March 1997
March 5, 1997 We’re Drowning, Cloaked In Netanyahu’s Promised Reciprocity
March 6, 1997 Why Can’t The Jews Get Used To Their Debasement?
March 11, 1997 The “New” Grand Mufti – Faisel Husseini?
March 11, 1997 A Certain Redemption
March 17, 1997 The “Island of Peace” Comes Back To Haunt The Jews
March 25, 1997 Orient House, An Anomaly in Jerusalem
March 25, 1997 American Blindness
March 30, 1997 Clinton Has Joined the Arab Game of Illusion And Deceit
*************************************
Jerusalem, March 5, 1997
We’re Drowning, Cloaked In Netanyahu’s Promised Reciprocity
We began to rip up our small and ancient land
with the voluntary withdrawal from Gaza and Jericho.
That did not satisfy Arafat, nor the Arabs. Then
followed Shchem, where our forefather Jacob first
acquired a parcel of this Promised Land, and where
later his famous son Joseph was brought back from
Egypt to be buried. Bethlehem, where King David was
born, was added to the “redeployment.” Then the
ancient capital of Israel, Hebron, where King David
reigned, and where our Patriarchs lived and were
buried, was largely turned over to Arafat. A small
indefensible ghetto area was left for the Jews,
surrounded by the high terrain given over to hostile
Arabs, who have a track record of having vigorously
participated in a pogrom in that city not so long ago,
and more recently desecrated graves in a Jewish
cemetery there . An even more hostile Arab Army-
Police now controls and patrols that relinquished
area, and the Jewish Community of Hebron has to rely
on these terrorists for their safety. And still the
Arabs want more, and still more. Now a further
“redeployment,” in historically Jewish Judea and
Samaria, without any pretext of there first being the
“reciprocity” which Netanyahu talks so much about.
Netanyahu’s “reciprocity” is the biggest joke in the
Middle East today.
Women In Green, however, are not laughing.
Instead they will be crying, and raising their voices
in protest in behalf of the majority of Jews
everywhere; they will be standing across the street
from where the Cabinet is meeting in Jerusalem to
decide on the “extent” of the first of three
withdrawals, to which the Peres-Beilin-Netanyahu
Accords, they tell us, have us committed. No nation
heretofore, has voluntarily agreed to commit “hara-
kiri,” or the equivalent of suicide, Japanese style.
Israel, “a light unto the nations” is an unenviable
and idiotic “first” in that regard.
On THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 1997 at 17:00, we will
plead with the Members of the Netanyahu Cabinet not to
further betray our People. Not to relinquish any
further portions of our land to an enemy whose intent
is not achieving peace, but tearing our Holy City of
Jerusalem from us, and eventually destroying all of
the rest of Israel.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
********************************************
Jerusalem, March 6, 1997
Why Can’t The Jews Get Used To Their Debasement?
The official, and not so official reaction to
the desecration of Jewish graves by Arabs late last week
in the ancient Jewish cemetery in Hebron, was deafening
silence. Arafat was silent. The usual outspoken critic
of the Jews living in Hebron, the Arab Mayor of Hebron,
Mustafa Natshe, was silent. No prominent Arab Israeli
or PA official spoke up to deplore what had taken place.
Netanyahu was silent, as was his Defense Minister
Mordechai, and his Police Chief Kahalani. The only voice
of seeming protest from an official source came from
Deputy Minister of Religious Affairs, Yigal Bibi, who
actually visited the cemetery and his reaction that
“This is a shocking criminal act. I am appalled at what
I see,” got very little coverage in the Israeli media,
and was ignored by the Arab media entirely.
What does this all mean for the chances of
peace between the Jews and Arabs of Hebron having any
chance of success? In a larger sense, what chance is
there for peace realistically, when Arab degradation of
Jewish graves is not forthrightly and extensively
condemned by responsible leaders of the Arab and Jewish
communities? What is at stake, after all, is the kind of
society you are fostering when you permit by silence such
debasing acts of hatred, even though they may not have
been, in the first instance, initiated by the Arab
community itself. One thing is certain. Had the shoe
been on the other foot, and there having been Jews
involved in the desecration of Arab graves, there would
have been a hue and cry of such major proportions that it
would have shaken the very foundations of this Country.
And you could be certain, that the leading critics of
such an heinous act would have been led by the Jews, from
Netanyahu down to the most menial news reporter.
There are no harsher critics of Jewish
immoral acts, than the Jews themselves, and the Jewish
Community would not tolerate that any of its members
would be permitted to act in such a beastly fashion. Not
so with the Arabs. They indeed are the true racists, in
this regard. They, by and large, do not consider acts of
violence by their fellow Arabs against Jews a subject
that warrants their disdain or condemnation. Even the
best of them, who are inwardly disapproving, do not have
the courage or tradition of self-criticism of their own
People, or of the vicious perpetrators of these crimes.
While there has been no open public exuberance, such as
certain Arab communities displayed when the recent
helicopter crash killed 73 Jewish soldiers, or when scuds
were falling on Tel Aviv, there is nevertheless, virtual
silent satisfaction with what happened.
The Jews, especially the leftists among us,
have become seasoned to accept Arab attacks upon us.
They too, are justifiably called “racists,” because, in
effect, they hold that the Arabs are of a different
breed, and can not be held to the usual human moral
standards.
Nadia Matar
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
*********************************************
Jerusalem, March 11, 1997
The “New” Grand Mufti – Faisel Husseini?
Not so long ago the nations of the world
stood by and allowed the British to virtually close the
gates of “Palestine” for Jews at a time when such closure
meant Jewish lives would be extinguished in the Hitler gas
chambers. As a result millions of Jews were killed to the
delight and approval of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and
those who thought like him.
Now a descendent of the Grand Mufti, Faisel
Husseini, is inciting the Arabs to continue the job which his
grand uncle and Hitler left incomplete. He doesn’t verbally
go all the way, but he is no different in intent and has
exactly the same goals as those of his infamous grand uncle.
Faisel Husseini operates out of Orient House
in the eastern sector of Jerusalem. He is the foreign
minister of his cousin Arafat, and is intent in wresting
Jerusalem from Jewish control. Today he has induced
several members of the Knesset to visit Orient House,
working towards that goal.
Women In Green are prepared to challenge
Husseini’s aims to promulgate the Arab false claim
to Jerusalem, and to bare his murderous true purpose,
hidden behind the illusory Oslo “peace” facade. On Monday,
March 10, 1997 we were at Orient House in Jerusalem to
unmask this devoted follower of the former Grand Mufti of
Jerusalem.
Nadia Matar,
****************************************
Jerusalem, March 11, 1997
A Certain Redemption
Our present leader Netanyahu, in his
desire to be “accepted” by those who did not vote for him,
and, particularly, by President Clinton, has wreaked
havoc upon the historical aspirations of the Jewish People.
Moreover, he has undemocratically ignored major aspects
of the very platform he ran and was elected on, and
undermined what the Likud has always had and believed in,
a solidly Zionist orientation. He has shown the same
contempt for the views of the majority of the Jewish
People that characterized the previous Peres-Beilin-Rabin
regime. They knew, as Rabin put it bluntly, what was
“good for the Jews,” and not what the People wanted, and
they acted accordingly. Netanyahu is indistinguishable
from that Rabin-Peres-Beilin approach, in his own
actions. Despite his fancy words and rationalizations
for his deeds, and non-deeds, he has gone against what
the majority of Jews expressed that they wanted, when
they voted for him. He has had no mandate whatsoever
when he deviated from his pre-election promises, and the
platform he ran on.
Netanyahu proudly and persistently tells
America and his enemies that it was only his Government
that was able to deliver Hebron, and the first of the
three abandonments of large segments of the Land of
Israel to Arafat. He goes on to say that it was
something Peres and Rabin wanted to do, but couldn’t.
His self-deception signifies a leadership which is
characterized by weakness, and basic lack of faith in the
historical beliefs of the Jewish People. He is quoted as
having said that he is doing what 90% of what the Jewish
People want. (That bizarre statement is belied even here
in Israel by a recent Maariv poll which shows him running
behind the untested and uninspiring Labor Leader Barak.
His ignominy is further illustrated, when even Yosie
Beilin, Peres’ poodle, and one of the illegally acting,
and “publicly distrusted” architects of the national
giveaway of Oslo, in that same poll, is running only
slightly behind Netanyahu.)
It is most significant that Netanyahu’s
falling out with his brother in law Ben-Artzi was not
based on anything personal. Ben-Artzi rose above family
loyalty, and only spoke when he saw our nation was in
danger. He had become disillusioned with Netanyahu’s
inability to stand up to the test of leadership where
vital matters of the Jewish People’s historical interests
were involved. It was not only the fact that Netanyahu
was abandoning large sectors of Hebron to a hostile alien
people. It was unfortunately a recognition by Ben-Artzi
that Netanyahu lacked the faith, strength, loyalty, and
wisdom to make the momentous historical decisions
affecting the Jewish People, both here in Israel, and
those living in the Diaspora, concerning their Promised
Biblical Land.
Moreover, when Arik Sharon is reported to
have made the painful observation that Netanyahu “is a
dangerous man,” the Jewish People should sit up and take
notice. This is not the usual Labor-Meretz aspersions
cast upon a rival who has displaced them. It is of a
man, who, no matter whatever other criticism his critics
may have of him, has shown himself again and again to be
extremely loyal to the Jewish People, and a person whose
military acumen and other skills and achievements, have
been on the highest level. Underlying such characterization
of Netanyahu by Sharon, is an apparent evaluation that
Netanyahu’s decisions may not have as their sole criterion
what is good for the future well being and security of the
Jewish People and its homeland.
The willingness of Netanyahu to cave-in to
President Clinton’s demands in connection with the first
of the three expected withdrawals by Israel from Judea
and Samaria is both unwise and ominous. Clinton wanted
part of area C (land designated in Oslo as exclusively
under Israel’s control) to be turned over to Arafat as a
gesture on the first “redeployment.” Netanyahu did not
have the temerity to tell Clinton that what America did
vis-a-vis the so-called minor Cuban threat some years
back, should be the guiding principle of how Israel
should act towards Arafat. The threat from Arafat, who
openly seeks the destruction of Israel, and who
unabashedly is in league with the Arab enemies of Israel,
Iraq, Syria, Egypt and Jordan, who surround her, is far
much greater and real than was that of Fidel Castro’s
relatively distant Cuba. Yet America took what steps it
deemed necessary to protect America, and did not consult
with anyone. Netanyahu knows this. Yet he is unable to
stand up to Clinton, and buys America’s double standard
without a whimper. Netanyahu wants to show Labor that
Clinton likes him. Oleg’s cartoon showing Clinton
patting Netanyahu on the head for being a “good little
boy,” says it all. America is entitled and expected to
look after what is best for America. What Netanyahu has
not done, and does not seem to have the courage or
strength to do, is to act for Israel’s long-range goals
for growth and development in its historical homeland.
Women In Green, worked long and hard to
elect Netanyahu. It did so, quite frankly, to defeat the
Peres-Beilin disastrous approach to solve Israel’s
problems through illusory Oslo, and relied on the
promises Netanyahu made in his pre-election speeches and
positions. We felt that what he did in Hebron after he
was elected, was a betrayal of those promises.
“Reciprocity,” his much declared pre-condition for further
action by Israel under Oslo, was, in effect, relegated to
an ineffectual oral demand. Beyond Hebron, he is now
submitting to further Arafat-Clinton demands without any
reciprocity whatsoever.
Women In Green, whose only criterion for
their action is what they believe to be “Good For The
Survival of the Jews” are unable to accept this new
capitulation by Netanyahu. Despite his claims to the
contrary, it does not represent what the majority of Jews
voted for in the last election. Nor does it represent
what the majority of Jews feel or think today. The slim
majority in his Cabinet who supported the first
withdrawal agreed to by Netanyahu to please Clinton, does
not represent the will of the majority of Jews both here
and abroad. That is why Women In Green vigorously
demonstrated across the street from where the Netanyahu
Cabinet Meeting on Thursday March 6, 1997 was making the
narrow, and harmful decision it came up with. Arik
Sharon voted against it. So did the former Chief-of-Staff
of the IDF Raphael Eitan (Raful). So did Natan Sharansky,
and Yuli Edelstein, two famous Russian refuseniks who are
now part of the Netanyahu Cabinet. So did the National Religious
Party.
We stood in the rain and protested. The
wetness was not from the rain alone. Tears fell from
those who still care about our beautiful homeland. We
could not remain silent to the further rape of our
Country. I called over the loud speaker at the protest
rally, for the majority of Ministers then meeting to
reject any further withdrawals; I begged them not to further
weaken our security; I pleaded that they not play havoc
with our People’s faith and morale.
We did not succeed. The new redeployment
will take place. But the fight goes on. The wisdom of our
Bible, and our sages, and the faith of forefathers in the
destiny of the Jewish People with its intimate relationship to
the Land of Israel, will be our continued inspiration. There
is no doubt that these trusted and traditional guidelines, with
God’s help, will lead us to the delayed, but certain redemption.
Nadia Matar
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
************************************
Jerusalem, March 17, 1997
The “Island of Peace” Comes Back To Haunt The Jews
The shocking event that occurred a few days ago,
the shooting down in cold blood of seven young Jewish
children, explodes the charade of the make believe peace
with King Hussein, and the kingdom of Jordan.
Incidentally, that peace treaty did not change the fact
that Hussein does not allow any Jew to reside or hold
property in Jordan. What makes this situation even more
ludicrous, was that the area that now encompasses the
State of Jordan, was designated by the League of Nations
to be part of the Jewish homeland, until the British,
wrongfully, and in violation of their Mandate, wrested
this land from the Jews; the British unilaterally,
created the State of Jordan by giving this comparatively
vast land to the family of King Hussein, who, unlike the
Jews, had no roots whatsoever in the Land.
Seven young Jewish girls are dead, and many
wounded, at the hands of a Jordanian soldier, who fired
at these defenseless young souls, while his fellow Arab
soldiers looked on. Heinous acts of this nature occur
over and over again in different formats, that belie the
usual explanation given that such events are not
preventable; the Jordanians trot out their usual
explanation: this was an isolated act of a mentally
unstable person; and, of course, the media, so hostile
to Israel, is only too willing to buy this gibberish.
Ironically, all this took place at Naharayim,
euphemistically called the “island of peace” which under
the Arab doctrine of “land for peace” the Jews had
turned over to Jordan recently. The giveaway was part
of a typical one-sided peace treaty with the Arabs, this
time with Jordan, where only Israel gives and the Arabs
receive, and which Peres-Beilin, and now Netanyahu,
foolishly consider a major accomplishment. The
inescapable fact is that we Jews, because we want so
much to believe that peace is possible despite murderous
Arab enmity are, in the last analysis, responsible for
those deaths, and the many more that are to come.
Peace does not result from mere documents; it
must begin and continue with a two-sided sincere and
strenuous effort on the part of the leaders of the
countries involved, as well as in their education and
media. Ignored to date have been the inconsistent and
downright antagonistic attitudes of Arafat, Mubarak and
Hussein; these Arab leaders signed a peace document, but
are unwilling to back up the concept of peace with
taking the necessary steps in education and in their
media in vigorous support of such a peace process.
Without such concurrent educational steps, what occurred
at Neharayim will continue to occur elsewhere.
Particularly in the Middle East, Arab leaders determine
by their words and actions how their people will behave.
But the problem goes much deeper. The euphoria
that accompanied the “breakthrough” with Jordan signing
a peace treaty with Israel, was unwarranted. King Hussein,
unfortunately is still the same King Hussein who
deliberately and callously destroyed many beautiful and
ancient Jewish synagogues, and used Jewish gravestones for
latrines in the Old City during the time the Jordanians
captured and occupied that part of historical Jerusalem
from 1948 to 1967. Moreover, any realist can see that
Hussein will do nothing to jeopardize his kingship,
where at least 70% of the people living in Jordan are
“Palestinians.” Looming in the not too distant future
is a threatened takeover by Arafat, or his successor,
of the entire area of Jordan by an uprising of these
“Palestinians”, if King Hussein is not acting in their
interest, or the interest of their brothers across the
Jordan. Thus, King Hussein will do exactly what Arafat
wants him to do, and possibly even more, to show that
he is on the side of the “Palestinians.” Despite his
verbal “peace” platitudes, you will not find any action
on his part which in any way criticizes Arafat. In
spite of superficial gestures, which are more beneficial
to tourism for Jordan than for Israel, he has taken no
steps in his educational system to change the current
hostile attitude of his populace towards Israel. In no
instance will he be objective; he will never side with
Israel, or publicly commend her for what she has done
or given up for peace. In a crunch, you can be sure he
will abandon that peace treaty, and will join with
Israel’s enemies against Israel just as he has done in
the past. He cannot be relied on in any instance where
Israel’s security and survival is at stake. It is
difficult therefore to justify giving up parts of the
historic Land of Israel to Jordan, and an invaluable
part of its water, so that Jordan would agree to sign a
peace treaty. There is no instance where the giving up
part of its Promised Land to any Arab nation, has
brought us the peace we so desperately are seeking.
Naharayim is no exception.
The widely publicized letter that King Hussein
wrote to Netanyahu which preceded by several days the
tragedy of Naharayim, was no doubt dictated by Arafat’s
desires in the matter. Hussein will not buck Arafat
vis-a-vis Israel. It makes no difference as a matter of
consequences whether the “incitement” contained in that
letter was not the King’s personal views, but rather a
compliance with Arafat’s demands. The tragic results
were the same.
Hussein’s deploring of what occurred does not
include any condemnation of the remarks of Hanan
Ashrawi, who typically laid the blame for the inhuman
and immoral action, on Israel’s settlement policies.
Even the usually unsympathetic U.S. State Department
found Ashrawi’s inappropriate and grotesque comments
weird, but used the mild phrasing that her comments
were: “unnecessary, and would only serve to harm the
already strained peace process.”
Nor should any one of us be deceived by the
purportedly “humanitarian” gesture on King Hussein’s
part to come to Israel to pay a condolence call to the
bereaved parents of the children who were slaughtered by
his Jordanian soldier. It is a play to the United
States public whom he needs and wants, not only for
tourism to Jordan, but far more important, the economic
and military aid which will be forthcoming should he
play the tune of the “peace process” that Clinton
demands of him, so as to maintain the stability of an
oil supply area in which the U.S. is vitally interested.
It is reported that two of the parents of the deceased
children were refusing to meet with the King, thus
marring his publicity “stunt.” These parents no doubt
will be pressured into receiving the King by the
Netanyahu Government, which is interested in keeping up
the pretense of a peace process, at all cost.
The gravity of what occurred at Naharayim will not
be relieved, and certainly not cured, by such a visit by
King Hussein. The parents who have refused to meet with
him are intuitively correct in their appraisal of such a
visit. Had the King been sincere in educating his
People for peace, and ceased his usual double talk to
forthrightly come out for co-existence with Israel
without reservations, Naharayim would probably not have
happened. These parents would be correct in laying the
blame with the King, and it is wrong of the Netanyahu
Government to pressure them to capitulate to the
continued pretense of peace that has caused such a
tragedy in the first place. Have we no shame, to allow
even our national Shiva to be marred by a King who has
not only desecrated our religious beliefs and synagogues
in the past, but who cynically uses the suffering of
these parents, to advance his own selfish aims? We
should not let him off the hook so cheaply for his grave
personal responsibility for the tragedy which occurred
on the “island of peace.”
Nadia Matar
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
******************************************
Jerusalem, March 25, 1997
Orient House, An Anomaly in Jerusalem
The ultimate Arab aim to destroy an
independent Jewish State is symbolized by the presence
of Orient House in the heart of ancient Jewish
Jerusalem. Aided and abetted by the vast sums of Arab
monies and oil, and assisted by the persistence of
traditional Anti-Semitism, and their own material self-
interest, the nations of the world, by and large, seem
to be prepared to rubber stamp the Arab attempts to
rewrite history, and to blindly support Arab
manufactured claims. Thus the recent biased vote of the
overwhelming number of nations in the General Assembly,
and twice in the Security Council, against Israel
building in its own ancient capital, Jerusalem, is a sad
commentary on the non-adherence of the nations of the
world to historical, legal and moral considerations in
their decision-making process. Self-interest overrides
all. Even the warning in the Bible in the Book of
Genesis to the Gentile Nations that those who bless
Israel will be blessed, and those who work against her
will be cursed, has little influence in their automatic
votes against Israel in the United Nations.
The existence of Orient House is, no doubt
about it, an anomaly for the State of Israel. No other
nation in the world would permit for a moment the
existence in their own capital of a foreign entity that
claims that Israel’s capital is in fact theirs, and
formally receive foreign diplomats at that location who
seemingly support this outrageous claim. Not only that,
the situation is even more macabre and grotesque.
Audaciously, over this piece of property in the heart of
Israel’s capital there flies Arafat’s flag of state;
this despite the fact that Israel justifiably maintains
it will never permit such a state to exist, which would
threaten its very existence.
The hypocrisy of some of the leading nations in
support of Orient House being used to receive foreign
diplomats by the so-called Palestinian Authority in
Jerusalem, is blatant. Suppose the Irish in Belfast or
in London, acquired a piece of property in those cities,
declared it to have consular status, and put in their
own people to receive foreign diplomats supportive of
Northern Island being a separate Republic, and Belfast
its capital. Would the British permit it? Of course
not! What if an American Indian acquired a house in
Washington,D.C., declared that Washington was the
capital of a new American Indian Republic. Would those
premises, in your wildest imagination, be given consular
status? Of course not! And what if Israel claimed part
of Amman as their capital, since the League of Nations
said the area, now called the State of Jordan, was to
belong to the Jewish Homeland. Would Jordan and the
rest of the Arab world, and their sympathizers tolerate
such a legitimate Jewish claim? Yet at Orient House in
the midst of ancient Jewish Jerusalem, the Arabs and
their supporters have an entirely different attitude and
perspective.
But that is not the end of the bizarre
aspects of this matter. The Israeli police, and the
Israeli army will not enter the grounds of Orient House
no matter what the provocation, and virtually treat it
as a legitimate foreign power with the status and
privileges that all foreign consulates have in Israel
proper. What is more, a blind eye is turned toward the
staff of Arafat’s police and secret service people that
knowingly man this area in the heart of Jerusalem, which
is a distinct violation of the Oslo Accords!
Nor does the matter end even with this
ludicrous state of affairs. There is more! The State
of Israel’s legislative body known as the Knesset, has
its Interior Committee headed by an Arab. This committee
attempted to give formal recognition and sanction to the
existence of Orient House by paying a state visit to the
premises on Monday, March 10, 1997. Fortunately there is
still some sanity and desire for self-preservation which
exists among some of our people; a member of that Committee,
Knesset Member Benny Elon expressed a vigorous dissent, and
organized a protest outside of Orient House with regard to
such a formal Knesset visit. He called upon the leaders of
Women In Green to join in such a protest, and despite the
difficulties of rallying our forces on such short notice,
a good number of our green-hatted women came carrying our
props and appropriate placards.
At the protest rally at Orient House on that
Monday, there were some ugly reminders of how the Israeli
Left and the world media are prejudiced against the Jews.
Our women were verbally abused and assaulted by a group of
about 300 members of the Israeli Communist Party, while the
Israeli Police did little to protect us from such savagery,
nor did the world media deem to report about it. In one
instance, one of Women In Green’s leaders was physically
shoved and punched by an Arab Communist not finding it
sufficient the verbal and indecent tirade against the
peaceful protest of our women. World media turned a blind
and prejudiced eye on reporting such Arab misconduct. These
Communists, mainly Arabs, came to Orient House to express their
support of its existence and the Knesset Interior Committee
visit.
Nor did they report on the fact that one of
the Arab youths climbed up a pole outside of Orient
House, and defiantly placed an Arafat state flag on the
top of such pole. When our women vigorously demanded of
our police that they arrest the culprit involved, and
immediately remove this illegal flying of such a flag in
Jerusalem proper, this was not done. Apparently the
police instructions were that provocations by the Arabs
were to be overlooked. After an inordinate amount of
time elapsed, the “Palestinian” flag was finally removed
“outside” of Orient House, but that flag continued to
fly and flutter over Orient House itself, as it has
heretofore.
The final straw was the arrest of one of our
women who strongly insisted that the police remove the
illegal “Palestinian” flag that had been raised on the
pole of a Jerusalem street. After roughing her up, the
police carted her away to, of all places, one of their
police precincts in a bad Arab neighborhood, on the
pretext of wanting to “interrogate” her. The usual
police precinct where Jews are taken during such
protests is the one at the Russian Compound, and no
doubt the police were trying to scare us by such
tactics. After holding her for several hours, she was
released, when I came personally to that out of the way
police station with some of our other leaders.
Orient House is a blight on the Jerusalem
scene, but no one in the past or present government
appears to have the necessary “moxie” to force the issue.
The recent suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, which had
unquestionably been sanctioned by Arafat himself, as our
own GSS head publicly stated, would seem to provide an
ideal time when the Jews could respond ,as an appropriate
response to terror, to its closure. But even if that
measure is not taken, a continual protest outside of Orient
House is called for. Women In Green have been there on
two such subsequent occasions for that purpose, and will
continue to demonstrate there until that scourge on the
Jerusalem scene is relocated in Gaza, together with its
foremost advocate, and avowed enemy of the Jewish People,
Faisal Husseini.
Nadia Matar
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
*********************************************
Tel Aviv, March 25, 1997
American Blindness
President Bill Clinton is apparently willing
to apply the renowned Christian concept of turning
the other cheek to be slapped (bombed) by Arafat and
his cohorts. He is still not convinced that Arafat
is the personification of a terrorist, and that
Arafat is incapable, and moreover, unwilling to
change his character at this late stage in his life.
That would be all well and good if Clinton
would apply that Christian other cheek concept to
Arafat, if it only affected the American People. It
is an outright disaster when President Clinton
refuses to face reality with regard to the direct
effects that Arafat’s acts of terrorism, and his aim
to destroy Israel, have on lives and well being of
the Jewish People.
Women In Green, and the Jewish People are
far more realistic. They have years of bitter experience
with Arafat, as a murderer, liar, and man of deceit;
moreover, his complicity, as the GSS head recently
pointed out with the recent Tel Aviv massacre, can not
seriously be disputed. We therefore held a protest
vigil outside of the American Embassy, on HaYarkon
Street, in Tel Aviv, on Monday, March 24, 1997
expressing the above hard and unquestionable
facts.
How much more Jewish blood must be spilled
before America realizes that neither Israel, nor anyone
else, can make peace with this man of violence and
terror?
Bianca Shimon and Trudy Gefen,
******************************
Jerusalem, March 30, 1997
Clinton Has Joined the Arab Game of Illusion And Deceit
The State Department recently announced that
“The Palestinian Authority (Arafat’s PLO), on the whole,
is in compliance with its accords with Israel.” Such a
certification was necessary to allow continued U.S. aid
to the Arafat enterprise. This cynical evaluation was
followed by incredible media statements, made in the
same vein by President Clinton, following a series of
recent violent Arab attacks on Jewish women and
children.
In the first such occurrence, seven Jewish
children were slaughtered, ironically on land Israel
gave to Jordan to obtain a “peace” treaty with it.
Shortly following the cold-blooded murders of these
children, President Clinton appeared on television where
he announced: “I am happy to report that I just spoke to
King Hussein who assured me this is not political, just
the act of one madman.” He then went on to make this
puzzling and insensitive comment: “But we have to give
the Israeli People a chance to absorb this shock.” He
was, in effect, absolving the rest of the world, King
Hussein, the PLO, America, and himself from
responsibility for this “chance occurrence,” and was
being munificent in granting the Israelis a chance to
recuperate. (No doubt to be able to absorb the next
imminent blow.)
Now President Clinton is not a simpleton.
He knows that just a few days before, Hussein had
publicly issued an inciteful statement against Israel,
which could well have been responsible for the murder
of these children. It was, after all, a Jordanian
soldier who got that message and was involved;
moreover, as was widely reported, this Jordanian kept
firing at these defenseless young children, while his
fellow soldiers watched and did absolutely nothing.
Clinton has known that large segments of the Jordanian
populace have been taught hatred of the Jews in their
educational system, and actually approve of the acts of
this “madman”; subsequent news releases emanating from
Jordan lauded the murderer. In any event, the Israeli
public did not have long to wait for the next blow; it
followed only a week and a day later. This time it was
the bombing of a restaurant in Tel-Aviv by an Arab from
Tzurif, south of Jerusalem; it caused the death of three
women, and the injuring and maiming of forty-five others.
From Helsinki, where he was summiting with
Russian leader Yeltzin, on receiving news of this new
tragedy, Clinton made the incredulous statement on
television that “the Palestinian Authority is
unalterably opposed to violence.” The great man of
deceit, Arafat, could not have phrased it better. How
callous can this American President be? What kind of
fools does he believe we are? It was a statement not
befitting the world’s self-pronounced leader in the
fight against terrorism. Here was terrorism in its
worst and starkest form; without question, it was
sanctioned by Arafat, the wily dictator of the
Palestinian Authority. Contradicting what Clinton said
was the Washington Post report that the U.S. State
Department knew Arafat had given the green light to such
beastly terrorist acts; he had unquestionably released
Hamas leaders from PA jails just a few days before, who
had been responsible for just such bombings in the past.
Nevertheless, President Clinton was attempting to
absolve Arafat from any responsibility for this recent
catastrophe. Why?
The reason seems to be Clinton’s inability to
admit his serious error of buying the Peres formula
for achieving peace in the “New Middle East”. It is
in America’s best interest that there indeed be peace
in the Middle East; the flow of oil to the industrial
nations, including America, must not be jeopardized.
However, Clinton’s grave misjudgment is to have hung
America’s hopes for peace on this “Prince of Horror,
Arafat”.
Worse still is Clinton’s unwillingness to cash
in America’s remaining chips; he continues to turn a
blind eye on the game which Arafat excels at: ” waging
terrorist war on the Jews.” To tell the world that the
Palestinian Authority, (the PLO) are “unalterably
opposed to violence” is not only a bald faced lie, it
seals the fate and death of many other innocent Jews in
the days ahead. If there are not even oral reprimands
that follow Arafat’s obvious major role in the scheme of
things, there will be no deterrent for him and his
cohorts from taking similar future action. The economic
aid and royal Clinton hospitality at the White House
which Arafat gets, only encourages him to continue on
the war path against the Jews. To criticize Arafat,
would be tantamount to an admission of a grievous error
by Clinton in going along with the Peres-Beilin choice
of an outright terrorist as a peace partner. It would
prevent the continuation of his support of this
thoroughly immoral man, Arafat.
If President Clinton wishes to have history
reflect kindly on his Administration, he must call an
immediate halt to the continuation of support for Arafat
as a realistic peace partner. Men of good will are
awaiting moral direction, and will not be satisfied with
lies and distortions of the truth. Arafat is not a man
of peace. He is a ruthless tyrant, who manifests
repeatedly by word and deed what his malicious
intentions are with regard to the destruction of Israel
and the Jewish People. Clinton does not help the
situation by looking away, as Peres did, from major
inconsistencies with the peace objective daily being
committed by Arafat, and the other so called peace
partners, Mubarak and Hussein. Clinton must boldly stand
up to these Arab leaders. He must bluntly threaten the
withdrawal of further economic and other assistance, if
they do not immediately take the realistic steps
necessary to achieve peace with Israel. Otherwise, this
President will continue to be treated by them as the
American simpleton, whom by means of their Mid-East
deceit, and in their actual practices, they continue to
fool and mislead. If it is truly in America’s best
interest that there be peace in this region, it is about
time for Clinton to pierce this Arab propensity for
illusion and deception. Only by concrete deeds in
changing the education of Arab children, and by
eliminating the incitement against Jews in their media,
will these Arab leaders be able to promote co-existence
with the Jewish State of Israel. Any real chance for
peace depends upon such action.
No other nation on earth has given up more
than the State of Israel to an hostile foreign minority
in its midst; it has acted similarly to her neighbors
Egypt and Jordan, in order to achieve peace with them.
Instead of lauding Israel for its great sacrifices in
this regard, Clinton and the U.S. State Department have
a constant outpouring of unfair, one-sided criticism of
Israel. In addition, of course, there is a ready outlet
by a highly prejudiced media for all the distorted,
untrue, and hysterical allegations that are made against
Israel by the Arabs, through expert and high-powered
Public Relation firms on the Arab payroll.
America and President Clinton represent the
last hope that human decency and morality be the
underlying basis for the achievement of a secure and
lasting peace in the Middle East. Clinton can not play
the role of bringing such peace into reality, when he
ignores blatant and obvious chicanery, and deceit on the
part of the present Arab leaders of the Palestinian
Authority, Egypt and Jordan. Whatever the niceties of
diplomacy, he must make it abundantly clear in the face
to face confrontations with these Arab leaders, that he
will not allow that they make of him a fool. Even if
the only basis for his actions is America’s self-
interest, he must insist on decisive and unequivocal
action on the part of the Arab “peace partners,” whom he
otherwise continually and vocally supports.
Ruth Matar