WE'VE MOVED! IsraPundit has relocated to Click here to go there now.
News and views on Israel, Zionism and the war on terrorism.

October 07, 2002

Gaza raid prompts speculation that Israel plans wider operation

JERUSALEM, Oct. 7 (JTA) — A new Israeli military operation has many wondering if the army now has the Gaza Strip in its sights.

Israeli forces for months have been engaged in a massive anti-terror operation in the West Bank, but have not carried out such operations in Gaza.

Several reasons were given, including the argument that an incursion into the densely populated area would exact heavy Israeli casualties.

Israeli officials also said a security fence between Israel and Gaza was preventing terrorists from attacking Israeli targets.

In recent weeks, however, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon spoke of the inevitability of military action in Gaza to root out the terrorist infrastructure there.

Following a series of Palestinian mortar and rocket attacks from Gaza, the army carried out a strike in Khan Yunis, in southern Gaza, early Monday.

At least 13 Palestinians were killed and more than 100 injured in the raid on a Hamas stronghold. At least two civilians were among the dead.

The Israeli army denied Palestinian claims that a military helicopter fired a missile at a crowd of civilians outside a mosque. The army said the missile was fired at armed Palestinians who were shooting and throwing grenades at Israeli soldiers.

During the operation, Israeli troops detained a Palestinian with a bomb and blew up a bag containing three mortars, Army Radio reported.

Palestinian officials denounced the strike as a massacre and called for international protection.

During clashes later in the area, eight people were wounded by Israeli fire directed at a Palestinian hospital. The army said it targeted the hospital after Palestinians fired from the facility at a nearby Israeli settlement.

Shortly after the military operation ended, Palestinians fired three mortars at an Israeli settlement in southern Gaza, but caused no injuries. A senior Hamas official called for revenge and urged all Palestinian groups to attack Israel.

Brig. Gen. Yisrael Ziv, the army commander in Gaza, told Army Radio the operation was “very important” because it made “clear to the other side that there is no place that constitutes a fortress against the Israel Defense Forces.”

Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said Israel was trying to disrupt a mission to the region by E.U.’s top diplomat, Javier Solana.

“Every time we see efforts to get the peace process back on track, the government of Israel commits new war crimes against innocent civilians,” the Israeli daily Yediot Achronot quoted Erekat as saying.

With the threat of more violence in the offing, and the United States asking Israel to avoid flare-ups that could distract attention from the U.S. campaign against Iraq, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres defended the operation.

“Israel tries to employ restraint, but it is committed to acting to prevent terrorist activity,” Peres told Army Radio.

source: [url]

Unfortunetely, these people are still breathing, Part II - The Magic Button

The other day I posted the below info on professors at Israeli universities who had signed the Harvard/MIT petition calling for a renewal of the Arab boycott of Israel - something Larry Summers, the president of Harvard, has labelled anti-Semitic in effect if not intention.

Well - if you click on the magic button, below, you can send them an email (well, only 4 out of 5, one seems to have changed his email (Farjoun)). Be creative with the text and expressing your views of their actions.

The Magic Button - Click and send mail now

Again, here is a list of professors in Israel who have signed the Harvard MIT petition to boycott Israel

Emmanuel Farjoun, MIT PhD in Math, now professor at Hebrew University
Yosef Grodzinsky, MIT Postdoc in Linguistics, now profssor at Tel Aviv University
Idan Landau, MIT PhD in Linguistics, now lecturer at Ben Gurion University
Tanya Reinhart, MIT PhD in Linguistics, now professor at Tel-Aviv University
Nomi Shir, MIT PhD in Linguistics, now professor at Ben Gurion University

Here is the petition they signed.

Ari Fleischer Is Mistaken--There Is Evidence Of Saudis Funding Palestinian Arab Terror

NEW YORK - Contrary to the recent claim by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer that there is no evidence of Saudi Arabian financial support for Palestinian Arab terrorism, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) points out that there is, in fact, considerable evidence that the Saudis are doing so.

ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said: "The Bush administration's position is yet another example of its policy of appeasing regimes that harbor or sponsor terrorists, such as Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia."

* State Department condemned Saudis for rewarding terrorists' families:

The Saudi Arabian government provides cash payments of $5,333 to each family of any "martyr" who is killed while trying to murder Israelis, and a telethon on Saudi Arabian government-controlled television in April 2002 has been "raising money for the Palestinian uprising"--and it has raised $92-million so far. (New York Post, April 12, 2002; Washington Times, April 24, 2002.)

A press release posted on the official web site of the Embassy of Saudi Arabia in Washington reported that the Saudi government had provided financial support to "1,000 families of Palestinian martyrs" in the year 2000, and in March 2001, according to the web site, $33-million was set aside for this purpose. State Department spokesman Greg Sullivan told the Forward (March 22, 2002): "This is not going for assistance of an humanitarian nature. That's clearly in the avenue of encouraging terrorism...We've seen the same thing from Iran and Iraq, though I don't like putting the Saudis with those two."

On February 18, 2002, the Saudi Interior Minister, Nayef bin Abdul-aziz, published a notice in the official Palestinian Authority newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, offering instructions to the families on how to apply for their Saudi rewards. Documents captured by the Israeli forces from PA offices include a list of one group of beneficiaries-- "the relatives of eight Palestinian terrorist bombers, all of them specifically and explicitly singled out by Saudi bookkeepers for their participation in amaliah istishadiah: 'suicide operations'." (The Weekly Standard, May 20, 2002)

Additional documents captured by the Israelis include correspondence between PA officials and Saudi officials, in which Yasir Arafat complains about that Saudi aid "does not reach the Fatah, but is given to Hamas and radical Islamic groups associated with Hamas." (The Weekly Standard, May 27, 2002)

* Powell called Saudi subsidies to terrorists' families "a real problem":

On July 3, 2002, the official Saudi Press Agency "reported that the kingdom has transferred more than $500,000 to the PLO. The agency said this was the second remittance by the government-sponsored People's Committee for Assistance of Palestinian Fighters this year." Asked about the report, Secretary of State Colin Powell "did not deny Saudi financing to Palestinian insurgents...'With respect to payments to organizations such as Hamas and similar organizations, we have spoken to our Arab friends, and the president has made reference to this in his speech, that this kind of payment should stop,' Powell said. 'The Saudis would say that they are not giving it to an organization, they're giving it to individuals in need,' Powell said. 'Nevertheless, I think it's a real problem when you incentivize in any way suicide bombings.'" (Middle East Newsline, July 4, 2002)

* "Saudi Arabia supports Palestinian resistance":

"Saudi, Iraqi Money Relieve Palestinian Suffering" was the headline of an article in the July 4, 2002 edition of the pro-Arafat newspaper Jerusalem Times. It described how the Palestinian Authority channels funds from the Iraqi and Saudi Arabian governments to "the families of martyrs, whether they were armed fighters or civilians." The money is also given to families of imprisoned terrorists. The article reported that Ahmed Bahr, "president of the largest charitable organization in Gaza," as saying that he receives money from abroad, "including some from Saudi Arabia, and distributes it to orphans, the injured, prisoners, and needy families." The article also quoted Ahmed Al-Kurd, director of another such 'charity', the Islamic Rapprochement Organization, as saying that "Saudi Arabia has supported the Palestinian resistance for 54 years."

* Jaffee Center: Saudis support Hamas:

According to a study by the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, at Tel Aviv University, "Hamas's organizational infrastructure is dependent on external sources of financing, mainly contributions to local Islamic associations from the Gulf states, primarily Saudi Arabia." No such associations could operate in Saudi Arabia without the approval of the Saudi government. (Anat Kurz and Nahman Tal, "Hamas: Radical Islam in a National Struggle," Jaffee Center Memorandum No. 48, July 1997, p. 20)

* Saudis fund Hamas missiles:

In the spring of 2002, U.S. troops in Sarajevo found, in the office of the Saudi High Commission for Relief of Bosnia and Herzegovina, "documents that proved Saudi funding of the Hamas terrorist group to enable it to produce a short-range missile called the 'Qassam.'" (New York Post, April 15, 2002)

* Saudis financed PLO terrorism:

During the peak of PLO terrorism, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Saudi Arabian government provided the PLO with over $100-million in annual aid. (Jerusalem Post, Sept. 18, 1981)

* Saudis gave U.S. weapons to PLO:

The Saudis also provided weapons to PLO terrorists. For example, the terrorists who massacred 38 Israeli civilians on the Tel Aviv highway in March 1978 were found to have been armed with U.S.-made M-16 automatic rifles and standard U.S. Army explosives, bearing Saudi Army markings and serial numbers. These armaments had been provided by the U.S. to Saudi Arabia, and were then given by the Saudis to the PLO. (Jerusalem Post, April 4, 1978.)

source: url

This excerpt from The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

A Dozen Palis Killed In Raid
Seems the IDF finally had it with the Palis firing rockets into Israeli settlements and decided to go clean out Gaza a little.

As the IDF withdrew after the raid, armed gunmen assembled in the streets and fired at the IDF, according to Israeli Brig.Gen. Israel Ziff. Helicopters were called in and opened fire on the groups of armed men, killing 12 (as of this time)

What does, say, the Roto-Reuters "news" agency have to say about this?

KHAN YOUNIS, Gaza Strip (Reuters) - Israeli forces killed 12 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip Monday, including 10 who died when a helicopter missile hit a crowd, in a raid that battered a new international peace effort.
Yep, that's the IDF for ya, firing willy-nilly at non-specific "crowds" so's to batter the "peace efforts" that have met with so much success in the past.

But what about The Children™?

Don't worry, the Roto-Reuters are right on it:

They said a child of about 12 was among those killed in Israel's helicopter-backed tank incursion into Khan Younis when the missile hit a group of people who had come out of their homes and gathered outside a mosque thinking the raid was over.
...gathering peacefully by the mosque with absolutely NO weapons anywhere, nosirree...

But why, oh omniscient "news" agency, why?

The Israeli army said the aim of Monday's incursion was to hit the "terrorist infrastructure" of Hamas, which has spearheaded a two-year-old Palestinian uprising for independence and carried out a wave of suicide bombings.
Thank you so much for the sneer quotes. We wouldn't want anybody to think that there were actually any terrorists nearby, would we? Oh no we wouldn't. It's only an "uprising for independence", after all.

Reuters, one man's news agency is another man's case of third stage syphilis.

source: [url]

There is something disingenuous about today's anti-Israel sentiment

Of course Israel is a big problem in the Middle East, particularly for the beleaguered Palestinians. But today, there is sometimes something disingenuous about anti-Israel sentiment. Many disparate groups - from British Muslim organisations to the anti-capitalist movement - have oriented themselves around the Palestinian question, taking every opportunity to have a go at Israel.

Often this is driven by an understandable sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. But the strength of feeling against Israel among so many diverse groups in the West, and the sudden sentiment that we're all Palestinians now, reveals more about us in Europe and America than it does about events in the Middle East. Sympathising with the Palestinian cause seems to be more the result of the widespread politics of victimhood, with many in the West wishing to empathise and emote with the world's 'ultimate victims'.

This kind of anti-Israel rhetoric is cheap - with protesters challenging Israel's unapologetic violence against the Palestinians, rather than asking awkward questions of Blair's foreign policy or the confused and confusing war on terror. Ariel Sharon has become the punchbag of the anti-war movement - the easy target 'mass murderer' who everybody loves to hate.

And often, criticising Israel for being vulgar and violent sits perfectly well with calling for further intervention in Middle Eastern affairs - which is the last thing either Israelis or Palestinians need, after decades of British and US meddling.

'If we need a war against anyone, it's Israel', said one speaker. Others pointed out that Israel has ignored every UN resolution going, that it has far more weapons of mass destruction than Iraq, and that Ariel Sharon has killed more Palestinians than Saddam has killed Kurds. 'We should focus on Israel, not on a piss-poor country like Iraq', said James from Liverpool. 'We should weapons inspect the Israelis, not the Iraqis - though we'd find the same in both cases: weapons from America.'

Anti-Israel sentiment has little to do with demanding freedom and democracy in the Middle East, and more to do with calling for Britain and America to 'sort out Sharon'. Many seemed keen to convince Bush and Blair that they should focus their efforts on 'stopping Israeli violence' and 'ending the Israeli occupation', instead of bombing Baghdad

Note: this is an extract from an article about the anti-war protests recently held in Great Brittain. I have put the Israeli portion of the article at this site. For the full article and source, see url

Morris on Transfer.

Controversial historian Benny Morris reviews the history of the idea of transfering the Arabs out of Israel and concludes:
One wonders what Ben-Gurion - who probably could have engineered a comprehensive rather than a partial transfer [of Arabs] in 1948, but refrained - would have made of all this, were he somehow resurrected. Perhaps he would now regret his restraint. Perhaps, had he gone the whole hog, today's Middle East would be a healthier, less violent place, with a Jewish state between Jordan and the Mediterranean and a Palestinian Arab state in Transjordan. Alternatively, Arab success in the 1948 war, with the Jews driven into the sea, would have obtained the same, historically calming result. Perhaps it was the very indecisiveness of the geographical and demographic outcome of 1948 that underlies the persisting tragedy of Palestine.


Bush Asks Sharon Not to Respond to an Iraqi Attack, say Israeli Papers

Listen to Ross Dunn's Report from Jerusalem (RealAudio)
Dunn Report - Download 243k (RealAudio)

Israeli newspapers say that when President Bush meets Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in Washington later this month, he will address Israeli concerns about possible military action against Iraq.

Mr. Sharon and Mr. Bush are scheduled to meet at the White House on October 16 to discuss America's plans for possible military action against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Israeli media report that one of the aims of the meeting will be to allay Israel's concerns about the possibility of Saddam Hussein launching an attack against the Jewish State in the event of an American strike against Iraq.

The Hebrew daily Ma'ariv says Mr. Bush wants to reassure Mr. Sharon that the United States has Israel's interests in mind, and there is no need to be drawn into the conflict. The newspaper says Mr. Bush is expected to tell Mr. Sharon that, from the first day of any American military action, the U.S. forces will focus on the western part of Iraq to prevent the positioning of mobile missile launchers or Iraqi jets flying out to bomb Israel.

In exchange, Ma'ariv says, Mr. Bush will insist that Israel pledge not to retaliate, even if an Iraqi missile succeeds in hitting Israeli territory, for fear this could spark a wider regional conflict.

Mr. Bush also reportedly wants assurances from Mr. Sharon that he will not escalate the conflict with the Palestinians or against the Hezbollah guerrilla fighters in southern Lebanon.

Another Hebrew newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, says that, in order to encourage compliance with the U.S. plan, Mr. Bush intends to give Israel 72 hours notice of any initial American attack and put American satellites capable of identifying missiles launched from Iraq at Israel's disposal. In addition, the United States reportedly will provide Israel with more Patriot missiles to target any incoming Iraq missiles.

source: [url]

U.S. approves $32 million aid to Lebanon

Let's see if I understand this one. Syrian has some 30 thousand troops occupying Lebanon. Syria and Lebanon allow Hizbollah to commit terror acts against Israel. Those who dislike Israel complain about money given yearly to help Israel but remain silent about the 2 billion going to Egypt. And this money?
BEIRUT, Lebanon, Oct. 1 (UPI) -- The U.S. Embassy in Beirut said Tuesday that Washington has authorized $32 million in aid to Lebanon, denying reports that assistance had been suspended because of tensions between the two countries.

An Embassy statement said the sum was authorized Sunday for the fiscal year 2002.

The statement explained that the U.S. Agency for International Development could spend the approved money any time between October 2001 and October 2003 for "creating economic opportunities, strengthening municipalities, managing water resources and promoting democracy."

"There has been no shortfall in funding to our USAID projects in Lebanon," it said.

The statement said the U.S. Congress was considering the 2003 budget, including assistance to Lebanon. If approved, these funds will be spent between October 2002 and October 2004.

The Embassy confirmation came after Lebanon's As Safir newspaper quoted U.S. sources as saying Monday that Washington had suspended financial assistance to Lebanon over tensions between the two countries. The newspaper said U.S. officials were annoyed with the militant Hezbollah's continued "activities against the Israeli forces" in the disputed border Shabaa farms. The U.S. State Department considers Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization.

A water dispute between Lebanon and Israel over the Wazzani River and the "Syria Accountability Act" tabled before U.S. Congress added to the tension. Lebanon reportedly angered U.S. State Department officials by threatening to punish some Christian opposition leaders for supporting the act that calls for sanctions on Syria.

Washington also says the Beirut government could have notified the United Nations or Washington of its plans to pump more water from the Wazzani river, which Lebanon shares with Israel.

source: url

Terrorist Fire Leads to Death of Arab Civilians

Here is an Israeli appraisal of the article below: note that in the one article, Israel is doing what it must to prevent terror but in the second article (the one below this one), non-military civilians were killed. Now, I have been in the army twice, and I have been in a war zone, but from my experiences, a military person usually was wearing a uniform that marked him off has being on one or the other side. By contrast, the Palestinians, be they terrorists (militants) or civilians, wear "street clothes," civilian non-military outfits. Do you wait for what seems a civilian to shoot at you to yell out: Hey! a soldier without a uniform! Get him.

Thirteen Arabs, many of them armed terrorists, were killed over the night in an Israeli offensive in Gaza. The raid followed yet another Kassam rocket attack on a Gush Katif community last night, which injured no one. Despite IDF explanations that the forces fired at terrorists shooting at them, condemnations of Israel are coming fast and furious. Hamas vows to avenge the act, and says that Israeli civilians must be killed in retaliation.

The anti-terror offensive began shortly after midnight, when IDF troops, armor, and engineering corps, backed by combat helicopters, entered a Khan Yunis neighborhood - a Hamas terrorist stronghold - near the Jewish community of Ganei Tal. The Israeli forces arrested a man carrying a bomb in his coat pocket and blew up a small arsenal of mortar shells. The forces were fired upon and were greeted with some explosions, but no one was hurt. They left in the early morning hours. Arab sources report, however, that "Hamas activists" and civilians went out to the streets, and "some of them" conducted gunbattles with the IDF forces - at which point, a helicopter fired a missile into the mob. The world media are full of Arab "eye-witnesses" describing the incident as a "massacre," but fail to emphasize that the mob was engaged in attacking Israelis when they were fired upon.

PA spokesmen were quick to take advantage of the situation. Saeb Erekat, ignoring the defensive nature of Israel's raid, called upon the international community to "protect the Palestinians," and said that Israel was carrying out "war crimes" in order to thwart the European Union's "efforts to revive the peace process." The EU's Javier Solana is to meet with Yasser Arafat today in Ramallah, despite Israel's objections; it is not clear how this could "revive the peace process," as Arafat is not considered a negotiating partner by Israel.

source: url

Ten Palestinians killed as Israeli tanks enter southern Gaza city: Palestinian officials.

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) -- Ten Palestinians were killed and dozens wounded Monday during an Israeli incursion into the southern Gaza city of Khan Younis, officials and doctors said, most when an Israeli helicopter fired a missile that exploded in a crowd.

The Israeli military had no immediate comment on the missile explosion. Israeli military sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the operation in Khan Younis was limited and not a large-scale invasion. It came a few hours after Palestinians fired a mortar shell at a Jewish settlement in another part of the Gaza Strip, the military said.

The Israeli missile strike came at the end of the four-hour incursion. It wasn't clear what the target was. Residents said people came out into the streets around 4:30 a.m. when they heard the tanks pulling out, but two Israeli helicopters remained overhead, and one of them fired the missile.

Doctors said 10 people were killed in the raid, including eight in the missile attack. They said at least 65 people were wounded by the missile blast.

Abed Ouda, 29, said he was parking his car when the missile struck. "I heard a huge explosion," he said, "and people were wounded and bleeding on the ground in front of my car."

Dr. Mohammed Abu Dalal of Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis appealed for more doctors and supplies to help treat the large numbers of casualties.

After midnight, about 40 Israeli tanks, backed by helicopters, had entered the Khan Younis and shelled houses on the main street, witnesses said.

Israeli armored columns have frequently moved into Palestinian-controlled areas in recent weeks, destroying workshops where Israel says weapons are made and arresting terror suspects.

On Sunday, two Palestinian men were shot dead in the northern West Bank, one in a gunbattle with Israeli troops, the other allegedly shot by a Jewish settler in an olive grove.

Palestinians accused Jewish settlers of killing Hani Yousef, 22, as he was harvesting olives near his village, Aqraba. Another Palestinian farmer was shot and wounded by the settlers, who came from the nearby settlement of Itamar, according to the Palestinian mayor, Ghaled Mayadme.

Israeli police spokesman Gil Kleiman said the farmer's death was being investigated, but no arrests had been made. The farmer had been shot in the back, he said.

In the Jenin Refugee Camp, also in the northern West Bank, Israeli troops killed Samer Jalamneh, a 22-year-old member of the radical Islamic Jihad movement, after he opened fire at them with an assault rifle, witnesses and the military said.

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, speaking from the remnants of his Ramallah compound, accused the Israeli army of covering up settlers' actions.

"The army is protecting their daily crimes against Palestinian residents in their homes and against Palestinian farmers," Arafat said after a meeting with Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of Red Cross, who is touring Israel and Palestinian areas this week.

Also, the Palestine Legislative Council gave Arafat another four weeks to appoint a new Cabinet, following the resignation of his previous Cabinet last month, Palestinian parliament speaker Ahmed Qureia said.

Arafat asked the legislature for an extension on his original two-week deadline to name a new Cabinet after Israeli troops besieged his Ramallah compound, destroying several buildings. Palestinian reform plans were put on hold during the siege.

In Jerusalem, four Arab residents of the city's traditionally Arab eastern sector, accused of helping bombers carry out three attacks that killed 35 people and wounded almost 200, went on trial amid a flood of insults from relatives of the Israeli victims.

Relatives shouted obscenities and insults at the accused. "You should all be strung up on a crane," said Gila Arazi, aunt of Danit Dagan, who was killed with her fiancee, when a suicide bomber blew himself up at the Cafe Moment in Jerusalem on March 9.

In addition to that attack, which killed 11, the group is accused of helping to arrange a suicide bombing that killed 15 at a pool hall in Rishon Letzion, near Tel Aviv, and planting a bomb at a cafeteria in Jerusalem's Hebrew University that killed five Americans and four Israelis.

Inside the courtroom, the four accused and their families were protected by riot police, who stood in a row facing the angry relatives of the victims. The accused, Wael Qassem, Wissam Abassi, Ala Abassi and Muhammed Oudeh, sat handcuffed to prison guards. The prisoners' legs were also shackled.

source: url

Why one should oppose a second Palestinian-Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza - Part 8 of 23

This piece continues a series of which the first seven parts were posted on September 8, 9, 11, 17, 19, 22, and 23, 2002. The object of the series is to provide a database that is not only reliable and well-documented but also one for which documents are easily accessible, preferably from web resources.

8. The Palestinian Arabs had at least three opportunities to establish their own sovereign state by peaceful means: the Peel commission plan of 1937 which the Arabs rejected; the UN partition plan of 1948 to which the Arabs reacted by engaging in war; and the Barak/Clinton offer of July 2000/January 2001, to which the Palestinian Arabs reacted by igniting Intifada II. (The Oslo Accords of 1993, stipulated self government, i.e., autonomy, and not sovereignty.) By their actions, the Palestinian Arabs have forfeited any right they might have had to a sovereign state in Palestine.

It is common knowledge that the Palestinian Arabs had an opportunity to establish an independent state in Palestine both in 1937, when the Peel Commission recommended the partition solution, and in 1947, when the UN General Assembly reached the same conclusion by a 33-13 majority (with 10 abstentions, including Bevin’s UK); in both cases, the Palestinian Arabs rejected the proposals that would have given them a sovereign state. Since these facts are common knowledge, they warrant only a brief discussion.

To substantiate that the Palestinian Arabs rejected the Peel Commission’s partition plan, suffice it to quote any of the relevant Palestinian-Arab web sites. For example, the Islamic Association for Palestine informs us that:

At the height of the 1936-39 disturbances, a royal commission of inquiry came to Palestine from London to investigate the roots of the Arab-Jewish conflict and to propose solutions. The commission, headed by Lord Robert Peel, heard a great deal of testimony in Palestine, and in July 1937 issued its recommendations: to abolish the Mandate and partition the country between the two peoples. Only a zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem would remain under the British mandate and international supervision.

The Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be’er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee. The Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev. Until the establishment of the two states, the commission recommended, Jews should be prohibited from purchasing land in the area allocated to the Arab state.
[T]he Arabs rejected the proposal and refused to regard it as a solution. The plan was ultimately shelved.

Considering the tiny sliver of land that would have been assigned to the Jewish state under the Peel plan, one has to marvel at the malevolence and pettiness of the Palestinian Arabs; it would appear that they adopted the most bizarre version of a “dog in the manger” in order to frustrate the Jewish national aspiration even at the cost of depriving themselves of a sovereign state.

Turning to the Palestinian Arabs’ rejection of the UN partition plan of 29 November 1947, the following quotation is from

The struggle by Jews for a Jewish state in Palestine had begun in the late 19th cent[ury] and had become quite active by the 1930s and 40s. The militant opposition of the Arabs to such a state and the inability of the British to solve the problem eventually led to the establishment (1947) of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, which devised a plan to divide Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state, and a small internationally administered zone including Jerusalem. The General Assembly adopted the recommendations on Nov. 29, 1947. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it.

The events surrounding the Barak/Clinton offer to the Palestinians at Camp David (July 2000) and in the negotiations that followed (to January 2001), were common knowledge during the first year after Arafat walked away from the negotiating table, but subsequently, the Palestinian-Arabs activated their disinformation machine to the point that some of Arafat’s apologists summoned the audacity to deny the details of the offer as they were known at the time. For this reason, it may be useful to deal with this chapter in greater detail, in order to substantiate the statement that the PA did, indeed, walk away from a most generous offer, and opt instead for the violence that still continues.

An authoritative account comes from Clinton’s Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, who participated in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks personally. In an interview with Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard and with Brit Hume of Fox news, dated April 23, 2002, Dennis Ross said:

ROSS: The ideas were presented on December 23 by the president, and they basically said the following: On borders, there would be about a 5 percent annexation in the West Bank for the Israelis and a 2 percent swap. So there would be a net 97 percent of the territory that would go to the Palestinians.

On Jerusalem, the Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capitol of the Palestinian state.

On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs.

And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.

These were ideas that were comprehensive, unprecedented, stretched very far, represented a culmination of an effort in our best judgment as to what each side could accept after thousands of hours of debate, discussion with each side.

FRED BARNES, WEEKLY STANDARD: Now, Palestinian officials say to this day that Arafat said yes.

ROSS: Arafat came to the White House on January 2. Met with the president, and I was there in the Oval Office. He said yes, and then he added reservations that basically meant he rejected every single one of the things he was supposed to give.

HUME: What was he supposed to give?

ROSS: He supposed to give, on Jerusalem, the idea that there would be for the Israelis sovereignty over the Western Wall, which would cover the areas that are of religious significance to Israel. He rejected that.

HUME: He rejected their being able to have that?

ROSS: He rejected that.

He rejected the idea on the refugees. He said we need a whole new formula, as if what we had presented was non-existent.

He rejected the basic ideas on security. He wouldn't even countenance the idea that the Israelis would be able to operate in Palestinian airspace.

You know when you fly into Israel today you go to Ben Gurion. You fly in over the West Bank because you can't -- there's no space through otherwise. He rejected that.

So every single one of the ideas that was asked of him he rejected.

HUME: Now, let's take a look at the map. Now, this is what -- how the Israelis had created a map based on the president's ideas. And...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... what can we -- that situation shows that the territory at least is contiguous. What about Gaza on that map?

ROSS: The Israelis would have gotten completely out of Gaza.

ROSS: And what you see also in this line, they show an area of temporary Israeli control along the border.

HUME: Right.

ROSS: Now, that was an Israeli desire. That was not what we presented. But we presented something that did point out that it would take six years before the Israelis would be totally out of the Jordan Valley.

So that map there that you see, which shows a very narrow green space along the border, would become part of the orange. So the Palestinians would have in the West Bank an area that was contiguous. Those who say there were cantons, completely untrue. It was contiguous.

HUME: Cantons being ghettos, in effect...

ROSS: Right.

HUME: ... that would be cut off from other parts of the Palestinian state.

ROSS: Completely untrue.

And to connect Gaza with the West Bank, there would have been an elevated highway, an elevated railroad, to ensure that there would be not just safe passage for the Palestinians, but free passage.


HUME: What, in your view, was the reason that Arafat, in effect, said no?

ROSS: Because fundamentally I do not believe he can end the conflict. We had one critical clause in this agreement, and that clause was, this is the end of the conflict.

Arafat's whole life has been governed by struggle and a cause. Everything he has done as leader of the Palestinians is to always leave his options open, never close a door. He was being asked here, you've got to close the door. For him to end the conflict is to end himself.

This account has been confirmed numerous times. For example, in January, 2002, Clinton visited Israel. According to a report in Ha’Aretz, dated January 21, 2002:

Former U.S president Bill Clinton said that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat had missed a "golden opportunity" for peace and called on Israelis and Palestinians to be prepared to compromise in order to achieve the dream of peace. Clinton was speaking at a ceremony at the Tel Aviv University after receiving an honorary degree Sunday.
Referring to the failed Camp David peace talks held just before the outbreak of violence in October 2000, Clinton said "I think we have the outlines of a reasonable settlement, last year I believe Chairman Arafat missed a golden opportunity to make that agreement, I think the violence and terrorism which followed were not inevitable and have been a terrible mistake."

Another relevant document is the so called EU description of the outcome of permanent status talks at Taba. As a staunch supporter of the Arabs, the EU can hardly be accused of upholding the Israeli line; still, the "EU description” is consistent with that given by Dennis Ross.

Occasionally, it appears that the truth, as presented above, is even penetrating the minds of some of the Palestinian-Arab supporters. For example, on Thursday November 15, 2001, Reuters reported:

Palestinian political analyst Ghassan al-Khatib said ... Israel and the Palestinians would have reached a deal during U.S.-sponsored talks in July 2000 if the Palestinian Authority had agreed to compromise on the rights of refugees.

The peace summit at the Camp David presidential retreat collapsed due to disagreements on refugees and the final status of Jerusalem. The Palestinian uprising erupted two months later.

By and large, however, the Palestinian-Arab apologists prefer to indulge in misinformation rather than face the facts. They have even found a junior pro-Arab US official, Robert Malley, to support their case (see, for example, Malley's comments and response by Dennis Ross).

In my opinion, any fair-minded observer would have to conclude that the acts and behaviour of the Palestinian Arabs prove that they were not interested in a sovereign state; rather, their interest has concentrated on acts of spite against the Palestinian Jews, rejecting at least three opportunities to have a sovereign state.

Contributed by Joseph Alexander Norland

October 06, 2002

Roundup of news items in Middle East

NABLUS, West Bank - Israeli troops yesterday killed a Palestinian youth during clashes in the West Bank's most populous city, the fifth such death in two weeks. Israel's military intelligence chief, meanwhile, said Yasser Arafat's followers are trying to prevent terror attacks inside Israel.

In Washington, a Bush administration official said Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon will meet with President Bush on Oct. 16. Israeli news media said the talks would deal with the Israel-Palestinian conflict and possible U.S. action in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Arafat yesterday signed Palestinian legislation defining Jerusalem as the capital of a future state, Palestinian parliament speaker Ahmed Qureia said.

Qureia said Arafat decided to sign the two-year-old bill now in response to a demand by the U.S. congress that Jerusalem be recognized as Israel's capital.

Israel proclaimed Jerusalem as its capital in 1950, but most countries, including the United States, have their embassies in Tel Aviv. Eastern Jerusalem was captured by Israel from Jordanian rule in the 1967 Six Day War and annexed afterward.

The new Palestinian law is symbolic since Israel has full control over both parts of the city and Sharon has pledged not to redivide it.

In the West Bank, the shooting of Amer Hashem, 15, came during the sort of confrontation that has become common in the Nablus area, where youths often defy the nearly continuous curfew Israel has imposed since mid-June in response to two suicide bombings by Palestinian militants.

The army said soldiers fired in self defense after they were attacked with stones and at least one bomb, but they were not aware of any casualties.

Foreign governments and aid organizations have increasingly expressed concern about the deaths of children during the two-year Palestinian uprising against Israel. More than 230 children or teenagers are among the more than 1,800 Palestinians who have died during the uprising.

Many Nablus residents routinely skirt the curfew, emerging from their homes when they don't see soldiers in the area. Many children attend school and troops often ignore them.

But there have also been clashes, often when children and teenagers throw stones at tanks and draw a response of tear gas, rubber bullets and live rounds.

Four other Palestinians aged 10 to 15 had been shot to death in Nablus and nearby refugee camps over the past two weeks and a 12-year-old was in critical condition after being shot in the head. An Israeli soldier and two Palestinian adults also have been killed.

Masked men firing rifles carried Hashem's still-bloody body on an angry funeral procession through the Al Ein refugee camp bordering Nablus following the death.

Meanwhile, Israel's military intelligence chief, Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, appeared to contradict Sharon and other senior politicians yesterday when he said that the Yasser Arafat-led Palestinian Authority was trying to halt terror attacks inside Israel.

Farkash said that Arafat's Fatah movement and its affiliated Tanzim militia were not carrying out attacks beyond the West Bank and Gaza Strip, occupied by Israel in the 1967 war, and were pressuring militant Islamic groups to follow their example.

"Not only are Fatah and the Tanzim not doing this," Farkash said. "Senior people in the Palestinian Authority are starting to take up the issue with Hamas and Islamic Jihad to stop their operations."

Arafat himself denounced such attacks in an interview published on Saturday by the London-based Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat.

"We are the ones who decide as a leadership," Arafat said. "Neither my military honor nor our Islamic religion accept the killing of a woman in the street or at a cafe, or a civilian man or a child, or in a university."

But he denied having condemned attacks on soldiers or settlers in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In other events:

Jakob Kellenberger, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, arrived for a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories to highlight the organization's concern at "a steadily worsening situation, characterized by disregard for the principles of international humanitarian law." It is the first trip to Israel in seven years by an ICRC president.

Four Palestinians from the village of Aqraba near Nablus were hospitalized with severe cuts, saying they had been attacked while picking olives by Israelis from the West Bank settlement of Itamar. Settlers there have often clashed with villagers over plans to expand their settlement into now-Palestinian lands. On June 20, a Palestinian infiltrated Itamar and killed five settlers. The army said it had no information on the incident.

In the Gaza Strip, the Islamic militant group Hamas claimed responsibility for explosives that went off in the path of an Israeli military patrol yesterday. Israel's military said no one was hurt in the blast near the Israeli settlement of Nisanit. Hamas said the explosion was "the first in a series of attacks" meant to avenge Israel's unsuccessful Sept. 26 attempt to kill Hamas bomb maker Mohammed Deif.

(Published: October 6, 2002)
source: URL

Syria on Brink of Conflict Over Lebanon

Oct. 6 — One of the last satellite nations in the world is pushing for independence.
Syrian forces have occupied Lebanon since the country’s civil war began in 1975, and an estimated 35,000 Syrian soldiers remain stationed there. But now Lebanese religious and political leaders from across the political spectrum are calling for the withdrawal of those troops.
Although the calls aren’t new, developments both within and without Lebanon will make them impossible to ignore. Most importantly, the growing anti-Syrian sentiment opens the door for another player — Iran — to undercut Syria’s influence in Lebanon. Increased tension within the Levant could spark conflict between the two Middle East nations.
Although anti-Syrian factions have always criticized Lebanon’s occupation by Syrian troops, two major developments recently brought the issue into the spotlight: the pullout of Israeli troops from South Lebanon in May, and the death of Syrian President Hafez al-Assad in July.
Syria is strategically and economically important to Lebanon. Controlling Lebanon allowed Damascus to threaten Israel without directly challenging the Jewish state.
Changes in the Region
Damascus had long used the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon to deflect criticism of its own deployments in the country. But now the withdrawal of Israeli forces has undermined Syria’s reasons for occupying Lebanon.
Additionally, President Hafez al-Assad dealt severely with dissent and thus enjoyed cooperation from many of Lebanon’s religious and political leaders. The new Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, hasn’t yet established a similar reputation for ruthlessness.
The fallout from the Israeli withdrawal and the elder Assad’s death came to the forefront in campaigns for Lebanese parliamentary elections in August and September.

A United Opposition to Syria
For the first time, competing factions found themselves united against the Syrian presence. On Sept. 25, the Council of Maronite Bishops issued a call for the withdrawal of Syria’s troops.
A few weeks earlier, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt called for the redeployment of the troops in accordance with the 1989 Taif accords.
In fact, all of Lebanon’s main political groups issued statements criticizing the presence of Syrian forces in the country and the continued influence of Damascus in Lebanon’s internal politics.
The apparent unity won’t last long. Jumblatt has already backtracked on his earlier statements after traveling to Damascus to meet with Assad. Nonetheless, anti-Syrian sentiment among the nation’s citizens has clearly strengthened and could create an opportunity for another outside power, namely Iran.

Iran Exerts Influence
Iran also exerts political and economic influence in Lebanon. It has provided financial and military support to the Islamic group Hezbollah for years.
Now, it may offer support to the emerging independence movement. Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon recently expressed his government’s support for Lebanese “territorial integrity,” according to a Sept. 27 report by the Iranian news agency IRNA.
Although Iran has made similar statements before, the context has changed. Previous statements were directed against the Israeli occupation; now they can only refer to the Syrian presence.
By stoking anti-Syrian sentiment, even indirectly, Tehran may strain its already tenuous relations with Damascus.
And if Damascus doesn’t quell the movement, the reign of Syria’s new president could be threatened. Bashar is not his father. The changing of the guard has prompted all those Syria once controlled with an iron fist to redefine that relationship.
Even Syrian-backed Lebanese politicians like Jumblatt used protests against Syria’s occupation as a campaign issue.
The next step could be violence against Syrian forces.
Already, an unknown Lebanese group calling itself the Citizens for a Free and Sovereign Lebanon are attacking Syrian nationals living in Lebanon, according to a Sept. 26 report in the Lebanese newspaper Al-Safir.
Bashar will have to act. So far, the new president has appeared content to let Lebanon’s competing factions undermine each other. But threats to Syrian nationals and Syria’s continued hold on the Levant cannot go unanswered.

Jamie Etheridge is an analyst covering the Middle East and Africa for, an Internet provider of global intelligence.
source: [URL]

Pilger Pilfers the Truth

A British documentary is a veritable encyclopedia of every anti-Israel canard in existence today

On Sept. 16, while most of British Jewry was celebrating the Yom Kippur break-fast, Britain's most popular television channel, ITV1, aired a ferociously anti-Israel documentary entitled, "Palestine is Still the Issue." The program was produced by Australian-born John Pilger, a columnist for the UK Daily Mirror with a 25-year record of anti-Israel activism.

Scant effort was made to provide context, Israeli perspective or even explanation, with Prof. Ilan Pappe used as a token academic Israeli historian. However, Pappe is far from objective, having run for the Knesset on the radical Communist Party ticket, and is disgraced and discredited in Israel for falsifying historical evidence. Coupled with his post-Modernist perspective and active engagement with Palestinians in an attempt to discredit Zionism, it is unsurprising that Pappe supports Pilger's thesis concerning Israel's fault.

HonestReporting questions not only the biased content of the program (detailed below), but also the decision to broadcast -- on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar –- such a clear affront to the Jewish community. Furthermore, Pilger's discussion of the program on the Gloria Hunniford chat show (carried on British TV Channel 5) was aired on Yom Kippur afternoon, when few Jews were available to participate.

To accompany the documentary, Pilger also published an article in The Mirror, one of Europe's leading dailies with several million readers. Entitled "Israel's Routine Terrorism," Pilger's article mirrors the gross violations of media objectivity seen in his TV documentary.

Read the Mirror article at:

Read info on Pilger's documentary at:

The chairman of Carlton Television, Michael Green, strongly criticized his own company's documentary, John Pilger's "Palestine Is Still The Issue." Green said the program was "factually incorrect, historically incorrect," and a "tragedy for Israel so far as accuracy is concerned."

In the meantime, Pilger himself bellyached against HR members in a column in the UK Guardian, saying that critics are "orchestrating an email campaign against my film; curiously, many of the emails are coming from America, where it has not been shown."


From start to finish, Pilger's documentary is a veritable encyclopedia of every anti-Israel canard in existence today:

- Referring to Israel's War of Independence (following Arab refusal to accept the UN partition plan), Pilger's documentary simply stated: "In 1948 the Arab world rose up, when Palestinians were forced to flee from their homes in a blitz of fear and terror." Read carefully: Pilger suggests that the 5-nation Arab attack was in response to Israeli aggression.

- The Six Day War is described similarly: "In 1967 Palestinians were forced to flee again when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, describing it as an act of self defense." Pilger insists that 1967 was simply an Israeli fantasy about Arabs wanting to destroy it.

- Operation Defensive Shield is portrayed as a deliberate attempt to vandalize and destroy Palestinian culture; no mention is made of the wave of suicide bombings that forced Israel to defend itself.

- Pilger suggests that Israel systematically murders Palestinians, claiming that 90% of Palestinians killed are civilians. In fact, scholarly studies show that in the last two years of violence, 39% of Palestinian deaths are "non-combatant" -- versus 79% of Israeli deaths are "non-combatant." (See study at

- Pilger suggests that the victims of terror are morally equivalent to the terrorist, and asserts that killing a terrorist before he can murder is also "terrorism."

- Pilger decries the inconvenience of IDF checkpoints, but fails to mention that the checkpoints were set up as a response to terrorism. Nor does he mention how the editor of the notoriously anti-Israel Guardian found that the average wait was 20 seconds to pass a checkpoint, with the soldiers being polite to the Arabs.

- Pilger claims that checkpoints have destroyed the Palestinian economy, while ignoring the fact that violence against Israelis forced the loss of tens of thousands of Palestinian jobs. Pilger also omits mention of the severe damage to the Palestinian economy due to corruption of Palestinian Authority officials; Arafat's personal wealth has been estimated at $1.3 billion.

- Pilger interviews an Arab couple who claim that their newborn baby died due to alleged IDF harassment at a checkpoint. The woman says: "This is how they treat all Palestinians. I'm sorry to say this, but they would rather help an animal than an Arab." Pilger offers no counter-claim, and declares that such a story is "typical of the everyday treatment of the Palestinians."

- Pilger characterizes the 1948 refugee issue as "ethnic cleansing." However, it is a historical fact that most Arabs were persuaded to leave by Arab leaders who promised to invade and destroy Israel. Time Magazine (May 3, 1948) reported that "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city... By withdrawing Arab workers, their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa."

Pilger of course selectively omits mentioning the equal number of Jewish refugees who fled from Arab countries, and settled in Israel. He also omits that in the 1880s there was no native Palestinian population to displace (as the journal of Mark Twain and other contemporary sources confirm), except in about 5% of "Palestine." In fact, as is thoroughly documented in Joan Peters' classic work, "From Time Immemorial" (available at, most Arabs immigrated into "Palestine" after the Zionist pioneers had worked hard to cultivate land that they had legally bought from absentee Arab landlords, bringing commerce to the region.

- Pilger compares Israel's treatment of Arabs like that of apartheid South Africa. He fails to note, however, that Arabs living under Israeli rule enjoy a far greater freedom of speech and freedom of the press than do Arabs living under the PA, and that the first Middle East country to grant Arab women the right to vote was Israel -- not Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, or any of the 20 other Arab Middle East states. Nor does Pilger mention how in much of the Arab world, Jews and other non-Muslims are treated as second-class citizens (the despised Dhimmi).

- Pilger categorizes at least 3 Israeli prime ministers as "terrorists."

- Pilger claims that "For much of their resistance, the Palestinians have fought back courageously with slingshots." However, he omits reference to the Hebron riots of 1929 when 67 Jews were slaughtered. Or the period of 1951-55, when more than 3,000 armed attacks were launched against Israeli civilians, resulting in the deaths of 922 Israelis and foreign tourists. Or the Oslo period (1993-2000), when 300 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists. (To cite a few of the many historical examples.)

- Pilger accuses the Jewish world of carrying out a conspiracy to manipulate the non-Jewish world into believing that any criticism of Israel is “anti-Semitic.”

- Pilger complains that Israel is being heavily supplied by America, but he selectively omits mention that America gives billions of dollars annually to Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan.

- For his final thrust, Pilger employs the classic canard of suggesting that Israel's battle against Palestinian terror is akin to Hitler's treatment of the Jews. The conclusion of the documentary, to paraphrase Pilger, is that the world stood silent during the Holocaust -- "will they stay silent again?"

If you believe that Pilger's documentary is biased, write to:

Phone: 020-7240-4000
Fax: 020-7615-1775

Write to:
Carlton Television
101 St Martin's Lane
London WC2N 4AZ

Source: HonestReporting at URL
Remember Rehavam (Gandhi) Ze'evi HY"D

Today marks the one year anniversary of the murder of Gandhi, may G-d avange his blood, by the savages. Meanwhile the Oslo criminals who are responsible for his death remain in power and continue to actively support the murderers. Let us remember on this sad day the price of their treachery and cowardice and say to ourselves "Never Again." Let Arik Sharon remember the words spoken by Ze'evi's son at his funeral:
"You did not merit, beloved son of this land, to be accepted when you were alive. You took upon yourself to be loyal to Eretz Yisrael, even when everyone blared in your ear that a 'New Middle East is shining.' 'You are hallucinating!,' you answered them."

"And to you, you who murdered my father, you temporary residents of Canaan, I am telling you that we are staying here, because this is ours!"

"And to you, Arik, a friend who was so close at the beginning of the way: Take revenge, the way that Gandhi would have done after you, and go back to leading the country the way we knew you."

"And you, dear residents of Yesha, and the rest of Israel: We are burying Gandhi today, but he asked me to charge you to be strong and continue to be loyal to the path."

Let us also remember the wise words spoken by Nadia Matar a week after Ze'evi's death.
We must remember, and not forget, that Oslo murdered Gandhi. Or, to be more precise, the "Oslo conception" murdered Gandhi.

That same terrible conception that says that we must surrender to terror. Gandhi's murder, like the other murders of Jews since Oslo, is a direct result of capitulation and surrender to terror. All the architects- criminals-supporters-continuers of Oslo cannot say, "Our hands did not shed this blood." Just as they cannot say this about the other victims of the Oslo war. We must recall that Shimon Peres and the other Oslo criminals gave the enemy guns, and ammunition, and cities of refuge. These guns are murdering us every day. These guns also murdered Gandhi.

The war today in Israel is between the "Oslo conception" and the "Gandhi heritage." A war between the post-Zionists and the Zionists. A war between the Israelis who are willing to concede Eretz Israel and hand it over to the enemy, and the Jews, such as Gandhi, who love the land, love the people, and are willing to give their lives for a continued Jewish existence in all of Eretz Israel.

In the last elections the people chose the Gandhi heritage. A heritage of love of the people of Israel, the Land of Israel, and the Torah of Israel.

We thought, in our innocence, that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would represent that heritage. But in recent weeks we were stunned by Ariel Sharon's statements in favor of the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of Eretz Israel. At every occasion - even at Gandhi's memorial ceremony in the Knesset - Sharon repeats that he is willing to make "painful concessions." In the last few days, the "Ha'aretz" newspaper has leaked that Sharon has already presented President George Bush with a clear plan for the creation of a Palestinian state in Yesha. When Bush asked Sharon what will happen to the many settlements in those areas that are supposed to be handed over to the Palestinians, Sharon is quoted as saying: "Don't worry. I know how to deal with them". Remembering that it was Sharon who was in charge of uprooting and destroying Yamit, we know what he means when he says he will "deal with the settlements." In fact, people surrounding PM Sharon have told and warned Yesha people that Sharon often repeats that "only he is capable of uprooting settlements."

With his statement in favor of a PA terror state, Sharon thus joined the small band of "Oslo conception" supporters who are struggling against the Jewish "Gandhi heritage." Such an announcement is a betrayal of the mandate that the people gave Sharon. Agreeing to the establishment of a Palestinian state is also a betrayal of the Likud platform, a platform that Sharon is supposed to represent, that states explicitly that "no Arab state will be established to the west of the Jordan." Consent to the establishment of a Palestinian state is a slap in the face of thousands of years of Jewish history in Eretz Israel. It is also a slap in the face to Gandhi's family, to the family of the victims of Oslo, and to the family of all the terror victims and the families of the soldiers who fell in the war for the establishment of the State of Israel.

Throughout our people's entire history, despite all the persecutions, despite the Inquisition, despite the pogroms, despite the Holocaust - no leader could conceive of foregoing a single bit of Eretz Israel. By what right does Ariel Sharon now surrender our land and homeland? Did we establish the State of Israel and sacrifice more than 20,000 of our sons in Israel's wars, in order to give over our land to a foreign people? We call upon Ariel Sharon to retract immediately, publicly, his shameful proclamations of assent to the establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of Israel.

Ariel Sharon received a mandate from the people to continue the "Gandhi heritage." A deviation from this mandate will compel us to bring down the government and to find other leaders.

We pledge to Rehavam Ze'evi - Gandhi, may the Lord avenge him, that we will neither be silent nor still. We will continue his will with greater vigor: the struggle for the people of Israel, the Land of Israel, and the Torah of Israel.

October 05, 2002

Security Council machinations over Iraq are concealing a much broader UN power grab in the Middle East

For years, U.S. policy has been to keep the United Nations at bay and to insist on bilateral negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians as the only way forward to a durable peace. Negotiation would test recognition of Israel's permanency. It was the necessary alternative to violence, and it meant compromises that the parties determined they could and would live with.

The UN, on the other hand, with its automatic majorities favouring the Arab side of the equation, has continually pushed an imposed international solution. UN right answers, with resolutions galore, include Jerusalem as the capital city of a Palestinian state, and entitlements of massive numbers of refugees to return.

Then along came the Middle East "quartet": the UN, the United States, the European Union and Russia. On April 10 in Madrid, with Secretary of State Colin Powell representing Washington, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan declared that the quartet was "going to remain consistently seized of the problem."

Along with the quartet came U.S. reluctance to exercise its Security Council veto to save Israel from the usual one-sided resolutions on Palestinian suffering at the hands of Israeli aggressors, in the midst of a terrorist campaign directed at the viability of the Jewish state. Four Security Council resolutions were adopted between March 12 and April 19. U.S. strategists somehow believed that the insatiable appetite of UN members would be satisfied by a few Security Council resolutions.

The Arab group lasted two weeks before seeking the next Security Council resolution. With the U.S. in retreat over the falsely inspired hysteria over Jenin and the accompanying resolution, the Arab group reconvened an emergency session of the General Assembly in May, taunted the U.S. to vote against (which it did with a minute number of other countries), and then characterized America as anti-Arab once again. In all, more than 10 Israel-directed resolutions have been passed by various UN bodies since the quartet's April blossoming.

With Mr. Annan's foot firmly in the door, U.S. control over Middle East processes and outcomes has been steadily slipping away. Last Nov. 19, Mr. Powell said in a Louisville speech: "Palestinians must accept that they can only achieve their goals through negotiation. That was the essence of the agreements made between Israelis and Palestinians in Madrid and again in Oslo in 1993. There is no other way but direct negotiation in an atmosphere of stability and non-violence."

On April 24, Mr. Powell told a Senate subcommittee: "First, security and freedom from terror and violence . . .; second, serious accelerated negotiations; and third, economic humanitarian assistance."

On July 16, Mr. Annan and the EU's Danish president insisted that progress on all tracks be "side by side."

On Sept. 17, Mr. Annan, with Mr. Powell at his side, declared a three-phase program: "The first phase will see Palestinian security reform, Israeli withdrawals and . . . Palestinian elections; . . . the second phase . . . the option of creating a Palestinian state with provisional borders . . .; the third phase . . . Israeli-Palestinian negotiations."

The process has made a similar shift. The focus in late 2001 was American-Russian statements as "co-sponsors of the Middle East peace process." By April 29, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer was insisting that the quartet "stick together." Mr. Powell was calling for an international conference at the beginning of May. The summer has seen a proliferation of UN bureaucrats in working groups and task forces. And on Sept. 17, EU president Per Stig Moeller announced, while issuing the latest quartet communiqué, that "the quartet has to be the focal point."

Mr. Annan (along with the Europeans, who had been salivating on the sidelines for years) was on the move.

On Sept. 23 and 24, the UN played host to a conference at New York headquarters called "End the Occupation." It opened with a statement read on behalf of Mr. Annan by Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast, declaring that the purpose of the meeting was to "garner support for the Palestinian people." Israeli "non-Zionists" were invited to contribute papers, along with Arab League representatives who distributed literature -- pre-approved by the UN secretariat -- talking about Israeli "concentration camps."

At the same time this conference was going on downstairs, the U.S. fell back into the familiar trap of trying to mollify the Arab group by failing to veto another one-sided Security Council resolution (1435), adopted on Sept. 24.

Ceding control to the UN over the Middle East is a dangerous game.

Surely, efforts to obtain a Security Council resolution on Iraq provide an immediate lesson. U.S. negotiators obviously thought that serving up Israel via Resolution 1435 would smooth the way on Iraq. A week later, they are still bargaining, while clammering for the next condemnation of Israel over non-compliance with 1435 has only just begun.

When the Iraq issue is over, Mr. Annan's quartet will be a long way out of the starting block. Stage two and the declaration of a "provisional" Palestinian state, before serious negotiations get under way between the parties, is guaranteed to be followed by a rush to pile on the sovereign rewards of control over borders (and hence arms flow). It will be a reality before anyone in Washington has time to say "Oops."

The UN is not an honest broker in the Middle East, and never has been. Even after Sept. 11, it is unable to define terrorism. The Arab bloc, along with Russia, France and China from the permanent five on the Security Council, think blowing up Israelis is legitimate -- according to the UN Human Rights Commission resolution of April 15.

Multilateralism is not an end in itself. The UN does not deserve the responsibilities of peacemaking and democratization when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It should be shown the door before it's too late.

Anne Bayefsky is an international lawyer and professor of political science at York University. She is a member of the governing board of the Geneva-based UN Watch.

--Distributed by MidEastTruth

Nascent Nonviolence
Will Palestinians embrace an end to terror? And will anyone pay attention if they do?

Please note: When I post this or other articles, I do not necessarily endorse positions taken by the writers. . I post because it offers a glimpse of the wide variety of views on matters of concern for our readers. If you disagree with this or any other posting, express your convictions in the Comment section, beneath the article.

Eli Kintisch

Would someone please give this message to American Jews: We're seeing glimpses of a Palestinian partner these days. Don't screw it up.

Reassessment and nonviolence are in the air in the occupied territories. Recent protests in Nablus, Ramallah and Tulkarm have been largely peaceful -- whole cities openly disobeying curfews with candlelight vigils, pot banging and nighttime parades. A spate of surveys in the last month in the occupied territories, as well as Israel proper, have shown a surprising openness among Arabs toward embracing nonviolent means of resistance. And a number of influential mainstream leaders have criticized violence in the last month, opening an honest dialogue within Palestinian society about the state of the intifada, two years on.

There can be no doubt that, ironically enough, this opening is at least partially the result of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strategy. By refusing to negotiate while violence raged, he has gambled that he could force the Palestinians to say "enough" before Israelis did -- therefore ensuring that whatever political situation eventually emerged out of the second intifada would come about on Israeli terms. In one respect, at least, the strategy is working: The increasing skepticism among Palestinians about suicide bombing has to be at least partially attributed to the realization that violence isn't getting them anywhere with Israel's hard-line prime minister, or the public who elected him. But if Sharon deserves some credit for prompting this reassessment, it must also be acknowledged that some of the questioning is arising organically from within Palestinian society -- much of it sparked by the courageous pronouncements of Sari Nusseibeh, the Palestinian Authority's representative in Jerusalem and the most prominent Palestinian moderate.

To see how Nusseibeh's thinking has gained a foothold, one need only compare recent statements by influential Palestinians to the saber rattling of the past two years: Nabil Amer, the former Palestinian Authority official and former editor of Al-Hayat Al-Jadedah -- the Palestinian Authority's official publication -- wrote in early September that the Palestinians, led by Yasir Arafat, had "failed in the management of the historical process," by choosing violence in the fall of 2000. Abdel Razek Yehiyeh, the moderate Palestinian interior minister, told a Reuters reporter that a new approach to the uprising was needed. "I am not saying this side is to blame, or that," Yehiyeh said. "I'm saying there is occupation, and dealing with occupation in this manner has harmed us. Therefore we have to find other ways to deal with it." Nusseibeh himself has been on a speaking tour in the United States during the last month to push for a new kind of Palestinian resistance. In March, Nusseibeh wrote in the London-based Al-Quds that "resorting to the strategy of nonviolence and its weapons by a primarily unarmed people can directly deprive the Israelis of the advantage of being the stronger military power."

Polls have provided another welcome surprise of late. In a recent survey of 600 Palestinians by the international peace organization Search for Common Ground, 80 percent of respondents said they would support a large-scale civil-disobedience movement. Administered in the territories by the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, the poll showed six out of 10 Palestinians agreeing that there is "a need to try some new approaches" to the intifada. Roughly the same percentage of Israeli Jewish respondents said they would "approve" of a nonviolent Palestinian movement. Arab Israelis in the northern areas of Israel -- long feared to harbor simmering resentment that could easily boil over into extremism -- have also shown moderate attitudes of late. A recent poll conducted by the Yafa Research Institute in Nazareth showed that among Arab Israelis respondents in the so-called Triangle area of northern Israel, more than 80 percent wanted to see the violence of the intifada come to an end.

Israeli officials, rightly, don't put much credence in polls or statements -- they want action, usually toward halting suicide attacks against civilians. But the actions that Palestinians have taken in the last two weeks show that there might be something to the poll statistics. First, on Sept. 20, tanks laid siege to Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah and troops declared curfews in other Palestinian cities after two suicide bombings left six dead in 24 hours. The Palestinian response? Almost completely nonviolent protests in five Palestinian cities. In several places, residents banged pots and pans. Throughout the West Bank, school officials kept their classrooms open in defiance of curfew orders -- a further means of nonviolent resistance. Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al-Quds University, calls the movement the third intifada.

"It's about time," says Mubarak Awad, a nonviolent activist who organized tax strikes and civil disobedience during the first intifada. (Awad, who recently said it was "impossible" for a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East, was expelled from Israel in 1998 on charges that he broke Israeli law by organizing large-scale civil disobedience.)

To be sure, no one believes that the conflict is nearing a close. There can be little doubt that the work of the Israeli Defense Forces -- and not a newfound Palestinian introspection -- is the most important factor contributing to the recent decline in suicide bombings. And the polls could certainly be misleading. "So a guy named Abdullah comes to your house, maybe he's a member of Hamas, maybe a member of Islamic Jihad, and he tells you what to say . . . The whole notion that you would take seriously a poll coming out of a nondemocratic society is crazy," says Yoram Ettinger, a longtime activist on the Israeli right. Ettinger does have a point: Polls aren't necessarily reliable, and it's no doubt more difficult to get an accurate read of popular opinion in a highly disorganized, authoritarian society. Nevertheless, when taken together with the dramatic drop-off in suicide bombings of the last several months and the increasing boldness of Palestinian peaceniks, the poll results may mean something indeed.

And how has the Jewish world stateside reacted to these glimmers of hope? For the most part, disappointingly. The big story in the American Jewish community this week was a protest last night against a speech by Nusseibeh at B'nai Jeshurun, a Reform synagogue known for its left-leaning, Zabar's-shopping congregants. The protests, which aimed to prevent Nusseibeh from speaking, were organized by the Zionist Organization of America and Americans For a Safe Israel, two of the most hawkish players in an pro-Israel movement that has, of course, moved far to the right during the last two years. "He's a very evil person," Helen Freedman, executive director of AFSI, told me when asked about Nusseibeh, adding that he should be "sentenced to death maybe." (Officials at Americans for Peace Now, which organized the event, said that the protestors were for the most part peaceful and that Nusseibeh received a standing ovation.)

This link provides a typical attack on Nusseibeh from the Israeli right. The most serious of the charges -- these days, especially -- is that Nusseibeh gave information to the Iraqis in 1991 to help them direct missile attacks at Israel. But it's a charge that has been proven false by efforts such as this one.

Nusseibeh historically has been one of the most outspoken proponents of a two-state solution, and his calls for Palestinians to give up their claim to a "right of return" to Israel have drawn ire throughout the Arab world. In fact it is Nusseibeh's moderation that truly scares his detractors. Nusseibeh's main foil in Israel has been right-wing Knesset stalwart Uzi Landau, who has repeatedly shut down his offices in Jerusalem and accused him of being a "Trojan horse" for Palestinian extremists.

To their credit, the large Jewish groups that carry the most weight in Washington -- the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League, to name a few -- are staying out of the B'nai Jeshurun embarrassment. "We didn't invite them. The mainstream Jewish organizations are too politically correct and they never take strong positions anyway," Freedman told me contemptuously. (The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, a national Jewish umbrella group, has criticized some of Nusseibeh's more aggressive quotes in the past, but wasn't behind last night's protests.)

In a period of so much uncertainty for Israel, and with a U.S. war against Iraq looming, it's time American Jews recognized the few glimmers of hope that are out there. A handful of terrorists got through, but September was a quiet month for the most part in Israel. Along with the polls and some new nonviolent approaches, the Palestinian people recently called on Arafat to overhaul his government -- a modest exercise of democratic muscle unprecedented in any Arab nation. And, warts and all, Nusseibeh remains the kind of Palestinian whom Israel can deal with -- a man who has sparred with Israel's most dangerous enemies for years in the pursuit of peace. Maybe for some American Jews, when the enemy of their enemy happens to be Palestinian, it's difficult to see him for the potential partner that he is. But if American Jews and Israelis can't talk to Nusseibeh, then the glimmers of hope are for nothing at all.

source: [link[

UN panel faults Israel for treatment of minority, Palestinian children

But for all the complaints, this article notes that the UN is at long last beginning to realize that suicide bombers are not nice people!

GENEVA - UN human rights experts said Friday that Israel must stop discrimination against minority children within the country.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child said it also was concerned about Israeli treatment of Palestinian children in the occupied territories even though it recognizes there is a "climate of fear" resulting from "continuing acts of terror."

Israeli Ambassador Ya'akov Levy said he had objections to some of the committee's findings, but he praised the panel for being the first UN body to use the term "Palestinian suicide bombers" in its condemnation of terrorism.

The committee of 10 independent experts was commenting after its review of Israel's compliance with the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The panel periodically reviews the performance of all 191 countries that have signed the treaty.

It said it was concerned that Israel lacks a constitutional guarantee of nondiscrimination, and urged the government to carry out public education campaigns "to ensure that all children enjoy all the rights set out in the convention without discrimination."

It said it was concerned about "inequalities" in access to education, health care and social services for Israeli Arabs, Bedouins, Ethiopians and other minorities as well as disabled and foreign children.

The committee urged Israel "to take all possible measures to reconcile the interpretation of religious laws with fundamental human rights" to make sure boys and girls are treated equally.

It noted Israel's efforts to address the rights and special needs of children with disabilities. "However, it remains concerned at the large gap between the needs and services provided, and the gap between services provided to Jewish and Israeli-Arab children."

In presenting Israel's report, Levy had told the panel that the Israeli government had undertaken a number of reforms in children's rights and was still trying to raise public awareness to enhance their well-being, irrespective of their ethnic, geographic or religious background.

The panel said it "deeply regrets" that Israel failed to provide any information about the situation of children in occupied Palestinian territories. The Israeli government says it has transferred the responsibility for reporting on the territories to the Palestinian authority, but the panel rejected this argument.

"It's the opinion of this committee that the State of Israel is responsible for all children within its jurisdiction and 'within its jurisdiction' means including the Palestinian territory," said Committee Chairman Jacob Doek of the Netherlands.

Doek said the panel objected to the way the Israeli government defines children in the occupied territories as being under 16 while children in Israel are defined as under 18.

"This is discriminatory" because it leads to such results as the jailing of 16-year-old Palestinian stone throwers with adult inmates, Doek said.

The committee said it "deeply regrets the killings and injuries of all children" in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and urged all responsible to end the violence.

The climate of fear results from "acts of terror on both sides, especially the deliberate and indiscriminate targeting and killing of Israeli civilians, including children, by Palestinian suicide-bombers," it said.

It said it recognized Israel's right to live in peace and security, but that "the illegal occupation of Palestinian territory, the bombing of civilian areas (and) extrajudicial killings ... continue to contribute to the cycle of violence."

It said it was "seriously concerned" about the allegations of "inhuman and degrading practices, torture and ill-treatment of Palestinian children by police officers during arrest, interrogation and in detention."

Levy said the Israeli government disagreed with the committees "characterizations of Israeli defensive action against terror, definitions that are not within the purview of the committees mandate."

source: LINK

P.A. Birth Rate Down

The Oslo War has had far-ranging demographic effects on the Arab population of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The Palestinian Authority Statistical Office shows that the birth rate has dropped 18% in the past two years - from 7 births per woman in the previous decade to 5.75 births since the beginning of 2001. Marriage rates, too, have dropped almost 4%. Some 3.3 million Arabs live in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and 60% of them have lost half their income over the past two years.

source: url

Israeli police enter al-Aqsa compound

The Temple Mount is often a scene of tension

Israeli police entered the Muslim mosque compound on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif.
The police threw stun grenades

Israeli police entered the Muslim mosque compound on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem - known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif.
The police threw stun grenades at Palestinian youths after rocks hit Jewish worshippers at the Western or Wailing Wall below the compound. Jewish worshippers were briefly evacuated.

There are no immediate reports of injuries or damage at the compound. The situation seems to have calmed and police have withdrawn.

Police officials said they acted after Palestinian youths began throwing rocks at Israeli officers at an entrance to the mosque compound and some rocks fell on Jewish worshippers.

"It was thought they were intending to throw rocks into the plaza where [Jewish] worshippers were, so police entered the compound and fired a few stun grenades," a police spokesman said.

"People were told to leave the Wall plaza below, and the Waqf [Islamic religious authority] then helped calmed the situation down."

The incident occurred at the end of Friday prayers at the two mosques at the Haram al-Sharif - often a tense time in East Jerusalem.

The Western Wall is the most sacred site in Judaism, while the al-Aqsa mosque above is the third holiest site in Islam.

The Temple Mount has been a flashpoint for tensions in the past.

A visit there by the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, two years ago - when he was opposition leader - is widely seen as one of the sparks that ignited the current Palestinian uprising.

source: url

A bulldozer works to clear rubble in Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Oct. 1 as two Palestinian men inspect damaged buildings.

Israeli bulldozer is more feared than tanks

ZIF, West Bank -- Hamad Shatat knew what was coming the moment he heard the deafening roar of the engines. Moments later, he saw two bulldozers operated by the Israeli army maneuver past a herd of goats and crash into the walls of his house.
These were not ordinary bulldozers. The mammoth machines nicknamed "the Beast" are only slightly smaller than a tank but are more feared. The smallest of their interchangeable blades is taller than the average adult and wide enough to clear a two-lane highway with one swipe.
"In a matter of hours," Shatat said, ãthey destroyed our dreams in front of our eyes."
For Palestinians, the American-made Caterpillar D9 bulldozers -- and their even larger cousins, the D10 and D11 -- have become hated symbols of Israel's military might and further evidence of U.S. complicity in Israeli's actions.
On the West Bank and Gaza Strip, Palestinians talk of the 104,000-pound D9 in the same angry breath as an F-16 warplane and an Apache helicopter gunship. Children who throw stones at Israeli tanks run from the D9.
The Israeli army has used bulldozers to demolish homes of militants and suicide bombers, uproot olive groves, clear land for roads to Jewish settlements and pile rocks to block roads used by Palestinians. It has also deployed the machines as offensive weapons. When soldiers were pinned down last April in the Jenin refugee camp, army D9s leveled homes in an area the size of two football fields and quickly brought the battle to an end.
And in Ramallah, the bulldozers played a prominent role in laying siege to and destroying most of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's compound, reducing the symbol of Palestinian self-rule into little more than a rock quarry. Buildings erected by Great Britain during the 1930s tumbled under the weight of the D9s, which shoved stories-high piles of concrete into evenly spaced mounds with efficient ease.
The walls of the one building occupied by Arafat and his aides cracked and shook. A tank barrel was pointed at Arafat's window, but his aides feared the demolition signaled the true end.
An Israeli army commander stood amid the ruins 100 yards from Arafat's office and concurred that guns would not force anyone inside to surrender. "The real pressure," he said, "comes from bulldozers."
Each bulky, snub-nosed D9 is 13 feet high and has a blade 6 feet, 4 inches high and 14 feet long. The machine costs $500,000, and the Israeli army spends another $120,000 to add armor and a bulletproof cage for the driver, who has to climb a ladder to reach the seat. The blade on the newer D11s, which cost $1.1 million, is 11 feet high and 24 feet wide.
Representatives from Caterpillar, the world's largest supplier of heavy construction and mining equipment, acknowledge that the Israeli's unusual use of the machines has created controversy for the company.
"Caterpillar shares the world's concern over unrest in the Middle East, and we certainly have compassion for all those affected by the political strife," company spokesman Benjamin S. Cordani said, reading from a prepared statement. "However, more than 2 million Caterpillar machines and engines are at work in virtually every country and region of the world each day.
"We have neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of that equipment."
Army spokesmen declined to say how many bulldozers the army owns and how many it uses under contract from private companies. Nor would the army allow interviews of any drivers.
Israeli newspapers have written about the commander of the bulldozing unit at Arafat's compound, a 23-year-old female lieutenant identified only as Talia. Depicted as a small, smiling girl, she described the work as a model of precise engineering, and not wanton destruction.
But the lore of the D9 was solidified, at least in the minds of human-rights groups and the Palestinians, when Army reservist Moshe Nissim spoke to the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper in May and told of driving the bulldozer in Jenin, with only two hours of training.
"For three days, I just erased and erased," the 40-year-old told the paper, describing how he downed whiskey to stay awake for 75 hours. "I entered Jenin driven by madness, by desperation. I didn't give a damn about demolishing all the houses I've demolished, and I have demolished plenty. I made them a stadium in the middle of the camp. If I'm sorry for anything, it is for not tearing the whole camp down."
The army dismisses Nissim's story as the exaggerated bravado of a drunkard and poor soldier. But for military critics, his widely circulated account typifies the type of personality recruited to sit atop a D9.
Hamad Shatat could see the man driving the D9 that destroyed his home. He was wearing civilian clothes but was protected in a bulletproof cage high above the ground.
Shatat and his brother, Musa, 42, saved for 30 years to build the house, in an area south of Hebron under Israeli control. They didn't obtain a construction permit -- which they said would be nearly impossible to get because of travel restrictions -- but also said that Israeli authorities didn't warn them that their home was to be demolished, and thus they had no chance to appeal in court.
The bulldozers came the morning of Sept. 2, accompanied by dozens of soldiers. What remains are the concrete outlines of the foundations, a pile of metal connecting rods and the decorative slabs of limestone that used to surround the front door.
"We felt very handicapped, very weak," said Musa, wearing a baseball cap adorned with the American flag, and walking on the ground where his house once stood. "The D9 is more frightening than the tank. When it comes, you know it's coming to destroy you."

source: URL

Anti-Semitism now couched in Israel bashing

A few months ago at San Francisco State University, Jewish students, holding a peace rally, were attacked by an angry mob of Palestinians. Many of the Jewish students were wearing yellow T-shirts embossed with the words ''Peace, Shalom, Sallam.'' The Palestinians threatened and taunted the Jewish students shouting, ''Get out or we'll kill you'' and ``Hitler did not finish the job.''

Professor Laurie Zoloth, Director of the Jewish Studies Department and the Director of Hillel were the only faculty members to come to aid the Jewish students.

Zoloth said, ``Not one administrator came to stand with us. I knew if a crowd of Palestinians or black students had been there, surrounded by a crowd of white racists screaming racist threats shielded by police, the faculty and staff would have no trouble deciding which side to stand on.''

What happened at San Francisco State is not an isolated incident. Jews on campuses all over this country are frightened to express pro-Israel views. What is happening on American campuses is part of a worldwide campaign to criminalize and isolate Israel. However, this anti-Israel campaign has deeper and more sinister implications for the Jewish people as a whole. It is a new and virulent form of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is now acceptable in Europe, as long as it is couched in anti-Israel rhetoric. The day after the deadly Palestinian attack at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, The Guardian, a left-leaning British newspaper, published an editorial criticizing Israel for what it called ''random, vengeful acts of terror'' against Palestinians in the West Bank town of Jenin last spring. This after a U.N. report had dismissed Palestinian claims that the Israelis had carried out a massacre there.

Anti-Semitism after World War II was driven underground of the European subconscious. But it has resurfaced in the form of anti-Zionism.

European intellectuals who have not come to terms with anti-Semitic feelings pour their anti-Jewish venom into anti-Israel diatribes. Responsibility for the growing number of attacks on synagogues and Jewish institutions all over Europe can be traced to the anti-Israel hysteria in academic and media circles.

The link between anti-Israel rhetoric and anti-Semitism was made abundantly clear at the UN sponsored conference on racism in Durban, South Africa, where Israeli delegates were denied credentials and participation on key committees. Israelis and also Americans representing Jewish organizations were denied participation on the basis that they could not be objective about Israeli policies. Syrian, Palestinian and Saudi representatives, however, were considered objective and allowed to participate.

Jews were harassed, insulted and even threatened with physical harm throughout the conference. A resolution calling Holocaust denial a form of anti-Semitism, was overwhelmingly voted down.

The time has come to confront the anti-Israel anti-Semitism in American academia. The time has come to hold European intellectuals responsible for creating an atmosphere in which people are frightened to be identified as Jews in the streets of Paris, Oslo and Frankfurt. The time has come to root out anti-Semitism in the UN. Anti-Semitism is nothing new. What is new, however, are anti-Semites who hide behind the veil of anti-Zionism. The time has come to unmask these artful dodgers and reveal them for the anti-Semites they are.


Temple Beth El
Hollywood [Florida]

source: link