Jewish Legal Rights and Title
to the Land of Israel and Palestine
Howard Grief
The Arab terrorist war being waged today against the
Jewish people within the heart of the Land of Israel is based upon a
gigantic and universal myth that has never been properly refuted. This
myth contends that the so-called “Palestinians”, a fictitious Gentile
nation that has no recorded annals in world history, are “resisting” the
“occupation” of “their land” by the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
This pernicious myth re-surfaces in every debate, article and diplomatic
initiative on how best to make an unnecessary peace with the transplanted
Arabs, intruders into the Jewish National Home, who principally inhabit
the regions of Judea, Samaria and Gaza which they falsely claim to be
their ancient homeland.
This myth has gained wide acceptance because most
people living today know very little about the true international law that
developed during and after World War I. Under that law, the Jewish people,
and definitely not any Arab entity or nation, were granted exclusive legal
rights of sovereignty and title over all of the territory that was
governed by the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine to establish the
Jewish National Home, which was synonymously called by the name of
Palestine.
Ever since the San Remo Decision of April 25, 1920,
Jewish legal rights and title to the entire territory of Palestine have
never been legally altered and so those rights still remain intact even
today, despite numerous illegal maneuvers over the years, to compromise or
scuttle them altogether, first by the British Mandatory Power during the
whole Mandate period and much more recently by the government of Israel
which conducted the illegal and ill-conceived “Oslo peace process”.
To restore those rights to their fullest extent as
originally envisaged under international law, the writer proposes a series
of steps that must be taken to end, once and for all, rival Arab claims to
the Jewish country, which are based on nothing but falsehoods,
fabrications and imaginary rights.
back to
top
Exporting the Intifada to Western Democracies
Raphael Israeli
Ever since the outburst of the intifada at the
end of September 2000, a sustained effort has been made by Arab and Muslim
networks worldwide to export it to the Western democracies in America,
Europe and Australia. Indeed, on campuses, in the streets of the major
western cities, in the media and in mass demonstrations, those groups of
Arabs/Muslims have been mounting violent attacks against the Jewish
communities in their localities and the policies of Israel towards the
Palestinians.
Since they have joined forces with local anti-Semites,
those violent groups have turned the campaign into a thoroughly
anti-Jewish – under the guise of anti-Zionism – onslaught on everything
Jewish, Israeli or Zionist. Synagogues were torched, cemeteries
desecrated, Jewish day schools damaged, Jewish worshippers and students
assaulted, and obscene threats were voiced either in demonstrations or in
posters, telephone calls and internet sites.
This upheaval, which is no doubt orchestrated from
the outside, has introduced an element of uncertainty and fear to the
lives of established Jewish communities throughout the western
democracies. Moreover, due to the increasing numbers of Arab/Muslim
immigrants, legal and illegal, into those countries who give them asylum,
and their tendency to concentrate in certain areas where they can impact
on patterns of voting, local politicians tend to behave permissively with
them and look the other way, while the influence of the Jewish communities
is being visibly diminished.
back to
top
Islam – Terror in the Guise of Religion or Religion of Terror
Meir Abelson
Islam sprang from pre-Islamic tribal society, and
borrowed extensively from Judaism and Christianity. Its intentions were
enunciated by Muhammad when he declared that, as the “final revealed word
of God”, Islam eclipsed all other religions, and aspired to conquer the
world in the name of Allah. This basic intention remains to this day.
The world according to Islam is divided into two
parts: Dar-Al-Islam – the Abode of Islam, in which Islam is in full
religious-political control and Dar-Al-Harb – the Abode of War -
the rest of the world still unsubdued by Islam.
Islam – which means “submission” – is destined to
achieve its aim by jihad – holy war –which requires non-Muslims to
convert to Islam willingly through persuasion, or unwillingly through
fighting. Jewish and Christian communities conquered by Muslims are termed
dhimmis – “tolerated” in their homeland from which they are
dispossessed, and subjected to restrictions.
Muhammad’s sweeping victories 1,400 years ago
convinced the Muslims that Allah guaranteed their success, and that their
civilization was superior to any other. Defeat and domination by the
“infidel” West since the 19th century caused psychological
disorders which have today reached pathological proportions. No less
theologically obscene was the creation of the State of Israel – a
dhimmi State – at the heart of the Abode of Islam, and its subsequent
repulse of Arab aggression in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. The creation of
myths intended to further the jihad against Western civilization
and its “outpost” Israel included, inter alia, the existence of a separate
Palestinian people and the responsibility of Israel for the refugee
problem, all of which have been exposed as fabrications by various Arab
leaders, by British and UN officials and by refugees themselves.
By changing its appearance to suit the surroundings,
Islam has penetrated worldwide. The threat to the West, which has been
monitored for some fifty years, has only become palpable with the
terrorist attacks on the soil of the United States.
back to
top
A
Democratic but "Racist" Solution to the Palestinian Problem
Paul Eidelberg
The
author employs the principles of classical or normative
democracy to negate the claim that the Palestinian Arabs are entitled to
independent statehood. That claim is based, without logical consistency,
on the principles of contemporary or normless democracy, now
steeped in moral and cultural relativism. Because the author can also
employ the principles of contemporary democracy to negate Palestinian
statehood, he will be all the more vehemently accused of “racism” by
contemporary democrats, to say nothing of Arabs who are anything but
democrats. Undeterred by this canard, the author, consistent with his
rejection of Palestinian statehood, rejects the related notion of
“separation” as a solution to the Palestinian problem – the notion of
those who lack the courage and wisdom to deal effectively with the cruel
hatred of Arabs toward Jews and their implacable commitment to Israel’s
destruction. The author concludes with the only realistic solution to the
problem, one that conforms to both democratic and Jewish principles.
back to
top
Jewish Arab
Equality - A Bridge for Co-Existence?
Uri Shtruzman
The notion of equality
is imprinted in our hearts since the beginning of Jewish history. All the
factions of the Zionist movement adopted equality as an educational
cornerstone. However, equality is an aspiration rather than an image of
our existence. History illustrates the futility of trying to compel
equality through force (the Soviet Union) or ideals (the Kibbutz
movement). Equality can only be achieved within the boundaries of
groups that form naturally (“same essential categories” as cited by Prof.
Chaim Perelman of Brussels University).
While Arabs are entitled
to full equality in civic and cultural matters, this is not the case where
nationalistic matters are concerned. The evident inequality existing
between Jews and Arabs in Israel is a manifestation of their belonging to
two different “essential categories”, divided along nationalistic lines.
Jews aspire to build the Jewish state in Israel, while the Arabs voted
against it in 1947 (and physically fought for its destruction). Israeli
Arabs nationalistically share the dreams and aspirations of their
Palestinian brothers – and partake in the Palestinian struggle to destroy
Israel, using violence and politics as weapons.
Two essential
conclusions are presented in this article:
-
The conflict of
national interests between Jews and Arabs in Israel necessitates the
denial of their right to vote in the Knesset on certain key issues
(perhaps, allowing them to express such conflicting aspirations in the
Palestinian parliament);
-
Democracies recognize the
need for corrective discrimination in order to promote equality.
Therefore, Israel being a Jewish state, and a minority among Arab states
that strive for its destruction – the Supreme Court must recognize the
corrective discrimination rights of Jews in Israel on such issues as
“the right of return” and the right to settle in Jewish-only
communities.
back to
top
Sharon, Sabra
and Shatila Resurrected and Revisited
Paul Giniewski
The February 2, 2001 elections in Israel triggered a
tidal wave of Sharon-bashing which has not receded since. The media
harmoniously blended the ill-famed Jewish state and its new Prime
Minister. The Sabra and Shatila litany is resurrected daily, and is
featured foremost and paramount.
An American Jewish magazine evoked Sharon’s “previous
acts of terror during his years in the army”. A leading French daily hoped
“he presently dreams more of peace than of new butcheries”.
To what aim? To defame and delegitimize the Jewish
state is a precondition for producing the indifference and the consent of
public opinion for its destruction.
What really happened at Sabra and Shatila, where
Christian/Lebanese Phalangists massacred Palestinians in cold blood? The
report of the Kahane Commission of Inquiry, the most reliable, historical
collection of findings on the deed – not blurred by ignorance, not
inflated by propoganda and passion – established the truth.
The lies and fabrications by Israel’s enemies should
be refuted without relenting. As an Arab proverb says: “The slanderer’s
mouth is more dangerous than the muzzle of the gun.”
back to
top
A Few Remarks
on the Leftist Mafia
Amnon Lord
The apparent failure of the
Oslo accords is first and foremost the failure of the Israeli
intellectuals. This solution, based on an orientation towards the PLO,
represented a radical break from traditional Israeli policy and is the
brainchild of Israeli thinkers. In the disaster they brought upon the
Israelis they are not different from their fellow intellectuals in the
west who undermined democracy in their native countries while identifying
wholeheartedly with the cruelest despots. A foremost expert on the
Stalinist terror, Robert Conquest, called the aftermath of the
totalitarian regimes “mindslaughter”. Most Israeli intellectuals are
considered to be Leftist, and rightly so. For two generations there were
very strong political movements which were heavily Stalinist, such as “Mapam”,
“Ahdut Ha’avoda” and of course the Communist Party. Many people in Israel
were educated in a Marxist environment. In the same way that their parents
could identify with aspects of Stalinist policies, while he led fierce
anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist campaigns, so their radical sons see in the
terrorist PLO a liberation movement. What is called post-Zionism has deep
roots in the old socialist Zionism, and it feeds on the feelings of
self-negation among many Israeli “Sabras”. The basic trend is denial of
Jewish identity. On the whole, because of the centralized structure of
Israeli society the intellectuals could filter their views easily through
to the mindset of the other elite sectors such as the media, the military
and the political elites, thus causing almost overnight the collapse of
long-standing principles, especially in strategic matters.
back to
top
Nuclear
Deterrence Now - To the Attention of a Busy PM (I)
Louis René Beres
During the past year, the ACPR has expertly examined
problems of Israeli deterrence. Aharon Levran’s “The Decline of Israeli
Deterrence” (ACPR policy paper no. 113) is an especially important and
informed assessment. The article below by Professor Louis René Beres –
cast in the form of a Memorandum to the Prime Minister – looks more
specifically at the conditions and limitations of Israeli nuclear
deterrence. Based upon the assumption that Israel’s survival depends
entirely upon self reliance, this memorandum urges PM Sharon
immediately to strengthen the country’s nuclear deterrence posture, and to
take critical steps to ensure that a failure of Israeli nuclear deterrence
will not bring about nuclear warfare. These steps will require: (1) a
multifaceted nuclear strategy involving deterrence, preemption and
warfighting capabilities; and (2) a corollary conventional strategy that
can function in spite of serious security weaknesses created by the Oslo
“peace process”.
Israel needs a strong nuclear deterrent – and the
complex conditions of such a deterrent are identified and evaluated
carefully in the Memorandum – but it cannot rely upon this one base of
national security any more than it can rely only upon conventional
deterrence. Israel’s survival now requires complementary nuclear and
conventional forces, and the continuing and associated availability of
certain preemption options. Taken together, these multiple bases of
national security could endow Israel with at least tolerable measures of
safety.
Specific issues addressed in the Beres Memorandum
are: convincing prospective attackers that Israel maintains both the
willingness and the capacity to retaliate in certain situations
with nuclear weapons; the risks and benefits to Israel of intentionally
detectable measures to reduce Israeli nuclear force vulnerabilities; the
associated risks and benefits to Israel of active and passive defenses;
the precise nature of Israeli nuclear weapons; the issue of disclosure vs.
“deliberate ambiguity” (the “Bomb in the Basement”); the types and
openness of nuclear targeting doctrine; the problem of enemy irrationality
for Israeli nuclear deterrence; the interrelatedness of Israeli
conventional and nuclear deterrence; and (should Israeli nuclear
deterrence fail), the expected consequences of regional nuclear war.
Finally, the Beres Memorandum imaginatively considers different scenarios
of how a nuclear attack upon Israel might take place and the particular
place for a “Samson Option”.
Professor Louis René Beres is the author of some of
the earliest published writings on Israeli nuclear deterrence. This
Memorandum looks soberly and in considerable detail at today’s urgent
strategic challenges to Israel. Taken as a whole, the Memorandum points
toward a comprehensive and coherent nuclear “master plan” from which
specific policy options might be suitably extrapolated.
back to
top
The
"Afghan Alumni" and the Clash Between Civilizations (II)
Shaul Shay
In recent years, some scholars have spoken of a clash
of civilizations between Islam and modern secular (or Judeo-Christian)
democratic values and culture, or between Islamic civilization and the
West.
Professor Samuel P. Huntington, in his article “The
Clash of Civilizations” and later in his book of the same name, argues
that the root of global conflict at the turn of the century is neither
ideological nor economic, but primarily cultural.
Huntington singles out Islamic civilization as the
most militant cultural form, and emphasizes the inherent conflict between
it and Western and other civilizations.
Although Huntington’s premise can be brought into
question, as shown by John Esposito (“Political Islam and the West”, JFQ, Spring 2000), the Muslim world today is torn by a deep internal
conflict over the essence and purpose of Islamic society. The outcome of
this internal conflict has dictated, and continues to dictate, the nature
of the ties between Muslim civilization and Western and other
civilizations.
Islamic fundamentalism is funneled through dozens of
Islamist organizations that operate throughout the Muslim world. In
addition, there are three states – Iran, Afghanistan, and the Sudan –
whose fundamentalist Islamic regimes provide spiritual and material succor
to the radical Islamic movements. These states work independently and
through the radical Islamic movements to export the Islamic revolution to
the entire Muslim world, and spearhead the struggle against foreign –
particularly Western – civilizations.
In this article we shall be focusing on a recent
phenomenon which clearly exemplifies Huntington’s theory of the “clash of
civilizations” – that of the “Afghan mujahideen” – the spearhead of
radical Islam’s struggle against heretical cultures. Despite their name,
the “Afghan terrorists” are not affiliated with a specific movement or
state, but see themselves as the representatives of Islam’s relentless
struggle against secular Muslim regimes and heretical cultures.
Osama bin Laden is one of the outstanding “products”
of the Afghan war, and his organization “Al-Qa’idah” is one of the main
expressions of the “Afghan” phenomenon. Bin Laden views his struggle as
part of the conflict between Islamic and other civilizations, particularly
“the Jewish-Crusader civilization”, as he calls it.
As a cultural struggle, the world-wide Afghan
struggle is being waged on three fronts: within Muslim countries (to
reinstate the rule of shari`ah law); in countries with Muslim
minorities, situated on “fault lines” with other cultures (the Balkans,
the Caucasus, Kashmir, etc.); and, internationally, in the struggle
against Western, particularly US, civilization, which is perceived by the
fundamentalists as the source of all evil, and the primary threat to
Islam.
It looks as if the clash of civilizations as
perceived by Huntington, at one extreme, and Osama bin Laden, at the
other, is with us to stay, at least for the foreseeable future.
back to
top
Russia and
the Mideast Vacuum (II)
Ilan Berman
Practically unnoticed, Russia has regained its status as
a major power in the Middle East. Over the past several years, Moscow has
expanded its sphere of influence beyond its “near abroad” and into the
Gulf and Levant. There, it has worked to alter the regional balance of
power and fill the vacuum left by American diplomacy.
Russia’s regional policy is both multifaceted and
ambitious. Through its relationship with Tehran, Moscow has furthered the
Islamic Republic’s quest for weapons of mass destruction and complicated
the West’s access to Caspian basin energy. Through its efforts to
undermine the international sanctions regime against Baghdad and supplant
the United States as chief broker of the Middle East peace process, Russia
has attained growing control of regional diplomacy. And through arms sales
and proliferation, the Kremlin has reestablished ties with a host of
traditional client states, tilting them conclusively back into its orbit.
Now, Russia stands poised to become the preeminent power in the Gulf, much
to the detriment of both the United States and its regional allies, Turkey
and Israel.
In this article, “Russia and the Mideast Vacuum”, the
author explores the tools with which the Kremlin has sought to achieve
regional dominance, control over Caspian and Gulf energy, and the creation
of an anti-Western coalition aimed at ousting American influence from the
region.
back to
top
|