Sunday, October 31, 2004


Yasser Arafat, who reportedly is now breathing his last, is considered the father of modern terrorism. He is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent Israeli citizens, the deaths of untold numbers of Arabs and the killing of more than 100 U.S. citizens. Among the Americans were two diplomats, whose cruel murders in Sudan Arafat ordered by radio from his Beirut headquarters.

In 1995, Ariel Sharon said, "I don't know anyone other than Arafat who has as much civilian Jewish blood on his hands since the time of the Nazis."

Arafat's official biography on the Nobel Prize website glosses over his terrorist past, writing only, "In 1958 he and his friends founded Al-Fatah, an underground network of secret cells, which in 1959 began to publish a magazine advocating armed struggle against Israel. At the end of 1964 Arafat left Kuwait to become a full-time revolutionary, organising Fatah raids into Israel from Jordan. It was also in 1964 that the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was established, under the sponsorship of the Arab League, bringing together a number of groups all working to free Palestine for the Palestinians. The Arab states favoured a more conciliatory policy than Fatah's... Arafat developed the PLO into a state within the state of Jordan with its own military forces. King Hussein of Jordan, disturbed by its guerrilla attacks on Israel and other violent methods, eventually expelled the PLO from his country. Arafat sought to build a similar organisation in Lebanon, but this time was driven out by an Israeli milit! ary in vasion. He kept the organization alive, however, by moving its headquarters to Tunis..."

In fact, however, this long period was one of blood and murder orchestrated by Arafat. The PLO under his leadership conducted plane hijackings, bombings, and other acts of violence against Israel. In fact, the beginning of terror sky-jackings has been attributed to Arafat and the Fatah. Two years ago, after an Israeli plane was almost shot down in Kenya, then-Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned, "Sky-jacking terrorism first began against Israeli targets abroad by Arafat and Fatah in the late 1960's, and it very quickly became an international plague. We face exactly the same situation now. The terrorism of firing missiles against civilian airlines is now beginning against Israeli planes, but it can easily spread to other areas..." Arutz-7 reported at the time that though there had been "transportation" skyjackings in which criminals wished to reach Cuba, the first terrorist-extortion hijacking o! f an a irliner apparently occurred when Palestinians hijacked an El Al airliner to Algiers in July 1968. Two years later, Palestinian terrorists hijacked four jets almost simultaneously; the passengers were released after three weeks, and the planes were blown up.

The PLO under Arafat was also responsible for the massacre of 26 people, mostly children, in the Netiv Meir school in Maalot in May 1974. Another PLO organization perpetrated the Munich Olympics slaughter, killing eleven Israeli athletes in 1972.

In Lebanon, Arafat's forces killed hundreds of thousands of Christians, destroyed Christian villages, and burned churches, as detailed here. See also this article by a Lebanese Christian.

Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, wrote [Wall Street Journal, January 12, 2002], "... I am not surprised to see that Yasser Arafat remains the same bloody terrorist I knew so well during my years at the top of Romania's foreign intelligence service. I became directly involved with Arafat in the late 1960s, in the days when he was being financed and manipulated by the KGB... Gen. Sakharovsky asked us in Romanian intelligence to help the KGB bringing Arafat and some of his fedayeen fighters secretly to the Soviet Union via Romania, in order for them to be indoctrinated and trained. During that same year, the Soviets maneuvered to have Arafat named chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, with public help from Egypt's ruler, Gamal Abdel Nasser. When I first met Arafat, I was stunned by the ideological similarity between him and his KGB mentor. Arafat's broken record was that American "imperial Zionism" was the "rabid dog of the world," and there was only one wa! y to d eal with a rabid dog: "Kill it!" ... Arafat and his KGB handlers were preparing a PLO commando team headed by Arafat's top deputy, Abu Jihad, to take American diplomats hostage in Khartoum, Sudan, and demand the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian assassin of Robert Kennedy... Just six months earlier Arafat's liaison officer for Romania, Ali Hassan Salameh, had led the PLO commando team that took the Israeli athletes hostage at the Munich Olympic Games...

"On March 2, 1973, after President Nixon refused the terrorists' demand, the PLO commandos executed three of their hostages: American Ambassador Cleo A. Noel Jr., his deputy, George Curtis Moore, and Belgian charge d'affaires Guy Eid. In May 1973, during a private dinner with Ceausescu, Arafat excitedly bragged about his Khartoum operation. "Be careful," Ion Gheorghe Maurer, a Western-educated lawyer who had just retired as Romanian prime minister, told him. "No matter how high up you are, you can still be convicted for killing and stealing." "Who, me? I never had anything to do with that operation," Arafat said, winking mischievously.

"In January 1978, the PLO representative in London was assassinated at his office. Soon after that, convincing pieces of evidence started to come to light showing that the crime was committed by the infamous terrorist Abu Nidal, who had recently broken with Arafat and built his own organization. "That wasn't a Nidal operation. It was ours," Ali Hassan Salameh, Arafat's liaison officer for Romania, told me. Even Ceausescu's adviser to Arafat, who was well familiar with his craftiness, was taken by surprise. "Why kill your own people?" Col. Constantin Olcescu asked. "We want to mount some spectacular operations against the PLO, making it look as if they had been organized by Palestinian extremist groups that accuse the chairman of becoming too conciliatory and moderate," Salameh explained... Arafat has made a political career by pretending that he has not been involved in his own ! terror ist acts. But evidence against him grows by the day. James Welsh, a former intelligence analyst for the National Security Agency, has told U.S. journalists that the NSA had secretly intercepted the radio communications between Yasser Arafat and Abu Jihad during the PLO operation against the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, including Arafat's order to kill Ambassador Noel..."

Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri revealed in their 1997 biography, Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat, that Arafat was born in August 1929, in Cairo - and not in Jerusalem or Gaza, as Arab sources often claim.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Haim Harari: A View from the Eye of the Storm

I won't repost the entire article here, but this is an excellent (long) read for those wanting a good perspective of the Middle East. Below is a pointer to the article - worthwhile!!!

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Kerry: Sacrificing Israel

By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post Friday, October 22, 2004; PageA25

The centerpiece of John Kerry's foreign policy is torebuild our alliancesso the world will come to our aid, especially inIraq. He repeats thisendlessly because it is the only foreign policy ideahe has to offer. Theproblem for Kerry is that he cannot explain just howhe proposes to do this.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face isunlikely to so thrill theallies that French troops will start marching downthe streets of Baghdad.Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just beingcynical in pledging tobring in the allies, knowing that he has no way ofdoing it. Or you canbelieve, as I do, that he means it.

He really does want to end America's isolation. Andhe has an idea how to doit. For understandable reasons, however, he will notexplain how on the eveof an election.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arabstates endlessly railabout in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) isthe area of mostfriction with U.S. policy? What single issue mostisolates America from theoverwhelming majority of countries at the UnitedNations?

The answer is obvious: Israel.

In what currency, therefore, would we pay the restof the world in exchangefor their support in places such as Iraq? The answeris obvious: giving into them on Israel.

No Democrat will say that openly. But anyonefamiliar with the code words ofMiddle East diplomacy can read between the lines.Read what former Clintonnational security adviser Sandy Berger said in"Foreign Policy for aDemocratic President," a manifesto written while hewas a senior foreignpolicy adviser to Kerry.

"As part of a new bargain with our allies, theUnited States must re-engagein . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. .. . As we re-engage inthe peace process and rebuild frayed ties with ourallies, what should aDemocratic president ask of our allies in return?First and foremost, weshould ask for a real commitment of troops and moneyto Afghanistan andIraq."

So in a "new bargain with our allies" America"re-engages" in the "peaceprocess" in return for troops and money inAfghanistan and Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process."We know what "peaceprocess" meant during the eight years Berger servedin the Clinton WhiteHouse -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat wasinvited more often thanany other leader on the planet. It meant believingArafat's deceptions aboutpeace while letting him get away with the mostvirulent incitement to andunrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constantpressure on Israel tomake one territorial concession after another -- inreturn for nothing.Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched avicious terror war thatkilled a thousand Israeli innocents.

"Re-engage in the peace process" is precisely whatthe Europeans, theRussians and the United Nations have been pressuringthe United States to dofor years. Do you believe any of them have Israel'ssafety at heart? Theywould sell out Israel in an instant, and they arepressuring America to doprecisely that.

Why are they so upset with President Bush's Israelipolicy? After all, isn'tBush the first president ever to commit the UnitedStates to an independentPalestinian state? Bush's sin is that he alsoinsists the Palestiniansgenuinely accept Israel and replace the corrupt,dictatorial terroristleadership of Yasser Arafat.

To reengage in a "peace process" while the violencecontinues and whileArafat is in charge is to undo the Bush Middle Eastpolicy. That policy -- isolating Arafat, supporting Israel's right todefend itself both byattacking the terrorist infrastructure and bybuilding a defensive fence -- has succeeded in defeating the intifada andproducing an astonishing 84percent reduction in innocent Israeli casualties.

John Kerry says he wants to "rejoin the community ofnations." There is noissue on which the United States more consistentlyfails the global test ofinternational consensus than Israel. In July, theU.N. General Assemblydeclared Israel's defensive fence illegal by a voteof 150 to 6. Indefending Israel, America stood almost alone.

You want to appease the "international community"?Sacrifice Israel.Gradually, of course, and always under the guise of"peace." Applyrelentless pressure on Israel to make concessions toa Palestinianleadership that has proved (at Camp David in 2000)it will never make peace.

The allies will appreciate that. Then turn aroundand say to them: We'redoing our part (against Israel), now you do yours(in Iraq). If Kerry iselected, the pressure on Israel will begin on day one.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

True Speech Versus Free Speech

By Phyllis Chesler
The Jewish Press
October 11, 2004

Dear President Brodhead:


I am writing to you as a member of Duke`s extended family of scholars. Asyou may know, my archives reside at Duke University as part of adistinguished collection of feminist intellectuals and activists. Indeed, myarchives were Duke`s first major acquisition in this area.

You have in your possession a treasure trove of my research, published andunpublished manuscripts, interviews, course curricula, and worldwide civilrights activism from the early 1960`s on. Duke acquired my papers in 1992and I have continued to hand over materials ever since. Other importantacquisitions that followed mine include those of Kate Millett, Alix KatesShulman, Merle Hoffman, Robin Morgan, and others.

I am also one of 107 signatories to a letter recently sponsored by theWyman Institute for Holocaust Studies addressed to Secretary of State ColinPowell on behalf of the Global Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, (HR 4230), whichwould have the United States monitor and combat anti-Semitism world-wide.

Other signatories include current and former Senators, Congressmen,Ambassadors, theologians, and educators including the Reverend Dr. JosephHough, Jr., President of the Union Theological Seminary, Dr. Harold W.Attridge, Dean of the Yale University Divinity School, Dr. Maxine ClarkeBeach, Dean of the Drew University Theological School, Sister Rose Thering,author James Carroll, and R. James Woolsey, Jack Kemp, Jeanne Kirkpatrick,Cynthia Ozick, Richard Perle, and Gary Wills.

I understand that Duke University will be hosting a Palestinian SolidarityMovement (PSM) conference. I also understand that you and certain facultymembers believe that doing so constitutes your commitment to free speech andacademic freedom. Ironically, Duke will be supporting a group (which is alsoknown as the International Solidarity Movement), which does not believe infree speech or democracy and which endorses violence, mass murder,Jew-hatred, and homicidal-suicide terrorism.

But, you might say, America prides itself on extending its civil rights,including that of free speech to racist groups and to their hate speech. Letme respectfully suggest that, post 9/11, America may no longer do so withoutrisking grievous consequences both in terms of lives lost and truthabandoned.

President Brodhead: Would you proudly host a Nazi Party or Ku Klux Klanconference in the name of academic freedom? Given your commitment to theFirst Amendment, would you still allow the meeting to take place behindclosed doors with no press allowed? I understand that this is what thePalestine Solidarity Movement conference planners have demanded. As youknow, a free and vigorous press is one of our protections against tyranny.What issue cannot bear the cleansing light of scrutiny?

But why is Duke giving any intellectual credibility to what is bound to bea hate-fest? Under President Rudenstein, Harvard, which like Duke is also aprivate institution, resolved that it would not allow any hate-speechconferences. The Harvard Divinity School also returned United Arab Emiratemonies from the Sheikh Zayed Foundation no doubt earmarked for suchpurposes. Perhaps Duke can consider doing this as well. The PSM/ISM areprecisely the kinds of groups that European governments, beginning withGermany, have begun to monitor in terms of their terrorism potential. Why isDuke granting them an aura of intellectual respectability?

In my view, the masked and hooded members of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas,Islamic Jihad, Al Fatah, and the al-Aqsa`s Martyrs Brigade which the PSMand their allies support are far more dangerous than the Nazis or the Klanever were. Their terrorism against civilians, especially in Israel, but alsoworldwide, is both state-sanctioned and trans-national. Their propagandaagainst Jews and Israelis is based on doctored footage, photo-opportunityjournalism, and sophisticated post-Orwellian lies.

The Palestine Solidarity Movement and their allies chant "Death to theJews," and "Death to America," at what they describe as peace rallies; theycharacterize the mass murder of civilians as "resistance to oppression;"they preach the destruction of Israel and the murder of all infidels inArabic but then, in English, French, and German, claim that they have beenmisunderstood, that they really meant the opposite of what they said.

President Brodhead: Until now, I have been proud to be associated withDuke. However, as a Duke family member, I am distressed by Duke`s decisionto host the PSM conference but I am even more distressed by Duke`s failure,so far, to fund and host very different kinds of programs in this area.

Some academics and educators might say that PSM`s/ISM`s hate speech andlies are only words and cannot hurt anyone. They might also say thathonoring diverse and controversial words are precisely what Americanuniversities should do. At some other time in history, and perhaps in termsof other subjects, I might agree with you. However, the level ofhate-propaganda against Israel and Jews is surreal, global, sophisticated,and deadly.

During this latest Palestinian-led and Arab and Iranian-backed Intifada(2000-2004), such propaganda has both led to and yet rendered invisible thehighest civilian body count in Israel`s history. In American demographicterms, by now America would have suffered approximately 45,000 civiliandeaths at the hands of terrorists and approximately 280,000 civilianswounded, often seriously, and for life. More than half would have been womenand children. Only Israel`s unilateral creation of a security barrier hasbegun to staunch the flood of Israeli blood.

The Islamists, whom the PSM supports, torture and impoverish their ownpeople, sacrifice their own children, practice slavery, and commit genocide.They terrorize their own citizens, especially intellectuals, women, andhomosexuals. Nevertheless, many "politically correct" academics haveromanticized these barbarians even the billionaire bin Laden and themulti-millionaire Arafat as humiliated and impoverished freedom fighters.

I have written about this betrayal of the truth and of the Jews in mytwelfth and latest book: The New Anti-Semitism. The Current Crisis and WhatWe Must Do About It. Most "politically correct" academics, includingfeminists, have joined left-alliances which single out only Israel forimaginary crimes and misdemeanors. They say that Israel is an Apartheid andNazi state; it is not. But, as one of Duke`s pioneer feminists, let meindeed briefly focus on Apartheid as a feminist issue.

Islam today is the largest practitioner of both gender and religiousApartheid in the world. Women who live under Islam are, variously, murderedoutright in honor killings and oppressed by forced veiling, segregation,sequestration, stoning to death for alleged adultery, female genitalmutilation, polygamy, forced marriage to men old enough to be theirgrandfather, and by domestic and sexual slavery.

Women have few, if any, civil, legal, or human rights under Islam today. Inaddition, under Islam, all non-Muslims Christians, Jews, Assyrians, Hindus,Zoroastrians, animists have historically been viewed and treated assubhuman and accorded "dhimmi" status. Today, except for the small countryof Israel, all 22 nation states in the Arab Muslim Middle East are Judenrein(free of Jews); Christians there remain at serious risk.

You will probably not hear anyone at the PSM conference address Apartheidin this way and to fail to do so is to fail the requirements of objectivityand scholarship. "Free" speech is not always "true" speech. Universitieshave an obligation to teach the truth as much as they may also wish to modeltolerance for all speech, including that which bears no relationship to thetruth. Thus, in the interests of free, true speech, may I suggest that Duke:

Allow the media in to cover the PSM conference.

Allow the conference to be taped so that you and others will see what isbeing said.

Sponsor a pro-democracy and pro-Israel conference, one which reflects awide spectrum of opinion, not only that of the left-wing Israeli Oslo andGeneva accordianists. This should be an inter-faith and inter-disciplinaryeffort. The Jewish community should not be expected to monitor Jew-hatredand educate against it by themselves. In addition, such a conference shouldfeature Arab Christians, as well as Lebanese Maronite Christians who are thedescendants of Phoenicians and pre-date the Arab conquest of Arabia.

Sponsor an international conference on Gender and Religious Apartheid.

Sponsor a conference on the feminist challenge to and transformation ofpatriarchal religions. As yet, perhaps due to funding limitations, none ofmy extensive work as a feminist activist within Judaism and within Israel,especially as a co-leader of the Women of the Wall struggle in Jerusalem,has been made available to scholars or Duke students nor has any of my workas an anti-racist activist not only on behalf of minorities of color butalso on behalf of Jews been made available.

We live in dangerous times. Keeping a low and "neutral" profile, trying toplease and appease all sides -- especially the most violent side is unwise.One must take a stand against radical evil and injustice. I hope and praythat you will do exactly that.

All the best,

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D.

Update: After I sent this letter, I called both President Brodhead and JohnBurness, Duke`s Senior Vice President for Public Affairs. I also continuedto call the directors of the Freeman Center for Jewish Life at Duke who havenot yet returned my calls. (I am told that they are both overwhelmed andlimited in what they can do since they are largely funded by Duke.)

Vice President Burness called me back and we had an amiable conversation onspeaker. Four days after I first published my letter, I received a writtenresponse from VP Burness. According to the letter. the media may indeedregister and attend the conference. However, the student group which issponsoring the conference has prohibited the use of cameras and taperecorders; the administration`s hands are, pro forma, tied.

Although the letter does not refer to it, in our phone conversation VPBurness stated that the university was not banning protestors, that theyexpected some protest and were making the necessary arrangements for safetyand security. However, VP Burness writes that he "cannot dispute (my) pointthat free speech is not always true speech." He does quote PresidentBrodhead`s view that "All ideas are not equal, but it is a foundationalprinciple of American life that all ideas should have an equal opportunityto be expressed." In addition, VP Burness states that the PalestineSolidarity Movement and the International Solidarity Movement are "separate"organizations, albeit with overlapping members and leaders. He also outlinesother Freeman Center programming at Duke between October 15-17, and a "yearlong" series of lectures which might better present the "Israeli" point ofview.

I spoke with Rachel Fish of the David Project who confirmed that TheFreeman Center is sponsoring a peace concert and a speakout which willfeature the victims of terrorist violence. However, Fish told me, "they donot want any Jewish Israeli victims speaking and they do not want anyspeakers to blame Arabs or Muslims for the terrorism. To do so would beviewed as politically incorrect and insensitive." In addition, the FreemanCenter initially invited only the Geneva Accordianists Avram Burg and YossiBeilin to speak.

As of this writing, only Burg will be speaking. After demanding to be heardand agreeing to fund themselves, two members of the David Project will alsobe presenting at Duke. Based on several sources I have also learned that theConservative Student Union at Duke has invited Daniel Pipes to speak onOctober 14. They did so months ago as a way of protesting the presence ofthe PSM on campus. The Freeman Center is now also co-sponsoring Pipes`sspeech.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D., is the author of twelve books including her latest,The New Anti-Semitism: The Current Crisis and What We Must Do About It. Sheis working on a new book about the importance of independent thinking forPalgrave-Macmillan (St. Martin`s). She may be reached through her website

Friday, October 08, 2004

A TIME TO SPEAK (Ecclesiastes 3:7)


Each message is on a theme that relates to Israel and the Middle East – past and present. The contents include history, background, current events, analysis and comment, and excerpts from published writings.

Material in these messages may be circulated, posted, cited and quoted. Readers who so use this material are requested to note the source and not make changes in the wording.

Complimentary subscriptions are available by request to

All the messages to date are on A Time To Speak's website:

Special Message On Website
texts in English and in Hebrew

===== ===== ===== ===== =====
Vol. IV:9 (No. 45)
September 2004 - Elul 5764/Tishri 5765
In modern usage "at jeopardy" means to be exposed to or in imminence of death, loss or injury. But the derivation of the word is the French "jeu parti [divided game]" that is on the verge of being decided one way or the other. In this sense, Israel has been put at jeopardy by its own authorities, leaders, and molders of opinion, but the outcome is not yet decided and can go right or wrong.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Listen you rulers of Jacob,
You leaders of the House of Israel,
For you ought to know what is right.
-- Micah 3:1
It is said that Golda Meir blocked General Ariel Sharon from becoming Chief-of-Staff of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces], because "The first time he doesn't get his way he'll put tanks around the Knesset [parliament]." After a long political career of hopping among convictions and parties he did manage to become Prime Minister, and seems bent on proving how well Golda understood him.
The people of Israel from their most ancient days did not tolerate autocratic rule. From the moment of its modern rebirth it has been a democracy -- and indeed the only democracy in a region of dictatorship and tyranny. That democracy has survived more than a half-century of military attacks, terrorism, almost worldwide hostility, and more than a few domestic misjudgments, but it is now threatened by its own Prime Minister and his henchmen.
Israeli voters cast their ballots not for individual candidates but for party lists, taking their choice among the variant platforms of numerous parties. Usually, the party that wins the most seats in the Knesset forms a government, with its party leader as Prime Minister. This means that when the present incumbent blusters "The people elected me" that is in fact not true. The public elected a platform, that he has no right to subvert as strikes his fancy.
Sharon is not now merely lapsing into the common political failure of neglecting the points and pledges of an election campaign. He is trashing the points and pledges and dredging up in their place those of a defeated opposition party massively rejected by the voters. This is a betrayal so gross that it puts at jeopardy the principles of democracy and the political compact between electors and elected that is indispensable to a free and self-governing society.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
This betrayal is perpetrated on behalf of a scheme he calls "hitnatkut [disengagement or separation]". A wag has suggested that those who find the Hebrew word hard to remember can just as well say "it-not-good". The elements of the scheme are:
1] Israel will abandon all hold on, control of, or claim to the entire Gaza Strip and parts of biblical Judea-Samaria. It is more than hinted that this will be followed by similar abandonment of much more of the historic Land of Israel.
2] The Jews who reside in these parts will be uprooted, by force if necessary. The flourishing communities they have built, with the support and encouragement of the government, will be razed or turned over to the triumphant PLO/Hamas.
3] Unlike the proponents of the Oslo Accords, the champions of hitnatkut do not parrot the specious slogan "land for peace". They surrender to the enemy is totally unilateral, without seeking any empty words or promises in exchange.
The abandoned land will be taken over by the enemy, who will have complete and unfettered control to turn it into bases for its jihad for the destruction of Israel.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
Sharon cannot boast that this bizarre enterprise is his own inspiration. Amram Mitzna, when he was briefly head of the Osloid Labor Party, touted the virtue of unconditional flight, and Sharon ridiculed it. So did enough voters to send Mitzna into quick retirement. Now Sharon strives to foist a similar notion it on the nation, with all the gentlemanly finesse that earned him his old nickname of Bulldozer.
As evidence of his assertion of wisdom beyond question, he could cite some accumulated credits of his tenure in office:
1] He mimics the rhetoric of the enemy by referring to Judea-Samaria-Gaza-Golan as "occupied territory"; a silly blunder that the former Attorney General hastened to correct. [See Issues 6 & 8]
2] The terrorist regime that Oslo planted in the Land of Israel slaughters or gravely injures thousands of Israeli men, women, children and babies. The incumbent Prime Minister wreaks vengeance on empty buildings. Occasionally, a few terror-chiefs are picked off, leaving their places open for new incumbents. Occasionally, bases and weapons of attack are removed, and their places left available for the installation of replacements.
3] As a defense against jihad-murder, there is to be a fence that turns Israel into a ghetto cut off from the heart of its historic homeland. Beyond the fence, jihad may reign. This is comparable to draping Israel with a mosquito net full of holes, instead of draining the swamps where johad breeds. Within Israel, there is endless dither over the routing, re-routing, and re-re-routing of the net, while abroad it inspires a frenzy of denunciation for friend and foe.
(A statistical drop in the number of terror attacks actually perpetrated is cited as evidence that the fence works, but in fact it does not inhibit attempts at terrorism. The drop in achieved terror is due to the vigilance, valor and skill -- and all too often self-sacrifice -- of the IDF and Border Police.)
The terrorists in that Oslo planted in the Gaza Strip to not need to scale a fence to bring damage, injury and murder to Sederot, a town in the adjacent western Negev. They just fire missiles. While it mourns its dead children, Sederot is offered equipment to detect incoming missiles.
4] Sharon accepts, endorses and professes loyalty to a Roadmap drawn by a foreign Quartet, based on principles dictated by Saudi Arabia. This pernicious design violates all past pledges that no imposed solution would be inflicted on Israel, and there would be no invention of a PLO state. [See Issues 19, 23, 28, 29 & Twelve Bad Arguments for a State of Palestine]
If enforced, it will reduce Israel to an unviable remnant of itself, a virtual vassal of overlords comprising the European Union, Russia, the United Nations, and the US Department of State.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
One of Sharon's closest advisers and his favored emissary to both the United States and the PLO is his personal attorney Dov Weissglass. Counselor Weissglass simultaneously continues his legal and business career, with a clientele that includes Arafat's treasurer and other PLO luminaries.

Israel Resource News Agency now reports that Weissglass stands to profit from a prospective PLO-run gambling casino for tourists in southern Gaza -- once the Jews now residing there have been dragged away.
* * * * * * * * * * * *

"But if you chance to be placed in some superior situation,
will you presently set yourself up for a tyrant?"
-- Epictetus (Rome, 1st century)
Do not keep talking so proudly or let your mouth speak such arrogance.
-- I Samuel 2:3
Whoso is hating reproof is brutish.
-- Proverbs 12:1
From these accomplishments, Sharon now proceeds to his hitnatkut, on behalf of which he breaks faith with the public, splits the country when it desperately needs unity, wrecks his own party, and hacks at the integrity of society and government. He places Israel at greater jeopardy from without by strengthening and encouraging its enemies, and at new jeopardy from within by violating the basic tenets of democrary, and misuses his office to suppress freedom of speech and dissent, and punish lawful opposition.

1] To show that the registered members of his party support his hitnatkut, Sharon ordered a referendum in which they could vote "Approve" or "Against". He promised that he would abide by the outcome. When the outcome was 60-to-40 for "Against", he threw it out.

There are now demands from many quarters for a nationwide referendum on so fateful a decision, but this Sharon refuses. His own staff admits that there will be no referendum because he might lose again. It is not clear why a second rejection would pose any problem for him, since the expressed will of the public is null and void when it does not coincide with his own will.

2] When he had to present hitnatkut to his own cabinet it seemed likely to be rejected. So he picked two of the ministers who were certain to vote against it and kicked them out of the cabinet before the vote was held. By this means he eked out his "majority approval".

3] Uzi Landau, a Likud cabinet member who stands firm against It-Not-Good, is invited by the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) to speak at a dinner in New York in December. Sharon forbids him leave the country, because he "opposes the most important policy decision and acts against it in the Knesset and public."

4] Sharon, backed up by Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz, tried but failed to stop Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger from taking part in the traditional High Holy Day prayers at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in biblical Hebron, lest the worshippers pray for something politically incorrect.

5] The Prime Minister and his henchmen spread dark charges of criminal plots by the opposition, though thus far the Security Services can find no substance to the charges. Criticism is redefined as "incitement", so anyone who expresses the wrong opinion is at jeopardy of "investigation" and even of "administrative detention", which is indefinite incarceration without charge or trial. Freedom of expression can be squelched under an odd law against "insulting a public official". It is questionable whether a public official will be prosecuted for insulting the citizens.

6] The Israel Prisons Authority is considering "creative alternatives" for mass detention of persons who oppose the hitnatkut -- regardless that opposition to a Prime Minister is not yet against the law. One suggestion is to turn hotels into temporary prisons

As to residents of the communities that Sharon once encouraged and patronized and now dooms to destruction, they must abandon their homes before the deadline he sets. Even passive non-violent resistance is to be punished by prison terms of three-to-five years and forfeiture of all personal belongings.

A long-time enthusiast for the Oslo Accords finds the Bulldozer's tactics offensively anti-democratic, as reported by IsraelNationalNews, 8 September 2004:
"Former senior Labor figure Uzi Baram, known to be towards the left end of the spectrum within his party, provided some surprise support today for the position that Prime Minister Sharon is promoting his policies in an undemocratic manner. Speaking on his Knesset channel television program today, Baram said, 'Sharon's behavior is scandalous; there is no other word. He went to the Likud referendum and promised the nation that he would abide by its results; then he went to the Likud Central Committee and was defeated there as well; and yet he continues along his merry way. I may be personally in favor of his position, but my democratic sense totally opposes it.'
"Baram also attacked the Israel Institute for Democracy for its silence on this issue, and thus weakening the concept of party government. 'If the majority in the Likud would be in favor of disengagement and the Prime Minister would oppose it, the Israel Institute for Democracy would crucify him . . . Is this the way it should be?'"
* * * * * * *
The beginning of the words of his mouth is folly.
And the latter end of his mouth is mischievous madness.
-- Ecclesiastes 10:13
Why does Sharon deem hitnatkut so imperative for Israel that he must ram it through at the cost of perverting a lively democracy into an oppressive and coercive dictatorship? What are the arguments on its behalf?

1] In his own words:
a] When a Knesset member of his own party asked a question about his policy, he explained to her, "You wouldn't understand."
b]When confronted with his own published exhortations against yielding land and uprooting communities, he attributes his flip-flop to "changed data". [See Issues 39 & 40]
c] He avers that he cannot keep his campaign promise of "painful concessions for peace" because the other side does not want peace. Therefore, he can only ahieve the painful concessions.
2] Is hitnatkut forced on him by outside pressure?
Sharon announced it as policy and only afterwards maneuvered for the President of the United States to approve it with no noticeable enthusiasm. Then Sharon used this maneuver to warn that We Must Do It Because Our Best Friend Wants It.

3] Will it appease the enemy and temper its lust for destruction?
It is seen as a victory for terrorism and therefore an encouragement to continue it. Whenever Israel makes concessions or withdrawals, they are interpreted as signs of weakness and capitulation to violence, and that inspires more violence to get ;more concessions and withdrawals.

Hamas makes this appraisal: "The disengagement from Gaza is proof of our victory. The fact that Sharon is willing to withdraw unconditionally is basically equivalent to raising a white flag and retreating. Only by force are we able to teach the other side what to do.”

Among the residents of PLO-land, 74 percent consider the Sharon plan a victory for the PLO, and 77 percent endorse more jihad-slaughter of Israelis.

4] Will it make Israel more secure and its residents more safe?
Land and cities given over to the control of the PLO are always turned into bases for terrorism. Israel cannot take any action against those bases without terrible cost in lives and the hysterical rage of the outside world.

Israel's earlier flight out of its security zone at the border of Lebanon did much to inspire the subsequent Oslo War. It also left Hezbollah free to put in place a wall of 12,000 missiles within range of northern and central Israel. This inhibits Israel from taking any real action against Hezbollah, no matter how many murders it commits.

The flight out of Gaza leaves PLO-Hamas free to put in place a similar wall of missiles, aimed at southern and central Israel. This will inhibit any real action against it, no matter how many murders it commits.

5] Will it reduce foreign pressure for more concessions to the Arabs?
On one day, Sharon says that hitnatkut replaces the Roadmap. On another day, he says that there will be no more uprooting of Jewish communities until the Roadmap is implemented. There is no such ambivalence on the part of the Quartet, that is relentless in its insistence upon full compliance by Israel to all its demands.

The U.S. Administration calls hitnatkut "jump-starting the Roadmap" and demands more and wider withdrawals. The President reiterates his dedication to "the good cause of the Palestinian people" and stands before the United Nations castigating Israel for "humiliating" them. Secretary of State Colin Powell faults the Intifada on the grounds that is delays the creation of a Palestinian State.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair refreshes his popularity with his own party with promises of some harder kicks to force Israel along the Road.

Speaker of the Knesset Reuven Rivlin asked French government officials what they thought of Sharon's premise that after hitnatkut Europe would give Israel a respite from pressure for 15 years. They laughed. Maybe 15 months? Laughter. Maybe 15 days? Laughter. He could not get a commitment even for 15 minutes.

6] Will Egypt monitor security in Gaza once it is judenrein?
Whenever Egypt controls Gaza, it uses it as a base for military attacks and terrorism against Israel. The Egyptians were driven out in the Sinai Campaign of 1956, but returned by grace of the Eisenhower-Dulles Administration. It was driven out again in the Six Day War of 1967. It signed a formal peace treaty with Israel in 1978 to regain control of the Sinai, but it still connives and conspires and rants against Israel. It is absurd to argue or imagine that it will deter rather than abet attacks on Israelis.

Egypt smuggles weapons and munitions and explosives to the PLO-Hamas in Gaza by way of tunnels from the Sinai. The IDF is repeatedly sent in to find and close those tunnels, and soldiers have died in those actions. If hitnatkut goes through, Egypt will no longer need the tunnels. It can openly roll in the weapons of destruction.

Avi Dichter, director of Israel's Security Service, at a meeting with Sharon and high-level military officers warned: If Israel pulls out of the Philadelphi corridor on the Gaza Strip-Egyptian border, it will open the door to an avalanche of advanced weapons the like of which was prevented from reaching the Palestinians in all four years of their warfare against Israel.
7] Can it be reversed if it is tried and does not work?
The Oslo Accords were presented as provisional and experimental. If the other side did not honor its commitments, all could be reversed. No commitment was ever honored, and nothing was ever reversed. The difference with hitnatkut is that the other side is free of even sham commitments.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The upper-echelon of the military officers, who are responsible for the lives and safety of their men and the citizens they protect, have failed to dent Sharon's obstinacy. From "Saron Prepares for Evacuation Under Fire," DEBKAfile, 19 September 2004:
"[. . . .] Sharon . . . finally admitted that which the military, security and police chiefs . . . as well as DEBKAfile -- have been saying for months: the unilateral evacuation of some 9,000 Israelis living in the Gaza Strip cannot be accomplished, if at all, without a substantial cost in military and civilian lives. Conditions on the ground, say these authorities, make disengagement unfeasible.

"But the conclusion they elicited from the Prime Minister was unexpected. I am sticking to my disengagement guns and not budging one whit from my timetable, he told the ministers and army chiefs: it is up to the military to make it possible, they had better start preparing for evacuation under enemy fire.

"As reported previously by DEBKAfile, the Palestinians are in the midst of massive preparations, including training special operations units and procuring fresh supplies of upgraded weapons, for hammering the evacuating forces and Gush Katif evacuues and making the operation a bloodbath. [. . . .]

"Until now, Sharon and defense minister Shaul Mofaz said that if the evacuation cannot be accomplished without an unacceptable level of bloodshed, then it will not be implemented at all. But now, Sharon appears determined to go forward regardless.

"With the onus of a predictable disaster on their heads, Israel's military and security chiefs explain: If this plan goes ahead, it will not be disengagement but total war, a tornado of terrorist attacks, gunfire and missiles blasting the Gaza Strip, the western and southern Negev and Gush Katif. Instead of pulling back, the army will be forced to drive back into the large sections of the Gaza Strip controlled by Palestinians in order to subdue their war offensive.

* * * * * * * * * * * *
There is a cruel dilemma for those who respect the rule of law, but find it unendurable that the IDF that has so valiantly secured the life of Israel and their fellow Jews should be misused to render any part of the Land of Israel judenrein.
One view is summed up in a statement, as reported by IsraelNationalNews, DATE:
"A statement signed by over 150 public figures calls upon IDF soldiers and police officers to refuse to carry out orders to expel Jews from their homes. The statement, published in the weekly B'Sheva newspaper issued today, stresses that such orders are patently illegal and effectively negate the right of Jews to live anywhere in Israel.
"Among the signatures are those of Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's father, Professor Ben-Tzion Netanyahu; the minister's brother Ido Netanyahu; Education Minister Limor Livnat's brother Noam Livnat; and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's legendary comrade-in-arms from the 1950s-era Commando Unit 101, Meir Har-Tzion.
"Others on what is called the 'preliminary' list of signatories are two former directors of the Prime Minister's Office, Uri Elitzur and Yossi Ben-Aharon, as well as a long list of public figures, scientists and former mayors and members of the Knesset.
"The statement reads, in part, as follows:
'We declare that expulsion and uprooting are national crimes and crimes against humanity, as well as manifestations of despotism and capricious evil aimed at negating the right of Jews - just because they are Jews - to live in their land.

'We call upon the officials that were commanded to prepare the infrastructure for the ethnic cleansing of Jews from their homeland, and to all the officers, soldiers and police as well, to listen to the voice of their national and personal conscience and not participate in actions which will sully it and for which they will feel sorry for the rest of their lives.

'We appeal to the intended targets of the expulsion orders not to cooperate with the expulsion apparatus, not to accept compensation, and to actively oppose the destruction - though without attacking fellow Jews, even as they come to destroy [your] homes.

'We call upon the government of Israel not to give the police and IDF these flagrantly illegal orders, which are forbidden to give and forbidden to fulfill, and to thus prevent an irreparable split within the nation and the IDF.'"

An alternate view is expressed by Carolyn Glick of the Jerusalem Post, herself one of the most cogent and forceful opponents of Sharon's plan and his tactics:
"The misplacement of responsibility for acts by the government onto loyal officers, young soldiers and policemen, and the derogation of the authority of the state over its citizens and office holders, is troubling. One cannot place on the back of a soldier the responsibilities that are held by the prime minister and the defense minister and maintain that one is acting morally, for acting thus is an abdication of moral responsibility of citizens in a democracy to petition their government to change policies they oppose.

"Our soldiers and officers in the IDF are the only guarantors of our survival and we must never view them as part of the political debate. This demands that they also remain outside of the political debate."
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The Disengagement Authority has sent 1,700 letters to residents of Jewish communities slated for obliteration. The letters assure the recipients that the DA understands the "ramifications" of eviction from their homes, and promises: "We will do all we can to help you in the most sensitive, fair and professional manner that we can."
Some of those letters were addressed and sent to people who have been murdered by the terrorists who are slated to inherit their communities.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004


Sorry about the poor formating, but I thought it important enough to repost here. For a better formatted online version, go to

Communique: 5 October 2004 [View this article online] [Discuss this topic on BackSpin]
Dear HonestReporting Subscriber,
Peter Hansen (pictured at right), Commissioner-General of the UN agency in Gaza and the West Bank, made a startling admission in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on Monday (10/4):
I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as a crime... we do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another.
With this statement, Hansen verified what Israel has long contended $B!=(B the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), rather than performing a neutral humanitarian role in Palestinian regions, is actually infested with terrorists who use international funds and UN safe havens to facilitate attacks on Israeli civilians.
Hansen attempted to draw a distinction between UN employees who identify with Hamas 'politically,' as opposed to 'militant' Hamas members, but that distinction has been categorically rejected by the United States and the European Union, both of which blacklist all branches of Hamas, and freeze all Hamas assets, without exception.
Despite the gravity of this matter, Hansen's admission that Hamas members are on the UN payroll has $B!=(B as of now $B!=(B received scant media attention. The Associated Press, for example, buried Hansen's statement in an article that focused primarily on IDF air strikes, and the New York Times has yet to even acknowledge Hansen's admission.
This error of omission is particularly troubling in light of Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns such as Sderot.
Hansen has long been accused of anti-Israel bias. In the wake of the 2002 Jenin operation, Hansen gave interviews falsely describing 'wholesale obliteration... a human catastrophe that has few parallels in recent history,' 'helicopters... strafing civilian residential areas,' and 'bodies... piling up' in 'mass graves.' Some of this carnage Hansen even claimed to have seen 'with my own eyes.'
Hansen's admission of UN/Hamas links came amidst a controversy over suspicious use of a UN ambulance in Gaza, with some claiming that footage from an airborne drone (pictured at right) shows Palestinian terrorists hiding a Kassam rocket in the vehicle. (View the film here.)
Regardless of whether this specific incident constituted abuse, the UNRWA $B!=(B under Hansen's watch $B!=(B has been responsible for numerous documented acts of abetting Palestinian terrorism, including:
$B!(B May 2004: Armed Palestinians are filmed (at left) using UNRWA ambulances to transport terrorists and, possibly, remains of fallen Israeli soldiers in Gaza.
$B!(B Sept. 2003: After the Israeli military court convicts three UNRWA employees for terrorist activities (such as throwing firebombs at a public bus), Israel detains at least 16 other UNRWA staff members for various security-related matters.
$B!(B Dec. 2002: A Shin Bet report indicates that numerous UNRWA facilities in the West Bank and Gaza had been used by Palestinian terrorists as meeting grounds and for weapons storage.
$B!(B Sept. 2002: Nahd Attala, a senior official of UNRWA in Gaza, reveals that in June-July 2002, he used his UNRWA car for the transportation of armed members of Fatah who were on their way to carry out a missile attack against Jewish settlements. In addition, Nahd admits he used an UNRWA car to transport a 12 kg explosive charge for his brother-in-law, a Fatah member.
$B!(B August 2002: Nidal Nazzal, a Hamas member and ambulance driver employed by UNRWA, confesses to transporting weapons and explosives in an UNRWA ambulance, and that he had taken advantage of the freedom of movement he enjoyed to transmit messages among Hamas members in various Palestinian towns.
$B!(B February 2002: Alaa Muhammad Ali Hassan, a Tanzim member, confesses during interrogation that he had carried out a sniper shooting from the school run by UNRWA in the al-Ayn refugee camp near Nablus. He also told his interrogators that bombs intended for terrorist attacks were being manufactured inside the UNRWA school's facilities.
The infiltration of the UNRWA by Palestinian terrorists is all the more disturbing given the funding structure of this international 'humanitarian' organization. As David Bedein reports:
The salaries of UNRWA workers are paid through contributions that UNRWA receives from 38 contributing countries. The U.S. provides 30% of that budget, Canada contributes 4% of that budget, and the European countries contribute well over 55% of that budget. In other words, the western democracies of the world pay the salaries of the Hamas terrorists on the payroll of UNRWA.
Upon hearing Hansen's admission of Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll, a spokesperson for Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs said, 'we are deeply concerned, and will immediately seek clarification from Mr. Hansen directly and from UN authorities.'
Canada's contribution to UNRWA is $10 million a year, and total US support to UNRWA is approximately $100 million per year. This, despite the fact that the use of US taxpayer funds for foreign refugees who have engaged in acts of terrorism is illegal under the amended Section 301(c) of the 1961 Foreign Assistance Act.
A conference of UN donor countries to discuss ongoing aid to Palestinians is slated to meet in Norway on November 30.
As indicated above, Peter Hansen's startling admission of Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll has received almost no press coverage.
HonestReporting urges subscribers to contact the major news outlets, using, if you wish, the short sample letter printed below.
$B!(B The New York Times:$B!(B Washington Post:$B!(B Boston Globe:$B!(B Chicago Tribune: [click here]$B!(B Atlanta Journal-Constitution:$B!(B Los Angeles Times:$B!(B San Francisco Chronicle:$B!(B Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Dear Editor,
This week (Oct. 4), the Commissioner-General of the UN agency in Gaza and the West Bank, Peter Hansen, admitted that 'there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll.' I was disturbed to find that this highly newsworthy item did not make its way into your paper in a prominent fashion, particularly in light of Israel's ongoing campaign in Gaza to stop Hamas from firing rockets into Israeli towns like Sderot.
Hansen's statement acknowledges the illegal use of US taxpayer funds for members of a terrorist organization. (The US contributes approximately $100 million/year to the UNRWA.) With the upcoming Nov. 30 conference of UN donor countries to discuss ongoing support of Palestinian projects, we should all be concerned about UNRWA's admission of Hamas members on its payroll.
Sincerely yours,
(your name) * * *
Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.
This HonestReporting communique was sponsored in honor of John Schlossberg.(To sponsor an upcoming communique, click here.)

========== ABOUT HONESTREPORTING ==========
The HonestReporting documentary film "Relentless: The Struggle For Peace in Israel"has now been seen by thousands of people at over 700 public screenings across the globe. For info on a screening in your area, or to order your personal copy, visit Relentless online.
HonestReporting welcomes you to submit media critiques for possible inclusion in future communiques. Be sure to include a URL of the article you are critiquing, and send to:
Encourage your friends to join HonestReporting. Send a friendly info message.
HONESTREPORTING INFO SHEET to print out, post on bulletin boards, photocopy and distribute. Get the word out to schools, places of worship, community centers.
Privacy Guarantee: HonestReporting will never share your e-mail address or personal details with anyone. Our web servers feature the latest hack-proof technology.
HonestReporting involves considerable research and manpower costs. Your donations are greatly appreciated and will help Israel win the media battle. "Middle East Media Watch" (DBA HonestReporting) is a section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, contributions to which are deductible for U.S. income tax purposes. Please send contributions to:
HonestReporting 400 South Lake Drive Lakewood, NJ 08701-3167
Or you can donate online with your credit card, using our secure server.
HonestReporting has 100,000 members worldwide, and is growing daily. Campus - - - Italian - French readers may want to visit
(C) 2004 HonestReporting - Permission granted to post and redistribute. E-mail: