|
“Peace”, The Politicians,
the Press and the Public:
Israel's Portrayal
“Always
in the Wrong”
and How to Reverse it1
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 significant...is...the 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Endnotes
|
1 |
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.
|
|
2 |
Arieh Stav,
“Czecholsovakia 1938 –
Israel Today”, Revised, Updated and Published as Ariel Center for
Policy Research, Policy Paper No. 106, 2000,
<http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp106-xs.html>.
|
|
3 |
Nativ,
November 1996 and translated (to English) in Outpost, January 1996
and following issues.
|
|
4 |
Keith Robbins, Appeasement, 2nd
edition, Blackwells, 1997, p. 88.
|
|
5 |
David Bukay,
Arab-Islamic Political
Culture: A Key Source to Understanding Arab Politics and the Arab-Israel
Conflict, ACPR Publishers, June 2003, p. 105, <http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/bukay-pol-cul-2003.html>.
|
|
6 |
Bat Ye’or, “Eurabia: The Road to
Munich...”, The National Review On-Line, October 9, 2002,
<http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-yeor
100902.asp>.
|
|
7 |
See Robert Kagan, Paradise and
Power America and Europe in the New World Order, Atlantic Books, 2003,
especially pp. 34-36.
|
|
8 |
“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.
|
|
9 |
Israel Wire,
June 3, 1999.
|
|
10 |
UK
Foreign Office Press Release, January 9, 1998.
(Compare the contemporary: <http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/
Xcelerate/>.)
|
|
11 |
Jonathan Fowler, Associated Press,
Geneva, June 14, 2002.
|
|
12 |
See
Rachel Ehrenfeld,
Arafat, the
World's "Blind Spot", Ariel Center for Policy Research,
Policy Paper No. 17, 1997,
<http://www.acpr.org.il/
publications/policy-papers/pp017-xs.html>.
|
|
13 |
Jerusalem Newswire,
<http://www.jnewswire.com/in_depth/media_war/
media_war.asp>.
|
|
14 |
Cited from
Arieh Stav,
Czecholsovakia 1938 –
Israel Today, Revised, Updated and Published as
Ariel Center for
Policy Research, Policy Paper No. 106,
2000,
<http://www.acpr.org.il/publications/policy-papers/pp106-xs.html>.
|
|
15 |
In his book, Battleground Fact and
Fantasy in Palestine, Updated
Steimatzky, Shapolsky Edition, 1985, pp. 197-199.
|
|
16 |
Don Radlauer, “An Engineered Tragedy
Statistical Analysis of Casualties in the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict”,
September 2000-September 2002, ICT, Herzliya.
|
|
17 |
Email communique from “Israel-Mideast”
<newflash@israel-info.gov.il>,
from November 16, 2000 (2:08 PM), Subject:
“Newsflash: Press Briefing by Col. Reisner, IDF Legal Division – Nov.
15, 2000”.
|
|
18 |
Louis René Beres and Col.
Yoash
Tsiddon-Chatto, “In Support of
Anticipatory Self-Defense
Israel, Osiraq, and International Law”, The Maccabean,
June 1997, <http://freeman.io.com/m_online/jun97/beres1.htm>.
|
|
19 |
Christopher Barder, “Deterrence”,
Bulletin of the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defence, September
2002.
|
|
20 |
Cf. Michelle Malkin, Invasion,
Regnery, 2002. |
|
