Israel Resource Review 29th October, 2004


Have you read the Sharon Plan?
No "Disengagement".
Instead, A Program of PLO Empowerment

David Bedein

If you are like most members of the Knesset and the media, you probably never read it.

That Sharon Plan received its first vote of confidence in Israel's Knesset on October 26th, 2004.

Yet what is even more newsworthy, given the charged emotions that this debate has created, is the fact that very few people across the political spectrum in Israel, and even in the media and diplomatic corps represented in Israel, have bothered to read the Sharon Plan.

Even though it is posted on the official web site of the Israeli Prime Minister, at , I repeat, few people have taken the time to read the Sharon Plan.

That includes MKs on both sides of the Knesset - those who voted for and against the Sharon Plan yesterday.

That includes the reporters who cover the Knesset.

Everyone thinks that it was only about Gaza.

Indeed, people throughout Israel and throughout the world thought they were voting on was whether or not Israelis could continue to live in the Katif district of Gaza.

Hence the term "disengagement".

Why? The Sharon Plan is officially called the "Disengagement Plan", because, according to the preamble to clause 1, section 1, "Israel has come to the conclusion that there is currently no reliable Palestinian partner with which it can make progress in a bilateral peace process."

The preamble goes on to say that "In order to break out of this stalemate, Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. Israel is required to initiate moves not dependent on Palestinian cooperation. Accordingly, it has developed a plan of unilateral disengagement"

However, the Sharon Plan continues with a statement that seems to belie the preamble that the PLO is not a "reliable Palestinian partner" by stating that "the hope is that the Palestinians will take advantage of the opportunity created by the disengagement in order to break out of the cycle of violence and to reengage in a process of dialogue."

Since the majority of the Palestinians in Gaza, who live in the squalor of UN Arab refugee camps, are nurtured by the ideas of the "right of return" to liberate lands where their Arab villages existed in 1948, why would Israel's dismemberment of Katif communities that were established on lands where no Arab villages were lost in 1967 satisfy their political goals?

Yet another premise of the Sharon Plan is that "the process of disengagement will serve to dispel claims regarding Israel's responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip."

If Israel is to annul its responsibility for the well being of the Palestinian population, why does the Sharon plan continue to obligate Israel to "provide water pipes, electricity, industrial zones, markets, employment and an industrial zone to sustain the Palestinian Arab economy of Gaza"?

Meanwhile, The Sharon Plan mandates that "other existing arrangements, such as those relating to water and the electro-magnetic sphere shall remain in force" while "economic arrangements currently in operation between Israel and the Palestinians shall, in the meantime, remain in force".

According to the Sharon Plan, these arrangements will include:

i. The entry of workers into Israel in accordance with the existing criteria.

ii. The entry and exit of goods between the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Israel and abroad.

iii. The monetary regime.

iv. Tax and customs envelope arrangements.

v. Postal and telecommunications arrangements.

So there you have it - While the Sharon Plan is described as a "disengagement plan" it does anything but disengage Israel from the Palestinian Arab population.

Meanwhile, the language of the Sharon plan intimates that the PLO will abandon its terror campaign.

The plan says, "When", and not "if" "there is evidence from the Palestinian side of its willingness, capability and implementation in practice of the fight against terrorism and the institution of reform as required by the Road Map, it will be possible to return to the track of negotiation and dialogue."

On what basis does the Sharon plan have for any assumption that the PLO will "fight against terrorism" or institute any "reform"? There is no answer.

And when it comes to security issues in other areas, the Sharon plan promises to "evacuate an area in the Northern Samaria Area (the West Bank) including 4 villages and all military installations, and re-deploy outside the vacated area. The move will enable territorial contiguity for Palestinians in the Northern Samaria Area "while Israel will improve the transportation infrastructure in the West Bank in order to facilitate the contiguity of Palestinian transportation."?

Does this also mean that abandoned villages and military installations will be handed over to a PLO that is "not a reliable peace partner"? Once more, since the Sharon Plan defines the PLO as maintaining a state of war with Israel , why does the same Sharon Plan provide the PLO with the strategic assistance of "territorial contiguity"? No answer is given.

Meanwhile, the Sharon Plan mandates that the Gaza Strip "be demilitarized and shall be devoid of weaponry, the presence of which does not accord with the Israeli-Palestinian agreements."

However, the Sharon Plan does not even allude to the fact that the PLO violated all previous agreements in this regard and refused to implement the agreement with Israel to have their personnel vetted by Israel.

Did Sharon experience amnesia and forget that the PLO increased against in defiance of the Oslo agreement the size of the agreed upon security force from 9,000 in 1993 to more than 50,000 by 1995, ignoring protestations of the government of Israel?

Meanwhile, The Sharon Plan that demilitarizes Gaza provides no process to disarm for disarming the PLO armed forces now in Gaza.

And what does the Sharon Plan mandate in terms of Israeli security? The Sharon Plan asserts that "Israel reserves its inherent right of self-defense, both preventive and reactive, including where necessary the use of force, in respect of threats emanating from the Gaza Strip."

Incredibly, Israel's right to pursue terrorists into Gaza is not mentioned anywhere in the Sharon Plan.

As far as the security situation in the West Bank is concerned, the Sharon Plan states that "upon completion of the evacuation of the Northern Samaria Area, no permanent Israeli military presence will remain in this area," while another section states that:

"Military Installations and Infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria will be dismantled and removed, with the exception of those which Israel decides to leave and transfer to another party . . . "

Does that mean that the PLO security forces, described in clause 1 of the Sharon Plan as "not a reliable peace partner," will now inherit Israel's abandoned IDF military bases?

Why would Israel cede military installations to an entity with whom it is in a state of war?

The Sharon Plan also states that "In other areas of the West Bank, current security activity will continue" and that ". . . as circumstances permit, Israel will consider reducing such activity in Palestinian cities and that "Israel will work to reduce the number of internal checkpoints throughout the West Bank."

So here we have a situation where Israel moves its forces out of cities and reduces checkpoints and is expected to maintain mobility to respond to the PLO terror war.

Perhaps the most amazing issue of all is that clause five of the Sharon Plan mandates to provide "advice, assistance and training" to "the Palestinian security forces for the implementation of their obligations to combat terrorism and maintain public order, by American, British, Egyptian, Jordanian or other experts, as agreed with Israel."

The Sharon Plan ignores Israel's decade-long failed experience with security assistance that Israel facilitated for the PLO.

The Sharon Plan ignores how military training facilitated by Israel and western countries for the PLO was abused to conduct a terror campaign against Israel in every part of the country for the past four years. The U.S. State Department trained Palestinian policemen for "security" who then used that training to kill Israelis.

The Sharon Plan goes on to say that "Israel will be willing to consider the possibility of the establishment of a seaport and airport in the Gaza Strip, in accordance with arrangements to be agreed with Israel." Did Israel not try that already? And weren't guns and rockets smuggled in?

In terms of Israel's border area between the Gaza Strip and Egypt, (called the Philadelphi Route), the Sharon Plan only states that "Initially, Israel will continue to maintain a military presence along the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt" and that ". . . subsequently, the evacuation of this area will be considered. dependent, inter alia, on the security situation and the extent of cooperation with Egypt in establishing a reliable alternative arrangement."

Why "initially" and "subsequently"?

Does Israel expect that situation on the Egyptian border to change? Will Egypt not continue to allow weapons to be smuggled through tunnels on Egypt's frontier to help the PLO fight Israel?

Finally, The Sharon Plan envisions continued international support for the PLO, "in order to bring the Palestinians to implement in practice their obligations to combat terrorism and effect reforms, thus enabling the parties to return to the path of negotiation."

And if the support for the PLO continues and the terror does not cease? What then? The Sharon Plan provides no answer.

So there you have it. The text of the Sharon Plan speaks for itself: Strengthening of the PLO, and no disengagement whatsoever. This is not a disengagement plan.

This is a plan of hasty retreat that doesn't even include a request of the Palestine Authority to stop endorsing the murder of Jews from their own Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation shows.

What sanctions are listed if the PLO does not comply? Is this not worse than the Oslo Accords?

Epilogue 1

In early October, the new Palestinian Authority school books were translated and presented to the public and to the Israeli government by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, and posted on their web site, Not one office of the Israeli government issued any kind of reaction to the fact that the new curriculum of the Palestinian Authority reads like an indoctrination in the art of how to make war on the state and people of Israel. The Palestinian school system is financed in part from payments received from the Israeli government because of the tax rebate system that was instituted during the early years of the Oslo process, to refund taxes collected from Palestinians for purchase of Israeli products. Yet the Sharon government would not file any objection or complaint concerning these school books of the Palestinian Authority, which are also used in the schools in the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Meanwhile, the Mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lopliansky, says that he was overruled by the Sharon government when he wanted to file any complaint about these school books and their blatant anti-semitism being taught in the school system of sovereign Jerusalem.

Epilogue 2

And in mid-October, following Israel's killing of a senior Hamas operative, the IDF web site explained that the IDF had not been able to kill him before, since he hasd been drafted into the "preventive security force" of the Palestinian Authority's Preventive Security Services, the same unit that is slated to take over Gaza in the near future. The IDF web site went on to say that the Hamas terrorist had therefore enjoyed "complete immunity" when he served in the mainstream security services of the Palestinian Authority, while he was carrying out his terrorist attacks against Israel. In other words, the IDF affirms Sharon's policy of turning a blind eye to terrorists if they are in the employ of the Palestinian Authority.

Epilogue 3

The official media of Palestinian Authority praised the Knesset approval of the Sharon Plan. In the words of Nabil Shaath, "May this be only one step in the liberation of all of Palestine". M eanwhile, Hamas spokesman Moshir Al Massri declared that "the Knesset vote proves that the Hamas has forced the Zionist enemy to retreat"


To make a long story short, the Sharon Plan, far from being a plan of disengagement from the PLO, evolved into nothing less than a program of empowerment for the PLO.

One problem: Very few people have even bothered to read the Sharon Plan, leaving the spin masters in charge to sell it as a "disengagement program from Gaza".

President Abe Lincoln once asked if you "fool some of the people some of the time", but not "all of the people all of the time".

This time Prime Minister Sharon may have succeeded where President Lincoln failed.

In a world of sound bytes and instant news, even journalists and diplomats have stopped reading documents, preferring one word jingles instead.

"Disengagement"? Gee, it sounded so good.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

Have Americans Learned from 9/11?
Dr. Daniel Pipes
Director, Middle East Forum

As Americans pick a president, one key criterion is how the war on terror is going. Is George W. Bush correct in his positive view or John Kerry in his negative one?

This same debate, interestingly, is also taking place within conservative circles, where analysts sharing the same basic outlook - that Americans are fighting for their very existence - come to dramatically different conclusions. Consider the contrasting views of two important voices on the right, Mark Helprin and Tod Lindberg.

Helprin, author of such powerful novels as A Soldier of the Great War and Winter's Tale, writes a despairing analysis in the current issue of the Claremont Review of Books, where he finds America's failure today to understand the threat it faces "comparable to the deepest sleep that England slept in the decade of the 1930s," when it failed to perceive the Nazi menace.

Helprin finds that the country, and its elites in particular, remain enamored with the illusion that it can muddle through, "that the stakes are low and the potential damage not intolerable." In other words, 9/11 did not serve as a wake-up call. He calls on Americans to make up their collective mind and answer the simple question, "Are we at war, or are we not?" If not, they need not worry and can remain happily asleep in pre-9/11 mode. If they are, "then major revisions and initiatives are needed, soon."

Helprin sketches out the steps needed for serious war-fighting, both abroad (focusing on Iraq and Iran) and at home. The latter include: truly secure the borders with a 30,000-strong Border Patrol, summarily deport aliens "with even the slightest record of support for terrorism," closely surveil American citizens with suspected terrorist connections, and develop a Manhattan Project-style crash program to protect against all chemical and biological warfare agents.

The means to take these steps exist; what prevents them from taking shape is the Left being in a state of "high dudgeon" and the Right not even daring to propose such measures. "The result is a paralysis that the terrorists probably did not hope for in their most optimistic projections, an arbitrary and gratuitous failure of will."

Lindberg, editor of the Hoover Institution's Policy Review magazine, also finds a wide agreement among Americans, one that transcends the partisan divide of the current election season. Unlike Helprin, he is cheered by what he finds. The Bush administration, he notes in the Weekly Standard, has "outlined a new strategic doctrine that is going to guide national security policy for the next 50 years, regardless of who wins the 2004 election." Whereas Helprin looks at the deficiencies, Lindberg points to four changes which Bush asserted and now Kerry appears to accept, namely that Washington:

  • Forwards democracy globally, "because free, democratic states want to live in peace with each other."

  • Intends to do what it takes "to remain the world's foremost military power by an order of magnitude sufficient to discourage all other states from attempting to compete militarily, thereby encouraging the peaceful resolution of disputes between states."

  • Holds governments responsible for permitting any support for terrorism within their borders, thereby discouraging this activity.

  • Will, facing the prospect of weapons of mass destruction being used for terrorist purposes, reserve the right to engage in preemptive action rather than wait for aggression to occur, thereby dissuading some states from following the Iraqi example.

The Democratic nominee could have revised or rejected these policies. He could have endorsed lower spending on the American military, focused narrowly on terrorists and ignored the states behind them, forsworn preemptive war, and promised noninterference in the internal affairs of other states. But Kerry did none of these. Rather, he complains about implementation, basically limiting his criticism of Bush to Osama bin Laden's eluding capture or gaps in the coalition versus Saddam Hussein.

Helprin and Lindberg have reached nearly opposite conclusions about the underlying agreement between the hostile Democratic and Republican tribes. But Helprin, who excoriates the American reluctance to do what's necessary, is the more correct. Lindberg correctly discerns that Kerry has, during the electoral season, accepted the Bush administration's presumptions because they are widely popular. But there is no reason to expect these views to survive into a Kerry administration, which is very likely to revert to a wholly different outlook.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

163 referendums on U.S. Ballots
Why can't Israel hold one referendum on an issue affecting its Security?
Press Release from the Zionist Organization of America

NEW YORK- American voters in 34 states will be voting this week on no less than 163 referendums and ballot initiatives, on issues from tobacco taxation to bear baiting. Why can t Israeli voters have one referendum, on the life-and-death issue of whether or not to unilaterally retreat from strategic territory and forcibly transfer 8300 Jews from their homes?

That is the question that is increasingly at the center of public discussion in Israel, with four cabinet ministers, led by Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, vowing to resign next week unless Prime Minister Sharon agrees to a national referendum on the Gaza retreat proposal.

According to the Washington Post (November 1, 2004), the referendums and ballot initiatives that will be presented to American voters in various states tomorrow include tobacco taxation . . . bear baiting . . . same-sex marriage . . . stem cell research . . . self-financing bonds in North Carolina . . . the abolition of a food sales tax in South Dakota . . . limits on property taxes in Washington and Maine . . . and gambling-related issues in numerous states.

Meanwhile, a poll conducted by the Teleseker firm for the Israeli daily Ma ariv on September 13, 2004, found that 69% of Israelis want a national referendum on the Gaza retreat plan, as compared to only 26% who think the retreat decision should be made by the Knesset only.

The 69% level of support is an increase from the 60% that an earlier poll found. A poll on September 8, 2004 by the Maagar Mochot firm, for Israel Radio, found 60% of Israelis favor holding such a referendum, and only 17% are opposed. In addition, a ZOA-commissioned poll on October 18-19, by Israel s leading pollster, Hanoch Smith of the Smith Research Institute, found that 57% of Israelis oppose unilateral Israeli retreat from Gaza unless the plan is supported by a majority of the public in a national referendum.

Morton A. Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), said: Withdrawing from Gaza means grave risks for Israel s security, as well as ending Israel's presence in territories that have been an integral part of the Jewish homeland since biblical times. It means rewarding and encouraging terrorists. It means engaging in ethnic cleansing something that has always been strongly condemned throughout the Jewish world. Anything less than a broad consensus, as determined in a national referendum, would leave Israeli society severely polarized. That is too high a price for Israelis indeed, for world Jewry to pay.

The ZOA notes that a June 2004 survey by the Israeli polling agency Geocartography found 64% of Israelis do not believe leaving Gaza will decrease the threat of missiles fired by terrorists at pre-1967 Israel, and 71% do not believe retreating from Gaza will slow down the flow of weapons from Egypt to the terrorists in Gaza.

ZOA president Klein also pointed to the fact that the Gaza withdrawal plan dramatically contradicts the platform on which Ariel Sharon was overwhelmingly elected prime minister: During the last election campaign in Israel, Labor Party candidate Amram Mitzna urged unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and Sharon opposed it. He was elected on the basis of his opposition to unilateral withdrawal; Israel s voters should have the right to say if they, like Sharon, have changed their minds.

The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

A Personal Perspective:
Professor Elmasry's Broken Pledge to Allah
Carrie Devorah, Washington DC
Independent Investigative Reporter

When Professor Elmasry a panelist on Canadian talk show "Michael Coren Live" answered Coren's question "Anyone and everyone in Israel - irrespective of gender-over the age of 18 is a valid target?" with, "Yes, I would say," Elmasry broke a pledge he made to Allah. In his 60th birthday essay, Elmasry valuating life as he looked towards retirement and death wrote "So in counting down to 60, then to my early retirement days, and eventually my journey on to the Hereafter, I pledge simply to be a good person. God is my witness. "

His employer, the University of Waterloo said they found their Professor's statement "abhorrent and conflicts with the University's values" and that "freedom of speech will be responsibly exercised by members of its community." The question then asked is does this or any University really know their professors.

Waterloo lists Elmasry in their Department of Engineering and Computer Faculty. Elmasry, on his University Of Waterloo page bio, credits himself as a "University of Waterloo Advisor, Middle East Studies Option," "Advisor, Middle East Studies Option," and a "Member, UW Middle East Studies Program." In his essay, "What Is the Koran? A View From Within" he identifies himself as "a faculty member of Middle East Studies department at the University of Waterloo, Canada," and "founding co-ordinator of the Muslim Study Group there." Head of University of Waterloo's Human Resources Martin Van Nierop said, "first, I ever heard of that."

Scripted for his apology, Elmasry said of "the biggest mistake in my 30 years of public life," "I apologize for any public remarks I made which offended Canada's Muslim, Jewish, Palestinian and Arab communities and Canadians at large." "It has always been a core belief of mine that killing civilians . . . is an immoral act of the worst kind and I will never change in this conviction." Elmasry's apology was offered after Halton police officer Sgt. Jeff Corey announced Elmasry is being investigated for hate crimes due to his comment.

Elmasry said people who heard him "misunderstood therefore causing the reported onslaught of offence." Elmasry's attempt to deny his dastardly deed compounds his original wrongdoing. No, professor, the public heard statements alluded to, undetected before now, in earlier writings made by a man mentoring college youth dependent on him to shape their minds. It is well known, it is only a matter of time before a closet haters reveals themselves. Not everyone is as open a book as Archie Bunker. Elmasry's only "mistake" was exposing himself on national television. He is a professional communicator, with a 100 page CV listing more than 400 articles, a contributor to CIC's monthly bulletin, writer of books, press releases and editorials he posts on the Internet. He has been regularly featured in leading Canadian newspapers, including the Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette, as well as in local-regional dailies such as the K-W Record and was a frequent guest on TV and radio shows in Canada, Egypt, and Kuwait, also lecturing on Islam and Microelectronics in more than 35 countries including China, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Russia, the Arab world, Europe, United States and Canada." As president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, he is not presenting personal opinion but is expressing views on behalf of many Palestinians, along with influencing readers. One can only wonder what other statements, Elmasry, a past recipient of the Volunteer Service Award by the Ontario Interfaith Council on Spiritual and Religious Care and Chaplaincy Services, and by the Ontario Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, makes when teaching, offline, off TV, and off print, his brand of Islam to churches, schools, universities and social organizations. One can only wonder if the awards he tarnished will be withdrawn.

The Canadian Islamic Congress, in describing their president's remarks as "regrettable and misunderstood" and not accepting Elmasry's resignation, denies their Statement of Faith Elmasry is bound to. It reads "To promote, advance, co-ordinate, facilitate, demonstrate and implement the teachings and practices of Islam in accordance with the Statement of Faith herein amongst Muslims, Non-Muslims, and Islamic organizations in Canada and abroad." Codicile (o) requires Elmasry "to support, encourage, promote and develop a mutual respect for religious freedoms for all faith communities in Canada and abroad in order to protect against religious discrimination and persecution."

In the CIC's Friday night Bulletin, "in the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful," February 23, 2001, Elmasry, in his essay, "Are Some Human Lives Worth Less Than Others?," addressed the killing of Massoud Ayyad, a terrorist leader responsible for kidnapping and shelling of Israeli villages. Elmasry failed to present journalistic balance when he failed to include a statement from Israeli Deputy Defense Secretary Ephraim Sneh telling CNN, "Since we could not arrest him . . . in this case we had no option but to hit him in the way we did." Instead, Elmasry wrote, "This, and similar assassinations (for what else can they be called?) of Palestinian civilians, activists and officials represents a long-standing, macabre Israeli policy of liquidating any and all opposition to the occupation of historic Palestinian lands. It is a blatant violation of international law and human rights. It is state-sanctioned terrorism."

Then, in another CIC bulletin essay titled "Does the Palestinian Right of Return mean the End of Israel?" Elmasry used these words "the myth that Israel is a Jewish state."

In yet another piece, Elmasry provided a slanted descriptive in "it should be stressed here that Jewish intelligentsia abroad, including those in Canada, no longer have the luxury of rejecting from the sidelines the Palestinian Right-of-Return, nor the full Israeli withdrawal of the Occupied Territories captured in 1967, including Arab East Jerusalem. The question Canada and America are asking much too late is "who really are these professors teaching our students today?" Duke. Berkley. Pace. Columbia. York. U of T. Waterloo.

Professor Elmasry is an open book to anyone who cares to take time to investigate him beyond his impressive CV. He writes, "as a Canadian Muslim, I sincerely long and pray for peace and justice in the region." He explains where his opinions come from "This is based on my own personal experience as an eyewitness of the 1956 Israeli invasion of Egypt, the 1967 Israeli attack on Egypt, the Egyptian-Israeli war of attrition of 1968-70, and as an active observer of the Israeli-Arab conflict since my immigration to Canada more than 30 years ago." And in case, you are not listening carefully. Taba. The Hilton. 13 Israelis dead. Munitions smuggling. Caves. Any investigator worth their salt will confirm how memories fade over years, become anecdotal and less factual. Often, the memories give individuals a mark of distinction others cannot dispute. After all, they would be countered with charges of 'how would you know you were not there!"

Harold Davis, national president of B'nai Brith Canada, saying, "(Elmasry) does not respect the sensibilities of either the Muslim or Jewish communities, nor the wider Canadian public," is in itself insensitive. Almost nine months prior, January 29th, 2004, a much beloved Torontonian, Yechezkel Chezi Scotty Goldberg was the first Canadian murdered in a bus bombing in Israel. Now his name is chiselled in stone on a memorial wall overlooking Israel while he lies in a grave atop Jerusalem's cemetery, Har Hamenuhot.

According to Elmasry's remarks that "Israel has a people's army and a draft and therefore they should be considered legitimate targets. They are part of the occupying power, and Palestinians consider them targets for suicide bombers as well as other" means 41 year old Goldberg was approved kill. Goldberg was not. He was an innocent civilian. And he was killed by a bomb murderer not by a suicide bomber. Goldberg's murderer climbed on board Egged Bus 19 "with deliberate intent to kill others. That is the definition of murder. Deliberate Intent. Suicide involves taking one's one life. Only. There is no martyrdom in murdering Dads and grandmothers. And babies. Aside from not being Israeli military, Goldberg was a psychologist, with a multicultural clientele, commuting to his office in Jerusalem, a father of 7 orphans ages 2 to 17 now growing up without a dad, without a grandfather for their children. Goldberg will never be able to write his 60th birthday editorial like Elmasry did. Nor will he be around at age 60 to present the rest of the story in balance to Elmasry's perspectives.

Elmasry's essay, "What Is The Koran?" includes praise for lessons on "the true meaning of (and how to exercise) tolerance, love, mercy, justice, peace, worshipping, happiness, success, pleasure, knowledge, trust, piety, equality, sincerity, hope, gratitude, patience, truthfulness and humility. And the true meaning of (and how to avoid) suffering, arrogance, envy, miserliness, greed, jealousy, hypocrisy and heedlessness." In his section, "The Hardest Choice is Moderation" Elmasry writes "extremism is non-productive and 4. It harms others."

Yes, Professor, it does.

As does asking, in his essay, "Are Some Human Lives Worth Less Than Others?," "why in the eyes of some, are Palestinian lives worth less than Israeli ones?" Elmasry writes, "a mother's love for her children is shared just as intensely by women from every corner of the globe," He asked further "Are we supposed to believe for an instant that Palestinian mothers grieve less than Jewish ones?" Chezi Goldberg's 74 year old mother, a Canadian, shakes her head everyday saying, as her son's 42nd birthday approaches, "This is not real," inviting this question of Elmasry, the Canadian Islamic Council and the University of Waterloo, "Are we supposed to believe for an instant, Professor, that Jewish mothers grieve less than Palestinian ones?" Goldberg's mother already celebrated his birthday with him. No balloons. No presents. No streamers. Weeks before his birthday. Mountaintop in Jerusalem, a few weeks ago, standing with a new friend, reading Tehillim. The new friend understands the callousness of Elmasry's words. Yitzchak Ben Yishai lost his daughter 1 ½ years ago. Shoshi, then age 15, was murdered by a terrorist. She's not the age 18 benchmark Elmasry set for 'kill approved." Does it really make a difference when her brother, her best friend, struggles to understand tragic loss. Shoshi was American.

Ben Yishai knows as the Goldberg's know, as the extended family knows, and the friends and communities- the death destroys the living who are left behind never putting pieces of their lives back in place. But then isn't that the goal of terrorist murder Elmasry promoted on Coren's show. Elmasry made Canada his homeland over 30 years ago. His abject insensitivity to Canada's grieving community over Chezi Goldberg's loss raises questions of loyalty, allegiance to the Maple Leaf flying throughout the land, supported with the words of "O Canada," first sung June 24, 1880, "My home and native land, True patriot love, I stand on guard for Thee."

"Hatemongering" attacks against a group is speech that should not be protected by law, Elmasry said in November 2002. Elmasry told, "Of course free speech is OK but when free speech actually produces psychological assault on people's identity and people's psyche, it does more harm than good. You have to draw the line somewhere and say this is very harmful to society at large." The college professor went further to say "such public expression is especially harmful "for teen-agers, who become suicidal and lose self-esteem. And people who don't have a strong faith, they lose sleep, and hate crime actually produces discrimination, and people lose their job because of that." And for making statements like that, too.

Elmasry knew the penalty of the statement he made on Coren Live. Elmasry had already responded to an assertion Rev. Jerry Falwell broadcast on American television across Canada that "Muhammad is a terrorist," knew violators of Canada's genocide and hate-propaganda law are subject to prison terms of up to two years. Elmasry researched the law barring people from making public statements that "willfully promotes hatred" against groups "distinguished by color, race, religion or ethnic origin" before he demanded Canada "prepare legal action under the country's hate-crimes laws to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission against all Canadian channels that broadcast Falwell's interview. The Elmasry Incident should become a platform upon which Canada's Parliament, the CIC, the University of Waterloo, along with other organizations Professor Elmasry represents, come together to adress the abuse of Free Speech Canada affords, in this case, by an educator. Possibly bring Egged Bus 19 to the University of Waterloo, York University, University of Toronto and other colleges, allowing students of all cultures to see firsthand the handiwork of bomb murderers Elmasry encourages. After all, busloads of Muslim Canadian students drove across the border to participate in the Sunday march up 7th Avenue protesting Bush and the Republican National Convention. I photographed three York students, middle fingers extended, screaming obscenities at a brick façade, a wall on Madison Square Gardens. Maybe screen, bombing victim NY independent Jack Baxter's film "Blues By The Beach" filmed at Tel Aviv night spot, "Mike's Place" before it was bombed. This way students who go clubbing can see for themselves bomb murderers do not target Jews. They do not warn everyone but Jews to run away. They murder everyone. Let the students speak firsthand to Baxter. Let them see how his left arm hangs and he drags his left leg as he crosses a room to greet guests or how he bends and twists his head trying to hear conversations. The bomb detonation blew his ear drums. And let the students hear Baxter tell them himself, he is not a Jew. He is a Catholic.

Martin Van Nierop, at the University of Waterloo, said the University already has a Center for Conflict Resolution. It would be fitting for Elmasry to do "hard time" there, barred from writing and publishing anything other than writings promoting tolerance. In grade school, the punishment was called "writing lines. Hard steps must be taken to assure "hate mongering" must never be promoted in Canada. Taking a lesson from conciliation training, firing Elmasry for speaking "his" truth on Coren's show, would invite litigation. But if the University addressed the issue of a faculty member deliberately misrepresenting his or her faculty title for personal advantage, well, that's a horse of a different color……… Elmasry is a bright man. He knows the impact of his words when he writes them. More books, articles, speaking engagements. Unpopular press. He knew the impact of stating his words on national TV. And he knows the professional consequence of misrepresenting his credentials at a Canadian college. Canadians should take advantage of Elmasry publishing his personal details on the internet and exercise their voice to tell him whether or not "one unintentional mistake" does "wipe out an exemplary record of more than 30years," professor.

After all, he knows the price of breaking his pledge to Allah.

BIO: Carrie Devorah is an investigative photojournalist working in DC. Her areas of focus are faith, homeland security and terrorism. Devorah is a certified crime analyst, profiler and mediator. Devorah says, "I welcome the opportunity to address students in Canada about terrorism. I am Canadian. Toronto born and raised. I would like to be seated next to Professor Elmasry and have him, if he can, repeat his words to me. To my face. I am a casualty of terrorism. I want Canadians to look at me when I describe the horrors from a phone call that begins with "Your brother was murdered in a bus bombing in Jerusalem. I want them to hear from me, I don't hate the family of the man who murdered my brother. And I want them to hear from me the father of the murderer condemns his son's actions and the people who encouraged his son to murder himself. Because it is murder. If we, the families don't hate, then why does Elmasry. Why do these students?. Yechezkel Chezi Goldberg is Carrie's younger brother.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

Does the Israeli Intelligence Community Not Know About Arafat's Condition?
Ronen Bergman
Investigative Journalist, Yediot Ahronot

What, if anything, did Israeli intelligence know in real time about Arafat's medical condition? This question has occupied high-ranking officials in Israel's intelligence community over the past few days, as well as cabinet and Knesset members.

A political source in Jerusalem says that the intelligence community did not supply the state leaders with any warning about the quick deterioration in Arafat's condition prior to the publication of the matter by the media. "We were not able to prepare in time for the events that followed, and mainly a great weakness was revealed in the provision of information that we view as critical," said the source.

Two main agencies in the intelligence community are responsible for supplying information about events in the territories: the GSS and the IDF Intelligence Branch. Since the Karameh battle in March 1968, Israeli intelligence has been continually monitoring Yasser Arafat for 24 hours a day, using all possible methods and devices.

Part of the monitoring was always devoted to Arafat's health condition as well. It was clear that his disappearance from the scene would lead to great changes in the region's political map. It is possible, for example, that had Prime Minister Sharon known a month ago that Arafat was a dying man, he would have acted differently with regard to disengagement.

Even when semi-official Palestinian sources began to talk about the severe condition of the rais at the beginning of the week, a leading intelligence official reacted to this with dismissal. Initial reports from the intelligence community reached the prime minister and defense minister on Wednesday. On Thursday morning, a senior GSS official briefed the Intelligence and Secret Services Subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Only then did the intelligence community present a comprehensive report on the blood tests given to Arafat, which indicated that his thrombocyte (platelet) count stands at about 30,000 (in a healthy person the count is about 200,000-250,000 and must not drop below 150,0000).

GSS and IDF Intelligence officials said that there was no way of knowing in advance about the severe decline in Arafat's condition, since his physicians were also surprised. At most, said intelligence officials in their defense, we can know what the doctors know.

However, senior intelligence sources say that the IDF Intelligence Branch and GSS actually had excellent information on Arafat's condition, but the nature of this information could not be revealed due to a need to protect intelligence sources.

The GSS and IDF Spokesperson's Office refused to respond to queries on the matter.

Printer friendly version of this article

Return to Contents

Go to the Israel Resource Review homepage

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.
You can contact us on