Published by the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies



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





THE DESTRUCTION OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL...An Editorial....Bernard J. Shapiro



HAS ISRAEL LOST ITS NERVE?....Norman Podhoretz


THE PERES PILL....David Weinberg









JEWISH SECURITY....Emanuel A. Winston


The Pollard Test ....Aaron Lerner


A VIEW OF US JEWS....Daniel Pipes





Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro * Published Monthly by the

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


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

(c) 1999 Bernard J. Shapiro

The Freeman Center receives no public funds and exists solely on

private contributions which are fully tax deductible.




An Editorial


By Bernard J. Shapiro

There have been two major stages in modern Israel’s development: Construction – the building of the State and Destruction – the tearing down of the state. What follows is a brief description of these significant stages.

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

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

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

The history of the modern State of Israel can be divided into two stages. The first began with Theodore Herzl’s convening of the First Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897. Herzl proclaimed prophetically that their would be Jewish State in 50 years: “If you will it, it need not be a dream.” In the half century that followed, with blood sweat and tears, a modern Jewish State was born.

Israel prospered as millions of new immigrants returned to their homeland. Displaced persons from Europe, survivors of the Holocaust, were reborn as proud citizens of a proud Zionist State. Jews from Arab lands, expelled from their homes of over a thousand years were welcomed in an Israel yet to be built. Jews from Russia, Ethiopia, Europe and the Americas joined the exotic mixture that makes up the Jewish State’s vibrant character.

In 1967 Israel fought and won an impossible war of survival and with the help of HaShem. Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and Gaza were returned to their rightful owner. The covenant with Abraham had been fulfilled.

“And it came to pass, that when the sun went down, and there was thick darkness, behold a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these places. That day the L-RD made a covenant with Abraham saying: "UNTO THY SEED HAVE I GIVEN THIS LAND."........Genesis 15:17-18

Some Israelis, and many liberal/left intellectuals from the West were disconcerted by Israel’s great victory. They loved the Jews as victims and could not appreciate them as victors. As Golda Meir use to say: A lot world leaders would love to say the nicest eulogies should Israel be destroyed. She preferred Israel to survive as do I. This period following the Six Day War was the beginning of the second stage that I call the deconstruction of Israel. This period marked the rise of the post-Zionists and historical revisionists. There was, indeed, also a surge of Zionist messianic fervor following the Six Day War. Unfortunately the Left managed to persevere and infiltrate the universities, schools, media, judiciary, and military of Israel. Over a 25 year period they were able to destroy most Zionist principles and destroy the nation’s patriotism.

In rapid succession, a series of events turned the deconstruction from a gradual drift to a sickening free fall. Those events in brief:

1. 1987 -- Intifada & Loss of Deterrence

The Israeli government lacked the will to put down the revolt decisively. The Israeli Defense Forces were defeated by 12 year old Arab boys. It is important to note that the world media used this conflict to slander Israel and create a myth of David (Arab) versus Goliath (Israel).

Back in 1965, in a small meeting room in Tel Aviv, former Defense Minister Moshe Dayan gave a pep talk to a group of RAFI (Rishimat Poalai Israel) volunteers, myself included. At that time, RAFI, a breakaway faction of the Mapai Party, included such notables as former Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and former Defense Minister Shimon Peres. Peres and Dayan had been considered the “hawks” of Mapai and it was no accident that in the 1965 election they supported a strong defense and security policy.

Dayan was always interesting to listen to, but this talk was something special and we paid attention to every word. “The essence of Israel’s security in this region (Middle East) is deterrence,” he said. “When we formed the State in 1948-9, we were very weak. The Arab States had planes, tanks, heavy artillery and many more soldiers than us. We had very little heavy military equipment. In the period 1949-55, we absorbed almost a million immigrants. Tent cities sprung up all over the country. We were totally disorganized. Had the Arabs mounted another major invasion, we could have lost. We devised a solution to this problem. It was deterrence. Think about being lost in a forest and surrounded by hostile animals. If you light a torch, boldly approach them showing no fear -- they will retreat. But, if you show fear -- they will attack and you are lost. We used this principle to save Israel during those early years. Every time we were attacked, we retaliated ten fold. We showed daring and penetrated deep within their borders to attack our targets. We were fearless, brave, and even a bit bloodthirsty. You know the result. The Arabs were afraid and never attacked. Deterrence worked. By 1956 when we invaded Sinai, the Israel Defense Force was not just strong, it was invincible.”

The story above was not told just for nostalgia. The lesson is extremely important for the survival of Israel today. Unfortunately Israelis are daily witnessing the consequences of seven years of declining deterrence vis a vis its Arab population. In 1987, the intifada presented Israel with a new challenge. It was a new kind of war, but with the same aim of driving the Israelis out of their country. The Israelis fought the intifada with many handicaps, not the least of which were their own rules of conduct. Israeli soldiers failed to cope with attacks by teenage Arab boys. In the course of several years, the Arabs learned that the soldiers would not aggressively retaliate for their attacks. They became emboldened.

THE LESSON: What seemed like moderation and civilized behavior to Israelis was seen as brutality by the West and weakness by the Arabs . The failure to learn this lesson still continues.

2. 1990-91 -- Persian Gulf War & Loss of Deterrence

The failure to retaliate against Iraq for its SCUD attacks greatly weakened Israel’s policy of deterrence. All the world saw Israelis cowering in their sealed rooms. The Arabs loved the sight and it emboldened the Palestinian Arabs. More serious damage was done to the Israelis psyche. From a proud macho national image, was born a new vulnerable, dependent (on America), ghetto mentality. The Israeli public was “tired of fighting” and felt they could not cope with the new threats to their survival. The looked for a new peaceful solution.

3. 1993 – Oslo Accords: The movement toward destruction speeds up

The Israelis had always yearned for peace. Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin and others secretly negotiated the Oslo Accords, which created a Palestinian State. Israelis were told that this was a “peace” agreement, but they soon found out that it would lead to more death and destruction. Eventually they would learn of its fatal consequences in strategic territory, water and the surrender of its Holy Places. Oslo set in motion the following negative forces:

Here are the benefits that Israel received as a result of its participation in Oslo: 0 (zero)

Israel did not get peace, cooperation, good neighbors, an end to anti-Semitic incitement, security, etc....

...................they got nothing!!


The process that is going on now is nothing less than the destruction of the State of Israel. Everything that is happening strengthens the Arab claim to Eretz Yisrael. Nothing helps Israel.

The truth, which many find inconvenient, is that the Land of Israel was promised by G-d to Abraham and his seed in perpetuity. The Land of Israel is not speculative real estate to be bartered away for some high sounding false promise of peace. The hills and valleys of Judea and Samaria contain the collective memory of the Jewish people. It was here that the Israelites first entered the Holy Land. And it was here they fought the battles, built the towns, elected their kings and were preached to by their prophets and judges. And it was on this soil that they wrote the Holy Scriptures we call our Bible.

The Israeli governments of Rabin, Peres, Netanyahu, and Barak are transitory. They hold office for a few years and then pass into history. G-d’s covenant with Abraham is eternal. Israel holds these lands as a sacred trust for the Jewish people for all time. It would not only be sinful, but also criminal, to abuse that trust by denying future generations of Jews their Holy Land----Land of their fathers; the one tiny spot on planet earth given to them by God.

.........Bernard J. Shapiro, Editor



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of October 6, 1999


By David Bar-Illan

The fiasco of Israel's exhibit at Disney World is not merely a public-relations setback. There will be millions of visitors at the Millennium Village in the EPCOT Center, and they will not see what should have been shown in an official Israeli pavilion: that there is no parallel in history to the bond between the Jewish people and Jerusalem; and that in the 3,000 years of its existence Jerusalem has never been the capital of any other nation.

Moslems, Crusaders and Britons have captured and ruled it, but only the Jews, whether in exile or sovereign in their land, have considered Jerusalem their national capital. Nor is there any question that Jerusalem now functions as the capital of sovereign Israel. It is the seat of government, where all internal and external state business is transacted.

None of this is shown in the exhibit. Its creators, anxious to forestall Arab displeasure, produced an "inoffensive" universalist show which is an insult to history and reality. And when even this failed to satisfy the Palestinian Information Ministry and Arab-American organizations, they yielded to threats of Arab boycott, omitted a furtive mention of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, and turned the presentation into a dull parody of Shangri-La.

The result was aptly described by correspondent Nitzan Horowitz of Ha'aretz, a newspaper not known for overflowing nationalist sentiment. "Contrary to the bragging of Israeli officials about a victory over the Arabs," writes Horowitz, "Jerusalem is portrayed there as an independent entity, a sort of 'corpus separatum,' a separate body. Israel as a state, an authority, a sovereignty - is not mentioned. The words 'State of Israel' are never heard or seen. Even the modest sponsorship plaque states nothing more than 'Foreign Ministry' in English and Hebrew. 'Of which country?' asked MK Ruby Rivlin."

The desire to avoid offense reaches ludicrous proportions. In a biblical scene, Abraham is asked to sacrifice an anonymous son. You want to know what Aziz of Jerusalem thinks his name is? Press a button on the computer and Aziz will tell you: it's Ishmael.

And what is the most appropriate scene with which to open a film on this modern capital city of more than 600,000, which has had a Jewish majority for 150 years? Why, the Arab market in the Old City, of course. The Knesset, on the other hand, seen from a passing helicopter, is just another building with neither name nor function. It may, after all, hurt some people's feelings to know that the seat of Israel's democratic institutions is located in (gasp) Jerusalem.

Perhaps most humiliating is that the 40 Israeli guides have been instructed to answer questions about Jerusalem's status by saying, "Israel claims that Jerusalem is its capital." This, lest we forget, is not a UN exhibition. It is an Israeli show, in which the Israeli government invested $1.8 million.

That Arab organizations and governments can demand - and get - the right to censor it is a measure of Arab arrogance, Israeli timidity, and Disney's double standard. Such treatment of any other sovereign nation's exhibit would be unthinkable, intolerable and unacceptable.

Nor does it make business sense. The purchasing power of the would-be Arab boycotters is relatively negligible, while the disgust for Disney among Israel's friends may have a more lasting effect. It took Ford many years to overcome the damage to the company caused by Henry Ford's antisemitism.

As Ha'aretz put it, it is a show French diplomats would enjoy. So would the Arab regimes, despite their protests which bespeak an appetite whetted by the taste of continued appeasement. But Jews will find it difficult to disagree with ADL national director Abraham Foxman, who - observing that Jerusalem is depicted as the capital of the Millennium rather than of Israel - said, "Shame on Mickey, shame on Disney, shame on [Disney President] Eisner." He could have added, "Shame on the Jewish community leaders for letting this happen." And yet the most unfortunate aspect of this story is not that a company anxious to avoid controversy surrendered to the kind of extortion only dictatorial, bigoted regimes can practice. What makes this a particularly sad event is that it exposes the unbearable ease with which Israel can relinquish the most cherished elements of its patrimony. Such "public relations" concessions, meant merely to placate others, all too often become Israel's received wisdom. And if recent history is any guide, letting Arab threats and Disney cowardice dictate the showing of Jerusalem as a "corpus separatum" does not bode well for Israel's resilience in the coming battle for its capital.



Reprinted from the Wall Street Journal-Op-Ed September 10, 1999


By Norman Podhoretz

Reading the other day about the Israeli Supreme Court's decision to ban certain forms of interrogating suspected terrorists (like forceful shaking), what popped into my mind, of all things, was a story about Benjamin Franklin. Leaving the hall in which the deliberations over the Constitution were being secretly conducted, Franklin was accosted by a woman who asked him: "What have you given us, Dr. Franklin?" To which he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

In 1948, the Jews were given a state, and the question then was also whether they could keep it. For 2,000 years the Jews as a people had been stateless; could they now learn how to run a country of their own? But an even more urgent question was whether they could defend it against military assault.

They had over the course of those 2,000 years distinguished themselves in many areas, but the military arts were not prominent among them. Hence when, from the very minute the state of Israel came into being, it was invaded by the armies of five Arab nations, many doubted that the newborn nation could survive the determination of its neighbors to destroy it.

But to everyone's surprise, the Jews of Israel prevailed over these five invading armies. Not that this victory settled the matter. It took the Arab world--depending on how one counts--five or six more unsuccessful wars before serious doubts arose about the prospects of the "military option." For the Jews, it turned out, could fight after all. Driven by a kind of Darwinian necessity, the people of Israel poured their best energies and talents not into the Book but into the military, and they wound up with one of the best armies in the world.

It also turned out that the Jews not only could govern themselves but could do so peacefully within a democratic framework. True, the economy was hobbled by the more or less socialist system that had been put into place by the dominant Labor Party. But in this Israel was no different from many other nations, to which the free market was self-evidently unjust and unviable. (Once I heard the editor of a leading Israeli newspaper exclaim incredulously upon hearing how things worked in America: "You mean anyone can start any business he likes? But that's anarchy!")

It seemed, then, that the Jews, having been given a state, could keep it. But trouble set in when, in 1977, the Labor Party for the first time lost an election and Menachem Begin became prime minister. In American terms, this was comparable to Richard Nixon's accession to the presidency. The liberals' hatred of Nixon went back to the Alger Hiss case, and the detestation of Begin by the entire Labor establishment also had its roots in past conflicts.

Even more fateful was the effect on the Labor establishment of being driven into opposition. While in power, responsibility under a condition of continual siege wonderfully concentrated Labor's mind. But once relieved of that responsibility, Labor went soft and was radicalized. Much the same thing happened to the Democrats and their liberal backers when Nixon took over the Vietnam War into which they had led the U.S.

Moreover, their flip-flop on Vietnam extended to the Cold War generally. Many of the very people who had designed and executed the policy of containing Soviet expansion turned from hawks into doves. So too in Israel, where the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 had an analogous effect. Never before had there been anything like the explosion of rage that ripped through the entire Labor establishment. Not limited to Begin's government alone, it encompassed the state of Israel as such.

In the U.S., Vietnam was taken by the left to be not a mistake but a crime that tore the benevolent mask off the face of American foreign policy and showed the aggressive reality underneath. In Israel, Lebanon became the occasion for an uncannily similar "revelation." There too a new school of revisionist historians began to emerge who, like their American counterparts in relation to the Soviet Union, blamed Israel for the war the Arabs had been waging against it. There too, these ideas, so shocking when first propounded, soon spread from radicals on the far left to liberals closer to the center.

In due course--given a mighty push by the intifada, which demoralized the Israelis by forcing them to fight against Palestinian children--the new ideas even managed to affect a lifelong hawk like Yitzhak Rabin. It was at least partly under their influence that when Rabin became prime minister in 1992, he violated his campaign vows never to make a deal with the Palestine Liberation Organization. In another broken commitment, he reportedly also promised to return the entire Golan Heights to Syria. It was as though Scoop Jackson had turned into George McGovern.

Of course, the yearning for peace had always been present in Israel, but it was now intensified by the onset of war weariness. This begat hope about the possibilities of an accommodation, and hope begat illusions about the Arab world's intentions. Rabin's successor, Shimon Peres, another lifelong hawk born again as a dove, now began spinning fantasies about a "new Middle East" in which the Arabs would wish to make money not war.

It did not bother Mr. Peres that serious signs of any such transformation were invisible to the naked eye. On the contrary, the evidence pointed to a change not of heart but of tactics. Having been persuaded that Israel could not yet be eliminated through direct military assault, the Arab world now adopted the so-called strategy of stages. The aim was to gain a foothold in the "occupied territories" (that is, the territories seized by the Israelis in defensive wars launched against them), and to move on, salami slice by salami slice, to the point where a jihad, a holy war, could at last successfully be launched.

As an accompaniment to this strategy, there was no more open talk for Western ears of destroying Israel and driving its Jewish inhabitants into the sea. Speaking in their own language among themselves, however, Arab leaders continued to affirm their real objective, which was still to wipe the Jewish state off the map.

This murderous intent did not grow out of a desire to establish a Palestinian state, and it could not be assuaged by the establishment of such a state. Nor were the wars launched against Israel from 1948 on motivated by any grievance over where its borders were drawn. The problem for the Arabs was the sheer existence of a sovereign Jewish state on territory that had been ordained by God as belonging to the realm of Islam.

There was also the belief that Israel represented a political injustice foisted on the Arabs by the imperialist West. Feeling guilty over the Holocaust, and not knowing what to do about the "displaced persons" who had survived, the West was shifting the burden of its own Jewish problem to the Middle East. It was therefore a political as well as a religious obligation for the Arabs to remove this abomination from the face of the earth.

This was so in 1948, and it is so today. Thus, a couple of years ago, Fouad Ajami, one of the few Arab scholars who has tried to tell the truth about this matter, said that there had been "no discernible change in the Arab attitudes toward Israel." What he then went on to write remains the case to this day:

"The great refusal persists . . . in that 'Arab street' of ordinary men and women, among the intellectuals and the writers, and in the professional syndicates. The force of this refusal can be seen in the press of the governments and of the oppositionists, among the secularists and the Islamists alike, in countries that have concluded diplomatic agreements with Israel and those that haven't." Significantly, Mr. Ajami added that "the great refusal" was most fierce in Egypt, which, despite its peace treaty with Israel, "remains unalterably opposed to traffic with it."

If, however, this was how Arabs felt and how they spoke among themselves in their own language, whenever their leaders addressed Western publics in Western languages, they cooed of peaceful coexistence. Not only did this new tactic gain them more diplomatic support. It even lulled a large sector of the Israeli public into acquiescing in stage one of the new strategy: the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza.

But the intellectual class in Israel went further. Among academics, artists and journalists, who (hard as this may be to imagine) were even more overwhelmingly of the left than their American opposite numbers, the phenomenon known as "post-Zionism" now reigned supreme.

Some of the better-known exponents of this school of thought are historians like Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, and Ilan Pappé. They even have a journal, Theory and Criticism, incredibly subsidized in part by the Israeli government itself. To mark the 50th anniversary of the founding of the state of Israel, this journal published a special issue with an introduction warning the reader that "the volume before you is no celebration, despite the fact that it marks Israel's jubilee. . . . It gives voice... to those who feel that . . . there is really nothing to celebrate." It then proceeded to deliver 50 articles denouncing Zionism--the founding idea of a Jewish state--and trying to demonstrate that the creation of Israel had led to nothing but persecution, not only of the Palestinians but of women and homosexuals as well.

The more narrowly political view of the revisionists is that the traditional Israeli conception of itself is a "myth." Far from being the victims of an intransigently hostile Arab world, the Jews who established the state had actually stolen the land of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants by force. And far from leaving their homes in 1948 as a result of incitement by their fellow Arabs, the Palestinians had been driven out by the Jews.

By now these ideas are no longer confined to the intellectuals of the radical left. Again as with an analogous development in America, they are being taught to schoolchildren, who are instructed by their textbooks to call the establishment of their state by its Arabic name: the Naqba, or catastrophe. The author of one of these textbooks claims that he is substituting for the old "myth" a picture that "is not black and white." But his version is just as black and white as the one it replaces, only now it is the Israelis who are "black" and the Palestinians who are "white" instead of the other way around.

Aharon Megged, one of the tiny handful of Israeli writers who are unsympathetic to post-Zionism, asks: "Why not just translate the Palestinian books for our children and be done with it?" A good question, since the Palestinian textbooks still either never mention Israel at all, or speak of it in what even an official of the Palestinian Education Ministry admitted to the New York Times were anti-Semitic terms.

The post-Zionists say that Israel is now strong and confident enough to face what they consider the truth about it. But Mr. Megged is closer to the mark when he characterizes the new Israeli textbooks not as a sign of strength but as "an act of moral suicide."

And Benny Morris is more candid than the authors of the textbooks written under the influence of historians like himself when he says that "If Israel was born tarnished, besmirched by original sin," then it did not merit support at the beginning (not, I should note, that it got much).

Further, given the "ethnocentric" nature of Israel that undermines its legitimacy in the view of the revisionists, the clear implication is that it does not deserve to go on existing as a Jewish state.

It is in the context of these acts of "moral suicide" that we can best understand the Israeli Supreme Court's latest decision. An Israel civil-rights lawyer expressed surprise at the decision. Yet it was only a matter of time before that court, being part of the same intellectual and political culture pervading the Israeli left as a whole (some have likened it to the Warren court), would enforce its point of view on the security services. If the new textbooks can be read as a species of "moral suicide," the Supreme Court's decision can be interpreted as a form of unilateral disarmament by Israel in the face of a still intransigent enemy.

When things of this sort began happening here in the 1960s and '70s, some of us worried that they would weaken the U.S. to the point where we would no longer have the power or the will to do what might be necessary in holding back the spread of Soviet power and communist influence. But luckily for us and everyone else, America was blessed with a very wide margin for error.

The opposite is true of Israel. It is a tiny nation, about to grow even tinier, and it has a very narrow margin for error. To make matters worse, it has to contend with an intellectual class that rejects the rationale of its own country's existence and that looks upon it with the hostile eyes of its sworn enemies.

Fortunately, there are still a few Israeli intellectuals like Aharon Megged who grasp the realities of their situation. And while hosannas were being sung to the Supreme Court by his colleagues in the current Barak government, even the incorrigibly dovish deputy defense minister, Ephraim Sneh, denounced the decision as "harmful to Israel's security."

Alas, Mr. Sneh does not apply the same logic to the deceptive "peace process" which is more likely to lead Israel into another war than into acceptance by the Arab world. Nor are many ordinary Israelis realistic about that process. For their understandable longing for peace after having to fight so many wars and lose so many sons seems to have blurred their vision and weakened their will. The question is whether the old toughness can be revived when they are finally hit by the crisis that is inexorably heading their way.

I hope and trust that the Israeli fighting spirit can and will come roaring back at that moment. But instead of being encouraged and cultivated as in the past, it will have to resurrect itself in the teeth of a culture full of the self-hatred that the early theorists of Zionism mistakenly believed would be purged by statehood from the Jewish soul. And so Ben Franklin's apprehensive statement still applies.

The Jewish people have been given a state, if they can keep it.


Norman Podhoretz is editor-at-large of Commentary. He is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute and author, most recently, of "Ex-Friends" (Free Press, 1999).

Copyright (c) 1999 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.


by Boris Shusteff

There'd never be peace if the Syrians were to return to the Golan Heights, if the Egyptians were to take back the whole Sinai, if we were to re-establish our 1967 borders with Hussein. [Golda Meir. (7)]

Somebody once said of Golda Meir's government that there was only one real man in her cabinet - Golda herself. It is unfortunate for the Israeli citizens that, though he has successfully worn a woman's outfit when he was leading a commando operation, Ehud Barak is nevertheless unable to understand the Arab-Israeli conflict as well as Golda did.

It is ironic that Israel's latest dismemberment happened in Sharm El-Sheikh. Ironic, because in a 1972 interview with Oriana Fallaci Golda Meir said the following:

"We won't give up Sharm El-Sheikh and a strip of desert connecting us with Sharm El-Sheikh. Because we want our ships to be able to enter and leave Sharm El-Sheikh. Because we don't want to take the risk of waking up again some morning with the Sinai full of Egyptian troops. On these terms, and only on these terms are we ready to negotiate with the Egyptians.' (7)

By returning Sharm El-Sheikh to the Egyptians Israel showed the Arabs that she can be beaten at the diplomatic level, though she is undefeated on the battlefield. Sharm El-Sheikh allowed Arabs to believe that their interpretation of UN Resolution 242 is correct, since Israel has returned to Egypt ALL of the "territories occupied in the recent conflict [the Six Day War]."

If one examines the statements of the Syrian and Palestinian Arab leaders it is clear that this is exactly the argument that they are using to demand a return to the 1967 borders. They say that since Egypt has received every single inch of the Sinai they should also get every single inch of the territory they consider theirs.

On September 4, 1999 in the Egyptian town of Sharm El-Sheikh Israel signed another memorandum that continues a long-running string of her diplomatic disasters. Even a quick reading of the memorandum shows that Israel keeps relinquishing territories while getting nothing back. As MK Rabbi Chaim Druckman (NRP) said on September 5:

"The Palestinians are progressing steadily towards their goal of an independent state with its capital in Jerusalem, as Arafat himself announced last night, and we continue to retreat and give in. It seems that we've forgotten that we are talking about our own homeland, and yet despite this, we keep giving it away without getting anything in return."

Barak's declaration that the memorandum is tied to the Permanent Status Negotiations should be taken with a big grain of salt. Paragraph 1.a. of the memorandum simply says that, "Sides will resume the Permanent Status Negotiations .and will make a determined effort to achieve their mutual goal of reaching a Permanent Status Agreement based on the agreed agenda." (2)

The term "determined effort" is extremely vague. Is it really possible to measure the level of "determination" to reach the Permanent Status Agreement? Especially since Paragraph 1.b. explains "that the negotiations on the Permanent Status will lead to the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338" (2), and it is well known that the Israeli and the Arab interpretations of these resolutions are irreconcilable. Therefore, it is doubtful that both parties will exercise the same level of determination moving toward a non-existent common goal.

Anybody who pays attention to Israel's way of handling the negotiations can foresee only one possible result for this futile exercise - Israel's complete capitulation to Arafat's demands. Saeb Erekat, the main Palestinian Arab negotiator, told Reuters news service in Jericho on September 5, "If we fail to reach an agreement, then we have the full right to declare a state after that.'' Knowing this fact it is impossible to believe that Israel has any leverage in the negotiations. The Palestinian Arabs have not compromised any of their demands so far and only a naïve person can believe that they will change their stand now.

Barak boasts that the withdrawals will be implemented in three phases instead of two. Is this really a big achievement? The important thing is that Israel will withdraw from 11% of the territories. Even worse, according to a September 1 analysis by Aluf Ben in Haaretz, as a reward, Arafat "will receive 'quality' areas in the West Bank, which will reinforce the territorial continuity of the Palestinian state, if and when it is established. And [he will] also [receive] other gifts: more prisoners released, the onset of work on the Gaza seaport and the activation of the safe passage routes between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

Arafat was in a win-win situation from the very beginning of the "Barak stage" of negotiations, since Barak announced that in any case Israel is going to relinquish the territory "promised" by the original Wye agreement. Thus Arafat was losing absolutely nothing, and could even try to get something else - something he successfully achieved. Instead of 102 prisoners that Israel was supposed to free at the current stage of implementation he was able to negotiate the release of 350 terrorists. Only 50 persons less than he wanted but over three times as many as Israel was planning to let go.

Immediately after signing the memorandum in Sharm El-Sheikh Arafat used another trump card. The two car-bomb explosions in Tiberias and Haifa that followed on the next day demonstrated Arafat's skills in using terror as a diplomatic instrument. It is nothing new for Arafat to issue statements denouncing terrorism and at the same time to use different terrorist groups acting on his orders. "In the mid 1980's the PLO maintained, or could regularly call on the services of at least five clandestine units to carry out covert operations including terrorist acts." (3) The infamous "Black September" was one of those groups. Captured in Jordan in February 1972, Abu-Daud [a top Black September operative] told interrogators, "There is no such organization called "Black September." Fatah announces its own operations under this name so that Fatah will not appear as the direct executor of the operation. What is called Black September is only the intelligence apparatus Jihaz el-Razd." (3)

This time Arafat has found a brilliant way to accelerate Israel's retreat - he announced this latest operation under the name of the Israeli Arabs. By doing this he has put Israel into an embarrassing position. As the Israeli daily Haaretz explained, "If indeed the investigation discovers that this time the terrorists were locals, Israel will have to do what it so often preaches - improve its fight against terrorism." So now the ball is in Israel's court and it is Israel who must fight terrorism, since, according to Efraim Sneh, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister, "to the best of Israel's knowledge, the Palestinian Authority is fighting terror to the best of its ability." (4)

Israel's response to the double terror attack makes Arafat even more confident. Efraim Sneh's statement that "the enemies of peace were trying to sabotage the peace process, but that Israel could not 'dance to the tune of Hamas and Islamic Jihad.'" (5) just proves that Arafat has found a goldmine in Israel's Arabs. Now he needs to simply wait for Israel to retreat and when needed to switch the terror options "on" and "off."

The timetable set by the Wye-2 agreement is rather stringent so Israel has to hurry. As Arafat said in Italy on September 5, "The time factor is very important. If we do not achieve big and tangible progress during the short, coming period, enemies of peace will exploit the freezing and stumbling situation in the current peace negotiations in order to cause doubt in the feasibility and benefits of the prospective peace." (6)

While it is obvious what the word "tangible" means to Arafat it is hard to understand what Israel achieved when Barak signed the agreement in Sharm El-Sheikh. If one says that Arafat must now wait until September, 2000 to proclaim a Palestinian state, one must also understand that in order to do this, Arafat first needs to get the land from Israel and, second, to have soldiers to fight against Israel when she becomes doubtful of "the feasibility and benefits of the prospective peace." Those are exactly the resources with which Barak has provided him by signing the agreement. [09/07/99]


1. Arutz 7 news, 9/05/99

2. Official Text of Sharm Memorandum, IMRA 9/07/99

3. Neil C. Livingstone, David Halevy. Inside the PLO.

4. IMRA interview of Efraim Sneh and IDF officers on PA fighting terror. 9/07/99.

5. The Jerusalem Post, 9/06/99.

6. Reuters news service, 9/05/99

7. Oriana Fallaci, Interview with History.


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

Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of October 3, 1999


By David Weinberg

Politicians who speak of the 'New Middle East' must be
under the influence of a hallucinatory drug.

Last week, our security-oriented Prime Minister Ehud Barak unexplainably began to talk about "the New Middle East." Ah yes, the New Middle East, that nirvana-like dream world created by imaginative minds desperate for peace at any cost. Barak must be on the Peres pill.

The Peres pill, you see, is a powerful drug invented and distributed by this country's elder statesman and former prime minister Shimon Peres. Be sure to read the fine print on the packaging label before taking this prescription-only medication. Therapeutic activity: For the relief of dilemmas in the peace process and uncertainties in relating to the Arab Middle East. Induces hallucination and wishful thinking, allowing the patient to ignore the hostile intentions of, and shrug-off the threatening declarations of, neighboring Arabs. Allows the user to believe that peace is breaking out all over. Most effective on a fatigued, depressed populace, and/or a public which has become extremely affluent and comfortable and no longer has the stamina for continued struggle.

Composition: Each capsule contains 5 mg of laxative (for catharsis, to clear the mind of paranoia and out-dated nationalistic fervor); 10 mg of valium (a relaxant); 20 mg of amphetamine (stimulates feverish mental activity); 200 mg of LSD (aids in hallucination); 700 mg of essence of sophisticated, intellectual French wine (helps the mind ignore Mideast realities).

How will this medicine affect your daily life?: Use of this medicine may impair alertness to dangers and therefore caution should be exercised when engaging in activities such as driving a car, operating heavy machinery or taking the helm of state. Patient is likely to develop delusionary tendencies, and to say things like "science is more important than territory" or "a row of five-star hotels on the Hermon is a better guarantee of peace than a line of early warning stations."

Takers of this drug are prone to take wild leaps of faith and to project all their good intentions onto the adversary (transference). As such, they are liable to cavalierly and hastily forgo hard national security assets without appropriate return or safeguards.

THIS DRUG also has been known to activate frantic philanthropic activity aimed at planting hi-tech wheat fields around Gaza, the establishment of joint bio- technology farms with Egypt, the building of industrial parks for Yasser Arafat, and the tying of tripartite town twinnings, such as that, for example, between Brussels, Bir Zeit, and Bnei Brak. The drug-induced assumption here is that economic advancement will cause its beneficiaries to moderate or abandon their hostile and decade-old goals of over-powering the Zionist enemy.

Patients on the Peres pill tend to develop a fancy for all things and leaders European, and enjoy cavorting around the continent garnering support from kings, princesses, Marxist novelists and intellectuals, movie stars, and socialist leaders who have lots of money to throw at the Palestinians. Users are partial to Norway.

Warnings: Do not take this medicine if your country has a waist less than 50 kilometers wide. You may end up in the sea. Inform your doctor and consult first with your psychiatrist if you are sensitive to historic, national, and religious rights, to the justness of history or to the logic of deterrence doctrine. Patients often develop an aloofness to the common Israeli man-in-the-street, who simply just doesn't understand the sublime and cultured approach to peace engendered by the drug. Do not take before meals or at any time within six months of an Israeli election campaign.

Side effects: In addition to the desired effect of the medicine, adverse reactions may occur during the course of taking this medicine, such as rapid weight and land loss, loss of fluids and water resources, withdrawal symptoms, and inflammation of the ego. Deafness, especially to Palestinian antisemitism and threats of violence, may develop. Consult your doctor and reconsider your political affiliation immediately if you experience blindness to Palestinian treaty violations, Iranian nuclear programs, Syrian and Egyptian military build-ups and the like; or if you find yourself always excusing the other side's gross failures and breezily overlooking its dictatorial character.

Antidote: In case of overdose, take two Bibis [Editor's Note: I would have suggested taking two Jabotinskys] or equivalent for at least three years. Proceed immediately to a hospital emergency room or an emergency bomb shelter. Recommended dosage and directions for use: This is an experimental medication. Effects of the drug for the long- term have not been proven. Take at your own risk. Not recommended for children, the faint-hearted, or those involved in diplomatic negotiations. Adults: one capsule only if necessary, chewed slowly and cautiously. Keep your guard up and army in ready state when under the influence of this psychotropic drug. Do not swallow whole! Keep out of the hands of sitting prime ministers, especially Ehud Barak.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999


David Weinberg comments on current affairs.




By Emanuel A. Winston

Breaking codes is not easy. First, you need to intercept messages and watch for the results to see what was really intended. Then you can work backward on all the old messages which said one thing but really meant another. PM Ehud Barak's reputation for clever thinking was well-earned and, no doubt, he was a sharp weapon against our enemies when he was Chief of Military Intelligence. Unfortunately, like a misguided Josephus, he has turned that sharp weapon (the ability to out-think the opposition) against his own people's best interests.

Unlike the dour Yitzhak Rabin, who could not hide his disdain for the loyal opposition, particularly those he called "settlers" with such contempt, Barak is a charmer. He visits each different segment of the opposition and commiserates with them. He wins them over. He tells each that he knows what they are going through. He shares their pain. He neglects to tell them that he has specific plans which will increase their pain. His latest words were from his 'religious appeal' platform in his Succa that "his peace with Syria would require Painful Concessions'".

Breaking Barak's code, a translation of what he really intends is something like this: "I have been working with the U.S. State Department to pick up at the last Rabin concessions, according to Assad, wherein we, Israel, will evacuate the Golan down to the Kinneret. We will leave all facilities in place, to include farms, industries, roads, town, infrastructure. We will receive a similar peace as is presently in place with Egypt, called "no war - no normalization - no de-militarization".

While paperwork, drafted primarily by the U.S. State Department, will speak of normalization and de-militarization, as with Egypt, there'll be no actual normalization - and only a short delay before a creeping militarization of the Golan. Barak asked Clinton for $20 Billion for the Golan withdrawal although the final cost is likely to exceed $50 Billion in the long run. Barak expects Clinton to approve this grant which is then to be underwritten by the U.S. Congress. But $20 Billion won't even approach the actual cost, most of which will be raised by taxing the Israeli people. Although Barak asked Clinton for $20 Billion for the Golan withdrawal, Congress just passed a foreign aid bill - minus the $1.2 Billion for Israel promised for the Wye agreement and $2 Billion short of what Clinton wanted for general foreign aid. Barak doesn't understand only Congress can approve and budget the expenditures expected by Barak. Clearly, they won't vote $20 Billion for the Golan withdrawal. Clinton may have promised Barak the money but Barak, the brilliant, never understood Washington nor Clinton's inability to deliver.

Within the draft document, Syria will probably agree not to interfere with Israel's water supplies, perhaps including some sort of token payment from Israel per cubic meter flow but, in the end, for its own needs, Syria will cut down the water flow to Israel. Israel will protest to the co-signer - America - but they will do nothing, much the same as when Egypt broke its agreement to de-militarize the Sinai. Israel protested, but the U.S., as the co-sponsor, said it could see no wrong-doing, even with the photos Israel and their own American satellites supplied. And the matter was dropped.

One would assume that the Golan's new Syrian residents occupying the Israeli towns left intact would be primarily military families in civilian dress as an advance contingent, cycling back for training into the Syria heartland. Clearly, the Golan would be militarized in a year or two, with the Israeli Army bunched up on the low ground, trying to maintain some sort of defensive borders.

Barak's secret code tells us many useful things. For example, we observe Labor Leftists and the Palestinian Authority condemning Barak's allowance of issuing additional building tenders released to the settlements in Judea and Samaria. In "Barak Speak" he is quieting the opposition by telling them that he is on their side and "Not To Worry". On the Back Channel' and in Barak's Code, he is telling the Left and the PA, "Not To Worry", because eventually these settlements, including the new buildings, will be theirs anyway. But, to have Labor Leftists, Meretz, Peace Now and the Palestinian Authority all screaming, "Foul!", is a wonderful bone to throw to the Right. Barak tells the naive settlers: "See what I am doing for you! See what heat I am taking on your behalf! See what suckers you are!"

Barak has excellent mind-twisting advisors. He has the whole anti-Israel U.S. State Department, including Clinton's clique of Left-Liberal Jews: Sandy Berger, Albright, Indyk, Ross, Miller, Kurtzer, (until recently) Jamie Rubin. But, even better, he has Clinton's man, James Carville and his Jewish partner, Greenberg. They have the Israeli public charted, computerized, psychologically analyzed...all cut and dried. Barak has even adopted the Clinton/Carville sound-byte phrasing which says nothing in three or four words, leaving the opposition speechless and confused.

So easy to trick the public and even easier to easier to trick the unsophisticated Jews of Israel. So, when Barak says "Peace with the Palestinians and Syria will need Painful Concessions", he is telling you in code what he intends to do whether you protest or not. When he offers photo ops of him holding the paw of a dog used to sniff out victims in Turkey's earthquake, he is telling the public "Not to Worry! Look how good I look as a lover of animals. You can trust me."

In his coded messages, the hypnotic mantra, designed by James Carville is: "Trust Me! Trust me! Trust me!" He sympathizes with each segment of the public, meeting them separately, telling them: "Trust me! Trust me! Trust me!" - even as he works, in advance, to break them so when the hammer comes down, they are without spirit and quietly walk into the next world he has prepared for them.

As for the opposition, he keeps them paralyzed with depression. They're kept separate and mildly at each other's throats. The religious are easily bribed; those of YESHA are thrown a few bones - each thinking that they'll be safe because Barak said a few kind words or allowed them to build a few buildings. Soon, he'll introduce the mind-teaser called "The Referendum". He 'll tell the nation they'll have a determining part in the decision-making process of giving up water, defensive borders, holy sites, homes, farms and industries. But, what he will NOT tell them is that, like Oslo, it will all be decided before the Referendum, co-signed by Clinton, with the approval of the pro-Arab E.U. (European Union) and then offered up as a non-cancelable contract, to be followed by an irrelevant peoples' Referendum.

Barak even has the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza working for him. YESHA spokeswoman Yehudit Tayar says about a group of young settlers who organized to discuss future strategy called Next Generation of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, that they are "....young couples from hilltop neighborhoods [who] feel we are too silent in our actions." (1) Tayar says that about her Council: " one knows the details. When they are forced to face reality at their doorsteps, they will react." Knowledgeable Israelis know that Israelis never act in real time. When the loss of Golan water should be a vital consideration, Israelis will only react when they can't flush their toilets or wash their cars. Jews can't seem to project the future and only respond on the day the calamity arrives.

So, dear Jews, know this. There are some few Jews who do plan for the future. The plan evolved in the early 80's to clean out the Jews from the territories is moving forward. Those who refuse to leave will be, purposely left in a sea of hostile Arabs where the pre-planned misery index will be so intense that they will eventually be forced to abandon these towns because their families are endangered.

In 1986 I published a series of articles, indicating that Labor had an operational plan to pressure the settlers to evacuate Judea, Samaria and Gaza in three phases: One: to pay compensation as in Yamit; Two: to rely upon the Arabs to increase the danger/misery index to scare the second wave of emigres; and Third: to withdraw all military protection - leaving the idealogues surrounded by Arab who would eventually force those remaining to leave the neo-state of Palestine. Apparently, this last truth of being stuck in an Arab state and no longer being a citizen of Israel has finally reached the Israeli media that they are asking the questions: The radio station Reshet Bet interviewed a settler about 1 PM today (September 30): "What will do if you have to live under Palestinian Authority?" The settler replied: "We're not thinking about it. We don't want to think about it."

You will lose the watershed under the hills of Samaria and Judea. You will lose part of Jerusalem, with the rest to follow. You will lose the water, high ground, farms, wineries and other industries from the Golan. You will lose the defensive borders along the Jordan River. You will lose the holy sites in the heartland of Jewish history in Judea and Samaria. You will gain millions of armed and hostile Palestinians living next to your towns and cities. You will satisfy long term plans laid down in the early 80's by the Labor government in close collaboration with the American State Department. You will pay in taxes for what will be lost in the Golan, much as you did when you relinquished the Sinai. Israel will be shrunk to a size where Israelis on vacation will camp in their yard and not bother to unpark the car.

In the meantime, you can take comfort from Barak's code words because that is all the comfort you will get. As for Barak's code...look back on his statements and decide if his protests about the excessive demands of Assad are merely statements preceding his acceptance of those demands. When he says NO to 1967 borders, he is likely already negotiating those borders guided by the Clinton administration who desperately needs a foreign policy win to obscure the embarrassment of 8 years of scandal. When he says NO to the influx of millions of Palestinians to Israel, be assured he is only waiting for the time or the Carville-designed method to open the flood-gates. Clearly, Barak is brilliant as Josephus was brilliant. Too bad he isn't working for the long term best interests of the Jews of Israel.

I do not believe that Barak is evil or intentionally planning to start Israel down a road of increasing vulnerability, eventually leading to the fall of the nation. However, a man whose sole world was the closed walls of the military and who was nurtured to be the political replacement for a Labor government leader, simply cannot have the clear vision to safely guide the nation's future. Brilliance developed in such a restricted environment cannot be expanded in its limited world view once maturity is reached and set in its ways. Such truncated brilliance when confronted with a new unfamiliar world accepts guidance from other powers and interests not necessarily friendly. While American citizens have always been friendly to Israel, Arabists in the American government have a far greater interest in Arab markets than in Israel's future. As a neophyte in world affairs. Barak is clearly accepting prejudiced guidance.

"Yihye Tov! It will be all right. Kol b'Seder! Everything will be OK." These are the phrases every Israeli is familiar with because they know that "nothing is all right."


1. "Settlers' 'New Generation' discusses Strategy" JERUSALEM POST 9/30/99


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




By Boris Shusteff

Recently, Israeli leaders have started to speak too often about windows. No, the Israeli politicians did not suddenly all decide to become glass-cutters. They are talking about "windows of opportunity." On September 24, Israeli intelligence chief Amos Malka told the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot that a "window of opportunity of roughly a year to 18 months existed to make peace with Syria." On the same day in an interview with The Jerusalem Post Ehud Barak said, "There is a window of opportunity here. [that] will close in, say, five or six years when it is possible there will be a regional leader, a dictator with nuclear capability and the means to launch it." Therefore "within this window of opportunity" Israel must "diffuse the immediate mines of the conflict."

If Barak would listen to the Arab radio and TV stations, read the Arab newspapers, or visit the Palestinian Arab's youth camps, he could easily find out that, as far as the Arabs are concerned, the "immediate mine" of the conflict is Israel's existence itself. There are also "smaller" mines, the so-called "permanent status issues," that are lying hidden in the depths of the conflict. The architects of Oslo were well aware of them. Perhaps the "window of opportunity" at that moment was so foggy that they decided to leave the issues of Jerusalem, the refugees and the borders for a later time, when the fog disappeared?

Today when the "window" is wide open, it is easy to see that the "mines" cannot be diffused and that an explosion is inevitable. It is enough to compare Israel's position on these issue-mines with that of its adversaries in order to understand that they are absolutely irreconcilable. Israel's position is well known: "NO" to the return of the refugees, "NO" to shared sovereignty in Jerusalem and "NO" to a return to the 1967 borders.

At the same time the Arabs' stand consists of a resounding contradiction to each and every one of Israel's "NOs". On September 19, Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Ahmed Qurei said in Ramallah at a Palestinian conference on the final-status talks that "there can be no permanent settlement without the right of return for Palestinian refugees." He told The Jerusalem Post: "The refugees are the core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If we do not solve the issue, then there will never be peace."

He explained that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is talking about "the right of return for all refugees to their home and compensation for those who choose not to return. Those refugees from 1948 who have property in Israel and want to return should have the right to do so, but will have to live under Israeli rule."

There should not be doubts that Qurei reflects the real position of the Palestinian Arabs. According to a survey conducted in the refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip by the Nablus Research and Studies Center "over 72% of the respondents said they wouldn't accept compensation or indemnification under any circumstances as an alternative to repatriation." (5)

The abyss on the Jerusalem issue is also more than obvious. Just recently, in the opening session of the Arab Foreign Ministers meeting in Cairo, Yasser Arafat stated: "No peace without Al-Quds Al-Shareef, a free capital of a Palestinian state." Arafat's Minister for Jerusalem Affairs and Permanent Status negotiation team member Faisal Al-Husseini made it clear that, when the Arabs speak of Jerusalem, they mean the complete city. On September 26 he said in an interview, "We are not ready to give up [any] of our rights in West Jerusalem, let alone East Jerusalem. We have property there, as well as holy places and history,.our rights there [in West Jerusalem] are not to be compromised because we own 70 percent of West Jerusalem on both the popular and the institutional levels. Part of the remaining 30 percent is governmental land Israel inherited from the British mandate, which does not mean it has become part of their right, because West Jerusalem is not rightfully Israel's." (1)

Those who are still hesitant to believe that the Palestinians are dead serious about Jerusalem should look into the August 26-27 survey of 1,200 West Bank and Gaza Strip Palestinian Arabs performed by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center (JMCC). The results show that "nearly half of those polled wanted both sides of the city. as the united capital of a future Palestinian state," and "93.7 percent of Palestinians would oppose any permanent peace accord making Jerusalem the Israeli capital, even if this were the only issue holding up a deal." (2)

The issue of the "borders" is also at an impasse. The Palestinian Arab leaders unequivocally demand Israel's withdrawal to the June 4, 1967 armistice line. On August 18, in an interview with the France Press Agency Mahmoud Abbas ("Abu Mazen"), another Permanent Status negotiation team member, warned Israel that "the Palestinian side rejects signing a peace treaty with the Jewish state that does not grant Palestinians a state within the borders of 1967. .They [the Israeli leaders] must be dreaming if they believe that we will make concessions on 1967 borders."

It is obvious that Barak can see the unbridgeable gap between Israel's and the PA's positions, otherwise why should he indicated in the interview that "Even if we manage partially - that is, to identify those parts on which we can, in principle, reach agreement, and those parts that will require long interim agreements, or those for which we can see the permanent status but which require a long time to arrive at - we will have done the right thing." (3)

However, this "partial" method happens to be yet another "mine." Yasser Abed Rabbo, the Information Minister of the PA, who will lead the PA delegation on the final status negotiations made clear that Barak's approach is unacceptable. He said:"Israelis will be naïve to think that Palestinians will accept establishing a state on the lands under full control by the PNA up till now in return for an open delay of final-status issues, especially the issues of Jerusalem, settlements and refugees. This belief is ridiculous; I don't know how they can think this way and believe that we can accept such a compromise; we made it clear that the state does not come until full withdrawal." (4)

All that this means is that the "windows of opportunity" exist only in the imagination of the Israeli leaders. The whole concept of "windows" is completely flawed. There cannot be a "window" for peace; there can be only a "window" for signing a "peace agreement." What value will such an agreement have, signed within such a "window?" When the "window" closes and the adversary is ready for another war, how useful can this agreement be? Or maybe the Israeli leaders believe that the peace agreements signed by the Arabs are sacred?

Do the Israeli leaders naively believe that there will never be more wars with the Arabs? If so, they should be reminded that unfortunately war and not peace is the normal state of affairs among countries. According to one comprehensive study, "222 wars were fought between 1648 and 1964, or one war for every one and four-tenths years of the modern nation-state system"(6). And it does not appear that this is likely to end anytime soon.

Barak is right when he says that the Middle East "is a place with no second chances, with no compassion for the weak." (3) He is also right in saying that "for years, even after we have peace agreements with everyone, we will still have to remain strong" (3). However, he is completely wrong in thinking that Israel can "achieve peace agreements with everyone" by retreating and relinquishing territory and still remain strong.

The Middle East will not have compassion for the weak. It is only the weak who give up land, and the strong who keep it. It is only the weak who shed tears about parts of their homeland and deliver them to their enemy; the strong break the hands and poke out the eyes of those who even dare to touch the land that they love. [10/04/99]


(1) MEMRI 9/28/99, Al-Hayat (London), September 26, 1999

(2) Reuters News Agency 9/17/99

(3) David Makovsky and Danna Harman "Peace without illusions", interview with Ehud Barak, The Jerusalem Post, 9/24/99.

(4) WAFA news 9/13/99

(5) HAMAS news 9/30/99

(6) David Ziegler, War, Peace and International Politics.


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



Translated and reprinted from Ha'aretz of September 10, 1999


By Nadav Shragai

For the sixth time since the Oslo agreement, Yasser Arafat is selling the same merchandise to an Israeli prime minister, the fourth since Yitzhak Rabin. Just as he did in Oslo 1 and 2 and in the Cairo, Hebron and Wye agreements, Arafat is committing to "full implementation of the agreements reached with Israel since September 1993," yet once again the anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian Authority (PA) media continues unabated: expressions of hate, delegitimization and traditional anti-Semitic blood libels, as well as denials - in terminology, maps and official educational materials - of the very existence of the state of Israel. The latest innovation of this hate campaign involves specifically calling on Israeli Arabs, "the Palestinians on the inside," to renounce their Israeli nationality and replace it with an independent Palestinian identity. In other words, a foreign authority is encouraging approximately 20 percent of the country's citizens to transfer their loyalty to it. This on-going incitement is not the only thing that has not changed. The buffer zones which the Palestinians committed to establishing in Hebron, a key part of the agreement there, never materialized. Nevertheless, Israel agreed in the Sharm el Sheikh agreement to open Hebron's Shuhada Street and wholesale market. The PA has never extradited terrorists responsible for killings even though it promised to on three occasions.

Although Israel did agree in the Wye accord to waive this demand, the Sharm agreements add insult to injury. Not only will murderers of Jews not be extradited - and many of them were not even jailed in PA territory, as they should have been under the Wye agreement - but now Israel has agreed to release more terrorists with blood on their hands, of the kind who tried to murder Jews, but only managed to injure them, as well as murderers of Arabs.

There are numerous examples of released terrorists returning to terrorism, be it terrorists Israel released under the Jibril deal or terrorists the PA released from its jails after refusing to extradite them to Israel. Halil Toufik Sharif, for example, who murdered David Boim near Beit El and who the PA refused to extradite to Israel, detonated a bomb attached to his body on the Ben-Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem. Subhi Issa, who took part in the killing of three IDF soldiers in 1993, is suspected of involvement in the attack on Yoel Moshe Salomon street in Jerusalem, in which an Israeli woman soldier and an Israeli Arab were killed. The possibility is now being considered of releasing one of the six murderers who "only" assisted in the killing of Efrat and Yaron Unger three years ago. One member of this group whom Israel did not manage to apprehend, blew himself up in March 1997inside Cafe Apropo in Tel Aviv, an attack which killed three women.

The latest agreement is a terrible deal. Barak so wanted to link the third redeployment to the permanent settlement that he offered Arafat an array of temptations and benefits to achieve that goal. Arafat, as usual, took the benefits without giving anything in return. The Sharm agreement contains nothing to make the Palestinians link the third redeployment to the permanent agreement. Moreover, the letter of guarantees which U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright gave Arafat stresses the absence of any such link. On the other hand, Arafat received a bundle of gifts: an additional 2 percent of Area B from the first redeployment, the release of terrorists "with blood on their hands," a more "qualitative" withdrawal, "candies" in Hebron and dates for the start of construction of a port in Gaza and the opening of the first "safe passage."

Once again, the Palestinians are promising to collect illegal weapons, reduce the size of the Palestinian police force that has ballooned to the size of an army and arrest wanted suspects. Well, so what? The worst thing about the Sharm agreement is that the PA's interest in thwarting terrorist attacks against us - coming out of the additional territories we are now handing over to them - is always conditional on the continued handing over of territories. Their final line, at least for now, is the 1947 Partition Plan line. This is PA-style reciprocity: a self-destruction mechanism built into a process that is supposed to be one of conciliation.




By Rachel Gold

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

And in return, the Palestinians will...?

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

And in return, the Palestinians will...?

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

And in return, the Palestinians will...?

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

And in return, the Palestinians will..."

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

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

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

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




Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post of September 5, 1999


By David Weinberg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999


Editor's Note: In this morning's Houston Chronicle Consul General of Israel, Tzion Evrony gave us wonderful Peres-like fantasy view of the peace process. Unfortunately the facts support a more realistic view of Israel-Arab relations. How do I know without any doubt that I am right? Let me count the ways:

1. The PA (Palestinian Authority) has failed to destroy (or even attempt to destroy) the infrastructure of the terrorist organizations. There has been some minor security cooperation but Arafat has been careful to preserve Hamas and Islamic Jihad for future terrorist pressure on Israel.

2. The PA has not ended incitement and anti-Semitic attacks on Jews and Israel's (see story below).

3. The educational system run by the PA teaches hatred of Jews and Israelis and distorts history.

4. All maps, stationery letterheads, posters portraying Palestine show it including all the area of Israel as a part of Palestine. There are over 50 maps in the Palestinian schools, but Israel is not in any of them.

5. The PA has built dozens of tunnels from Sinai into Gaza in order to smuggle in heavy weapons and rockets forbidden by Oslo. It has also built a 50,000 man army - not a police force.

6. The Palestinian media and Moslem clerics agree on one thing: Oslo is temporary and their ultimate aim is the destruction of Israel. PA leaders in Arabic express the same sentiment. (Arafat's stages plan of 1974 is working according to schedule, with Oslo a stage toward complete liberation of Palestine)

7. All benefits of the "peace" process advance the process of creating a Palestinian state at the expense of Israel. Aside from useless words from notable prevaricators there has been NO benefit to Israel.

8. The continued Arab boycott of Israel proves that there has been no genuine reconciliation

9. Israel's water supply is already being damaged. Losing the Golan would be the final blow for Israeli agriculture. Aside from loss of water, the PA is deliberately polluting Israel's central mountain aquifer.

10. There are more but I have made my point. By the way, all of the above are violations of the original 1993 Oslo Accords. The Israelis have bought (the same rug) commitments from Arafat in five separate agreements. And anti-Semites use to complain that Jews were too clever. At least now that old canard will be put to rest.



ZOA Press Release - September 10, 1999 - Contact: (212) 481-1500


NEW YORK- Adolf Hitler's autobiography, Mein Kampf, in which he explains his virulent hatred of Jews, has made it to the best-seller list in the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories. The French news agency, Agence France Presse, reports that Mein Kampf is presently at number six on the PA best-seller list. It noted that Mein Kampf was banned from the territories during the years of Israeli administration of the region, but was recently allowed in by the PA.

Morton A. Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), said: "The Palestinian Arabs' apparent fascination with Mein Kampf is a deeply troubling phenomenon. When Israeli forces overran Arafat's bases in southern Lebanon in 1982, they found many copies of Mein Kampf, in Arabic, among the PLO terrorists' belongings. Nor we can we forget that the most popular Palestinian Arab leader, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, spent the Holocaust years in Berlin, where he was an active Nazi collaborator; he is still revered as a hero among the Palestinian Arabs today."

The ZOA president noted that Arafat's number two man and the architect of the Oslo accords, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), is the author of a book (The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and the Zionist Movement) which claims that Hitler killed less than one million, not six million, Jews, and that (Jerusalem Post , Jan.26, 1995); the official PA newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida has called the Holocaust "a deceitful myth" (July 2, 1998); PA Television has said "the Jews exaggerate what the Nazis did to them" (Aug.25, 1997); and PA Communications Minister Imad al-Falouji and PA general-secretary Ahmed Abdel-Rahman led a rally in support of Holocaust-denier Roger Garaudy. (Reuters, Jan.19, 1998)


Middle East Media and Research Institute <> has just released more details on the sale of Adolph Hitler's Mein Kampf in eastern Jerusalem and the Palestinian autonomy. The Arabic translation is being distributed by Al-Shurouq, a Ramallah-based book distributor, and is now in 6th place on the Palestinian best-seller list. The cover of the book shows a picture of Hitler, a swastika, and the title in both German and Arabic. Following are some excerpts of the introduction by translator Luis Al-Haj:

"Hitler was a man of ideology who bequeathed an ideological heritage whose decay is inconceivable. This ideological heritage includes politics, society, science, culture, and war as science and culture...

"The National Socialism that Hitler preached for and whose characteristics were presented in his book My Struggle [Mein Kampf]... this National Socialism did not die with the death of its herald. Rather, its seeds multiplied under each star...

"This translation of the book My Struggle has never been presented to Arab speakers. It is taken from the original text of the author, Adolf Hitler. The text was untouched by the censor. We made a point to deliver Hitler's opinions and theories on nationalism, regimes, and ethnicity without any changes because they are not yet outmoded and because we, in the Arab world, still proceed haphazardly in all three fields..."




By Boris Shusteff

On September 8 Prime Minister Ehud Barak for the first time explicitly admitted that the land that will be turned over to the Palestinian civilian authority will not revert to Israel. Addressing the Israeli Parliament he said: "I recognize that the peace process involves a painful farewell to the homeland.".

We simply need to compare Barak's statement with Anwar Sadat's words in Jerusalem to understand why the Jewish state is in the mortal danger. "Our land does not yield itself to bargaining, it is not even open to argument," Sadat said. Barak did not say that the "peace process" will require that the Syrians say farewell to their homeland. He did not ask the Palestinian Arabs to "bear the pain" of parting with the land they claim as theirs in order to achieve peace. He did not do this because he knows that, save for the Jews, no other people in the world can voluntarily surrender their homeland to someone else.

No one can understand the value of a homeland better than one who has lost it. Was it not enough that the Jews lost it once? Or maybe the Jews are used to this since they have lost a lot of "pseudo-homelands" during their long exile? How many times were they evicted or massacred when they wanted nothing more than to call the country of their exile with the sweet word "homeland?" Perhaps they have forgotten the meaning of the word itself? Perhaps they do not understand that Eretz Yisrael - their only real homeland - if lost this time, will be lost forever?

Ehud Barak was born in Israel, as were many of his supporters. So how is it possible that they do not have this secret bond of nature, this particular affection for the native soil, which they first touched with their bodies, and pressed with their feet: where they first drew their breath: where they cried in their infancy, played in their childhood, and exercised their selves in manhood. Where their eyes were acquainted with the firmament, clouds, and fields: where have been by long continuance of descents their kinsfolk, friends and companions, and too many occasions of joy besides, which one may expect in vain in another part of the world. (1)

The love for Eretz Yisrael is an inextinguishable flame that kept alive the souls of millions of Jews detached from the land for two millennia. Eretz Yisrael is the reason for the existence of the Jewish people. Every single inch of it is invaluably precious. It cannot be sold, given away or forsaken. How did it happen that after the Jews reunited with their homeland they lost their love of it?

Barak said that, "We are parting from areas that are precious to all of us...We walked the land, we learned about its place in our history, we fought for it and we developed a connection to it.'' (2) There is no logic and no heart in this statement. If the areas are precious to us, then we are not going to part with them. People who walked their land, who learned its places, who fought for it and developed a connection to it cannot part with it voluntarily.

A homeland is not a book that one can browse through, learn its content, even get to like it and then simply give it to somebody else. One cannot wrap it like a gift and present it to his neighbor. If one is a patriot and loves one's country one can be separated from it only forcefully. A patriot is ready to sacrifice his or her soul for the life and liberty of the homeland. Niccolo Machiavelli wrote that:

"..when the safety of one's country wholly depends on the decision to be taken, no attention should be paid either to justice or injustice, to kindness or cruelty, or to its being praiseworthy or ignominious. On the contrary, every other consideration being set aside, that alternative should be wholeheartedly adopted which will save the life and preserve the freedom of one's country. "(1)

All countries in the world follow Machiavelli's advice. Israel's idol - America - did not say farewell to Pearl Harbor and did not offer it to Japan for peace. Israel's model - America - did not hesitate to use the atomic bomb against the Japanese caring about her own safety. So why then, having America's example of putting the survival of the country above all other interests, is Israel walking along the suicide road?

In Israel's case the only way to save its life and to preserve freedom of the Jewish state is through an immediate abrogation of Oslo and all consecutive agreements. Professor of International Law Louis Rene Beres has proven in countless works without a shadow of doubt that "under pertinent international law, Israel has a compelling obligation not to comply with the illegal Oslo Agreements. This obligation is reinforced by Israel's overriding responsibility to preserve itself as a state." (3)

What is even worse, Ehud Barak, who is familiar with Beres's writing, is well aware of the fact "that any agreement between a state and a non-state entity is not at all binding under international law (because the non-state entity, here the PLO, lacks the capacity to act as a legal person) (4). Thus all the arguments used by the Arabs and a lot of Israelis that Israel "must fulfill the agreement" are worthless from a legal standpoint.

The situation is extremely clear. First of all, the Torah forbids ceding even an inch of Eretz Yisrael. At the same time, International law does not require Israel to proceed with the agreement. On the contrary, Israel must abrogate it according to the "principle - Nullum crimen sine poena ("No crime without a punishment.") This major principle of international law, essential to all civilized international relations." (3) Moreover, from the pure military logic of Israel's territorial defense requirements, according to the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Memorandum of 1967:

"Israel should retain the Golan Heights, several sections of Sinai, the Gaza Strip and the land west of "a defense line generally along the axis Bardala-Tubas-Nablus-Bira-Jerusalem" then turning "southeast to a junction with the Dead Sea at Wadi el Daraja," (this being more than half of Samaria, contiguous with a thickening of the Jerusalem corridor), and all of Judea south of Jerusalem." (4)

Eretz Yisrael is a Jewish land. No Arab propaganda can change this fact. To be able to fight for Israel's freedom the Jews must first believe that there is worth and dignity in being Jewish. If one does not believe this, the Jewish homeland does not make sense. If one believes - then any retreat is impossible.

One says farewell to one's homeland only on the deathbed or when one is sent into exile. Nobody knows better then the Jews that exile is equivalent, as Giuzeppe Mazzini put it, to "the death of the soul. [As if] father, mother, lover and country, all but the breath of life are taken from you; so that you may wander like Cain throughout the universe, and the iron of despair may enter your soul." (1) A farewell to the homeland can mean only one thing - the death of the people. [09/14/99]


1.Maurizio Viroli, For Love of Country.

2. Assocoated Press news, 9/8/99

3. Louis Rene Beres. Letter to Ehud Barak, Prime Minister of Israel. Internet posting 9/13/99.

4. The Jerusalem Post, April,7, 1998.


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




By Emanuel A. Winston

"Jewish Congregations Tightening Security for High Holy Days": NEW YORK TIMES, 9/6/99

Synagogues, day care centers, Jewish community centers where the elderly meet, feel threatened and rightfully so. Vicious shooters, arsonists and writers of swastikas and anti-Jewish slogans are once again emerging from the dark side - although, you think, this is America 1999. But, radical Islamic Fundamentalism is spreading across America, infecting our nation with its hate message that they imported from the Middle East. Black Muslims like Khalid Adbul Muhammed are telling their followers that Jews and Whites are their mortal enemies. Self-styled White Supremacists groups always prefaced the name of their sick movement with the word "Christian" and some with stylized symbols of the cross tell America that "it's the Jews, Black and often the Catholics who are contaminating our pure Aryan, White society." The aberrant, the sick and twisted are again telling themselves that, whatever is wrong in their lives is the fault of the Jews.

So, the Jews hunker down and circle the wagons as they think: Here we go again. Never again is happening again. For a brief moment in time there was grudging admiration for the Jews as the Israelis fought the entire Arab world and won against overwhelming odds. American Jews took pride from seeing our Jews in tanks and jet planes. We were suddenly winners and our pride surged.

But, then came the Jewish Leftist apologists, begging forgiveness for winning 6 wars of Arab aggression intended to annihilate the Jewish nation. Slowly the admiration and often grudging respect, even felt by our enemies, began to fade and the old contempt erupted again. Here they saw the victors, pleading for pity and cessation of terror as if they were the vanquished. "We'll give you our precious land, water, holy sites, only don't bomb us." So, as forecast, the terror increased in direct proportion to the Jews weakness in surrendering what they had won. Pleading for peace gave the perception of Jewish weakness displayed by the Jewish apologists which only earned the scorn of their Arab adversaries and the so-called Free World.

American Jews once again began to shrink back into that learned style of avoidance and fear. The proud fighting spirit borrowed from the fighting Jews of Israel faded as the Israeli spirit faded into what is now called post-Zionism or the apologetic era. Israeli politicians lost in negotiations what thousands of young, heroic soldiers had died for in six bloody wars.

So the Muslim cells and organizations in America grew bolder, demanding American corporations bow to their demands. Burger King bowed to a theatrically threatened Arab boycott. Now Disney World must submit their plans for a Jerusalem exhibit to various Arab organizations for their approval.

Even as these organizations grew in power and militancy, the American government, the U.S. corporations and certainly most Jewish organizations averted their eyes, hoping it will all go away. This was a small practice exercise in advance of future operations which promised to be far larger and far more destructive. We are seeing the beginnings of another Kristallnacht except this time the brown shirt thugs are wearing keffiyahs while others claiming similar goals march behind the cross of White or Black Supremacy.

Meanwhile, the Jews are putting up night lights, installing alarms, and hiring guards as fires are burning down their synagogues and children are being shot under the clarion call such as announced by Buford Furrow: "This is a wake-up call to kill Jews."

The Jews of America strived to fit in and look like everyone else. They fought for other causes, races and religions, thinking that absence of self-interest would bring them approval and a certain gratefulness. They received neither and still they refuse to fight back when attacked.

If you don't believe that the ongoing appeasement process by Israel isn't causing this outburst of anti-Jewish hatred by Muslims, blacks and white supremacists, you are blinding yourselves to the facts our history teaches us. And, as George Santayana said: "If you don't learn the lessons of history, you are doomed to repeat them."

I suppose we Jews could have eventually grown out of our 2000 year training syndrome of fear under the teachings of an anti-Semitic world had not Israel allowed the same virus of fear to once again become epidemic. Each step down brought more contempt, more aggression, and terror. Even as the number of our dead mounted, we heard such leaders as Rabin tells us that "they were volunteers for peace". After each terrorist bombing we heard Peres, Netanyahu, Barak threaten that, "If you do that again, we will not talk to you." The failed "peace process" became a holy idol and the apologists worshiped before this false and pagan shrine. As each agreement was broken, the weakened Israeli leaders boldly stated that this latest abrogation will threaten the "holy peace process" but they did nothing to punish the perpetrators and so we spiraled down ... ever downwards.

I fear that we shall soon lose the Jewish State with the ripples already being felt in America as the Muslims, white and black supremacists feel free to openly attack American Jews on any day and in any place.

I will close with a quote from the (non-Jewish) longshoreman philosopher and author of at least 10 books, Eric Hoffer wrote in 1968: "I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel, so will go it with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us. Israel must live!" [Editor's Note: I met Hoffer, author of THE TRUE BELIEVER, in New Orleans in 1967 at a ZOA convention where he was the guest speaker. After his very passionate speech I followed him into the hotel bar and had a few beers with him. Well into the third beer, his turned almost red and he yelled at me: "I meant what I said at the meeting. It will happen here, another Holocaust, if Israel does not survive."


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




By Boris Shusteff

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that Ehud Barak has found an absolutely unorthodox way to fight Arab animosity towards the Jews. The Israeli government has decided to free 350 imprisoned Arab terrorists and rely on their word that they will not target the Jews anymore. Do not get the wrong idea. Some murderers of the Jews, for now, will remain in prison. Only the ones who have not spilled enough Jewish blood will be rewarded. Apparently it does not matter that they wanted to kill the Jews - as long as their victims are still alive, they can be freed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

4. AFP news service, 9/1/99

5. Reiters news service 8/20/99

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


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



Reprinted from The Jerusalem Post on 22 September 1999


By Aaron Lerner

The handling of the Jonathan Pollard case since his arrest in Washington on November 21, 1985, has tested the commitment of the Jewish state to those who risk themselves as agents in its service as well as American-Israeli relations.

The severity of Pollard's sentence as well as the refusal of President Clinton to respond to dramatic developments or to honor his end of a Pollard trade, along with the continuous smear campaign against Pollard by US intelligence organizations all point to a very disturbing element in American-Israeli relations.

Israel's handling of the Pollard affair - providing America the evidence to indict him but not to clear him of the most damaging claims; avoiding responsibility for Pollard (claiming it was a rogue operation until compelled by the High Court of Justice to acknowledge he was an Israeli agent); and now taking the preposterous stand that the fate of an Israeli agent is an internal American affair - raises questions as to the inconsistency of Israel's efforts on behalf of those in its service who require rescue.

In complete disregard of a plea agreement to the contrary, Pollard was sentenced to life imprisonment for passing classified information to Israel (he was never charged with harming the US, its agents or compromising America's codes). At the time of Pollard's sentencing, American intelligence was reeling from the realization that their operations were seriously compromised by a mole. And while he was not actually charged with that crime, efforts to pin this crisis on Pollard by then-secretary of defense Caspar Weinberger, in a classified memorandum to the sentencing judge, cast his fate.

Yet when Russia's master mole in the CIA, Aldrich Ames (who apparently was in charge of the original damage report on Pollard's activities!), was finally uncovered, Pollard's sentence of life without parole was not adjusted nor did the American intelligence community tone down its campaign against him.

America's attitude towards Israel's spy goes beyond vindictive. Last year President Clinton agreed to include Pollard's release as a companion to the Wye package. Hours before the signing ceremony, with Israel already publicly locked into painful concessions, Clinton explained to the prime minister that he was not able to honor his pledge due to internal opposition. A curious claim from a man who had no qualms about announcing plans to release Puerto Rican FALN terrorists despite similar objections from within his government.

When Pollard was arrested, Israel immediately provided the US with the key evidence against him: copies of American intelligence documents bearing his fingerprints. Yet to this day, Israel refuses to produce the master list of documents received from Pollard. That this exhaustive list does not include documents with the names of agents, codes or other cryptographic information would serve to lay to rest the spurious claims against Pollard.

The document list would also provide an important opportunity for Israeli intelligence and its American counterparts to come to grips with a problem that gnaws at Israeli-American relations: the US withholding of vital security information Israel was entitled to receive under a 1983 memorandum of understanding.

While Pollard was not on the prime minister's plane back from Washington after the Wye signing, there was a fallback understanding that he would be freed along with Israel's release of Palestinian security prisoners. This arrangement was derailed when Prime Minister Ehud Barak claimed in Washington that Pollard is "an internal American problem, best left for American internal deliberation."

Were the Mossad agents caught in the foiled Masha'al assassination "an internal Jordanian problem?" Did president Eisenhower regard Gary Powers' fate an "internal Soviet problem?"

Yet Barak claims that Israel is working "behind the scenes" for Pollard's release. But if this were truly the case, Barak's people would be in close contact with Pollard (as Netanyahu's were before Wye) to insure that Pollard does nothing that might frustrate Barak's efforts. Esther, Pollard's wife, tells me they have heard absolutely nothing from the Barak government.

Once again Jonathan Pollard finds himself with no alternative than to petition the High Court of Justice to order the government of Israel to do what it should be doing as a matter of course - including the supply of the master list. Pollard asked for an emergency hearing in light of his deteriorating health and the court has given the government until October 10 to respond.

One can only hope that the Barak government will respond with action rather than arguments. Otherwise the window of opportunity provided by Hillary Clinton's candidacy for senator in New York may be lost.


Dr. Aaron Lerner is the Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)




By Daniel Pipes

What do American Jews think about Israel's negotiations with the Palestinians? A late September survey of 800 self-identified Jewish voters from around the United States, carried out by John McLaughlin and Associates, produced interesting results with important implications.

By an almost 3-to-1 margin (60 to 22 percent, with an accuracy of ± 3.5% at a 95% confidence interval), American Jews say that Israel should not sign a treaty with the Palestinians if this requires an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. Then, given a choice - whether the Arab world sincerely accepts Israel's right to exist, or whether it seeks the eventual destruction of Israel - the respondents by a similar 3-to-1 margin (60 to 19%) find that the Arabs still want to eliminate Israel. After a quarter-century of Israel turning land over to the Arabs, this is a very significant number, one resulting from a deep-seated Arab reluctance to accept Israel's permanence.

By an overwhelming 6-to-1 margin (76 to 13%), American Jews say that President Clinton's promise of $900 million in aid to the Palestinian Authority over five years should be paid only if the PA removes all antisemitic and anti-Israel statements from its school books. An even larger 8- to-1 margin (78 to 10%) wants to hold back on the money until Yasser Arafat fulfills his Oslo obligations to outlaw and disarm terrorist groups and to extradite terrorists to Israel.

In contrast to these decisive stands, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem has less backing. Asked whether they agree with the Congressional legislation to move the embassy (in recognition of Israel's claim that Jerusalem is its capital) or with President Clinton's opposition to the legislation (on the grounds that the city's status should be negotiated between Israel and the Palestinians), the respondents by a nearly 2-to-1 margin (57 to 30%) agree with Congress. The sample also strongly endorses the prime ministry of Ehud Barak: asked if he is headed in the right direction or is off track, it approved of him by an 8-to-1 margin (63 to 8%).

Finally, the poll finds that American Jews are not much focused on Israel. In a question asking about the issues that most concern them, an overwhelming 87% pointed to domestic issues and only 5% to foreign policy ones. This helps explain the not very high level of interest about Israel and the Middle East, with 34% saying they read a "great deal" on these subjects and 58% saying "only somewhat" about them.

This profusion of opinions has four major implications. First, it confirms polling done by the American Jewish Committee since 1993 that points to a toughening of attitudes on the question of the Palestinians. As Yale Zussman concluded in his Middle East Quarterly study of six years of AJC polling, "American Jewry is increasingly wary of a negotiation process that it worries may be a trap for Israel." Second, there is a seeming contradiction between the overwhelming support for Barak himself and for positions that he does not endorse (such as withholding money to the PA). This suggests that while American Jews have high regard for the Israeli prime minister, they are generally not aware of the steps he is taking quite contrary to their own views - a conclusion supported by the fact that only one third of them say they are well-informed about Israel.

Third, these results raise questions about an Israel Policy Forum poll commissioned in July 1999 that found American Jews "supporting] the Israeli-Palestinian peace process" by a 11-to-1 margin (88 to 8%). Well, yes, they do strongly support in principle the idea of Israel finding a way to end Palestinian hostilities against it, but our survey shows they also have strong ideas about how this should be done - and these ideas are much more skeptical than those promoted by the current Israeli leadership. Fourth, American Jews appear to be less engaged with Israel. Yes, a committed minority continues to follow the news intensely, travel to Israel, lobby Congress, and give money, but growing numbers of American Jews have other things on their minds.

For Israel, this has the utmost importance, given the vital role American Jews have had in the formulation of US policy toward the Middle East. This decline in interest has particular importance at a time when - as shown by the recent Burger King, Sprint, and Disney episodes - Arab and Moslem groups in the United States are finding their voice.

(c) Jerusalem Post 1999


Daniel Pipes is director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum.