 |
| Pâ•qidꞋ Yi•rᵊmᵊyâhꞋ u |
Jerusalem Post reporter Caroline B. Glick, embedded with the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq, writes: "Since entering Iraq a week ago, I have seen graffiti everywhere that make this war personal. At the suspected chemical weapons storage facility at al Najaf, an entire wall of one of the administration buildings was painted with the Iraqi and 'Palestinian' flags… [emphasis added]
"In the first town in which the 2-7 Battalion, in which I am embedded, was fired upon, the fire emanated from the headquarters of the "Palestinian" Liberation Army, which happened to be the vast party headquarters for the town of el-Khadir. Then, too, the main force that has engaged this battalion as we wait to move up to Baghdad to confront the Republican Guard has been al-Quds (Jerusalem) Brigade, which is a vast militia force." 1
There are innumerable indisputable linkages, and even confluences, between the terrorists inter-associations of Iraq, Syria, al-Qaida, Afghanistan, the 'Palestinians' and all other Muslim terrorist groups. Support throughout the Arab world for Saddam Hussein invalidates the wishful thinking of many pundits who assert that "innocent" Iraqis support Saddam Hussein only out of fear and the related assertion that eliminating the fear will cause Saddam's regime to crumble. The desire of American strategists for victory in the Iraq war without paying an enormous price in American and British blood is pinned on the flawed hope that, unlike (delinked from) the 'Palestinian Authority' regime of the Israeli-Arab conflict, Saddam Hussein's regime depends upon the mortal fear of Iraqi citizens. This attempted delinking has led to a number of misconceptions likely to lead to more Coalition casualties.
The flaw in attempting to delink Israel's war against Muslim terror from the Coalition's war against Muslim terror is easily demonstrated. Reports from Fox News, for example, corroborate that American-Iraqi troops are fighting under the threat of al-Qaida terrorists who came voluntarily, under no duress, to fight for Saddam. Similar reports show that Syria is actively supporting the Iraqis. Muslims from every Arab and Muslim country, particularly 'Palestinians' from Jordan, Gaza, Samaria and Judaea, jubilantly board buses and planes to become shahids (martyrs) for Saddam. Samarian and Gazan Arabs live in fear of neither Yasir Arafat nor Saddam Hussein. Nor do Arabs in Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia or Muslims in Indonesia, France, England and a long list of other countries throughout the Arab and Muslim world who idolize Arafat and lionize Saddam – pairing the two as Arab-Muslim savior-heros. This pairing of Saddam with Arafat is denied only by westerners, outside the Muslim world, who refuse to believe stacks of photographs of protests in many parts of the world. Excepting a handful of dictators dependent upon the west and a mostly muzzled miniscule minority, Saddam Hussein is supported thoughout the Arab world as a modern Saladin, Nasser and Nebukhadnezzar, rolled into one. To paraphrase a great American TV commercial, in all of these countries we must ask: "Where's the fear?!?"
Support throughout the Muslim world cannot be logically attributed to a "fear factor" unique in Iraq. There is little reason to suppose that Arab and Muslim support of Saddam Hussein in Iraq depends upon the mortal fear of his citizens any moreso than does Arab and Muslim support for him across the rest of the Muslim world. Coalition hopes that Iraqis will rise up against their hero-savior are, then, based on a highly tenuous western-value veneer painted onto a middle-eastern value culture whose barbarism westerners have not yet begun to grasp. Contrary to many pundits, the experience of every passing day demonstrates anew that reliance upon elimination of fear to create a "friendly countryside" envelope, thereby avoiding the "Vietnam Effect," is failing. Whatever war plans American strategists have based on such an uprising are dangerously misconceived and, if no contingent plan is in place, will result in most unfortunate urban street battles to take Saddam in Baghdad. Still, western pundits remain in denial.
A further motivation to deny this linkage is to appease the U.S. desire to differentiate Israel from, and keep Israel out of, the Iraqi war. Unfortunately, general delinkage also singles Israel out as not part of the war against terrorism, further implying that 'Palestinians' aren't like other Muslim terrorists. American and Israel delinkage also contradicts the UK's tenacious declarations of linkage. "Yet, in the midst of the [U.S. & Coalition] war [against Iraq], British Foreign Minister Jack Straw told the Iraqi people that the violent [anti-Zionist] cause in whose name they now pledge allegiance to Saddam Hussein is a just one" (ibid.).
Complicating matters, there are two, mutually exclusive, issues whose linkage is being hotly debated:
Solving the Iraqi problem is (or is not) linked to first solving the Israeli-'Palestinian' problem and
Gazan-Samarian-Judaean Arab Muslim terror against Israel is (or is not) linked to the larger global Muslim terror against "infidels" (whether Jews, Christians, Buddhists or Hindus) worldwide.
Barry Rubin exposes the several myths associated with the former. 2 Yet, we must simultaneously recognize the inescapable linkage in the latter. "The behavior of the Arab world" that Rubin cites has itself acted to demonstrate the linkage between the Gazan-Samarian-Judaean Arab Muslim terror machinery and the overall Arab Muslim terror machinery worldwide. Arabs "did not actively help the war against terrorism very much" and "they openly opposed the US war effort in Afghanistan. Now they have failed to back a US war effort on Iraq." There's clear linkage here. The Arab position regarding Gazan-Samarian-Judaean Arab Muslim terror and the larger global Muslim terror against all other "infidels" worldwide is identical – whether the "infidels" are Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Afghanistan, Christians in Manhattan or other non-Muslims. Americans aren't fighting a religious war… but Muslims are.
American generals also depend on delinkage to enable them to redefine "terrorism" to include attacks on combatants… claiming "This is different." Such a definition is self-contradicting. By definition, terrorism is "a campaign of premeditated violence intentionally and specifically directed against a civilian group of non-combatants." Take "non-combatants" out of the definition and, though it's barbaric warfare unacceptable by western civilized mores, it doesn't satisfy the definition of terrorism. While the Arab and Muslim tactics being experienced in the Iraqi war are the same as terrorists, these are only terrorists if and when they attack non-combatants (e.g. the missile attack on the Kuwaiti Mall and other missile attacks on non-combatants).
American generals also reject the term "guerrilla" in describing those who act like terrorists but attack combatants. "Thugs," also bandied, implies that these barbaric war criminals are no worse than a barroom brawler or petty criminal. "Paramilitary" fails to convey the barbarism characteristic of Muslim terrorist tactics. There is no English word that accurately describes these unconventional savages who reject "nice" warfare and take great pride in Arab "cleverness," purportedly shown them by Allah, that makes Muslims superior to, and gives them victory over, the "infidels." There is, however, an Arabic Muslim term that, not unexpectedly, perfectly describes this Muslim phenomenon. Because of American insistence on delinkage, American generals resist the only word that accurately portrays these Arab-Muslim terrorist-commandos as they are perceived by Arab-Muslims and must, therefore, be understood by westerners: fidayin. Though Rob Sobhani of Georgetown University maintains that fidayin is a secular term, 3 a survey of Arab and other Muslim web sites suggests otherwise. Fidai is an Arabic Muslim term – religious by definition. "Holy saint" is, therefore, an intrinsic connotation to Muslims.
Many of the same pundits extend their wishful thinking by attributing the fidayin tactics employed by the Iraqi regime to increasing desperation; an indicator, therefore, of a crumbling regime. As already stated, the "fear bubble" in Iraq (which depends on delinkage of Arab-Muslim support of Saddam in Iraq both from Arab-Muslim support outside of Iraq and Arab-Muslim support of the 'Palestinians') floated by American generals implies that as soon as fear is removed Iraqi citizens will burst the bubble and rise up in opposition to Saddam. Though fidayin tactics have always been a natural part of Arab and Muslim warfare, the U.S. State Department, if it is to continue to maintain that the "good" Iraqis are anxious to rise up against Saddam, are forced to buttress the failing "fear bubble" theory with an additional premise that the "surprising" terrorist-like tactics (which were predictable with near certainty), perceived as heroic by Muslims, are, instead, "an indication of desperation" gripping Saddam's regime. The application of identical tactics by Muslims throughout the world as the tactic of choice, since the early 1970s and before, suggests linkage more than delinkage whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel. Granted, similar tactics by non-Muslims in Northern Ireland and elsewhere militates against automatically assuming linkage based on tactics. Where the tactics are employed by Muslims, however, similar tactics coupled with common religious motivation are strong indicators of linkage.
Further corroboration pours in every day. Experts, even Israelis, have expressed surprise at the ferocity of the fidayin 4 and government control in southern Iraq 5, both of which are explained by this analysis and were conspicuously predictable. Taking Muslim perspectives into better account, or even surveying actions objectively, would have suggested that Shiite Muslims (of southern Iraq and Iran) prefer Sunni Muslims, including the Baath Party and Saddam, against western Coalition "infidels." At every turn, it's increasingly clear that western strategists misunderstand, and continue to be surprised by, the Arab Muslim frame of reference. Yet, reconnecting the broken link to understand Iraqis like all of the other Arabs in the Middle East and Muslims everywhere (with insignificant exceptions) explains what we see everyday – and, more importantly, what we will see tomorrow and thereafter – perfectly. The west has yet to internalize that Arabs (and, by extension, Muslims), whether in Iraq or Gaza (or Indonesia), don't compromise to logical argument or threat of force. They accede only to, and genuinely respect only, applied superior force. Accordingly, Saddam is viewed by Muslims – particularly those outside of Iraq not personally acquainted with his cruelty – as a strong and great Arab Saladin hero-savior, not the "Butcher of Baghdad" dictator perceived through western eyes.
It is then demonstrated that delinking the Iraq situation from overall Arab and Muslim terrorism throughout the Middle East also carries the steep price of the Iraqi war going badly, spilling excessive amounts of the blood of American and British soldiers, in a way that, had delinkage not been attempted, would have been foreseen.
The unhappy reality is that Arabs are racists pursuing a Middle East, and ultimately world, ethnically cleansed of Jews and other non-Muslim "infidels." With few well-meaning but helpless exceptions, Muslims see "infidels" as enemies to be killed, whether it be in Iraq, India, Syria, Algeria, Indonesia and Manhattan or Gaza, Samaria and Judaea. There is no appreciable difference among victim nations and any attempt to single Israel out for delinkage from other non-Muslim victim peoples simply because we're Jews in the Middle East would be discriminatory, to put it charitably.
These linkages, however, all remain distinct from attempts to link the Iraqi and 'Palestinian' problems as if their solutions were comparable. Samarian and Gazan Arabs differ from the Iraqi problem in at least four crucial ways. Samarian and Gazan Arabs don't represent the specter of [1] a predatory nation (until Tony Blair gets his way, at least) [2] with a large army [3] developing weapons of mass destruction and [4] proliferating them to Muslim terrorists. Samarian and Gazan Arabs haven't invaded neighboring Arab countries. Nor do Samarian and Gazan Arabs possess vast oil wealth. Such significant differences between these two situations demonstrate that any attempt to portray them as the same threat or solvable by the same solution is either sophomoric or blatant propaganda.
The primary champion of such linkage, outside of the Arab and Muslim worlds, is U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair. Accordingly, U.K. Foreign Minister, Jack Straw, "told the BBC that the West was hypocritical not to demand the same sort of adherence to UN Security Council resolutions from the Israelis as it does from Iraq… [that] he described as 'injustice against the Palestinians'." 6
U.N. resolutions contradict linkage between solutions to the Iraqi and Gazan-Samarian-Judaean Arab problems. U.N. Security Council resolutions taken since the Gulf War against Iraq were taken under Chapter Seven of the UN Charter, and are legally binding, enabling sanctions and intervention. U.N. Security Council resolutions taken against Israel, by contrast (and aside from the inherent anti-Judaic composition of the U.N.), were taken under Chapter Six of the UN Charter, and aren't obligatory and cannot enable sanctions nor intervention. They are merely recommendations; blatantly Muslim-driven anti-Judaic and anti-Israel recommendations.
Furthermore, like many others, Blair ignores the obvious: 'Palestinians' relentlessly demonstrate their allegiance to Saddam in the streets. Setting up a 'Palestinian' state would unequivocally transfer the type of regime that controlled Afghanistan and still controls Iraq to reinforce the Muslim terrorist core already in place in Gaza, Samaria and Judaea. In short, no matter how inadvertently, Blair is committed to promote a Saddam-like regime in Gaza, Samaria and Judaea. The net effect would be to reincarnate the beleaguered Taliban of Afghanistan as the 'Paliban' of Gaza, Samaria and Judaea – on Israel's doorstep.
Additionally, delinking Israel from the war against Muslim terror, by contrast, would be not only an existential threat to Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East (or, arguably, anywhere else), but a continuing contradiction of America's global war against Muslim terror. Entirely oblivious to the global Muslim threat of terror against all "infidels," Blair declared that Pres. Bush "believes, like me, that this is a vital interest to resolve because it is probably the issue, more than anything else, that keeps the Arab and Muslim worlds and the Western world apart." Yet, neither support for Saddam Hussein, nor fidayin tactics nor hatred of the west depends in any way on solving the issues that divide Israel from the Arabs of Gaza, Samaria and Judaea. If Israel reconciled entirely with a 'Palestinian' state today, who would be foolish enough to assert that Arab and Muslim terrorists would be even one nanometer closer to reconciling with "the infidels" of the west? Exactly the contrary. "Compromise" is a vulgar word in Arabic. The vulgarity provides an opportunity to take another slice of the salami and then rescind the vulgarity (compromise). The point has earlier been demonstrated that Arabs accede only to applied force, and only for as long as force is applied, not cajoling and compromise. This movie has played out a thousand times. The ending doesn't change. Only the salami continues to get smaller.
Arab and Muslim hatred of Israel differs only in intensity and racial overtones from Arab and Muslim hatred of other "infidels," including the west. Arab and Muslim hatred of Israel cannot be delinked from Arab and Muslim hatred of the west and other "infidels." First Israel. Then you. What Blair and the west fail to see is that killing the canary won't contribute in any way to making the mine safe. Instead of pointlessly sacrificing the canary or requiring the canary to compromise about breathing, the west should be making the mine safe for the canary. The harsh fact is that, for all of the courage recently attributed to Mr. Blair, he has acted the part of a pure politician who simply miscalculated… and now plans his road to political return through
As one Israeli official commented, "If you fight one leader for supporting terrorism, it would make sense to combat other ones in our region as well." 7 The truth about linkage is that while Arabs and other Muslims argue for linkage of opposites in vanquishing Saddam and Israel, the only valid, and unbreakable, linkage is between Muslim fidayin faced by the Coalition and the Muslim fidayin faced by Israel!
For Israel's part, vacillating – self-contradicting – policies continue to self-destruct Israel's rickety efforts to build a positive image in the world. This self-destruction concedes, by default (to reporters like, for example, The New York Times' Tom Friedman), that Muslim anti-Judaic and anti-Israel propaganda must be right by simple deduction. Israel isn't merely losing the PR war; we repeatedly go far beyond merely defaulting the PR war to the point of inadvertently endorsing anti-Judaic and anti-Israel propaganda. For Israel to be quiet bolsters Arab propaganda. For Israel to appear delinked from the war against terror not only benefits Arab propagandists, it fuels additional propaganda that, since (by our silence) Israel has no legitimate war against terror, therefore Israel has no legitimate reasons for for killing the therefore "innocent" 'Palestinians' (nor even a legitimate reason for our presence in the Middle East)!
Repeatedly, Israel sacrifices the war in order to win a battle.
So what is the real reason that Israel and the U.S. insist on delinking Israel (and, therefore, 'Palestinian' terrorism) from the war on Iraq and global terror? Because, they simplistically theorize, this will enable the Coalition, as in the 1991 Gulf War, to deal with Iraq while depriving the Arab countries of the anti-Israel rallying banner. Instead, however, the Coalition has found that sacrificing Israel has failed to dampen popular Arab or Muslim hatred and opposition against the west. Stated simply: That don't work! On the contrary, Arabs respect overwhelming force. Whether or not Israel is kept out of the fray doesn't change that equation, so there is no real need to sacrifice Israel on the altar of appeasement to Arabs. Moreover, sacrificing one's close ally – particularly habitually – is morally reprehensible – and eventually undermines allies' confidence.
Exacerbating the problems, U.S. delinkage is intractably contradictory to UK linkage. Worse, delinkage (implying both issues) is contradicted by the facts (that imply one of the linkages). So the UK linkage will not only receive the support of the anti-Judaic and anti-Israel Muslim nations, but will be demonstrated from indisputable facts as well. World opinion will inevitably see the linkage that the U.S. and Israel are trying so desperately, and wrong-headedly, to conceal. This will clearly result in a backlash to Israel's detriment.
A week before four American soldiers were blown up by a car bomb at a checkpoint, Jerusalem Post reporter Caroline B. Glick wrote (2003.03.28), "Last Saturday [2003.03.22], as our convoy stopped on the side of Highway 8 during the battle of el-Khader, a civilian pulled up in his car, parked next to the Humvee I was traveling in and started walking away.
"A soldier traveling with me, laughed at how scared the driver was. I interrupted him, told him that it could be a car bomb, and that he had to tell the man to take his car and go away. Americans luckily still have a lot to learn about living in the shadow of terror."
Caroline Glick understands the linkage that should be obvious between Arab-Muslim terror and Arab-Muslim terror – wherever it is found. It was only one week after she wrote that four American soldiers were blown up by an Iraqi fidayin shahid car bomb. That kind of experience, sharpened over years of dealing with terror, cannot be acquired in a 6-week course. If Americans and Brits had an Israeli advisor with them, it's very likely that, at most, one soldier might have been lost to the car bomb… and not by surprise. I've seen countless security lapses relative to terrorist attacks in news videos. Latest example, Fox News is reporting as I type this that a truck plowed into a line of GIs. Note that I published my article warning of this tactic here in Israel back in 1995 (scan of article, "Fighting Terrorism (In English 1995.03 p6).jpg", available from schuellerhouse.com). It should be made crystal clear here that car bombs are only one of the myriad types of terrorist attacks. Look for increasing problems of soldiers unable to distinguish between Iraqi civilians and Iraqi combatants. We've been there, done that, and American soldiers need Israeli advisors on the scene.
Look, too, for increasingly microscopic media focus on errors involving "innocent" Iraqis, with the associated ugly PR. Despite self-defeating denials by American generals, such "innocent" Iraqi victims are, in fact, ardent supporters of their Arab-savior Saddam and, therefore, are properly combatants. Baghdad will be as full of them as Jenin was. Expect a greatly magnified Jenin. Then look around and see who will be assuming the role of "Mr. Massacre" (Saeb Erekat). He'll be the one telling al-Jazeera cameras that Coalition forces deliberately massacred thousands and calling for the U.N. to initiate a War Crimes Commission to condemn Pres. Bush, Tony Blair and Coalition generals. [Update: "Baghdad Bob"]
Israeli advisors wouldn't be able to prevent every fidayin attack, to be sure. But Israelis are long experienced and way ahead of everyone else in fighting Arab-Muslim terror, and even one American life would make it worthwhile. (U.K. soldiers who think that their experience with terrorists in Northern Ireland qualifies them as experts in Arab-Muslim terror tactics have a grisly introduction to reality in store.) Nothing short of an Israeli advisor on the scene has the maximal experience to spot such threats before they cause deaths. Israeli advisors should be on the scene. It's negligent of the U.S. State Department not to insist on inviting Israeli advisors to be on the scene, and, in requiring Israel to keep silent instead of taking its leading part in the war against terror, the U.S. State Department is responsible for the deaths of American soldiers who might have been spared had an Israeli advisor been on the scene – like Caroline Glick was.
Arabs and other Muslims have the silly idea, by western standards, that wars must be won and enemies destroyed; that war cannot be reduced to a "nice," though deadly, contest akin to a boxing match governed by Queensbury rules. The Muslims' greatest weapon is western insistence on fighting "nice" war with the accompanying PR vulnerability consequent to any action, no matter how accidental, that doesn't turn out "nice." And war is inherently not "nice." Muslims, by contrast, think "nice" in war is literally a laughable vulnerability that condemns the foolish "infidels" to eventual defeat. They couldn't care less about PR, except as a propaganda weapon they can manipulate. Westerners are gravely mistaken to attempt to superimpose western values on middle eastern minds. It's time westerners began to understand the Arab and Muslim mindset… before it is too late.
Instead of futilely blaming foreign scapegoats we cannot control, Israel must, with the Almighty's help, set our policies by accepting responsibility to define, and strive to achieve, our own destiny independent of foreign dictates. This hinges upon a term Israel has entirely abandoned and forgotten: initiative. The villain in all of this is Israel's consistently incompetent, often self-contradicting, government "hasbara" (explanation, not PR). There are, to be sure, several exceptional spokespeople who speak fluent English. These are, however, more than offset by bumbling contradictors of any coherent Israeli policy; whose most often uttered, and often most intelligent, word is generally an agonizing repetition of "…ehhh…" Israel thereby represents itself to the world as a nation of crude morons who can't even put a sentence together, much less a cogent policy. The fatal factor, however, is that without even getting into the innumerable differences between "hasbara" and intelligent public relations, our few articulate spokespeople can never counterbalance a chaotic Israeli government "hasbara" (which should be renamed "tōꞋhu va-vōꞋhu" – chaos) that is so inept it often assists our enemies' propaganda efforts.
Unlike "hasbara," and contrary to popular Israeli misconception, PR is different from propaganda. The first essential of PR is to reconcile with reality and the facts, not conceal or distort inconvenient facts – which is propagandizing. In fact, effective PR requires putting the inconvenient facts out front, immediately, and dealing with them as effectively as possible. There is a maxim that "if you have the law on your side, argue law; if you have right on your side, argue what is right; if you have neither on your side, pound on the table." We have some law on our side to argue. When we exhaust that, our efforts are spent. It's over. We have right on our side that should carry the day but the overwhelming majority of seculars among us don't want to admit that. So we pound on the table about the Holocaust and smoldering remnants of European antisemitism. There is European neo-antisemitism, not smoldering remnants of antisemitism. We convince no one by aimlessly pounding on the table. Our only friends in the world are friends because of their religion, not because of any arguments we've made. And we even excel at trashing the religion of those who befriend us based on that religion!
In the past, Israel has had the fatal habit of making quantum jumps between the extremes of "damn the PR" policy and PR-dictated policy. Both are self-destructive. Effective PR requires a more intelligent, and subtle, approach, an approach that neither allows policy to be dictated by PR nor sets policy without calculating the effects of PR into the equation and incorporating the implied PR effort seamlessly into the prosecution of an overall policy.
Linkage between the terrorist groups of Gazan-Samarian-Judaean Arabs and those of Iraq, Syria and al-Qaida is inextricably demonstrated. Stop the duplicitous and contradictory jumping between proclaiming it and denying it according to which is convenient at the time. Nurturing contradictions for convenience demonstrates to the world that Israel's leaders (joining a very large crowd) are liars, fuel for the anti-Israel cartoons.
Israel fears the UK insistence on promoting the "Roadmap" precisely because UK insistence results from Arab pressure that is based on linkage of Israel to "the Mideast problem" (implying that Israel is the root cause of the root problem in the Middle East) – while our war against inextricably linked terror groups among Gazan-Samarian-Judaean Arabs is delinked. That glaring contradiction in linkage must be the point of attack. Denying linkage leads to defeat at the hands of reality and fact. Those involved in Israel's present fiasco that masquerades under the banner of "hasbara" should heed another maxim: Lead (in this direction), follow, or get out of the way!
"Israeli National Security Council head Ephraim Halevy believes that the world will forge a new moral high ground and new rules of conduct after it emerges from the ruins of Iraq." 'Things will never be the same' after Iraq war, he says. 8 The new world order will continue to contain most of the same old problems. But if Israel doesn't change it's duplicitous posture of convenience relative to linkage now, while the Iraq war continues to rage, we will have waived a one-time opportunity to claim the moral high ground in a new world order.
Israel must stop fearing to stand up and be counted, always and consistently, as the world's leader in fighting terrorists. In many cases, we're teaching the Americans, for crying out loud! Even fair media keeps quiet about Israel because Israel has – quietly – requested it. The U.S. State Department will reward us for our silence no differently than last time: taken it for granted and selling us out to appease angry Arabs. Israel must be as vocal about contributing to the Coalition in the war against Iraq and al-Qaida in Afghanistan as we are about stamping out Hamas in Gaza. We should be very public in offering to send troops and equipment and insisting on contributing to the humanitarian effort to bring food and medical supplies – clearly marked from Israel with the blue magen David – to the dislocated Iraqis… well prepared in the most public way anticipating Arab rejection of our help. We must NOT be quiet about our war against terror to appease either the U.S. or anyone else. The world must know where we stand, as well as why, if we are ever to win the war for world support. Israel must learn not to sacrifice her king for a pawn.
Jerusalem Report, 2003.03.27, p. 1. 
Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA), "Exposing the linkage myth," Jerusalem Post, 2003.03.28, p. A6.
Fox News, 2003.03.30.
Haifa University professor of Middle East history Amatzia Baram in New York Times, 2003.03.30.
Phebe Marr, retired senior fellow at the National Defense University, in New York Times, 2003.03.30.
Douglas Davis, Jerusalem Post, 2003.03.27, p. 2.
Herb Keinon, Jerusalem Post, 2003.03.27, p. 2.
Jerusalem Post, 2003.03.28, p. A4.
 |
|
 |