FRONT PAGE  I INSTANT LOGIN I  MEMBER'S AREA I YEAR 2006:  APR. I MARCH I FEBRUARY-JANUARY  I QUICK LINKS TO MAJOR JEWISH EVENTS at http://www.newyorkmonthlyherald.com  I AP I CONTACT: Staff and Writers I

WORLD JEWISH NEWS AGENCY.

COLUMN OF RACHEL NEUWIRTH

YOU HAVE REACHED THE COLUMN OF RACHEL NEUWIRTH...YOU HAVE REACHED THE COLUMN OF RACHEL NEUWIRTH...

Skip to main content Access keys help
REACHING 2,250.000 READERS AROUND THE GLOBE
|
                                                                                          
 

APRIL 2006

NEWS. POLITICS

4-USA

COMMENTARIES. ARTICLES

INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING

IN-DEPTH ARTICLES

ENTERTAINMENT

 

LIFESTYLE

SOCIETY, PEOPLE

CULTURE, ARTS, LEARNING

3-Arts

 

 

A Reply to Jimmy Carter


Thanks to Salomon Benzimra for his contribution to this article

In recent years, former President Jimmy Carter has shown a growing animosity toward Israel.  Just this past January, at the Herzliya Conference, President Carter must have astounded his audience when he declared that “you can’t have a Palestinian state living in peace and dignity if it is filled with Israeli settlements.”  Doesn’t he know that Israeli Jews have been trying to live in peace and dignity in their state even though their country is filled with over a million Arabs? 

Ignorance of the facts or mischievous assertions? Three months later, in an article published jointly in Pakistan’s Daily Times and Israel’s Haaretz, President Carter made another blunder, most likely intentional: “The unwavering US position since Dwight Eisenhower’s administration has been that Israel’s borders coincide with those established in 1949, and, since 1967, the universally adopted UN Resolution 242 has mandated Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories.” No one in his right mind would read UN Resolution 242 in those terms, implying a return to the 1949 armistice line. But Jimmy Carter’s latest article  – published in USA Today on May 15, 2006, with the provocative title ”Israel’s new Plan: a Land Grab” –  is definitely a tour de force of innuendos, half-truths, distortions and blatant lies.  It is said that putting someone to shame, especially a world-renowned individual, is neither fair nor elegant.  But when a former President of the United States manages to include two major errors in his introductory paragraph and then goes on with a crescendo of distortions, perhaps we should dispense with the usual niceties accorded to his rank. President Carter either doesn’t know what he is talking about or, worse, is knowingly and shamelessly peddling falsehoods.  He introduces his article with phrases like “the Palestinian West Bank” and the “the internationally recognized boundary between Israel and Palestine.”  When did the “West Bank” become Palestinian?  Even UN Resolution 338, written as late as 1973, and all the preceding UN Resolutions, never mention the word “Palestinian”.  No such international recognition was ever granted, as clearly shown in UN Resolution 242. These allegations by President Carter are nothing short of deceitful since they imply, wrongly, that Israel took over territory rightfully belonging to another nation. He then goes on to further mislead the uninformed by saying that   “the only division of territory between Israel and the Palestinians that is recognized by the United States or the international community awarded 77% of the land to the nation of Israel.”This, from a former U.S. president, who should know (and probably knows) that no such ratio was ever recognized and that, in fact, the international community allocated in 1922 the entire territory between the Jordan River and the sea to the future Jewish State.  It is also ironic that President Carter views the Gaza Strip (where there have been no Jews since August 2005) as a “politically and economically non-viable region.” 

Gaza may be  considered an experiment in Palestinian self-government which is failing owing to strife within the Palestinian community, but there is no inherent reason why small populous territories cannot be viable. Look at the success of Singapore. Perhaps the former president could explain how “Palestine” could be made more viable when the same Jew-free status is extended to the West Bank. President Carter is obviously against the Olmert Plan of partial disengagement from the “West Bank.”  He is not the only one to oppose this plan.  But if Carter finds it unacceptable, Probably it is because he still clings to the widely discredited Oslo-type paradigm which has only brought bloodshed since its inception. The provisions of the Oslo Accords and the later Roadmap routinely have been breached by the Palestinians, who have shown time and time again that their real objective is not to create a viable state but to destroy Israel in whatever number of phases it would take following successive territorial concessions.  The present situation in Gaza, with its simmering chaos and the rocket attacks against Israel, is a corroborating proof of the Palestinian strategy. President Carter would make us believe that “the nation of Israel was founded [by] U.N. Security Council resolutions.”  This assertion is simply astounding.  Like many of his Arab supporters, President Carter’s historical horizon seems to be conveniently limited to 1967 or, at best, to 1948.  It is hard to believe that a former world leader of this stature would be so ignorant of history.

For President Carter, any partial withdrawal from the “West Bank” is tantamount to “confiscation and colonization.”  Of course, having established at the outset that “Palestine’s internationally recognized boundaries” would be violated by such a partial withdrawal, why is he talking about “colonization” – like the Belgians in Congo, the British in India, or the French in Indochina?  How could anyone expect truth resulting from a wrong premise?  I cannot understand how President Carter can lower himself to the same scurrilous abyss as Israel’s worst detractors. The proposal put forward by President Carter is to engage in “good-faith negotiations” with Mahmud Abbas, even though the  “recently elected Hamas legislators will never recognize nor negotiate with Israel while Palestinian land is being occupied.” Negotiating in “good-faith” with a democratically elected terrorist government that is neither prepared to “recognize” Israel nor to “negotiate” with it?  Only in President Carter’s mind can such a contradiction in terms thrive.  And he then tells us that Hamas would be prepared to “recognize and negotiate” when “Palestinian land is no longer occupied”.  What is there to negotiate, then? President Carter apparently never reads the Arab press.  Less than a month ago, Moussa Abu Marzuk, deputy-head of Hamas declared:  “One of Hamas’ founding principles is that it does not recognize Israel. We [participated in] the elections and the people voted for us based on this platform.  Therefore, the question of recognizing Israel is definitely not on the table unless it withdraws from ALL the Palestinian lands, not only to the 1967 borders.” The will of the Palestinian people who elected Hamas is clear; Hamas’ objectives are clear; their statements in Arabic are clear; their actions on the ground are clear; only President Carter is deluded, consciously or not. Deluded, indeed, when he assures us that “a substantial number of Israeli settlers [could be] undisturbed on Palestinian land.”  The last time “settlers” (read “Jews”, since illegal Arab settlers in far greater numbers are never mentioned) were living in so-called “Palestinian land” was before 1948, and they were certainly not undisturbed.  Up to 1967, every Jew living there had been either murdered or expelled.  Even their graves were not left undisturbed.  Why should we expect anything different now or in the foreseeable future?  It is also interesting to note how this statement squarely contradicts his own earlier warning against “settlers” at the Herzliya Conference (see above).  In his closing remarks, President Carter ominously parrots a well known piece of Arab propaganda.  The Israeli-Palestinian situation, he tells us, is  “one of the major causes of international terrorism…that could precipitate a regional or even global conflict.”   In that, he is unison with Amr Moussa, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Noam Chomsky and other luminaries of the far left, not to mention those enlightened Europeans who believe that Israel is the predominant threat to world peace, as shown in a 2003 poll.  But the onus is on President Carter to demonstrate that Israel is directly or indirectly responsible for the Islamic terrorism that has been rampant for the past decade.  Let us not forget: Paris subway, 1995; Nairobi and Dar-es-Salam U.S. embassies, 1998; Manhattan Twin Towers, 2001; Bali nightclub, 2002; Istanbul synagogues, 2003; Riyadh western compound, 2003;  Casablanca hotel and Spanish club, 2003;  Madrid train, 2004; London subway, 2005; Iraq kidnappings, beheadings and internecine bloodshed since 2003; Amman wedding party, 2005, and the multiple bombings and bloody terror attacks in India.

Blaming Israel for these events certainly takes a twisted mind intent on perverting reality in a most despicable way. President Carter’s many interventions in the world scene since the end of his presidency have not been free of controversy.  He has been often criticized by both sides of the political spectrum.  But on the Arab-Israeli conflict his positions have been routinely against Israel for the past few years and in favor of its enemies, in spite of glaring evidence.

_________________________________________________________________

George Bush's Diplomatic Ambiguities
 

The majority of the Palestinian Arabs voted for Hamas and the Bush administration acts surprised and shocked. They denounce Hamas and are squirming to find ways to still proceed with a fictional "peace process" based on an ill-conceived scheme called the Roadmap.

The Israeli government was very reluctant to have that election take place. It feared a Hamas victory would also legitimize it despite its being a declared terrorist organization. It was Condoleezza Rice who demanded that Israel permit the election and allow Jerusalem Arabs to vote. The word is 'demanded' and not 'requested' because it was reported that Rice's demand came with a threat to punish Israel if they objected. And yet, when Rice addressed the U.S. Institute of Peace on August 19, 2004, she defended "the President's clear message and consistent practice" in his foreign policy against Islamic extremism and she declared "True victory will come not merely when the terrorists are defeated by force, but when the ideology of death and hatred is overcome by the appeal of life and hope, and when lies are replaced by truth." But this kind of clarity and consistency has been sorely lacking in the American policy toward Israel. This is not the first time that an American administration has made demands that come with threats. In the past the administration has withheld military and financial aid until Israel bowed to U.S. demands even when those demands put Israel in greater danger. Contrast this with America's kid glove treatment of Egypt. To this day Egypt continues to violate the letter and spirit of its so-called peace agreement with Israel and is un-cooperative with U.S. interests in many respects. But for Egypt American military and economic aid continues unimpeded. Bush also gave an extra two million dollars for the Palestinian Authority to help them campaign and presumably be the 'moderate' side in the election.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040819-5.html



The Bush Administration objects to Hamas' openly announced goal to destroy Israel, a declaration explicitly contained in the Hamas covenant. But Yasser Arafat and the PLO were little different in substance from Hamas, yet the U.S. found them to be acceptable partners for peace and worthy of massive assistance. Yasser Arafat also had a PLO covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. This did not block U.S. support for Arafat and the PLO. In the early 1990's the U.S. government coached Arafat to publicly utter a few words, in English, recognizing Israel's right to exist and promising to forgo terrorism. In return for these empty words Israel was pressed for significant concessions as if such an empty gesture from a terrorist requires some kind of reward. Putting a fig leaf on terrorism is hailed as a diplomatic achievement. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/28/102708.shtml
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm


the color greenWhen the PLO covenant became a diplomatic embarrassment Bill Clinton went to Gaza to attend a meeting of the PLO ruling council. In a staged 'show of hands' the council voted to amend the infamous covenant. Clinton promptly hailed the vote as removing this onerous obstacle to peace and proceeded with the Oslo Accords, plus a dozen visits of Arafat to the White House and gave hundreds of millions to Arafat and the PA. The PA/PLO continued to show a map of 'Palestine' in which there was no Israel and with no objection from the U.S. administration. And the original PLO covenant remained in effect with not a single article officially amended. http://www.internationalwallofprayer.org/A-077-The-Infamous-PLO-Covenant.html
http://www.likud.nl/govern24.html


 

Jack Club Casino

Arafat was persuaded to confine his inflammatory rhetoric against Israel to speeches in Arabic while sounding more 'moderate' in English. Arafat wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, Feb. 3, 2002, titled "The Palestinian Vision of Peace": He stated: "I condemn the attacks carried out by terrorists groups against Israeli civilians. These groups do not represent the Palestinian people or their legitimate aspirations for freedom." Three days later, he addressed a rally in Ramallah (in Arabic) and he called for "a million martyrs marching on Jerusalem." Just a few hours after that speech, a Palestinian terrorist from Arafat's own Fatah movement, murdered three Israeli civilians, among them an 11 year old girl. The next day, Arafat's "Voice of Palestine" broadcast jubilant praises for the "heroic martyr." So much for the "Palestinian Vision of Peace." Hamas, in contrast, is simply more honest about its intentions and refuses any cajoling to at least sound conciliatory in English so that our State Department could resume business as usual.
http://www.tampabayprimer.org/index.cfm?action=articles&drill=viewArt&art=253

In violation of the letter and spirit of the 1993 Oslo Accords, Arafat continued his violence and condoned acts of terror. After Ehud Barak's 97% offers to Arafat at Camp David, Arafat launched an even more bloody second intifada. Meanwhile U.S. diplomacy continued along with U.S. funds to the PLO/PA.  When George Bush took office he refused to meet with Arafat but increased PLO/PA funding thus giving mixed signals. President Bush then embraced Arafat's long term close partner Mahmoud Abbas as the new 'moderate' Palestinian leader. Abbas was one of the founders of the Fatah terrorist organization and funded the terrorists who massacred 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. He is also a Holocaust denier, a full partner in terror with Arafat who also refused to disarm or oppose Palestinian terror. To this day George Bush supports Abbas.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6340
http://www.kentimmerman.com/2003_06_30abbas.htm


The Bush administration makes a show of complaining that Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist. But for all of Israel's existence since 1948 every American administration has refused to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Muslims have Mecca and Medina and have no religious or historical connection to Jerusalem except for politically-based false claims. Since the end of the Crusades, Christians no longer have any political claim on Jerusalem. In contrast Jerusalem is the holy city of Judaism from biblical times having been Israel's capital twice during the periods of the First and Second Temples. Jerusalem is mentioned countless times in both the Hebrew and Christian bibles and never once in the Koran. And yet America singles out Israel as the only country in the world where we steadfastly refuse to recognize its capital. In recognition of historic truth and justice the U.S. Congress, reflecting the will of the American people, voted to move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and allocated funds for that purpose. That action is part of American law. Both Bill Clinton and George Bush, when campaigning for office, promised to promptly move our embassy to Jerusalem. Both men promptly reneged on that promise upon taking office citing American national interest which suddenly became the excuse. The real reason is that the Arabs want to deny any legitimacy to Israel as a nation and the U.S. administration is afraid to annoy the Arabs thus giving them a veto over American decisions. The ongoing and indefinite refusal to move the embassy, along with excluding Israel from NATO membership, could certainly be seen by the Arabs as a clear signal that America regards Israel's existence as temporary. In turn, these signals encourage the Arabs to be even more intransigent in their refusal to make peace with Israel. In 1998 Israel was commemorating the three thousandth anniversary of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel under King David. Martin Indyk, the then U.S. ambassador to Israel, petulantly boycotted that ceremony to show his disapproval. Bill Clinton did not rein in his undiplomatic and outrageous ambassador who, ironically, is also Jewish. And, it must be conceded that, shamefully, the ever self-debasing American Jewish leadership could muster no courage to say anything.

As an aside, a rare exception that proved the rule occurred in January 2001. The Israeli government, under Prime Minister Ehud Barak, proposed the unthinkable. He offered to divide Jerusalem, the heart of Judaism, with a large part going to Israel's enemies, the PLO/PA. The people of Israel protested in a massive rally in Jerusalem. Mr. Ron Lauder, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, joined the protesters' rally as a private citizen because his constituent organization was shamefully unable to produce a majority to oppose dividing Jerusalem. This is another example that any Jew who courageously stands for Jewish rights and Judaic principles will be vigorously undermined by Jewish leaders more inclined towards self-debasement and appeasement than with standing for principle.
http://www.forward.com/issues/2001/01.01.12/news1.html

What is the real message from the Bush Administration regarding Hamas? Are we to believe that Bush really objects to any attempt to destroy Israel? We certainly would like to believe that. Or is the real message that those who would destroy Israel should rather follow the successful protocol of deception pioneered by Yasser Arafat with coaching from the U.S. State Department?

* Bertram Cohen and Salomon Benzimra contributed to this article.


 

 

 

 

 

MORE ARTICLES BY RACHEL NEUWIRTH AT THE SITE OF THE WORLD JEWISH NEWS AGENCY "SOCIOPOLITICAL COMMENTARIES"

1-The FBI's investigation of AIPAC. 2-WITH GEORGE BUSH AS A FRIEND.3-Nagging questions about the war in Iraq. 4-Nuclear Iran. 5-REPORT CARD ON AMERICAN JEWISH LEADERSHIP. 6-A Win-Win Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict.  7-Gaza Disengagement - Trigger to an avalanche. 8-A modest proposal. 9-Local Citizen Response During a Crisis: Jewish Leaders Need to Lead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SEPTEMBER 2005 COMMENTARIES

Local Citizen Response During a Crisis: Jewish Leaders Need to Lead

Written by Rachel Neuwirth, World Jewish News Agency, Socio-Political Commentator and Columnist.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005

To read the article in Internet format

The tragic events following Hurricane Katrina continue to command our national attention--understandably so.  At the same time we must not lose sight of other immense dangers still facing our nation. There also needs to be an evaluation of the role of American Jewish leaders in responding to these ongoing dangers.

History offers important lessons that need to be learned.  Unfortunately, it is too often the case that, ''what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.''  After 9/11 we discovered that many prior warnings were unheeded, overlooked, and underestimated.  And, astonishingly, none of our high officials who bungled their responsibilities were relieved of their positions.  Some lower level whistleblowers, in attempting to do their patriotic duty, found themselves in trouble for embarrassing their superiors.

After 9/11 the Office of Homeland Security was created and generously funded.  We were told that we were now prepared for a variety of emergencies.  Four years later, Hurricane Katrina struck.  Again we are discovering that warnings were issued during the past decade.  Those warnings went unheeded and we were unprepared to act in time.  We recovered from 9/11 but at a high price.  We can expect to recover from Hurricane Katrina, too, but we will pay another high price.  But now we could be facing the greatest danger of all, from which recovery may not be possible. A long series of reports have been warning about a possible nuclear attack inside America by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. These reports warn of the coming together of critical elements which would comprise an immense threat.  These elements include: al-Qaeda’s acquiring a supply of nuclear weapons; their being able to smuggle them into America; their inserting trained sleeper agents into America; their ability to detonate those weapons simultaneously inside major cities; and the absolute will to use them at a time of their choosing.  Their purpose would not be to just deliver another 9/11-type blow.  Rather it would aim to inflict immense casualties, cripple our infrastructure, and reduce American status as a world power.

Is such an apocalyptic event actually possible?  Can we even contemplate it objectively?  When imagining such dire prospects the human mind may go into deep denial and even express anger at the messenger--all that as a human defense mechanism.  Nevertheless, we must not flinch from objectively facing the question.  If the danger is real we must maintain a clear head and act in time. 

Americans should keep informed about this threat to our national security.  The latest [www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46235] in a series of informative reports was posted September 8, 2005, on WorldNetDaily.com.  Links to numerous prior reports are provided at the end of the article.  These reports include various governmental and private information sources that explain just how al-Qaeda has been able to mount such a dire threat to our country. A timely response to this threat is especially urgent because of reports suggesting the al-Queda may be contemplating an attack during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan that begins October 4 and lasts a month.  All this shifts the focus of response to include the American grass roots level.  Hurricane Katrina demonstrated how much valuable help came from ordinary American citizens who responded spontaneously and often were way ahead of government, which failed badly.  We still lack massive citizen preparations in advance of a future national emergency.

StandWithUs.com & StandWithUsCampus.comThe public needs to be organized, trained and prepared in local communities.  Homes need to be stocked with emergency supplies.  Local leaders need to be assigned in each neighborhood.  People need to know what to do, whom to contact, and where to go in any emergency.  Emergency communications need to be in place in advance.  People with special needs need to be identified, as well as able-bodied people who will be trained and available when needed.  This would make the entire nation one, integrated, well-prepared civil defense camp.  The purpose of all this is to prepare to absorb any blow, minimize the casualties, avoid chaos, and improve the chances for recovery. Wherever possible, the local preparations could be more easily organized within ethnic and religious communities.  Local religious and community leaders already know their constituents and how to contact them.  The unaffiliated would also be organized separately but minus the affiliated population that would present less of a task.  There are compelling reasons why the American Jewish community should lead the way in local organizing among their own constituents.  American Jews have special vulnerabilities in a terror attack.  They comprise less than 2% of the American population and are mostly concentrated in major urban areas, which have already been cited as prime targets for attack.  In any attack, Jews would therefore suffer proportionally far more than almost any other ethnic or religious community.  Also, Jewish history is one of long standing persecution, including Israel, which must live under constant terror attack in every part of that country.   This increased vulnerability should motivate and energize a timely response by American Jewish leaders that comprise the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.  Their example would be especially valuable in encouraging a similar response among all other ethnic and religious denominations in America.  The potential benefits to American security would be huge but, unfortunately, the American Jewish leadership has failed to act in this regard.

This failure of American Jewish leaders is all the more disappointing because it contrasts sharply with other recent events directly involving Jews.  At least ten American Jewish organizations are collecting funds for Hurricane Relief. It was reported that some 5,000 Jews were among those forced to evacuate the areas struck by the hurricane.  Israeli Jews have already delivered 80 tons of essential supplies to America and offered to take displaced American college students to Israeli universities.  This prompt Israeli response comes from a tiny nation suffering her own severe hardships due to unrelenting attacks from her Arab enemies.

The 9/11 tragedy and Katrina are warnings.  We cannot afford to be unprepared for a nuclear 9/11.
 

 

COMMENTARY

JULY-AUGUST 2005 COMMENTARIES

 

 

 

The FBI's investigation of AIPAC

John Landau contributed research and reporting to this article. The extremely comfortable and secure American Jewish community is totally unaware of the deadly peril that is even now threatening the security that it takes for granted. But in the near future, this peril will become too visible and immediate to be ignored any longer. I speak of the FBI's ongoing investigation of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee -AIPAC-- which has been ongoing for four years now and is very far from being over. A low-ranking civilian employee of the Pentagon, Larry Franklin, was formally charged on May 4 with having given classified information two years previously to two high-ranking executives of AIPAC who were not legally entitled to the information.  The two former AIPAC officials, Steve Rosen, the Director of research about foreign policy issues for AIPAC, and Keith Weissman, the deputy director of policy research with responsibility for policy towards Iran, were dismissed from their positions in January as the investigation of them gathered momentum. Four even more senior AIPAC executives, Executive Director Howard Kohr, Managing Director Richard Fishman, Research Director Rafael Danziger and Communications Director Renee Rothstein, were grilled by a grand jury in December 2004. AIPAC's offices have been raided twice by the FBI, and computer discs belonging to the two suspects have been seized.

No one is sure exactly when the other shoe will drop. But both FBI and AIPAC "sources" speaking off the record have said they expect that Rosen and Weissman will also be arrested and charged with having passed on the informat ion, which they are alleged to have known was classified "top secret," to Israel. They are not suspected of having actually received or passed on secret documents to Israel-only information that Franklin had gleaned from reading such documents. According to the complaint filed by the FBI against Franklin, the information he is supposed to have conveyed to the two AIPAC executives concerned possible terrorist threats to U.S. soldiers in Iraq from groups and individuals supported by Iran.

Why is any of this important to the American Jewish community?

Polls taken by the Anti-Defamation League have shown that the prejudice held most widely by their fellow Americans against American Jews is the belief that they are more loyal to the state of Israel than to the United States. According to the ADL polls, fully half of the American public suspects their Jewish compatriots of "dual loyalty." One striking example of the practical consequences of this prejudice is the almost incredibly harsh sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole that was imposed on Jonathan Pollard for spying for Israel in 1985.  Pollard has already served twenty years of his sentence, with no end to it except his death in sight. By contrast, all individuals convicted of spying for other countries allied to, or even on reasonably cordial terms with, the United States have received sentences of less than ten years.

The investigation of AIPAC, if it leads to the conviction of AIPAC executives, is certain to greatly increase this prejudice and give it new respectability among America's elite classes government officials, journalists, academics, think-tankers and all other decision-makers and opinion-makers. AIPAC is widely perceived in the Washington "beltway" as a representative of the American Jewish community as a whole.

AIPAC is sponsored and supported in one way or another by nearly all of the organizations represented on the board of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group that speaks for the American Jewish community to the U.S. government.  It is not a marginal group that has been denounced by all mainstream American Jewish organizations and leaders, like the Jewish Defense League, whose leader, Irving Rubin, was arrested for alleged conspiracy two years ago, and who then died under suspicious circumstances in prison. Nor are AIPAC's leaders like Jonathan Pollard, a low-ranking government employee without connections to the rich and powerful, who acted entirely on his own to provide Israel with intelligence about terrorist organizations and hostile Arab regimes.

By contrast, AIPAC and its executives are perceived to be at the center of the American Jewish "establishment," the "organized American Jewish community." If AIPAC is discredited in the eyes of the American public as a nest of spies, then the loyalty of every single American Jew will be put in question. In addition, there are indications that AIPAC is not the sole, perhaps not even the main, target of the FBI's investigation. Speaking off the record,
FBI "sources" have suggested to reporters at the Los Angeles Times and the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that high-ranking Jewish officials of the U.S. government, especially the so-called "neoconservatives" in the Department of Defense, are in the FBI's counterintelligence crosshairs as well.  One such "neocon," Douglas Feith, heads the office at the Pentagon at which the alleged spy Larry Franklin worked. Feith's name, along with that of former Assistant Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz, has figured prominently in the FBI's off-the-record "backgrounders" to journalists. Our surmise that the Jewish officials in the Department of Defense who supported President Bush's decision to invade Iraq are "persons of interest" to the FBI has been confirmed by anonymous sources at the Pentagon, who have told reporters that internal disputes within the U.S. intelligence community about the accuracy of the United States' prewar intelligence about Iraq are the real motives behind the investigation of Larry Franklin and AIPAC.But it is Israel itself that is probably the FBI investigators' primary target. The anonymous FBI 'sources," speaking to LA Times and New York Times reporters, have claimed that Israel runs a larger espionage operation in, and against, the United States than any other foreign country except Russia. This allegation has been vehemently denied by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who says that Israel has not spied on the United States since the Pollard affair in 1985.

What will the AIPAC case mean for Israel? AIPAC has been the main advocate for Israel's interests with Congress and successive administrations in Washington for more than a generation. If Israel's principal American advocates in Washington are branded as Israeli spies, American friendship with Israel will be severely strained. And it is by no means certain that Israel and her six million Jewish inhabitants, surrounded by far more numerous enemies baying for their blood, can survive without at least one powerful friend somewhere in the world. And what does the FBI's AIPAC probe mean for the United States? Clearly the four year investigation of one of America's closest allies in the war on terrorism and its American supporters must have consumed millions of dollars, and hundreds of hours of time put in by highly trained agents, that could have been better spent in fighting the war on terrorism.

Does America have anything to lose as a result of the AIPAC investigation?
Potentially, a great deal. Far from being sympathetic to the terrorists who have attacked American civilians and soldiers over the past four years and have killed over four thousand Americans, Israel has provided the United States with massive assistance in fighting them. This assistance has included a constant flow of information gathered by Israeli intelligence to the United States, the training of American soldiers by their very experienced Israeli counterparts in counter-terrorist and counterinsurgency tactics, and logistical support for our troops in Iraq. The United States military, according to many well-informed sources, quietly and without fanfare maintains supply bases in Israel for the war in Iraq and to meet other possible security threats in the region. American and Israeli forces have conducted joint maneuvers along Israel's Mediterranean coast.  Israeli engineers have developed much of the American military's cutting-edge weapons technology in recent years. A highly publicized show trial focused on supposed espionage by a loyal and very helpful ally of the United States would put this military and intelligence cooperation, and with it the national security of the United States, in the gravest jeopardy. Are the accusations against Larry Franklin and the two AIPAC officials true
? Does AIPAC engage in espionage against the United States? Does Israel?

What are the motives behind the investigation? Who is spearheading it? Have enemy agents infiltrated the FBI itself? Are certain officials in the FBI and other U.S. agencies anti-Semitic? Stay tuned!

WITH GEORGE BUSH AS A FRIEND . . .

[It is with heavy heart that it has become necessary to document the actions of a President we had supported and believed in. His actions are a betrayal of our most loyal ally and are endangering the security of the state of Israel.]

Many believe the often repeated assertion that George Bush is giving one-sided support for Israel and that this policy is harming U.S. relations with the Arabs. There are two things wrong with that belief. First, it totally ignores Israel’s loyal support for America and its huge contribution to our security over the decades. That issue will be examined in greater detail in a subsequent column. The second fallacy is that George Bush is a true friend of Israel in the first place.

George Bush's 'Roadmap' for Israel and the Palestinians is jointly sponsored by the so-called ' Quartet,' composed of the United States, Russia, Europe, and the U.N. These last three are all hostile to both America and Israel and biased in favor of the Palestinian Arabs. America would never allow these three to influence our decisions about our own national security. Yet Bush has invited them to influence Israel’s decisions about its own national security.

Bush is intent on creating a second Palestinian Arab state inside Israel’s heartland, even though Jordan has been a Palestinian state for sixty years. Israel is trying its best to accommodate this ill-conceived idea, but has raised 14 security issues that need to be resolved before its implementation. Bush has refused to accommodate any of Israel’s 14 security concerns. Meanwhile, he is pressing Israel to carry out the ethnic cleansing of Jews from parts of their ancient homeland, all of them within the area designated by the League of Nations eighty-three years ago as a national home for the Jewish people. His double standard requires the expulsion of Jews from historically Jewish areas because they are claimed by Arabs, while allowing Arabs to live anywhere, including inside Israel. Nowhere else in the world is such ethnic cleansing tolerated. The U.S. even went to war in Bosnia and Kosovo to oppose alleged ethnic cleansing of Muslims by Serbs.

Bush is trying to push Israel back to the highly vulnerable "Auschwitz borders" (so named by Abba Eban) of 1949, within which Israel was only 9 miles wide at its densely populated middle, and Jerusalem was split in two by barbed wire. He has totally ignored the recommendations of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, submitted to President Lyndon Johnson following the Six-Day War in 1967, that Israel's minimum security needs required that it permanently retain control of Gaza and the high ground in the West Bank--even though modern weapons now make Israel's 1949 armistice lines even more vulnerable than they were in 1967, when Nasser attempted to wipe Israel off the map. The planned expulsion of many thousands of Jews from Gaza and Samaria in response to U.S. pressure will further traumatize and demoralize the Israeli people, and in addition devastate their economy, since the immense relocation costs will be borne entirely by Israel. The U.S. government has not offered to help pay even a cent of these costs. This unilateral withdrawal and forced relocation of civilians, euphemistically called a "disengagement," will demonstrate that after two thousand years of exile, homelessness, and persecution Jews are still not secure even within their biblical homeland, thanks to their "friend" George Bush. Arabs can have 5 million square miles and 22 countries, but Israel is denied security within less than 0.2% of that vast territory. Mahmoud Abbas refuses to disarm and dismantle the terrorist groups and demands extensive Israeli concessions in return for only a vague promise of something called "calm" until the end of 2005—not even a cease-fire or "truce," as these temporary, informal arrangements are traditionally called. Bush has not objected to this one-sided proposal, and he offers no U.S. security guarantee even if Israel yields to all demands.

Bush has ignored a ten- year-old Congressional mandate, the will of most Americans, and the urging of former Secretary of State George Schultz that the U.S., after 55 years of delay, at long last move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, even though he promised during the 2000 election campaign to fulfill this American commitment. Bush’s continued refusal sends a signal that Israel’s standing with his administration is inferior to that of the Arabs, and that he can be pressured to break his promises to Israel.

Bush earlier warned Israel not to harm or expel terrorist leader Yasser Arafat. This allowed Arafat to continue terror operations from Ramallah until his death, at a cost of a thousand Jewish lives. U.S aid to the Palestinians Authority, through so-called "non-governmental organizations" (or NGO’s) that it controls, continued throughout the terrorist "intifada" directed by Arafat from September 2000 until his death. Bush has now doubled U.S. aid to the PA, including training of the Palestinian 'security' forces by the CIA, despite the absence of any undertaking by the PA’s post-Arafat leadership to disband and disarm the terrorist organizations, or any serious plan to end the pervasive corruption within its own ranks. Bush’s supposed "support" for Israel includes arming Egypt and Jordan with advanced weapons over Israel’s security objections. Bush’s actions require Israel to divert major resources to protect against a potential attack from two of its "peace partners" (In 1967 Jordan attacked Israel with U.S.-supplied tanks despite U.S. assurances to the contrary and without suffering any U.S. consequences).

Bush ignores Egypt’s long standing incitement of its own people against Israel by means of relentless anti-Semitic propaganda in the government-controlled press, and the constant training and preparations of the Egyptian Army for a possible war against Israel. He also ignores Egypt’s complicity in smuggling weapons via tunnels from Egypt into Gaza to arm the Palestinian terrorists. There has been no demand by the Bush administration that Egypt put a stop to this smuggling, even though it is a flagrant violation of the Israel-Egyptian peace treaty, of which the United States is a guarantor. Nor has Bush acted to oppose the buildup of thousands of offensive missiles and Hizbullah terrorists on Israel’s northern border with Lebanon.

Bush wants to make the Palestinian state "contiguous," including a corridor linking Gaza and the West Bank. That corridor would cut Israel in half, demonstrating that Arab demands again trump Israel’s security needs and Israel’s rights. Bush has repeatedly pressed Israel to practice restraint in the face of ongoing mass killings of its people while we slowly prepared to attack Iraq. When Israel asked for some extra aid to offset her battered economy Bush indicated general agreement to encourage their further restraint, and then, without warning, cut the grant request by three quarters. Bush is pressing Israel to release large numbers of terrorists as a gesture to the PA even though past experience indicates that many go back to commit more terror.

Bush intervened when pilot-less drones previously sold by Israel to China were returned by the Chinese to Israel for routine maintenance and possible upgrading, in accordance with a contract signed by the two nations more than ten years ago. Without warning, Bush demanded that Israel confiscate the drones, which would violate this long-standing legal contract, even though the equipment utilized no American technology. These peremptory American demands threaten to damage severely Israel’s relationship with China. The Bush administration meddled in this matter even though a previous administration had approved the sale of the drones to China, and even though Israel has sold China no new weapons for many years in deference to American objections. The Bush team has placed Israel in an impossible predicament, forcing it to choose between American and Chinese friendship – even as the U.S. government subsidizes and encourages the sale of American nuclear technology to China by the Westinghouse Corporation, an "American" company wholly owned by the British government! In the absence of any consistent U.S. policy of the withholding militarily sensitive technology from China, this bullying of Israel does nothing to enhance American national security.

The Bush people have also smeared A.I.P.A.C. (the American- Israel Public Affairs Committee) by releasing rumors promising an indictment of A.I.P.A.C. executives for allegedly spying for Israel. Although this investigation has been going on for two years, it has apparently turned up no evidence that A.I.P.A.C leaded U.S. military or intelligence secrets to Israel. Meanwhile Israel’s supporters have become intimidated and reputations have been damaged, with no accountability, no apology and no punishment for those officials who did the smearing. The administration has offered no explanation concerning why the FBI has diverted investigative resources and personnel desperately needed for the war on terrorism to an investigation of a loyal ally in this war, its American supporters, and a patriotic U.S. official (not Jewish) suspected of leaking non –sensitive information to A.I.P.A.C.

The Bush people have pressed Israel to exclude from its purely defensive security fence many Israelis communities outside the 1949 armistice lines, popularly known as the "green line," (which was never an internationally recognized border between Israel and the still-nonexistent Palestinian state), in order to appease Arab opposition to the security barrier. And administration officials have said that the Israeli communities outside the U.S. – approved route of the fence will have to be "dismantled" and "evacuated." Construction of the fence has been slowed to a crawl by American interference, placing hundreds of thousands of Israeli lives at risk. Bush has demanded that Israel move the route of the security fence to about a mile from Israel’s only international civilian airport, at Lod, within easy range of shoulder-fired missiles fired by terrorists from the Arab side of the "green line".

American law provides for extradition of terrorists who kill American citizens while abroad. This law has been enforced in all cases except when Arab terrorists killed American Jews in Israel. Attorney Nathan Lewin testified on Nov. 20, 2002 before the U.S. Senate about the discrimination by Bush’s officials against American Jewish victims of Arab terror. In particular, he described the case of young David Boim, an American citizen killed by Hamas terrorists who were later briefly detained, but soon freed, by the Palestinian Authority. The State Department failed to demand the extradition of Boim’s killers to the U.S., where they could be tried for the murder of an American citizen. Attorney Lewin documented the consistent run-around he received from American officials who refused to follow U.S. extradition laws fairly when American Jews are victims. Arab terrorists have killed dozens of American Jews, but not one killer has been extradited to America for trial by the Bush administration.

Bush’s double-standard policy of demanding Israeli 'restraint' in the face of a massive Palestinian terror offensive over the past four and a half years that has cost Israel over a thousand dead and thousands wounded, many of them hideously maimed and severely disabled for life. Proportionate to its population, Israel has suffered the equivalent of 60,000 American dead and hundreds of thousands badly wounded - many times worse that our own 9/11. Bush showed little appreciation for Israeli sacrifices in blood and economic damage when he forced Israel to "show restraint' in its operations against the Palestinian terrorists, in order to protect American interests in the Arab countries

Israel has been our most loyal and most helpful ally in the war with the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq. But when Bush praises and thanks 'coalition' countries for their help, Israel is always missing from the list. Its contributions to the protecting and supplying of American soldiers in Iraq, including the existence of American supply bases in Israel, are being kept secret. This failure to publicly acknowledge Israel’s contributions has helped to foster a widespread misimpression that Israel is a burden and liability to the United States, and that it receives U. S. assistance solely to appease a supposedly all–powerful American Jewish "lobby." In reality, Israel’s assistance to America’s intelligence about the Middle East, to the development of cutting-edge military technology for our armed forces, to the training in anti-terrorist and counterinsurgency warfare for our soldiers in Iraq, and to our military logistics for re-supplying them, have been worth their weight in American gold many times over.

George Bush is actually following a long-standing American practice in that Arab oil distorts our Middle East policy. We sometimes treat our enemies better than our friends, as is the case with back-stabbers France and Saudi Arabia. We should not be surprised when other governments conclude that in some cases it is more profitable to be the enemy of America rather than a friend.

Bertram Cohen and John Landau contributed research and reporting to this article.

 

 


 


 


 

 

Nuclear Iran

The Iranian mullahs are intractable in their all-out push to achieve nuclear weapons as soon as possible.  They cunningly toy with the West while cynically insisting that their nuclear program is intended to only produce peaceful nuclear energy.  Meanwhile they prevent full inspection, and disperse and hide their facilities in underground sites protected by ground to air missiles.  They are repeatedly caught lying about their nuclear preparations and respond with more lies. They openly acquire offensive missiles with increasing capability to deliver nuclear payloads ever further and more accurately.  They vow to exterminate Israel as soon as they achieve nuclear capability.  The brazenness of the mullahs suggests a deep contempt for the West, and especially America, as they confidently flaunt their hatred and provocations and then dare us to do something about it. 

The Bush Administration faces a grim dilemma while the mullahs pour out their invective and contempt towards us.  Our so-called European ‘allies’ are insisting on a diplomatic solution which means that we cannot count on them for much more than talk.  Our government says that we are prepared to bring the matter before the Security Council as if that is supposed to impress Iran.  Such empty talk actually makes us look foolish and weak because China, France and Russia will likely veto any U.N. sanctions, and even Britain is edging away from support for the U.S.  

China just signed a seventy billion dollar deal to buy Iranian oil and Russia is proceeding to supply Iran with nuclear fuel to start up their ‘peaceful reactor’ despite urgings by the Bush administration to refrain from doing so.  There are also reports that Iran was having difficulty processing uranium to weapons-grade concentration and may be opting to simply purchase it from cash-strapped North Korea.  Even suggesting a serious economic embargo at this time might be asking too much of our so-called allies because it could raise the high price of oil still further and damage Western economies.  Ultimately they may even be prepared to live with a nuclear-armed Iran while retreating into their own world of denial and engaging in business-as- usual with Iran’s mullahs, offering endless rationalizations.

Having stated repeatedly that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, President Bush, who heads the world’s presumed superpower, has raised the stakes and he must now deliver soon. If he doesn’t, he will lose credibility which would then further embolden our enemies.  Iran and the world will smell fear and hesitation coming from the Bush administration. 

The United States faces daunting choices.  Unilateral military action to disarm Iran would entail great difficulty and high risk. We would be limited to air strikes against many dispersed and highly protected sites.  A ground invasion is unlikely because our all-volunteer army is already deployed in Iraq and Iran is strong on the ground.  Iran’s military has substantial firepower and could react fiercely if attacked, including missile strikes on U.S. bases in the region. They could also attack Israel, which by now has no reason to heed any more U.S. urgings about ‘showing restraint’ while their people are being blown up. An Israeli response could be massive, which could generate widespread Muslim rage against America.  Having waited far too long to confront Iran, we are now virtually without allies while facing a powerful enemy who cannot be knocked out in a quick air strike, and who is totally ruthless.

Another daunting situation is that Israel might be compelled to pre-empt to avoid facing nuclear annihilation.  That would embarrass us with the Muslims who would naturally blame America for anything done by Israel.  George Bush and Bill Clinton have both ignored long and repeated Israeli warnings about Iran’s nuclear weapons program and their public threats to exterminate Israel. Our government did express concern over Israel’s possible pre-emptive action to neutralize the Iranian threat and how that would complicate our relations with the Arabs.

Another unspoken consideration may also be guiding U.S. thinking.  In WWII we fought a schizophrenic war against Nazi Germany.  On the one hand we fought the Germans fiercely and also aided our allies and various victims of the Nazis as well -- but with one glaring exception.  The U.S. carefully avoided any action that would interfere with the extermination of European Jewry.  For example we bombed German rail lines but never those leading directly to the death camps even when asked to do so. Even then were we pandering to the Arabs, who supported the Nazis, and who opposed any help for the Jews?

In 1981 U.S. intelligence had to know that Saddam Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osiraq was nearing completion and intended to provide nuclear weapons to attack Israel.  And yet the U.S. allowed France to build that reactor, perhaps assuming that if Israel were the only target then ‘we could live with that’.  Also note the very harsh response of the U.S. administration against Israel following their strike.  Instead of deserved congratulations there was a suspension of American support as punishment and Vice President Bush was reported to have demanded that we bomb the Israeli air base that launched the strike.  Even the neighboring Arab countries felt relieved and safer.

Today the U.S. and even the Europeans rightly fear a nuclear Iran under the extremist mullahs.  But given the Jewish experience of WWII and of seeing the West allowing Saddam Hussein to seek nuclear weapons, not once but twice, we can now pose an ‘ugly’ question, however hypothetical.  If the West could be assured that only Israel, and not us, would be threatened by a nuclear Iran would that then be acceptable?  History suggests that the ‘ugly’ answer is probably YES.  But the problem now is that unlike WWII those ‘troublesome’ Jews may refuse to die quietly for our convenience.  Israel may realize that the U.S. is an unreliable ally and decide to pre-empt.  In a worst case scenario they can deliver a massive nuclear punch of their own with huge consequences.  It seems that our problem is more to hold Israel back than to disarm Iran.

In all of this our government seems reluctant to openly discuss other ramifications of a nuclear Iran.  Iran’s launching nuclear missiles directly at the West is not likely because that would obviously reveal their origin and bring immediate and awesome retaliation. The Iranians could easily intimidate the Europeans by merely issuing credible threats to ‘play ball or else’.  With Europe easily neutralized they could then distribute easily smuggled small-size nuclear weapons and dirty bomb devices to Al Qaeda for use inside the U.S. while claiming plausible deniability.  We cannot retaliate against an unknown enemy and Al Qaeda has long sought, and may now have acquired, such weapons on their own. It would be very difficult to strike Iran without proof of culpability which may prove elusive to obtain.
 
A further problem for the Bush administration is that we have failed to prevent North Korea from going nuclear, and our earlier bribe under the Clinton Administration with Jimmy Carter as negotiator was a total failure.  Those opposed to military measures will argue that after our having ‘allowed’ North Korea and Pakistan to go nuclear, we cannot now make an ‘exception’ for Iran which would then insult and enrage the entire Muslim world.

Will the Bush administration act in time to use necessary military force to disarm Iran?  Only a revolution against the mullahs would derail the apocalyptic scenario we now face. It may not take long to find out.

REPORT CARD ON AMERICAN JEWISH LEADERSHIP

The collective performance of mainline American Jewish leadership should be evaluated as an incentive toward reforms and improvements. In the absence of any mechanism to accomplish that task, a collective 'report card' based on the experiences and observations of some long time Jewish activists is presented. This evaluation is timely, and even urgent, because Israel is facing extreme danger, anti-Semitism is increasing globally, and we look to our Jewish leaders for competent guidance. The report shows American Jewish leadership, over all and with a few exceptions, has failed badly.This report evaluates the leadership as a whole based on total results since the end of WWII. Some organizations, such as Chabad-Lubavitch with their over 2,000 centers and global outreach, have a remarkable record of accomplishment but they are an exception. Naturally every organization will emphasize their strengths and achievements which they showcase on their web sites. To have a complete picture we must also note the major failures which are not being publicized. We cannot turn back the clock but a thorough self-examination is essential to making necessary improvements. This article is not intended to single out any particular organization for criticism but rather to cite areas where the collective Jewish leadership has failed to respond. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, comprising over 50 organizations, represents the bulk of organized Jewry in America. The issues listed below should be the responsibility of this umbrella organization. These are the findings listing areas of major failure where the need for improvement is painfully evident.

1.  Failure to replace the Six Million

There was never any serious effort to replace the Six Million that perished in the Holocaust. Following WWII there were about 6 million Jews in America. If they had simply increased at a modest 1.5% per year (the same growth rate as Israeli Jews) those 6 million, from 1945 to 2004, would have grown to become 14 million. That is without any additional effort to replace those lost in WWII. From 1945 to 2004 American Jews received three waves of Jewish immigrants: Holocaust survivors, Immigration from Israel and later Jews from the former Soviet Union. During this period the small orthodox community was also growing in size. American Jewry is also more affluent than most Americans. Despite all these advantages we managed, during this time, to actually decline from about 6 million to about 5 million instead of growing to 14 million. (And some of those 5 million are only marginally Jewish at best.) We are therefore missing 9 million American Jews - fifty percent more than Hitler killed! The bulk of American Jewry despite major advantages still shrank from 6 to 5 million. That means that the bulk of American Jewry shrank at a far faster rate, than just 6 to 5, during recent decades reflecting high assimilation and low birth rates. And now with no more waves of Jewish immigration in prospect, what additional shrinkage can we now anticipate? Is there any other ethnic group in America that is voluntarily committing cultural suicide in this manner? And although there is some awareness of this problem there is NO truly serious program now in place to arrest this trend, much less to reverse it. After WWII there were about 12 million Jews surviving in the world with 6 million in the U.S. and 6 million outside the U.S. Most of those Jews outside America were in war-torn Europe, in the former Soviet Union, and in Arab countries, with most of them living under bad conditions. While American Jews, under favorable conditions, were declining from 6 to 5 million these other Jews, under bad conditions, were growing from 6 to 9 million during the same period - a 1.5% rate of annual increase. That is how we now account for the current world Jewish population of 14 million, i.e. 5 million in the U.S. plus 9 million elsewhere, including Israel. It is astonishing to contemplate the contrast. Six million America Jews, with all the advantages decline to 5 million while the other 6 million with all the disadvantages grow by 50% during the same time. Does that suggest that Jews can survive hard times much better than good times? Had American Jews simply grown at 1.5% annually those additional 9 million Jews would, by now, be giving us a dramatically improved situation in America and in the world. This record is beyond disgraceful and the failed American Jewish leadership seems incapable of feeling either shame or embarrassment.

2.  Failure to properly respond during WWII

In general American Jewish leadership failed to respond in a timely and vigorous manner to press a reluctant U.S. government to intervene to save Jews. We have ample documentation in books such as: The Abandonment of the Jews - America and the Holocaust 1941-1945 by David S. Wyman; "While Six Million Died - A Chronicle of American Apathy" by Arthur D. Morse; and A Race Against Death" - Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust by David S. Wyman and Rafael Medoff. Many of those Jews might have been saved if American Jews had campaigned more vigorously and if the Roosevelt Administration had been pressured to respond with a credible effort. It should be noted that Hitler initially wanted to just expel the Jews. It was only after noting the callous indifference to Jewish survival of America and England, that Hitler understood that no one cared, and he could now proceed to exterminate the Jews with impunity. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg recounted his personal experience. During WWII his father was rabbi of a congregation near Washington, D.C. In the midst of the war his father delivered a High Holiday sermon imploring his congregation to stand in front of the White House to demand that Roosevelt make direct efforts to rescue endangered Jews. After that sermon the synagogue's board of directors met and fired his father. Some had their own children employed in the Roosevelt administration and did not wish to do anything to jeopardize those jobs. Unfortunately this story is emblematic of the self-censoring attitudes of too many Jewish leaders at the time.

3.  Failure to hold our government responsible for the Six Million after WWII

Following WWII ample documentation emerged to show the deliberate obstruction and deception of the Roosevelt administration in its reluctance to save Jews. There was sufficient opportunity in the years after WWII for the Jewish leadership to at least confront our government regarding its crime and to demand an honest accounting. In memory of the Six Million we must refute any U.S. government claim of innocence and that they 'tried their best' and replace it with the hard truth. No such action ever took place.

4.  Failure to self-evaluate the American Jewish response to the Holocaust

In 1981 The American Jewish Commission on the Holocaust was established with former Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg as its chair. The following are edited excerpts from the Simon Wiesenthal Center web site where the full text can be read: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual3/chap12.html

"In June 1981 a group of Jews, headed by former United States Supreme Court justice Arthur Goldberg, formed an American Jewish Commission on the Holocaust. Composed of 33 members, including 10 rabbis, eight formerly elected or appointed political officials, a dozen or so Jewish community leaders, and one professor of history, the new commission set out "to record and publish the truth, as nearly as we would determine it, as to what American Jewish leaders did, and what indeed they might have been able to do in all of the circumstances to mitigate the massive evils of the Holocaust."

To that end a professional staff, headed by Ambassador Seymour Maxwell Finger, was put together and individual historians and journalists were asked to do scholarly research on the subject. Their collective findings are reported in Finger's summary and many appendices, which include the original research papers that were done and some miscellaneous material. Together this was printed in 1984 under the title "American Jewry During the Holocaust." Most members of the Commission refused to endorse the report, but that fact is buried in one of the bizarrely paginated appendices. ...

That American Jewish politics and personal prejudices affected the formation and ongoing work of the Commission seems certain. When Arthur Goldberg announced the Commission's formation, he indicated that the researchers would delve into the question of what the Jews in the United States knew about Hitler's plans to exterminate the Jews and when they knew it, what American Jewish leaders and organizations did once they received that knowledge, and "could the persecution of Jews have been limited if American Jews had shown more concern for their coreligionists in Europe and exerted their influence on President Roosevelt and on Congress?"

The framing of the last question suggested that the answer would not reflect well on the actions of American Jewish leaders during World War II in regard to rescue. But in case anyone missed that point, Ambassador (as he likes to be called) Finger emphasized, before the research had even begun, that the findings would be 11 'potentially embarrassing' to some American Jewish groups and are 'likely to be controversial in any case.'" ...

The report also emphasized the difficulties faced by the Jewish leaders. Anti-Semitism in America was an obstacle to helping Jews plus Roosevelt was reluctant to stir up more political opposition by helping Jews. All of the excuses and difficulties were laid out to argue that Jewish leadership tried their best but the difficulties were too great. But what is missing is the story of the "Bergson group". Young Hillel Kook, under the name of Peter Bergson, came from Palestine to America on the eve of the war and worked feverishly to mobilize public opinion in support of help for the Jews of Europe. He and his few associates received little help from organized American Jewish leaders. They struck out on their own and were succeeding in mobilizing support among American political leaders, the media and other sections of society. Playwright Ben Hecht wrote powerful ads that were placed in the newspapers. The true scandal is that the same Jewish leadership that failed to do their job found strength to oppose and sabotage the Bergson group when that tiny band was accomplishing what the Jewish establishment failed to do. That account is recorded in the book, A Race Against Death - Peter Bergson, America and the Holocaust by David S. Wyman (Author of The Abandonment of the Jews) and Rafael Medoff. This dismal episode is something that deserves to be re-examined.

5.  Failure to speak the truth for Jewish land rights

The case against Israel is based primarily on the false allegation that Israel is occupying stolen Arab land. That is the main foundation for justifying all manner of ongoing murder and terrorism in the name of 'ending the occupation'. At the moment the term 'occupation' refers to all lands liberated in 1967. (Note that Arafat's maps, and all PLO stationery, consistently show a 'Palestine' in all of the land with no Israel at all - and who is protesting that?) Today, even many Jews accept the false notion that the territories are all 'occupied' 'Palestinian' lands which should be exchanged for peace, including even the re-division of Jerusalem. Without this false allegation of 'occupied' lands the entire case against Israel collapses, and even reverses, because it then becomes obvious that it is the Palestinians who are now occupying Jewish land.

Twenty years ago in 1984, author Joan Peters published her book, From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine. Years of laborious research, including delving into British government archives, totally explode the myths of a 'Palestinian people' and of any legal or historical Arab claim to the land of Israel. She shows how the Palestinian myth was deliberately fabricated and the nefarious role of the British government throughout. "The reader comes away not only rethinking the middle east refugee problem, but also the extent to which propaganda can be swallowed whole for lack of information." - Los Angeles Times. This one book alone provided the silver bullet to totally demolish the deadly myth that has been the prime propaganda weapon used against Israel over all these years and resulting in so much needless death and suffering. Years of painstaking research went into its writing to produce this monumental work. That was twenty years ago and what did American Jewish leaders do with this silver bullet? Absolutely NOTHING! How many Jewish leaders even read that book? They themselves remain mostly ignorant along with much of the Jewish public. In all discussions today virtually everyone speaks of a 'Palestinian People' who deserve to have their own Palestinian state 'alongside' (but really inside) the state of Israel. That big lie has become firmly entrenched and it is our own fault.

It is essential to remember the historic and amicable Jewish-Arab agreement of 1919 between Chaim Weizmann and Emir Feisal. The Jews were then set to have a recognized national home as per the Balfour Declaration to include present day Jordan plus Israel along with all the current territories. Some 45,000 square miles for the Jews but comprising still less than 1% of the 5 million square miles of lands received by the Arabs after the dissolution of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. It wisely set the pattern for a peaceful and prosperous Middle East. That international agreement was duly ratified by the then League of Nations and is still legally binding despite the actions of England and later the U.N. to abrogate its spirit and its letter. How many Jewish leaders know about this agreement or even care? These unfathomable failures suggests a lack of serious intellect combined with a lack of elementary courage. And why do we still commit to binding agreements when the other side always remains free to violate them with impunity? This is beyond stupidity. It constitutes criminal negligence on the part of a failed Jewish leadership! Just consider the consequences of Oslo which are still manifesting in endless conflict and misery. And some among these failed leaders might now argue that it is too late to insist on the truth because everyone now believes the Arab claims and we Jews will just have to make the best of it, even if it means trying to survive indefinitely inside a tiny state with 'Auschwitz borders', as Abba Eban once declared.

6.  Failure to respond to the secret war against the Jews

Another monstrous falsehood claims that America provides total and uncritical support for Israel and that is the main reason that the Arabs hate America. The truth is largely the opposite because American involvement with Israel is far more injurious than supportive. American 'support' resides mainly among the public and the Congress. However the real power for conducting foreign policy is firmly in the hands of the Administration, the State Department and the CIA where a secret war against Israel and Jews has been ongoing for many decades regardless of which party is in power. In 1994, authors John Loftus and Mark Aarons published their book, The Secret War Against the Jews - How Western Intelligence Betrayed the Jewish People. The following quotes from the Introduction will indicate the main thrust of this research.

"The major powers of the world have repeatedly planned covert operations to bring about the partial or total destruction of Israel. Long before there even was a Jewish state in Palestine, Western spies already were out to wreck the Zionist dream. The savage extent of the secret wars against the Jews will horrify the western public. This chapter of espionage history, beginning in the 1920's, and continuing to the present day, has never been revealed before."

... "The main thesis of this book is that the secret bias of Western governments against the Jews was, and is, the single largest obstacle to peace in the Middle East. We present a shameful history of racism, greed, and secret betrayal that is so sickening that it will be difficult for many Western readers to accept. On the other hand the evidence is particularly hard to ignore."

Following publication of this 658 page indictment of America's secret war, John Loftus spoke frequently on radio interviews and before various groups. If Jewish leadership took serious notice there was little evidence of that. This book provided a hundred 'smoking guns' documenting American criminality that should have enraged the Jewish community and generated a long needed confrontation with those officials perpetrating this betrayal that cost so many Jewish lives. In addition A Concubine in the Middle East by Professor Ezra Sohar was published in 1999. It adds much additional information with extensive references to supplement and re-enforce the case presented in The Secret War Against the Jews. [Editor's note: See Think-Israel book review: http://www.think-israel.org/lipkin.soharreview.html]  All this arduous and meticulous research went for naught because the Jewish leadership remained ever inert. Those who betrayed the Jewish people must have been amazed at the moral paralysis of the Jewish leadership and even of the larger community.

7.  Failure to debunk the myth of 'American aid to Israel'

Israel's opponents often cite the roughly three billion in annual aid to Israel. They complain that Israel is the largest recipient, receives too much, and is a burden upon U.S. taxpayers. Jewish leaders meekly mumble that Israel is the mid East's only democracy and our friend. Most people care little about that argument. Our leaders fail to mention the following important points:

  • Aid to our Israeli ally logically belongs in our defense budget along with our immensely larger expenditures for NATO, Japan and Korea and not in the foreign aid budget where it easily becomes a political football.

  • Aid to Israel is largely offset by massive U.S. military aid to Egypt and our arming of Saudi Arabia, both of which remain a potential threat to Israel requiring Israel to shoulder heavy additional defense expenditures to deter attack.

  • Ignored in all this discussion is the immense help America receives from Israel. Israel helped us in major ways to win the cold war and is now fighting and bleeding on the front line in our joint war against terror. Jewish leadership failed to compile that story, widely publicize it, and then demand full public recognition from the administration.

  • It can also be demonstrated that America has received far more help from Israel, in comparable value, than the cost of aid to Israel.

Both American and Israeli leaders have totally failed to educate the public and our government to the truth and have thus allowed damaging falsehoods to take root by default.

8. Failure to speak truth to power in our own government

American Jews are far too reticent and fearful to speak out bluntly to our government on issues concerning Israel's legitimate security needs. Other interest groups routinely speak out boldly in support of their own issues. But we Jews barely whisper when we have completely legitimate complaints and should be boldly speaking truth to power. The U.S. administration certainly does not hesitate to publicly chastise Israel, invoking their own double standard, whenever they deem it expedient to appease the Arabs.

9.  Failure to oppose the Oslo Accords

From the very beginning it was obvious that Oslo was clearly defective and one-sided and some did sound early warnings. Further, Oslo was created in secret and presented to the Israeli public with no opportunity for open democratic debate in the Knesset and among the public. It soon became obvious that Arafat was cynically violating the 'no more violence' pledge and Israel was paying the price in blood. American Jewish leaders, with only a few courageous exceptions, remained in blind support long after the rising Israeli death toll demonstrated that this was a road to war and not to peace.

10.  Failure to provide an adequate Jewish education for many Jews

For many years Jewish education was too low a priority. Today we see the tragic results in high assimilation based on ignorance of our rich heritage. Remarkably, the less affluent orthodox community finds it possible to both have more children and to provide a better Jewish education. That proves it is primarily a matter of values rather than of money alone. It is also noteworthy that the Hasidic community, and especially the Lubavitch community, has set an exemplary example for all of us including their outreach to all Jews and their 2,000 Chabad centers around the world.

There is also a three-fold failure to properly present the Jewish religion to the larger society.

  1. Too many gentiles have a confused understanding of the Jewish religion. We would benefit if we moved to vigorously educate our fellow Americans about Judaism and Jewish history. Having college courses and web sites is not enough. There should be much greater public outreach.

  2. A greater public outreach would also attract some converts who would likely be of high human quality to invigorate our anemic Jewish ranks.

  3. Along the way we would also reach and recover some of the alienated and assimilated Jews who are being lost under present conditions.

11.  Failure to establish a Jewish economic infrastructure

American Jewish life remains heavily dependant on 'schnoring', i.e. begging for donations all the way from the big givers and on down to local rummage sales, raffles, etc. Israel Bonds is a commendable and very successful program in helping Israel but we never moved beyond that to the next level, and into solid economic Jewish enterprise. Israeli exports provided a major missed opportunity. Department stores selling a full range of Israeli products should have been established 40 years ago in major U.S. Jewish communities. In addition there are about 2,000 Jewish institutions (i.e. synagogues, Jewish centers, day schools, etc.) in the U.S. and Canada many of which could have begun locally to also carry Israeli products. Earlier I investigated this concept and found that with a shoestring investment and a few shelves, any synagogue or Jewish center, could begin operating with a small initial inventory and expand from there. More recently this concept was proposed to the national Jewish leadership. Their response was to ignore the whole idea without even investigating. Israel has a huge export industry that we could have augmented while also earning a substantial and growing income for local Jewish needs. Shifting existing buying patterns is potentially much easier than repeatedly soliciting outright donations.

Meanwhile there has been a sharp decline in Jewish giving among Jewish philanthropists. It was reported that 50 years ago they averaged about 50% to Jewish causes and today only 20% of their total giving supports Jewish causes. And Jewish philanthropists can also unduly influence the policies of the recipient organizations in an undemocratic manner. By now Jewish enterprise based on Israeli exports could have provided a large, dependable, and growing income stream so we would be less dependent on charity, generate more self-respect, and be more democratic. We remain trapped with too many overlapping Jewish organizations all competing for donations and which confuses the Jewish public and wastes valuable resources. Personal egos and entrenched thinking prevent a much needed restructuring and streamlining to prepare for the future.

12.  Failure to demand justice for Jonathan Pollard

Too many Jews accepted the false, self-serving, versions by our government and media, about Jonathan Pollard and were all too quick to denounce him while fearing the old accusations of 'double loyalty'. Pollard was a whistle blower who discovered a dangerous betrayal of Israel by U.S. intelligence which was acting in violation of Ronald Reagan's Presidential agreement of 1983 to share intelligence. Pollard discovered that the Israel's enemies were acquiring weapons of mass destruction and also that his superiors at U.S. Naval intelligence were deliberately, and illegally, withholding that essential intelligence information. He gave Israel what they should have received automatically but his superiors had their own agenda and then wanted to punish him for foiling their plans. There is extensive documentation on www.jonathanpollard.org and further exoneration on http://www.john-loftus.com and click on link: "The Truth About Jonathan Pollard." Jonathan now begins his 19th year in prison for passing secrets to an ally which usually carries a sentence of 2-4 years as happened in all other cases with non-Jews and with other countries. What is sought here is NOT a favor but TRUTH and JUSTICE and yet again the Jewish leadership has run away from its moral duty in a show of near total cowardice. (They issued a few feeble and ineffectual letters politely asking for his release.) All this makes it extremely easy for our enemies to fabricate lies and use those lies to attack Israel and by extension Jews in general.

13.  Failure to build a stronger sense of community

Unfortunately this problem remains too low a priority within the Jewish leadership. It is not all that rare or unusual for Jews to encounter a certain coldness within the community which serves to undermine the building of a strong sense of belonging and solidarity. Singles have a tougher time than married couples, lower income non-professionals are less welcome than higher income professionals, etc. Egos and cliques operate to make certain Jews feel less welcome and one result is that some will eventually drift away from the community or even end up joining other religions where the welcome is much warmer. Years ago, at a synagogue, there was a lecture by a female editor of a Jewish woman's magazine. She recounted experiences at a public college where Jewish men went out of their way to embarrass and ridicule Jewish women in public. At a college football game they shouted insults, they posted 'JAP' ridicule messages on the dorm doors of Jewish women and even wore 'JAP' insults on their 'T' shirts (JAP means Jewish American Princess and is not a compliment) - all in the name of rollicking fun. This was a measure of Jewish self-hatred by Jewish men who obviously lacked a proper upbringing. Even among Jews with high intelligence we can still find frequent instances of crude and low class behavior. Where is the teaching of basic social skills and proper etiquette that is even part of our religion? We cannot afford this type of ignorance and this should be recognized and confronted. Although that congregation responded with interest and concern, the synagogue leadership never followed up on this issue.

One reason that many Jews marry non-Jews without even expecting the non-Jewish partner to convert to Judaism is the lack of proper upbringing. There is a lack of early conditioning to maintain the Jewish community, a lack of teaching social graces and a lack of sufficient opportunities for single Jews to meet comfortably in a dignified manner within a Jewish atmosphere. What opportunities do exist are often commercial, exploitive and demeaning or else very inept when offered by Jewish institutions. Despite the high number of Jewish professionals in the fields of psychology, counseling, social sciences and in the human potential movement, it is truly ironic that we still suffer from so much social dysfunction inside our own community.

14.  Failure to expose and to oppose the Jewish leftists

From earliest times there have been those of Jewish ancestry who have acted to undermine the security, and even the survival, of the Jewish People. Today, as before, these people again make common cause with our most dangerous enemies. They readily tell any lie to further incite our enemies to even greater levels of murderous hatred. Most of these are on the political left and are usually non-religious. However there is also the fanatic Netura Karta religious extremists who deny the right of Israel to even exist prior to the coming of the Messiah. They are so extreme that they align with the PLO and other murderers of innocent Jews. Enemies of the Jewish People are only too eager to cite these Jews as evidence of how evil Israel is and by extension the Jewish People as well. In the face of all this the Jewish leadership has been ineffective. In America the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has consistently failed to educate the Jewish public about this and to publicly expose and denounce these traitorous and self-hating Jews. Their crime of silence allows these evil ones of Jewish birth a free hand to spread their poison far and wide.

15.  Failure to establish a Jewish think tank

Jewish intellectuals are active participants in every area of our secular society and Jewish scholars do report on the problems within the Jewish community. However, a true Jewish think tank is needed. It would be charged with coming up with creative, innovative, viable, solutions to major problems and not just observing and documenting them. And we also need to invite the Jewish public to offer constructive ideas for the general welfare. Enlightened companies, for example, have long had suggestion programs where employees can submit ideas and have them seriously evaluated and possibly implemented. The same Jews who enthusiastically work hard to succeed in secular endeavors exhibit contrasting attitudes of apathy when it comes to bringing the same creativity to Jewish affairs. Being Jewish in America today urgently needs to be re-defined to a higher and more meaningful level.

16.  Failure to respond properly to Ariel Sharon's disengagement plan

The disengagement plan of Prime Minister Sharon will have immense consequences for the future of Israel. It not only involves Israel's security but would permanently cede land that was an integral part of our biblical inheritance that came with instructions to never divide the land. This is thus a major issue that affects all of the Jewish People. In Israel this plan was sprung by Sharon and imposed on his Likud party. Calls for a national referendum in Israel have been rebuffed while Sharon abruptly reverses his own prior and long standing policies. He refuses to answer serious objections concerning consequences of his actions and remains determined to impose his plan on a sharply divided country. And with such an important issue facing all Jews the American Jewish leadership has meekly acquiesced with no open, democratic debate to inform the public and air all views. The failures listed above are certainly not meant to be comprehensive but rather to illustrate the vast extent of the shortcomings. These criticisms are certainly harsh because the failures are numerous and severe. Perhaps the biggest criticism of all is the ongoing failure of Jewish leadership to honestly evaluate itself and institute much needed reforms. There is also the problem of huge egos that become obstacles to reform and to progress.

We Jews have made many mistakes throughout our long history and even our bible recounts many of them together with warnings of consequences. In the past few years the Jews of Israel, and also in the Diaspora, are becoming painfully aware that we face severe dangers and we must mobilize all of our strength and wisdom to face them. We have not yet recovered numerically from the Holocaust and we now face new dangers.

Will our leadership fail us again or finally rise to the challenge?

__________________________________________________________________________________________________


 

A Win-Win Solution to the Arab-Israeli Conflict

A true solution requires confronting two fundamental issues: 1. Current proposals, including the Road Map, are totally unworkable and should be abandoned. 2. An entirely fresh approach is required that is free of imposed constraints. The purpose of this essay is first to briefly challenge the entrenched mindset and then advance a win-win solution for both Jews and Arabs. Before proposing the proper solution it is necessary to first demonstrate the falsity and futility of some of the main arguments intrinsic to the Oslo Accords and to the Road Map.

Demonstrably false argument 1. - Israel should trade ‘land for peace’ to create yet another Arab country.

There are 22 Arab countries and only one Jewish country. The land-rich Arabs already occupy over 5 million square miles and land-poor Israel, including all of its territories, comprises only about 10,000 square miles. The Arab areas are thus 500 times larger than Israel and the Arabs already possess 99.8% of the total land. The so-called West Bank and Gaza areas combined total 2,300 square miles and comprise a miniscule 0.046% of the entire Arab empire - and to seize this speck of land the Arabs are adamant and willing to fight and die forever! Only a mind, hopelessly out of touch with reality, can seriously suggest that the Arabs need still more land, carved out of Israel, to create yet another country.

Demonstrably false argument 2. - The ‘Palestinians’ are a separate people who deserve their own country.

There are no authentic ‘Palestinian’ people and there never was. Even the name of Palestine is a historic fraud perpetrated by the Romans, to permanently erase the original name of Judea, following the Jewish revolt against Rome of two thousand years ago. As recently as the 1940’s the name ‘Palestinian’ clearly meant a Jew in the land of Israel and Arabs were simply called Arabs. After Israel’s rebirth the local Arabs appropriated that now-available title for themselves and created a new identity. This was done for purely hostile political purposes to undermine Israel’s legitimate right to its biblical homeland. In all of history there never was a Palestinian nation, or country, or people, or language, or religion, which was distinct from the existing Arab counties in that region. Repeated attempts to rewrite history must never be allowed to corrupt the truth. To fully expose the ‘Palestinian’ hoax in modern times one should read Joan Peter’s critically acclaimed book, From Time Immemorial - The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine.

Demonstrably false argument 3. - We can have a viable ‘Palestinian’ state in the so-called West Bank and Gaza next to a viable Israel.

Proponents of the Road Map offer NO development plan whatsoever. Any genuine plan must include a comprehensive environmental impact study covering: population growth; water resources; agriculture resources; economic development; social and political considerations; etc., with projections extending through at least the next century. Proponents offer NO plan because it is impossible to design any plan that enables both peoples to live viably in so tiny an area along with normal population growth. Below are projections for population growth in Israel and the territory of the proposed Palestinian state, based on current growth rates:Inside Israel Assuming continuation of their current growth rates for the next hundred years, Israel’s Jews at 1.5% per year become 28 million and Israeli Arabs at 3% per year become 23 million. That totals 51 million Jews and Arabs living on less than 8,000 square miles with a density of 6,500 per square mile. The Israeli Arabs have double the Israeli birth rate and are already 23% of the total population and gaining. They remain mostly hostile and will soon be able to gain political control and they already hold about 10% of the Knesset seats. Israel will thus be unable to remain permanently Jewish and the Israeli Arabs will always be seeking to advance their Arab identity in conflict with Israel. Inside the territories At their present high growth rates the Palestinian Arabs, inside the West Bank and Gaza, growing at 3-4% per year become 120 million in 100 years. Including all the Palestinian refugees, who could migrate in from outside, would add another 47 million. Thus there are a potential total of 167 million Arabs in the projected Palestinian state in 100 years in an area of only 2,300 square miles for an astronomical density of 72,500 per square mile. Many fail to appreciate the awesome power of compound growth until it is too late. These are only projections but long before those numbers are reached the area will explode in misery and conflict based on a crushing burden of population overload, aside from any political conflict. It is totally impossible for that many people to survive, much less thrive, in such a tiny area. That should be obvious to all.

Demonstrably false argument 4. - Arab possession of their 22 countries and 5 million square miles is legitimate and not to be challenged.

Just how did the Arabs come to control such vast territories? They got it the old fashioned way - by conquest! Before Mohammed, 1,400 years ago the Arabs lived in the Arabian Peninsula. Mohammed founded Islam and with it the zeal for jihad to conquer and convert, often by force. During the period following Mohammed the Arabs conquered vast areas in North Africa, southern Europe, the Middle East and parts of Asia and spread Islam far and wide. Today Arabs directly control 5 million square miles and 22 sovereign states, while non-Arab Islamic countries control nearly another 5 million square miles. The Arabs often claim that they were the original inhabitants in the land of Israel. Actually Arab invaders did not enter the land of Israel until about the year 638 while Jews had established their first commonwealth under King David, with Jerusalem as their capital, over 1,600 years earlier. Archaeologically, the entire land of Israel gives testimony to the ancient Jewish presence, but there is no evidence of any ancient ‘Palestinian’ presence. And most of those 22 Arab States, including Iraq and Jordan, were first created by England, France or Italy during the past century to further their imperial interests, and with no historical justification.

In summary, advocates of these senseless schemes seriously propose to: invent a people that never was; seize land from Jews having virtually no land; transfer that Jewish land to those with too much land and unrelenting murderous hatred; and then let them all grow in numbers and suffocate together inside of a coffin-size territory - all in the name of peace and justice! That is what passes for thinking in this insane world. The Road Map guarantees a lose-lose outcome - we need a win-win outcome.

The true basis for a lasting peace

A far-sighted Arab-Jewish agreement was arrived at 85 years ago but was never fully implemented. This still-legal agreement provides the basis for a solution today and should become widely publicized and supported.In 1919, following the end of World War I, an international Paris Peace Conference was convened by the victorious Allies to settle international questions. Delegations attended from around the world including an official Arab and Zionist delegation. The Arab delegation was led by Emir Feisal I, who agreed that the entire Palestine territory of the Balfour Declaration of 1917 would become the Jewish national home and expressed that position in separate letters to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and Felix Frankfurter. In return for Arab support the Zionists promised economic and technical assistance to the local Arabs and the Allied powers agreed to grant eventual sovereignty to many of the Arab peoples in the region that were previously under control of the former Turkish Ottoman Empire. This conference, and a subsequent one at San Remo Italy, amicably settled the issues among the parties with voluntary, legally binding, international agreements. In 1922 the League of Nations assigned Britain as the Mandatory to faithfully carry out these agreements. It was British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill who unilaterally divided Mandatory Palestine into an exclusively Arab sector (Trans Jordan) and a Jewish sector. The Arabs received 76% of the original territory, comprising 35,000 square miles, located east of the Jordan River. That left the Jewish sector with only 10,000 square miles out of their original 45,000 square miles, which was still less than 1% of the combined Arab areas of 5 million square miles. That remaining Jewish sector is today contested with the ‘Palestinians’ claiming the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza to create, in effect, a second Palestinian state. (Jordan is mostly Palestinian.) It was the British, in 1919, who began to undermine their own Mandate and to instigate the Arabs against Jews. The Ariel Center for Policy Research in Israel (www.acpr.org.il) has a policy paper no. 147 titled, “Legal Rights and Title of Sovereignty of the Jewish People to the Land of Israel and Palestine Under International Law” by Howard Grief, author of the forthcoming book. It ably summarizes the post-World War I settlement of the Palestine question and its subsequent betrayal by the British government entrusted with implementing it. A few extracts from the executive summary (www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp147-xs.html) will indicate its importance. “Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period. ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ... The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state. ... The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine. ... Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world.”

It has been argued, by scholars of international law, that the agreements of the international Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and their formal assignment to Britain as the Mandatory by the League of Nations, continue to be legally binding on all parties under international law. In addition to Jewish legal claims based on the 1922 law a case can be made that it is also morally binding and that England is guilty of bad faith and for having engaged in deliberate sabotage of that agreement. A most promising beginning for Arab-Jewish relations in the Middle East was deliberately undermined by England and this part of history must be brought to bear upon the present conflict. Israel has a right to make full land claims under that 1922 Mandate by the League of Nations. The Arabs should also be made aware that it was England that instigated them against the Jews in pursuit of British imperial interests and to the disadvantage of both Arabs and Jews. Significantly, Arab support for a Jewish state was clearly manifested at the Paris Peace conference of 1919. This should also be part of the legally binding Arab obligations to acceptance of a Jewish state with full rights. Emir Feisal I, son of Hussein, Sheriff of Mecca led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. Excerpts of two letters from Emir Feisal to Zionist leaders Dr. Chaim Weizmann and to Felix Frankfurter indicate their friendly relations and high hopes for Jewish - Arab cooperation. Also note in the following text the term ‘Palestine’ clearly refers to the Jewish national home and not to any Arab entity or people.

From Emir Feisal to Dr. Weizmann: “His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of hedjaz, and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization, mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish People, and realising that the surest means of working out the consummation of their national aspirations is through the closest possible collaboration in the development of the Arab State and Palestine, and being desirous further of confirming the good understanding which exists between them, have agreed upon the following Articles:” ....... Article IV: “All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale, and as quickly as possible to settle Jewish immigrants upon the land through closer settlements and intensive cultivation of the soil. In taking such measures the Arab peasant and tenant farmers shall be protected in their rights, and shall be assisted in forwarding their economic development.”

From Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter: .... “We feel that the Arabs and Jews are cousins in race, having suffered similar oppressions at the hands of the powers stronger than themselves, and by a happy coincidence have been able to take the first step towards the attainment of their national ideals together.” “We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned, to help them through: we wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.” .... “People less informed and less responsible than our leaders and yours, ignoring the need for cooperation of the Arabs and the Zionists have been trying to exploit the local difficulties that must necessarily arise in Palestine in the early stages of our movements. Some of them have, I am afraid, misrepresented your aims to the Arab peasantry, and our aims to the Jewish peasantry, with the result that interested parties have been able to make capital our of what they call our differences.” ....(To read full text go to  www.jmcc.org/documents/fesialweizman.htm )   What remains now is for all parties to courageously and boldly cast off the mindless schemes of Oslo and the Road Map and return to the sanity and statesmanship of the 1919 agreement. Those Arabs who have an acquired identity as ‘Palestinian’ should be given a far better alternative option than to be buried alive inside a non-viable illegal micro-state carved out of the Israeli heartland.

The Win-Win solution

Contrary to popular belief, the Arab-Israeli conflict has a reasonable solution. An orderly resettlement elsewhere of the so-called Palestinian Arabs would solve this long-standing ‘intractable’ problem. To propose this solution today elicits automatic rejection by almost everyone and perhaps even anger and hostility at its very mention (although attitudes may finally be changing). This is because the minds of many have been so thoroughly conditioned, with layer upon layer of repeated falsehoods, such that open-minded reconsideration is almost impossible. But resettlement could become the basis of a win-win solution for both sides.

For example Saudi Arabia comprises some 750,000 square miles. It has a very low population density of only 33 per square mile vs. 1,000 for Israel including the territories. A modest 4% of Saudi Arabia, some 30,000 square miles, should be set aside for a new Palestinian state. That state would be 13 times the size of the present Palestinian area proposed under the Road Map and would now have ample space for natural growth. All of the intractable problems facing both Jews and Arabs, arising under the present schemes, would be eliminated. The Palestinians could now construct their own state with full political independence, self-rule and full dignity. The sources of friction between them and Israel would now be removed along with all the immense human and material costs associated with the current conflict. Palestinians could begin using their legitimate ‘right of return’ to exit the territories, and the refugee camps, and migrate back to their ancestral home in Arabia and thereby also be closer to Mecca and Medina. A fraction of the countless billions spent on weapons by the Arab governments could fund the cost of establishing new settlements for the Palestinians. Israel would be free of Arabs, and the Palestinians would be free of Israel. The deep wounds of both peoples would now have a chance to heal.

In early 2004 a poll by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion shows 37% willing to emigrate in return for a home, a job and $250,000. And this is before a far better deal has been offered, including true self-rule, peace and security, plus their own ample territory. What if ‘Palestinians’ were offered a homeland territory, drawn from lands donated by one of the more spacious Arab countries, one expressing continuous concern, love for, and outrage at the treatment of these very same folk? Israeli Arabs could play a constructive role in this because of their higher level of education and their experience living as full citizens in democratic Israel. They would become the managerial and entrepreneurial class and provide valuable assistance and leadership for fellow Palestinians who were stagnating in refugee camps inside other Arab countries. This crime was committed by their own brother Arabs, who refused to allow them to settle. Once the migration starts toward a far better future the movement could well accelerate voluntarily because the first ones to relocate would receive the best ‘ground floor’ opportunities and the last ones to move would get what remains. Today there are tens of millions of people on the move around the world in search of better living conditions, so relocation is a long established and viable option for everyone. Another important advantage is that Israeli-Palestinian interaction would be limited to the selling of Arab homes in the territories and an orderly exit. No more frustratingly complex agreements as with Oslo where Israel honors all commitments and Arabs violate all commitments, and even U.S. assurances often prove worthless. The less need for Israel to depend on agreements with Arabs, Europeans and even Americans the better.

Part of the problem are those Arab governments who deliberately keep the Israel-Palestinian conflict alive to divert attention from their own corrupt regimes. Also, western governments still pander to their corrupt Arab clients for purely expedient reasons. But new progressive voices are emerging among Arab intellectuals and even among some Moslem clerics that call for Arab societal reform, and who also recognize Jewish rights in the land of Israel. These voices need to be encouraged and enlisted in this quest for sanity. What is also needed is Saudi cooperation and active support. The Saudis have long been responsible for promoting anti-Jewish, anti-Christian, and anti-American hatred along with funding terror and the teaching of a hateful form of Islam. With their ‘royal’ family of thousands of princes living lavishly, off of oil income and the labor of foreign workers, they are a cesspool of corruption that even Osama bin Laden finds offensive. It is time to demand that the Saudis make a major contribution to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict. They caused much of the problem and they must now assist with the solution. It is time for the Bush administration to make the Saudis ‘an offer they can’t refuse’ and have them realize they have a direct interest in providing ‘land for peace’ For too long many people have labored under a collective mindset resembling a bad dream where big lies become entrenched wisdom and truth is constantly strangled. Unless we change direction there will be dire consequences extending well beyond the peoples of the region. Those who still have minds and morals intact now have an obligation to think clearly and with sanity and support this approach to finally resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict.

 

Gaza Disengagement - Trigger to an avalanche

July 14, 2005

Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement scheme is being hailed by George Bush, Sharon and the major media as a step toward peace and security. A closer examination will show, however, that it is an egregious violation of human rights, an illegal action, and a major setback in the war against terror which will harm, not only Israel's security, but US security as well. In a civilized world, Sharon's "disengagement" proposal would probably be rejected by all responsible governments because it is so akin to ethnic cleansing, even if it is being done by Sharon against fellow Jews. Muslims today can and do live anywhere in the world, with migrations into Europe and America. Over a million Arab Muslims live inside Israel as voting citizens, but eight thousand Jews on historic Jewish land in Gaza are to be expelled because the Gaza Arabs, in their bigotry, will never accept Jews living among them. Instead of the nations demanding that this Arab bigotry end, they now support Sharon in his scheme to expel thousands of Jews only because they are Jews. Let us not pretend that Israel's government or the nations oppose de facto, if not genocidal, ethnic cleansing. It is the moral corruption of the West and of the Sharon government that accepts the old double standard, which also amounts to state-sponsored anti-Semitism, endorsing the judenrein Gaza. But if the disengagement idea is so wrong, how could intelligent Israelis be making such a major blunder in supporting it? Part of the answer is that the Israeli public was not properly informed, top military and intelligence officials were not properly consulted or allowed to advise, and the public was denied the opportunity for a full and open debate followed by a referendum in which to express the collective will of the people. Israelis are only now waking belatedly to the huge dangers in this scheme, and public support has declined from 70% to below 50% and is falling. In response, the Sharon government is invoking increasingly ruthless measures to prevent the growing opposition from exercising its democratic rights to express its views. From the beginning, disengagement was an inside initiative by Sharon and his close associate Dov Weisglass, with none of the usual and necessary steps that are a standard part of any major decision that affects the security of the nation. If the disengagement was such a good idea, why did Sharon prevent a review by the heads of the defense and intelligence services? Upon learning of the plan, General Moshe Ya'alon, head of Israel's Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed strong opposition, as did other heads of Israeli security agencies. Ya'alon and others who objected were either replaced or pressured into agreement. When some cabinet ministers objected, they too were replaced. When some Knesset members hesitated to support Sharon's plan, Sharon unilaterally increased the budgets for their departments – effectively bribing them with public funds – and then received their support.

 

When some called for a national referendum to at least allow an open debate and a decision by the public, Sharon blocked the proposal. Instead of Sharon meeting with the Gaza residents face-to-face and explaining his plans like a gentleman, and showing some compassion for those being uprooted, he did the opposite. He demonized these peaceful residents and issued grievous threats of punishment including jail for resistors and even taking away their young children. Three recent news reports (israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85090, israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85345, and israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85277) provide examples of the undemocratic, brutal and likely illegal actions by Israeli police and Israeli courts.  The suppression of peaceful protest has become so pervasive that a special citizen's web site has been established to compile and document these ongoing human rights violations. He selected expulsion troops based on their willingness to act with all necessary force against civilians, including children. These troops are to receive extra pay, are not required to wear identification tags, and are assured that the courts would be extremely lenient in case of their brutality. Reporting on the expulsion would also be controlled by the Sharon government, to allow only what he wants to be seen to be shown. Sharon also ordered the IDF to restrain its responses to the rain of terrorist missiles that have continued to fall on the Jewish residents in Gaza, thus exposing the people to high risk of injury and death - presumably to terrorize them into submission.  Sharon's former adversaries among the Israeli Left have eagerly seized upon this opportunity and have been spreading stories demonizing "settler extremists" and urging the government to be prepared to use lethal force against the residents. Because much of the Israeli media is controlled by leftists, it is easy to fabricate and spread stories of "settler violence,” which are then quickly picked up by the international media and, citing ”Israeli sources”, splashed around the world, where it can do the most public relations damage. Anti-disengagement leaders, on the other hand, have always insisted that all demonstrations be peaceful. It is the Israeli Left that is trying to provoke violence – and then play the role of innocent victim (standard operating procedure in leftist demonstrations around the world). A unilateral withdrawal from Gaza would allow Hamas and other Islamists to greatly strengthen their terror base in that area. The evacuation would enable Arab terrorists to bring in weapons and terrorists by land, sea and air, which would no longer be fully controlled by Israel.  Mahmoud Abbas has shown himself unwilling and/or unable to oppose terrorism. On the contrary, he vowed to continue Yasser Arafat's programs and has even failed to stop ongoing incitement by the Palestinian Authority media, preaching the killing of Jews. Egypt has refused to stem the flow of weapons into Gaza from their side of the border, too. The terrorists have publicly said they are involved now in preparation for another intifada, even more deadly than the current one. They also want to attack the retreating Israelis in Gaza, as they did when Ehud Barak withdrew Israeli forces from southern Lebanon.

The terrorists claimed it was their attacks that caused Israel to retreat and that future attacks will cause Israel to retreat even further. Hamas publicly rejects Israel's right to exist under any conditions. Sharon will receive absolutely nothing in return for his withdrawal, and the terrorists will be rewarded for their murder. Hence, they will be encouraged to continue and to escalate their genocidal activities. A recent report titled "Israel Betrayed?" summarizes many of the illogical and dangerous aspects of the proposed disengagement.
  One nagging question is: how can Ariel Sharon, the great patriot and hawkish warrior, do this? How could he now go against everything he has advocated all his life? And how could he do this without any credible explanation and using tyrannical tactics? Two Israeli authors, Raviv Drucker and Ofer Shelach, in their recent book, Boomerang, offer a possible explanation for Sharon's total reversal of established policy. According to the two writers, Sharon's basic impetus for adopting the radical left-wing plan –overwhelmingly rejected by voters in the January 2003 elections – was his desire to avoid indictment by state prosecutor Edna Arbel for his role in corruption scandals, for which he and his sons Gilad and Omri were under police investigation. His Disengagement Plan was intended to save him by distracting attention from his scandal, and so far, it seems to have worked. The Disengagement scheme would appeal to the political Left in Israel that supports almost any plan to transfer more land to the Arabs. The political Left also controls the Supreme Court, which would shield Sharon from legal action, while leftist Knesset members would then support the Disengagement - all as a political payoff to Sharon.  The Israeli public was told that Disengagement would rid Israel of a defense burden in Gaza while gaining US support to retain Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Not only will the withdrawal from Gaza reward and strengthen terrorists, but the Bush Administration has flipped on the West Bank as well.  George Bush earlier implied that Israel could not be expected to expel over 200,000 Jewish residents in the West Bank, but he and Condoleezza Rice now demand that Israel promptly follow up Gaza with the evacuation of Jews in the West Bank. Nowhere is there any mention that Jews have equal rights with Arabs to live in peace anywhere in the region. Evicting all the residents of the West Bank would rip apart the fabric of Israeli society, while bankrupting the economy. Even the much smaller Gaza expulsion will still scar the society and be costly to Israel's economy. Americans may be tired of hearing about the conflict and indifferent to the fate of some 8,000 Jews in far-away Gaza, but there is something that should cause us to take careful note. Representative Dan Burton has published an entry in the Congressional Record titled, "The Potential Impact of Israel's Disengagement on U.S. Interests". The impact on US security is shown to be entirely negative. Further, Americans in a recent poll strongly opposed the eviction of Israeli residents from Gaza, and also do not believe it will contribute to improved security and to peace. This response is noteworthy because it demonstrates that Americans can understand the illogic of this plan, despite the support of our major media plus the support of Sharon and Bush.

Pastor James Vineyard of Oklahoma is a voice of Christian conscience from America's heartland. He visited the Gaza Jewish community and wrote "An Open Letter to President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon", citing 12 reasons why he opposes the "deportation of Jews by Jews." He is planning to make a video of his message and distribute it to thousands of Christian churches in America. Israel's terrorist enemies have already made it clear that they regard the planned Disengagement as a victory on the road to their total elimination of Israel. Bush is now signaling that if Hamas wins support in Gaza elections, he may reluctantly have to accept that as part of his support for Middle East democracy. The Europeans are even further along toward recognition of Hamas, which remains committed to exterminating Israel. And without any consultation or advance notification to Israel, Bush has decided to include Israel's adversaries Egypt and Saudi Arabia in the so-called Quartet (US, EU, UN and Russia), which is going to establish a Palestinian state adjacent to Israel's heartland and without any assurance of it being peaceful. Bush seems to be joining Israel's enemies in his ongoing policy changes and in his assembling an anti-Israel lynch mob that will press for only one outcome: the progressive dismantling of Israel as a viable state. At some point, Israeli's enemies, including Iran, will feel the time has arrived for their next attempt at exterminating Israel. Israelis know that that no one will come to their aid and they can rely only on themselves. At that point, Israel may feel desperate, abandoned and enraged over this total betrayal. Should the Israelis conclude that all hope is gone, and with nothing more to lose, they might unleash their formidable nuclear arsenal and in the process, incinerate the regional oil facilities, thus collapsing Western economies. Perhaps, Western governments, including the Bush administration, confidently assume that Israel would never actually do the unthinkable. Let us hope that Israel is never pushed into a position where we will have to find out.

 

 

Al-Qaeda Nuclear Threat: A Modest Proposal

Read the article in Internet format

This article is satirical and relates to the current expulsion of Israeli Jews from their homes by their own government.  It is written in the manner of Jonathan Swift’s famous satire, A Modest Proposal.

 

America could be facing a potential catastrophe from nuclear weapons that may have already been smuggled inside this country by al-Qaeda. Sleeper cells may already be positioned inside as many as twenty major cities. The danger is real and awareness is increasing. World Net Daily (www.wnd.com) has reported on revelations contained in the upcoming book The al-Qaeda Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse, by former FBI consultant Paul L. Williams.  Edited excerpts from a World Net Daily report of July 18 follow: Osama bin Laden is planning what he calls an "American Hiroshima," the ultimate terrorist attack on U.S. cities, using nuclear weapons already smuggled into the country across the Mexican border along with thousands of sleeper agents.  The series of attacks is designed to kill 4 million, destroy the economy, and fundamentally alter the course of history. Al-Qaeda's prime targets for launching nuclear terrorist attacks are the nine U.S. cities with the highest Jewish populations, according to captured leaders and documents. The cities chosen as optimal targets are New York, Miami, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Boston, and Washington, D.C.  New York and Washington top the preferred target list for al-Qaeda leadership. Our own security officials have also told us repeatedly that it is not a matter of “if” but rather of “when” the next major attack will occur.  An update  on this threat was published by World Net Daily on 8/18/05. Many American lives could be at stake here, and what is needed is bold thinking on how to avert such an attack, or to at least reduce its likelihood.  In that spirit, this article presents “A Modest Proposal” which advocates a two-part response.  Part I proposes to reduce the attractiveness of the potential targets.  Part II proposes to make the targets additionally undesirable and to also reduce enemy hostility.

Part I.  Nine large, American cities are prime targets because of their size, importance, and their concentrations of Jews.  If the presence of Jews in these cities increases their appeal as targets then logically the absence of Jews would decrease that appeal by a comparable amount.  The security of three hundred million Americans must not be kept at risk merely for the sake of not inconveniencing Jews who comprise barely two percent of our population.  Because the potential danger is so immense and so imminent, the relocation of American Jews must be expedited. Removal of Jews should not be too difficult. Jews want to be seen as loyal Americans.  Most would cooperate, if reluctantly and emotionally, in their removal as their patriotic duty to increase the safety of their fellow Americans.  Jews are accustomed to relocating and have done so repeatedly from biblical times.  In recent times, nearly a million Jews were expelled from Arab countries and more than a million Jews have also left the former Soviet Union.  Even inside America, Jews often move for purely personal reasons.  Relocation is a familiar Jewish experience. Then there is the question of propriety.  Is it proper to compel Jews to relocate--especially after they have become so comfortable in this country?  Fortunately this question has already been answered.  For security reasons, and for the greater good, none other than Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is even now in the process of expelling eight thousand Jews from their homes in Gaza and is using the Israeli army and police to do it.  And more than ten times that number of Jews are likely to face expulsion from the West Bank later on. The number of Israeli Jews targeted for expulsion in both Gaza and the West Bank is proportionally equivalent to America relocating about five million American Jews.  This forced relocation has been ruled to be a perfectly legal action taken by the Israeli government, and President Bush, who is considered to be a great friend of Israel, supports it. Relocating American Jews will be far easier than expelling Jews in Israel.  American Jews tend toward pacifism, are highly law-abiding and non-confrontational--except for the highly vocal Jewish leftists who, in this case, would likely support Jewish expulsion.  Furthermore, the American Jewish leadership has already endorsed the principle of forced expulsion of Jews in Israel as the legal right of that government to act in the interests of security and the greater good.  Thus American Jews cannot now object to being subjected to the same requirements in the interest of U.S. national security. Necessary expertise in Jewish relocation procedures can be borrowed from Israel. The Sharon government knows how to recruit, screen, and train thousands of men and women from the Jewish community to form police expulsion units and cope with the related logistics and media management.  As in Israel, these expulsion police would be well paid, not be required to identify themselves to the expellees, and the courts will go easy on any charges of police brutality. Any manifestation of Jewish protest will be quickly put down. Protesters, including teenagers, would be placed in administrative detention and held without charges for up to six months.  Unlike in Israel, there are no Palestinian Arab equivalents in America to rain down rockets on the expulsion process and requiring army units to protect the evacuation.  As in Israel, there will be at most peaceful, completely non-violent protests, perhaps combined with a little civil disobedience of the most harmless and easily suppressed kind.  Since most American Jews will peacefully board the busses and trains carrying them to their new homes, whatever protests may occur will be conducted by evangelical Christians--the most law-abiding segment of the American population, who will easily be dissuaded from violence or seriously disruptive behaviour by their ministers. We cannot deny that 1.3 billion Muslims comprise a formidable world force that is in the ascendancy while Jews are a tiny minority that is in decline, especially in America.  America has suffered politically from the general perception that the interests of Israel and Jews are favoured over the interests of Muslims and Arabs.  This is an opportunity for American policy to become more even-handed and to gain the respect of the Muslim world. As in Israel, U.S. Jews who voluntarily sign up early for expulsion will receive extra benefits while those who object or delay could face fines or even prison.  The American Jewish leaders must demonstrate their national loyalty by signing up early and encouraging their followers to do likewise.

American Jews wield influence far exceeding their numbers which is viewed as a provocation to many in the Muslim world. The expulsion must include all Jews, including elected officials and those of influence. We do not know how much time remains before a possible attack is launched by al-Qaeda.  Therefore, this evacuation must proceed quickly in the interests of national security.  Naturally, it will be necessary to compile lists of Jews and Jewish leaders and Jewish organizations must be required to furnish such information.  Unaffiliated Jews must also be identified and included on these lists. It will not be possible to properly liQaedate all property and assets in a short time, so the Jews will have to select whatever they can transport in limited-size vehicles and forgo the rest.  Their European forebears and Israeli cousins have followed these procedures on numerous occasions in the past.  As a result, few American Jews will be unduly alarmed or angered by this element of the American-Islamic peace and reconciliation process. In the interests of national security and of fairness it should be a crime for any non-Jew to harbor a Jew.  This procedure must be executed thoroughly and without favouritism so that the Muslim world will see that we Americans are sincere. Jewish institutions, including hospitals (along with their Jewish patients), colleges, schools, synagogues, museums, and the like must be emptied of Jewish personnel and content and prepared for evacuation. Jewish expertise, or as some say dominance, in the film industry could be put to good use in ensuring the successful and smooth operation of the relocation program.  For example, the distinguished Jewish American filmmaker Steven Spielberg could produce and direct a film showing the happy and successful adjustment of a sympathetically portrayed American Jewish family to their new home community in rural Alaska.  The classic film made by a distinguished German Jewish director 62 years ago, documenting the happy and prosperous Jewish community in the relocation center of Thieresienstadt and filmed during the difficult period of Jewish relocation in the Second World War, could serve Speilberg as a useful model. Spielberg (or any number of other justly celebrated Jewish filmmakers) could also be tasked to compile a film record of how Jews lived in America before their relocation, which would serve as a nostalgic memento for the relocatees in their new homes, as well as a useful educational tool for the whole population.  The film could be shown in schools across the country, as well as in Jewish museums and Holocaust centers, in order to encourage ethnic and racial tolerance and multiculturalism. Jews would be relocated to relatively uninhabited places, away from any potential target area.  Their new homes should be in currently under-populated areas like Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota, and Alaska.The Jews should be assigned specific areas that will be reserved for Jewish occupancy, in the same manner as the reservations for Indian tribes.  Since Jews are essentially a tribal group, they are sure to appreciate having tribal homelands of their own, outside the strife-torn Middle East. New housing and other facilities should be paid for largely by the Jewish community, in exchange for the value of the land they would receive from the government. Jews should be given the option of digging up their dead and transporting the remains to the Jewish reservations.  Abandoned graves would then be bulldozed. Those few Jews who are unwilling to resettle on the reservations will be encouraged to find new homes in other countries.

Part II.  This part is designed to create an active disincentive for al-Qaeda to strike our major cities. To further enhance American security, the vacated homes and properties of America’s five million Jews should be turned over to Muslim immigrants from Arab countries.  They must promise to show respect for the former Jewish homes they are being given and must not dance on the roofs of their new homes in a show of celebration or victory. Muslims should also acquire synagogues and other Jewish facilities but must promise not to burn them down in celebration but to quietly convert them into mosques. Al-Qaeda would then have to think twice before attacking cities with significant Muslim populations and their newly acquired mosques.  Osama Bin Laden may feel grudging respect to America for having outsmarted him--and doing it with style and class. The entire Muslim world would then have to reconsider its anti-American animosity.  We will have demonstrated that we are reasonable and respectful toward our Muslim brothers and sisters.  We will have shown our willingness to be even-handed in redressing the old imbalance where Jews, being but two percent of America, had wielded such disproportionate influence in the culture, in the business sector, and on its policies.  Relocation of Jews would be a very small price to pay for the prospect of avoiding a devastating attack which would consume Jewish lives as well as those of other Americans.  We could then open a new chapter in Muslim-American relations and together strive for a more peaceful and just world.

Bertram Cohen and John Landau contributed to this column. 

______________________________________________________________________________________

Nagging questions about the war in Iraq


Nagging questions about the Iraq war remain unanswered.  Both advocates and opponents have failed to address a range of issues even when they seemingly could be used to bolster their respective positions.  Until and unless we obtain answers to some of the questions presented here it will be difficult to fully trust the judgment of either side in this debate. Administration advocates for regime change in Iraq have failed to make their best case.  Their response to the charge of no WND found in Iraq is weak, and consequently has allowed the opponents to further charge that the Bush administration deliberately misled Americans in order to justify an unnecessary war.
 
Libya is one such example. After Colonel Khaddaffi relinquished his WMD programs the U.S. moved large amounts of weapons material from Libya to secure storage inside the U.S.  It was reported that Saddam Hussein had sponsored WMD programs in Libya together with some of his scientists also located there.  It was also reported that Libya originally claimed the secret work being carried out under a huge bombproof mountain was for manufacturing pharmaceuticals.  It remains a puzzle why the Bush administration has consistently failed to tell us what was discovered in Libya and to cite this as a legitimate example of an ongoing Iraqi-sponsored WMD program.
 
There is also the Syrian question.  Multiple reports described a convoy of trucks moving materials at night from Iraq to neighboring Syria shortly prior to the start of the war.  Sources such as David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction,  and others such as John Loftus,  former U. S. Justice Department prosecutor, and the Washington Times reported on these transport projects, including specific storage locations in the Bekka Valley where these materials were buried along with special military protection.  Before the war President Bush warned Syria against receiving any WMD from Iraq. Surprisingly the Bush administration has been inexplicably silent on this matter since that time.  There is understandable speculation that the Russians were involved and, along with Saddam Hussein, preferred to have any evidence of WMD removed, along with any possible evidence of their involvement.  It remains a mystery as to why there is no western and U.N.-sponsored demand to inspect what was trucked out of Iraq and buried in the Bekka Valley.
 
For years Saddam Hussein played elaborate cat and mouse games to foil the U.N. weapons inspectors.  If he had nothing to hide, do we then believe he did this deliberately to provoke America and its allies to finally lose patience and attack while assuming he was hiding WMD?  Opponents of the war have a special obligation to explain what Saddam was hiding and why he blocked U.N. inspections.  Opponents of the war have failed to offer their own long-term response to dealing with Saddam Hussein. Simply standing still indefinitely would not have been a satisfactory answer. It would have allowed Saddam to defy over a dozen U.N. resolutions demanding freedom on arms inspection, which in turn would have allowed other nations also to flout international arms controls.  It would have allowed him to further brutalize his own population with impunity, which is a direct challenge to the cause of human rights around the world.  It would have allowed more time for him to research and develop WMD, either inside Iraq or subcontracted to other countries such as Libya, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Sudan, etc.  It also would have allowed more time for the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal to persist in which Saddam bought the support of Russia, France, Germany and others while blaming America for his deliberate failure to properly feed and care for his own people.  If war was not the answer what credible alternative was put forward by the war's opponents, along with what timetable?
 
The failure to properly answer these questions regarding Iraq can make it more difficult to deal with the threat from a nuclear Iran.  Some of the opponents of the Iraq war are transferring their skepticism on U.S. action against Iraq to skepticism on any U.S. action against Iran.  Decisions on Iran should be based purely on facts about Iran, but politics may cause opponents of George Bush to exploit the Iraq war to block needed action on Iran. Opponents of the war also cite the fierce and ongoing insurgency that is taking a heavy toll on American forces and American resources and citing this as more evidence that the war was a mistake.  But we also know that many of the insurgents come from, and receive support from, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, among others.  The obvious question is why the U.S. is not squeezing these countries so they will reign in their support which is costing American lives and destabilizing Iraq.
 
Another mystery is Egypt. The U.S. taxpayer has provided some $50 billion in aid to Egypt over the past 30 years. Today Egypt has a military with strong offensive capability although facing no enemy. While Egypt continues to incite hatred for America and Israel they contribute nothing toward our effort in Iraq.  As a well-armed Arab country with huge and available forces why are they exempt from aiding our anti-insurgency efforts?  They can easily spare many thousands of ground troops to relieve the task now borne by American forces.  Neither supporters nor opponents of the Iraq war have addressed this question.
 
We cannot arrive at the best decisions as long as so many important questions remain unanswered and even unasked.