves the right to organize and defend themselves against their enemies, to destroy, slay and exterminate every armed force of any people that threatens them...and so they had light and gladness, joy and honor for the fear of them had fallen upon all the peoples [amen]...and consequently these days should be remembered and celebrated by every single generation" To do them in this spirit of Purim, "we shall do and we shall hear!"




By Emanuel A. Winston

If the infamous poet, Mahmoud Darwish, had his wish as expressed in his poetry, the remains of Yossi Sarid, along with all Israeli Jews, would be scattered into the sea. Sarid, as Minister of Education demands that the inciteful poetry of Darwish become part of the curriculum for Jewish children. Well, why not, since Sarid and his aberrant Leftists have launched upon a revision of Israel's history to prove that Jews have no right to the land. Leftist professors, falling into the groove carved by Rabin, Peres, Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid, Shulamit Aloni and the rest of that bunch who seem to hate the word, Jew, more than the Arabs do.

Perhaps some will recall one of Darwish's poems wherein he tells the Jews of Israel to "Dig up your dead, take their bones with you and Leave from OUR Land." November 22, 1996 I wrote a piece: "Hebron: 'Dig Up Your Dead & Take Their Bones With You'" beginning with the desecration of ancient Jewish graves burned and vandalized - as were the tombs of Joseph and Joshua in Samaria just before the attacks on Jewish graves in Hebron. (1) The new agreement that PM Netanyahu signed on surrendering 80% of Hebron to Arafat, he also put the Tomb of the Patriarchs up for negotiations three months after the agreements were signed. So, our revered dead are in danger in Hebron. If the Israeli government withdraws the IDF from areas essential for the protection of Jews in Hebron, then Jews in the rest of Israel will not be safe either.

Apparently Darwish's advice is being followed as Barak and his gaggle of Leftists prepare to make the lands of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza 'Judenrein'. Of course, they will have to dig up all the dead including those who died of un-natural causes at the hands of Darwish's friends. Of course, Darwish's friends who wish this will include not only the Jew-hating Arabs, but the Radical Leftist Jews who marched with the Arabs both in body and spirit.

Mind you, Sarid has tried to hide Darwish's violently anti-Israel, anti-Jewish poetry and uses for the Israeli students only his sweet poems for his mother. (2) If Sarid were to be truthful, he would have included the hostile, inciteful, propagandistic bombast that has made Darwish the hero of the Palestinian terror movement. But, no, Sarid wants to legitimize Darwish with Israel's young people and so conceals Darwish's true nature, as well as the cause for his imprisonment by Israel and subsequent deportation from Israel.

Darwish, the head of the Arab Writers Guild, skewers the idea of an Arab-Israeli peace with heavy sarcasm, castigating those who would make peace with Israel. He says: "Peace isn't peace, because it is peace with the oppressors," Darwish left Israel for Moscow in the 1970s, never to return. In a poem published in 1988, Darwish set off a storm of protest by a seeming call for the liquidation of all Jews in Israel, calling after the Jews "get out of our land". (3)

Yossi Sarid is clearly a better friend of the Arabs that he is of observant Jews, perhaps any Jews. Recall how he threatened to lay down in front of trucks should there be an attempt to transfer Arabs. Yet Sarid and his gang of Leftists are chortling with delight over the success of their efforts to transfer Jews from the territories that are the heart of the Land of Israel.

Sarid speaks with the same forked tongue which is so common among those afflicted with Left-itis. It is a genetic trait if one back-tracks over the duplicity of lies told by Rabin, Peres, Barak and, yes, even Netanyahu.

Sarid is promoting Shulamit Aloni for the prestigious Israel Prize. Aloni held the portfolio of Minister of Education under PM Yitzhak Rabin. Aloni and other of the Leftists have mouthed the most vicious anti-Semitic canards, it would take a book to list them all. I refer you to "The Dialectic of Self-Hatred in Israel" by Arieh Stav, policy paper #22 of the Ariel Center for Policy Research in 1998. (4) And to counter most of the vile canards which have been accepted as true, I refer you to MOMENT MAGAZINE February 2000, "From concubines to feces-throwing, Orthodox Jews have been accused of it all -Wrongly" by Avi Shafran. (5)

The NEW YORK TIMES of March 20 story by Deborah Sontag: "Powerful Israeli Rabbi Steps Up Attacks over Parochial Schools" (6) states that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef vehemently attacked Yossi Sarid for closing 48 religious schools under Rabbi Yosef's care. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, former Chief Rabbi is the spiritual leader of the powerful political party Shas, part of Prime Minister Barak's coalition with 17 members in Knesset. Sontag also says that "Attorney General Elyakim Rubenstein is likely to ask the police to start a criminal investigation of Rabbi Yosef on charges of incitement, insulting a public servant, or of making threats.

If you were to read the policy paper by Arieh Stav and the MOMENT article of Avi Shafran, you would wonder why all those who have besmirched the character and called for the elimination of Orthodox Jews are not being so indicted, investigated and tried by the Israeli courts.


1. "Hebron: 'Dig Up Your Dead & Take Their Bones With You'" by Emanuel A. Winston JEWISH PRESS November 22, 1996

2. "Poetry to Some, Politics to Others" by Hugh Dellios CHICAGO TRIBUNE 3/12/2000

3. "Palestinian Poet Parodies 'Peace'" by Zvi Gabay MidEast Department at the Israeli Foreign Ministry JERUSALEM POST 2/16/94

4. "The Dialectic of Self-Hatred in Israel" by Arieh Stav, policy paper #22 of the Ariel Center for Policy Research in 1998.

5. "From concubines to feces-throwing, Orthodox Jews have been accused of it all -Wrongly" by Avi Shafran. MOMENT MAGAZINE February 2000,

6. "Powerful Israeli Rabbi Steps Up Attacks over Parochial Schools" by Deborah Sontag THE YORK TIMES March 20, 2000


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



Voice from Hebron -- March 23, 2000

An Unprecedented Decent Into
The Depths of National Self-Contempt

By Gary M. Cooperberg

Pomp and pageantry are always impressive. Whether it was feeding Jews to lions, breaking their bones on the rack, or burning them at the stake in efforts to wrest them from their religion, pomp and pageantry were always a hallmark for the Roman Catholic Church. It was a bit a bizarre however to see this particular symbol of persecution of the Jewish people over the last millennia to be received with such honor and respect in the Jewish State, or actually to be received at all here.

I suppose that, after our leadership divested itself of all remnants of self respect with the embracing of terrorist chieftain Arafat and his murderous PLO, bowing down to Rome should come as no surprise. Clearly were Hitler alive and well he too would be a welcome guest in Israel today.

Aside from the historical abominations committed against the Jewish people by the papacy over the generations, even this particular pope, with all his compassionate words at Yad Vashem, clearly displayed his inability to accept the reality of the Jewish people as the Chosen of G-d. His partnership with Arafat is an understandable one. Both he and Arafat have an interest in removing Jewish sovereignty from the Jewish homeland. To Arafat and to Islam, any non Moslem sovereignty in the Middle East is an abomination. And, to the Roman Catholic Church, whose very ideology claims Israel's chosenness as its rightful inheritance and thus needs to see the Jewish people in eternal exile, the existence of a Jewish State in the Land of Israel can never be reconciled. It is for this reason that the pope declared his trip to be strictly religious in nature.

Of course, despite that declaration, his speech in Dahaisha was clearly political. He was outspoken in his declaration that the fraudulent so called "palestinian" people have a right to a homeland. He referred to this contrived nation several times, but never did he mention the Jewish people by name, much less refer to their right to a homeland. His heart went out to the suffering Arab refugees, yet I never heard him refer to the cold-blooded murder of innocent Jewish men, women and children by these same innocent "refugees". He even went so far as to suggest that there is some kind of connection between Arabs living in Dahaisha and shepherds who lived in Bethlehem two thousand years ago. This was a deceitful attempt to give historical legitimacy to migrant thieves whose presence in historical Israel could not possibly have been for longer than one hundred and fifty years.

I am not really angry nor surprised at the antics of either Arafat or the pope. What upsets and enrages me is the fact that my government has actually enabled and helped our enemies to humiliate us. What right do such enemies of the Jewish people have to be welcomed and honored on Jewish soil by representatives of the Jewish people? What right do our leaders have to desecrate the memory of our martyrs of the holocaust by paying homage to the veritable symbol of an office which cast a blind eye upon the attempted annihilation of the Jewish people when it could have tried to stop it? The pope certainly expressed his personal regret and even contempt for the horror of the holocaust, but he never apologized for the criminal negligence of the papacy. And, not that I am surprised, I never heard him specifically recognize the legitimate right of Jews to their homeland. I do not need his recognition, nor do I seek it. His definition of peace, much like that of his friend, Arafat, is a Middle East bereft of a Jewish State. Such people should be spurned by our government, certainly not welcomed by it.

It is bad enough that our government fails to recognize its acts of self deprecation, but that our chief rabbis can participate as well is only further reason to lament. While many have cheered Ovadia Yoseph's referring to Yossi Sarid as Amalek and that it was good to curse him like Haman on Purim, I found that reference to be disgusting and totally unacceptable. It is true that Sarid is a self-hating Jew. . . but he is still a Jew. When did Ovadia Yosef call for the cursing of Arafat, who is a genuine living descendent of Amalek?

Like Purim, everything is upside down. Truth is hidden and falsehood is lauded. Patriotic Jews languish in Jewish jails while murderous Arab terrorists are freed to continue to murder. As we celebrated our redemption from Haman, we demonstrated our self-contempt as we surrendered more of our holy inheritance to Arafat, and bowed down before the insignificant symbol of the near extinct remnant of the ancient Roman empire.

While, on the surface the facts are enough to make anyone lose hope in our future, in truth they are actually encouraging. Redemption is not merely an act of national liberation, rather it is a G-dly process which is destined to unfold. The further we sink and the more desperate things get, the closer we come to the climax of redemption. Of course this is no reason to rejoice. Were we to act as proud Jews and stand up to our enemies with genuine faith in G-d we would not only hasten the redemption, but avoid much of the tragedy that will accompany it. There is still time to avoid tragedy. But, clearly, time is rapidly running out.