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 ■
Email:
ariel.center@gmail.com
Annual subscription rates: 180
NIS ■ Overseas $60
The views expressed in the
articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the editors.
Nativ cannot return unsolicited manuscripts.
ACPR
■
Contact us
■ Nativ Index
■ Nativ in Hebrew
SUMMARIES
|
Ariel
Sharon: The Pathology Of Self Destruction
Yoram Shifftan and Bernice Lipkin
Ariel Sharon was elected
because Israeli voters no longer believed in the promises of the
Oslo Accord. They had rejected the idea of giving up territory or
making any more unreciprocated concessions to the Arabs. They wanted
forceful military action to protect Israel. Sharon promised to be
such a leader. Instead, once elected, Sharon promoted a Palestinian
state, protected Arab “civilians” complicit in bomb building by
exposing Israel soldiers to unnecessary danger, responded minimally
to Arab terrorism and completed a slide into chaos by announcing he
was uprooting the Jews of Gaza from their homes; this to be followed
by dismantling settlements in Samaria and Judea. Rather than uniting
a country facing grave dangers, he has succeeding in splitting
Israel into indecisive and hostile factions, squabbling among
themselves and not focused on dealing effectively with their real
problem: the Arabs, whose goal continues to be the destruction of
Israel.
Sharon has cited American
pressure, the demographic threat, and other arguments, none of which
are convincing. Nor is it clear what his real motives are. He acts
like a man no long subject to reason, so intent on rushing to his
goal, he is willing to destroy anything that gets in his way –
whether this is people, his party or Israel as a democracy.
The fundamental
illegality of Sharon’s adventurism is that his actions are a
violation of the law of trusts, which defines the complete set of
beneficiaries for any given trust. In this case, it is the “Jewish
People” that is the beneficiary of the “Sacred Trust of
Civilization”, which was enacted in perpetuity by the League of
Nations, and further upheld by the Charter of the United Nations and
the International Court of Justice.
According to the “Sacred
Trust of Civilization”, the trustees of the Mandate (currently the
UN and its agencies) are enjoined to facilitate the Jews in their
dense settlement of the land of Palestine. The land is not to be
transferred out of Jewish control. All residents have civil and
humanitarian rights, but only the Jews have political and national
status.
The beneficiaries of this
particular trust include Jews everywhere, and all future generations
of Jews. The contemplated uprooting deprives beneficiaries of the
Palestine trust such as future Jewish generations of their rights.
The proposed uprooting involves one beneficiary depriving other
beneficiaries of their rights. In international law, the Israeli
government has no right to give away this land.
Sharon has downplayed the
legal aspects of ceding this land to the Arabs. It is quite likely
his government knows the settlements are legal – why else has
official Israel been forbidden to defend their legality? Israel has
muzzled its diplomats and not allowed them to assert in public
Jewish national rights. Instead, Israeli spokesmen sound as
enthusiastic as their Arab counterparts at the thought of
establishing a viable Arab state next to Israel, however much it
will damage Israel. Israeli representatives, like Peres, who falsely
assert that “Israel even without Judea, Samaria and Gaza is already
78% of Palestine,” do enormous damage to Israel’s image.
The
legality of the settlements is the keystone argument for both the
settlements in particular and the Jewish state in general. Sharon’s
government has not considered that if it allows the abrogation of
international law with regard to the settlements, how it will resist
the “reasonable arguments” that Israel itself has no right to exist?
back to top |
Israel – The
Existential Threat from Within
Elyakim Ha`etzni
From the myriad political
and military complications engendered by Sharon’s disengagement
plan, we have chosen three topics:
The Threat Against the Jewish, Zionist
State:
Profound rifts in our
national solidarity, which have long existed, developed into an
actual rupture with the advent of Sharon’s expulsion and
displacement program. This is an existential danger, because in
circumstances of such intense polarization, a situation has
developed in which one side seeks to undermine the basis of its
rival’s physical existence. The inevitable outcome will be the
injured party’s sense of spiritual alienation from the State and the
obfuscation of the distinction between the government and the State.
Rabbi Shear Yashuv
Cohen’s stated: “The question is raised: Why must the settlements be
uprooted? Why can they not continue to exist in the Palestinian
State and continue to fulfill the commandment of settling the Holy
Land as their fathers and forefathers did for generations?…”
When Jews in Judea,
Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem are forced to again pack their suitcases
because here too, as in the Diaspora, the land will be pulled out
from under them and their possessions will be confiscated from them
at cut-rate prices, the period of bitter disappointment from the
country will follow.
The Irreversible Blow to the Jewish
People’s Right to the Land of Israel:
There were only two
territories in the entire world over which there was no sovereign –
Judea, Samaria and Gaza and Southwest Africa. Once Southwest Africa
became an independent state called Namibia, the last territory in
the world without sovereignty, remains in the heartland of the Land
of Israel. It took a character like Ariel Sharon to cause the
Israeli Government to sign the “road map” – a document relinquishing
Judea, Samaria and Gaza, which establishes, by means of the “justice
of the nations”, the right of the Palestinians to sovereignty in the
western part of the Land of Israel in place of the Jewish people.
Thus, the vacuum is filled, the place in the Land of Israel, which
despite the passing of two thousand years has remained vacant for
the Jewish people, is delivered to a foreign nation by the landlord
himself! This concession will ferment like poison and corrode the
foundations of the Green Line state, whose raison d’etre has been
appropriated.
The Threat to Our Democratic Life and Our
Independence:
In our political and
media discourse, the criminal aspect of the expulsion is practically
never discussed or surveyed. The spotlight is not directed towards
the act but rather to the criticism of the act, which is denounced
as a blow to…democracy! In a dictatorship, it is well known; crimes
against the regime are at the top of the scale of punishment, while
crimes against fellow man or morality are at the bottom. Democracy
is not a dictatorship of the majority. The majority cannot human
rights, his dignity and his fundamental freedoms, like freedom
of movement, freedom of expression, the right to property, freedom
of religion and conscience, the prohibition to discriminate against
him for reasons of gender, skin color or nationality.
Just as consciousness
always lags behind reality, so too the Israeli public has not yet
awakened to the new reality created when the Sharon Government
signed the “road map”. After Israel returns to the Green Line, in
Jerusalem too, and will be downgraded to the status of a
protectorate, despite the fact that it will continue to bear the
nominal title “state” – will the Jewish people still consider an
entity like Bosnia and Kosovo the “beginning of the flowering of our
redemption”?
In the
summer of 2005, the Jewish people will be given their last
opportunity to prevent the decisive step in its country’s taking the
path leading to its loss of independence. The country considers the
disengagement as Israel’s entry into the implementation stage of the
“road map”. Only calling off the disengagement and overthrowing the
disengagement government by means of the civil disobedience of the
masses, based upon the model, which is spreading among the countries
of the former Soviet Union, will be able to prevent that one
additional step by Sharon towards the abyss, the step from which
there will be no return.
back to top |
Preserving the Memory
of the Holocaust
Susanne Urban
This article focuses on
the unique character of the new and modernized Yad Vashem website <www.yadvashem.org>.
The collection of names
and online documentation offer substantial material, for both
professional and individual research, which can now be easily
accessed. The educational impact should be underlined, as many
projects can be proposed and realized through the pages of
testimony.
A unique character of the site is that one can
find the known and (amazingly) modernized segments, as well as
presentations of recent events. Yad Vashem has put an idea and a
concept behind this website – as well as a message to the people,
Jews and non-Jews alike. An excellent educational tool, the site is
an impressive weapon against Holocaust denial.
back to top |
Chemical, Biological and Radiological Warfare Technologies
As Power Multipliers in the Battlefield of the Future and Terrorist
Acts
Dany Shoham
The technological
advancements, which characterize the last decade, have far-reaching
ramifications regarding weapons in general and regarding power
multipliers for the battlefield of the future in particular.
Therefore, they will drastically influence the nature of the
battlefield of the future. As a result, the combatant, in the
classical sense will lose his value almost completely. At the same
time, inevitably, the range of these ramifications is beyond, far
beyond the battlefield itself and extends over patently
multi-faceted horizons: Security, economic, logistic, demographic,
ecological and more. It covers an incalculable range of scenarios.
The distance between the technological reality and science fiction
is gradually disappearing, in these contexts.
One of the most severe
consequences of this situation is the increasing difficulty in
updating international conventions, aimed to prevent the
development, storage and employment of unconventional weapons at a
pace, which will keep up with the emergent technological
developments and for all intents and purposes nip them in the bud.
Daydreams; in the best-case scenario, the charters will be updated
effectively in real time, but for the most part there will be no
compliance; in the worst case, the experts involved in shaping the
charters will be unable to update them as necessary, whether due to
objective exigencies or due to inclinations stemming from the
zeitgeist and from man’s irrepressible scientific-technological
curiosity (especially as concerns tools of destruction). Thus, for
example, the initiated destruction of the notorious smallpox virus,
which (at least) Russia and the United States have in their
possession, has been postponed several times – consensually – under
the pretext that they should be maintained for scientific purposes,
when the world population is becoming more and more susceptible to
that virus due to its loss of immunity. This is the case regarding
human cloning as well, which continues in one form or another,
although it possesses an incalculably calamitous potential.
It
seems that the greatest degree of freedom – as far as the assortment
of options constituting the technological infrastructure for the
development of the weapons discussed in this study is concerned – is
that extant in the fields of molecular biology and genetic
engineering. Presumably, a combination of possibilities, both
quantitative and qualitative is inherent, unparalleled, with the
exception, perhaps, of the fields of information warfare and nano-technology.
It constitutes, therefore, an action whose borders, both
technological and moral, are unclear both in terms of the
battlefield of the future and in terms of the future of mankind in
general (from a colossal vantage point). Potentially, in its
ultimate form it is liable to manifest itself, among other ways, in
biological intelligence, which will actually be implanted into
robotic weapons systems (bio-information and neuro-technology).
Ultimately, ultra-hybrid warfare will probably constitute an
integrated synthesis of these battlefield technologies into a
holistic entity. The pure time dimension is liable to prematurely
erode as well, as a direct result of this.
back to top |
The Operative Link Between The US and Israel During
the Yom Kippur War (October 6-24, 1973)
Yuval Ne`eman
This article is an adaptation of a lecture,
which took place in August 1996 in The Center for National Security
Negotiations.
The Center for National Security Negotiations
(CNSN) is an institute whose role is to advise the State
Department on matters of national security – especially on matters
of disarmament during the Cold War era. When that ended, it was
decided in Washington to conduct a series of conferences in order to
draw conclusions – one meeting for each of the episodes perceived as
a series of nuclear crises during the Cold War. In that context, the
third session [August 1996] was devoted to the Yom Kippur War and
the “great alarm” in which the American nuclear alignment was placed
at its highest level of alert during all of the years of the Cold
War.
As one who was responsible on the Israeli side
for the strategic military-operational ties with the United States,
I was invited to the session and asked to open the deliberations
with a survey that would include the background of the war and its
primary developments.
The security philosophy, which was in effect
in Israel between the years 1948-1967, requires a pre-emptive
strike. The problem of the “narrow waist” – two large land
masses (the Galil and the Negev) attached by a 16 kilometer-wide
corridor extended along the coast, was generally construed as threat
that the country could be dissected without any special effort.
The Israeli security philosophy does not
include- emphatically – any reliance upon nuclear deterrence.
While preparing for this session, one of my colleagues drew my
attention to a paragraph in Seymour Hersh’s book, The Samson
Option. In chapter 17, an October 8, 1973 meeting between four
ministers in the office of the then Prime Minister, Golda Meir is
described. According to Hersh’s source (a friend of Mrs. Meir’s
military aide), three decisions were taken there: A counterattack on
the Egyptian front; deployment of the nuclear arsenal in the case of
failure (of the counterattack? It in fact failed), and a message to
Washington regarding both the desperate situation and the decision
to deploy “that nuclear arsenal”. At the same time, the United
States would be asked to supply weapons and ammunition.
I would like to emphasize that during that
meeting of the war cabinet as well as during the meeting, which took
place the next day, no decision was taken to “deploy the nuclear
arsenal”.
The coordinated Egyptian-Syrian offensive
began on October 6. 1973 at 2PM. The Syrian attacking force, about
1,400 tanks, penetrated through the northern and central sectors of
the Golan Heights on their way to the Sea of Galilee and the Jordan
River bridges to its north. The Hermon outpost was liberated by
Israeli forces on the 22nd of the month by means of a deep
outflanking maneuver (as per my unsolicited advice).
On the southern front, the Egyptian army
succeeded on October 6-7, to cross the Suez Canal on a broad front
(the second army in the northern sector and the third army in the
southern sector, and to establish a 16-24 kilometer bridgehead into
Israeli territory. The Egyptian advancement succeeded only due to
the effectiveness of the thick belt of anti-aircraft missiles
deployed to a depth of 32 kilometers along the entire west bank of
the Suez Canal and prevented all penetration of Israeli aircraft to
an altitude of 50,000 feet.
On the 20th of the month, the United States
and the Soviet Union issued ultimatums to both sides that they must
abide by a cease-fire as of the 22nd of the month. However, combat
continued until the 24th of the month until Israeli units completely
surrounded the Egyptian Third Army. Meanwhile, Israeli units moved
to 101 kilometers from Cairo and very little remained from the
powerful belt of missiles, which had provided Egypt with its initial
advantage.
I participated in all of the meetings of the
cabinet and the General Staff. Once or twice a day (and occasionally
even more often), I would prepare a report summarizing the status of
the war effort.
Over the course of several days, I viewed the
development of the American administration’s qualms. The issue was
clear: Clear assistance to Israel in its difficult hour would be
greeted with great reservation by the Arab kings who continued to
take a pro-western line even after Nasser led the military
dictatorships into the Soviet camp.
The United States did not have any tanks
available, but different arrangements were made and M-60 tanks were
provided by sea two months after the war and restored Israel’s might
to pre-war levels. Meanwhile, a huge C-5 cargo plane took off from
Germany with one heavy tank in its hold. I invited representatives
of the world media to be present when the plane landed and witness
the impressive sight of a tank rolling out of the plane’s cargo
hold. After the reporters left, the tank was reloaded onto the plane
and was flown back to Germany.
The “commercial of the C-5 with tank” played a
significant role on October 22, when Sadat announced that he agrees
to the cease fire.
The dramatic change in the development of the
war between the 17th and the 19th of October was viewed in Moscow as
a tragedy. The Warsaw Pact forces in Hungary, Poland and East
Germany were placed on alert and were ordered to prepare to fly to
the Canal region. Brezhnev’s letter, which was delivered by
Ambassador Dobrynin on the 24th of the month, was characterized by
Senator Henry Jackson as “rude and threatening”.
In the wake of that, on October 24, the United
States National Security Council issued an order placing the
Strategic Air Command and the National Guard Air Force’s
anti-aircraft squadrons, which fly F-106 fighter jets on alert. In
addition, the alert order included the American rapid deployment
forces: The 82nd Airborne and the marine units stationed in the
Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean Sea.
It seems that this American reaction did
indeed curtail the Soviet demands and their brinksmanship.
In summary, the mechanism of cooperation
between the superpower – The United States and the small country –
Israel in times of war has proven itself. There is no doubt that the
establishment of more profound strategic relations can prevent
mistakes in assessment and implementation as well as enhancing
successes in realizing the country’s strategic objectives.
back to top |
A Monkey Wrench In The Works –
The Supreme Court vs. the Declaration of
Independence
Haim Misgav
The declaration
of the establishment of the State of Israel was anchored
constitutionally in the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom. Ever
since, it was determined, basic human rights must be founded upon
recognition of the worth of man, the sanctity of his life and upon
his existence as a free man, and all these must be fulfilled in the
spirit of the principles appearing in the Jewish state’s Declaration
of Independence.
One need not be
a distinguished legal scholar in order to understand that this
document grants clear preference to Jews. The Jewish state is
supposed to be the national home of the Jewish people – exclusively.
Its gates will be opened wide before Jews alone. The borders of the
Jewish state were not determined in the Declaration of Independence
nor were the borders of the Land of Israel, as all that mattered to
the founders of the State of Israel was to emphasize that the Land
of Israel was from time immemorial the homeland of the Jewish people
in which its spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped
and in which it created national and universal cultural assets and
bequeathed the eternal Book of Books to the entire world.
At the same
time, it is important to remember that the rights of the Jewish
people to the land of Israel were also recognized in international
documents; both in the November 2, 1917 Balfour Declaration and in
the League of Nations Mandate, granted to the British. Thus,
universal legitimacy was granted to the historic connection between
the Jewish people and the Land of Israel and to the Jewish people’s
right to reestablish its national home.
Unfortunately,
the Jewish people themselves, or at least large segments of it, once
again fail to believe in the vision of the founders of the Jewish
state. Led by phony elites, which are manifest in the central
governmental institutions, the Supreme Court, the State Attorney’s
office, at the upper echelon of elected officials or at central
junctions of the media and the cultural world, decisions are made,
which, for all intents and purposes, deny the very right of the
Jewish people to the Land of Israel.
Thus the
Supreme Court decisions validate the baseless thesis that the
territories conquered in the Six-Day War are subject to the early
nineteenth century Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention
because those territories are occupied by the State of Israel in a
“belligerent occupation”. Those decisions, adopted with the
agreement of the Office of the State Attorney, first and foremost
suffer, obviously, from moral flaws as they ignore the fact that
there is no difference, legal or otherwise, between the territories
conquered in 1948 during the war of Independence and those conquered
19 years later.
The Arabs have
not relinquished one or the other – however, ironically, they
receive legal support for their claims from the Supreme Court of the
Jewish state.
It is
unfortunate that many Jews do not believe in their ability to
sustain the national home of the Jewish people in the Land of
Israel. The legal system and all of its subsidiaries has mobilized,
not for the first time, in support of the Prime Minister’s
delusional course of action. The Attorney General has already
initiated “special” courts for the settlers in the true Bolshevik
tradition. Blatantly anti-democratic actions are being undertaken in
every corner of our public life. The Prime Minister’s office acts as
if it owns the country. Cronies are appointed to the most prominent
positions. Anyone who doesn’t fall into line – is dismissed in
shame.
If
what is happening now is not stopped – and it is hard to envision
any public force able to stop what is happening – the fate of the
State of Israel will be bitter indeed. The vision of its prophets
and founders is liable to collapse all at once.
back to top |
Why Gentile Christian-Zionist Jim Vineyard Loves the Jews!
James Vineyard
The Holy Bible, which the
Jews received, transcribed, preserved, and then passed on to we
gentiles, declares in Genesis 12:3, “And I will bless them that
bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed.” Then in Genesis 27:29, “Let
people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy
brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be
every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.”
And then in Numbers 24:9, “He couched, he lay down as a lion, and as
a great lion: who shall stir him up? Blessed is he that blesseth
thee, and cursed is he that curseth thee.”
My wife became a
Christian before I did. I was hardheaded and wicked and wanted to
continue to live in sin. But, over 40 years ago I called on the name
of the lord exactly as folks are told to do in Joel 2:32, “And it
shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be delivered: for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be
deliverance, as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the lord
shall call.” My wife purchased me the Holy Bible. I began to read.
Very soon afterward I found the above mentioned scriptures, and they
became my convictions for all my actions relative to the Jews. And,
the First Commandment is that “I love the Lord my God will all my
heart, all my soul and all my strength,” and the second, “My
neighbor as myself”. Therefore, for over 40 years now I have tried
to love the Jews with all my heart and be there in any way i can
when Jews have a need.
back to top |
Europe,
Beware!
Moshe Sharon
In the past, the Muslims
regarded Europe as the “Land of War”, and the object of Jihad.
But Christian Europe then was a tough enemy that, recovering from
early defeats, it reacquired Spain and established itself during the
Crusades in the Holy Land for two centuries. This success of the
infidels and setback for the Muslims was since repeated many times
and culminated with the establishment of Israel which is
particularly regarded a reverse of history involving the loss of
Islamic land and the rule of dhimmis over Muslims.
While drumming hatred
against Israel modern Muslim activists detected that post-WW2 Europe
shows signs of old age frailty, and vulnerability, and already a few
decades ago formed the ideological and practical frameworks of the
neo-jihad for its conquest. Instead of developing counter
measures, the Europeans are actually supporting and collaborating
with this jihad. The European Union weakened the national
identity, and the sense of national pride, while enabling the
infiltration of Western Europe by millions of Muslims most of whom
are fully pledged to their Muslim identity. Regarding Europe as
their own they feel masters rather than guests, using the European
liberal laws and exploiting the European leftist “Useful Fools”.
The European bankruptcy
was demonstrated in the 1983 Hamburg Symposium that humbly
acknowledged “the importance of the Islamic contribution to the
creation of European civilization”, advocating departure from the
Judeo-Christian heritage.
This
pathetic attempt to drive modern Europe away, from its cultural and
moral sources, encourages Muslim propaganda that represents the
foundation of Israel as a sin committed by the Europeans. Europe
eagerly agrees. Instead of guarding against Islam Europe
rediscovered the reasons for the problems of the world: the Jews,
and their state. If this trend continues Europe could become Islamic
in less than half a century.
back to top |
|