Ariel Center for Policy Research


NATIV  ■ Volume Eighteen  ■ No. 1 (102)  ■  Jan. 2005 ■ Shvat 5765 ■ Ariel Center for Policy Research


Ethnic Cleansing and Its Implications


David Bukay

In Gaza, Sharon Divided Jerusalem

Ethnic Cleansing

Howard Grief

The Transfer of Jews Under Prime Minister Sharon’s Unilateral Disengagement Plan

Raya Epstein

The Eternal Link Will Never Be Broken

Shlomo Perla

European Army in Gaza?


Ze`ev Wolfson

The Moscow-Tehran Balance Axis is Shifting Towards Iran’s Favor

David Wolpe

Because They Are Jews


Joel Fishman

The Cold-War Origins of Contemporary Anti-Semitic Terminology

Laurence Weinbaum

Congratulations to Shmuel Katz on his 90th Birthday


Manfred Gerstenfeld

Why it is Worthwhile to Remain A Jew?
A Response from an Economist


Ezra Sohar

Who is a Jew, and More to the Point, Why?

Yitzhak Bam

In Answer to the Question of a Non-Believer

Dov Landau

I Will Be Glorified Before Those Who are Near to Me

Raphael Israeli on The Closed Circle: An Interpretation of the Arabs by David Pryce Jones • Yossi Barnea on Days of Reckoning by Binyamin Peled

Book Reviews

Literature and Art Supplement - Dror Eydar, Editor

Dror Eydar


Homage to Jorge Luis Borges

Jorge Luis Borges

Twelve Icons of the World

Shlomo Mu`alem

A Detective Parody and a Metaphysical Quest

Liza Chudenofsky

We Need a Different Type of Reader: Borges, Cortazar and Favitch

Arieh Stav

A Blind Man's Passion for Books

Jorge Luis Borges

Nine Poems

Ronen Amrani


Contents of the next issue
Synopses in English


Prof. Edward Alexander ■ Dr. Yoram Beck ■ Dr. Aharon Ben-Ami ■ Ephraim Ben-Haim ■ Prof. Yosef Ben-Shlomo ■ Prof. Louis René Beres ■ Prof. Yirmiyahu Branover ■ Dr. David Bukay ■ Dr. Netta Kohn Dor-Shav ■ Prof. Paul Eidelberg ■ Dr. Raya Epstein ■ Naomi Frenkl ■ Dr. Giora Goldberg ■ Prof. Raphael Israeli ■ Shmuel Katz ■ Dr. Mordechai Nisan ■ Aron Pappo ■ Prof. Shlomo Sharan ■ Dr. Martin Sherman ■ Prof. Eliav Shochetman ■ Prof. Ezra Sohar ■ Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto ■ Dr. Laurence Weinbaum ■ Prof. Hillel Weiss

Editorial Board


Editor: Arieh Stav Associate Editor: Michael Or Managing Editor: Itta Horol
Publishing Director: Leah Kochanowitz ■ Subscription Manager: Eli Maislish
Production: E. Oren, Ltd.

NATIV - bi-monthly ■ Published by the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR)
ISSN 7092 1187 ■ P.O.B. 830, Shaarei Tikva 44810 Israel ■
Tel: 972-3-906-3920 ■  Fax: 972-3-906-3905 ■

Annual subscription rates: 180 NIS ■ Overseas $60

The views expressed in the articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors.
cannot return unsolicited manuscripts.

ACPR Contact us Nativ Index Nativ in Hebrew

In Gaza, SHARON Divided Jerusalem

David Bukay

Arafat continues to win even after his death. He succeeds with the support of the international establishment in the Palestinian matter, despite the jihad society’s maximalist, extreme demands, which glorify the blood and death that they exhibit. This is for three reasons: First, the post-colonialist syndrome, due to Europe’s profound feelings of guilt; second, radical, fanatical ideas of intellectuals like Sartre, Fanon, Marcuse and Dobra, regarding the Third World countries’ “right to violence”.  Their present-day heirs are the irresponsible, ratings-obsessed media; third, the European desire to absolve themselves of the guilt of the Jewish Holocaust in World War II.

Arafat initiated a highly successful campaign to impress upon the European consciousness that Israel is a transplanted remnant of European colonialism, and thereby amplified their guilt feelings: It conquers Palestinian land; it robs them of their homeland and liquidates their national heritage; and it operates like the Nazis, employing similar methods of occupation and liquidation. However, his success would have been only partial, had the somnambulist-fanatical Israeli Left not rallied to his assistance. Since 1967, it is engrossed in an obsession: The occupation is the original sin and the cause of all evil in Israel. When the occupation and control of another people ends, the Middle East will enter a period of modernity and economic growth. As the occupation continued, the Left’s frustration exacerbated and its verbal violence expanded to the point that it transformed the State of Israel into a racist, terrorist state, for war criminals committing crimes against humanity.

The Left’s strategic objective was delineated: Ending the occupation and Israel’s control over the Palestinian people. The chosen method: Dehumanization of Israel, and even the IDF. The objectives: To cause Israeli society to loathe the occupation through manipulative shaping of public opinion by means of ascribing it responsibility for all failures. However the Left could only exist thanks to its symbiosis with the media, as its strength was demonstrated in the general elections: A marginal minority in society. However the media is totally enlisted to its cause and establishes its message in the public consciousness. And the international establishment needs do nothing more than cite that which is written, broadcast and photographed in Israel.

Arafat took action in the cultural dimension as well in order to negate Israel’s historical rights: First, the Palestinians are the descendants of the seven Canaanite nations and therefore preceded the Jews in terms of their rights to Palestine. They are also descendants of the Philistines, who controlled the southern coastal region from Ashdod to Gaza. Second, the Jews have no rights to Jerusalem as the Jewish temple was in Nablus; third, the Jews today have no connection to the Jews of the past. Thus the Palestinians manifest the original Jewish values.

The Palestinian demand, even after Arafat’s death, remains extreme, in accordance with the staged doctrine: a Palestinian State, Jerusalem as its capital, the refugees’ right of return, at the first stage and revisiting the matter of the 1948-1949 occupation and forcing Israel back to the 1947 borders at the second stage.

Paradoxically, the situation is liable to exacerbate, the infiltration of Hizbullah and al-Qaeda to the Palestinian territories and even a formal mutual defense treaty or aliance with Iran. Hizbullah directs, funds and controls the activity of the Tanzim, and Iran operates and funds Hamas. The penetration of al-Qaeda, which is clearly manifest in its ties with Hamas, will only exacerbate the situation.

Israel will face an impressive offensive of smiles, declarations and even meetings and agreements, however nothing of substance will develop. It will concede, withdraw, make gestures and shut its eyes (see the lack of reaction to Abu-Mazen’s extreme, belligerent December 24, 2004 speech). However, if it wants to emerge victorious, it must employ a totally different strategy. Sharon, with his disengagement program, is leading Israel to the division of Jerusalem and Arafat can be content in his grave: His strategy is continuing to triumph.

back to top

The Transfer of Jews Under Prime Minister Sharon’s
Unilateral Disengagement Plan

Howard Grief

Prime Minister Sharon’s Unilateral Disengagement Plan for Gaza and Northern Samaria is a deliberate misnomer and deception to hide the truth of what he really intends to do. Disengagement was never Sharon’s true object since there already exists a separation of Jews and Arabs in these regions of the Land of Israel. What he seeks in the name of security and eventual peace is not disengagement, but an illegal territorial withdrawal from integral parts of the Jewish National Home, the uprooting of flourishing Jewish settlements and the forcible transfer of Jews from their sovereign land. The implementation of this plan will infringe Jewish national and political rights to the Land of Israel under international law, Israeli constitutional law and criminal law, as well as Jewish religious law. The Disengagement Plan would never have seen the light of day, if the Attorney-General had threatened to enforce the relevant law governing this Plan.

The transfer of Jews from the Land of Israel where they are lawfully present has absolutely no legal validity. Such transfer violates the most basic rights of Jews inherited from the Mandate for Palestine which were subsequently implanted into the constitutional law of the State of Israel upon the expiry of the Mandate and the proclamation of the State. Those rights concern immigration and settlement anywhere in the Land of Israel under the rule of the State. The converse of the right of settlement prohibits the uprooting of government-authorized settlements and the displacement of their Jewish residents. Inasmuch as the Jews in Gaza and Northern Samaria are lawfully present in these areas, there are no legal grounds under international law to justify their transfer as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The transfer of Jews from undisputed parts of the Land of Israel is also a clear violation of the Law of Return passed on July 5, 1950, which also incorporates the previously existing Jewish Right of Return into Israeli constitutional law. The scope of the Right of Return is the Land of Israel in all its dimensions, not merely the limited area of the State of Israel, as evidenced by the use of the word artza (“to the Land”) in the text of the Law of Return, rather than medina. Any restriction placed on the Right of Return which built the State of Israel is a repudiation of Zionism and a staggering blow to the highest value of the State.

The transfer of Jews from Gaza and Northern Samaria also violates the Proclamation of Independence which promotes the return of Jews to the whole of Eretz Israel. Furthermore, the evacuation of Jews from their settlements will impair the sovereignty of the State over all regions of the Land of Israel presently under its control, exposing those responsible for the Disengagement Plan, particularly Prime Minister Sharon, to a charge of treason under section 97(a) of the Penal Code. Since the Disengagement Plan also involves a territorial withdrawal, a charge of treason can also be brought against him under sections 97(b) and 100 of the law. However, this would only take place if and when a true Zionist government comes to power and initiates prosecution. Finally, the rabbinical call to Jewish soldiers and policemen not to obey any order to uproot Jewish settlements and eject settlers from their homes in the Land of Israel is in full accord not only with a widely accepted interpretation of halakha, but also with the most important law of the State, i.e., the Law of Return which embodies the sacred Right of Return of Jews to their ancestral homeland.

back to top

The Eternal Link Will Never Be Broken

Raya Epstein

“I have no literary pretentions. My role – is to tell you the truth; the truth, which so many people dare not, will not, cannot or are simply afraid to reveal. I am writing as a person who feels that he has just one day to live – and on that day he must relate those things, which cannot bear delay; to convey the fundamental heart of the matter – because it is possible that tomorrow will be too late.” Yehuda Margolin wrote this in a 1946 article. Since then, the State of Israel has never acknowledged the crimes of the Soviet regime. That explains why the Arab-Israeli Communist Party, an open and affirmed fifth column, is accorded legitimacy in the Jewish state. Thus it is specifically the communist concept of “democracy”, which has been imposed upon the State of Israel since “Oslo”, at whose core is the ideology of “disengagement”, i.e. expulsion of Jews from territories in the Land of Israel. “Israeli democracy” is already preparing detention camps for the Jewish “enemies of democracy”. It has already gone so far as to legislate special laws prohibiting a specific segment of society from opposing government policy; already any ostensible violation of Arab rights is a crime against humanity, while the ethnic cleansing of Jews is a praiseworthy action…and so forth.

back to top

European Army in Gaza?

Shlomo Perla

This article looks into the possibilities and probabilities of a European Union Peacekeeping Force deployment in the Gaza Strip, in the eventuality of an Israeli withdrawl. The author is led by two main premises: Firstly, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean basin, in particular, occupy a central position in the EU geopolitical consideration. Secondly, the EU integration dynamics, that has generated, in the last half decade, a European Security and Defence Policy, as well as a Middle East Common Strategy, will, in the eyes of the European decision-makers, materialize through the quest to find a solution to the Middle East conundrum.

The theoretical logics will need, however to overcome certain realities: Firstly, it is doubtful that a EU military intervention will be effected unilaterally, namely without an Israeli and a Palestinian consent, particularily in the wake of the Iraq debacle. Secondly, since a EU army as such is non-existent, EU formations will have to depend on NATO military assets, which, in actual fact, means a US consent to such a mission. Thirdly, the EU as such has no binding authority over its member states in matters of foreign policy, and certainly not when military undertaking is involved. Member states tenaciously hold to their national sovereignty in these areas. Consequently, there exists the problem of the level of political will within each of the member states as well as inter-state political coordination, which makes an EU peacekeeping mission a complicated matter.

Notwithstanding these difficulties, it is however suggested that European Union countries possess the necessary military capabilities to deploy peacekeeping troops in the Gaza Strip, with or without resorting to NATO assets. This is in view of the fact that in the Gaza case no major airlift operation is required, but rather an adequate naval multinational force which the Europeans have already developed.

back to top

The Moscow-Tehran Balance Axis
is Shifting Towards Iran’s Favor

Ze`ev Wolfson

The analysis in recent Russian intelligence information focuses on the Iranian nuclear program and show that the Moscow-Tehran balance axis is shifting in Iran’s favor. For some time already, the Kremlin has received sufficient information – from technological, economical and intelligence sources – of the real intends of Tehran.

Since the mid 1990s, Tehran has used a variety of methods, some very questionable, to procure from Russia the critical mass of know-how and education in techniques for development the nuclear weapons, if not the critical mass of the required uranium itself. Corruption among top Russian management seems be one of the reasons for Iran’s success.

Since 2003, Moscow has deferred supplying uranium fuel designated for the Busherh power station, using complicated environmental safety demands, mainly as a pretext.

It was the first time Russian analysts recognized Tehran’s strategic support of terrorism as an extreme risk for Russia and her unity. They were very well aware of Tehran’s official strategic line in support of terrorism as a cheap and effective instrument to provide political achievements for an Islamic state. However, it was perceived as a limited method for the Hizbullah or other anti-Israeli groups only. On the other hand, if the Kremlin really turned a cold shoulder, Tehran would have good leverage to use on the Russians – its active aid for Islamization in Russia itself and in Central Asia, which very likely will speed up the extremists. The shadow of Islamic WMD terrorist threats is something that can bring the former superpower to its knees.

back to top

The Cold-War Origins of Contemporary
Anti-Semitic Terminology

Joel S. Fishman

Several important features of the contemporary anti-Semitic idiom originate in the ideology and political culture of the former Soviet Union. A special type of political language that it devised ties the earlier Soviet-styled anti-Semitism to that of the present. The use of language as a weapon goes back to the earliest days of Bolshevism. In 1907, Lenin explained this method: “The wording is calculated to provoke in the reader, hatred, disgust, contempt. The phrasing must be calculated not to convince but to destroy, not to correct the adversary’s mistake, but to annihilate his organization and wipe it off the face of the earth.” During the immediate post World War II era, Stalin sponsored a neo-Pavlovian revival, which added the refinement of subconscious language conditioning as a method of molding thought of others. Its principle was, that upon hearing a term or word, the listener would have an automatic, conditioned response. Thus, language would become a signal which would cause a desired reaction without the target audience needing to devote any thought to the meaning of words. This is an example of the totalitarian use of language, which has persisted until the present.

By defining the terminology of political discourse about Israel and the Jewish people, the Soviets set in place the foundations for a new type of political anti-Semitism that has penetrated mainstream culture. Its principle was to combine lies with epithets, using a method which has become known as the “reversal of culpability”, “the moral inversion of terms”, or “immoral equivalencies”. The most current of such lies is the accusation that Israel is committing genocide, when in truth, the Jewish people have been the main victim of genocide.

George Orwell described this process in Nineteen Eighty-Four:

It means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink.

Several of these mendacious terms have penetrated the mainstream idiom and have made a profound impression upon largely uncritical mass audiences. They include racism, fascism, genocide, occupation, peace camp, and their permutations.

Political anti-Semitism offers common ground to such disparate groups as militant Islamists, leftists, members of the European Right with a compromised past, and those who never have seen a Jew. One does not need a specific political affiliation to use such language. Nonetheless, one’s political identification may well be defined by his (or her) use of language and actions. Thus, function defines identification.

Israel must wage a just war of defense in this cultural environment. It must respond to the challenge of language conditioning and prevent others from defining its reality through the use of ideologically embedded language.

back to top