October 2001 – Tishri 5762
And good evil;
Who present darkness as light
And light as darkness;
Who present bitter as sweet
And sweet as bitter!
Ah, Those who are so wise –
In their own opinion;
So clever –
In their own judgment!
-- Isaiah 5:20
His talk begins in silliness and ends in disastrous madness.
Yet the fool talks and talks"
--
Ecclesiastes 10:14
For many centuries, scholars sought the legendary Philosopher's Stone, that
could change lead into gold. If a stone does not work they seek another, rather
than ask whether it is indeed possible to change lead into gold. Shamans and
witchdoctors perform rainmaking dances. If it does not rain, they dance again,
rather than ask whether dancing can indeed bring rain.
Sophisticates in world affairs may scorn such superstitions, but imitate
them nevertheless. Platitudes and catchphrases are repeated as though they
were incantations: Intone the words "Peace Process" long enough, and there
will be peace. If it does not come, send more meddlers to add failure to failure,
rather than ask whether such a process can indeed bring peace.
At its very beginning, once and future Foreign Minister Shimon Peres was
asked, "What if Arabs commit acts of terror in Israel and then escape into
areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority?" He replied, "We are hoping
that won't happen." This answer from the designer of the process should have
been enough to expose its lethal frivolity.
The now eight-year-long Middle East "Peace Process", with its sequence of
accords, negotiations, agreements, and ceasefires has been calamitous on every
point. Yet the enraptured still dance after the will-o-the-wisp of another
diplomatic mission, more negotiations, more unilateral concessions from Israel,
more "painful decisions" by Israel – a pain to which they look forward with
sadistic relish.
The wise and the clever offering themselves as arbiters of Israel's fate
include:
-- The British Foreign Office, whose Minister for Middle East Affairs, one
Peter Hain, has called for Israel to be dismantled, by force if necessary.
-- The German Foreign Office, whose Foreign Minister, one Joschke Fischer,
has put his name to a demand for the destruction of Israel.
-- The European Union, in the person of one Javier Solana, who complains
that "Israel offends my Franciscan sensibilities".
* * * * * * *
Barbara Tuchman began her historical study *
The March of Folly*
with
the decision of the Trojans to bring the Wooden Horse into their city
.
Today's
arch-folly
is the determination to bring a terrorist state into a region already unstable
and an international polity already menaced by terror. The determination suggests
what psychiatrists call "obsessive compulsion neurosis" –the inability to
cease repeating a useless and irrational act.
By some dubious criterion, the world's most pressing defect is that there
are only 21 Arab states instead of 22; only one Arab state in Palestine (Jordan),
instead of two. If the rectification of this defect requires the obliteration
of the one tiny place that Jews can call there on, that is collateral damage
which few nations would regret. If the designated victim were any people than
the Jews, that would be a different matter.
Within days after proclaiming a "war on terrorism", the governments of the
United States and Great Britain lavished support on the World's Senior Terrorist
and promised him a state all his own. The perfunctory proviso that his state
should live in peace with Israel is so flagrantly nonsensical that it can
be nothing more than a dab of honey on the poison pill that Israel is required
to swallow.
These proclamations from Washington and London already have two achievements
to their credit: already have achieved two purposes: (a) taught the World's
Senior Terrorist that his program of wanton slaughter advances rather than
impedes his ambitions, and (b) closed off any chance for a workable solution
in the future.
* * * * * * *
He who is kind to the cruel is cruel to the kind. -- Talmud
From "Bin Laden Has Won," by Joseph Farah,
WorldNetDaily
, 2 October 2001:
[V]iewed through the eyes of the Islamic world, President Bush's announcement
that he favors the creation of a Palestinian state as part of a comprehensive
Middle East peace initiative can only be seen as a huge strategic victory
for terrorism. . . . . The message is loud and clear: Keep up the violence,
intensify it, keep raising the stakes, make the U.S. pay a price and your
demands will be met -eventually.
I'm sick to my stomach over the U.S. sellout of Israel. There would never
be a good time for this, but following the dramatic Islamic terror attack
on the U.S. makes it appear the U.S. is caving to pressure. You know why it
looks that way? Because, like it or not, we are.
I know we're all supposed to rally around our commander in chief right now,
but what Bush has done is unconscionable. It will not achieve the goals it
is designed to achieve. We are not dealing with honorable adversaries in the
Middle East. We are dealing with murderers, liars, cheats, thieves. This is
not a conflict between two reasonable sides with legitimate grievances. It's
a conflict between right and wrong, good and evil.
[This] decision will result in more bloodshed beyond our imaginations. It
will result in more terrorism in the U.S. - much more deadly even than what
we witnessed September 11. This is worse than negotiating with terrorists.
This is unconditional surrender to them.
[Osama bin Laden] has already won the war. He has managed to enshrine himself
as the hero to hundreds of millions of radical Muslims worldwide whose goal
is – and always has been - the destruction of the Jewish state and, ultimately,
Islamic hegemony over the whole world. Alive, he will be a hero. Dead, he
has achieved martyrdom status.
The Bush administration has decided to make its bed with the totalitarians
in the Arab world at the expense of the one bastion of freedom in the Middle
East - Israel. . . . . We are rewarding terrorism - pure and simple.
Remember who will lead this new Palestinian state for life. His name is
Yasser Arafat, the father of modern-day terrorism - a man with lots of American
blood on his hands. For 30 years
of hijackings, Olympics murders, execution of U.S. diplomats, suicide bombings,
torture of dissident Arabs, the cold-blooded killings of Israelis and more,
the reward for Arafat is the presidency of his own state.
[. . . .] But as any astute observer of the Middle East can tell you, a
Palestinian state was never the final goal in the first place. So this is
not the end. The Palestinian state was, at best, an interim step toward the
annihilation of the state of Israel. It's only a strategic step to chip away
at the Jewish state's security, to make it vulnerable, to make an Arab military
victory more achievable.
[. . . .] I'm sure they are celebrating in Arafat's headquarters today.
I'm sure they are shooting guns in the air in bin Laden's lair. I'm sure
the Iranians, the chief sponsors of international terrorism are grinning
broadly in Tehran. I'm sure there are smiles on the faces of leaders in Damascus
and even Baghdad today.
This is a war on terrorism? It seems more like a victory for terrorism.
It seems more like an international celebration of terrorism. It seems more
like surrender to terrorism.
by Joseph Shattan,
National Review Online
, 15 October 2001:
To President Bush and his advisers, the president's recent endorsement of
a Palestinian state is simply a continuation of long-standing U.S. efforts
to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict . . . . But to most Middle Easterners,
it is further confirmation of America's cowardice and corruption: Faced with
a serious threat to his well-being, "Great Satan" responds by heaving "Little
Satan" overboard. Hence, the more terror is directed at America, the more
concessions will follow.
One obvious reason why Middle Eastern perceptions differ so radically from
our own is because the problems Arabs wrestle with are very different from
the issues we focus on. For over a century, Muslims have been trying to account
for what they regard as a disaster of near-cosmic proportions: Arabdom's alarming
and precipitous decline. How can it be, they ask themselves, that the Arabs,
despite the self-evident superiority of their religion and culture, have
been overtaken and humiliated by the once-barbarous Christians and — even
more embarrassingly — by the despised and dispersed Jews?
[. . . .] Winning the world for Islam is the Islamists' long-term goal.
Their more immediate objectives are overthrowing corrupt Arab governments
and destroying the hated 'Zionist entity' (Israel) whose very existence is
an affront to Islamist sensibilities. (Islamists believe that any lands conquered
for Islam remain Islamic forever; hence, even if there were no Palestinians,
Israel would still be occupying Muslim lands.)
Unfortunately, by endorsing the creation of a Palestinian state in the immediate
aftermath of the September 11th attack, the Bush administration has played
into Islamist hands. Although State Department officials are undoubtedly telling
the truth when they assert that the U.S. was preparing to endorse a Palestinian
state even before September 11th, to the Arab 'street' it will seem obvious
that a cause-and-effect relationship exists between the attacks on the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon, on the one hand, and the President's initiative,
on the other. Throughout the Middle East, Osama bin Laden will be blessed
for forcing America's hand and bringing the replacement of Israel by Palestine
a step closer to realization. Thanks entirely to the president and his team,
the jihadist David appears to have wrested yet another major victory from
the superpower Goliath — and the campaign to defeat the Islamist challenge
has gotten off to a singularly inauspicious start."
From "Should the Palestinians Have a State?", by Naomi Ragen,
Jerusalem Post
, 12 April 2001:
It has become axiomatic since Oslo that there is a Palestinian people, and
that they are oppressed and disenfranchised and deserve to express their national
identity by having a state of their own. This state is to be situated on
the lands captured by Israel in the Six Day War, and will be run by the Palestinian
Authority headed by Yasser Arafat.
Let's think about this. In the light of recent events, what kind of state
can we expect the Palestinian people to establish?
A state where small children are inculcated with hatred for other peoples,
religions and cultures. Where they attend summer camps in which they are taught
that to be a suicide bomber is the highest form of religious expression. Where
they are taken to the front to get themselves shot for the sake of photo
ops, and where their parents get paid blood money for such child sacrifice.
A state in which people regularly murder women for infractions of male honor
codes.
A society in which a brother will slit the throat of a sister he suspects
of sexual misconduct, while his mother and father look on in approval.
. . . .A state in which summary executions are carried out without due process.
A state which defends the blowing up of school buses filled with children
and the shooting into the skulls of infants in their mothers' arms as part
of its "struggle."
A state in which hands dipped in the blood of lynch-mob victims are raised
to cheering crowds. A state in which education consists of hate-mongering
textbooks. A state run by corrupt officials who literally get away with murder,
while pocketing all moneys collected to alleviate the suffering of the hungry
and unemployed.
A state in which cultural artifacts and holy sites of other religions are
destroyed. Long before the Taliban destroyed its priceless Buddhas, Palestinians
destroyed the ancient synagogue in Jericho, plowed under the Tomb of Joseph,
and as I write these words are firing on the Tomb of Rachel in Bethlehem.
A state which has no respect for human life, where primitive, unrestrained,
boundless violence and hatred are legitimate expressions of national identity.
A state which encourages terrorism, which releases convicted mass murderers
from its prisons.
A state which adheres to no international agenda on human rights, including
the Geneva Conventions which prohibit the deliberate targeting of noncombatants
(including soldiers not actively involved in combat) as a crime against humanity.
[. . . .] In light of the above, I would like to ask all those progressive,
liberal people whose hearts yearn to see a Palestinian state set up in the
West Bank and Gaza: What is the matter with you? Does the world really need
yet another corrupt state of Moslem extremists to misconstrue their own religion,
and dishonor the religion and cultural artifacts of others? Do we really need
to empower yet another murderous, corrupt, inhumane regime and give it legitimacy?
To what end? And to whose benefit?
Many might agree that a people that approves of deliberately shooting a
10-month-old baby through the head as she lies in her carriage in a playground
as a legitimate form of combat deserves the curse of living in such a state.
But should the world really agree in good conscience to help set
it up?
The truth is that anyone who really cares about the Palestinians, anyone
with an ounce of real humanity or liberalism, should oppose the establishment
of such a state under current conditions with every fiber of their
being. For the sake of the Palestinian people. And for the sake
of all mankind. Because the truth is, no one deserves to live in the Palestinian
state that Arafat and his henchmen are creating. Not even the Palestinians.
* * * * * * *
I have set before you life and death. . . . Therefore, choose life.
– Deuteronomy 30:19
"We will win because we Muslims love death as you Jews love life"
– sermon in Gaza
TWELVE BAD ARGUMENTS FOR A STATE OF PALESTINE
In 1991, the United States, during the administration of President George
Bush, sponsors the Madrid Conference at which Israel is invited to meet with
Jordan and other Arab States to negotiate peace. In a letter to the Government
of Israel, the Government of the United States pledges:
"In accordance with the United States traditional policy, we do not support
the creation of an independent Palestinian state. [. . . .] Moreover, it is
not the United States' aim to bring the PLO into the process or to make Israel
enter a dialogue or negotiations with the PLO."
This pledge was indeed consonant with history, strategy, justice and common sense. It was not, however, to be honored. In 2001, President George W. Bush announced that it was a "vision of long standing" of U.S. policy to create a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River. Such a state would, of course, be under the rule of the PLO and must be recognized by Israel. The United States proceeded swiftly to have this newly-discovered long-standing vision ensconced in a resolution of the United Nations Security Council.
It is now conventional to suppose that the invention of a PLO State in the Land of Israel is wise, just and desirable, even inevitable. Among the platitudes strung into a mantra:
1] It Will Rectify an Historic Injustice to the Arabs
On the contrary:
Of all that Arabs have demanded for themselves since the end of World War I, they have been given 99.5 percent. In 1921 the League of Nations defined Mandate Palestine, as The Jewish National Home, to be "open to close Jewish Settlement".
In 1922, the British Mandatory Government subtracted the entire region east of the Jordan River, 76 percent of the Jewish National Home to create the Arab Kingdom of.{Trans}-Jordan. It then progressively restricted or banned Jewish immigration and settlement even west of the Jordan River, rigidly blockading the Land of their fathers to Jews trying to escape the gas chambers of Europe.
In 1947, the United Nations attempted to whittle away the remnant of the
Jewish National Home with a second partition, If the Arabs had accepted that
offer, they would have had 83 percent of the Land of Israel-Jewish National
Home, even though the bulk of them had no roots and no history there.
The real injustice is depriving Israel of its historic homeland, in order
to invent a 23rd Arab state where none ever existed.
2] It Will End Israel's Occupation of Palestinian Territory
On the contrary:
There is no such thing as "Palestinian territory" and there is no "occupation" of what never belonged to any Arab nation. [See, especially, Issues 2, 6 and 8] Furthermore, of the Arab residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, 98 percent now live under the rule of the PLO.
3]. Israel Must Comply with United Nations Resolutions:
On the contrary:
The Arab attack on Israel in June 1967 left Israel in possession of Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Sinai. Then, the U.N. Security Council, that had done nothing to prevent or even deplore the Arab attack, took it upon itself to pass a resolution to guide a future settlement. That was Resolution 242, that calls on Israel to withdraw from"territories" to "agreed and secure borders".
This was very specifically not a demand for a return to the the borders of June 4, 1967 -- which were themselves merely the ceasefire lines of the War of Independence launched by the Arabs to destroy Israel in 1948.
The author of Resolution 242 was Lord Caradon, representive of the United Kingdom. He explained to the British Parliament: "It would be wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."
The United States was a co-sponsor of Resolution 242, and its representative stated: "The notable omissions -- which were ot accidental -- in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'theJune 5, 1967 lines'."
It is now widely and repeatedly alleged that this resolution demands that Israel withdraw from all the territories. That is a lie. It is alleged that this withdrawal is unconditional. That is a lie. It is even alleged that it calls for an independent Palestine-Arab state in the territories. That is a lie.
In accordance with the Israel-Egypt treaty of 1978, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai peninsula, 91 percent of the "territories". That may well be considered is more than sufficient to satisfy the terms of Resolution 242.
Recent flipflops by the sponsors of the resolution show they cannot be trusted to stand by their own past declarations. Israel thus betrayed should not be expected to bow to every new whim of the moment. Add to that betrayal the role of the United Nations as the world epicenter for hatred of Israel and Jews, and it is absurd to argue that Israel has any obligation to submit to its demands.
4] It Will Bring Peace and Stability to the Middle East
On the contrary :
It will establish a Middle Eastern national base for terror, that will spread incitement, bloodshed, and mortal danger not only to Israel but also to Arab regimes in the neighborhood.
The citizens supposed to build this peaceful and stable state will be the
ones that the PLO regime of the last eight years has programmed to hatred
and contempt, to yearn to earn martyrdom by murdering Jews. They will be the
hysterics who run through the streets, some in costumes to rival the Ku Klux
Klan, brandishing weapons and shrieking curses and threats.
5] It Will Satisfy the Demands of the Palestinian Arabs,
Who Will Give Up Terrorism And War and Settle Down to Building a Society
On the contrary:
The PLO Charter of 1964 defines its sole purpose as the destruction of Israel. (That was three years before 1967, when there were no "occupied territories to liberate.) Despite flimflam to the contrary, that Charter still stands unamended, and so does the goal.
The PLO openly and repeatedly proclaims that it will never settle for less
than every inch between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – including
all of what it now the State of Israel. If it condescends to accept a smaller
state it will be only as a interim measure, to facilitate the future destruction
of Israel. [See Issue 5.]
6] A State of Palestine Will Honor a Pledge to Respect Israel's Right to Exist
On the contrary:
The PLO has to date made six formal agreements with Israel, and in the past year alone it has pledged seven ceasefires. Not a single term or clause of any of them has been kept for a single day. To expect any other behavior in the future defies basic common sense.
Repeated statements by officials of the Fatah, Hamas, and other member bodies of the PLO declare over and over again that their goal is the end of Israel, the expulsion of the Jews, and an Arab Palestinian State from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.
7] A State of Palestine Will Be Demilitarized And Thus No Danger To Israel
On the contrary:
There were limitations in the Oslo Accords – a police force of no more than 8,000 and no heavy weapons. Today the PLO has a military force of at least 50,000 with heavy weapons. More are smuggled in constantly, from Egypt, Syria and elsewhere.
If Israel is deprived of the strategic defense line of the Jordan valley and the highlands to the west, then its width will be reduced to nine miles . The PLO state can become militarized in mere hours (as was the "demilitarized" Sinai in 1967), and forces from Iraq and Syria can sweep in without hindrance.
8] It Will Secure the Human Rights of the Palestinian Arabs:
On the contrary:
The PLO regime in the areas it controls in Judea, Samaria and Gaza has nothing at all to its credit in human rights, and everything to its discredit. (This should have been expected from the example of its rule over southern Lebanon in the 1980s.) Overseers of human rights who used to keep captious watch on the administration of these areas have been on an extended vacation since September 1993.
9] It Will Solve the Arab Refugee Problem
On the contrary :
The PLO insists that it will not absorb these exploited people, but will demand their "return" to Israel – meaning the destruction of Israel. The residents of the UN refugee camps also insist they will settle for nothing less than "return", and the UN that runs the camps makes sure the residents do not budge from this determination.
10] It Will Encourage Civic And Economic Development, Raise the Standard of Living and Bring Contentment to the People
On the contrary :
In areas administered by the PLO, the standard of living drops and hardship increases. Economic development is strangled by graft and corruption, and revenues are squandered. The United States and the European Union have given large donations for development, but the bulk of the money melts away or ends up in private foreign bank accounts.
11] It Will Win the Respect of World Opinion for Israel:
On the contrary:
"World opinion" is a jigsaw of many mismatched pieces. It includes a professional contempt for Israel, conspicuous especially in journalism and academia. It includes taste-makers of Europe, that has been trying to crush the Jews for two millennia and has not yet given up the habit. It has ancient roots in religious convictions, and in history, and new shoots of resentment and envy. There are even a few examples here and there of good sense and fair play.
The good sense and fair play are not found in that portion of "world opinion" that makes relentless demands on Israel -- sometimes masquerading as "friendly advice in your own best interest". Israel is not obliged to satisfy those demands by making itself shrunken, demoralized, discredited, and vulnerable, nor would it be any better liked if it did.
That is not to say this "world opinion" never approves of anything Israel does. It did welcome with delight the self-demeaning and self-destructive Oslo Accords.
12] If a State of Palestine commits aggression against Israel, then Israel
can fight its military forces and win back what it gave away.
On the contrary:
The supporters of the Oslo Accords in 1993 also said "If they [the PLO]
do not keep their commitment to peace, we will just take the land back".
But those who said it took their words back -- or ignored that they ever
said them.
Now these areas are used as bases for terrorism against Israel. When the IDF goes in even briefly, to close down terror bases and weapons factories and dumps, the world -- including even the United States -- howls for Israel to "get out of Palestinian territory immediately". If those areas were to become territory of an Arab "State of Palestine" any defensive actions by Israel would be branded aggression against a sovereign state. It would be condemned and threatened even more harshly than when it moved against terrorism when these areas were held by Jordan and Egypt -- without sovereignty.
If these areas of the Land of Israel became a PLO state, Israel would lose even minimal control. It could not restrict import of heavy weapons, destroy weapons factories and depots, intercept terrorist activities or arrest terrorists. It could not even prevent the entry of foreign troops from other Muslim countries.
Israel, drastically restricted geographically, will be exposed and vulnerable. When the PLO and its allies launch all-out war, the cost to Israel will be horrendous.
If Israel wins a battle for survival, it still will not be able to regain what it gave away. Even if a PLO State is defeated in battle, it will not cease to exist. In all of the Arab wars against Israel, outside powers have intervened to save them from total defeat. A PLO state can thus survive defeats and repeat its aggressions.
* * * * * * *
Misconceptions and delusions, founded in calculated deception or in lazy
ignorance, are repeated without question until they become part of the convention
non-wisdom. They are then facilely accepted, without the bother of checking
facts for either confirmation or correction.
1] The lands and cities of Judea and Samaria are thought to belong to
the Palestinians, who have a right to ban Jewish interlopers.
The Palestinian-Arab claims to exclusive rights are entirely spurious. [See
Issue No. 2]. If the names of Jerusalem, Judea, Bethlehem, Hebron, Samaria,
Shechem [Nablus], Jericho, Shiloh seem familiar it is from the memory of Israelite-Jewish
history made in these places. It is the language and the religion of Israel
that were born and grew in this land. It was not Canaanites before them or
Muslims after them who made it the Holy Land.
The Jewish community is more than 3,000 years old – preceding the arrival
of Arabic-speaking residents not by mere centuries but by millennia. In 1929,
the local Arabs, with the compliance of the British, massacred or drove out
this community. In 1967, it returned – a return denounced as virtually criminal
violation of Arab rights. Because the Arabs refuse to live in peace beside
the Jews the wise and the clever can see but one solution – drive out the
Jews once more.
2] The Land of Israel and the city of Jerusalem are thought to be holy
to Islam:
The Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem
–is said to be of supreme sanctity
to Islam. In fact, it was built as the Byzantine Church of St. Mary of Justinian.
A conquering Arab caliph in 711 converted the church to a mosque, and gave
it the name
Al-Aqsa, that means
"farthest away". This
term appears in Muhammad's account of a night-time journey on a winged horse
with a human head that started from a "farthest away" place. That place is
never named. Jerusalem is never mentioned at all in the Koran. Muhammad was
never in Jerusalem, and he was never at the Al-Aqsa Mosque because the church
was not converted until 75 years after his death.
This mere change of name of this church-into-mosque is supposed to outweigh
the 3,000 years of Israel's genuine religious and historic roots in Jerusalem
and on Temple Mount. What is simple enough but too easily forgotten: Jerusalem
is holy because the Jews made it holy. If it had not been the site of the
Temples, it would have been forgotten like endless other towns of long lost
antiquity.
For the shallow-minded, to snatch it away from the Jews is shallow expediency.
For the sly, it is the means to break the Jewish heart and crush the Jewish
spirit.
The battle-cry of "Save the Al-Aqsa Mosque" is used to stir rage, but in
fact Israel has never threatened it. When Temple Mount was regained in 1967,
the Muslim Waqf was permitted to keep control of the mosques. It has exploited
this to preach incendiary sermons, to hurl rocks down on Jewish worshippers
at the Western Wall below, and to calculatedly destroy every Jewish historical
relic that it can unearth. This does not disturb the world's guardians of
morality, just as Jordan's 19-year-ban on Jews at the Jewish holy places did
not disturb them.
In the Middle Ages, Arabs built a mosque over this most ancient Jewish holy
place, and thereafter banned any Jew from entering. Only in 1967 was the site
opened to both Muslims and Jews.
Nevertheless, there are still official and unofficial personages who will
with perfectly straight faces agree with the Arab contention that the tomb
of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of Israel is a Muslim holy place where the
Children of Israel dare not presume to enter..
* * * * * * *
WHY IS IT THAT --
1] Arabs go safely among Jews. Jews cannot go safely among Arabs?
Arabs live in Israel, work, elect members to the Knesset, attend schools
and universities, receive good medical treatment at hospitals, all without
hazard or harassment. A Jew who drives or visits or shops in a predominantly
Arab areas, or merely enters one mistake, may be brutally murdered.
2] sympathy is so selective?
A twelve-year-old Arab boy was caught in crossfire started by the Arabs
and killed by fire from the Arab side. A photograph was shown over and over
on television and newspapers throughout the world. Even though he was killed
by Arab fire, it was Israel that was blamed, and smeared as murdering a child.
Denmark is issuing a postage stamp to commemorate the victim and perpetuate
the smear.
An Arab sniper took careful aim and shot a fatal bullet into the head of
a ten-month-old Jewish baby girl. The world was indifferent. No country is
planning to put her picture on a postage stamp.
Two thirteen-year-old Jewish boys went out on a short hike near their hometown
of Tekoa – also the hometown of the Prophet Amos. Arabs seized them, dragged
them to a cave and beat them to death with rocks and mutilated their bodies.
The world was indifferent. No country is planning to put their pictures on
postage stamps.
3]
Israel is forbidden to make
incursions into PLO "territory"?
The PLO has no territory. Some areas were placed under its administration,
but it does not have sovereignty over them, and the administration is not
unconditional. Israel retains security rights, and is not obliged to acquiesce
when these areas are used for attacks on its citizens. Yet the U.S. State
Department and the foreign offices of other friendly states are thrown into
a tizzy by any move that blocks the route between Arab guns and Jewish targets.
4] there is so much international anguish because Arabs feel
humiliated?
They are humiliated because:
A. They made war over and over again to destroy Israel, and lost
each time.
B. They boasted to the world that they were about to destroy the
Jews, and they failed.
C. They tried to obliterate a newly reborn nation. Its people,
including survivors of the death camps, though enormously outnumbered and
with little or no training and equipment, successfully defended themselves.
D. Israel is a tiny country, with few natural resources, yet despite
war and terrorism, blockades and boycotts, and its many problems, it has thrived.
E. The Koran and Arab tradition teach that the Jews are inferior
and despicable, to be subjugated and treated with contempt. Their very existence
as a free and independent people is a cause of Arab humiliation.
Which of the above would the wise and the clever like to reverse to relieve
the Arabs of their humiliation?
* * * * * * *
Many of the conditions that make the "Palestine Problem" intractable derive
from the bungling and bad faith of the British Mandatory Government of 1921-1948.
It may almost be said that where the Middle East is concerned, British policymakers
have not guessed right in 80 years. Tony Blair seems resolved not
to blot that record.
From "A Welcome at Downing Street for The Grand Old Man of Terror"
DEBKAfile, 15 October 15 2001:
The heartiness with which British prime minister Tony Blair received Palestinian
leader Yasser Arafat . . . . at the peak of the Western alliance’s war on
terror – epitomizes the innate PR weakness of that war. In his foreshortened
Middle East trip last week, Blair . . . . was forced to skip Riyadh. The Saudi
rulers told him he would not be welcome. Maybe that snub was pleasanter than
the brushoff the Iranians administered his foreign secretary, Jack Straw,
last month in Tehran. Britain’s efforts to win Arab friends for the US-led
coalition against Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden, thus met with slammed
doors in two key Persian Gulf states. But Blair, loath to accept defeat,
was determined to prove that the Tomahawk missiles British submarines were
shooting at Afghanistan and the bombs UK warplanes were dropping on the Taliban,
know the exact difference between terrorists and Muslims.
To demonstrate his thesis, he invited Yasser Arafat to 10 Downing Street
and showed him how much he sympathized with the Palestinian cause. Insufficient
sympathy was the pretext the Arab rulers dredged up for refusing to join the
US war against terror. To prove them wrong, Blair went the whole way by not
only calling for a Palestinian state to rise soon, but addressing Arafat
as President of this as yet unreal entity and hailing him as a moderate Arab
leader.
Moderate? Disregarding the Palestinian leader’s three decades as the world’s
most innovative terrorist until the advent of Bin Laden, the British prime
minister must surely have been informed that only ten months ago, in January
2001, Arafat personally invited to Gaza - and later to the West Bank - the
finest terrorist-cum-guerrilla minds of the Lebanese Hizballah, a group which
has ranked long and high on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.
Those Hizballah activists were especially training in their craft at facilities
in northern Iran at the hands of instructors under the direct command of Imad
Mughniyeh, who is on the American list of the 22 most wanted terrorists in
the world.
Those highly-trained terror operatives went to work with a will as soon
as they arrived in Palestinian areas, working to the guidelines they received
from the future president of the future Palestinian state. Their task was
to train agents of Arafat’s security bodies – especially the services run
by Muhamed Dahlan and Muhamed El Hindi – in the arts of building powerful
car bombs, putting together suicide teams, the correct mix for explosive belts
strapped to those suicides’ bodies, the use of mortars and the storming of
military positions and settlements.
Up until the moment he stepped into the drawing room of 10 Downing Street,
the 'moderate' Palestinian leader had not detained a single Hizballah militant
or even interrupted the jobs he gave them to do. Neither has he arrested any
of the more than 100 Hizballah-trained Palestinian terror activists, wanted
for a whole range of murderous actions against civilians. . . . . Blair may
choose to believe Arafat; Israel cannot afford to, knowing from painful experience
that his promises have nothing to do with his performance.
* * * * * * *
Excerpts from "Survivor's Quiz: Living with Terror", by Miriam Himmelfarb,
National Review Online
, 25 September 2001:
In the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, I've
created a multiple-choice quiz to test your ability to deal with terrorism.
Since I've lived in Jerusalem for the past 15 years, many of the examples
are from Israeli life. I think, though, that they provide food for thought
for other nations as well.
Racial profiling:
You are walking down a street in Israel on a warm summer's day, when you
see a man wearing a heavy coat. His mid-section is bulging, and he looks like
an Arab. You wonder if the man has explosives strapped to his chest. What
do you do?
(a) Nothing. You don't believe in racial profiling.
(b) Run like the wind, and call the cops the moment you catch
your breath.
The correct answer is (b). If you answered (a), you will be named humanitarian
of the year, but the prize will be awarded posthumously.
Targeted killings, a.k.a. pre-emptive assassinations:
You are an intelligence service. You have concrete information that a known
terrorist is planning attacks on your citizens. Alternatively, you know that
a terrorist has been responsible for slaughtering your citizens in the past,
and have reason to believe that he will strike again. What do you do?
(a) Nothing. Killing the man without due process is immoral and
possibly illegal. If you stoop to the level of the terrorists, they have won.
(b) Ask Yasser Arafat to arrest him.
(c) Liquidate the terrorist ASAP.
The correct answer is (c). This is war. You will save countless lives by
killing him, and letting him live is immoral. If you answered (a), the "human-rights"
organizations will award you a medal, but you may be responsible for the deaths
of innocent people. If you answered (b), you will be placed in the nearest
psychiatric ward and treated for delusional fantasies . . .
Motive:
Why do terrorists commit such acts?
(a) Because they are poor and have no hope. The answer is to stamp
out poverty in the world.
(b) Because they are Muslim fundamentalists who hate the United
States and/or Israel.
The correct answer is (b). Bin Laden is a millionaire, and according to
an Israeli expert on terrorism who studied Muslim suicide bombers, they come
from all different socio-economic strata.
[Comment: Yasser Arafat is known to have billions of dollars in his hidden
bank accounts.]
Restraint:
How does the Colin Powell Dictionary of the English Language define "restraint"?
(a) What Israel should
exercise when its citizens are slaughtered in terrorist attacks.
(b) What the U.S. should not exercise when its citizens are slaughtered
in terrorist attacks.
(c). Both of the above.
The correct answer is (c). At a press conference shortly after the September
11 attacks, Powell was asked a question that went something like this: You've
been urging others [i.e., Israel] to exercise restraint. What do you think
about restraint in the context of these latest attacks? Oddly enough, Powell
didn't think restraint was appropriate for the U.S. That did not stop him,
however, from recommending in the same press conference that Shimon Peres
meet as soon as possible with Yasser Arafat.
* * * * * * *
In PLO-land, visitors flock to an exhibit celebrating the terrorist-bombing
of the Sbarro Pizza Restaurant in Jerusalem. It is meticulously crafted, with
a mock-up of the ruins of the restaurant and simulated remains of the dead
and wounded.
END