Ethos Exposed
GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Oana II has provided the world the opportunity to see that the emperor “does not have clothes on”. What no longer amazes this writer is the major media, with one or two notable exceptions, would have you believe that the victim in this latest conflict is not Israel, rather it is the Hizzbollah. You are saying, no, the media is clearly demonstrating that the citizens of Lebanon are the victims of Israel’s disproportionate response. After all, what you see on television day after day is bombed out buildings; dead “civilians”, grieving individuals and most of these visual displays come to your living room from Lebanon. Yes, there is the occasional story on the damage to Israelis but have you noticed these are always followed with a piece on the difficulties the Lebanese people are now facing? Note Tom Gross’ comments in an article appearing in the Jerusalem Post (1):

“Large sections of the international media are not only misreporting the current conflict in Lebanon. They are also actively fanning the flames. The BBC World Service has a strong claim to be the number-one villain. It has come to sound like a virtualpropaganda tool for Hizbullah. And as it desperatelyattempts to prove that Israel is guilty of committing "warcrimes" and "crimes against humanity," it has introduced anew charge - one that I have heard several times on air inrecent days.

The newscaster reads out carefully selected "audiencecomments." Among these are invariably contained some versionof the claim that "Israel's attack on Lebanon" will serve asa "recruitment" drive for al-Qaeda.”

It is also safe to apply the preceding comments to sky News and CNN International. If these were the only news resources available to the general population then you would think that Hizzbollah is being unfairly punished, as are the Lebanese civilians. However, thanks to independent news sources and a couple of media services we are able to confirm what Hizzbollah is all about-its actions are not congruent with the media’s representation of them. Furthermore, it is imperative that the Western international community engage in two actions immediately: one, confront your local news group and demand fair coverage; two, share the truth about Hizzbollah with friends, family and colleagues and ask them to in turn do the same.

The current situation is about more than Israel, Hizzbollah and Lebanon. It transcends the perceived local conflict. As General Ya’alon writes, “It is clear to any objective observer that Hezbollah is using Lebanese civilians as human shields. It builds its headquarters in densely populated areas, embeds its fighters in towns and villages, and deliberately places missiles in private homes, even constructing additions to existing structures specifically to house missile launchers.” (2)

Furthermore, we now know that Hizzbollah’s so-called schools have as a major educational goal the recruitment of future members. It does this by indoctrinating the children, beginning in what would be comparable to a kindergarten and first grade in the USA. They are required to learn songs that encourage homicide bombing as well as hatred for Israel and the “great Satan-America”. The textbooks are right out of the Palestinian playbook-they use revisionist history, intentionally misrepresent history and geography and add to the disinformation regarding Israel, America and the West. It is true that Hizzbollah funds schools and this is promoted by the media as an example supporting the notion that it is not “just a terrorist” organization-along with its hospitals and other public programs Hzzbollah really is a social activist that is Lebanon’s partner and friend. You are led to believe that Hizzbollah cares about its people.

If this is true do you really believe that a caring organization would use its citizens as human shields? Would a caring group build storage bunkers under public buildings containing rockets, munitions, armaments that kill and then force civilians, at gun point, to remain in these buildings as Israel attacks? As General Ya’alon says, “They try to exploit the respect for innocent human life that is the hallmark of any civilized society to place that society in a no-win situation. If it fails to respond to terror attacks, it endangers its own citizens. If it responds, it runs the risk of killing innocents, earning world opprobrium and inviting diplomatic pressure to stand down.” (2)

This group places disabled individuals inside a building housing armaments, rockets and munitions-it is a target for Israel and they know it. They fire rockets from the area and then take cover in this building drawing the attention of Israel-they intentionally keep civilians in a building knowing they will be killed. In their deaths, Hizzbollah counts on the media to pleads its case to the world and unwittingly or I believe with complicity the media obliges them. Seems to me that world is also to blame for reinforcing this behavior by not taking a defiant stand against Hzzbollah’s behavior. Why is there no outrage similar to the world outrage when captured combatants in Iraq were “ridiculed’ by prison guards? I can only conclude that the use of civilians as human shields, an international law transgression of the utmost degree, is valued less than some taunting and does not deserve the world’s condemnation. Are you beginning “to see that the Emperor does not have clothes on”?
Hizzbollah ethos is exposed for the anti-democratic, pro-death group that it really is. The media identified “social and political” components are cleverly disguised support agencies for Hizzbollah’s primary target: the destruction of Israel and then the Satan called America. The assumption not stated is that the rest of the West will then crumble and Hizzbollah’s interpretation of Islam will prevail. An international force, signed agreements, declarations of peace, swapping of prisoners, will not stop this tragedy playing out here in our yard. Until the following occurs, all we can do is protect ourselves and do so without regard to a world’s distorted opinion of us:
“Terrorists are fanatics, but they are not idiots. If the terrorist tactic of using human shields helps them achieve their goals, they will utilize it. If it undermines their goals, they will abandon it.
If we want to live in a world where civilians are never used as human shields, then we must create a world in which employing such measures results in the unequivocal condemnation of terrorists and in forceful action against them by the civilized world.
If the world were now blaming Hezbollah, Syria and Iran for the innocent Lebanese killed, hurt or displaced in this conflict, then it would be sending a powerful message to every terrorist group on the planet: We will not tolerate the use of human shields. Period.”(2)

The evidence is clear, it is not hidden, all is out in the open. It does take courage to stand tall in truth while others bury their heads, look away or feign innocence. We have the power to change perception and thus reality. I can only hope that our grand children will be able to think that we, too, were a great generation.






















End Notes

Tom Gross, “The Media Aims its Missiles’, Jerusalem Post, August 3, 2006
Bogie Ya’alon, “The Rules of War,” Washington Post, August 3, 2006

Tactic vs. Enemy?

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Can we agree that words convey thoughts and feelings and as a result enable people to develop a point of view? We therefore suggest that words do matter. I offer the following suggestion: terrorism is a tactic used by an enemy to cause harm to another group of people. It is intentional and is designed to cause maximum destruction of not only people and tangible items such as buildings, homes and cafes, but also to ultimately destroy a way of life.

It is necessary to be clear what we are facing today. We must correctly identify the enemy and separate this from the tactics used by this enemy. For many reasons, some justified, others unjustified, the Western World has been reluctant to make this necessary distinction. How many times have we heard that this is a different kind of war? It is a war without identifiable enemies or borders, by this we mean that there is no country or countries that we can blame or target. In the past we have fought against sovereign nations whose ideologies were indeed contrary to ours. We were physically attacked and thus it appeared justified for us to respond in kind. There seemed to be some moral and ethical absolution to our fighting the enemy.

For the past several years, world leaders and governments have suggested we are in a war against terrorism. Although politically correct, it did not then and does not now offer the truth. If this “new” war is unlike anything we have experienced in our past, then I suggest some new definitions and agreements are in order. The application of concepts and principles developed to explain previous world events therefore cannot justify what is going on in the world today.

Who is the enemy of the West? I do not need to be told too many times by a group of people that they are our enemy before I understand who the enemy is-do you? We have been told by the Bin Laden’s, Arafat’s, Mazen’s, Narallah’s and so many others that their enemy is the West. We have been told by them that the intention is to defeat all that is Western-from governments to law, to the acceptable behavior of individuals living within the multi-cultures found within the Western countries. I did not say this, they did! Our enemy can be labeled radical Islam, Fascist Islam and tomorrow yet another descriptor will surface. The tactic used against us is TERROR. The enemy is housed, sponsored, funded, supported within and by sovereign nations. In many of these countries the enemy serves in the so-called representative governments. Is it not time to acknowledge this and develop new ways of defining what is moral and ethical in combating this enemy when it strikes us and when it declares publicly its destructive intentions upon the West? Perhaps the truth is already known but being avoided by so many-the time has come to take a stand.

The current events in Lebanon and Israel address these points. Hezzbollah, a major political party within Lebanon’s government, intentionally attacked the sovereign nation of Israel. The attack was unprovoked-any other time in history this would have been a reason to declare war. The President of Lebanon has yesterday and again today taken a side and is flexing his nation’s muscle. He indicated that he respects Hezzbollah and its leader Nasrallah. Furthermore he indicated to turn the Lebanese army against Israel. Does this not make the country of Lebanon complicit with the acts of terrorism perpetrated upon Israel? Is Lebanon not culpable? Does this not mean that the government, thus the country of Lebanon must be held responsible for its own civilian deaths?

Why do I suggest this? My response is simplistic. A political party in the government of Lebanon, with full support of its President-an elected leader and thus representative of the civilians inside of Lebanon, is waging war against Israel. It is a war they started. I have written much about the horror of war in other recent pieces and do not feel compelled to review the angst created for innocents found within warring factions. Currently, Lebanon is up to its eyeballs in responsibility for what is tragically occurring with its citizens and with the citizens of Israel (a story mostly untold in the media).

It is therefore disingenuous on the part of world leaders and most of the media when it presents the concepts of disproportionate actions and collective punishment. Israel, unlike any other country in past or recent history, has sacrificed its own soldiers in order to diminish the collateral damage done to the citizens of Lebanon. By now you should have been told the following truths:

• Israel does not intentionally target civilians
• Israel warns civilians to leave an area before it strikes with its air power-this alerts the enemy who has time to prepare-the element of surprise is gone
• Hezzbollah has spent the last six years imbedding itself within the civilian population
• Hezzbollah spent hundreds of thousands of dollars building underground bunkers for storage of rockets, sophisticated communication systems munitions, weapons and for the protection of its leadership
• Hezzbollah did not build safety rooms or underground bunkers for the Lebanese citizens it professes to care about
• Hezzbollah does not allow civilians to leave an area-we have been told that it holds them at gun point thus ensuring civilian casualties
• Hezzbollah is currently firing upon the “safe passage ways” provided by Israel for relief agencies to get necessary food and medicines to the needy
• Hezzbollah intentionally misrepresents the situation on the ground by controlling media access-most public acknowledgement of this is by CNN
• Hezzbollah is now using the strategy of victim-the strategy out of the Palestinian playbook
• Hezzbollah produces nothing, creates nothing-has no mode of income production-it relies upon Iran and other donors for its money-it is an economic leach
• Hezzbollah’s “acclaimed” education and social service infrastructure produces anti-Western hate-filled dogma-the purpose is create new recruits who in turn fight against anyone Western-I should say anyone Western brave enough to tell the truth.

All of the preceding presents a side of this war that has been incredibly understated in Europe, the Middle East and in Asia. On the other hand the media seems to be obsessed with body counts and building destruction. The strategy of terror and the naïve, at least I hope it is naïve, gullibility of the media to focus upon these gross outcomes of war allows the Hezzbollah to create the paradigm for analysis of this war. In other words, if you can frame the way people are told to view this action, then you have cleverly performed a magician’s slight of hand action upon the world’s peoples. Instead of attempting to describe the truth behind this war, you can disguise it by presenting the outcome of war-tragic death and destruction. This keeps the focus away from what must happen if peace is to have any possibility. The focus is clearly upon the damage to civilians of one country-Lebanon. This in turn is used by the enemy against Israel and the West, e.g., specifically the USA and Great Britain. Develop sympathy for recipients of the fighting. Lay blame upon Israel. Misrepresent facts of the war, lie to your own people about an entire nation, have all this reinforced in the Arab media and supported in kind in much of the Western media. You have now created a fifth column within the western communities. Here is but one example of this strategy: “civilians” are needed to create the body counts. Our soldiers have reported that they have encountered these “civilians” as enemy combatants. These so-called innocents fire upon the IDF soldiers, direct intelligence to the Hezzbollah, and together with elements of the Lebanese army have been working with these terrorists. Thus, when Israel targets, justifiably so, the Hezzbollah enemy and kills the enemy, the “civilians” are counted as civilians you and I know. The media, eager to add to the growing death count, report to the world-the implication and/or declaration is the evil Israelis are destroying not only innocent people but also a nation. I suggest it is time to re-define civilian in this “new” type of war.

The NGO’s, well intentioned individuals, peace organizations and believe it or not, the Israeli government and IDF all want peace. However, there is no possibility of peace or even cessation of the violence of war, until the world honestly states what is behind this war, who the culprits really are and what every honest peace broker knows must be done. Then and only then will the proper strategies be enacted. The tight rope of political correctness has lead this world to the brink of human disaster. Who is courageous enough to join us in demanding that the paradigm of truth be finally shared and honored?

Hypocrisy Abounds

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

July 15,2006

The sound of a descending missile, the moment of impact, the explosion and destruction to buildings, individuals and a community’s life multiple times a day. Running to escape the inevitable, children laying on the ground, bleeding; adults crawling around in the dust kicked up by the missile and fearing for your life. All supplies cut off, your ability to communicate with anyone outside of your small ground where you lie, awaiting anyone’s help-this is the human experience of an attack. Civilians all, this morning you went on your way to your workplace, the local store or just for a coffee at your favorite café-you now find yourself bleeding, on the ground next to a young child who is dying-you can do nothing to help, prayer comes to your mind. This has been private citizens experience these last days on all sides of this war. It is not one of humanity’s prize moments. How any of this makes it to your newspaper or media vehicle does matter. The nature of the representation explains the writer’s perspective, viewpoint, bias and/or ability to distinguish between reporting and opinion. You, the news consumer assumes that what you are reading or watching is accurate and demonstrative of the truth. Regrettably this is not what is so. The unreported side of the current Israeli event demonstrates the hypocrisy witnessed in much of today’s media.

What do we know happened up to this moment in time? Israel’s northern border was quiet soldiers were on patrol. Hizbollah crossed-under via a tunnel-they invaded the border dividing Israel and Lebanon. With no provocation, Hizzbollah illegally entered Israel. Simultaneously, Hizzbollah began a barrage of rockets into Israel firing upon a dozen or more northern communities. Two Israeli soldiers are kidnapped, three soldiers killed, another killed trying to assist his fallen colleague. Please understand that our enemy was strategically firing upon civilians to divert our attention to the real military objective: to kill and kidnap our soldiers. They used the destruction of civilians as the basis for their attack. Homes, businesses and human beings were hit by the katusha rockets. At that moment, citizens’ safety and business were now placed in danger. Beginning with this invasion operation, Israeli citizens livelihoods were taken away from them. Citizens saw their entire lives uprooted and destroyed in the moment of the Hizbollah invasion and attack-two actions in any other part of the world would be called war. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis were about to begin a new phase in their lives.

The initial view across the international community was really a “wait and see” what happens action. Other than the factual reporting of events, you did not hear what others were thinking about this illegal activity, a clear violation of international law. This all changed in 24 hours. As Israel struck back (defending its sovereignty and her citizens) targeting military facilities, domestic infrastructure and Hizzbollah individuals and buildings, the world began to change its mind. Israel dared to standup to the terrorists, we were willing to do the proper thing and take military action against an enemy who had once again broken international law by invading our country, killing our soldiers and kidnapping two additional soldiers, our response was open for criticism. We heard once again the term proportionality and collective punishment.

Let me be clear that within 54 hours of being attacked, our enemy has fired over 700 rocket/missiles/mortar rounds into our sovereign state killing several citizens, destroying homes and businesses, trampled upon one third of our population’s right to live in quiet. The enemy has launched a rocket attack deep inside Israel as it sent two rockets into Haifa-our third largest city. I have not heard one media source proclaim Hizzbollah’s lack of proportionality upon the Israeli civilian population. When Israel did respond in kind and Hizzbollah once again fired barrages of rockets and mortar rounds into Israel, attacking only civilian sites, I did not hear any media, not one, who indicated Hizzobllah was out of line collectively punishing Israel.

I suggest that either the media and/or corresponding foreign governments critical of our response are either displaying hypocritical behavior or they are choosing to misrepresent the facts as they truly exist. Where is the outrage for the country and terrorist organization that, unprovoked, attacked its neighbor-Israel? Why are the standards of conduct that are used to describe Israel’s behavior not equally used with Hizzbollah? Please reconcile the fact that Hizzbollah continues to target civilians, we are their primary military offensive goal and not one word regarding collective punishment is issued. Tell me how the media and foreign governments use two eyes to see our military striking military targets and specific infrastructure designed to take away our enemy’s ability to fight, thus bringing this event to a faster conclusion and yet draw the conclusion we are “over fighting” this event. Surely this is a comparative description they are using to determine we are “out of line.” This being so, I suggest they are choosing to ignore facts-Israeli citizens in similar numbers to the Lebanese, are suffering as well. Lives are in ruin.

Finally I offer an observation. The use of the terms “collective punishment and proportionality” are corrupt concepts when it comes to war. I understand their meanings and their applications-I simply argue that they are used to homogenize one of human beings most grotesque behaviors: destruction and killing via war! Furthermore, they are code words for individuals and governments to use to sanitize and disguise their hatred for Israel. Using these terms allows you to “look good” in the eyes and minds of your biased colleagues and demonstrate your empathy for the underdog enemies of Israel. You thus set yourself apart from those of us who must therefore admire cruelty and suffering in human beings. You ride high upon your humanity pedestal looking down on those of us who dare challenge you. Hypocrisy we see you and we read you –every day. Watch out, we are onto you now!

Hamas and Fatah-Equally Guilty

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

July 11, 2006

The headline read: Gaza family’s tragedy shows desperate plight of residents. The story began with “Pinned down by an Israeli military offensive, the Hajaj family was whiling away the time drinking tea and roasting corn in the backyard when disaster struck-a missile slammed into the group, killing 46 year old Amna Hajaj and two of her 15 children.” Inscription under the accompanying photo “relatives mourn at the funeral for three members of the Hajaj family in Gaza city on Sunday-photo has two older unidentified women holding the distraught, stunned face of an unidentified lady. The story that followed was predictable. (1)

The next paragraph indicated that the Palestinians blamed Israel for the latest casualties and accused Israel of firing at the innocents living in a house. The facts later demonstrated that once again the Palestinians misfired and killed their own people. It seems that a Palestinian anti-tank missile inadvertently hit the house. However, rest assured that these tragic deaths did go down on the tally sheet as deaths caused by Israel and will be used as “evidence” that Israel targets civilians. Furthermore, no correction will ever be provided the western media nor to the Palestinian people. They will go on thinking how savage are the Israelis!

As of this writing, nearly 60 Palestinians have been killed in the two-week plus military campaign. Only part of this story is making it to the homes in America. Once again Israel is being accused of everything from collectively punishing the Palestinian population, using disproportionate response and violating the Geneva Convention. The mantra continues and was predictable-the Palestinian strategy has not changed in years. It plays the victim card as soon as Israel responds to their terrorist behavior. The media is fed incomplete data, or data is with held intentionally or the data is fabricated. Context is invariably ignored and media consumers are left with a dishonest presentation of events and situations.

If one did not know better you might actually believe that Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, PA leader is a moderate and that the evil ones are Hamas. This is not an accurate representation of facts. Clearly, the Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is considered ruthless, dangerous and disingenuous when it comes to his vision of Israel and the Western world. He is a holocaust denier and a verified anti-semite to suggest two of his characteristics. The Western leaders have gone on the record indicting how dangerous this man is. Well, Mr. Abbas wrote his doctoral dissertation denying the holocaust, was Arafat’s second in command during the last intifada that saw thousands of Israeli citizens murdered and/or wounded; yet, some believe he is a moderate? A group belonging to PA Chairman Abbas’ Fatah Party announced July 10,2006 that it has created a female homicide hit group of some 100 women. The Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the armed wing of Fatah additionally continues to attack Israel with homicide bombers during the last two weeks-all were caught before causing any death and destruction. There is no such thing as a moderate Palestinian leader in any position of authority at this time and it is well past time that this truth be understood. Hamas is simply the headline leader today; Fatah is nothing less than Hamas’ behavioral shadow.

Hamas and Fatah have been and are currently in violation of the Geneva Convention. Remember the following historical context of these conventions (2):

· The Geneva Conventions consist of treaties formulated in Geneva, Switzerland that set the standards of international law for humanitarian concerns. The conventions were the results of efforts by Henri Dunant (1862), who was motivated by the horrors of war he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino (1859).

· The conventions, their agreements and two added protocols are as follows: First Geneva convention (1864) Treatment of battlefield casualties and creation of International Red Cross Second Geneva Convention (1906) Extended the principles from the first convention to apply also to war at sea.

· Third Geneva Convention (1929)): Treatment of Prisoners of War.

• Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)): Treatment relating to the protection of civilians during times of war "in the hands" of an enemy and under any occupation by a foreign power.
• Protocol I (1977)-Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts Protocol II (1977) -Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
• In summary, the first three conventions were revised, a fourth was added, and the entire set was ratified in 1949; the whole is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Conventions". Later conferences (Protocols) added the provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars. (3)

The world now has a set of “guidelines” that are meant to make one of the ugliest human behaviors (war) appear somewhat civilized-rules of war were developed and meant to be followed. This unto itself is ludicrous. The world leaders representing democracies to despotic government claim to act in accordance with these rules and they, together with special interest groups call the same world attention to its violators. Hamas and Fatah are such violator groups!

For example, Article Three of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been consistently violated as innocent Israelis living in the territories have been targeted and murdered by these two terror groups. It has been successfully argued, that inside Israel proper, citizens, technically not protected persons, should be subject to the same interpretation accorded to those living in the territories. Both of these groups have consistently violated Article 44 of protocol I (1977) by placing themselves within civilian populations, using these citizens as human shields, placing armament and combatants inside private and centrally located public buildings thus placing their civilian population at risk. Currently Hamas is in violation of prisoner of war rights accorded to the kidnapped Israeli soldier-again a violation of the Geneva agreements it uses incorrectly against Israel.

These are just a few of the convention violations acted out every day, 24/7, by Hamas and Fatah. Both groups’ leaderships have not only as a strategy but also have as a policy actions that daily violate the Geneva agreements-yet the media and the West turn a blind eye to facts on the ground. The result is that the citizens of these countries and/or the readers/viewers of the reports have faulty information upon which to draw astute conclusions. Policy statements are written and actions are taken-all based upon incorrect data. We all know what happens with our personal computers when we enter incorrect data; the answers we want are simply incorrect and wrong. “Times, they are a’ changing”, there are people no longer willing to accept this misdirection of information-

accountability begins now!

End Notes

1. Deeb el, Sarah “Gaza family’s tragedy Shows Desperate Plight of Residents”, Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2006.
2. Morris, GS Don, “Understanding the Geneva Conventions,” posted Scholars for Peace website, 2005.
3. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war
   
   

Disproportionate Response-Really?

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

July 10,2006

All the old familiar names are jumping on the ‘beat up Israel” bandwagon, once again. From the leader of the United Nations, Kopi Annan, to the Peace Now group, to the internationally acclaimed author Mario Vargas Llosa along with the rest of the usual suspects, all are upset with Israel’s response to the murder of an Israeli citizen, the kidnapping of a soldier and other murders of Israeli soldiers. Israel ‘s "out of proportion" operation in the Gaza Strip has come under fire-pun intended. Really now, what people think about a military action-is this really worthy of a news story? One questions why this even makes it to the newspaper pages?

Let’s examine the facts and then ask some questions:

• Since the Fall of 2005 the Palestinians were given Gaza, the Jews are gone. Do they begin building the state they say they want, do they start developing the infrastructure like constructing schools and roads and hospitals?
• Hamas wins an election and becomes the territory’s leadership. For the first time in modern history Gaza becomes an independent territory courtesy of Israel. None of the area’s prior rulers, the Ottomans nor the British nor the Egyptians nor the Jordanians, ever permitted this to happen. What do the Palestinians do? On the very first day of the pull out by Israel, they began firing Kassam rockets into the sovereign country of Israel.
• Since the beginning of this year, over 300 rocket attacks have been fired into Israel proper, about two every day, 7 days a week, non-stop violence and terror. Dozens of Israeli citizens have been injured, many killed. Targets include power stations, family homes, schools and downtown streets citizens are walking along or sitting in a café. These are not military targets, they are all civilian targets.
• Many Kassam rockets have been fired toward Ashkelon, Israel's 5th-largest city, over the past several months. In the past week two Kassams hit the heart of the city on consecutive nights. On Tuesday night (July 4), a rocket landed in a schoolyard just as parents and children were engaged in registration for next year. The next night (July 5), one of two Kassams fired northward sent eight Ashkelon residents into a state of shock and to the hospital.
• On Friday (July 7), 17 Kassam rockets were launched falling near a number of kibbutzim, including Sa'ad, Nahal Oz, and Gevim, as well as near the town of Netivot.
• Four people were wounded on Sunday morning (July 9), 1 moderately and 3 lightly, when a Kassam rocket, launched from the northern Gaza Strip, landed in a house in Sderot.
• Hamas decried on Sunday (July 9) a recent call by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to stop Kassam rocket fire on Israel and release kidnapped IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit.
• This is Hamas in action--the group that was elected by the Palestinian people to lead them. This we now know for sure: it is a Palestinian government openly committed to terrorism and to the destruction of a member state of the U.N. openly using terrorism to carry on its war.

These are the facts. I even left some out in order to keep this brief. So I ask the “bandwaggoners” if you were under fire every day, your citizens you vowed to protect were being wounded and killed, what would you do? Talk? You actually believe that you can talk to a group of internationally defined terrorists to return the soldier they kidnapped? Remember, this is the same group who has as its policy the destruction of Israel, you really believe you can talk them into returning your soldier? Even today, as I write this piece, the Hamas leadership has become enraged with Mr. Mazen for even suggesting that Hamas return the soldier-you still think talk with such an ideology, such people bent upon destruction will work? I am not asking if you want the violence to stop, so do I. I am not asking you hope or want to believe that talk would work-so did I once. Behavior has demonstrated what the truth is with this regard.

I offer to you who criticize a government for protecting its people, a government who only targets enemy fighters, who operates out of the highest of ethical military “right to fire codes” in the world to reconcile your beliefs with on the ground behavior that is absolutely opposed to what you profess.

Hamas and other PA terror groups are each and every day in violation of the Geneva Convention code of behavior-they hide among civilians, they target civilians, they place tunnels in private homes, under baby cribs, they wear no uniform-all of these and so much more, Hamas is guilty of these violations. Where is your concern, your upset, your outrage with this behavior? Finally, I hear your condemnation of Israel’s reply to this ongoing action and I do not hear, not once, from any of you, what you think is proportional action! How easy and self-righteous you are to make such proclamations from the comfort of your home-some thousands of miles away! You are part of the problem and are actually reinforcing deviant behavior-time to face the reality and stop spinning tales of illusion.

Understanding the Importance of Perspective

By

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

June 6, 2006

May 4, 2006 marked the beginning of another Israeli government. This time however, the government coalition consists of 4 distinct political parties that provided the new Prime minister, Ehud Olmert, with 67 MK’s (Member of Knesset). According to diplomatic sources, Olmert will seek to broaden his coalition to 80 MKs in order to give his government the necessary breadth, lasting more than the two years necessary to support his “convergence plan.” Such plan proposes that settlements beyond the separation fence would be evacuated and attached to the large settlement blocs of Ma'aleh Adumim, Ariel, Greater Jerusalem and Gush Etzion. The IDF would be given free reign in the West Bank and the Jordan Valley would be Israel's eastern border. More on these two items in a moment. As will be shown, based on the language or prior UN resolutions, the Oslo Accords, and general principles of international law, Israel has every legal right to remain in Judea and Samara, aka the West Bank.

Despite the legal basis of Israel’s presence in the West Bank, support for Mr. Olmert’s plan comes from the MKs of Kadima, Labor, the Pensioners, and Meretz, a total of 60 parliamentarians backed by some additional Arab party representatives. Mr. Olmert is also doing his best to bring into the government the six representatives of United Torah Judaism.

We should remember that Mr. Olmert has declared that the last election was a mandate for his so-called “convergence plan”. It is useful to read Mr. Olmert’s expressed thoughts on the subject communicated on May 4 in the Knesset:

"The achievements of the settlement movement in main concentrations will forever be an integral part of the sovereign state of Israel, along with Jerusalem, our united capital …
I, too, like many others, dreamed and wished that we could safeguard all of the territories of the Land of Israel for ourselves, and that the day would not come when we would need to give up parts of our land. Only those for whom the Land of Israel burns in their souls, know the pain of the concession, the farewell to the land of our forefathers."¹

Contrary to media propaganda, Mr. Olmert did not receive a mandate from the Israeli people and thus no such mandate for the “convergence plan” can be stated unless one nods his head and winks his eye… in your direction[1]. “If one only examines the percentage voter’s numbers for this year’s elections, a little over half of the citizens voted while historically nearly ¾’s of the voters typically vote in elections. Mr. Olmert’s party, Kadima, garnered 29 seats, but a mere 24% of the total Knesset seats available during this last election, while the Labor Party earned 19 seats, representing but 16% of the available seats.”¹

If Mr. Olmert believes he really has the support of most Israelis, why then is the semantic game afoot here in Israel? Specifically, I refer to the “morphing” of the term convergence into “consolidation.” It is significant that the unilateral withdrawal from the “West Bank” and adding to the size of a few large Israeli communities, aka settlements, to make everything contiguous with the Green Line was the more favorable term for a few days. Why is this occurring now? The answer is simple. The leaders abandoned the word “withdrawal” because it sounded too much like surrender, while convergence did not mean anything to anyone. The newly appointed Prime Minister has therefore decided that we shall “consolidate” our territory. But wait, even this term came under scrutiny because to certain government officials this term sounded too militaristic. As predicted, the morphing has continued and Olmert’s plan is now called the realignment plan.

Lest anyone think that language is unimportant, it is precisely the ill-begotten use of words and terms that has allowed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to continue for some 30 years. Certainly, our enemies understand that the use of language is key to persuading and changing people’s opinions, producing policies over time. I suggest that the change in language is due to an absence of mandate, impelling this government to search for a less offensive word to neutralizing an action that is unpalatable to the Israeli public. In America we call it “political correctness”.

Having personally worked closely with the IDF, I understand that Mr. Olmert’s claim that the IDF will be given “free reign in the West Bank and the Jordan valley” is nothing less than double-speak. Allow me to explain. The “new” West Bank will not include the areas within its jurisdiction today. The so-called realignment plan creates Israel’s new borders and indirectly also forming the Palestinian state. An immediate reaction will be protests and cries by the Palestinians to the international community, claiming imperialism and illegal invasion, followed by a Hamas sanction justifying attacks on our IDF forces. Is there anyone who believes otherwise? Does Mr. Olmert disclose that the IDF will not only patrol the portion of the West Bank which he will declare as ours, but also continue to a presence in the newly formed Palestinian area? It is disingenuous of Mr. Olmert to provide an illusion of security in the West Bank due to continued IDF presence that will in reality be disallowed by the Palestinian leadership and will be the source of added aggression. Such a position by Mr. Olmert is simply language manipulation used by a politician to retain support for his ill fated “realignment plan”.

With respect to Mr. Olmert’s dreams and wishes, a history lesson might re-kindle hope and provide him with the necessary energy to follow through with already existing international mandates. Apparently he has forgotten that Israel is also entitled to lands within the “West Bank”. It is no wonder that he may have forgotten or perhaps chosen to forget this fact after 29 years of revisionist history being taught here and abroad. Coupled with the same amount of media distortion about Israel’s rights to land inside the disputed territory known as the West Bank, one can understand how difficult it must be for the Israeli Prime minister to stand his ground and defend Israel’s rights. Might this be why Mr. Olmert complained recently that “we are tired of fighting …”? He did speak for himself and does not speak for the Israelis I know. Yes, Mr. Olmert, it is tiring, day after day, month after month, and year after year to insist on the truth, demanding that the world’s “distortioners” be corrected and/or silenced. This would take unshakable commitment and a belief in doing the ethical and moral thing in the face of significant adversaries. When one has such a commitment, as did those who fought so many years for the existence of a Jewish state, it is not a drain; rather it is a motivating force.

It is an act of resignation to back away from our history and the diligent work of previous leaders. Historically, resignation within sovereign nations has led to their downfall and demise. The Jewish people have fought too long and with too much zeal and with too many sacrifices to have their hopes, dreams, and accomplishments undermined by weak leaders. It is crucial that this government, the media, Western leaders and citizens of the world remember that the below mandates were signed by both Israel and the Palestinian leadership, and recognized by the international community. They remain legally binding mandates and agreements, often overlooked or misread. A refresher is in order.

UN resolution 242 (following the 1967 war in which Israel was attacked by multiple Arab states and had to engage in a defensive war that it won):

This is Security Council resolution, not merely advisory, but a binding mandate. It has two main components:²

1. Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:

a. Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

b. Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

2. Affirms further the necessity:

a. For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
b. For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
c. For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every State in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones

The ultimate goal of 242, as expressed in paragraph 3 is the achievement of a "peaceful and accepted settlement."² This means a negotiated agreement based on the resolution's principles rather than one imposed upon the parties.

It is clear from the language that Israeli’s withdrawal from any of the territories is not a prerequisite for Arab action of terminating belligerency. Additionally, Resolution 242 does not specify how much territory Israel is required to give up. The Security Council did not say Israel must withdraw from "all” or from “the" territories occupied after the Six-Day war. The omission of these words was quite deliberate.

The following history clearly spells out why this resolution chose such specific words to address the required actions by all participating parties. “The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of both words, arguing that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."[2]

Following the final language of 242, the British Foreign Secretary informed the House of Commons on October 29, 1969 that the withdrawal envisaged by 242 would not be from "all the territories." When later asked to explain the British position, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial.” ² Significantly, the territories taken were not part of a sovereign country.

Similarly, U.S. Amb. Arthur Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'.... The resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."²

It is important and crucial to note that the Palestinians were neither identified nor mentioned anywhere in Resolution 242. They are only alluded to in the second clause of the second article of 242, which calls for "a just settlement of the refugee problem." Nowhere does the language require that Palestinians be given any political rights or territory, an assertion that for decades has been misreported, misrepresented or intentionally revised for political purposes. The outcome has been international policies built upon deceit. I now call on the world leaders to reconcile this discrepancy.

I draw your attention to one final correction. Note that a generic term “refugee” was used in the resolution. This was intentional as it acknowledges that two groups of refugees were created by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict--one is Arab and the other Jewish. The latter is seldom mentioned. This is no doubt because Israel immediately moved to accept, resettle and integrate the 850,000 Jewish refugees who were expelled from various Arab countries. In contrast, the Arab refugees continue to linger in camps, without any resettlement efforts, festering like an open sore without sympathy and minimal, if any assistance form their brethren in 22 Arab countries.

UN resolution 338:

Another binding Security Council resolution calls on both sides to begin implementation of Resolution 242. This resolution was the result of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, when once again attacked by multiple Arab countries. Israel was again victorious.

The language of 338:

1. Calls upon all parties to the present fighting to cease all firing and terminate all military activity immediately, in the positions they then occupy, and to do so no later than 12 hours after the adoption of the resolution.

2. Calls upon the parties concerned to start immediately after the cease­fire the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts;

3. Decides that, immediately and concurrently with the cease­fire, negotiations start between the parties concerned under appropriate auspices, aimed at establishing a just and durable peace in the Middle East.²

It was not until September of 1993 that the existing leadership of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (“PLO”), agreed that UN 242 and 338 should be the basis for negotiating with Israel. It took nearly a quarter of a century but the Palestinian leadership did agree as part of the Declaration of Principles (“DOP”).

To explain what has happened in the world media in reacting to the above history, I am going to coin a new phrase-- “media mythology.” Beginning with the Yom Kippur War in 1973, media mythology aided and abetted by “academic agnostics,” has done its best to justify revisionist history with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby supporting and giving some form of “credibility” to this mythology. For multiple reasons (beyond the scope of this article) the mainstream media has misrepresented the actual language of the preceding resolutions and has consequently confused subsequent generations about the intentions of the resolutions and the “on the ground” implementation of the respective responsibilities of the parties.

With the development of the Euro-Arab political and economic strategy during the past 30 years, forming what is called the Euro-Arab Dialogue (EAD), a strategy was designed, developed and implemented to undermine Israel.[3] As part of the scheme, the expanding faculties at many of the Western universities and colleges have chosen to believe and promote the Arab side of the ongoing conflict. Such stance has necessarily been based upon false, misleading and/or revisionist historical information. These “academics” have become well organized and continue to this day with their revisionist activities. As detailed below, they ignore the language of the 1993 signed Olso Accords, resulting in a misrepresentation of the roles and responsibilities of each of the parties as required in the documents.

It is important to understand that Oslo I, signed on September 13, 1993,created the Palestinian Authority (“PA”) as the governing arm of the PLO. Let us examine some of these legal documents and required responsibilities of the Israelis and Palestinians as set forth in the DOP.

Oslo I: Based on the agreement worked out in Oslo a joint Israeli-Palestinian DOP was signed by the two parties in Washington, D.C. It outlined the proposed interim self-governing terms for the Palestinians. The terms and conditions of the DOP include (1) immediate Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and Jericho, (2) early empowerment for the Palestinians in West Bank, (3) self-government and the election of a Palestinian council. This later became known as Oslo I. Implicit within the agreement was the cessation of attacks upon Israel. A partial summary of this agreement follows.²

· Transfer of Powers to the Palestinians:

The DOP features an agreement in principle regarding a transfer of non-military power and responsibilities to the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, so that they may have control over their own affairs.

· No Pre-judgment or Pre-emption of Permanent Status:

The DOP specifically excludes permanent status issues of Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements and final borders.

· Security Remains an Israeli Responsibility:

During the interim period, Israel will remain responsible for security along the international borders and the crossing points to Egypt and Jordan. Israel also retained responsibility for the overall security of Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, the Israeli population centers in Jericho and Gaza and freedom of movement on roads.

· Implementation of the DOP:

Details of the implementation were signed in Cairo between Israel and the PLO on May 4, 1994, known as AGREEMENT ON THE GAZA STRIP AND THE JERICHO AREA and provided the following:

Gaza-Jericho: Self-rule for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Jericho including a withdrawal of Israeli forces from those areas is to serve as a first step in the implementation of the DOP. Both parties agreed to the terms of this document.

Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities: In the rest of the West Bank, five specific spheres -- education and culture, health, social welfare, direct taxation and tourism – were to be transferred to Palestinian representatives through early empowerment; all were accomplished by December 1994.

The Interim Agreement and Elections: A modalities agreement regarding the election of a Palestinian Council and a comprehensive Interim Agreement specifying the structure and powers of the Council was to be negotiated. The Interim Agreement detailed the self-governing arrangements in the West Bank and Gaza. Concurrent with the elections, Israeli forces were to be redeployed to the outskirts of these populated Palestinian communities. The Palestinian Council was to have a strong police force in order to guarantee public order and its internal security.

For more complete information on the terms of the DOP and its implementation, visit any one of a number of internet sites including http://www.mfa.gov.il/. Suffice it to say, any reader who studies the terms and conditions of Oslo I and Oslo II will conclude that Israel had security control inside the disputed territories, gradually turning self rule over to the PA. It is also clear from the terms that the Oslo agreements that Israel, as the victor in the 1967 war, retained its right and claim to maintain a high presence in the territories.

Oslo II: On September 28, 1995, the Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was signed in Washington, D.C. The main object of the Interim Agreement was to broaden the rule of Palestinian self-government in the West Bank under the aegis of the PA by means of an elected self-governing authority -- the Palestinian Council. Again history demonstrated the degree to which the Palestinians failed to honor this agreement.[4]

Since 1995, additional peace initiatives have been proposed, signed, and their implementation attempted. Not a single one was adhered to by the Palestinians-not the cessation of hostilities, not the end of incitement, and not the teaching of peace. The details of these subsequent agreements can be found in the Wye Memorandum, the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum , the Camp David 2000 Summit and the "Road Map".

It is critical to understand the terms of the signed agreements, because at this writing, the Palestinian leadership (Hamas, PA and any other so-called leaders) continues to state that the premise of their unrest and terrorist acts is Israel’s illegal presence and operation within “West Bank”. This is a completely false premise. Any intellectual or respectable member of academia or media cannot, and must not, ignore the plain language of signed treaties and legal documents dating back to 1967, the provisions of which have been neither voided nor superseded. In plain and simple terms, Israel has retained rights to parts of the remaining disputed territory the people outside the Middle East call the West Bank. To state otherwise is not only incorrect, it is an intentional distortion of the truth. In my neighborhood, we called this a lie. The media and my collegial academic agnostics from this moment forward will be held accountable for their unfounded statements and their actions.

Some final observations:

The beginning of this paper stated that Israel is embarking on another attempt to reconcile its situation with the Palestinians. Mr. Olmert has mistakenly said that his election is a mandate from the people to implement his convergence plan. I have argued it is not! Already, in a matter of a few short days one can notice confusion as to what to even call this “Olmert’s plan.” and there are many, including this writer, who oppose such action.

Additionally, one must understand what has covertly been withheld from the general population of Israel: full disclosure of the Negev Plan and its role to the decision of the government to withdraw from Gaza, and still further from Judea and Samaria. Simon Peres, who now occupies the position of Vice Premier in Olmert’s new government, is also head of the ministry for the Development of the Negev and Galilee. This office was established in January 2005 and has a 10-year, NIS 17 billion strategic planning budget. The goal is to transform these unproductive and desert areas into flourishing communities of commerce and recreation. The secondary purpose is to provide an environment of prosperity and equality for Jewish and Arab Israelis alike, and create commerce with Jordan, the PA and Egypt. An important perspective on the Negev Plan can be gleaned from the remark of Mr. Peres to the Jerusalem Post.[5] Now that Israel has started to leave the territories, funds and resources that once went to Judea, Samaria and Gaza can now be used for the Galilee and the Negev. Mr. Peres further stated, “We are leaving the territories and building the country. We are going home.” This comment alone merits another paper.

We all know the adage, “follow the money” and we believe that the handwriting is on the wall. Mr. Peres indicated that last year alone, the government allocated NIS 50 million and the project spent 2 billion. This was done by convincing other ministries to go along with this project. He also indicated there were some private institutional monies made available. Perhaps it is only we who do not understand the extent to which the project was rolling forward. Perhaps it is only we who did not know how much money has been spent and how much more is to be spent. One can reasonably question the motivation of Olmert and company to remain in Judea and Samaria given the linkage between the territory and the monies need for development of the Negev area. This clearly adds to a perspective regarding what some consider a primary motivation for demolishing the lives of 60,000-80,000 Israeli citizens who are slated to also uprooted and displaced.

You now have information that we believe will add to your point of view. Perhaps you have a new found perspective.

End Notes

1. Morris, GS Don, “Mandate-Really?” posted on PRIMER web site April 16, 2006

2. Bard, Mitchell, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org.

3. Ye’or Bat Eurabia-The Euro-Arab Axis, Madison:Farleigh Dickinson University Press,2005

4. http://www.mfa.gov.il/

5. “Still Mapping It Out”, story in the Frontlines Section of Jerusalem Post, May 5, 2006.

Special thanks to editing by Ms. Aggie Hoffman.

---

[5]