WOMEN FOR ISRAEL'S TOMORROW

*******************************************************

Jerusalem, June 23, 2003

                The Saudis Know How to Get Results

How do we get across to the American People that George W. Bush is no 
different than his father in his relationship with Saudi Arabia?  The Bush 
Family has had close ties,  both economically and otherwise, with the royal 
family in Saudi Arabia for over 50 years.  Working through the large 
American corporations Bechtel and Halliburton, both of which helped 
develop the whole Saudi enterprise, the Bush family has inextricably bound 
itself to the Saudi royal family.

The anti-Semitism that Saudi Arabia spreads extensively was secretly 
admired and not at all distasteful to Bush Sr.  In fact, the Bush family has 
had intricate ties with those responsible for bringing Hitler to power in 
Germany.  Bush Senior is well aware of the extensive monies the Saudis 
pour into the United States, so that Arabs on campuses can propagate anti-
Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda.

The influence former President Bush has on his son, the President of the 
United States, is well known.  It is significant that it was James Baker, his 
father's Secretary of State, who came out of the woodwork to 
successfully handle George W.'s claim to the presidency.  Moreover, it was 
because of Bush Senior and James Baker's influence on George W., that 
Colin Powell was appointed as U.S. Secretary of State by the younger 
Bush.  Bush Sr. and James Baker seemingly installed Powell to watch over 
George W.  Bush, and to insure that the close ties with Saudi Arabia 
continue.

There is little question that Saudi Arabia has a despotic and 
anti-democratic regime. The Saudi royal family expends a good deal of 
money supporting Al Qaida and  anti-American values in its world-wide 
propaganda.   Nevertheless, the Bush family ignores the influence of 
Saudi's Ambassador on U.S. - Israel  foreign policy.   An article in the New 
Yorker magazine on March 24, 2003, spells out in detail the manner in 
which this is accomplished. This entire article can be emailed to you upon 
request.

No one in high places in the U.S. Government escapes the well placed gifts 
that the Saudis award indirectly.  The Saudis have learned how to be 
effective in this area.

In this insidious manner, the Saudis have found a sympathetic ear in the 
Bush family.   Their policy of excluding Jews from their own country, is 
patently opposed to the basic principles of American 
democracy.   Notwithstanding, there is no word of criticism of the Saudis 
emanating from either Powell or President George W. Bush.  Moreover, the 
proposals of Powell on the "Road Map" are indistinguishable from the 
Saudi "peace plan".  Powell or President Bush never mention the Saudi's 
barbaric and anti-democratic practices in their own country. Nor was there 
any action taken by America when the Saudis failed to help America during 
the Iraqi war.   Some day the true nature of the Saudi influence will be fully 
revealed. Until then, America should be acting in its own true self-interest. 
That self-interest should not be confused with what benefits 
the Saudis.

*******************************************************

Jerusalem, June 23, 2003

                 The Road Map: Mother of All Stings

Women in Green Hour with Ruth Matar
Arutz Sheva English program
www.IsraelNationalNews.com

US Secretary of State Colin Powell gave an interview on Fox News this past 
Sunday, where he said: "We have made our choice. We are going to be 
supporting Prime Minister Abbas." But Mr. Powell is misleading us when he 
implies that the choice of the Bush Administration to support Holocaust 
Denier Abu Mazen is a recent one. The choice to support the Arab Muslims 
against the Jews was made long ago, soon after George W. Bush was 
elected President of the United States. "The Road Map for Peace" is in 
effect the Saudi Peace Plan, a blueprint for Israel's destruction.

There was a most interesting article in the New Yorker Magazine of March 
24, 2003, entitled "The Prince: How the Saudi Ambassador became 
Washington's indispensable operator." The article is about Prince Bandar 
bin Sultan, who has been the Saudi Ambassador to the United States for 
twenty years; it is also the story about George Bush Sr., and his son 
George W. Bush, the current US President, and their relationship with the 
Saudi royal family. The following are excerpts from this article:

In the early eighties, when Ronald Reagan was President, Prince Bandar 
believed that Vice President Bush was the first important American 
politician he had known, who did not automatically favor Israel; from the 
start Prince Bandar had found Vice President Bush helpful in advancing 
the Saudi cause, and supportive of Saudi efforts to buy weapons from the 
United States.

When Vice President George H. W. Bush became President himself Prince 
Bandar was so close to him, that he was considered almost a member of 
the family.

When Al Gore conceded in the presidential race between him and George 
W. Bush, Prince Bandar felt that it was a victory not only for the Bush 
family, but for Saudi Arabia!

At the end of the Clinton presidency, Prince Bandar received confidential 
assurances from Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State designate, which 
he was to relay to Arafat. The Middle East deal brokered by President 
Clinton, agreed to by Israeli Prime Minister Barak, but rejected by Arafat, 
would nonetheless be enforced by the new administration of George W. 
Bush.

In August of 2001, Crown Prince Abdullah said he saw on television an 
Israeli soldier pushing an elderly Palestinian woman. When she fell, she 
grabbed the soldier's leg and he stepped on her. The Crown Prince, in a 
rage, called Prince Bandar. "This is it. Those bastards!" he yelled, 
according to an account that Prince Bandar has given associates. "Even 
women_they're stepping all over them." He ordered Prince Bandar, who 
was in Aspen, to return to Washington and to deliver a message: Starting 
today, you go your way and we will go our way. From then on, the Saudis 
would look out for their own national interests. The high-ranking Saudi 
military delegation that had just arrived in Washington for meetings at the 
Pentagon was ordered to return home immediately.

The Crown Prince, Prince Bandar said, was deeply disturbed by the 
"continued Israeli actions, horrible actions. In light of Israeli actions, the 
Crown Prince feels that he cannot continue dealing with the United States."

President Bush's conciliatory response was written in a two-page letter to 
the Crown Prince dated August 29, 2001: "Nothing should ever break the 
relations between our two countries. I am troubled and feel deeply the 
suffering of ordinary Palestinians in their day to day life and I want such 
tragedies and sufferings to end. I firmly believe that the Palestinian people 
have a right to self-determination and to live peacefully and securely in 
their own state in their own homeland."

President Bush agreed to make public his support for a Palestinian state. 
He was to have a final meeting on September 10, 2001, with Prince Bandar 
and others, discussing how to announce this.

And then America was attacked the day after, on September 11, by 19 
Muslim terrorists. Fifteen of these 19 terrorists were Saudi nationals. 
Nonetheless, a few days after September 11, President Bush allowed 
Prince Bandar to arrange to get bin Laden family members out of the 
United States. By now the American people were not at all favorably 
disposed toward Saudi Arabia.

However, the Saudis continued right on with their pressure on President 
Bush. In early November of 2001, Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign 
Minister, who was in Washington DC, told the Times that Bush's 
unwillingness to force a Middle East solution "makes a sane man go mad".

On April 4, 2002, Crown Prince Abdullah was invited to President Bush's 
ranch in Crawford, Texas.

Bush had begun to declare that one of his goals was "regime change" in 
Iraq. He felt that Saudi support was essential. However, the Saudis 
threatened that unless something was done about the Israeli-Palestinian 
conflict, they could not oppose another Arab country, not even Iraq. Prince 
Abdullah delivered a blunt message: Either Bush gets involved and ends 
the Israeli occupation_including the siege of Arafat in his compound, or 
else no cooperation from any Arab nation in a war against Iraq. Bush caved 
in and privately assured Crown Prince Abdullah that he would re-start the 
peace process.

And thus, in March of 2003, after Iraq was defeated, President Bush 
announced his long-promised "road map" for peace in the region.

This New Yorker Magazine article is quite lengthy.  If you are interested in 
reading the article in its entirety, we can send it to you by email.

Barely a month after September 11, on October 4, 2001, Prime Minister 
Sharon announced to the United States and the world: "Do not try to 
appease the Arabs at our expense. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia." This 
pronouncement seemed to come out of the blue. Had Sharon somehow 
learned of the American-Saudi double-cross?

And the betrayal of Israel by George W. Bush continues full steam ahead.

President George W. Bush held two Middle East summits last week. The 
first, with the Arab states in Sharm e Sheikh, was an abject failure. The 
second, with the Prime Ministers of Israel and the Palestinian Authority was 
merely a troubling echo of another abject failure, the Oslo handshake of 
1993.

What happened at Sharm e Sheikh? The President of the United States put 
his prestige on the line for the sake of Arab-Israeli peace and the Arab 
states gave him nothing. They even refused to endorse Israel's right to 
exist as a Jewish state.

They did not take a single concrete action, not even a gesture, toward 
Israel. Egypt did not offer to return its ambassador to Israel. The Saudis 
threatened a boycott if Israel was even invited.

At the second summit at Aqaba. Israel bought the same rug the second 
time. But President Bush managed to extract enormous concessions_from 
Israel. At Aqaba, Ariel Sharon joined President Bush in the betrayal of the 
Jewish People.

A troubling article by Akiva Eldar appeared in the June 10, 2003, issue of 
the Israeli newspaper HaAretz.

"Behind-the-scenes exchanges between President George Bush and Prime 
Minister Ariel Sharon at last week's Aqaba summit may hint at a certain 
shift in the American stance, from the Israeli to the Palestinian side, 
according to a participant in the three-way meeting of the delegations.

The source quoted Bush as telling his National Security Adviser 
Condoleezza Rice that 'I see that we have a problem with Sharon,' while 
saying of the Palestinians led by Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, 'We can 
work with them.'

At one point, an irked Bush reportedly rebuked Defense Minister Shaul 
Mofaz, telling him 'Oh, but I think that you can help the Palestinians. And I 
think that you will.'

At the advance request of Israel at the summit, Bush's aides had put 
security problems at the top of the agenda for discussion. 'The first thing 
that Bush was required to talk about was security,' the participant said, 
adding, 'It was a request of the Israelis. So Bush asked Dahlan to give a 
briefing.'

According to the source, Dahlan gave an excellent five-minute synopsis of 
the situation, and concluded by saying to Bush: 'There are some things we 
can do and some things we cannot. We will do our best. But we will need 
help.'

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz burst in at the end of Dahlan's presentation 
and said: 'Well, they won't be getting any help from us; they have their own 
security service.'

You could see that Bush was irritated, the participant said, and Bush 
turned on Mofaz angrily: "Their own security service? But you have 
destroyed their security service."

Mofaz shook his head and said: 'I do not think that we can help them, Mr. 
President,' - to which Bush said: 'Oh, but I think that you can. And I think 
that you will.'

Then Bush turned to Abbas - again according to a script insisted on by the 
Israelis - and said: 'Mr. Prime Minister, perhaps you could give an overview 
of the situation in the West Bank and Gaza.'

Abbas outlined the increasingly dire situation of the territories, saying that 
the humanitarian crisis was deepening, and that while recent actions of the 
finance minister had eased the problems, the insertion of new funding was 
necessary.

Sharon then interrupted and said: 'The insertion of new funding must be 
dependent on your good behavior.' Bush was again visibly irritated: 'You 
should release their money as soon as possible. This will help the 
situation.'

Sharon shook his head: 'We have to deal with security first, and we will 
condition the release of their monies on this alone.' Bush peered at Sharon: 
'But it is their money ...' Sharon said: 'Nevertheless, Mr. President ...' and 
Bush interrupted him: 'It is their money, give it to them.'

After that meeting, Bush turned to National Security Adviser Condoleezza 
Rice and said, 'We have a problem with Sharon I can see, but I like that 
young man Dahlan and I think their prime minister
is incapable of lying. I hope that they will be successful. We can work with 
them.'"

How did President George W. Bush get Ariel Sharon to go along with his 
betrayal of Israel? It was an incredibly clever sting operation. Sarah Honig, 
who is a political analyst and a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, calls it 
"the mother of all stings". In fact, she wrote an op-ed article with that title in 
yesterday's Jerusalem Post. We are fortunate to have her as our guest on 
the Women in Green program tonight.

(A recording of this entire program, including the interview, is available on 
http://www.israelnationalnews.com Click on Radio/On Demand Audio)


Yesterday evening, I heard on Fox News that forty American soldiers have 
been killed by Iraqi terrorists since Baghdad fell on April 9th. The Arab 
justification for murdering American soldiers was to liberate Iraq from 
"American occupation". Does this sound familiar? Would US Secretary of 
State Colin Powell designate these murderers of American soldiers as 
freedom fighters, just as he referred to Arafat and his terrorists?

After sentencing Al Qaida Shoe-Bomber Richard Reid last January, US 
District Court Judge William Young turned to Reid and said, "You are not 
an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. We do not sign documents with 
terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."

Abdel Aziz Rantisi is a terrorist. As one of the senior leaders of Hamas, he 
is a major wanted terrorist. Rantisi shares the criminal responsibility for the 
murder of 227 Israelis and the wounding of 1,393 others since the 
beginning of the Palestinian terrorist war three years ago. Following the 
Israeli Air Force's unsuccessful attempt to kill Rantisi yesterday, White 
House Spokesman Ari Fleischer was quick to say that US President George 
W. Bush is "deeply troubled" by the IDF action. The President apparently 
believes that by taking out Rantisi, the Israeli government is somehow 
harming the chances for peace.

This afternoon, Arab terrorists targeted a bus in the center of Jerusalem: 16 
dead, and approximately 100 injured. This of course, brings home the 
blatant hypocrisy of the United States, when considering Palestinian 
terrorists. We are deeply troubled that anyone in any way related to Al 
Qaida is a terrorist and should be taken out, while the United States 
expects Israel to protect Bin Laden's Palestinian counterparts in the 
terrorism business.

President Bush flew in to the Middle East and forced Israel into 
submission, compelling the Jewish People to divide their land, create a 
terrorist state next door, and forego the right to defend themselves against 
those who seek their destruction. He also demanded that thousands of 
Jews be thrown out of their homes in Judea, Samaria and Gaza against 
their will.

We must finally accept the truth. As presently constituted, the Bush 
Administration's Middle East policy is hostile to the national security 
interests of the Jews and the State of Israel!

*******************************************************

Jerusalem, June 23, 2003 

                Deja Vue - Or Here We Go Again!

The following is a translation into English of an article by Nadia Matar-  The 
major part of the article was printed as an op-ed on June 10, 2003 in Yediot 
Acharonot, the Hebrew newspaper with the largest circulation in Israel.

The reality in our little country reminds me of a movie that was produced in 
1993 (ironically, the same year of the Oslo accords): Groundhog Day 
(Waking Up Yesterday,was the Hebrew title of the movie).

The movie is about Phil, an antipathetic and arrogant television 
weatherman who goes to a town in Pennsylvania to cover the annual 
Ground Hog Day ceremonies, and who is stranded there by a snowstorm.  
The day is February 2, and at the end of the day he goes to sleep, fully 
expecting to wake up the next day on February 3, but something very 
strange happens. Every time he wakes up on February 2 and the same day 
starts, over and over, just like it began the first time!   Only he is aware of 
the fact that the same day keeps repeating itself. This becomes truly 
horrendous. Phil thinks that he is losing his mind, and, at first, he doesn't 
know how to escape this nightmare.

One could think that the plot of Groundhog Day has taken control of the 
State of Israel. We have returned to the nightmarish days of Oslo, as if we 
had never been there before. Ten years ago they sold us those stories as if 
"Arafat has changed and has become more moderate -  let's give him a 
chance - we'll give him cities, weapons, and ammunition, and he'll fight the 
real terrorists of the Jihad and Hamas - Arafat and Dahlan will guarantee 
that there will be no terror - and if, woe be it, Arafat won't keep his promise, 
we can always go back to square one," or as the Labor MK's liked to sing 
the refrain: "the IDF tanks can always return to Gaza." After every terrorist 
attack, the same familiar mantra was chanted over and over: "We won't let 
the extremist opponents of peace stop the process." After ten years of 
Jewish blood being shed by that same Arafat and his cohorts, making use 
of the arms, ammunition, and cities of refuge that they received from the 
Oslo architects, we could have expected that our new political leadership 
would find another way for us to deal with this problem.

But now - just as in the movie - we who cried out in warning against the 
dangers of Oslo,  are losing our minds when we see that we are, once 
again, being forced to "wake up yesterday" and repeat the Oslo nightmare, 
as if the last ten years had never happened. And this time with a new-old 
bloodstained and criminal agreement, the "Road Map agreement," whose 
architects - to our shame - are from the Likud. And they repeat the same 
empty slogans that we heard in the past: "Abu Mazen is a moderate - let's 
give him a chance - he and Dahlan will fight the Jihad - and if, God forbid, 
Abu Mazen will not meet his commitments, we can always go back and take 
control of the cities that the IDF will leave"! And after the less than a week 
after the Aqaba summit, in which seven (now twenty-three)Jews have 
already been murdered, we once again hear the same familiar refrain: "We 
will continue with the process, despite the terror attacks"!

Gevalt! What can be done to stop the nightmare from repeating itself and 
get our life back? In the movie, Phil finally wakes up to a new day. How? 
When he learned from the mistakes of that day, and understood that he 
must improve, and completely change, his behavior.  We, too, have the 
ability to leave the nightmare and stop the cursed renewed process before 
we lose our future. We must stop capitulating to the Arab enemy and begin 
to talk and act like proud Jews! This means that we must proclaim 
throughout the entire world: Eretz Israel belongs to the People of Israel, 
and only to it. No Jew has the right to give over a single bit of the soil of 
Eretz Israel to foreigners. Not even a majority in the government or the 
Knesset can make the giving over of portions of the homeland legal and 
moral. We shall not obey if, God forbid, the government or the Knesset will 
betray the homeland. We shall  steadfastly oppose any plan to uproot 
settlements or me'ahazim (outpost settlements). It is not the outposts that 
are illegal, but rather the order to destroy them.

We appeal to our brothers and sons, our soldiers, to comply with the 
declaration by Yossi Sarid and Yair Tzaban from June 27, 1990, that they 
wrote in Yedioth Ahronoth: "Let there be no misunderstandings among us, 
and let it not be said that you were not warned in advance: We shall not 
obey the transfer order, nor will our children and those we have educated 
obey it. The day that the transfer order - that is a patently illegal order - will 
be given, shall be the day of refusal to obey an order."

And, most importantly: there is an alternative to the suicide agreements! 
Instead of formulating - together with the Arab enemy - plans for the 
expulsion of Jews from Eretz Israel, the wicked PLO Authority and the 
other terrorist organizations must be eliminated, and Israeli sovereignty 
imposed on all of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. A program must be drawn up 
for the repatriation of the hostile Arabs to the Arab countries. The solution 
to the Israeli-Arab conflict must be based on the principle: "The Land of 
Israel for the Jews, the Arab lands for the Arabs."  Only in this manner will 
we awake from the nightmare and, in the words of the song, "awake 
tomorrow morning with a new song in our hearts."

Nadia Matar

*******************************************************

Jerusalem, Jerusalem, June 26, 2002 

          Are Settlements in Judea and Samaria Legal?     

Women in Green Hour with Ruth Matar
Arutz Sheva English Program


ARE SETTLEMENTS IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA LEGAL?!

Last night, at 4:15 a.m. to be exact, the Israeli Army, on orders of the 
Sharon government, forcefully dragged a few young Jewish settlers out of 
their tent encampment near Hebron. This encampment was set up near 
where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and our matriarchs 
Sarah, Rebecca and Leah are buried in Hebron, and the place where King 
David ruled for seven years before moving his capital to Jerusalem. An 
incredible victory for General Sharon and President George W. Bush! Or, 
was it really?

Last Sunday night, 400 rabbis from all over the country met in Jerusalem to 
protest against the plan to give up parts of the Land of Israel to foreign 
rule. Former Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu said: "No one, from the 
simplest person to even the Prime Minister, has the right to cede even one 
granule of the Land of Israel! The Holy One, blessed be He, gave it to us! To 
us alone He gave it!"

Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba said: "We will not make our security and 
safety dependent on conceding our rights to pieces of our Holy Land."

One rabbi stood up and in an impromptu manner said: "We are not talking 
about evacuation, we are talking deportation."

Rabbi Sholom Gold addressed the rabbinical assembly in English:

"Nearly ten years ago, we gathered here to express our opposition to the 
new-born Oslo Accords. We said that Arafat cannot be trusted, and that the 
Palestinian Authority would never fight terrorism, and that we must not 
trust the PLO to protect our lives. We warned that the PLO had not given up 
its plan to defeat Israel in 'stages', and we pleaded with the government not 
to give them guns, and we warned that Jewish blood would flow in the Holy 
Land. What was the reaction? 'Rabbis, go back to your synagogues and 
yeshivas, and leave these issues to the people who really know - leave it to 
the military men, and the politicians, and the poets, and the talk-show 
hosts, and the other opinion-makers.' But we all now see the truth! We 
know how right we were, and how wrong they were! I say to the press: 
Read all the garbage that you wrote in the last ten years, and realize that 
the rabbis were right!

"Mr. President Bush, you earned well-deserved admiration for your 
courageous and just actions in Iraq - but here in Israel, you have faltered. 
Deep down in your heart of hearts, you know that there is absolutely no 
difference between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat! 
Only all-out war can crush what you called the 'axis of evil'. We call on you: 
Don't become the George Washington of a terrorist state alongside Israel! 
Please, listen to the words of the rabbis. Don't repeat the same mistakes of 
the last ten years.

"Mr. Prime Minister Sharon: Don't do it! We're not occupiers - this is our 
very own land! Tell the world the Land is ours! Open up a Bible and read it 
to them - they'll respect you for it. No one has the right to give away this 
Land, as it is ours in the past, present and future. Mr. Prime Minister: Don't 
travel that road!"


There is no dearth of opinions with regard to "Jewish settlers" and "Jewish 
settlements" in the Holy Land.

We hear that even "moderate" Arab rulers, like Mubarak of Egypt and King 
Hussein of Jordan, think that there can be no peace until all Jewish 
settlements are removed from "occupied" Arab land.

We keep getting not so subtle hints from Saudi Arabia, the very country 
who sent the United States 15 of the 19 suicide bombers who perpetrated 
the September 11 terrorist attack. 25% of the world's oil supply is in their 
hands, and they made it clear to President Bush that they will not continue 
to supply the US unless America dances to their music. For a start, the 
Jewish settlements have to be demolished, and all Jewish settlers have to 
be evacuated from Palestinian land. (The term Palestinian land, of course, 
is part of the Big Lie. Judea, Samaria and Gaza were never part of any 
political entity other than the Jewish State.)

Also, powerful financial interests like Mobil Oil; Anglo-Persian Oil; Aramco; 
Bechtel Corporation; Caltex; Gulf Oil; Dresser Industries; Iraq Petroleum 
Co.; Pan-American Petroleum Co.; Pauley Petroleum; Permargo; Soconi 
Vacuum; Standard Oil of California; Standard Oil of New Jersey; Texaco; 
Zapata Petroleum are vying with each other to support the Arab viewpoint.

A must read: The Bush family's connection to the oil industry as discussed 
in "The Secret War Against the Jews" by John Loftus and Mark Aarons, 
and how this connection affects American policy toward Israel.

Even President George W. Bush, who once was viewed as one of Israel's 
greatest friends, has crossed a dangerous red line by declaring his support 
for a Palestinian State and his designating Judea, Samaria and Gaza as 
"occupied" territory.

The worst sin of all is that of Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He 
probably made his statement that Judea and Samaria are not "in dispute", 
but rather "occupied", to gain brownie points with President Bush. 
However, to quote Mid-East analyst Emanuel Winston: "Any leader of a 
country working with a foreign government to subvert that nation's legal 
positions would be considered treasonous. If Sharon has with malice 
aforethought stated that Israel's position in the territories is not 'in dispute', 
but rather 'occupied' to assist foreign governments, that is high treason in 
any language."

The Attorney General of Israel, Elyakim Rubinstein, informed Sharon of his 
"error" and mandated a written retraction. Sharon complied with this 
demand, but his statement had already been absorbed into the Bush-
Quartet Road Map.

Don't we have any powerful friends whatsoever? Open the Bible to Genesis 
chapter17, verses 7 & 8. These scriptures make it very clear that we do 
have a powerful friend. The G-d of the Bible is on Israel's side, and He has 
said:

"I will ratify My covenant between Me and you and between your offspring 
after you, throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be a 
G-d to you and to your offspring after you; and I will give to you and to your 
offspring after you the land of your sojourns - the whole land of Canaan - 
as an everlasting possession; and I shall be a G-d to them."

No doubt about G-d's intentions here. Bible believing Jews and Christians 
know that the Word of HaShem is eternal and that G-d does not change His 
mind.

Our guest tonight is Daniella Weiss, the Mayor of Kedumim in Samaria, and 
a member of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria, and 
Gaza. In many ways, Daniella Weiss is a role model for the Women in 
Green. She has an important position, but never hesitates to be there for all 
who are struggling to settle the land of Israel.

(A recording of this entire program, including the interview, is available on 
http://www.israelnationalnews.com Click on Radio/On Demand Audio)


The important question we are addressing in this program is whether 
Jewish Settlements in Judea and Samaria are legal.

Keeping up with the policies of recent American presidents with regard to 
Jewish settlement in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is like riding a roller coaster.

Former President Jimmy Carter decreed that Jewish settlements were 
illegal. Former President Ronald Reagan, on the other hand, always 
maintained that Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip 
were perfectly legal. The Bush Senior administration seemed to consider 
the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to which Israel 
has no claim. Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, had to 
reluctantly admit that Jews had a perfect right to settle in Judea, Samaria 
and Gaza, but thought that this did not promote peace. President George 
W. Bush follows in his father's footsteps and has declared Jewish 
settlement in the disputed territories absolutely illegal, but does not mind 
Arabs building without permits wherever they feel like it, even along the 
new bypass roads designed to protect the Jews. President George W. Bush 
and his advisors Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, et al have even gone a 
step further and declared Judea, Samaria and Gaza "occupied" territory. Of 
course, none of these people mentioned had a degree in law.

One authority who can legally clarify the question of whether Jewish 
settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are legal is Eugene W. Rostow. He 
was US Assistant Secretary of State between 1966 and 1969, and former 
Dean of the Yale Law School. His legal opinions were published in 
consolidated articles in the magazine, The New Republic, in 1990 and 1991. 
In fact, he, as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, helped negotiate 
Resolution 242.

The following are excerpts from these articles:

Resolution 242 calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to 
administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace 
in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is made, Israel is 
required to withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during 
the Six-Day War - not from "the" territories, nor from "all" the territories, 
but some of the territories. Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur 
War in 1973, makes Resolution 242 legally binding.

Since 1967, Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are 
"ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some 
Europeans and even American officials have cynically allowed Arab 
spokesmen to delude themselves and their people about what the 
resolutions mean. It is common for even American journalists to write that 
Resolution 242 is "deliberately ambiguous" as if the parties are equally free 
to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Five-and-a-half months of 
vehement public diplomacy made it perfectly clear what the missing 
definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions 
calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the 
Security Council and General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it 
explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and 
"vulnerable" armistice demarcation lines but should retire once peace was 
made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries 
agreed to by the parties.

It is important to note that some Bush (Senior) administration statements 
and actions on the Arab-Israeli question, and especially Secretary of State 
James Baker's disastrous speech of May 22nd, 1989, betrayed a strong 
impulse to escape from the resolutions as they were negotiated, debated 
and adopted, and award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 
lines and the Jordan River, including East Jerusalem.

The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same 
provisions by the mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv and 
Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created. The mandate for 
Palestine, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish People of 
Palestine, and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that 
country", is dedicated to the establishment in Palestine of a national home 
for the Jewish People.

In order to read Eugene Rostow's article in its entirety, you can contact me 
and I will email the article to you.

The solution to the Middle East has to begin with truth, not myth, fantasy 
and wishful thinking. Palestine has never existed as an autonomous entity. 
Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians, Syrians, 
Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.

The President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain 
and the leaders of Russia and Germany and France and the EU and the UN, 
none have the right to endorse the creation of a Palestinian state in Israel, 
nor should they demand that Israel violate G-d's covenant. Who put you all 
on the throne of G-d and gave you the right to violate
G-d's covenant?

*******************************************************

Jerusalem, June 29, 2003

                  Are the Settlements Legal?

By Eugene W. Rostow
Former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, (1966-1969) and 
former Dean of the Yale Law School
(Consolidated Articles of April 23, 1990 and October 21, 1991 from The New 
Republic.)


With varying degrees of seriousness, all American administrations since 
1967 have objected to Israeli settlements in the West Bank (Judea and 
Samaria) on the ground that it would make it more difficult to persuade the 
Arabs to make peace.  President Carter decreed that the settlements were 
"illegal" as well as tactically unwise.  President Reagan said the 
settlements were legal but that they made negotiations less likely. The 
strength of the argument is hardly self-evident. Jordan occupied the West 
Bank (Judea and Samaria) for nineteen years, allowed no Jewish 
settlements, and showed no signs of wanting to make peace.

(United Nations) Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.  Resolution 
242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, set out criteria for peace-
making by the parties (to the conflict);  Resolution 338, passed after the 
Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally binding and orders 
the parties to carry out its terms forthwith.  Unfortunately, confusion 
reigns, even in high places, about what those resolutions require.

(Since 1967) Arab states have pretended that the two resolutions are 
"ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their desires. And some 
Europeans (Russian) and even American officials have cynically allowed 
Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their people ­ to say nothing of 
Western public opinion ­ about what the resolutions mean.  It is common 
even for American journalists to write that Resolution 242 is "deliberately 
ambiguous," as if the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of 
its key provisions.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Resolution 242, which as Under 
Secretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped 
produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer 
the territories it occupied in 1967 until " a just and lasting peace in the 
Middle East" is achieved.  When such a peace is made, Israel is required to 
withdraw its armed forces "from territories" it occupied during the Six-Day 
War ­ not from "the" territories, nor from "all" the territories, but some of 
the territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan 
Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy made it perfectly 
clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means.  
Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the 
territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly.  
Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back 
to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should 
retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and 
recognized" boundaries agreed to by the parties.  In negotiating such 
agreement, the parties should take into account, among other factors, 
security considerations, access to the international waterways of the 
region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which 
provided (except in the case of Lebanon) that the Armistice Demarcation 
Lines separating the military forces were "not to be construed in any 
sense" as political or territorial boundaries, and that "no provision" of the 
Armistice Agreements "shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and 
positions" of the parties "in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the 
Palestine problem."  In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdraw 
from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate ….

Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between 
Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in 
accordance with the principles it sets out.  It was, however, negotiated with 
full realization that the problem of establishing "a secure and recognized" 
boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the thorniest issue of the 
peace making process.

The heated question of Israel settlements in the West Bank during the 
occupation period should be viewed in this perspective.  The British 
Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish People to "close settlement" in 
the whole of the Mandated territory.  It was provided that local conditions 
might require Great Britain to "postpone" or "withhold" Jewish settlement 
in what is now Jordan.  This was done in 1922.  But the Jewish right of 
settlement in Palestine, west of the Jordan River, that is in Israel, the West 
Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable.  That right 
has never been terminated, and cannot be terminated except by a 
recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors.  And perhaps not even 
then, in view of Article 80 of the UN Charter, "the Palestine Article," which 
provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed… to alter in any 
manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of 
existing international instruments…"

Some governments have taken the view that under the Geneva Convention 
of 1949, which deals with the rights of civilians under military occupation, 
Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, on the ground that the 
Convention prohibits an occupying power from flooding the occupied 
territory with its own citizens.  President Carter supported this view, but 
President Reagan reversed him, specifically saying that the settlements are 
legal but that further settlements should be deferred since they pose an 
obstacle to the peace process.

This reading of Resolution 242 has always been the keystone of American 
policy.  In launching a major peace initiative on September 1, 1982, 
President Reagan said, "I have personally followed and supported Israel's 
heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state of Israel thirty-
four years ago:  in the pre-1957 borders, Israel was barely 10 miles wide at 
its narrowest point.  The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery 
range of hostile Arab armies.  I am not about to ask Israel to live that way 
again."

Yet some Bush (Sr.) administration statements and actions on the Arab-
Israeli question, and especially Secretary of State James Baker's 
disastrous speech of May 22, 1989 betray(ed) a strong impulse to escape 
from the Resolutions as they were negotiated, debated, and adopted, an 
award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and the Jordan 
River, including East  Jerusalem.  The Bush (Sr.) administration seem(ed) 
to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign" territory to 
which Israel has no claim.  Yet the Jews have the same right to settle there 
as they have to settle in Haifa.  The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were 
never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to annex the West Bank was 
not generally recognized and has now been abandoned.  The two parcels of 
land are parts of the Mandate that have not yet been allocated to Jordan, to 
Israel, or to any other state, and are a legitimate subject for discussion….

The Jewish right of settlement in the West Bank is conferred by the same 
provisions of the Mandate under which Jews settled in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and 
Jerusalem before the State of Israel was created.  The Mandate for 
Palestine differs in one important respect from the other League of Nations 
mandates, which were trusts for the benefit of the indigenous population.  
The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the 
Jewish People with Palestine, and the grounds for reconstituting their 
national home in that country, " is dedicate to "the establishment in 
Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly 
understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil 
and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the 
rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The Mandate qualifies the Jewish right of settlement and political 
development in Palestine in only one respect.  Article 25 gave Great Britain 
and the League Council discretion to "postpone" or "withhold" the Jewish 
People's right of settlement in the Trans-Jordanian province of Palestine ­ 
now the Kingdom of Jordan ­ if they decided that local conditions made 
such action desirable.  With the divided support of the council, the British 
took that step in 1922.

The Mandate does not, however, permit even a temporary suspension of 
the Jewish right of settlement in the parts of the Mandate west of the 
Jordan River.  The Armistice Lines of 1949, which are part of the West Bank 
boundary, represent nothing but the position of the contending armies 
when the final cease-fire was achieved in the War of Independence.  And 
the Armistice Agreements specifically provide, except in the case of 
Lebanon, that the demarcation lines can be changed by agreement when 
the parties move from Armistice to peace.  Resolution 242 is based on that 
provision of the Armistice Agreements and states certain criteria that 
would justify changes in the demarcation lines when the parties make 
peace.

Many believe that the Palestine Mandate was somehow terminated in 1947, 
when the British Government resigned as the mandatory power.  This is 
incorrect.  A trust never terminates when a trustee dies, resigns, embezzles 
the trust property, or is dismissed.  The authority responsible for the trust 
appoints a new trustee, or otherwise arranges for the fulfillment of its 
purpose.  Thus in the case of the Mandate for German South West Africa, 
the International Court of Justice found the South African government to 
be derelict in its duty as the Mandatory power and it was deemed to have 
resigned.  Decades of struggle and diplomacy then resulted in the creation 
of the new state of Namibia which has just come into being.  In Palestine 
the British Mandate ceased to be operative as to the territories of Israel and 
Jordan when those states were created and recognized by the international 
community.  But its rules apply still to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 
which have not yet been allocated either to Israel or to Jordan or become 
an independent state.  Jordan attempted to annex the West Bank in 1951 
but that annexation was never generally recognized, even by the Arab 
states, and now Jordan has abandoned all its claims to the territory.

The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish 
people" have the right to settle in the area.  Instead, it said that Jewish 
settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the 4th Geneva 
Convention of 1949, which deals with the protection of civilians in wartime.  
Where the territory of one contracting party is occupied by another 
contracting party, the convention prohibits many of the inhumane practices 
of the Nazis and the Soviets before and during the Second World War ­ the 
mass transfer of people into or out of occupied territories for purposes of 
extermination, slave labor or colonization, for example.

Article 49 provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer 
part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."  But the 
Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers.  They have not been 
"deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their 
movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on 
the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent.  
Furthermore, the Convention applies only to "acts by one signatory carried 
out on the territory of another."  The West Bank is not the territory of a 
signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate.  It is hard, 
therefore, to see how even the most literal minded reading of the 
Convention could make it apply to Jewish settlement in territories of the 
British Mandate west of the Jordan River.  Even if the Convention could be 
construed to prevent settlements during the period of occupation, it could 
do no more than suspend, not terminate, the rights conferred by the 
Mandate.  Those rights can be ended only by the establishment and 
recognition of a new state or the incorporation of the territories into an old 
one.

As claimants to the territory the Israelis have denied that they are required 
to comply with the Geneva Convention but announced that they will do so 
as a matter of grace.  The Israeli courts apply the Convention routinely, 
sometimes deciding against the Israeli Government.  Assuming for the 
moment the general applicability of the Convention, it could well be 
considered a violation if the Israelis deported convicts to the area, or 
encouraged the settlement of people who had no right to live there 
(Americans for example).  But how can the convention be deemed to apply 
to Jews who have a right to settle in the territories under international law: 
a legal right assured by treaty and specifically protected by Article 80 of the 
UN Charter, which provides that nothing in the Charter shall be construed 
"to alter in any manner rights conferred by existing international 
instruments."  The Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in 
every way to the right of the existing Palestinian population to live there.

Another principle of international law may affect the problem of the Jewish 
settlements.  Under international law an occupying power is supposed to 
apply the prevailing law of the occupied territory at the municipal level 
unless it interferes with the necessities of security or administration or is 
"repugnant to elementary conceptions of justice."  From 1949 to 1967 when 
Jordan was the military occupant of the West Bank it applied its own laws 
to prevent any Jews from living in the territory.  To suggest that Israel as 
occupant is required to enforce such Jordanian laws ­ a necessary 
implication of applying the Convention ­ is simply absurd.  When the Allies 
occupied Germany after the Second World War, the abrogation of the 
Nuremberg Laws was among their first acts.

The general expectation of international law is that military occupations 
last a short time, and are succeeded by a state of peace established by 
treaty or otherwise.  In the case of the West Bank the territory was 
occupied by Jordan between 1949 and 1967 and has been occupied by 
Israel since 1967.   Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 ruled that the 
Arab states and Israel must make peace, and that when " a just and lasting 
peace is reached in the Middle East, Israel should withdraw from some but 
not all of the territory it occupied in the course of the 1967 war.   The 
Resolutions leave it to the parties to agree on the terms of peace.

The controversy about Jewish settlements is not, therefore, about legal 
rights but about the political will to override legal rights.  Is the United 
States prepared to use all its influence in Israel to award the whole of the 
West Bank to Jordan or to a new Arab state, and force Israel back to its 
1967 borders?  Throughout Israel's occupation, the Arab countries helped 
by the United States, have pushed to keep Jews out of the territories so 
that at a convenient moment, or in a peace negotiation, the claim that the 
West Bank is "Arab" territory could be made more plausible.  Some in 
Israel favor the settlements for the obverse reason:  to reinforce Israel's 
claim for the fulfillment of the Mandate and of Resolution 242 in a peace 
treaty that would at least divide the territory.


*******************************************************

Jerusalem, June 30, 2003

       President Bush, Powell, Jimmy Carter and the Saudis

(This Media Release was originally sent out in December 2001.  It is being 
updated and issued once again because President Bush, Secretary of State 
Powell and others, are trying to force the new Saudi "Road Map" on Israel, 
while improperly implying Jewish Settlement in Biblical Judea and Samaria 
is illegal.)

Eugene W. Rostow, U. S. Undersecretary of State for political affairs 
between 1966 and 1969, played a leading role in producing the famous 
Resolution 242.  He has emphatically stated that 242 "calls on the parties to 
make peace, and allows Israel to administer the territories it took over in 
1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved.  242 
called for secure and recognized boundaries agreed to by the parties. 
When such a lasting peace has been "achieved", Israel is required to 
withdraw from SOME, but not ALL of the territories it acquired during the 
Six Day War, in accordance with the agreement reached by the parties to 
the present dispute. The 338 Resolution passed after the Yom Kippur War 
in 1973, made Resolution 242 binding.

Professor Rostow pointed out that President Reagan always maintained 
that Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria and in the Gaza Strip were 
perfectly legal. Moreover, the British Mandate fully recognized the right of 
the Jewish People to settlement in the entire mandated territory.  In 1922, 
Britain withheld Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan, but Rostow 
asserts that the Jewish right of settlement in Judea and Samaria and Gaza, 
that is west of the Jordan River, is incontestable. Rostow says that right 
cannot be terminated and is buttressed by Article 80 of the UN Charter 
which provides that nothing shall be construed to alter in any manner the 
rights of …peoples or the terms of existing international instruments…"  
The Mandate given to Britain by the League of Nations was such an 
international instrument.  The Mandate recognized the historical 
connection of the Jewish People with their Biblical homeland, and the 
grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.  
Undersecretary of State Rostow pointed out that therefore the Jews have 
the same right to settle in any part of Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip 
as they have to settle in Haifa, Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

The State Department, until Powell's Louisville speech, has never denied 
that under the British Mandate the Jewish People have the right to settle in 
all parts of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. U.S. Secretary of State 
Powell, with President Bush's blessings, has brought an inordinate amount 
of pressure on little Israel to comply with the Saudi Arabia sponsored Road 
Map.  Although seemingly drafted by the United States, the UN, the 
European Union and Russia, (with the support of France and Germany), the 
proposed Road Map is none other than a disguised Saudi Arabian 
approved proposal.  The Saudis know that if the Road Map is ever 
effectuated, it will mean the destruction of Israel.  If that was to occur, the 
Muslim dictatorships would have an unhampered rule over the entire 
Middle East.

President Bush and US Secretary of State Powell talk about Israel's 
"occupation" with regard to Jewish settlements.  Their Two State solution 
has not the remotest chance of working because of Arab violence and 
terrorism.  Indeed, true American interests in the area, particularly in Iraq, 
require that terrorism not be rewarded by creating another Arab State 
within the Biblical Homeland of Israel.

The Bush family's close ties with the Saudis should not prevail over what is 
in the true interest of America.   Nor should Powell be impressed by Saudi 
wealth and royalty.  America is being extremely disloyal to its only true 
friend and ally, Israel.  When will President Bush finally realize that the G-d 
of Israel is the ruler of this universe?  As the Bible states, He will surely 
"curse" those responsible for attempting to cause the destruction of His 
Holy Heritage, Israel.