Dear Friends,
In a few hours we will all sit with our family and friends around the Seder table and start the celebration of Pesach. We will read the Haggada of Pesach recounting our miraculous exodus from Egypt, when Hashem saved us from slavery with a "mighty hand and an outstretched arm" to bring us to the Land of Israel, the Land promised by Hashem to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
At the Seder we will drink four cups of wine, representing four languages of redemption: "Vehotseti" (and I take you out of Egypt); "Vehitsalti" (and I save you); "VeGaalti" (and I redeem you); "Velakachti" (and I take you).
Rabbi Shlomo Goren in his book "Torat Hashabat VeHamoed" points out that there really should have been five cups of wine for there are five languages of redemption. In addition to the four already mentioned above, the last language of redemption is 'Veheveiti" and I bring you", based on the verse "and I will bring you to the Land of Israel that I am giving you…"
Why did our Sages not order us then to drink five cups of wine for the five languages of redemption by G-d? Is the promise by G-d to bring us to the Land of Israel less important that it does not deserve to have its own cup of wine, asks Rabbi Goren.
To this question Rabbi Goren gives a beautiful explanation: There is a difference between the first four promises by G-d and the last promise.The first four promises by G-d were all acts of redemption that relate to our exodus from Egypt. All those acts were done by G-d with supernatural miracles. The people of Israel had no partnership in those supernatural acts of redemption. They passively enjoyed the miracles.
In contrast to that, says Rabbi Goren, the fifth promise by G-d, "Veheveiti" (and I bring you to the Land) is not entirely in the hands of G-d but rather must be with the full participation of the People of Israel. Rabbi Goren writes that in order for the promise "and I bring you to the land" to be fulfilled, each and every person belonging to the people of Israel must take part in the conquest and the settling of the land of Israel. For this language of salvation 'Veheiveiti" to be fulfilled, we cannot just stay passive and wait for G-d to act; we must be full partners in redeeming the Land of Israel. We must be willing to fight for this land and make sure no strangers take it away from us.
When the people of Israel will completely devote themselves to freeing the land of Israel, protecting it and settling it, then, says Rabbi Goren, we will please G-d see the miracles related to the drinking of the fifth cup.
Rabbi Goren finishes his words by suggesting we add a fifth cup of wine to the Seder table to represent our obligation and commitment to fight for the Land of Israel and our faith in G-d and our hope that the same way we deserved the miracles by Hashem to take us out from Egypt, we should deserve to see the fulfillment of the promises of the fifth cup.
Women in Green are certainly aware of Rabbi Goren's teachings that the Land of Israel will only be ours if we take an active part in fighting for it, building it and settling it. Staying at home and praying for miracles will not bring any redemption. Women in Green has been active since 1993 representing the voice of the Land of Israel and acting on the ground to keep those parts of the land that the enemy is trying to take away from us. Our latest efforts are now to keep Shdema in Jewish hands, the abandoned army camp near Har Choma-Jerusalem, that the Arabs are trying to steal from Israel.
It seems that with the incoming new government we, loyalists of the Land of Israel, will have more work than ever. It will be our job to remind our politicians that the majority of the People of Israel have voted against the continuation of the leftist policies of withdrawal and capitulation to the Arab enemy.
The People of Israel expect this government to act like a proud Jewish government that finally will fight for the interest of the Jewish People in its Biblical Homeland.
What is needed first and foremost, is a change of attitude to the enemies of the Jewish People. Last week Shlomo Nativ HY"D, a 13 year old boy from Bat Ayin, was butchered by an Arab terrorist who had entered the community. The reaction to that murder has been complete quiet. No outrage or condemnation has been heard by the UN, the EU, the world media nor by the Israeli Left. When Jewish children are murdered (especially if they are "settler and religious" children, the world and the Israeli left is quiet.
That has to change!
The time has come to go back to the old fashioned Zionist response to Arab terror: for every Jew that is attacked we must create a new community in Judea and Samaria. That must be one of the first acts of this new government and if the government does not have the willpower or the courage to do so, it will be our job to demand it and fight for it.
Women in Green wishes all its friends a happy and kosher Pesach. May we all, together with all of Am Yisrael, act with loyalty and love to the Land of Israel that we will, please G-d, be worthy of Hashem's blessings of the fifth cup of redemption.
Chag Sameach,
Nadia Matar
Chair, Women in Green
For details about the struggle for Shdema and to see our latest movie please click on http://womeningreen.org/shd.htm
=============================================
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
mailto:wfit2@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Easter isn't Christian!
The Plain Truth About Easter
by David Ben-Ariel
Like dumb sheep to the slaughter, most of mankind continues to blindly follow pagan traditions, rather than obey God's clear commands (Mark 7:7).
Has it ever occurred to those stuffing their faces with Easter ham that Jesus would puke at the thought? Neither Jesus or Peter, James or John ever ate forbidden foods. They wouldn't feel too comfortable at plenty of people's dinner tables.
Even the early Gentile converts to Jewish Christianity respected the biblical dietary laws (Acts 15:20), understanding that not all animal flesh is good food, that not all foods are sanctioned by the Creator in the Holy Scriptures (1Timothy 4:5).
When John the Baptist recognized Jesus as our Passover sacrifice, he declared: "Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:29). He didn't say, "Here comes the Easter Bunny!" Again, like the Easter ham, the Easter rabbit is also rejected in the Bible as an abomination (Leviticus 11:6-7).
The very name of Easter exposes itself as a heathen festival, although it's cloaked as "Christian." Easter/Ishtar/Astarte is the Babylonian spring goddess our British-Israelite forefathers foolishly worshipped. Hence the fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs.
God isn't fooled by such baptized paganism, such whitewashed heathen customs (Deuteronomy 12:30). He commands us to commemorate Jesus' death every Passover and recognize His atoning work of redemption as our resurrected High Priest in Heaven, unleavening our lives of sin (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).
The early Church of God followed Jesus' Jewish example for several hundred years until Gentile opposition (from false converts) threatened them with a death sentence if they didn't bow before Easter observances (the Quarto-Deciman controversy)!
A growing number now know, understand and believe the biblical account that we're to observe Passover and that Jesus was resurrected before sunrise Sunday, "when it was yet dark" (John 10:1).
Others prefer to reject this light of understanding to remain in their traditional darkness and die in their sins (John 3:19) -- it's that serious! Because if our nations don't repent of such idolatry and immorality we'll soon suffer national destruction, defeat and deportation! That's why this article of faith is part of our plea to diehard Catholics and Protestants to repent.
Thankfully, every generation has those chosen few who are willing to reject holidays for holy days and "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" (Jude 3).
Hopefully, this plain truth about Easter will cause you to question your beliefs and provide some "kosher" food for thought!
by David Ben-Ariel
Like dumb sheep to the slaughter, most of mankind continues to blindly follow pagan traditions, rather than obey God's clear commands (Mark 7:7).
Has it ever occurred to those stuffing their faces with Easter ham that Jesus would puke at the thought? Neither Jesus or Peter, James or John ever ate forbidden foods. They wouldn't feel too comfortable at plenty of people's dinner tables.
Even the early Gentile converts to Jewish Christianity respected the biblical dietary laws (Acts 15:20), understanding that not all animal flesh is good food, that not all foods are sanctioned by the Creator in the Holy Scriptures (1Timothy 4:5).
When John the Baptist recognized Jesus as our Passover sacrifice, he declared: "Behold the Lamb of God" (John 1:29). He didn't say, "Here comes the Easter Bunny!" Again, like the Easter ham, the Easter rabbit is also rejected in the Bible as an abomination (Leviticus 11:6-7).
The very name of Easter exposes itself as a heathen festival, although it's cloaked as "Christian." Easter/Ishtar/Astarte is the Babylonian spring goddess our British-Israelite forefathers foolishly worshipped. Hence the fertility symbols of rabbits and eggs.
God isn't fooled by such baptized paganism, such whitewashed heathen customs (Deuteronomy 12:30). He commands us to commemorate Jesus' death every Passover and recognize His atoning work of redemption as our resurrected High Priest in Heaven, unleavening our lives of sin (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).
The early Church of God followed Jesus' Jewish example for several hundred years until Gentile opposition (from false converts) threatened them with a death sentence if they didn't bow before Easter observances (the Quarto-Deciman controversy)!
A growing number now know, understand and believe the biblical account that we're to observe Passover and that Jesus was resurrected before sunrise Sunday, "when it was yet dark" (John 10:1).
Others prefer to reject this light of understanding to remain in their traditional darkness and die in their sins (John 3:19) -- it's that serious! Because if our nations don't repent of such idolatry and immorality we'll soon suffer national destruction, defeat and deportation! That's why this article of faith is part of our plea to diehard Catholics and Protestants to repent.
Thankfully, every generation has those chosen few who are willing to reject holidays for holy days and "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" (Jude 3).
Hopefully, this plain truth about Easter will cause you to question your beliefs and provide some "kosher" food for thought!
James Paul Warburg, John F. Hylan, Joseph H. Choate
"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
-- James Paul Warburg
(1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
Source: while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Warburg.Quote.BC08
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as 'international bankers.' This little coterie... run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...[and] seizes...our executive officers... legislative bodies... schools... courts... newspapers and every agency created for the public protection."
-- John F. Hylan
(1868-1936), Mayor of New York City (1918-1925), nicknamed "Red Mike"
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/John.Hylan.Quote.7E8E
"The Act of Congress which we are impugning before you is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic - what shall I call them - populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world."
-- Joseph H. Choate
(1832-1917) attorney who successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894
Source: United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Joseph.Choate.Quote.BD24
-- James Paul Warburg
(1896-1969) son of Paul Moritz Warburg, nephew of Felix Warburg and of Jacob Schiff, both of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. which poured millions into the Russian Revolution through James' brother Max, banker to the German government, Chairman of the CFR
Source: while speaking before the United States Senate, February 17, 1950
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/James.Warburg.Quote.BC08
"The real menace of our Republic is the invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy legs over our cities states and nation. At the head is a small group of banking houses generally referred to as 'international bankers.' This little coterie... run our government for their own selfish ends. It operates under cover of a self-created screen...[and] seizes...our executive officers... legislative bodies... schools... courts... newspapers and every agency created for the public protection."
-- John F. Hylan
(1868-1936), Mayor of New York City (1918-1925), nicknamed "Red Mike"
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/John.Hylan.Quote.7E8E
"The Act of Congress which we are impugning before you is communistic in its purposes and tendencies, and is defended here upon principles as communistic, socialistic - what shall I call them - populistic as ever have been addressed to any political assembly in the world."
-- Joseph H. Choate
(1832-1917) attorney who successfully challenged the Income Tax Act of 1894
Source: United States Supreme Court, Pollock v. Farmers Loan & Trust Co. (1898)
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Joseph.Choate.Quote.BD24
Monday, April 6, 2009
Think-Israel
THINK-ISRAEL features essays, analyses and commentaries that provide context for current events in Israel. We try to make sense of what's going on. The war Islamists ar e waging against Israel and the West is a top priority.
We have new articles on the Think Israel website. Please take a look.
This is what's in the January-February 2009 issue. You can access any article from the home page of http://www.Think-Israel.org by scrolling down to its introduction. This has the advantage of providing context for the article. Or you can go directly to the article by clicking its highlighted area in this email.
PART I: STAGES OF THE GLOBAL MUSLIM TAKEOVER
What the End-Point of a Muslim Take-Over Looks Like
LIVING WITH CANCER, LIVING WITH ISLAM by Sultan Knish
THE SAUDI CONNECTION TO THE MUMBAI MASSACRES: STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR ISRAEL by Col. (res.) Jonathan Fighel
HOMEGROWN THREAT AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA by Olivier Guitta
ISLAMISTS APPROACH EUROPE: TURKEY'S ISLAMIST DANGER by Bassam Tibi
EGYPT IS NOT GOING TO STOP THE SMUGGLING INTO GAZA by Efraim Inbar and Mordechai Kedar
EGYPT'S MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND IRAN by Mehdi Khalaji
AN OPENING TO IRAN? THEY'VE SOLD US THIS RUG BEFORE by Michael Rubin
Muslim Society
ISLAM, WAR, AND DECEIT: A SYNTHESIS by Raymond Ibrahim
THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN UNDER ISLAMISM: TIME FOR MUSLIMS TO SHED THE DENIAL by M. Zuhdi Jasser
'MODERATE' MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CLERIC IS ANYTHING BUT by Steve Emerson PALESTINIAN ARAB CHILDREN DYING TO KILL: PURPOSELY SACRIFICING CHILDREN by Eli E. Hertz
OMS - OFFENDED MUSLIM SYNDROME AND SELF-HELP SUPPORT GROUPS by Red Square of People's Cube
WALKING AWAY FROM ISLAM Front Page Magazine interviews Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza
England on the Takeover Scale
MULTICULTURALISM, SELF-INFLICTED DEFEAT OF THE WEST AND THE TRIUMPH OF ISLAM by Fjordman
THE BANALITY OF EVIL by Mark Silverberg
THE CUT-AND-OMIT TV NEWS by Odd Sverre Hove
THE LANCET'S MISDIAGNOSIS OF GAZA by Steven Plaut
I'M GOING TO MISS WESTMINSTER ABBEY by Omri Ceren
GEERT WILDERS AND THE FIGHT FOR EUROPE by Bat Yeor
WHAT I PLANNED TO SAY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS by Geert Wilders
Foisting Muslim Ideology on America
TWENTY-YEAR PLAN FOR USA: ISLAM TARGETS AMERICA by Dr. Anis Shorrosh MUSLIMS IN AMERICA by Kathy Shaidle
SCARY COURT CASES by Tom McLaughlin
HAMAS'S ACADEMIC CHEERLEADERS by Cinnamon Stillwell
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE PUBLISHES APOLOGIA FOR HAMAS by Steve Emerson
DUST OVER CAMPUS LIFE: UCLA AT A CROSSROAD by Judea Pearl
ANTI-ZIONIST PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES: TWO JOURNALISTS AND AN ACADEMIC by Richard H. Shulman
THE PREDICTABLE PALESTINIAN PROPAGANDA PLOY by Leslie Sacks
JIMMY CARTER, ISRAEL, THE CHURCH, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by Paul Charles Merkley
PART II: ISRAEL BEARS THE BRUNT
Institutional Anti-Semitism
IS ISRAEL DOOMED by Kenneth Levin
PERVERSE CHILDREN by Patricia Berlyn
MAKING THE WORLD JUDENSTAATREIN by Irwin Cotler
PLANNING FOR DURBAN II — A CONFERENCE ON RACISM SCRIPTED BY RACISTS by Eye on the U.N.
THE HOLOCAUST IN ARAB PUBLIC DISCOURSE: HISTORICIZED POLITICS AND POLITICIZED HISTORY by Mikael Tossavainen
IT'S ALL THE ZIONISTS' FAULT by Doug Ross
RIGHT OF REPLY: WAR, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY by Gerald M. Steinberg 'LAWFARE:' ANOTHER WEAPON IN THE JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL by Richard L. Cravatts CHRISTIAN FRIENDS AND FOES OF ISRAEL Interview by Manfred Gerstenfeld of David R. Parsons
THE BISHOP AND THE HOLOCAUST by Denis MacEoin
LOSING TOUCH by SPIEGEL Staff
Gaza, Hamas and the Gaza Invasion
THE GAZA WAR 2009: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVES by Seth J. Frantzman
ISRAEL, GAZA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW by Jean-Jacques Surbeck
BREAKING THE WILL OF THE PALESTINIANS: NO POLITICAL OR LEGAL PROTECTION FOR HAMAS by Andrew C. McCarthy
HOW ONE SOLDIER SURVIVED THE WAR IN GAZA by Joshua Eastman
A VIEW FROM THE TARGET ZONE by Haim Harari
GAZA BEDFELLOWS: UNRWA AND HAMAS by Claudia Rosett
QANA'S GREEN HELMET GUY NOW WORKING FOR HAMAS? by Judi McLeod
JIHADIST GROUPS IN GAZA: A DEVELOPING THREAT by Yoram Cohen
AN ESCALATING REGIONAL COLD WAR: THE 2009 GAZA WAR by Yigal Carmon, Yael Yehoshua, Ayelet Savyon and H. Migron
GAZA IS THE FACE OF A PALESTINIAN STATE by Don Feder
The Start of the Current Gaza Problem: Expelling the Gaza Jews
THE GAZA WAR REACHES US by Moshe and Rachel Saperstein
DEMONIZED ISRAELI SETTLERS by Barbara Lerner
A PERSONAL VISIT TO JUDEA by Richard H. Shulman
We Need New Thinking: Tired Non-Solutions and Some New Potential Solutions
LEGAL RIGHTS AND TITLE OF SOVEREIGNTY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND PALESTINE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW by Howard Grief MONOTHEISTIC PAGANISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES by Professor Paul Eidelberg
A NEW BROOM by Walter Bingham
REVIEW OF LORDS OF THE LAND: THE WAR OVER ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, 1967-2007 by Moshe Dann
IS A TWO-STATE SOLUTION A ROADMAP TO DISASTER? by Frederic Leder and Ricky Greenfield
A LIKELY SCENARIO FOR THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT by No Sharia
ZIONISM AND WHY BILL MOYERS IS RIGHT ABOUT THE JEWS by Sigmund, Carl and Alfred
HOUSEBREAKING ISLAM by Sultan Knish
MORE ACCURACY AND DEPTH NEEDED by David Basch
THE CASE FOR JUDEA by Obediah Shoher
WHEN DEALING WITH PUNKS, THERE'S NO TIME TO BE A LIBERAL by David Warren REBUILD GUSH KATIF by Michael Freund
History Section
GAZA'S RICH JEWISH HISTORY by Victor Sharpe
PALESTINE IS A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, NOT A NATIONALITY by Eli E. Hertz
THE BLOCKADE: HOW THE BRITISH PREVENTED RESCUE by David Krakow
And, finally, the Readers' Blog-Ed page. The monthly Blog-Ed page is updated every few days. You can click on the Blog-Eds List (middle item, top Blue Banner), find any author/title posted, click and go directly to that blog-ed.
And we provide direct links to websites that supply accurate background information and news relating to Israel.
Do look at the web site.
And please, if you have a blog-ed piece or a comment or commentary, contact the website. Write to comments@think-israel.org
Pieces for THINK-ISRAEL should be informative and accurate. Fortunately, those of us who are pro-Israel can show our love of Israel without distorting the truth. We don't need to play by the rules laid down by the Arab-favoring media, which distort the news and omit important items of information.
Bernice Lipkin Editor, Think-Israel
We have new articles on the Think Israel website. Please take a look.
This is what's in the January-February 2009 issue. You can access any article from the home page of http://www.Think-Israel.org by scrolling down to its introduction. This has the advantage of providing context for the article. Or you can go directly to the article by clicking its highlighted area in this email.
PART I: STAGES OF THE GLOBAL MUSLIM TAKEOVER
What the End-Point of a Muslim Take-Over Looks Like
LIVING WITH CANCER, LIVING WITH ISLAM by Sultan Knish
THE SAUDI CONNECTION TO THE MUMBAI MASSACRES: STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR ISRAEL by Col. (res.) Jonathan Fighel
HOMEGROWN THREAT AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA by Olivier Guitta
ISLAMISTS APPROACH EUROPE: TURKEY'S ISLAMIST DANGER by Bassam Tibi
EGYPT IS NOT GOING TO STOP THE SMUGGLING INTO GAZA by Efraim Inbar and Mordechai Kedar
EGYPT'S MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND IRAN by Mehdi Khalaji
AN OPENING TO IRAN? THEY'VE SOLD US THIS RUG BEFORE by Michael Rubin
Muslim Society
ISLAM, WAR, AND DECEIT: A SYNTHESIS by Raymond Ibrahim
THE PLIGHT OF WOMEN UNDER ISLAMISM: TIME FOR MUSLIMS TO SHED THE DENIAL by M. Zuhdi Jasser
'MODERATE' MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD CLERIC IS ANYTHING BUT by Steve Emerson PALESTINIAN ARAB CHILDREN DYING TO KILL: PURPOSELY SACRIFICING CHILDREN by Eli E. Hertz
OMS - OFFENDED MUSLIM SYNDROME AND SELF-HELP SUPPORT GROUPS by Red Square of People's Cube
WALKING AWAY FROM ISLAM Front Page Magazine interviews Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza
England on the Takeover Scale
MULTICULTURALISM, SELF-INFLICTED DEFEAT OF THE WEST AND THE TRIUMPH OF ISLAM by Fjordman
THE BANALITY OF EVIL by Mark Silverberg
THE CUT-AND-OMIT TV NEWS by Odd Sverre Hove
THE LANCET'S MISDIAGNOSIS OF GAZA by Steven Plaut
I'M GOING TO MISS WESTMINSTER ABBEY by Omri Ceren
GEERT WILDERS AND THE FIGHT FOR EUROPE by Bat Yeor
WHAT I PLANNED TO SAY IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS by Geert Wilders
Foisting Muslim Ideology on America
TWENTY-YEAR PLAN FOR USA: ISLAM TARGETS AMERICA by Dr. Anis Shorrosh MUSLIMS IN AMERICA by Kathy Shaidle
SCARY COURT CASES by Tom McLaughlin
HAMAS'S ACADEMIC CHEERLEADERS by Cinnamon Stillwell
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE PUBLISHES APOLOGIA FOR HAMAS by Steve Emerson
DUST OVER CAMPUS LIFE: UCLA AT A CROSSROAD by Judea Pearl
ANTI-ZIONIST PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES: TWO JOURNALISTS AND AN ACADEMIC by Richard H. Shulman
THE PREDICTABLE PALESTINIAN PROPAGANDA PLOY by Leslie Sacks
JIMMY CARTER, ISRAEL, THE CHURCH, AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by Paul Charles Merkley
PART II: ISRAEL BEARS THE BRUNT
Institutional Anti-Semitism
IS ISRAEL DOOMED by Kenneth Levin
PERVERSE CHILDREN by Patricia Berlyn
MAKING THE WORLD JUDENSTAATREIN by Irwin Cotler
PLANNING FOR DURBAN II — A CONFERENCE ON RACISM SCRIPTED BY RACISTS by Eye on the U.N.
THE HOLOCAUST IN ARAB PUBLIC DISCOURSE: HISTORICIZED POLITICS AND POLITICIZED HISTORY by Mikael Tossavainen
IT'S ALL THE ZIONISTS' FAULT by Doug Ross
RIGHT OF REPLY: WAR, HUMAN RIGHTS AND DEMOCRACY by Gerald M. Steinberg 'LAWFARE:' ANOTHER WEAPON IN THE JIHAD AGAINST ISRAEL by Richard L. Cravatts CHRISTIAN FRIENDS AND FOES OF ISRAEL Interview by Manfred Gerstenfeld of David R. Parsons
THE BISHOP AND THE HOLOCAUST by Denis MacEoin
LOSING TOUCH by SPIEGEL Staff
Gaza, Hamas and the Gaza Invasion
THE GAZA WAR 2009: HISTORY AND PERSPECTIVES by Seth J. Frantzman
ISRAEL, GAZA AND INTERNATIONAL LAW by Jean-Jacques Surbeck
BREAKING THE WILL OF THE PALESTINIANS: NO POLITICAL OR LEGAL PROTECTION FOR HAMAS by Andrew C. McCarthy
HOW ONE SOLDIER SURVIVED THE WAR IN GAZA by Joshua Eastman
A VIEW FROM THE TARGET ZONE by Haim Harari
GAZA BEDFELLOWS: UNRWA AND HAMAS by Claudia Rosett
QANA'S GREEN HELMET GUY NOW WORKING FOR HAMAS? by Judi McLeod
JIHADIST GROUPS IN GAZA: A DEVELOPING THREAT by Yoram Cohen
AN ESCALATING REGIONAL COLD WAR: THE 2009 GAZA WAR by Yigal Carmon, Yael Yehoshua, Ayelet Savyon and H. Migron
GAZA IS THE FACE OF A PALESTINIAN STATE by Don Feder
The Start of the Current Gaza Problem: Expelling the Gaza Jews
THE GAZA WAR REACHES US by Moshe and Rachel Saperstein
DEMONIZED ISRAELI SETTLERS by Barbara Lerner
A PERSONAL VISIT TO JUDEA by Richard H. Shulman
We Need New Thinking: Tired Non-Solutions and Some New Potential Solutions
LEGAL RIGHTS AND TITLE OF SOVEREIGNTY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND PALESTINE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW by Howard Grief MONOTHEISTIC PAGANISM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES by Professor Paul Eidelberg
A NEW BROOM by Walter Bingham
REVIEW OF LORDS OF THE LAND: THE WAR OVER ISRAEL'S SETTLEMENTS IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES, 1967-2007 by Moshe Dann
IS A TWO-STATE SOLUTION A ROADMAP TO DISASTER? by Frederic Leder and Ricky Greenfield
A LIKELY SCENARIO FOR THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT by No Sharia
ZIONISM AND WHY BILL MOYERS IS RIGHT ABOUT THE JEWS by Sigmund, Carl and Alfred
HOUSEBREAKING ISLAM by Sultan Knish
MORE ACCURACY AND DEPTH NEEDED by David Basch
THE CASE FOR JUDEA by Obediah Shoher
WHEN DEALING WITH PUNKS, THERE'S NO TIME TO BE A LIBERAL by David Warren REBUILD GUSH KATIF by Michael Freund
History Section
GAZA'S RICH JEWISH HISTORY by Victor Sharpe
PALESTINE IS A GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, NOT A NATIONALITY by Eli E. Hertz
THE BLOCKADE: HOW THE BRITISH PREVENTED RESCUE by David Krakow
And, finally, the Readers' Blog-Ed page. The monthly Blog-Ed page is updated every few days. You can click on the Blog-Eds List (middle item, top Blue Banner), find any author/title posted, click and go directly to that blog-ed.
And we provide direct links to websites that supply accurate background information and news relating to Israel.
Do look at the web site.
And please, if you have a blog-ed piece or a comment or commentary, contact the website. Write to comments@think-israel.org
Pieces for THINK-ISRAEL should be informative and accurate. Fortunately, those of us who are pro-Israel can show our love of Israel without distorting the truth. We don't need to play by the rules laid down by the Arab-favoring media, which distort the news and omit important items of information.
Bernice Lipkin Editor, Think-Israel
PASSOVER
No Bread by Rabbi Benjamin Blech
Passover & four questions for a financial crisis.
The Freedom of Simplicity
by Rabbi Ahron Lopiansky
The paradoxical meaning of matzah.
MySpace or YourSpace?
by Rabbi Ramon Widmonte
Facebook and the essence of Passover.
Where Are You?
by Sara Debbie Gutfreund
On Passover God is anxiously waiting for His children to come home.
Ivy League Trap
by David Sussman
It seemed like the right thing to do. But whose idea was it?
Going Up?
by Slovie Jungreis-Wolff
Using positive communication with our children.
Losing Weight this Passover
by Rabbi Boruch Leff
Passover's solution to why diets don't work.
Passover Desserts: Anything's Possible!
by Tamar Ansh
Mouthwatering desserts for Passover.
Sedering with Kids
by Sharon Duke Estroff
How to prevent your kids from asking the fifth question, "Are we done yet?"
Cherishing Your Past
by Rabbi Tzvi Nightingale
Passover reminds us that not only can't you escape your past, but you have to cherish it too.
Life by Accident
by Eric Horowitz, Ph.D.
The odds of random life are so improbable, believing it requires a gigantic leap of faith.
Passover Crafts
by Rivky Koenig Fun
holiday crafts for the whole family.
Exodus from Egypt: The Hidden Agenda, Part 10-13
by Rabbi David Fohrman
Rabbi Fohrman continues the journey to discover a hidden side to the Exodus.
Passover Again ?!
by Aish.com Staff
A short aish.com movie
Aish.com's Passover Primer
by Aish.com Staff
An inspiring and thought-provoking compendium of articles that will transform your Seder experience.
Family Gathering
by Lori Palatnik
How to enjoy your family this Passover.
Passover: Just Ask
by Rabbi Yaakov Salomon
Feeling free to question.
Clean and Free
by Emuna Braverman
There is a sense of freedom in having a clean house.
It's Your Choice
by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin
Elevated or Distress.
The Jewish Ethicist: Age and Independence
by Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir, Business Ethics Center of Jerusalem
It's wrong to give so much that we become dependent on the public.
Prince of Egypt
by Jewlarious.com Staff
The Passover miracles give us the chills. What miracles have happened to you that would give us the chills?
The Jewish Punctuation Mark
by Judy Gruen
Why are our questions different from all other questions?
Passover Aftermath
by Eileen Rosenbloom
During Passover, the laws of math simply do not apply.
Passover 2009
Passover 2009
At Passover we are asked to see the story as if we had each been there ourselves. And since we marched out of Egypt and into the desert, we have marched down through history, hounded by those who would destroy us, and hit with one plague after another ...the main result of which is that we have developed a sharp sense of humor.
* * *
Wednesday will be the first night of Passover. Why is that night different from all other nights in the whole year? Good question, you'll get the answer then. Pessah Sameah! Have a Happy Passover!
-Dry Bones- Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973
Why the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel
Why the Oslo Accords Should Be Abrogated by Israel
A Jurisprudential Memorandum for the New Prime Minister
By Louis Rene Beres
Benjamin Netanyahu, the new Prime Minister of Israel, intends to honor those portions of the Oslo Accords that have already become "facts on the ground." Although this intention would appear to support the authoritative expectations of international law, exactly the opposite is true. As the following argument makes clear, international law now requires abrogation, not compliance, with these invalid and illegal agreements.
The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO are in violation of international law. Israel, therefore, is now obligated to abrogate these nontreaty agreements. A comparable argument could be made regarding PLO obligations, but this would make little jurisprudential sense in light of that particular nonstate party's intrinsic incapacity to enter into a legal arrangement with Israel.
Taken by itself, the fact that the Oslo accords do not constitute authentic treaties under the Vienna Convention - because they link a state with a nonstate party - does not call for abrogation. But as the nonstate party in this case just happens to be a terrorist organization whose leaders must be punished for their egregious crimes, any agreement with this party that offers rewards rather than punishments is entirely null and void. Significantly, in view of the peremptory expectation known in law as Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment," the state party in such an agreement - here the State of Israel - violates international law by honoring the agreement.
According to Principle I of the binding Nuremberg Principles: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment." It is from this principle, which applies with particular relevance to Hostes humani generis ("Common enemies of humankind") and which originates in three separate passages of the Jewish Torah, that each state's obligation to seek out and prosecute terrorists derives. Hence, for Israel to honor agreements with terrorists - agreements that require, among other pertinent violations - the release of thousands of other terrorists - is to dishonor the very meaning of international law.
Is Yasser Arafat personally a terrorist? In the U.S. case of Klinghoffer v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the court answered in the affirmative. In the Israeli courts, a petition to charge Yasser Arafat with terrorist crimes was submitted to Israel's High Court of Justice in May 1994. This petition, filed by Shimon Prachik, an officer in the IDF reserves, and Moshe Lorberaum, who was injured in a 1978 bus bombing carried out by the PLO, called for Arafat's arrest. The petition noted that Arafat, prima facie, had been responsible for numerous terror attacks in Israel and abroad, including murder, airplane hijacking, hostage-taking, letter-bombing and hijacking of ships on the high seas. The petitioner's allegation of Arafat's direct personal responsibility for terrorism was seconded and confirmed by Dr. Ahmad Tibi, Arafat's most senior advisor: "The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian people for everything that was done in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Yasser Arafat," said Dr. Tibi on July 13, 1994, "and this man shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin."
Terrorism is not the only crime in which Arafat and many of the released Palestinian prisoners are complicit. Related Nuremberg-category crimes, including crimes of war and crimes against humanity, were also committed by these persons. In this connection, the new Prime Minister should recall that units of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) served with Saddam Hussein's forces in occupied Kuwait, making them, and Yasser Arafat personally (the legal principle of command responsibility is known as respondeat superior, or "Let the Master Answer") responsible for multiple crimes of extraordinary horror and ferocity. And if these offenses were not enough of an affront to world law, many of the terrorists now being released from Israeli jails in furtherance of the Oslo accords are immediately accepting high positions in the Palestine Authority's security forces.
Even if the nonstate party to the Oslo accords were not a terrorist organization, Israel would have entered into an agreement of unequal obligations, an agreement where the PLO would not be held under international law to the same standards of accountability. Several recent federal court decisions in the United States reaffirm that agreements between nonstate and state parties impose asymmetrical compliance expectations. For example, in a concurring statement in the case of Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, a 1981 civil suit in U.S. federal courts in which the plaintiffs were Israeli survivors and representatives of persons murdered in a terrorist bus attack in Israel in 1978, Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards stated: "../...I do not believe the law of nations imposes the same responsibility or liability on nonstate actors, such as the PLO, as it does on states and persons acting under color of state law."
The PLO, of course, is a terrorist organization, and Israel has no right to honor the Oslo accords' requirement to release convicted members of that organization. No government, in fact, has the right to lawfully pardon or grant immunity to terrorists with respect to criminally sanctionable violations of international law. In the United States, it is evident from the Constitution that the President's power to pardon does not encompass violations of international law, and is limited to "Offenses against the United States." This limitation derives from a broader prohibition that binds all states, including Israel, namely the overriding claims of pertinent peremptory rules stemming from Higher Law or the Law of Nature. These claims are identified in Blackstone's COMMENTARIES, which acknowledge that all law "results from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree../..../.."
In its apprehension and incarceration of terrorists, Israel acted, however unintentionally, not only for itself, but on behalf of the entire community of states. Moreover, because some of the jailed terrorists had committed crimes against other states as well as against Israel, the government in Jerusalem cannot possibly pardon these offenses against other sovereigns. The Jewish State, therefore, possesses absolutely no right to grant immunity for terrorist violations of international law. No matter what might be permissible under its own Basic Law and the Oslo accords, any freeing of terrorists is legally incorrect. By its freeing of terrorists, Israel is guilty of what is known in law as a "denial of justice."
Israel's obligation to abrogate the Oslo accords, as we have seen, stems from certain peremptory expectations of international law. Israel, however, has substantial rights of abrogation here apart from such expectations. These rights derive from the doctrine of Rebus sic stantibus. Defined literally as "So long as conditions remain the same," this doctrine of changed circumstances now augments Israel's obligations to cease compliance with Oslo. This is because Israel's traditional obligations to the accords ended promptly when a fundamental change occured in those circumstances that existed at the effective dates of the accords and whose continuance formed a tacit condition of the accords' ongoing validity. This change, of course, involved multiple material breaches by the PLO, especially those concerning control of anti-Israel terrorism and extradition of terrorists. In short, Rebus sic stantibus has become pertinent for Israeli abrogation because of the profound change created by the PLO in the very circumstances that formed the cause, motive and rationale of consent.
According to Oslo expectations, Arafat should be actively committed to control of anti-Israel terrorism. Yet, as THE JERUSALEM POST pointed out correctly in a mid-March 1996 editorial, "Arafat not only shelters terrorists; he lets them incite, recruit, organize, train, arm, raise funds, and launch operations from areas under his control. This is now indisputable."
The "head of the snake," admitted former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, "is in Gaza." And it is in Gaza, PLO-controlled Gaza, that Hamas - allegedly at odds with PLO - has been fomenting much of its terror campaign against Israel. It is the Palestinian security services that sustain this Hamas campaign. In the words of THE JERUSALEM POST:
"It was the Hamas leadership in Gaza which decided on terrorist strikes and issued operational orders for the bus bombings. It was in Gaza that the Hamas military organization trained suicide bombers and assembled explosives. It was in Gaza that "the engineer" Yihye Ayyash found shelter until he was killed, and where his successor Mohammed Dief has been living openly. It was in Gaza that Arafat's Preventive Security chief was negotiating with Dief - a close friend - both before and after the first bus bombing. He knew of Dief's involvement in the bombing and did nothing either to detain him or prevent the next outrage."
Israel's obligation to terminate the Oslo accords stems also from a related principle of national self-preservation. Under this peremptory norm, any agreement may be terminated unilaterally following changes in conditions that make performance of the agreement injurious to fundamental rights, especially the rights of existence and independence. Known in law as "rights of necessity," this norm was explained with particular lucidity by none other than Thomas Jefferson. In his "Opinion on the French Treaties," written on April 28, 1793, Jefferson stated that when performance, in international agreements, "becomes impossible, nonperformance is not immoral. So if performance becomes self- destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others." Later, in that same document, Jefferson wrote: "The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations." Israel, the reader should recall, has an "indispensable obligation" to endure.
How, exactly, do the Oslo accords impair this obligation? Here is what THE JERUSALEM POST had to say about the expected consequences of Oslo II:
" ../...the implementation of Oslo II signals the relinquishment of Israel's security control over the territories and the assumption of such control by the PLO. For the first time, there will be a large PLO army on the outskirts of Israel's major population centers, and it will be in control of strategic areas which dominate Israel's heartland. Soon, Israel will be able to control neither the influx of Palestinians from refugee camps in neighboring countries nor the importation of arms. To expect such an arrangement to bring anything but unrest, terrorism and ultimately war, is to live in a world of make believe."
To better understand this "world of make believe," it is instructive to consider the Charter of Hamas, another terrorist organization that is central to current difficulties in implementing "peace." According to this Charter:
Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions,
and the international conferences to resolve the
Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs
of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing
any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the
religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance
Movement is part of its faith, the movement
educates its members to adhere to its principles
and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland
as they fight their Jihad../..../..There is no solution to
the Palestinian problem except by Jihad../..../..In order
to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we
have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad../..../..We
must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims
that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to
be dealt with on this premise../..../.."I swear by that who
holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed
wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will
assault and kill;, assault and kill, assault and
kill.
Regarding relationships with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Hamas Charter offers the following: "The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for it constitutes a father, a brother, a relative, a freind. Can a Muslim turn away from his father, his brother, his relative of his friend? Our homeland is one, our calamity is one, our destiny is one and our enemy is common to both of us../..../.." On the primacy of hatred toward Judaism, not Israel (i.e., Israel is despised because it is Jewish), the Hamas Charter states: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. `Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.'"
After the assassination of terrorist Yechya Ayyash, known widely as "The Engineer," Yasser Arafat delivered a eulogy in Dura, near Hebron. Speaking before a large crowd of Hamas supporters, Arafat praised all "Palestinian martyrs," including those who had murdered Israeli women and children in schools, buses and homes. Referring to the imminent takeover of Jerusalem from the Jews, Arafat expressed confidence that, "in a few months, we will pray together at the Al-Aksa mosque,:" adding that "those who don't like it can go and drink the water of the Dead Sea."
At a eulogy given on June 15, 1995, for Abed Al Karim Al Aklok, a former PLO official, Arafat remarked: "We are all seekers of martyrdom in the path of truth and right toward Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine../..../..We will continue this difficult Jihad, this long Jihad, this arduous Jihad, in the path of martyrs - via death - the path of sacrifice../..../.." On January 30, 1996, speaking to 40 Arab diplomats at the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, Arafat's topic was: "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel." Said Arafat, "We Palestinians wil take over everything, including all of Jerusalem../..../..All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America." Further: "We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem../..../..You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State../..../..I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Moslem domination."
Regarding the Oslo accords and Israel's vulnerability to war, Israeli security is now increasingly dependent upon nuclear weapons and strategy. Faced with a codified and substantial loss of territories - a loss that might still be enlarged by transfer to Syria of the Golan Heights - the Jewish State will have to decide on how to compensate for its diminished strategic depth. While this shrinkage does not necessarily increase Israel's existential vulnerability to unconventional missile attack, it surely does increase that state's susceptibility to attacking ground forces and to subsequent enemy occupation. And the loss of strategic depth will almost certainly be interpreted by enemy states as a significant weakening of Israel's overall defense posture, an interpretation that could lead to great enemy incentives to strike first.
Should Israel's sacrifice of strategic depth occasioned by the Oslo accords result in a Palestinian state, the geostrategic victory of the Islamic world would be complemented by something less tangible but no less critical: an Arab and Iranian perception of an ongoing and unstoppable momentum against the Jewish State, a jihad-centered perception of military inevitability that would reiterate the policies of war. Recognizing such perceptions, Israel could be forced to take its bomb out of the "basement," and/or it could have to accept a greater willingness to launch preemptive strikes against enemy hard targets.
For their part, certain Arab states and/or Iran would respond to such Israeli decisions. Made aware of Israel's policy shifts - shifts that would stem from both Israel's Oslo-generated territorial vulnerabilities and from its awareness of enemy perceptions spawned by the Oslo-generated creation of Palestine, these enemy states could respond in more or less parallel fashion. Here, preparing openly for nuclearization and aggression against Israel, these states would illustrate dramatically certain far-reaching results of the Oslo accords - results that are still generally unrecognized and that provide, together with other above-listed rationales, a fully authoritative basis for permissible abrogation.
There is one last point that would need to be emphasized by Israel's new Government. Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations, a Palestinian state did not exist before 1967 or 1948. A state of Palestine was not promised by authoritative U.N. Security Council Resolution # 242. Indeed, a state of Palestine has never existed.
As a nonstate legal entity, Palestine ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. When, during the 1948-49 War of Independence, Judea/Samaria and Gaza came under illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively, these aggressor states did not put an end to an already-existing state. From the Biblical Period (ca.1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918-48), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines (a naming intended to punish and demean the Jews) was controlled exclusively by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I at the San Remo Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over Palestine (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People."
Palestine, according to the treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Present-day Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza, comprises only twenty-two percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and illegally split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan River - and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan.
From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations. On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian assassinated King Abdullah because of his hostility to Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Several years prior to Abdullah's killing, in 1947, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the Jewish National Homeland, enacted a second partition. Ironically, because this second fission again gave unfair advantage to the Arabs, Jewishleaders accepted the painful judgment while the Arab states rejected it.
On May 15, 1948, exactly one day after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to the tiny new nation founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre../..../.." This genocidal declaration has been and remains to this day at the heart of all subsequent Arab orientations toward Israel. In 1967, almost twenty years after Israel's entry into the community of nations, the Jewish State - as a result of its stunning military victory over Arab aggressor states - gained unintended control over Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Although the idea of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is enshrined in the U.N. Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the territories could be "returned." Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer these territories back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of extermination in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self- determination" was only just beginning to emerge after the Six-Day War, and was not even codified in U.N. Security Council Resolution #242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967. For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it../..../.."
Prime Minister Netanyahu, please take heed. International law does not require compliance with the Oslo Accords. It requires abrogation of these illegal agreements.
=================
Louis Rene Beres is Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University.
=============================================
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
mailto:wfit2@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org
A Jurisprudential Memorandum for the New Prime Minister
By Louis Rene Beres
Benjamin Netanyahu, the new Prime Minister of Israel, intends to honor those portions of the Oslo Accords that have already become "facts on the ground." Although this intention would appear to support the authoritative expectations of international law, exactly the opposite is true. As the following argument makes clear, international law now requires abrogation, not compliance, with these invalid and illegal agreements.
The Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO are in violation of international law. Israel, therefore, is now obligated to abrogate these nontreaty agreements. A comparable argument could be made regarding PLO obligations, but this would make little jurisprudential sense in light of that particular nonstate party's intrinsic incapacity to enter into a legal arrangement with Israel.
Taken by itself, the fact that the Oslo accords do not constitute authentic treaties under the Vienna Convention - because they link a state with a nonstate party - does not call for abrogation. But as the nonstate party in this case just happens to be a terrorist organization whose leaders must be punished for their egregious crimes, any agreement with this party that offers rewards rather than punishments is entirely null and void. Significantly, in view of the peremptory expectation known in law as Nullum crimen sine poena, "No crime without a punishment," the state party in such an agreement - here the State of Israel - violates international law by honoring the agreement.
According to Principle I of the binding Nuremberg Principles: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment." It is from this principle, which applies with particular relevance to Hostes humani generis ("Common enemies of humankind") and which originates in three separate passages of the Jewish Torah, that each state's obligation to seek out and prosecute terrorists derives. Hence, for Israel to honor agreements with terrorists - agreements that require, among other pertinent violations - the release of thousands of other terrorists - is to dishonor the very meaning of international law.
Is Yasser Arafat personally a terrorist? In the U.S. case of Klinghoffer v. Palestine Liberation Organization, the court answered in the affirmative. In the Israeli courts, a petition to charge Yasser Arafat with terrorist crimes was submitted to Israel's High Court of Justice in May 1994. This petition, filed by Shimon Prachik, an officer in the IDF reserves, and Moshe Lorberaum, who was injured in a 1978 bus bombing carried out by the PLO, called for Arafat's arrest. The petition noted that Arafat, prima facie, had been responsible for numerous terror attacks in Israel and abroad, including murder, airplane hijacking, hostage-taking, letter-bombing and hijacking of ships on the high seas. The petitioner's allegation of Arafat's direct personal responsibility for terrorism was seconded and confirmed by Dr. Ahmad Tibi, Arafat's most senior advisor: "The person responsible on behalf of the Palestinian people for everything that was done in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is Yasser Arafat," said Dr. Tibi on July 13, 1994, "and this man shook hands with Yitzhak Rabin."
Terrorism is not the only crime in which Arafat and many of the released Palestinian prisoners are complicit. Related Nuremberg-category crimes, including crimes of war and crimes against humanity, were also committed by these persons. In this connection, the new Prime Minister should recall that units of the Palestine Liberation Army (PLA) served with Saddam Hussein's forces in occupied Kuwait, making them, and Yasser Arafat personally (the legal principle of command responsibility is known as respondeat superior, or "Let the Master Answer") responsible for multiple crimes of extraordinary horror and ferocity. And if these offenses were not enough of an affront to world law, many of the terrorists now being released from Israeli jails in furtherance of the Oslo accords are immediately accepting high positions in the Palestine Authority's security forces.
Even if the nonstate party to the Oslo accords were not a terrorist organization, Israel would have entered into an agreement of unequal obligations, an agreement where the PLO would not be held under international law to the same standards of accountability. Several recent federal court decisions in the United States reaffirm that agreements between nonstate and state parties impose asymmetrical compliance expectations. For example, in a concurring statement in the case of Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic, a 1981 civil suit in U.S. federal courts in which the plaintiffs were Israeli survivors and representatives of persons murdered in a terrorist bus attack in Israel in 1978, Circuit Judge Harry T. Edwards stated: "../...I do not believe the law of nations imposes the same responsibility or liability on nonstate actors, such as the PLO, as it does on states and persons acting under color of state law."
The PLO, of course, is a terrorist organization, and Israel has no right to honor the Oslo accords' requirement to release convicted members of that organization. No government, in fact, has the right to lawfully pardon or grant immunity to terrorists with respect to criminally sanctionable violations of international law. In the United States, it is evident from the Constitution that the President's power to pardon does not encompass violations of international law, and is limited to "Offenses against the United States." This limitation derives from a broader prohibition that binds all states, including Israel, namely the overriding claims of pertinent peremptory rules stemming from Higher Law or the Law of Nature. These claims are identified in Blackstone's COMMENTARIES, which acknowledge that all law "results from those principles of natural justice, in which all the learned of every nation agree../..../.."
In its apprehension and incarceration of terrorists, Israel acted, however unintentionally, not only for itself, but on behalf of the entire community of states. Moreover, because some of the jailed terrorists had committed crimes against other states as well as against Israel, the government in Jerusalem cannot possibly pardon these offenses against other sovereigns. The Jewish State, therefore, possesses absolutely no right to grant immunity for terrorist violations of international law. No matter what might be permissible under its own Basic Law and the Oslo accords, any freeing of terrorists is legally incorrect. By its freeing of terrorists, Israel is guilty of what is known in law as a "denial of justice."
Israel's obligation to abrogate the Oslo accords, as we have seen, stems from certain peremptory expectations of international law. Israel, however, has substantial rights of abrogation here apart from such expectations. These rights derive from the doctrine of Rebus sic stantibus. Defined literally as "So long as conditions remain the same," this doctrine of changed circumstances now augments Israel's obligations to cease compliance with Oslo. This is because Israel's traditional obligations to the accords ended promptly when a fundamental change occured in those circumstances that existed at the effective dates of the accords and whose continuance formed a tacit condition of the accords' ongoing validity. This change, of course, involved multiple material breaches by the PLO, especially those concerning control of anti-Israel terrorism and extradition of terrorists. In short, Rebus sic stantibus has become pertinent for Israeli abrogation because of the profound change created by the PLO in the very circumstances that formed the cause, motive and rationale of consent.
According to Oslo expectations, Arafat should be actively committed to control of anti-Israel terrorism. Yet, as THE JERUSALEM POST pointed out correctly in a mid-March 1996 editorial, "Arafat not only shelters terrorists; he lets them incite, recruit, organize, train, arm, raise funds, and launch operations from areas under his control. This is now indisputable."
The "head of the snake," admitted former Prime Minister Shimon Peres, "is in Gaza." And it is in Gaza, PLO-controlled Gaza, that Hamas - allegedly at odds with PLO - has been fomenting much of its terror campaign against Israel. It is the Palestinian security services that sustain this Hamas campaign. In the words of THE JERUSALEM POST:
"It was the Hamas leadership in Gaza which decided on terrorist strikes and issued operational orders for the bus bombings. It was in Gaza that the Hamas military organization trained suicide bombers and assembled explosives. It was in Gaza that "the engineer" Yihye Ayyash found shelter until he was killed, and where his successor Mohammed Dief has been living openly. It was in Gaza that Arafat's Preventive Security chief was negotiating with Dief - a close friend - both before and after the first bus bombing. He knew of Dief's involvement in the bombing and did nothing either to detain him or prevent the next outrage."
Israel's obligation to terminate the Oslo accords stems also from a related principle of national self-preservation. Under this peremptory norm, any agreement may be terminated unilaterally following changes in conditions that make performance of the agreement injurious to fundamental rights, especially the rights of existence and independence. Known in law as "rights of necessity," this norm was explained with particular lucidity by none other than Thomas Jefferson. In his "Opinion on the French Treaties," written on April 28, 1793, Jefferson stated that when performance, in international agreements, "becomes impossible, nonperformance is not immoral. So if performance becomes self- destructive to the party, the law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others." Later, in that same document, Jefferson wrote: "The nation itself, bound necessarily to whatever its preservation and safety require, cannot enter into engagements contrary to its indispensable obligations." Israel, the reader should recall, has an "indispensable obligation" to endure.
How, exactly, do the Oslo accords impair this obligation? Here is what THE JERUSALEM POST had to say about the expected consequences of Oslo II:
" ../...the implementation of Oslo II signals the relinquishment of Israel's security control over the territories and the assumption of such control by the PLO. For the first time, there will be a large PLO army on the outskirts of Israel's major population centers, and it will be in control of strategic areas which dominate Israel's heartland. Soon, Israel will be able to control neither the influx of Palestinians from refugee camps in neighboring countries nor the importation of arms. To expect such an arrangement to bring anything but unrest, terrorism and ultimately war, is to live in a world of make believe."
To better understand this "world of make believe," it is instructive to consider the Charter of Hamas, another terrorist organization that is central to current difficulties in implementing "peace." According to this Charter:
Peace initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions,
and the international conferences to resolve the
Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs
of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing
any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the
religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance
Movement is part of its faith, the movement
educates its members to adhere to its principles
and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland
as they fight their Jihad../..../..There is no solution to
the Palestinian problem except by Jihad../..../..In order
to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we
have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad../..../..We
must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims
that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to
be dealt with on this premise../..../.."I swear by that who
holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad! I indeed
wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I will
assault and kill;, assault and kill, assault and
kill.
Regarding relationships with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), the Hamas Charter offers the following: "The PLO is among the closest to the Hamas, for it constitutes a father, a brother, a relative, a freind. Can a Muslim turn away from his father, his brother, his relative of his friend? Our homeland is one, our calamity is one, our destiny is one and our enemy is common to both of us../..../.." On the primacy of hatred toward Judaism, not Israel (i.e., Israel is despised because it is Jewish), the Hamas Charter states: "Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims. `Let the eyes of the cowards not fall asleep.'"
After the assassination of terrorist Yechya Ayyash, known widely as "The Engineer," Yasser Arafat delivered a eulogy in Dura, near Hebron. Speaking before a large crowd of Hamas supporters, Arafat praised all "Palestinian martyrs," including those who had murdered Israeli women and children in schools, buses and homes. Referring to the imminent takeover of Jerusalem from the Jews, Arafat expressed confidence that, "in a few months, we will pray together at the Al-Aksa mosque,:" adding that "those who don't like it can go and drink the water of the Dead Sea."
At a eulogy given on June 15, 1995, for Abed Al Karim Al Aklok, a former PLO official, Arafat remarked: "We are all seekers of martyrdom in the path of truth and right toward Jerusalem the capital of the State of Palestine../..../..We will continue this difficult Jihad, this long Jihad, this arduous Jihad, in the path of martyrs - via death - the path of sacrifice../..../.." On January 30, 1996, speaking to 40 Arab diplomats at the Grand Hotel in Stockholm, Sweden, Arafat's topic was: "The Impending Total Collapse of Israel." Said Arafat, "We Palestinians wil take over everything, including all of Jerusalem../..../..All the rich Jews who will get compensation will travel to America." Further: "We of the PLO will now concentrate all our efforts on splitting Israel psychologically into two camps. Within five years we will have six to seven million Arabs living on the West Bank and in Jerusalem../..../..You understand that we plan to eliminate the State of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian State../..../..I have no use for Jews; they are and remain Jews. We now need all the help we can get from you in our battle for a united Palestine under total Arab-Moslem domination."
Regarding the Oslo accords and Israel's vulnerability to war, Israeli security is now increasingly dependent upon nuclear weapons and strategy. Faced with a codified and substantial loss of territories - a loss that might still be enlarged by transfer to Syria of the Golan Heights - the Jewish State will have to decide on how to compensate for its diminished strategic depth. While this shrinkage does not necessarily increase Israel's existential vulnerability to unconventional missile attack, it surely does increase that state's susceptibility to attacking ground forces and to subsequent enemy occupation. And the loss of strategic depth will almost certainly be interpreted by enemy states as a significant weakening of Israel's overall defense posture, an interpretation that could lead to great enemy incentives to strike first.
Should Israel's sacrifice of strategic depth occasioned by the Oslo accords result in a Palestinian state, the geostrategic victory of the Islamic world would be complemented by something less tangible but no less critical: an Arab and Iranian perception of an ongoing and unstoppable momentum against the Jewish State, a jihad-centered perception of military inevitability that would reiterate the policies of war. Recognizing such perceptions, Israel could be forced to take its bomb out of the "basement," and/or it could have to accept a greater willingness to launch preemptive strikes against enemy hard targets.
For their part, certain Arab states and/or Iran would respond to such Israeli decisions. Made aware of Israel's policy shifts - shifts that would stem from both Israel's Oslo-generated territorial vulnerabilities and from its awareness of enemy perceptions spawned by the Oslo-generated creation of Palestine, these enemy states could respond in more or less parallel fashion. Here, preparing openly for nuclearization and aggression against Israel, these states would illustrate dramatically certain far-reaching results of the Oslo accords - results that are still generally unrecognized and that provide, together with other above-listed rationales, a fully authoritative basis for permissible abrogation.
There is one last point that would need to be emphasized by Israel's new Government. Contrary to widely disseminated but wholly erroneous allegations, a Palestinian state did not exist before 1967 or 1948. A state of Palestine was not promised by authoritative U.N. Security Council Resolution # 242. Indeed, a state of Palestine has never existed.
As a nonstate legal entity, Palestine ceased to exist in 1948, when Great Britain relinquished its League of Nations mandate. When, during the 1948-49 War of Independence, Judea/Samaria and Gaza came under illegal control of Jordan and Egypt respectively, these aggressor states did not put an end to an already-existing state. From the Biblical Period (ca.1350 BCE to 586 BCE) to the British Mandate (1918-48), the land named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines (a naming intended to punish and demean the Jews) was controlled exclusively by non-Palestinian elements. Significantly, however, a continuous chain of Jewish possession of the land was legally recognized after World War I at the San Remo Conference of April 1920. There, a binding treaty was signed in which Great Britain was given mandatory authority over Palestine (the area had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks since 1516) to prepare it to become the "national home for the Jewish People."
Palestine, according to the treaty, comprised territories encompassing what are now the states of Jordan and Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Present-day Israel, including Judea/Samaria and Gaza, comprises only twenty-two percent of Palestine as defined and ratified at the San Remo Peace Conference. In 1922, Great Britain unilaterally and illegally split off 78 percent of the lands promised to the Jews - all of Palestine east of the Jordan River - and gave it to Abdullah, the non-Palestinian son of the Sharif of Mecca. Eastern Palestine now took the name Transjordan, which it retained until April 1949, when it was renamed as Jordan.
From the moment of its creation, Transjordan was closed to all Jewish migration and settlement, a clear betrayal of the British promise in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and a patent contravention of its Mandatory obligations. On July 20, 1951, a Palestinian assassinated King Abdullah because of his hostility to Palestinian nationalist aspirations. Several years prior to Abdullah's killing, in 1947, the newly-formed United Nations, rather than designate the entire land west of the Jordan River as the Jewish National Homeland, enacted a second partition. Ironically, because this second fission again gave unfair advantage to the Arabs, Jewishleaders accepted the painful judgment while the Arab states rejected it.
On May 15, 1948, exactly one day after the State of Israel came into existence, Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, declared to the tiny new nation founded upon the ashes of the Holocaust: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre../..../.." This genocidal declaration has been and remains to this day at the heart of all subsequent Arab orientations toward Israel. In 1967, almost twenty years after Israel's entry into the community of nations, the Jewish State - as a result of its stunning military victory over Arab aggressor states - gained unintended control over Judea/Samaria and Gaza. Although the idea of the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war is enshrined in the U.N. Charter, there existed no authoritative sovereign to whom the territories could be "returned." Israel could hardly have been expected to transfer these territories back to Jordan and Egypt, which had exercised unauthorized and cruel control since the Arab-initiated war of extermination in 1948-49. Moreover, the idea of Palestinian "self- determination" was only just beginning to emerge after the Six-Day War, and was not even codified in U.N. Security Council Resolution #242, which was adopted on November 22, 1967. For their part, the Arab states convened a summit in Khartoum in August 1967, concluding "No peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it../..../.."
Prime Minister Netanyahu, please take heed. International law does not require compliance with the Oslo Accords. It requires abrogation of these illegal agreements.
=================
Louis Rene Beres is Professor of International Law, Department of Political Science, Purdue University.
=============================================
Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green)
POB 7352, Jerusalem 91072, Israel
Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380
mailto:wfit2@womeningreen.org
http://www.womeningreen.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
