According to a groundbreaking AIDRG study, there is no need to retreat from Judea & Samaria Jewish geography, in order to secure Jewish demography. Such a perceived need is based on the assumption that Jews are, ostensibly, doomed to become a minority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

However, this assumption is crashed against the rocks of reality, as evidenced by the 2006 “Green Line” data, published by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (ICBS).  In 1995, Jewish births constituted 69% of total births, growing to 74% in 2006!  A 36% increase in the number of annual Jewish births has occurred since 1995: 109,183 in 2006, compared with 103,599 in 2003 and 80,400 in 1995.  At the same time, the number of annual Arab births has stagnated: 38,653 in 2006, compared with 41,447 in 2003 and 36,500 in 1995.

A dramatic decline of fertility rates (number of children per woman) in Third World, Arab and Muslim countries has been documented by the UN Population Division.  For instance, Iran, Egypt and Jordan have plummeted to 1.98, 2.5 and 3 children respectively, down from 10, 7 and 8 children per woman 25 years ago. Moreover, the “Green Line” Arab-Jewish fertility rate gap has shrunk drastically from 6 children in the 1960s to 1 in 2006 (3.70:2.75).  While the number of Arab births per 1,000 has sharply declined from 35.0 in 1996 to 27.7 in 2006, the number of Jewish births has increased from 18.3 in 1996 to 19.3 in 2006.

The gradual westernization of Arab/Muslim fertility rates has characterized Third World societies, located contiguous to Western societies.  Yakov Feitelson has shed light on the demographic evolution of Third World societies.  The first stage displays very high birth and death rates.  The initial contact with a Western society – as took place in 1949 (“Green Line”) and in 1967 (Judea & Samaria, Gaza) – benefits the Third World society with advanced medical, educational and employment infrastructures.  Consequently, infant mortality plunges, life expectancy rises and emigration drops – a “Demographic Explosion” which peaks in about 20 years.  The sustained decline in birth rates and the faster decrease in death rates produce a slower expansion of natural increase.  Then, birth rates decline persists, while death rates stabilize and the ranks of the elderly expand.  Hence, the erosion of natural increase (birth rate minus death rate).  “Green Line” and Judea & Samaria Arab natural increase rates peaked during the 1960s and early 1990s respectively.  Since then, they have converged toward the secular Jewish natural increase rate.

Arab population growth rate in Judea & Samaria has been chopped substantially due to a significant emigration rate: over 10,000 net negative annual Arab emigration since 1950. A retreat from Judea & Samaria would reverse the Arab migration trend, yielding a massive immigration into Judea & Samaria, and from there – due to economic pressures – into the “Green Line”, which would wreck Jewish demography.

The myth of the demographic machete hovering, supposedly, over the Jewish State has been nurtured by Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS) numbers.  They are 70% inflated in Judea & Samaria (1.5 million and not 2.5 million) and more than 50% inflated in Gaza, Judea & Samaria (2.5 million and not 4 million). That inflation is documented by the Palestinian Ministries of Health and Education, Palestinian Election Commission, Jordan’s Bureau of Statistics, Israel’s Borders’ Police and the ICBS.  For example, some 400,000 non-resident Palestinians are counted, about 300,000 babies who were projected to be born were never born, 300,000 expected immigrants have never arrived but 100,000 emigrants were never projected, over 200,000 Jerusalem Arabs are doubly-counted by the ICBS and PCBS as “Green Line” and West Bank Arabs, and 100,000 Palestinians who married Israeli Arabs are similarly doubly-counted.

An examination of documented births, deaths and migration highlights a solid, long-term Jewish majority of 67% over 98.7% of the land west of the Jordan River (without Gaza), or 60% over the entire land. The Jewish majority benefits from a demographic tailwind.  There is no demographic machete at its throat.  A formulation of a long-term demographic strategy would bolster Jewish majority by leveraging annual Aliya (Jewish immigration), annual net Arab emigration, the decrease in Arab – and the increase in Jewish – birth rates.

However, a retreat from Judea & Samaria geography/topography would produce a relief of a non-lethal demographic burden, while exacerbating a lethal security and water burden.

The Bush-Sharon Summit sheds light on a few misrepresentations, which have been promoted, since the April 2004 Summit, by supporters of the disengagement plan. The misrepresentations were employed in order to garner support for the retreat from Gaza and from – sparsely populated and strategically dominating – mountains of northern Samaria, and for the uprooting of Jewish communities there.

1.  Disengagement has, supposedly, been a top priority for the Bush Administration and its ties with Israel.  Really?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

President Bush is concerned about rogue and potentially nuclearized Iran and its ties with terrorist-driven Syria than he is about Israel’s settlements and disengagement.  He’s more concerned about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction than he is about the proliferation of housing in Judea and Samaria. He is Sleepless in DC because of Islamic threats to execute a Twin Tower Il and the uncertainties hovering above Iraq and Afghanistan and the future of Egypt and not because of the tension between Israeli opponents and proponents of disengagement. Contrary to its Arab neighbors Israel has constituted a unique ally in the US war on Islamic terrorism, defense against ballistic missile and weaponry of mass destruction, enhancement of homeland security and upgrading of defense technologies.  Israel’s Home Court – in its strategic dialogue with the US – has been the shared values, joint interests and mutual threats.  Israel’s Problematic Court – in its strategic dialogue with the US – has been settlements and disengagement (the latter contrasting the US mode of combating terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq).  Has Prime Minister Sharon focused on the Home Court, leveraging Israel’s unique strategic role in order to demolish Palestinian terrorism and minimize Israeli concessions, as did all Israeli prime ministers from Ben Gurion (1948) until Shamir (1992)?  Or, has Sharon concentrated on the Problematic Court, being consumed with restraint in face of terrorism and “painful sweeping concessions”, as has been the case with all prime ministers since 1992?

2.  President Bush has, supposedly, committed the US to a substantial financial assistance package. Really?                                                                                                                                                

In 2000 President Clinton promised Prime Minister Barak $800MN, in order to expedite the Disengagement from Southern Lebanon.  Israel disengaged, Hizballah’s terrorism was significantly and regionally upgraded, Palestinian terrorism was inspired and escalated to an unprecedented level, but the $800MN is yet to be granted.  US Presidents do not have the authority to write checks; they can ask Congress – which possesses the Power of the Purse – to appropriate funds.  Congress is currently alarmed by a growing all time high budget deficit, and Israel’s leading friends have recommended that Israel refrains from requesting special financial assistance. Cheney and Rumsfeld, two of Israel’s hawkish allies, are concerned that a special assistance to Israel would nibble into the stretched defense budget.  Each financial request must go through Congress, which would entail a legislative process. But, some Israeli officials are counting their eggs before they hatch… 

3.  The Bush Administration has, ostensibly, given up on the Green (1949 Ceasefire) Line, recognizing major Israeli settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria. Really?

The blunt call – by President Bush – to freeze construction in ALL settlements, and his repeated reference to the supposed prominence of the 1949 Ceasefire Line (which divides Jerusalem!) has clarified that Israel should not expect any settlement-bonus, from the US, for the disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria. In fact, disengagement – just like any retreat in face of pressure and terrorism – would generate more Palestinian terrorism and more pressure by the Department of State, the CIA, the Europeans and the UN, which expect further sweeping Israel concessions. President Bush’s statements at the summit, just like those made by Secretaries Powell and Rice since April 2004, clarify that the US has not change its position on the Green Line: no recognition of Israeli sovereignty beyond the 1949 Ceasefire Line, and no recognition of Israeli sovereignty over any Jewish community in the post-Green Line area in Judea & Samaria, Jordan Valley, Golan Heights and Jerusalem (e.g. loan guarantees are reduced by the amount spent by Israel in post-Green Line neighborhoods in Jerusalem). Wishful-thinking (sinking?) concerning a disengagement-driven diplomatic bonus have been shattered in Crawford, Texas. 

Bush’s proclamations suggest that disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria would be the first in a series, leading to the 1949 Lines (unless otherwise mutually-agreed by Israel and the Palestinians). They indicate that the post-April 2004 celebrations were based on wrong assumptions and on misrepresentations, by Israeli politicians, of the President’s statements. The April statements by Bush were neither unprecedented, nor do they bind him or his successors. On June 19, 1967, President Johnson stated that an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 Lines “is not a prescription for peace, but for a renewal of hostilities.” President Reagan said  on September 1, 1982: “In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide…I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again…It is clear that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza.” These statements were not binding, since they were not ratified or legislated.  Bush’s statements were approved, by Congress, as a Non-Binding Resolution, which is (as suggested by its title) non-binding.

4. Israel cannot defy US pressure, and therefore must, supposedly, freeze construction in all settlements. Really?                                                          

The US – and especially the Texas – state of mind, respects winners and not losers, admires  gumption, the overcoming of odds and defiance of pressure.  On a rainy day, the Texan President would rather have an ally, in the Mideast, “which resembles a 160 pound rodeo contestant, who can tame a 2000 pound wild bull, rather than a Coca Cola Cowboy.” And, indeed, during 1948-1992, from Ben Gurion to Shamir, Israel’s Prime Ministers usually – and frequently – defied US pressure.  As a result they were subjected to short-term inconveniences, which were promptly replaced by a long-term strategic esteem. For instance, in 1948/9 Ben Gurion faced a US pressure to postpone declaration of independence and accept a UN Trusteeship.  The US imposed a military embargo, contemplated economic sanctions, accused Ben Gurion of leading the Jewish People toward another Holocaust, demanded an end to the “Occupation of the Negev”, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the absorption and compensation of Palestinian refugees.  Israeli Prophets of Demographic Doom pressured Ben Gurion to refrain from independence, lest the Jewish population be overwhelmed – by 1968 – by Arab majority.  Ben Gurion defied the pressure, established the Jewish State, increased construction in the Negev, relocated government agencies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which was declared the capital of Israel. Consequently, the US upgraded its attitude toward the Jewish State, whose image was transformed – by Ben Gurion’s defiance – from a powerless democracy into a promising strategic entity.   Will Prime Minister Sharon resurrect the legacy of Ben Gurion and his successors which characterized Israel’s leadership up to 1992, or will he sustain the Oslo-State-Of-Mind which has afflicted Israel since 1992? 

In 1967, the Israeli society was panicked by the deadly threat posed by the May 30 Egypt-Syria-Jordan anti-Israel military pact, by the brutal pressure of the US, France, Britain and the international community to refrain from a preemptive operation, by the deepening (20%) unemployment, and by escalating pessimism within the political and military leadership.

Prime Minister Levy Eshkol exercised leadership.  He was not swept by the weakness of the people, and he did not allow a transient somber reality to erode long term national strategic goals.  Instead, he leveraged the crisis as a springboard for a strategic upgrade.  He defied US and international pressure, launched the preemptive Six Day War, destroyed the infrastructure of the threatening enemy, rescuing the Jewish State from pending oblivion.  Eshkol, therefore, enhanced strategic appreciation of Israel, transforming the Jewish State from a “historical accident” to a factor of regional deterrence and a unique strategic ally of the USA.

In the aftermath of the 1967 war, Eshkol was besieged by Prophets of Demographic Doom, who urged him to withdraw from Gaza, Judea and Samaria, “since there would be an Arab majority between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean by 1987.”  Eshkol ignored the demographic projections, demonstrating that capable leaders would not shape boundaries in accordance with temporary demographic problems (which are impacted by immigration, emigration, modernity, education, war, etc.). Eshkol was a capable leader, and therefore shaped boundaries in accordance with historical and geographic reality (which is carved in stone). Eshkol has been vindicated: Jewish majority in 1987 remained as it was in 1967 and as it is today: some 60%:40% west of the Jordan River and 80%:20% within the Green Line (1949 boundaries).  Thus, Eshkol followed in the footsteps of Theodore Herzel and David Ben Gurion, who rejected the demographic projections of the world renowned Jewish historian/demographer Shimon Dubnov (1900) and Israel’s Chief Statistician Prof. Roberto Bachi (1948), who lobbied against the establishment of the Jewish State on demographic grounds.  50,000  Jews resided in the Land of Israel in 1900, 600,000 Jews in 1948, compared with almost 6 million today.

In 1981, Iraq expanded its nuclear capabilities, targeting Israel and other countries. The US, West Europe and the UN pressured Israel against a preventive military operation, “lest it destabilizes the region”. They threatened Israel with diplomatic, military and economic sanctions. Israel’s heads of Mossad and military intelligence opposed a military (air force) operation against Iraq’s nuclear reactor, “lest it unites the Islamic world against Israel, lest it cause an irreparable crisis with the US and lest it fail operationally, with the bodies of Israel’s pilots dragged in the streets of Baghdad.”  Moreover, Shimon Peres leaked vital information to the media, in order to abort the operation.

However, Prime Minister Menachem Begin displayed leadership, accepting short term risk, pressure and inconvenience, in order to advance the long term national security of the Jewish State. He ordered the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, thus becoming the subject of a US military embargo and of international sanctions.  Nevertheless, a few months later when the international condemnation was gradually dissipating, a new reality was in place: the nuclear threat to the region was demolished, Israel’s strategic profile was enhanced dramatically and therefore the first ever strategic memorandum of understanding was signed (Nov. 1981) between the US and Israel.  Begin’s leadership has accorded Israel a substantial line of strategic credit, which is still in force.  Begin’s leadership, also, provided the US with the conventional option in the 1991 and 2003 wars against Iraq, sparing the US and the globe horrific human losses and mega-billion dollar expenditures.

In 2004, Israel’s leadership (and not Israel’s public!) displays unprecedented indecisiveness and vacillation in face of exacerbated terrorism, global pressure to refrain from crashing the infrastructure of the Palestinian Terror Authority, intensifying threat of Islamic non-conventional capabilities, domestic economic difficulties and general weakness and skepticism afflicting many top political and security officials. The leadership crisis stands in striking contrast to the unprecedented demographic, military, economic and technological resources at the disposal of the Jewish State. Standing by Israel is the post-9/11 USA , which confronts on a daily basis a mutual threat – Islamic terrorism.  The US is led by a friendly President, whose power base supports Israel strategically, religiously, intellectually and politically, and whose Vice President and Secretary of Defense are more hawkish than most Israel’s cabinet members. The US is co-led by a Congress, which is the friendliest to Israel ever since 1948.  Never has Israel enjoyed such a large scale support in the US, and never has it failed so much in leveraging that support, in order to advance critical national security goals.

Eshkol and Begin, just like all prime ministers until 1992 – did rarely submit themselves to the burden of pressure, terrorism and demography.  They did not ignore the pressure, but they did not allow it to divert themselves away from the national strategic long term goal of the Jewish State.  They did not instill weakness in the mind and hearts of their people and their friends abroad.  They did not erode the conviction of the People in the justness of their historical cause and in the capabilities of the Jewish military to defeat terrorism.  They were not intimidated by domestic and external odds, they did not consider restraint as strength, did not subscribe to protracted wars (which are deadly to democracies and adrenalize the veins of terrorists). They did not offer concessions as a substitute to the crashing of the infrastructure of Arab threat.

The drastic departure from the legacy of Eshkol and Begin (as well as the legacy of Ben Gurion, Golda Meir and Yitzhak Shamir) has transformed Israel – since the signing of the Oslo Accord – from a role model of confronting terrorism and pressure to the role model of retreat in face of pressure and violence. 

Senator Phil Gramm, The Texas Aggie, who was a powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and a presidential candidate, was astounded to hear from a prominent Hebrew University professor, that Israeli concessions could moderate the PLO. “Professor”, he responded, “I’m not a Mideast scientist. But, I was told at Texas A&M, where I taught economics, that if your kids are threatened by a poison ivy, you don’t water and fertilize it. The only way to de-poison ivy is by uprooting it!”

The Department of State “Road Map’ has ignored Gramm’s common sense. Moreover, the Department of State’s Road Map has overlooked the track record (since the late ’50s!) of the Fatah/PLO/PA as the role model of systematic and violent violation of agreements (concluded mostly with Arab countries as well as with Israel), international terrorism, hijacking, murder of ambassadors, treachery, corruption, suppression of human rights and oppression of Christians.

Contrary to Gramm’s recommendation, the “Road Map” prescribes further watering and fertilizing of the poison PLO/PA ivy. It defies the 1,200 Israelis (proportionally equal to 60,000 Americans!) murdered by PLO and Hamas terrorists, harbored by the PA. Once in a while, Israel trims some branches of the poison ivy in a surgical manner, deluding itself that trimming could de-poison the ivy. However, trimming tends to strengthen the roots, and the potency of the poison keeps growing, unless the ivy is completely uprooted.

The Texan President, Lyndon Johnson, was known for his social compassion and political ruthlessness. “When confronted by a rattle snake, don’t wait until it bites you; grab a hoe and hit the head – and not the tail – of the snake,” LBJ advised his political allies. Israel has ignored LBJ’s advise since the eruption of the unprecedented wave of Palestinian terrorism, triggered by the 1993 Oslo Accord. In its battle against Palestinian terrorism, Israel has focused on the tail – rather than the head – of the PLO/PA/Hamas snake, which keeps on biting. On the other hand, LBJ’s legacy has been adopted by Turkey, Peru, Germany, Italy and the US, thus yielding military victories over Kurdish (PKK), Armenian (ASALA), Shining Path, Baader Meinhoff and Red Brigade terrorists, as well as the terror regimes of Grenada (1983), Libya (1986), Panama (1989), Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003).

In 2003, President Bush of Midland Texas launched the war on Saddam’s regime (and may have determined its outcome) by dropping a few smart bombs – a few thousand tons each – on the bunker of the political and ideological elite. In 2002, he bombed the political, ideological and financial headquarters of the Taliban in Kabul. 1986, President Reagan instructed the US Air Force to target Qaddafi’s Presidential Palace. In contrast, Israel has mostly targeted terrorists, who execute the strategy and ideology enunciated by their political leadership.

The Department of State “Road Map” has legitimized the self-defeating and artificial distinction between “Political PLO” and “Terrorist PLO,” as well as the non-existing distinction between the top of the PA/PLO pyramid (Arafat) and the entire structure of the PA/PLO pyramid. It has reinforced the morally-wrong and strategically-flawed Moral Equivalence – professed by the Department of State – between a terrorist regime and its democratic victim. The Road Map has legitimized an underlying pitfall of the Oslo Process, which refers to a most lethal endemic enemy as a partner for co-existence. It has thus further handcuffed the hands of Israel’s Defense Forces.

Would President Bush consider surgical elimination of terror leaders and cells in Afghanistan and Iraq, while refraining from the destruction of the Taliban and the Saddam regimes (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would the former two times Governor of Texas contemplate negotiation with any of Saddam’s deputies and lieutenants, who were intimately linked to Saddam during the last few decades (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would the principle-driven President Bush have entertained the idea of a cease fire with Afghani or Iraqi terrorists, rather than the eradication of the civilian and military infrastructure, which fed the fire of terrorism (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would President Bush take seriously a proposal to entrust the security of Basra, in Southern Iraq, to Saddam’s regime, as a test of its intentions and capabilities (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Would Paul Bremer, the Governor of Iraq, allow members of the Ba’ath Party and Saddam’s security forces to join the governing bodies of Free Iraq (as is Israel pressured to do)?! Should President Bush have acted in face of Islamic terrorism in accordance with the Road Map, and in a manner, which he pressures Israel to act in face of Palestinian terrorism, he would have failed in his mission, becoming the laughing stock of global and US public opinion!

The Department of State’s “Road Map” is fertilizing and watering the lethally poisonous Oslo Ivy/Process. The Road Map has sacrificed the (blood-saturated) lessons of the last 10 years – since the signing of the Oslo Accord – on the altar of wishful thinking. The Road Map has dealt another blow to Israel’s personal and national security, has undermined Israel’s confidence in its own cause and power, has eroded Israel’s capability to withstand pressure, has chopped Israel’s posture of deterrence, has radicalized Arab expectations and demands, and has therefore added more fuel to the fire of terror and war, which has further distanced Jews and Arabs from peace.

The “Road Map” constitutes a thundering reflection of the Texas colloquialism: Fool me once shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me.”

In order to free itself of the deadly trap of the 1993 Oslo Process, the 1998 Wye Accord and the 2003 Road Map, it is incumbent upon Israel to continue talking Hebrew, but fight in Texanese!

President George W. Bush considers Moses to be a role-model for a conviction-driven leadership, driven by the principles of justice (vs. the Axis of Evil), strategic thinking (vs. tactical cynicism) and tenacity (vs. hesitancy and vacillation).  President Bush and most of the American public and US Congress, have viewed the Exodus from Egypt and the Ten Commandments as critical elements of the American culture, guiding George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in the 1976 Revolution and in the formulation of the US Constitution.

The President has presented his own Ten Commandments, in the combat against terrorist regimes, during his wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, which have been driven by values and strategic interests:

1.  THOU SHALL SUSTAIN MORAL CLARITY, avoiding moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims, thus de-legitimizing the very existence of terrorist regimes. Moral clarity is a prerequisite for a victory on the battlefield: terrorist regimes are not partners to negotiation; they are enemies to be crashed.  Saddam Hussein and his network are not “President”, “Prime Minister”, “Head of security organizations”, “legislators”; rather they are terrorists, regional cancer, bloodthirsty oppressive gang, pirates. President Bush does not combat “suicide bombers” (the term may possess a glimpse of heroism); he is condemning homicide bombers (criminals).

2.  THOU SHALL NOT PURSUE COEXISTENCE WITH TERRORIST REGIMES, since they have been murderous and systematic violators of agreements.  Therefore, the aim is not to conduct negotiation, to reach a compromise or agreement; the aim is the defeat terrorist regime, and in a traumatic manner. One does not consider a “Basra First” arrangement (which would test, supposedly, the intent of a terrorist regime).  One does not contemplate negotiation with Saddam’s prime minister, chiefs of security organizations or other key members of his regime, because terrorist regimes are not partners to negotiation – terrorist regimes are targets to annihilation.  The target should not be personalized, thus diverting attention away from the nature of the entire terrorist regime. The aim should be structural – toppling the entire regime.

3.  THOU SHALL NOT COMBAT TERRORISM THROUGH CONTAINMENT, DEFENSE, DETERRENCE AND RETALIATION, but rather through PREVENTIVE OFFENSIVE ON THE ENEMY’S OWN GROUND.  Unlike the USSR, most terrorist regimes are not deterable or containable.  Therefore, the offensive on terrorist regimes should not be surgical and restrained, but rather systemic, comprehensive and disproportional.  It aims at bringing down terrorist regime in a TRAUMATIC manner, thus delivering a shockingly lucid message to successor regimes and other terrorist regimes.

4.  THOU SHALL NOT ASPIRE FOR CEASEFIRE.  Rather, one should attempt to tarnish the INFRASTRUCTURE, which feeds the fire of terrorism.  The primary attention should be paid to the destruction of the political, financial and ideological infrastructures of terrorist regimes, which lead, mold, incite, equip, train and sets the human targets for the operational sector. Hence, the opening mission of the war on Iraq was directed at the bunker housing the political/ideological infrastructure of Saddam’s regime, as was the case in 1989 (targeting Noriega) and 1986 (bombing Qadaffi’s palace).

5.  THOU SHALL NOT WAIT FOR A “SMOKING GUN.”  Thou shall attempt to prevent the access of terrorist regimes to their “guns.”  The war on terrorist regimes is based on a pyramid of evidence constructed over many years. No time should be wasted by waiting for a few more stones to be added to the pyramid.

6.  THOU SHALL NOT SACRIFICE VITAL INTERESTS ON THE ALTAR OF A POLITICAL PROCESS.  The process is not the strategic goal; it is merely a tactical means.  Time spent on a political process with terrorist regimes plays into the hands of terrorists, providing them with more opportunities to enhance their destructive capabilities.  Therefore, the price of hesitancy and a delayed military assault on terrorist could be devastatingly higher than the price of a swift-comprehensive-traumatic war on terrorism.   

7.  THERE IS A MILITARY SOLUTION TO TERRORISM, as evidenced by the lessons of Afghanistan (2002) and Iraq (2003), as well as by the war launched by Turkey, Germany, Italy, Peru and Egypt on Armenian and Kurdish terrorism, Baader Meinhoff, Red Brigade, the Shining Path and Islamic terrorism.  Passivity and restraint in face of terrorist regimes breed more violence, adrenalizing terrorists.  It constitutes recklessness in face of threat – an unacceptable price in terms of personal and national security.

8.  THE PRIME RESPONSIBILITY OF A LEADER IS TO THE PERSONAL AND NATIONAL SECURITY OF HIS PEOPLE, rather than to the prestige of the UN or members of the international community. The price of an international opposition is dwarfed by the potentially lethal damage caused by terrorism.

9.  WAR ON TERRORIST REGIMES SOLVE, RATHER THAN CREATES, PROBLEMS, minimizing/deterring future problems.

10. ” EITHER YOU ARE WITH US, OR YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORISTS… Anyone who continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded as a hostile regime… We are not deceived by pretense to piety.  We have seen their kind before…” (President George W. Bush, Sept. 20, 2001, Joint session of Congress).

The descendants of Moses may benefit immensely by applying the lessons of President Bush’s “Ten Commandments”, to their own battle against Palestinian and Hizballah terrorism.  Obviously, Israel and the US are not equal in stature, and do not face an identical threat!  The US has launched a decisively justifiable(!) war on Islamic terrorism, headquartered 7,000 MILES AWAY from the mainland, threatening – AS OF A FEW YEARS AGO – the PERSONAL SECURITY of Americans and VITAL INTERESTS of the US.  Israel, on the other hand, is combating Palestinian and Islamic terrorism, headquartered literally ACROSS THE FENCE, threatening -SINCE 1948 – the very NATIONAL SURVIVAL of the country.  President George W. Bush’s “Ten Commandments” are MORALLY and STRATEGICALLY applicable to Israel, which is facing an imminent and present deadly threat, rather than a national security challenge. THAT WHICH HAS AFFLICTED THE USA SINCE 9/11, has plagued Israel SINCE 1948, taking a toll of 1,100 Israelis murdered since the Oslo Accord was signed in 1993 (proportionally, equal to 50,000 Americans!).

Israeli adherence to the counter-terrorism legacy of President George W. Bush, would be condemned by SOME circles in the US.  However, one should recall that a BRUTAL PRESSURE BY THE UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION (including a military embargo) did not deter Prime Minister Ben-Gurion from declaring independence in 1948, did not dissuade Prime Minister Eshkol from launching the preventive Six Day War in 1967, and did not prevent Prime Minister Begin from destroying the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. The pursuit of moral and strategic Israeli concerns, in defiance of pressure by the US administration, produced a SHORT-TERM political and economic crisis and inconvenience, but it yielded a dramatic LONG-TERM enhancement of Israel’s strategic posture in the Middle East and in the US.

The die was cast, and the US war on Saddam’s regime has been set in motion. The transfer of the Central Command from Florida to the Gulf area, the completion of US military installations in Qatar and Northern Iraq (no-fly zone) suggest determination rather than indecisiveness. The lease, by the Pentagon, of Danish boats, specializing in the transport of tanks and armed personnel carriers indicate intent to employ ground forces, rather than just air force and navy bombings. Accompanied by joint exercises between the US Marines and the Jordanian military not far from the Iraqi border, such developments send a lucid signal of purpose to destroy the Saddam regime.

The die was cast upon the election of President Bush #43 – and the debate within the administration has been limited to the timing and the scope of force employed – since the balance of power has increasingly tilted toward VP Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, rather than toward Secretary of State Powell and CIA Director Tenet. The opposition to the war, expressed by Brent Scowcroft and other Bush #41 Republicans, has not affected the position of Bush #43. Scowcroft was national security advisor to Bush #41, but he has not shined in the administration of Bush #43. Scowcroft dismissed the 1990 intelligence reports on the pending Iraq invasion of Kuwait, opposed US power projection in order to deter Saddam before the invasion, failed to sway Bush #41 against the 1991 Gulf War, but succeeded to convince Bush #41 to prematurely conclude that war, thus planting the seeds of the current predicament.

The die was cast – in spite of opposition by the UN, most of Europe and doves and isolationists in the US – since Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld subscribe to unilateral military actions if necessary. They subscribe to offensive rather than defensive and deterring tactics against terrorist regimes, and they oppose negotiation and compromise with regimes which violate agreements systematically. They consider the Saddam regime a critical element in the Axis of Terror, Ballistic, Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Threats. Contrary to Powell, they do not attribute much utility to multinational coalitions. Unlike Bush #4,1 who went ballistic following the 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, Bush #43, Cheney and Rumsfeld have praised the 1981 Israeli initiative as a role-model of justifiable unilateral military actions, in defiance of global public opinion.

The die was cast due to the world view of the Bush Administration, which has believed that there is an inherent conflict – of values and strategic interests – between Western democracies, led by the US, and rogue regimes which threaten global stability. In contrast to the cynical/”pragmatic” stance by Europe, the US administration believes in the need to shed blood, sweat and tears, in order to secure the triumph of Good over Evil. As a typical Texan, Bush #43 is not seeking fights, but is not intimidated by bullies. The current administration insists that the US should not tolerate the Iraqi bully, who attempted to murder a former US president (Bush #41) in 1993. The current administration is proliferated with veterans of the 1991 Gulf War, who wish to conclude the “Unfinished Symphony.” They do not seek a “smoking gun” in the hands of Saddam. Rather, they attempt to deny Saddam access to a “smoking gun.” They adhere to the Texan colloquialism: “When threatened by a rattle snake, don’t wait until it bites; preempt by hitting the snake, and preferably on its head.”

Casting the Iraqi die has been facilitated by the nature of President Bush’s political power base (conservatives, the intellectual Right and Christian Right), which has been a steady proponent of the War on Saddam’s Regime and Islamic terrorism, driven by values and security considerations. Such has been the position of most of the US public and Congress. The Wall Street Journal, Fox News, National Review and The Weekly Standard have urged the President to eradicate the Saddam regime. They, more than the New York Times, CNN, Newsweek and Time Magazine, constitute an authentic reflection of most Americans. The closer is the November 2002 election day, the more sensitive is the President to the positions of his power base, lest he becomes a Lame Duck President on his way to a defeat in 2004. A swift and an overwhelming victory by the US military, over Iraq, would upstage the domestic US economic and legal issues, which have dominated the headlines.

The die was cast since the only superpower in the world cannot afford to project indecisiveness in face of imminent threat: To fight of not to fight?! Saddam’s arsenal of terrorism, ballistic missiles, near-nuclear, biological and chemical capabilities constitute a clear and present threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf, the Mideast and the entire globe. Each day of a delayed US War on Saddam’s Regime is enhancing Saddam’s deadly capabilities, expanding Saddam’s power of extortion from the Mideast, to Europe and then to the US (“I’ve got two nuclear bombs targeting Paris and New York; I am willing to absorb twenty nuclear bombs – are you willing to absorb two?!”). The cost of the delayed war exceeds significantly the cost of an immediate war. Delay works in favor of Saddam, threatening freedom of decision by Western democracies, horrifically escalating the cost of the inevitable war (in terms of blood and dollars). Ignoring Iraq’s track record of yesterday, and therefore avoiding/delaying the war on Saddam’s regime, may smother the globe with an illusion of a pacified Iraq today. However, it would doom the globe tomorrow.

In 1991, the Chairman of the Joint C-o-S, Colin Powell, convinced President Bush #41 to abort the Gulf War, thus perpetuating the terror regime of Saddam Hussein. Consequently, the deterrence posture of the US was severely eroded, the anti-US wave of terror was drastically emboldened, climaxing on 9/11. Moreover, Saddam has evolved into a potential nuclear power, threatening US national security and requiring a US military effort, larger than the 1991 Gulf War.

In 2002, Secretary of State, Colin Powell, attempts to convince President Bush #43 to pressure Israel into a premature conclusion of its war on Palestinian terrorism, which would perpetuate the terror regime of the Palestinian Authority/PLO. Repeating, rather than avoiding, the Powell errors of 1991 would deal another blow to Israel’s power of deterrence.  It would expose Israel to a wave of a re-charged Palestinian terrorism, which would dwarf the murder of the 28 Israeli civilians during the March 27, 2002 Passover Massacre (proportionally, 850 Americans!) and the 750 Israelis killed since the signing of the Oslo Accords (proportionally, 22,500 Americans!).  Acceding to Powell’s pressure would undermine regional stability and would force Israel – in a few months – to launch a much costlier war on terrorism than the one currently conducted.

Secretary of State Powell is a key player in the Bush Administration, a decorated warrior.  But, he has not been perceived – by the Administration – as the luminary on issues of national and international security.  Powell has not been a dominant policy initiator, molder and executor as were Jim Baker, George Schultz and Henry Kissinger.  He has not reflected authentically the views of the President (on international relations as well as on abortion) as did Madlyn Albright.  He has not shared the special personal chemistry with the President, as was the case with his predecessors and as has been the case with Condoleezza Rice.  While Kissinger and Baker overshadowed the Vice Presidents, Secretaries of Defense and Advisors on National Security, Powell is serving along with the most influential Vice President in the history of the US.  He serves side-by-side with an authoritative Secretary of Defense, who has risen in stature since 9/11, and with an Advisor on National Security who has been – since 1999 – President Bush’s mentor on international relations.  The limits to Secretary Powell’s clout in the Administration were initially apparent when the President appointed Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, in spite of Powell’s explicit objection, and due to Cheney’s insistence. He also had to accept, grudgingly, the appointment of John Bolton as his own Undersecretary for International Security.

However, one should not underestimate the influence of Powell, who has persuaded President Bush to enhance his own involvement in the political process between Israel and the PLO, to enunciate “the vision of a Palestinian state,” and to agree to meet Arafat at the UN.  9/11 has precluded the Bush-Arafat meeting, but has not altered the direction of Powell’s policy, as was proclaimed during his November 19 speech at the University of Kentucky (“end of Israeli occupation”, “Palestinian state”, etc.  In order to comprehend Powell’s courting of Arafat, and his tireless efforts to save the skin of Arafat and the PLO/PA, in spite of their staggeringly criminal track record, one should examine Powell’s world view, as reflected in his attitude toward Afghanistan and Iraq.

Contrary to the President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense, who believe that terrorists must be eliminated, Powell believes that terrorists could be integrated. Hence, he disputed the merit of the total obliteration of the Taliban, suggesting that the Taliban could join a coalition government in Afghanistan.  He attempted to delay the US bombing of Taliban positions, until a future political settlement is formulated.  And, he tried to prevent the takeover of Kabul by the Northern Front, lest there be negative repercussion upon the stability of the region.

In 1990, Powell dismissed much of the intelligence on Saddam’s offensive intentions against Kuwait. He opposed a show of force by the US Navy in the Persian Gulf, which could have deterred Saddam’s belligerence.  Following Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, Powell objected to the war on Iraq, and played a key role in the premature ending of the war, lest it ostensibly exacerbate instability in the area.  His recommendation to lower the US profile in the war on Saddam, facilitated the massacre – by Saddam – of his Shi’ite and Kurdish opposition and the elimination of the CIA infrastructure in Iraq.  As a Secretary of State, Powell has attempted to reduce the scope of sanctions against Iraq and the inspection over the no-fly zone.  He has argued against the campaign to expose Saddam’s complicity with 9/11, and has lobbied against the expansion of the US war on terrorism into Iraq, since it would, supposedly, undermine US attempts to galvanize an Arab coalition against terrorism. 

Powell is a friend of UN Secretary General, Annan, and – unlike most Americans – he has been supportive of the UN.  While Cheney and Rumsfeld have supported unilateral US military actions against the threats of Islamic terrorism, ballistic missiles, Iraq and Iran, Powell has been a proponent of international and multi-lateral initiatives.  He has preferred the diplomatic, legal and financial weapon, rather the military weapon.  He has been attentive to the advise of Brent Scowcroft and Edward Djeredjian, who served President Bush #41 as the National Security Advisor and Assistant Secretary of State.  Both encouraged the courting of Saddam until the day of the invasion of Kuwait, and both opposed the 1991 Gulf War on Saddam.  Both were members of the “Arabist” contingency of the administration.

Powell’s appointments have shed light on his world view. His Special Advisor on the Mideast, General (ret.) Anthony Zini, argued against the 1991 Gulf War and cautions against a 2002 war on Saddam.  He has considered terrorism to be a diplomatic and a legal – more than a military – problem.  He has been a frequent visitor to Arab capitals, especially to Riad, and minimized until recently contacts with Israel and pro-Israel elements in the US.  Powell’s Under Secretary for Policy Planning is Richard Haas, who was the Mideast advisor of President Bush #41, and inflamed #41’s negative attitude toward Prime Minister Shamir.  Haas has pushed for a total withdrawal by Israel to the 1967 Lines, for the establishment of a Palestinian state, for the repartitioning of Jerusalem and for the dismantling of all Israeli settlements.  He has lobbied against a US war on Saddam, and has spoken up against the assistance to Saddam’s Iraqi opposition.  He has considered the Iranian regime to be a potentially constructive entity.  William Burns, known for his solid contacts with radical Arabs, has been Powell’s Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs.  And, Dan Kurtzer, an experienced diplomat, a warm and a committed Jew who has been soft on the PLO, adhering to Peace Now’s philosophy, was appointed by Powell to the post of Ambassador to Israel.

Powell has been known – in military and “Foggy Bottom” circles – to fully identify with his State Department bureaucracy.  He has provided a complete support to the bureaucracy of the Department of State, adopting much of its classic positions:  political engagement with radical states and organizations, opposition to the massive financing of ballistic missile defense, softening of the policy toward China, North Korea, Iran and Iraq and a full backing of the Oslo Process.  Powell has even embraced the lingo of Foggy Bottom: “confidence building measures” (code name for further Israeli territorial concessions), “cycle of violence” (moral equivalence between terrorists and victims), “freeze on settlements” (prejudging outcome of negotiations), “even-handedness” (between a democratic ally and the role-model of terrorism), etc.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has been a committed friend of the Jewish People. However, it is pertinent to recognize his proper role and weight in the Bush Administration, as well as his world view, in order to avoid euphoria or depression in reacting to his pronouncements and meetings with Arafat, a role-model of international terrorism and inter-Arab treachery, a serial violator of commitments, an abuser of human rights, an oppressor of Christians, a money counterfeiter and the corrupt ally of Iraq, Iran, Sudan and other terrorist entities.

President Bush and his administration have outflanked israel from the Right in their hawkish battle against terrorism. During his March 30, 2002 press conference in Crawford Texas, the President repeated five times his support of “Israel’s right to defend itself,” refraining from any explicit or implicit arm-twisting of Israel. In fact, for the first time since Sept. 11, 2001, he has publicly lumped together the US war on Islamic terrorism and Israel’s war on Palestinian terrorism. VP Cheney and Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, have often expressed their belief that passivity in face of threats breeds more violence. They support the principle of unilateral – rather than multilateral – military actions in face of threats (ballistic missiles or terrorism), even if the US receives little or no support from its allies. They have frequently heralded the 1981 Israeli bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor in Baghdad, as a role-model for unilateral and justifiable military actions. Both consider Arafat and the PLO a destabilizing and a treacherous factor fueling terror and supporting Iraq, Iran and other terrorist regimes. The Administration’s policy toward Israel has been at odds with the entrenched bureaucracy of the Department of State and the traditional editorial policies of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

However, Israel’s inconsistency and indecisiveness, in the battle against terrorism, and in defining its strategic goal (eradication of the PA/PLO/HAMAS infrastructure? separation? autonomy? annexation? Palestinian state?), and the open door left to resumed negotiation with the PA/PLO (terrorists? partners? systematic violators of commitments? murderers? negotiators? hate-mongers?) have made it difficult for President Bush to sustain his positive attitudes. Moreover, the lack of clarity on the part of Israel, has nurtured the counter-productive Zini Mission, which has constituted a major departure from President Bush’s coherent policy of: No Negotiation With Terrorists, No Distinction Between Terrorists And Those Who Harbor Terrorists, and You’re Either With Us Or Against Us In The Fight Against Terrorism!

Rather than implementing a “Six Day War” style swift tactic, Israel seems to have chosen the surgical approach, in order to minimize collateral damage. However, the longer the Israeli war on PA/PLO terrorism, the deeper the impact of the simplistic media coverage, which highlights the pain of the Palestinian population, while minimizing the critical role/responsibility of Palestinian terrorism and the unprecedented scope of its Jewish victims. As the war on Arafat’s, and Arafat-harbored, terrorists lingers on, the speedier the erosion of Israel’s image as The Fastest and The Most Decent Gun In Town (“Six Day War”, Entebbe’s “Jonathan Operation”, the bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, etc.). The more cautious and protracted is the Israeli war on Palestinian terrorists, the more exposed is the Texan President to pressures by former President Bush, Jim Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Secretary of State Powell, major oil companies, Saudi Arabia, West European countries and the UN. So far, the President has adhered to his principled-driven and strategically-motivated policy toward Israel. However, one should recall that the setback to President Reagan’s policy on Israel was accelerated as the 1982/3 war in Lebanon was lingering on. A protracted war of attrition undermines Israel’s self-confidence and posture of deterrence, Israel’s economy and Israel’s personal and national security. It undercuts Israel’s strategic alliance with the US, weakens Israel’s friends and emboldens Israel’s foes and critics.

Never has the Washington political arena been as supportive of a comprehensive swift military campaign to completely obliterate the PA/PLO/Hamas political and terrorist infrastructure, as it has been since 9/11. President Bush has repeatedly echoed a key element of his war on Islamic terrorism: “Any regime that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the USA as a hostile regime.” He has recently added that the Al-Aqsa Brigades, which are led by Arafat, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, which are harbored by Arafat, are terrorist organizations. The obvious conclusion has been that Arafat/PA/PLO should be regarded by the USA as a hostile regime. Bush is not ready, yet, to pronounce such a conclusion publicly, partly because Palestinian terrorism is not the overriding priority for the USA (which it is for Israel). But, Israel has disappointed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, awaiting an explicit Green Light from the “Washington Nanny.” Israel is mistaking Green Light for Yellow/Red Light.

Moreover, Israel is currently misinterpreting a glimpse of pressure to be a brutal pressure. Thus, when Clinton exerted pressure on Netanyahu, he conducted a smear campaign to tarnish Netanyahu’s reputation, he threatened to cut foreign aid, to suspend joint military exercises and to cut bi-national projects. When the Bush/Baker team pressured Shamir, they suspended $400MN loan guarantees, denied Israel $10BN loan guarantees, froze a series of legislation which were supposed to expand US-Israel strategic cooperation, brutally criticized AIPAC and viciously attacked Shamir via malicious leaks and briefings. When Reagan pressured Begin following the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor, he suspended the supply of aircraft and tanks for six months. When Ford pressured Rabin in order to produce an Israeli withdrawal from critical passes in Sinai, he conducted a reassessment process (marshalling the support of US “elite” media), designed to reduce the scope of US-Israel relations. When the Truman/Marshall team pressured Ben-Gurion to postpone the 1948 Declaration of Independence, they imposed an arms embargo on the region (while Britain shipped arms to Jordan and Iraq), threatened to alter the legal status of Jewish contributions to Jewish causes overseas, and suggested to Ben-Gurion that a declaration of independence would trigger a war, which would cause a second Jewish holocaust within less than a decade. That’s pressure!

However, when President Bush “pressures” Sharon he states that Israel’s military operation against Palestinian terrorism is not helpful, and requests that the operation be suspended until the Iraqi Chapter is over. No sanctions, no arm-twisting, no suspension of projects and no ugly psychological warfare. that’s pressure?

Never has the USA been as sensitive to the mutuality of the Islamic terrorism threat to the USA and to the Jewish State, as has been the case since 9/11. Never has the public standing, in the USA, of Muslims, Arabs and Palestinians been as low as it has been since the WTC and Pentagon Islamic terrorism. Never has Israel’s predicament benefited from such a sympathetic all American combination of a President, Vice President, Defense Secretary, National Security Advisor, Congress and most importantly, the American public. Never has the USA gone through such a drastic and a hawkish mental, operational, legal and legislative reassessment of its counter-terrorist effort, as it has since losing almost 3,000 persons to Islamic terrorists.

But, the irresolute and vacillating Israel of Oslo-Wye-Camp David-Mitchell-Tenet-Zini is yet to leverage the potential stored in post-9/11 USA. Something is flawed in the strategic thinking of a government, which does not conduct a DRASTIC change of course (away from Oslo/PA/PLO) in response to a DRAMATIC American reassessment and to the murder of 700 Israelis (since the Oslo Accords were concluded), which is equal proportionally to the murder of 35,000 Americans!

The unprecedented deterioration of the personal and national security in Jerusalem, Galilee, Acre, Jaffa, Negev and Netzarim, is the direct and lethal outcome of the Oslo Process.  The rectification of the erosion in Israel’s national and personal security is preconditioned upon the annulling – and not just suspension – of the Oslo Process.  The suspension of the Process has been suggested by spineless politicians. But, it would not solve the security problem; it would only postpone the end…

The Oslo Process was initiated in 1993, a year and a half following the victory over the previous Intifada, which was fought with rocks rather than with firearms.  A proper due-diligence of the Oslo Process reveals that is has not been a peace process.  Rather, it has been a process of gradual elimination of the Jewish State.

For instance, the Oslo Process was supposed to nurture mutual trust between Israelis and Palestinians.  In fact, the Process has become a fertile ground for a systematic and a brutal violation of all PLO commitments, with the scandalous acquiescence of all Israeli prime ministers since 1993.  The Process was intended to resolve security problems, eliminate terrorism and advance the cause of peace.  Actually, it has exacerbated the security predicament, has facilitated terrorism to an unprecedented scope, has undermined the cause of peace and has intensified the threat of a war with the Arabs in Israel, with the Palestinians and with the Arab States.  The Oslo Process was supposed to bolster Israel’s security, but has lethally eroded Israel’s own confidence in its own military capabilities (as if there’s no military solution to PLO terrorism, in spite of the fact that the previous Intifada was defeated militarily).  It has also eroded Israel’s power of deterrence and the steadfastness of the politicians who have “led” Israel since 1993.

The erosion of Israel’s power of deterrence and steadfastness capabilities – which are at the foundation of personal and national security – has been deepened simultaneously with the erosion of Israel’s Red Lines.  The Process has perpetrated the illusion that concessions and appeasement could substitute military deterrence in the Mideast, the most violent neighborhood in the world.  The Oslo Process was intended to enhance Israel’s standing internationally.  Instead, it has transformed Israel from the role-model of defiance of terrorism and principled-tenacity in face of threats, into a role model of submission to terrorism, retreat in face of threats and “pragmatic” withdrawal from principles.  The Oslo Process was supposed to improve the overall Israeli state-of-mind, but in fact it has shattered self-confidence, has distanced the Jewish State from roots, values and Mideast reality and has weakened Individual commitment to the Collective.

In order to bolster personal and national security – which are the most essential prerequisites for peace – one must turn the clock forward and to resurrect Israel’s posture of deterrence.  The problem is not merely local and military; it is primarily systemic and political.  In order to resurrect Israel’s posture of deterrence, one must defeat the PLO and to accept the fact that the PLO has not been a partner for peace negotiation.  Such a step would terminate the Oslo Process.  On the other hand, Prime Minister Barak’s commitment to the Oslo Process precludes a military victory over the PLO.  Moreover, the reluctance to defeat the PLO is perceived as weakness, is therefore radicalizing PLO and Arab expectations, resulting in more casualties and gradually dooming the Jewish State.  The Oslo Process must be terminated, before it terminates the Jewish State.