Friday, December 14, 2007


Israel has been "afflicted by a non-nation and a loathsome people"

. . . since the military victory in 1967, the governments of Israel have turned away from its roots and identity; they have spurned the nation’s birthright. As part of Israel’s retreat from these historical imperatives, from itself, since September 2000 the Arabs have engaged in Jew-killing and pillage that cripples prosperity and seems to make peace a pipe dream. Indeed, so perverse are our times that in regard to Israel and the Jews settled there, "peace" has been defined as the expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria overseen by a long-time hero of the IDF. Moreover, the Executive Branch of Israel’s "best friend,’ America, particularly its State Department is committed to creating a terror state named Palestine in the heartland of Israel and airbrushing from history 3700-years of Jewish presence and worship there, airbrushing, too perhaps, the West’s indebtedness to Israel. And if that means cutting America off from its own roots, well, that is essential to fashioning a "Brave New World.’

* * *
. . . the State and people of Israel have been ‘in the wilderness’since then [1967], led by "a government of fools" that chases the mirage of peace through alienation rather than grasping the joys of identity, settlement, abundance and sovereignty. And so Israel has been "afflicted by a non-nation and a loathsome people," a rabble whose "nationhood’ may be the greatest political fraud of a century of horrible frauds by which "the past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, and the lie became truth." But, as Eidelberg often has written, the historical function of this non-nation, the "Palestinians’ was to prevent Jews from forgetting who they are and to remind them that only by grasping and fulfilling their entire mission and morasha will they secure its rewards.

excerpt from
A Jewish Philosophy of History by Paul Eidelberg
Reviewed by Dr. Eugene Narrett
Examining God’s Plan: A Book Review of A Jewish Philosophy of History

About the reviewer…

Eugene Narrett earned his BA, MA, and PhD from Columbia University in New York City. During the past twenty-five years he has been teaching literature, philosophy and art in the Boston area and has written extensively on culture, politics, and art. He currently Directs and teaches in the Baccalaureate Program in Multidisciplinary Studies at Cambridge College.

More about Israel, "Land for Peace," and the futility of creating a "'Palestinian' State"

Two excerpts

Links for full texts given at end

The Camp David formula “land for peace,” the basis of the forthcoming Annapolis Summit, is rooted in an erroneous and fatal assumption. That certain Arab leaders agree to negotiate with Israel on the basis of this formula has induced politicians in Israel and abroad to regard such Arabs as “moderates.” This assumption stands in striking contrast to principles of statecraft enunciated by Prince Metternich, the great 19th century Austrian statesman on whom Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation.

According to Metternich, “to base one’s conduct in an important undertaking on faith in the moderation of one of the contracting parties is asking for trouble … to build on air, to gamble the future on one throw.” This faith animated Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, the architects of the disastrous Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993. The same faith animates Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on “reciprocity” when dealing with Arab leaders. It was this historically unfounded faith that led him to sign the Wye River Memorandum, which surrendered large areas of Judea and Samaria to Yasser Arafat—a major step toward an Arab Palestinian state.

As Metternich saw, to expect the leaders of a dictatorship (such as the Fatah- or Hamas-led Palestinian Authority) to be moderate is like asking them to destroy the foundation of their existence.


“The idea of creating another Arab state in addition to the 21 already in existence, has no chance to survive. The creation of a Palestinian state will only bring chaos and steps toward it have not brought any good to Palestinians on the ground,”

Palestinian Arab Math

"Did you ever hear Olmert say: 'First fulfill what Arafat promised, to get all the goodies: an absolute stop to terror and no illegal weapons circulating. THEN amend the PLO Charter, that Arafat never did, which still does not allow the existence of Israel, THEN do what the Roadmap starts with: an absolute stop to hate propaganda against Israel and Jews. Come back for some bakshish when that is accomplished. Bye.'"
(Ralph Haglund, Sweden on the coming "Peace Conference", September 22, 2007, Jerusalem Post.)

فلسطينdelenda est

“The idea of creating another Arab state in addition to the 21 already in existence, has no chance to survive. The creation of a Palestinian state will only bring chaos and steps toward it have not brought any good to Palestinians on the ground,” Elon said. “I don’t want peace with Hizbullah. I don’t want to negotiate with Hizbullah. I want peace with Lebanon. I don’t want peace with Hamas in the south. I want peace with Egypt and with Jordan…Now, we are sitting and deciding which terrorist organizations are stronger - Hamas or Fatah. And you think these groups are united? In each group there exist splinter gangs and militias – complete chaos. I want to convince everyone that instead of local solutions trying to create an independent Palestinian state through choosing terror groups, we have to return to the concept of a regional solution.”
-Israeli MK Benny Elon


6 Years After Murder, Ze'evi's Son Talks Transfer on Army Radio
by Ezra HaLevi

Wednesday marks six years since the assassination of Rechavam "Gandhi" Ze’evi, who was Israel’s Tourism Minister at the time of his murder by an Arab terrorist on October 17, 2001.

Ze’evi, an IDF general and renowned historian, headed the Moledet party and promoted a platform of voluntary transfer of Arabs from Israel, including Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

He was shot dead at Jerusalem’s Hyatt Hotel, now the Regency, by terrorists of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

Ze’evi’s eldest son Palmach was interviewed on Army Radio Wednesday morning. Host Razi Barkai asked him where his father would be today if he were still alive.

“He would be prime minister,” Palmach said. “There are a good chances that even you would give him much more credit today after all that has happened. Much has changed since they used to throw tomatoes at the idea of transfer.”

Barkai: So if he was prime minister, he wouldn’t go to Annapolis[*]? He wouldn’t make a deal with Abu Mazen? He wouldn’t give up territory?

Ze’evi: I’ll tell you something, my father would always ask himself, ‘What has changed that we are suddenly deciding to take these steps? Have the Arabs changed? Has Islam changed?’…We have sat with all the so-called moderates, and even they haven’t given up the Right of Return…We are falling over ourselves to receive a hug from the world and endangering the country.”

Barkai: You have to admit, morality aside, that transfer is simply not do-able, it is not practical today. It just can’t be done in the Middle East today.

Ze’evi: Razi, let’s stop this demagoguery. If you and all those who repeat the mantra that transfer is impossible would hold a serious discussion on it for once, it would be considered seriously. It is serious if you desire life. Two nations cannot split the land. That has not worked anywhere in the world and certainly not in the Middle East. This is the reality. There are many ways to implement it, but to come and say let’s make two camps so we can live here, and to say that transfer is racist and impractical, is really not dealing with the issue.

Barkai: So who should lead the country today?
Ze’evi: I won’t evade the question completely, but I will tell you that ideology is sorely lacking in nearly all members of the leadership today…I will say that the most worthy of all the possibilities today is Binyamin Netanyahu.

Memorial Ceremony

A memorial ceremony for Ze’evi is scheduled for Thursday at 3 PM at the Mt. Herzl military cemetery in Jerusalem. It will be attended by dignitaries, friends and family. The public is invited to take part.

'Olmert is Dangerous to Diaspora Jewry'

[Note: scroll down page at website to find this item]

Thursday, October 11, 2007
Netanyahu Speech - Opening Session Winter 2007
[given on October 8, 2007]

We want to forge a genuine peace - a peace that can be made only with a genuine partner and which will be based on the following principles.
1. Defensible borders and not the indefensible 1967 lines - the Jordan River will be Israel's eastern border.
2. A united Jerusalem, not a divided one.
3. Israeli sovereignty over the holy sites, safeguarding the freedom of worship for all religions, and not the transfer of control over these sites to Islamic extremists.
4. Cooperation with Jordan and Egypt over final status questions.
5. Complete dismantling of all terror infrastructure.
6. Resolution of the refugee issue by dismantling the refugee camps and rehabilitating their inhabitants - and not by bringing even a single refugee into Israel.

entire speech can be read at


The Battle for Jerusalem Begins
Lieberman Under Attack for Statement on Dividing Jerusalem
Jordan Replaces P.A. in MK Elon's Peace Plan
Arab Rock Throwings Spread To Galilee

TV Authority Refuses "United Jerusalem" Ads
Abbas Announces Flat Demands for PA State
Gag Order Lifted on Fatah Terror Attack Last Month
*Annapolis, MD, is where a meeting to establish a "Palestinian" state is scheduled to take place in November. Olmert, Abbas, and Bush are planning to be there. See the "Appendix."


The Annapolis Fiasco

Annapolis Conference
Annapolis "Peace" Conference of 2007

IMRA (Independent Media Review analysis) says:

Thursday, October 11, 2007
[If pigs could fly] Statement by former US officials prior to Annapolis
[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:
"Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty"
This is just the tip of the iceberg of the "if pigs could fly" approach embraced by this group.]

The full text follows:


The following letter on the Middle East peace conference scheduled for Annapolis, Maryland in late November, was addressed by its signatories to President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The statement is a joint initiative of the U.S./Middle East Project, Inc., the International Crisis Group, and the New America Foundation/American Strategy Program.
The Israeli-Palestinian peace conference announced by President Bush and scheduled for November presents a genuine opportunity for progress toward a two-state solution. The Middle East remains mired in its worst crisis in years, and a positive outcome of the conference could play a critical role in stemming the rising tide of instability and violence. Because failure risks devastating consequences in the region and beyond, it is critically important that the conference succeed.

Bearing in mind the lessons of the last attempt at Camp David seven years ago at dealing with the fundamental political issues that divide the two sides, we believe that in order to be successful, the outcome of the conference must be substantive, inclusive and relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians:

The international conference should deal with the substance of a permanent peace: Because a comprehensive peace accord is unattainable by November, the conference should focus on the endgame and endorse the contours of a permanent peace, which in turn should be enshrined in a Security Council resolution. Israeli and Palestinian leaders should strive to reach such an agreement. If they cannot, the Quartet (US, EU, Russia and UN Secretary General)-under whose aegis the conference ought to be held- should put forward its own outline, based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, the Clinton parameters of 2000, the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative and the 2003 Roadmap. It should reflect the following:

. Two states, based on the lines of June 4, 1967, with minor, reciprocal, and agreed-upon modifications as expressed in a 1:1 land swap;

. Jerusalem as home to two capitals, with Jewish neighborhoods falling under Israeli sovereignty and Arab neighborhoods under Palestinian sovereignty;

. Special arrangements for the Old City, providing each side control of its respective holy places and unimpeded access by each community to them;

. A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance;

. Security mechanisms that address Israeli concerns while respecting Palestinian sovereignty.
The conference should not be a one-time affair. It should set in motion credible and sustained permanent status negotiations under international supervision and with a timetable for their completion, so that both a two-state solution and the Arab peace initiative's full potential (normal, peaceful relations between Israel and all Arab states) can be realized.

The international conference should be inclusive:

. In order to enhance Israel's confidence in the process, Arab states that currently do not enjoy diplomatic relations with Israel should attend the conference.

. We commend the administration for its decision to invite Syria to the conference; it should be followed by genuine engagement.

A breakthrough on this track could profoundly alter the regional landscape. At a minimum, the conference should launch Israeli-Syrian talks under international auspices.

. As to Hamas, we believe that a genuine dialogue with the organization is far preferable to its isolation; it could be conducted, for example, by the UN and Quartet Middle East envoys.
Promoting a cease-fire between Israel and Gaza would be a good starting point.

The international conference should produce results relevant to the daily lives of Israelis and Palestinians: Too often in the past, progress has been stymied by the gap between lofty political statements and dire realities on the ground. The conference therefore should also result in agreement on concrete steps to improve living conditions and security, including a mutual and comprehensive cease-fire in the West Bank and Gaza, an exchange of prisoners, prevention of weapons smuggling, cracking down on militias, greater Palestinian freedom of movement, the removal of unjustified checkpoints, dismantling of Israeli outposts, and other tangible measures to accelerate the process of ending the occupation.

Of utmost importance, if the conference is to have any credibility, it must coincide with a freeze in Israeli settlement expansion. It is impossible to conduct a serious discussion on ending the occupation while settlement construction proceeds apace. Efforts also should focus on alleviating the situation in Gaza and allowing the resumption of its economic life.

These three elements are closely interconnected; one cannot occur in the absence of the others. Unless the conference yields substantive results on permanent status, neither side will have the motivation or public support to take difficult steps on the ground. If Syria or Hamas are ostracized, prospects that they will play a spoiler role increase dramatically. This could take the shape of escalating violence from the West Bank or from Gaza, either of which would overwhelm any political achievement, increase the political cost of compromises for both sides and negate Israel's willingness or capacity to relax security restrictions.

By the same token, a comprehensive cease-fire or prisoner exchange is not possible without Hamas's cooperation.

And unless both sides see concrete improvements in their lives, political agreements are likely to be dismissed as mere rhetoric, further undercutting support for a two-state solution.The fact that the parties and the international community appear-after a long, costly seven-year hiatus-to be thinking of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is welcome news. Because the stakes are so important, it is crucial to get it right. That means having the ambition as well as the courage to chart new ground and take bold steps.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter
Lee H. Hamilton, former Congressman and Co-chair of the Iraq Study Group
Carla Hills, former U.S. Trade Representative under President George H.W. Bush
Nancy Kassebaum-Baker, former Senator
Thomas R. Pickering, former Under-Secretary of State
Brent Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor to President Gerald Ford and President George H.W. Bush
Theodore C. Sorensen, former Special Counsel and Adviser to President John F. Kennedy
Paul Volcker, former Chairman of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve System

[Note: Fools All! the signatories, that is--and all who expect that this will result in a "permanent peace between "Palestinian Arabs" and the Jewish state of Israel. Not as long as Islam exists will Israel be able to let down its guard.]

As to Abbas, leader of a gang of Fatah and other assorted thugs, he will be attending the Conference. See what he through his news organ wishes on his American hosts:

--Paul Eidelberg The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

The Hidden Motives of Israel’s Ruling Elites:

Behind the Policy of Territory for Peace—Part I*

Paul Eidelberg
The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy
People everywhere are bewildered by Israeli politics. They cannot fathom the motives of Israel’s ruling elites, their addiction to the futile and fatal policy of territory for peace. What really motivates these politicians?

Some pundits say they are stupid or mad or suffer from a Jewish “death wish.” Others say that Israel’s dependency on U.S military aid compels Israeli prime ministers to genuflect to Washington. Let me offer an alternative explanation.

When I made aliya in 1976, I was amused to hear people say that the paramount concern of Israeli politicians is their “seats.” This conventional wisdom actually confirms Machiavelli’s conception of politics. The father of modern political science maintained that egoism is the key principle of politics. According to Machiavelli, the essence of human nature is desire, and the strongest desire is the will to power.

Plato and Aristotle were no less aware that politicians are motivated by egoism, but they asked how can regimes be structured to serve the common good, above all, human excellence or virtue.

Egoism is commonplace, else why the Ten Commandments? Where Machiavelli departs radically from the Bible and classical political science is that he based his new science of politics on the behavior of ordinary human beings, not on the exceptions—say sterling patriots like Cicero, Washington, and Churchill.

Now, if politics is rooted in egoism, then altruism is a myth. It follows that politicians use such words as the “common good” or the “national interest” as façade to obscure and dignify their own self-interest. This applies to Israeli politicians who talk about “peace.” They too are animated by egoism.

If one studies Israel’s periodic, multiparty elections, is it not strange that regardless of which party or party coalition has won control of the government during the past 30 years, all have pursued the obviously dangerous and counterintuitive policy of yielding land to Arabs culturally addicted to war?

Most curious is the behavior of the religious parties. What motivated Shas, an ultra-orthodox party, to join the Labor-Meretz government in 1992 despite the ultra-secularism of those two parties and their commitment to yielding Judea, Samaria, and Gaza for peace?

What motivated the National Religious Party—a Zionist party—join the Sharon government of 2003 and sign its coalition agreement, which bound the signatories to the Oslo Accords?

What motivated Torah United Judaism, another ultra-orthodox party, to join the Sharon government of 2004 and thereby enable that government to expel Gaza’s 8,000 Jewish residents and render them homeless?

To cover their nakedness, these parties said something like this: “We can do more good inside the government than outside, by restraining its land-for-peace policy and by securing larger appropriations for Jewish education.” To Machiavelli, this is baloney. The principal objective of all parties is power or self-aggrandizement.

If this Machiavellian analysis is correct, then it’s futile and even misleading for opponents of land for peace to (1) expose the genocidal intentions of Israel’s enemies; (2) reveal the dangerous strategic consequences of that policy; and (3) appeal to moral and religious values. More than fourteen years of incessant criticism of Oslo illustrate this futility. The only way to put an end to the land-for-peace policy is for its opponents to obtain more power than its advocates. Demonstrations will not do this unless designed to topple the government and inaugurate a new kind of government, one whose leaders have a personal interest in establishing Jewish sovereignty over all the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

Israel’s ruling elites are not stupid, and it’s a strategic error to pursue plans as if they were. One should assume that these elites conform to Machiavelli’s understanding of human nature. These elites are well aware of the deadly intentions of the Palestinian Authority. Those intentions are proclaimed by PA leaders, broadcast in PA media, and manifested in ceaseless terrorist attacks.

Israel’s ruling elites do not need defense experts to know that surrendering Judea and Samaria with its strategically important highlands and water resources cannot but endanger Israel’s survival. As for appeals to moral and religious values, these have not prevented the religious parties, as indicated, from supporting, at least indirectly, the fatal policy of land for peace. Therefore, if Israel’s ruling elites are not stupid or mad, then that policy—as they see it—serves their own interests or serves to maintain their political power.

The Hidden Motives of Israel’s Ruling Elites:

Behind the Policy of Territory for Peace—Part II*

The question before us is this: How does the land-for-peace policy—a policy proven to be futile and deadly—how does this policy perpetuate the power of Israel’s ruling elites?

The first thing that we must bear in mind is that egoism renders politicians indifferent to history and posterity. They live in the present, and in the present they care nothing about the welfare of others, except when it serves their own interests. Egoism dulls the sense of outrage at the suffering of others. Notice that Israeli governments have not retaliated, in a sustained and decisive way, against terrorist attacks that have killed or wounded or traumatized tens of thousands Jewish women, men, and children. Limited incursions into terrorist havens and targeted killings of terrorists serve to mollify the public. Indeed, to destroy the PA and its terrorist network would contradict the land-for-peace policy which requires what Israel’s ruling elites call a “negotiating partner.”

It will not do to say that these elites are deterred by Israel’s dependence on U.S. military aid. U.S. military aid last year was $2.28 billion, a mere 1.3% of Israel’s Gross Domestic Product. The security fence, the redeployment of the IDF after its withdrawal from Gaza, and the monetary compensation of the Jews expelled from Gaza cost far more than $2.28 billion—and all this was a direct consequence of the policy of land for peace! So, what is behind what seems like inanity and insanity? Do Israel’s ruling elites have ulterior motives unknown to the public and even to the pundits?

By ruling elites I mean, primarily the leaders of three major parties: Kadima, Lukud, and Labor. These are secular parties. They know their days are numbered. Hundreds of thousands of secularists have left Israel; and while many thousands of secularists are having abortions, the religious are having babies and will eventually gain political ascendancy.

To counteract this demographic development, the Labor Party amended the Law of Return via the “grandfather clause,” which has enabled hundreds of thousands of gentiles to become citizens of Israel and thereby diminish the power of the religious vote. Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit wants to nullify the Law of Return to make Israel a normal country, a multicultural country.

This is why the Jewish content of the public school curriculum has been eviscerated. “Multiculturalism” is the order of the day, systematically implemented by the ultra-secular Supreme Court, which has ruled, contrary to Jewish law and even objective international law, that Judea, Samaria, and Gaza constitute “belligerent occupied territory.” What’s going on here?

The teachings of the Prophets of Israel, intimately related to Judea and Samaria, especially Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, were engraved in the Jewish people’s collective memory. So long as Jews remained in Judea and Samaria, most Jews in Israel would remain bonded to Judaism. This bond had to be severed; Judaism had to be emasculated and the Jewish soul deconstructed. This was the hidden purpose of Oslo’s architects. And this is not all.

To perpetuate their power, the ruling elites had to keep the people powerless. What keeps the people powerless is Israel’s parliamentary electoral system whereby members of the Knesset are not accountable to the people in constituency elections. Thus, despite democratic elections, the citizens of Israel have been effectively disenfranchised for almost 60 years! That’s why regardless of which party gains control of the government, the ruling elites continue the futile and fatal policy of territory for peace.
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 5, 2007. This Report is an abbreviation of a 24-page policy paper, “The Fixation of Israel’s Elites on Land for Peace: Five Interpretations.” scheduled for publication by a major journal in December.

posted by David Silon

One of the most powerful images I've seen on the nightly news is a parade of Arabs in the 'West Bank,' with a gigantic key held in front of the procession. The meaning of this picture is obvious - Palestinian refugees forced out by the Jews 50 years ago, holding up a symbolic key representing the keys each and every Palestinian still hold to their former homes. Either that, or their former homes contained huge doors with gigantic locks. When the pope visited Israel in March of 2000, his visit to Bethlehem included a crowd of Arabs holding up keys to their old homes, something they still possessed after 50 years.

These and other such images are well-ingrained in the minds of the international community - especially since anti-Semitism dominates the international media and the peoples of western Europe and the Middle East.

The popular perception of Israeli history is one of the evil Jews coming from Europe, especially refugees from the Holocaust, settling in Palestine and ending up taking land away from the Palestinians. It's an image that's a culmination of centuries of these types of images as depicted by such literary characters as Shylock, Svengali, and Fagan. Most everybody in the world considers the Arabs of Israel/Palestine to be indigenous to the region because they look indigenous to the region.

Ironically, the Zionist movement helped to spread this type of perception: Jews coming to an empty land after a 2000 year absence, fighting the indigenous Arab marauders, and making the desert bloom.

Now let's take a look at the facts. There has never been a 2000 year absence. Jews have lived in Israel/Palestine for 4000 years and those Jewish families who have constantly lived in the country since Biblical times, the mustarabim, are the indigenous Palestinians.

The first Arabs came to the country in the 7th century in the wake of their conquering armies after the death of Mohammed. They've been immigrating, and emigrating, ever since, bringing with them their civil wars (in which Jews were severely persecuted by both sides) and their screwed-up environmental concepts that turned forest into desert. Other groups of peoples also immigrated to Israel/Palestine during this time, especially the Druze. (Today, if you call a Druze an Arab, you've just insulted him. This was told to me by a Druze.) Perhaps the earliest Zionist pioneers did have to fight Arab marauders and make the desert bloom, but they did not come to an empty land. Maybe it was sparsely populated, but it was not empty of Jews.

Subsequent decades of Zionist history have been characterized by trying to make peace with the Arabs, and totally ignoring the indigenous Jewish community, as if they didn't exist. White America may have killed off the native peoples of America, but at least they acknowledged that they were there. The treatment of the Palestinian Jews by the Zionist immigrants reflected their treatment by the Zionist movement during the troubled years of the British mandate between 1917 and 1948. There were 4 periods between WWI and 1949 that Palestinian conflicts resulted in a refugee situation:

The first Palestinian refugees were Jews. In the aftermath of WWI, British rule in Palestine supplanted 400 years of Turkish rule and a British administration was installed, headed by Ronald Storrs, governor of Jerusalem, and the Chief-of-Staff Richard Waters-Taylor. A week before Easter, Waters-Taylor, with the blessing of Storrs, had made a secret agreement with local Arab nationalist leaders to conduct bloody riots against the Jews of Palestine to show the world just how unpopular Zionism was. (See Benjamin Netanyahu's A Durable Peace under the chapter "Betrayal.") During the Arab pilgrimage to the site of Nebi Musa, believed by Muslims to be the burial place of Moses, the Arab masses were whipped into a frenzy and began to riot. This spread throughout the whole of the country beginning in Jerusalem. Their excuse to the world at large was that they were acting out their 'legitimate' grievances against the massive Jewish immigration into the country, fostered by the 'lax' British policy.

What they conveniently ignored was the massive Arab immigration into the country brought on by the economic opportunities introduced by the Jews. In fact, in the 30's, President Roosevelt was reported to have commented that Arab immigration to Palestine far exceeded that of Jewish immigration (See A Durable Peace.) In any case, these riots were tame when compared to later riots. Seven Jews were killed, 200 wounded and women were raped. There were partial expulsions from various areas, such as from east Jerusalem, Jaffa, Gaza, and the tiny Jewish community of Khan Yunis, which consisted of just a few families. A total expulsion occurred from Lod. Many just left fearing more of the same, which indeed happened. In east Jerusalem, the remaining Jews were faced with massacre, but a defense force, organized immediately after WWI by Vladimir Jabotinsky, a WWI hero of Jewish Palestine, prevented this from happening. This organization was later to become the Haganah. As a result, Jabotinsky was arrested by the British and given a 15 year prison sentence. He was pardoned the next year due to international pressure.

The parliament in London was outraged at events in Palestine and quickly set about to dismiss both Storrs and Waters-Taylor. They created the office of High Commissioner, the first of which being Sir Herbert Samuel, a Jew. But the anti-Semitic administration still remained in the country. Samuel was a rather weak politician and the administration was successful in prevailing upon him to appoint Haj Amin al Husseini, the notorious Arab nationalist, as Grand Mufti of Arab Palestine, to appease the 'legitimate' Arab grievances. He later became a strong nazi ally.

The next year, Husseini orchestrated, with the full backing of the British authorities, a renewal of the most recent riots which resulted in the deaths of, perhaps, as many as 47 Jews. Of these, at least 13 were massacred at an immigrant hostel in Jaffa. The mob was actively aided by the Arab members of the local police.

Consequently, more Jews were expelled from Jaffa and Samuel acquiesced to Arab demands and suspended Jewish immigration to the country while allowing Arab immigration to continue unabated. Partial expulsions occurred in Ramle, Beersheba, and Shiloah, the site of the original City of David and burial place of Rabbi Ovadiah Bertinoro, the late 15th century Chief Rabbi of Palestine. The tiny settlements of Kfar Saba and Kfar Malal (birthplace of Ariel Sharon), were totally destroyed and their residents driven out. Both were rebuilt the following year, but other communities were not so lucky. These refugees were either immigrants, or were families that have lived in their homes for generations. To anyone who could see, it was clear - it didn't matter whether Jews were immigrants or not. The Arabs and British wished to clear Palestine of Jews, period. It is a policy that continues to this day.

In 1922, in a continuing policy of appeasing the Arabs, 75% of Palestine was taken away from the Jews and the Emirate of Transjordan was created, later to become Jordan. First the British, then the Arabs banned the entry of Jews from the area - a policy that continued until very recently. This put those communities of Arabs in Transjordan and even the Judean desert who were of Jewish ancestry in an awkward position. In 1948, these Arabs had always had good relations with their Jewish neighbors, but after 1948, most found themselves living on what became known as the 'West Bank' (and Jordan). They were often threatened with death by the other Arabs so that today, they would emphatically deny any Jewish connection.

The pretext for the newest wave of riots, and subsequent expulsions, was the right of Jews to pray at the Western Wall, the last remnant of the Temple of Solomon. These riots, which began in August on the holiday of Tisha B Av, commemorating the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, were even bloodier than the previous ones as Jewish women were raped, pregnant women were disemboweled, men were sometimes hacked to death and not even children were spared. This became an Arab trait to this day. When it was all over, approximately 130 Jews had been killed.

By this time, the Haganah was stronger and able to contain the rioters. But they weren't totally successful. In Hebron, 67 Jews were massacred, including 8 Americans, in the brutal way previously described, and the rest were driven out. Similar events occurred in Motza as was witnessed by a young Mordechai Makleff (later, Chief-of-Staff of the Israel Defense Forces) who saw his parents murdered. Eighteen were massacred in Safed, resulting in a partial exile of the community. Partial expulsions also took place in other places, most notably in Jerusalem and Pekiin - a mustarabi community and the last of the Jews were driven out of Shiloah, Gaza, Kfar Uriyah, Ein Zeitim, Bet Shemesh/Har Tuv and Beer Tuviyah. Some of these communities were reestablished the following year and Motza in 1933.

During this time, the area of northern Samaria became known as the 'Triangle' consisting of the 3 apex cities of Jenin, Nablus, and Tulkarm. It became a hotbed of Arab fanaticism and no Jew would dare enter this area. The Jewish community of Nablus, driven out in 1904 due to centuries of persecutions, oppression, and high taxes imposed only on Jews and Samaritans, had long made repeated attempts to renew itself. And some were, in fact, successful in settling there.

But an organized community was repeatedly blocked by the Arabs and the few Jews who lived there were finally driven out during the riots of 1929. Only the Samaritans remained, however precariously. The ancient Jewish pilgrimages to the Tomb of Joseph in Nablus, and the Biblical tombs in Awarta and Kfar Haris nearby, became dangerous and ceased. (Today, Jews are banned from entering Nablus except with army permission. The Samaritan community still remains.) During the riots, Jews were banned from Kfar Yasif which lies to the east of Acre and Haifa and the ancient pilgrimages to the Tomb of Samuel to the north of Jerusalem and the Tomb of Rachel to the south became extremely dangerous. Jabotinsky was exiled by the British authorities, at the instigation of the Arabs.

This was the last of the major Arab riots and expulsions before the War of Independence in 1947-1949. In the first month of the riots, 21 Jews were killed, rising to 80 in the first year. It would eventually result in the deaths of approximately 500 Jews. The Arabs blamed the British authorities with fostering Jewish immigration resulting in bloody attacks against the British as well. This situation resulted in a brief period of Jewish/British military cooperation. From the British point of view, they were cooperating with the Jews while fighting Arab terror on the one hand, and trying to prevent Jewish immigrants from arriving while 'appeasing Arab grievances' on the other. From the Jewish point of view, they just wanted to live.

During this period the last of the Jews were expelled from Ramle, Beersheba, Acre, Ein Zeitim, Hebron (except for 1 family who was driven out in 1948), Pekiin, and Bet She'an which became a base for Arabs to attack the neighboring Jewish communities. Partial expulsions occurred in a number of places and Jews were again banned from entering Kfar Yasif after a brief respite. At the end of the year, the bloodbath ceased when the Arabs responded to British pleas to stop the violence. It was renewed, however, early the next year with a vengeance. In Tiberias, 19 Jews were massacred and many Jewish families fled their homes rather than await the same fate. Armed gangs took control over the Old City of Jerusalem which was relieved only with British reconquest.

In November, 1947, the UN voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. The Arabs rejected the decision and embarked on a campaign of slaughter in order to turn Palestine into an exclusively Arab state. Between this time and Israeli independence on May 14, 1948, many hundreds of Jews were massacred by Arab gangs. After independence, 5 Arabs armies invaded, threatening an extermination that would have made the nazis proud - and indeed, several of their military leaders and organizations were either nazi or British trained and led: Fawzi al Kaukji, Haj Amin al Husseini, the Arab Legion of Jordan. During the war all communities in and around east Jerusalem were massacred, destroyed, and expelled. The students at the agricultural school in Ben Shemen near Tel Aviv were driven out and partial or total expulsions occurred in places far away from Jerusalem.

In addition, Israel had to deal with a new phenomenon - the massive expulsion of Jews from the neighboring Arab countries, many times more than the Palestinian Jewish refugees, and eventually numbering between 6-800,000. Some estimates go as high as 900,000. Israel survived the war, with approx. 6000 dead, 1% of the Jewish population at the time. Jordan took the chunk of Palestine known today as the 'West Bank' including east Jerusalem, and Egypt took the area now known as the Gaza Strip, which included Gaza and Khan Yunis.

According to JIMENA (Jews Indigenous to the Middle East and North Africa), 'refugee' is a state of mind. If you believe you're homeless and stateless victims, you'll soon act like homeless and stateless victims. While the neighboring Arab countries refuse to care for their Palestinian Arab brothers, all Jews have been successfully resettled by other Jews, mostly in Israel (ideally anyway), but also by other Jewish communities in other countries.

Since the war and until the Six-Day War in 1967, all Jews were banned from the West Bank and Gaza Strip - areas where Jews had lived since Biblical times. This applied even to those Jews who were not Israeli citizens. Those who lived in Jerusalem along the cease-fire line were constantly subject to Arab snipers coming from the other side. Those who could fled the terror. These were part of the post-1948 refugees.

After the 1967 war, these areas returned to Israel/Palestine. It was soon revealed that the ancient Jewish neighborhoods in Gaza, Hebron and east Jerusalem were totally gutted and the ancient synagogues were used as garbage dumps. (This is the situation in Gaza even today.) The ancient Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem was destroyed, its tombstones were used either for road-building or for making latrines. Much has been rebuilt since then, but today, the descendants of the Gaza or Khan Yunis or Nablus or Hebron refugees can never return to their ancestral homes in Gaza or Khan Yunis or Nablus or Hebron except by government permission (if such is granted).

This report is not detailed by any means, but it gives an approximate picture of what really happened. This is not unique to Israel. The indigenous peoples throughout the Arab world have suffered similar fates: the Copts of Egypt, the Berbers of North Africa, the Nubians of the Sudan, the Syrian Orthodox of Syria, etc. All these peoples are suffering, at present, in their respective homelands, because of Arab colonization and oppression, massacres and expulsions. To date, only the Jews have been successful in regaining their ancestral homeland. So when revisionist historians whine and bitch that ben Gurion expelled the Arabs from Ramle, remind them that Jews were expelled from Ramle the previous decade.
David Silon is a free-lance writer living in Los Angeles.
July 17, 2003
This article first appeared in]
Cheshvan 5764 / 05 November 03

Options Before or After Annapolis

Paul Eidelberg

When a prime minister persists in pursuing the policy of “land for peace,” a policy that repeatedly results in destructive consequences, what interpretations can be made of this prime minister?

(1) He’s a fool.
(2) He’s insane (perhaps an egomaniac).
(3) He’s a coward intimidated and controlled by a foreign power.
(4) He’s a scoundrel who, unknown to the public, derives financial rewards for this policy.
(5) He’s a Machiavellian who deliberately employs the anti-Jewish policy of land for peace to transform the national identity of his country.

Other motives are imaginable, but the five mentioned allow us to draw certain conclusions about what opponents of said policy might do or think of doing to defeat it.

If the prime minister is a fool or insane, appeals to reason or moral suasion are futile.

If the prime minister is a coward intimidated and controlled by a foreign power, various options are conceivable though not necessarily doable. Here are five:

(a) Persuade the foreign power that continuation of said policy is not in its own interest.
(b) Create an entity that can arouse greater fear in that cowardly prime minister.
(c) Encourage senior military officers to confront the prime minister with an ultimatum: “Stop this madness or we shall issue a public statement calling on you to resign.”
(d) Organize mass demonstrations against said policy.
(e) Topple the government in the hope of installing a more courageous prime minister by means of new elections.

Option (a) has virtually no chance of success.

Option (b) can be nipped in the bud by the security forces available to the prime minister.

Option (c) is unlikely because the dogma of democracy trumps Judaism, while political careerism trumps patriotism.

Option (d), judging from the past, will not get off the ground unless led by a charismatic person whose aim is regime change (and this too can be nipped in the bud).

Option (e) seems doable, for example, by inducing Shas and Israel Beiteinu to resign from the government. But this will not change said policy unless a new party, led by a charismatic individual, attains decisive political power via new elections.

So, what, if anything can be done to save Israel from the anti-Zionist and suicidal policy of land for peace?
Back in 1995, I wrote an article in the Jewish Press urging Zionist organizations to form an International Jewish Parliament to prevent Israel’s demise. It was then obvious that the ideas outlined in Theodor Herzl’s heroic Jewish State had reached a dead end. A shallow political Zionism and territorial nationalism were going nowhere. Its champions, Herut, Likud, Techiya, and Tsomet, were intellectually bankrupt.

No less significant was the inability or unwillingness of these parties to remedy Israel’s inept, divisive, and oligarchic system of governance. Israel needed regime change. Hence I drafted a Constitution that would shift power from parties to the people by means of a personal election of Knesset members and a presidential system comparable to that of the United States—a system actually rooted in basic Jewish principles.

However, the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993 was could not but hasten Israel’s demise. Therefore, in 1996, the present writer proposed the establishment of a “Congress of National Salvation.” In 2000 he submitted an extensive working paper for such a Congress to various non-parliamentary nationalist and religious groups. Since then he has proposed the formation of an “alternative government” with aspects of that working paper in mind.

To speak of an “alternative government” is to indicate that the issue confronting Israel—and here I speak not as a Jew but as a political scientist—is one of power. Unless opponents of land for peace think in terms of power—that is, in terms of obtaining control of the government—they will accomplish nothing. To avoid suppression, however, the “alternative government” will require a supportive, high-profile organization in the United States. Plans for such an organization are available.
--Paul Eidelberg
but still, as always

Palaestina arabica delenda est

Islam delenda est

No comments: