ARAFAT NEEDS THE RITE OF PASSAGE BY WAR! by Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East analyst & commentator(3.10.2000) RE: RELEASE: On July 25, I published the following article: “ARAFAT NEEDS THE RITE OF PASSAGE BY WAR”. It is now October and Arafat has launched his well-planned confrontation with the anticipated bloodshed. He used the excuse of Arik Sharon and the Likud members visit to the Temple Mount and ‘miraculously’ ignited a ‘spontaneous ‘intifada’ uprising may play well on CNN but the preparations for this uprising were well-known for several months by most of the world’s Intelligence Agencies. Gathering of food and medical supplies was merely one indication. Deeper Intelligence Agencies already knew that Arafat’s officers were in communication in preparation for this uprising. We have watched Ehud Barak embarrass the nation of Israel by caving into every ramped up demand of Yassir Arafat. Each time Barak sweetened the offer of surrendering Judea, Samaria and Gaza from 80% to 90%, and even to 95%, Arafat said “NO! It’s not enough!” When Barak shocked the most dovish Leftists by offering the entire Jordan Valley - something that even Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres never considered - Arafat still said “NO!” When at Camp David 2, Arafat demanded the entire Old City of Jerusalem which holds the core of Judaism’s most Holy of Holies, the Temple Mount (Solomon’s Temple), he knew there had to be a refusal. Even Barak, who has shown little interest or respect for Jewish history, simply had to say: “No!” The Western Wall is all that is left ‘on the surface’ of the Second and the First Holy Jewish Temple which dates back 3000 thousand years. The Arab world and Middle East scholars are well aware that Al Aksa Mosque and Dome of the Rock have been built on the ancient foundations of a religion far older than Islam. But, this is the era of the political claim that supersedes history. Barak appeared ready to agree except for the vigorous opposition which would have immediately caused the fall of his government. Even the Dovish Barak had to say No! to Arafat’s demand of full unequivocal sovereignty. Yassir Arafat could not accept even 100% of what a beaten Barak was willing to offer. Yassir Arafat and his Palestinians needed to expunge the defeat of the Arab armies in six wars against an enemy they held in contempt. These defeats by the supposedly weak Jews caused great shame and disgrace to the Arab peoples. Arafat had to do no less than Hezb’ Allah that drove the Jews out of Lebanon under Barak’s humiliating order for Israeli soldiers to run and abandon our Lebanese allies of 20 years. Arafat must exceed Hezb’Allah’s humiliation of the Jews or face the wrath of his coalition’s terrorists’ partners. Arafat in coordination with Barak’s unlimited concessions had raised Palestinians expectations to impossible heights. ARAFAT DESPERATELY NEEDED A BLOODY CONFRONTATION Arafat desperately needed a bloody confrontation and doesn’t really care how many Palestinians he will lose. In fact, the more the better to revel in their own martyrdom and build their case for world opinion. The use of human shields is a well-practiced state of the art in the Arab world. The Palestinians have used the civilian refugee camps as storage areas for explosives and heavy weapons (illegal under Olso, like antitank and anti-aircraft missiles, heavy automatic weapons, etc.), knowing that the Israelis would hesitate to target these depots, hidden in densely populated civilian areas. The Egyptians, in their war planning, used to place their anti-aircraft guns on the roof of hospitals and school yards (denials notwithstanding). One can easily expect Yassir Arafat to give his infamous “Green Light” to attack Israeli towns and kibbutzim by putting hordes of women and children in front of his soldiers. (This became a familiar tactic of the Viet Cong in the Viet Nam War.) Consider the impact of CNN News featuring women being shot while the cameras carefully avoided filming the armed men behind the civilians front lines. Recall the ‘intifada’ where women and children become front line stone throwers with the TV camera crews called in before many of the incidents. Arafat knows that once he triggers a bloody and well-publicized confrontation he can expect the United Nations, the European Union countries and Bill Clinton to send in “Peace Keeping Troops.” Then they would insist on giving Arafat everything he asked for which Barak was willing to give anyway. Only now, Arafat could carry the mantle of the great warrior who fought and won against the hated Jews. Arafat would then be lauded as the reincarnation of Salah-din, the Kurdish Muslim who gathered the desert tribes and drove the Christian Crusaders from the Holy Land. (Salah-din did drive the Christians out of Jerusalem but, like Mohammed, did not choose Jerusalem as his capital nor did he revere it as a Holy City for Islam.) Jerusalem never had any significance for Islam except when it had political relevance as it does now. Only since 1967 has Jerusalem suddenly become the political and supposedly religious focal point of Arab/Palestinian interest. Yassir Arafat does indeed want all of Jerusalem as the capital of only his new State of Palestine. Having Jerusalem will in his mind give legitimacy to what are now called the Palestinian people. He needs a bloody war and Jerusalem to glue together a people who originally migrated into Israel from many of the neighboring Arab countries, merely for the increased employment opportunities available as the Jews began to rebuild the wasteland created by centuries of Arab and Turkish neglect. A war with the Jews will satisfy the emotional and logistical needs of a loosely connected people to claim statehood with the sword of Islam properly bloodied. The Twin Pillars so important as support mechanisms for the Arab culture, are namely Pride and Shame. The Arab Pride must be rebuilt and the Arab Shame at losing to the Jews must be expunged - but only in blood. Do not be surprised if Arafat gives one of his infamous “Green Lights” to start up the ‘intifada’ again and Barak claims that it is the fault of the opposition who did not grasp this great opportunity of peace by merely giving ‘more’ sooner. It appears that Ehud Barak, following the conclusions of Rabin, Peres and Beilin has agreed to allow this recovery of Pride to take place in some fashion involving blood and fire - as the Arabs chant at every occasion: “In Blood and Fire, we will redeem you, O Jerusalem.” In essence, Jews must be sacrificed for the presumed greater good that it will bring “IF” the Arabs win on the field of battle. Presumably, this humiliation of the vaunted Jewish Army would satisfy their need for revenge and peace would follow. I had suspected this some time ago and had written of a similar plan which would have allowed Assad of Syria to militarily re-conquer the Golan Heights. The infamous plan, as I saw it, was to allow Assad’s tanks to roll over the Golan with the expectation of intercession as in the past by the United Nations, led by America and Russia, demanding a freeze in place after Assad had advanced far enough and before Israel could counterattack. Syria would have recovered their lost pride and the Golan Heights. Barak would not have had to face the voters as a man who voluntarily surrendered the Golan and Israel’s main water source. The only losses would be those Israelis sacrificed as an expendable but necessary price to be paid for an ersatz peace. I believe the same plan is now being applied by Arafat, Barak and Clinton. If Clinton had been able to threaten or bribe Yassir Arafat into accepting something less than he has promised to the streets, then he would continue his attacks, regardless of the paper that was to be signed. However, even if Barak later gives up the first half of Jerusalem under a sham formula, be assured that Arafat will press to expand after digesting the first half. His earlier maps showed all of Jerusalem with a narrow corridor to accommodate religious Jews who wished to pray at the Kotel (Western Wall) and pacify world opinion. In either case, after he leaves office either r from illness or assassination, any treaty he may have made will be denied by his successors in the new State of Palestine and the Arab world. This has been decided some time ago by the various terrorist leaders who are now part of the PA coalition. It really never mattered what Arafat accepted since, at the time of their choosing all will be denied as inadequate and unacceptable, according to the unchangeable mandates of Islam and Koranic Law. Anywhere a Muslim steps his foot, he must go back to when he is strong enough to reclaim the land. This not only includes all of Israel but part of France and Spain from the earlier Muslim conquests. This has been understood by Arab leaders and clerics from the onset. Sephardic Jews who emigrated from the Arab nations also understand the terms. Only those Jews of the Labor government and the intellectuals of the Left never understood the terms. Those Israelis who have settled in the territories of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan, the Jordan Valley . . . and Jerusalem are to be driven out by Arafat’s not-so-secret Army (supposedly limited to 24,000 by Olso, now more than 40,000 and planned to soon be 100,000). Arafat will have not merely received the Land as a concession but will have preferably taken the land by force of arms. He will have equaled Hezb’Allah’s military coup in the North and himself become the great military warrior upon whom legends will be built. In an earlier article, I had forecast that part of the Labor party plan in evacuating the territories was to insure that all homes would remain intact for occupation by incoming Arabs. Arafat cannot accept concessions - even 100% - because first he needs war and then he will accept concessions to include everything that the Jews have built. Presently, Barak is to return to Israel [from Camp David] representing himself as having been a rock solid defender of Israel’s Holy City. Bill Clinton has already stated publicly that Barak was willing to concede more than Arafat, presumably thinking he is protecting Barak’s seat as Israel’s Prime Minister. Unfortunately, events precede him, given that [before Camp David] Barak first solicited the pressure of England, France, Egypt and America against the Israeli people and her Knesset. Barak insulted the members of Knesset by calling them ‘mere politicians’ when they voted against him 54 to 52 prior to his trip to Camp David. Barak has clearly shown that he was ready to accept the flooding of Arabs into Israel under the rubric ‘returning refugees’. As for Barak betraying the nation: if soliciting and assisting the intervention of such foreign nations as England, France, Egypt and the U.S. is not a betrayal of the nation, nothing will ever be. If giving up defensive borders even as your dedicated enemy and his likely successors are publicly stating they will take all of Israel and all of Jerusalem - regardless and irrespective of any agreement, then the Prime Minister has knowingly betrayed the safety of the nation. If the Prime Minister has knowingly pledged Israel’s depleted water resources to a dedicated enemy who had already fouled the water it had been given, then that Prime Minister is a danger to his people, their safety, their rights, and the safety and rights of the Jewish people everywhere. If a Prime Minister enters into further agreements after every prior agreement has been abrogated, and then accepts other bribes to weaken the nation, then that Prime Minister has to face the Israeli and the Jewish people with honesty. If a Prime Minister accepts financial foreign aid to gain office and then accepts other bribes to weaken the nation then that Prime Minister has to appear before courts of law. And he was also ready to deliver parts of Jerusalem over to Arafat’s terrorists control, including their police/army. On Barak’s return to Israel, there may be a call for a National Unity Government but it is unlikely for Barak to change his decision to cross all prior ‘Red Lines’ - even those set by Rabin and Peres. Barak is a loner and takes neither advise nor criticism from anyone! Granted, the Labor Left has erected a safety fence against public accusation of betrayal by calling such criticism “incitement.” What dictator or corrupt leader has not mounted the scurrilous defense of incitement or national security to shield themselves against indictment? |
|