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"




11 THINGS I AM SICK AND TIRED OF....An editorial...Bernard J. Shapiro
TEN REASONS TO BE OPTIMISTIC ABOUT ISRAEL'S FUTURE...An editorial.......Avi Davis and Bennett Zimmerman

NO WAY TO WIN A WAR....Moshe Arens
DAVID AND GOLIATH....Louis Rene Beres
EUROPE AND ISRAEL....Yuval Steinitz
WHO WANTS PEACE?....Stewart Weiss

THE BOOJOOS....Steven Plaut



THE MACCABEAN ONLINE [ISSN 1087-9404] Edited by Bernard J. Shapiro,
P. O. Box 35661, Houston, TX 77235-5661, Phone/Fax: 713-723-6016

E-Mail: ** URL:
Copyright 2001 Bernard J. Shapiro

* Contributions are fully tax deductible (501 (c) 3)*





By Bernard J. Shapiro

There are a few things that make my blood boil. Here is a list and the explanations:

1. I am sick and tired of the slowly escalating actions of the IDF to fight terrorism.

The slow escalation allows PA terrorism to become immune to Israel's strategy. It allows them to smuggle more guns, mortars, anti-aircraft missiles into PA territory. Lately a 60mm heavy machine gun was able to strike Gilo from Bethleham. So much for the cease fire from Beit Jalla. This is much the same as bacterial infections. If the anti-biotic is not strong enough to eliminate it, then the disease will return in a much more virulent form.

2. I am sick and tired of the Israeli government's fear of collateral damage to the enemy.

The Arabs have no such qualms. In fact they target civilians in bestial suicide bombs. PA weapons factories, weapons storage depots and bomb making facilities should be blasted off the face of earth even if it causes civilian casualties. Remember that "he who is merciful to the cruel, will end up being cruel to the merciful."

3. I am sick and tired of Israeli PM Sharon's policy of restraint.

The adjustment to accepting the killing of Jews has become is an abomination. A Jew here or there murdered daily, pretty soon adds up to a lot. I remember when the Al Aska terror on Israel began last September, The IDF general staff re-opened a file called "Operation Thorns" which could re-take the PA areas. They estimated Israeli dead at 300.

Since then there have been almost 165 Jews killed which is more than half of estimated combat deaths with no apparent consequence to Arafat's ability to inflict casualties on Israel. There is one extremely important variable. The PA has used the last year to build bunkers, firing positions, smuggle in heavy weapons and organize an army of 80,000. The defeat of PA now would certainly be more costly. And it will grow with time. There is a very short window of time to defeat the PA terrorists with minimal losses. Many political analysts and military experts agree that Israel must take decisive action now.

4. I am sick and tired of the US State Department urging Israel to show "restraint."

Despite the fact that the CIA knows exactly WHO (PA) is attacking WHOM (Israel) the State Department continues call for a stop to the "cycle of violence." Whenever Israel is attacked viciously, there is rush to tell Israel "to turn the other cheek".

5. I am sick and tired of Shimon Peres trying to arrange another meeting with Arafat.

He claims to be seeking a cease fire and a return to negotiations. Le me be honest with you. I don't want negotiations with Arafat, I want to crush him and his terrorist gang. Arafat has violated all the provisions of Oslo (which I opposed strongly as a pandora's box). He broke 69 cease fire agreements since 1993 and before that broke hundreds of agreements with Jordan, the UN, the Arab nations and Lebanon. Arafat broke every provision of the Oslo agreement including anti-Semitic incitement against Israel. I wrote in a press release published 11 days before Oslo was I signed on the White House lawn:

Jewish Herald-Voice (Houston) September 2, 1993

Freeman Center says rush to embrace PLO is foolish and ultimately dangerous

'...nothing more than an elaborate trap for Israel'

Asserting that the rush to embrace the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) is both foolish and ultimately dangerous, the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies has declared: "The pro-Israel community should react with extreme caution to the moves in Jerusalem to recognize the PLO."

According to the Freeman Center, the PLO instituted a reign of terror, rape and murder locally as well as attacks on Israel in the two Arab countries where it gained a kind of 'self rule.'"

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

6. I am sick and tired of the continued UN presence within the borders of Israel.

I's time to remove them and assert Israel's sovereignty. Israel should work to have the world withdraw its recognition of Arab refugee camps and refugees. It should condemn the hypocritical treatment of the Arab countries for exploiting these people for political purposes. Israel should declare in a strong voice that there are NO refugees. That status is not permanent and obviously should not apply to people living in the same place for 53 years.

7. I am sick and tired of the international boycott of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Israel should unilaterally announce to the nations of the world that all embassies MUST be in Jerusalem. Consulates may be in Tel Aviv or any place they want. Israel no longer permit its eternal capital to be disrespected.

8. I am sick and tired that under both Labor and Likud governments, Arutz Sheva, Israel National Radio has not been fully legalized.

Whatever happened to freedom of speech found Arutz 7 should not only be allowed establish facilities on land but also a television channel. I am also sick and tired of government television being controlled by the extreme left that doesn't represent the Israeli public. A lot of the time they represent the Arabs and not Israel's.

9. I am sick and tired of Israel's trying to be Mister Nice Guy to a hypocritical world.

Europeans are increasingly comparing Israel to the Nazis. Over half of all the resolutions of the UN since its founding have directed against Israel. At the recent conference on how to condemn Israel in Durban, South Africa, UN head Kofi Anan condemned Israel for existing. The Arab world openly plots the destruction of Israel.

10. I am sick and tired of Israel tolerating Moslem restrictions and desecrations on the Temple Mount

The excuse that it would cause violence to exercise our rights there is absurd. Israel has the capability to enforce security. Virtually everything Israel wants do in the Land of Israel displeases the Arabs, who want us to leave. Jews should be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount and the destruction of Jewish antiquities by the Moslem waqf needs to be stopped immediately.

11. I am sick and tired of PA demonstrations of the fierceness of their terrorists and how they will destroy Israel.

I believe that we will defeat our current adversaries. We will succeed and survive from three sources of our strength: Love of Tanach (Torah), Love of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel, and Love of Am Yisrael (People of Israel).......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 the stench of burning flesh from the ovens of Auschwitz embedded deep in their psyches, the young Israeli soldiers fight with the firm conviction that there is still no alternative "ein brera."

To that I would like add something the American soldiers used to say during the heaviest fighting in Viet Nam. This is dedicated (slightly revised) to the brave IDF soldiers who face the enemy every day: Yeah though I walk through the Valley of Death, I will fear no evil because the Almighty fights with me for the Restoration of Zion and for love of HIS people, Israel.


Bernard J. Shapiro is the Executive Director of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies and editor of its monthly Internet magazine, THE MACCABEAN ONLINE.




By Avi Davis and Bennett Zimmerman

In the midst of suicide bombings that kill innocent citizens and sniper fire that takes the lives of pregnant mothers, it is difficult indeed to have hopeful thoughts. Yet despite the wave of pessimism that has washed over the country in recent months, there are nevertheless some very good reasons to believe that the State of Israel has a strong future, filled with promise. We would like to present a few of those reasons here.

1. The Intifada will terminate of its own accord.

History shows that Arab civil rebellions tend to exhaust themselves when the gains achieved from continued violence are no longer apparent. Both the Arab rebellion of 1936-39 and the first Intifada of 1987 –1992 degenerated into bitter blood feuds and honor killings. In fact, in both prior instances, far more Arabs died by Arab hand than by the prevailing government at the time – whether British or Israeli. Historically misled, exploited and extorted by successive regimes, the Palestinians have suffered devastation brought upon them by their own leaders. The first signs of cracking in the Palestinian veneer are now in evidence and internal collapse may be fast approaching.

2. Israel still holds Jerusalem and the majority of its territorial assets, intact.

With the final recognition that peace, at the level contemplated by the authors of the Oslo Accords, is not attainable, Israel still holds almost all its negotiating assets in hand. As great as the threat posed by terrorist groups with sanctuary inside Israeli borders, it must be remembered that Israel holds the majority of the territories including all borders and major access routes throughout the land. Therefore, the country does not face an existential threat from the PA and is in a position to eliminate the PA, if hostilities escalate. While no one can be happy with either the level of current hostilities, or the prospect of a war, Israelis should celebrate the fact that they arrived before any further withdrawals occurred, or any Israeli community was dismantled.

3. Understanding that history has not ended.

When Ariel Sharon took office he made a statement that the War of Independence had not yet ended and that Israel, despite its peace treaties was still in a struggle for its survival. This dose of realism, injected into a society that had become drunk on the vision of a New Middle East, was brought home by Arafat's murderous Intifada. And although very painful, it has given Israelis a sense that the ordeals of the past cannot be seen in isolation and that life must continue with a new reality. As difficult as this is to bear, its realization makes us stronger as a people and gives us strength to face the future with stoicism.

4. Israel has restored its unity.

Yasser Arafat and his mini-war have united Israelis in a way the Palestinian leader could not have imagined possible. Those who promoted Arafat as a peace partner are progressively being rendered irrelevant as the Palestinians' leader's true nature and intentions have been revealed. In this way, a national unity government, reflecting a broad consensus will continue in power until the danger to Israelis is removed. In short, Israel is standing up, together, to face its moment of truth. And the nation of Israel will come out of this period stronger, and better, for it.

5. A recognition that the other side, the P.A., is not invincible, either.

On the ground, 150,000 Palestinians have left the land for Jordan and beyond. Yasser Arafat can't leave Gaza for two days without riots and challenge to his authority. While the press always tips its hat to the supposed underdog, the Palestinian leaders are no closer to gathering international observers or achieving any concrete goal from months of conflict. Instead, they have brought death and devastation to their people. Reports from villagers all over the territories report disaffection with Arafat and an equal sense of despair. Sooner or later they will realize that their only path to a viable existence runs directly through the office of the Prime Minister of Israel.

6. Our fate is in our hands.

Whoever predicts that the future has been predetermined by current demographic trends or the concessions already made at Camp David – is wrong. In 1987, during the first Intifada, who could have imagined that over one million immigrants would arrive from the former Soviet Union in a decade's time. Continued economic growth is likely to attract a stream of immigrants dedicated to Israel. Nor can we even predict the demographic shifts among our Arab neighbors. Already, a record number of Arabs in eastern Jerusalem are choosing to apply for Israeli citizenship, rather than risk entering the domain of the corrupt P.A. The corrupt administration that is the P.A. will have a tough time holding its own people loyal to a constant state of conflict and poverty.

7. The rescue of Zionism itself.

Rather than become a dirty word or a movement whose time has passed, we instead see a new embrace of the movement that has liberated the Jewish people. Israeli schools are once again alive with texts that celebrate and educate the nation's youth of Israeli remarkable history and the beauty of Israeli culture. There are other phenomena as well: the immense support enjoyed by the national unity government headed by Ariel Sharon; a dramatic lessening of religious, political, and ethnic tensions: the impressive endurance in the face of frequent suicide attacks, ceremonies, reserve soldiers demanding to be recruited, and even an attacks by stalwart founding fathers of the left wing academic establishment, such as professor Shlomo Avinery against Ha'aretz for being " post-Zionist."

8. We are all settlers.

Israelis living within the Green Line have learned that they can no longer make such stark distinctions between themselves and those living on the other side of it. When a bus traveling in the heart of Tel Aviv is as much a target as a minivan taking a family home from wedding in the territories, the borders - both physical and ideological have become blurred . In the meantime ,the new confrontation line communities have not weakened and new families have signed up to move in and strengthen those communities. No matter which side of the green line they inhabit, their painful struggles have gained respect and support from those who once vilified them.

9. Diaspora Jewry has rediscovered the value of a strong Israel.

For the first time in this generation, many Jewish communities are finding that their own position is challenged when Israel is under attack. Jewish communities in France, Argentina, South Africa, and even some in the USA, face new outbreaks of anti-Semitism. There is a new realization that a world which respects Israel, will also respect the Jewish people. Over the past decade Diaspora communities could choose whether to involve Israel in their own communal identity. Today, it is clear that the health of each community is tied to the fate of Israel. While many might have tried, there is no Jewish community in the world that sleeps easily while Israel is under attack.

10. The Israeli economy is strong.

Israel has absorbed multiple shocks at once: the uprising, the crisis in tourism, construction slowdown, a worldwide economic recession and a once-in-a-generation hi-tech meltdown. Yet this was not enough to destroy Israel's fundamentally strong economy. Economic indicators reflect the possibility of economic stability in the private sector this year. Exports from defense industries have never been greater, the currency has held its own, and long delayed infrastructure projects are issued out for tender. Israel has its own successful multi-national companies that have maintained both their leadership and their profitability. With the recovery in the world economy, Israel will also prosper.

Although Israel is still in the throes of a terrible confrontation and struggle, it should be recognized that Yasser Arafat began his war against the Jewish state because he sensed moral collapse. But in doing so he unlocked within the Jewish people their greatest asset and its most formidable weapon – its hope. Hope is a commodity on which Jews have survived for millennia. It is the title of the national anthem. No one should believe that we do not have very good reasons for it today.


Avi Davis is a senior editorial columnist for and a senior fellow at the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies.
Bennett Zimmerman is the Managing General Partner of the Israel Emerging Growth Fund.




By Aaron Lerner

The following data appears in a pie chart on the IDF website:

7368 Total terrorist attacks: in the West Bank and Gaza Strip:

4322 Shootings at military installations

1041 Shootings at vehicles

679 Shootings at towns and villages

432 Grenades

291 Bombs detonated

262 Mortar bombs

184 Anti Tank missiles

126 Bombs found

22 Stabbings/Assaults

9 Hit and run

[does not include stones and fire bombs]

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director
IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-5480092




By Boris Shusteff

Today, when the overheated boiler of the Arab-Israeli "peace process" is ready to explode and transform the slow war of attrition into a full scale regional war, suggestions about how to resolve the conflict are in abundance. Every major newspaper or influential columnist feels that it is their duty to come up with a recipe. The only problem is that all of them are trying to square a circle, providing solutions based on incorrect assumptions, and unable to re-evaluate the axioms of the conflict which they consider to be cast in stone. The solution that everybody sees always has the same general form: the Palestinian Arab terror miraculously subsides, Israel comes to an agreement with the Palestinian Authority, a second Palestinian state is created in the land acquired by Israel in 1967, and Israel builds high fences and lives in this self-imposed ghetto.

This common misconception is based on a patronizing approach to the problem. The world community treats Israel and the Palestinian Arabs like three-year-old children in kindergarten. Nobody truly pays any attention to their desires, assuming that the "grownups" know better what the "kids" want and must have in order to be happy. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the assumption is that the Palestinian Arabs will be appeased with a sovereign state that will occupy approximately 6% of mandated Palestine - the territory of Judea, Samaria and Gaza (Yesha), which came under Israel's control in 1967, after the Six-Day War.

The world community never considers whether the Arab world and the Palestinian Arabs will truly be satisfied with this arrangement. The tendency is not to ask this sort of question, as well as not to think about how to resolve the eternal question of Jerusalem's sovereignty and the fate of the so-called "Palestinian refugees." It is assumed that these issues will somehow be resolved to mutual Arab and Jewish satisfaction. The Israeli architects of the Oslo agreements originally also had in mind a simple transfer of the lands of Yesha to the Arabs, believing that this transaction would solve all Israeli problems.

Reality, however, is different. On August 17 Ali Shatrein, a member of the Islamic Jihad, said in an interview with the France Press Agency that "there was no Israel before 1948. She was created in 5 minutes. Now in her place we have to establish a Palestinian state. It is a job for several generations." To disregard this Arab viewpoint, dismissing it as "extremist" or "marginal," is completely wrong. On the contrary, this is the absolutely predominant view of the Arab world. The overwhelming majority of Arabs with their mother's milk learn of an abhorrent Jewish state, artificially created in the heart of the Arab world by the West.

Shimon Peres, Yossi Beilin, and Shlomo Ben-Ami, along with other Israeli "peace-dreamers" and the majority of the liberals in the western world are unable to understand why a year ago Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak's generous offer for the creation of a Palestinian state on 95% of Yesha. Arafat's apologists urgently invented a theory that the Israeli offers where not good enough for the Arabs. Shimon Peres recently stated that Arafat simply made a mistake, and if he is given another chance he will definitely accept all that Israel gives him. As a matter of fact, Peres is right. Arafat will accept everything given to him, provided that the clause calling for "the end of the conflict" is not included in the agreement.

If the world community really wants to help resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict it must think outside the box. The creation of a Palestinian state on the lands of Yesha will not end the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. It will simply bring another piece of land under Arab control. For the Arabs the Jews will remain "occupiers." Let us get into Arab shoes and assume for the sake of argument that Yesha is transformed into a Palestinian state. For the Arabs this event will mean only one thing - since they were able to retrieve a little land from the Jews they will be able to get even more. A perfect example of this attitude, which only serves to prove the point, is Hizballah's demand for the Shebaa farms after Israel's retreat from Lebanon.

Why in the world should the Arabs take a different approach if they consider the whole of Palestine to be their land? Will America voluntarily agree to give California or Texas to anybody? Maybe France will abandon the French Riviera to Italy? How about Germany giving a piece of its land to Poland? It is extremely doubtful, even if the United Nations decided this was necessary for world peace, that these arrangements would ever take place. So why then this paternalistic approach to the Palestinian Arabs? Or maybe it is assumed that since they have nothing they will be satiated with something? This is definitely wishful thinking. It is more than nave to think that the Arabs will stop, even if a Palestinian Arab state is established in Yesha, since they see Israel as "a knife in the heart of the Arab land." The formation of such a state will only exacerbate the problem, creating the impression among the Arabs that the Jews are losing their grip on the land.

Let us now look at the situation from the Jewish perspective. The world's patronizing toward the Jews is even more obvious. For two millennia the Jews viewed Eretz Yisrael as their homeland and dreamt of a return to Zion. Yet, throughout the twentieth century, time and again, the world community condescendingly told the Jews exactly what they were allowed to have. First they were promised the whole of mandated Palestine, then they were permitted to settle only on 22% of the mandated land, then their resettlement was curtailed by the White paper, then they were offered 4% of Palestine, then it was suggested that a Jewish state be established in 11% of Palestine. Finally, in 1948, the Jews ended up having a tiny state on 17% of mandated Palestine along with the unending enmity of their neighbors, which on five occasions has boiled over into full-scale war. Even during each of these defensive wars the Jews were forbidden by the superpowers to achieve true victory over their enemies.

Today, the world community continues to patronizingly tell Israel what is best for her, assuming that the Jews will be overjoyed at a solution in which their already minuscule country will be pared away to create yet another state bent on her destruction. This is, of course, absurd, since no country in the world would ever allow such a situation to take place - why should the Jewish state be any different?

Perhaps the world's attitude comes from the inaccurate belief that Israel came into being thanks to the efforts of the international community, as represented by the United Nations. This is purely a misconception, since Israel proclaimed her own independence after all efforts by the UN ended in failure (each of its proposals shrinking the size of Jewish-state-to-be). Indeed, let's remember that the United Nations was established in order to preserve peace in the world and not to create sovereign countries. There is nothing in the UN Charter that gives it the role of a midwife. Israel exists not because of the UN's diligence, but in spite of its anti-Semitic policies.

The world community and the UN cannot act like a "benevolent" parent. The only constructive approach to this conflict must take into account the TRUE positions of both sides and their inherent incompatibility that is at the very root of the conflict, instead of treating them like misbehaving, capriciously squabbling children, who must be taught to share their toys.

Thus, the most important fact today is that a sovereign Jewish state with more than six million citizens exists in a tiny part of mandated Palestine. It is a reality that nobody in the world has a right to challenge. It is this reality that must define any approach to a solution of the conflict.

The surrounding Arab countries detest Israel and want to destroy her. They have failed thus far only because of the military might of the Jewish state and because the God of Israel watches over it. The logic of the situation dictates only one approach - the increase of the military and economic might of Israel. The stronger Israel is, the fewer hopes her enemies will have of destroying her, and the less they will be tempted to go to a full-fledged war against her.

The Talmud tells a story about two men who are crossing a desert. One of them has a small container with water enough for only one person to survive. Another man has no water whatsoever. The one with the water has a dilemma. What shall he do? Shall he share the water with the other man, in which case they will both die from dehydration, or shall he drink it by himself and thus make it through the desert? Our sages tell us that in this cruel situation the one with the water has an obligation to save his own life. They say that the one with the water should likewise not give all of it to the other man in order to save him and forfeit his own life. Since both their lives are precious and equal it is not up to the first man to decide that his own life is less important.

Yesha is the small container of water that can save Israel. It can give her sufficient strategic depth and defensible borders. It must become an inseparable part of Israel. However, our situation is much better than the one in the Talmud parable. The Palestinian Arabs are not destined to perish if they do not get the lands of Yesha. If the world community thinks that the Palestinian Arabs need another state in addition to Jordan they can make it happen at the expense of the Arabs. If it is possible to create a Jewish state in the midst of Arab hatred it is definitely possible to create an Arab state for Arabs amongst other Arabs. A piece of the Sinai wold be a good location for it.

The world community must therefore think outside the box. The situation must be solved from an unorthodox (thus far) standpoint: an Arab state should not be created on the lands of Yesha. They should become an integral part of the Jewish state. The question is not whether the Jews or the Arabs "deserve" the lands of Yesha more. The point is that Israel cannot survive without them.

The Arabs do not want to admit that Israel is an established fact. It is the duty of the international community to force them to accept this fact. This must be done not through the empty words of international guarantees but by making Yesha an integral part of the Jewish state. By encouraging Israel to annex Yesha the world community will make it clear to the Arabs that the Jewish state is here to stay forever. Israel's survival must take precedence over the creation of another Palestinian state. It is immoral and unethical to place an existing state in mortal danger for the sake of a prospective state. There is only enough water to save one man.



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



Ha'aretz - August 21, 2001


By Moshe Arens

Slowly, too slowly, Israelis are beginning to realize that the Palestinians are waging war, a war that is now entering its 11th month. Some preferred to believe that it was only the Muslim fanatics among the Palestinians that were intent on killing Jews, or that the participation in the violence by Palestinians under the direct orders of Yasser Arafat was at most marginal. Or, that possibly Arafat was really our partner in fighting Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and eventually our partner in making peace between Jews and Palestinians.

But with every funeral of victims of Palestinian violence, there seem to be fewer Israelis who put any faith in Arafat and more who conclude that it is Arafat with the troops under his command aided by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad who is waging a war against Israel.

This war is daily claiming innocent Israeli victims, many of them women and children. There can be no disagreement that it is the Israeli government's foremost task to put an end to the killing.

And yet, Shimon Peres remains unconvinced. He still claims that negotiations with Arafat hold the key to ending the violence and threatens to leave the government if he is not permitted to meet with Arafat. He refuses to be confused by the facts - his mind is made up.

But for most Israelis, after a string of disappointments, Arafat has revealed himself for what he really is. His word is worthless and his credo is violence. He is not a partner for peace with Israel, and force must be used to counter his violent acts.

Seeking the support of the international community, the government has been restrained in using force against the Palestinian militias while the killing continued month after month. Even after the Dolphinarium massacre, the government decided that the best response was no response. As should have been expected, the sympathy that Israel enjoyed in the aftermath was short-lived.

It is in this context that the government's response to the next major act of Palestinian terror - the bombing of the Sbarro restaurant in Jerusalem that claimed 15 lives - should be judged. Advertised by government spokesmen as a brilliant move to impose a "political penalty" on Arafat, the takeover of Orient House seems to make little sense as a deterrent measure against further acts of terror. What is the connection between the outrage committed and the takeover of a building by the police in Jerusalem? Does anybody really believe that the takeover of Orient House will lead Arafat to call off his campaign of violence?

In any case, it was the activity pursued in Orient House that was illegal and not the building itself, and it is the people engaged in illegal activities there and in Abu Dis who should have been arrested and put on trial long ago. Using the massacre at the Sbarro restaurant as the trigger to attempt to put an end to Arafat's illegal activities in Jerusalem seems at the very least inappropriate and is in no way commensurate with the crime committed by the Hamas suicide bomber in Jerusalem.

There is no alternative to using the IDF to suppress Palestinian violence and terrorism. If, after the latest terrorist acts, there are still those in the international community who fail to see that the Israeli government at this juncture has no choice but to use force against the Palestinian militias and terrorist groups in defense of its citizens, no demonstrations of restraint by Israel are going to convince them. In any case, it is wrong to base Israel's strategy on reprisals for Palestinian acts of terror. It is not a matter of returning blow for blow. No reprisal for an individual act of terror is going to prevent the next atrocity. It is their ability to commit acts of violence and terror that has to be neutralized. Much more than symbolic acts like taking over Orient House will be needed to win this war.




By Emanuel A. Winston

Middle East Analyst & Commentator

Many speak of unity in Israel but most do not practice it. As the enemy bombs Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, YESHA each still stays separate - thinks separate - acts separate and each quietly thinks: "I am glad it happened there and not here." That's a natural, human reaction.

When a bomb goes off in Jerusalem or YESHA (Yehuda, Shomron and Gaza),Tel Avivians feel safe and glad it was not them. When there is a road side shooting a mortar attack in YESHA, those who live in Haifa are momentarily interested in the news but, YESHA is far away - that's 'their' problem.

When a bomb goes off in Haifa or Tel Aviv, those in YESHA usually do not go to Haifa and offer help and sympathy thinking: "We have enough of our own problems with terror."

Where does the "Better You Than Me" stop?

And where are the American and other Diaspora Jews during these eleven months of terror? They have NOT come to Israel - except for a few small solidarity missions. Tourism of American Jews is almost non-existent although many American Christian Zionists are still coming on their regular tours to Israel.

As for American Jews, they cannot grasp the fact that, should Israel fall, the anti-Jewish establishment will fall on them like starving wolves on a herd of lambs. Whether the White Supremacists, the Black Muslims, the Arab Islamists, the Ku Klux Klan, Louis Farrakhan's Fruits of Islam all will be emboldened to attack the Jewish establishment. Jews in the street will be the same as the Jews of Europe, standing there in shock as their world falls apart and they beg: "Why me?"

American Jews had better start asking ourselves: "Will we end up like our brethren from the last and lost generation?"

Granted, America isn't the sinkhole of anti-Semitism of Europe but, there are enough disturbed anti-Semites, black and white, who would love the opportunity to get even with the world, starting with the Jews. But, if you want Jews to do anything to defend themselves, even to save their lives, offer them 25 cups of coffee, talk a lot and, maybe, in several months they, maybe, just maybe they will start to listen ... but, don't count on it. I cannot help but wonder who started the rumor that Jews are clever.

So it goes among the Jews. Unless it is your relative or in your neighborhood, terror is always someone else's problem. We Jews have a problem of distancing ourselves from unpleasant things as long as it isn't we who are suffering.

Dear Jews, there is an old American saying: "Either you hang together or you hang alone." That translates to: "Either stay together united or die alone."

This is the time for the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon to really be a statesman and a leader. Call the people to meet from all points on Israel's compass. Pull them together as President John F. Kennedy once did when he said: "Do not ask what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." The people responded to a call to their better instincts.

Granted, there will always be the spoilers who will say we are not at war and we can appease our self-declared enemy. They tell us: all we need is for Arafat to give orders to "Halt all the killings" and we will give him everything he wants. Peres, Beilin and others are readying themselves for the next elections for Prime Minister. They have already started their meetings with 'hints' to Arafat's negotiators and promises to return to Taba status if they will vote for the Labor party. Oslo is supposed to rise from the grave like a troubled spirit who is waiting for a final burial.

Dear Jews, smell the air; extend your antennae for the dangers that are closing in. One cannot help but be reminded of the historian Josephus' portrayal of our history in his book, "War of the Jews", when the Jews battled each other while the Romans crept up to slit their throats and burn the Jewish Temple. Then there were the deniers when Hitler's SS were committing every atrocity and practically announcing that they were coming to kill all the Jews. We simply could not believe or grasp the fact that there were people who planned to extinguish the Jewish people. They came; they killed and we were surprised.

So it goes again - only this time, the name of the horror is Arafat.

Some Jews sense it; know it - but they cannot convince the others that the war for Israel did not end in 1948 - 1956 - 1967 - 1982 - 1991 - 1987-93 and September 2000 to August 2001.

But, know this: Israel is in a fight to the death with Islam. The choice of entering or not entering a religious war does not lie with the Jews. The Muslims want Israel ground into the dirt with not one Jew left alive. In Islam, there is no room for compromise. Islam is in a religious war with Jews first and Christians later. They say it: "First the Saturday people; then the Sunday people." The Muslims simply cannot be placated, soothed or bribed.

There is no more pretense of separate entities called the PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezb'Allah, PFLP, et al. They are all one fighting force under the authority of Yassir Arafat, dedicated to the total elimination of the Jewish State and her people. According to Clyde Haberman in the NEW YORK TIMES of August 13th : "So concerned is Mr. Arafat about his standing that he has invited the Hamas and Islamic Jihad to join him in a coalition - a unity government, he has called it, a term used as well by Israel."

This fighting force is fed by the ever-present confrontation states of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Sudan. Jordan will likely soon be taken over by the Palestinians and added to this list. This unifying of the Arab confrontation forces was always there but now it is confirmed publicly.

So, Dear Fellow Jews: Either you gather together in one cohesive force or you will die in bits and pieces - as has been happening too graphically.

I know that the various Israeli governments have always been more concerned with getting into power and holding onto that power than really unifying the nation. There is always a first time although I hear no call from Sharon - yet - to rally around the flag. Arik, like all Prime Ministers before him has gathered around him an impenetrable political wall of advisors dedicated to keeping him in power. There is also a second wall who coalesced themselves out of those dedicated to the failed agreement called Oslo and a return to the debilitating and self-destructive pretense misnamed "The Peace Process".

Arik no longer listens to or consults with outside resources as he used to. Strangely, the outside resources have only love of country at heart, so their voice and advice is not tainted by self-serving politics. The little men who surround Sharon suck at the teat of power and will not allow anyone in - even if the Third Temple must fall.

If Sharon will not break out of the surrounding encirclement of petty little men, then the people must do it themselves. Start with a delegation from each of the cities, towns, villages. From Jerusalem and YESHA in the east to Tel Aviv, Netanya and Haifa in the west. From the Golan Heights in the north to Eilat in the south.

Convene and decide to assist each other. If the government of Arik Sharon and Shimon Peres cannot meet their obligations to unify the people and keep them safe, then by-pass them. If the Knesset continues to be a spoiler (on its months long summer vacation) and cannot truly represent the people, then by-pass them. Keep in mind that it is your families who are in jeopardy of being blown up. The government leaders are very well protected but it is your children and wives, husbands and fathers who are at risk as they go to school, to work, meet at a movie or restaurant.

Dear Chevra, you can "Hang Together or Hang Alone". Choose Now!



The Jerusalem Post - August 29, 2001


By Daniel Pipes

Should Israel build a fence and separate from the Palestinians? Everyone has their two cents to add to the debate; here's mine. Although a fence might decrease the volume of Palestinian violence, it would serve only as a tactic of mixed utility, not as a grand strategy ("separation") for defining Israel's borders and preserving its Jewish nature. Its limitations include:

* Ineffectiveness against terrorism. Just this past Saturday, two Palestinians cut through the electronic fencing surrounding Gush Katif. Terrorists can also go over a fence in gliders, around it in boats, or under it in tunnels. They can ignore it by firing mortars or rockets. They can pass through checkpoints using false identification papers. They can recruit Israeli Arabs or Western sympathizers.

* Uselessness against armies and missiles. Should Egypt's Third Army start rolling or Iraqi Scuds come flying, a fence will have no value.

* Losing control over the neighborhood. Once a wall goes up, Israel will effectively give up its influence over what happens in the Palestinian Authority, including the importation of weapons and foreign troops.

* Irrelevance to the problem of Israeli Arabs. One-sixth of Israel's population is Muslim; its allegiance to the state is diminishing as rapidly as its size is increasing. A fence obviously does not address the profound challenge this population presents to the Zionist enterprise.

* Sending the wrong signal. Hunkering down behind a fence that runs roughly along the 1967 borders reinforces the prevailing Arab view that Israel is on the run and will spur further violence.

In sum: A fence as a practical tool - maybe; as the basis for a policy of separation - no. That separation has suddenly become popular in Israel points to a larger problem: a too-eager search for the quick fix. This eagerness first appeared with the Oslo process in 1993 when Israel in effect told the Arabs, "Take territories and other benefits, but then leave us alone." This initiative failed because its unilateralism reflected Israeli - not Arab - wishes to end the conflict. Separation is very different in its specifics but similar in spirit ("Here are your borders, now leave us alone"). It too will fail, for Palestinians will certainly reject their assigned borders. Nor is this the only quick-fix idea being bruited about. Others include:

* Wait out Yasser Arafat and deal with his successors who, as the defense minister hopes, will "conduct better negotiations with Israel with pragmatism and more moderate Palestinian demands."

* Bring in outside forces to monitor the Palestinian implementation of agreements for, as former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami puts it, "the people who really need international protection are the Israelis."

* Invite NATO to "occupy the West Bank and Gaza and set up a NATO-run Palestinian state, a la Kosovo and Bosnia," opines Thomas Friedman of The New York Times.

These clever ideas are in reality disguised efforts to avoid reality. Ending the Arab-Israeli conflict requires a willingness by Arabs to live in comity with a Jewish state. This will be achieved not via a quick fix but by Arabs concluding that they can never destroy Israel. That in turn will happen only if Israel reverts to the deterrence policy that it famously deployed before 1993. Granted, that policy was slow, tedious, painful, passive, and frustrating, but the decades proved that it worked quite well. In contrast, ideas like unilateral concessions, a fence, waiting out Arafat, or looking to international troops seductively offer solutions "without any real tribulation," as Steven Plaut puts it. Sounds good, but the last eight years established how they harm Israelis and Arabs alike. Fortunately, it's not too late to adopt the right strategy. By reestablishing its reputation for toughness, Israel can simultaneously improve its security position and release the Arabs from the demons of their obsessive anti-Zionism - thereby permitting both parties to disengage from the other and tend to their own gardens. The implication for Western states is clear: Urge Israelis away from quick-fix solutions and implore them to return to the hard work of deterrence. This will tamp down Arab aggressiveness, thereby benefiting all parties.

(c) Jerusalem Post


Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings approximately once per week. To subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to

All articles are also available online at




By Jackie Mason

Why are we still negotiating peace with Arafat if he already admitted that he can't be responsible for the killing of Israelis on a daily basis? We have decided long ago that Arafat was the man in charge of our enemies in the Middle East, but almost every time an Israeli life is destroyed, the Hamas takes the credit and Arafat claims that he can't help it because the Israelis caused it by their "intransigence". Or he claims that he can t be responsible for everything the Hamas does, especially when they kill people. When he's told that he should do what the Israeli government does - arrest and prosecute any murderer immediately, Arafat announces that he's ready to negotiate in good faith, if only the Israelis would make an honest effort to control the violence and make peace. How long will the Israelis continue to victimize themselves with this phony charade? Why are we negotiating for peace with a man who admits that peace is not his line of business? For the purpose of conferences and negotiations he's the man in charge, but killing Israelis is "out of his control."

How hard is it to understand that after 20 years of these flip flops, we should not go to another negotiating table, we should announce a timetable. The timetable should be very simple: Arafat's time is up! The Israeli government has no moral right to allow more Israeli lives to be lost because of another fraudulent peace conference. How many more years will we be blinded by the holiness of the words "peace process"? If the man admits that he can't control the violence, are we supposed to accept the idea that "peace" is important, except when human life is involved? The fact is that Arafat has long ago abdicated his right to be a peace negotiator. It is only Israel's desperation for peace that made it adopt the Arafat fantasy.

Instead of negotiating with Arafat, we should search for our own sanity. If we could find it, we would not accept for one more day any "acceptable level of violence". We have no moral right to sacrifice one Israeli life by use of the shameful word "acceptable" and we have no moral right to care what the rest of the world will "accept" as an "acceptable" level of Israeli retaliation. World "opinion" will gladly continue to "accept" the sacrifice of Israeli lives for the "peace process". Would the American government accept the idea of a terrorist organization killing its citizens every day in the streets of this country for 20 years and still wait for world opinion to "accept" their right to do something about it?

When President Clinton decided that bin Laden was planning a terrorist attack, nobody knew if it was true or just a diversion from Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, he didn't ask for permission from world opinion. He didn't care or ask if it was an "acceptable level of violence" and hundreds of innocent Sudanese lives were sacrificed for reasons nobody knows or questions or even cares about. When an American president decides to even fantasize a threat to human life, he wantonly bombs countries with impunity, but when Israelis die every day we still wait for acceptance while we negotiate with America about the definition of an "acceptable level of violence."

Israel has the responsibility of any legally constituted government to protect the lives of its citizens and it would be derelict, sinful, and even criminal to sacrifice one Israeli life for the hypocrisy of Arafat or for American "acceptance".


Jackie Mason is a renowned comedian/commentator, and currently hosts the US-nationally syndicated "Jackie Mason Show".




By Louis Rene Beres

Much of the world's media continues to portray the Palestinians as David and Israel as Goliath. Apart from the painful biblical irony of this portrayal, and apart from Israel's incontestably greater vulnerability to murderous violence and complete annihilation, it is also all wrong for another reason. This portrayal is all wrong because of antecedent media misunderstandings of POWER.

Although power is powerful and weakness is weak, power can weaken itself and weakness can actually become a source of power. This curious assertion is strikingly pertinent to present-day Israel. Over the years, especially since arrival of the Oslo "Peace Process," Israel's power has sabotaged itself. As for the Palestinians, however, especially since Oslo, they have skillfully transformed their widely-assumed weakness into a useful source of power. Not suprisingly, the "weak" Palestinians have increasingly overpowered the "powerful" Israelis. Cast erroneously as David, they have usually been portrayed as the underdog, as the hapless victim of a dreadful Israeli Goliath, a twisted media portrayal that has caused much of the world to turn a blind eye to Arafat-sponsored Palestinian atrocities.

What does this all mean? At one level, it suggests that the ordinarily assumed bases of power in world affairs are greatly exaggerated and generally misunderstood. There is another irony here, as well as paradox. For almost two thousand years, Jews were stateless and defenseless - yet, in a number of important spheres of human activity, they were enormously important. Today, when there exists a Jewish State armed with nuclear weapons, the Jewish citizens of Israel are the most vulnerable Jews on the face of the Earth. No where else on this planet are Jews, as Jews, subject to prompt and purposeful extermination by a "weak" adversary.

For their part, the Palestinians, aptly fond of their alleged weakness relative to Israel, have displayed consequent power in their pre-state incarnation. Indeed, their "weakness" has been the prime source of this power. Reminding the world, again and again and again, how unfortunate and mistreated they have been - how they are David confronting the Israeli Goliath with stones - the Palestinians seemingly always manage to get their way. It is, to be sure, a way sought through indiscriminate burning, mutilation, disembowelment and bombing of men, women and young children (Fatah/Islamic Jihad/Hamas are always especially eager to target young Jewish children with axes, knives and explosives) but it is a way that is working nonetheless.

Soon the Palestinians will have a state. Will this state enlarge their power, or will it - like Israel - evolve into a condition of greater weakness? Perhaps, with a Jewish state existing next to a Palestinian state, there will develop - paradoxically - a mutuality of weakness. But even here, one side will be weaker than the other. Which will it be?

There are important lessons here for Israel. First, Israelis must finally begin to understand that inventories of missiles, planes, bombs and warships do not necessarily constitute lifesaving power. Rather, the ingredients of such power remain subtle and often intangible. Moreover, these ingredients include the presumed opposite of power, which is weakness. As for leadership, this has proven to be far less relevant for Israeli power than anyone could ever have imagined. For the forseeable future, any leader of Israel will likely be incapable of serious vision - of a vision that understands the paradox of power and weakness.

There are other lessons here for the Jewish State. One of the most obvious is the overwhelming weakness spawned by "post-Zionism." Retreating, daily, from the underlying religious and spiritual foundations of Judaism, Israel is being incrementally deprived of its most critical source of power. Eagerly seeking to become "normal," a good portion of Israel's anxious Jewish population - in contrast to Israel's Arabs - is STILL willing to blame itself for most of the problems in the region. Accepting the presumed neediness of the Palestinians, these Israeli Jews STILL fail to understand that they, themselves, have transformed power into weakness. Rejecting, shamelessly, their own history and their own uniqueness, these Jews have created, however unwittingly, a condition wherein power has become weakness and weakness has become power. Not surprisingly, the Jewish State has now been steadily refashioned by the world's media as Goliath, mortal biblical enemy of the Jews. The result has been to accelerate Israeli weakness. As for the Palestinians, their strange media reincarnation as David, King of the Jews, clearly enlarges Palestinian power.

If Israel is to endure, and it MUST endure - Israel must quickly understand the weakness of power and the power of weakness.


LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971) is Professor Department of Political Science at Purdue University and publishes widely on international relations and international law. His work on strategic matters is well-known in Israeli academic, military and intelligence circles. Professor Beres is Military and Strategic Affairs Analyst for THE JEWISH PRESS. Recently he was appointed academic advisor to the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies.




Jerusalem Post - (August 24)


By Yuval Steinitz

When we see European policies regarding Israel and the Arabs. A careful analysis of two common European positions - the support for the Palestinians' "right of return" and the objection to almost any Israeli defense operation - suggests that Israel's adversaries in the Middle East might find some hidden partners to their aim of destroying the Jewish state.

Let's start by analyzing the prevalent European support for the Palestinians' "right of return." Should we be so charitable as to assume that enlightened people in Europe indeed fail to understand, that the "right of return" formula means the extinction of Israel?

Of course, most advocates of this Palestinian demand would base their position on a purely moral ground. The fact that the refugee problem is a result of the refusal of all Arab nations, including the Palestinians, to accept the 1947 UN resolution on establishing both a Jewish and a Palestinian state, seems entirely irrelevant to their humanistic approach. Even the ensuing Arab offensive, which was explicitly aimed at destroying the Jewish state and killing its people, is not the issue. On the other hand, there were 800,000 Jews removed from the Arab countries in 48. What the Europeans forget, After the 5 Arab Armies attacked Israel in 48, the Arab League Secretary General, Azzam Pasha said, "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the massacres of the Crusades". Hajj Amin Al Husseini, the Palestinian leader stated, "I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!" The armies of lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Iraq invaded the tiny new country with the declared intent of destroying it. Its well known, it was the surrounding Arab countries, that Told the Arab population to leave there Holmes. The Arab Armies requested and ordered, that the Arab population leave there holmes to clear the Area, so that the Arab armies could kill the Jews. According to a research report by the Arab-sponsored Institute for Palestine Studies in Beirut, the majority of the Arab refugees in 1948 were not expelled and 70 percent left without seeing an Israeli soldier. Azzam Pasha regarding the 1 million Jews in the Arab countries. Assam in May 1948 said "There are over one million Jews in the Arab Lands. Their lives will be forfeit as well when we conquer the Jews.

The only thing that does appear to matter to some Europeans is that, according to their views, the rights of Arab-Palestinians who left their homeland 53 years ago are fundamentally superior to the rights of Jews who left their homeland almost 2,000 years ago.

Ignoring, for the sake of argument, the dubious validity of the above reasoning, since our aim is not to refute it but rather to explore its cultural background, two important aspects emerge. First, that by advocating the above, those Europeans, in fact, withdraw their historical support for the 1947 UN resolution on the establishment of the State of Israel.

Second, this humanistic approach reiterates one of the key principles of classical European anti-Semitism: that Jews are foreigners by nature, and hence, they are inferior vis-a-vis the natives, whether in Europe or in the Middle East.

The claim that many Europeans see the Jews of Israel as fundamentally inferior in their national rights to their Arab neighbors, exactly as they used to be inferior to their European neighbors in the past, is supported from yet another perspective. Most European leaders vehemently criticize Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, which means that they negate the Jewish right of return to central territories of their historical homeland.The main justification for their demand to freeze the settlements is that they might "jeopardize the forthcoming Palestinian state."

Yet many of the same leaders do support the Palestinian right of return to territories inside Israel, thus supporting the Palestinian demand that freezing Jewish settlement in the territories will be accompanied by the process of sending hundreds of thousands of Arab- Palestinians to settle inside the Jewish state.

Can they innocently ignore the presence of a symmetrical threat jeopardizing the Jewish state?

As a former activist in the Peace Now movement, I together with my friends, shouted the slogan "two states for two people!" in the name of justice and equality. In our innocence, we never imagined that, concomitant with the process of establishing the Palestinian national homeland, we would be asked by some of our former European allies to slaughter - in the name of the selfsame principles of justice and equality - the precious lamb of the Jewish national homeland.

Another issue that might shed some light on the real intentions of some European leaders toward Israel is their overwhelming objection to the right of Jews to protect themselves whenever required. Of course, it will be difficult to find a public figure in Europe who explicitly asks the Jews to sacrifice themselves without fighting back, as they did in the Holocaust. Yet, despite some general statements about Israel's natural right of defense - like any normal state - there is hardly an Israeli military operation that escapes their condemnation, while all the while refusing to take into account the brutal terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, or the bold violations of all arms-control commitments by the Palestinian Authority.

If Israeli soldiers return fire on Palestinian policemen who are shooting at a neighborhood of Jerusalem, our European friends express "sorrow" concerning "the violence on both sides." If Israel's F-16 airplanes target proper military installations as a response to the massacre of civilians in a shopping mall near Netanya, the European reaction is that it is "an improper excessive use of force, that might lead to unnecessary casualties."

When Israel shifts its policy to pinpointing and striking at prominent terrorists, in an effort to minimize the danger to the entire Palestinian population, they consider it "execution without trial." Even though, Israel is targeting known Palestinian terrorists who are responsible for massacring Jewish civilians on buses, shopping centers, disco's and Pizza Places. For instance, last Friday, 2 Islamic Jihad terrorists were caught in Israel. They were going to blow up another Israeli disco. Israel caught them, before they could kill any civilians. The 2 terrorists told them, the Islamic jihad leader Mahmud Ahmed Nursi Tualba ordered the massacre. This terrorist has sent 8 suicide bombers to Israeli civilian areas, that has killed 79 Israeli civilians. So according to the Europeans, Israel shouldn't target this mass murderer. Europe thinks, Israel should let him continue to send Palestinian terrorists to butcher Israeli civilians. When Israel imposes a closure on the territories to prevent suicide bombers from entering the country, they feel "uncomfortable" with "collective punishment."

In short, Israel enjoys the universal right of self-defense, but not in a concrete way. Here again, one can observe the double standards of many Europeans, who would hesitate to dispute the right of other nations to fight their enemies, and all the more so when their civilians are being purposely targeted. When it comes to Israel, however, it is only restraint that derives some consent. It would thus seem that the old habit of seeing helpless Jews persecuted by their adversaries might still play some role, albeit unconsciously, in some modern minds.

No doubt anti-Semitism is out of fashion nowadays in enlightened European circles. But if one can disguise a good old tradition under the cover of humanistic support for the Arabs in the Middle East, why not give it a try?

(c) Jerusalem Post


The Jerusalem Post August, 26 2001


By Jackie Mason

If somebody robbed your house twice a week, how many years would it take before you began to realize that he couldn't be trusted? We are confronting you with this question, but we are trying to aim it at the only man from whom we want an answer: Shimon Peres!

Psychologists endlessly argue about what motivates those seeking public office. Is it compassion for others or attention for himself? Nobody has given his country more attention than Shimon Peres, and nobody doubts that his struggle for peace always came first, but nobody could doubt that his struggle for stardom always came a very close second. His elegant enunciation, picture perfect posture, perfectly combed hair, and just-polished nails are all such a rich, urgent, and beautiful part of his personality. If Hollywood was casting the part of a president of any country in the world, it would be impossible to compete with him for the job.

No one has fought for, won, and lost more public offices in the State of Israel than Shimon Peres. Could it be that his need to play a leading role on the grand stage of political power is so compelling that he could imagine great possibilities for the outcome of every conference that he could possibly attend? Since there are more pictures taken at a peace conference than any other place, can't it be that it has unbalanced his perspective so much that he could actually fantasize that a legitimate agreement could be reached with Yasser Arafat?

We just watched him on an American television show called Meet the Press. When asked about solving the problem of violence in Israel, he answered with an assortment of suggestions about diplomatic initiatives that should be undertaken. He suggested we have to find ways to achieve an "agreement."

Haven't we agreed enough times with Arafat, only to be answered with more death and destruction of Israeli lives? When we agreed to negotiate, he continued to kill. During negotiations and after the negotiations, they still continued to kill. The excuse was that he had only gotten back 70 percent of the land they wanted from Yitzhak Rabin. After the election of Binyamin Netanyahu, they still continued their reign of terror. Then, Ehud Barak became prime minister. Our bravest and toughest soldier suddenly became Arafat's easiest victim. Barak helplessly fantasized that if we sacrificed everything it would quench Arafat's insatiable demands. This time, Arafat ran from the bargaining table like it was on fire, proving yet again that his greatest fear was not the threat of war, but the threat of peace.

Even Barak, who was ready to sacrifice his popularity and political life to achieve peace, has been shocked into the brutal reality that Arafat is the uncompromising enemy of Israel and his goal has nothing to do with getting the Jews out of Palestine. His real goal is to get the Jews out of Israel.

He is not fighting for his own land; he is fighting for the land of Israel.

If Barak can finally see it, why can't Peres? How many more lives do we have to sacrifice for Peres to see that the word "agreement" has nothing to do with Arafat? If Peres wants to make an agreement, he should make an agreement with Sharon to stop sacrificing more lives for more illusions.

Peres needs to face the fact that Arafat never deserved the Nobel Peace Prize that they won several years ago. Arafat made a mockery out of the prize the same way he made a mockery of the peace process itself. If Arafat never deserved the Peace Prize, the question in Peres's mind must be ""What did I even accomplish to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?" To validate his own prize, he has to be able to validate Arafat's prize.

Therefore, he has to convince himself that there is a purpose in talking to Arafat as if he was a legitimate peace partner. This protective reasoning has made Peres an impediment to the peace process itself. Instead of trying to immortalize himself through the self-indulgence of another worthless agreement which will only serve as a costly diversion and distraction, he should come to the realization that there is no chance of peace with Arafat.

The only chance of peace is to support Sharon in his efforts to destroy the ability of the Arabs to kill Jews. Peres should give up the illusion that the Nobel Peace Prize is worth anything as long as Arafat is involved in the peace process. Peres's real problem isn't making peace with Arafat; it is finding peace within himself. He won't find peace within himself until he really believes that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. The only way he would deserve it is if he could find a way to really earn it, and the best way he could earn it is to get out of the way.

He should give up his illusions concerning Arafat and let Sharon do whatever is necessary to finally win the peace by winning the war against the Arabs. By being his foreign minister who supported the process instead of achieving another worthless agreement with Arafat, he will be able to validate a rightful earning of the Nobel Peace Prize and perhaps even receive it with his rightful partner, Ariel Sharon.

(The writer is an American comedian and newspaper columnist.)

(c) Jerusalem Post



By Stewart Weiss

(August 19) - We live in an age of cliches. Here in the Middle East, we are inundated with catchphrases, most of which tend only to trivialize our situation and obscure the whole truth. Take, for example, the "cycle-of-violence" cliche, which falsely implies that all acts of bloodshed operate on the same moral level, differentiating not a whit between provocative first acts of terror and subsequent responses of justified self-defense.

Or consider the "legitimate rights" cliche used widely by pompous know-it-alls around the globe. This sentiment equates the "suffering" of Jews and Palestinians alike, and invariably concludes by demanding a separate state for each as the only "fair" solution. Never mind the history of the region, whereby the Palestinians have repeatedly rejected in theory and practice the notion of a sovereign Jewish state - the cliche has spoken, and reality be damned.

Then there is the oft-repeated mantra of "there is no military solution" to our conflict. Nonsense. Virtually all the major international disputes of the past century have been resolved either through force of arms - such as in the Spanish Civil War, World War II, or the Gulf War - or when one side unilaterally capitulated, as in Vietnam or Afghanistan. Negotiated settlements of any reasonable success are few and far between.

But I want to debunk another famous cliche. How often have you heard politicians and pedestrians alike declare, "Of course I want peace; everyone wants peace!" Well, I am on record as saying that it's not true; not everyone wants peace. I don't want peace.

Now it's true that Jewish tradition places the ideal of "peace" on a very high pedestal. We are bidden to sue for peace, and we are taught that it is preferable to pray for the removal of sin rather than the demise of the sinner. And we have, on numerous occasions, negotiated with hostile nations and signed treaties with them. Egypt started three wars against us and caused thousands of casualties, and Jordan burned down every synagogue in the Old City, yet we managed to reconcile with them.

Yet there is also ample precedent for refusing to make peace with certain nations that are particularly heinous and evil. The high moral character of Israel precludes accommodating those cultures whose national behavior is antithetical to the most basic fundamentals of human decency.

Thus we are told in the Torah to refuse treaties with idolatrous nations living in our midst, and we were commanded to wage all-out war on nations such as Midian and Amalek, which went beyond the bounds of normative military procedure and intractably rejected coexistence with us.

Opposition to these debased entities was a spiritual imperative: "God and evil cannot share the same world," say the rabbis of the Midrash, "as long as the wicked rule, the Holy One blessed be He cannot sit on His throne."

I cannot justify making peace with a Palestinian people who revel in the death of children; who pass out sweets and dance in the street when suicide bombers blow up families out having lunch or sipping coffee. I have no room in my heart, no pity and no mercy, for those who scream for Saddam Hussein to send anthrax-tipped missiles raining down on Tel Aviv; who raise bloody hands in glee after beating to death innocent reservists, who celebrate the butchering of young Koby Mandell as an "act of Arab heroism."

The lack of any voice of moderation or peace among the Palestinians, the overwhelming approval of the Palestinian public for continued suicide bombings of civilians, the denial of a Jewish history in Jerusalem or the right of Jews to live securely anywhere in Israel, convinces me that this is not an enemy who either wants or deserves peace. Though we may share a common border, I need have no more tolerance for these villains than Britain or France had for the Nazis.

In a Jerusalem hospital, teenager Michal Eliav is courageously recovering from the wounds she suffered in last week's Sbarro bombing in Jerusalem. No fewer than 18 pieces of metal - nuts and bolts packed by the murderer into his explosive belt - penetrated her body. Doctors extracted 17; one, lodged too close to her spinal cord to remove safely, remains a permanent reminder of how low humanity can sink.

Family members relate that when psychologists who wished to help her cope with the trauma visited Michal, she dismissed them with a wave of her hand. "I don't need them," the young woman said bravely.

If we, however, continue to treat barbaric enemies with compassion and consideration; if we pursue a "peace policy" with those who remain unalterably committed to our total annihilation, then we are the ones who need a psychologist.

(The writer is director of the Jewish Outreach Center of Ra'anana.)




By Michael B. Oren

The Bush administration's denunciations of Israel's limited military actions in the West Bank and Gaza are hardly an innovation. For more than 50 years, the United States has denied Israel the right to defend itself against Arab terror. Starting with Harry Truman, American presidents have insisted that Israel show restraint in the face of attacks against its citizens, threatening it with censure and even economic sanctions.

America's goal was to prevent the outbreak of a more destructive regional conflict, but the policy boomeranged. Rather than reducing terror, the policy convinced the Arabs that they could strike at Israel with impunity. The Israelis, condemned for even minor reprisals, concluded that they had nothing to lose by hitting back massively. The result was consistently war.

Terrorist attacks against Israel began shortly after its creation in 1948. Encouraged by neighboring Arab countries, Palestinian infiltrators destroyed property, mined roads and ambushed civilian settlements. Between 1949 and 1956, a total of 486 Israelis were killed - the equivalent of more than 40,000 Americans. In response, Israel established a commando unit under Major Ariel Sharon, which struck back at terrorist strongholds and punished the states harboring then. The US strongly deplored these retaliations. It condemned Israel in the Security Council and withheld vital economic aid from the fledgling state.

Armed incursions only escalated, however, and by 1956, guerrillas backed by Egyptian president Nasser were bombing the outskirts of Tel Aviv. Already denounced for their small-scale reprisals, Israeli leaders reasoned that they might as well deliver a knockout blow to Nasser. The Suez Campaign, culminating in Egypt's defeat and the elimination of guerrilla bases, earned Israel nearly 10 years of security from attack.

By 1965, the terrorists were back, this time with Syrian sponsorship and led by Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization. Dozens of raids were carried out, mostly from Jordan, but when Israel sought to strike back in November 1966, attacking one of Arafat's compounds on the West Bank, Washington raged.

The Security Council again denounced Israel and the US once more suspended its aid. Yet Arafat's raids only multiplied, spurring Nasser to rally Arab armies against Israel's borders and to blockade Israel's southern port of Eilat. Though the US was committed to upholding Israel's right to break the blockade militarily, president Johnson balked at honoring that pledge.

"Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go it alone," he warned Israeli leaders. Prohibited by the US from responding even partially to the threat of annihilation, Israel launched an all-out assault later known as the 1967 Six Day War.

THE PATTERN repeated itself throughout the 1970s as Fatah and other Palestinian groups mounted attacks against Israeli targets - schools, buses and farms. Israel retaliated against the terrorists' hosts in Jordan and Lebanon, each time incurring protests and pressure from the US.

Finally, in June 1982, after years of armed penetrations and rocket attacks into Galilee, Israel decided to suffer American obloquy and to invade southern Lebanon, beginning an occupation that would end only last year.

Today, 11 months after Arafat responded to Israeli and American peace proposals with suicide bombers and sniper fire, with 155 Israelis dead, President George W. Bush is repeating his predecessors' mistakes. Even the most restrained Israeli responses - demolishing buildings used by snipers or killing the bomb-makers - are condemned by the president's spokesmen as "provocative" and "disproportionate." American spokesmen repeatedly refer to a "cycle of violence" that confuses the murder of Israeli civilians with Israel's attempts to combat the murderers.

By failing to allow Israel to exercise its right of self-defense, the White House is signaling Arafat that terror pays and yields no consequences. A growing number of Israelis, meanwhile, are realizing that only a large-scale operation can remove the terrorist threat from their restaurants, roads and bus stops. Damned by the US for even minimal use of force, Israelis are increasingly inclined to act decisively.

It is not too late to break the pattern. If the president truly wants to avoid regional conflict, he must clearly distinguish between Palestinian terror and Israel's legitimate efforts to defend itself. He must declare that the US will neither countenance nor protect terrorists, but will support measured actions to punish them. Only by departing from the counterproductive policies of the past can Bush contribute to a resolution of the current crisis, and prevent the recurrence of yet another Middle East war.

(c) Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post August, 08 2001


By Michael Freund

Ever since Israel won Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the 1967 Six Day War, the United States has insisted on classifying these territories as "occupied." Ignoring Israel's biblical, historical and legal rights to the areas, and overlooking the fact that they were taken in an act of self-defense by a country threatened with extinction by its neighbors, American presidents have stubbornly held to the view that Israel should "return" Judea, Samaria and Gaza and cease settling its citizens there.

In adopting such a position, the US has essentially rejected the principles of acquiring territory through the use of force and settling citizens in "foreign" lands. There is, however, something quite ironic about this stance because it was exactly these two principles that lay behind the successful expansion of the United States itself. Indeed, were it not for the westward flow of settlers across the North American continent in the 19th century and America's subsequent acquisition of territory by force, the world's only superpower might otherwise have amounted to little more than a small, backwater nation.

One of the more conspicuous examples in American history is that of Florida, a state made famous last year for its pivotal role in President George W. Bush's election. After Spain regained control of Florida from the British in 1783, a series of boundary disputes erupted between Spain and the US about delineating the northern border of the Florida territory. Even as the two sides bickered, American settlers poured in to Florida, tilting the demographic balance.

In 1810, a revolt against Spanish rule in West Florida prompted president James Madison to dispatch American troops, who occupied the area, which then became part of the state of Louisiana and the Mississippi Territory in 1812. The American settlers, of course, welcomed the move.

Local Indians, fearing for their future, stepped up attacks on white settlers in East Florida, and did not hesitate to cross the contested border and attack American communities. After Indians ambushed a ship carrying US troops and their families and brutally massacred most of them on November 30, 1817, president James Monroe, Madison's successor, sent in General Andrew Jackson, who subdued the Indians, overwhelmed the Spanish garrisons and returned home a national hero.

Faced with the inevitable loss of its territory, Spain agreed to sign the Adams-Onis Treaty of February 22, 1819, in which it sold Florida to the United States for $5 million. But the sale essentially formalized what had actually been achieved through force of arms. In modern parlance, then, Florida might very well be considered American-occupied territory.

American history is rife with other such examples. As a former governor of Texas, Bush is no doubt aware the state was previously Mexican territory. Though Mexico invited Americans to settle the area in the 1820s, by 1830 the settlers outnumbered Mexicans in Texas by three to one, leading Mexico to clamp down for fear of losing control of the territory. In 1835, American settlers rebelled and launched the Texas Revolution, routing the Mexican army and declaring independence in 1836.

The breakaway state of Texas then sought American annexation, greatly angering the Mexican government. After the US Congress passed a resolution offering it entry to the Union, Texas accepted American control in July 1845, which promptly led to the outbreak of the Mexican-American War. When the war ended in 1848, a defeated Mexico handed over vast swaths of territory to the United States, which later became California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. And, of course, Texas.

Indeed, throughout the 19th century, the dispatch of American settlers beyond the borders of the United States played a central role in expanding the country's boundaries. States such as Oregon and Wyoming (US Vice President Dick Cheney's home), were both settled by large numbers of Americans, usually against the wishes of local Indian tribes and European rulers. The growing presence of the American settlers inevitably changed the status quo, and ultimately led such states out of European and Indian hands and into American arms.

As historians have noted, much of this expansionism was propelled by a popular belief in "Manifest Destiny," the sense that America had a divine right to occupy the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Unlike Israel, however, America had no historic or biblical ties to the land that might have justified its policy. But that did not stop America from pressing forward and building a great nation.

So before the United States decides to preach to Israel about the wisdom of building Jewish settlements or holding onto Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it might do well to take a look back at its own past. For if one were to take the American government's stance vis-a-vis Israel's territories and retroactively apply it to America's own acquisition of land throughout history, there would be plenty to keep the United Nations Security Council busy for quite some time.

Once America decides to return Florida to Spain or California to Mexico, it can then feel free to offer advice to Israel. After all, why should America view its own "occupied" territories any differently from those of Israel?

(The writer served as deputy director of Communications and Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)

(c) Jerusalem Post





HEBRON, WEST BANK--In an emotionally charged press conference Monday, crazed Palestinian gunman Faisal al Hamad expressed frustration over the stereotyping of his people.

Above: Faisal al Hamad, seen here shrieking anti-U.S. slogans, says that "not every crazed Palestinian gunman is exactly alike." "As a crazed Palestinian gunman, I feel hurt by the negative portrayal of my people in the media," said al Hamad, 31, a Hebron-area terrorist maniac. "None of us should have to live with stereotyping and ignorance."

He then began screaming and firing into a busload of Israeli schoolchildren. "It hurts that in this supposedly enlightened day and age, people still make assumptions about other people," al Hamad said. "We should not rely on simple generalizations. Each crazed Palestinian gunman is an individual."

Al Hamad said that he himself has often been unfairly stereotyped. "Any time I enter a crowded temple with fully loaded AK-47s in both hands, people just assume I'm going to open fire," he said. "That really hurts." "Yes, I sometimes do gun people down in the name of the One True God," he noted. "But there is so much more to me."

Several weeks ago, al Hamad was again the victim of stereotyping during a vacation he took with his family to Washington, D.C. "When we arrived at the airport in Washington, security guards detained us for more than 12 hours, just because I had 140 pounds of plastic explosives strapped to my chest," al Hamad said. "Do you think they would have called the FBI if I wasn't a crazed Palestinian who's on their Ten Most Wanted List? I don't think so."

Al Hamad said his vacation was ruined when federal agents seized a crate of chemical weapons he had brought into the U.S. as a gift for a friend in New York. "I explained to them that the weapons were a birthday present for the blind cleric Sayid al Farouq, a good friend of mine from high school," he said. "But they did not believe me and took me into federal custody for nine weeks. Again, it's a case of people jumping to conclusions on the basis of skin color. And that can be very frustrating."

Above: When this truck blew up in Jerusalem on Yom Kippur last year, Israeli officials suspected PLO involvement. "That really hurt that they would just think that right off the bat," al Hamad said. According to al Hamad, stereotypes against crazed Palestinian gunmen don't work because they don't take into account the vast variety of proud histories and diverse cultures among them. "There are so many different kinds of crazed Palestinian gunmen. Each of us has our own unique reasons and motivations for our bus bombings and suicide missions," he said. "No two fundamentalist agendas are alike."

Al Hamad also stressed the importance of understanding and celebrating the cultural differences between crazed Palestinian gunmen and non-crazed, non-Palestinian non-gunmen. "All the different peoples of the world have something special to offer each other," he said. "Our diversity is our greatest strength. Let's not make a weakness out of that strength."

To emphasize his point, al Hamad fired into a crowd, killing nine. "I'm proud to be a crazed Palestinian gunman, obviously," he said in between shouts of anti-imperialist slogans. "But I'm an individual first. I'm me. Die, Yankee infidel pig swine!"

Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved.





By Steven Plaut

It has been quite a while since we devoted an incitement to the subject of the Boojoos. Boojoo is shorthand for Buddhist Jew. The BOOJOOS are people who take vedic forms of paganism and dress them up as an "alternative" form of Judaism. The Reconstructionist Deconstructionists are among the better-known examples of the movement. But of course the most important Boojoos are the Woodstockischer Hassidim, a small cult group that reads Tikkun Magazine and follows the teachings of people like Michael Lerner and Arthur Waskow, the Rabbi Cheech and Rabbi Chong of this great movement.

I assume you are all familiar with that towering achievement of the intellect, Tikkun Magazine. Tikkun is the magazine for Jewish fossilized 60's radicals and new-wave pseudo-religious mystics, the main vehicle of expression for "PC Judaism", that is, the school of thought that holds that Judaism is nothing more and nothing less than the PC Leftist political agenda. It is edited by 60's Radical Michael Lerner, and hosts Israeli far-Left journalists (mostly from Haaretz), Hippy-Rabbis ("Mitzvahs for McGovern"), people like Arthur Waskow (who is founder of the tree-hugging branch of Judaism), etc. Its logo should probably read, "Like heavy, Dude, this Judaism is really great dope!" Anyway, Tikkun editor Michael Lerner was in the news back in 1992 after Clinton won that Presidential election. The reason is that Lerner was apparently Hillary Clinton's favorite Jew. After the election, Hillary made Lerner her official guru, and together they rambled about the nation promoting Lerner's religion of "The Politics of Meaning". This, you will recall, is basically the promoting of PC politics clothed in pseudo-religious symbols and imagery. Lately Hillary distanced herself from Michael of Meaning, apparently because even the hillbillies in Arkansas were starting to make fun of him around their stills.

So what became of Lerner? Well, a team of analysts has just completed an exhaustive study and has reached the incredible and serendipitous conclusion that Michael Lerner has been the person inside the children's TV character Barney the Dinosaur. The first clues were that Barney and Lerner seem to have somewhat similar bodily dimensions and both have that big overbite. But what gave it away was the fact that Barney has been preaching the Politics of Meaning from PBS television stations to masses of unsuspecting children. Indeed, the entire essence of the Politics of Meaning is expressed in the theme song: "I wuv you, You wuv me, We're a Happy Famil-wee."

When confronted with this and asked whether that song was the elaboration of the Politics of Meaning for Children, Lerner hesitated and said, "Yes, well, er, no. Actually it is the full elaboration of Politics of Meaning for adults as well."

Meanwhile, as your faithful correspondent on the spot, we have gotten hold of advance galleys for the forthcoming issue of the Hippy-Jewish far-Left Tikkun magazine and it promises to be a lollapalooza. I thought you might enjoy hearing about what our Boojoo brethren have in mind for their next work of progressive loving-and-caring politics of meaning.

The cover article will be entitled, "Shatnez for the 21st Century", written by Rabbi Michael Moonbeam. In it, he argues that just like vegetarianism is the ultimate form of kashrut and the truly highest spiritual fulfillment of Biblical kashrut laws, so nudist davening is the ultimate and highest fulfillment of Biblical laws against shatnez, the mixing of fibers in garments from certain sources. He argues that progressive Jews should adopt the habit of congregating in minyans in the nude, other than wearing the requisite tallis and yarmulka.

In the second article, Rabbi Arthur Woodstock devotes a full 16-page article to the question of Cannabis Smoking on the Sabbath. He points out that while in the past it was believed that Torah rules prohibit all lighting of fire, including for smoking, on the Sabbath, Rav Woodstock has concluded that smoking of marijuana is not only permitted for the Sabbath, but downright mandated.

Oh, I have discovered a song that is the Tikkun official ballad, taken from the important textbook, "Customs and Ceremonies of the Woodstockischer Hassidim", authored by the famous Woodstockischer Admor Shlita of Philadelphia. It goes to the same melody as Puff the Magic Dragon.

Puff the Pothead Rabbi,
Lived on LSD*,
And Frolicked on the Internet,
And Preached Ecology,

Little Michael Lerner,
Loved that Rebbe Puff,
And Gave Him Lots of Tikkun Space,
To Preach His PC Fluff.

A Rabbi's Fame's Forever,
But Not so Little Puff's,
And Mikey Lost His Meaning,
When Hillary Said Enough,

Puff came to Console Him,
With Bible Talk Atoned,
Together they got spiritual,
Like Moses they got Stoned.

Oh, Puff the Pothead Rabbi,
Lived on LSD*,
And Frolicked on the Internet,
And Preached Ecology.

[LSD = Limitless Silly Discourse]

And now from Sioux City, Iowa, Pants Productions brings you live from the Ed Sullivan Theater: The Late Show, with Dave Letterman. Tonight's Top Ten List. Tonight, Dave brings you the ten recent feature articles appearing in Tikkun magazine:

10. Why the Yom Kippur services should be conducted only in Black English.

9. How to hide psychedelic drugs in tefillin boxes so's the pigs don't catch you.

8. Jewish symbolism in the film "Easy Rider".

7. The pros and cons of bathing for progressives.

6. What to order when you take an African-American militant to lunch.

5. Why dolphins should be allowed be ordained as Rabbis.

4. Plans for establishing a Vedic Rabbinical Seminary.

3. Why Jews should show solidarity with life forms on Vulcan.

2. Planting trees for peace in Baghdad.

1. Joycelyn Elders takes over as Editor of Tikkun and replaces the Politics of Meaning with the Politics of Self-Feeling, but no one notices the change.

Finally, It has occurred to me that many of the members of the editorial board of Tikkun magazine, not to mention most of their readership, must be pushing 65 years old. Think about that. Well I have, and I think that there are a number of fine business opportunities, selling products to the geriatric hippies and menopausal Marxists of this fine magazine. I am now looking for some partners to go in with me in these ventures, developing products to sell to the Tikkun readership, advertising in the magazine. Anyone with some idle capital, give me a buzz. Here are the projects I have thought of so far:

1. A book of recipes for preparing hashish brownies laced with Metamucil, just the thing to keep you a regular revolutionary. They will also be sold at the new progressive bistro we will open, to be called Chez Che.

2. Bob Dylan bunion cream, so that you will not need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

3. Macrobiotic Grey Poupon, to be passed back and forth from designer VW vans of psychedelic yuppies, and Oh The Colors The Colors.

4. Jerry Garcia Geratol Tablets.

5. Ho Ch Minh Hernia Halters.

6. Huey Newton Shuffleboard Set.

7. Jimi Hendrix Hearing Aid, with special microcassette that plays The Wind Cries Dentures.

8. Special Revolutionary Remake VCR tape of Leave it To Beaver, with a progressive Cleaver family. In this special tape, Ward and June drop out, turn on, and then go to Cuba to cut cane in the Vencemeros Brigade with their boys, Beaver, Wally and Eldridge.

9. Malcolm X Lax.

10. Preparation Ho. (Short for Preparation Ho Chi Minh) This is the perfect treatment for progressives and hippies at the ends of their trails to reduce painful swelling and itching at the ends of their trails. For those whose Mekong Delta is backed up, see previous product.

11. Bumper stickers and progressive lapel buttons that say: "Flower and Flatulence Power"



The Jerusalem Post August, 30 2001


By Esther Wachsman

Is there anyone left besides Foreign Minister Shimon Peres who won't allow facts to distract him - who still believes Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat? Perhaps Yossi et Yossi.

Other than the above, I believe our people have finally opened their eyes - or had them blasted open. After two horrible massacres - at the Dolphinarium and at Sbarro - can anyone still believe in restraint?

The world loves the Jews when they are dying without resistance. I, for one, am willing to forfeit that love, and stay despised and alive.

I haven't stopped crying since the funeral of Michal Raziel, a 15-year-old girl from my neighborhood whose sisters were dear friends of my beloved Nachshon; the oldest sister was the initiator of his memorial book, and worked day and night to have it finished for the first-year memorial service. The baby of the family was bombed to death. Do you remember her name? Do you remember any other names among the 15 dead? Do you know any of the names of the young boys and girls killed at the Dolphinarium?

A few years ago Yad Vashem began a project called "Every person has a name." The point was to gather and remember those martyrs of the Holocaust as living, real people, with families and feelings, likes and dislikes, loves and emotions, rather than just "the six million." To Mrs. Raziel (a widow), her daughter was not a statistic of terror, but a beloved teenage girl with talents and dreams, aspirations and desires which will never be fulfilled.

"He who has taken one life is as if he has destroyed an entire world," says the Talmud, for not only has he destroyed that person, but all of his potential descendants. Michal and Nachshon, and scores of victims of terror will have no descendants. Yet, how quickly we forget, and how cheap their lives become.

Israel today, to my dismay, is the most unsafe place for a Jew to live.

AND WHAT was our government's response to that massacre at Sbarro? Closing Orient House! As if the "house" can atone for the deaths of precious Jewish souls. The people who incited at that house - as they preach hatred of every Jew in their schools, mosques and media - have never been arrested or tried. But that "house" now proudly bears an Israeli flag.

Is that the way to deal with terror? With massacres?

Somehow, I think not.

Is sending Peres to talk to Arafat or his underlings the solution? Last time he spoke to Arafat, there was a terrorist attack the next day!

It takes time, we are told, it is a long process; we must be patient.

Well, Mr. Peres, your New Middle East, starting at Oslo, began eight years ago. It is almost seven years since my son, whom you dared to call "a victim of peace," was brutally murdered! Do you really still have faith in your joint Nobel Peace Prize winner? Do you believe he is a man of peace, striving to stop the massacres and rehabilitate his people?

Where are the millions - nay, billions of dollars of aid Arafat received from the international community? Why isn't that money being used for the health, wealth and stability of Palestinian society? Because it has all gone to buy arms and weapons to attack the enemy - us; that is, whatever hasn't been deposited in his Swiss bank account. Why is there no outcry by his fellow Palestinians, and by the international community about what has become of all that money, generously donated to help the "poor Palestinians," for which we are paying the price?

Is there no leader of stature in all of Israel who can set things right? In a recent edition of Ha'aretz, I read an article by a Hamas leader, stating that he and his colleagues are willing to fight and die for the next 20 or 100 years! They will never recognize the "Jewish entity" in "their" land.

Well, at least they tell it as it is, unlike the mind games Arafat plays. And so, don't be too shocked - perhaps all the talk about protecting and cosseting Arafat for fear of getting Hamas in his stead is not so smart. Perhaps under Hamas leadership there will be open and clear rules to this (non) war. And maybe, just maybe, as a great statesman once said, "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." I, for one, am sick and tired of living in fear.

(c) Jerusalem Post



The Jerusalem Post August, 16 2001


By Shmuel Katz

Last Monday it seemed that a miracle had occurred. The Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday, August 7, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had actually conducted a discussion on hasbara (public relations) with top officials in the Foreign Ministry and in his own office. He told the meeting that "Israel should make a point of emphasizing the Jewish right to the land, because it is too often forgotten!"

One hopes Sharon's idea will do some good. It reflects once again, however, the neglect by successive governments, whether Right or Left, of their manifest obligation to create machinery for spreading knowledge of the fundamental fact of our existence in our homeland. Most specifically, they failed to counter the fantastic mendacities of the Arabs with our truth.

Year after year, day and night, the Arabs, with the "Palestinian" branch as their spearhead, have conducted a many-faceted campaign of denigration throughout the world, openly aiming at the demonization of Israel as a state and of the Jews as a nation. The central message of that campaign is that "Palestine is our country and the Jews have taken it from us." On this slogan, the Arabs, over time, built up a completely fabricated history of a Palestinian nation (which never existed) to replace the history of 4,000 years of Jewish association with the Land of Israel. Here is Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, without a blush telling the UN Assembly in November 1974 that Arabs were "occupied for thousands of years in agriculture and building, in disseminating culture throughout the land, setting up an example of freedom of religion, and serving as a faithful guardian of the holy places of all the faiths." To balance these fantasies, they have developed an anti-Israel ideology equaling, and perhaps outdoing, in text and caricature the propaganda of the Nazis. From time to time, they turn even to the demonic anti-Semitism of the Middle Ages - as Suha Arafat did in the presence of Hillary Clinton a couple of years ago.

The Arabs' propaganda drumbeat has never ceased, and the governments of Israel have failed even to consider seriously the growing problem of a hostile public opinion throughout the world, where even the most obvious nonsense may be swallowed if it is repeated often enough without challenge.

Not the least serious consequence of our governments' failure is the despair of our friends - non-Jewish as well as Jewish - who are not equipped with the needed authoritative response to the Arab propaganda.

To the aid of the Arabs, moreover, have come a host of allies. Classic anti-Semitism - of course - now posing as "legitimate" political anti-Zionism; but also a battery of some of the leading media in the world. Examples: The Times of London, The New York Times, Le Monde, the BBC, CNN, etc. etc. In all of them there are regular distortions or suppression of news - so as to make the Arabs look good and the Jews look bad.

In short, a tremendous problem - and Israel's reply is exemplified by the opinions expressed by two foreign ministers, each in his time responsible for hasbara: Moshe Dayan, who said "We don't need hasbara. It is important what we do, not what we say," and Shimon Peres - who believes we shouldn't trouble our heads with history.

The decision taken at Sharon's meeting bears but minimal relation to the magnitude, the depth and diversity of what should be done. It is a tinkering with the problem, a nibble at its edges; it is not even the beginning of a solution.

When Winston Churchill became British prime minister in World War II, he at once tackled the problem of war information - of hasbara. He appointed a minister of information and - over the protest of foreign minister Anthony Eden - a ministry with a worldwide reach was established. Eden did not realize that no Foreign Office is built and specialized and equipped for the very large task of war information. Indeed, no country at war in our time can do without a separate department for information abroad - and Israel least of all.

The task of Israel's hasbara must be tackled not by occasional sudden sallies but by a separate permanent department in the government. It must be headed by a minister dedicated to the task. He can have no other business. In the debates at the cabinet table he must inject an appreciation of the impact of information. His senior staff, which must maintain a 24-hour-a-day service, must be experts on all the subjects which have a bearing on the dispute with the Arabs: Jewish history in Eretz Yisrael, Zionist history and the British Mandate, the history of Arab claims, and more. To ensure the essential volume of its message, in the US, in cooperation with Jewish and pro-Israel Christian bodies a nationwide monitoring organization must be created - and a special program for dealing with what we are told in the grave hasbara, or anti-hasbara, situation in the universities.

It was a positive move by the prime minister to have that discussion last Monday - but it is most desirable that he should ponder the need for solving the major problem that persists because the information seat in his government remains empty.

(The writer was a member of the Irgun high command and worked closely with Menachem Begin.)

(c) Jerusalem Post

 HOME  Maccabean  comments