I. The Strategic Goal

The post-9/11 world has highlighted the fact that the primary feature of anti-US Islamic terrorism is State Sponsorship (in the Middle East and beyond), rather than merely a law enforcement challenge (in the US). The strategic goal of the US and Israel is to defeat terrorism and stabilize the Middle East, which is inconsistent with the establishment of a new terror-sponsoring regime on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean – a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River

II. The Root Cause of Anti-US and Mideast Terrorism

The establishment of a Palestinian state will not diminish Middle East terrorism in general and anti-US terrorism in particular. The Palestinian issue hasn’t been the root cause of anti-US terrorism, which has proliferated independent of Israel’s existence and Israel’s policies:

The emergence of Islam, in the 7^th century, was accompanied by inter-Muslim terrorism (e.g. murder of three out of four initial successors to the Prophet Muhammad).

Inter-Muslim and inter-Arab politics has been characterized, for the last 13 centuries, by terrorism, political violence, violation of agreements, dictatorships and suppression of human rights. Those who resort to terrorism against domestic rivals are expected to employ terrorism against external rivals.

The US has been considered, by Iran, Iraq and Syria, as the chief obstacle on the way of realizing their megalomaniac ambitions: control of the Persia Gulf, takeover of the oil fields of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, occupation of territories in Turkey and Jordan, attainment of nuclear, chemical and biological capabilities, etc.

The US has been regarded as the bastion of ideas, which have threatened the dictatorships of the Middle East: Free Market, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, etc.

Israel has been targeted by anti-US Muslim forces for being a Jewish state as well as for being “the Little Satan”, serving as the outpost of “the Big Satan”, advancing US interests and values in the Middle East and deterring radical regimes.

If there would be an Israel-like outpost in the Persian Gulf, there would not be a need for the deployment of hundreds of thousands of American GIs and the spending of a mega-billion dollar expenditure, in order to protect US interests.

The US has been targeted by Islamic terrorism, regardless of sweeping Israeli concessions to the PLO, and independent of US pressure on Israel (1993 Twin Towers, 1995/6 Saudi Arabia, 1998 Kenya and Tanzania, 2000 Aden).

The US has been targeted by Islamic terrorism, in spite of the six times in the last the years, when the US has gone into harm’s way in defense of Muslims in Kuwait, No. Iraq (Kurds), Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo.

Islamic terrorism has not targeted the US, primarily, for US policies, but rather for US values and principles.

That which afflicted the US on Sept. 11, 2001 has plagued Israel since its establishment in 1948, and especially since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.

III. The Palestinian Issue is Not the Root Cause of the Arab-Israeli Conflict and Middle East Violence

The 1948 war was launched by the Palestinians, and then joined by Arab countries due to Arab ambitions and at the expense of Palestinian interests. The 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars were launched irrespective of the Palestinian issue. The 1982 Israel war on PLO terrorism in Lebanon, the 1987-92 Intifada and the current 1993-2004 war between Israel and Palestinian terrorism have not evolved into Arab-Israeli wars, because Arabs do not shed blood – or significant financial resources – for Palestinians; Arabs shower Palestinians with much rhetoric.

The Middle East has been characterized – since the seventh century – by inter-Arab and inter-Muslim conflicts, unrelated to Israel’s existence, to Israel’s policies or to the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts. The Sunni-Shi`a, religious-secular, have-have not, Iraq-Iran, Syria-Iraq and the Saudi-Yemenite conflicts, and internal strives in Iran, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries, have produced much more violence, instability and damage to US interests, than the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israeli conflicts.

IV. The PLO/PA are Not a Top Arab Priority

Arab leaders have not marshaled their resources on behalf of the PA during the current war between Israel and PA/Hamas terrorism. The Arab league pledged some $2BN in assistance, but forwarded about $200MN. The Saudis do not transfer assistance through the PA, but rather through Hamas and private organizations.

Arab leaders did not come to the rescue of the PLO during the 1982 Israeli assault on PLO terror bases in Lebanon. Saudi financial assistance to the PLO (until the 1990 PLO collaboration with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait) was $100MN annually, while Riyad’s assistance to the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan was a $1BN annually.

Rhetorically, Arab leaders have always identified with PLO/PA’s claims to sovereignty. However, in practice, Arab leaders have been aware of the treacherous nature of the PLO/PA, and therefore have preferred to keep the PLO/PA under control, thus refraining from active support of PLO/PA aspirations for independence.

V. The Palestinian Authority (PA) Intensifies Terror

The Palestinian Authority was established, in 1993, by Palestinian terrorists headquartered, until then, in Tunisia and in terrorist camps in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Sudan. The establishment of the Palestinian Authority has been perceived, by terrorists, as a reward to a systematic campaign of terrorism and intimidation against Israel, the role-model of counter-terrorism. Thus, the Palestinian Authority has bolstered the forces of regional and global terrorism.

254 Israelis were murdered, by Palestinian terrorists, in the 15 years PRIOR to the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. 1,400 Israelis were murdered, by Palestinian terrorists, during the 10 years SINCE the establishment of the Palestinian Authority. Proportionally, the number of Israelis murdered since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority, would be equal to 70,000 Americans (23 Twin Towers!).

The Palestinian Authority has become the largest, and most (diplomatically) protected, anti-US terrorist base.

The Palestinian Authority was established in 1993, by the Oslo Accords and perpetuated through the Wye Accord and the Road Map. The most intense wave of anti-US terrorism has been conducted since 1993, culminating on 9/11.

Never has a political process (from Oslo Process to the Road Map) produced as much terrorism, bringing the participants closer to war and farther from peace, as has the process, centering on the establishment of the Palestinian Authority and aiming at the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Recent history (since 1968) suggests that the broader the authority of the PLO/PA, the more intense is terrorism. International terrorism intensified during the 1968-70 PLO autonomy/independence in Jordan, and plummeted upon PLO’s expulsion from Jordan. Terrorism subsided in 1991/2 when the PLO was increasingly constrained in Tunisia, but was unprecedently exacerbated upon the establishment of the Palestinian Authority in 1993. The upgrading of the Palestinian Authority to the status of a State would drastically escalate terrorism.

VI. The PA Undermines US Interests and Values

The US has faced – since the demise of the USSR – the following Mideast-based threats: Islamic terrorism, ballistic missiles and non-conventional military systems, Iranian megalomaniac aspirations, Iraqi megalomaniac aspirations (until the destruction of Saddam’s regime) and other rogue regimes such as Syria and Libya.

The Palestinian Authority – and its source of power, the PLO – have been traditional strategic allies of Bin-Laden, Saddam, Khomeini and his successors and other rogue regimes in the Middle East and beyond. The ideological mentors of the PA were the allies of the Nazis (Haj Amin Al Husseini) and the Communist regimes of the USSR and East Europe. Arafat, Abu Mazen and other PA/PLO leaders were trained by the KGB and by the ruthless secret services of communist East Europe.

September 11, 2001 was a day of joy in the PA. Conversely, the apprehension of Saddam was a day of gloom and anti-US demonstrations. A central square in Jenin was named after Ali Jafar Al Na`amani, the Iraqi homicide-bomber, who murdered four US Marines in Najaf on March 29, 2003. A typical anti-US sermon was given on January 2, 2004, by PA clergies, at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, condemning “the modern-day Tartars, the Big Satan, which has destroyed Baghdad”. The sermon was broadcast live by PA TV and radio, and urged Moslems to launch a Holy War against the US.

Three US Attaches were murdered on October 15, 2003, upon entering the Gaza Strip in a diplomatic convoy, by PA-harbored Palestinian terrorists. More US citizens, visiting or residing in Israel, were murdered by Palestinian terrorists, as were Leon Klinghoeffer (Achille Lauro) and the US ambassador to Sudan and his deputy, murdered by Arafat’s terrorists in 1972. Unlike the Taliban regime, the PA has not been told by the US: “Hand over the terrorists or be destroyed; Either you’re with us or against us!”

The PA has not only failed in combating terrorism; the PA has harbored – and has led – the largest terrorist base in the world. Every territory conceded by Israel has become a safe haven for terrorists. The PA has become a breeding ground and a test bed for “modern day terrorism”, such as homicide bombing and car bombing, which has been exported to other arenas in the Middle East and beyond. Modern day hijacking was introduced by the PLO in the late ‘60s, and then was employed by other terror organizations.

Official PA education, media and clergy systems have promoted anti-US hate education, heralding bin-Laden and Saddam and encouraging anti-US terrorism.

The PA has become a role-model of suppression of (Palestinian) human rights.

The PA regime has caused an unprecedented flight of the Arab Christian community in Bethlehem, Beit Jallah and Ramallah.

VII. The Track Record of the PLO/PA

Notwithstanding wishful thinking, the track record of the PA/PLO will determine the nature of the proposed Palestinian State and its impact on vital US values and interests:

The PLO has been the role model of inter-Arab terrorism, treachery and murderous violation of agreements.

In the late 1950s, Arafat, Abu Mazen, Abu Ala` and other leaders of Fatah fled Egypt due to subversive activities.

In 1966, they fled Syria – which provided Fatah with logistic infrastructure – after executing a number of Syrian intelligence officers.

In 1970, the PLO employed terrorism in its violent attempt to topple the Hashemite regime, which provided them with a safe haven beginning since 1968.

In 1975, the PLO tried to topple Lebanon’s government, and in the process initiated a multi-year civil war.

In 1990 (when the Bush/Baker team was brutally pressuring Israel), the PLO spearheaded Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, which accorded the PLO and Fatah diplomatic, financial and terrorist safe haven since the late 1950s. PLA units in Iraq and PLO intelligence from Kuwait made a difference in Iraq’s plunder of Kuwait, hence the expulsion of all 400,000 Palestinians from Kuwait, upon its liberation by the US.

As a result of PLO’s track record, no Arab regime allows PLO personnel to bear arms on its soil, for fear of subversion.

The PA/PLO track record since 1993 has been consistent with PLO’s inter-Arab track record, and true to the axiom: Leopards don’t change spots; they change tactics.

VIII. A Palestinian State Would Undermine US Interests and Values

Based on the aforementioned PLO/PA track record, one concludes that a Palestinian State and US Values and Interests constitute an oxymoron. A Palestinian State would exacerbate the damage, caused by the PA/PLO, to US interests and values:

A Palestinian state would aggravate international terrorism.

The Hashemite-PLO relations have constituted a classic zero-sum-game. Notwithstanding wishful thinking, and in view of the history, demography and geography of Jordan (which constitutes 3/4 of British Mandate Palestine; 2/3 of its population is Palestinian, larger than the population of Judea, Samaria and Gaza combined), a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would deal a death blow to the Hashemite regime, which has been an ally of the US. An expanded Palestinian state would further radicalize the Mideast.

A Palestinian state would provide Iran with another ally.

A Palestinian state would provide the pro-Saddam (or other radical) elements in Iraq another ally in the unpredictable and volatile Mideast.

A Palestinian state would export terrorism into the Persian Gulf, threatening the survival of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, etc.

A Palestinian state would become an outpost for anti-US regimes in the Middle East and beyond, constituting a venue for Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East at the expense of vital US interests.

A Palestinian state would have transformed Israel from a national security producer and a power-projecting ally of the US into a national security consumer and a strategic liability. It would have prevented Israel from forcing the rollback of the 1970 Syrian invasion of Jordan – upon US request – while the US was bogged down in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Israel’s deterrence foiled an anti-US domino scenario from Jordan into Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf.

Without the dominant mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria, Israel would lose its power of deterrence, which has kept radical regimes at bay, thus expanding US power projection and bolstering the security of pro-US Arab regimes (e.g. Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia).

The Mideast is the world’s most violently unpredictable region. Iran was transformed swiftly from an ally to a foe. Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt could be taken over by rogue regimes. An eventual US withdrawal from Iraq could produce more upheaval than the one it intended to rectify. A deterring Israel would, then, become more vital – to US interests – than before.

A Palestinian state would have provided Khomeini, in 1980, with another springboard for the exportation of his revolutionary anti-US ideology.

A Palestinian state would have complicated the forming of the 1991 anti-Iraq coalition.

A 9-15 mile wide 1949 Lines Israel – without the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria – would lose a vital military surveillance platform, which has provided the US with pertinent intelligence.

If there would be an Israel-like pro-US power of deterrence in the Persian Gulf, the US would not have to deploy hundreds of thousands of GIs to the region. Israel’s posture of deterrence has spared the US the need to post a large military force in the Eastern Flank of the Mediterranean. The establishment of a Palestinian state, would thus require the US to stretch its forces beyond current capabilities, while these forces are needed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Burma, etc.

IX. The Solution to Palestinian Terrorism

The PA/PLO has launched the first ever Hope-Driven (rather than grievance-driven) campaign of terrorism. It was triggered – in 1994 – by sweeping Israeli concessions, and by the enhancement of the PLO from an increasingly irrelevant organization in Tunisia to an autonomous entity in Gaza, Judea & Samaria.

The last ten years – since the establishment of the Palestinian Authority (1993) – have been proliferated with agreements signed and violated by the PA. They have demonstrated that there is no political solution with the Palestinian Terror Authority. The only effective solution to terrorism – which aims at annihilating its enemy – is military, as has been demonstrated by the US (Iraq and Afghanistan), Turkey (PKK), Germany (Baader Meinhoff), Italy (Red Brigades), France (Action Direct), Peru (Shining Path), Egypt and Algeria (Islamic terrorists), etc.

Israel should follow the US leadership in the global war on terrorism, adopting US tactics in its wars against the Taliban and Saddam regimes:

The prime responsibility of a leader is to the security of his own people, rather than to the prestige of the UN, West Europe or other parts of the globe. A nation does not subcontract defense against terrorists to a third party (let alone to a terrorist authority), does not complain about terrorism, but rather launches an offensive against terrorism. Would the US consider entrusting anti-terrorist activities to Saddam or to the Taliban?!

Moral clarity suggests that terrorists are not partners to negotiation, but rather enemies to be crashed. Members of the Saddam regime were not “president”, “prime minister”, “national security advisor” or “legislator”. They were “terrorists”, “liars”, “cancerous elements”.

War on terrorism solves, rather than creates, problems.

No negotiation with a regime, which has systematically and violently violated every agreement.

The aim shouldn’t be a compromise or a ceasefire, but rather the destruction of the infrastructure, which feeds the fire of terrorism.

No defensive, deterrence, retaliatory or containment tactics, but rather offense, pre-emption and prevention on the enemy’s own ground.

No low intensity war, but rather a swift, comprehensive and traumatic military campaign.

The political, ideological and financial echelons constitute the key terrorist elements, to be eliminated. Thus, the initial bombing in the 2003 war on Iraq targeted the political leaders of Saddam’s regime.

Palestinian terrorism has never been a personal problem (Arafat); it has always been organizational and systemic (the PA/PLO/Hamas/Islamic Jihad). General McArthur barred all Japanese connected to the Hirohito regime from participation in Japan’s political, educational and business systems, locally and nationally. Paul Bremer is following in McArthur’s footsteps, excluding Ba`ath Party members from participation in the rebuilding of New Iraq. Israel should adopt the same attitude toward the rogue Palestinian Authority.

X. The Failure of the Politically-Correct Solutions

Politically-Correct solutions, since 1993, have legitimized the PLO/PA, and have therefore yielded unprecedented wave of terrorism and bloodshed.

The politically-correct solutions (since the beginning of the 20^th century) have been based on the Territory-for-Peace formula. That formula assumes that Israel (less than 0.2% of the combined Arab territory) should concede its scarcest asset – territory, while the Arabs are expected to accord Israel that which they have yet (since the 7^th century) to share with one another – compliance and peaceful co-existence. That formula is based on a supposed parity: Israel fully concedes the territory in dispute and receives full peace. Would that mean that when the Palestinians – once again – renege on peace, Israel should receive – in order to sustain parity – the territory which it conceded?!

Territory-for-Peace was applied in the aftermath of WW2: belligerent Germany conceded territory to the intended victim-countries, which in turn accorded Germany with peace, and bolstered moderate German elements. Never was an intended victim-country forced to concede territory to a belligerent party, since it would reward and breed violence, while bolstering belligerent elements.

Territory-for-Peace, as applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict has ignored a fundamental Mideast reality: The only possible peace is based on deterrence, which would be severely undermined if belligerence would be rewarded by territorial concession.

Territory-for-Peace assumes that the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are territorial in nature. It ignores the ideological and strategic nature of Israel’s enemies, as reflected via their own internal conflicts, as well as via their own (anti-Israel and anti-Jewish) hate-education, which is the most authentic reflection of their character and long-term goals.

Territory-for-Peace calls for the establishment of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River. It would constitute a lethal threat to the only Jewish State in the world, and to Jordan – whose population is 66% Palestinian and whose territory constitutes 75% of British Mandate Palestine. Wouldn’t that amount to the establishment of a second Palestinian state at the expense of the only Jewish state?!

XI. The Three-Stage Solution

The track record of the PLO/PA highlights the threats posed by the proposed Palestinian state.

The nature of the Middle East (the most violent region in the world), the nature of regional topography and geography (Israel’s vulnerable narrow waistline and the threatening topography of Judea & Samaria mountain ridges), PA’s track record of the last 10 years (systematic and violent violation of all agreements), Arab track record of the last 100 years (sustained campaign of war and terror aimed at eradicating the Jewish State), and the resulting security requirements, determine that Israel’s control of the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean (40 miles) is a prerequisite for Israel’s survival.

The mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria constitute the Cradle of Jewish History. Other Peoples have developed ties with Judea & Samaria, but the Jewish People has been the only one, whose ethos has been shaped by Judea & Samaria, historically, linguistically, culturally, religiously and nationally.

Israel is facing a unique enemy (the PA), idolizing homicide bombing through its formal education, media and clergy systems. Anti-Jewish, anti-Israel and anti-US hate (K-12) education has been perpetrated, by the PA, since 1994. It has corrupted the minds of Palestinians, especially the youth for the next 1-2 generations.

STAGE 1: Removing the Terror Regime of the PA

Co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians requires the dismantling of the morally-illegitimate and the strategically-threatening PA. The effective dismantling of the PA requires the destruction – via war on terrorism – of the infrastructure established by the 60,000 terrorists, imported – since Oslo – from Tunisia, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon, Sudan, Syria and Jordan.

The destruction of the rogue PA would enable moderate Palestinians to assert themselves. The destruction of the PA is a precondition for the democratization and pacification of the Palestinian society, following ten years of damage caused by the PA, and in defiance of the non-democratic and non-pacified Arab Middle East (with scores of inter-Arab conflicts and not a single democratic regime).

The democratization and the pacification of the Middle East can be secured, primarily, by deterrence. The bolstering of Israel’s posture of deterrence – which requires Israel’s military control of the 40-mile-stretch between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River – is a prerequisite for stability, for the defeat of Palestinian terrorism, and for the prevention of the establishment of a Palestinian terrorist state.

STAGE 2: Transition to Democracy and Co-Existence

Palestinian human rights and democracy are preconditioned upon the removal of the terrorist, tyrannical and corrupt PA regime, whose primary victims have been ordinary Palestinians.

The PA has imposed a Sodom and Gomorra regime upon the Palestinians, exacerbating lawlessness, violence, inter-Palestinian gang wars and chaos in Judea & Samaria and Gaza.

Democratization and pacification are not attained via rhetoric and declaration of intent. The transformation of a rogue society into a democratic and a pacified society is reflected through an intense overhaul of the education, legal, political, media, civil service, business and clergy systems. The transformation process must feature a drastic change of personnel, excluding the members of the rogue regime (at all levels). The transformation must be proven over a long period of time, overcoming ideological, political and physical challenges from within and from without. The transformed political institutions, education system, the courts, the civil service and financial system and other institutions must demonstrate their departure from the norms of the PA and their adaptation of Western norms.

Day-to-day activities of Palestinian Arabs will be managed – following the removal of the PA – by regional autonomous councils. The regional councils will be assisted by Israel, as well as by outside entities, such as the US, Jordan and other member countries and organizations of the International Coordination Body (ICB).

Local Palestinians, with the assistance of Israel and members of the ICB, will elect representatives to the regional councils. No candidate shall be elected, who was directly or indirectly involved in PA activities, which directly or indirectly directed, financed, incited, organized or carried out acts of terrorism.

Israel shall invite representatives of the ICB to observe – and facilitate – free democratic elections to the regional councils; preservation, upgrading and democratization of civil institutions; restoration and preservation of Palestinian human rights: women’s rights, children’s rights; eradication of torture and corruption. The ICB shall have no authority, but to assist upon an invitation by both Israel and the regional autonomous Palestinian councils.

Once the long-term democratization and pacification stage is attained, then the road is clear to a political solution between Israel and the Palestinian Arab residents of Judea & Samaria and Gaza.

STAGE 3: Comprehensive Regional Settlement

Proposed solutions should consider the lessons of the past 10 years, the unpredictable and violent nature of the Middle East, the threatening topography of the mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria and the vulnerability of Israel’s narrow waistline (which is identical to the length of the Dallas-Ft. Worth airport).

All plans, partitioning the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (from the 1937 Peal Commission, through Oslo, the 2000 Camp David and the Road Map) have radicalized Arab and Palestinian anti-Israel policies, destabilizing the region, producing unprecedented terrorism and bloodshed, undermining US interests and distancing Jews and Arabs from peace.

Additional attempts to partition the area would amount to another costly victory of wishful-thinking over experience, while defying the maxim: “Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me!”

The area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River accounts to less than 0.2% of the land possessed by Arab countries. It constitutes 25% of British Mandate Palestine, while constituting the Cradle of Jewish History. In 1920 The League of Nations designated the whole of British Mandate Palestine to the Jewish National Home. The largest Palestinian community resides in Jordan (75% of British Mandate Palestine), constituting 66% of the population, commerce and banking and at least 50% of Jordan’s government and military. Is there a need for an additional state for the Palestinians? A two-states-for-one-people solution?

The eastern mountain ridge of Judea & Samaria and the Jordan Valley constitute the most effective fence between Israel and its threatening neighbors.

Palestinians have the right to strive for their unification under one regime, but not by intensifying Mideast instability, not at the expense of the only Jewish state in the globe, and not at the Cradle of Jewish history.

Each party will have the right to introduce its own proposed solution. The Palestinians would be able to propose an independent state, while Israel would be able to propose annexation, regional and an administrative autonomy for the Palestinians, or any other solution.

While the Palestinian residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza will administer their own local affairs (legal, financial, municipal, law-enforcement, issuing ID cards, etc.) Israel shall retain all security and external relations authority, lest it repeat the grave terror-producing errors of Oslo.

Palestinian residents of Judea & Samaria – most of whom possess (or used to possess until 1988) Jordanian citizenship – will be allowed to participate in the Jordanian electoral process, in addition to their own regional elections. They will be citizens of Jordan and residents of the regional administrative autonomy. A Marshall Plan for the buttressing of Jordan’s economy and democracy should be implemented.

Democratization and pacification would enable Israel to remove road blocks, to end closure, to open the labor market (for Palestinians) and to expand, significantly, the transportation, communications and utilities infrastructure in Judea&Samaria and Gaza for the benefit of Palestinians and Jews residing there.

XII. The Palestinian/Jewish Refugees Resettlement Regional Cooperation Project

The project will be launched by members of the International Cooperation Board, with the intense involvement by Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and AOPEC (Arab Oil Producing and Exporting Countries).

The project will follow in the footsteps of similar projects, which have resettled almost all 100 million refugees, throughout the globe, since 1945. It will commit itself to a factual account of Jewish and Palestinian Arab refugees, of the origin and the number of Palestinian refugees and of the circumstances, which produced their misery.

The project will involve a multi-billion dollar investment in Jordan, Egypt (especially in Sinai, which is contiguous to Gaza), Syria and Lebanon, in order to resettle the refugees, as has been the case with every other refugee problem in the world.

Appendix

1. The Palestinian Refugees – Myth And Reality

The Basic Facts

There have been 100 million refugees in the world since Second World War, and 80 million refugees during 1933-1945. Most are no longer refugees. only the Arabs have perpetuated the Palestinian refugees, as a means to destroy Israel.

820,000 Jewish refugees and 300,000 Palestinian refugees were produced by a war launched against Israel by the Palestinians and the Arab states.

300,000 Palestinian refugees: 800,000 Arabs resided in the country in November 1947 and 170,000 upon the conclusion of Israel’s War of Independence. Of the 630,000, 100,000 were allowed to return, 100,000 were absorbed in Arab countries, 50,000 Bedouins joined their tribes in Jordan and Sinai, 50,000 were migrant laborer who returned to their homes in Arab countries.

A Palestinian refugee, according to UNRWA, was any Arab who stayed in the country for two years prior to 1948.

A major migration from Muslim countries, especially to the coastal plain, took place during 1830-1947. Most Palestinian refugees resided in the coastal plain.

Most Palestinian Refugees were Arab Migrants

The origin of most Palestinian refugees was from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Algeria and Libya, migrating during 1830-1947. The Arab population of Jaffa, Haifa and Ramleh grew 17, 12 and 5 times during 1880-1947.

“30,000-36,000 Syrians migrated to Palestine in recent months” (Syrian daily, La Syrie, Aug. 12, 1934).

Jaffa Absorbed Arabs from 15 Countries, who populated some “Egyptian Neighborhoods”: Abu Kabir, Salameh, Sumeil, Sheikh Muneis, Feja, etc. Egyptian occupation (1831-1840) produced thousands of Egyptian migrants in Jaffa, Petach Tiqva, Hadera, Kalansawa, Acre, Beit She’an, Nablus, etc.

Thousands of Arab Migrant Laborers were imported by the Ottoman Empire and Britain for infrastructure projects, and as a result of the expansion of Jewish businesses, while severe British measures limited Jewish Aliya.

Causes of Palestinian Refugees

Abu Mazen: “Arab armies forced Palestinians to leave their homes.” (Filastin A-Thawra, March 1976).

London Economist (Oct. 2, 1948): “The most potent factor [in the flight of Palestinians] was the announcements made by the Arab-Palestinian Higher Executive, urging all Haifa Arabs to quit... It was clearly intimated that Arabs who remained in Haifa would be regarded as renegades.”

The flight of the Arab elite (before the war), the inter-Palestinian gang war (as it was during 1936-39) and the Arab defeat on the battle field, expanded the number of refugees. Many returned to their countries of origin.

“[Arab leaders] are responsible for the flight... They disseminated rumors exaggerating Jewish atrocities...They instilled fear in the hearts of the Arabs, until they fled, leaving their homes...” (Jordan’s Al-Urdoun, April 9, 1953).

In 1948, The British Mandate urged Jewish and Arab minorities to evacuate mixed towns. The Arabs evacuated (Tiberias, etc.) and the Jews stayed and prevailed (Safed, etc.).

Misrepresentation Of The Palestinian Refugee Phenomenon has been intended to de-legitimize Israel and to legitimize the “claim of return”, as a means to destroy Israel.

2. Nearly 70% of Americans Say “NO” to Palestinian Arab State

The Zionist Organization of America conducted a poll, querying 1,000 Americans throughout the United States. The poll carried out by the firm of McLaughlin & Associates in mid-January of 2004 found that:

By 67% to 19%, Americans oppose giving the Palestinian Arabs a State: 67.4% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs have not met President Bush’s conditions for statehood, such as fighting terrorism, halting incitement to murder, and respecting human rights. Only 19.3% say they have met those conditions.

By 66% to 17%, Americans oppose expelling Jews from the territories: 66.6% of Americans disagree with the Arab position that all Jewish residents of the Judea-Samaria-Gaza territories should be expelled; only 17% agree with that demand.

By 65% to 18%, Americans Say Palestinian Authority Can’t Be Trusted: 65.2% of Americans say the Palestinian Authority “cannot be trusted to fulfill peace agreements that it signs with Israel”; only 18.6% say it can be trusted to fulfill them.

By 55% to 21%, Americans say Palestinian Arabs seek destruction of Israel: 55.7% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs’ goal is “the eventual destruction of Israel”; only 21.3% say their goal is “to have a small state living in peace alongside Israel.”

By 73% to 15%, Americans Oppose US Aid to The Palestinian Arabs: 73.6% say the US should stop sending $200 million each year to the Palestinian Arabs; only 15% say the aid should continue.

3. The Security Significance of Judea & Samaria Mountain Ridges

The Demise of Saddam Has Not Waived the Threat to Israel

The Mideast is the world’s most violent and unpredictable region, which requires preparedness for the worst-case scenario, including an Eastern Front assault on Israel.

In 1967 Israel crashed Egypt, Syria and Jordan, and grew over-confident that no Arab attack would be forthcoming. The 1973 War almost annihilated Israel.

Will the US be able to stabilize Iraq? Will Bush retreat from Iraq? Will his successor (in 2005 of 2009) retreat from Iraq? A US evacuation of Iraq could produce more terror than it intended to quell.

Judea & Samaria Mountain Ridges – Irreplaceable for Israel’s Security

“Land Warfare Papers”, US Army (Oct. 2003): “The Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003) were not decided by bombs and missiles, but by ground forces.”

Missiles cause damage; they don’t bring enemies to submission. There is a marked difference between a barrage of missiles on Tel Aviv, and the invasion of Arab tanks on Tel Aviv.

The centrality of ground forces suggests the centrality of ground features (Topographic edge and geographic depth).

The eastern mountain ridge of Judea & Samaria – rather than the Jordan Valley – constitutes the best tank obstacle in the world (3,000 feet steep slope, controllable by a small force).

The western mountain ridge of Judea & Samaria (2,000 feet moderate slope overtowering Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa) constitutes an invader’s dream platform. A withdrawal from Judea & Samaria would submit the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv-Haifa area (80% of population) to daily terror.

The Judea & Samaria mountain ridges constitute the “Golan Heights” of Israel’s Soft Belly.

Until 1967 Israel limited Jordan’s military presence in Judea & Samaria to 5,000, lest it becomes a lethal threat. The 40,000 armed Palestinian terrorists in Judea & Samaria amount to four brigades. A withdrawal from Judea & Samaria would make a 1973-style surprise Arab attack a lethal threat.

Technology Cannot Replace Ground Features

High-tech today becomes low-tech tomorrow, but high-ground today remains high-ground tomorrow.

Every high-tech system is eventually outflanked by an emerging system. The dominant mountain ridges of Judea & Samaria can never by outflanked by an emerging ground feature.

No nation alters its borders per technological developments.

The Bottom Line

Israel’s margin of error is zero, and it must win every war. J&S mountain ridges constitute Israel’s insurance policy against lethal human errors.

Is it logical to expect that the Arabs would accord to Israel that which they have denied each other (peace and compliance), while Israel shares with the Arabs that which it lacks (land)???