 |
Contents:
Letter of Elihu Schultz,
Concentration Camp Survivor
I contacted the radio station in order to take part in the discussion. But when I was asked whom I would support, I answered honestly that supported the settlers. This answer resulted in a refusal to permit me to participate. I was a prisoner in the Nazi work camps. My prisoner number is tattooed on left forearm. This fact gives me the right, perhaps even the obligation, to participate since both the interviewer and interviewee did not correctly address the question under discussion. Ms Moses claimed that it was a disgrace to place a "number" on the forearm. Tens of thousands of these Jews were killed in the gas chambers, but since the Gush Katif settlers face no such danger any use of symbols like the number-on-the-forearm is a desecration of their memory. It is my obligation to correct a basic mistake. Those on whose forearms a number was tattooed were not the ones who were executed and gassed; they were the ones who were sentenced to remain among the living. You might ask what kind of a life was in the Nazi slave camps but for many it meant survival. The tens of thousands who were gassed and killed in other horrible ways did not have a number on their forearm. The Nazis were in such a hurry that they were sent to the gas chambers without their name being registered and without being given a number, let alone tattooed on the forearm. My mother and my sister, for example, were killed anonymously! At the selection place, only those who were sent to the right received a number on their forearm; they had been sentenced to a life of slavery and exploitation as long as they were fit to work. The extermination policy did not start immediately when Hitler and his party assumed power in 1933. Instead the situation of German Jews worsened gradually until the war broke out in 1939. The Nazis started with driving the Jews from their homes, depriving them of opportunities to earn a living, confiscation of their property and a general delegitimization of Jews. If we compare this process with what is happening here today, we get an entirely different point of view of what is usually presented in the media. In Germany Jews were expelled from their homes and were forbidden to live in the center of towns. In Israel Jews/settlers expect to be expelled by force from the homes that they purchased or built legally. In Germany Jews were expelled from their stores and their factories. In Israel we will be driving Jews from their hothouses and the workplaces where they earned an honorable living. Many raised produce which formed a significant part of our agricultural export, thus earning foreign exchange for the State. All are to be thrown out like dogs, without any chance for earning a living. Salaried employees, like local council employees, teachers, kindergarten teachers, doctors, etc., will not be dismissed from their jobs so that they cannot even file for unemployment compensation. Synagogues, schools, cemeteries all are to be desecrated. We shall not mention Crystal Night in November 1938 when the Germans burnt down most of the synagogues. And all this is only the beginning. As for observing the laws: everything that was done to the Jews in Germany and in the Nazi-conquered territories was done strictly according to law. The Nürnberg Laws were adopted with an overwhelming majority, more than 95%. Any one who opposed the anti-Jewish measures was considered as a law-violator and punished accordingly. Just as German laws were not legal because they were racially discriminatory from the very beginning, so must one oppose the laws on which the followers of the Disengagement Plan base their actions. Every people in the world are entitled to have an object that they can hate. The Jews have played this role for many generations; the reasons for this hatred were manifold and varied. Our forefathers crucified their god and we slaughtered Christian children because we needed their blood to bake matzot. In Israel we searched for an object of our hate until we discovered the settlers. They are responsible for all the troubles that have befallen us. Even the murderer of Rabin grew up and was educated in the settlement of Herzeliya. We must follow the Russian example: hit the (Jewish) settler and save the democratic-Jewish state (Russia). The entire Disengagement Plan is not a rational plan or one developed to strengthen our military position. Everybody agrees to this because after the Disengagement our military situation will not be better just the opposite, it will be much worse. We are not expecting any compensations because this Disengagement is completely unilateral. There is only one reason for this plan: a blinding hatred of our fellow man, even if it leads to self-destruction! The ancient Jewish kingdom was destroyed because free-floating hatred. The division among the people was one of the principal causes for its demise and this is what we can expect now. Let no one delude himself that after the Disengagement everything will return to its previous situation and we will all live in peace. This process will most definitely divide the people; it will divide the government, the army and the police force. And with the active aid of this government and the political parties which support it, the Arabs will be victorious and establish concentration camps in the Negev or in Sinai. I know already the names of those who will act as Kapos in the camps. Pay attention and beware.
Elihu Schultz
Impact of Israel's
"Disengagement" on U.S. Interests 1. Congressional oversight requires an examination (hearing) of the impact of Israel's "disengagement" (retreat) from terrorist strongholds in Gaza and Samaria on US interests in general and on the safety of US GIs in Iraq/Afghanistan in particular. 2. The July 2000 "disengagement" from Lebanon boosted Hizballah terror to regional prominence, currently haunting US GIs in Afghanistan and in Iraq. 3. The 1994-98 "disengagements" from 85% of Gaza and 40% of Judea & Samaria created the largest terror base in the world, a platform and a tailwind to regional anti-US terrorism. Palestinian terrorists face the US in Iraq/Afghanistan. 4. The 1994-98 "disengagements" bolstered the PLO/PA, the arch lethal enemy of the pro-US Hashemite regime in Jordan. 5. The 1995 "disengagement" from Bethlehem doomed its Christians to PLO/PA oppression, accelerating Christian flight (from a 70% majority to a 20% minority). 6. "Disengagement" would transfer control of Gaza's sea and air ports to the PLO/PA - the sustained ally of Iran, Russia, China and No. Korea - enhancing their strategic posture in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean. 7. "Disengagement" would reward the PA - a platform to pro-Saddam elements. 8. "Disengagement" would drag the US into inevitable Egypt-Israel dimplomatic and military conflicts. 9. "Disenagement" would be perceived, by Palestinians, as a boost to the rogue PA regime, discouraging Palestinian reformists and moderates. 10. "Disengagement" (retreat) would reward terrorists and undermine deterrence and negotiation in the Mideast, where the only peace possible is deterrence-driven. 11. The 1993-2001 anti-US wave of Islamic terrorism was fueled by the 1979, 1983 and 1993 US "disengagements" from Teheran, Beirut and Mogadishu. 12. President Bush opposes the "disengagement" (retreat) concept (June 28, 2005): "They think that they can force us to retreat; they are mistaken. We either deal with terrorism abroad, or we deal with them when it comes to us." 13. "Disengagement" and US interests constitute an oxymoron! The time to examine the impact of Israel's "disengagement" on US interests is before - and not after - its consequences burden US GIs.
Israel Military Intelligence
Warns That Disengagement Would be Viewe As a Victory for Terror
Both General Amidror and Col. addressed the security risks inherent in the "disengagement" plan, since the world would see terrorists witness a surrender and withdrawal after conducting thousands of terror attacks. In other words, terror pays. Gen. Amidror stated from the outset that he did not dispute the right of an Israeli government to set its own borders, and that his critique of Sharon's disengagement plan was based on logic and military strategic thinking - not ideology. Amidror seemed to critique the Sharon Plan from a left wing point of view, saying that it actually discourages negotiations. Since Israel asks nothing from the P.A., the attitude that Amidror sees among the Palestinians could best be expressed with an attitude of "Why negotiate when we can get concessions with no reciprocity"? Amidror stressed that the plan will endanger all areas of Israel, placing all of the Negev within range of Kassam rockets. Within weeks or months of the pullout, Amidror predicted, a good part of Israel may experience a barrage of Ketusha and Kassam launchings and not have any freedom to maneuver. Amidror instead predicted additional pressure being put on Israel, with the EU asking, "What next?" meaning "What should Israel do next?" Amidror posited that this move will be viewed as a great achievement for terrorist organizations, strengthening the hand of those who support terrorism as the way to defeat Israel - with Judea and Samaria the next targets. From a global point of view, Amidror noted, this would constitute a mistake of historical dimensions, saying that "twice historically terrorism has been demonstrated to be effective - with Arafat in the 70s and with Mujahdeen rebels in Afghanistan in the 80s. "Disengagement" mark the third victory for terrorism. Israel is adding to the atmosphere in which terrorism flourishes. Col Rinsky pointed out that even when strong, the P.A. never entered the UNRWA refugee camp in Rafiah (where terrorism flourishes). This is the entity to which Israel would entrust security in the area. The only way to control the problem of rockets and tunnels (used for smuggling weapons) is with IDF forces on the ground in Gaza. Col. Rinsky also surprised his audience when he noted that the Gaza division of the IDF was never even consulted as to the consequences of an IDF pullout from Katif, Both Amidror and Rinsky were clear in their analiyis that Israel did stop terrorism in the West Bank and can continue to do so, if there is freedom of movement for the IDF. To the claim that Israel can simply "go back in" when faced with hostility, Amidror explains that "Once Israel is out of an area, going back would not be a simple matter - in spite of claims to the contrary". Amidror noted that Israel simply could not re-enter Arab cities in Judea and Samaria in April 2002 until more than 10,000 terror attacks had occurred . . . so that an Israeli invasion of Gaza in case of sporadic terror attacks would not be understood in any circle of diplomacy.
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority. |
Printer
friendly version of this article