Saturday, November 24, 2007

The Arab League, then and forever

What is the Arab League hoping to achieve in Annapolis? The states of the Arab League are pushing very hard to produce a PLO state on Israel’s flank. They are hoping to get one at the Annapolis Conference. In public, the states of the Arab League say they are looking for justice for the Palestinian Arabs. Are these their true intentions? I believe that one can go a long ways toward answering that question by looking at the origins of the Arab League. Before I do that, however, I will justify the validity of this methodology, which actually runs against a popular prejudice.

Many people, I have found, hold the following folk theory about institutions: the passage of time will alter their ideology. As members die or leave and are replaced with others, the institution will change because people have all kinds of different ideologies. Accordingly, the burden of proof is on whoever claims that after 60 years, say, the ideology of an institution will remain the same. I think this is backwards: the burden of proof, in my view, is on whoever affirms that the ideology of an institution has changed. I will defend that the Arab League, like most other institutions, has today the same ideology it had on the day it was founded. What is this ideology? Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, explained it when the League launched a war of aggression against the Israeli Jews in 1948: “This will be a war of extermination...”[1]

First, the general point

An institution is a network of organized relationships between people whose individual roles are defined by their kind of membership. These individuals will all die, and they may leave the institution even before passing away, but the institution survives because new people are always being recruited to the vacancies. An institution is potentially eternal. The Catholic Church, for example, is 2000 years old.

Now, the question for us is this: If an institution is created around a strongly felt ideology, how will this affect the process of recruitment to the vacancies?

Imagine institution V, created to promote vegetarianism, and run, naturally, by vegetarians. There are 10 people in the executive board. One day, at time = t, one of the board members dies. What kind of a person will the remaining 9 members look for? Another vegetarian. A meat-eater might be recruited to fill relatively low positions that are strongly utilitarian: for example, an expert in marketing might be hired even if he eats meat, because he is a mercenary who will do his contract job. But it would be remarkable for this institution to hire meat eaters to the governing board, where policy decisions are made. Given that at time = t vacancies were filled, and especially in the upper echelons, with vegetarians, the vacancies at time t+1 will also be filled with vegetarians, because once again those doing the selecting are surviving vegetarians. And so forth. There is no reason to expect that the passage of time will turn this vegetarianism-promoting institution into an institution that celebrates meat because the ideology of the institution creates a selection pressure in the recruiting process that works to keep the ideology stable.

Now let’s consider the Arab League. The question we must answer is this one: if we can agree that the Arab League meant, at its inception, to exterminate the Israeli Jews, is it possible that the Arab League, today, means to make peace with the Israeli Jews?

The Arab League and the Arab Higher Committee

There are different ways of addressing the question of the Arab League’s ideology at its inception. One is to ponder what it means that the Arab League recreated the Arab Higher Committee after World War II.

Avi Shlaim explains that

“In the aftermath of World War II, when the struggle for Palestine was approaching its climax, the Palestinians [he means the Muslims living in British Mandate Palestine, a great many of whom were recent immigrants, including many non-Arabs, and none of which called themselves ‘Palestinians’ at that time -- FGW] were in a weak and vulnerable position. Their weakness was clearly reflected in their dependence on the Arab states and on the recently-founded Arab League. Thus, when the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) was reestablished in 1946 after a nine year hiatus, it was not by the various Palestinian political parties themselves, as had been the case when it was founded in 1936, but by a decision of the Arab League.”[2]

Shlaim is one of the ‘New Historians’ who have made it a specialty to defend the justice of the ‘Palestinian Arab’ movement, and I have quoted him to show what even defenders of this movement must implicitly concede.

Shlaim explains that the organism created to speak for the Muslims of Palestine was the Arab Higher Committee. What was it? According to Shlaim, the AHC had been created in 1936 by “the various Palestinian political parties themselves” to represent the Muslims in Palestine. This, however, is false. It was Hajj Amin al Husseini who created the AHC. Here follows the context in which he did so.

Hajj Amin al Husseini had organized two large Muslim terrorist riots against civilian Jews in British Mandate Palestine in 1920 and 1921, after which the British governing authorities -- which had assisted those anti-Jewish attacks -- made him Mufti of Jerusalem, transforming the office so that it had unprecedented power over the Muslim courts, mosques, taxes, schools, etc. They also gave him a generous British subsidy. (The British authorities wanted to derail the Zionist project but they wanted the British public to think that they had nothing to do with it, so they promoted Muslim violence against the Jews). Husseini used his power and British backing to launch jihad: the murder of infidels who refuse to convert to Islam or be the slaves of Muslims. The targets of his jihad were the Jews. There was a much larger terrorist riot in 1929, and then an even bigger and more sustained attack, lasting from 1936 to 1939. The last one was organized with weapons supplied by Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, and received much assistance in weaponry and personnel from nearby Arab states. Throughout all these years, Husseini used his terrorists to intimidate and murder any Muslims in Palestine who disagreed with him and tried to get along with the Jews, or who tried to sell their land to the Jews (who were paying very good money for it). In this way, Husseini -- from one of the largest feudal landholding families in Palestine -- could buy the plots of Muslim smallholders at bargain prices, consolidate them, and then resell them to the Zionists for very high prices, even though in public he accused that selling land to Jews was treason. It was in the context of his attacks against Muslim dissenters, in the so-called ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936-39, that Husseini created the Arab Higher Committee in order to concentrate all political authority in his hands and destroy all moderate opposition.[3]

The question of whether the Arab Higher Committee created by feudal lord Hajj Amin al Husseini represented the interests of ordinary Muslims in Palestine is easily answered: 1) Husseini was using terrorism to steal the land of small-time Muslims and enrich himself; 2) the general strike his terrorist gangsters enforced hurt the Muslim economy especially; and 3) in his efforts to enforce his racism against the Jews, his terrorists in fact murdered many more Muslims than Jews: during the Arab Revolt “the Mufti’s forces killed more than four hundred Jews and several thousand Arabs.”[4] It is true, as Avi Shlaim states, that there were “various political parties” among the Muslims in Mandate Palestine, but if they had really all supported Husseini in the creation of the Arab Higher Committee he would not have murdered so many Muslims.

It is quite significant that Hajj Amin al Husseini, in late 1941, moved to Berlin and spent the entire war in Nazi-occupied Europe, organizing massacres of Jews for the Nazis. According to the post-war testimony of Dieter Wisliceny, one of Adolf Eichmann’s top lieutenants in the extermination of the European Jews, it was in fact Hajj Amin al Husseini -- at the time with 20 years experience (much more than the Nazis) murdering innocent Jews -- who convinced Hitler, Himmler, and Eichmann not to expel any Jews from Europe but instead to kill them all. Wisliceny also testified that Husseini had subsequently become an equal partner with Adolf Eichmann in the implementation and administration of the Final Solution, from the time of the fateful decision to kill all the Jews -- in the Wansee Conference of January 1942 (shortly after Husseini met with Hitler on 28 November 1941) -- till the end.[5]

Avi Shlaim tells us that after the World War, the Arab League, whose leading member was Egypt, recreated the Arab Higher Committee. What was the point of this? To give a voice to the Muslims in Mandate Palestine? On the contrary. Hajj Amin al Husseini, one of history’s greatest butchers of Jews, and no friend of ordinary Muslims in Mandate Palestine, was now living in Cairo under protection of the Egyptian government. What the Arab League was doing was prepare another attack against the Jewish people, using the Muslims in Mandate Palestine -- the so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs’ -- as useful pawns in the great game. This was also the British government’s game, for it was the British government that had created Hajj Amin al Husseini,[5] and the British government that had created the Arab League. When the Arab League decided to destroy the new Jewish State in the cradle, during the War of 1948, the British government allied with the Arab League’s attack, and in many ways led it (see below).

The Arab League and the War of 1948

Shortly after the Arab League’s recreation of the Arab Higher Committee in 1946, the United Nations voted to create a state for the Muslims living in Mandate Palestine, and another state for the Jews. Today the Arab states holler loudly that a state must be created for the ‘Palestinian Arabs’ in order to do them ‘justice.’ But when this state was approved by the UN in 1947 the entire Arab world rejected it. Their concern was clearly not to create a self-governing state for the Muslims in Palestine, but to prevent any opportunity for the Jews to have their own.

And the Arab League would punish Jews everywhere, for soon it had drafted a series of laws which it planned to impose on any Jews living in the Arab States, as we see below.

[Quotation begins here (go to the source)]

Text of the Law Drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League


In 1947, the Political Committee of the Arab League (League of Arab States) drafted a law which was to govern the legal status of Jewish residents in all Arab League countries. This law had already been approved by Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, provided that, “beginning with a specified date, all Jews -- with the exception of citizens of non-Arab countries -- were to be considered members of the Jewish ‘minority state of Palestine,’ and that their bank account be frozen and used to finance resistance to ‘Zionist ambitions in Palestine.’ Jews believed to be active Zionists would be interned as political prisoners and their assets confiscated. Only Jews who accept active service in Arab armies or place themselves at the disposal of these armies would be considered ‘Arabs.’”[6]

Excerpts of Direct Quotes of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League:

-- “All Jewish citizens…will be considered as members of the Jewish minority of the State of Palestine and will have to register [“within 7 days”] with the authorities of the region wherein they reside, giving their names, the exact number of members in their families, their addresses, the names of their banks and the amounts of their deposits in these banks…”[7]

-- “Bank accounts of Jews will be frozen. These funds will be utilized in part or in full to finance the movement of resistance to Zionist ambitions in Palestine.”[8]

-- “Only Jews who are subjects of foreign countries will be considered ‘neutrals.’ These will be compelled either to return to their countries, with a minimum of delay, or be considered Arabs and obliged to accept active service in the Arab army.”[9]

-- “Every Jew whose activities reveal that he is an active Zionist will be considered as a political prisoner and will be interned in places specifically designated for that purpose by police authorities or by the Government. His financial resources, instead of being frozen, will be confiscated.”[10]

-- “Any Jew who will be able to prove that his activities are anti-Zionist will be free to act as he likes, provided that he declares his readiness to join the Arab armies.”[11]

-- “The foregoing…does not mean that those Jews will not be submitted to paragraphs 1 and 2 of this law.”[12]

[Quotation ends here]

These laws are quite similar to Nazi Germany’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, and they prompted an article in the New York Times by Mallory Browne with the headline JEWS IN GRAVE DANGER IN ALL MOSLEM LANDS.[13] It was published on 16 May 1948, and in a sense was already outdated because by then the Arab states had launched themselves in war against the newly-created state of Israel. The Arab League explained out loud that they meant to continue Adolf Hitler’s great mass killing, so fresh that Europe still reeked of blood. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League promised: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[14] This was the War of 1948, the Israeli War of Independence, which might as well be called the War of National Survival.

During this war of attempted extermination, the Arab League was assisted by the British and United States governments.

“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

…The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”[15]

But that’s nothing: the British government sent captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies, as documented by The Nation in 1948, which published documents from British and French intelligence to show it in furious articles.[16]

What about the United States? It is true that earlier the United States had voted in favor of partitioning the Mandate territory, but the entire State Department was opposed and the US vote in favor happened only after the embarrassment of a passionate UN General Assembly speech by Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko in favor of a state for the persecuted Jews.[16a] The United States did not want to seem less anti-Nazi than the Soviets. But once the Arab League had attacked, with its chances looking good, the US government announced that it no longer recognized the State of Israel and placed an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews.[17]

Despite all this, the Arab League lost the War of 1948. Kudos go to the fighting spirit of the Israeli Jews, and to the Czechoslovaks, who assisted the Israeli efforts with arms shipments.[18]

After the defeat, the member states of the Arab League expelled the Jews who lived in these countries, and a great many took refuge in Israel. This was such a large population that Jews from Arab-speaking countries, overnight, became the majority in the Jewish State.

The Arab League, the PLO, and Al Fatah

In the 1950s important German Nazi fugitives came to Egypt to improve the deadliness of Gamal Abdel Nasser’s military and intelligence services. These were Hajj Amin al Husseini’s old friends, and some of them had been his subordinates in the Final Solution. Thus, under protection of Arab League leader Egypt, Husseini had his Nazi friends train Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and other adolescent recruits of his, creating the group known as Al Fatah.[19]

What was the purpose of Al Fatah? The same as that which Azzam Pasha explained was the purpose of the parent organization, the Arab League: the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Article 12 of the Fatah Charter calls for the “Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military, and cultural existence.” How do you eradicate the “economic, political, military, and cultural existence” of the Israeli Jews? Why, by eradicating the Jews themselves. Further clarifying its intentions, Article 17 of the Fatah Charter states that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.” In other words, ‘Palestine’ can only be ‘liberated’ in the process of murdering Jews (since this method is “inevitable”). If this were not clear enough, Article 19 states that “armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic.” In other words, armed struggle -- killing Jews -- is not a means to an end but the end itself. The same article explains that the killing will not stop “unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.”[20]

The Arab League also played a role in the creation of the PLO.

Mitchell Bard writes that “the Arab League created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Cairo in 1964 as a weapon against Israel.”[21] Is he right? Yes. The PLO’s founding purpose was not really to ‘liberate’ ‘Palestine’ but to kill Israeli Jews -- as many as possible.

This is easily demonstrated.

The 1964 PLO Covenant or Charter in fact explicitly states that the West Bank, Gaza, and Himmah -- which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively had occupied during the War of 1948 and were still sitting on -- were not part of ‘Palestine.’ These lands had all been part of British Mandate Palestine. And yet it was quite all right, the PLO stated, for Jordan, Egypt, and Syria to have those three territories, even though the PLO was defining ‘Palestine’ as British Mandate Palestine. But this made perfect sense: the PLO was an Arab League creation, and the states of the Arab League would not have the PLO contesting their control of the parts of ‘Palestine’ that they had occupied. Which ‘Palestine’ did the PLO mean to ‘liberate,’ then? Answer: whatever land the Jews were living on: Israel. This was conclusively demonstrated in the rewritten 1968 PLO Charter. In this document the PLO removed the clause concerning the West Bank and Gaza and from this point onwards did lay claim now to a ‘Palestine’ that includes the West Bank and Gaza.[22] What happened? The Six-Day War of 1967. In that war, provoked by the Arab League members who once again did their best to try and exterminate the Israeli Jews, the Israelis managed to capture Judea and Samaria (‘West Bank’) and Gaza, among other territories, and subsequently Jews returned to live there (Jews had been living in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza before they were massacred or forced to flee in the War of 1948). This demonstrates that there is no reality to ‘Palestine’; its boundaries are arbitrarily redrawn so that the territory to be ‘liberated’ will correspond to the one that Jews live on.

And by the word ‘liberate’ the PLO means the same thing that Al Fatah means: kill Jews. This, too, is easily demonstrated.

The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” This could be rewritten like so: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine”; and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating the presence of “Zionists.”[23] Like its parent organization (the Arab League), the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews.

Shortly after the PLO rewrote its charter in 1968, Al Fatah took it over. By 1970, writes historian Howard Sachar,

“the PLO had experienced less a revival than a total reincarnation of membership and purpose under the leadership of Yasser Arafat. Consisting ostensibly of representatives of all guerilla organizations, the PLO in its resurrected form was almost entirely Fatah-dominated, and Arafat himself served as president of its executive. In this capacity he was invited to attend meetings of the Arab League, and won extensive subsidies from the oil-rich governments of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf.”[24]

As this was happening, during the years 1967-70, Arab League leader Egypt launched a sustained series of attacks against Israel that have been called the War of Attrition. It couldn’t defeat Israel. So,

“On October 6, 1973 -- Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar -- Egypt and Syria opened a coordinated attack against Israel. The equivalent of the total forces of NATO in Europe were mobilized on Israel’s borders. On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians.”[25]

The Arabs received assistance from the Soviet Union. When this happened, the US, which had been resisting Israeli calls for help, airlifted military supplies.[26] This was atypical: in previous conflicts the US had not helped, or had taken measures against Israel, but with Cold War prestige at stake, and given the popularity of Israel with the US population, the US government decided it could not afford to stay on the sidelines.

Israel won.

It was immediately after this, in the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, that “the heads of state present... recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the Palestinian people.”[27] Given the trajectory of the Arab League up to here, the obvious hypothesis is that the Arab League decided to try a ‘Trojan Horse’ pseudo-diplomatic approach, promising peace in exchange for getting the PLO into the Jewish State, the better to exterminate the Israeli Jews (since direct military attacks always failed to bring about this result). Indeed, a diplomatic effort to create a PLO state ensued, and this push intensified in the second half of the 1980s. This new strategy was in fact led by US President Jimmy Carter,[28] who has been quite consistent over the years, and recently has launched a defense of PLO/Fatah and simultaneous attack against Israel that has been widely interpreted to be antisemitic.

Since then…

From this point onwards, the main strategy would be to get the PLO -- really, Hajj Amin al Husseini’s Al Fatah, and therefore the continuation of the German Nazi Final Solution -- into the Jewish State.

The United States has continued to play a leading role in this. In 1982, when Israel invaded Lebanon to put an end to the PLO/Fatah’s attacks against civilians in northern Israel, the US government saved the PLO/Fatah from destruction by stopping the Israelis and giving the PLO/Fatah a military escort to its new base in Tunis.[29] Later, the US government began making policy statements that a PLO/Fatah state had to be created in Judea and Samaria.[30] And soon after that the US government threatened the Israelis with the loss of all assistance if they did not attend the Madrid ‘Peace’ Conference, which became the platform for the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, whose purpose was, precisely, to bring the PLO/Fatah into Israel and to give it ever more power inside the Jewish State.[31] With this accomplished, the US intelligence services began arming and training PLO/Fatah.[32]

Now the US and British governments are pushing very hard for this process to conclude with the creation of a PLO/Fatah state, cleansed of Jews, in Judea and Samaria, territories that the US military in 1967 concluded are strategic territories without which Israel cannot survive.[33]

And now…

In a few days, the Annapolis Conference is scheduled to begin, and it is expected that the Israeli government, with close to zero support from Israeli citizens (as of May 2007 “[Olmert’s] approval rating hovers around 3%,”[34] and I suppose that has a margin of error), will make a commitment to give Judea and Samaria to PLO/Fatah. In anticipation of this, some US congressmen have introduced a resolution calling for Mahmoud Abbas to Change the Fatah Charter so that it no longer calls for the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[35] Please resist the urge to cheer this. If these congressmen succeed, they will have given Al Fatah the opportunity to appear ‘well-intentioned’ in the context of the final handover negotiations. But there would be absolutely no reason to believe such a Fatah statement if it was made. Years ago, Mahmoud Abbas, from his perch as president of the Palestine National Council, the governing body of the PLO, authored the current PLO/Fatah ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy, which is to promise peace in exchange for land in order to get into Israel and murder the Jews.[36] In other words, he means to lie now so that he can kill Jews later. This strategy is sometimes called the Plan of Phases:

“Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[37]

The argument I defended at the top, about the stability of the founding ideology of an institution despite changes in personnel, naturally applies to Al Fatah. But in fact I need not invoke it, because Al Fatah is still run by one of the people who founded it: Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. as Abu Mazen): “Abu Mazen is... one of the founders of Fatah, one of the original Arafat band of brothers.”[38] As noted above, he was trained by Hajj Amin al Husseini, the great architect of the German Nazi Final Solution.


The passage of time has changed nothing. The Arab League has the same ideology that it had at its inception, and it is being supported, as it was back then, by powerful Western sponsors. The same goes for the organizational offshoots of the Arab League which are tools of its policies. What is being prepared is another genocide of the Jewish people. If the Israeli government continues to participate in this process, it will happen. And it appears that the Israeli government is in fact in something of a hurry: Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has just approved equipping PLO/Fatah with sophisticated Russian tanks![39]

The Oslo Process has allowed the Arab League to place its tool, PLO/Fatah, in a highly strategic highland position from which to attack the Jews, who are trapped in a very narrow lowland with their backs against the sea, as can be appreciated in the following two maps:

Click to enlarge

PLO/Fatah, itself, is admittedly perhaps not the greatest military danger to the Israeli Jews, but the same cannot be said for the Arab League as a whole, and behind PLO/Fatah is the Arab League. Since the 1970s especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been armed to the teeth by the United States. And there is also Iran, which will soon have a land corridor going all the way to the northern border of Israel, once the US troops leave. Why? Because the US invasion of Iraq has given that country to Iran, which controls the Iraqi shiites now in power, and Iran already holds sway over Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. Given that the Israeli government uses Israeli troops to expel Jews from their homes rather than to defend them from attack, the next all-out attack against Israel may well succeed where others have failed, and the Arab League will achieve its goal: extermination.


Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[2] Shlaim, A. 1990. The Rise and Fall of the All-Palestine Government in Gaza. Journal of Palestine Studies 20:37-53.

[3] Everything in this paragraph is documented in detail in the following two pieces:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.


“Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 02 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.}

[4] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.219)

[5] To see a detailed documentation of this, please consult:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

[6] Memorandum Submitted to the U.N. Economic and Social Council by the World Jewish Congress. (Jan. 19, 1948) Section I. (2) a. June 2, 1948. [ZIIC - This reference is in the document prepared by JJAC and is probably incorrect]

[7] Text of the Law drafted by the Political Committee of the Arab League. Paragraph 1.

[8] ibid. Paragraph 2.

[9] ibid. Paragraph 3.

[10] ibid. Paragraph 5.

[11] ibid. Paragraph 6.

[12] ibid. Paragraph 7. (Paragraph 1 & 2 indicate all Jews must register and disclose personal and banking information and that bank accounts will be frozen and utilized for anti-Zionist resistance.)


[14] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.333)

[15] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)

[16] Two pieces:

1) “The British Record on Partition”; The Nation; 8 May 1948.

(to read the above in text format, visit: )

2) “Nazi Prisoners in Egypt’s Army”; The Nation; 22 January 1949; p.89.

[16a] For the full text of Andrei Gromyko's speech, 14 May 1947, to the UN General Assempbly, visit:

[17] Wrote the New York Times in April 1948: “...a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the United States reversal of its position on partition of Palestine.”

Actually, the crowd was larger. Further down in the same article we read:

“The sidewalks of Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand, on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers carried the talks to all corners of the square.”

SOURCE: 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.

The mayor of Tel Aviv at the time, Israel Rokach, explained the impact of the embargo:

“The embargo is working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Palestine. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations.”

SOURCE: U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times; Jan 17, 1948; pg. 4.

[18] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.42)

[19] To see the documentation on the Nazi origins of Al Fatah, consult the following two pieces:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.


“PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White.


[21] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.69)

[22] Article 24 of the 1964 Charter states: “This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.”

In the 1968 Charter, the above renunciation of sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza was removed:

[23] Translation of the PLO Charter articles by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.

[24] Sachar, H. 1982. A history of Israel: From the rise of Zionism to our time. New York: Knopf. (p.698)

[25] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.74)

[26] The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but “Washington’s reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria.”

SOURCE: "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003

[27] 1973. The Algiers Summit Conference. MERIP Reports 23:13-16.

[28] 1977 -- Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[29] 1982-83 -- The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[30] 1989 -- With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[31] 1991 -- Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[32] 1994 -- Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[33] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:

"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."

It is also republished as an appendix in:

Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[34] “Olmert Under Fire”; Time; Thursday, May. 03, 2007,9171,1617518,00.html

[35] “American Jewry: Fatah Charter Calls to 'Eradicate' Israel”; Israel National News; 11 Kislev 5768, November 21, '07; by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

[36] 2005 -- Mahmoud Abbas is who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.

[37] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[38] SOURCE: THUS FAR AND NO FATAH FOR MR PALESTINE; Resistance is growing within the PLO over Yasser Arafat and the Israeli peace process, The Guardian (London), November 12, 1993, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 24, 1204 words, DAVID HIRST

[39] DEBKAfile Reports: Overriding IDF and Shin Bet objections, Olmert approves arming Palestinian West Bank forces with 50 Russian APCs, 1000 rifles and 2 million bullets; November 21, 2007, 9:38 PM (GMT+02:00).


Understanding Annapolis

What you don't know could cost you

What is the Israeli government doing?
. Merriam Webster defines “aphorism” as: “a terse formulation of a truth.” We like them. Entire collections of aphorisms are published and enjoyed, and they are passed down generation after generation. When we see something that applies we whip them out and ‘fit’ the phenomenon to its aphoristic ‘frame’: a satisfying round hole for an equally round peg.

A famous aphorism, coined by philosopher Jorge Santayana, goes like this: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Terse and true. Here’s another famous one, apparently from Albert Einstein: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Terse and true. The two aphorisms are not identical, but they do have a certain flavor in common.

Can we find phenomena in the Arab-Israeli conflict that we can fit these aphorisms to?

The following is from an article by Hillel Fendel, writing in Israel National News, a news service editorially opposed to the ongoing extension of the Oslo Process, which process will soon give Judea and Samaria (and perhaps part of Jerusalem), cleansed of its Jews, to PLO/Fatah. It is worth reading carefully.

[Israel National News quote begins here:]

“[Israeli] Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, speaking before Foreign Ministers of the European Union and others, says that Israel is so anxious for peace that it is willing to enter into negotiations at an inopportune time and with a partner who can’t deliver.

‘We have proven in the past,’ Livni told the participants at a conference in Lisbon, including the foreign ministers of Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Libya, ‘that we extend our hand in peace. We have proven this in negotiations, and in the [Gaza] Disengagement -- which we did not have to do -- as well as in the negotiations today. The Palestinian Authority is divided, Gaza is ruled by terrorism, and we could have waited until the first stage of the Road Map [i.e., an end to terrorism - ed.] is implemented.’

Livni also boasted that ‘we have removed settlements. I myself made a decision [as part of the Sharon government - ed.] to uproot thousands of people from their homes [in Gush Katif and northern Shomron]. Not one Israeli soldier is stationed today in Gaza, yet Israel is attacked daily.’

‘People are justifiably presenting major question marks,’ Livni said, listing the questions without answering them: ‘Is this the right time for talks, when our nursery children are under fire from Gaza? Is it the right time to talk when the other side is so weak and ineffectual?’

After having admitted that the talks would take place despite the lack of fulfillment of the PA pledge to stop terrorism, she said, ‘This dialogue is taking place with the understanding that implementation of any agreement will be contingent on our security needs… The way to the establishment of a Palestinian state is dependent upon our ability to transmit the key of self-rule to a responsible element that will be able to control things and promise that there will not be a terrorist state alongside us.’ ”[1]

[Israel National News quote ends here]

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni explains that the Israeli government made the decision to give land to the Arab enemies of Israel, in exchange, supposedly, for the reward of ‘peace,’ even though these enemies at the time were sponsoring ongoing terrorist violence against the Israeli Jews. She also explains the consequences of having done that, citing -- among many possible examples -- the dramatic case of the Gaza Disengagement: “Not one Israeli soldier is stationed today in Gaza, yet Israel is attacked daily.” She explains that this was her own policy: “I myself made a decision to uproot thousands of people [Jews] from their homes.” And she recognizes that those who question the wisdom of her policies have a point: “People are justifiably presenting major question marks.” Then she adds her own question mark: “Is this the right time for talks, when our nursery children are under fire from Gaza?” Her answer, clearly, is yes. Livni is pushing to remove many more Jews, living on land that is much more symbolic to Jewish heritage, and a great deal more militarily strategic than Gaza. Why? Because “this dialogue,” she explains, “is taking place with the understanding that implementation of any agreement will be contingent on our security needs.” But that, of course, was also the supposed understanding in previous agreements, and the result was more anti-Jewish terror, as she herself concedes.

Livni herself reviews relevant past events: she remembers the past. So if she is about to repeat history the problem is not amnesia. The first aphorism does not apply.

How about the second aphorism? Is Livni insane? I have noticed how tempting this hypothesis has become for many Jewish patriots. And I confess that it has a certain appeal. But I am skeptical that people in power will be less able to reason than the average person. After all, they are in power, and the average person isn’t. So before jumping to adopt the insanity/stupidity hypothesis, let us be explicit about what it requires: that Livni is doing the same thing again -- giving strategic land to the enemies of the Jews -- because, this time, she expects to get a different result: peace.

Now suppose for the sake of argument that Livni is not insane. What would this require? That Livni is doing the same thing again because she expects to get the same result again, not a different one. This would be the alternative hypothesis.

Is the alternative hypothesis reasonable?

Well, let us consider a few things. Last time around Livni gave strategic land of the Jewish State to people who say out loud they wish to murder Jews, and the Israeli people did not stop her. Why? Because:

1) incredibly, a good many Israelis were “so anxious for peace,” as Livni says, that they twisted and bent their minds until they agreed that giving strategic land to the enemy was the way to protect Israel; and so,

2) an insufficient number of Israelis were opposed; and further,

3) of those opposed, an insufficient number took to the streets; which then,

4) made it possible for Livni and her clique effectively to use the repressive powers of the Israeli State against those who did protest.

The alternative hypothesis says that Livni is thinking she can get away with this again. She thinks that, once again, she can give strategic land (and much more of it) to the enemy because, once again, the Israeli Jews will not stop her. She is expecting the same behavior to produce the same result that it produced before. The Israeli government has indeed given power to the enemies of the Jews inside the Jewish state many times before, and the Israeli Jews, at every single juncture, have indeed not managed to stop this. If Livni thinks she can do again what has been done many times by Israeli leaders before, this is the opposite of insanity: it is the definition of rational behavior.

So we have two hypotheses. The first, where Livni’s behavior is interpreted as insanity/stupidity, is tempting because many find it difficult to imagine that the foreign minister of Israel wishes to harm the security of Israel. But this possibility -- it is called ‘treason,’ by the way -- should be put on the table, because one must consider that perhaps Livni, who after all is in power, is neither stupid nor insane. This is the alternative hypothesis.

How to decide between the two hypotheses? Is it possible?

I think it is. Suppose there was information so explosive that, if wielded by the Israeli government in a massive state-sponsored campaign to inform every Israeli, Diaspora Jew, and Westerner, this information would immediately put an end to the Oslo Process that now threatens to destroy Israel. Suppose that this information would make it politically easy -- incredibly easy -- not only to cease giving any more land to PLO/Fatah, but also to expel the entire PLO/Fatah organization from Israel and the disputed territories. And suppose this information would guarantee widespread support from the Western citizenries for such efforts. Suppose, finally, that Livni had been hiding this information from Israelis and Westerners. What would we have to conclude, in these circumstances? That Livni is stupid and/or insane? No. When people who are supposed to defend you deliberately hide certain facts which they know and which you need to defend yourself, they are being neither stupid nor insane. They are being cunning.

Now, information with all of the above properties does indeed exist. The PLO/Palestinian Authority is essentially Al Fatah, Mahmoud Abbas’s organization, and Al Fatah was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini.

What makes this so explosive? The following.

Hajj Amin al Husseini was Mufti of Jerusalem before WWII, and from that position organized several massive terrorist attacks against the Jews of British Mandate Palestine and against any Arabs who disagreed with his racist policy. The last one, from 1936 to 1939, was organized with weapons supplied by Adolf Hitler. After going to Iraq and organizing a pogrom against the Jews of Baghdad, Husseini moved to Berlin and met with Hitler on 28 November 1941. According to the postwar testimony of top Nazi Dieter Wisliceny, presented at Nuremberg and then also at Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem, Husseini convinced the Nazis that no European Jew should be allowed to live (until the fall of 1941, according to the widespread agreement of WWII historians, the Nazis were thinking of expelling most of the European Jews to Palestine). Wisliceny also testified that Husseini subsequently became the top co-architect of the implementation of the Final Solution, together with Adolf Eichmann, with whom he became close friends. Wisliceny was in a position to know, because he was one of Eichmann’s top lieutenants. And the Wannsee conference -- at which historians agree that the Nazis decided to exterminate the entire European Jewish population -- did indeed happen less than two months after Husseini met with Hitler. After Wansee, Jews began dying in massive numbers, at accelerating speed, in concentration camps. The war at an end, Husseini escaped justice and took refuge in Cairo, where Nazi colleagues of his led by Otto Skorzeny, Hitler’s great expert in operations inside enemy territory, also arrived in the 1950s to train Gamal Abdel Nasser’s security and intelligence services. Under Husseini’s watchful eye, these Nazis trained Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas (a.k.a. Abu Mazen), and other adolescent protégés of Husseini who together became Al Fatah.[2]

If you have never heard the above that is because the Israeli government has never held a press conference to explain that Mahmoud Abbas was trained by history’s greatest butcher of Jews, Hajj Amin al Husseini, to continue the extermination that Husseini had so ecstatically directed for the German Nazis. And yet, if the Israeli government were to use the considerable resources of the Israeli State to inform Israelis and Westerners of this, the Oslo Process that threatens Israel could be brought to a sudden halt, with widespread support from Westerners. If they had done this in the late 1980s, it would never have gotten off the ground. Why? Because almost everybody understands that it is politically ungrammatical to give a strategic piece of the Jewish State to a direct trainee of the man who masterminded the German Nazi Final Solution.

Is Livni unaware of the above information?

Well, consider the following. It took me two weeks to document this with publicly available materials, and I do not have the resources of a famed intelligence service that supposedly spends millions of shekels a year investigating the terrorist enemies of Israel. So it is reasonable to suppose that the Israeli government knew the above facts about PLO/Fatah long before I did. But even if one wishes to suppose that it didn’t, I published my first article about this on Israel National News in May 2003.[3] The Israeli government watches Israel National News very closely -- so closely, in fact, that when its radio component became popular for its opposition to the Oslo process in its early stages, the Israeli government shut it down.[3a] Moreover, my article in Israel National News created a bit of a stir, because a pro-Oslo political scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, Ian Lustick, got me fired from that university for having published that very article in Israel National News. This produced 1) a bit of a revolt among Penn students, 2) an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer, 3) an interview with FOX-NEWS, and 4) coverage in Israel National News.[4] The Israeli government definitely knows that PLO/Fatah is an extension of the German Nazi Final Solution.

Why do ordinary Israelis -- and Diaspora Jews, for that matter -- tolerate their ‘leaders’? Because Jorge Santayana’s aphorism does apply to them. Most Israelis and Diaspora Jews cannot remember their history, and they will soon be condemned to repeat it. True, the expression “Never Again!” pours easily from their lips, but in fact most Jews are quite ignorant on many important matters relating to the Shoah (‘Holocaust’), and thus ill-equipped to guarantee that the cry “Never Again!” will be honored as a historical outcome. They may grow up hearing a lot about Shoah, a subject they will certainly be exposed to in school, but whitewashed from their educational experience is the important matter of what Jewish leaders of that time -- who naturally had an obligation to defend their persecuted brethren in Europe -- did in the prelude to, and during, WWII. I have found that very few Jews know the work of the handful of Jewish historians who, in the 1990s, began documenting in great detail what Jewish leaders did in the context of the Nazi onslaught. Neither do many Jews know about the German Nazi roots of the PLO and its commitment to see through the Final Solution. So the same trick is about to be played on them, yet again.

Unless, of course, Israelis, Diaspora Jews, and well-meaning Westerners can be quickly educated so they may raise their voices in time.

Below is the address to a website that has been created to educate the public about the Nazi roots of Israel’s enemies, and to explain why and how they are simultaneously enemies of the Western world, thus making it in the interest of every Westerner to defend Israel. The same website gives Israeli citizens an opportunity to express that they have no confidence in the present government, and that no action this government undertakes will be acceptable, other than its resignation. In addition, there is a companion document that citizens of any country can sign to show their solidarity with Israeli patriots, who are on the frontline of the defense of the West. This effort is open-ended and will not cease until the Israeli government does resign:

To see a comparison of the behavior of Jewish leaders in the first half of the 20th c. up to and during the Nazi attack, with the behavior of Israeli leaders since the World War and in the present crisis, consult the articles in the following series:

-- The Crisis of 1933. Jewish leaders sabotaged a worldwide anti-nazi boycott that exploded when Hitler came to power.

-- How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jews in WWII.

-- How mainstream Diaspora Jewish leaders are failing the Jewish people today.

-- What is the problem with the currnet Israeli ruling elite? Is it stupidity? Or is it something else?

-- The responsibility of the mainstream (Labor Zionist) Israeli leaders during the Shoah ('Holocaust')

This generation has a rare opportunity. It is this: to show that the WWII Nazi attack against the Jews in the mid-twentieth century taught us something: that when we defend the Jews we are defending the political health of the entire West, and therefore the liberties and lives of all Westerners. For ordinary Westerners, the defense of the Jews is self defense; antisemitism is suicide. It should be obvious, because WWII gave an eloquent demonstration in millions upon millions of non-Jewish lives lost -- and all because we didn’t oppose antisemitism. Can we no longer remember this?

I will end with an aphorism of my own coinage that translates Santayana’s into a positive expression: We are always creating history. Only those who become aware of this have a chance, actively and consciously, to shape the future

PA Negotiator: Go Back to 1947 Partition Plan

Gil Ronen

In the course of recent negotiations, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni asked the head of the Palestinian Authority's negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala), to accept Israel as a Jewish state, reminding him that it was accepted as such by UN Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947, for the partition of the Land of Israel.
According to Ahmed Tibi, a member of Israel's Knesset who used to be an aide to PLO founder Yasser Arafat, Abu Ala answered: "let us implement [Resolution] 181 first and we shall talk." Tibi recorded the exchange in an article he wrote for Arab newspaper Kul el-Arab.

Amru Moussa, the Secretary General of the Arab League said late Thursday night that the Arab countries will not offer Israel "normalization for free."

"There is no such thing as normalization for free," Moussa told reporters after a meeting of 11 Arab League foreign ministers in Cairo. The Arab League countries were invited by the U.S. to participate in the Annapolis summit next week. "Arabs are going to participate in the (Annapolis) meeting, to show support for the Palestinians, based on the Arab peace initiative," he explained.

UN Partition Plan, 1947 (Resolution 181).

UN Resolution 181 delineated a two state solution for Jews and Arabs west of the Jordan river. Both states were to be joined by an economic union and share joint currency. The resolution declared that Arabs and Jews would become "citizens of the State in which they are resident and enjoy full civil and political rights" a
The City of Jerusalem was to be demilitarized and placed under a special international regime.
nd that Arabs living in the Jewish state could opt, within one year from the date of the resolution's implementation, for citizenship of the Arab state, and Jews living in the Arab state could opt for citizenship of the Jewish state.

Demilitarized Jerusalem Under the UN
The Jewish State was to receive the eastern Galilee from the Hulah Basin and the Sea of Galilee in the northeast to the crest of the Gilboa mountains in the south. The Jewish section of the coastal plain "extends from a point between Minat El-Qila and Nabi Yunis in the Gaza Sub-District and includes the towns of Haifa and Tel-Aviv, leaving Jaffa as an enclave of the Arab State." The Jews were also to receive the Negev area, but without the city of Beersheva, and a strip of land along the Dead Sea.

The City of Jerusalem was to be demilitarized and placed under a special international regime, to be administered by the United Nations through a "trusteeship council."

The Arab leadership refused to accept the partition plan in 1947 and opted, instead, for military annihilation of the Jews. Their plan failed and the State of Israel was born, with the Jews carving out a more favorable map for themselves by military means

Israel Becoming Less Secular

Hillel Fendel

An Israel Democratic Institute (IDI) demographic survey finds religious growth and secular decline - but most significant is that the proportion of religious in the public is highest among the youth
The percentage of Jews describing themselves as secular has dropped sharply over the past 30 years, while the religious and traditional proportions have risen. The annual survey finds that the secular public comprises only 20% of the Israeli population - compared to 41%, more than twice as much, in 1974.

Nearly half the population, 47%, describes itself as traditional, while the hareidi-religious and religious-Zionist together comprise 33% of the public.

The numbers were compiled based on a survey of representative sampling of 1,016 Israelis Jews.

Tradition Reigns
Over the past seven years, according to IDI statistics, the proportion of secular Jews has dropped sharply from 32% to 20% today. The "traditionalists" have traditionally had the lead in polls of this nature - except for one year in 1974, when they trailed the seculars, 41% to 38%.

Other findings show that the Sephardic population is much more traditional and religious than the Ashkenazic sector. Ashkenazic Jews are those originating from European (Christian) countries, whereas Sephardic Jews lived in the Iberian Peninsula (now Spain and Portugal), African and Middle Eastern (Moslem) countries. Only 7% of the Sephardim describe themselves as secular, compared to 36% of the Ashkenazim. At the same time, 56% of the Sephardim are religious or hareidi, compared to only 17% of the Ashkenazim.

39% of those under age 40 are religious - more than those in their 40's and 50's (32%), and much more than those aged 60 and over (20%).

It can be inferred from the numbers that Israel is a traditional society, and that it will become even more so as the years go by.

Country is Right-Wing; the Religious - Even More So
Politically, the religious are more right-wing, but so are the others. Among the religious, many more identify with the right than with the left, by a 71-8 margin; among the traditional, it's 49-21, and among the secular, it's 43-27. In total, 55% of the population view themselves as right-wing, and only 18% are to the left.



Reminder from 2000:

American-Jewish voters will make their decision whether to cast their ballot in New York's Senate race for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, or for Republican candidate Rep. Rick Lazio. If Israel's security is a deciding factor in their considerations, then a review of their respective positions BEFORE they became candidates and began running after the key Jewish voting bloc reveals basic differences between the two.

An in-depth study of Congressman Rick Lazio's eight-year track record voting in the House of Representatives on issues related to Israel shows that he has been a 100% supporter of Israel. A member of the Republican Israel Caucus and a member of the House Budget Committee, Lazio has been a consistent supporter of foreign aid bills and the continuation of US aid to Israel. He has also been an outspoken supporter of American recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided Capital of Israel ¬ including signing a Congressional letter to the President urging the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and not signing a Congressional letter calling on the President to pressure Israel to stop construction of Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood. Lazio has also co-sponsored two pieces of legislation that call for official U.S. recognition and construction of an embassy in Jerusalem. If Israel is the issue, then his record - which is on the record - speaks for itself.


And Hillary Rodham-Clinton? Well, in May 1998, she told a youth conference on Middle East peace in Villars, Switzerland, that she supports the eventual creation of an independent Palestinian state. Her spokesperson, Marsha Berry told reporters: "These remarks are her own personal view." Then, in November 1999, while on a purported State visit to the Middle East, she publicly appeared with Yasser Arafat's wife Suha. With Hillary at her side, Suha Arafat made the deliberately false allegation that "Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children." Mrs. Arafat also accused Israel of contaminating much of the water sources used by Palestinians with "chemical materials" and poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.

Instead of reacting with outrage, Hillary Clinton sat by silently - and gave her a hug and a kiss when she finished speaking. Later, many hours after the event, and only after a media furor put her on the spot for what many view as a bit more than a mere political "faux pas", Mrs. Clinton called on "all sides" to refrain from "inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations" - including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations. Glossing over this remarkably repugnant affair, Mrs. Clinton has yet to specifically contradict and denounce the monstrous lies uttered by Yasser Arafat's wife in her presence.


Hence, it is no wonder that the American Muslim Alliance chapter in Massachusetts held what it called a "successful fundraiser" for First Lady Hillary Clinton at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston on June 13, 2000. AMA Massachusetts Chair Tahir Ali said afterwards, "We are attempting to send an important message to all AMA chapters: we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart, regardless of what part of the country they are running in."


According to Steve Emerson, a well-known investigative journalist specializing in militant Islamic organizations, the AMA's leaders "have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad." Faced with pressure on the matter, Mrs. Clinton announced on Oct. 25th that she was returning the $50,000 in campaign contributions raised for her by the AMA. She failed to give a credible explanation as to why it took her more than four months ¬ from June 13th until October 25th ¬ until she saw it necessary to return the money.

Mr. Emerson, in a recent Wall Street Journal article, noted: "As first lady, Mrs. Clinton began in 1996 an outreach program to Muslim leaders in the U.S. With America's Muslim population at some six million and growing, an effort to include the community's leaders in the mainstream of American politics is unquestionably a worthy undertaking. But curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as "mainstream" and "moderate"."

But this should not be unexpected, considering Mrs. Clinton's past radical affiliations. During the 1980's, ultra-liberal lawyer Hillary Rodham-Clinton served on the board of the New World Foundation, which funneled money to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the United States as a terrorist organization.

Similarly, in February 1996, Hillary hosted a reception at the White House for leaders of Hamas-supporting groups such as the American Muslim Council and the Council on American-Islamic Relations. And in January, 1998, Hillary hosted another White House reception honoring Muslim leaders and the Muslim Public Affairs Council who defended militant Islamic fundamentalism and also supported radical Islamic groups.


This, then, is the real Hillary Rodham-Clinton. An ambitious woman willing to utter any banal cliche on behalf of "Israel's security" to placate unaware New York Jewish voters, but one whose pre-Senate race record on Israel is appalling. It's a record of supporting the terrorist PLO, even before the 1993 signing of the first Oslo Agreement on the White House lawn, of ignoring blatant calumny heaped on Israel by Suha Arafat, of supporting the creation of a Palestinian PLO State, of hosting and legitimizing extremist Islamic groups in the United States. Most recently, it included taking campaign contributions from these very same evil, anti-Semitic organizations - until being caught with her hand in the extremist Islamic cookie jar. This is the very same Hillary Rodham-Clinton who now claims to be Israel's friend.

Her record says otherwise.


Police delay release of findings on Bank Leumi affair until after Annapolis

Recommendations regarding Olmert's alleged involvement in sale of bank's controlling interest pushed back until after he returns from peace conference. Israel Police decided on Friday to delay the release of its recommendations regarding Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's alleged involvement in the sale of Bank Leumi's controlling interest until Thursday, after the Mideast peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland.

Initially senior police officials said the recommendations would be released this coming Sunday, but staunch criticism directed at the force over its timing prompted a change of schedule. Major General Yohanan Danino, head of police investigations and intelligence, announced that the publication of the findings would wait until the prime minister's return to Israel.

According to suspicions, during his tenure as acting finance minister Olmert altered a government tender for the privatization of Bank Leumi to favor a bid lodged by a consortium controlled by his friends, Daniel Abrams and Frank Louise.

The prime minister was questioned twice by police investigators over this affair.

Olmert is currently facing three more investigations, one regarding the sale of his house on Cremieux Street and the two others regarding his tenure as trade, industry and labor minister. .

Defeating the demagogues

Amos Oz’ piece in favor of peace talks with Abbas delusional, detached from reality. The minute we leave south Lebanon we will have to erase the word Hizbullah from our vocabulary, because the whole idea of the State of Israel versus Hizbullah was sheer folly from the outset. It most certainly will no longer be relevant when Israel returns to her internationally recognized northern border.

However, this is a shortcoming that has in no way deterred him from dispensing his views on matters political; nor has his manifest lack of competence in the field diminished the prominence these views are allotted in the media. This was again underscored by his latest pronouncement on the upcoming Annapolis conference in an Op-Ed piece entitled "Defeating the extremists" posted in this section on November 21.

It is an article so delusional and detached from reality that one cannot help wondering whether Oz's literary successes have left him unable to differentiate fact from fiction. It gives the impression that the distinguished author has not quite made the transition from the imaginary world of the novel to that of everyday reality. He appears blissfully impervious to fact that while in the former, a stroke of pen and the whim of the writer are sufficient to conjure up personalities, invent processes, create events and determine outcomes, in the latter matters are considerably less malleable to wishful thinking. In the real world of politics – as opposed to the imaginary one in literature - dangers must be confronted, not written out of the plot.

Thus when Oz declares that the Palestinians "accept the principle of the two-state solution", one can but wonder on what he bases his extraordinary optimism, for this is an assertion that flies in the face of the facts. A total of 90 percent of the Palestinian electorate voted for factions (Hamas - 56%, and Fatah - 34%) - which explicitly advocate the destruction of the "Zionist entity (see Hamas Charter and Fatah Constitution). Indeed if anything the Fatah is even more emphatic in this regard, declaring its aim to be "complete … eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence (Article 12 of its Constitution).

Moreover, less than a week before the publication of Oz's article, the allegedly "moderate" head of the PA negotiating team, Saeb Erekat, categorically and publicly refused to recognize the Jews' right to a sovereign state, declaring: "The Palestinians won't accept Israel as a Jewish state." Clearly then, even if the Palestinian have accepted the principle of a two state solution, as Oz alleges, they certainly do not see it as a principle involving "two states for two people". So is Oz woefully misinformed…or willfully misleading?

Oz's attempts to dismiss his political opponents by scornfully exposing alleged inconsistencies in their arguments. But it is an attempt that falls flat on its face. He writes: “The hawkish Right in Israel argues that Mahmoud Abbas is too weak and therefore making peace is not worthwhile. This is the same rightist camp that argued that Arafat was too dangerous, and therefore it was not worthwhile making peace with him either.”

Oz is of course correct. Could it be that Oz's sanctimonious arrogance blinds him to the fact that the "hawkish Right" was indeed right, while the dovish Left was wrong? For clearly Arafat was too dangerous to make peace with (as even those who initially advocated doing so now admit); and Abbas is too weak to make peace with (as his crushing humiliation by Hamas clearly indicates. So are we missing something here, or is Oz actually castigating his opponents for having their position vindicated?

Insane fanaticism?

If inconsistency is up for discussion, Oz would do better to look at his own faction. For example, first explaining Palestinian terror as an expression by extremists of their frustration at the lack of a "peace" process, but later (once such a process was in fact instigated), as an expression, by the same extremists, of their desire to undermine the peace process, whose previous absence so frustrated them.

Moreover, it was the Left who dismissed pre-Oslo attempts by Israel to negotiate with potential indigenous Palestinian partners, claiming they were weak and lacked the necessary authority. It was the Left that proclaimed Israel cannot choose or cultivate a convenient Palestinian partner who could "deliver the goods." Indeed, this was the very reason they insisted on dealing with the strong and authoritative Arafat.

Now that this approach has failed miserably, we are being told that we should revert to the former policy that they themselves discredited – of choosing and cultivating a Palestinian partner even though he is, by their own admission, weak and lacking in authority.

Not surprisingly, in his blueprint for "defeating the extremists," Oz envisages Israel withdrawing behind a "border … similar to the 1967 boundaries." Nothing could underscore the intellectual bankruptcy of Oz's proposal more than this unswerving embrace of the failed and futile idée fixe of territorial retreat. Even more disturbing – and infuriating – is his stubborn refusal to acknowledge the disastrous consequences this policy has wrought in the recent past: Retreat in the North brought about the build-up of Hizbullah in Lebanon and the bombardment of the Galilee; retreat in the South brought about the rise of Hamas in Gaza and the ongoing bombardment of the Negev.

Now Oz suggests retreat in the East As recipe for "defeating the extremists"? Yet all he offers as a rationale for the hope that this time it will be different is his unsubstantiated belief that the Palestinians "recognize their duty to settle, through negotiations, the questions of Jerusalem, settlements, refugees, borders, security, and water." How very reassuring.

Oz's obsessive adherence to a doctrine of appeasement brings to mind two quotes from two prominent figures of the previous century – physicist Albert Einstein and political philosopher George Santayana. It was Einstein who defined "insanity" as "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"; whereas Santayana characterized "fanaticism" as "redoubling your efforts having forgotten your aim". We are therefore left to wonder whether they would have judged Oz's proposal to be "insane fanaticism"…or "fanatical insanity."

US Jewish groups mum ahead of summit

A week ahead of the Annapolis peace meeting, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs went somewhere other Jewish organizations have feared to tread: it hailed America's efforts and welcomed its prospects for peace. "We commend the United States and President Bush for taking a proactive role on this matter," Steve Gutow, executive director for the JCPA, the public affairs arm for national Jewish organizations, said in the release. "The [JCPA] expresses its sincere hope that this gathering marks the beginning of a renewed process that leads to two states living side-by-side in security and peace."

The statement highlighted an ideological divide among Jewish groups - as it was hailed on the Left, criticized on the Right - as well as the dearth of such statements from other mainstream Jewish organizations.

Before the JCPA statement was issued on Monday, officials from many organizations said it was difficult to take a stand with so little known about the conference and its scope. Yet as the date and invitees fell into place, few groups stepped forward with positions.

One official at a Jewish organization said the deeper issue was one of skepticism about where the process was headed.

"We are silent or muted because we don't want to contribute to the inevitable failure of Annapolis - that either nothing will come of it or Israel will be put at a strategical disadvantage," he said, not wanting his name to be used because of the sensitivity of the subject.

The unnamed official said, though, that whatever the reservations, "noboby in the organizational world wants to be [seen as] being critical or second-guessing the Israeli government... or the Bush administration." He added that not only is it awkward to attack an initiative pushed by both the US and Israel, but that "the conventional wisdom is that this thing is doomed to be a failure and we don't want it blamed on Israel or the American Jewish community for being intransigent or unwilling to go the last mile for peace."

But Ori Nir, spokesman for Americans for Peace Now, a left-wing organization which has emphatically backed the peace process, said such an attitude makes for a self-fulfilling prophesy.

"This can't be a reason for staying aloof," he said. "If you decide you want this to succeed, you weigh in and try to make a difference." He said of the silence that "morally, it's flawed" since the mainstream groups purport to support a two-state solution and that is what the Annapolis conference is aimed at creating.

Nir, who spent years covering Washington for Israeli and Jewish media outlets, called the silence around the Annapolis conference "bizarre" and "an anomaly."

"It's a very big deal and there's just silence. There's just nothing coming out of Jewish groups... it's not even featured on their Web sites," he said. "Usually there's a buzz, there's something."

Ofira Seliktar, a professor of political science at Gratz College who has tracked the American Jewish community's response to Israeli initiatives such as the Oslo peace process and the disengagement from Gaza, said this "total silence" stems in part from the shortcomings of these previous efforts.

"The middle-of-the-road people are not really sure what's good, what's bad. There's a tremendous amount of ambivalence, now even more than during Oslo," she said. And, she noted, "the American Jewish community is very deeply split," so the people who aren't in the middle of the road but are on either side are the loudest.

Seliktar added that how Annapolis will handle many details concerning final-status issues - Jerusalem, borders, refugees - is still unknown, adding to the uncertainty and the desire many have to delay taking a stand.

The JCPA felt it had waited long enough by Monday, with rumors flying fast and furious that the conference would take place the next week.

"When things crystallized for the meeting next week, we thought it was timely to issue such a statement," said Martin Raffel, associate executive vice chairman of the JCPA.

Not everyone thought it was so timely. The Orthodox Union, one of the 14 national organizations the JCPA represents, was among those on the Right not pleased by the statement.

"We did not see it in advance and we have expressed our displeasure with that process failure at the JCPA," said Nathan Diament, director of the Institute for Public Affairs of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. The OU has been taking action to pressure the Israeli government not to relinquish Jerusalem, from corresponding with the Prime Minister's Office to encouraging synagogues to focus their Torah study on the holy city.

"You'd have to be under a rock not to know that the OU would be upset with that statement," said one senior official at a different JCPA member organization, who added that the statement was much more controversial than those usually issued without consultation by the JCPA.

But Raffel said that the JCPA doesn't consult with the 14 national members and 100-plus local federation chapters that it represents before making statements, especially since the issue had come up without argument at a recent task force meeting.

"There is nothing unusual with the statement that we issued. We support and have always supported active US involvement with these issues," he added. "We support Israel's efforts to achieve peace and security for the people of Israel." In terms of the qualms many organizational members have, he said, "We know that it's difficult and we know it's complex and we know the chances for success might not be high - but it's better to try than to do nothing.


Thursday, November 22, 2007

Six Days to Annapolis: Still No Mutual Declaration

With the Annapolis summit less than a week away, there is still no agreement on a joint declaration by Israel and the PA. Negotiating teams for the two sides, headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and PA negotiator Ahmed Qureia (Abu Ala) met for hours in an attempt to fashion a mutually acceptable statement.

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said that the two sides were close to drafting a joint statement but, that last-minute difficulties were "not unexpected."

The Israeli cabinet for diplomatic and security matters devoted a session to the subject for the first time Wednesday. The heads of Israel's security bodies told the ministers that the PA has still not been successful in taking control over the terror organizations in Judea and Samaria.

Livni 'looked troubled'
SHABAK (General Security Service) chief Yuval Diskin told the cabinet that Abbas was "weak" and would have a hard time implementing an agreement. He also warned, however, that if Israel did not act and just waited for a new partner, it would find itself with no partner at all. Officials at the meeting said that Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni looked "troubled," IDF Radio reported. Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak will both be joining Prime Minister Olmert in Annapolis.

Some ministers were worried that, should the two sides be unable to resolve their differences, the summit will end with the U.S. forcing a joint statement to be made, to Israel's detriment.

Defense Minister Barak and Vice Premier Chaim Ramon clashed at the meeting after Barak warn
"We have already paid a price for this process and we must stop it," Netanyahu declared.
ed that Israel might be blamed for failure at Annapolis for not having made enough concessions. "Some people in Israel, and even some in the government, are raising Palestinian expectations and thus helping them accuse Israel of not budging from its position," Israel Radio quoted Barak as saying.

In response, Ramon said that if Israel offers the PA "half of what we offered at Camp David [in 2000, when Barak was prime minister], but in a calculated and responsible way," an agreement on the core issues will be possible even before the summit. Ramon is advocating a generous approach to the Arab side while Barak has been advocating greater caution.

'There is a chance we may reach an agreement'
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is due to fly to the United States Saturday night, and is expected to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush twice before the summit begins and one more time after it begins. During the conference, Bush, Olmert and Abbas will hold a three-way meeting before the negotiating teams begin their discussions.

"The negotiations will not be simple," Olmert said Tuesday. "[Do you think that] after 60 years we will sit down and solve all of the problems in two weeks? There will be harsh disagreements, but I am optimistic. If we are careful and responsible, there is a chance we will reach an agreement in the end," he said.

The cabinet decided Tuesday to release 432 Arab terrorists incarcerated in Israeli jails, including some who planned to murder Jews but failed in executing their plans. The decision was reached despite the objection of IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who said it was wrong to release PA prisoners as long as Cpl. Gilad Shalit is being held captive by Hamas.
Lieberman said there are two possible outcomes to Annapolis: a complete Israeli surrender or an impasse.

Egypt will be sending its foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul-Gheit, to the conference. It is still not known for certain whether Syrian and Saudi representatives will be coming to the summit.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that the U.S. will make efforts to bring about a permanent status agreement between Israel and the Arabs of Judea and Samaria in the course of 2008.

Netanyahu, Lieberman pessimistic
Meanwhile, opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu attacked the government for what he called "a virtual peace process."

"There is no real partner for peace. The Palestinians have a very weak government," he told IDF Radio. The unilateral concessions being made by Israel "do not strengthen security but according to every security official opposed to these moves, they endanger the security of Israel's citizens and soldiers. We have already paid a price for this process and we must stop it," Netanyahu declared.

Minister for Strategic Matters Avigdor Lieberman told IBA Radio Wednesday that there were two possible outcomes to Annapolis: the first – a complete Israeli surrender to the PA's demands, and the second – an impasse in the negotiations. He repeated that Israel must demand the PA's acceptance of Israel as a Jewish state as a precondition for further negotiations.

Meanwhile we suffer!

Israeli Peace Efforts Continue Despite Increased Attacks In the past few months, the Israeli government has advanced a peace agenda aimed at promoting an international gathering to establish a framework to make progress on fundamental issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The government’s good faith efforts have included releasing 783 Palestinian prisoners this year [1] as well as granting amnesty to 178 wanted terrorists. [2] Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also promised that Israel would not build any new settlements in the West Bank and dismantle illegal outposts, in line with the country’s commitments described in the first stage of the Road Map. [3]

Meanwhile, 1,839 Qassam rockets and mortars have been fired at Israeli towns in the western Negev region this year. [4] More than 112 tons of explosives have been smuggled into Gaza since 2005 and 150 rocket-propelled grenade launchers were smuggled into Gaza during the month of August alone. [5]

By the numbers: Attacks on Israel by Palestinians as Israel works for peace

* 2,586 rockets and mortar bombs have been fired from Gaza at Israeli communities since Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza in August 2005. [6]

* In 2007, 1,839 Qassam rockets and mortar bombs have been launched at Israeli civilians. On average, that amounts to 1 rocket every 4 hours for the past 11 months. [7]

* Since January 2001, 7,191 rockets and mortar bombs have been fired at Israeli civilians. [8]

* Since Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip in June 2007, more than 809 Qassam rockets and mortars have been fired at Israeli towns in the western Negev region. [9]

* Before Hamas took over, there was an average of 48 rockets and mortars fired every month from Gaza. Since Hamas took over the average has skyrocketed to 233 per month. [10]

* During September and October 2007, 68 percent of all Qassam and mortar strikes were launched from Beit Hanoun. [11]

* 14 percent of all Qassam and mortar launches came from Beit Lahiya and 8 percent came from the Jabaliya refugee camp, at the northern end of Gaza. [12]

* 10 people have been killed by rocket fire, including a 2-year old baby, Dorit Inso, and two 4-year olds, Yuval Abebah and Afik Zahavi. [13]

* The IDF and Israeli security forces have prevented 39 suicide bombings in 2007. 22 of those originated in Gaza and 17 in the West Bank. [14] (By way of comparison, there were 35 suicide bombings in 2001 which killed 85 Israelis. [15])

* In 2007 so far, there have been 492 attacks on IDF soldiers in the West Bank. Of those, there were 340 incidents of small arms fire, 112 incidents involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and 32 knife attacks. [16]

* In 2007, 60 Israeli civilians have been injured by rocket and mortar fire and 2 people killed. [17]

* Over 140 people have been physically wounded by the missile fire in Sderot alone. [18]

* In Nov. 2006, it was found that 33 percent of children in Sderot suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. [19]

* More than 200 families (about 1,200 people) have fled Sderot due to the ongoing shelling from Gaza by Palestinian terrorists. [20]

* Israel has released 783 Palestinian prisoners this year (441 of them were approved for release before the Annapolis meeting.) [21] and granted amnesty to another 178.

Palestinian Terrorist Activity in Gaza During November 2007

* On Monday Nov. 20, Israeli civilian Ido Zoldan was killed in a drive-by shooting in the West Bank, carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed branch of Fatah. The terrorist group stated that the shooting was “an act of protest against the Annapolis conference and a response to Israeli crimes.” Zoldan is survived by his wife Tehila and his two small children, 3-year-old Aharon and 1-year-old Rachel. [22]

* 3 Palestinian terrorists from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades attempted to carry out a terror attack on the Israeli community of Netiv Ha’asara in the western Negev. The terrorists climbed the security barrier surrounding Gaza but were shot by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) troops during a gun battle that ensued. The al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades members were armed with assault rifles and grenades. [23]

* 136 Qassams rockets and mortars have been fired at the western Negev region as of Nov. 20, 2007. [24]

* On Nov. 11, the Iranian-backed Palestinian Islamic Jihad fired a rocket that hit a cowshed on Kibbutz Zikim killing 7 cows. [25]

* On Nov. 1, Israeli security forces operating in the Gaza Strip uncovered 7 tunnels used by Hamas to smuggle terrorist operatives and weapons from Egypt into the Gaza Strip. The IDF destroyed the tunnels in controlled explosions. [26]

Hamas’s Most Extreme Faction in Control of Gaza Strip

Hamas has strengthened its foothold on the Gaza Strip in recent months, partly through the support of Iran and Iran-backed Hezbollah, which have provided Hamas vastly improved weaponry and has enabled Hamas to deploy a coordinated network of observation posts, infantry and anti-tank forces. In addition, dozens of militants trained in Iran and Lebanon have created a system of control and coordination, complete with a chain of command for every area in the Gaza Strip. [27]

More than 350 Palestinians have been killed in factional fighting between Hamas and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah Party since Hamas’s June 2007 seizure of the Gaza Strip. [28]

Palestinian Authority and Israel Defense Forces sources concur that Hamas’s most extreme faction, which controls Hamas’s military wing and relies primarily on Iranian funding, is currently in control of Gaza. [29] One of its main leaders, former Foreign Minister Mahmoud al-Zahar, recently stated that if Israel withdraws from the West Bank, Hamas would seize control.

Referring to the fierce fighting that characterized Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip, al-Zahar warned: "We say to those in the West Bank take a lesson from what happened in Gaza.” [30] Senior Hamas officials have stated that Hamas will overthrow Fatah in the West Bank in less than a year. [31]

Since Hamas’s violent takeover, Palestinians who do not support Hamas’s brand of militant Islam have been routinely victimized. A recent Amnesty International report accuses Hamas of increasingly resorting to arbitrary detentions and torture and attacking civilian demonstrators and journalists. [32] For example, on Nov. 9, Hamas militants killed two civilians and wounded four others when members of a family refused to allow Hamas militants to plant near their house bombs intended to kill Hamas’ adversaries.

Another civilian who attempted to prevent Hamas militants from using his home to fire at IDF military posts was killed on Nov. 10. [33] On Oct. 31, video footage showed three militants using a Gaza schoolyard as a launching pad from which to fire mortars shells at Israel. [34] Because the schoolyard belonged to a United Nations-run school, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has requested a full investigation of the incident. [35]

Additionally, Iranian weapons and funding, as well as Hamas militants trained in Iran, are routinely smuggled through tunnels between Gaza and Egypt. For example, since Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, Palestinian militants have illegally transported more than 112 tons of explosives through these tunnels. According to the IDF, Hamas is working to establish a bunker system with fortified rocket-launching and surveillance positions along the security fence on Gaza’s border with Israel. [36] In addition, Hamas has a declared policy of providing jihadist militants sanctuary in Gaza. [37]


[1] Federman , Josef, “Israel approves release of 441 prisoners”, Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2007,, Weiss,Mark, and AP, “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2007, and Entous, Adam, “Olmert and Abbas and negotiating teams to meet” Reuters, Oct. 2, 2007,
estinians_israel_dc_18 and “Ministerial committee recommends release of 256 Palestinian prisoners”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 17, 2007,
mmends+release+of+256+Palestinian+prisoners+17-Jul-2007.htm; “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, BBC, July 20, 2007,; Butcher, Tim, “Israel releases 255 Palestinian prisoners”, July 23, 2007,; Kershner, Isabel, “Fatah Militants Lay Down Arms to Bolster Abbas” New York Times, July 22, 2007
s/Organizations/A/Al%20Aksa%20Martyrs%20Brigades&oref=slogin; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007,; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007,

[2] Kershner, Isabel, “Fatah Militants Lay Down Arms to Bolster Abbas” New York Times, July 22, 2007; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007,

[3] Ravid, Barak, “PM: Freeze settlements, dismantle outposts”, Haaretz, Nov. 20, 2007,

[4] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 20, 2007

[5] “Briefing by Assistant Chief of the Israel Security Agency at the weekly cabinet meeting”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs Newsletter, Aug. 28, 2007,
/Behind+the+Headlines/Behind+the+Headlines+-+The+arming+of+Hamas+27-Aug-2007.htm; Katz, Yaakov, “Hamas building bunkers near border”, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 29, 2007,

[6] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 20, 2007

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] “Missile fire from Gaza on Israeli civilian targets” from the Web site of the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, retrieved on Nov. 20, 2007,

[10] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 2007.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Retrieved from the Web site of the Committee for a Secure Sderot on Nov. 20, 2007,

[14] “News of the Israeli-Palestinian Confrontation, Oct. 15-31, 2007”, retrieved from the website of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Nov. 20, 2007,

[15] “Suicide bombing terrorism during the current Israeli-Palestinian confrontation (September 2000 – December 2005)”, pp. 13, 22, retrieved from the Web site of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Nov. 20, 2007,

[16] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 2007

[17] Ibid.

[18] Yossi Cohen, Spokesman for the City of Sderot, Nov. 19, 2007

[19] Ashkenazi , Eli, “Report: 33 percent of Sderot kids suffer post-traumatic stress”, Haaretz, Nov. 27, 2006,

[20] Yossi Cohen, Spokesman for the City of Sderot, Nov. 19, 2007

[21] Federman , Josef, “Israel approves release of 441 prisoners”, Associated Press, Nov. 19, 2007,; Weiss, Mark, and AP, “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, Jerusalem Post, Sept. 30, 2007,; Entous, Adam, “Olmert and Abbas and negotiating teams to meet” Reuters, Oct. 2, 2007,; “Ministerial committee recommends release of 256 Palestinian prisoners”, Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 17, 2007,
+release+of+256+Palestinian+prisoners+17-Jul-2007.htm; “57 Palestinian prisoners head home”, BBC, July 20, 2007,; Butcher, Tim, “Israel releases 255 Palestinian prisoners”, July 23, 2007,; Kershner, Isabel, “Fatah Militants Lay Down Arms to Bolster Abbas” New York Times, July 22, 2007; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007,; Benn , Aluf, Issacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos , “Fatah men, including Zbeidi, turn in their guns in amnesty deal”, Ha’aretz, July 15, 2007,

[22] Weiss, Efrat, “Israeli killed in West Bank terror attack”, YnetNews, Nov. 20, 2007,,7340,L-3473402,00.html

[23] “Gaza: Terror Attack Thwarted”, retrieved from the Web site of the IDF, Nov. 20, 2007,; Greenberg, Hanan, “IDF foils terror attack on Netiv Ha'asara”, YnetNews, Nov. 20, 2007,,7340,L-3473411,00.html

[24] IDF Spokesman’s Unit, Nov. 20, 2007

[25] Grinberg, Mijal, “Qassam strike kills 7 cows on kibbutz near Gaza”, Haaretz, Nov. 13, 2007,

[26] “News of the Israeli-Palestinian Confrontation November 1-14 , 2007," retrieved from the Website of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, Nov. 20, 2007

[27] Harel, Amos, “IDF's tactical upper hand over Hamas in Gaza is diminishing,” Haaretz, Oct. 30, 2007,

[28] “New report slams Hamas and Fatah over human rights abuse in factional fighting,” Amnesty International Web site, accessed Nov.13, 2007,

[29] Isacharoff, Avi and Harel, Amos, “Hamas arrests scores of Fatah activists after Arafat rally in Gaza,” Haaretz, Nov. 13, 2007,

[30] “Hamas leader sees W.Bank takeover if Israel leaves,” Reuters, Nov. 9, 2007,

[31] Waked, Ali, “Hamas: We'll take control over West Bank in autumn,”, Oct. 30, 2007,,7340,L-3465575,00.html
[32] “New report slams Hamas and Fatah over human rights abuse in factional fighting,” Amnesty International Web site, accessed Nov.13, 2007,

[33] “2 Palestinians, Including a Child, Die from Previous Wounds and 4 Others, Including 2 Children Wounded in Armed Clashes in Gaza and Wadi al-Salqa,” Palestinian Centre for Human Rights Web Site, Nov. 11, 2007,

[34] Greenberg, Hannan, “Video: Terrorists firing mortars from schoolyard,”, Oct. 31, 2007,,7340,L-3466387,00.html

[35] Worsnip, Patrick, “UN's Ban orders probe of shooting from Gaza school,” Reuters, Nov. 8, 2007,

[36] Katz, Yaakov, “Hamas building bunkers near border,” The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 30, 2007,

[37] Dahoah-Halevi, Jonathan, “"The Army of the Nation" - Another
Al-Qaeda Affiliate in the Gaza Strip,” Jerusalem Issue Briefs, Vol. 7, No. 12 via The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs Web site, Aug. 7 2007,
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. T