NATIV Online        

  Vol. 2  /  2004                          A JOURNAL OF POLITICS AND THE ARTS      


“Peace”, The Politicians, the Press and the Public:
Israel's Portrayal
Always in the Wrong
and How to Reverse it

The Problem

The situation, to borrow a term well-known in Israel, is dangerously parallel to that of the appeasement years before World War II. The world requires peace and will make human sacrifices to that false god under the banner of “risks for peace”. Arieh Stav has drawn our attention to the very real parallels between Czechoslovakia in 1938 and Israel now, in an illuminating historical comparison.2 He has also shown how Islam nearly mirrors Nazism.3 However, the mindset of the appeasers then and the world community and media now forces us to try to understand the mentality of those acting as the enemies of Israel today, yet supposed supporters of world peace, if we are to counter their evil and destructive influence successfully.

Neville Chamberlain did not recognize, or if he did, never chose to act upon, the serious nature of Hitler’s speeches, programs or writing. As Professor Robbins has put it, “He did not grasp the dynamics of Hitler’s regime and did not display a deep understanding of the aims, beliefs and practices of National Socialism.”4 Chamberlain chose to regard Hitler as reasonable, someone with whom negotiation might be fruitful. In parallel, perhaps in the blaze of the hopes of peace, the speeches and media messages in Arabic of Arafat and the senior PA elite became inaudible in similar fashion, both to the Israel Left and to the international supporters of the Oslo process, which meant virtually every government in the world. Shimon Peres even tried to rationalize by urging that words be ignored and actions taken into account – which are by now more than obvious, and are plainly and explicitly evil, just as Hitler’s were.

Czechoslovakia was, Chamberlain asserted, in Germany’s backyard and a country, which he famously described, as “far off” and a place of which the British knew nearly nothing. Israel seems to appear like that; to many, far off and of little significance. All past League of Nations and other legal obligations to its people are null and void. They are necessary sacrifices and, like the Czechs, apparently lack the essential dignity to be allowed to offer serious resistance because this would disrupt some moral power game with a higher ethical purpose than the safety of human lives. Like the Czechs, they are “obstacles to peace” and must be sacrificed in this higher cause. Such is the prevalent outlook we have to countenance and counteract.

Dr. David Bukay has put it well, and in so doing showed us that much of our task is to penetrate deep enough into Western academia and into its educational curricula, and onto the streets, to disabuse all who are open to understanding it, of the error here described:

    Western decision-makers do not understand that the Islamic fundamentalist groups and the Arab fanatics do not play by the rules. They do not play by the democratic rules of the game; they do not play by the Western cultural rules of the game; they do not play by the rules of Judeo-Christian morality; and above all, they are different culturally and are totally devoted to forcing the fanatic Muslim religion on the Western infidels. They truly prove God’s prediction about Ishmael: “His hand shall be against all men.” Indeed, aggression against others has characterized Islam and the Arabs for most of their history.5

The problem is why and how such decision-makers have failed to grasp the truth. For them, it is inconvenient to face reality, deep spiritual and cultural forces work this blindness in them; anti-Semitism and deals with the Arabs prohibit an alternative view of reality and make truth anathema.

As Bat Ye’or has explained:

    After the Yom Kippur War and the Arab oil blackmail in 1973, the then-European Community (EC) created a structure of Cooperation and Dialogue with the Arab League. The Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD) began as a French initiative composed of representatives from the EC and Arab League countries. From the outset, the EAD was considered as a vast transaction: The EC agreed to support the Arab anti-Israeli policy in exchange for wide commercial agreements. The EAD had a supplementary function: the shifting of Europe into the Arab-Islamic sphere of influence, thus breaking the traditional trans-Atlantic solidarity. The EAD operated at the highest political level, with foreign ministers on both sides, and the presidents of the EC – later the European Union (EU) – with the secretary general of the Arab League. The central body of the Dialogue, the General Commission, was responsible for planning its objectives in the political, cultural, social, economic, and technological domains; it met in private, without summary records, a common practice for European meetings.6

This goes far to explain the anti Israel and anti-American stance of the Europeans as well as their Venice Declaration of 1981 and their pro Palestinian position. The method of calculating foreign policy is very different and the means of dealing with the Islamic threat equally so. Israel is not, to many Europeans, more than a nuisance. It is neither something akin to the Cold War battleship, nor the bastion against militant Islam, which carries an essential, valuable burden. Europeans and Americans see the Middle East and other areas of the world quite differently. The Europeans, lacking in military power, refuse to view with longer term concern, but only with short term self-interest.7

We all know that anti-Semitism is resurgent. That longest hatred has in no sense been expunged by liberal education or anti-racism legislation. It is altogether deeper than that in Western culture. We should not be surprised if, whether consciously or not, contemporary writers and politicians were affected by anti-Semitism today, because the great mass of published and official statements makes it clear that Israel does not have a case.

Suffice to say here that the literature on the forsaking of the Jews in World War II is large and compelling: that the Allies could and should have tried to stop the trains; that Anthony Eden knew full well what Nazi policies intended for the Jewish people and early on, not late, but chose Foreign Office silence on the matter. The same was true of the State Department. Throughout Europe, willing hands were available to assist the Nazis in rounding up Jews. The mindset of the British and French politicians on the Right, Whitehall and the Quai D’Orsay was that Fascism was less to be feared than Communism. No one wanted the Jews and in no sense can it be said that they do now, especially if we consider that anti-Zionism is very often really a form of anti-Semitism.

The simplest, most dramatic, illustration of this drowning out of the Israeli voice and argument is reflected in the disgusting treatment of it in the UN and its discriminatory exclusion of Israel from the Security Council and elsewhere. Enforced dhimmitude is not classified as racism but Zionism is still proclaimed to be so. Equally, November 29 is the “United Nations Day of International Solidarity with the Palestinian People”. No other people has a UN Day of Solidarity. Israel is the only state to which a special investigator with “an open-ended mandate to inspect its human rights record” is assigned by the UN. Since, notoriously, the lie often enough repeated becomes the orthodoxy of truth, Israel is portrayed, albeit incredibly, as mighty, aggressive, ambitious, a threat to stability in the Middle East and in need of constant restraint. It is as if this caricature came straight from an Assad or Arafat, not the Western press and politicians!

Yet, in reality, no other people has such a determination to make its armed forces moral. “Purity of arms” doctrine, self-endangerment to avoid killing of RPG boys in Lebanon, the refusal to bomb but rather to expose the IDF to booby traps and fire in Jenin, the list could go on and on. But none of this cuts any ice. The standard talk from political platform to newspaper stand is that Lebanon was brutalized by Israel and that Sabra and Shatilla epitomized its ethos (and not that of the Lebanese working as an agent for Syria who really perpetrated the crime) while on Jenin, Terre Rod Larsen’s absurd and ignorant description is the one which carries weight.

Recently, former Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg himself declared that the “Greater Israel” idea had to go. “What is good for Israel is to give up the dream of the greater land of Israel, to dismantle the settlements, leave the territories and live in peace alongside a Palestinian state...”8 In the sense in which it remains a complete misnomer, this is absurd. In the sense that what he also has voiced evinces no idea of the real intentions of the Arabs towards Israel, he has echoed the mind-set of Europe and the State Department, as well as President Bush, so suggesting a consensus of blind folly.

There are many pieces of evidence centered on the Jewish historical and Biblical heartland, Judea and Samaria, which demonstrate the kind of near universal language with which Israel is denounced. Just three must suffice for a glut. Yesha, and of course Jerusalem, are fulcrums in the clash between the chancelleries and forums of the world, and Islam, on the one hand, and Israel and its friends on the other. Indeed, the point I am making here is a profound one and a very important one for understanding and combating “Peace against Truth”. We have to challenge this prevalent and powerful mind-set which promotes this error, on several different levels: the academic, the diplomatic, the spiritual and the popular. The process involves using international law and a range of arguments and platforms on a scale which has not even been intimated since Menachem Begin commenced the use of Shmuel Katz as an information expert with cabinet rank.


A.   Russia Calls Upon Israel to Stop “Settlements

Russia issued a statement urging Israel to reconsider its policies concerning “settlements”, referring to Jewish communities located throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

This followed an Israeli announcement pertaining to plans to annex the city of Maale Adumim to Jerusalem, extending the community some 10 square kilometers. The announcement was met with sharp protests by the PLO Authority (PA), followed by similar objections from the Clinton administration.

The Russian Foreign Ministry declared that the annexation “may gravely jeopardize the prospects for breaking the deadlock and for making headway in the Palestinian-Israeli settlement”.

“These illegitimate steps,” the press release stated, “are disturbing the Palestinians very much, because Eastern Jerusalem is being isolated, in fact, from the remaining part of the West Bank territory.”

“Elimination of this obstacle will help give a confident start to the Mid-East talks right after the formation of a new government, from which constructive steps are being awaited in the region,” the press release concluded.9

Russia was unceremoniously shunted out of its traditional diplomatic place in the Balkans but was allowed an inappropriate one in the Middle East. Furthermore, disturbing the Palestinians who have failed to deliver peace is really important but Israeli use of the land contravenes its surrender, which is mandatory to earn what every other country has a right to, to live in peace.


B.  Statement by the Presidency on Behalf of the European Union

(UK) Foreign Office Minister Derek Fatchett said:

    We are disturbed by today’s reports of further Israeli settlement building in the West Bank. This development is particularly damaging at a time when the US, the EU and the international community are intensifying their efforts to achieve a breakthrough in the peace process.

    The EU position is clear: settlements are both illegal under international law and damaging to the peace process. At the European Council in December European leaders reiterated their view that, if we are to see progress in the negotiations, both sides must avoid counter-productive unilateral actions of this kind.

    This is a point which I will be making strongly to the Israeli government when I visit the region next week.10

Implicitly, there is the suggestion that the US, the EU and the international community want peace but apparently Israel does not.

Please compare these attitudes with those of the following:


C. Miloon Kothari, The Housing Expert of the UN Commission on Human Rights

Israel’s policy of building settlements in Palestinian territories and destroying Arab homes and farmland is a war crime, this official has declared. “Israel has used the current crisis to consolidate its occupation of Palestinian areas,” said Kothari, an Indian architect who visited Israel and Palestinian territories earlier this year. He told reporters, “The serial and deliberate destruction of homes and property constitutes a war crime under international law.” The building of new Jewish settlements is “incendiary and provocative” and settlers are “free to indulge in violence and confiscate land,” he said.11

Israel stands nearly alone and almost all countries accept the Palestinians’ arguments. They seem determined that appeasement of the violent may help create peace, despite evidence etched in Jewish blood over the last 10 to 55 years to the contrary. Oil speaks. So do arms sales. So does mentality. The violent tenor of the Palestinian media and their abuse of women and children make no difference.

Another hinge-point is the treatment of Yasser Arafat. Everyone seems to want him to benefit from his crimes and Israel to ignore Professor Beres’ international law dictum nullum crimen sine poena – no crime without punishment. They do not care at all about this injustice nor about the collapse of the rule of law inherent in letting criminals out of prison before sentence is served. The degree to which Arafat’s cruelty, criminality and kleptocracy have been ignored has been put superbly (as well as consistently) by Dr. Ehrenfeld:

    On the eve of the famous “handshake” on the White House lawn which rewarded Rabin and Arafat with the Nobel Prize for Peace, the PLO made Britain’s most dangerous terrorist/criminal organizations list. The British National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) also reported that the PLO had worldwide assets approaching $10 billion and an additional annual income of about $1.5 to 2 billion, generated from illegal activities. Surprisingly, the report was not picked up by the media. Instead, it was Arafat’s claim that the PLO was broke, in need of massive financial aid, that made the headlines... The PLO has a long, sordid, and continuing involvement in narcoterrorism... The traffic in arms and drugs has been assisted by airport investments...

    The international media, organizations, and donor governments all seem to have been struck by “wilful blindness”. The silence around it appears to emanate from some irrational anxiety that cleaning house will signify the end of the PA and Arafat’s leadership, which in turn will cause a breakdown in the “peace talks” in the Middle East. Instead of helping the Palestinian people to build democratic institutions and develop a free market system, the West continues to promote Arafat’s kleptocracy which continuously extorts money and violates agreements.

    Thus the world has continued to shower Arafat and his corrupt leadership with money to the detriment of his people (at least a billion dollars out of a projected $2.4 billion have already been donated) and so the question that looms large is: why does it do so, despite the condemning evidence?12

This is the key question: why do the governments and intelligence services willfully overlook the truth? Why is peace set against truth?

There are a number of reasons why this is so. We have cited so far, in relation to officialdom, mentality, anti-Semitism, oil and arms trading, and should mention with regard to the complicity of the press and its formation of public opinion the list put forward by the Jerusalem Newswire:

The following account by Ehud Ya’ari in The Jerusalem Report, cited by the Jerusalem Newswire writers describes circumstances which need to be addressed seriously and changed.

    ...over 95% of the TV pictures going out on satellite every evening to the various foreign and Israeli channels are supplied by Palestinian film crews. The two principal agencies in the video news market, APTN and Reuters TV, run a whole network of Palestinian stringers, freelancers and fixers all over the territories [Judea, Samaria and Gaza] to provide instant footage of the events.

    These crews obviously identify emotionally and politically with the intifada and, in the “best” case, they simply don't dare film anything that could embarrass the Palestinian Authority. So the cameras are angled to show a tainted view of the Israeli army’s actions, never focus on the Palestinian gunmen and diligently produce a very specific kind of close-up of the situation on the ground.13

All of this helps to explain the attitudes of the BBC and CNN, among many, although not why, almost exclusive to this theater, there is so little debate and range of opinions voiced. The single outlook is in contravention of the liberal and open ethos supposed to permeate Western intellectual debate and tradition. Instead, there is an almost totalitarian singleness of viewpoint, a veritable tyranny over the mind.

The journalists of the Jerusalem Newswire also characterize the means most usefully. This state of affairs is a challenge to all who write on Israel affairs.

With regard to the Israeli public, Arieh Stav comments “One of today’s most worrisome aspects is the apathy of the public, which is ready to sacrifice everything for the sake of ‘peace’. This apathy is largely the result of media brainwashing and ceaseless international pressure.”14 These two elements must be challenged with all the resources possible.

The Israeli left-wing media bias is well attested and the Israel bashing by important organs like The New York Times and The Economist equally so. We have already seen the congruence of the EU, Russia and indeed the UN in their thinking. There are many historical examples of the way the USA manipulates, such as currently over the positioning of the so-called security fence in relation to Ariel, and in the case of James Baker III over the loan guarantees with Yitzhak Shamir, in the recent past.

We should also add the following to the series of areas to be targeted for causing the abandonment of truth. The training of officials in the corridors of power and the work of Middle East Studies departments and their various failures to understand Islam, as outlined by Dr. Kramer in his analysis of the ivory towers and in Dr. Kaplan’s book on the Arabists. Long ago, Shmuel Katz drew our attention to the “Laurentian Arabism” in the British Foreign Office.15 In each of these cases, peace appetite at the expense of truth has warped the sense of reality. These causes and effects have to be countered, realistically, and on every level possible.


The Nub

The main issue is that Israel is not allowed to defend itself like any other state. The so-called war against terror is partial and selective: the PLO and its factions are never targeted by even the USA and Britain, verbally or otherwise. Israel responds with cosmetic actions designed for the domestic electorate, hitting buildings already emptied and garage workshops. The statistics are truly terrible. In the 10 years before Oslo, a total of 211 Israelis were killed by Palestinian terror. In the 10 years since the agreement, the number murdered has risen to 1,110, an increase of over 426%.

The high casualty numbers over the past three years are the result of 18,876 “successful” Palestinian attacks. This works out to an average of 17.6 attacks per day, with 5,878 people having been wounded. Since the outbreak of what the Arabs cunningly call the “al Aqsa Intifada”, 867 Israelis have been killed in acts of Palestinian terrorism (through the beginning of October 2003, so the figure has since grown hideously), carried out by forces the Palestinian Authority pledged to disarm and dismantle. (Multiply by 50 for the US equivalents, by 10 for the Italian.) There are no “acceptable” casualty rates. No state in the world, as Britain has shown through SAS action in Northern Ireland amidst speculation of a “shoot to kill” policy, and the USA demonstrates frequently, should tolerate such treatment. Even the Charter of the UN demonstrates the right of countries to defend themselves; but Israel is denied such a right. Over Entebbe and Osiraq, as over the 1967 war, Israel has stood condemned. This is a nonsense – far more than a double standard.

Israel has, in the current war, constantly been accused of disproportionate retaliation. The context for this false accusation has been shown to be much broader. It is founded on the warped misunderstanding of and attitude towards the Jews (sketched above) as well as on the deliberate and self-deceiving overlooking of  Islamic political culture.

The ICT conclude their extensive study

    What is contrast between the randomness of the pattern of Israeli fatalities and the more non-random distribution of Palestinian deaths. The random distribution is typical of terrorist attacks, which, though sometimes carried out in places frequented by young people, e.g. the Dolphinarium disco attack, may equally target restaurants or buses which are used by a wide spectrum of the population. Some of the most frequent targets of Palestinian terror attacks, such as open-air markets and public buses, are used disproportionately by the most vulnerable segments of society: women, the elderly, and the poor.16

This is a stark and appalling indictment. It also requires tough and determined action.

In fact, Colonel Daniel Reisner, Head of the International Law Branch of the IDF Legal Division made a calculation towards the end of the year 2000 based on 3,734 attacks without live weapons and a total of just under 5,100 attacks instigated by the Palestinians – and less than one person per incident was injured by the IDF. This is a substantial answer to the media mantra charge of “excessive force”.17 Israel hesitates to use necessary force, nonetheless.

    All things considered, Israel's defensive strike against an outlaw enemy state preparing for extermination warfare was not only lawful, but distinctly law enforcing. In the absence of a centralized enforcement capability, international law relies upon the willingness of individual states to act on behalf of the entire global community... At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the time has come for a strengthened commitment to self-defense rights in world affairs, legal rights designed to prevent aggression in an increasingly anarchic world and to assure national survival.

conclude Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto and Professor Beres, and their finding is entirely appropriate to a determined policy in relation to the current Oslo war.18

It must be emphasized that the right of self-defense has been horribly eroded in Israel’s case and measurably so in the symptomatic instance of deterrence. In a brief study of the collapse of this essential element in Israel’s security doctrine, the present author concluded “As both the goals of the Palestinian Authority, and the character of the people it is ruling, cannot be changed by any concessions it is offered, Israel's only safe choice is a deterrent posture that makes the PA fear the consequences of its violence.”19 In that respect at least, Israel should be as other nations and entitled to use a force sufficient to protect its citizens.


Aspects of the Solution

The proposed elements of a solution all require expertise and ideas and are put them forward with due humility and deference.

  1. The Academic: There must be an attempt to challenge the concerted Muslim effort to dominate Middle East Studies departments in Western universities. Christian Zionist and Jewish academics need to be able to argue the true position in journals and forums without fear. Whilst we have the evidence of the horrible academic anti-Israel boycott in Britain and the attempted silencing of Daniel Pipes inter alia in the USA, we know we have, in Professor Dershowitz’s words, “the case for Israel” to put forward – and this means breaking the Arab stranglehold on publications by finding and funding the means for journals of strategic studies and the books analyzing Israel’s anti-terrorist means and options. This means putting the case for Israel reasonably and powerfully – including the international law case.

  2. The Diplomatic: We have seen division of opinion of substantive kinds in Israel’s representatives. We have seen willingness to react but not to proceed with an offensive of ideas of reasoned kinds. We have even encountered language problems in comparison with Arab fluency. Yet the facts and figures and analysis concerning the real Goliaths in the region (using all criteria, demographic, real arms expenditures, incitement to hatred and murder, terrorism, narcotics, armaments amassing to critical mass, military imbalance among many) – these are all readily available. Exposure of “land for peace” as the risky, insubstantial, and unfair formula it is, involving an immoral attempt at the purchase of goodwill must be conducted vigorously and the sense of ambush and isolation which the Quartet evokes must be made much clearer and pursued with much more vigor. Serious campaigns may galvanize the Israeli public to this end so the diplomats appreciate it and the politicians prosecute it. Anyway, Jews and Christian Zionists in the rest of the world must do so in letters to politicians and rallies. We need a campaign to let the UN know that its position on Israel is unacceptable. A body like the International Christian Embassy is ideally placed for international opinion to be voiced to the Secretariat consistently and in large numbers. Let such forums know Israel is not alone. We need that information department and diplomatic corps singing from the one sheet and expounding the truth, and doing so with media training and expertise and exposing the enemy for what he is and not simply bandying words with him and a hostile media. Let us have Western immigration policies, post-September 11, kind to the needy but ruthless in excluding the violent and evil.20 And, respecting that Labor and Meretz may to some degree ham-string this, if the State of Israel cannot and will not do this, then we need others thoroughly versed to carry the battle forward by dealing with their foreign ministries and representatives on behalf of their perception of Israel’s true interests by using the truth about Israel’s enemies. The truth may be unpalatable but it is powerful. We must not underestimate it.

  3. The Spiritual: At this conference, and indeed especially in America, there are voices who are not Jewish who do have the deepest regard for Israel’s Biblical right to the Land. The alliance between them and the Jewish Zionists is crucial as the Jewish voice is not so great electorally and the Christian Zionist one far larger. Christian groups can reach others in greater numbers. The two need to work together: there are friends of Israel in Congress, in churches, among organizations like Bridges for Peace, the ICEJ, Christian Friends of Israel who can work for Israel’s good and lobby and as we saw in Trafalgar Square not long ago. These can roll back mutual suspicion and antipathy and work together on this great cause. It must be stressed that it is “first the Saturday people and then the Sunday people” as far as Islamism goes. The supremacism and triumphalism of Islam can only be stopped on its frontiers, the Golan, in Judea and Samaria and in Jerusalem and Gaza; let Europeans take note. Furthermore, the done deals documented by Bat Ye’or and her husband can only be held at bay by Jews and Christians working together, refusing an attitude of dhimmitude.

  4. At the risk of sounding too bold, let us envisage the possibility of, for example, something like the Golan exhibition, Israeli dancers and Topol going abroad (together or separately!), much as musicians from Ariel have, to purely “ordinary” audiences, to ordinary local theatres and venues, supported and arranged by Israel’s supporters. The world has changed since the 1940s, but much of it did show outrage at Exodus and the treatment of Jews in the camps. There is an audience for the message but there must be a message and there must be messengers. It is no good being reactive, but we must be proactive, carrying the message in many different ways, galvanizing the grassroots abroad, informing and inspiring.

In the midst of all the horror, we cannot keep silent and we have much to fight for. Our cause is just and right. We need help in our pursuit of it and it is hard – but not hopeless. We have One on our side who is stronger than man. If war and opprobrium are Israel’s lot, then better to stand and face the enemy and carry the battle to him, wherever he may be, in word and deed. Let us challenge those who cry “Peace, peace, when there is no peace”. It is now more than ever necessary to go back to the Ariel Center’s original Statement of Aims. After six momentous years, they remain as cogent and relevant as when they were written. The tasks, seen from where the present writer sits, seem not to have been accomplished. But the warning of war has been sadly fulfilled. Its lessons have to be learnt and fast.




    This is an expanded version of a paper tendered to the Jerusalem Summit, a conference entitled “Building Peace On Truth”, Jerusalem, October 12-14, 2003.


    Arieh Stav, Czecholsovakia 1938 – Israel Today, Revised, Updated and Published as Ariel Center for Policy Research, Policy Paper No. 106, 2000,


    Nativ, November 1996 and translated (to English) in Outpost, January 1996 and following issues.


    Keith Robbins, Appeasement, 2nd edition, Blackwells, 1997, p. 88.


    David Bukay, Arab-Islamic Political Culture: A Key Source to Understanding Arab Politics and the Arab-Israel Conflict, ACPR Publishers, June 2003, p. 105, <>.


    Bat Ye’or, “Eurabia: The Road to Munich...”, The National Review On-Line, October 9, 2002, <


    See Robert Kagan, Paradise and Power America and Europe in the New World Order, Atlantic Books, 2003, especially pp. 34-36.


    “The only realistic route to peace in the Middle East peace plan requires Israelis and Palestinians to give up their destructive ways”, The Guardian, October 9, 2003.


    Israel Wire, June 3, 1999.


    UK Foreign Office Press Release, January 9, 1998. (Compare the contemporary: <


    Jonathan Fowler, Associated Press, Geneva, June 14, 2002.


    See Rachel Ehrenfeld, Arafat, the World's "Blind Spot", Ariel Center for Policy Research, Policy Paper No. 17, 1997, <


    Jerusalem Newswire, <


    Cited from Arieh Stav, Czecholsovakia 1938 – Israel Today, Revised, Updated and Published as Ariel Center for Policy Research, Policy Paper No. 106, 2000, <>.


    In his book, Battleground Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, Updated Steimatzky, Shapolsky Edition, 1985, pp. 197-199.


    Don Radlauer, “An Engineered Tragedy Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”, September 2000-September 2002, ICT, Herzliya.


    Email communique from “Israel-Mideast” <>, from November 16, 2000 (2:08 PM), Subject: Newsflash: Press Briefing by Col. Reisner, IDF Legal Division – Nov. 15, 2000”.


    Louis René Beres and Col. Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, “In Support of Anticipatory Self-Defense Israel, Osiraq, and International Law”, The Maccabean, June 1997, <>.


    Christopher Barder, “Deterrence”, Bulletin of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defence, September 2002.


    Cf. Michelle Malkin, Invasion, Regnery, 2002.