Media Releases – March 1999
March 1999
March 2, 1999 Press Release
March 2, 1999 Greetings from Moshe Peled, MK
March 7, 1999 Support Arutz 7
March 9, 1999 Excerpts from Nadia’s Arutz 7 Program
March 17, 1999 A Must Read
March 16, 1999 Words of Praise
March 21, 1999 An ‘Obsolete’ Job for the New Right
March 26, 1999 Anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Media and Textbooks
*************
Jerusalem, March 2, 1999
Press Release
The murderous attacks in Lebanon cannot continue.
Since everyone recognizes that it is Syria who is behind these
attacks, they must be made to pay for what is occurring.
The Women in Green call upon our government to respond in a manner in
which Syria gets the message that we no longer will tolerate their
cloaked behavior in this matter.
*
Re: Project Unify
For those of you still sending out faxes, a few of the numbers have been
updated now that the Knesset is no longer in session. Please update your
lists accordingly. For those of you interested, the campaign is still
on-going, with faxes being sent out daily by different people in Hebrew and
English.
Thanks for your continued participation.
MK Michael Kleiner phone 03-5621521 fax 03-5618699
MK Benny Begin phone 03-5621521 fax 03-5618699
MK Rehavam Zeevi (Gandhi) phone 03-5626272 fax 03-5619922
MK Rafael Eitan phone 03-6971747 fax 03-6968899
MK Zvi Hendel fax 07-6843030
Ruth and Nadia Matar
*************
Jerusalem, March 2, 1999
Greetings from Deputy Minister of Education
Moshe Peled, MK*
I am pleased to send my wishes for a Happy Purim on this evening to
the Women In Green Movement and to its leader, Ms. Nadia Matar.
The People of Israel is blessed by you as a group which leads one of
the strongest public interest groups in the State of Israel.
The heroism of the Jewish woman has existed from the time of the
prophetess
Deborah, from Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, and Hannah the mother
of sons, throughout the generations to this very day and this evening of
Women In Green. Today, on this evening, when the joy of the Purim
Holiday is mingled with the profound grief of our People as a whole, for
our dead whom we have just buried, we are in need of your heroism and
steadfastness
which you have demonstrated from the time you first began to be active,
to this very day.
The unique conception of Judaism, together with the concepts and values
of all humanity in their entirety, also encompasses the concept of the
struggle, heroism, and determination of the Women In Green Movement.
The selection of the People of Israel to be the “treasured possession”
among all the peoples, and being the Chosen People, obligates us, before
any other commitment, to preserve the values of the People of Israel,
the
Torah of Israel, and the Land of Israel.
For thousands of years our People has borne the great mission imposed
upon us by Divine Providence. The Children of Israel have shed
much light in the dark places of the world. We have built the paths
of truth and morality for all the peoples of the world, and the mission
is still applicable today.
It is not the Oslo Accords that will bring us the peace we so desire.
Only fraternal love, help extended to one another, and the understanding
of that which separates us, shall give our People the physical and moral
strength for the struggle to protect the Land of Israel, and the People
who dwell within it.
The horrendous frustration and pain of recent days unite us, the entire
Jewish People, with the bereaved families in their terrible loss; we do
not have the words to console them.
The secret of the eternal existence of the People of Israel lies in
the power of its ability to overcome difficulties, a power that remains
the unique possession of Israel, as a treasured People and a holy
nation.
The Women In Green Movement is a sign to the peoples of the world that
we possess the spiritual and physical stamina necessary to preserve and
maintain the eternity of our People and its Torah.
With my blessings for a Happy Holiday
MOSHE PELED
*The above is a representative letter of greeting which Government
Ministers and
Members of Knesset sent to Women In Green on the occasion of its annual
Purim
Masquerade Dinner Banquet.
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
*************
Jerusalem, March 7, 1999
The Women In Green call upon everybody
to come and show support for the Arutz 7
radio station, this Monday, March 8, 1999
at 9:00 am at the Supreme Court in Jerusalem.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
*************
Jerusalem, March 9, 1999
Excerpts from Nadia’s Arutz 7 Program
The five-minute program by Nadia Matar, the chairperson of Women for
Israel’s Tomorrow (Women in Green), on Arutz 7 has been changed to a
one-hour program on Thursday mornings, 10:10-11:00. The following are
excerpts from last week’s program.
I Too Do Not Want My Children to Learn in a Kindergarten with Arab
Children!
The entire country was in an uproar last week, or, to be precise –
all the state media shook heaven and earth in response to the report
that a kindergarten teacher in Beersheva refused to accept an Arab
child in her private kindergarten. One woman TV reporter(from Channel
2) responded in the following words: “[Refusing to accept him] simply
makes me vomit.”
So then I want to reveal a secret to you: I too do not want my
children to learn in a kindergarten or in school with Arab children.
And I will reveal to you an even greater secret: even without
conducting a survey, I am certain that 99% of Israeli Jews do not
want their children to learn with Arabs in kindergarten or in school.
The Education Ministry, as usual, evaded the problem and employed a
stroke of genius: the kindergarten teacher cannot have more than 24
children, and so the Arab child could not be accepted, because he
would become number 25. Nu, really … and what would have happened
if the Arab family had registered first … then the kindergarten
teacher would have had to accept him?
This instance constitutes an excellent example of our dilemma in the
State of Israel. Do we want to be a state like every Western
democracy, or do we desire to be unique, do we want to be the state
of the Jews?
Government schools in the United States and in Europe are required to
accept children of all religions, and there they also teach about all
religions, about Xmas, about Hanukkah, about Ramadan, and who knows
what else….
This is not why we established the State of Israel. This is not a
call to discriminate against the Arab sector. They can run their
educational institutions undisturbed, but we cannot have a situation
in which Arab children will study in the schools together with Jews.
Our schools are supposed to transmit the Jewish heritage, Jewish
values, and Jewish history, and the moment that, Heaven forbid, Arabs
are permitted to enter this system, even in kindergarten, Arab
parents will exert pressure, demanding that we will also begin to
teach the Arab customs, not to mention the fear of intermarriage and
assimilation.
Even abroad it is inconceivable that a Christian or a Muslim would be
accepted to a Jewish school, so this hypocrisy by the Israeli state
media is simply incomprehensible.
In contrast, instead of deliberating about the integration of the
Arabs, we should be concerned with a much more burning issue, that of
the division of the Jewish people, that already begins in the
playcare center. Every Jewish child who is born is directly channeled
to a special type of education. A secular child will go to a secular
school. A national-religious child will go to a national-religious
school. An ultra-Orthodox child will go to an ultra-Orthodox school.
This creates a situation in which, until an older age, our children
associate almost exclusively only with people “like them,” without
making any contact with Jews from different sectors.
There are people who think that this is actually good that their
children are not “adversely” influenced. I, personally, think that
this is one of the reasons why there is so much alienation among the
people, division, and, at times, even hatred. I am not calling for
the mingling of the secular, the religious, and the ultra-Orthodox
within the same school. Obviously, each sector desires to maintain
the special curriculum that meets its needs.
But what I do propose – and I also suggested this to the Education
Ministry – is to organize monthly meetings between classes from
different schools on a subject that unites us all: trips throughout
Eretz Israel. I propose that we establish “twin classes”: a class
from a secular school will receive as a twin a class from a religious
school, and once every month the pupils from these two classes will
go on a joint trip in Eretz Israel.
This informal encounter between secular, religious, and
ultra-Orthodox schoolchildren could create greater understanding,
tolerance, and patience among the different parts of the people –
rare values in these times.
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
————————————————————————————————–
Lebanon: To Attack without the “Understandings”
I want to read to you the press release that I sent out on behalf of
the Women in Green after the attack in Lebanon in which four of our
precious sons were murdered:
Enough! The Murderous Attacks on Our Soldiers Must Stop!
The Women in Green movement calls upon the government, and demands
that it stop the defeatist behavior in Lebanon, and calls for taking
the initiative in deterrent and aggressive actions against Syria –
who is responsible for the terror and the murders – with the clear
message that Israel will no longer sit quietly by when its sons are
murdered. (end of quote)
It is known that every time that a tragedy occurs in Lebanon, the
floor in the state media is given to the movements calling for a
unilateral, speedy, and rash withdrawal from Lebanon. This, of
course, creates the impression that the majority of the public thinks
like the “Four Mothers” movement, when the polls prove that this is
not the case at all. A poll appeared in Maariv this past Friday in
which 61% of the public opposes a unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon.
What the majority of the public apparently does believe is that we
cannot continue like this, as the situation is now – but the answer
is certainly not collapsing and a shameful departure under threats.
It is important to know that the eyes of the Arab world are directed
to what happens in southern Lebanon. The eyes of the Arab world
analyze the response of the home front and the response of the
government. Our conduct in Lebanon will have consequences for any
other negotiations.
If we react with panic every time that victims fall, and if we
surrender to pressure, then we must know that the same thing will
happen in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza: they will begin to attack
settlements and soldiers, in the hope that a movement of mothers
calling to leave Judea, Samaria, and Gaza will arise – and then
intolerable terror against soldiers and civilians will begin in
Jerusalem, and then a mothers’ movement demanding that we leave
Jerusalem will arise … and over and over again, until a mothers’
movement will arise calling for the construction of artificial
islands in the sea, to which we will withdraw, and then there really,
really will be peace. (Incidentally, don’t think that this is just
rhetoric that I invented – there was a report on Kol Israel two weeks
ago that such islands out at sea are being planned, due to the
housing shortage in little Israel … so instead of building in
Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, they are planning islands in the sea!)
At any rate, in response to the press release that I sent, I was
interviewed on Radio Kol Yerushalayim – equal time, after the
spokeswoman of the Four Mothers movement who spoke before me. The
interviewer attacked me and said that my statements calling for
deterrence and aggressive action are very serious, very difficult,
and that in effect I am calling for war against Syria and Lebanon.
I replied that I was shocked that anyone calling for self-defense and
for deterrence is charged with [fostering] war. I explained to him
and to the audience that the war is already underway, and if we
continue in this fashion, we will also lose it. I read to him the
words of Brigadier-General Erez Gerstein, may the Lord avenge him,
(who fell in Lrbanon last week) who said the following: “Talking and
demonstrations about a unilateral withdrawal cause us harm. Whoever
hears here [among the inhabitants of southern Lebanon] of pressures
and of demonstrations, will not cooperate with us.” (end of quote)
We must understand that the response to terror is not collapsing,
weakness, leaving, and self-restraint. To the contrary: this only
whets the appetite of the terrorists. The answer is deterrence,
threat, and offensive activity.
We must learn from Turkey. Turkey threatened Syria that if it would
not extradite Ocalan, it would attack Syria. Syria took the threat
seriously and gave in. Turkey radiated power, fortitude, and
forcefulness. What does Israel radiate in 1999? Weakness and
defeatism!
We must act and respond in such a manner that the Syrians – who, as
is known, are behind all the attacks – will think twice before they
dare to attack us. If our soldiers are harmed – then a situation will
be created in which dozens of cities in Syria and Lebanon will be
without electricity, without water, and without food. If the
inhabitants in the north of Israel are forced to take refuge in
shelters … the identical situation will be created in
Syria/Lebanon, and so on….
Only deterrence will deter the enemy! And then, and only then, in a
situation of strength and power, will it be possible to discuss all
the questions pertaining to our stay in southern Lebanon. Only in a
position of power and deterrence are discussions on such subjects to
be held.
As proof that the subject of southern Lebanon crosses party lines, I
would like to quote a passage from an article by Labor Party MK Uzi
Baram. The article, “The Order of Followers of the Withdrawal,”
appeared in Maariv on March 3, 1999:
A unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon is an admission of our failure,
not opposite a regular armed and equipped army, but facing a
fundamentalist organization that considers itself the enemy of
Judaism, and not only of Zionism and the State of Israel. Such a
withdrawal would give political and moral encouragement to extremist
fundamentalist states such as Iran. These countries cannot read our
responses as anything other than weakness in the face of the religious
and national determination of the Hizballah. I want to join the order
of the followers of the unilateral withdrawal, but, unfortunately, I
view the loss of our deterrent power as an impassable obstacle to the
most important of all: the attainment of peace with the Palestinians
and the other Arab states. (end of quote by Baram)
The members of Matot Arim in Haifa are preparing signs bearing the
slogan: “Lebanon – To Attack without Understandings.” Each of us is
called upon to participate in this informational campaign, so as not
to leave the floor open to movements that cause harm to our soldiers
in the field, and that spread demoralization among the people.
Nadia Matar
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
*************
Jerusalem, March 17, 1999
A Must Read
One of the topics in my Arutz 7 show last week was the National
Religious Party (the Mafdal). I was pointing out how, since MK
Rabbi Hanan Porat and MK Zvi Hendel have left the party to unite
with the other members of the national camp (Moledet, Tekuma and
Herut) the Mafdal has viciously attacked the new united rightwing
party in general and MK Porat and MK Hendel in particular. MK
Shaul Yahalom has been the most vocal and obnoxious attacker of
all, insulting them personally etc…
Two of the most used arguments coming from the Mafdal are the
following:
1) “There is no, and there will not be, a better national government
than this one and therefore it was a grave error for Porat and Hendel
to bring Bibi down.” Shaul Yahalom likes to spread the false message
as if it is Porat and Hendel who are responsible for Bibi’s fall.
THIS IS A LIE. The truth is that today there is NO representative from
the national camp in the government. Anybody who accepts the Wye
agreement does not belong to the national camp anymore. The Mafdal,
who was supposed to represent the principles of the national camp and
oppose any further relinquishing of Eretz Yisrael, betrayed its
electorate and its platform and made Bibi understand, before his trip
to Wye, that no matter what agreement he signed on, they would not bring
down his government.
This was THE sin of the Mafdal. One can even say that the Mafdal is
THE one who brought upon us the atrocious Wye agreements. Had they
made it clear to Bibi that any agreement giving up land would bring
down his government Bibi would not have gone to Wye and he would
have waited till May 4, 1999. It is so hypocritical of Shaul Yahalom
to cry later on that the government was brought down. The government
HAD to be brought down because that was the only way to stop the
implementation of the Wye agreements. The government that was brought
down could not anymore be called a “national” government, simply because
the NRP had become like Meimad (=the religious party that is in favor of
giving away Eretz Yisrael and that recently joined Ehud Barak).
Now that the national camp has been revived (by uniting Herut,
Moledet and Tekumah), they will be the only voice representing the
national camp. We have to work hard in order for them to get at least
15 seats in the Knesset and thus becoming a “Bibi-sitter.”
2) The second argument used by MK Shaul Yahalom is that “the Mafdal
is the WISE national camp, trying to minimize the damages of the Wye
agreements.” (He was quoted once as saying that if Bibi will uproot 50
settlements then the Mafdal will try to “minimize” the damages by
letting Bibi uproot “only” 30 settlements!!! And that will be
considered in their eyes as an accomplishment!!!)
To answer that argument, I am including here the translation of an
article that appeared in “Hatzofe” last week and is a MUST READ. The
author, Haggai Huberman is a (if not THE) most reliable journalist
working for “Hatzofe” and Arutz 7. Having been a Mafdalnik himself for
many years, I am sure this article was not easy for him to write:
“Hatzofe,” March 3, 1999
Haggai Huberman
“The Historical NRP” and the Current Truth
If there is an example of political folly, it is the demand to base
current NRP policy on the longing for the moderate NRP of the past, a
demand that reaped dizzying success last week in the composition of
the Knesset list.
Perhaps someone could persuade me, why the fact that forty years ago
Dr. Burg and Dr. Warhaftig, may they live a long and good life, did
not have special yearnings for Judea and Samaria, should obligate me,
Haggai Huberman, to ignore today the proven historical fact that the
Oslo accords are in fact a murderous, bloody agreement, which has
already claimed precious Jewish victims? (A few numerical statistics,
to put things in perspective: since Oslo – about five years ago –
more Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists than in the 15
[!!!] years that preceded the agreement. From September 9, 1993 – the
day of mutual Israeli-PLO recognition – 284 men, women, and children
were murdered, in contrast with 254 killed from ’78 to 1993. The year
with the largest number of murder victims in the last twenty years
was 1996, in which 92 Israelis were murdered, the decisive majority
still during the time of Shimon Peres. In 1998, for the sake of
comparison, a year characterized mainly by a standstill in the
diplomatic process, only 10 Israelis were murdered in terrorist
attacks. The rate of murders since Oslo also was greater by 50
percent than that during the entire period of the intifada, with a
total of 172 killed from the beginning of the intifada on December 9,
1987, to September 13, 1993.)
Will someone explain to me, why the political positions expressed by
the late H. M. Shapira, of blessed memory, more than thirty years ago
obligate me to deny my understanding, that is based on a precise
reading of the Wye agreement and on familiarity with the history of
the diplomatic agreements in the annals of the State of Israel (my
hobby), that the Wye agreement is really the most reckless agreement,
in terms of security, of all the diplomatic agreements that the State
of Israel has ever signed? (Based on the assumption, which I also
deny, that those political positions were correct or logical even
then, such as the view expressed by H. M. Shapira, of blessed memory,
in a meeting of the government that discussed whether to break
through to the Old City on the first day of the Six Day War: “There
will be a diplomatic problem to hold onto the Old City. When it will
be in our hands, they will come and propose turning it into an
international city. If this will be so – I will agree to an
international status for the holy places” – from “The Temple Mount Is
in Our Hands,” Nadav Shragai, p. 20.)
If in actuality the NRP Central Committee faithfully reflects the
opinion of the voters, who do not negate the Wye agreement, then this
support ensues from an almost total lack of understanding and
knowledge regarding the withdrawal, or of what is happening in Judea
and Samaria in general. I have witnessed this directly in recent
months, in lectures that I am invited to give in different places in
Israel. The ignorance of various audiences, including knitted kippah
wearers, knows no bounds. Most people know nothing beyond the
overly-simplistic slogans they hear from the political leadership.
The majority of the public barely knows the difference between Area A
and B, what is the distribution of the settlements in Judea and
Samaria, and what is the relationship between it and the Palestinian
blocs, where Palestinian police are permitted to act, how much one
percent of Judea and Samaria really is, and what influence the giving
over of additional areas to the Palestinian Authority will have on
the entire life of the settlements. For the most part, the public
doesn’t have a clue as to what was written and signed in the Wye
agreement.
It would be worthwhile to conduct a poll – a very interesting poll,
in my opinion – that will examine how many NRP Central Committee
members who are not residents of Judea or Samaria have crossed the
Green Line in the past decade? And if they did this, how many of them
went east of Ariel or south of Gush Etzion? How many of the NRP’s
Central Committee members or voters know that, according to the Wye
agreement, the entire 13 percent that will be handed over to the
Palestinians are empty areas, rocky soil, that are of no significance
concerning the continued control over the Palestinian population, and
contribute nothing to the “end of the occupation”?
How many NRP Central Committee members are aware of the fact, for
example, that the only population in the entire democratic world
subject to military administration is the settlers? That the settlers
of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza – in contrast with the Palestinians, most
of whom already live under independent autonomy – are the only
populace in the entire democratic world, for whom the sovereign who
decides everything in their lives – from the granting of building
permits to the determination of where a bus stop will be located and
permission to hold events, is an army officer in uniform?
If there is something that, in my opinion, is unreal, it is the dream
of the NRP to be a “center party,” between the right and the left. In
the past five years, the Israeli political map has changed so greatly
that today “center” is someone who supports a Palestinian state in
most of the area of Judea and Samaria, including the dismantling of
settlements, see the entry: “Mifleget Hamerkaz [the Center Party].”
The NRP could constitute a true bridge between the religious and the
secular, and between different sectors of the population, if it would
situate itself politically deep in the right, and socially deep in
the left. The struggle for Eretz Israel need not be inconsistent with
the true and essential battle for human rights and the rights of the
individual (including the rights of the Arab citizen), at least like
Meretz.
Instead of this, the NRP Central Committee resolved to search for a
mirage named “center.” Now it can also go search for voters.
[End of Haggai Huberman’s article.]
The conclusion is clear: a vote for the NRP (Mafdal) is a wasted vote.
A vote for the Mafdal is a vote in favor of the Wye agreements; a vote
for the Mafdal is a vote in favor of uprooting settlements; a vote for
the Mafdal is a vote for the creation of a Palestinian State.
Nadia Matar
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
*************
Jerusalem, March 16, 1999
Words of Praise
Recent words of praise, admiration and recognition of the work
and activities of Women For Israel’s Tomorrow ( Women In Green) by just
a sample of many Ministers of the State of Israel, as well as from Members
of its present Knesset.
Deputy Minister of Education Moshe Peled:
“The People of Israel is blessed by you as a group which leads one of
the most influential public interest groups in the State of Israel.”
Mayor of Jerusalem, Ehud Olmert:
“I wish success to the activists of Women For Israel’s Tomorrow, whose
entire concern is given to the Jewish People and Jerusalem.”
Uzi Landau Chairman of Foreign Relations Committee of the Knesset:
“I want to express my deep appreciation for your blessed activities.” It
exalts the soul to know the spirit of volunteerism burns in the hearts
of many of our People. “Continue on your path. Rise up and succeed.”
Minister of Education, Yitzhak Levy:
“‘Because of the merit of saintly women, Israel was redeemed.’ The
activities of the Women In Green Movement are a symbol and example in the
eyes of anyone who holds sacred the values of the Jewish People. Please
continue your blessed labors on behalf of the Land of Israel
and the entire Jewish People. All honor to you.”
Foreign Minister, Ariel Sharon:
“Your extra-parliamentary movement and its branches throughout North America
and Canada are well known and recognized for their relentless struggle
to secure the future of our people and of our land, the Land of Israel.
Please accept my greetings and appreciation for your on-going most effective
work.”
Member of Knesset General (Res.) Rehavam Ze’evi:
“To The Dear Women, the Jewish Women of Valor, so loyal and enthusiastic,
the stubborn fighters for the Land of Israel who are called the ‘Women
in Green.'”
Minister of Immigration and Absorption, Yuli Edelstein:
The Women In Green Movement is an important and essential extra-parliamentary
movement on the Israeli scene. The public values your efforts and
labors of love for a better and higher quality Land of Israel for the Jewish
People.”
Minister of Agriculture, Rafael Eitan:
“We live in fateful times. May there be many more People like you.
In days when ideology has been exchanged for demagoguery, we see the
importance in the activities of you and your colleagues. Continue your
fruitful work.”
Deputy Minister of Housing and Construction, Meir Porush:
“My blessing is that you merit to multiply your activities, and succeed
in all your desires and goals.”
Member of Knesset Rabbi Benny Elon:
“Even when it is grey outside from the clouds of politics, you are always
green.
Even when everyone stops at red, you have a green light and move forward!
And despite the many struggles you have undergone, you are still greener
than ever. Yours with admiration.”
*************
Jerusalem, March 21, 1999
An ‘Obsolete’ Job for the New Right
by Nadav Shragai
From: “Ha’Aretz” (Hebrew daily newspaper)
The new rightist party has arisen too late and under difficult conditions.
The chances of stopping the continued transfer of West Bank land to Arafat do
not appear promising. Nonetheless, contrary to what the National Religious
Party is claiming, the rightist front is far from irrelevant.Benny Begin and
friends are not necessarily condemned to the position of a sterile
opposition, as was argued this week, and the possibility of inclusion in a
narrow rightist coalition under Netanyahu – on the basis of the cabinet
decision that froze implementation of the territorial clauses in the Wye
Memorandum – is but one of the options available. An alliance, if only
tactical, is also feasible between the Likud and Oslo’s opponents if the
Likud obtains a relatively small number of seats and if the Oslo opponents
obtain a relatively large one. In that scenario, Netanyahu would need the
Oslo opponents’ “dowry” of Knesset seats whether or not he wins the election
or not. Even Begin’s removal of his prime ministerial candidacy and his
party’s support for Netanyahu in the second round could be demanded at the
appropriate time.
Even if all the optimistic (from the new right’s standpoint) political
scenarios prove fantasies (a distinct possibility), the new group led by
Begin has a value that can be measured not just in territorial terms but
also in terms of what Ben-Gurion used to call “our national spirit.” For
years, the country’s political and military leaders have been conveying a
message both of fatigue produced by our national struggle and of reduced
motivation to pay the price for that struggle. This message has seriously
jeopardized our deterrent power vis-a-vis our enemies and has dangerously
eroded our national stamina. Over the past few years, such slogans as “this
is the best we can hope for under the circumstances” and “we have no other
option,” which we used only in extreme cases, are now almost the only
slogans we know how to use. The new rightist alliance has created a new
option, which is radically different from that offered by Labor, the Likud,
the Centrists or the NRP.
Dr. Israel Eldad once wrote about the “emotional underground.” Apparently,
ideological concepts such as Zionism, a Jewish homeland and Jewish
settlements, which symbolized the individual’s contribution to the general
good, have become part of that emotional underground and have been replaced
with “me first” thinking. For years, Israeli society has been avoiding terms
such as justice, mission and historical and religious rights and has instead
been spouting terms such as utilitarianism, “what’s in it for me,” and
pragmatism.
Ever since Yitzhak Shamir left the political arena, nearly every issue is
subjected to the acid test of (physical and economic) security. Originally,
security was intended to enable the realization of Zionism’s vision, but now
the tables have turned: security is no longer a means but rather an end in
itself. Values that security was supposed to serve – Jewish settlements,
immigration to Israel, etc. – are no longer absolute; they are now merely
tentative.
Begin, Hanan Porat and Recahvam Ze’evi can take hold of the steering wheel
and make a sharp turn to the right. They could dramatically change our
national orientation and provide us with new material for our public
relations work, our educational system, our protest demonstrations, our
media, the speeches of our leaders, even perhaps our parliamentary debates
and cabinet discussions after the elections.
It is hard to remember the last time when a Knesset member, in addressing an
audience, has made demands on the public, instead of automatically promising
that “everything is going to work out just fine.” When was the last time we
heard a public figure challenge an audience to accept goals instead of
accepting its weakness and trying to sell it magic potions?
The rightist front’s assumption of this “obsolete” role is very much needed.
In a period when surveys have become the main instruments for determining
policy and when fundamental values and beliefs are being pushed aside, there
is a vital need for individuals like Begin who are not power-hungry and who
are not interested in popularity contests, but who can provide the public
with a different message.
The public and its leaders have been moving too long along the narrow
corridors of “we have no other option” and other messages of national
fatigue and indifference. The “old right” must try to free us from these
narrow confines. As Nathan Alterman once wrote, Satan’s only wish is: “This
is what I will do – I will dull their brains so that they can forget the
justice of their claims.”
Begin’s “irrelevant” rightist party may perhaps be able to remind us that,
even if our brains have been dulled, our claims are still just
Top of Page | End of Page | What We Say Index Page | To Home Page
*************
Jerusalem, March 26, 1999
Anti-Semitism in the Palestinian Media and Textbooks
Congress of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20515
March 19, 1999
President William Jefferson Clinton
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500
We are concerned about the systematic use of Anti-Semitic
language in Palestinian media and textbooks. The Palestinian
Authority (PA) sponsors radio and television programs which
continually encourage hatred towards Jews and Israel.
The Trilateral Anti-Incitement Committee created at the Wye
conference in an effort to combat such incitement has made
incremental progress but has yet to force the Palestinian media
to make substantive change.
Most disturbing, however, is the anti-Israel brainwashing of the
Palestinian children. The Palestinian educational system and
media incite their youth for virulent hostility toward, and
inadmissibility of reconciliation with the Jews, not just with
the Israelis. The issue here is not disagreements over certain
aspects of the permanent agreement, but the incitement and
indoctrination of a whole generation to hate Jews to such an
extent that irrespective of existing formal agreements, genuine
reconciliation and peace may be impossible to attain. These
problems are exacerbated by the Palestinian media constant
vilification of the Jews.
We would like to bring to your attention one example of the
abuses being perpetrated by the Palestinian media. The February
18th PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jedida, had the following crossword
puzzle clue: “7 across: Jewish center for eternalizing the
Holocaust and the Lies”; the answer according to Al-Hayat is
“Yad V’Shem.” As you know, Yad V’shem is Israel’s national
Holocaust memorial. It is disturbing to us that an official PA
newspaper would demean such a catastrophic event.
Mr. President we urge you to bring the incitemet issue to the
forefront when you meet with Chairman Arafat on March 23. How can
Israel negotiate in good faith when the PA regularly defiles and
depicts Jews in reprehensible ways? If the Trilateral
Anti-Incitement Committee is going to be a useful vehicle for
change and cultural exchange between Israelis and Palestinians we
cannot cast a blind eye toward PA incitement.
Mr. President we know you are concerned about this issue and hope
that you will voice our concerns when you meet with Chairman
Arafat.
Thank you for giving proper attention to this crucial matter. We
look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Rep Jim Saxton, Sen Sam Brownback, Sen Connie Mack, Sen John
Ashcroft, Reps Matt Salmon; Howard L. Berman; Brian P. Bilbray;
Neil Abercombie; Bob Franks; Maurice D. Hinchey; Martin Frost;
Tom Lantos, Holocaust survivor; Mike Forbes; Frank A. LoBiondo;
Kay Granger; Sue W. Kelly; Anthony D. Weiner; Steven C.
LaTourette; Anne A. Northup; Michael R. McNulty; Rick Lazio; JD
Hayworth; Brad Sherman; Bob Schaffer; Richard H. Baker; Stephen
Horn; Rod R. Biagojevich; Marge Roukema; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen;
John E. Porter; Peter Deutsch; James H. Maloney; Eliot Engel;
Luis Gutierrez; Ken Calvert; Dan Burton; Robert E. Andrews; Jim
Ryun; Joseph Crowley; John Shimkus; Merill Cook; Lynn N. Rivers;
Gene Green; Jerrold Nadler; Henry J. Hyde; Frank Lucas; Vito
Fassella; Todd Tiahrt; Jim Turner; Bill McCollum; Janice
Shakowsky; Dennis Moore; Frank Pollone; and Nita Lowey