May 2000
May 2, 2000 Deathly Fear in Ramallah
May 3, 2000 Who is My Brother?
May 7, 2000 Letter to the Editor of the Jerusalem Post
May 7, 2000 March from Abu Dis to the Temple Mount
May 9, 2000 Surrender to the National Headline Writers
May 14, 2000 Homegrown Double Standard
May 14, 2000 Nadia Matar's reply to Tallie Lipkin-Shahak
May 14, 2000 Come One -- Come All!
May 16, 2000 Od Yosef Hai Yeshivah
May 16, 2000 Defying The Jewish Majority
May 21, 2000 The Babe of Tranquility
May 24, 2000 Silence of the Lambs
May 24, 2000 The Holocaust Can Happen Again
May 24, 2000 Women -- Learn Self-Defense!!
May 28, 2000 The Collapse of Zionism
May 28, 2000 Media Release
May 31, 2000 Sharansky Letter to PM Barak Detailing Israel's Offer
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 2, 2000
Deathly Fear in Ramallah
The following article appeared (in Hebrew) in the Modi'in News
on March 31.
somehow it did not make the national news...read and guess
why!
The English translation has been brought to you, as a public
service, by Women in Green.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Modi'in News No. 168, Friday, 24 Adar II 5760,
March 31, 2000 The most widely circulated weekly in Modi'in and
the area
Deathly Fear in Ramallah - Beginning with "Peace Talks" and Ending in
an Almost-Lynch
The Palestinians Shattered the Windows of an Automobile of
Maccabim-Re'ut Inhabitants and Threatened to Physically Harm Them
The lives of 6 women and two men from Maccabim-Re'ut were endangered
by activists of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine
last Thursday in Ramallah. The eight, accompanied by an additional
number of women, came to Ramallah within the context of an attempt at
dialogue between Palestinian and Jewish women, and barely escaped with
their lives, when the window of one of the automobiles in which they
were driving was shattered by rocks, with the uttering of explicit
threats against their lives. Two of the women who were there reveal
the story and recommend: "Don't do this, this was foolishness, our
lives were really in danger." A chilling document that seemingly
belongs to other times
by Limor Kalibah
It all began with the innocent initiative of a woman inhabitant of
Re'ut, who was excited by the idea of a meeting between intellectual
Palestinian and Jewish women. Two of the women who were there, whom
we shall call "Lotem" and "Lital," tell about the hair-raising
experience that, in the bottom line, placed their lives in tangible
danger. It ended miraculously, when the window of one of the
automobiles in which they were driving was shattered by a shower of
stones, but this could have ended in a completely different manner.
Lotem: "The organizer spoke with the cousin of the Palestinian
Authority official Jibril Rajub, and informed us that everything was
arranged, they would wait for us at the checkpoint at the entrance to
Ramallah, there would be an escort of the Palestinian police, and
there was nothing to worry about. We set out on Thursday at 2:30 p.m.
in three automobiles from the settlement - about 6 women, 2 men, and
another 3 women from Ramleh. On the way a woman from Givat Ze'ev
joined us." The convoy drove along and entered Ramallah, where it met
Rajub's cousin, who led them to a coffee house on the main street.
Lotem: "A number of Palestinian women were already sitting in the
coffee house. The atmosphere was cold and harsh in the beginning, but
we introduced ourselves, we began to talk about ourselves and break
the ice, when suddenly it happened." "Lotem" relates that a group of
members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine suddenly
burst into the coffee house and began to shout at Rajub's cousin: "I
understand a bit of Arabic, and I immediately understood that there
were real threats there. One of the Palestinian women who sat next to
me whispered in English: 'Go away, now, quickly.' And then the
Palestinian women simply up and ran." The [Jewish] group remained
there, surrounded by the Popular Front activists: "There was terrible
fear. They surrounded us, and threatened that if we didn't leave
within 5 minutes, then we would be harmed. Our fear was
indescribable. Rajub's relative simply stood there and pleaded that
they let us leave Ramallah." At the end of the deliberations, the
members of the delegation were permitted to go down to their
automobiles. On the way, a long neon bulb was thrown at them, and it
exploded at Lital's feet. "I am walking down the steps, and suddenly
a large neon bulb explodes next to my feet. Despite the fear, I
nevertheless went out, because it was preferable to go out than to
stay."
Thoughts of the Soldier Who Was Lynched
What they saw outside was even more threatening.
Lotem: "Outside there was a stream of incited people. I stuck close to
one of the men who was with us, whom I had not met before. I simply
hugged him and said: 'They'll kill us here.' All I remember is that I
was led to the auto, and we began to drive."
Lotem was riding in the first automobile when their way was blocked
by the wagon of a pretzel seller: "The wagon was not there when we
entered. The woman driver had to stop in order to get out, and then
stones were thrown at the rear window of the automobile, and smashed
it." Stones were also thrown at the other automobiles, but they only
hit the metal. The shower of glass landed directly on Lotem, who was
cut all over. "The situation in the automobile was unbearable: I'm
screaming, the driver was very scared. She got cold feet, and said
that she could not drive, while I'm shouting at her; 'Drive, drive.'
Of course, she couldn't see anything through the rear window." Lotem
relates that thoughts of the pictures of the lynching of the IDF
soldier flashed through her mind. Everyone was hysterical, some were
crying, others were screaming. "Deathly fear," the two women shiver.
The woman driver recovered, and they began to drive to the right,
into the incited mob, and they did not know in which direction to
turn. Someone directed them to the left, to Tel Aviv, and they left
the mob and reached the checkpoint. "I was hysterical when we arrived
at the checkpoint, and I cried that I wanted us to leave. And then,
this cousin of Rajub had the tremendous gall to tell us that we had
run up a bill of 280 shekels in the restaurant and that we had to pay
him." She was in shock. "They threatened our lives, broke the car
window, and he still wants money. Besides this, we were about 10
people in the coffee house, and each one ordered only a cup of coffee
or tea, how did we get to 280 shekels?" Lotem did not agree to pay,
and only wanted to drive away from there. She tells that the others
paid and said that this was not his fault, and that he defended them.
Lital did not understand what was happening with the money, but she
wanted to pay for the coffee that she had drunk. She gave 50 shekels
and received 20 shekels change, for a cup of coffee.
This Was Stupidity, Total Foolishness, Irresponsibility
The two women are contrite about the very fact of their having gone
there. The delegation was not political, and it consisted of women
with a wide range of political views. They were supposed to talk
about children and motherhood. The women do not understand how they
could have driven there. Lital: "This was total foolishness, what can
I say, stupidity, irresponsibility. I believed that the matter had
been arranged. For the most part, I am very well organized, and I
always double-check, but this time I decided to rely upon the
organizer, who promised us that everything was in order."
What infuriates the women is the fact that they did not receive any
apology from the Palestinian women who were there, not even now, a
week later. Lital: "I exchanged business cards with two women, and I
expected to receive an embarrassed and apologetic conversation, but
this did not happen. One of them is the broadcaster of a radio
program from Ramallah, and I immediately wondered if she reported the
incident." Lotem: "It is important for everyone to know that Ramallah
is Area A, and the IDF is forbidden to enter there. Even if something
had happened to us, no one could have helped us. I had many talks
with army officers since then, and only then did I gain a better
understanding of how great the danger was.... If people want to
conduct talks, no one should go there. Let them come here, here this
won't happen."
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 3, 2000
Who is My Brother?
For those who have been following the Hebrew press, you must be aware
of the latest controversy surrounding Elyakim Haetzni's statement.
This past Sunday, Attorney Haetzni called upon IDF soldiers to
disobey the order to uproot Jews from their homes.
I sent a fax, in the name of the Women in Green, backing Haetzni's
statement, whereupon I was interviewed on different radio and tv
channels. In my interviews I made it clear that, according to me,
Barak will not send the IDF soldiers to physically uproot us from
our homes. He will rather leave us there, i.e. abandon us to the
hands of Arafat. The expected wave of murderous terror against these
settlements is meant to spur the Jews of Yesha to evacuate themselves
from their homes and from their settlements "of their own free will".
But the interviewer was pushing her question: but what if the IDF
will come and take you out? I made it clear that I would not
consider the person who comes to uproot me as my brother.
This made waves all around the country.
I received tens of faxes and calls of support.
I received one letter disagreeing with me, saying how irresponsible it
was to talk like that; had I not learned from Rabin's murder...?
We had our chance to do things when Likud was in power...etc...
and he finished by writing that my statements had distorted my image
in his eyes.
I am sharing with you my answer to this person (let's call him Ilan)
that I sent him (in Hebrew) two days ago.
To Ilan [not his real name],
Ilan, Shalom,
I have just received your fax, and I will be happy to reply to you
and clarify what I said. Before you begin to preach to me, remember
that our state media loves to distort statements by people from the
national camp, in order to delegitimize them.
When I appeared with Shelly Yahimovitz and on the Erev Hadash program
in live broadcasts, there was no problem, and I stand behind every
word that I said there. But both on the Channel Two news and in
Maariv, my statements were edited, with the result that they were
taken out of context.
1) I never said that "the uprooting of settlements is like murder," in
the manner that this was attributed to me. This sentence, as could be
expected, was taken out of its broader context and was detached from
the sentences that preceded it. The Channel Two crew came to interview
me and taped a total of about fifty sentences by me. One of the
questions was: "What if the majority in the Knesset were to vote for
the uprooting of settlements?" I replied: "Democracy is
not above all. Even if 120 Members of Knesset were to vote in favor of
something that is immoral, we would be forbidden to obey such a law.
For example, if 120 MKs were to vote that you or I were permitted to
murder innocent people, you and I would not comply with something like
this. The same holds true for the uprooting of settlements. This is
neither legal nor moral. The uprooting of settlements is like murder.
Even if 120 MKs were to vote in favor of the uprooting of settlements,
I would not obey such a despicable and criminal decision." of course,
as expected I guess, Channel Two broadcasted only the last two sentences.
Of course, if you think that democracy is above all, and that every
vote that passes with a majority in the Knesset is "sacred," then
there is nothing to talk about. I am certain, however, that you are
aware of the fact that the greatest crimes were committed on the
basis of democratic votes. In my opinion, the uprooting of Jews from
their homes is a crime, plain and simple. This is patently illegal
and immoral. When Rabbi Kahane spoke of the transfer of Arabs, he
was thrown out of the Knesset, and they said that he was a terrorist.
When the transfer of Jews is mentioned, they call it "democracy"!
2) This brings me directly to the next point. Yes, I expressly stated
that I would not regard anyone who would come to uproot me from my
home as a brother. In a normal family, a brother does not harm his
other brothers. A brother does not sell his sisters to a band of
murderers and rapists. A brother does not remove his relatives from
their homes. And if my son were to dare to participate in the
evacuation of Jews, he would never be welcome in my home again. But I
never said (as was quoted in Maariv) that he is an enemy - "AND THAT
HE IS TO BE TREATED AS SUCH." This is completely false. The harsh
words "and that he is to be treated as such" were apparently concocted
by the Maariv reporter. I never spoke with Maariv, and in a letter
that I sent them today I asked them to show me where I said such a
thing.
It was only with Shelly Yahimovitz that I used the word "enemy,"
once, and this is what I said (I quote from the transcript): "We will
not regard the soldier who would come to oust us from our homes, I
would not regard him as a brother, I would regard him as an enemy who
really wants to oust us from my home, to conduct a transfer...."
Yes, Ilan, undoubtedly, these are harsh words. Perhaps I should have
said "collaborator with the enemy." But it is not my statements that
are irresponsible. It is the actions of the government that are
irresponsible. When my brother joins together with the Arab enemy and
acts on behalf of the interests of the Arabs, and against the
interests of the Jewish people and of Eretz Israel, in my eyes he
collaborates with the enemy. Even if he innocently, in his great
naivete, thinks that he is doing this for our benefit. By the way,
the subject is not the little soldier who will or will not come to
uproot us. (As I told you, I hardly doubt it). The issue is that any
Prime Minister, government minister, or Member of Knesset who hands
over Eretz Israel to the Arabs, who abandons Jews to the archmurderer
Arafat, who hands over 300 Kalashnikov rifles to Arafat's army of
terrorists - knowing that they will be directed against us, the
settlers - I cannot regard any of them as brothers. They are
collaborators with the enemy against me, against my children, against
my people.
And don't feed me this foolishness of yours when you write, "And we
know, since November '95, how to behave towards an enemy." What
happened to you? Do you, too, suffer from the self-flagellation
syndrome? Have you, too, fallen into the trap of the left, who
charges anyone who dared to hold a poster against the Oslo accords
with the Rabin assassination? The connection of the national camp to
the Rabin assassination is like our connection with the murder of
Jesus. In both instances we are accused, in both we are not at all
guilty.
When I warn that the handing over of Jews to the PLO Authority and/or
the uprooting of Jews from their homes is a crime and collaboration
with the enemy, they want to put ME on trial, instead of those who
are committing the crime! This is like the situation in which someone
sees that his neighbor is raping a woman, and calls the police to
inform them that his neighbor is the rapist, and that they should put
him on trial ... instead of arresting the rapist, they arrest HIM
for sedition and incitement. I assume that you, as an intelligent
young man, well know that when I warn that the uprooting of
settlements and/or their being handed over to the PLO is a crime, I,
Heaven forbid, do not call to precipitate violence against those who
issue the orders or against those who carry them out. I simply call
upon the entire public in Israel not to participate in this crime. I
want to cause them to use their gray cells and think about this, with
each individual thinking whether or not he agrees.
And if we are already talking about violence - the violence is from
the side of the government. To uproot Jews from their homes - THAT is
violence, and I hope that not a single Jewish soldier will take part
in this establishment violence. If, however, the government were to
initiate and engage in violence, don't expect me to turn the other
cheek.
3) The last point: the Netanyahu government was not a right-wing
government. It did not conduct a revolution, not in the media, not in
the State Attorney's Office, and not anywhere else. It handed over
Hebron, and signed the accursed Wye agreement. The Netanyahu
government was a virtual-reality right-wing government that
implemented the program of the left. As we recall, a "right-wing"
government destroyed Yamit and evacuated its inhabitants. Who knows,
if the Netanyahu government had remained in power, Arik Sharon, the
master of evacuations, would possibly implement the "[settlement]
blocs plan," and uproot dozens of settlements, with the help of Mickey
Eitan and the other "right-wing" members of the Likud. Thank God, they
are in the opposition, and so they can pretend that they oppose these
steps "vigorously." (The reason we must do everything in order to
bring down the current government is not because we have a real
alternative, rather the fall of the government and new elections will
result in a few months of confusion in which no additional suicidal
agreements will be signed.)
In conclusion, Ilan, I do not regret the things I did say. I am not
exaggerating. It is whoever continues with these agreements who has
crossed the line and lost his sanity. I personnally will continue to
warn and reveal the cruel truth.
Really, It is simply impossible to comprehend. The Arab foe, despite
all the agreements, does not conceal his preparedness for a total war
for the destruction of the State of Israel and the elimination of the
Jewish entity in the Middle East. Despite this, the government of
Israel intends to continue its campaign of capitulations. With
pathological obsessiveness it seeks to rid itself of the nation's
lands and to destroy the life's work of two hundred thousand Jewish
brethren. Master of the Universe! What has happened to us?
If the historian Barbara Tuchman were alive today, she could add a
last chapter to her book "The March of Folly," and write about the
cursed Oslo accords and the crazy Jewish patsies who signed these
accords, and who implemented them. She would add several lines about
the small group of Jews who refused to fall into the trap and did not
cease warning against the dangers and crimes of Oslo. I want to be
among this group of Jews, even if this somewhat distorts my image in
your eyes....
Sincerely,
Nadia Matar, co-chair Women in Green
POB 1269, Efrat 90435
Fax: (02)930-9148
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 7, 2000
Letter to the Editor of the Jerusalem Post
RE: Tallie Lipkin-Shahak's article, May 5, 2000:
Greater Israel Bites the Dust
Dear Sir:
Tallie Lipkin-Shahak's friendship with Leah Rabin is so
well-known that it is no surprise when she lashes out at
certain sectors of the "Anti-Oslo" public she holds
personally responsible for the assassination of Yitzhak
Rabin ("Greater Israel Bites the Dust"). Although the
vilification and deligitimization of these sectors began
long before the assassination, the process accelerated in
its aftermath to such an extent that anyone still courageous
enough to continue protesting, let alone manning the barricades
or suggesting civil disobedience (under certain situations) is
immediately, and automatically, branded as a "fanatic zealot,"
a Rightwing Extremist (in other words, a Nazi) and an inciter
to violence and murder.
Mrs. Shahak continues with these baseless accusations when
she opines: "Matar and Haetzni, the most zealoous patriots,
are willing to murder[!!] the soul of a law-abiding society.....
and...encourage the injury of soldiers, police officers and OUR
children in the name of defending the Land of Israel"[!!!] As far
as I know, neither Mrs. Matar nor Mr. Haetzni have ever incited
to murder, violence or injuring children in order to protect
their (and our) legitimate civil rights including that most basic
right to live, in safety, wherever we wish in our homeland.
Lest Mrs. Shahak has forgotten, the young man now serving life
for Rabin's assassination was not a "settler," nor a member of
Women In Green, but a resident of Herzlia, down the road from
Mrs. Shahak's residence, who had been incited to commit this
political murder by an agent provocateur purposely planted
by the Security Service to provoke anti-"Settler" and anti-
"Rightwing" sentiments in the general public. In a real (not
sham) democracy, the right to Civil Disobedience is part and
parcel of the democratic process. It is those who seek to deny
such rights to the genral public who are a danger to democracy!
Does Mrs. Shahak really believe that when our turn comes, we,
the average, normal citizens, whether Rightists, Leftists,
Centrists, Jews or Gentiles will passively submit to being
hauled out of our beds and forcibly expelled from our homes?
Has she forgotten that just a few weeks ago, Leftwing Golan
Settlers demonstrated against just such a possibility,
expressing far more militant threats than any I have ever
heard from people like Mrs. Matar and Mr. Haetzni? What is
the reason that Mrs. Shahak did not attack the Golan settlers
for "incitement to violence and murder?"
It would also be interesting to learn how Mrs. Shahak and all
those who hold her opinions and prejudices, intend to react if,
or rather WHEN, the fateful day arrives and she is handed an
eviciton order!!! Will she pack her bags joyfully and head for
the seashore, in order to ensure that the "peace" process can
continue uninterrupted until it reaches its inevitable conclusion?
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. T. Gefen
Kiryat Ono
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 7, 2000
March from Abu Dis to the Temple Mount
Women in Green call upon all to join Zu Artzeinu on Yom Ha'atzmaut
(Israel's Independence Day) in their (short) march from Abu Dis to
Temple Mount.
Shuttle buses from the Hilton Hotel (Jerusalem), between 3:30pm and
3:50pm, will bring you to Abu Dis.
The march will start around 4:00pm.
The same buses will take us from Sha'ar Ha'ashpot back to the Hilton
at approximately 6:00pm.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 9, 2000
The following article appeared in Hatzofeh, in Hebrew.
The English translation is provided as a service to the
public, by Women in Green.
Hatzofeh May 7, 2000
Surrender to the National Headline Writers
Hanni Luz
Moetset Yesha (=The Council of Jewish Settlements in Judea, Samaria,
and Gaza) met last Thursday with extraparliamentary movements from
the right side of the map, and with prominent individuals who engage
in protest activities. The information was given to the press by
Moetset Yesha on Saturday night, and the following morning this was
published in the media. The Council of Jewish Settlements in Judea,
Samaria, and Gaza thereby attained national attention on Sunday, a
day that is generally weak in the media headlines that it can supply.
This media game continued with the morning's current-affairs
programs.
The media arena, that is not lacking in ideological content of its own,
attempted, as usual, to divert the discussion to the direction that it
wanted. It succeeded in this goal. The message of Moetset Yesha was,
among others, that the various bodies would coordinate their activities
with one another; more importantly, they will not denigrate each other
in the media. The NRP, as a parliamentary body that represents part of
the right, remains outside the playing field for now. Broadcasters in
the media who are engaged with, and meddle in, politics understood very
well where the treasure was hidden. They understood where to look for
the main headline. If Moetset Yesha would not condemn those called by the
media "the extreme right," it has an excellent potential candidate now:
the NRP.
The joint meeting by protest activists yielded the fruit of external
unity. The media, in contrast, feeds on the work of division: tensions,
splits, and differences of opinion are its daily bread. Without vocal
confrontations, the juicier the better, there is no "show," there is
no "action," and no rating. And if there is no rating - you are dead,
as far as the media goes. And here the NRP fell right into the open
trap, and provided the goods. MK Zevulun Orlev strongly condemns
Eliakim Haetzni. He demands that the police open an investigation
against him for calling upon soldiers to refuse orders, if the IDF
were to come to the houses of Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza and
demand that they evacuate [their homes]. He attacks the Women in
Green and the linkup of the Council of Jewish Settlements in Judea,
Samaria, and Gaza with the "extreme right." Instead of taking
advantage of the open microphone to direct the discussion to the
decisions that constitute a red line for democracy and for Zionism,
Orlev capitulated to the dictates of those who view themselves as
the determiners of the national headlines. Orlev could have led the
propaganda campaign. He could have spoken about the handing over of
Israeli citizens to the army of terrorists. He could have spoken
about the hypocrisy of the proposal to transfer settlements to foreign
rule, and thus to establish, by his own hand, "rule over another people"
- the slogan that led Israel to withdraw from control of Ramallah,
Shechem, and Hebron. This time, however, it is the "Palestinian" people
that will rule over a part of the Israeli people.
It is sad to see how, time after time, the NRP is drawn after
dictates by the microphone power wielders. Dictates that have led,
and continue to lead, the state down the slope of Zionism and sanity.
Capitulation to the media diversionary tactics away from the central
issue, and the diversion of attention to a matter that is secondary
(or meaningless [a play on the Hebrew spelling - trans.]) was
successful once again. What is especially sad is that this is a
response to a fundamental and important decision to maintain unity in
the face of forces that desire the division and dispersion of the
forces of the Zionist camp. And once again, it has been shown that
the slogan "one people dispersed" [Esther 3:8] works wonderfully, and
when such tangible danger hangs over our heads - senior politicians
are engaged in beating the wrong enemy.
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 14, 2000
Homegrown Double Standard
Dr. Rayah Epstein
(Mekor Rishon, May 12, 2000, p. 12)
Why, in a media interview, does Emunah Elon express reservations
concerning the statements by Nadia Matar regarding the refusal of Jews
to be evacuated, but has no qualms regarding the words of Amos Oz on
the refusal, on moral grounds, to obey another order?
I view the article by Emunah Elon ("Homegrown Delegitimization,"
issue no. 142) as a quite precise expression of the trend that has
come to dominate the national-religious public following the Rabin
assassination. The key to this trend lies in the statement that at
times is expressed explicitly, and other times is implicit: "We are
not all like that."
From leftists we hardly hear the definition "extremist," even
as regards the most radical among their ranks, we do not hear their
reservations concerning extreme utterances from within their midst,
or claims as if anyone in the left is creating "homegrown
delegitimization."
Ms. Elon is fully and unquestionably entitled to express her
opinion, and her position, like any other stance, is legitimate in
every respect. When, however, I heard her in an interview with Shelly
Yahimovitz respond to Nadia Matar's statements, I anticipated that,
to the same extent that she had reservations concerning Matar's
statement concerning the refusal to obey an order on moral grounds,
she would also criticize, for example, Amos Oz's words on the same
subject. If at the time, when it was published that Oz was about to
receive the Israel Prize, Emunah Elon was sufficiently courageous to
defend him against her public, who regarded the decision as a serious
affront to it, then this time, if not to express her compunctions
regarding his statement, she at least should have mentioned it and
related to it in some way.
What Amos Oz said and wrote pertains exactly to the same
subject of refusal to obey orders on moral grounds, to which Nadia
Matar related, with one "small" difference: then, the reference was
to the totally hypothetical possibility of transfer of Arabs, while
now the topic is the extremely realistic possibility of transfer of
Jews. And this, among other things, is what Amos Oz said then: "We
will not let them ... even if we will have to blow up the bridges."
Needless to say, the fact that Ms. Elon neither mentioned nor related
to this declaration did not cause Shelly Yahimovitz to bother her or
harass her on this point.
Recently, I keep asking myself: of what value are our claims
against the left concerning its unidirectional morality, its
unidirectional rule of law, and its unidirectional democracy, if
prominent figures and leading politicians in our camp have
internalized this unidirectionalism, and employ it towards their
public?
It seems to me that the "homegrown delegitimization" is
expressed at this juncture, and not in the position taken by people
such as Eliakim Haetzni, Nadia Matar, and Moshe Feiglin, who are
faithful to their truth and voice it fearlessly and without
manipulative political considerations, out loud.
This is what Amos Oz and his fellows did at the time, and
this may possibly be one of the main reasons for their victory in the
struggle against us and the realization of their truth. The main
thing is that their public stood behind them and supported them,
because it regarded this to be a moral obligation. This is not so for
us, and this perhaps is one of the primary reasons for our failures.
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 14, 2000
The following is Nadia Matar's reply to Tallie Lipkin-Shahak's
diatribe. The "Jerusalem Post" has refused to publish it.
May 8th,2000
To the "Jerusalem Post"
Response to Tallie Lipkin-Shahak
On June 27th, 1990 Yossi Sarid wrote in "Yediot Aharonot": ".So that
there will be no misunderstandings between us...we will not obey
the order to transfer, and our children and pupils will not obey
them." "The day that the transfer order is given, which is a totally
illegal order, will be the day that orders are refused".
His words did not arouse any public outcry. On that occasion,
Tallie Lipkin-Shahak did not write a column accusing Sarid of being
a "fanatic zealot...willing to murder the soul of a law-abiding
society." "Peace Now" did not demand to indict him for incitement.
In fact, Yossi Sarid became a prominent minister. That is, of
course, because his impassioned words addressed the possible
evacuation of an *Arab* village.
Last week, Atty. Elyakim Haetzni and myself proclaimed the same
sentiments as Yossi Sarid, but this time we spoke about the
unfortunate possibility of uprooting *Jews* from their homes. The
red line for Sarid was the transfer of Arabs. As a loyal Jew I
declare that *my* red line is the forced transfer of Jews and/or
the abandonment of Jews to the mercies of the murderous PLO
Authority. In actuality, the possibility that our IDF soldiers will
be sent to physically uproot settlers from their homes is quite
remote. I, along with many informed observers, believe that the
Israeli government will opt for a much more convenient, cheaper and
cynical method of ethnic cleansing: leaving the yishuvim and their
inhabitants where there are, and formally handing them over to the
security control of Arafat's terrorist army. The expected wave of
murderous terror against these yishuvim is meant to spur the Jews of
Yesha to evacuate themselves from their homes and from their
communities "of their own free will." No doubt, the recent delivery
by the Barak government of 300 kalashnikov rifles to Arafat's army
will help both leaders further this demonic plan.
Let it be clear to all: any tactic the Barak government chooses to
drive out Jews who live in Israel's biblical heartland is immoral,
illegal and therefore non-binding on all men and women of conscience.
Democracy, the rule of the majority, is not above all. Some of the
greatest crimes in history were sanctioned by the majority, and
committed in the name of democracy. A majority does not have the
right to do anything it wishes; a majority cannot abrogate basic
human rights. If, for instance, a majority in the Knesset were to
pass a law permitting the murder of sick or old or handicapped
persons, no decent citizen would comply. If the Supreme Court were to
outlaw the age-old Jewish practice of circumcision, no traditional
Jew would obey. The same holds true for the uprooting of Jews from
their homes. It is an action so immoral, that it is patently illegal.
Thus it follows that anyone who gives an order to drag Jews from their
homes, and anyone who agrees to carry out this criminal decree,
cannot be regarded as a brother. In any normal family, a brother does
not harm his other brothers. A brother does not sell his sisters to a
band of murderers and rapists. A brother does not uproot his own
family from their home. This is true whether we are talking about the
Prime Minister, a Knesset Member, a general in the army, or any
soldier.
My obligation to warn against the crime of uprooting Jews and/or
handing them over to the mass-murderer Arafat, comes not, G-d
forbid, in order to precipitate violence against those who give or
carry out the order, but as a wake-up call to the Israeli public, with
the hope that such crimes will never be implemented.
Jews who live in Eretz Yisrael are not violent people nor do they
wish to hurt anyone, despite Lipkin-Shahak's nasty allegations.
They simply want to exert their basic right as Jews and as human
beings to live, peacefully, in their homes in Eretz Yisrael, on
both sides of the so-called Green Line. The only violence that is
at issue - besides the endless Arab violence - is the violence
emanating from the Israeli government. If the government were to
initiate such violence by sending soldiers to attack its own
citizens, dragging men, women and children out of their homes, don't
expect the victims to turn the other cheek!
One can only pity Mrs Lipkin-Shahak, possessed as she is by
vitriolic hatred of those who represent basic human and Jewish
values. She is, unfortunately, the result of decades of Israeli
secular education producing Israeli youngsters ignorant about, and
often hostile to, their Jewish heritage. Sadly, as in the case of
Lipkin-Shahak and Minister of Education Yossi Sarid, there are
people who identify more easily with the Arab enemy than with their
own Jewish brethren.
Nadia Matar
Mishol Hacramim 10
Efrat 90435
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 14, 2000
Come One -- Come All!
Women In Green call upon all to participate in the mass demonstration
that will take place on:
Monday, May 15th
Zion Square, Jerusalem
7:00pm
Come in large numbers to demonstrate on behalf of our People, our
land and Jerusalem!
Ruth and Nadia Matar
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 16, 2000
Od Yosef Hai Yeshivah
The following was sent to us by the yeshivah at Yosef's Tomb in
Shechem, and is translated as a public service by the Women in Green.
11 Iyyar 5760
Od Yosef Hai Yeshivah
The Events at Yosef's Tomb, the Eve of 11 Iyyar 5760 (May 15, 2000)
The Chronicle of Events
On Monday, 10 Iyyar (May 15), there was serious rioting, battles,
and exchanges of fire on the outskirts of Shechem, in the area of the
village of Kalil, and in the Balata refugee camp. The IDF forces
acted in a resolute manner and prevented the spread of the rioting.
The Arab rioters suffered a number of dead and dozens of wounded. At
9:00 p.m., a frenzied mob, under the protection of the terrorists in
uniforms, began to throw stones and firebombs at the Tomb of Yosef
Hatzadik compound. About 12 Border Guard soldiers, who are constantly
in the compound, were present. All the installations of the yeshivah,
tents, beds, mattresses, and a great deal of equipment were set on
fire, and a large fire raged around the stone building. In addition,
the water tanks, the electrical system, trees, and the army positions
were burnt.
At the same time, an attempt was made by armed rioters to
break through the compound gate. The Border Guard soldiers
immediately initiated live and direct fire, and killed and wounded
the rioters. A Border Guard officer was lightly to moderately wounded
by terrorist gunfire, and an additional soldier was wounded by
stones. The IDF prepared for action by placing tanks in firing
positions on Mount Gerizim and on the outskirts of Shechem, along
with many soldiers on armored troop carriers, for the possibility of
a breakthrough into Shechem, and driving to the tomb of Yosef
Hatzadik.
At midnight local quiet was attained, that made possible
the entry of fresh Border Guard units and the replacement of the
wounded and the forces at the tomb of Yosef Hatzadik. This morning,
Tuesday, May 16, the place looks exactly as it did three years ago,
in the pogrom on the eve of Sukkot 5757 (1996), when, unfortunately,
the political and military systems did not succeed in restoring the
place for such a long period of time. The harsh reality of the past
three years, in which the struggle to exist here and to restore basic
living conditions puts us in a constant, humiliating, and painful
battle, is what has, to our sorrow, brought destruction upon us, with
such intolerable ease, time after time.
Has not the time come to awaken and insist upon our national honor?
"I will save the House of Joseph. I will restore them, for I have
compassion upon them" (Zechariah 10:6).
To support the Od Yossef Chai Yeshiva, phone: 972-2-9974666
or fax: 972-2- 9975956.
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 16, 2000
Defying The Jewish Majority
It has been heralded by HaAretz and others as an "impressive"
achievement for Prime Minister Barak to force through a Knesset vote of
56 to 48 to transfer Abu Dis and two other Arab neighboring Jerusalem
communities to the control of Arafat. What has not been emphasized in
the news reports is that there was not even a simple majority of the 120
Members of the Knesset who voted to give up parts of Israel's homeland
to the control of the murderer Arafat.
Moreover, the Arabs in the Knesset, some 12 of them, who are disloyal
to our Jewish State, and actively seek its demise, made up more than 20%
of the 56 votes garnered by Barak. In other words, the use by Barak
of the Arab vote to achieve his majority is ominous, and is not an
"achievement" for Barak at all. It represents a departure from the
realistic determination of this State's founders that Israel could not
rely on the Arabs when dealing with questions of what constitutes the
Jewish Homeland, and on questions of Israel's security or its survival.
These Arab Israeli citizens consider themselves as Palestianians, and
"enemies" of a Jewish State. They represent a threat to Israel's
continued existence. Not to recognize and deal with this bizarre state
of affairs can only lead to a consequential disaster.
To use the Arab votes to force Barak's policies down the Jewish
People's throats creates a situation fraught with danger. It is an
inescapable fact that a majority of the Jews in the Knesset voted down
Barak's initiative and that should be the controlling factor in a Jewish
State. Yet, Barak and his Party have not learned from their past
grossly undemocratic practices, and have an utter disregard of what the
majority of the Jewish People want.
The fact of the matter is that Barak did just what his predecessor, the
Labor Party did, in connection with obtaining a majority on the Oslo
vote. He used Government monies to buy the equivalent of a Mitsubishi
as a bribe. The parallel is quite real even though the purchase of a
car to induce a vote now takes the form of supplying funds for an
educational enterprise that Barak's own Education Minister has
denounced. It matters not that those whose votes were bought merely
abstained rather than vote for Barak's proposal. The end result was
that such abstentions made it possible for less than a majority of
Knesset Members to carry the day. It was all part of Barak's clever
calculated maneuverings.
This so-called "Jewish Leader" has arranged, as Clinton's errand boy, to
deliver this package prior to his meeting with him in Washington next
week. The irony is that Barak still talks about the need for separation
of the Arab and Jewish peoples as part of his grand design for "peace".
He has now brought Arafat within a stone's throw of Jerusalem. Arabs can
use the guns he and his predecessors have given to them to fire from
the rooftops of Abu Dis on the Jewish residents of Jerusalem. This is
Barak's (his name means lightning) Abu Dis message.
Ruth and Nadia Matar
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 21, 2000
The Babe of Tranquility
The following was writtten by Dr. Steven Plaut
It simply says it all...
The word "shalev" in Hebrew comes from the same root as shalom. It
means tranquility and calm.
Baby Shalev is a two-year old Jewish toddler girl. She is at this moment
struggling for her life thanks to the policy of Oslo national suicide
instituted as a result of the fathomless stupidity of Israel's politicians.
There is some question as to whether Baby Shalev will survive until the
time when you read this. She is covered with burns over more than 50% of
her body. She has exposed for the entire world the true symbol of the Oslo
"peace process"- the auto da fe.
Baby Shalev was riding in her mother's car in her baby seat. Her
mother was driving, and in the car were her aunt and brother. They were
driving through Jericho, the first town turned over to the Palestinian
Authority as part of the Oslo "peace process". Jericho was to be the town
in which the PLO proved its peaceful intentions. Until Oslo, Jericho had
always been one of the few places on the West Bank in which there did NOT
occur riots and intifada violence. Jericho in the Bible is associated with
the institution of prostitution.
While driving along one of the main streets of the town, a "policeman"
of the Palestinian Authority, one directly employed by and controlled by
Yassir Arafat, approached Baby Shalev's car and threw a molotov cocktail
inside of it. He was instructed to do so as part of the PLO's capaign to
conduct violent riots this week to demand that Israel release jailed Arab
murderers of Jews. The same riots which Ehud Barak rewarded by agreeing to
turn over parts of Jerusalem to the PLO. The PLO "policeman" who tried to
murder Baby Shalev and her family had no doubt been convinced that this is
legitimate and reasonable behavior because for years Israel has been the
only place on earth where the throwing of molotov cocktails and rocks at
civilians is permitted, where one can throw them with impunity, where
Israeli soldiers are prohibited on threat of court martial from firing at
the throwers. No where else on earth is such behavior permitted -
including on the streets of Los Angeles as the 60 or so dead rioters there
during the riots can show. Baby Shalev is not the first victim of this
policy of Israeli national auto-destruction and self-debasement.
This employee of Yassir Arafat threw the petrol bomb into Baby Shalev's
car intending to murder her and her family. Her mother, aunt and brother
were injured but not as badly as Baby Shalev. She is now in intensive care
at Haddasah Hospital and fighting for her life. If she lives she will be
deformed ghastly for life.
Israel was created to prevent the random murder of Jews, but the
Post-Zionist policies of its Oslo leadership have established a new national
goal - the returning of Jews to their state of helplessness in the Middle
Ages. When the auto da fe was the fate of Jews. When Jews died sanctifying
God's Name as they were burned to death. Reciting the Shma prayer or the
Aleinu.
Baby Shalev does not know the Aleinu prayer and probably not the Shma
either. She is too young. She cannot comprehend why Ehud Barak and the
political leadership of Israel have made the auto da fe into their symbol of
pseudo-peace.
Neither can anyone else.
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 24, 2000
Silence of the Lambs
An old photograph of my family when they were living
in Holland in the 1930's hangs in my house. In the picture there are
thirty-three of my relatives, dressed in elegant attire, at a family
celebration. It appears to have been the engagement of a happy couple,
who are in the center of the photograph. I can identify my grandmother
and grandfather. I don't know any of the other people. There was no
way I could have known them - all but six of them, were murdered by the
Nazis during the Holocaust. In that picture, you can see a child who
is approximately ten years of age, my grandfather's nephew. Even during
my own childhood, the story of his murder shocked me. It affected me
very personally, more than any of the horrible stories of the Holocaust
I have since heard, because it was a story from within my own family.
It was the story of this child being burnt to death in the street where
he lived by flame-throwers used by the Nazis.
Now, many years later, they still burn Jewish
children in the street. What is unbelievable is that it is occurring
right here in Israel, of all places. Shalev, a two year old Jewish
infant, was travelling in an automobile with her mother, aunt, and four
year old brother. They were driving through Jericho, the first city
that was handed over by a prior Israeli Government to the PLO
Authority. A "Palestinian policeman" (the equivalent of an Arab
soldier) went over to their automobile and threw a firebomb into it.
The purpose of his action was undoubtedly to burn alive all the Jewish
passengers in their vehicle. Several of the passengers were lightly
wounded. Shalev, the two year old baby, suffered severe first degree
burns over her entire body. As these lines are being written, she is
still struggling for her life. Even if she survives, she will be
physically and mentally maimed for the rest of her life. That burning
recalled another tragedy since Oslo was forced upon us some years
ago, when Arab rioters burned to death Rachel Weiss and her three
infants who were on a bus riding through Jericho.
We pray that little Shalev will recover, but her
scars will be a constant reminder to her and all of us of what the Oslo
accords have brought us. When she grows up, her parents will explain to
her that she was the victim of a false peace. She will herself realize
that the agreements which Arafat signed with us, enabled him and other
Arab terrorists to continue to kill Jews, without being punished for
their crimes. On the contrary, she will learn that the more Arabs riot,
throw stones, shoot at our soldiers, and burn our children, the more the
Government of Israel continues to reward them. This is done through the
release of Arab murderers, giving them additional Kalashnikov rifles,
giving them safe passage through our homeland, assisting them with
money, and in giving up the territory of our historic ancient homeland,
and helping them to create a hostile Palestinian State.
It is too bad that we cannot force Shimon Peres and
Yossi Beilin, and the other architects of Oslo to visit little Shalev in
her hospital room. They would then be able to experience the pain she
is suffering from her severe burns. Her two year old eyes would be able
to gaze upon them and sorrowfully ask: "Why"? Why did you create the
monster who is responsible for severely burning me, and cause my people
so much suffering?
There are those who accuse the national camp of believing
that land is more exalted than human life. The reality is exactly the
opposite. Those who are willing to give up our historic homeland are
the ones who are silent when the arch-murderer Arafat and his followers
continue in their heinous behavior of murder, stone throwing and
burning. It is specifically those "peace seekers" who are silent in
the face of the shedding of Jewish blood, and for whom the value of
human life has virtually become insignificant. On the altar of
worshipping the word "peace," they seem to be prepared to even sacrifice
Jewish children.
My grandfather's nephew, and two year old Shalev, were
burnt by the enemies of Israel. They attack us because we are Jews.
Then, we were a persecuted minority in the Diaspora. Today we are the
majority in the sovereign State of Israel. Notwithstanding the radical
change for the better, our Government continues its "Galut mentality" of
silence and subservience in the face of brutal attacks against its
Jewish citizens. Under the pretext of not upsetting the present
"make-believe peace process," it tolerates the burning of our children.
Can the People of the Book continue on this immoral path of silence in
its own Holy Land, and allow its Government to continue the destruction
of our People's morale, and self worth?
Nadia Matar
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 24, 2000
The Holocaust Can Happen Again
The following interview with Nadia appeared in the Hebrew magazine
"Anashim" (People) - May 16-22, pp. 31-38.
* "The Arabs want to continue what happened in the Holocaust."
* "I compare the Oslo accords to the rape of the Jewish people. They
forced us to have relations with the archmurderer Arafat."
* "Yossi Sarid wants to turn our children into anti-Jews."
* "Ehud Barak cares more for the interests of the Arab enemy than for
the people of Israel."
* "The Arab-Israeli public has not shown that it is loyal to the state,
and it makes use of democracy in order to advance the goals of the PLO."
* Nadia Matar, Chairperson of the Women in Green, is still
fighting for every step, and doesn't mince her words
Yuval Yoez
(photography: Daniel Cohen)
The world of Nadia Matar, chairperson of Women in Green, acts
according to the rules of Hollywood: there are good guys and bad
guys. We, the people of Israel, are obviously cast in the role of the
good guys, while the Palestinians, headed by Yasser Arafat, whom she
is careful to call "the archmurderer," are the bad guys. A simple
world of black, white - and a great deal of green, that is worn by
the movement's members. "We will not go back to the Green Line,"
Matar explains the message behind the color. "And besides this, all
of Eretz Israel is beautiful and green, and green is also the color
of Spring, of renewal." The interview with Matar was conducted in her
house, in the heart of the settlement of Efrat. A moment before the
conversation moved into high gear, she shows me a photograph of the
members of her family, who lived in tranquility in Holland until they
were murdered in the Holocaust. "When I am asked what impels me to
act with the Women in Green," she says, "I show this picture. It
hangs in my bedroom, and I look at it every day."
Q: And what lesson do you learn from it?
"That despite the fact that the State of Israel was established, and
we are presumably strong, we are not in Europe, nor in America. Our
neighbors want to continue what happened in the Holocaust, and this
will not change. If we will not keep our ear to the ground, then
something like this could happen again, Heaven forbid. This is what
impels me. "This is not the first time that our people thought that
everything was fine. Look at the photograph, see how they are happy,
comfortable, and beautiful, living quietly in enlightened Europe.
Today, as well, there is a public that says that there is the IDF, we
are hi-tech and everything's fine, and if we only give the Arabs a
bit, we will satisfy them. This is the difference between me and the
left: I say that this will not satisfy them. They will not change. It
is necessary to respect the Arab mentality, to learn it. The State of
Israel is a cancer in their body, and it will be of no avail, no
matter how much we give them - they will want everything."
Q: But your struggle is finished. Even in the right they know that
the Palestinian state is a fait accompli.
"It is written in the halakhah [Jewish law] that when a woman is
raped, and she is capable of crying out but does not do so, then,
Heaven forbid, she is regarded as having consented to this. I
compare the Oslo accords to the rape of the Jewish people. They
forced us to have relations with the archmurderer Arafat. So, at
least I cry out. So that it will not be written in the history books
that all the people agreed, I was there, and I cried out 'No.'"
* * *
For seven years Nadia Matar has headed the Women in Green movement,
that she founded together with her mother-in-law, Ruth Matar, during
the period of the wave of protests that swept Israel in the wake of
the signing of the Oslo accords.
Q: How many members does the movement have?
"Since everything is done on a volunteer basis, and we don't even
have enough money for a secretary, I can only estimate. About 5,000
women pay membership dues, 60 shekels a year. A few additional
thousands, of both sexes, receive the movement's publications, that
are also distributed in the United States. These are known as the
'American Friends of Women in Green.'" Matar says that the movement
is active every day of the year, but it is difficult to ignore the
fact that especially dynamic activity has been conducted recently -
almost every time that Israel gives over, or intends to give over,
territories to the Palestinians. It was seen confronting soldiers at
the Maon farm, it was seen demonstrating in Abu Dis, and, in short -
its presence in the field cannot be ignored.
It seems that Nadia knows that the peace process cannot be stopped,
but she at least wants people to pay attention to her cry. In order
to explain the logic on which her protest activity is based, she
enlists Winston Churchill. "Before the Second World War, he was the
only one who shouted and shouted, until people finally understood
that he was right."
Q: Do you feel like Churchill?
"I feel the same. Even in the Likud there are many people, such as
Meir Shitreet and Michael Eitan, who are no different than the left.
They think that we are going here to some kind of peace, but seven
years of agreements with Arafat have not proved that peace has
actually been created here."
Q: Most commentators agree that an irreversible process has been
created.
"This does not mean that I have to accept this. Look, we were
promised peace. Where is the peace here? Unfortunately, I believe
that because of the Oslo accords we are on the way to war. And when
this will happen, they will say: 'Nadia and her fellow women were
right.' I hope that this will never happen, but, unfortunately,
recent developments show that this is correct. So that I am not
fighting a war that has already ended. The war is still at the
threshold."
Q: Let's assume that you are right. Israel is still the strongest
country in the region.
"Read what Dr. Yuval Steinitz [a philosopher and Likud MK - Y. Y.]
wrote. It is true that the Palestinian Authority does not constitute
a threat against Israel, but the moment that we return, Heaven
forbid, to the 1967 borders, and the Arab enemy will see that it is
possible to attack us, it will sabotage the mobilization of the IDF
reserves. They can enter Jerusalem from Bethlehem, block roads,
explode things, and our whole large army could be immobilized within
a few hours. And then our deterrence will have gone."
Q: At times it seems that the settlers are struggling mainly in
order to preserve their belongings. If territories are returned, you
are the immediate losers.
"When I struggle against the agreements, this is for the survival of
Tel Aviv. The moment that we agree to surrender territories in Judea,
Samaria, and Gaza - and this is what is actually happening - we have
no moral right to exist in Ramat Aviv. Our history is here, between
Jerusalem and Hebron. How can we give this place, the heart of the
Jewish people, to foreigners?"
* * *
Nadia Matar (34) grew up in Belgium, in a secular home with a
traditional accent: Friday night they lit candles and recited
Kiddush, after which they ate a nonkosher meal and watched
television. As a girl she studied in a religious school, but at the
age of 16 she felt, according to her, confused from the double
message she received from her parents, who found it difficult to
choose between being religious and secularism. She decided to study
Judaism in depth, and began to be observant. Then she also decided
that if she wants to be part of the history of the Jewish people, she
has to immigrate to Eretz Israel. At the age of 18, when she was
already completely religious, she arrived in Israel. She participated
in the Bnei Akiva movement, and there her identification with the
national-religious orientation was forged. Matar and her husband
David, a pediatrician, have brought five children into the world:
Yehudah (eleven), Taliah (ten), Benzi (seven), Amihai (four), and Leorah
(two years old). "It's difficult to believe what a story this is to
prepare a hot dinner every day," she says.
Q: It sounds like you have a quite difficult life. You run a protest
movement, raise children, demonstrate on every occasion, and also are
arrested many times.
"This is definitely a difficult life. We live in Judea and Samaria,
my husband runs a clinic and at the same time does a lot of reserve
duty. But this is alright, we are highly motivated." And Matar's motivation,
as she repeatedly emphasizes at every opportunity, comes from the belief
that a clearly Jewish nature is to be imparted to the State of Israel, and
not to let it become a state of all its citizens. Such a step, she believes,
"will turn us into the fifty-first state of the United States."
Q: Specifically now, when there are 27 MK's in the Knesset from
religious and ultra-Orthodox parties, you have a problem with the
Jewish character of the state?
"Clearly so. Look, in Belgium I went to a school in which we learned
what is a blessing, how to pray, how to recite Kaddish. Knowledge of
our tradition was imparted there. Here, in schools in Israel, this
does not happen. There is no knowledge. In secular schools, the Bible
is not the Bible, a blessing is not a blessing. A secular child
cannot finish the sentence 'Shema Yisrael' ["Hear, O Israel"]. What is
happening here? There is an attempt by the establishment to turn the
Israeli child into a complete ignoramus concerning our tradition, and
at times to even give him anti-religious education."
Q: And according to you, "Jewish character" includes revoking the
right to vote by Arabs?
"In the United States, when fateful decisions are on the agenda, they
are taken by a two-thirds majority in Congress. I would expect that
also in Israel, when laws essential to the nature of the state or to
its boundaries are discussed, they would pass only with such a
majority. This answers your question for you. I want that there
should be a decision by the Jewish majority, because, unfortunately,
the Arab public has not shown that it is loyal to the state. Ahmed
Tibbi, the right-hand man of Arafat, is in the Knesset. I emphasize
that the Arab Israeli public makes use of our democracy in order to
advance the goals of the PLO."
Q: Then Arabs shouldn't be in the Knesset?
"I would pass a law that anyone who desires to vote must do military
or national service, and sign a declaration of loyalty to the Jewish
state. I would obligate ev-ery-one ["ku-lam"] for this, both Arabs
and the ultra-Orthodox."
Q: The President of the Supreme Court, the Prime Minister of Israel,
and its Education Minister speak of a state of all its citizens. From
your point of view, does this turn them into enemies of Zionism?
"A sticker could be made: 'Alef. Barak, Corporation for the
Dismantling of Zionism.' The alef is for both Ehud and Aharon Barak.
Incidentally, I wrote a lengthy letter to Aharon Barak, he did not
answer me, but in a certain ruling he related to what I said. He
wrote: 'The State of Israel must have in it movements such as Women
in Green, even if they send me strongly-worded letters.' "Aharon
Barak and Yossi Sarid want to establish here a state of all its
citizens. They represent post-Zionism in the High Court of Justice,
in the media, and also in education. Sarid causes our children to be
Hebrew-speaking goyim [non-Jews]. He wants to turn them into
anti-Jews. He is waging an active struggle against the State of
Israel as a Zionist state."
Q: What about Ehud Barak? Do you feel that he is your Prime Minister?
"He said that he is the Prime Minister of everyone, but I feel that
he is the Prime Minister of a small bunch; a bunch that is attempting
to force upon us things that the majority of the people of Israel do
not want. Unfortunately, he continues to give in to the enemy. This
pains me. We have a Prime Minister who cares more for the interests
of the Arab enemy than for the people of Israel. I will do
everything in order to bring down this government."
Q: You undoubtedly preferred Binyamin Netanyahu.
"I voted for him, of course, but the last time I did this with a
heavy heart. He was a weak leader. When he took power, he spoke of
reciprocity, because he knew that if he were to come out openly
against the accords, he would not be elected. But he did not insist
on reciprocity. He caved in. I voted for him, and I was totally
disappointed. Why, he gave over Hebron."
Q: If Barak gives in to the Arabs, and Netanyahu is too leftish, then
you have no political home. It seems that your views are too extreme
to be included in the political spectrum.
"From my point of view, the difference between the Netanyahu
government and the government of the left is that the left gave away
territories out of leftist ideology, that wants to be rid of Judea
and Samaria and advance anti-religiosity. Netanyahu, on his part, did
this out of weakness and capitulation. He is good for writing books,
but not to rule. The Netanyahu government was a virtual right-wing
government, that implemented the policy of the left. I truly cannot
trust any politician."
Q: Doesn't this put you outside the bounds of the political game?
"No. This puts me in the heart of the people of Israel. And all the
rest - in the extreme left."
* * *
How was Women in Green founded?
"In May 1993 there was a demonstration opposite the house of Yitzhak
Rabin. This was one of the first demonstrations in which I
participated, with the encouragement of my mother-in-law. Understand,
Rabin came to rule as a great military man, a security-oriented
person. He promised that he would not talk with the PLO, would not
divide Jerusalem, and would not withdraw even a single step from the
Golan. But even then they began to talk about handing over the Golan.
"The day after the demonstration, it was written in the press that
'Settlers and Bnei Akiva young people demonstrated,' blah blah blah.
I was among a group of women, friends of my mother-in-law. When we
saw what was published, we said to ourselves: 'Enough already. All
the time they say that the demonstrators are settlers, and show a
picture of someone with an Uzi and a long beard. This looks as if
only crazies demonstrate for Eretz Israel.' We said, let's found a
movement of women, and show that mothers and grandmothers also can
demonstrate." In the first stage, the movement was called "Women for
Israel's Tomorrow." One of its first activities was a demonstration
with the slogan "We will not return to the boundaries of the Green
Line," and all the women who participated were asked to wear green.
"But every woman came in a blouse in a different shade of green,"
Matar relates, "and my mother-in-law is a perfectionist. And so to
unite everyone, we decided to come with the same green hat that we
distributed to the participants. The media began to call us the
'Women in Green,' and since then, if the Prime Minister speaks in any
hotel, we are outside. [If] there is some major conference - we are
there." The activity of the Women in Green focuses mainly on
demonstrations held under the watchful eye of the media.
In general, the media plays a very important role for Matar, who
admits that one of the important goals of the movement was to conquer
leftist Tel Aviv. "It's no big deal to demonstrate in Jerusalem, for
everyone there is with you. For me, Tel Aviv was always the true
indicator. We had to show the media there that we exist. You should
understand, in the beginning of 1993 they almost spat on us in Tel
Aviv. This atmosphere had to be changed." Matar quickly became an
expert on media affairs, and today there is no political or
diplomatic reporter who does not know her by name. Her patented
method is incessant nudging. She does not leave her house without the
beeper numbers of all the reporters, and 24 hours a day she sends
them her responses to news events. To tell the truth, her messages
have become a nightmare for many journalists. It isn't pleasant to
awake at six in the morning to hear an urgent beeping, and then to
hear once again that Matar does not believe the Prime Minister. When
the presence of Matar and her fellow women became more noticed, her
troubles with the police also began. She was arrested a number of
times (she claims that she was on the receiving end of blows by
overly enthusiastic policemen) and was also placed on trial once in
the wake of such encounters. She was given community service. One of
Matar's serious encounters with the police was during the
deliberations of the Commission of Inquiry into the Slaughter in
Maarat ha-Machpelah [the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron]:
"We said then, that when a Jew kills Arabs a Commission of Inquiry
is established - but what about the 33 Israelis who were murdered
since Oslo? In short, we asked that the Commission also investigate
the stories of the Israelis who were murdered since the accords.
"They came from CNN and the BBC and taped us, but then the police
came and said: 'It is forbidden to stand here.' We said: 'Why all of
a sudden? We demonstrate every week, and everything is all right.'
The police answered us that these were orders from above, and that we
had to leave. I said: 'I am staying, and you won't move me from
here.' They threw me on the ground, my mother-in-law received a blow
to the head, and they arrested us. They dispersed the demonstration
in a brutal manner. Thank God, Channel 2 taped this. "After several
hours, when we left the jail, I filed a complaint about false arrest,
police brutality, and the like. But a few hours later I received a
charge sheet, that it was I who attacked the police, that I
obstructed them in the fulfillment of their duty, and that I blocked
the road. But in the trial they gave me, my lawyer pulled out the
cassette of Channel 2, that showed the opposite, and the case was
closed. Only, not in every [other] demonstration there were
photographers, that explains to you why I was convicted time after
time. The truth, however, is that the same scenario repeats itself in
every demonstration."
Q: Haven't you despaired because of this?
"No. They thought that they could intimidate us, or that we would
despair, but I understood that we, the little fly, greatly bother the
big elephant, the government, This only strengthened me."
Q; What did you tell your children when you were arrested?
"This really was a problem, because they began to be afraid. Every
time that I went to a demonstration, they asked: 'Will you come back,
or are you going to jail?' Then I explained to them that I am not a
criminal, and, all in all, they are trying to prevent Mommy from
demonstrating for Eretz Israel. I told them: 'It's not so bad if I go
to jail for one night. Be with Daddy for a while.'
Matar did not stop demonstrating, but she learned the rules of what
is permitted and what is forbidden. She knows, for example, that a
demonstration of less than 50 people does not require a police
permit: "Up to 49 people can stand on the sidewalk with posters,
without requesting a permit. We did this over the course of a year,
and they didn't even look at us. The policemen would see us and say:
'Oh, Nadia. Hi, how's it going?'"
Q: Do you enjoy demonstrating?
"No. I hate to demonstrate, but I will continue."
Q: Aren't you getting tired?
"I will tell you a story. My mother says that when I was born, the
first word that I said was not "Mommy" or 'Daddy',' but 'Israel.'
There's nothing to be done, I came with a great love for the state.
It is true that I speak against the government, but we have a
wonderful people and a wonderful land. When I had just come here,
before all the mess of demonstrations, I said: 'Wow. There's a Jewish
policeman, and there's a Jewish butcher store. They're all Jews.' I
was really euphoric. "This dream was shattered in 1992, when I saw
that we have a government that capitulates to the enemy. When I
received blows from policemen in demonstrations, when they broke my
ribs, the pain was not physical but spiritual. Just imagine, to
receive blows from a Jewish policeman. Nonetheless, it is important
for me to state clearly that I love all of our policemen and all of
our soldiers."
Q: In the past you said that it is necessary to relate to soldiers
who would evacuate settlements like an enemy.
"I was quoted incorrectly. I said that I do not regard such a soldier
as a brother, and that he is to be viewed as an enemy. But I did not
say that he is to be treated as such. All I intended was that I will
not accept a decision to evacuate settlements, even if it were to be
confirmed by 120 Members of Knesset. There are matters that are
immoral and illegal. In June 1990, Yossi Sarid himself said: 'The
day in which a transfer order is given, that is a patently illegal
order, will be the day of refusing an order.' This was when they
wanted to move some Arab village, in accordance with a proposal by
Geulah Cohen. If Yossi Sarid has a red line in the image of the
uprooting of an Arab village, then I, too, have a red line - the
uprooting and evacuation of a Jewish settlement."
Q:" If the IDF were to receive an order to evacuate a settlement in
the territories, would you call upon soldiers to refuse orders?
"I would give them a letter: 'Dear soldier, the evacuation is
illegal and immoral.' I would quote Yossi Sarid, and I would add,
'Please conduct yourselves as Yossi Sarid would, if the case were the
uprooting of an Arab village. Do not obey this patently illegal
order.'"
Q: Would you forcibly struggle with them?
"I do not want to get into this now. I would not turn the other
cheek, and I do not want to talk about this any more."
Q: But the meaning of your words is clear. You are calling upon IDF
soldiers to rebel.
"Heaven forbid! I am also not talking about shooting soldiers, but
if it will be necessary to cling to my table, this is what I will do.
I will not go of my own free will."
* * *
Matar is a very busy woman. Every Thursday she broadcasts a personal
program on Arutz 7, and now she is engrossed in the writing of an
ideological proclamation that she intends to publish in
tens of thousands of copies and in three languages: Hebrew, Russian,
and English. The main target, as usual, is Tel Aviv. Incidentally,
Matar already disseminated a bulletin in the past. Printed in it were
the telephone and fax numbers of all 120 Members of Knesset, with the
hope that the inhabitants of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza would bombard
them with announcements. And this worked. "There are several MK's who
changed their numbers as a result of the quantity of faxes they
received," she beams with pleasure. "That's the way it is, if a
person receives 100 faxes every day, this has an influence. This has
power."
Q: Perhaps you should put yourself up for the Knesset, and send your
faxes from there?
"No, I don't have any designs like this at this point".
Q: Were you offered entry into establishment politics?
"Yes. In 1996 people from the Likud asked me to join, but, to my joy,
I was pregnant and I had no time. I am not saying that I will never
want this, but at present I feel that my role, as chairperson of an
extra-parliamentary movement, is capable of wielding influence. We
will leave the Knesset for the future. For now, I don't have any time
for this. I have five children."
Q: This too, I assume, is a consequence of ideology.
"Certainly. I myself have only one sister, and I always said that
this was too few. I greatly love children, and I definitely regard
them as an answer to those who tried to destroy my family, the Nazis,
may their memory be blotted out. The message is that we are here, and
not only that we bring [into the world] Jewish children, but also
that we educate them for love of Eretz Israel."
Q: And this is the main message that you impart to your children?
"Yes. When four-year-old Amihai sees a photograph of Ehud Barak, he
says: 'This one wants to give [away] the Golan.' And I say to him,
'Yes, but I hope that we will persuade him not to give it.'"
Q: Do the children relate to the Arabs as "the Arab enemy"?
"No, I make it clear to them that an Arab can be a friend. And
actually, when the Arabs from the neighboring village come here, my
oldest child already knows to give them water, and I talk with them
in the grocery store. There are good Arabs who live in our midst, but
to the children I say that they don't have nice leaders, who do not
like us. When they see a photograph of Yasser Arafat, they definitely
know that he wants to murder us, and that it is necessary to fight
him."
Q: Does your husband David support your struggle?
"One hundred percent. In general, I don't understand how it is
possible to be a couple with opposing political views. I could not
live in such a fashion. Incidentally, David is not the only one in
the family who helps. Every time there is a demonstration, my mother
comes to babysit the children."
Q: Does she also post bail for you when necessary?
"No. My husband does that."
Responses to the article
Ehud Barak: "Matar's views are baseless"
>From the office of the Prime Minister, Ehud Barak, the response was
issued: "Freedom of opinion in a democratic country also includes the
right to express an opinion that is lacking all basis in reality."
Education Minister Yossi Sarid said that he is not interested in
responding to Nadia Matar's statements.
Calling Card
Name: Nadia Matar
Age: 34
Residence: Efrat
Family status: married and the mother of five
Automobile: blue 1996 GMC, with a lot of stickers
Food: french fries and a hamburger
Television: "No time to watch."
Music: Hasidic
Sports: likes to ski, runs very day ("have to keep in practice before
we return to the hills").
Esteemed figure: Dr. Yisrael Eldad
Likes the most: to have fun with the children and the family
Hates the most: "To be accused of something that I didn't do."
Dream: "To stop demonstrating; that the people of Israel will be
secure in Eretz Israel, and that we will lead a Jewish life, without
any threat. But this is a daydream."
CAPTION (p. 32): Nadia Matar in a demonstration. "My husband posts
bail" (photograph: flash 90)
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 24, 2000
Women -- Learn Self-Defense!!
The latest events in Israel have proven that there is a great need
for us to know the basics of self-defense. Most men have received
basic training in the army, but that is not the case for most women.
We are organizing groups of women who will undergo a 5 lesson course
in basic self-defense (use of guns, use of the car as a weapon,
hand-to-hand combat etc...)
The person organizing these lessons wants groups of no less than 15 women.
Anybody interested in joining, please e-mail us at:
nmatar@netvision.net.il, with your name, phone #, and address.
Nadia Matar
*******************************************************
May 28, 2000
The Collapse of Zionism
by Charles Krauthammer
The most improbable story of the twentieth century is the return of
the Jews to sovereignty in their original homeland. The establishment
of a Jewish state after two thousand years of dispersion and
powerlessness is an idea that just a hundred years ago, at the
founding of the Zionist movement, seemed delusional. The only thing
more improbable is this: That after merely fifty years of
independence, the Jews of Israel would tire of it, lose faith in the
enterprise, and forfeit their redemption. As things are progressing
now, the collapse of Zionism may be the story of the twenty-first
century.
For the last twenty years, Israel has been in retreat. One can make
reasonable strategic arguments for some or all of the specifics. But
the fact of retreat is undeniable. In the south, Israel gave up Sinai,
three times the size of Israel, for a cold and hostile peace with
Egypt. In the north, Israel is in the midst of a retreat from Lebanon
that will leave its northern cities vulnerable to terrorist attack for
the first time in a quarter century.
Israel has already conceded to Syria the entire Golan Heights. The
only thing that keeps Israel from carrying out this withdrawal is
Syrian insistence on making it as humiliating as possible. Syria
refuses to offer the minimal courtesies in negotiations or the minimal
gestures toward real peace. Even Israelis on the left, such as the
novelist Amos Oz, have come out against a deal with Syria and against
Israel's abject negotiating stance. Assad, said Oz, is "demanding not
just peace, and not even just the Golan, but that Ehud Barak should go
to meet him dressed only in his underwear, with his hands raised in
surrender, and, if at all possible, wearing a bandana on his forehead
inscribed with the motto 'Israel sucks.'"
And on the most important front, on the Palestinian front, Israel has
been engaged for seven years in a thinly disguised unilateral
withdrawal. The Palestinians have not tempered their demands one iota
since 1993. All the while, Israel has been ceding territory,
authority, and legitimacy, while violating its own "red lines" on
everything from final borders (the Jordan Valley is for the first time
on the block) to a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood.
Just last week, Arafat instigated widespread rioting to remind
Israelis that the military option is his to exercise whenever he
wants. How did Prime Minister Barak respond? Even as Palestinian
police were firing live ammunition at Israeli soldiers, he got his
cabinet to approve the transfer of three villages in the Jerusalem
area as a show of goodwill.
Some call such displays of magnanimity a sign of maturity. Another
word for it is demoralization. In a recent essay in Commentary, Daniel
Pipes pointed out the remarkable asymmetries, moral and material, in
the Middle East today. On the surface, Israel has the appearance of a
powerful, almost invincible, Middle East presence. It has a vibrant
democracy, a highly developed economy, and continued technological
superiority. (It is, for example, one of the world's Internet powers.)
Israel's Arab neighbors have none of these, but they do have will.
Indeed, a half-century into their struggle with Israel, the Arab will
to prevail is more powerful than ever. True, paper treaties have been
signed. But the animus toward the very existence of the Jewish state
has grown deeper, finding religious sanction in fanatic Islamicism and
becoming the staple of official propaganda and popular culture. The
Israelis, war weary and desperate for peace, willfully overlook these
signs and search endlessly for just the right negotiating formula,
just the right territorial concession, just the right dose of
placation to bring them an illusive final peace.
The retreat is not just territorial. Israel's physical withdrawal is
an epiphenomenon, a surface manifestation of a far more profound
withdrawal: psychological and, ultimately, ideological. The
territorial retreat tries to grapple (however mistakenly) with the
question of how a Jewish state can survive; the ideological retreat
raises serious doubts about why a Jewish state should survive.
These doubts, and the relentless attempt by Israel's intellectual
elites to instill them in the mainstream of Israeli culture, have been
chillingly catalogued in a new book by Yoram Hazony. The Jewish State:
The Struggle for Israel's Soul lays bare the debate that has been
raging in Israel-in Hebrew, and thus beyond the ken of most Western
observers-about the necessity, indeed the morality, of a state that
defines itself as Jewish.
Hazony is the young head of the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem think-tank
that publishes the intellectual journal Azure. He's also a leading
Israeli neoconservative (an admittedly small group), and he begins his
book with a review of those voices in high Israeli culture-writers,
artists, philosophers-that question the entire Zionist enterprise. He
then offers a history of Zionism, probing into the great divisions
between the followers of Theodore Herzl and those who opposed the idea
of an exclusively Jewish state. In the last part of The Jewish State,
Hazony tries to trace the influence of these early opponents on
contemporary "post-Zionism."
The central contention of post-Zionism is that the idea of a Jewish
state-with its unique calendar, flag, anthems, rhythms, ethos, and
history-is atavistic, a throwback to the romantic nationalism of the
nineteenth century that begat, among other things, fascism and Nazism.
In the modern world of the Internet, the global economy, European
integration, and growing transnational interdependence, this ethnic
particularism is hopelessly retrograde. The advanced peoples of the
West are surrendering sovereignty. Israel should, too.
There is something wildly out of place about this idea. This is all
well and good for Liechtenstein. Unfortunately, however, the
neighborhood in which Israel finds itself shows no sign of giving up
nationalism, particularism, or religious fanaticism to join the global
bandwagon. No matter. The post-Zionists are morally offended and
aesthetically appalled by the grubbiness of their neighborhood and the
brutal provincialism of their compatriots. One leading Israeli poet,
Dalia Rabikovitch, parodies the longing for the Return in early
Zionist poetry with this twist on the twenty-third psalm:
As for me,
He maketh me lie down in green pastures
In New Zealand...
Truehearted people herd sheep there,
On Sundays they go to church
In their quiet clothes.
No point in hiding it any longer:
We're an experiment that didn't turn out well,
A plan that went wrong,
Tied up with too much murderousness.
Aesthetic revulsion is compounded by a profound moral guilt about the
Israeli experiment. In The Jewish State, Hazony highlights how much
Israeli cultural production focuses on the original sin of Israel's
founding and how the "new historians" consciously subvert traditional
Zionist history with a version that places blame for the suffering and
dispossession of Palestinians on Jewish aggression, terror, and hunger
for power.
But the new historians are hardly content with exposing original sin.
They insist on the view that Israel has lived in sin ever since. Take,
for example, the Six-Day War. If ever there was a just war, a war of
self-defense, it was Israel's war of June 1967 when its existence was
threatened-indeed, its eradication promised-by the ring of states led
by Egypt. President Nasser ordered U.N. troops out of the Sinai, where
they had been acting as a buffer to guarantee Israel's security after
its withdrawal from the Sinai in 1957. He blockaded the Straits of
Tiran, cutting off Israel's southern access to the sea-an
internationally recognized act of war. He massed a hundred thousand
troops, concluded defense pacts with Jordan and Syria, and
waited-either for war, or for Israel to collapse under the weight of
mobilization. (A country with a very small standing army cannot
function when its entire male population is at the front.) Israel
struck on June 5 and won the war.
Now, observe how this is portrayed in the modern ninth-grade history
textbook issued by the Ministry of Education. There's no mention of
the closing of the Straits of Tiran. No mention of the blockade. No
mention of the expulsion of the U.N. troops from the Sinai. No mention
of the military pacts among the countries ringing Israel. What single
military event is mentioned as precursor to the war? Israel shooting
down some Syrian jets on the northern border in May.
The textbook is full of other such travesties. The previous textbook
had a map of Israel at the time of the War of Independence with arrows
marking the invasion routes of the five Arab countries that attacked
the infant state. In the new textbook, the map has no arrows coming
in, just arrows going out representing Palestinians fleeing the
country.
Another striking omission is any mention of the Warsaw Ghetto
Uprising. This might seem merely odd, unless one understands that
antinationalist intellectuals deplore the glorification of that World
War II uprising as a fetishistic celebration of the Jew as fighter,
and thus symbolic reinforcement of Israeli militarism.
What does post-Zionism mean in practice? It means that Israel should
be not a Jewish state, but a "state of its citizens," a democracy like
any other with no particular commitment to the survival or advancement
of any one culture or people. Thus the most fundamental law in the
Israeli canon, "the Law of Return" that guarantees refuge and
citizenship in Israel for any Jew in the world (and which David
Ben-Gurion considered the most important law of the land) is under
attack for being nationalist, particularist, even racist. A democratic
state, it is said, would have no such ethnic tests.
Nor is it just the Law of Return. Respected public figures, writes
Hazony, have advanced the demand to de-Judaize the flag (with its Star
of David) and the national anthem (Ha-Tikvah, "The Hope," which speaks
of the Jewish longing to return to the homeland), and drain school
curricula, the army, and the constitution of their distinctive Jewish
national character. "The Jews living in Israel are now being asked not
only to give up on geographical territories. We must also implement a
'redeployment'-or even a complete withdrawal-from entire regions in
our soul," writes the celebrated Israeli author David Grossman. And
what does this psychic withdrawal, this Reformation, mean? "Giving up
on power as a value. On the army itself as a value. . . . Refining a
new existence for ourselves. One which is no longer drenched to the
point of suffocation with the myth of our exile from the land, or with
the myth of Masada, or with a one-dimensional lesson of the
Holocaust."
Post-Zionism aches for freedom-a new, quite un-Zionist kind of
freedom: freedom from myth, freedom from chosenness, freedom from
history, and, above all, freedom from power. Power is corrupting. The
post-Zionists prefer incorruptibility. They yearn not for Zion, but
for the purity that Jews enjoyed before they reacquired sovereignty.
As one leading Hebrew University professor said decades ago in
opposing Israel's founder, David Ben-Gurion: "We are burying a dream,
. . . the dream of a land of Israel, the state of the pure and the
moral."
Over the last seven years, this quest for the pure and the moral has
found expression in Israeli diplomacy and government. Of course, those
in power are hardly going to call openly for the Jews to give it up
unilaterally. How then to attain purity? The most ingenious solution
to this conundrum comes from the architect of the Oslo accords, Shimon
Peres.
Peres has discovered that power as traditionally understood does not
matter anymore. In his astonishing 1993 book The New Middle East, he
declares that "the traditional concept of national defense, which
depends mainly on military and weapons systems...has changed." How?
"The physical considerations of the traditional strategy-natural
obstacles, man-made structures, troop mobilizations, location of the
battlefields-are irrelevant." Or as he told the army's head of
intelligence in a cabinet meeting: "There is economics and the
military, and only a country which goes over to economics will win.
Choosing between ten army emplacements and ten hotels, the ten hotels
also constitute security. I'm for the European model, which emphasizes
economics."
These statements would boggle the mind coming from anyone. But coming
from the man who was only a few years ago at the helm of a besieged
country, they are particularly ominous. Peres sees the Middle East as
some sort of Benelux, where harmony and tolerance prevail, where power
and weaponry are obsolete.
A lovely dream. And quite mad. The first problem is that Israelis seem
to be the only people in the region who believe it. And it takes more
than Jews to tango. Egypt has built a massive American-supplied
military. Syria is trying to negotiate a huge new weapons deal with
Russia. Iraq and Iran are acquiring weapons of mass destruction and
missiles aimed at Israel. Syria already has missiles tipped with
poison gas. Lebanon's Hezbollah vows to fight the Jews until Jerusalem
is liberated. And the Palestinians have been building up their
forty-thousand-man "police force." Its mission is not the arrest of
burglars.
The idea that the Arabs have transcended the need for and use of power
is simply delusional, as is the idea that they are prepared to enter
into a kind of European Union with Israel. When the next war comes,
when Arab tank forces come rolling through the Jordan valley (that
Israel will have given up to Arafat in the current peace
negotiations), we will see how much protection will be afforded Israel
by its Maginot line of five-star hotels.
Peres's vision is not just geographically but historically adrift.
Europe does represent a different model of co-existence. But that came
only after the nations of Europe spent the better part of five hundred
years in almost constant warfare with each other. The Middle East is
where Europe was a few centuries ago-with very young and unstable
nations still violently contending for primacy and power. Forget about
Israel. Look at Iran-Iraq, Iraq-Kuwait, Syria-Lebanon, Syria-Iraq.
Where in the Middle East do you find any model for Benelux?
Even assuming the Arabs were, inexplicably, to fall into line with
this fantasy, what kind of vision is this new Middle East? During
millennia of exile, the Jews of Persia and Babylon, of Poland and
Spain, of Baghdad and indeed Belgium, dreamed and struggled and died
for a return to Zion. So they could become Belgians?
The fundamental idea of Zionism was for the Jews to once again enter
history as actors, not just as acted upon. And that meant acquiring
sovereignty and power, and exercising both on behalf of the Jewish
people. This idea is now under attack within Israel itself. Where did
this loss of will come from? Why the loss of faith in the necessity,
the legitimacy, indeed, the glory of a reconstituted Jewish
commonwealth?
Hazony attributes this ideological collapse to the intellectual
influence of a small group of universalist German-Jewish professors
who dominated the Hebrew University, which in turn dominates cultural
life in Israel. Best known of these is the philosopher Martin Buber,
who opposed the establishment of the Jewish state at the time and, in
Hazony's view, never reconciled himself to the reality of Jewish
power. Hazony traces the intellectual influence of these professors
through their students, and their students' students, on Israel's
small but powerful intellectual elite.
Now, it is true that David Ben-Gurion and his Labor Zionists were more
interested in concrete than culture. Farmer-soldiers are not very
given to philosophy. They were too busy creating facts on the
ground-an army, a new economy, a government, a state-to bother very
much with ideas. They did leave that field open to their ideological
enemies in the academy.
Nonetheless, to blame the collapse of Zionist will on the professors
is to give them too much credit. There are more parsimonious
explanations.
One is simple exhaustion. It's not the professors but the people who
are tired of the price of Jewish power. It is the people who agitated
for retreat from Lebanon and the territories, in search of respite. It
is they who have suffered not just war but isolation, reprobation,
often vituperation from everywhere-including their erstwhile friends
in the West. They are tired of being outcasts. They are tired of the
hard life of sustaining the Zionist vision.
Who can blame them? They have fought five wars in fifty years. They
look across the ocean and see their fellow Westerners-and their fellow
Jews-living prosperous and serene, while Israelis get buses blown up
at home and lose sons in an endless guerrilla war in Lebanon.
Beginning with the War of Independence when Israel lost one percent of
its population (the American equivalent would fill fifty Vietnam
memorials), Israel has been bleeding for half a century. It is hard to
blame a people who have endured so much for so long. To maintain
Jewish independence in a hostile Arab sea requires enormous
determination. Israelis have been fighting for three, often four
generations. How many generations can sustain a pioneer spirit?
Another explanation, fuller than Hazony's, would situate Israel within
the broader intellectual context of the West. In their
anti-nationalism, anti-patriotism, cosmopolitanism, and distrust of
power, Israeli intellectuals are no different from their counterparts
in America, Britain, France, and the rest of the West. Indeed,
Israelis are just catching up with deconstructionism and
multiculturalism, with Lacan and Foucault. Modern Israeli art and
dance and theater offer almost comical attempts to imitate the
nihilism of the Western avant-garde. Post-Zionism is really just
Western counterculturalism applied to the Jewish Question.
But that Western style of counterculturalism has far more serious
consequences in Israel than anywhere else. The West is rich, secure,
and dominant enough to play at cultural revolution. It can afford the
luxury of oppositional and subversive elites. The tragedy for Israel
is that it does not enjoy such luxuries. It lives on the edge. It has
no buffer zone, geographic or ideological.
The worst disaster suffered by the United States in the last
half-century is Vietnam. Yet within a few years, America had
cauterized the wound and recovered. Israel cannot so easily shrug off
catastrophe. It has no safety net. It has real enemies standing at the
gates. If the army issues a code of conduct with no mention of loyalty
to the Jewish people, that will have consequences. If its young people
are brought up to believe that the Six-Day War-and thus the
acquisition of the occupied territories-was anything but defensive,
that will have consequences. If the Supreme Court begins striking down
laws that shape the Jewish character of the state (such as the Law of
Return) in the name of universal democratic principles, that will have
consequences.
The West can indulge visions of its own corruption and moral
bankruptcy without risking extinction. For Israel, such visions are
mortally dangerous. They are already having their effect in culture,
law, and diplomacy. The most dangerous threat to a political entity is
demoralization, for before the Fall-of the ancien régime in France, of
the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran, of the Soviet empire in Russia-comes the
loss of faith in one's own mandate from heaven.
In an interview last year, the leading Palestinian author and activist
Edward Said ruminated about the prospect of eliminating the Jewish
state. "We must find freer, more creative, more inventive means...I am
speaking of a cultural battle...Israeli historians themselves . . .
are in the process of reconsidering Zionist myths. We must use the
contradiction and dissent that exist in the heart of the Israeli
population." Said opposed the Oslo accords and broke with Yasser
Arafat over them. He believes that there is no armed solution for
achieving Palestinian goals. But he does hold out one hope, the hope
that within Israeli society there are now voices that understand the
true nature of the Jewish state and will seek its liquidation through
internal transformation. "Do you think the Israelis will renounce
Zionism one day?" the interviewer asked. "Some have begun to speak of
it," Said replied. "I think that the most intelligent among them are
in the process of realizing that, despite their incredible power,
their situation is untenable."
Israel's enemies see the future, a future Israelis themselves may now
be creating: a world without Zionism, a world without Israel.
Top of Page |
End of Page |
What We Say Index Page |
To Home Page
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 28, 2000
MEDIA RELEASE MEDIA RELEASE
Firebombs are being thrown by Arab police severely burning infant
children; deadly stonethrowing continues throughout the Country; Arab
policemen are shooting at our soldiers with guns with which we supplied
them. All this is happening with the encouragment of Arafat, and Ehud
Barak continues to negotiate with him. Barak is giving away our homeland
to this murderer, who openly admits that he seeks the destruction of
Israel. What can be done about this bizarre situation? What kind of
leadership permits our Jewish People to absorb these continuous deadly
and humiliating attacks in virtual silence?
WOMEN IN GREEN demand answers and appropriate action from our
Government. That is why we are taking to the streets once again to
protest this intolerable situation.
On Sunday, May 28, 2000, at 10:15 A.M. at the park next to
HaMashbir in Jerusalem we held a demonstration and
demanded the protection and security that Ehud Barak continues to
promise. Up to now, Barak has utterly failed to deliver on his
promises. Our Jewish People can no longer wait and remain silent. We
want firm and decisive Government action immediately!
Ruth and Nadia
*******************************************************
Jerusalem, May 31, 2000
Sharansky letter to PM Barak detailing Israel's offer
FROM:
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director
IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-9-7411645
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager 03-6750750 subscriber 4811
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
Date: 30 May, 2000
The following is IMRA's translation:
Minister of the Interior
Jerusalem
30 May 2000
Mr. Ehud Barak
Prime Minister and Minister of Defense
Jerusalem
Mr. Prime Minister,
In the last few days disturbing news has reached me regarding
agreements, that you made or were made in your name, within the
framework of the negotiations with representatives of the Palestinian
Authority, in the current round of negotiations.
It pains me that you do not tend to share the developments in the
negotiations with the members of the government or at least the
members of the security cabinet and the heads of the parties that are
coalition partners. So I am forced to learn about these developments
from personal friends.
From my sources I learn the following things:
A. Jerusalem
1. Israel is willing for Arab neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem to
be under the municipal responsibility of the Palestinian Authority.
2. Israel relinquishes the physical separation between Jerusalem and
the territories under Palestinian control and thus allows the free
and unsupervised entrance of people into Jerusalem.
3. Israel relinquishes the setting of the final status of Jerusalem
within the framework of this agreement.
B. Judea and Samaria
1. Israel retains only 5-8% of the territory of dense settlement
blocs in Judea and Samaria.
2. The Palestinian Authority demands, in return for these areas,
compensation in Israeli territory within the borders of the "Green
Line".
3. Israel relinquishes the Jordan Valley and Northern Dead Sea.
4. Israel will uproot the settlements that according to the agreement
will remain within the territory of the Palestinian Authority.
5. Israel will resettle between 40,000 and 50,000 settlers, who will
be uprooted from those settlements.
C. Border and border passages
1. Israel relinquishes the border with Jordan that runs from the
north of the [Jordan] Valley until the northern Dead Sea, including
the control of border passages.
2. Israel will allow a border between the Palestinian Authority and
Egypt in the south-west part of the state.
D. Refugees
1. According to the agreement, the Palestinian Authority can bring
into its borders and give citizenship to any person wishing to. This
agreement opens the door for the entrance of millions of people to
the territory of the Authority.
2. In this agreement it is not established that there is no "right of
return" to Israeli territory within the borders of the "Green Line"
for Palestinians who claim that they or their relatives lived in the
past in settlements within the borders of the "Green Line".
3. The "right of return" will be given to refugees to within the
borders of the "Green Line" within the framework of "family
reunification".
From the agreement being developed a dangerous reality is being
created according to which Israel relinquishes, in advance, all of
its assets without insisting on the setting of the final status of
Jerusalem, the refugees and the borders.
Honorable Prime Minister, just as the struggle for the independence
of Israel, that reached its peak in the Six Day Way, strengthened the
people of Israel and deepened the feeling of its identification with
its State, so, to my sorrow, the developing agreement, instead of
increasing these feelings, will challenge the standing of Israel and
turn it into a state that relies on the benevolence of the nations of
the world. There is no doubt that this change will effect the
standing of the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora, weaken the
people, and reduce their ability to identify with the State.
This is a dangerous process and I believe that the overwhelming
majority of the Jewish people living in Zion and outside of it cannot
agree to it.
In light of this, I ask for an urgent meeting of the security cabinet
to consider the matter. Likewise, I ask to raise the matter at the
next cabinet meeting.
Regards,
Natan Sharansky
Copy:
Minister David Levy, Foreign Minister
Minister Eli Yishai, Chairman Shas Movement
Minister Yosef Sarid, Chairman Meretz Party
Minister Yitzchak Levy, Chairman NRP
Minister Amnon Lipkin Shahak, Center Party
MK Dan Merridor, Chairman Foreign and Security Committee
Top of Page | What We Say Index
Page | To Home Page