ISRANET DAILY BRIEFING ARCHIVE
March 2002
A Service of CIJR
Canadian
Institute for Jewish Research
Prof. Frederick Krantz, Director
Volume II, No. 355 •
Wednesday, March 27, 2002
Note to our Readers: Due
to the Passover holiday, the next ISRANET Briefing will be issued on
Tuesday, April 2.
PASSOVER THOUGHTS, RESPONSES
FROM OUR READERS
PASSOVER 5762 – THE FESTIVAL
OF FREEDOM
Baruch Cohen
"Accordingly we, members
of the People's Council by virtue of our
nature and historic right and on the strength of the resolution
of the UN General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment
of a Jewish State in Eretz Israel to be known as the ‘State of
Israel.’”
—Declaration of Independence, 5th Day of Iyar 5708
Passover, the festival of Freedom,
commemorates the dramatic deliverance of the people of Israel from Egyptian
bondage.
Historically the spirit of Passover has played a glorious role in the
democratic struggle for human dignity. Truly, the eternal quest for
human freedom has received sustenance and encouragement from the story
of the liberation from Egyptian slavery several millennia ago. For we
Jews, Passover marks our birth as a free people, and its religious significance
has therefore been profound. And its exalted theme--freedom--has marked
the development of the modern world generally.
The Jewish sages have always emphasized this declaration: "I am
the Lord Thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of
the house of bondage." [Exodus 20:2]. The idea that liberty must
be won and re-won in every generation and by each individual, is an
integral part of the daily prayers. Every person, in every generation,
must regard himself as having been personally freed from Egypt. This
identification of the Jewish religion with the struggle for freedom
has given the Jewish people the will to live. Indeed, the springtime
festival of Passover acts as a harbinger of new life and hope for men
and women who have suffered the bitter cold of slavery's dark winter.
Even as they celebrate, Jews remember their long, stormy history around
the festive Seder table.
During centuries of adversity, Jews have found renewed strength and
hope in the Passover festival. It unites today's generation with its
heroic ancestors of the days of Moses, the Inquisition, the blood libels
of the Middle Ages, the barbaric, cruel pogroms, the unspeakable horror
of Nazi Germany, the uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto, and the Arabs’
repeated efforts to crush the Jewish State. Yet, despite the degradation
and sufferings, we survived, triumphant––and witnessed the
re-birth of our State of Israel.
We drew from our past faith and confidence to struggle for our final
victory. Around the festive Seder table we recall our long history,
and gain the strength to hold steadfast to our conviction that justice
and freedom for all men and women will yet prevail. The reading of the
Haggadah reaffirms our confidence in God's concern for Israel, and for
humanity.
(Baruch Cohen is Research
Chairman of CIJR)
________________________________________________________
LEAVE AN EMPTY SEAT AT THE SEDER
TABLE
Gil Troy
…Let each of us, as we gather
in our seders, intrude on our own celebrations by leaving one setting
untouched, by having one empty chair at our table. And as we do that,
let us not just remember the dead as hundreds of nameless and faceless
people, but let us personalize it, let us take the time to find out
the name of one victim of the current conflict, one Jew who can not
celebrate this year’s holiday, one family in mourning. Let us
call out the name of Benny Avraham, age 20, one of the Israelis kidnapped
by Hezbollah in October, 2000, and now presumed dead. Let us call out
the name of Koby Mandell, age 13, a young American immigrant brutally
killed last May, whose father Seth Mandell talks about the…pain
of watching other boys grow up, watching their voices deepen, their
shoulders broaden, their gaits quicken, even as his son lies dead. Let
us call out the name of Ayelet Haschachar Levy, age 28, who was "guilty"
of the crime of walking down an alley near Jerusalem’s Machaneh
Yehudah marketplace, the wrong place, at the wrong time. Let us call
out the names of Mordechai Schijvescheurder, 43, Tzira Schijvescheurder,
41, Ra’aya Schijvescheurder, 14, Avraham Yitzhak Schijvescheurder,
4, Hemda Schijvescheurder, 2, five members of one family killed in the
Jerusalem Sbarro Pizzeria bombing…
And as we call out these names, unlike too many of our enemies, let
us not call for vengeance, let us not call for more bloodshed. Instead,
as we mourn, let us hope; as we remember the many lives lost during
this crazy and pointless war, let us pray ever more intensely for a
just and lasting peace.
(CIJR Academic Fellow Gil Troy,
is a professor
of political science at McGill University)
______________________________________________________
OUR READERS ON ISRAEL AND TERRORISM
“We will have peace with
the Arabs when they will love their children more than they hate us”—Golda
Meir (forwarded by Eliahu Shvili, Haifa; March 25)
“Today’s most recent terrorist attack—the suicide
bombing of Egged Bus No. 823, shows just how ‘serious’ the
PA is about halting the terrorist attacks inside [Israel]. The attacks
are not only being held in areas A and B--they are premeditated attacks
inside the Green Line with the intention of killing as many innocent
Israeli civilians as possible. I believe that Anthony Zinni’s
latest visit to the region…is a complete waste of time. The political
will on the Palestinians’ side is not evident. They refuse to
arrest the perpetrators…The PA--headed by the infamous terrorist
leader, Yasser Arafat--will not back down to U.S. pressure to impede
his end game: the destruction of the State of Israel.”--David
Granovsky (March 20)
“It is very distressing that you [CIJR] choose to present the
news in such a biased way. ‘Israel having absolutely no choice,
retaliates…’ is plain nonsense. Israel has a variety of
choices, from not responding at all, to responding with what looks increasingly
like over-kill. And you make no mention of the fact that Israeli forces
continue to occupy Arab territory.”—Jerry Newman (March
12)
“The ghosts of Martin
Luther King and Mohandas Gandhi would roll over in their graves at the
brutality of the Palestinians.”—Dr. Norman E. Mann,
San Diego (March 3)
“Arafat has wrecked what was an already fragile opportunity for
peace. The peace prize, which he blackened with bullets and bombs aimed
at babies, mothers, teenagers, and the elderly, is painfully ludicrous.”—Robert
P. Medow, University City, MO (Jan. 27)
“Facts and events on the ground are…being distorted by diplomats,
news reports, human rights groups and the Israeli Left to support their
anti-Israel bias…Where is our human conscience that we cannot
determine true victims of violence and hate…rather than being
trapped in moral equivalence with evil?”—Felix Diawuoh,
Executive Director, Free Africa Foundation-Boston Chapter (Jan. 4)
______________________________________________________
JOHN DERBYSHIRE’S “ISRAEL'S FUTURE: THE ODDS”
This Briefing (No. 329,
Feb. 5, 2002), which anticipated the possible defeat of the State of
Israel, elicited the greatest number of responses. Reprinted below is
a reader’s comment which best captured the essence of the moment.
“This one ruined
my day! Tell me that John Derbyshire is wrong!”—Prof.
Brian Smith (Feb. 6)
______________________________________________________
ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
AND MIDEASTERN COUNTRIES
“I believe we are
seeing a new Axis of terror. This time it is Iraq, Iran and the PLO
(Arafat). Arafat is a pawn in their hands. This would give Iraq and
Iran an outlet to the Mediterranean Sea. Ti would also destabilize and
neutralize the influence of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt…”—Saul
Troen (March 4)
“I was born on September 11, 1966, and every birthday I have now
will never be a happy one. Why, do you ask? Because as I am out somewhere
trying to have a nice dinner, someone will have a candle or a ribbon
or something, crying about the anniversary of a national tragedy. And
then I will think, about how insignificant my one little birthday actually
is compared to everything else that had happened on that one day.”--Dr.
Steven Tomaselli, Uvalde, Texas (forwarded to CIJR by Lois Mattero;
Feb. 28)
“Why do editorialists continue to omit Saudi Arabia from the discussion?…Saudi
Arabia is probably more supportive of destructive acts that North Korea
and Iraq together.”—William Hill (Feb. 6)
“To my mind, the only way to bring peace to Israel is to defeat
Iran…Not only would their defeat destroy much of the support all
these anti-Israel and anti-American terrorist groups receive, it would
be a serious setback for the Islamists who believe they are on a roll.
Psychologically the defeat would be devastating. Short of that Israel
will never be free of ever-escalating terror.”—Ted Belman
(Jan. 27)
______________________________________________________
ON CANADIAN MIDEAST POLICY
"Once again, our government
and the Liberal party can’t miss an opportunity to say something
against Israel. Even when the president [Moshe Katsav] of the only democracy
in the Middle East is in town for the Canada Israel Committee parliamentary
dinner, the foreign minister can’t help but look like an idiot.
Once again, I am so proud to be a Canadian. Please take a look at this
attached article for all the details. [This note is contained on the
writer’s circulation of our Briefing, 'Double-Talk on Israel',
an editorial in the National Post, March 7]"—Barry Diner
(March 7)
“[T]he singling out
of Israel time and again, the not allowing her a seat within those government
bodies in the Security Council whose main target is Israel itself, whereby
countries like Syria and the Sudan who are infamous for their terrorist
agendas and histories are allowed such positions with Canadian approval,
clearly indicates that Israel is being denied its place as an equal
member in the family of nations. Canada can prove its commitment to
democracy and democratic states such as Israel by recognizing the inconsistency
of its own voting record and its manipulation by those Arab countries…intent
upon Israel’s delegitimization.”—Sarah Bauer and
Marilyn Abramovitz, Montreal, in a letter to Canada’s Dept. of
Foreign Affairs and International Trade (Feb. 24)
______________________________________________________
ON MATTERS JEWISH-WORLD RELATED
The Cancellation
of the Israel Leg of the March of the Living
“I need to express
my outrage about the news that this year’s March of the Living
will be going to Poland and has taken Israel off the itinerary. What
irony that these kids can travel to Poland, the site of some of the
20th century’s worst anti-Semitism (including the Kielce pogrom
after the Holocaust)…Israel is such a crucial component that it
would have been better to simply cancel the March this year. What can
be learned from the sight of the gas chambers, without realizing the
strength and courage that we are capable of…”--Lea Steinlauf
(March 17)
Barenboim’s
Now-Cancelled Ramallah Performance
“It is to be hoped that the [Israeli-born
conductor Daniel] Barenboim concert tonight [the concert has since been
cancelled] will find the hall mostly empty…Not only does he try
to diminish the impact of the Nazi murders of 6 million of his own people…he
sees fit to perform in Ramallah where the terrorist leader Arafat who
is responsible for the deaths of Jews and Israelis for decades is holed
up…How can anyone of good conscience perform for people who lynch
and mutilate innocent people with relish, and dance in celebration when
whole families are slaughtered, and babies are killed…?”—Reva
Sharon, Israel (March 5)
The Unprecedented Rise of
Antisemitism in France
The following unsigned
letter to the French Embassy in Washington was forwarded by CIJR member
Leo Grunstein in Montreal.
“As a Jew, I would like to thank…your President Jacques
Chiraq for saying that Israel needs to be convinced that peace is better
than war. Never mind that peace (shalom in Hebrew) is the most common
word in Jewish prayers…[and] is mentioned 275 times in the Jewish
Bible…Never mind that of all the world's literature the UN chose
to inscribe the words of Israeli Prophet Isaiah on the wall across from
its building in New York: 'And they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword
against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.'…[T]he
President of [France]…would do better teaching cows how to make
milk, or teaching grass how to grow quietly than teaching Jews (Israelis)
that peace is better than war…
I would like also to thank
the unnamed cinema near the Paris Opera for canceling a screening of
the ‘Harry Potter’ film for Jewish kids. But I am even more
grateful to the police of Paris, which has failed to provide protection
for these kids. Apparently Jews of any age are no longer guaranteed
complete equality with the rest of the population…
And how can I not mention
the doctorate degree in history, which was offered to Mustafa Talas
(Syria's Foreign Minister) by Sorbonne? …Dr. Talas has written
a book on the Damascus Blood Libel of 1840, in which he claims that
Jews kill Christians to obtain their blood for Passover…I am infinitely
glad that good old blood libels…nearly forgotten in the last 50
years, are being revived in French academic circles…
I also cannot forget the events of October 2000, with synagogues firebombed
and burned, Jewish worshipers attacked and stoned. I know that President
Chiraq spoke out against all this…[His] criticisms of Israel had
been (and remain) so extensive, so common and so unforgiving, that I
cannot possibly believe him…And if there is any doubt about it,
your ambassador to the United Kingdom Daniel Bernard has cleared it
up…call[ing] Israel "that shitty little country"…
I have decided to join
the campaign against France. I will not visit or fly through France…I
will also boycott all products made in France, including perfume…designer
fashion labels [and] French wines…I will use my money to buy Israeli
products, and travel to Israel and other countries who still think that
Jews are human and should not live at the mercy of Palestinian terrorists.
I will also contact all people I know and try to get them to do the
same. Let it be a humble manifestation of my gratitude.”
From the Jewish
Community in South Africa
South African Briefing
recipient Yitzhack Rubin forwarded the letter below written by Rabbi
M.A. Kurtstag, head of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Courts of South Africa,
to Johannesburg’s Star newspaper.
“…[The] Star’s editorial dated December claims that
‘Sharon’s declaring Arafat to be irrelevant has seen the
introduction of one of the most ruthless programs of random intimidation
and killing--in defense of civilization--in the last 50 years’
is the last straw…
Where have you been for
the past 50 years? Have you heard of the Soviet Massacres in Hungary
in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Afghanistan in the 1980s? Have you
heard of the killing fields of Cambodia, the Genocide of Burundi, the
murder and slave trade of the Sudan perpetrated against the Christians
in the country, Jordan’s Black September when 10,000 Palestinians
were slaughtered by the Jordanian army in a couple of days [and] the
cries ‘Maak die Jode dood’ from the Mosques of Cape Town?
All these Sir, whether
you realize it or not have happened and are happening within your 50
year time limit. And yet, you choose Israeli whose children are blow
to bits in discos and pizzerias and have the temerity to say “thus
far and no further” to Palestinian acts of terror and wanton murder.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that this has nothing to do with
anti-Zionism. Like your colleagues in the media and the ruling party,
your attitude is clearly one of anti-Semitism…I therefore cancel
my subscription number 103266 to your ‘civilized’ newspaper
and as a responsible rabbinical leader call on all Jews and fair-minded
South Africans to do likewise.”
Editor’s Note: We
urge all our readers to follow the Rabbi’s lead and have the courage
to follow his example with respect to anti-Israel coverage in your local
newspapers.
______________________________________________________
OUR READERS ASK US TO SUPPORT PETITIONS
CNN poll regarding the sending
of international monitors to Israel: http://home.netscape.com/ex/shak/international/packages/mideast/
--Ted Friedgut, Israel (March 7)
Petition to revoke the Nobel Peace prize of Palestinian Authority Chairman
Yasser Arafat: http://www.revoketheprize.org
–Eliahu Shvili, Haifa, Israel (March 6)
The Canadian Institute for Jewish Research thanks its readers
all over the world for their insightful responses. We encourage you
to continue to share your thoughts and comments with us.
Hag Pesach sameach
to all CIJR members and friends. Next year in Jerusalem!
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 354 • Tuesday, March 26, 2002
THE 1930S, AGAIN
A HARD RAIN IS GOING TO FALL
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review, March 25, 2002
In some ways in our war against
the terrorists we are like the democracies of the late 1930s. They knew
that there was more to Hitler than his avowed quest for the return of
the Sudetenland or the Alsace-Lorraine. They sort of suspected that
an entire, venerable culture in Germany and Japan had gone off the deep
end. And while there was a certain logic to Hitler's diatribes that
a moralistic England had no more right to distant India than did Germany
to nearby Danzig, most deep-down knew that such parlor-game banter simply
masked a much larger dilemma--how to corral a very powerful dictatorship
and its axis that wished dominance not coexistence, and whose fuel was
brutal force and autocracy, not democracy and freedom.
For England, most of Western Europe, and the United States, reeling
under recent economic depression and hardly recovered from the sheer
horror of the First World War--carnage unlike any in the long history
of warfare--the idea of forceful resistance was little short of insanity.
Filmstrips of German Panzers, thousands of Japanese shouting "Banzai!,"
and even Mussolini's comically delivered, but hateful rants overwhelmed
the senses.
How could one stop such madness? And might it just go away with proper
diplomacy? And why did "militarists" in the West insist on
rearming and thereby "provoking" war? And was not there some
truth to German grievances and Japanese hurts? And did anyone really
wish to risk millions of innocent Americans and British to kill equally
innocent, although perhaps mesmerized, Germans? Who was stirring up
such animosity?
We are in a similar dilemma--in our hesitation about Iraq, our pressure
on Israel, and our worries about mission creep in pursuing the killers.
Can't the Jews and Arabs just get along? If Israel would just give back
all of the West Bank, wouldn't there be peace? Didn't we just fight
in the Gulf a mere decade ago? How do we know that Saddam Hussein really
has such dreadful weapons? Shouldn't our allies get involved too? Do
these undemocratic Muslim countries really dislike us all that much?
Who can trust polls anyway? Why are these saber-rattlers trying to get
us into a war?
And so we Americans, like those 70 years ago who so wanted a perpetual
peace, pray for a return of sanity in the Middle East. We chose to ignore
horrific stories of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia--the embryo of 9/11. We
are more amused than shocked that madrassas have taught a generation
to hate us. When mullahs in Iran speak of destroying Israel we wince,
but also shrug. We want to see no real connection between madmen blowing
themselves up to kill us in New York and the like-minded doing the same
in Tel-Aviv. We put our trust in peace with a killer like Mr. Arafat,
who packs a gun and whips up volatile crowds in Arabic. All the while,
no American statesman has the guts to tell the Arab leadership that
statism, tribalism, fundamentalism, gender apartheid, and autocracy--not
America, not Israel--make their people poor, angry, and dangerous.
Rather than preparing for what our enemies are preparing for us, we
look to gestures of appeasement. Does not the Islamic world appreciate
the presence of General Zinni? Do we not give billions to Arab countries?
Did we not save Kuwait and Muslims throughout the globe? Who in the
Arab world could really think that the murderous Taliban were preferable
to the present more enlightened government in Afghanistan? And although
Middle Eastern males blew up our planes, people, and monuments, have
we not had a national discussion about the evils of profiling those
from the Middle East in our airports and stations? Don't Muslims tell
their kindred back home how much freer they are in America than in Iraq
or Syria?
Like the dashed hopes of the 1930s such faith is not only misplaced,
but also dangerous. The efforts of countries like Iraq to acquire nuclear
weapons might under the present pressures grow dormant, but they will
not cease. A nuclear Pakistan is a tottering military dictatorship away
from Armageddon. Bribed autocracies in Jordan and Egypt are allies only
in the sense that their unelected leaders promise to jail their nuts
and fundamentalists who otherwise might turn on them as well as on us.
Polls everywhere in the Middle East reveal not mere anguish, but real
enmity toward Americans. Public pronouncements in Iran are not any less
hateful than what emanated from Berlin in 1936. Thousands of al Qaeda
killers have escaped--and thousands more are angry over the death of
the comrades and kin and planning carnage for us as we sleep.
Only a few of us Americans really take the Islamic world at its word--that
one in three is reported to think (representing, say, a small number
of around 200 million?) that the murder of 3,000 Americans was justified;
that two of three believed no Arabs were involved; and that even higher
poll numbers reflected real antipathy for the West.
After 30 years of listening to nauseating chanting from Teheran to Islamabad
to Nablus, hearing the childish rants about "The Mother of All
Battles" and "The Great Satan," and witnessing presidents
from Carter to Bush burned in effigy, the ritual torching of the American
flag, the misspelled banners of hatred, the thousands of paint-by-the-numbers
posters of psychopaths from Khomeini to bin Laden, televised threats
that sound as hideous as they are empty, Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism,
embassy takeovers, oil-boycotts, hijacked planes, cars, and ships, lectures
from unelected obese sheiks with long names and gold chains, peacekeepers
incinerated in their sleep, murders at the Olympics, bodies dumped on
the tarmac of airports, shredded diplomats, madmen in sunglasses in
Iraq, Syria, and Libya, demented mullahs and whip-bearing imams in Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia, and Iran, continual Televised murders of Americans abroad,
our towers toppled, our citizens butchered, our planes blown up, hooded
Klansmen in Hamas and Hezbollah, killers of al-this and Islamic-that,
suicide bombers, shrill turbaned nuts spouting hatred on C-SPAN broadcasts,
one day the salvation of Kuwait, the next sanctions against the swallower
of Kuwait, the third day fury against the sanctions against the swallower
of Kuwait, the fourth day some grievance from 1953, the fifth another
from A.D. 752; and all the time sanctimonious fingerpointing from Middle
Eastern academics and journalists who are as bold abroad in insulting
us as they are timid and obsequious under dictators at home in keeping
silent, I've about had it. No mas. The problem is you, not us--you,
you, youS.
I don't listen any more to the apologies and prevarications of our whiney
university Arabists, our equivocators in the state department, and the
really tawdry assortment of oil men, D.C. insiders, bought and paid
for PR suits, and weapons hucksters. The truth is that a large minority
of the Middle Eastern world wishes a war with America that it cannot
win--and much of the rest is apparently either indifferent or amused.
So we should stop apologizing, prepare for the worst, hope for the best,
and accept this animosity¾just as our forefathers once did when
faced by similar autocrats and their captive peoples who threatened
us in 1941. I don't know about the rest of America, but I am proud that
thugs like Khaddafi, murderers like Saddam Hussein, inquisitionists
like the mullahs in Iran, criminals in Syria, medieval sheiks in the
Gulf, and millions of others who do not vote, do not speak freely, oppress
women, and are not tolerant of religious, gender, or ethnic diversity
don't like me for being an American. I would find it repugnant if they
did.
No, their hatred is a badge of honor, and I would have it no other way.
I am tired of the appeasers of the Middle East on our Right who fawn
for oil and trade, and those pacifists and multiculturalists on the
Left who either do not know, or do not like, what America really is.
I'd rather think of all the innocent dead on 9/ 11 than give a moment
more of attention to Mr. Arafat and his bombers.
The truth is that there is a great storm on the horizon, one that will
pass--or bring upon us a hard rain the likes of which we have not seen
in 60 years. Either we shall say "no more," deal with Iraq,
and prepare for a long and hard war against murderers and terrorists--or
we will have more and more of what happened on 9/11. History teaches
us that certain nations, certain peoples, and certain religions at peculiar
periods in their history take a momentary, but deadly leave of their
senses--Napoleon's France for most of a decade, the southern states
in 1861, Japan in 1931, Germany in 1939, and Russia after World War
II. And when they do, they cannot be bribed, apologized to, or sweet-talked--only
defeated.
In that context, we see much of a whipped-up Arab world entering this
similar period of dangerous unreality. The problem is them and their
unelected and unfree regimes, not us--just as it was Hitler, not us;
Tojo, not us; Mussolini, not us; and Stalin, not us--just as it always
is when unelected maniacs take control and hijack an entire country
and culture. We can either step up and stop Islamic fundamentalism,
Arab terrorists, and Middle Eastern dictators or we can step back and
watch it all continue to grow. If 9/11 was the beginning of a war, then
we should remember that wars usually end when one, not both sides, win.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 353 • Monday, March 25, 2002
WHY WE STAY IN
ISRAEL
Sherry Mandell
It feels crazy to live in Israel
right now. A few people are leaving. I understand them. It's horrible
to live with the violence, and the attendant stress and anxiety. We
Israelis are so vulnerable: travelling in a car or bus, going to a cafe,
even staying home. All have been woven with terror. Every time of day
and night, we know we are targets.
One recent Friday night, we were awakened at one in the morning by the
loudspeaker in our community. The announcement said: "There is
a warning that there is a terrorist in Tekoa. Lock your windows and
doors, sleep with gun, guard your children. Turn out all of the lights."
We quickly turned off the lights even though we are Sabbath observers.
We locked the doors and windows. We put a chair in front of the front
door. Then the phone rang. Our neighbor was calling to make sure that
we had heard the warning.
The kids were scared, shaking. I told them that we would protect them,
take care of them. That they should try to go to sleep.
The kids fell to sleep, all of them in our bed. I prayed and then slept
fitfully, hoping that morning would soon be on its way.
Around 3:00 the loudspeaker came on again. The warning was over. For
now. But as I told my children, it's rare that terrorists warn you.
They certainly didn't warn my son, Koby, 13, before they stoned him
and his friend Yosef to death, crushing their skulls so they were unrecognizable.
Koby and Yosef were hiking near our home in Tekoa. The two boys wanted
to know the canyon beyond our house like the backs of their hands.
They were killed for their love of the land. They were killed for being
Jews.
My friend was at a movie in Jerusalem on Saturday night, the night of
the massacre at the Moment Café when a terrorist killed 11 people.
The manager stopped the movie and told the patrons what had happened
and asked if they wanted the movie to continue. They didn't. They all
went home.
Why do people continue to stay here even though we are being slaughtered
by terrorists? Because many of us feel a deep sense of connection here,
to our country, our heritage, and to each other.
The sense of connection manifests itself in surprising ways. Today I
go to the makollet, the grocery store, and there is a man filling a
cardboard box with goodies to send to his son in the army. The man picks
out a bar of chocolate, plain milk chocolate. And the makollet lady,
Rena, says: "Your son doesn't like that kind of chocolate. Noam
likes crunchy chocolate."
Another story: My friend Ruth is at a kiosk buying a drink. A little
girl says shyly to the proprietor: "What can I get for 2 shekls?"
He says, "nothing." Then he hands her a shekl. "But now
you have three. You can buy gum or a candy." Ruth fishes into her
pocket. "Now you have four."
Here there is a feeling of family. Here in the face of pain and suffering,
we don't feel alone. We feel that we are a net that is woven together
and though it is full of holes, it is strong enough to lift us up.
If we make a hole in the net, the net is weakened. Of course it can
be mended. But it will never be quite the same.
We don't want to make a hole in the net. We don't want to leave the
place where our son is buried. We don't want to leave the only place
in the world where time is measured by a Jewish calendar, where the
celebrations center on the Jewish holidays, where the language is the
language of the Bible. We don't want to leave the center of Jewish history.
Now we are part of that long, hard history. We are part of the struggle
of the Jewish people trying to live in their land.
My son died for being a Jew. I want to live as one.
___________________________
A WAR OF NO CHOICE
Israel Harel
Ha’aretz, March 21, 2002
The war of suicides is not the
Arabs' war of despair. Anyone claiming so is looking for a way to validate
the enemy and heap fallacious feelings of guilt on us. It is not despair
that grips the Arabs, but a spirit of madness. They feel they have hit
upon the most effective weapon against the Jews--a weapon that sows
confusion, fear, suffocation and a sense of having reached a dead end,
a weapon against which the Israel Defense Forces has no solution in
the framework of the norms that form its core essence.
It is not a weapon of last resort, one that is employed after all other
avenues have been explored, but rather the well-thought-out, coolly-calculated
(and premeditated) use of a weapon that leads many Jews to the desperate
conclusion that given the high costs claimed by terrorism in all areas
of life, it is impossible to go on living in this country.
The feeling of the Arabs--and the moralistic reactions that gave rise
to the refusal to serve in the territories, itself the product of despair,
prove to them that they are right--is that when it comes to Jews, suicide
terrorism is a much more effective weapon than anything else in the
Arab arsenal, including those that are apparently in Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein's stockpile.
It is a non-conventional weapon that sows despair in Israel, while elsewhere
in the world, it, unsurprisingly, causes reactions that along with non-binding
denunciations, primarily express understanding for and empathy with
the Arab "despair." True, for a brief period after September
11, it wasn't very nice to be an Arab terrorist, even the sort that
kills only Jews. But now the double standards are back: Only when terror
strikes against Americans and Europeans is there a uniform response
of condemnation and loathing, together with an unremitting war that
uses every means at its disposal.
The enemy is aware of this double standard, which is also accepted by
a sizable number of Jews in their own land, and this redoubles the enemy's
motivation to continue using suicide terrorism that rocks, as it sees
from the despairing responses in Israel, the foundations of their existence.
And some Israelis, even some cabinet ministers among them, react with
desperate thoughts and actions. It was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
not the enemy, who asked for a cease-fire earlier this week. On the
other hand, the Arabs, who are ostensibly the big losers and the desperate
party, were against it, and are continuing to blow up buses.
The tiny refusal-to-serve movement, which the media inflates beyond
any reasonable proportion to its true significance, is the spearhead
of the Israeli desolation camp. This camp has begun to understand the
critical message sent by suicide terrorism. It has concluded that if
in order to survive, we have to keep on fighting when there are no visible
signs of peace on the horizon--and through "not nice" means,
at that--then we give up.
This, in my opinion, is the deeper meaning of their refusal to serve
in the territories. And since they cannot admit it was in fact despair,
in a combination of self-indulgence and fastidiousness, that led them
to forsake the struggle and their comrades in arms, the quitters wrap
themselves in a moralistic mantle and seek the guilty parties among
us: the settlement enterprise--the mother of all sins; the misdeeds
of the IDF, the most moral army in the world, that stem, for the most
part, from the soldiers' fear of suicide bombers blowing up alongside
them, and from all the other harsh outcomes of the Arabs' cruel and
inhumane warfare.
Basically, the signs that the Arabs will never give up the fight have
been apparent ever since the start of the modern return to Zion. However,
fairly few people, in each generation, were willing to admit it: Our
war of existence will not, evidently, ever end, even in the distant
future.
Not Zinni, not Tenet and not Mitchell; not Oslo, not 242 or 338; not
the partition borders of 1947; not the boundaries of the Balfour Declaration
(that included Transjordan and parts of what are now Syria and Lebanon)
approved by the League of Nations; not the borders of June 6 or June
12, 1967: The objective of the Arabs' wars, from the war rejecting the
partition borders in 1947 to the war rejecting the Camp David and Taba
talks boundaries, is to prove that no sovereign Jewish presence, in
any boundary whatsoever, was, is or will be accepted by the Muslim world,
and certainly not by the Arab world.
This sentiment was well expressed by Osama bin Laden, hero of the Muslim
world and heir, in the eyes of many denizens of that world, of Salah
a-Din. The Islamic nation--and through his act bin Laden united the
Arabs and the Muslims--will pursue its war until the last of the infidels
is expelled from the holy lands of Mohammed. And Sheikh Ahmed Yasin
echoed the sentiment: Bin Laden's words, he said, were mainly intended
to describe the Jewish presence that defiles these holy lands.
When the war of terror first broke out, Deputy Chief of Staff Major
General Moshe Ya'alon said that there had been no other conflict to
compare to this one since the War of Independence. Essentially, he added,
it was a continuation of that war. Everything we have been through since
then proves that he was right; or maybe he was actually playing down
the severity--and the crucial nature--of the current war.
Suicide terrorism is not only battling against Jewish independence,
but against the fact of our mere presence here. As the 21st century
begins, despite the fact that the Jewish people can exact an immeasurably
high price from anyone trying to destroy it by unconventional means,
the Jewish people in its homeland is the only people in the world whose
enemies aspire to drive it out of its own country.
_____________________
THE SUICIDE OF THE PALESTINIANS
David Gelernter
The Weekly Standard, March 25, 2002
…The axioms that underpinned
Zionism have been turned inside out. Modern Israel was conceived as
a safe haven for Jews. It had other reasons for existing--but safety,
and the dignity that only comes with safety, were Zionism's emotional
mainsprings. In recent decades, though, especially since the end of
Soviet tyranny, the safe-haven idea has lost cogency like an unwound
watch running down. In the last few years, Israel has started to look
(on the contrary) like the most dangerous place for Jews in the world--if
we exclude the small Jewish communities that still exist in Arab countries.
Israel must change the way in which it explains itself…
Israeli thinkers ought to speak less about the tragedy (or the ordinariness)
of Israel's 3,000-year history, and more about its luminous greatness;
ought to talk up the nation's brilliant prospects, and the central role
it has played from Moses to Wittgenstein in creating and molding Western
civilization. They don't like to talk this way, but they ought to steel
themselves and do it anyway. "The Jew is a desert region,"
Wittgenstein wrote, "but underneath its thin layer of rock lies
the molten lava of spirit and intellect."…
(David Gelernter is a contributing
editor to The Weekly Standard)
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 352 • Friday, March 22, 2002
PALESTINIAN PRETENSE
AND ISRAELI REALITY:
WHAT THE WORLD KNOWS, BUT CAN’T SAY, TO BE TRUE
Victor Davis Hanson
National Review, March 18, 2002
A common theme throughout classical
literature is the role of pretext (prophasis) contrasted with the actual
cause of complaint (aitia)--the great divide between what aggrieved
people say publicly and what they feel privately. Nations, the historian
Thucydides reminds us, also adopt such strategic postures. Their spokesmen
often voice complaints that are either groundless or--even if partly
justified--at least different from the "real" or "true"
causes of their discontent.
We know the prophasis of the
Arab states at the heart of the Middle East question: Israel's occupation
of the West Bank. But the aitia--the truest cause of the Palestinian
lament--cannot be voiced so easily, either openly or in detail. Why?
To do so would involve a systematic cultural, political, and social
review of the entire Middle Eastern contemporary world--one that might
explain, in terms other than the few thousand acres of the West Bank,
why a tiny Jewish state is so prosperous, free, and confident amid dozens
whose half-billion inhabitants are not.
Do any in Europe and the Middle
East really wish to open the Pandora's Box of secular rationalism, religion,
capitalism, democracy and a host of other issues that might hurt Middle
Eastern feelings, cost real money, and incur danger--when chanting Zionism,
colonialism, racism, and other alleged -isms and -ologies do not?
The Palestinians publicly allege
that once given back 100 percent of the West Bank they will recognize
Israel and thus the dispute will at last end with recognition by the
entire Arab world of the Jewish State. Fair enough. Palestine will thereupon
be democratic and prosperous, and so for the first time in its history
live in peace side-by-side with Israel. Most Americans welcome just
such a vision.
Of course, few in the Islamic
world really believe that. Indeed, a number of its more impolitic spokesmen
have already written that such a withdrawal would merely be the first
step in a renewed struggle to end Israel altogether--as the Arab world
was energized at a sign of "weakness," and the citizens of
Israel demoralized by concessions made under duress. If one peruses
translated newspapers and magazine articles from the Middle East, the
rhetoric of destroying Israel is far more ubiquitous than the gospel
of mutual coexistence. The Arab League will soon meet to promise acceptance
of Israel's right to exist with the return of the West Bank--of course
with the caveat that we can hardly expect the crazies like Syria, Iraq,
and Libya to sign on publicly to such a "surrender." Mr. Arafat
himself to domestic audiences screams "jihad," and "infidels,"
as he praises suicide bombers as "martyrs" and "heroes,"
and promises the capture of Jerusalem.
Europeans likewise publicly advance
this prophasis, but in private conversation admit that within a few
years of "peace" the Israeli-Palestinian relationship would
return to its pre-1967 status of conflict over the very existence of
Israel. Afraid of terrorism, desirous of trade, eager for steady supplies
of oil, nervous over large groups of Islamic immigrants, eager to court
third-world favor, and playing good cop to our bad, Europe can hardly
express publicly what it privately knows to be true.
Indeed, if the West Bank were
to be returned and a general peace declared, there might well be a decade
of peace. But then after the hiatus, the madrassas, the autocrats, the
theocrats, and the coffee-house intellectuals would, according to their
station and methods, all move on to the next round of recovering "all"
of "Palestine"--a task made somewhat easier in their mind
by Israel's new nearly indefensible borders.
Unlike the Europeans and some
others in the West, much of the Arab world does not see distinct and
lasting periods of peace and war, but rather interprets the conflict
as a continuum--one that will properly and only end eventually with
the end of Israel itself. In this view, the Middle East discord is not
unlike the first and second Peloponnesian Wars, the three Punic Wars,
the First through Fourth Crusade, or perhaps even the interpretation
of World War I and II as part of the larger Anglo-German conflict. Such
a series of individual "wars" spanning decades ends not with
mutual concessions and a brokered peace, but when one side--an Athens,
Carthage, Crusader kingdom, or Germany--is militarily defeated and humiliated.
Why should we put credence in
such a pessimistic appraisal of Arab intentions? History supports it.
The first three wars were waged when the West Bank was in Arab hands;
so why would the premises for the next war be any different from those
of 1947, 1956, or 1967, when the goal, as Egyptian General Saad Ali
Amer once put it plainly, was "the realization of our common goal--the
elimination of Israel"?
The current conflict is surely
not over the grievance of dead Muslims--Iraq and Iran make Israelis
look like amateurs in that regard. Nor is the lament really over the
cruel expulsion of Palestinians en masse--Kuwait garners that prize
for expelling a quarter million after the Gulf War. Nor is there much
historical precedent of according Palestinians any privileged position
based on land lost through war. Compare the current borders of Germany
with those of 1914, and then try and make the case for returning soil
from France and Poland that was German since antiquity--and the world
will answer back with a stern lecture about the wages that a state incurs
when it repeatedly attacks its neighbors and loses.
Economically, there is no reason
to believe that an autonomous Palestinian state will operate any differently
from its other Arab neighbors--statist, corrupt, tribal, and unfree,
with an intolerable situation of sending workers into a hated Israel
to earn what they could not garner in a beloved Palestine. And without
the grievance of the West Bank, the stark reality of such economic disarray
might be more, not less difficult, for thousands to stomach.
Politically, the situation is
depressingly similar. Why, if Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq
are run by autocrats, will Palestine be any different? Why, if he were
granted his entire agenda, would Mr. Arafat suddenly surrender his ironclad
control of the media, and thereupon become the first truly democratic
leader of the entire Muslim world to welcome discussion of his policies,
Islamic religion, and Westernization?
The best to be hoped for would
be a Palestine more similar to Jordan--a "nice-guy" autocracy
without real democracy or freedom that supported Saddam Hussein in the
Gulf War, and lives in fear of its own Islamic extremists. So we continue
with the present Orwellian scene in which loud Middle-Eastern journalists
and intellectuals, who have never known true freedom at home, lecture
the United States about Mr. Arafat's democratic demands for his own
unfree Palestinians.
If the world knows the bleak
prognosis, why all the idealistic demands for granting "freedom"
and "democracy" to the Palestinians? To be crass, I think
much of the discussion is simply a matter of anti-Semitism and the power
of oil. Those two themes are central in many angry letters that I receive
daily from critics--and not all of them are from Middle Easterners or
survivalists in the northwest, who nevertheless exhibit a spooky commonality.
If the Arab world were without crude oil, there could be an honest assessment
of the true nature of Mr. Arafat's regime, and enlightened people could
talk of a great faultline between a free democracy and a one-party autocracy.
And if this dispute did not involve Jews--that is, if it were seen in
the context of hundreds of murderous border disputes over lost lands
now going on between Indians and Pakistanis, Chinese and Tibetans, Colombians,
Congolese, Irish, Rwandans, Kurds and Turks and other aggrieved, the
world would merely sigh.
Much of the problem, then, quite
simply is also psychological and arises because a Jewish state is right
smack in the middle of the Arab world--and by every measure of economic,
political, social, and cultural success thriving amid misery. Without
oil, without a large population, without friendly countries on its borders,
without vast real estate, and without the Suez Canal, it somehow provides
its citizenry with a way of life far more humane than what is found
in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, or Egypt. Yet the world listens to
the Palestinians' often-duplicitous leadership--despite the corrupt
nature and murderous past history of Mr. Arafat's regime--because its
sponsors sell a good part of the globe's oil. And to risk their wrath,
one would have to support a few million Jews, not hundreds of millions
of, say, British, Swedes, or Italians.
And so we give not a damn over
millions of innocents elsewhere butchered over millions of acres each
year worldwide, but instead focus on what the Palestinians lost while
attempting to destroy their neighbors. For those who laugh at such reductionism,
imagine the world's moral outrage if China were tiny and Jewish, while
Tibet was backed by Asian nations with the world's oil reserves. I have
not recently heard any European demanding an instant redress for the
theft of Tibetan land, the destruction of its cultural heritage, and
frequent forced expulsion of its population by a government that is
neither democratic nor free.
If such a bleak appraisal of
prophasis and aitia is accurate, is there any hope for Israel when the
entire world knows the truth that it cannot confess without endangering
its economic interests or moral pretenses? What then can Israel do as
the West watches and wonders whether the supply of suicidal murderers
will be exhausted before the weary Israeli public concedes? Such a strange
place, the Middle East--where Klansmen-like terrorists in hoods, who
blow themselves up in Israeli restaurants, and fire machine guns up
into the air at funerals, try to pass themselves off as noble, underpowered
freedom fighters because their fiery supporters in Syria, Lebanon, Egypt,
and Jordan have learned long ago not to send any more of their own plentiful
planes and tanks to destroy Israel.
Given pressure from all sides
and short of an all-out war, Israel may well have to exist as a fortress
next to Mr. Arafat's state, after unilaterally returning what it considers
it can afford of the West Bank. It would then brace for a cold war of
the type the United States waged against the Soviets and Eastern Europe,
holding firm against a Palestinian state behind barbed wire and concrete
for decades until (fat chance?) true democracy and secularism might
appear among its neighbors. West Germany prospered for a half century
behind mines, guard towers, and police dogs; apparently that was better
than having Communists crossing the border to kill free German citizens.
But there is one final consideration
for those smug utopian architects in our state department and Europe
that is completely forgotten in all this. There will be no second Holocaust.
If almost all of the West Bank is returned, as is likely, and in a few
years hostilities nevertheless resume as they did during phases 1-3
of the Middle East wars, as is also likely, the battle will be over
Israel itself, not Palestinian land. That will be a war Israel will
not lose, and it will be fought outside not inside the Jewish state.
And that will be a nightmare compared to the current crisis. Those in
Europe and in the United States who now lecture about morality will
then prove to be not only amoral, but also answerable for far, far more
still.
Shabbat shalom to all our
readers!
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 351 • Thursday, March 21, 2002
BREAKING NEWS:
TWO KILLED, 87 INJURED
AS SUICIDE BOMBER HITS DOWNTOWN JERUSALEM
Jonathan Lis and Haim Shadmi
Ha'aretz, March 21, 2002
At least two people were
killed when a suicide bomber blew himself up in downtown Jerusalem on
Thursday afternoon. According to Magen David Adom, more than 87 people
have been evacuated to Jerusalem's four hospitals.
Security sources said that the bomber had previously been held in jail
by the Palestinian Authority, but was subsequently released when the
IDF entered the West Bank city of Ramallah a few weeks ago.
In a telephone call to The Associated Press, the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade,
a militia linked to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's Fatah
faction, claimed responsibility for the bombing. The Al Aqsa Brigade
identified the assailant as Mohammed Hashaika, 22, a resident of the
West Bank village of Talooza, north of the city of Nablus.
______________________________________________________
ISRAEL, THE ONLY DEMOCRATIC STATE
IN THE MIDDLE EAST, DESERVES OUR MORAL SUPPORT
Declan McCormack
Irish Sunday Independent, March 10,
2002
It's open season for Jew-bashing
in the West at the moment. As the Middle East's only democracy is subjected
to wave after wave of vicious terrorist attacks by Palestinian gunmen
and suicide bombers the pious West and the sanctimoniously 'liberal'
Western media lay the blame firmly where it has always lain with the
Jews.
Yes, while every other democracy in the 'free world' claims a sovereign
God-given right to extirpate terrorism and to protect their innocent
citizens from the evil deeds of men and women of violence, the Jewish
state of Israel is supposed to take the vicious, murderous attacks on
its citizens lying down and presumably apologising for its existence,
for the Jewish people's history and for 'going on about' the Holocaust.
The Jews were, after all, made to be attacked, annihilated and scapegoated.
First the pogrom, then the expulsion, then the name-calling. How odd
of God to choose the Jews, indeed. But, of course, no-one even the rabidly
pro-Palestinian Western media really approves of these attacks on ordinary
Jews. No-one, that is, except the gore-glorying mobs who celebrate every
blood-bedraggled mission by dancing in the little streets of the Palestinian
townships.
We in the West would rather the ordinary Israelis who travel on buses
or who attend bar-mitzvahs or eat as a family in pizza parlours weren't
blown to pieces by Palestinian suicide bombers because it doesn't square
with our cherished notion that the poor Palestinian freedom fighters
are being savagely bullied by the US-backed fascist colonial Semitic
superpower that is Israel. Little urchin catapault-wielders fighting
against Merkava tanks and Hellfire missile-shooting fighter jets.
Of course, all Palestinian violence is mere retaliation. Sure, wouldn't
you blow yourself up right beside a mother and her small children if
you had to queue everyday at checkpoints? Sure, we all know that Ariel
Sharon is worse than Hitler. Remember the Lebanese massacres. (How could
you ever forget when they're mentioned in every news reports even as
the blown-to-pieces bodies of Israeli children are picked off the streets
of Jerusalem.) Don't, of course, mention the 1997 suicide bomb which
killed 13 Israelis in Jerusalem just after Israel had given the PLO
control of Hebron. It doesn't really fit in with this schema whereby
all Palestinian violence is just the understandable reaction of a downtrodden
people to the gratuitous incursions and the targeted killings by Israel.
Don't mention, either, the fact that while Israel only targets terrorists
who endanger the lives of their families by using them as human shields
(thus the killing of the Hamas leader's family last week, for which
Israel apologised) while the lovely, generous Palestinians (as described
on Liveline last Tuesday) support terrorist organisations who kill Israelis
at random. But then they're only Israelis. Jews. And what are they doing
in Zion, anyway. Zionists! Fascists! Colonists!
And so the West lends immoral support to the Palestinians and delivers
high-minded lectures to Israel about 'how to handle terrorists without
hurting anyone'. Lesson one when, eh, we haven't worked out the details
yet. The Swedes are very good at giving this advice. They had a great
record in the last war facilitating Nazi steel transportations. And,
of course, the UN High Commissioner Mary Robinson, formerly President
of neutral Ireland, has been getting up on her high nelly lecturing
Israel and telling them to be respectful of minorities. Especially,
one presumes, suicide bombers at bus-stops. It wasn't that long ago
since Ms. Robinson was emoting about how she herself was a Jew…She
might just show a little consideration for the embattled and terrorised
Jews of Israel now.
She might also bear in mind that someone else recently announced in
public that he was a Jew. The kidnapped Wall Street journalist Daniel
Pearl was forced by his captors to say on video in a sick parody of
the Palestinian Martyrs' final self-glorifying videos that he was a
Jew and that his father was a Jew and his mother a Jew. That said, his
Muslim captors slit his throat and cut off his head. Nice people.
In the ongoing Middle Eastern and potentially worldwide battle between
Islam and Judaism it is sincerely to be hoped that this time out some
European countries may learn the lesson of their obscene history and
bring themselves to say and mean that 'in that case, I'm a Jew'. They
could start by giving moral support to the only democratic state in
the middle east as it tries to quell a coldly calculated uprising inspired
by little else except the ideology and praxis of terrorism and the undiluted
anti-Semitic hatred of the toxic wing of Islam.
_____________________________________________________
MAKE THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PAY
David M. Weinberg
Jerusalem Post, March, 17 2002
News item: "Israel, US negotiating
over tax monies to be handed over to Palestinians." Nothing could
be more absurd. The EU and the US are pressuring Israel to release into
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's coffers some $1.6 billion
in various taxes and customs duties collected by the Finance Ministry
on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. US President George W. Bush
himself raised the issue with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last month.
Now, I'm certain that Arafat has the best of intentions for the funds
that our good friends abroad would have us deposit in his personal bank
account in Tel Aviv. He plans to build old age homes, establish chess
clubs, open soup kitchens, manufacture Kleenex, and sponsor the Palestinian
Gaylee Boys Choir.
I'll even take Arafat at his word that he will not spend a penny of
the $1.6b. to purchase guns, bullets, mortars, rockets and other projectiles
that could hurt Israelis. Not even to pay-off his Iranian shipping bill.
I'm also willing to skip the argument that monies are fungible, meaning
that if we give Arafat cash to spend on social welfare, it frees up
other PA funds for the purchase of weaponry. Recall that the previous
Bush administration wasn't so understanding. George Sr. coldly told
Israel "no" when we requested loan guarantees to absorb Russian
immigrants, because he didn't like Yitzhak Shamir's spending on settlements.
Money is fungible, the elder Bush intoned.
Nevertheless, the notion that Israel owes anything to Arafat is both
outrageous and ludicrous. Yasser owes us a lot more money than we supposedly
owe him. It is time to make the PA pay, in hard cash, for the economic
and financial damages it has caused Israel over the past 18 months.
To begin with, Jerusalem should use the PA's embargoed tax monies to
pay the hundreds of Israeli companies that have been stiffed by the
PA for supplied goods and services. Sources in the Israel Chambers of
Commerce and the civil administration say the PA owes Israeli businesses
over $100 million, including $13m. to Israel Electric and about $50m.
to Bezeq.
In fact, 22 private companies, supported by the chamber and the Manufacturers
Association, petitioned the High Court of Justice in January demanding
exactly that. The companies--which include flour mills, air conditioning
contractors, plastics, ceramics, chemicals and packaging manufacturers--hold
about $5m. in bounced Palestinian checks. We should return these checks
to the PA through Anthony Zinni. Call it a down payment on the $1.6b.
we theoretically owe Arafat.
According to a 1994 Israeli law passed after the Cairo Accords (which
established the parameters for economic relations between Israel and
the PA), our Finance Ministry is empowered to deduct such Palestinian
debts from tax monies we collect for the PA! Foolishly, the law has
never been implemented.
PA liability is compounded by the whopping, devastating 95 percent drop
in foreign investment that Israel has suffered since the armies under
Arafat's control began shooting; from $2b. to $100m. in one year! That
makes for another $1.9b. that the PA owes Israel. Some $100 million
more has been lost in tourism. Tack it on to Yasser's bill.
The actual fighting has cost the IDF well over $2.5b., I estimate. One
hour's operation of an Apache attack helicopter runs over $4,500; an
F-16, over $12,000; a Merkava tank, at least $2,000. We have several
thousand bulletproof vests for the police and for reservists on order,
at $400 each, a new necessity courtesy of Mr. Arafat. The cost of security
guards at schools, wedding halls, community centers, and synagogues
is adding up, too.
Don't forget the high cost of maintaining so many Palestinian informants,
and funds for hundreds of additional ambulance drivers, surgeons, social
workers, occupational therapists, trauma support groups, etc. Valium,
Prozac and Seroxat use in this country has gone through the roof. The
Health Ministry says it needs an additional $300m.
I think we should add to Arafat's bill the enormous cost of the election
to dump Ehud Barak, and the overtime paid to Carmela Menashe of Israel
Radio so that she can broadcast her trenchant criticism of IDF operations.
Now for compensation to the approximately 1,500 Israeli victims of Palestinian
terror: each victim should get no less than the Palestinian dead are
receiving.
Reportedly, Hamas gives $10,000 to the family of every suicide bomber.
According to The Financial Times of London, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister
Tariq Aziz said last Monday that Baghdad would raise its financial contribution
to the families of Palestinian martyrs from $10,000 to $25,000. That's
a total shahid package of $35,000. The principle of equity demands that
our dead--and I think even our wounded--get the same. Which adds $52.5
million to the reparations owed to Israel by Yasser Arafat's Evil Authority.
Not including punitive damages.
Arafat shouldn't count on pocketing too much change once we get through
adding up the costs of the nasty little war he forced upon us.
(The writer is director
of public affairs at Bar-Ilan
University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.)
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 350 • Wednesday, March 20, 2002
WEDNESDAY'S "NEWS
IN REVIEW" ROUND-UP
WEEKLY QUOTES
“The Tenet work
plan requires 100 percent effort from Chairman Arafat to stop the violence
and the terror. I would expect a 100 percent effort to begin immediately.
[Arafat] must speak to his own people personally about the importance
of ending violence and terrorism, issue clear instructions to his security
services to enforce the cease-fire, and to follow-up closely these efforts
to ensure [their] implementation…”—U.S. Vice-President
Dick Cheney during his visit to Israel, declaring that he would
meet with Chairman Arafat on condition that the P.A. leader first implement
the Tenet cease-fire plan (Jerusalem Post, March 20) [CNN reports
that a potential meeting between Vice-President Cheney and Arafat might
be held in Egypt and could happen just before or just after next week's
Arab League summit in Beirut.]
“Every morning I travel with fear. I know that they don’t
care who you are."—Israeli Arab nurse Kamli
Massalha, who was injured in this morning’s suicide bombing
bus attack in northern Israel which killed seven and injured 30, saying
the bombers made no distinction between Arabs and Jews. (Jer. Post,
March 20)
“If [Arafat] does travel to Beirut, we expect to hear
a speech addressing the importance of peace and stability in the region.”—P.M.
Ariel Sharon suggesting that Arafat might not be allowed to
return to the West Bank and Gaza should a surge of terrorist attacks
erupt while he was gone or if he incited violence at the Arab League
meeting (New York Times, March 20)
“The [cease-fire] test will be in results on the ground
only. All of the signs indicate that, regrettably, we are in a re-run.
While the IDF indeed carried out its part and withdrew from ‘A’
areas, IDF Intelligence reports reveal a chilling picture, and there
is no change in the Palestinians’ extremist rhetoric. Yasser Arafat
feels that the wave of violence he has been riding for 1.5 years is
finally beginning to bear diplomatic fruit. Then why shouldn’t
he continue on his current path?”—Editorial (Ma’ariv,
March 20)
“The Aksa Brigades are the noblest phenomenon in the history
of Fatah, because they restored the movement’s honor and bolstered
the political and security echelon of the Palestinian Authority.”—West
Bank Preventive Security Service head Jibril Rajoub, praising
the Aksa Brigades, one of the most deadly of the terrorist wings of
Yasser Arafat’s Fatah-controlled movement. [Jibril Rajoub, a prominent
Palestinian figure close to Yasser Arafat, also admitted to being behind
a secret mission in 1992 that attempted to assassinate P.M. Ariel Sharon
when he served as housing minister.] (Jer. Post, March 19)
“The occupation killed my son. I have no doubt this death
was unnecessary, but I am sure that I will have a harder time coping
with it if I continue to think it was unnecessary, so I prefer to make
things ‘pretty’ by saying he died while protecting his country.
But I do not believe that.”—Malka Tzemech,
mother of murdered Lieut. Tal Tzemech, harshly attacking Israel’s
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Her son was killed in his
sleep and three others wounded, by Palestinian gunmen who yesterday
infiltrated an Israeli paratrooper training camp in the northern Jordan
Valley. (N.Y.T., March 20)
“It is important to recognize that in the Arab world the
threat is perceived quite differently. The people who are dying today
on the streets are not a result of any Iraqi action. The people are
dying as a result of an Israeli action. And likewise the people in Israel
are dying as a result of actions taken in response.”—Crown
Prince Salman Hamad Al-Khalifa of Bahrain (Wall Street
Journal, March 20)
“…Saddam is not merely the devil they know…The
prospect of a new regime for such a powerful neighbour, and in particular
one which espouses Western-style democracy (which is quite certainly
what the U.S. would install), truly horrifies [the Arab world]…The
Arab states are trying effectively to obtain a trade. In its crudest
terms: You can ‘do’ Iraq if, first, you ‘do’
Israel, by forcing them to accept something resembling the Saudi Arabian
‘peace initiative.’…The Israeli bête noire is
their other prop…[I]t presents itself, thanks to the recent explosion
of violence, as the only available delaying tactic…What we need
is a [sic.] U.S. plausibly to say: ‘Do what we ask or to hell
with you.’ That requires a willingness to contemplate the collapse
of a ‘moderate’ regime in Arabia or Egypt, and therefore
an ability to confront the whole Arab world as the agent of democracy…Instead,
the Bush administration is holding on for dear life to anything that
remains of the old, more comfortable Middle Eastern order…”—Columnist
David Warren (Nat’l Post, March 20)
“In the sphere of the United Nations, Canada is always
immediately behind the U.S. in helping to support and defend Israel.
We certainly expect that in Geneva they will perform likewise.”—Israel’s
ambassador to the UN Yehuda Lancry, looking to Canada to prevent
Arab states from achieving uncontested condemnations of the Jewish state
at the annual meeting of the UN Commission on Human Rights in Geneva
next week. With the U.S. ejected from the commission last year, Canada
is the only member in a strong position to demand a ballot on a series
of anti-Israel resolutions (Nat’l Post, March 16)
“Israel’s acts are seen in a totally different light. Israel
is taking steps to defend itself in extremely difficult circumstances.
We have urged…only that it do so in a way…which moves the
peace process along…[W]e will work in consultation with Israel
during this [next] session”--Canada’s Minister
of Foreign Affairs Bill Graham, backing Israel’s charges
that the UN Human Rights Commission has been unfair in its attacks on
the Jewish state. (National Post, March 20)
“There’s been a successive series of important initiatives
such as we’ve rarely seen in some time. There was the initiative
by Crown Prince Abdullah—which for my part I approve of completely
and I hope it will be taken up by all the Arab countries at the summit
in Beirut on March 27—that is, the peace-for-land exchange. It
would be the first time that the Arab countries have taken this position;
it’s a far-reaching and important change. And still, there are
questions in Israel about the prime minister’s action. You know,
I understand perfectly well the horror of Israeli citizens in the face
of terrorist attacks. It’s a normal reaction which no one can
dispute, just as I understand the reaction of the Palestinians who feel
humiliated and under attack.”—French President
Jacques Chirac, in an interview with the International Herald
Tribune. (I.H.T., March 20)
“I cannot imagine what caused me to make those comments,
which I totally repudiate. Whatever the reason, I was wrong for not
disagreeing with the president [Richard Nixon], and I sincerely apologize
to anyone I have offended. I don’t ever recall having those feelings
about any group, especially the Jews, and I certainly do not have them
now. My remarks did not reflect my love for the Jewish people. I humbly
ask the Jewish community to reflect on my actions on behalf of Jews
over the years that contradict my words in the Oval office that day…”—Rev.
Billy Graham apologizing for his remarks in which he discussed
“total Jewish domination of the media” as recorded on a
1972 Oval Office tape that was made public by the National Archives.
Until recently, the evangelist who said the nation’s problem lies
with “satanic Jews” had denied having made such a statement.
(N.Y.T., March 17)
___________________________________
SHORT TAKES
7 KILLED IN SUICIDE BOMBING
ON BUS IN NORTH—(Jerusalem) Seven people were
killed, four of them IDF soldiers, and nearly 30 were injured when a
suicide bomber set off a powerful bomb that ripped apart an Egged bus
this morning near the Afula-area Israeli Arab town of Umm al Fahm. The
Islamic Jihad organization claimed responsibility. The soldiers have
been identified as Non-Commissioned Officer Meir Fahima, 40, Staff Sergeant
Shimon Haderi, 20, Sergeant Michael Altfiro, 19, and Corporal Aharon
Revivo. Two of the civilians killed in the bombing have been identified
as Alon Goldenberg, 28, and Mahanto Mogus, 75. A number of Israeli Arabs
were among the dead. Israel Radio said the bus was traveling from Tel
Aviv to Nazareth Ilit. (Ha’aretz, March 20)
ISRAELI, PALESTINIAN OFFICIALS TO MEET TONIGHT—(Tel
Aviv) Senior Israeli and Palestinian officials are scheduled to
meet this evening in Tel Aviv to discuss ways to implement the Tenet
plan. Following its complete pullout from Bethlehem and northern Gaza,
Israel is expected to request that the Palestinians take a number of
steps against terrorism which include the arrest of wanted terrorists,
the dismantling of terror organizations, and the confiscation of illegal
weapons. The Palestinians will request that the IDF pull back to positions
occupied before the outbreak of violence in September 2000. They are
also expected to request the dismantling of all IDF roadblocks of Palestinian
villages, and that Palestinian civilians be allowed full freedom of
movement. U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni, Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter, and
Palestinian Preventive Security heads Jibril Rajoub and Mohammad Dahlan
will participate in the meeting. (Jer. Post, March 20)
MARCH OF THE LIVING CANCELS ISRAEL TRIP—(New
York) The Israel leg of next month’s March of the Living
trip, which brings 1,500 teenagers to concentration camp sites and the
Jewish state, has been cancelled. In the face of this decision, the
United Jewish Federation of MetroWest, New Jersey, decided independently
to provide teens with what they say is an integral component of the
march--a week of Jewish life in Israel to offset emotions stirred by
a week of witnessing the killing grounds of the Holocaust. “I
think it's a disgrace that they're willing to go to Poland and not to
Israel," said Mark Sarna, a child of Holocaust survivors and chairman
of the American Friends of the Ghetto Fighters Museum. His 17-year-old
daughter, Danielle, will fly from Poland to Israel with the federation.
The march organizers, he said, "showed cowardice and basically
buckled in to pressure and fear, particularly when Israel needs American
Jewry so much." (Jer. Post, March 20)
ISRAEL ASSAILS UN CHIEF FOR PUBLIC LETTER—(New
York) The Israeli mission to the UN assailed Secretary General
Kofi Annan for a critical letter he sent to P.M. Ariel Sharon last week
and released publicly on Monday. The Israeli mission said “the
tactic of using the media for selective criticism, so as to exert pressure
on those combating terror rather on the terrorists and those states
supporting them is at the least counterproductive.” The Israeli
statement criticized Annan’s letter for “fail[ing] to reflect
the basic fact that it is Palestinian terrorists that are deliberately
targeting civilians.” Annan’s report claimed that as a result
of Israel’s actions, “hundreds of innocent non-combatant
civilians…have been injured or damaged or destroyed.”
(N.Y.T.; Jer. Post, March 20)
GERMAN DOCUMENTARY CASTS DOUBT ON PALESTINIAN ICON--
(Jerusalem) A documentary aired Sunday on German television
has cast doubt on the authenticity of a Palestinian icon of the intifada:
Muhammed al-Dura. The 12-year-old Gazan boy was shot to death in a crossfire
two days after the violence began on September 30, 2000, while crouching
for safety with his father. The incident was filmed by the France2 television
network, and the pictures had a dramatic impact on the public perception
of Israel's use of force, with the IDF widely accused of killing the
boy. The documentary raises the issue of whether France2 released all
its footage, and whether it was physically possible to have hit al Dura
from the IDF’s position. An IDF investigation after the event
raised similar doubts. (Jer. Post, March 19)
NETANYAHU PLAN WOULD OUST ARAFAT—(Jerusalem)
Former P.M. Benjamin Netanyahu told Time magazine that Israel
should invade the West Bank and Gaza Strip if P.A. Chairman Yasser Arafat
will not budge on the right-of-return issue and continues to sponsor
terrorism. His plan would deport Arafat, and the PA’s 35,000 paramilitary
police would be stripped of their weapons. Israel would then create
a separation between Israelis and Palestinians with a network of fences
and defensive positions maintained by tanks. Netanyahu added that if
Palestinian leaders give up on the issue of the right of return, he
would be willing to sign a full peace agreement. (New York Post,
March 18)
U.S. CHARGED WITH IGNORING SAUDI CHARITIES TIED TO TERRORISTS—(Washington)
John Loftus, a former prosecutor with the U.S. Department of
Justice, says U.S. officials refuse to move against fraudulent American-based
charities that allegedly channeled money from the government of Saudi
Arabia to terrorist organizations. “The Saudi relationship is
so sensitive that, for more than a decade, federal prosecutors and counterterrorist
agents have been ordered to shut down their investigations for reason
of foreign policy.” Loftus claims that planned raids and arrests
against terrorist-related targets have been halted and that criminal
investigations into Saudi-backed charities have been interfered with.
(Nat’l Post, March 20)
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION OMITS JERUSALEM IN LIST OF CAPITALS—(Jerusalem)
The Foreign Ministry of Israel has issued a formal protest to the World
Health Organization and the United Nations for the intentional omission
of Jerusalem as Israel's capital in printed and on-line lists of nearly
200 countries--the rest of whose capitals are named. Asked to explain
Jerusalem's absence from the list, WHO spokesman Jon Liden said the
decision was based on UN guidelines and follows resolutions “by
the General Assembly and the UN Security Council, as well as by the
World Health Assembly.” (Jer. Post, March 19)
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 349 • Tuesday, March 19, 2002
NAMING THE WAR
Ari Shavit
Ha'aretz, March 15, 2002
A name is needed. This war needs
a name. If you don't give your war a name you can't fight it. If you
don't give your war a name you can't win it. You will lose. And in losing,
die. One possibility is the Al-Aqsa Intifada. But that is the Palestinian
name, not the Israeli one. And for a long time now the point hasn't
been Al-Aqsa. Not only Al-Aqsa. Nor is there an intifada here. There
are no mass demonstrations, no popular uprising, no stone throwing.
So those who say intifada are lying. Merely laundering words.
Another possibility is the End of the Occupation War. The Palestinians'
war to end the occupation. But this war broke out immediately after
the Palestinians were offered the end of the occupation. By exchanging
Ehud Barak for Ariel Sharon, this war itself actually perpetuated the
occupation. And in large part, this war is being waged outside the areas
of the occupation. It makes no distinction between Israelis of occupation
and Israelis of outside the occupation. So anyone who speaks about the
End of the Occupation War is lying. Merely laundering words.
Perhaps the Peace for the Settlements War. The war of Ariel Sharon to
perpetuate the settlements. But this war broke out immediately after
Israel agreed to dismantle about a hundred settlements. The war broke
out immediately after the Palestinians ostensibly agreed to accept the
existence of the remaining settlements. And in none of their ideological
platforms do the Palestinians posit the settlements as a sufficient
condition for ending this war and establishing peace. In none of their
war cries do the Palestinians posit the goal of dismantling the settlements
as a final goal. So anyone who says that this war is the Peace for the
Settlements War is lying. Merely laundering words.
So as I lean on the stone fence across the way, as I watch the highly
skilled teams wash the blood off the road, it comes to me that maybe
the right name for this war is an awkward, old name: the War of the
Life of the Jews. Or a slightly more updated version: The War of the
Jews' Last Chance. After all, the inhuman human being who was sent here
by a national liberation movement that is not a national liberation
movement did not want to kill the people sitting at the bar in Moment
in order to avenge the humiliation of the checkpoints. That Palestinian
Goldstein who was sent here by this Palestinian Duce in order to plunge
bolts and nails into the girls of Moment didn't do it in order to win
himself freedom. He did it in an ecstasy of religious hatred the likes
of which exists nowhere on earth. He did it in a convulsion of a cult
of land and a cult of blood and a cult of death. He did it in an attack
of fascist zealotry that does not know the value of the individual.
And he did it not to affirm them but to deny us. Not to liberate them
but to annul us. To chase us out of here.
The window-shattered prow of Moment glows with a kind of strangely pleasant
light. As though the cafe were a boat that has already been hit by a
torpedo and all its sailors killed--but has not yet sunk. And as I wander
by these windows and look at the half-empty beer bottles and the uneaten
bowls of pasta and the red Cinzano that survived, it comes to me that
it is really very simple: After all the complexity, what it boils down
to is: They want to take our lives. Religious nationalist fanatics want
to take our lives. And in their messianic fervor, they are sending us
a very clear message with their bombs: We cannot bear you. We cannot
bear your freedom, we cannot bear your sovereignty, we cannot bear your
way of life. We cannot bear your girls. We cannot bear your children,
we cannot bear your infants. We cannot bear your happiness. We cannot
bear your happy occasions. We cannot bear your laughter. We cannot bear
the blood that flows in your veins, the very beating of your heart.
The explosive device had something of the effect of a small neutron
bomb. It hardly touched property, only killed people. The chairs are
overturned and the glass is shattered, but the counter is almost unharmed.
Above the espresso machine are piles of small Segafredo cups. Rows and
rows of whiskey, arak, liqueur. The two rings of Carlsberg and Tuborg
glow in the distance above the two beer taps. Only the entrance area
is blackened. There are only a few bloodstains on the window bars. And
in the northeast corner a wall perforated by nails. Bolts and nails.
A name is needed. A name is needed urgently. Because this killing is
not taking place out of the blue. This killing is taking place the way
it is and on the scale that it is because in the past few months the
laundering of words has accorded it legitimization. This killing is
taking place the way it is and on the scale that it is because in the
past few months Israeli politics has infused it with motivation. This
killing is taking place because in the past few months we have behaved
wantonly. We have blurred lines. So we need a name in order to draw
new lines. Lines here and now. So that it will be possible to understand
what we are fighting for. What we are being killed for. Killed on the
counter of the bar. Killed in the midst of lovemaking. In the midst
of life.
At four in the morning a family arrives. The father, wearing a knitted
kippa, is composed. The mother's eyes are large and frightened. They
have come to look for items of clothing. Maybe they will be able to
find some items of clothing here. Because at Shaare Zedek Medical Center
they said no and at Hadassah Hospital in Ein Karem they said no, and
at Abu Kabir, the forensic institute, they found nothing. She only started
working here today. Today of all days she started work here. They have
been wandering around all night, not knowing what to do. Not knowing
who to turn to. Maybe some items of clothing remained by the bar. Some
signs of identity.
Only one name comes to me: the War of Sovereignty. Maybe the War of
Israeli Sovereignty. Maybe the War of Jewish Sovereignty. Because this
is the goal of the war: not to bring about the collapse of the occupation
but to bring about the collapse of Jewish sovereignty. To deny the Jews
the right to be sovereign in any part of the Land of Israel. And this
is also both the strategy and the tactic of this war: by means of killing
in cafes and killing in restaurants and killing in malls and pizzerias
and in night clubs, to show the Jews that they are no longer safe any
place in Israel. By generating fear and sowing separation, it wants
to isolate the Jews in separate political and geographic cantons that
are alienated from one another and turn away from one another and devote
all their efforts to mutual gratuitous hatred.
By means of murder and massacre, this war is trying to force the Jews
out of every public place and deny them any feeling of public order,
to insulate them in terrified, helpless individual life. In order to
disrupt completely all the workings of their common life. In order to
void of content their political independence. And in order to demonstrate
to them, by means of bombs, that they are no longer sovereign. That
the Jews are not sovereign anywhere in this country.
I won't sleep tonight. It's better not to sleep. As long as the eyes
are open, the eyes don't remember. As long as the eyes are open, they
don't reconstruct what happened. They don't have to watch the horror
movie that Moment projects incessantly on the screen of one's consciousness.
But down below on Gaza Street and on Radak and on Ben Maimon it is very
dark. In the center of town, too, the night cafes are closed. Here and
there a police van speeds by. Here and there one sees a policeman with
an assault rifle. And there is the wailing of the muezzin on the Temple
Mount. Apocalyptic Bratslav Hasidim congregate.
Maybe it's not too late after all. Maybe it is still in our hands. Now,
with the sirens chasing one another, with all the lights flashing, with
the writing shouting from every wall. And 350 who are silent. Eleven
hundred Palestinians and 350 Jews who are forever silent.
One thing is clear: if we do not get up now, we will never get up. If
we allow ourselves to go on wallowing in this helplessness and this
factionalism and this self-hatred, we will never get on our feet again.
And if we do not make it clear to ourselves immediately that this war
is the War of Israeli Sovereignty, that sovereignty will fall apart.
If we do not demand right now that this war be followed by peace--the
peace, too, will fall apart. And if we go on laundering words and if
we do not draw lines immediately and if we do not define the fundamentals,
the little order that still remains will also fall apart. The little
remaining quiet will disappear. Because the Bratslavers are already
congregating in the corner; the muezzin is calling from the Temple Mount.
_________________________________________________________
IT IS NOT A CYCLE OF VIOLENCE
Marcus Gee
Globe and Mail, March 16, 2002
We all know about the "cycle
of violence": Israeli troops kill a carful of Palestinian militants;
a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up a group of diners in a Jerusalem
restaurant. The Israelis kill more militants; the terrorists send more
suicide bombers.
On and on it goes, a series of tit-for-tat attacks that builds relentlessly
on itself. Both sides are equally to blame and the only solution is
for both to forswear violence and get back to talking peace.
That, in any case, is how most of the outside world sees what is happening
in the Middle East. The "cycle of violence" is a neat way
of understanding a confusing situation. No wonder that it has been embraced
by governments and media nearly everywhere.
Only one problem: It is dead wrong. The idea that both sides are equally
to blame for the current violence is absurd. The violence has one cause
and one cause only: Palestinian terrorism.
Israel today is suffering the most intense and sustained terrorist assault
that any modern nation has endured. When its military hits back, its
purpose is to stop that terrorism, and it would stop attacking tomorrow
if the terrorism stopped. The same is not true of the terrorists, who
would keep sending their suicide bombers even if there were no Israeli
response.
The leaders of the Palestinians would have the world believe it is they
who are reacting to Israeli violence. When a suicide bomber detonated
his device in a Jerusalem café near Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's
residence last weekend and killed 11 people, a Palestinian spokesman
said it was only a spontaneous "human reaction" to Israeli
violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
But it isn't a reaction at all. The terrorist war is a deliberate campaign
designed to demoralize Israelis and create a crisis that would bring
international intervention that would favour the Palestinian cause.
There is nothing spontaneous about it.
Distinctions like that may seem like hair-splitting when bullets are
flying and blood flowing. But they matter. To frame the Mideast conflict
as a simple "cycle of violence" is to put the response to
terrorism on the same plane as terrorism itself. Seen this way, the
Israeli general who sends his tanks after gunmen in a refugee camp is
every bit as debased as the terrorist leader who sends his suicide bombers
to blow up a café.
That is clearly not so. Every nation has the right to defend itself
against terrorism. That includes the right to retaliate with military
force if necessary. Even when that retaliation ends in the loss of innocent
life, as it too often has in the Palestinian areas, it does not put
the retaliator in the same moral league as the terrorist.
There is a world of difference between the Israeli soldier who accidentally
shoots an innocent child in the heat of battle and the terrorist who
deliberately blows up a bus full of Israeli children. The deaths are
equally tragic, but the killers are not equally culpable.
When the United States retaliated for Sept. 11 by attacking the Taliban
and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, all but the most fervent anti-Americans
recognized that its use of violence in self-defence was different from
the terrorist violence inflicted on it. Yet when it comes to Israel,
that distinction is blurred.
Even Washington buys the "cycle of violence" theory. When
Israel moved forces into the West Bank town of Ramallah this week to
root out terrorists, George W. Bush called it an "unhelpful"
move that would only provoke more killing.
It may well do that, just as the U.S.-led campaign to root out terrorists
in Afghanistan may bring more attacks on Americans. But the way to stop
terrorism is not to stop retaliating. It's to stop the terrorists.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 348 • Monday, March 18, 2002
NO EQUIVALENCE
Editorial
Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2002
General Anthony Zinni is returning
to the Middle East today in search of a cease-fire. On Tuesday the U.S.
sponsored a United Nations Security Council resolution supporting a
Palestinian state. And State Department spokesman Richard Boucher has
called for Israel to "exercise the utmost restraint and discipline
to avoid further harm to civilians"--as if the difference between
Palestinian suicide bombers and Israel's measured response isn't abundantly
clear. Even President Bush said yesterday that Israel's recent military
actions are "not helpful."
The reason for the Administration's
sudden re-engagement on the issue is no secret. Vice President Dick
Cheney is in the region trying to build support for regime change in
Iraq, and the deteriorating Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a sore
spot in our relations with the Arab world. The trouble is, this activity
comes just as Israel has started to win some important victories in
its war on terror. And worse, it threatens to undermine the moral case
for our own war--a case President Bush couldn't have put any better
than he did Monday, declaring: "There can be no peace in a world
where differences and grievances become an excuse to target the innocent
for murder."
A couple of years ago, perhaps,
it was still possible to argue that Palestinian violence was the work
of a few Islamic extremists, and that punishing Yasser Arafat only made
it harder for him to rein them in. But in the summer of 2000 Israel
offered Mr. Arafat a state, and Mr. Arafat launched a war. The lion's
share of recent attacks have been carried out not by Hamas or Islamic
Jihad, but by the military wing of Mr. Arafat's own Fatah movement.
And after Saturday night's deadly suicide bombing at the Moment cafe
in Jerusalem, Mr. Arafat's state radio praised the bomber as a "heroic
martyr."
In short, the targeting of innocents
is Mr. Arafat's explicit strategy to address the "grievance"
of Israeli occupation. Israel, on the other hand, has pursued a policy
of carefully targeting militants, and has been risking its soldiers
over the past week to arrest suspects and confiscate weapons in Palestinian
towns and refugee camps. Some non-combatants have been killed, but there
is no moral equivalence here--certainly not the kind implied by U.S.
proposals for monitors to keep peace between the two sides, or by Colin
Powell's declaration last week that "if you declare war on the
Palestinians and think you can solve the problem by seeing how many
Palestinians can be killed, I don't know if that leads us anywhere."
The message all this sends Mr. Arafat is unmistakable: Ratchet up suicidal
bombings of Israeli civilians, induce a military response, and the U.S.
will heavily pressure Israel for concessions.
The Saudi peace "plan,"
meanwhile, seems to be going nowhere fast. [I]f Crown Prince Abdullah
were serious, he might have presented it to Ariel Sharon as Israel's
elected leader, not to a New York Times columnist. He might also have
presented it two years ago, when it could have made a difference, instead
of urging Mr. Arafat to reject the hugely concessionary offer made by
former Israeli Prime Minister Barak at Camp David. Now there's even
talk among the Arab League of removing any reference to "normalization"
at all. Without that, it amounts to nothing but a demand for unconditional
surrender.
We understand the Bush Administration's
concerns as it makes the case in foreign capitals for an expansion of
the war on terror. But the White House should understand that both strategic
and moral consistency means sometimes telling people what they don't
want to hear. To wit: The U.S. has already spent more than a decade
sponsoring talks for Israel to return to something like the 1967 borders,
and the Palestinian grievance over Israeli occupation must be addressed
by a return to the negotiating table, not violence aimed explicitly
at innocent civilians.
The definition of such violence
is terrorism. It is the very kind of anti-civilian terror as an instrument
of politics that President Bush so eloquently condemned on Monday. Until
such time as the Arab world is ready to seek solutions by civilized
means, the U.S. has no moral alternative to standing firmly behind Prime
Minister Sharon's war against such terror.
_______________________________
ISRAEL UNDER SIEGE
Ehud Olmert
Wall Street Journal, March 14, 2002
Responding to terrorist attacks
and attending funerals are the two most dreadful public duties elected
officials are called upon to perform. For the mayors of many Israeli
cities they have also become a routine part of our work. For those of
us in Jerusalem, this week began as tragically as the last. First, on
Saturday, March 2, we witnessed the terrorist bombing outside a synagogue
in Jerusalem, as the Jewish Sabbath drew to a close. Then, barely had
the city been granted a moment's grace to recover from its shock, bury
the dead and conclude its mourning rituals before the senseless carnage,
this time in the crowded Moment Café on Saturday, began the now-familiar
rites anew.
As Vice President Cheney now
travels throughout the region building support for America's expanding
war on terror, our Palestinian peace partners seem intent on escalating
their campaign to reduce the daily lives of Israelis to an unremitting
stream of ambulance sirens, shattered bodies and funerals.
As I responded to Saturday night's bomb blast scene, I thought of the
other funerals I attended last week, a total of five in the course of
three days. On Sunday, March 3, I had been asked to eulogize an entire
Jerusalem family, a mother, father and two small children. Their only
mistake was standing in the street outside a family bar mitzvah celebration
when a suicide bomber walked up next to them and detonated himself.
Then this Saturday night, another Palestinian bomber successfully blew
up an entire coffee bar full of twenty-something patrons. As I arrived
at the Moment Café the ambulances were evacuating the bodies
of a young engaged couple who now would never attend their wedding…
planned for May 15.
This is the reality Mr. Cheney
will find in the Middle East and it is the logical conclusion of the
disastrously ill-conceived Oslo Accords. That reckless process revitalized
a vanquished Yasser Arafat and brought tens of thousands of armed guerillas
into the administered territories…Once widely demonized as Saddam
Hussein's closest ally during the Gulf War, Mr. Arafat has managed to
acquire a sheen of legitimacy even as he personally directs the violence
against Israel.
No doubt that as Mr. Cheney is
treated to endless cups of strong coffee in Middle- Eastern capitals,
he will be plied with demands that the United States pressure Israel
for concessions. As they have done since the beginning of this long
conflict, our neighboring kings and dictators will spin yarns portraying
the region's only democratic nation as an aggressor, and alleging that
U.S. support for the Jewish state is the source of anti-American sentiments.
Along with their dismal records on human rights and their regimes' outlawing
of free speech, Mr. Cheney will be encouraged to overlook the fact that
virtually all the rhetoric turning the Arab streets against the U.S.
is being pumped out by state-controlled media. Indeed, the Arab world's
support for Palestinian terrorist organizations has not diminished even
in the wake of Sept. 11.
The U.S. must act in its own
self-interest, of course, but it must also recognize Israel's need to
continue to carry out policies to safeguard its citizens… Facing
the tireless terrorist organizations that have spent the last eight
years smuggling illegal weapons and explosives in for use against Israeli
civilians requires unrelenting vigilance… The Palestinians have
turned too many of their homes and communities into terrorist laboratories
and launch pads. Nothing short of the comprehensive confiscation of
weapons and arrests of the terrorist leaders would thwart the danger
that menaces us.
…Either by negligence
or design, the world community seeks to weaken our resolve by repeatedly
comparing our legitimate acts of self-defense with the terrorism we
are struggling against. It is a frustrating double standard that causes
foreign diplomats to spend countless hours complaining about each of
Israel's alleged infractions while refusing to even once take sanctions
against Mr. Arafat for his documented role in the terror. Those who
sincerely seek a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
should set about demanding that Mr. Arafat and the Palestinian leadership
answer some of the hard questions they have evaded for the more than
eight years that the Palestinian Authority has been in existence. Mr.
Cheney might ask how…enormous quantities of terrorist weapons
and explosives… have been illegally stockpiled inside the Palestinian
Authority. There are other mysteries worth exploring with Mr. Arafat
and other Middle East leaders as well. Who is behind the manufacturing
of the Kessem missiles that have begun to rain down upon us? How are
Hamas and Islamic Jihad permitted to maintain offices and training bases
inside the Palestinian Authority? Why are so many members of Mr. Arafat's
Fatah faction engaging in suicide attacks?
The red line maintained by every
civilized society is repeatedly and intentionally crossed by the Palestinians.
The terrorists continue to target wedding halls, pizza places, cafes
and schools with ghastly results. As I stood, this past Saturday night,
in the midst of the shattered remains of the trendy Moment Café,
I shuddered at the thought of a people that believes this sort of destruction
is a legitimate path to statehood. I agonized, too, over the sickening
reality of leaders who send youngsters out with belts of explosives
and nails, and then proudly claim responsibility for the attack. With
these Palestinian partners, how can Israel be expected to negotiate
peace?
In the years that followed the
Six-Day War until quite recently, Israel's ever-optimistic political
left promoted the naive belief that compromises…could lead to
a lasting political accommodation. They adopted…the slogan of
"Give Peace A Chance."…For the eight and a half years…we
gave Mr. Arafat a chance. The gamble killed many Israeli citizens and
Palestinians, and it left too many families grieving. Now Israel must
prepare itself for what comes next.
(Ehud Olmert is the mayor
of Jerusalem.)
_______________________________
ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO THE TERRITORIES
Letters to the Editor, Wall Street
Journal, March 14, 2002
In your Feb. 28 article “Saudi
Leader Pushes His Peace Plan,” one sentence demands rebuttal…
“[R]ight wing politicians…believe Israel has a historic
claim to the lands.” This implies that only Israel’s right-wing
politicians think Israel has a right to be in those territories…Let’s
set the record straight, once and for all: There is no debate…as
to Israel’s legal and historical claim to the Land of Israel…
What disagreement there is, involves if and when and how to pursue or
waive this right.
This claim…is fully based
on legal and historical facts…The last legal sovereign in the
area was Britain [whose] mandate, and…Balfour Declaration, followed
by the U.N. and all Western states’ acceptance of the establishment
of the state of Israel, is the foundation of Israel’s “claim”…There
never has been a country called “Palestine,” just an area…re-named
by the Romans to attempt to erase the Jewish people’s connection…in
125 A.D… Britain’s arbitrary carving “Trans-Jordan”
out of Mandatory Palestine (70% of it) more than fulfills the “Arab
state” called for by the U.N. in 1947.
Furthermore, Israel’s capture
of the territories in 1967 occurred during a war of defense, and its
right to remain in those territories until peace is…enshrined
in the U.N. charter…U.N. Resolution 242 specifically refers to
Israel’s withdrawal from “territories” following a
peace agreement—not unilaterally—and the definitive “the”
describing “territories” was rejected by the framers…precisely
as it was understood that Israel was not to be forced to retreat from
strategically vital defensive positions following unprovoked attacks…
Israel’s left and much of the Western world believe (or used to)
that to give up the territories in return for even a cold “peace”
is worth trying. Israel’s right and center, and now more Western
thinkers, hold that until …the Arabs and specifically the Palestinians
accept Israel’s existence as legitimate—and truly pursue
peace as an end in itself (rather than a means to weaken and destroy
Israel)—the risk to Israel…is far too great..--Aryeh
Green, Beit Shemesh, Israel
______________________________
…Jerusalem
has never been of any significant religious importance to Arabs or Muslims.
It appears in the Jewish Bible 669 times and the Christian Bible 154
times. Jerusalem or its Arab variants appear as often in the original
Koran as it does in the Buddhists’ sacred text—which is
to say, not once… In fact, the only time the Arab nations cared
about Jerusalem was after they lost the 1967 war…The PLO’s
claims to Jerusalem are motivated not by religious concerns but by political
ambitions. Let’s keep that fact straight.--Mike Jackman, Mill
Valley, Calif.
________________________________
…The
map of judenfrei Palestine appears not only on the Palestinian Authority's
Web site, but in its school textbooks, courtesy of the U.N. The myth
that Jews are colonizers who have stolen Arab land is being taught as
well; also, that there was no Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, there was
no Holocaust—but, these are the little lies…for Palestinian
consumption. The big lie is the one intended for the rest of the world
to believe: A return to 1967 borders will bring peace.--Rochelle
Wolf, Wynnewood, PA
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 347 • Friday, March 15, 2002
HOW TO WIN WORLD
WAR IV
Norman Podhoretz
Commentary, February, 2002
(PART II OF A TWO-PART BRIEFING)
…I have speculated that,
with respect to the war against terrorism, Bush probably came to identify
more with Reagan than with his father. And yet in the days just after
September 11, his administration went through what looked like a knee-jerk
imitation of the method by which the elder Bush had maneuvered his way
into a military engagement with Iraq.
Like his father, George W. Bush
set about forming a coalition, even though he was in an entirely different
position. The elder Bush had enjoyed the support of only half the country
during the run-up to Desert Storm, and thus needed a coalition…
But the younger Bush, with about 90 percent of the people and a nearly
unanimous Congress behind him…had more than enough political support
to act on his own… Nevertheless, before going into Afghanistan,
the President (acting for the most part through Colin Powell) went around
courting and wooing countries throughout the Middle East, some of which
were on the State Department’s own list of state sponsors of terrorism…Under
the doctrine the President himself had promulgated in describing his
war aims, these countries should have been seen not as potential allies
but as enemies…
To add to the absurdity, none
of these countries could or would provide us with assistance of any
great value…Nor, for that matter, were our great friends, the
“moderate” Middle Eastern governments like Saudi Arabia
and Egypt, willing to give us much, if any, help. The claim was that
they were providing us with valuable intelligence, but if so, it was
not valuable enough to result in the capture of Osama bin Laden…
Worse yet—and even leaving aside the awkward detail that fifteen
of the nineteen hijackers on September 11 carried Saudi passports—we
had…difficulty getting the Saudi rulers to freeze the assets being
sent by private “charities”…to al Qaeda, or to make
available the passenger lists of flights coming…to the United
States… Even Kuwait, the country we had liberated from Saddam
Hussein…refused our request for such lists, thus setting a new
world record for chutzpah.
Then there was Egypt, whose official
government newspapers continued spewing out viciously anti-American
diatribes, while its president, Hosni Mubarak, not lacking in chutzpah
himself, pretended that there was nothing he could do about this. As
he shamelessly and with a straight face told several American interviewers,
the press enjoyed the same freedom in his country as it did in ours.
Like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan…had
a population sympathetic to Osama bin Laden, and…its security
services maintained close connections with al Qaeda and…the Taliban…Yet
there was a huge difference between Pakistan and the other Islamic countries…
Most of these other countries clucked their tongues sympathetically
over what had been done to us on September 11… But…their
contribution to our war effort consisted of urging us to prevent the
Israelis from retaliating against terrorist attacks by Palestinians,
and to suspend our own military operations during…Ramadan (something
none of them had ever done while at war either with one another or with
Israel). By contrast, Pakistan, by permitting us to launch air operations
from its territory…made our eventual victory…far easier
than it would have been if we had depended on distant bases and aircraft
carriers…
But even here there was a downside,
since some…al Qaeda fighters escaped from Afghanistan into Pakistan…Whether
they would pose a threat to us again in the future remained to be seen,
as did the extent to which President Musharaff of Pakistan would…cooperate
with us against them.
But if the coalition was unnecessary…and
if the inclusion within it of states harboring terrorists undermined
and obfuscated the moral clarity of the war…why did the administration
devote so much energy to assembling it? The explanation is that getting
a minimal endorsement from…Muslim states…helped create the
impression that our war was not against Islam but against terrorism.
Bin Laden might claim to be fighting…the Christian “Crusaders”
of today, but with the backing of several Islamic countries, Bush could
charge the terrorists with having “hijacked” a religion
that…in reality stood for peace and love. (Actually, the word
“Islam” means not “peace” but “submission.”)…
[T]he focus is now on phase two
of the war, and the main issue is whether or not Iraq should be next.
Some commentators are convinced that Saddam Hussein had a hand in September
11, as well as in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, and
that Iraq was the original source of the anthrax sent through the mails…
[N]o one seems ready to absolve Saddam Hussein of the responsibility
for attempting to assassinate the elder Bush after he left office. Anyway,
it is by now no longer necessary to prove that Saddam is a sponsor of
terrorism…since the President has already established a rationale
in stating that, “If you develop weapons of mass destruction [with
which] you want to terrorize the world, you’ll be held accountable.”
There is no doubt that Saddam already possesses large stores of chemical
and biological weapons, and may (according to Khidhir Hamza, a defector
who was once his chief nuclear adviser) be “on the precipice of
nuclear power.”… Some urge that we…concentrate on
easier targets first. Others contend that the longer we wait, the more
dangerous Saddam will grow.
Yet whether or not Iraq becomes
the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain:
there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still
in power. As Eliot A. Cohen, one of our leading students of military
strategy, has written in the Wall Street Journal:
War with Iraq will have its perils.
Some are likely to be illusory: the Arab “street,” for example,
which never quite rises as promised. Others may be quite real, to include
the use of chemical and biological weapons. Should the U.S. fail to
take the challenge, sooner or later it is sure to find Iraqi terror
on its doorstep…Should the U.S. rise to the occasion, however,
it may begin a transformation of the Middle East that could provide
many benefits to the populations of an unfree region. That will, in
the end, make us infinitely more secure at home.
…In a different piece
in the Wall Street Journal, Eliot Cohen has also proposed that we look
upon this as World War IV, the immediate successor to the cold war,
which he rightly characterizes as World War III and to which he sees
many similarities in the struggle we are now conducting:
The cold war was World War III,
which reminds us that not all global conflicts entail the movement of
multi-million-man armies, or conventional front lines…The analogy
with the cold war does, however, suggest some key features of that conflict:
that it is…global; that it will involve a mixture of violent and
nonviolent efforts; that it will require mobilization of skill, expertise
and resources, if not of vast numbers of soldiers; that it may go on
for a long time; and that it has ideological roots.
The last point—around which
“Americans still tiptoe”—again cuts to the heart of
the matter. The real enemy in this war, Cohen argues—as Daniel
Pipes has…—is not the generalized abstraction “terrorism,”
but rather “militant Islam.” Militant Islam today represents
a revival of the expansionism by the sword that carried the new religion
from its birthplace in Arabia…through North Africa, the Balkans,
Spain, and as far West as the gates of Vienna in the 1680’s. In
the East, it swept through…India, Iran, Afghanistan, and Indonesia,
and also penetrated southward into the African lands that became Nigeria
and Sudan. Never…did Islam undergo anything resembling the…modernization
and reform that took place within Christianity and Judaism. The lone
exception was Turkey after World War I… But the expectation that
Turkey would set a model for the future was not fulfilled…
Certainly not all Muslims are
terrorists…But…Islam has become an especially fertile breeding-ground
of terrorism…This can only mean that there is something in the
religion itself that legitimizes the likes of Osama bin Laden, and indeed
there is: the obligation imposed by the Koran to wage holy war, or jihad,
against the “infidels.”
Two months before September 11,
a talk show on the Arabic TV network al-Jazeera broadcast a debate on
the topic “Bin Laden—The Arab Despair and American Fear.”…[T]he
host…cited “an opinion poll in a Kuwaiti paper which showed
that 69 percent of Kuwaitis, Egyptians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Palestinians
think bin Laden is an Arab hero and an Islamic jihad warrior.”
He also cited a poll…in which "82.7 percent saw bin Laden
as a jihad fighter, 8.8 percent as a terrorist, and 8.4 percent didn’t
know."…If these numbers are even remotely accurate, what
hope is there for winning the war we are fighting against militant Islam
and the terrorism it uses as its main weapon against us?
One answer is that the defeat
of bin Laden will diminish his support dramatically…But…a
better answer…lies in the outburst of relief and happiness that
became so vivid among the people of Kabul after we had driven out their
Taliban oppressors. Surely what we saw in Kabul provides evidence that
Muslims no more like being pushed around and repressed and beaten and
killed…than does anyone else…Surely they would welcome the
comforts and conveniences that are taken for granted in the developed
world (remember the poignant run on videocassettes in liberated Kabul?).
In this connection, Bernard Lewis,
the greatest contemporary scholar of the Islamic world, makes a very
striking observation:
Generally speaking, popular good
will toward the United States is in inverse proportion to the policies
of [Islamic] governments. In countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt,
with governments seen as American allies, the popular mood is violently
anti-American, and it is surely significant that the majority of known
hijackers and terrorists come from these countries. In Iran and Iraq,
with governments seen as anti-American, public opinion is pro-American.
The joy displayed by the Afghan people at the ending of Taliban rule
could be repeated, on a larger scale, in both these countries.
It does not follow that capitalist
democracies can be established overnight… But it is not so outlandish
to expect huge changes…that will bring about the long-delayed
reform and modernization of Islam. This…would finally give adherents
of Islam a chance to set their feet on the path to greater freedom and
greater prosperity—and…to make their peace with the existence
of Israel.
…[T]he Middle East
we know today was not created by a mandate from heaven, and the miserable
despotisms there did not evolve through some unstoppable natural or
historical process. [M]ost of the states in question were conjured into
existence less than a hundred years ago out of the…defeated Ottoman
empire… Their boundaries were drawn by the victorious British
and French…and their hapless peoples were handed over…to
one tyrant after another. There is thus no warrant to assume that these
states will last forever in their present forms, or that the only alternatives
to them are…worse.
In a long article in Newsweek,
Fareed Zakaria has contended that the way “to save the Arab world”
is for the United States to get over this “fear of the worse alternative”…:
We do not seek democracy in the
Middle East—at least not yet. We seek first what might be called
the preconditions for democracy . . . the rule of law, individual rights,
private property, independent courts, the separation of church and state.
. . . We should not assume that what took hundreds of years in the West
can happen overnight in the Middle East.
…[F]ulfilling Zakaria’s
agenda would be a tremendous leap forward. But I have to take issue
with the idea that democracy and capitalism can grow only in a soil
that has been cultivated for centuries. After all, in the aftermath
of World War II, the United States managed in a few short years to transform
both Nazi Germany and imperial Japan into capitalist democracies. And
thanks to our victory in World War III, something similar seems to be
happening…in Central and Eastern Europe, and even in the…evil
empire itself. Why should the Islamic world eternally remain an exception?
Consider: the campaign against
al Qaeda required us to topple the Taliban…and we may…find
ourselves forced…to topple five or six or seven more tyrannies
in the Islamic world (including… Arafat’s Palestinian Authority).
I can even go along with David Pryce-Jones in imagining…an imperial
mission for America…to oversee the emergence of successor governments…more
amenable to reform and modernization than the despotisms now in place.
…I can also envisage the establishment of some kind of American
protectorate over the oil fields of Saudi Arabia, as we more and more…wonder
why 7,000 princes should go on being permitted to exert so much leverage
over us and everyone else.
I fully realize that we are judged
both by others, and by ourselves, as lacking the stomach and the skills
to play even so limited an imperial role as we did in…Germany
and Japan after World War II… I myself am sometimes prey to such
doubts…Moreover…I fear a relapse into appeasement, diplomatic
evasion, and ineffectual damage control.
Yet…who can tell what we
may wind up doing and becoming as we fight our way through World War
IV? …Islamic countries in particular…will look very different
by the time this war is over…. Unless, that is, the United States
is held back by its coalition from moving all the way forward, or the
President breaks the promise he made, in his magnificent speech to Congress
on September 20, not to waver or falter or tire or lose patience until
victory is achieved—a victory that would leave us not with “an
age of terror” but with “an age of liberty here and across
the world.”
Shabbat shalom to all our
readers!
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 346 • Thursday, March 14, 2002
HOW TO WIN WORLD
WAR IV
Norman Podhoretz
Commentary, February, 2002
Ever since the very beginning
of the war into which the United States was violently hurled on September
11, efforts have been made to define its nature. The Bush administration…kept
telling us that this would be a war unlike any other, but the very nearly
self-evident truth of that proposition did not prevent an energetic
search for analogies. On the contrary… the ghost of conflicts
past immediately materialized, each one croaking in menacing tones,
“Remember me.”
In a piece in the Weekly Standard, for example, I summoned up the Gulf
war… I said, the broad coalition assembled by the United States…resulted…in
an act of military and political coitus interruptus. Having driven Saddam
Hussein out of Kuwait…we did not…drive him out of Baghdad…
My worry was that the same kind of thing might happen now… I never
doubted that…we would unseat the Taliban regime in Afghanistan
and deprive the al Qaeda terrorists of their main sanctuary. What I
feared was that then, succumbing again to the pressures of the coalition
and the timorous counsels of Colin Powell…we would declare victory
and go home.
Others were not so confident that we would accomplish even that rather
narrow objective. R.W. Apple of the New York Times, among others, was
haunted by…Vietnam…When, however, the B-52’s and the
15,000-pound “Daisy Cutter” bombs were unleashed (which
many, including me, interpreted as a victory of Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld over the incorrigibly cautious Colin Powell), the ghost
of Vietnam was exorcised… [T]he reputedly fearsome Taliban fighters,
and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorists…emerged as the
paper tiger that they had imagined us to have become.
But is important to recognize that bin Laden and his followers had good
reason to arrive at this contemptuous assessment of our present condition.
For a very long time…the United States had been the target of
terrorist attacks in the name of Islam or the Palestinian cause…
Yet we had done virtually nothing in response to those attacks…
Thus, from 1970 to 1975, during the administrations of Richard Nixon
and Gerald Ford, several American diplomats were murdered in Sudan and
Lebanon while others were kidnapped. The perpetrators were all agents
of one or another faction of the PLO. In Israel, too, many American
citizens were killed by the PLO, though except for the rockets fired
at our embassy and other American facilities in Beirut by the PFLP,
these attacks were not directly aimed at the United States. In any case,
there were no American military reprisals.
Our diplomats, then, were for some years already being murdered with
impunity by Muslim terrorists when, in 1979, with Jimmy Carter now in
the White House, Iranian students…broke into the American embassy
in Tehran and seized 52 Americans… Carter dithered. At last…he
authorized a military rescue operation that had to be aborted after
a series of mishaps… After 444 days, and just hours after Ronald
Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981, the hostages were finally
released by the Iranians, evidently because they feared that the hawkish
new President might actually launch a military strike…
Yet if they had foreseen what was coming under Reagan, they would not
have been so fearful. In April 1983, Hizbullah…sent a suicide
bomber to explode his truck in front of the American embassy in Beirut…
Sixty-three employees, among them the Middle East CIA director, were
killed…But Reagan sat still. Six months later…another Hizbullah
suicide bomber blew up an American barracks in… Beirut airport,
killing 241 U.S. marines… This time Reagan signed off on plans
for a retaliatory blow, but he then allowed his Secretary of Defense,
Caspar Weinberger, to cancel it (because it might damage our relations
with the Arab world…)… Reagan again remained passive…when
the American embassy in Kuwait was bombed. Nor did he hit back when…the
[Beirut] CIA station chief…William Buckley, was kidnapped by Hizbullah
and then murdered…and many more suffered the same fate between
1982 and 1992…
These kidnappings were apparently what led Reagan…to make an unacknowledged
deal with Iran… which triggered the Iran-contra crisis. But whereas
the Iranians were paid off handsomely [with] nearly 1,500 antitank missiles
(some of them sent at our request through Israel), all we got in exchange
was three American hostages.
In September 1984…the U.S. embassy annex near Beirut was hit by
yet another truck bomb… Again Reagan sat still. Or rather, after
giving the green light to covert proxy retaliations…he put a stop
to them when one such operation…failed to get its main target
while unintentionally killing 80… In December 1984, a Kuwaiti
airliner was hijacked and two American[s]…murdered. The Iranians,
who had stormed the plane after it landed in Tehran, promised to try
the hijackers themselves, but instead allowed them to leave the country.
[A]ll the Reagan administration could come up with was the offer of
a $250,000 reward for information that might lead to the arrest of the
hijackers…The following June, Hizbullah operatives hijacked…TWA
flight 847 [forcing] it to fly to Beirut…[A]n American naval officer…was
shot, his body ignominiously hurled onto the tarmac, after which the
demands of the hijackers for the freeing of hundreds of terrorists held
by Israel began to be met…Both the United States and Israel denied
that they were violating their own policy of never bargaining with terrorists…
…In October 1985, the Achille Lauro, an Italian cruise ship, was
hijacked…under the leadership of the PLO’s Abu Abbas, working
with…Libya. One of the hijackers threw an elderly wheelchair-bound
American passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, overboard… the Italian authorities
let Abu Abbas himself go…Libya’s involvement in the Achille
Lauro hijacking was…the last free pass that…Muammar Qaddafi,
was destined to get…under Reagan. In December 1985, five Americans
were among the twenty people killed when the Rome and Vienna airports
were bombed, and then in April 1986 [a] bomb exploded in a discotheque
in West Berlin that was a hang-out for American servicemen. U.S. intelligence
tied Libya to both…bombings…the eventual outcome was an
American air attack in which one of the residences of Qaddafi was hit.
In retaliation, the Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal executed three U.S.
citizens… But Qaddafi…seems to have gone into a brief period
of retirement as a sponsor of terrorism. [I]t took nearly three years
(until December 1988) before he [undertook] the bombing of Pan Am flight
103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in which…270 people lost their lives…
In January 1989, Reagan was succeeded by the first George Bush, who…intensified
the law-enforcement approach to terrorism…
In January 1993 Bill Clinton became President. [S]everal…terrorist
operations occurred… The first, on February 26, 1993…was
the explosion of a truck bomb in the parking garage of the World Trade
Center. As compared with what would happen on September 11, 2001, this
was a minor incident… [S]ix Muslim terrorists…were caught,
tried, convicted, and sent to prison… But in treating the attack
as a common crime, or the work of a rogue group acting on its own, the
Clinton administration willfully turned a deaf ear to outside experts
like Steven Emerson and even the director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey,
who strongly suspected…a terrorist Islamic network…called
al Qaeda, and its leader…Osama bin Laden.
…In April 1993…former President Bush visited Kuwait, where
an attempt was made to assassinate him by…Iraqi intelligence agents.
[Clinton] spent two more months seeking approval from the UN and the
“international community” to retaliate… In the end,
a few cruise missiles were fired into…Baghdad, where they fell
harmlessly…In the years immediately ahead, many Islamic terrorist
operations in which Americans were murdered or kidnapped or injured
continued…In March 1995…a van belonging to the U.S. consulate
in Karachi, Pakistan, was hit…killing two American diplomats…
In November…five Americans died when a car bomb…exploded
in Riyadh…[I]n June 1996…another building in which American
military personnel lived—the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia—was
blasted by a truck bomb. Nineteen…were killed, and 240 other Americans…wounded.
In 1993, Clinton had been so intent on treating the World Trade Center
as a matter for law enforcement that he refused…to meet with…CIA
director, James Woolsey…Now, in the wake of the bombing of the
Khobar Towers, Clinton again handed the matter over to law enforcement,
but…his FBI director, Louis Freeh, who had intimations of an Iranian
connection, could no more get through to him than Woolsey… In
June 1998, grenades were…hurled at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
A little later, our embassies in… Kenya (Nairobi) and Tanzania
(Dar es Salaam) were not so lucky. On…August 7, 1998…car
bombs went off in both places, leaving more than 200 people dead…
Clinton fired cruise missiles at an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan…and
at a building in Sudan, where al Qaeda also had a base... Woolsey’s
retrospective description of Clinton’s overall approach to terrorism
is devastating: “Do something to show you’re concerned.
Launch a few missiles in the desert, bop them on the head, arrest a
few people. But just keep kicking the ball down field.”
Bin Laden, picking up that ball on October 12, 2000, when the USS Cole
docked…in Yemen, dispatched a team of suicide bombers. [S]eventeen
American sailors died… But…the United States did not…lift
a military finger… As for Clinton, so obsessively was he then
wrapped up in a futile attempt to broker a deal between the Israelis
and the Palestinians that all he could see in this attack…was
an effort “to deter us from our mission of promoting peace and
security in the Middle East.”…In any event, it was Clinton
who failed, not bin Laden. The Palestinians…unleashed a new round
of terrorism. But bin Laden succeeded all too well in…striking
another brazen blow at the United States.
The sheer audacity of what bin Laden went on to do on September 11 was
unquestionably a product of his contempt for American power. Our persistent
refusal…to use that power…reinforced his conviction that
we were a nation on the way down, destined to be defeated by…the
same Islamic militancy that had once conquered…large parts of
the world by the sword…
Bin Laden was never reticent or coy in laying out this assessment of
the United States. In an interview on CNN in 1997, he declared that
“the myth of the superpower was destroyed…in the minds of
all Muslims” when the Soviet Union had been defeated in Afghanistan…
[I]n an interview a year earlier, he had belittled the United States…
“The Russian soldier is more courageous and patient than the U.S.
soldier”… Bin Laden summed it all up…in Esquire in
1998: “After leaving Afghanistan the Muslim fighters headed for
Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were
like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the
American soldiers and realized…the American soldier was a paper
tiger…” In short: just as Khomeini had been emboldened by
the decline of American power in the 1970’s… and just as
all the hysterical talk here in 1990 about the tens of thousands of
“body bags” that would be flown home if we went to war with
Iraq had encouraged Saddam Hussein…so the ineffectual policy toward
terrorism adopted by a long string of American Presidents… persuaded
bin Laden that he could strike us massively on our own soil and get
away with it.
[H]however…Osama bin Laden misread how the Americans would react
to being hit where, literally, they lived. He probably expected a collapse
into despair…what he elicited instead was an outpouring of rage
and an upsurge of patriotic sentiment such as younger Americans had
never witnessed…In that sense, bin Laden did for this country
what the Ayatollah Khomeini had done before him. By this I mean that
the humiliation Khomeini inflicted on us…in 1979 bred a resistance
to Carter’s view that American decline was inevitable and that
we should…accept… this inexorable historical development.
The entire episode…became one of the forces behind the already
burgeoning determination to rebuild American power that culminated in
the election of Ronald Reagan… For all the shortcomings of his…handling
of terrorism, Reagan [kept his] promise to rebuild American power, which
was what set the stage for victory in our long struggle with the Soviet
Union.
The horrors of September 11…effected a transformation in the new
President. One hears that Bush…feels that there was a purpose
behind his election all along: as a born-again Christian, it is said,
he believes he was chosen by God to eradicate the evil of terrorism
from the world…I would even guess that…Bush identifies more…with
Ronald Reagan—the President who rid the world of the “evil
empire”—than with his own father, who never finished the
job he started…
…Bush vowed that we would also uproot and destroy the entire network
of interconnected terrorist organizations… Furthermore, the governments
that gave terrorists help of any kind…would also be regarded as
in a state of war with the United States. [T]here was to be no middle
or neutral ground… Perhaps most important of all was the corollary
of such an analysis: that… terrorists were not individual psychotics
acting on their own but agents of organizations that depended on the
sponsorship of various governments. Not that this analysis of terrorism
had exactly been a secret… But aside from the…token lobbing
of a cruise missile or two…the law-enforcement approach still
prevailed.
September 11 changed much—if not yet all—of that. While
atavistic phrases like “bringing the terrorists to justice”
kept being used, no one could any longer dream that the American answer
to what had been done to us in New York and Washington would begin with
an FBI investigation and end with a series of ordinary criminal trials.
War had been declared on the United States, and to war we were going
to go.
[Part One of a Two-Part Briefing]
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 345 • Wednesday, March 13, 2002
WEDNESDAY'S "NEWS
IN REVIEW" ROUND-UP
WEEKLY QUOTES
“To the Israelis,
I say: you have the right to live in peace and security within secure
internationally recognized borders. But you must end the illegal occupation…
To the Palestinians, I say: you have the inalienable right to a viable
state within secure internationally recognized borders. But you must
stop all acts of terror and all suicide bombings. It is doing immense
harm to your cause, by weakening international support and making Israelis
believe that it is their existence as a state, and not the occupation,
that is being opposed.”—UN Secretary-General Kofi
Annan, addressing the UN Security Council yesterday. His statement
marks the first time he has branded the Israeli presence “illegal”.
(New York Times, March 13)
“Mr. Annan had firm
words for both sides, and we welcome any call for the Palestinians to
stop violence and terrorism. But the words 'illegal occupation’
are definitely regrettable. It feeds the notion that Israel woke up
one morning and said, ‘Let’s take over this land.’
But history does not bear out that version of events.”—A
spokesman for the Israeli Mission to the UN, reacting to the Secretary-General
Kofi Annan (National Post, March 13)
“We have no choice
but to kill the occupier, to kill him everywhere, every village and
every city. There’s no other way to defend ourselves.”—Hamas
leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, threatening bloody revenge after
Israeli defense forces mounted the largest military offensive in 20
years, thrusting into Ramallah as well as the Jabalya, Khan Yunis, Dehaishe,
and Deir el Balah refugee camps. (Colonel Gad Hirsch, the IDF head of
military operations in the West Bank, says that in its sweep Israel
has captured scores of hardcore militants, and destroyed weapons arsenals
and bomb-making factories.) (Nat’l Post, March 13)
“We intend to form
a wall—figuratively speaking—between Ramallah, a capital
of terrorist activity, and Jerusalem.”—A senior
army officer, explaining Israel’s motive in surrounding Ramallah
(Nat’l Post, March 13)
“This is a major
offensive aimed at reoccupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sending
[U.S. envoy Anthony] Zinni to the region was a manoeuvre because we
believe the United States was informed of Sharon’s major offensive
and intentions.”—Palestine Information Minister
Yasser Rabbo (Nat’l Post, March 13)
"I am determined
to make every effort to reach a cease-fire. I have therefore informed
[the Americans] that…we are ready to begin discussions on the
Tenet Plan. If the terrorism continues, we will continue our activity.
This is the change. I had thought it would be possible to achieve a
period of calm…before such a discussion. However, this is not
the situation today, due to the intensity of the fighting…The
negotiations to achieve a cease-fire will be conducted under fire…
Nevertheless, if the Palestinian terrorism continues, we will operate
using all the force at our disposal…"--Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon (Channel 2 News [Israel], March 8)
"We are in a war.
All of us must stay united and make every effort to stand up to this
wave of terror."--Prime Minister Ariel Sharon,
speaking at Sunday's weekly cabinet meeting, before saying he was prepared
to lift the travel ban against Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser
Arafat. (Globe and Mail, March 11)
"We are not going
there to say, 'Look, we won.' No, that is not the point. Our aim is
to foil attacks. When you come to Dehaishe or any other refugee camp
and uncover laboratories for making bombs and rockets with solid fuel,
TNT, and explosive belts, what else do you expect us to do?"--Defense
Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, saying that military actions
against refugee camps will continue as long as terror attacks against
Israel continue. (Jer. Post, March 12)
"We are not doing
these military operations because of the women [a reference to the heaven
full of virgins promised to suicide bombers]. We are doing them because
of my house in Ashkelon. My house is stolen. I want it to go back to
my children…” Dr. Nizar Rayan, a leader
of the Islamic group Hamas. When asked if it was hard for him to have
lost his son during a suicide attack in Gaza last fall, Rayan replied,
"No, no, no, it was very easy… If we want to get
back our land, it seems we have to lose half this generation."
(N.Y.T., March 10)
"If they do such
a thing here, next to the prime minister's residence, then where aren't
you going to be afraid?"--Baka resident Avi Tubul,
stepping around shards of broken glass at Jerusalem’s Moment Café
after Saturday night’s terrorist attack. "If there
was an attack in the city center…you would come to Moment…Moment
was the place to go after there was an attack. Where will I go now?"
Yankel Amzaleg, a frequent customer (Jer. Post, March 11)
“The liberal fantasy
describing Yasser Arafat as ‘a partner for peace’ with Israel
has always been farcical…in a 1972 conversation with the Italian
journalist Orianna Fallaci, he made his views perfectly plain: ‘The
end of Israel is the goal of our struggle and it allows for neither
compromise nor mediation…We don’t want peace. We want war,
victory...Peace for us means the destruction of Israel and nothing else.’”—Columnist
George Jonas, citing Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser
Arafat (Nat’l Post, March 10)
"Deadly terrorist attacks
in Israel have escalated to a daily basis, and it is time to formally
designate the Palestinian terrorist groups responsible for these attacks
on the U.S. list of foreign terrorist organizations. Doing so will demonstrate
to these groups, those who direct them, and those who associate with
them or support them that the failure of these groups to conform their
behavior to civilized norms has a price."--Letter to U.S. President
George Bush, signed by 202 members (out of 435) of the U.S. House of
Representatives, calling on Bush to add Yasser Arafat's Fatah-linked
Tanzim, Force 17, and the Aksa Martyrs Brigades to the U.S. list of
foreign terrorist organizations. (Jer. Post, March 12)
"I chose to [speak]
about the Jewish holiday of Purim… For this holiday, the Jewish
people must obtain human blood [to] prepare the holiday pastries…I
would like to clarify that the Jews' spilling human blood to prepare
pastry for their holidays is a well-established fact, historically and
legally, all throughout history. This was one of the main reasons for
the persecution and exile that were their lot in Europe and Asia at
various times… For this holiday, the victim must be a mature adolescent
who is…Christian or a Muslim…[for Passover the] blood of
Christian and Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used, and
the cleric [rabbi] can mix the blood [into the dough] before or after
dehydration." Saudi columnist Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma
of King Faysal University, writing this week in the Saudi government
daily Al Riyadh (Middle East Media Research Inst. Special Dispatch,
March 13)
One of the strategic oddities
of the Middle East is that Iraq is a more natural candidate for friendship
with the United States than Saudi Arabia…Iraqis have traditionally
been a sophisticated and commerce-oriented people, with few of the traditions
of Islamic radicalism… In a post-Saddam world, U.S. policy could
change completely. The United States could withdraw its security guarantee
from the Saudis, fulfill its basing requirements elsewhere…and
give the Saudis some time to think about the Bush doctrine… This
new U.S. posture might well give us the leverage necessary to force
the Saudis to put an end to the subsidies that spread radical Islam
throughout the world.—Columnist Rich Lowry,
on possible diplomatic roles for Iraq and Saudi Arabia (Washington
Times, March 7)
____________________________
SHORT TAKES
ISRAEL LAUNCHES BIGGEST
OFFENSIVE IN 20 YEARS—(Jerusalem) Israel mounted
its largest military offensive in 20 years yesterday, storming Palestinian
militants in refugee camp strongholds and seizing the town of Ramallah,
the unofficial Palestinian capital. Thousands of troops pushed into
Ramallah and raided the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip in a
ground offensive that left 32 Palestinians dead and scores wounded.
Lt. Gil Badihi, 21, was killed in the operation. Gunmen disguised as
Israeli soldiers killed 6 Israelis and wounded 6 others near the Lebanese
border in an apparent reprisal attack. Palestinian assailants also attacked
buses and cars in the Galilee, killing 3 residents of Kibbutz Hanita.
The military operation occurs even as U.S. envoy Anthony Zinni prepares
to arrive in the region, and as U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney began
a tour of 11 nations to rally Arab support for a possible attack on
Iraq. (Reuters; AP; Jer. Post, March 13)
MOFAZ: RAMALLAH OPERATION
TO CONTINUE—(Jerusalem) The aim of the ongoing
military campaign, “Operation Security Imperative,” is to
reach cease-fire negotiations and the start of the Tenet and Mitchell
plans in a position of advantage, Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Shaul
Mofaz said yesterday. Mofaz also declared that the IDF has “no
intention of conquering” the A areas under full Palestinian control,
or to topple the PA, but to uproot “terror infrastructures.”
Appearing before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee,
Mofaz said the Ramallah operation would continue over the next few days,
and may even be expanded. (Jer. Post, March 13)
ISRAEL, PALESTINIANS WELCOME UN RESOLUTION—(Jerusalem)
Israel and the Palestinians are reacting positively to the first U.S.-drafted
UN Security Council resolution to refer to a Palestinian state existing
alongside Israel. The resolution, passed by a 14-0 vote by the Security
Council last night, with Syria abstaining, was the first text in recent
memory on the region to be written by Washington. U.S. Ambassador John
Negroponte said Washington's surprise move aimed to give momentum to
the peace mission being launched this week by U.S. Middle East envoy
Anthony Zinni. Israel's UN Ambassador Yehuda Lancry termed the resolution
balanced--"which is quite a novelty for Israel." Only Syria's
UN envoy, Mikhail Wehbe, dismissed the text as "a weak resolution
that fails to deal with the root cause of the problem--namely the Israeli
occupation of the Palestinian territories." (Ha’aretz,
March 13)
SHARON ALLOWS ARAFAT TO LEAVE RAMALLAH; VISIT TO BEIRUT CONFERENCE
STILL IN QUESTION--(Jerusalem) Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon will permit Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat
to travel throughout the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. But Communications
Minister Reuben Rivlin said it is unlikely Sharon will permit
Arafat to attend the March 27 Arab League summit in Beirut. Sharon released
Arafat from Ramallah following the arrest of all six men wanted for
the assassination of tourism minister Rehavam Ze'evi, as well as of
Fuad Shubaki, mastermind behind the Karine-A arms shipment. Saudi Arabia
has said it will present its peace initiative at the summit only if
Arafat is present. (Jer. Post, March 12)
POLL: ISRAELIS SAY SHARON WAS RIGHT TO DROP 7-DAY PERIOD--(Jerusalem)
A majority of Israelis--55%-- feel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon made
the right decision by dropping his insistence on a 7-day period of calm
before negotiating with the Palestinians, an opinion poll by the daily
Yediot Aharonot said after Sharon announced his change of policy last
Friday. Some 43% opposed it, and 2% did not express an opinion. The
morning before, Sharon had seen his ratings plummet when the same newspaper
published a poll in which 76% of respondents said they were dissatisfied
with his handling of security issues. (AFP, March 11)
CHENEY RECEIVES WARNING IN JORDAN ABOUT IRAQ--(Amman)
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney received a public warning Tuesday from
Jordan's King Abdullah that expanding the war to Iraq could destabilize
the region and undermine gains in Afghanistan. U.S. officials had hoped
for a more muted message from the king, whose comments came as Cheney
began a tour of the Middle East. At the meeting, Cheney stressed the
importance of having UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq and said the
inspections must be "wide open, robust, everywhere, anywhere, anytime."
Cheney came to Jordan after a stop in London, where British Prime Minister
Tony Blair voiced strong support for widening the war against terror.
(AP, March 12)
U.S. BYPASSES LAW IN FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISM—(Washington)
Since Sept. 11, the U.S. government has secretly transported dozens
of people suspected of links to terrorists to countries in which it
can bypass extraditions procedures and legal formalities, according
to Western diplomats and intelligence sources. Suspects have been taken
to countries including Egypt and Jordan, where they can be subjected
to interrogation tactics—including torture and threats to their
families—that are illegal in the United States. (Int. Herald
Trib., March 12)
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 344 • Tuesday, March 12, 2002
PALESTINIAN ATROCITIES,
ISRAELI RETALIATIONS
AND THE LAWS OF WAR
Louis Rene Beres
The cycle is familiar. Palestinian
terrorists intentionally attack Israeli women and children. Israel,
having absolutely no choice, retaliates against PLO infrastructures,
aiming exclusively and conscientiously at military targets. But sometimes
Israeli fire unavoidably kills and injures Palestinian noncombatants,
creating the false impression of lawlessness on both sides. This delusionary
view can be compared to an interpretation of current U.S. attacks against
al-Qaida fighters which blames this country for harms done to Afghan
civilians.
It is important to better understand the profound moral and legal differences
between Palestinian terrorism, which is always deliberately barbarous
and indiscriminate, and Israeli retaliations, which are always consciously
designed to avoid civilian casualties. From the standpoint of international
law, two points must be made. First, the criminal intent of Palestinian
terror represents an incontestable violation of humanitarian rules of
armed conflict. It is essential, therefore, to distinguish between such
terror and Israeli responses to terror, which are never intended to
harm innocent parties.
When television news reports create parallel images between Palestinian
attacks upon Jews leaving the synagogue with nail-studded bombs and
Israeli reprisals against PLO targets with infantry and air-launched
missiles, they obscure an essential truth: The Palestinian resort to
violence is grotesque and gratuitous, seeking only to inflict maximum
pain and suffering upon the innocent, while the Israeli use of force
is designed only for survival and self-protection. Does anyone really
believe that Israel would use armed force against any Arab targets if
the Palestinians ceased their campaign of mayhem and murder?
There is a second point. Ordinary people watching the evening news now
routinely see pictures of Israeli reprisals against "refugee camps."
What they are not told is that these camps are the constructed sources
and seedbeds of anti-Israel terrorism, and that the deliberate PLO/PA
use of these camps for such criminal purpose is an example of "perfidy"
in international law. In the case of calculated Palestinian placement
of Arab civilians in harm's way, it is a crime that assigns full legal
responsibility for Palestinian losses with the PLO and Palestinian Authority.
The PLO/PA practice of intentionally placing its terrorist forces and
assets in the midst of civilian populations is unequivocally a war crime.
Although it is certainly true that the Law of War is designed to protect
all noncombatants from armed attack, this authoritative body of rules
also makes it perfectly clear that responsibility for civilian harms
must ultimately rest with the side that engages in perfidy. When IDF
infantry from the Golani and Paratrooper brigades, in coordination with
armored units, head into the Jenin and Balata camps to root out would-be
Palestinian suicide bombers, full responsibility for resultant civilian
casualties rests with Yassir Arafat.
Deception can be an essential and acceptable virtue in warfare, but
there is a meaningful distinction between deception or ruse and perfidy.
The Hague Regulations in the Laws of War allow "ruses" but
disallow treachery or perfidy. The prohibition of perfidy is reaffirmed
in Protocol I of 1977, and it is widely and authoritatively understood
that these rules are binding on the basis of general and customary international
law. What, exactly, are the differences between permissible ruses and
perfidy? The former include such practices as the use of camouflage,
decoys, and mock operations. False signals, too, are allowed; as an
example, the jamming of communications.
Perfidy, on the other hand, includes such treacherous practices as improper
use of the white flag; feigned surrender or pretending to have civilian
status. It especially constitutes perfidy to shield military targets
from attack by placing or moving them into densely populated areas or
to purposely move civilians near military targets. Indeed, it is generally
agreed that such treachery represents the most serious violation of
the Law of War, what is known as a "Grave Breach." The legal
effect of such perfidy-- the practice now engaged in by the PLO/PA--is
this: Exemption (in this case, for Israel) from the normally operative
rules on targets. Indeed, even if the PLO/PA had not intentionally engaged
in treachery, any Palestinian link between protected persons and military
activities would place all legal responsibility for Arab civilian harms
squarely upon Yassir Arafat.
None of this is meant to suggest that terrorism represents a permissible
use of force under international law. By its very nature, the PLO/PA
plan of violence is overwhelmingly illegal. At the same time, the rules
of war are as binding upon Palestinian terrorists as they are upon Israeli
or American uniformed military forces. This is the result of a binding
jurisprudential expansion of the laws of war at the common Article 3
of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and at the two protocols to these
Conventions of 1977.
The recent harms to Arab civilians in PA Area A caused by Israeli reprisals
are tragic and deeply regrettable, but the legal responsibility for
this tragedy lies entirely with those whose perfidious conduct brought
about such harms. Moreover, Israel has the indisputable right of self-defense
against terrorist attacks originating from this territory, both the
post-attack right codified at Article 51 of the UN Charter and the customary
pre-attack legal right called "anticipatory self-defense."
Israel has the right and the obligation under national and international
law to protect its citizens from criminal acts of terrorism. Should
Prime Minister Sharon ever decide to capitulate to perfidy and restrict
essential retaliations accordingly, the State of Israel would surrender
this basic right and undermine this basic obligation. The net effect
of such capitulation would be to make victors of the terrorists, an
effect that would assuredly increase rather than diminish the overall
number of civilian victims, in both Israel and in the Palestinian territories.
"Just wars," we learn from the seventeenth-century legal philosopher
Hugo Grotius (a major source for Thomas Jefferson in writing the Declaration
of Independence). "arise from our love of the innocent." Recognizing
this, Israel--confronted by Palestinian terrorists who now seek to soften
Israel for much larger forms of civilian destruction--must continue
to use all applicable military force within the boundaries of humanitarian
international law. Although perfidious provocations by the PLO/PA might
elicit Israeli actions that bring harms to noncombatant Palestinian
populations, it is these provocations, not Israel's response, that would
be in serious violation of international law.
International law is not a suicide pact. Faced with a murderous terrorist
adversary that persistently follows an announced strategy of unrestrained
barbarism, Jerusalem cannot permit egregious Palestinian manipulations
of civilian populations to preclude needed uses of Israeli military
force. Rather, Israel must now make the entire international community
aware that perfidy is a crime under international law, and that it is
the Arab practitioners of perfidy, not those who are strategically disadvantaged
by such a practice, that must be identified and punished as war criminals.
In the final analysis, Israel has no alternative to maintaining lawful
self-defense operations against the Palestinian terrorist forces. Such
operations need not be injurious to noncombatant populations so long
as the PLO/PA do not seek to hide behind these populations as human
shields. Bound by the laws of war of international law, these terrorists,
whenever they choose to commit perfidy, are the responsible party for
all resultant harms done to Palestinian civilians.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 343 • Monday, March 11, 2002
JEWS WORLDWIDE URGED
TO FAST FOR PEACE ON WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13
“We of the Rabbinical
Council of America and the Orthodox Union declare in solidarity with
the Chief Rabbinate of Israel that Wednesday, March 13, Erev Rosh Chodesh
Nissan, Yom Kippur Katan, be observed as a day of prayer. Just as there
will be a mass prayer gathering at the Kotel and prayers throughout
Israel, we urge our congregants and constituents to participate as well.
Our Sages state that in the month of Nissan we were redeemed and in
Nissan we shall be redeemed in the future. May we hear only glad tidings
and experience tranquility and salvation speedily in our days.”
_______________________________
ENDING
THE WAR PROCESS
William Safire
New York Times, March 11, 2002
Ari Fleischer was teased at the
Gridiron dinner the other night for being "the only White House
press secretary with his own Middle East policy."
That was because the president's
spokesman had blurted out an incontrovertible truth last week, as pressure
mounted for renewed U.S. intercession between Palestinian attackers
and Israeli defenders.
What was the unspeakable truth?
Only this: that the intense pressure for a comprehensive settlement
brought to bear two years ago by the previous administration (which
remained nameless) had led to the diplomatic disaster at Camp David
and, in its aftermath, the current violence.
But that self-evident truth,
so widely accepted until recently, is impolitic to recall today. Therefore,
a media corps that had just furiously denounced a "disinformation"
scheme planned in the Pentagon demanded an immediate dose of disinformation
from the White House. Dutifully, Condoleezza Rice disavowed the truth
about the path to war and rebuked the spokesman who had uttered it,
thereby mollifying the press, dovish partisans and Gaza terrorists.
The unspeakable is still printable
here, however. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak, desperate for a deal
that would get him re-elected, made egregious concessions of land that
would have endangered Israel. Bill Clinton, eager to wash away memory
of his transgressions, pressed Barak for even more concessions to appease
Yasir Arafat. That Saudi-sponsored Palestinian, seeing Israel's panicked
leader on the run, was thus emboldened to make greater demands. Envisioning
total victory, he launched the terror war on civilians.
That's what happened. No soft,
nonpartisan politesse can erase that well-recorded, hard history. Though
Clinton's motive was Nobel, his incessant intercession was a gamble
that failed spectacularly — paving the path to Arafat's war.
That history, frantically being
buried by diplomatists, is exhumed to draw its lessons: One is that
unilateral compromise is appeasement, which only whets the appetite
of Arab extremists. Another is that the prospect of intervention —
by the U.S., U.N. or Europeans — gives Palestinian terrorists
an incentive to prolong the bloodshed in hopes a horrified world will
coerce Israel into submission.
What should Israel do to give
Palestinians reasons to reorient their leader or replace him with a
group that can control Hamas, end the carnage and create a viable state?
1. Make plain that Israel's population
will be aggressively defended. Invading Arabs, as previous Israeli generations
learned, are defeated by pre-emptive action and fierce counterattack.
Reject all "cycle of violence" moral relativism: only the
Palestinian side is targeting civilians.
2. Pursue all openings to negotiation,
even undelivered royal speeches taking rehashed extreme positions, as
Ariel Sharon is doing — but let Arabs understand at the outset
that the Barak-Clinton surrender terms are far from reasonable expectations.
3. Cock an ear to Benjamin Netanyahu.
If the Israeli left destroys the unity government, Bibi might wrest
control of the right, which would likely win the election. A frank presentation
by the former prime minister of his plans to pulverize terrorism would
strengthen Sharon's hand as the best maker of an interim deal.
4. Send ambassadors to the U.S.
and U.N. who can make a persuasive case on television that America's
war on Al Qaeda and Israel's on Hamas is the same war.
How can the U.S. help end the
war process?
1. Reject any linkage between
the present Arab war on Israel and the coming American war on Iraq's
dictator. Saddam Hussein's game is to get pan-Arab support by embracing
Palestinian terrorists; he has awarded over 60 "martyrdom"
checks of about $10,000 each to the families of suicide bombers.
If forgetful Saudis and Kuwaitis
link their cooperation with our cleanup of Baghdad to U.S. pressure
on Israel, our traveling vice president should tell them this would
mean the withdrawal of their much-needed American protection.
2. Demand Arafat use his army
to defeat the other terrorist organizations, so that a solid truce can
be arranged. Then advise him that there will be no "Powell plan"
rammed down Sharon's throat; instead, Arafat should aim for an interim
agreement to be signed in a new Palestinian state's capital —
which he should not expect to be Jerusalem.
________________________________
REWARDING
PALESTINIAN TERRORISM
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, March 10, 2002
In a stunning reversal of policy,
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said on Friday night that he would agree
to negotiate under fire with the Palestinian Authority and would no
longer insist on seven days of absolute quiet as a precursor to such
talks. Interviewed on Channel 2 television, Sharon said, "Yes,
there will be negotiations to attain a cease-fire, even under fire."
After months in which he refused to countenance such a step--stating
repeatedly that to do so would constitute a reward for Palestinian terror--Sharon's
latest zig-zag is as misguided as it is inscrutable.
The shift in policy capped off
one of the bloodiest weeks in recent memory, in which more than 30 Israelis
were killed and hundreds wounded by a string of Palestinian terror attacks
across the country, from Jerusalem to Atzmona to Tel Aviv. The wave
of terrorism--whose scope and intensity were indicative of a Palestinian
decision to escalate the conflict--elicited a stronger Israeli response,
with the IDF entering Tulkarm, Jenin, and Bethlehem to round up wanted
fugitives. This led to heightened criticism of Israel's actions by Europe
and the United States, and threats from the Labor Party to bolt the
coalition.
Thus, if ever there were an inauspicious
moment for Sharon to concede a major point of principle, last week was
most assuredly it. By suddenly reversing course, Sharon has done precisely
what he warned against all along--he has rewarded Palestinian intransigence,
handing Yasser Arafat a major diplomatic victory while receiving nothing
in return. Sharon has also demonstrated to his coalition partners, as
well as to Israel's friends and critics abroad, that even his most non-negotiable
of red lines are not really that red after all. This sets a dangerous
precedent for the future, one that will almost certainly come back to
haunt Sharon, both politically and diplomatically. By failing to stand
firm on the principles which he himself enunciated and insisted upon,
he risks inviting unremitting pressure on Israel in the future.
Such pressure is sure to come,
as evidenced by the mounting criticism of Israel's military operations
over the weekend. In Amsterdam, the Dutch Foreign Ministry issued a
statement saying the European Union and the United States are "preparing
a diplomatic initiative that will call on Sharon to implement an immediate
cease-fire, as well as request that both sides return to the negotiating
table," as if the obstacle to achieving a cease-fire were Sharon,
rather than wanton Palestinian terrorism.
In Paris, French Foreign Minister
Hubert Vedrine was even more scathing in his criticism, suggesting that
Israel is out to kill as many innocent Palestinians as possible. The
United States also joined the fray, with State Department spokesman
Richard Boucher telling reporters on Friday, "It's important for
the Israelis to think hard about their policies, think through the consequences
of things like going into heavily populated areas with heavy military
force, because those consequences can be tragic as well."
This barrage of unbalanced criticism
comes on the eve of the visit of American special envoy Anthony Zinni,
who is to arrive later this week. It also coincides with U.S. Vice-President
Dick Cheney's visit to the Middle East, in which he will reportedly
discuss the possibility of an American military operation against Iraq
with various countries in the region. Obviously, the pressure on Sharon
to restore some semblance of quiet must be immense, with the U.S. presumably
trying to show the Arab states that it is not indifferent to the fate
of the Palestinians. The problem with this approach, however, is that
it is both short-sighted and ultimately ineffective.
While it might be easier for
Europe and the United States to tighten the diplomatic screws on Jerusalem,
the cause of the current crisis lies a few miles up the road, ensconced
in an office in downtown Ramallah. Yasser Arafat has been waging an
unrelenting war of terror against Israel for the past 18 months, seeking
to kill as many Jews as possible and provoke an Israeli response, one
that would bring about international intervention on behalf of the Palestinians.
As last night's shooting attack in Netanya and bombing in Jerusalem
demonstrated, Arafat has no intention of halting the violence any time
soon. He continues to target Israeli civilians, thinking he can do so
with impunity. The only way to stop the bloodshed, then, is to disabuse
him of that notion. While sending envoys and hurling criticism at Israel
may help to appease the Arab states, it will do little to convince Arafat
that violence is not the answer. And that, unfortunately, is a recipe
for further bloodshed.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 342 • Friday, March 8, 2002
THE HATRED THAT
WON’T DIE: WHY ISN’T THE LEFT PROTESTING AGAINST THE GROWTH
OF ANTI-SEMITISM?
Jonathan Sacks
The Guardian (UK), February 28, 2002
I never thought I would have
to write about anti-semitism. Until recently I hadn't experienced it.
I might have done. I went to Christian schools, St Mary's Primary, then
Christ's College Finchley. We Jews were different and a minority. Yet
not once was I insulted for my faith.
Like many others born after the Holocaust, anti-semitism was something
I associated with the past. My late father spoke about it. He had come
to Britain as a child fleeing persecution, and he always argued that
Polish anti-semitism went deeper than that of the Germans. It was not
until after he died that I discovered that in Kielce, his home town,
a pogrom had taken place as late as July 1946. Local Poles shot, stoned,
butchered or otherwise murdered 42 Jewish survivors of the Holocaust.
Yet despite all he knew, my father never warned me to expect prejudice.
If anything, he made a joke of it. "Anti-semitic traffic lights",
he would say whenever they turned red at our approach.
Until now, I have been reticent about talking about anti-semitism. There
is all the difference in the world between the virulent anti-Jewishness
that dominated western Europe during the 19th century and its genteel
English equivalent (perfectly captured in Isabel Colegate's novel, The
Shooting Party, when the host remarks, after the Jewish guest has arrived:
"The semite is among us"). Indiscreet remarks by ambassadors
at dinner parties do not constitute a new Dreyfus case. Over-reaction
is as foolish as under-reaction. Anti-semitism is dangerous only when
it enters the mainstream of political discourse, something that has
not yet happened in Britain.
Then again, some Jews see anti-semitism as part of Jewish identity.
So did Jean-Paul Sartre, who claimed in his Sur le Question Juif that
the only thing Jews had in common was that they were the victims of
hate. It is not Jews who create anti-semitism, he said, but anti-semitism
that creates Jews. I have fought that view all my adult life. It leads
to the tortured psychology of an Arthur Koestler, who wrote: "Self-hatred
is the Jews patriotism", or Franz Kafka, who said: "What do
I have in common with the Jews? I don't even have anything in common
with myself." To me, Jewishness is about moral responsibility,
not victimhood; about trust, not fear. Anti-semitism is something that
happens to Jews; it does not define who we are.
Equally we can too easily dismiss all criticism of the state or government
of Israel as anti-semitism. It is not. No democratic state is entitled
to consider itself beyond reproach, and Israel is a democratic state.
Indeed it was ancient Israel who, in the biblical prophets, invented
the art of self-criticism. Zionism is categorically not, as it is sometimes
claimed to be, "My people right or wrong". Yet some recent
assaults on Israel have gone beyond mere criticism. They have entered
darker territory. The question is, where do we draw the line?
Anti-semitism is so emotive a topic that it helps to perform a thought
experiment. Suppose someone were to claim that there is a form of prejudice
called anti-kiwism, an irrational hatred of New Zealanders. What might
convince us he was right? Criticism of the New Zealand government? No.
A denial of New Zealand's right to exist? Maybe. Seven thousand terrorist
attacks on New Zealand citizens in the past year? Possibly. A series
of claims at the UN Conference against Racism in Durban that New Zealand,
because of its treatment of the Maori, is uniquely guilty of apartheid,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, accompanied by grotesque
Nazi-style posters? Perhaps.
A call to murder all those with New Zealand loyalties even though they
were born and live elsewhere? A suggestion that New Zealanders control
the world's economy? That they are responsible for AIDS and poisoning
water supplies? That they arranged the September 11 attack on the World
Trade Center? That they are a satanic force of evil against whom a holy
war must be fought? By now we have moved from criticism to hatred to
evil fantasy. But delete "New Zealand" and insert "Israel"
and "Jews", and all these things have happened in the past
year. What more has to happen before an impartial observer concludes
that anti-semitism is alive and well and dangerous?
A week ago a cleric in east London was charged with "soliciting
to murder" after allegedly distributing videos calling on his followers
to attack Jews ("How do you fight the Jews? You kill the Jews.")
Within days another video appeared, showing the gruesome murder in Pakistan
of American journalist Daniel Pearl. He is shown being forced to kneel
and confess that he and his parents are Jewish. His throat is then cut.
Over his writhing body, a voice warns: "Other Americans and Jews
should be ready to face a fate like Daniel Pearl." These are only
the most newsworthy of a wave of anti-Jewish incidents that have gone
round the world in recent months, affecting even student life in Britain.
This is not polite and genteel. This is the real, ultimately murderous
thing.
Anti-semitism is undeniably the most successful ideology of modern times.
Fascism came and went. Soviet communism came and went. Anti-semitism
came and stayed. Its success is due to the fact that, like a virus,
it mutates. At times it has been directed against Jews as individuals.
Today it is directed against Jews as a sovereign people. The common
factor is that Jews, uniquely, are denied the right to exist in whatever
form their collective existence currently takes. There is a direct line
from "You have no right to live among us as Jews" to "You
have no right to live".
What disturbs me is that, were this cumulative hate to be directed against
anyone else, the left would be the first to protest. Have we learned
nothing from history? An assault on Jews is an assault on difference,
and a world that has no room for difference has no room for humanity
itself.
(Rabbi Professor Jonathan
Sacks is Chief Rabbi of Britain and the Commonwealth.)
Shabbat Shalom to all our
readers!
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 341 • Thursday, March 7, 2002
DOUBLE-TALK ON
ISRAEL
Editorial
National Post, March 7, 2002
Yesterday was a grand opportunity
for our federal government to set out its views on the Middle East conflict.
Both Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and his Foreign Minister, Bill
Graham, made major speeches on the occasion of a state visit by Israeli
President Moshe Katsav. Unfortunately, Messrs. Chrétien and Graham
performed a dubious good cop-bad cop routine, with resounding support
for Israel from the former, and a deceptive piece of moral equivalence
from the latter. The government may think this allows it to have its
diplomatic cake and eat it, too, but in truth it makes Canada seem either
confused or cynical.
Mr. Chrétien's speech was brief, but was long enough to make
all the necessary points. The Prime Minister affirmed Israel's right
"to secure borders and to live in peace with her neighbours."
He also spoke of the terror in which Israeli citizens live--"where
allowing your children to go to a pizza parlour or a disco or just to
play in the park can be a choice between life and death"--and called
on Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat to take "effective
action against extremist groups who continue to use the territory under
his authority for safe harbour." Yet these fine words carried the
air of damage control--as just hours before, Mr. Graham had delivered
a speech in which he both expressed support for an impossible peace
plan put forward by Saudi Arabia, and suggested a false moral similitude
between Palestinian terrorism and Israeli counterterrorism. It was a
performance that rightfully elicited catcalls from the crowd, and which
calls for debunking here.
First, let us examine the Saudi proposal, which Mr. Graham says "deserves
serious consideration." In fact, it is not a serious peace plan,
but an attempt by Crown Prince Abdullah to rehabilitate his country's
terror-tarnished image and put Israel on the defensive diplomatically.
According to the plan, which Prince Abdullah says he may promote at
this month's Arab League meeting in Beirut, Israel would withdraw from
the West Bank and Gaza in exchange for normal relations with all Arab
nations. As Prince Abdullah knows well, the suggestion that Arab nations
would fulfill their end of this bargain is absurd.
For proof of this, look back just one year to the 2001 Arab Summit in
Jordan, at which Iraq's delegate ended his speech with the words, "May
God damn the Jews!" Bashar Assad, President of Syria, told delegates
that Israel is "even more racist than the Nazis." Now consider
that Prince Abdullah's plan would have Israel building embassies in
Damascus and Baghdad. This is not even remotely likely, and it is naive
and unproductive for the Canadian government to suggest it is.
Mr. Graham's delusions about the Saudi plan--based on an overly benign
assessment of Arab attitudes--perhaps explain why the Foreign Minister
yesterday also doled out blame for the ongoing violence to both the
Israelis and Palestinians. Although he urged Mr. Arafat to prosecute
Palestinians responsible for terrorist attacks, he also said that Canada
must question "certain practices which we do not believe ultimately
contribute to peace. Innocent civilian casualties, for example, no matter
what their background or religion, are not justifiable and ultimately
compromise Israel's image as a vital and compassionate nation."
Given that Israel cannot possibly be compromised as a vital and compassionate
nation by Israeli deaths, Mr. Graham is clearly referring here to Palestinian
and Muslim deaths--and his use of the word "practices" makes
it clear he is suggesting Israel's army excessively endangers innocent
Palestinian civilians. This is false.
Moreover, what Canada's Foreign Minister did not say, but should have,
is that there are two types of civilian casualties--(a) those killed
deliberately, by suicide bombers for instance; and (b) those killed
accidentally by soldiers hunting terrorists. By conflating the two categories
under a broad denunciation of "civilian casualties," Mr. Graham
falsely blurs the moral distinction between terrorism and counterterrorism.
In fact, for all the hand-wringing heard about the complexity of the
Middle East violence, the moral dynamic at play is actually quite plain.
While both sides characterize their strikes as retaliatory, only one
side is being honest. Everyone knows there would be no more Israeli
missile strikes and armoured incursions if the terrorist attacks halted.
But the reverse is clearly false: Palestinian leaders openly admit they
will keep blowing things up until they get all they want. Witness Mr.
Arafat himself, and his recent call for "a million martyrs"
to help wrest Jerusalem from the Jews.
The Canadian and European Union view that Israel and the Palestinian
Authority are fundamentally well-intentioned actors locked against their
will in a destructive cycle is wrong. Israel wants to live in peace;
its enemies want it to be destroyed. As for Mr. Arafat, he does not
want 90% of the West Bank and Gaza, or 95% or even 100%. What he and
many other Palestinians seek is a regional war that will destroy Israel.
Mr. Graham and other Western politicians should stop making specious
rhetorical concessions to terrorism. The damage he did was not undone
by the fulsome support for Israel expressed by the PM a few hours later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY
Editorial
New Republic, February 18, 2002
Yasir Arafat is one of the great
survival artists of his time, but he may have survived his own significance.
He is, politically speaking, already living posthumously. He is a mere
place-holder for a Palestinian politics that has not yet emerged. And
he owes his marginalization, his historical impotence, not merely to
the Israeli tanks that are surrounding him in Ramallah, in deserving
recompense for his failure to bring to justice the Palestinian assassins
of an Israeli Cabinet minister, and not merely to Ariel Sharon's long-standing
grudge against him. He owes his impotence to his failure to have delivered
to his people anything except a vast suppurating sense of grievance,
a self-pity the size of Palestine.
Arafat has been condemned to the periphery of history by the facts of
his history. And he has not been condemned only by Israel. The really
remarkable thing about Yasir Arafat's physical and diplomatic isolation
is that the government of the United States supports it and the governments
of most of the Arab states do not vociferously or even sincerely object
to it. The man seems to have reached the end of his elasticity. It is
deeply satisfying to watch the escape artist, the man who pandered to
everybody, fail to escape, and find no object for his pandering. In
2000 at Camp David and then in 2001 at Taba, he was offered almost everything,
and he walked away from it. Perhaps he was counting on everybody to
forget that this was so. Oddly enough, they have not forgotten.
And yet it is important to think beyond the diabolization of Yasir Arafat,
because it cannot be the end of the story. The story is grimmer even
than that. There is Arafat and there are the Palestinians. The discrediting
of Arafat is fine and just, but it runs the danger of reducing the analysis
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to a difference of views about one
man. The really disturbing thing about the conflict is not that Arafat
stands in the way of peace. The really disturbing thing is that if Arafat
got out of the way, there would still be no reason to think hopefully
about the possibility of Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation.
The controversy about Arafat must not be allowed to obscure the reality
of Palestinian politics, which is that the Palestinian community is
in a condition of severe internecine conflict. Over the past decade,
the political culture of the Palestinians has undergone a dramatic transformation.
The supremacy of secular Palestinian nationalism is long gone. The secularists
have been overwhelmed by the jihadists, by the Allah-intoxicated haters
of Israel; and it did not help the secularists that they saw the Oslo
accords as an opportunity to enrich themselves, and that they failed
to offer any principled opposition to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, for whom
Hezbollah represents the glittering model of how to think about, and
act against, the Jewish state.
Who are the Palestinians? Are they nationalists who want security and
dignity, or are they chiliasts who want revenge and redemption? Do they
aspire to sanctity or to statehood? Do they wish to go to heaven or
to the World Trade Organization? The later years of Yasir Arafat's rule
will be remembered as the period in which the Palestinian leadership
attempted to dodge these questions. The sterility of the Palestinians'
present situation is the direct consequence of a leadership that thought
it could praise moderation in the morning and martyrdom in the evening,
a leadership that bequeathed a dreadful confusion about the moral and
political substance of Palestinian life.
Israel can make peace with the Palestinians, Israel must make peace
with the Palestinians, but not until the Palestinians decide who they
are. Are they Abu Mazen and his diplomatic reason, or are they Wafa
Idris and her suicidal bomb? (Suicidal, but also homicidal: The self-immolation
of these Palestinian zealots is so fascinating to the media that they
forget sometimes to mention that these people are also plain murderers.)
Yasir Arafat likes to believe that he is all of the Palestinians, but
he cannot be all of them, at least not coherently. And it is the incoherence
of his leadership that has brought him to the little siege in Ramallah.
There is a war--sometimes a shooting war--taking place between Palestinians,
and it can no longer be disguised by the war taking place between Israelis
and Palestinians. Arafat refuses to take sides in the Palestinian-Palestinian
war, and so he has nothing to offer the future of Palestinian politics,
which is to say, he has nothing to offer the future of Israeli-Palestinian
relations. He is over, but the struggle for Palestinian identity is
not over; and that struggle imposes upon Israel not so much the obligation
of peace as the obligation of vigilance.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 340 • Wednesday, March 6, 2002
WEDNESDAY'S "NEWS
IN REVIEW" ROUND-UP
WEEKLY QUOTES
“I want to
conduct negotiations, but we cannot do that until the Palestinians are
hit very hard…In the current situation, it’s either them
or us. We are at war and our backs are against the wall. I don’t
expect the P.A. to halt terrorism. They are terrorism. Arafat is the
father of all terrorism...”—P.M. Ariel Sharon
(Jerusalem Post, March 5)
“We have to act like we are at war. When 22 of our citizens
are murdered in 24 hours, I approve any operation aimed at punishing
the Palestinians until they beg for a ceasefire.”—Justice
Minister Meir Sheetrit, who is usually viewed as a dovish Likud
Party member (National Post, March 5)
“Which population in the world would allow itself to be
intimidated and terrified as this whole population is, where you can’t
send your kid out for a pizza at night without fear he’ll be blown
up? Let’s really let the [Palestinians] understand what the implication
of their actions is. Very simply, wipe them out. Level them.”—Rabbi
David Hartman (International Herald Tribune, March 2-3)
“…[F.M. Shimon] Peres…insist[s] that Israel
continue talking with the leadership of the P.A. despite the mounting
death toll from terror. ‘We must give hope to the 3.5 million
Palestinians,” Peres reportedly said. To which I cannot help but
respond: And what about giving some hope to the 5 million Israeli Jews,
Mr. Peres? Isn’t it time we start worrying a little more about
ourselves and a little less about our neighbors’ hopes and aspirations?
Even more troubling is the response of…Meretz MK Yossi Sarid,
who…said after the weekend attacks in Jerusalem and Ofra: ‘So
long as the occupation continues, the terror will continue…’.
Not a word of condemnation for the murder of Jewish children, nor even
an expression of criticism…Remarks such as these only serve to
strengthen the resolve of Arafat and his gang, who see how easy it is
to provoke discord among Israel’s leadership….”—Columnist
Michael Freund (Jer. Post, March 6)
“If I would have known the reality would get this bad,
I would not have joined this government…If Arafat is irrelevant,
we have nothing to ask from him and it does not matter whether he is
in Ramallah or elsewhere. But if he is relevant, we need to be talking
to him.”—F.M. Shimon Peres pleading to
the security cabinet not to return the tanks removed last week from
the area around Yasser Arafat’s compound (Jer. Post, March
6)
“If Arafat disappeared…I tell you, it would be a
state of disorder…We cannot say that without Arafat we can reach
an agreement. It’s a grave mistake…I’m not pro-Arafat.
I’m pro-peace and stability and the welfare of the people in the
whole area, Israelis and Arabs. Settlements [are] illegal, but we leave
this to the negotiations to reach a decision.”—Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak during his visit to Washington, D.C.
(Jer. Post, March 6)
“Balata refugee camp welcomes you. Its martyrs will win.”—Lettering
on the arch of the West Bank camp raided by Israel last week. [Of the
20 Palestinians killed in Jenin, half were policemen, Col. Moshe
Tamir reported. But they were also terrorists, he said. “They
were on duty around the refugee camp and they opened fire on us even
after we asked them to lay down their weapons. You can be a policeman
in the morning and a Hamas man in the afternoon.”]
(New York Times, March 3)
“You must turn your rifles on all Israeli army checkpoints.
No soldier posted at one of these roadblocks should be safe. They symbolize
the humiliation that Israel imposes on our people day after day.”—West
Bank leader of Arafat’s Fatah faction, Marwan Barghouti,
speaking to a crowd of 10,000 Palestinians attending the funeral of
a Fatah activist (Nat’l Post, March 6)
“The U.S. believes that this goal is only possible if
there is a maximum effort to end violence throughout the region, starting
with Palestinian efforts to stop attacks against Israelis.”—U.S.
President George W. Bush, while applauding Egyptian President
Hosni Mubarak’s offer to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal,
refused to budge from American insistence that violence must cease before
Washington will involve itself directly (Globe and Mail, March 6)
“According to…columnist Thomas Friedman, Prince Abdullah
demanded a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 border. But, according
to Henry Siegman, a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations,
unnamed Saudi officials said Saudi Arabia would settle for less. Siegman
wrote, ‘Saudi officials told me that normalization of relations
with Israel does not preclude Israeli sovereignty over the Western Wall
in the Old City and over Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem…’
But Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, editor-in-chief of the Saudi London-based
daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat…reported something different. “Prince
Abdallah’s conversation [with Friedman] was based on the word
‘entire,’ because this word is everything…It is the
key, just as it was the main obstacle in past peace negotiations. If
the Israelis want peace, they must give something whole, not a part.
They must return the West Bank in its entirely, occupied Jerusalem in
its entirety, the Golan Heights in its entirety, and [give] a full Palestinian
state.”— Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Feb. 19 (MEMRI,
Inquiry and Analysis, No. 87, March 3)
“A decision calling for a complete withdrawal to the ’67
lines makes negotiations superfluous, and Israel cannot accept the principle
of the initiative prior to negotiations nor decisions that harm its
security. Withdrawal to the ’67 borders is an absolute blow to
Israel’s security.”—Cabinet Secretary Gideon
Sa’ar, expressing Israel’s opposition to the Saudi
peace initiative (Ha’aretz, March 4)
“Israel, it’s suggested, should give up territory, buffer
zones, and Jerusalem’s Temple Mount in exchange for a declaration
of ‘recognition’ by Middle East countries—that is,
the very countries whose inhabitants [according to USA Today’s
recent Gallup Poll] either think that Sept. 11 was the work of the Israelis
(about 60%), or that crashing hijacked airliners into Lower Manhattan
was justified (about 30%). If Oslo was supposed to be about ‘land
for peace,’ what should one call the Saudi deal? ‘Land for
empty promises by irrational people?’…I’d be more
inclined to consider it suicidal.”—Columnist George
Jonas (Nat’l Post, March 2)
“The accumulation of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq
poses a threat, not just to the region but to the wider world. And I
think George Bush was absolutely right to raise it.”—British
P.M. Tony Blair, endorsing possible U.S. action against Iraq
(Nat’l Post, March 1)
“If we succeed in toppling the Saddam regime in Iraq and replacing
it with a pro-Western government, then Iran will be facing its worst
nightmare—a pro-American, Western-oriented regime on its eastern
border in Afghanistan and a pro-American regime with American forces
on the ground on its western border in Baghdad. The Iranians would understand
this as a pincer movement against them. That puts us in a position to
speak softly to them, while carrying a big stick, two big sticks in
fact. And that, combined with internal pressure for reform, could put
us in a position, over time, to affect their behavior positively…”—Martin
Indyk, Clinton administration Assistant Secretary of State and
former U.S. ambassador to Israel (Jerusalem Report, March 11)
“If Congress cranks up the Pentagon’s budget as
much as President Bush would like, the U.S. will soon be spending more
on defense than all the other countries of the world combined. That
is just one measure of America’s armed might—and a global
imbalance of power the likes of which has probably not been seen since
the height of the Roman empire.”—Editorial
(N.Y.T., March 3)
______________________________________________________
SHORT TAKES
DEADLY PALESTINIAN
ATTACKS KILL 28 ISRAELIS SINCE FRIDAY—(Jerusalem)
Givati Brigade Officer Lt. Pinchas Cohen, 23, was killed in a clash
with Palestinians overnight in IDF operations in the Gaza Strip. A second
soldier was killed while on patrol along the border with Egypt. The
killings occurred amid a brutal week in which 28 Israelis were murdered
since Friday. Among the dead is a family of 5, killed in an attack outside
a Jerusalem synagogue on Saturday night. Others were slain in suicide
bombing attacks in Tel Aviv and Afula. At an army roadblock on the Ramallah-Nablus
road on Sunday, 7 soldiers and three civilians were killed by a Palestinian
sniper. [full reports on Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs web site,
www.mfa.gov.il] (Jer. Post,
Ha’aretz, March 3-6)
SYRIA SUPPORTS SAUDI IDEA
BUT DEMANDS REFUGEES’ RIGHT TO RETURN—(Damascus)
Syria today expressed support for the Saudi peace overture but said
there can be no resolution without acknowledging the Palestinian refugees'
right to return to Israel. President Bashar Assad met with Saudi Crown
Prince Abdullah in Saudi Arabia to discuss the proposal, which calls
for Israeli withdrawal from territories--including the Golan Heights--in
exchange for neighborly relations with the Arab world. Syria's willingness
seriously to consider Abdullah's ideas, increases the chances the proposal
will be adopted as the official Arab position at a March 27-28 Arab
League summit in Beirut. Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, however, has
rejected the Saudi proposal, saying the Palestinians need weapons and
funds, not peace proposals. (Jer. Post, March 6)
LABOR PUTS OFF DEBATE
ON BOLTING GOVERNMENT—(Jerusalem) The Labor
Party, citing unspecified “technical reasons,” decided today
to postpone tomorrow’s scheduled meeting to discuss leaving Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon’s ruling coalition government. Party chairman
Benjamin Ben-Eliezer leads a minority position that favors
staying in the government. In a related matter, Foreign Minister Shimon
Peres has stated that if the Prime Minister refuses to hold a cabinet
vote on the draft agreement worked out between Peres and Palestinian
Legislative Council speaker Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala), Peres will support
Labor’s departure. (Ha’aretz, March 6)
SECURITY OFFICIALS CANCEL BARENBOIM’S RAMALLAH CONCERT—(Jerusalem)
A scheduled concert by conductor and pianist Daniel Barenboim
in Ramallah today has been cancelled by the Israeli government due to
concerns over his safety. Barenboim, an Argentine-born Israeli citizen,
said that he was informed by security officials that as an Israeli he
could not go to the West Bank due to the deteriorating security situation.
Last summer, Barenboim defied Israel Festival planners by performing
a work by Richard Wagner at a Jerusalem concert. (Jer. Post, March
6)
500 BLINDFOLDED AND HANDCUFFED
YOUTHS RALLY FOR ELHANAN TANNENBAUM--(Jerusalem) Some
500 youth group members, blindfolded and handcuffed, took part in a
rally this evening in Jerusalem for Elhanan Tannenbaum, who was abducted
by Hizbullah activists while in Switzerland in October 2000. The youths
say they symbolize the 500 days that Tannenbaum has been held hostage.
Tannenbaum's daughter Keren made an impassioned plea to his kidnappers,
asking Hizbullah to allow Red Cross officials to visit her father. (Jer.
Post, March 6)
PEARL MEMORIAL HELD AT WESTERN WALL—(Jerusalem)
A memorial service was held today at the Western Wall for Wall Street
Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Among those attending the service
were members of Pearl’s family, Religious Affairs Minister Asher
Ohana and Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Melchior. Pearl’s Israeli
grandmother said during the ceremony that Pearl had a warm Jewish heart.
"All he really wanted to do is mend the world," she said.
(Jewish Telegraphic Agency, March 6)
ISRAEL BARS BUILDING OF MOSQUE NEAR NAZARETH CHURCH—(Nazareth)
Under stiff pressure from the Vatican and a united front of Christian
factions, the Israeli government reversed earlier decisions and declared
that a mosque being built by Muslim militants near a Roman Catholic
basilica will not be constructed. At the Pope’s request, U.S.
President George Bush added his voice to Christian opposition at a meeting
in February with P.M. Ariel Sharon. A leader of the Islamic Movement
in Nazareth described the government's decision as a declaration of
war against Islam. (N.Y.T., March 4)
PRESIDENT KATSAV VISITS OTTAWA TODAY—(Ottawa)
Israeli President Moshe Katsav is paying an official visit to Canada
today. He begins his visit on the same day that Bill Graham, Canada’s
newly appointed Foreign Affairs Minister, delivers his first speech
on the Middle East, giving Ottawa’s encouragement to the peace
proposal by Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. P.M. Jean Chrétien is
scheduled to deliver a speech tonight at a gala hosted by the Canada-Israel
Committee. (Nat’l. Post, March 6)
DAVID IRVING, BRITISH HOLOCAUST DENIER, DECLARED BANKRUPT—(London)
Revisionist historian David Irving, who denied the extent of
the Holocaust, was declared bankrupt after failing to pay legal costs
to American professor Deborah Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books.
Irving had sued Lipstadt over her 1994 book, Denying the Holocaust:
The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory. High Court judge Charles Gray
ruled that Irving had "misrepresented and distorted" historical
evidence and that he was "anti-Semitic and racist and that he associates
with right-wing extremists who promote neo-Nazism." (Jer. Post,
March 4)
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 339 • Tuesday, March 5, 2002
THOUGHTS ON GENOCIDE:
THE PEARL MURDER,
ARAFAT'S WAR AGAINST ISRAEL, AND TERRORISM
Frederick Krantz
Palestinian terrorists have murdered
twenty-seven Israelis since Friday, including five over the last twenty-four
hours. Over the weekend, acts of carnage included another strike in
Jerusalem in which an entire young family of four was wiped out. These
murders put the recent brutal killing of journalist Daniel Pearl in
Pakistan--which coincided with the Jewish holiday of Purim--into context,
and prompt the following reflection.
Pearl's murder, like the now almost 300 murders of Israelis since September,
2000, was entirely gratuitous. It neither sought, nor achieved, any
rational political end--indeed, no attainable demands were made. He
was kidnapped and he was killed because he was a Jew, an American, and
a truth-seeking journalist. (A Wall Street Journal investigative reporter,
Pearl was probing the links between al-Qaeda networks in Pakistan and
the recently-foiled "shoe-bomber", Richard Reid.)
Like the Palestinian murders of innocent civilians and the terrorist
bombing of the Twin Towers, which also involve no negotiable demands,
the act was the nihilistic product of pure hatred. In the brutal videotape
of the murder, Pearl is forced to "admit" to the primary charge
against him, that he, and his mother and father, were Jews. His throat
was then slit, and he was decapitated. (Was the timing of the slaying,
which coincided with the Muslim Aid-el-Adha holiday celebrating Abraham's
sacrifice of Isaac, entirely accidental?)
The Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide-bombers, indiscriminate killers
of young and old, in pizzerias, shopping centers, social clubs, Bat
Mitzvah celebrations, rural towns and urban thoroughfares, likewise
make no "demands". Their murders, too, are "non-negotiable",
the issue of a sheer Jew-hatred which evokes that of the Nazis and their
collaborators.
"Secular" Palestinian killers, from Arafat's Fatah "Tanzim"
militia and Presidential "Force 17" security guards, and other
PLO factions, are no less lethal. They too kill without quarter, for
their supposed "demands"--return of all Palestinian refugees
to Israel, removal of all Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, control
of Jerusalem and the Temple site--cannot be met by Israel without committing
national suicide.
Indeed, extremist Arab-Muslim terror expresses a clear genocidal drive.
It targets Jews as Jews, in an insatiable hatred quenchable only by
an orgy of utter destruction--of individual Jews and, potentially, of
the State which represents them as a people. The same drive lies at
the core of Islamic extremism generally, as recorded clearly by the
BBC in the delight expressed in Palestinian refugee camps over the recent
slayings of Israeli civilians, and in wide sectors of the Muslim world
over September 11's extermination of 3,000 innocents.
In this grotesque nightmare vision, it is hunting season on Jews, and
now Americans, everywhere. Americans have become surrogates for Jews,
and hence "legitimate" targets. Hence the fear of an Iraqi
or Iranian (or al-Qaeda) nuclear weapon (imagine if the September 11
suicide-bombers had had one). This explains, too, the renewed American
determination to deal with Iraq before that eventuality becomes actual.
Antisemitism has, historically, been nourished by an unreasoning fear
and hatred of a supposedly diabolical or traitorous or lethally infectious
"other"--the Jew. Purim's celebration of the Jewish triumph
over threatened extermination tells the Biblical story of how Esther
and her uncle Mordechai triumphed over the genocidal plans of a Persian
king's hateful adviser, Haman. Such genocidal hatred nourished the long,
dark night of the Holocaust; and so too is it alive today in parts of
the Muslim world, as September 11 in New York City, the Islamicist and
“secular” PLO suicide attacks in Israel, and the murder
in Pakistan of Daniel Pearl, indicate.
The war against terror will be long and hard, with many short-term reverses
before any final, long-term victory can be claimed. For now, one hopes
that the more than symbolic meaning of Purim, of a persecuted people's
triumph over hatred and planned genocide, may be of some consolation.
For today, to paraphrase a famous observation, we are all Jews.
(Prof. Krantz, Editor of
ISRAFAX, is Director
of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.)
____________________________________
FIGHTING THOSE WHO ARE PREPARED
TO DIE
Ze’ev Schiff
Ha’aretz, March 5, 2002
The suicide bombers who blow themselves
up in Israel's population centers are the Palestinians' ultimate weapon.
Many Palestinians, including some intellectuals, view the bombers as
heroes. On the other hand, by conventional definition, and not just
in the West, they are terrorists, because their sole purpose is to deliberately
attack civilians, including women and children.
The fact that the suicidal terrorists appeared long before the outbreak
of the current military confrontation with the Palestinians is being
ignored in the fruitless ongoing political debate in Israel, and also
in the coverage of the phenomenon in the international press. During
the period between the signing of the Oslo accords and September 2000,
no fewer than 36 terrorists blew themselves up. In other words, they
operated even during the period Arafat calls "the peace of the
brave."
Since the outbreak of the current military confrontation, 55 suicide
bombers have managed to blow themselves up. Another 11 were caught and
are being held in Israel. Almost all of them chose their civilian targets
inside Israel, within the Green Line, not in the settlements. This is
also evident in the casualty figures. Some 49 percent of the Israelis
killed so far in the intifada have died in terrorist attacks inside
the Green Line (17 percent of them in Jerusalem); over 70 percent of
the wounded were injured inside Israel proper.
When the suicide operations were carried out by Hamas and Islamic Jihad,
it was clear that they were setting their sights on all of Israel and
that they had hardly any interest in the settlements. Now the Tanzim
have joined the trend of carrying out attacks inside Israel. The cooperation
between the Tanzim and Hamas has reached new heights, not only in attacks
and in the preparation of explosive charges for suicide bombers, but
also in the development of the Kassam rockets.
Familiar figures from the past have suddenly appeared on the scene.
Mohammed Deif, who played a key role in the suicide bombings during
the period when the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres were prime ministers,
has come out of hiding in Gaza and is planning operations against Israel
from there.
When Hamas led the terrorist activities of the suicide bombers, preparing
a bomber took several weeks and also involved preparing the people who
would assist the bomber to reach the target of the operation. Now that
the Tanzim have entered the suicide-bombing picture, the preparation
time has become a lot shorter. The latest bombers have also been indoctrinated
with the Islamic religious belief in the orgy with virgins that Allah
is preparing for them in heaven. They are also told that all the sins
of their family members will disappear and that their relatives will
also reach paradise.
The possibility of being killed will not deter someone who is willing
to die in order to kill Israelis and Jews. It is also doubtful that
he will cringe at the idea, raised recently, of his remains being put
into a pig skin for burial, when all the while his spiritual leader
is promising him that in any event he will enter paradise as a martyr.
If there is anything at all that will deter him, it is the knowledge
that his family, which he cares about and which he is certain will benefit
from his self-sacrifice, will be harmed.
It seems that the day is approaching in the terrible war that is developing
here, when anyone who comes to destroy Israeli families, including children
and babies, will have to consider that Israel will harm his family,
and not only his property.
It is already clear that damaging property is not enough, because those
who would not build one house for their refugee brothers are willing
to build a new house for the martyr's family after he kills Israelis.
Now, with Palestinian terror cutting down entire families, perhaps the
voices calling for physically harming the families of the suicide terrorists
will drown out the voices that reject this idea out of hand as unethical.
The terrorists, those who send them, and their families are liable to
find out that a terror-battered Israel is being drawn into merciless
responses.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 338 • Monday, March 4, 2002
AN ANGUISHED ACCOUNT
OF SATURDAY’S
HORRIBLE BLOODSHED
Harvey Tannenbaum
Jewish World Review, March 4, 2002
“…Chana felt
blood coming from her shoulder and realized that her hand was severed
at the elbow. ‘Where's my arm, where's my arm?’ Miriam Esther,
her 2 year old, had fallen asleep in the stroller about 15 minutes before
the bomb in Meah Shearim. Miriam Esther and Chana were now separated
as the Eema, mother, cried in pain without half of her hand as she listened
to the screams of her 2 year old who was burning in her stroller.
Chana woke up at Shaarei Zedek Hospital a few hours ago. She has talked
to the nurses to find out about Miriam Esther. The tear on her husband's
clothing of his kaftan (Sabbath garb) as he stood near her bedside confirmed
that Miriam Esther had burned to death.
The toddler was named after a great grandparent of Chana's whom had
burned to death in Auschwitz in 1943…
There is no difference between a ‘settler,’ ‘soldier,’
‘secular,’ or ‘Chassidic Jew.’ The target is
the JEW.”
______________________________________________________
JEWISH NEW YORKERS PROTEST
OUTSIDE PLO MISSION TO UN
Melissa Radler
Jerusalem Post, March 4, 2002
Shocked and outraged at the shooting
and bombing deaths of 22 Israelis over the weekend, Jewish New Yorkers
held a memorial service in front of the PLO mission to the United Nations
while others sat glued to the TV, frustrated by the increasing death
toll of the past 17 months of violence.
"This is so frightening. Here you have flagrant, horrendous, barbaric
attacks, with babies killed and a whole family wiped out," said
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Executive
Vice President Malcolm Hoenlein, who is meeting with the 54-member conference
today to discuss a plan of action.
A group led by the Coalition for Jewish Concerns' Rabbi Avi Weiss held
a protest and memorial service yesterday morning in front of the PLO's
Park Avenue mission, where they express their outrage that the Aksa
Martyr's Brigade, affiliated with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser
Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed credit for the weekend's carnage. A
group of Jewish students calling on the city to close the PLO office
also protested in front of the mission.
"Instead of reining in his terrorists to create conditions for
negotiations for peace, Arafat has further unleashed them," said
Weiss.
Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind, in Jerusalem awaiting the arrival of
State Comptroller Carl McCall on a solidarity visit, said he heard Saturday
night's bomb blast from his Jerusalem hotel room. He said he watched
ultra-Orthodox volunteers gather body parts and scrape blood off the
walls to provide each of the deceased a proper Jewish burial.
"What's going on here is not normal, it is insanity, it's sick,"
he said. "I'm here as often as I can be here during this difficult
time but things are out of control."
Hikind said that he became particularly incensed after an Israeli minister
vowed, during an interview on CNN, not to "over-react" to
the attacks. "How much blood, how many children have to slaughtered?
It doesn't have to be that way. There are ways to deal with terror,"
he said. He added that he does not plan on changing his own schedule,
which includes visits to Efrat and Betar Illit on the West Bank.
From New York, Hoenlein, meanwhile, voiced the frustration many Jews
here have felt as terrorist attacks continue with increased frequency
and barbarity. "The real problem is we all are waiting for the
other shoe to drop. We all know there is going to be another one and
another one and another one," he said.
______________________________________________________
A PRINCELY PROPOSAL? HARDLY.
Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal, March 1, 2002
"Our plan recognizes the
right of Israel to exist only after acceptance of a Palestinian state,
the return to the 1967 borders and an end to the state of belligerency."
--Prince Abdullah, November 1981
"Saudi Arabia believes the time has come to end the Arab-Israeli
conflict and achieve a just and comprehensive solution to the Palestinian
question."
--Prince Saud Faisal, April 1991
"This is exactly the idea I had in mind--full withdrawal from all
the occupied territories, in accord with U.N. resolutions, including
in Jerusalem, for full normalization of relations."
--Crown Prince Abdullah, February 2002
Give the Saudis high marks for
consistency. Every 10 years, they trot out the same Mideast peace plan,
invariably to curry favor in Washington. Invariably, too, Washington
returns the compliment by lavishing praise, and often assistance, on
the desert kingdom. In 1981, President Reagan applauded the so-called
Fahd plan for its "moderation," then promptly sold the kingdom
Awacs radar planes. In 1991, it was Secretary of State James Baker's
turn to thank the Saudis for "breaking taboos" by giving their
qualified endorsement, after repeated American entreaties, to the idea
of a Middle East peace conference.
Now comes Saudi Arabia's latest regurgitation, first issued in the form
of a reported conversation between Prince Abdullah and New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman. In a Feb. 17 article, Mr. Friedman wrote
that he proposed his idea for Middle East peace--full Israeli withdrawal
to the pre-1967 lines in exchange for full diplomatic recognition from
every member of the Arab League--during an off-the-record dinner with
Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler. Turns out this was the prince's idea,
too! Mr. Friedman then asked permission to publish the prince's remarks
in his column. Permission was promptly granted.
As the quotations above attest, Prince Abdullah's ideas are not fresh.
Still, they have diplomatic capitals buzzing. On Tuesday, President
Bush is said to have phoned the prince to commend his helpfulness. The
European Union sent Javier Solana to Riyadh to flesh out details. Here
in Israel, President Moshe Katsav publicly invited the Saudis to Jerusalem
to discuss details--an invitation that so far has not been accepted.
Meanwhile, Yasser Arafat, confined to his headquarters in Ramallah,
called it "a very strong platform"--no surprise, since it
meets all his demands.
Why the excitement? In part, because diplomatically there's nothing
else doing. Negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis barely even
take place, while the U.S. has wearied of being lied to by Mr. Arafat.
Shifting the axis of negotiation from the Palestinian Authority to the
Arab world thus provides fresh opportunities for diplomats like Mr.
Solana to make busy in places like Riyadh.
Then there are the opportunities that the prospect of a comprehensive
Arab-Israeli deal hold for the Palestinian situation. If the Arab states
were indeed prepared to make peace with Israel, the strategic concerns
that justify Israel's possession of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan
Heights would vanish. The road would then be clear for Israeli withdrawal
from the territories and the creation of a Palestinian state.
The trouble is that Israel has traveled this road before. In 1999, then
Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to return virtually the whole of the
Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for a peace deal. The offer was refused.
In January 2001, Israeli negotiators made a similar pitch to the Palestinians,
which included compensating Palestinians with pre-1967 Israeli territory
in exchange for maintaining possession over a few consolidated settlements.
This, too, proved a nonstarter with Mr. Arafat.
It is possible that the Arab League--Iraq, Syria and Libya included--may
nonetheless unite behind Saudi Arabia's proposal when they meet later
this month in Beirut. What then? The Arab states would reap immense
praise in the West for their "moderation." And Israel would
come under intense international pressure to offer a positive response.
But while this might turn the diplomatic tide, it behooves serious policy
makers to consider long-term implications.
First is the matter of sincerity. A Bashar Assad who signs on for a
conditional peace with Israel is not a better man, only a wilier one.
As for the Saudis, they could have pursued Prince Abdullah's idea at
any time during the past few years. That they chose to do it only when
relations with Washington had frayed suggests their newfound helpfulness
won't last long beyond the mending of those relations. Indeed, no sooner
had President Bush called in his congratulations to Prince Abdullah
than Saudi Arabia's United Nations ambassador denounced Israel for "one
of the worst forms of pressure and persecution and racism and occupation
and systematic terrorism in the history of mankind," adding that
"Palestinian violence is only a result of Israeli terrorism."
Then there is the matter of detail. "Full withdrawal from all the
occupied territories…including in Jerusalem," as Prince Abdullah
would have it, entails a population transfer of more than 200,000 settlers,
some of whom have been living where they do for decades; a return for
Israel to a seven-mile margin between Arab borders and the Mediterranean
Sea; and a handover of Jerusalem's Old City, including the Jewish Quarter
and the Wailing Wall. True, some of this may be negotiable; Henry Siegman
of the Council on Foreign Relations believes the Saudis might be flexible
on the last point. But will the Syrians be flexible? Or the Iraqis?
Unlike in the European Union, in the Arab League the lowest common denominator
position has always been the hardest line.
Finally, there is the matter of the four or five million Palestinian
refugees and their descendants, who claim a right of return to their
homes in Israel, whether real, vanished, or imagined. Though Mr. Friedman
apparently did not press Prince Abdullah on this point, every Arab regime
today insists on it, and it is scarcely conceivable that the Arab League
could agree to a peace with Israel that didn't include it. The "right
of return" means, of course, the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
During the Oslo process, the issue of refugees was punted downfield
as a matter of final-status negotiations. Yet while this may have given
Oslo its longevity, it also guaranteed its bitter result. The Bush administration
must consider carefully whether it, too, wants to exhaust its diplomatic
energies by playing a roughly similar game.
No doubt it's a good thing that the House of Saud is entertaining the
possibility of recognizing the state of Israel. It would be a better
thing if, before they fall over themselves praising Prince Abdullah,
Western governments calculate the price Israel will have to pay to seal
the deal.
Top
of the Page
Volume II,
No. 337 • Friday, March 1, 2002
Friday Reflection
A
HERO FOR TODAY'S WORLD
Adin Steinsaltz
Ha’aretz “Week’s
End”, February 15, 2002
Throughout the world, the earth
is now shaking, quivering and wet with blood. And with that in mind,
I shall try and define what heroism is.
The simple definition of heroism is the one we can find, for instance,
in the story of Samson: heroism is taking apart the gates of the city
of Gaza and carrying them away, it is grabbing a lion and tearing it
into two, making a building topple and thus killing three thousand people
at once.
But there is also a different definition of heroism. In Pirkei Avot
(Ethics of Our Fathers, Chapter 4, Mishnah 1) it says "Ben Zoma
says ... who is a hero? He who conquers his desires." As it is
written (Proverbs 16:32): "He who rules his spirit is greater than
he who conquers a city." Ben Zoma was considered the greatest expounder
of homilies. The question is, what is the novelty in Ben Zoma's words?
By presenting the person who is slow to anger and the hero--the one
who rules his spirit and the conqueror of cities--as analogous to each
other, the verse is actually saying that they belong in the same category.
It is impossible, therefore, to compare two things that have nothing
in common. One cannot say, for instance, that an elephant is bigger,
or smaller, than a mathematical equation, because they are not things
of the same kind.
Ben Zoma's innovation, then, was that he read the verse and drew a conclusion
from it: He saw the verse as telling us that there are different kinds
of heroism. There is the heroism of he who rules his spirit and subdues
his evil nature, and the heroism of a hero who can "devour the
arm and the crown of the head" (Deuteronomy 32:20). And in comparing
the two, it emerges that one is preferable over the other.
Here in Israel, we have become acquainted mainly with heroism of the
first kind. We have many lists of warriors who endangered their lives
and displayed heroism, bravery and resourcefulness in real wars. But
there is the second kind of heroism, a more private and personal heroism,
the heroism of victories within one's own soul. It is a different kind
of heroism, not only because it is mostly spiritual, but also because
it reveals a different aspect of what it means to be a hero.
We can learn something about this kind of heroism from the second verse
of the Shema which is, perhaps, the second most significant verse in
the entire Torah. This verse (Deuteronomy 6:5) says: "And you shall
love the L-rd your G-d with all your heart, and with all your soul,
and with all your might."
The heroism that expresses itself in outbursts of occasional heroic
deeds, such as that of the person who jumps into the fire, is momentary;
while the heroism of "with all your might" is a kind of heroism
that continues day after day, year after year, in distress, poverty
and need, in a state of hopelessness.
The devotion and self-sacrifice of "with all your might,"
then, is a continuous kind of devotion--day by day, year by year, without
seeing an end to it, and without expecting a better and brighter tomorrow.
This world-view exacts a heavy price, not only economically, but also
in terms of how one conceives of life and experiences it.
My wife once said to me that at any party where there are Israelis and
others, she could immediately tell who the Americans and Europeans were--they
were laughing. Indeed, at a party in which Israelis participate, it
is very rare to find people just standing around and laughing together.
It is not because people here are always sad, but because life here
is always enveloped in a feeling of dread, pressure, fear and heaviness.
Within all this, one can, and must live. There may even be moments of
merriment; but the overall picture is one of "bearing the yoke
and keeping silent" (Lamentations 3:27-28).
Not only in Israel but also throughout the world, people are now learning
about the need for this other kind of heroism. The world, that has seen
and sometimes even admired the heroism of violence, must now learn the
kind of heroism that has nothing to do with swords, cannons and bombs.
It is the heroism of the person who lives in an extended state of terror,
knowing that wherever he may go, it may be his last journey, and that
danger lurks everywhere--and still does not break down, and rules his
spirit and is slow with anger, and keeps going.
This heroism is the ability to be in a state of distress and under pressure,
and still live and build, and continue fighting this war in which there
are no immediate prospects of victory, and live a life of quiet heroism,
of ongoing self-sacrifice. This kind of heroism lacks the grandeur that
is the share of the conqueror of cities, for conquerors of cities are
honoured with triumphal processions. But nobody makes such celebrations
in honor of a person who rules his spirit, especially since tomorrow
and the day after, he will have to do this again and again.
The contemporary hero then, is not the one described in Pirkei Avot
as "heroic as a lion." It is the contemporary hero, the one
whose heroism is not discernible, who is the greater hero. It may be
the man who wakes up in the morning and opens his grocery store, even
though there was a terrorist attack there the day before. It is the
person who does not flee into the realm of oblivion, or to a different
place, but rather continues doing all the things that must be done.
It is the person who walks with his backpack on his shoulder and continues
walking even when he gets hit, the person whose buildings are destroyed,
yet he rebuilds them, whose plants are uprooted yet he replants them,
whose descendants are killed, yet he gives birth to new ones.
Thus we have the level of loving G-d "with all your heart."
Beyond that, we have "with all your soul," which is the one-time
sacrifice. And above and beyond that is "with all your might,"
which is the determination to continue indefinitely although the future
is unclear and there is no promise as to when this all will end. This
heroism is not fit for movies or theater, but it is a kind of heroism
that is suitable not only for great, prominent people, but also for
the simple and the small.
Shabbat shalom to all our readers!
Top
of the Page
CIJR’s
daily “ISRANET BRIEFING” is available by fax and e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends and family to visit our web-site
for more information on our Briefing series. To join our
distribution list, or to unsubscribe, contact us at
www.isranet.org.
The
daily ISRANET BRIEFING is a service of CIJR. We
hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and
our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $36.00
tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/Mastercard
information to CIJR (see contact information above)]. All
donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly
ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.
CIJR’s Briefing series attempts to convey a wide variety
of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for
its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles
and documents express the opinion of the author, and do not necessarily
reflect the viewpoint of the Institute. |