Sharon Divided Jerusalem
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 alliance 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
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.
The Transfer of Jews
Under Prime Minister Sharon’s Unilateral Disengagement
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
Eternal Link Will Never Be Broken
no literary pretensions. 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
European Army in Gaza?
article looks into the possibilities and probabilities of a European
Union Peacekeeping Force deployment in the Gaza Strip, in the
eventuality of an Israeli withdrawal. 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.
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, particularly 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
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
The Moscow-Tehran Balance Axis is Shifting Towards Iran’s Favor
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.
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
2003, Moscow has deferred supplying uranium fuel designated for the
Busherh power station, using complicated environmental safety
demands, mainly as a pretext.
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.
Cold-War Origins of Contemporary Anti-Semitic Terminology
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
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.