Columbia University’s So Called “Divestment”

January 26th, 2006

April 7, 2005

Anti-Israel professors at Columbia University are urging their university “to divest its holdings in companies that sell military equipment to Israel”.

While the resolution has not yet passed there is concern that it will. Indeed we may assume the university would be happier if all the companies’ investors divested. For that would supposedly teach the targeted company– and a great many others – that it does not pay to trade with Israel.

Nevertheless, how ethical is it to offload its “tainted” holdings to another investor who shouldn’t, in their view, be supporting the targeted company anyhow? Sure smacks of befuddled thinking if not shady ethics from the Columbia professors. Even hypocritical, wouldn’t you say?

Still Israel should not be worried about the kind of divestment Columbia professors are promoting, for in financial terms this is a nothing activity.

What would the university gain/lose if it sold its holdings? Depends on selling at a profit or loss.

What would the companies lose?
Nothing.

What would Israel lose? Nothing.

Will the University sell actually sell the holdings in question for this specific reason? Highly doubtful. They’re not that stupid.

So what’s it all about?

It’s nothing more than a deceitful PR trick by certain professors to gain media publicity for their anti-Semitic prejudices.

I wish they would sell. Israel would gain because Columbia’s anti-Israeli voice would not be heard at annual meetings of shareholders. The inimical university would have been replaced by a friendly or at least neutral investor.

So where lies the danger of divestment to Israel? It is not in divestment which, as analyzed, is a nothing activity – but purely in the accompanying PR hoopla. Because the smart, devious professors know that divestment makes a good PR story. One the media will pounce on and which will lead to a new round of Israel bashing. The question is, why should the university and the media fall for the professors’ sick joke?

Of course the regular anti-Israel media (the NY Times, LA Times, BBC and The Guardian are good examples) can be depended on to use the opportunity – to knock more nails in Israel’s coffin – despite the divestment story being a strictly non-event.

   April 7, 2005

Why Do Self-hating Jews Remain Jews?

January 25th, 2006

What is the secret that bonds Prof. Steven Rose, a self-hating Jew, to the Jewish people? Why does an atheist hold onto an affiliation that so offends him?

No one compels Rose to be a Jew. Why doesn’t he just stop being Jewish? He doesn’t even have to convert. Like so many others he could just cease being a Jew. Wouldn’t that lift the intolerable burden of his need to scathe Israel at every turn?

One must wonder at the motivation of a Jewish professor who hates Zionism and Israel so much. Why does he actively seek media publicity to express his deep dissatisfaction and attacks us for his prejudices in ways which he knows will gain wide media exposure?

I recall Steven Rose a couple of years back when, together with other Jewish professors of his ilk, publicly aired their disgust with Zionism and Israel by announcing abrogation of their right, as Jews, to immigrate to Israel. Did he think any one in the world gave a tinker’s cuss? The Roses never had the slightest intention of making aliyah. It was nothing more than a publicity seeking trick.

As expected however, it worked very well. It was just the kind of fodder the anti-Israel media loved. A Jewish professor no less and what appeared to be his biting criticism of Israel. It propelled the Roses into the limelight. There are more Jews in the world than there are in Israel and we obviously respect their right to live wherever they wish. Sure we are interested in more Jews making aliyah – and will help those who choose to come. But while we welcome those who return to the Jew’s ancestral home, Israel nevertheless values the Jewish diaspora.

None of us has ever tried to persuade the professors Rose to join us. Why should we give a hoot where they live? Nor would any diaspora Zionist shed a tear at their preference for England’s green and pleasant land. Hearty laughs at their stupid PR announcement should have been in order. But they knew the anti-Zionist media would eagerly grasp this strictly no-news item and splash it into an anti-Israel hate fest. The Roses were no doubt overjoyed that their PR trick worked so well.

A man who announces that he will not marry his fiancé is rightly ignored by the world’s news media. He deserves his obscurity. But let him add … “because I discovered she is a Zionist” – that would be a different kettle of fish. It would then become a field day especially for the anti-Semitic Guardian. (The Guardian is given first bite at publishing the Rose’s anti-Semitic forays.) Well the Roses are back in the hate Israel business this week with their latest PR announcement (abbreviated):

“… more than 120 university academics across Europe had signed an open letter calling for a moratorium on all future cultural and research links with Israel at European level until Israel abides by UN resolutions and opens serious peace negotiations along the lines of the recent Saudi peace plan.”

We are also reminded by the Roses and their group – as a matter of pique – that no other Mid East state merits the EU’s “cultural and research links with Israel”. However, we are given no context. So allow me to supply some:

  • No other Mid East State is democratic enough for the EU. All have capital punishment – outlawed by the EU.
  • Executions by decapitation or slow hanging and are carried out – in public.
  • Many states permit death by stoning for adulteresses. (Men get a pat on the back.)
  • Women who behave dishonorably are put to death by their dishonored families.
  • Thieves have limbs cut off in public.
  • Young females have their clitoris removed by older females.
  • Virtually all the Arab States harbor, succor and fund active terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia is one of the worst, having supplied 16 of the 19 terrorists which delivered 9/11 to the American people.
  • Slavery is still practiced in some states, including Saudi Arabia.
  • The PA is a Terrorist Authority which executes collaborators and coddles their armed terrorists.

Yet democratic Israel with its independent judiciary and none of the disqualifications of the Arab states, is the one picked on by the Roses and other misguided professors, for public excoriation. Israel with its 5.25 million Jews has more professors per capita than most countries of Europe. And publishes more academic work than most individual EU states – and certainly more than all the Mid East States put together.

Self hating Jews like Steven Rose don’t bother me one whit. They can hate themselves all they wish, 24/7. What I don’t understand is why they are so obssessed to hate Jews who think differently. Why hate yourself so much that you prefer as a matter of principle, no matter all the world’s evils, to align your time, energy and sympathies with terrorist enemies of the Jews?

The wars of the Roses are not over. Stay tuned for another PR demarche before long.

Now read Professor Rose’s Reply:


“If you don’t care what I think, why send me this rant?

I sent it to you because I published it on the internet. Consequently it was the right thing to do. Moreover I do care what you as an anti-Semitic Jew do, to demonize Israel and the vast majority of Jews who do not share your extreme prejudice.

“I ‘remain’ a Jew only in the sense that I was born and brought up as an orthodox Jew. You know as well as I do that so far as racists are concerned that makes me Jewish (and as far as the right of return and zionists for that matter as well). I have no wish to deny or conceal my ancestry.”

I’m confused. Why do you as a happy secular support the racist idea of relying on mom to identify your Jewish ancestry? If you had the courage of your convictions, surely you would deny that such racism applies to you? You could then have been a regular non-Jewish anti-Semite. And folks like me would never bother with you.

“I am, however happily secular, thank you very much for asking.”

You are mistaken, I never asked you. But permit me to inform you that I too am secular, proud of my Jewish heritage, proud of my people’s contribution to civilization, proud of Israel’s fierce struggle for survival.

“Your quote from our press release from April 2002 is hopelessly out of date.”

Maybe so, but your anti-Semitic views haven’t changed. Have they?

“Many thousands of academics across Europe share a commitment to moratorium or boycott of Israeli institutions whilst Israel remains and apartheid state.”

*Has prejudice so blinded you to reality? Democratic Israel is a country of laws, with an independent judiciary, with 1,300,000 equal rights Arab citizens, who have 11 members in the Knesset, 3 of whom are Deputy Speakers, and you call us an apartheid state?

Israel which has aided over 70,000 black Jews to join us? And some thousands of Indian Jews?

By inference you appear to be immune to the degrading treatment of women in Arab/Moslem autocracies. And to the prejudice against and the persecution – often including violence, torture and killings – of Christian and other minorities.

Please explain in what way any Judenrein Arab state in Africa and the Middle East is not an apartheid state? And when you’ve done with these, please give your attention to the other Islamic countries. (57 in all including the Arab states.)

“. . . in breach of human rights legislation and UN resolutions.”

So you are driven to undertake an academic boycott of Israel’s universities due to Israel’s human rights breaches?

I have counted over 200 states listed in the 2004 report of Human Rights Watch International. Must one conclude that you and your team, Prof. Rose, analyzed each one of these reports and concluded that the complaints against Israel were the worst? And that is your ostensible justification for focusing on Israel as the only state deserving your academic boycott?

Or is it not more reasonable to conclude that you and your organization consist of advanced anti-Semites, and that undisguised prejudice guides your boycott intentions?

Most alleged complaints against Israel originate from security related measures which Israel has instituted to protect our civilians. Especially during the last 4 years of vicious, unrelenting, unmerciful intifada initiated by 13 murderous terrorist organizations led, harbored and funded by the top-to-bottom corrupt Palestine Authority. And encouraged by virtually all Arab and Islamic states. (Say 1.24 billion people.)

“It is not anti-semitic to be anti-zionist or critical of Israel.” Steven Rose.

I agree with you absolutely! And you have no idea how self-critical Israelis are!

It is anti-Semitic nevertheless, when you and your organization focus on Israel as the sole victim of your blatant bias.

It is anti-Semitic when you do not also campaign against China’s flagrant abuse of Tibetan human rights (50 years of occupation).

It is anti-Semitic when you do not also involve yourself in the abuse of the human rights of India’s 160 million “untouchables” who suffer indescribable collective punishment for having been born into the wrong caste.

It is anti-Semitic when you know the human rights of so many Africans (Rwanda and Darfur) have been violated by mass rapine and slaughter, yet you look the other way and focus on Israel for boycotting.

Why did you not boycott Russia for its horrible record in Chechnya? Or Chechnya for its horrible record in Russia?

Why do you not also take up cudgels on behalf of the millions of Kurds whose national aspirations have been suppressed by Iraq and Turkey for so long?

Why did you never react to the Taliban in Afghanistan whose support made it possible for Osama Bin Laden to carry out the Twin Towers’ massacre?

Why do you not also boycott Iran’s academia for the dire declarations of its leaders to exterminate the Jewish state?

And why do you spare the terrorist sponsoring state of Syria?

Because, Professor Rose, the only state you and your organization inherently hates is the Jewish State. That sir is anti-Semitism.

Jock L. Falkson

The BBC’s Hatred for Israel
By Daniel Doron

December 2nd, 2005

November 21, 2005
From:
Jock L. Falkson
To:
Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review
BBC Governance Unit
London

Dear Reviewers,

“This is not the first time, of course, that the BBC has taken on Israel in an effort to delegitimate it and, as in its previous efforts, it uses all possible means, including lies and distortions.” writes Daniel Doron.

These are fighting words from the President of The Israel Center for Social and Economic Progress, an independent pro-market policy think tank.

Doron is one of many BBC watchers who has found bias in too many BBC newscasts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And in most documentaries. Doron makes a compelling and convincing case.

I am submitting his article (The Jerusalem Post Jan. 28, 2004) to be considered for your review. I would hope to read your comments on the aspects raised when your Report is published.

Respectfully yours (etc)

Daniel Doron’s article begins here:

Those who wonder why Israel was chosen as the state most dangerous to world peace in a recent European poll need only look to the European media.

A recent BBC film Israel’s Secret Weapons, devoted to exposing Israel as a prime international threat worse than Saddam Hussein, is a prime example of how the European media vilifies Israel. The film was made prior to the American invasion, as part of an effort to delegitimate American efforts by showing that US ally Israel is by far the greater offender, and if anyone should be bombed Israel should be first.

Israel’s Secret Weapons was shown at the Jerusalem Cinematheque’s British film week sponsored by the British Council.

This is not the first time, of course, that the BBC has taken on Israel in an effort to delegitimate it and, as in its previous efforts, it uses all possible means, including lies and distortions.

From the beginning of the al-Aksa intifada in 2000, the BBC’s reports were routinely skewed in favor of Arafat’s terrorist regime. The BBC regularly suggested that Israel was the prime instigator of “the cycle of violence.” It accused Israel of killing far more Arab children than even exaggerated Palestinian Authority figures.

In November 2000 the BBC sank to the nadir of its pathological hatred for Israel, revealing the depth of its anti-Semitic bias. It opened a program about Palestinian children killed in the intifada by presenting as fact, complete with shots of skulls, the ancient anti-Semitic calumny of “Herod’s massacre of the innocents.”

Cutting straight from the skull-stuffed crypt (adult skulls, mind you) – which the BBC describes as the actual location where an ancient “massacre” of children occurred – to Manger Square, where a funeral was taking place of an Arab boy “shot through the head” (gangster style) by Israeli troops, the BBC brazenly drew a straight line connecting an alleged attempt to kill the child Christ to Israel’s killing of Palestinian children.

Throughout the intifada, the BBC repeated – with no corroborating evidence – the worst Arab fabrications and calumnies. In its expositions of the background to the conflict, it always endorsed the Palestinian narrative, though it must be aware that it is historically false.

The many Arabs present on the BBC’s talk shows can spread any calumny about Israel and they will never be challenged by BBC hosts. Nor will the BBC allow a proper rebuttal by Israelis. For “balance,” the BBC carefully chooses pro-Arab Israelis or some fumbling official from our pitiful foreign ministry. Anyone who is capable of mounting an effective rebuttal to the BBC’s distortions and lies are never be invited to speak.

BESIDES ITS news broadcasts, the BBC has been devoting several special programs to the task of delegitimizing Israel. A memorable hatchet job – also shown at the Cinematheque – was the Panorama program framing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as the “real” killer in the Christian Lebanese militia massacre of innocent Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. The BBC’s “case” was woven from a tissue of lies, distortions, significant omissions, allegations lacking any factual basis, and a sickening animus toward Sharon and Israel.

The same malevolent spirit animates Israel’s Secret Weapon. The film asks “Which state harbors the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction, refusing to let anyone inspect them?” It portrays Israel as a police state that commits atrocities just like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq; a state that punished virtuous whisleblower Mordechai Vanunu (whom the program compares to Andrei Sakharov) in the most cruel and illegal manner.

Everyone in the film condemns Israel except for Shimon Peres. Director Olenka Frenkiel manipulates Peres by asking him long leading questions and then cutting Peres’s responses to the bare minimum. When the dishonest Frenkiel asks Peres why Israel should not be treated like Iraq, the outraged Peres responds with “How could you compare, when Saddam killed so many innocent people and used gas against the Iranians and the Kurds?”

Olenka’s response is “Some do compare.” We soon find out who: The film cuts to two sequences, the first showing the Sabra and Shatilla massacre and suggesting that Sharon is the killer, and the second showing the alleged use by Israel of some mysterious gas against civilians in Gaza. Both sequences are based on falsehoods, but they establish the comparison between Israel and Iraq’s Saddam.

Israel’s Secret Weapon was followed by a panel discussion moderated by the IBA’s David Wiztum. It was heartening to hear how even those who generally criticize Israeli policies from the Left were shocked by the BBC animus and bias. The generally cool Wiztum spoke in anger.

Even Haaretz’s Danny Rubinstein, who is sympathetic to the PA, pointed to the film’s gross errors and distortions. Another panelist, author Lynda Grant, a writer for the Guardian, deplored the tendency of journalists to cast themselves as crusaders for a cause rather than report facts.

Hebrew University’s professor Robert Wistrich, an expert on anti-Semitism, said that “the documentary tries to suggest that Israel is the real rogue regime in the Middle East, an axis of evil, a state more dangerous than Saddam’s Iraq. It tells us that Dimona, not Baghdad, should be the target that Mordechai Vanunu was a hero and saint, unjustly prosecuted by a quasi-police state masquerading as a democracy.”

Israel’s precarious position as the only state threatened with extinction was never mentioned in the film.

“Such a distorted documentary in the current British climate can only inflame anti-Israel feelings and antipathy to Jews still further,” Wistrich concluded.

But the BBC representative stonewalled. He thought the film was a “cracking good yarn,” like soap opera stuff, and he refused to address any of the distortions and the lies it contained.

In the 1947-8 War of Independence, British policemen and soldiers disarmed Hagana members and then left them among Arab crowds to be cut to pieces. The BBC is trying to do the same to Israel. By portraying it as the worst criminal state and by totally whitewashing Arab dictatorships, especially the gangster-ruled Palestinian Authority – which it casts in the role of the righteous underdog, fighting against oppression – the BBC tries to disarm Israel morally and politically. As the panel discussion indicated, it is no use pleading with the BBC for fairness, decency, or justice. It is determined in its mission.

It is time for Israel to recognize who its enemies are and to protect itself from them. {} {} {}

Copyright The Jerusalem Post, January 28, 2004.

Disputed or Occupied Territories –
Who Knows Best?
BBC or James Baker,
Former Secretary Of State?

December 1st, 2005

November 13, 2005

The BBC is right to use the Palestinian term “occupied lands” if it is sure the lands in question belonged to the Palestinian nation. And that the Palestinian nation were the legal owners of these lands in international law.

But how can this be if Arab Palestinian nationhood never existed until very recently? I can recall when Golda Meir protested in the Knesset that she too was a Palestinian. And showed her passport, issued by the Mandatory Authority, to prove it.

In fact, Arab Palestinian nationhood only coalesced some time after the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Army) was created in 1964, during a meeting known as the Palestinian Congress which took place in Lebanon.

The Ottomans ruled Palestine from 1517 to 1917. The British took over till 1948 when Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Iraq attacked the newborn State of Israel, determined to obliterate it.

Israel expelled all the Arab armies in its War of Independence. Except Jordan which conquered the “West Bank”, and Egypt which conquered the Gaza Strip. That situation continued until 1967 when Israel defeated Jordan and Egypt in the Six Days War. They withdrew, leaving Israel in charge.

Why did Jordan not empower the so called “Palestinian nation” to create their own sovereignty during the 19 years it ruled the West Bank? After all Jordan went to war to aid the Arabs living here, not to increase its own territory?

Because a Palestinian nation never existed during those 19 years or before. Ergo it did not and could not have claimed “rights” to that land, since it had none

The same logic applied to Egypt’s Gaza Strip. It never occurred to the indigenous Arabs living there to demand Palestinian sovereignty because the idea of Palestinian nationhood did not exist until later.

And how come when Jordan and Egypt ruled these lands no one referred to them as occupied territories? Or to Egypt and Jordan as occupiers?

But after Israel’s victory, the territories were magically transformed by the Arabs (by an obvious but very successful public relations ploy!) into “occupied” lands. And Israel into “occupiers”.

The BBC, among others, decided to accept this ploy. But that’s all it was – a clever PR ploy. A stratagem, not international law.

The Palestinians will continue to refer to the areas as “occupied” for it has served them well. But the BBC and other media have no right to use ‘occupied’ as God’s truth. It was never more than a claim. It was wishfuil thinking, not historical fact.

If it is also the BBC’s intention to relay Israel’s truth, it must, correctly, use the term disputed territory. It certainly must not imply, as it has deliberately done, that “occupied” is Israel’s truth.

It will interest you to know that James Baker, former US Secretary of State, who was not the best friend of the Jewish state, supported the disputed territories position.

I quote the following from THE MYTH OF “OCCUPIED” TERRITORIES by Boris Shusteff, courtesy of Google:

“Mr. Baker categorically rejected the mislabeling of these lands. This happened at the Middle East Insight Symposium in Washington on May 4, 1998.”

“Hoda Tawfik, from the newspaper Al Ahram asked him, “What do you think is right? That these are occupied Arab territories and not disputed territories?”

“Baker replied, “They´re clearly disputed territories. That´s what Resolutions 242 and 338 are all about. They are clearly disputed territories.”

“Disputed” territories cannot become “occupied” territories with the wave of a hand.

Final disposition of these disputed lands will be settled, as required by the relevant United Nations’ Resolutions, in the peace plan to be agreed between the two disputants.

When BBC Interviewed Me

November 30th, 2005

November 14, 2005

To:
Israeli-Palestinian Impartiality Review
BBC Governance Unit
London

Dear Reviewers,

When BBC expresses anti-Israel bias it hurts Israel far more than other networks. Because your audience outreach is greater by far than even the most popular US networks.

You may not think so, nor realize it, but you cannot hurt Israel without harming Jews. Not only Jews in Israel, but wherever Jews live. For this reason your responsibility to be impartial in your Israel reporting is all the more essential.

My updated article, below, exposes BBC bias on “West Bank Occupation”.

Respectfully (etc.)

I dreamed I was being interviewed by an erudite BBC newscaster who was objectively seeking to endorse the Palestinians view that Israel is a colonial occupying power carrying out the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, known as the West Bank. When I awoke I quickly jotted down the questions and my answers while they were fresh in my memory.

BBC: I’ve asked you to our studios to comment on the Palestinian view, expressed here every day that Israel is illegally occupying the West Bank. What is your response?

Me: We have to go back to Israel’s 1948 War of Independence when Jordan first conquered this territory and later called it the West Bank. In the 1967 Six Day War that followed, Jordan was defeated and Israel moved in. This explains why the West Bank was in fact never Palestinian territory.

BBC: Then why do the Palestinians claim it as their territory over which they have inalienable rights?

Me: Allow me to remind you that in 1967 there had never been a Palestinian nation, with a Palestinian flag, national anthem, government, or government in exile. So the Palestinians never had any inalienable rights to the West Bank. Otherwise their Jordanian brothers who went to war on Israel for their benefit would surely have ceded that territory to them. Nor did the so called Palestinians request sovereignty.”

BBC: But the Palestinians are surely a nation today?

Me: Yes, I agree. But we are talking about a new nation – one which only began to coalesce after the Palestine Liberation Army was founded in 1964. It is only after that a Palestinian nationality came to into existence.

BBC: Why then do the Palestinians insist that Israel is occupying their land? You did establish settlements on the West Bank did you not?

Me. Yes we did, but the Palestinians distorted the facts as a deliberate strategy intended to mislead. A lie that repeated often enough can unsettle a truth. But it does not abrogate the truth. I say it was Israel’s right to establish settlements in the territories.

BBC: The Palestinians would certainly deny that. What is your proof?

Me: The proof of course is in the history books. I quote EUGENE V. ROSTOW*, who was the US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969.

Mr. Rostow described the situation we’re talking about, very accurately in The New Republic, October 1991. This deals fully with UN Resolution 242 which he actually helped to write. Rostow says unequivocally:

“Resolution 242 calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until ‘a just and lasting peace in the Middle East’ is achieved.

“When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces ‘from territories’ not from ‘the’ territories, nor from ‘all’ the territories, but from some of the territories, to secure and recognized boundaries, agreed to by the parties.”

As if that were not enough proof of Israel’s legal right to administer these territories, Mr. Rostow adds, in the same article that . . .

“Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding.”

BBC: Well I must say that is news to us here at the BBC. But I notice you’ve ducked the question of the settlements. The main complaint of the Palestinians is that these settlements are illegal and that Israel must withdraw from them.

Me: Rostow gives chapter and verse regarding the absolute right of Israelis to settle in the West Bank. Not as illegal colonists as Arab propaganda wants the world to believe, but as of right.

BBC: Well tell us about that instead of criticizing the other side’s propaganda.

Me: In an earlier article in The New Republic, April 23, 1990, under the heading of “Jewish right to “close settlement” Mr. Rostow writes:

• “The British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to ‘close settlement’ in the whole of the Mandated territory.”

• “The Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable.”

• “That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors.”

• “The Jewish right of settlement recognized by the Mandate will have to be taken into account in the process of making peace.”

There’s more if you want, but I suggest your researchers read Rostow’s article in full.

BBC: Seeing we’ve given so much time to the Palestinians recently I’ll give you another minute.

Me: In that case I’ll give you another few Rostow quickies.

  1. “The Mandate does not permit even a temporary suspension of the Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the Jordan River.”

  2. “Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, when the British government resigned as the mandatory power. This is incorrect.”

  3. “Power ‘shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. But, says Rostow, the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been ‘deported’ or transferred by the government of Israel.”

  4. “The West Bank is . . . an unallocated part of the British Mandate.”

  5. “The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.” {} {} {}

Respectfully (etc) (All emphasis in this article, mine.)

*EUGENE V. ROSTOW Former Under Secretary of State 1966-69 Distinguished Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace.

Malice Aforethought
When Panorama Accused Sharon

November 29th, 2005

Updated November 29, 2005

On July 10, 2001 The Jerusalem Post generously gave Fergal and Keane space to defend themselves and BBC against what they described as unwarranted attacks on their search for truth in their Panorama documentary. I will quote several items from their article:

“Our film is not an attack on the prime minister of Israel or the State of Israel. It is an investigation into a massacre and war crimes.”

However, the making of this accusatory film was far from an unbiased search for the truth. On the contrary it was a search for evidence to support their preconceived conclusion.

The facts of the tragedy are not in doubt. Phalangists (Christian Arabs) had suffered innumerable killings, maiming, torture and deprivation at the hands of the Palestinian Arabs in Lebanon. Now they grabbed a window of opportunity to exact their revenge. They did so in the barbaric fashion to which both sides had become accustomed.

However, that was not the story the film-makers wanted to tell. Their biased objective was to lay total responsibility for a war crime on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as “the man who ultimately ordered the Phalange into the camps.”

To suggest that Sharon gave this order is absolutely unsustainable. On the contrary Israel’s Kahan Commission of Inquiry, established to investigate all the circumstances surrounding the massacre, did not find Sharon had ordered the Phalange into Sabra and Shatilla. The BBC only had fragmented and mostly Arab information – the commission had an abundance of evidence.

It held “Israel was indirectly responsible because it had not anticipated the possibility or extent of Phalangist violence”. Nevertheless Sharon was subsequently barred from serving as Defense Minister again. Not because he ordered a massacre – but because the commission held he should have known it could happen.

“BBC Panorama has a tradition of investigative journalism which holds that no political leader is above scrutiny, however powerful.”

Nonsense, guys. You made the film then awaited the right opportunity to show it. Your patience, if not your foresight, was rewarded when Sharon became a political leader. Now you had him and set about his crucifixion based on Panorama’s exalted mission:

“For nearly 50 years BBC Panorama has been investigating the use and abuse of power around the world. It is a mission which upholds the best traditions of public service broadcasting. Our film The Accused was a proud example of what Panorama does best.”

Wait a moment guys, where was that fine 50 year tradition of investigative journalism when Syria’s President, Haffaz Assad almost destroyed Hama? Allow me to quote:

“For 27 days starting from February 2nd 1982, the Syrian forces put Hama under a siege, shelled the town with all kinds of artillery, then Hama was ravaged by military and special forces, and its civilians severely punished. The estimated victims range between 30000 and 40000 civilians including ladies, children and elderlies.

“15000 civilians were considered lost since then and had never traced back. Thousands of civilians were obliged to desert the town, as one third of Hama had been completely destroyed. Many mosques, churches and historical buildings were left in rubble as a consequence to the government’s artillery bombardment.” (Footnote link below.)

Where was Panorama’s fine tradition of investigative journalism in May 1985, when Muslim militiamen attacked the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon killing 635 and wounding 2,500? (UN estimates). Shouldn’t this have made as great a documentary for Panorama’s great tradition? How come BBC Panorama did not investigate this abuse of power?

And in October 1990 when Syrian forces overran Christian controlled areas of Lebanon. In that eight-hour clash, 700 Christians were killed in the worst single battle of Lebanon’s Civil War. Where was Panorama’s best tradition of public service broadcasting then?

Surely Haffaz Assad, the late Syrian President, was the political leader directly responsible for all that carnage? What a fine killing documentary his story would have made for Panorama.

Holding you to the sanctity of your historic mission how could you have overlooked these mass murderers? Were their massacres above your fearsome scrutiny?

Saddam Hussein, Eichman, Khomeni, Bin Laden, Idi Amin, Gaddafi, Pol Pot, Petain, Kenyatta, Suharto, Pinochet, Barbie, etc, etc.

Did you investigate the 30,000 “disappearos” who vanished under direct orders of Argentine’s military? Have you made accusatory documentaries about those responsible?

If the BBC were to rank massacres over the last 60 years, highest to lowest, the Phalange massacre (about 800) would be close to the bottom of the list. By elevating Sharon to the top of BBC’s production list it has clearly demonstrated its bias, giving him disproportionate priority on its investigative agenda.

“The Accused is not a film just about Sharon. Notably, the notorious Phalange leader Elie Hobeika was confronted by the program.”

Guys, this is far from the truth. The entire film is about Sharon. He is The Accused, not Hobeika – who organized and carried out the massacre. Hobeika himself was apportioned a mere cameo appearance in your film.

“There is no anti-Israel bias in the BBC.”

This is unsustainable. The majority of BBC documentaries covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are pro-Palestinian. I can only recall one documentary where BBC gave Israel good marks – for archeology.

BBC openly serves Arab Palestinian interests. This is its mindset. If this is disputed let the BBC hold its record up to the light of public scrutiny and be judged. In its Report let your Review Panel publish a list of every relevant Mid East documentary BBC produced over the last 10 years. Categorized by the Panel to be pro or anti Israel – or objective – should you find any such.

{} {} {}

The Hamas Victory That Never Was

September 16th, 2005

September 18, 2005

In a videotape circulated by Hamas last week, arch terrorist Mohammed Deif vowed that Israel’s departure from Gaza would mean more of the same. I quote:

“Today you leave Gaza in humiliation,” he taunted the Israelis. “You are leaving hell. We promise that tomorrow, with Allah’s help,all of Palestine will be hell for you.”

The Lies They Tell

Terrorist leader Mohammed Deif is by no means the first to lay claim that Hamas (operating under protection of the Palestinian Terrorist Authority) was responsible for Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza. But he certainly won’t be the last to claim the “benefits” from this lie.

Palestinian culture is immersed in many such lies

  • From the “apartheid” lie to the lie that “their nationhood had existed since time immemorial” -instead of a mere six decades.
    • From the lie that Jerusalem must be regained as their capital when they never had a capital city of any kind.
    • From the lie of the non-existent massacre at Jenin to the lie of the staged killing of Mohammed al Dura.
  • From the lie of “occupation” of their territory whereas no Palestinian sovereignty ever existed.

    From the lie of “the right of return” for millions of their “refugees”- most born in foreign lands. How can you be a refugee from a country you never lived in?

    These and many other lies were dreamed up to bolster pride in their peoplehood during their few decades of genuine history. Lies, but lethal all the same.

    One day someone will write an anthology of this nation’s lies. Not because the author can hope to reform Palestinian culture, but because the book might shame some nations which fell for Palestinian lies hook, line and stinker.

Responsible For Killing Hundreds Of Israelis

The latest stinker comes from Mohammed Deif – Hamas terrorist leader, planner and executioner responsible for the killing of hundreds of Israeli civilians. Men, women, teens, children and babies. He was lucky to elude capture and targeting by Israel for the past few years.

This bold “fighter” was forced to spend much of his time in hiding. He was afraid to sleep twice in the same house. He dared not show himself in public. He no longer had the privilege of living a normal life, nor should he, this professional murderer of Jewish women, children and babes.

Like all Palestinian leaders from Arafat down, Deif is an accomplished liar. He too clearly understands the PR power of the big lie. That much is clear from his trumpeting of “today you are leaving hell”.

Defending The Gush Katif Paradise

A “hell’ Hamas created? Hell no. On the contrary, the world was treated to two weeks of unedited TV images of Jews in the Gaza Strip vigorously protesting and demonstrating against the Israel government’s disengagement operation. The world also witnessed hundreds of thousands of Jews demonstrating in Tel Aviv and other cities against the “disengagement”.

Viewers must have been amazed to see the strong fight put up by evacuees resisting the overwhelming forces mobilized by Prime Minister Sharon to forcibly evacuate them.

The police and Israel Defense Forces outnumbered the struggling residents and protesters more than four to one. Yet the struggle of the Jews of Gush Katif to resist evacuation and to continue their near idyllic lifestyle was unending. Finally the last one was reluctantly taken to a waiting bus.

Deif too was witness to these remarkable scenes. Yet his ingrained Hamas hatred for every Jew does not permit him to resist the lie that the social, economic and agricultural paradise created by Katif’s residents over 30 years was a “hell” on earth.

Nothing Hamas did forced Katif residents out

Overwhelming TV evidence to the contrary, Hamas leaders have the gall to claim credit for the Jews having to “flee” Gush Katif. Despite hours of TV clips showing residents pleading to be left in their homes and communities. Many indeed argued they would defend themselves and their families even without the protection of the Israel Defense Forces.

Such was the “fear” of the Jews of Katif for the so called “fearsome” Hamas. Whereas in truth nothing Hamas and other terrorists did over 37 years prevented the growth and prosperity of their magnificent agricultural achievements, built on the sand dunes of Gush Katif.

Till Hell Freezes Over

Palestinian terrorists never cowed the Jews of Gush Katif and played no part in the unilateral Knesset decision to evacuate. The courage of Katif Jews in the face of terrorist adversity is in stark contrast to the cowardice of hundreds of thousand of Arabs who fled with their tails between their legs in 1948. (Those who became refugees of their own accord.)

Despite Mohammed Deif’s enthusiastic threats of annihilation, he and his fellow murderers will have to wait till hell freezes over before Hamas terrorism might force the Jews to ever leave the Jewish State.

Intense Arab Ethnic Cleansing

Now the world is witness to the savage desecration of Jewish synagogues left standing by Israel. Jews had too much respect for the religious affinity of these buildings to destroy them. We hoped the Palestine Terrorist Authority would have the same respect as we have always had for abandoned mosques or churches.

But the deeply embedded apartheid ideology of the Palestinians which could not stomach a single Jew in their midst, could not even stomach a single Jewish building left standing.

Judenrein and Jew-buildingrein – such is the rabid Palestinian attachment to ethnic cleansing.

Israel Must Save Its Informers

February 17th, 2005

February 17,2005

The Jerusalem Post today reported “Abbas okays (3) ‘collaborator’ executions”.

This is most upsetting at a time when Israel has negotiated a cease fire with Mr. Abbas, President of the PA. (Or rather the Palestinian Terrorist Authority as they deserve to be called.)

The report added that Abbas had approved death sentences on scores of others and that at least 51 Palestinians are on death row.

Coming when Israel is preparing to release 500 terrorists purely as a goodwill gesture, the intended executions of these 3 men is outrageous – a political slap in the face to which Israel must respond.

I believe Israel should accept that the men did help Israel settle accounts with Palestinian terrorists. In doing so they helped save Israeli lives. Israel should do everything possible to save theirs.

This is a particularly good time to tell Abbas that he should reciprocate Israel’s goodwill with goodwill from his side. He must set the men free to continue their lives in Gaza or be deported to Israel. As either choose.

Israel must act honorably. It will be morally wrong to keep quiet as if this matter does not concern us. We should have no hesitation in accepting the immigration of our informers and their immediate families if they are no longer safe.

It is also the smart thing to do if we want to continue using informers. Anyone who thinks there will be no need for future collaborators might be badly mistaken.

I wonder . . . will Arab Knesset members speak up for their freedom . . . or death? {} {} {}

Time The World Understood
Arab Collective Punishment

February 16th, 2005

February 18, 2005

The Palestinian Terrorist Authority (PTA) has squealed often enough about Israel imposing so called collective punishment on the Arabs living in their areas. Disciplined in effective propaganda methods, they never mention the context responsible for their inconvenience.

Islamic Motivated Racist Apartheid

Israel never objected to Arabs coming into Israel from Gaza or the West Bank provided their purpose was ordinary and peaceful. No need to remind you that the reverse was not the case. Peaceful Israelis entering Arab areas gambled with their lives – and lost. Most were brutally killed by the regular Arab population, not necessarily by their hooded monsters. Consequently virtually no Jews cross into their areas any longer. This is just one example of Arab collective punishment inflicted on Jews.

Israel has clearly failed to convince world opinion fact that we have a national imperative to prevent suicide terrorists from entering into Israel to explode all the Jews they can in a single bombing. The bodies of men, women and children, babies and grandmothers are spattered into eternity. However, the world is mistaken to think we will passively accept this kind of collective punishment from the Palestinians.

Anti-Terrorist Barrier Not Collective Punishment

The Palestinian Terrorist Authority complains that Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier falls into the category of collective punishment, because it hampers freedom of movement. They will not admit the truth – that the barrier was erected to prevent their terrorists from crossing over . . . here, there and everywhere.

The barrier forces them to crossing points where they can be searched for terrorist weapons. Make no mistake, the Palestinians understand very well that inconveniences at crossing points are the result of the deadly terrorism of their brothers and sisters. Nevertheless all follow the Palestinian Terrorist Authority’s line, bleating to high heaven about the “collective punishment” of delays and inconvenience. To which the lop-sided human rights organizations chorus a dutiful amen.

Forgive us for living, but we don’t intend to make it easier for terrorists to kill us. Israel will not give up its right to search for terrorists hiding weapons and bombs. Israel has every right to prevent these monsters (martyrs in the Arab lexicon) killing Jews.

Collective Punishment By Palestinian Terrorist Authority

Why are the nations more sympathetic to the inconveniences Arabs “suffer” at crossing points – than with the death and destruction Israelis have suffered from car bombs, explosive belts, sniping and drive-by shooting? What about the collective punishment which the Palestinians have rained on the heads of the peaceful Jews who lawfully made their homes in the Gaza Strip three generations ago?

What’s wrong with 8,000 Jews staying on in a Jewish enclave in the state of Palestine if it comes into being? Here in Israel we host 1,300,000 Arabs in the Jewish state as equal citizens. But the Palestinians can’t abide a tiny minority of 8,000 Jews? It’s not the quantity they cannot endure; they will not tolerate any!

Shame On Nations Supporting Collective Punishment Of Jews

By insisting on this separation, the Palestinian Terrorist Authority is completely identified as out and out apartheid racists. They don’t give a hoot about the morality of collective punishment. Not being genuine democrats they have no hesitation about collective punishment of Jews. Shame on the European nations for supporting Palestinian collective punishment against Jews. And why do President Bush and Condoleezza Rice actively support it too?

How The Sand Dunes Bloomed

It was Prime Minister Sharon’s final understanding that a Jewish presence will never be accepted by the Palestinians, which forced him to change his policy and announce his unilateral intention to remove Jews from Gaza. These are Jews who had literally made the sand dunes bloom with their acreage of hot house plantations producing beautiful flowers, the tastiest cherry tomatoes, fruits and other vegetables. And which also provided work for Palestinians.

After 3 generations of fruitful life on land for which they owned full property rights, the 8,000 Jews from Gush Katif must now suffer the collective punishment of being physically removed – instigated by Palestinian inflexibility to abide a Jewish enclave.

Had they been Israeli Beduin of course they could have stayed. But Jews must be uprooted and resettled because Islamic Palestine must be Judenrein. As free of Jews as the Arab states of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and most Islamic countries. Racist apartheid states all.

Brutal Example of Arab Collective Punishment

There are, according to unsubstantiated Palestinian sources some 4 million Palestinian refugees in various Arab countries. They have been deliberately kept in the squalor of refugee camps where their minimum needs have been supplied by UNWRA for nearly 60 years. How about that for massive collective punishment?

These Arabs fled voluntarily in 1948 at the urging of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Trans-Jordan and Iraq to get out and allow their armies to conquer and get rid of the 650,000 Jews in a quick campaign.

After ignominiously losing that war, the Arab League decided that the refugees should not return to the West Bank or Gaza, but should remain where they were until the (single) state of Palestine came into being. The Palestine Liberation Organization, founded in 1964, endorsed this decision.

Only those who fled to Trans-Jordan were subsequently accepted as citizens. The rest have languished in a forced state of hopelessness and poverty for 3 generations, compelled by the Arab nations and the Palestinian Terrorist Authority to depend on the world’s charity.

Not for these hapless people the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! Aided and abetted by UNWRA, a United Nations organization, to restrict them to their ghettos, and to fund them for generation after generation, with no end in sight.

Contrast that endless cruelty with the so called collective punishment of an extra hour or two at a crossing point for which Israel is denounced. Boggling, mindless morality!

{} {} {}

Privatize Israel’s PR . . . Or Else

November 5th, 2004

November 5, 2004

The 6 column headline in The Jerusalem Post read “Israel getting its message across effectively, says new NY consul-general”. Reporter Uriel Heilman was quoting Arye Mekel, “an old hand in the Foreign Ministry”. Mekel continued:

“I think Israel is doing a splendid job on hasbara,” Mekel said, “It’s just that America hasn’t quite gotten the message yet. . . . They have not digested it.”

Blame Yourself Not The Audience

Sorry, Mr. Mekel, nothing is gained by blaming your audience for not getting your message. If your message was so hard to digest, this merely confirms it must have been hard to digest. Covering up ineffective PR is counterproductive.

A PR Solution To Every PR Problem

With the exception of religiously ingrained hatred for Jews, I believe that there is an effective PR solution for most every PR problem. (But money does, of course, enter the equation.)

“Let My People Go” A PR Triumph

Perhaps nothing better illustrates the enormous power of effective PR than the triumph of the Let My People Go campaign which started in the late 1970’s. Do you recall how the tyrannical Soviet super-power finally gave in to that year after year drive to ‘Let My People Go’ – to Israel?

Who would have believed that a diffuse, largely unorganized movement, would finally overwhelm and cause the Kremlin hierarchy to crumble? As a result of this PR victory, more than a million Russian Jews made aliyah . . . to Israel’s lasting benefit. This surely shows the power of PR to move mountains.

Israel Must Privatize PR

I have previously argued that Israel’s 10 million dollar annual information budget is laughable in relation to the enormity of Israel’s problem. I continue to believe this. But I have also reached the conclusion that the Foreign Office, under which this budget falls, cannot produce truly effective hasbara. Nor can any other government office.

This is because political correctness severely limits the ability to conduct creative and speedily implemented PR of the type which harassed representatives of the Soviet whenever they appeared at public events abroad. (They were subject to endless needling.)

Diplomatic Niceties Stymie Effective PR

Diplomatic niceties which Foreign Office executives are taught from the day they take a job in the Foreign Office don’t turn out PR types who can successfully confront the arguments of the Arab side on anchored TV news, commentary, analyses and punditry. Yet this is Israel’s greatest need now and in years ahead.

TV news services want top Israeli officials to appear live on their news programs. To respond to representatives of the other side or to clarify particular concerns. Ambassadors and Consuls are obviously the first choice. Yet how many in this group has the natural capability to make effective TV appearances? Or has taken the trouble to learn the techniques of effective appearances?

Indeed, ask such an official if he agrees that TV appearances should represent his most important job and you should not be surprised if he is shocked out of his wits. Because his lifetime ambition is quite different – usually to climb the hierarchy ladder in the Foreign Office.

Overt And Covert PR

Effective PR for Israel needs to be carried out by top ranking private companies abroad. Not to write politically and academically correct documents of which the Foreign Office already has a plethora. And which are published on their website or filed in their archives.

Private PR companies are needed to operate on the ground. Sometime overtly, sometimes covertly. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly.

Political correctness must not limit their effectiveness. PR agencies need objectives and be given to understand that their effectiveness will be measured. Results will be derived from periodic public opinion research polls outsourced directly by the Foreign Office. Progress up or down will be polled and compared for every period and task.

To Do List Of PR Objectives

Here are some objectives crying out to be privatized:

  1. Campaign against Islamic fundamentalists who incite dangerous anti-Israel incitement and support anti-Jewish terrorism.
    
  2. Fight and respond to every attempt to delegitimize The Jewish State.
    
  3. Eliminate the calumny that Israel is a racist, apartheid state.
    
  4. Win understanding for Israel’s refusal to accept the so called right of Arab refugees to return.
    
  5. Overwhelm the Arab argument that suicide terrorism is justified.
    
  6. Overcome the false Palestinian claim of “occupation”.
    
  7. Gain approval for Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier.
    
  8. Effectively stand up to Jewish and other academics on campus who slander Israel’s position and denigrate pro-Israel students.
    
  9. Actively support pro-Jewish and Israeli media activist groups.
    
  10. Initiate and support Letters-to-the Editor writing groups.
    

That would be a good start.

{} {} {}

EU to Israel:
“Take Down Your Anti-Terrorist Barrier”

July 26th, 2004

July 26. 2004

It is particularly galling as an Israeli to note the EU’s unanimous vote for the destruction of Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier.

Buoyed by the opinion of the International Court of (in)Justice, the EU declares that Israel, the victim of the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority’s reign of terror, has no right of self-defense. Because the barrier, which Israel is erecting to prevent the inhuman Arab suicide squads entering our country also inconveniences some residents of the so called West Bank. (It was Jordan’s West Bank. It’s actually Israel’s East Bank.)

The obvious way to ensure an easier flow of traffic and people is for the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority to conduct their own intensive searches of their citizens and residents – on their side of the crossing points. Why have they never done this? Surely it’s obvious that had they been effective in subduing would be terror on their side of crossing points, there’d never have been any need for Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier!

UN Aid Supports the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority

A majority of the UN nations openly or inadvertently supports or directly aids the aims of the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority. The PTA uses these funds to educate and incite their people to commit terrorism. They aid and equip suicide and other terrorists to kill Israeli civilians. They glorify their successes with uninhibited vulgarity. They subsidize their families financially.

How could masses of war materiel enter secret tunnels which have their inlet/outlet in the Egyptian controlled Sinai, unless Cairo approved?

Syria is understood to provide aid to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

But virtually nothing crosses from Jordan because Jordan doesn’t permit it. They successfully guard their border to ensure there are no breaches.

Palestinian inconveniences at crossing points, real and imagined, are adjudged by the EU as more deserving than Israel’s desire to save Jewish lives. Should we be all that surprised at Europe’s anti-Semitism? Not when we remember all the European nations which helped the Germans murder our people by rounding them up so efficiently, deliberately, even enthusiastically, for deportation to the death camps.

“Don’t Confuse Us With facts”

The EU seems to have swallowed the big lie that Israel “occupies Palestinian territory”. They seem determined to morph that lie into truth, completely disregarding the facts of recent history:

Fact is the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority never occupied or ruled a land called Palestine nor any other sovereignty.

Fact is that their claim to Palestinian nationhood is so very recent that they are not even mentioned in UN Resolutions 242 (22 November, 1967) and 338 (22 October 1973).

Fact is Resolution 242 specifically allows the border question to remain open for mutual agreement between the parties.

Fact is the 8 Arab states which met in Khartoum (1 Sept. 1967) and issued their “3 no’s” Declaration: NO Peace, NO Negotiations, NO Recognition, included no reference whatever to Palestine or Palestinians.

Fact is that the peace agreements between Israel and Egypt and Jordan do not mention any Palestinian right to sovereignty.

Fact is the only feasible way for them to attain nationhood will be to negotiate with Israel – specifically on borders – since the land evacuated by defeated Jordan devolved upon Israel pending negotiation of a peace agreement.

Fact is the Palestine (Terrorist) Authority has no claim whatever to all the land Jordan vacated. Until a peace agreement is reached with Israel, we are fully entitled, as are the Arabs, to create and populate new towns and villages. And to build an anti-terrorist barrier.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana has threatened Israel in the characteristic bully-boy manner: “The EU is a very important international power and is going to play a role here, whether you like it or not,” he said. That it will be a pro-Palestinian role is clearly inferred.

Israel has nothing to lose by declaring Solana persona non grata. {} {} {}

Israel’s Demographic Danger.
A Democratic Solution

December 3rd, 2003

December 4, 2003

Would You Take Your Intended Murderers Into Your Home?

😯 Percent of the so called refugees were born in neighboring Arab states and have never lived in Israel. For another these “refugees” and their children have been exposed to an unremitting, mind bending program of anti Jewish/Zionist hatred, with our obliteration as their final solution. There is no way the Jewish State can accept such persons into its bosom. It cannot, must not and will not happen.

There is however, a further real danger. It arises from questioning the legitimacy of Israel. Suddenly a two state solution is no longer good enough. Calls are now heard for a one state solution – a state of all its citizens. This would lead to the end of the Jewish majority, effectively eliminating the Jewish State.

Devising An Effective Strategy

It behooves Jews inside and outside Israel not to be passive about the intended delegitimation of the Jewish State. We must not permit it to succeed. We must devise a strategy to prevent militant Islam and anti-Semites everywhere from endangering the sovereignty of our Jewish State. (Anti-Semites are to be found in countries which don’t even have Jews. Like Japan.)

Democratic Measures Preferred

As far as possible Israel should undertake democratic measures to prevent the Arabs achieving by the ballot what they were unable to win by war. Finally, if necessary, we should not hesitate to use non-democratic means.

Self interest as practiced by all nations must be practiced by the Jewish Nation too. Self interest is not the crime – committing national suicide is.

Here are some thoughts on what we might do to avoid becoming a sitting duck.

Reaffirm Israel as The Jewish State

Although Ben Gurion and the founding fathers defined Israel as The Jewish State in its charter, the Jewish aspect did not become an official part of the name. This is now necessary and it’s time to redress this error.

We need to make it clear to the world that we live in Israel, The Jewish State. This terminology should be applied in our embassies, consulates, airlines; on government stationery, buildings, postage stamps, passports, the lot.

Finger Enemies of The Jewish State

Introduce a law to declare certain persons ‘Enemies of The Jewish State’. This law should target murderers and terrorists, their accomplices, harborers and aiders, before and after the commission of terrorist or other anti state crimes. All would be penalized with loss of civic rights in addition to the prison terms required by existing laws.

Declaring Someone an Enemy of The Jewish State

The Minister of the Interior should have the right to declare a detained person an ‘Enemy of The Jewish State’ even if he has not been charged.

Such offenders would be persons who preach, publicly voice, or disseminate tracts and publications which inculcate or incite hatred of Jews or the Jewish State. Or who dishonor the flag of the State by burning.

Loss of Civic Rights

A law should be introduced to require judges to sentence certain types of offenders with the loss of civic rights. This would entail loss of the right to vote in national and local elections. All personal and welfare allowances and that portion of pensions paid by government out of taxpayer’s contributions, would be stopped.

Abandon Proportional Voting in Favor of Constituency Representation

The greatest danger to Israel is the Arab minority. For although we have some anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist Jews, they are but a handful. Even if their numbers increase tthey will never become a majority.

It is Muslim cohesiveness that we need to fear. For too many Israeli Arabs align themselves with our inimical Arab neighbors, whose ideology to exterminate the Jews and obliterate Israel from the map of the world, remains entrenched.

Ensuring Continuity Of The Jewish State

The danger Israel must internalize and prevent is proportional representation in a situation where Arab natural growth begins to outnumber Jews.

Israel has a natural right to ensure its continuity. Constituent representation provides the best solution on our horizon at this time. It would be the function of a Re-districting Commission to ensure constituent representation that favors a majority of Jewish members always.

It is true democratic Jews may have some reluctance about this method of ensuring the continuity of the Jewish State. But this argument pales into limbo in comparison with the Judenrein policy of the Arab states. Especially that of the proposed Palestinian state.

Brief Items:

  1. “Land Day” celebrations and marches should be abolished. Celebrants should lose civic rights.

  2. Arsonists who set fire to forests should be deprived of civic rights.

  3. Possession of any weapons except pistols should lead to the loss of civic rights.

  4. Consorting with citizens of a state still at war with Israel should lead to loss of civic rights.

  5. Citizens who do not serve in the Army, or who refuse to serve in the reserves for any reason should lose their civic rights.

  6. Non citizens who complete army service should be offered citizenship for themselves and their families.

  7. Citizenship should not be automatic for non-Jews. A naturalization procedure for non-Jewish residents should be established.

{} {} {}