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"
VOLUME 10       B"H JANUARY 2002       NUMBER 1




GET THE WORD OUT....Shmuel Katz


THE FIRST PRIORITY.....Boris Shusteff
NEGOTIATING UNDER FIRE....The Jerusalem Post Editorial
THE PA=TERRORISM....David Wilder



THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016
E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2002 Bernard J. Shapiro * Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3) *




By Bernard J. Shapiro

The trauma of this past year for Israelis is almost more than one can conceive. The bodies of young and old were blown apart, maimed and bleeding covering the streets of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netanyah and Emanuel. Whole streets had turned red and special crews had to come in to wash the blood away. In dozens of different places snipers took the lives of innocent travelers on the roads of Israel. How much longer can the People of Israel suffer such cruel slaughter of its citizens. How much longer before the cry of thousands of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers demand that the government of Israel rid the Land of the pestilence that preys upon it like an evil monster of nightmares.

My study of Jewish history reveals clearly that this is not the only period murder and torture of Jews. Going back 2000 years and then culminating in the Holocaust, we Jews were afflicted with murder, forced conversion, expulsion, pogroms and torture in every generation. In the 18th through the early 20th century Cossacks from Russia spelt a river of Jewish blood in attacks on the small Jewish shtetls of Eastern Europe. It was their habit to ride through Jewish villages swords in hand and slice off the arms of anyone they found on the street. Today Arafat maims with suicide bombs. "The more things change. The more they stay the same."

I read a book by Diogbert D. Runes entitled: DESPOTISM A Pictorial History of Tyranny (Philosophical Library 1963). In it he has a chapter on the Jews and he reveals some interesting demographic statistics. The Jews were very prominent in the ancient world, perhaps a third of the Roman Empire. Over a million lived in Alexandria, Egypt alone. Jews were healthier than their European neighbors due to the Jewish custom of bathing. The Catholic hierarchy discouraged bathing as a sin until recent times. According to Runes' demographic studies' the Jews today (1963) would total one billion people had they not faced the evils of the past 2000 years.

The reason for this story should be clear to all of us. Arafat's terrorist gangs are involved in one long pogrom against the Jews of Israel. The evil he and his associates perpetuates differs only in the volume perpetuated by the Nazis and the Catholic Church. However, there is a significant difference between then and now. Today Israel has a powerful military, the Israel Defense Forces, to protect its citizens. Yet despite the obvious advantage of having a strong military, it is weakened by a political leadership that seems to be afraid of its shadow and afraid to utilize the great power of the IDF.

In the latter part of 2001, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to exert more military actions against the terrorists. Unfortunately it was too little and too late. What was needed was a comprehensive plan to restore security the Israeli people. There was no comprehensive plan. Foolish and dangerous ideas like seeking a ceasefire and negotiations crept back into the diplomatic lexicon. I now understand how Jewish leaders carried out negotiations with Hitler until the last Jew was killed. I am making no comparison to Israeli leaders, only to the delusions and gullibility of man I will refrain from enumerating the many other failures of the last year. Now we must look to 2002.



10. Reduce the income disparity between management and worker. Are you aware that some managers of government companies get 50,000-100,000 NIS a month. This is obscene while the bottom third of the population is at the poverty level.

9. Develop water resources. Are you aware that serious action has been delayed by 10 years although the need was quite predictable?

8. Outlaw Arab political parties that are disloyal to the State of Israel.

7. Indict on criminal charges of incitement Arab Knesset member, Moslem clerics, news people on PA TV, teachers and any others that spread hatred and anti-Semitism toward the Jewish people. They should be held under harsh treatment with no bail.

6. Require a loyalty oath to Israel as a Jewish State before being alloyed to vote.

5. Breakup the national unity government and call for new elections. This will create a fully Right-wing government.

4. Fire Shimon Peres (Arafat's Foreign Minister) and Ben-Eliezer (known for saying the conflict with the terrorists could not be won by military means). Does Israel really need a Defense Minister who has already decided that he CANNOT defeat the enemy?

3. Israel must accept no more mediators. Not from America, Europe, or the UN. Mediators interfere with Israel's ability to terminate the enemy. Remove hostile reporters and photographers and keep them barred from PA areas.

2. Restore Jewish control to the Temple Mount.

1. Renounce Oslo as having been a failed experiment. Mobilize the army and crush all terrorist targets causing maximum damage (not the current minimum). Much of the population will flee reducing the demographic pressure on Israel


Jews will live safely in their own land. Tourists and immigrants will come again. Industry will develop rapidly. This is truly the future I pray for.


Bernard J. Shapiro is executive director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and the editor of THE MACABEAN ONLINE.




By Avi Davis

The word "Intifada" does not translate easily into Hebrew. Not exactly a rebellion and hardly a war, the 15 months of Palestinian violence has been seen by many Israelis as a violent reflex without a strategic plan. But after Yasser Arafat's address to his people on Monday, the Intifada has adopted a meaning that can be easily understood in any language: national suicide. As Israel closes in on the organizers and perpetrators of terror, the Palestinian dream of independence has begun to resemble an illusion, conjured up by a swindler who understood from the beginning that it would never be realized. Instead, the Palestinian leadership, following in the ill-fated footsteps of previous generations, has proven adept at the kind of internal sabotage that has as its foundation greed, hubris and an unmitigated urge to self-destruction.

Indeed the televised speech appeared less an effort to appease world opinion and more a valedictory address. In a sleight of hand, Arafat used most of his 27 minutes to congratulate the Palestinian people for their bravery and courage while only briefly and tangentially alluding to the need to bring an end to terror. There was no call to close down the Intifada. Nor was there a direct condemnation of suicide bombings.

In fact in his final words of defiance " Have patience -victory is coming," the Palestinian leader sounded eerily like another hapless dictator, broadcasting worthless platitudes from his flattened bunker in Berlin.

One does have to wonder whether Yasser Arafat's actions or inactions reveal any kind of realistic long-term strategy. As long ago as the 1970s, he recognized the value of international legitimacy for both himself and his movement. He skillfully parlayed the PLO's image as a terrorist organization into authenticity as a national liberation movement. Preying on latent European anti-Semitism he won the rhapsodical endorsement of left-wing writers, academics and even poets who thought they had discovered the genuine article – a selfless leader who gives his life to the liberation of his people. The remaining card in the deck tumbled into place in 1993 when, at the signing of the Oslo Accords, the United States gave him endorsement as a world leader.

He fooled them all. Arafat has no more interest in his people's liberation than he has in running for the Israeli Knesset. On the brink of statehood in July 2000, he proved this by rebuffing Ehud Barak's offers of a final settlement and then committing the Palestinians to a futile campaign of violence. The absence of strategy has become even more apparent in the past ten days as increasing U.S and European disaffection has resulted in joint pressure on him to rein in terror. He has proven himself incapable of achieving this, not because he regards his personal survival as dependent on currying favor with extremists, but rather because he is unable to envision a world in which terror and violence can no longer be used as political leverage.

The catastrophe this has brought down on ordinary Palestinians can be described as a national psychosis rapidly swelling into a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Educated by the Palestinian media's and Islamic clerics' unceasing incitement to believe in the legitimacy of jihad, the Palestinian populace has been psychologically drawn into the vortex of violence. They overwhelmingly endorse it as the only means of achieving freedom. No voice of moderation now chastises them that they are staring into the face of disaster. No independent media presents them with a debate on alternative approaches. The support for the Intifada has been nurtured by Arafat's insistence that the world will not allow "defenceless" citizens to be attacked but will respond Kosovo-like to the crisis with extensive intervention.

But the world, it seems, has turned off. Suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv are a little too similar in image to the September 11 attacks on the United States for even European comfort. Last week the European Union issued a tart and unprecedented rebuke to Arafat to close down Hamas and Islamic Jihad. And as the U.S. and its allies draw the net around Osama Bin Laden, the reality of the future peril to be faced by the rest of the world presents itself in the form of Palestinian terror.

Ensnared in the web of his own pretensions, Yasser Arafat may be unable to appreciate the gravity of the accelerating collapse of his fortunes. But one day, from his retirement home in Baghdad, the former Palestinian leader might contemplate the irony that the suicide bombers, so cavalierly let loose on his enemies, not only simultaneously destroyed the Palestinian Authority but also crippled the cause he so long advocated but never, apparently, believed in.


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies in Los Angeles and the senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine




By Avi Davis

In 1920, H.G. Wells, in his masterwork The Outline of History, described human history as a race between education and catastrophe. While the western world has progressively moved beyond the peal of that alarm bell, there are areas of the world where eighty years later it tolls as urgently as ever. One of those areas is the Arabic world. Here education systems are riven with notions antithetical to the values of tolerance and understanding that are so intently promoted in the West. In recent years, the signal failures of those systems to reverse years of misguided teachings appear to be dooming the region to years of further conflict.

The most prevalent of those notions is anti-Semitism. Here government sponsored text books spout Jew- hatred on a level not seen since the1930s in Germany. A recent report by the Committee for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, a non-profit, non-partisan organization based in New York, found that of 58 children's textbooks used in the Palestinian Authority not one mentioned Israel by name and none offered a map of the region that included the existence of the Jewish state. In children's text books most of which are Jordanian or Egyptian in origin, Jews are projected as "cunning", " deceitful," "disloyal" and "treacherous". They are alternatively described as "thieves", "wild animals" and "locusts". The Jewish state is referenced as "Occupied Palestine" "the Zionist entity" and "a Jewish racist administration." .

The horrifying written examples abound. Take this translated quote from Islamic Education for Fourth Grade, Part 2 " Learn from this lesson: the Jews are the enemies of the Prophets and the true believers." Or this tendentious examination question from Modern Arab History for Twelfth Grade Part 1 " With an understanding of the racist and aggressive character of the Zionist movement, please summarize the similarity between Nazism, Fascism and Zionism." Or this incitement to martyrdom in Our Arabic Language for Fifth Grade " The Jihad against the Jew is the religious duty of every Muslim man and woman."

Reviewing the plethora of material available through CMIP or the balanced reporting and translations of the Middle East Monitoring and Research Institute, it becomes patently apparent that Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority has embarked for years on a transparent attempt to fuel hatred of Israel and Jews among the most impressionable members of his populace. The Oslo Accords had recognized the vital importance of education in fostering peace the two peoples. In the Cairo Agreement of 1994 Israel and the Palestinian Authority agreed to " ensure that their educational systems contribute to the peace between Israel and the Palestinian people." A joint UNESCO- Palestinian institution known as the Palestinian Curriculum Development Center was established to implement this policy. It created a plan for a new education plan to begin in September 1999. Yet so far only token changes have been made to the Palestinian curriculum and most of the children's text -books still derive from Egypt and Jordan.

Israel, on the other hand, has done much to promote the concept of peaceful co-existence Study of Arabic culture and language begins in elementary school and the works of Arabic authors and poets, even those hostile to Israel such as the Palestinian Mahmoud Darwish, has been included in the curriculum. Workshops, proposed by the Israeli Ministry of Education " to promote tolerance, understanding and peace" are regular events in Israeli high schools and incitement against Arabs or Palestinians is bitterly proscribed.

How one nation educates its children on the characterization of another will often determine the relations between them. Populations are not culturally prone to hatred – they are educated towards it. It is significant that studies conducted of former Hitler Youth, now in their 60s and 70s, have revealed that the anti- Semitism inculcated in their earliest years remains embedded in that generation's psyche. If that is true for elderly Germans, who today live in a society that is among the most liberal in western Europe, how much more so does it apply to Palestinians whose cultural vehicles from media to mosque are unfettered carriers of the anti-Semitic contagion?

The region is tragically destined to endure years of war and violence until Arab children are taught the values of peace. Those who are therefore quick to prescribe territorial compromise or negotiations as the stimulant for enhancing peace might pay heed to the words of President John F. Kennedy: " History has taught us that peace does not lie in characters and covenants alone. It lies in the hearts and minds of people."


Avi Davis is the senior fellow of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies and the senior editorial columnist for the on-line magazine



The Jerusalem Post, December 17, 2001


By Shmuel Katz

(The writer was a member of the Irgun's High Command, and worked closely with Menachem Begin.)


When Menachem Begin paid his first visit to president Jimmy Carter as prime minister, Carter spent much of the time pressing Begin to "freeze the settlements." Begin's reply was simple: "You, Mr. President, have in the United States a number of places with names like Bethlehem, Shiloh, and Hebron, and you haven't the right to tell prospective residents in those places that they are forbidden to live there. Just like you, I have no such right in my country. Every Jew is entitled to settle wherever he pleases."

Nevertheless the Carter administration launched a veritable propaganda campaign to spread the "ruling" that Jewish settlement in the West Bank - that is, Judea and Samaria - and in the Gaza Strip were illegal (in addition to being an "obstacle to peace").

Most of the media willingly fell into line. Following opposition and protest from various quarters, the Carter administration recognized that if one talks of illegality one must provide chapter and verse. Thus the State Department came up with the Fourth Geneva Convention as proof. But the Fourth Geneva Convention proves nothing of the sort. It proves the opposite. The Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Israel and its presence in Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza district. The convention defines itself strictly in its second clause: "The present convention shall apply to cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party."

Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, which Israel occupied in 1967, were not territories of a High Contracting Party. Judea and Samaria did not belong to Trans-Jordan nor did Gaza belong to Egypt. In the war of Pan-Arab aggression in 1948, Trans-Jordan had invaded Judea and Samaria, occupied them and, in blatant illegality, annexed them. It then celebrated the annexation by changing its name to Jordan. Egypt had similarly annexed the Gaza district. The annexations of course gave Trans-Jordan and Egypt no rights of sovereignty. Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza is perfectly legal.

Indeed, the last sovereign of both areas was the Ottoman Turkish Empire. Defeated in World War I, it had relinquished sovereignty over vast areas including Palestine; Palestine was handed over to the British to govern as a trustee - a mandatory for the purpose of bringing about the "reconstitution of the Jewish National Home." When Britain retired from the Mandate, Jewish historical rights which the Mandate had recognized were not canceled; and no new sovereign ever took over in Judea and Samaria or in Gaza.

The legal adviser of the State Department, called upon to defend the Carter claim that Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza was illegal, got over the difficulty by simply ignoring Article 2 of the convention. In his opinion he didn't even mention it. He loftily declared that "the principles of the convention appear applicable whether or not Jordan and Egypt possessed legitimate sovereign rights in respect of the territories." No less.

Further on in his statement, he markedly avoided mentioning that in 1967 it was once again the aggressors of 1948 who attacked Israel (then confined to the narrow armistice lines of 1949). He did mention the Six Day War of 1967, but how? He wrote: "During the June 1967 war, Israeli forces occupied Gaza, the Sinai peninsula, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights." That was all. Not a word about who started the war or about its flaunted gruesome purpose: the destruction of Israel.

THE CONTINUING smear on Israel on the part of the government was brought to an end by the successor administration of Ronald Reagan, who personally had strongly and repeatedly denounced it. His administration issued a declaration that Israeli settlements were not illegal (though they were regarded as "an obstacle to peace"). A prominent member of the administration, law professor Eugene Rostow - himself a former assistant secretary of state - subsequently wrote: "Israel has a stronger claim to the West Bank than any other nation or would-be nation [and] the same legal right to settle the West Bank, the Gaza strip and east Jerusalem as it has to settle Haifa or west Jerusalem."

But the damage was done; and never did Israel launch a counter-campaign to lay bare the monstrous falsity of Arab historical claims, their grave annihilatory intent towards Israel, the skewed misleading interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the effort to acquit the Arabs of their aggression. Never a serious reply to Arab fabrications point by point so as to combat the widespread ignorance among even our own people. Never an educational campaign to demonstrate the unique roots of our people in Eretz Yisrael.

The policies of government after government encouraged the Arabs to believe that we were weakening in the belief of the justice of our cause, and on the other hand played down the repeated declarations of Arab leaders, from Abdel Nasser to Yasser Arafat, that their objective was the demolition of Israel. Our leaders talked of compromise. The Arabs saw compromise as a station on the road to complete Israeli surrender - something which, but for the hardening of Arafat's heart, almost occurred last year. But the change that has taken place in the international political climate since the US tragedy of September 11, which has helped people abroad to understand the unique nature of our place in the world, gives us a chance to meet squarely the bitter struggle ahead of us.

Moreover, a great majority of the people in Israel has been shocked into recognizing the Arabs' lethal purpose. The government however must realize that it is essential that the physical, the military struggle, be accompanied by a sane national policy of information - to tell our people, and the rest of the world, at every step of the way, the whys and the wherefores of our existence, our actions and our beliefs.

(c) Jerusalem Post




by Boris Shusteff

On December 21 the Israeli daily "Haaretz" published an article by the Israeli attorney general Elyakim Rubinstein entitled "In Search of a Dialogue with Islam." Leaving aside the absolutely slavish approach taken by the author, who attempts to whitewash the Arabs and praises "Islam, a religion that contains many humane elements and has given rise to a rich culture," one must agree with Rubinstein that "one of the most urgent challenges facing Israel is a dialogue with the world of Islam." However, Israel can succeed in this dialogue only if she completely changes the way she deals with the Arab world.

What it is that Israel must do became clear after listening to the sermon delivered on December 14 at Tehran University by Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, Chairman of the Expediency Council. In his speech the Iranian ex-president clearly explained why the Arab world hates Israel. They hate Israel because for them it is a bridgehead of the colonialist and imperialist West. Rafsanjani described the creation of Israel in the following terms: "First, this is the most misfortunate, tragic and bitter colonial event. Secondly colonialism, lead by Britain and then America, and supported by the United Nations and other sections of the World Arrogance are responsible for these crimes" (1). He explained,

"The root of the problem is colonial. As traditional forms of colonialism came to an end the colonialists sought new instruments [of influence]. One of these was to impose lackey governments in the previous colonies... The most important objective was to create governments which were totally dependent on colonialism and the best case was that of the Jews - the Zionist government in the Palestinianland" (1).

Rafsanjani has not said anything new. His declaration that, "The Israeli government was established to act as a guardian, protector and gendarme that defends the interests of imperialism" (1), is barely different from the words in the Egyptian national Charter. One may read in its Chapter 10:

"The insistence of our people on liquidating the Israeli aggression... is a determination to liquidate one of the most dangerous pockets of imperialist resistance against the struggle of peoples... Our pursuit [sic] of the Israeli policy of infiltration in Africa is only an attempt to limit the spread of a destructive imperialist cancer" (2).

Since in the eyes of the world of Islam Israel is the product of western colonialism and imperialism, it is not surprising that all Israeli attempts at dialogue with the Moslems from a "western" approach are doomed. All of Israel's arguments about her legitimacy based on the League of Nations Mandate and the Resolutions of the United Nations are to the Moslems like red cloth to a bull. It only proves Rafsanjani's point that "World Arrogance" is trying to impose its will on the Arab world.

When Rubinstein writes that an attempt at dialogue with Islam "is also consistent with the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state," he simply shows a complete ignorance of the Arab mind. Democracy is anathema for the Arab world. By emphasizing her democratic aspect, Israel once again declares that she is the representative of western society, a society profoundly hated by the Arabs.

At the same time, by offering to deliver to Arafat huge parts of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, Israel promotes another western concept - the concept of compromise. This concept simply does not exist in the Arab mentality. If Israel is ready to part with the land there is only one explanation in the collective Arab mind - it must not be Israel's land. Proving once again that Israel is a "colonialist" entity.

The only way for Israel to change the Arab perception is by manifesting the Jewish character of the state and by invoking the help of... the Koran (!). Israel must drum into Arab heads that the Jews returned to Eretz Yisrael because they cannot disobey the Almighty's order to conquer and settle the Land. And they should quote from Koran where it is unequivocally stated that the holy land was uniquely given to the Jews and to no other nation:

" 'Remember, my people, the favour which God has bestowed upon you. He has raised up prophets among you, made you kings, and given you that which He has given to no other nation. Enter, my people, the holy land which God has assigned for you. Do not turn back, and thus lose all'" (Koran, Sura 5:22).

It should be emphasized to the Moslems that the Jews cannot "turn back" because otherwise they would be violating God's will. At the same time the Moslems cannot violate God's commandment either. It is said in Koran that "We [the Almighty] settled the Israelites in a secure land and provided them with good things" (Koran, Sura 10:93). By attacking the Jews the Arabs violate the will of Allah, who promised a secure land for the Jews.

Moreover, the Koran demands from the Moslems to believe in what is written in the Torah, since it is stated: "Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book... Say: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we submit.'"(Koran, Sura 29:46). And since in the Torah, God clearly promises the Land to the Jews, by trying to expel the Jews from Judea, Samaria and Gaza the Moslems place themselves in grave danger. Firstly, because "God will never break His promise. Yet most men do not know it" (Koran, Sura 30: 4). And secondly, because one must "Proclaim what has been revealed to you from the Book of your Lord. None can change His words" (Koran, Sura 18:27).

Moslems must be reminded that they cannot follow some parts of the Koran and disregard others (ones that clearly promise the Land to the Jews). Since it is written, "We will surely punish the schismatics, who have broken up the scriptures into separate parts, believing in some and denying others. By the Lord, We will question them all about their doings" (Koran, Sura 15: 91). The Moslems should be asked, "Are they not aware that the man who defies God and His apostle shall abide for ever in the fire of Hell? That surely is the supreme humiliation" (Koran, Sura 9:63).

While one can easily find in the Koran plenty of anti-Jewish statements and sentiments, nowhere in the Koran is it stated that the Land promised by God to the Jews will be given to somebody else. At the same time the Torah is replete with God's promises that the Land will belong to the Jews, and the Jews are told to conquer it. This means that by saying that the Jews have stolen Arab land, the Moslem leaders are falsifying the Koran, obfuscating the truth according to which the Land of Eretz Yisrael was given to the Jews.

Yes, Israel must talk to Islam. Only it should be a dialogue between Judaism and Islam. Israel is not a western state. She is a JEWISH state. The Jews and the Moslems have One God. He promised the Land to the Jews. That means that the Jews in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are fulfilling God's will by settling the Land. As it is said, "Moses said to His people: 'Seek help in God and be patient. The earth is God's; He gives it to those of His servants whom He chooses'" (Koran, Sura7:128). The Almighty has chosen the Jews. "We saved the Israelites from the degrading scourge, from Pharaoh,... and chose them knowingly among the nations" (Koran, Sura 44:30). The Moslems must submit to God's will. 12/26/01


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



The Boston Globe -- December 6, 2001


By Jeff Jacoby

A common misconception about Arab terrorism against Israel is that it is committed in an effort to derail the "peace process." President Bush echoed that fiction on Sunday when he commented on a wave of ghastly attacks that had just killed 26 Israeli civilians and maimed scores of others.

"Clearly there are some in the world who do not want us to achieve peace in the Middle East," he said. "They will use violence and terror to disrupt any progress that's being made."

That gets it exactly backward. Palestinian terrorists do not blow up crowded Israeli pizzerias because they want to provoke Jerusalem into abrogating the Oslo accords and abandoning the policy of "land for peace." On the contrary: The Palestinian leadership uses terrorism to *accelerate* the Oslo process -- to render Israelis so desperate and demoralized that they will make even deeper concessions, surrender even more land, and struggle even harder to make peace with their enemies.

Yasser Arafat's Potemkin arrests this week notwithstanding, his Palestinian Authority is as wedded to terrorism as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are. All three share the same goal: the elimination of Israel. Hamas and Islamic Jihad say so explicitly; Arafat is a bit coy. When speaking to Western audiences, he confines his demands to the disputed territories and Jerusalem. But with Arab audiences he is blunt: "The struggle will continue," he vows, "until all of Palestine is liberated." And as the maps, emblems, and rhetoric of the Palestinian Authority make clear, "all of Palestine" means all of Israel.

Strip away the rhetoric, and the Arab war against Israel is based, above all, on hatred of Jews. That is as true today, when an Arafat-appointed sheik promises "blessings to whoever saved a bullet to put in a Jew's head," as it was in the 1920s and 1930s, when the Jews of Hebron were massacred and the mufti of Jerusalem sang Hitler's praises.

But it is not so easy to strip away the rhetoric. To justify their violence and irredentism, Arab propagandists have developed an elaborate mythology about a stolen homeland, an ancient Palestinian nation, and a cruel expulsion at the hands of the Jews. And they have repeated it so often and so loudly that much of the world has come to believe it.

A small vignette: While attending the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's national convention in 1991, I stopped at a booth selling historic Palestinian artifacts. This was two years before Oslo -- Arafat was still in Tunisia and there was as yet no Palestinian Authority -- and I can remember the wistfulness with which the merchant showed me the old postage stamps marked "Palestine."

"These were issued in Jerusalem," he told me, "when Palestine was ours -- before the occupation."

There was the myth in a nutshell: Palestine used to belong to the Palestinians, who ruled it from their capital in Jerusalem until the Jews swarmed in and drove them out. That is the root of all the violence and grief, and until the Palestinians can return to their homeland, the violence and grief will go on.

The truth is rather different.

The truth is that there was never an Arab country of Palestine, and Palestinian Arabs were never a nation. The truth is that Jerusalem was never the capital of any Arab state or province. The truth is that in all of recorded history, only one people has ever made Palestine west of the Jordan a sovereign nation-state with Jerusalem as its capital: the Jews.

So closely was Palestine associated with Jews, in fact, that in the years before Israel's birth, those who spoke of "Palestinians" were usually referring to the region's Jewish residents. Arab leaders *rejected* the notion of a unique Palestinian Arab identity, insisting that Palestine was merely a part of "Greater Syria."

Not that they saw Palestine as much of a prize in any case. Until the Zionist enterprise got underway, Palestine was stagnant and mostly barren. Its Arab population was small and declining. With Jewish development, however, came economic opportunity and better living conditions; these in turn attracted huge numbers of Arab immigrants from beyond Palestine's borders.

But if the Arabs didn't consider themselves Palestinians, they nevertheless ended up with most of Palestine. When the Ottoman Empire was broken up after World War I, the Allies carved a raft of new Arab countries from its territory, reserving only Palestine to fulfill their promise of a Jewish national home. But in 1922, Great Britain severed the 77 percent of Palestine that lay east of the Jordan River and created yet another Arab country -- today's Jordan.

The Arab myth of an ancient homeland stolen by Jews is dramatic and affecting, but it is still a myth.*Three-fourths of historic Palestine is sovereign Arab territory, and has been barred to Jews for 80 years.*

Arabs displaced by war from one part of Palestine have always had the rest of Palestine to resettle in -- if only their Arab brethren would permit it. The Jews, meanwhile -- the real Palestinians -- try to live on just the sliver of land that lies between the river and the sea. But even that is too much for their neighbors, who cannot abide a Jewish state of any size. On the day it was born, they tried to wipe it out. They have been trying ever since.




by Boris Shusteff

We simply do not support the description of the territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 War as occupied Palestinian territory. (Madeleine Albright, US Ambassador to the UN, March 1994.)

The aftermath of the horrific terrorist attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa on the 1st and 2nd of December made it absolutely clear that Israel has still not made a strategic decision to achieve peace. This became obvious during an interview with Dr. Dore Gold conducted by a CNN correspondent a few minutes before Ariel Sharon emerged from his meeting with President George W. Bush. Dr. Gold, one of Sharon's advisors, was asked something about the "occupation of the West Bank" and the "expansion of settlements."

Actually it does not matter much what the question was. What matters is the response, in which Dr. Gold sidestepped the issue of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha) and Jewish settlement in it altogether, and limited his answer to a general declaration about Arafat not fighting terror. And it is that response that made it obvious that Israel is not ready for peace. It is important to note that Dore Gold is extremely well-versed in the topic he was asked about. He has written abundantly on the subject of the legitimacy of Jewish settlement in Yesha. He obviously knows that from a legal standpoint the term "occupied territories" pertaining to these areas of Israel is inapplicable when used to describe those primordial Jewish lands. Therefore one could have expected a lesson in history and jurisprudence from him in response to the "loaded" question. However, he preferred to be politically correct and did not even try to challenge the ignorance of the CNN correspondent.

It is time to stop pretending that we do not know what the quarrel is between the Jews and the Arabs. It is about The Land. Certainly it is about Israel's existence and security too. But if Israel does not have the Land, there is no reason to talk about her existence at all. Without the Land the Jewish state vanishes, disappears. This is why the Arab world is putting so much pressure on the issue of another Palestinian state. If it succeeds in creating it, it takes away more land from the Jewish state. The smaller the Jewish state is, the more easily it can be destroyed. The Arab world does not care about the so called "Palestinian people."

To the leaders of the Arab world, Yasser Arafat, Hamas, Hizbullah, the "Palestinian people," etc. are nothing more than a weapon that they use in their war against the Jewish state. They do not need and do not want the presence of the Jewish state in the Middle East. Perhaps they are ready to tolerate the presence of some Jews as dhimmi (the term for a second-class "nonbeliever"), but not the state itself. They see the Jewish state as a "dagger in the heart of the Arab nation." In their minds Israel has stolen a piece of Arab property. Therefore not even a thousand "peace processes" will change their perception. This is precisely the reason why all Arab leaders or spokesmen during the course of any interview, meeting, or conversation use the words "occupation," "occupied lands" and their derivatives in conjunction with Israel as much as possible. They are not afraid to abuse these words. On the contrary, they know very well that the more frequently such terms are repeated, the more permanently they become engraved in people's minds. The leaders of the Palestinian Arabs had a ready answer to any questions asked by interviewers in the wake of the Jerusalem/Haifa massacres. It was all Israel's fault because of the Israeli "occupation," because of construction in the "occupied territories," and because the Palestinian Arabs are "people living under occupation."

True, Benjamin Netanyahu, in the course of the 50 (!) interviews that he gave in those two days, did state several times that it is a lie to say that the Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are living "under occupation" since 99% of them live under the rule of the Palestinian Authority. However, even he did not cringe and did not demand from the interviewer that the word "occupation" not be used. The efforts of the Jewish state to win the hearts of the world community are completely in vain as long as it allows itself to be tagged with the word "occupier." Arafat's spokesmen will always have the sympathetic ear of civilized mankind, as long as Israel does not challenge the word "occupation." Thus far Israel's shyness on the matter makes her an accomplice in her own demise. Just look at the absolutely disastrous performance (from this standpoint) of Alon Pinkas, Israeli consul general in New York, talking with Larry King on November 10, when his opponent was Hanan Ashrawi, one of the most virulently Jew-hating Arab spokes people. In the course of the short debate, she mentioned the "O" word and its derivatives not less than 9 times, repeating non-stop that "occupation is the problem." She talked about Jewish settlements on the "Palestinian territories" and the "Palestinian land." And Pinkas was not only unable to challenge her, but what is far worse, added legitimacy to her words when he said, "One hundred percent justice is unattainable. Not for us, not for the Palestinians. This has nothing do with occupation, Larry. We think that occupation is wrong. That is why we seek to end it." Later in the debate he said that "until 1967 there was no occupation," thus obviously implying that since 1967, "there is occupation."

When the Israeli consul general announces to everyone watching CNN that the "occupation is wrong" and this is why Israel "seeks to end it" why should anybody be surprised that the whole world blames Israel? After Pinkas's acceptance of Israel's "occupation guilt" nobody will question Ashrawi's statement: "The real issue is that if you want peace, you have to give back that which does not belong to you. The land that Israel has to give back to the Palestinians is 22 percent of historical Palestine, and on that basis, this is a major historical compromise." Let us pause for a moment. Ashrawi said "compromise" a favorite word of the western world. She asks "only" for "22% of historical Palestine." Especially impressive is the way she chooses the words. She is not saying that another Palestinian state must be built on 22% of "historical Palestine." She says that Israel must "give back" this land to the Arabs, well aware that virtually no one will notice that her declaration calls for Israel's destruction. Because what she really means is that after Israel succumbs to the establishment of another Palestinian Arab state in the complete territories of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which constitute approximately 5% of historical Palestine, the Jews will still "owe" to the Palestinian Arabs the remainder of "22% of historical Palestine" - i.e. all of the territory of the state of Israel.

The Jewish state made a terrible blunder by allowing politicians and journalists all over the world, including the representatives of the Jewish state itself, to use the term "occupied territories" in conjunction with Yesha. Putting aside dozens of valid arguments proving that this term is inappropriate, it is enough only to mention that Stephen Schwebel, former head of the International Court of Justice at the Hague, wrote in the American Journal of International Law in May 1970,

" between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand and her Arab neighbors acting aggressively in 1948 and 1967 on the other, Israel has better title to the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."

If even Jordan and Egypt have less right than Israel to ownership of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Palestinian Authority (PA) in this dispute with Israel has no chances at all. The PA existed neither in 1948 nor in 1967. It cannot be considered "a legitimate sovereign that was ousted" from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Under international law, it is exactly this condition of "legitimate sovereignty" that defines the applicability of the term "occupied" to a certain land.

The Israeli architects of Oslo framed their agreements with the PA based on the Camp David autonomy provisions. It appears that they completely misconstrued not only the spirit but the letter of Israeli policy at that time. It was more than unambiguously presented in the Israeli Government Fundamental Guidelines, unveiled on August 5 1981 and, which stated,

"The autonomy agreed upon at Camp David means neither sovereignty nor self-determination [for the Palestinian Arabs]. The autonomy agreements set down at Camp David are GUARANTEES that under no conditions will a Palestinian state emerge in the territory of western "Eretz Yisrael. At the end of transition period, set down in the Camp David agreements, Israel will raise it claim, and act to realize its right of sovereignty over Judea, Samaria and the Gaza strip."

The time is long overdue for the Jewish state to realize its inalienable right of sovereignty over Yesha. It must make the strategic decision to achieve peace, and the first step in this direction is to vehemently oppose anybody's attempts to label the lands of Yesha as "occupied" territories. The Israeli government must unequivocally declare that it will see as provocative any usage by any official representative of any country of the adjective "occupied" or its derivatives in relation to Yesha. Israel must make it absolutely clear that she will view such incidents as contributing toward the deterioration of relations between that country and the Jewish state.

The second step in Israel's strategy for peace will follow naturally. It must annex the lands of Yesha. And after the declaration of annexation, a third step must be carried out. The Israeli forces should return to Yesha and mercilessly destroy Arafat's regime. As Michael Ledeen put it in the "National Review" on December 7, "If you win, they will always judge your means to have been appropriate. Once we've won, they will sing our praises. But if we start to show kindness, generosity and compassion too soon, they will interpret it as weakness, and strike again."

Let us replace the word "Americans" with the word "Israelis" and declare loudly together with Ledeen:

"We need to sustain our game face, we must keep our fangs bared, we must remind them daily that we Israelis are in a rage, and we will not rest until we have avenged our dead, we will not be sated until we have had the blood of every miserable little tyrant in the Middle East, until every leader of every cell of the terror network is dead or locked securely away."

Only then it will become clear that Israel made a strategic decision to achieve peace, since there can be no peace without total victory over the enemy. 12/09/01


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




by Major Shawn Pine

The theory of international realism was articulated by Hans Morgenthau. In his seminal work "Politics Among Nations" Morgenthau explained that statesmen think and act in terms of interest which is defined as power. He explained that good intentions of a statesman have little relevance in determining whether his policies will either be morally praiseworthy or successful. Indeed, Morgenthau pointed out that history is replete with examples of statesmen that have been motivated by the desire to improve the world and ended up making it worse (Neville Chamberlain being one of the most notable and poignant examples during the last century).

It was not the motives of a statesman, but his intellectual ability to comprehend the essentials of foreign policy and to use that knowledge by taking the requisite political action that would lead to successful policies. Morgenthau noted that successful political realism required a sharp distinction between the desirable and what is possible under the concrete circumstances of time and place. Morgenthau claimed that "good motives give assurance against deliberately bad policies; they do not guarantee the moral goodness and political success of the policies they inspire.

Morgenthau used the US experience in Indochina to empirically demonstrate his philosophy. He observed that US foreign policy was tainted by the following factors: the imposition upon the empirical world of a simplistic and a priori picture of the world derived from folklore and ideological assumption; the refusal to correct this picture of the world in the light of experience; the persistence in a foreign policy derived from the misperception of reality and the use of intelligence for the purpose not of adapting policy to reality but of reinterpreting reality to fit policy; the egotism of the policy makers widening the gap between perception and policy, on the one hand, and reality, on the other; finally, the urge to close the gap at least subjectively by action, any kind of action, that creates the illusion of mastery over a recalcitrant reality. He could have just as likely been describing Shimon Peres and the Labor party during the last decade and Israel's experience with the "peace process.

Morgenthau warned the world to beware of leaders who allow their myopic individual values to supplant those of the state. Morgenthau noted that "the individual may say for himself: "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish)," but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action."

Peres has long stated that he was a realist. He adamantly proclaimed that realism required the acceptance of a Palestinian State. Yet, his remarks, and the subsequent collapse of the "peace process" belied this contention. From his statement that Israel should set a goal to join to the Arab league to his proclamation that reality was "not what objectively existed or happened; it was what was going to happen, what could still be shaped and fashioned by people," Shimon Peres proved that he was living an illusion. The basis for this can be found in his arrogance. Peres made it clear that he did not feel himself accountable when he stated "leadership, in my judgment, means to be elected by the constituencies of yesterday and to represent the constituencies of tomorrow. We have to answer to a constituency that doesn't exist." Peres' disdain for democracy was made clear when he stated "as a protege of David Ben Gurion, I subscribe to his philosophy that "I may not know what the people want; I do know what is good for the people."

In March 1996, Shimon Peres proclaimed "by the year 2000 we will overcome Hamas, the [Islamic] Jihad, and terrorism. By then we will bring a comprehensive peace to the Middle East. By then we will establish a just society, with a national income greater than that of England, and greater than that of France."

Historians will note that it was the failure of Shimon Peres and supporters of the peace process to take a realistic view of Yasser Arafat and the "peace process" that led to its collapse. Had they dealt with Arafat in a realistic manner, understanding that behind the facade of political legitimacy he was still a terrorist, the "peace process" might have had a chance for success. Rather than proclaim Arafat's intentions were irrelevant to the "peace process," Peres and the Labor government should have ensured that Arafat adhered to both the letter and the spirit of the Oslo Accords. Only then was there even the most remote possibility that the process could have succeeded. By exonerating and becoming apologists for Arafat, the Labor set Israel on a destructive course in which Arafat gave de facto support to Islamic terrorism and be rewarded for it politically with Israeli concessions.

However, the most tragic aspect of Shimon Peres is that he refuses to recognize the failure of his grand failed experiment with cost so many of his people their lives. His continued demand, after all that has happened, that Israel should continue to take Arafat seriously as a peace partner reflects a deep psychosis. Either that or Peres is not just a misguided, altruistic statesman but a cynical power hungry politician. A man who is willing to destroy his country rather than admit that he and his party made a tragic strategic error. As Israel begins to take the requisite military action to restore security to its citizens it should reflect how it could have allowed such a man to reach the pinnacle of power in Israel. For Shimon Peres, a man who stated that he has become totally tired of history, the greatest gift he can give his people is to leave politics. For those leaders who reside in the real world, they should adhere to the warning of George Santayana that those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.


Shawn Pine is a Major in the active US Army Reserves specializing in counterintelligence and is a military/strategic analyst. He is a research associate of the Israeli based Ariel Center for Policy Research and the US based Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.



Ha'aretz 4 December 2001


By Yossi Verter

[IMRA - important article that may impact decision of party
vis-a-vis current moves against Arafat]

Last week, Labor's strategy team met at the offices of the party's secretary-general, minister without portfolio Ra'anan Cohen. The team - academics, public relations people and veteran party members - has worked with Cohen during his four years in the secretary-general's job.

The meeting was convened to discuss a recent research study by Dr. Udi Lebel from the Political Science Department at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, based on a representative sample of opinion among 300 Labor party members. Cohen had asked Lebel, an expert on politics and communications, to assess what "our Labor members really think about how we are doing."

The Ben-Gurion University researcher's findings surprised even the most pessimistic Laborites. In the aftermath of what party members consider the failure of the Oslo process and Ehud Barak's effort at the Camp David talks, the Labor rank and file "are embarrassed and reticent about taking part in public discourse, feeling like a chastised child who is told 'go sit in the corner and don't say a word.'"

The members said they are unhappy with the peace process plans aired by former Labor government ministers Shlomo Ben Ami and Haim Ramon, and by Foreign Minister Shimon Peres. They view these as "alchemy," unsuited to complex Palestinian issue.

As Dr. Lebel sees it, the survey proves that Labor members want to be associated with a mainstream Israeli point of view, positioning themselves in the middle of the political spectrum. They want to distance themselves from what they call the "extremist left."

Thus, it turns out that Labor's rank and file members feel most comfortable marching behind Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. As they see it, Sharon deserves to serve as Labor's top man, as well as Likud's. Laborites believe Sharon deserves this position far more than the two candidates who continue to squabble over the results of the September primary, Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg.

The survey proves, Dr. Lebel argues, that Labor members view Sharon as a responsible, security-conscious leader, cut in the mold of the tough Mapai (Labor movement) leaders who ruled the country in its early years. The Labor mainstream does not want to rock the boat by proposing an alternative agenda vis-a-vis the Palestinians, and the peace process. "They won't welcome any policy initiative that will precipitate Labor's departure from the government," the researcher concluded.

Lebel adds that Labor members are "stunned and disappointed" by the spectacle that has sidetracked their party in recent months - the mud-slinging accusations of electoral fraud made by the two primaries candidates. This recoiling from the Burg and Ben-Eliezer struggle is part of a larger syndrome of apathy that plagues Labor, Lebel claims. "Today I see a trend toward unwillingness by party members to go to the polls during the next national elections," he says.

Labor's central committee meeting last Thursday exemplified this trend to apathy - only 40 percent of members arrived for the meeting, although it had been designated "crucial" by party leaders.

Shimon Peres did not fare well in the survey of the 300 Labor members. "There is a significant falling away in the status of Peres as a leader," says Lebel. Peres' nod of support for a Palestinian state at the recent United Nations session, the researcher adds, "was seen by party members as a symbol of everything they want to cut themselves off from."

Cohen gave his stamp of approval to the study findings. He wrapped up the meeting by saying: "These findings are startling. We are seen as being cut off from the public ... We must unite. As it stands now, each one of us is a party unto himself - there is no feeling of collective responsibility."

Cohen recommended his party colleagues start to focus on economic and social welfare issues. "The time to deal with the peace process will come when we see signs that there is someone we can negotiate with," he said.

Meantime, the two candidates in Labor's disputed primary have started to rally their supporters for a second round of voting at 40 precincts, scheduled for December 26.

Burg gave a "pep talk" yesterday to supporters at his Knesset office. He told them he is convinced he has a good chance of winning although Ben-Eliezer is now seen as front-runner. "Just as we beat him [on September 4], we'll beat him now," Burg said.

Labor insiders say the bulk of the campaigning will be done among Druze party members, the majority of voters at the precincts where a re-vote will be held.



The Jerusalem Post


By Uri Dan

(The writer is an author of The Mossad: Secrets of the Israel Secret Service and other books on the Middle East.)


PARIS - The US Embassy here, situated near the Place de la Concorde, looks like a fortified position. To reach my hotel behind the embassy, I have to pass through police check- points. The street bordering on the embassy is blocked to traffic at both ends, to protect the building against suicide bombers. The check-points cause tremendous traffic problems.

The French authorities, in cooperation with the US, have tightened security measures since September 11, particularly after the French arrested North African Muslims who planned to blow up the embassy. Arrests were also made in Belgium, where, just as in France, large Muslim communities have developed in which there is tremendous support for Osama bin Laden and for suicide bombers.

The great reduction in the number of tourists visiting this city reminds the French that the world is not only going through an economic depression, but is also subject to fear because of the massacre perpetrated by Muslims in New York and Washington. But of course, none of this affects the beauty of Paris. The bare trees, and the women dressed for zero temperatures, look as picturesque as ever in this season, in St. Germain or the Champs-Elysees, which are lit up as only the French know how.

These wonderful lights are incapable of dispelling the shadow of the wave of anti-Semitism flooding the French media. In the guise of unremitting attacks on the policy of the Israeli government toward Yasser Arafat, by presenting Israel as an "invader" in contrast to the poor Palestinian victims, most of the French media are actually waging an attack against the Jewish state.

What is really serious is that Jewish, or Israeli- Jewish, correspondents, who live in France and belong to the lunatic fringe of the Left are aiding the anti-Semites in their task. When you complain that the reports appearing in the newspapers are one-sided and anti-Israel, they reply innocently: "What do you want? After all, we invited a French Jew, or an Israeli Jew, to comment, and he is also opposed to the policy of the government in Jerusalem."

It is no use explaining that the Jew invited to speak on the radio or TV, or to write in Le Monde, belongs to the extreme Left and hates everything Jewish and/or Zionist. For elderly Jews, who were saved from the clutches of the Nazis and the Frenchmen who collaborated with them, and who are living in Paris, the attacks of the French media against Israel remind them of the anti-Semitic publications during the Vichy regime.

IN BRUSSELS, a similar, and perhaps even graver, anti- Semitic offensive is being waged. The Belgian media are frequently even more venomous and primitive than those in France in their attacks on Israel and Ariel Sharon's government. The Belgian government, which is currently serving as the president of the European Union, claims that it has no influence over the judicial branch. The latter is, therefore, engaged obsessively in the issue of Sharon being possibly brought to trial for the blood libel regarding Sabra and Shatila.

At the same time, the Belgian government is deliberately using this fake legal process as a whip, in the hope of forcing Sharon to give in to the EU's demands on behalf of Arafat. It is quite clear that if justice was of importance to the Belgian government, it could remove the charge against Sharon from the agenda. But the Belgian government encourages this dirty game because anti-Semitism is in its blood, and is now bursting out in the guise of an attack against the policy of the Israeli government.

The Belgian media are inflating stories that Israel is about to commence an anti-Belgian campaign, when in fact the opposite is the case. Naturally, Belgium also makes use of Jews - some of whom are simply ignorant, while others are also suffering from self-hate - and fail to understand that if anti- Semitism gains the upper hand, their fate will be identical to that of the Jews of Germany and France under Nazi rule.

The leftist French weekly Novel Observateur recently printed a blood libel copied from a British newspaper, according to which IDF soldiers were raping Palestinian women to cause their murder by members of their families, because the family honor had been sullied.

Sarah, the daughter of the respectable editor of the weekly, Jean Daniel, published this terrible lie. Good Jews. Jean Daniel apologized in a long and convoluted article, instead of admitting that the item was false, and requesting forgiveness from the IDF and Israel in a single clear sentence. Roger Zuckerman, the president of the council of Jewish communities in France, justifiably refused to accept the too-clever apology of the weekly, because he is aware of the dangers of the anti-Semitic publications hidden in the guise of blunt attacks on Israel.

At a time when Israel is waging an extremely painful but successful campaign against Arafat and his terrorists, it must not neglect the dangerous anti-Semitic front in Europe. This is not a matter for lawyers working for the attorney-general or for the Foreign Ministry. This is also too big a job for the Israeli officials dealing with information. A special Israeli organization to direct the struggle against covert and overt anti-Semitism must be set up. It must employ Jews willing to act, everywhere.

The expected victory over Arafat and the Palestinian terrorist authority will, of course, hasten the destruction of the European anti-Semitic animal that has again raised its ugly head for the first time in more than 50 years.

(c) Jerusalem Post



by Boris Shusteff

There is no possibility of building Palestine without waging a war for every inch of its soil. (Yitzhak Tabenkin, August, 1938).

The Jewish state is slowly and constantly bleeding. Time and again the remains of its sons and daughters, murdered by the Arabs day after day, are lowered into the soil of Eretz Yisrael. Time and again Israeli leaders promise that they will punish the perpetrators of the massacres. But after a day or two another Jew pays the price of appeasing the Arabs. There is no other country in the world where Jews are murdered only because they are Jews, and the Jewish community accepts it as a necessary evil.

Dr. Artur Ruppin, a Labor Zionist leader, wrote in 1936, "It is our destiny to be in a state of continual warfare with the Arabs, and there is no other alternative but that lives should be lost." It is obvious that Ariel Sharon shares Ruppin's opinion. He has explained many times that the Jews, who have been dealing with Arab terror for more than 120 years, are used to it. As he said in his interview with The Guardian, "My grandfather, my parents, myself, my sons all faced this terror; for five or six generations now" (1). Terror has become habitual for him. Sharon has seen all of its possible and impossible bestial faces. He admitted, "I've had so many tragedies. I've managed to withstand things that you may think you cannot tolerate"(1).

Perhaps this is the answer to the question of why Sharon is using a "kill the mosquito" method instead of a "destroy the swamps" approach in his strategy of combating the Intifada. Perhaps he compares the over 900 Jews murdered at the peak of Arab terror (within four months of November 29, 1947, the day when the United Nations proposed dividing the remaining 22% of British mandated Palestine into two states), with the 200 Jews murdered by Arafat's gangs since the beginning of this current Intifada.

Make no mistake. Sharon's heart bleeds every time a Jew is murdered. But because of all the tragedies he has seen, his threshold of sensitivity is lowered so much that reality cannot be properly understood. It is possible that his mind subconsciously performs some quick arithmetic, comparing the current numbers of casualties with the casualties that Israel suffered in the first years of Fedayeen activity between 1951 and 1955, when every year an average of 190 Jews were murdered.

Since the numbers are very comparable, Sharon sees no need to deviate from the methods he used to fight terror at that time and later during the time he was destroying the terrorist network in Gaza in the 1970s. Therefore from his point of view he is doing everything that is needed. The problem is that this approach does not work any more. First, because since 1951, the number of murderers has grown geometrically. Second, because one cannot fight a new battle with old weapons.

There is a third reason - and it is the most important one - Israel is in a state of war with the Arabs, and in a war one must use all available strength. However, the Jews do not want to admit to themselves that the Arabs see them as their enemies. Only a very small number among the Jewish leaders are able to raise the red flag of danger. One such leader, Eliyahu Golomb did not worry about political correctness when he said in 1937, "We are in a country where there is a war on between two peoples."

Ever since it started a long time ago, this war has never ended since. Unfortunately, while the Arabs keep fighting the Jews, and see them only as enemies, the Jews live in a dreamland of a paternalistic friendship with the Arabs. When people like Peres, Beilin, Ben Ami, Barak, etc. suddenly "discovered" Arab nationalism - or, using Golomb's words, found that in addition to terrorists "there are also those among them who are sacrificing their lives for their national aspirations," - they immediately offered to forfeit Jewish national aspirations for the sake of Arab ones.

It is not that they were completely ready to disregard the Jewish claim to Eretz Yisrael, but they were ready to share it with others. By doing so they rejected Zionism. The original concept of Zionism entailed a return to Zion. Not to a half or to a quarter of Zion but to all of Zion - to Eretz Yisrael. Many Jewish leaders, however, raised on socialist ideas were unable to understand the essence of ownership of the Land and their socialism superceded their Zionism.

While the Arabs declare of the land "It is mine!", the Jews say, "It is ours!", meaning that under certain circumstances the word "ours" can encompass Arabs as well. The absurdity of this approach has brought us today to a situation in which a "hawk" like Ariel Sharon speaks of the establishment of an Arab state in the heart of the primordial Jewish lands - in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, if the Arabs will only curtail their murderous activity. And Shimon Peres, the "dove," declares on November 28 at a Labor political session that "terror is not a military conclusion, it's the way a people expresses its aspirations through weapons."

While observing what is happening today in Israel, it is simply impossible not to recall the prophetic words of Zeev Zhabotinsky from his "Ethics of an Iron Wall," who wrote that, "The political naivete of a Jew is legendary and incredible: he does not understand the simple rule that he should never make concessions to anybody, who does not want to make concessions to him." The Israeli leaders have not only conceded Land to the Arabs, but what is much more important, they have conceded their ideology. By constantly appeasing the Arabs, and by creating the land-sharing cooperative named "Oslo," the Israeli leaders betrayed Zionism. They abandoned the fundamentals of the Jewish presence in Palestine and emasculated the idea of the return to Zion. Since if there is any place in Zion where the Jews do not have the right to live, then it is very simple to deduce that they do not have the right to live anywhere in Palestine.

The attack on Zionism from all sides is brutal. The constant use by the world community of the word "occupation" and its derivatives in regard to Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a huge slap in the face of world Jewry. One can simply open Webster's dictionary and read the definition, "'Judean' - a Jew, of or pertaining to Judea," in order to understand how intimately connected and inseparable the Jews and Judea really are.

Why do we spend so much time trying to prove the obvious? It is an absurdity in the extreme that dozens of pro-Israel journalists and pundits cover thousands of pages with their writings proving that the creation of another Palestinian state is harmful for Israel. Their logic is faultless, their arguments are brilliant and convincing. There is only one problem with this - there is not a single other state in the world thatneeds to prove to anybody else that it has the right to exist. After all, it's not necessary to prove that the heart is needed for the normal functioning of the body.

Prior to the establishment of Israel, Jewish leaders understood the role of Zionism very well. Moshe Sneh, one of the military leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine, noted in 1943, "Our forces must be arrayed in such a way that their first priority is the task of defending Zionism, while defending the country is of secondary importance." By "defending Zionism" Sneh meant creating conditions that would ensure emigration and settlement. And while Sharon speaks of bringing another million Jews to Israel he is selling out the main Zionist principle, hinting at a readiness to curtail Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

After the despicable triple-terror attack in Jerusalem with 15 Israelis killed and more than 180 maimed, Sharon's words that he "will never make any concessions on the security of the Israeli citizens and the very existence of the state of Israel" (1) can cause nothing but unbearable pain in anybody who reads them. Today there is no security for Israeli citizens, and the existence of the state of Israel is in mortal danger. The Arabs are murdering Jews because they want to defeat Zionism. They know that if they can get rid of Zionism they will get rid of the Jews in Palestine as well. The place of the latest terrorist attack speaks for itself - it happened in Zion square.

Therefore the only response to the Arab atrocities must become immediate Zionist action - the continuation of Jewish settlement activity in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It is a must if Israel wants not only to survive but to flourish. 12/01/01

1. The Buldozer. "The Guardian." November 7, 2001.,2763,589127,00.html


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




By Rush Limbaugh

The only way some form of quiet will ever exist in the Middle East is if Israel is given the latitude to totally defeat its declared enemies. Only then will the terrorist attacks on Israel's civilians come to an end. Perpetual negotiations, diplomatic half measures, or land for peace deals will not bring peace to the Middle East. For those who believe this is an irresponsible notion, I use history as my guide.

Today marks the 60th anniversary of Imperial Japan's unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, in which 2,500 Americans were killed. There are lessons to be learned from our victory in that war. In his April 16, 1945 address before a Joint Session of Congress, President Harry Truman stated: "So there can be no possible misunderstanding, both Germany and Japan can be certain, beyond any shadow of doubt, that America will continue the fight for freedom until no vestige of resistance remains. We are deeply conscious of the fact that much hard fighting is still ahead of us. Having to pay such a heavy price to make complete victory certain, America will never become a party to any plan for partial victory. To settle for merely another temporary respite would surely jeopardize the future security of the world. Our demand has been, and it remains, unconditional surrender."

On August 6, 1945, just 16-hours after the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, Truman issued a statement which said, in part: "The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold... We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake: we shall completely destroy Japan's power to make war."

Truman understood that there could be no peace without total victory. This lesson has not been lost on President George Bush. On September 20, 2001, Bush also addressed a Joint Session of Congress and announced America's policy -- "the Bush Doctrine" -- in responding to the atrocities of September 11. He stated: "...Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

Bush stated further: "...We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

Since September 11, Bush has refused all offers by the Taliban regime to negotiate any settlement of the war -- including the status of Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants in the al Qaeda terrorist network -- short of outright surrender. As Bush once eloquently put it: bin Laden is "wanted, dead or alive." And for over two months, the U.S. has been systematically bombing the Taliban and al Qaeda day and night. Already, the Bush administration is planning the next phase of the war, which may involve U.S. military action in Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere.

So, in the two most recent examples of the U.S. being attacked on its own territory, America's predicate for peace has been the total annihilation of its enemies. And there is every reason to expect Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to have learned the same lesson.

Since 1948, Israel has been forced to fight 4 wars with the hostile nations surrounding her. Despite defeating her enemies on the battlefield, the international community has never permitted Israel to completely destroy any of these regimes -- none of which are democracies. They've always been left largely in tact, free to start or support another war, including the current terrorist war now being waged against Israel's citizens. And between wars, Israel's enemies have convinced the world, including the U.S., that her borders and security are not only legitimate subjects of constant negotiations, but that Israel's refusal to accept most, if not all, of her enemies' demands is an obstacle to peace.

This week Hamas and other terrorist groups -- which, like certain of the countries that surround Israel, seek the destruction of Israel, not co- existence or even the establishment of a Palestinian state -- intensified their war against the Jewish state by unleashing 5 fanatic suicide bombers against innocent civilians, mostly children. The result: hundreds of casualties, including 26 dead. In the past 14 months, more than 230 Israelis have been killed -- the proportional equivalent to the U.S. losing some 11,000 people.

In addition to Hamas, which receives support from Palestinian expatriates, wealthy Saudi Arabians, and Iran, Israel is under attack from, among others, Hizballah, which is supported by Syria and Iran, and Islamic Jihad, which is backed by Iran, Sudan and militant Islamic groups.

On December 4, in an address to his nation, Sharon stated: "...A war has been forced upon us. A war of terror. A war that claims innocent victims daily. A war of terror being conducted systematically, in an organized fashion, and with methodical direction... We will pursue those responsible, the perpetrators of terrorism and the supporters. We will pursue them until we catch them, and they will pay a price."

Ironically, the major obstacle to Sharon implementing the Bush Doctrine has been U.S. Middle East policy. When attacked by terrorists, Israel has been urged to show "restraint," to make more negotiated concessions and even accept the creation of a hostile Palestinian state on its border. This week's carnage appears to have caused some positive change in America's rhetoric and position. The president has now pointed the finger of responsibility directly at Yassar Arafat for ending the terrorism committed by his people. But accomplishing peace requires more -- much more.

Truman was right to insist that peace would only be realized after the "obliteration" of the Japanese war machine, just as Bush is right about "defeating" the Taliban, al Qaeda and other terrorist networks. It is, therefore, necessary that in the pursuit of real and lasting peace, Israel also be free to destroy its enemies -- meaning the terrorists and, yes, their sponsors, who are at war with her, and that she do so before they obtain devastating weapons of mass destruction.



The Jerusalem Post Editorial, December, 24 2001


The stage was set. For the first time, after over a year of terrorist attacks and broken cease-fires, the United States finally came to the conclusion that the only solution is to support Israel in the fight against terrorism. The US decision led to unprecedented European and Arab pressure to take action against Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

As a result of the pressure, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat publicly called for an end to suicide bombings and mortar attacks, and stated that all Palestinian forces must be under his authority. Arafat's forces made some arrests, and the rate of attacks seems to have gone down.

At the same time, the entire Palestinian terrorist apparatus remains essentially intact, Arafat did not call for an end to the intifada, and Fatah spokesmen insist Arafat did not prohibit terrorism against Israelis in the territories or attacks on soldiers.

In short, substantial progress had been made toward forcing Arafat into the choice that faced the late Taliban regime - either stop harboring terrorists or lose power. Unless the United States decided to fall back on the failed policy of evenhandedness that US President George W. Bush had clearly rejected, it seemed that nothing could save Arafat from the moment of truth that lay ahead. Nothing, it seems, except Israel's own Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

Now we find out that Peres has reportedly been negotiating a deal with Palestinian leaders, apparently with the knowledge of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, to recognize a Palestinian state and return to final-status negotiations.

It would not be particularly useful to dissect this reported draft non-agreement in detail. But it is already clear that there is a blatant contradiction between the first point of the alleged agreement and the statement issued yesterday by the Prime Minister's Office.

According to that statement, "the entire cabinet decided that the State of Israel will not conduct diplomatic negotiations" until five conditions are met: 1) terrorists are arrested; 2) illegal weapons are collected and turned over to the US; 3) terrorist organizations are dismantled and their leaders arrested; 4) effective counterterrorist operations are taken; and 5) incitement ceases. According to Peres's reported plan, most of these are not preconditions to negotiations, but part of a six-week period in which Israel would end its closures, freeze settlement growth, and transfer funds to the Palestinians.

For months now, Israel has been steadfastly insisting there would be no negotiations under fire. When Sharon visited Bush in Washington before September 11, Israelis bristled at the implication that the Mitchell timeline would be implemented based on the "progress" the US thought it detected at that time.

Now, in contrast, there is no US pressure to negotiate with Arafat based on empty promises, and even the Europeans have demanded that Arafat dismantle Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But Peres has no patience for Israel's demands or cabinet decisions. To Peres, evidently, the principle of not negotiating under fire is meaningless - a triviality to be ignored.

We have seen this movie before, with most of the same actors playing the same roles. Peres produced the Oslo agreement behind Yitzhak Rabin's back and presented him with what was largely a fait accompli. Sharon swore he would let neither Arafat nor Peres fool him, but he seems to have walked into the same trap. Sharon, like Rabin, seems to have been tempted by the same logic: let Peres negotiate, my options are open at all times.

The problem is not just that Peres led Israel down such a primrose path before, but that this time a shooting war is going on. The refusal to negotiate under fire was not just an empty slogan; it was the whole reason this government was elected. Sharon was swept into power because Israelis realized that it was suicidal for Israel to make concessions under fire, because there would be no end to either the fire or the concessions.

The current editorial on the Fatah Web site ( explains how international pressure increased on Arafat after the "Dolphinarium retaliatory operation," and that it increased further after the recent "explosions" in Jerusalem and Haifa. Following these massacres, Arafat's Fatah argues that a strategy is needed to "help us restore the full support of the international community for our rights [including the 'right of return']."

The editorial is careful to explain, however, that "the intifada is not a tool for returning to the negotiating table; it should accompany any future negotiations to enhance the position of Palestinian negotiators." The Palestinians, in other words, reserve the right to continue terrorism against Israel as long as their "rights" have not been achieved, including the "right" to force Israel to commit suicide. Given that the US is no longer pressing Israel to negotiate under such circumstances, it is incomprehensible why the Sharon government would volunteer to do so.

(c) Jerusalem Post



Seething with anger at the Oslo architects - "Indict the Oslo criminals" is a code phrase for a wide range of demands.

Ha'aretz 9 December 2001


By Nadav Shragai

Fifteen months after what some believe is the collapse of the Oslo process, "Indict the Oslo criminals" is a code phrase for a wide range of demands. On July 25 in the Rose Garden opposite the Knesset there was a somewhat embarrassing event organized by a group calling itself "Soul Searching," a non-partisan group of reserve officers, students and citizens who for months demanded a state judicial commission of inquiry be established to investigate the Oslo agreement.

With little media coverage, the leaders of the group declared an end to their hunger strike, which had gone on seven weeks without any press coverage or political echo. Micha Maimon, a major in reserves, who hoped to become the Moti Ashkenazi of the "Oslo War," which is how the right refers to the intifada, dismantled the tent and went home.

The "Soul Searching" group assumed the media's indifference was part and parcel of the media's own fear of a state judicial inquiry that would expose the press's role in encouraging the Oslo process and didn't expose the dangers that the Oslo architects were taking on. In those days, in any case, Maimon and his associates avoided the phrase "indict the Oslo criminals," focusing their demands on establishing the commission of inquiry.

But three weeks later a suicide bomber blew himself up in the Sbarro restaurant, and since then there hasn't been a right wing demonstration that doesn't include posters saying "Indict the Oslo criminals. On the 30th day after Rehavam Ze'evi's assassination at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem, at a conference there, hundreds of attendees wore lapel buttons saying "Indict the Oslo criminals" and bearing the pictures of Shimon Peres and Arafat, just to make sure it's understood who those criminals are.

The demand has also appeared in dozens of articles written in recent months by right-wing commentators and is proliferating as a bumper sticker. More people, it should be noted, would make do with the demand of Maimon's "Soul Searching" group, which wants a commission of inquiry, while there are those who think it would be enough if Oslo's architects simply withdrew from public life.

Fifteen months after what some believe is the collapse of the Oslo process, "Indict the Oslo criminals" is a code phrase for a wide range of demands. Their common denominator is profound anger at the architects of the agreement, not only for the agreement itself but also for what the right regards as a lack of remorse on the part of those who shepherded the agreement from the start.

The issue raises a series of questions, like whether to take the demand at face value, meaning putting previously elected officials on trial, or whether elected officials can be put on trial for legitimate activity in a democracy, or, indeed, how widespread is the demand.

Nadia Matar of Women in Green was probably the first to coin the phrase and she seems to be the one who wants to carry it to its logical extreme. She believes some of the people in what she calls the leftist government who have given the Palestine Liberation Organization weapons, knew in advance that there was a strong possibility that those weapons would be aimed at Jews, but those politicians not only ignored that possibility, they wanted it to happen.

"The Beilins," she says, "wanted the see those weapons aimed at us, the settlers, to make us run away from here and thus end the settlement industry in Judea and Samaria." According to Matar, "if that wasn't their intention, by now we would have seen them expressing remorse and confessing to their mistakes. Even Chamberlain retracted and expressed remorse.

"The fact that Peres and Beilin continue to support the Oslo Accords is proof, as far as I'm concerned, that giving the enemy weapons was the goal. I'm saying something very grave but I'm sticking to it," says Matar. It's doubtful that most of her colleagues in Women in Green agree with Matar's proposition about the premeditated intentions for giving the Palestinians weapons. "In any case," adds Matar, "we have no argument about the fact that there was criminal negligence." Matar, and maybe Moshe Leshem, who heads "Gamla Won't Fall Again," another right-wing protest movement, are possibly the only ones who actually want to see Peres and Beilin put on trial tomorrow.

Elyakim Haetzni, considered the angry prophet of the ex-parliamentary right, is in favor of retroactive legislation with which "it will be possible to put the peace criminals on trial." He speaks about a full-scale war now in the offing, "the real Oslo war," as he refers to it. Yasser Arafat will set it off, he says, "and the weapons were given to him by the Jewish Oslo criminals. Someone there invented a weapon of destruction with a nice fragrance - peace. In the name of peace they have brought a catastrophe. If, heaven forbid, we reach the final payment of the Oslo criminals, and I pray we don't, then after the great Oslo war, I expect the idea will come up for a law that would enable the trials of these people. There are some precedents for such retroactive legislation - the Nuremburg trials, for example, not that I'm making any comparison."

Haetzni says Oslo's political proponents committed a serious crime of negligence but "in history there is no precedent for a statesman being put on trial for negligence. Some have been tried for treason, but nobody claims Oslo is treason, in the legal meaning of the term. There's medical negligence, and lawyers can be negligent, and I think that in the wake of Oslo, the legislature should consider political negligence." He says that "the negligence was ignoring the danger, and it was gross negligence, like a driver plowing a car into pedestrians, even though he had no intention to kill any specific person."

Much more popular in the right is the call for a commission of inquiry, whether as a goal unto itself or to determine if the Oslo proponents should be tried. Rabbi Ya'acov Madan, a resident of Alon Shvut, has spent some of the last two years with political opponents from the left trying to work out a formula for a secular-religious social contract. He favors a commission of inquiry, "since it's impossible to go directly to trial." He went on a hunger strike eight years ago in the center of Jerusalem calling "don't give them rifles." Seventy-one MKs signed his petition, but Yitzhak Rabin ignored them. Among other things, he wants a commission of inquiry "to investigate whether foreign elements influenced those involved in Oslo, by financing to groups or individuals."

Dr. Ron Breiman, head of Professors for a Strong Israel, a right-wing academic group, also is in favor of a commission of inquiry and foresees the inquiry leading to indictments. "There were enough people in the Knesset, public life and even in Ha'aretz, who shouted and warned that Oslo was wrong," he says. "If a commission of inquiry could ban Ariel Sharon from serving as defense minister, I naturally expect that one should ban Peres and Beilin from ever serving as ministers ... There's a commission investigating whey 13 Arabs were killed in October 2000, and even one for the 22 Jews killed in the Versailles wedding hall disaster, so why shouldn't there be one for Oslo, that led to hundreds of Jews being killed?"

According to Aryeh Stav, head of the Ariel Institute for Strategic Studies, and editor of Nativ, an academic journal, "in a properly run state, these people would be put on trial," but "since Israel is not properly run," there won't be a trial. "The rules of the game developed in Israel are pathological," he says. "All the prime ministers broke the law regarding the Golan. According to the law against treason, they should have been thrown into jail for life or executed. A gang like Peace Now would be considered traitors in a properly run country, but there's no point in putting them on trial because they do express the views of the majority."

Oslo, adds Stav, "was inherently illegal. It's the closest thing to a junta. The law defines the PLO as a terror organization and says anyone who engages in negotiations with it should get 15 years in jail. That law is still on the books, but everyone is silent."

Stav's use of the term "treason" is relatively unique, but there is a debate in the right about the term criminal." Haetzni says "those who made Oslo are criminals, in the public sense of the term, even if not in the technical sense."

Uri Elitzur, former head of Benjamin Netanyahu's bureau when Netanyahu was prime minister, and now editor of the settlement movement's magazine, Nekuda, is opposed to the term criminals when discussing a controversial political issue. So, he uses the term "unforgivable negligence" to describe Oslo saying it was "an experiment that was practically guaranteed to fail." But he is opposed in principle to trials or commissions of inquiry when it comes to politicians. "Let those who believed they were acting in the best interests of the state of Israel go on trial in the ballot box, not the courts," says Elitzur.

"Anti-democratic language"

Dr. Arye Carmon, head of the Israel Democracy Institute says "Indict theOslo criminals" is an illegitimate call in a democracy because it delegitimizes not only a party or political group that believes in Oslo, but government decisions. "I'm not arguing with the opinion," he says, "but using such language is, in my view, anti-democratic, and on the verge of incitement."

Carmon distinguishes between those who want to see the Oslo architects put on trial and those who call for a commission of inquiry. "I'm not comfortable with commissions of inquiry but they are part of the public discourse in our society. I don't see any symmetry between past commissions and the commission being demanded for Oslo, but it's a legitimate demand."

Beilin: 'Oslo didn't fail, Netanyahu foiled it'

"I won't get into an argument over 'Indict the Oslo criminals,' because I don't argue with crazy people," says Yossi Beilin, the original Oslo architect. "But, the point is that the real culprit for what has happened is Benjamin Netanyahu. He's the one who ideologically reached the conclusion that Oslo was a bad mistake, but he lied to the public in 1996 by saying he supported Oslo so that he'd be elected. It was one of the great deceptions of the past years.

"He got into office claiming he supported Oslo and then did everything he could to prevent it." Beilin says "what's happened in the last few years, including the intifada, is that official Israel crudely violated an international agreement that it signed, and created alienation and hatred on the Palestinians side, which once believed that it was possible to reach peace with us. That doesn't mean the Palestinians are a bunch of saints. On our side there were undoubtedly violations of the agreement, some of which more serious than others, but none on the scale of Netanyahu. Those people who are responsible for Oslo not being implemented are the same ones who claim that we didn't violate the agreement, but that signing it was the reason for the violence."

As for the weapons used against Jews, Beilin points to the phrase "a strong police force" in the original Camp David Accords signed by Menachem Begin."I don't think Begin is to blame. He was right, and today, too, if there's an agreement between the right-wing government headed by Sharon and the Palestinian Authority, that last thing that Sharon would want to do is take the weapons away from the PA to prevent it from enforcing the agreement."



From Hebron, December 24, 2001


By David Wilder

Yesterday the Yediot Achronot newspaper published its first scoop of the week: Shimon Peres' new piece plan, in four stages:

One – Within six weeks a full cease-fire, including an end to all fighting and terror, an end to all blockades, a freezing of all Yesha communities, an end to all killing and assassinations, and a unification of all "palestinian security forces".

Two – Within eight weeks Israel will recognize a palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gazza and the Arabs will recognize the State of Israel on the basis of UN resolutions 242 and 338.

Three – Within nine to twelve months, negotiations leading to a permanent settlement, including a schedule for withdrawal of Israeli troops, refugees, Jerusalem, settlements, security and water. The process will conclude no later than 18 to 24 months.

Four – An international role concerning the negotiations, a peace-keeping force, economic and financial aid to the palestinians, area economic cooperation, and arbitration of issues still undecided.

That's Shimon's plan, worked out with Abu Ala, head of Arafat's parliament in Gaza. This same Abu Ala said, in the not too distant past, that Israel must also abide by UN resolution 181, the UN 1947 partition plan, which places Beer Sheva inside a palestinian state.

Tonight Ariel Sharon admitted he knew that Peres was meeting and negotiating with Abu Ala, despite yesterday's declarations that this plan is "dangerous." Peres said that should Sharon forbid continued negotiations between Israel and the Arabs, Labor would leave the national unity government coalition.

Let's hope. Just a few comments about the above-mentioned plan.

First, all killing will stop. Earlier tonight, an Israeli man from Karnei Shomron was shot and very seriously injured by terrorists not far from the Shavei Shomron community. That's a good start for Yassir's boys.

Second, Israel is recognizing, unqualifiedly, a palestinian state. No strings attached. Arafat is recognizing Israel's right to exist only according to UN resolutions 242 and 338, which are, of course, blatantly anti-Israel. If then, for any reason, Israel should not abide by these two resolutions as he interprets them, Arafat will not have any obligation to continue to recognize Israel's existance.

Third, Israel is recognizing a palestinian state before the completion of negotiations. What's the difference? Today, when our enemies attack us, Israel can "return" to area A or area B. When things get really bad, we can, (at least in theory) retake these areas. However, once Israel recognizes this land as belonging to a sovereign state, for example Beit Jala, across from Gilo in Jerusalem, a return to that city will be considered "occupation of a foreign state." What then will Israel do following attacks on its capital?

Fourth, Israel under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is agreeing to return Jerusalem to the negotiating table.

Fifth, all of the above-listed reasons why this agreement is completely unacceptable miss the main point.

What is the main point? Writing in today's Jerusalem Post, Education Minister Limor Livnat speaks of three actions which must be immediately implemented:

1. A disarming of all Arab terrorist organizations.

2. Repudiation of an artificial distinction between terrorist organization's political factions and military factions.

3. Initiation of an Israeli diplomatic-public relations program

She also, importantly, dismisses outright a unilateral separation between Israel and the Arabs, a plan which would lead to abandonment of Yesha to the terrorists.

And finally, Livnat declares her opposition to a palestinian state, saying, "we must stop expressing any agreement for a Palestinian State in wide swaths of Judea, Samaria and Gazza. There must not be a state such as this and therefore, there must not be any talk encouraging it. Local leaders with local autonomy, yes. But a state? No!"

I believe that Limor Livnat is saying, in between the lines, the most important point that can be expressed at this point in time, a point which, if not properly understood, will lead to continued disaster.

Most all of Israel's leadership continues to talk of "stopping the terror." Yet these leaders, in the same breath, speak of a continued relationship with the palestinian authority. The point that they are ignoring is that terror and the palestinian authority are synonymous. As long as there is a palestinian authority, or, G-d forbid, a palestinian state, there will be terrorism. The only way to stop the terror is by eradicating the entity Israel created called the palestinian authority. This is, what I understand Minister Livnat to be saying when she writes, "We, just as the Americans are doing, must bring down the totalitarian regime and not only the terrorist infrastructure." In other words, in my words, we must bring down the terrorist regime, which is the framework for the terrorist infrastructure.

Coming from a minister in the Israeli government, this is a most important statement, especially considering that the minister is a member of the Likud, and is a likely candidate for Prime Minister sometime in the future. Livnat is to be commended for her courageous and enlightening position.

Returning to Sharon:

It's more than difficult to understand how or why Ariel Sharon gave a green light to Shimon Peres to meet with and negotiate with the PA. Sharon promised, "no negotiating under fire," but seems to have acquiesced to Peres ' pressure. Peres is a known customer, with the results of his meddling leading to and causing the Oslo War and the deaths and injuries of thousands of Israelis. Peres should be held under lock and key, just as spies are held in solitary confinement, so as to prevent further damage. As long as Peres is allowed to freely and officially represent Israel in a position such as Foreign Minister, he will continue to cause irreparable damage to our state and directly or indirectly bring about the death and injury of Israeli citizens.

Sharon now has a chance to make some kind of amends for his months of negligence, by stopping the Peres follies and, rather than waiting for Peres to resign, by throwing him unceremoniously out of his office. Peres deserves no honor or glory, only shame, in return for the disgrace he has brought onto his country and people. The sooner Peres is relieved of his duties and Labor returns to the opposition, the easier it will be to finish with the terrorists, once and for all.

With blessings from Hebron.




By M. Zimmerman

The PLO Covenant was first drafted in 1964 immediately following the founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization in Egypt. That was three years before Israel fought the Six-Day War, after weeks of Arab military escalation accompanied by threats to drive Israel into the sea.

Three stunning, overlapping military campaigns against Egypt, Jordan and Syria ensued. All were over in less than a week of fighting. Only then, in 1967, did Israel gain the territories that so many misguided or poorly intentioned observers claim are the very cause of the Arab-Israel conflict.

To understand the PLO Covenant is illuminating because of its constant echoes in past and current Arab articulation of their conflict with Israel. The Israel Government has cycled through periods of publicizing the PLO Covenant and not doing so. Foreign Minister Abba Eban in the 1960s was opposed to circulating it and in 1987 Shimon Peres ceased distributing the Covenant upon becoming Foreign Minister. Western media rarely have exposed the detailed contents of the document. Why was there a question?

Apparently one idea was to stop emphasizing PLO written intentions, in order to be more optimistic. Some observers have been uncomfortable discussing the conflict as rooted in political extremism or Islamic tenets because the situation then seems so out of hand. If the conflict is presented in such extreme terms, what constructive response can Israel or the democracies formulate? Also, the Covenant makes the Arab cause against Israel look bad. Had the contents of the PLO Covenant been well understood in Israel and the West, would the "land for peace" formula have been seen as reasonable?

Yet after the Oslo War commenced in early autumn 2000 and with the outrage of 9/11 the following year, both reflecting the clear failure of conciliatory policies, the West and Israel have begun to cope with reality. They may be far more successful in managing the overlapping conflicts as they move from wishful assessments to thinking clearly and with the ruthlessness required for serious warfare and authentic stability.

Consider these excerpts from the Covenant, as readopted in 1977 by the Palestinian National Council:

Article 1: "Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation."

It is unclear whether Arabs of Palestine regard themselves more as part of a pan-Arab nation, as a separate Palestinian nation, or for that matter as Jordanians or Syrians. Clearly most are culturally indistinguishable from Arabs in surrounding states.

Article 2: "Palestine, with its boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit."

During the Mandate, Palestine included what is now Israel and Jordan. Since 1946, with Transjordan's independence, there already has been an Arab state in Palestine, and that is the Kingdom of Jordan, formerly Transjordan.

Given the present flux in the Middle East, with America considering anew its policies and relationships with Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia, it seems apt to brainstorm out of the conventional box regarding Israel, Palestine and the Arabs. While there has been incessant talk of partitioning the area controlled by Israel, Cisjordan, for the sake of Arabs of Palestine, other options not discussed are scenarios dealing with the larger section of Palestine, i.e., Transjordan.

Jordan is ruled by the Hashemite regime, a monarchy. The Hashemites have been among few moderate Arab governments usually with a good relationship with Great Britain and the United States, sometimes with Israel. The fact that the land they rule is part of Palestine, however, has potential implications seldom discussed. Here are a few options deriving from that fact.

One: a clearly Palestinian Arab regime might replace the present Hashemite-led Kingdom. Two: Jordan, really Transjordan and eastern Palestine geographically, might be partitioned between those Arabs who consider themselves Palestinian and those closely allied with the Hashemites. Three: Jordan may reassert its one-time connection with parts of Cisjordan, including Jerusalem neighborhoods. Four: Hashemites might return to roots in Arabia, to dwell there or rule part of that land.

Laying out these options is not to suggest one or another at this stage. They are latent possibilities, based on history, geography and population. They might serve as background for political discussions about the region. And we might realize that some scenarios, options, unrealistic at one period of history may become feasible, even sensible, at another as circumstances change.

In recent years, the only option commonly discussed regarding Palestinian Arab political expression is partition of the area now controlled by Israel, i.e., Cisjordan, western Palestine, western Eretz Israel, along with the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Judea (from where they gained their name), Samaria (the geographic center of gravity of Cisjordan), and Gaza.

It is not widely appreciated that Arabs calling themselves Palestinians are a majority in that part of Palestine across the Jordan River in Transjordan. And after all, not all minorities achieve statehood. Consider the Maronite Christians in Lebanon, the Druses in Syria, the Kurds in Iraq, the Copts in Egypt. Other concentrated minorities have brethren with statehood elsewhere, witness the French of Canada. The present Arab state of mostly Palestinians, i.e., Jordan, is not across an ocean, but rather a narrow river.

A decline of sympathy for an additional Arab state in the Cisjordan portion of Palestine, where Arabs are a minority, may be developing in America and Israel. English history Paul Johnson in a recent Wall Street Journal article put forth an option new to the political conversation. He recalled that Western colonialism spread to parts of the world two centuries ago in order to eliminate piracy and dominate piracy-supporting regimes, and he compared piracy with current terrorism. The U.S. Marine hymn recalls "the shores of Tripoli," scene of American anti-piracy action. Johnson suggests that some peoples may be too dangerous when fully independent, and recalls League of Nations trusteeships and mandates--interim governing frameworks—as models for consideration.

The Palestine Authority has proven itself a violent, dangerous, untrustworthy and corrupt organization that teaches children to romanticize suicide bombing of civilians. And the fact remains that the Kingdom of Jordan is an exclusively Arab state in the former Palestine Mandate, with a minority governing elite who came from Arabia, not Palestine. Hashemite roots are in what is now Saudi Arabia, and Arabs who usually call themselves Palestinians far outnumber Hashemites and Bedouin in Jordan.

Most Arabs of Palestine just a few decades ago defined themselves as Arabs of southern Syria, and for that matter, given the small population noticed by western travelers to the Holy Land a century ago (for example, see An Innocent Abroad by Mark Twain), the evidence is that a significant portion of today's Arabs in Palestine descend from recent migrants arriving from other Moslem countries.

Ariel Sharon, when Defense Minister in the second Begin government, explained to a group of journalists in Jerusalem, myself included, that in 1970, when civil war raged between the PLO and the Jordan government, some members of Israel's government proposed supporting the PLO, and not, as expected and it turned out, the Jordan Government. Most of the journalists were shocked. Why would this alleged hawk have supported the PLO as compared to the relatively moderate Hashemite regime?

Sharon explained simply that should Palestinian Arabs gain statehood in eastern Palestine, although they may be more hostile to Israel than the existing regime, a political outlet for all Palestinian Arabs would be obviously available and the pressure to partition Israel would be reduced.

It has been clear to many Israelis and is becoming clearer for the rest that Cisjordan is too small for two hostile peoples to share peacefully. Israel even with the disputed territories is only forty miles wide in its center, and in square miles is about the size of New Jersey. With Arabs who define themselves as Palestinians rather than Hashemites clearly ruling Transjordan, eastern Palestine, the pressure would decrease precipitously for Israel to carve itself up in dangerous fashion, reducing its strategic depth to absurdity in the unstable and well-armed Middle East, in orderly to satisfy Palestinian Arab political aspirations.

Article 6: "The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians."

This crucial article denies the independent existence of the Jewish people. Only Jews who lived in Palestine before an ambiguous date are Palestinians and have full rights. In 1975, Yasir Arafat defined the year as 1881! If the same criteria were applied to the Arabs, considering their subsequent influx, the population of the land would be very sparse indeed!

Article 9: "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase..."

The PLO Covenant espouses militarism. Negotiated peace or compromise with Israel is precluded, a political settlement rejected. Consider how clear this has become since August 2000 when Prime Minister Barak made a far-reaching, ultra-conciliatory political offer, and without even making a counter-offer Arafat initiated the Oslo War.

Article 15: "The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism from Palestine..."

The PLO's aim to destroy Israel is clear. "Elimination" at least means politicide (destruction of a state) and can mean genocide. Recall that the Covenant was drafted in 1964 before Israel gained control of the "West Bank." Clearly, the call for Israel's withdrawal from the territories gained in 1967 is not the limit of PLO ambition. Also, "liberation of Palestine" includes Jordan. Recall the civil war there in late summer 1970. Afterward, Black September became name of a vicious PLO terrorist faction that took out its frustration with the Hashemite regime upon whom else but Israel!

Article 20: "...Claims of a historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history..."

The statement insults every educated person, and denies Christian as well as Jewish history. Why did the PLO institutionalize such a falsehood? One explanation that comes to mind is that it provides an ideological underpinning to legitimize Arab violence against Jews, since, if taken at face value, the PLO Covenant implies that Jews did and do not belong in the disputed country. The clear conclusion, particularly for a people romanticizing violence and even suicide bombings, may be then that any means is legitimate to remove them. Ideology usually sets the tone for behavior. Certainly this has been the case of Arabs towards Israel.

PLO moderation would be reflected in an amended Covenant, alternative documentation of moderate beliefs and intentions, and an intensive education campaign of the new perspectives for Arab audiences.

Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were forced to teach their peoples new ideology, that of democracy, following their defeat and occupation in 1945. They did not do so voluntarily, but initially at least while coerced under military occupation. And it took hold.

Article 33: "This Charter shall not be amended save by (vote of) a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization (taken) at a special session convened for that purpose."

During the Oslo negotiations, Israel repeatedly pressed the PLO to amend its Covenant as a confidence building measure. At the start, on September 9, 1993, Arafat wrote a letter of intent to Prime Minister Rabin to that effect, but took no further action. Finally, under heavy pressure from Israel and the United States, Arafat convened the Palestine National Congress and on April 24, 1996, it voted to set up a committee to redraft the Covenant to eliminate those clauses denying Israel's right to exist. The vote was 504 to 54, with 14 abstentions. However, the Covenant has yet to be redrafted.

Many analysts and observers considered Arafat's letter and actions regarding the Covenant as sleigh of hand, illusory, while President Clinton and Minister Peres, who each invested much political capital in the Oslo track, proclaimed, touted, them as profound.

The Zionist Organization of America's President Morton Klein provided background in May 1996 on how the Covenant issue was portrayed by Arab media and the PLO. "After all, the primary danger that the Covenant poses is that it legitimizes hatred of Israel and de-legitimizes Israel's right to exist," he wrote. "Changing the Covenant is important in order to send a message to the Arab people that anti-Israel violence is immoral and must cease."

Klein explained that the official PLO news agency did not report that the Covenant was actually changed. He quoted a PLO leader as saying the PNC did not formally change the Covenant but empowered a legal committee to deal with the issue, and that just two articles were in mind. (A majority of the Covenant's 33 articles call for Israel's destruction or urge violence.) Jerusalem Arab newspapers from the day after the PNC action explained the Covenant "will be amended," using future tense.

While PNC spokesman Abu Zaida claimed the Covenant was cancelled, when asked which document serves in its place, he was quoted replying "The Algiers declaration," a 1988 PNC resolution in Algiers, which did not recognize Israel's right to exist. Klein concluded "the PLO have once again made a vague promise to change some unspecified part of the Covenant at some unspecified future date."

A Background Paper dated October 22, 1998, published by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, regarding the PNC 1996 meeting concluded: "The resolution... can at best be described as ambiguous. The resolution was not included in the official records of the meeting and at least three... versions were published in various newspapers and news agencies... Uncertainty surrounding the PNC resolution, coupled with the lack of any specific articles which have actually been cancelled or nullified, along with the fact that the 'Legal Committee' mentioned in the resolution has neither met nor even been duly constituted can only lead to the conclusion that at best the Palestinians have embarked upon a process of amending the Covenant which has yet to be completed...

"In January 1998, Chairman Arafat sent letters to President Clinton... purporting to 'put to rest' concerns and setting out... articles supposedly canceled or amended by the decision. It must be stated, however, that no personal statement by Arafat regarding the articles to be amended by the resolution has any legal force."

Clearly, the past year's Palestinian Arab violence buried optimistic illusions. Even a few years back, after the alleged amending of the PLO Covenant, no Palestinian education program ensued to lead to or illuminate any moderate Arab attitudes. Whether or not the Covenant was formally renounced or amended, Palestinian and regional Arab and Islamic leaders and media do not reflect the sought for moderation, and still reflect denial of Israel to any of Palestine. Virtually all call for expulsion of all Jews from the "West Bank," the area that includes Judea--the land from where Jews derive their very name as a people! And this is while Arabs in hundreds of thousands live within the State of Israel. Such indifference to the asymmetry!

Some Arab political and religious leaders explicitly call for Israel's destruction, or use the euphemism "return of all Arab refugees." (The return would swamp Israel.) Some Arab leaders recently claimed that Jews never built a Temple on the mount in Jerusalem!

The essence of the PLO Covenant's Article 20 is starkly illuminating. Many Arab political and opinion leaders claim that Jews have no historical connection with Palestine. Christians as well as Jews should appreciate the seriousness of this Arab chutzpah and lack of connection with historic reality.

The Middle East is entering a period of political flux with accompanying opportunities, such that it has not witnessed since the periods just after The Great War and World War II. The Sadaam Hussein regime in Iraq may go, the Baath regime in Syria is weakening. Both terror-sponsoring states may become casualties of United States outrage at Arab and Islamic terrorism, after 9/11 so obviously dangerous to Americans.

The PLO and P.A. are on the wan, probably soon to be crushed by Israel. It is not clear that Hamas will survive as an active organization in Cisjordan. President Bush's recent action to dry up Hamas funding from front groups in America is an important ideological was well as practical step. The more extreme Arab elements in Cisjordan may be neutralized or have to seek expression elsewhere. Israel cannot help but study American role modeling in Afghanistan of how to destroy a terror-sponsoring regime and terrorist groups.

Should Iraq and Syria become ruled by more moderate regimes, or for that matter break up, the concern in Israel and for that matter in America over a potentially more questionable Palestinian regime in Jordan as compared to the moderate Hashemite government may be lessened. Such a regime might draw the migration of dissatisfied Arabs from Cisjordan to Transjordan, western Palestine to eastern Palestine, leaving the more moderate to work out rapprochement with Israel. Also, the United States is clearly reevaluating its traditional relationship with the Saudi regime in Arabia, recently so disappointing to American interests.

Concerned parties may soon, reasonably, consider afresh the political evolution of eastern Palestine.


M. Zimmerman worked several years in Israel as a political analyst. Now a businessman in America, he also writes about Israel history and Middle East issues.

Note: the translated text from the PLO Covenant is from Y. Harkabi, Palestinians and Israel, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing, 1974, which cites Leila S. Kadi (ed.), Basic Political Documents of the Armed Palestinian Resistance Movement, PLO Organization Research Center, Beirut, December 1969, pp. 137-141.




by Emanuel A. Winston

Mid East Analyst & Commentator

So-called civilization has collided with reality. All the words that describe catastrophe became the stuff of novels. WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) weapons simply passed into common language for most of us but, all that has changed.

Since we saw two aircraft take down the World Trade Center and another take out a large section of the Pentagon, we had a shock to our systems. But that, horrible as it was, didn't touch what could come next. We discovered that Osama bin Laden, through his al Qaeda network may (high probability) have acquired small nuclear weapons from Russian mafia criminals.

In addition, toxic agents and biological attack substances were similarly purchased either from the same sources - or Iraq.

We absolutely know that Iraq had been successfully acquiring the technology and the weapons to deliver WMD. But, regrettably, the administration of President George Herbert Walker Bush, James Baker III and General Colin L. Powell chose not to carry through the guaranteed destruction of these weapons and the manufacturing facilities which they knew produced these horrific weapons.

Oil and politics played the deciding role and now the entire world is at risk. What should have been done ten years ago must be done now at far greater cost and risk. The risk, of course, is that these area-wide weapons may have already been smuggled into our cities. Whether Nuclear, Biological or Chemical - any of these area-wide weapons can destroy part or all of a city and its population. A biological plague can literally sweep the nation, with anthrax being only one of dozens.

So, with this nation and possibly civilization hanging in the balance, what are we to do now? For one thing, we can stop trying to cajole the various terrorist nations to be friendly and volunteer to call back their terrorist sleep exports. We are in a negative time period, having used up the clock in useless appeasement of primarily the oil nations.

Even now, when we should be confronting Iraq with only the choice of immediate surrender, we are listening to advisors of other nations - telling us not to confront Iraq. Turkey tells us that if Iraq is broken, the Kurds will want a State of their own which threatens Turkey.

Russia, China, France and England do not wish us to attack Iraq and force Saddam out of the government. Their interests are future sales of weapons and the easy availability of Iraq's sweet oil. Remember that Iraq has not only the oil fields that have already been piped but also, a very large oil reserve which had the interest of former President Bush and James Baker, pushing for their oil interests among other oil multi-national corporations.

For these self-serving reasons "we" allowed Saddam to continue manufacturing his wide range of horrific weapons. All of western civilization is on the horns of a dilemma. Shall we continue to wait while trying to benefit from the availability of oil and the rich cash flow from the sale of weapons to Iraq - or do we recognize that time is of the essence wherein our cities may be destroyed by Iraq directly or through Saddam's surrogates?

Shall we listen to those who have vested interests in Iraq and other terrorist nations who recommend "diplomatic caution"?

Shall we take heed of American Arabists in the U.S. State Department who are so closely linked with the oil industry, fearful of insulting Saudi Arabia or the oil Gulf States?

We all now know that Saudi Arabia has been an exceptionally strong backer of terrorist groups who were planning attacks against Americans. 15 of the 19 terrorist murderers on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. (1)

Even now, as all this is being exposed, we see the Arabist damage control experts out in force, trying to shift the blame away from the radical Muslims in Saudi Arabia and 'somehow' shift it to Israel.

Germany, France and England are all in a media flurry, trying to blame Islamists' murders world-wide on Israel. We are told that the Bin Ladens and the Saddams would cease their terror and production of weapons of mass destruction "if only" Israel would accommodate one of the world's bloodiest mass terrorists, Yassir Arafat. Strangely, these nations know that the Arab nations cannot tolerate nor do they trust the Arab Palestinians.

We are well beyond that doom's day clock hour of 12 midnight. We await some kind of terrible destructive power. We know that we cannot appease sleeper terrorist cells who have been programmed to carry out their missions, even to the point of suicide.

If I seem tedious in repeating my solution to make the best of a worst situation:

Confront Saddam with an ultimatum, demanding complete surrender within 10 days. Leaflet Bagdad and, through radio announcements that Bagdad is to be evacuated because it will soon be leveled. In 10 days, level the city.

Repeat the offer, naming other cities and military installations. Possibly, the Iraqi military will realize the hopelessness of their situation and revolt, taking Saddam out of the picture.

Recall that American pushed Japan into surrender after two Japanese cities were leveled. Not pleasant but, it forced an end to a war that America did not start.

Possibly, Iraq will surrender one way or another.

Then Syria and Iran will receive the same ultimatum. By this time, they will be convinced that, not only is America deadly serious but will absolutely carry forward on our ultimatum.

Perhaps there are those who cannot grasp reality in real time. Regrettably, they can only be convinced when another attack takes place with mass casualties in Berlin, Paris, London or New York. Some have little vision and are driven by such commercial greed that they are blind to the consequences. We may be about to pay another heavy price as a lesson in morality and reality.

As a very relevant aside, India and Pakistan are very close to war and they are armed with nuclear weapons. I would remind the readers that we ignored the choice of Pakistan by host of Arab countries who financed Pakistan's development of what they called The Islamic Nuclear Bomb. Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt and Iran who funded the project, expected to receive nuclear weapons in return. Then too, we in the West were so enamored of courting the Arab oil world, we did little to stop this sinister development.

Who knows, by the time you may be reading this article, the experts may be sweeping our cities with Geiger counters looking for radio-active hot spots.

It's past time to confront the crazies driven by their aberrant beliefs in their religious destiny or simply hate America for her prosperity. This is not the time to negotiate our future with radical leaders who want us and our ways eliminated.

1. "Holy War Lured Saudis As Rulers Looked Away" by Douglas Jehl NEW YORK TIMES December 17, 2001 (first of 3 articles in a series) Articles available at