CAFI Newsletter #72

[cafi-list@christianactionforisrael.org]

***********************************************************
* CHRISTIAN ACTION FOR ISRAEL NEWSLETTER  #72 *
***********************************************************
"ON YOUR WALLS, O JERUSALEM, I HAVE APPOINTED WATCHMEN"
Isaiah 62:6
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OUR NEW DOMAIN: http://christianactionforisrael.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Friday, March 1,2002

IN THIS ISSUE:

  1.    A PRINCELY PROPOSAL? HARDLY.
  2.    YES, I AM A JEW
  3.    LAND FOR PEACE IS A LOSING TRADE
  4.    VATICAN FOOT-DRAGGING
  5.    'RACHEL IN HER DEATH HAS INSPIRED US WITH LIFE'
  6.    QUOTES TO NOTE
  7.    HIGHLIGHT ARTICLES

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P L E A S E  HELP US, WE NEED YOUR FINANCIAL SUPPORT

WE CAN NOW ACCEPT YOUR VISA DONATIONS USING OUR SECURE SERVER.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/repform.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     1.    A PRINCELY PROPOSAL? HARDLY.

By BRET STEPHENS

"Our plan recognizes the right of Israel to exist only
after acceptance of a Palestinian state, the return to the
1967 borders and an end to the state of belligerency."

-- Prince Abdullah, November 1981.

"Saudi Arabia believes the time has come to end the
Arab-Israeli conflict and achieve a just and
comprehensive solution to the Palestinian question."

-- Prince Saud Faisal, April 1991.

"This is exactly the idea I had in mind -- full
withdrawal from all the occupied territories, in accord
with U.N. resolutions, including in Jerusalem, for full
normalization of relations."

-- Crown Prince Abdullah, February 2002.

JERUSALEM -- Give the Saudis high marks for consistency.
Every 10 years, they trot out the same Mideast peace plan,
invariably to curry favor in Washington. Invariably, too,
Washington returns the compliment by lavishing praise,
and often assistance, on the desert kingdom. In 1981,
President Reagan applauded the so-called Fahd plan for
its "moderation," then promptly sold the kingdom Awacs
radar planes. In 1991, it was Secretary of State James
Baker's turn to thank the Saudis for "breaking taboos"
by giving their qualified endorsement, after repeated
American entreaties, to the idea of a Middle East
peace conference.

Now comes Saudi Arabia's latest regurgitation, first
issued in the form of a reported conversation between
Prince Abdullah and New York Times columnist Thomas
Friedman. In a Feb. 17 article, Mr. Friedman wrote that
he proposed his idea for Middle East peace -- full
Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines in exchange
for full diplomatic recognition from every member of
the Arab League -- during an off-the-record dinner
with Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler. Turns out this was
the prince's idea, too! Mr. Friedman then asked
permission to publish the prince's remarks in his
column. Permission was promptly granted.

As the quotations above attest, Prince Abdullah's ideas
are not fresh. Still, they have diplomatic capitals
buzzing. On Tuesday, President Bush is said to have
phoned the prince to commend his helpfulness. The
European Union sent Javier Solana to Riyadh to flesh
out details. Here in Israel, President Moshe Katsav
publicly invited the Saudis to Jerusalem to discuss
details -- an invitation that so far has not been
accepted. Meanwhile, Yasser Arafat, confined to his
headquarters in Ramallah, called it "a very strong
platform" -- no surprise, since it meets all his demands.

Why the excitement? In part, because diplomatically
there's nothing else doing. Negotiations between
Palestinians and Israelis barely even take place, while
the U.S. has wearied of being lied to by Mr. Arafat.
Shifting the axis of negotiation from the Palestinian
Authority to the Arab world thus provides fresh
opportunities for diplomats like Mr. Solana to make
busy in places like Riyadh.

Then there are the opportunities that the prospect of
a comprehensive Arab-Israeli deal hold for the
Palestinian situation. If the Arab states were indeed
prepared to make peace with Israel, the strategic
concerns that justify Israel's possession of the West
Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights would vanish. The
road would then be clear for Israeli withdrawal from
the territories and the creation of a Palestinian state.

The trouble is that Israel has traveled this road before.
In 1999, then Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to
return virtually the whole of the Golan Heights to
Syria in exchange for a peace deal. The offer was
refused. In January 2001, Israeli negotiators made a
similar pitch to the Palestinians, which included
compensating Palestinians with pre-1967 Israeli
territory in exchange for maintaining possession
over a few consolidated settlements. This, too,
proved a nonstarter with Mr. Arafat.

It is possible that the Arab League -- Iraq, Syria
and Libya included -- may nonetheless unite behind
Saudi Arabia's proposal when they meet later this
month in Beirut. What then? The Arab states would
reap immense praise in the West for their
"moderation." And Israel would come under intense
international pressure to offer a positive response.
But while this might turn the diplomatic tide, it
behooves serious policy makers to consider
long-term implications.

First is the matter of sincerity. A Bashar Assad
who signs on for a conditional peace with Israel is
not a better man, only a wilier one. As for the
Saudis, they could have pursued Prince Abdullah's
idea at any time during the past few years. That
they chose to do it only when relations with
Washington had frayed suggests their newfound
helpfulness won't last long beyond the mending of
those relations. Indeed, no sooner had President
Bush called in his congratulations to Prince Abdullah
than Saudi Arabia's U.N. ambassador denounced Israel
for "one of the worst forms of pressure and
persecution and racism and occupation and
systematic terrorism in the history of mankind,"
adding that "Palestinian violence is only a result
of Israeli terrorism."

Then there is the matter of detail. "Full withdrawal
from all the occupied territories . . . including
in Jerusalem," as Prince Abdullah would have it,
entails a population transfer of more than 200,000
settlers, some of whom have been living where they
do for decades; a return for Israel to a seven-mile
margin between Arab borders and the Mediterranean
Sea; and a handover of Jerusalem's Old City,
including the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall.
True, some of this may be negotiable; Henry Siegman
of the Council on Foreign Relations believes the
Saudis might be flexible on the last point. But
will the Syrians be flexible? Or the Iraqis? Unlike
in the European Union, in the Arab League the
lowest common denominator position has always
been the hardest line.

Finally, there is the matter of the four or five
million Palestinian refugees and their descendants,
who claim a right of return to their homes in Israel,
whether real, vanished, or imagined. Though
Mr. Friedman apparently did not press Prince Abdullah
on this point, every Arab regime today insists on it,
and it is scarcely conceivable that the Arab League
could agree to a peace with Israel that didn't include
it. The "right of return" means, of course, the end
of Israel as a Jewish state.

During the Oslo process, the issue of refugees was
punted downfield as a matter of final-status
negotiations. Yet while this may have given Oslo
its longevity, it also guaranteed its bitter result.
The Bush administration must consider carefully
whether it, too, wants to exhaust its diplomatic
energies by playing a roughly similar game.

No doubt it's a good thing that the House of Saud is
entertaining the possibility of recognizing the state
of Israel. It would be a better thing if, before
they fall over themselves praising Prince Abdullah,
Western governments calculate the price Israel
will have to pay to seal the deal.

Mr. Stephens, a former Journal writer, will soon
become editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem Post.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     2.    YES, I AM A JEW

Michael Freund

(February 27) - It is an age-old question, one that
Jews have sadly been forced to confront all too
often throughout the centuries: when the
sharpened blade of the oppressor is raised
against you, inquiring about your identity, how
should you respond? To admit to being Jewish in
such a situation might mean risking torture or
death, but to deny one's heritage would be a
betrayal of one's ancestors and faith. What then is
a Jew to do in such circumstances?

It might seem like an archaic subject, one that has
little or no connection to current events. After all,
the blade has largely been returned to its sheath,
and in most Western countries, Jews are now
able to practice their religion freely and without
constraints.

Sure, history is full of examples in which Jews
were compelled to make unpleasant choices,
such as the Marranos of medieval Spain, who
outwardly lived as Christians while secretly
practicing Judaism, or Jews under communist
dictatorships, who found it safer to hide their
national origins. During the Crusades, untold
numbers of Jews heroically accepted martyrdom
rather than renounce their faith and accept the
cross. By contrast, many German Jews in the
19th century embraced baptism to further their
careers and social mobility.

But all that is ancient history, you might argue.
Jews are no longer confronted with such
dilemmas. Or are they?

On January 23, Wall Street Journal reporter
Daniel Pearl was kidnapped by a gang of Islamic
fundamentalist thugs in Pakistan while
researching a story for his newspaper. Last week,
Pearl's tragic death was finally confirmed when a
videotape sent to Pakistani authorities showed
his captors slashing his neck in front of the
cameras.

Before he died, Pearl reportedly looked at the
screen and said, "I am a Jew, and my father is
Jewish," after which those holding him carried out
their shocking assault.

We may never know exactly why Pearl was
abducted and murdered. Was it because he was
an American? A reporter? A Jew? Or perhaps
because he was working on a story that some
people in Pakistan did not wish to see published.
But what we do know with certainty is that even
under the glare of his fanatical captors, with his
life hanging in the balance, Pearl did not deny
who he was. With courage and audacity, he
looked the camera in the eye and said, "I am a
Jew."

After Pearl's death was confirmed, his wife,
Marianne, told reporters, "I promise you that the
terrorists did not defeat my husband no matter
what they did to him, nor did they succeed in
seizing his dignity or value as a human being."

To that, I would add, they did not succeed in
destroying his Jewish self-esteem either.

Could Pearl have lied about his origins to save
himself? Perhaps. Could he have feigned interest
in accepting Islam to appease his captors?
Possibly. But by clinging to the truth, by refusing to
disavow his Jewish identity, Pearl has become
far more than just a victim. He has become a
hero, a modern-day Jewish hero, one whose valor
shines brightly for the entire world to see.

At a time when assimilation is rife throughout the
West, when so many young Jews are abandoning
their people, Daniel Pearl's words serve as a
powerful reminder of Jewish courage and pride.
They demonstrate how, even under the most
trying and difficult of circumstances, Jews have
always clung to their identity with tenacity and
resolve, determined to prevent the flame of Israel
from ever going out.

I never met Daniel Pearl, but I will always
remember him. His last words on this earth
should guide us all in whatever circumstances we
may find ourselves. They were perhaps his
private last will and testament, but they should
also serve as a charge to our entire people, one
that we must strive ever more firmly to keep: "Yes,
I am a Jew".

(The writer served as deputy director of
Communications and Policy Planning in the
Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     3.   LAND FOR PEACE IS A LOSING TRADE

By FRANK J. GAFFNEY JR.  LA Times   February 27 2002

In the past week, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown
Prince Abdullah, has received kudos in Washington, Arab
capitals and diplomatic circles around the world for what
is characterized as a "new peace initiative" to resolve
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Unfortunately, this
characterization is so wildly inaccurate as to appear
a deliberate fraud.

The so-called Abdullah plan--Arabs would normalize
relations with Israel in exchange for the Jewish state
surrendering the territory seized after 1967's
Six-Day War--is not "new" in any meaningful sense.

The idea of Israel giving up the land it conquered in
the course of successive wars waged against it in
exchange for a genuine peace with the Arabs has been
around at least since the last of those wars ended
in 1973. Various U.N. resolutions, numerous shuttle
diplomacy missions and the Oslo process have all been
predicated on the land-for-peace proposition. Time
after time, Israel has agreed to territorial concessions.
The resulting dismal experience with each of these
ventures has, however, made most Israelis reluctant to
buy into such a shopworn idea yet again. Even if the
Abdullah plan were a genuinely new concept, it would
not be conducive to a lasting peace. Over the past
30 years, Israeli governments of the right and left
have recognized that areas of the West Bank have been
essential to persuading the Arabs that the
"war option" is foreclosed. Should strategic Israeli
positions on the high ground above the Jordan Valley,
many of which are secured by settlements and military
outposts, be surrendered, the Arabs' calculus surely
would change.

And despite the interest expressed by President Bush
this week, the Abdullah plan cannot accurately be
called an "initiative" either. The Saudi
king-in-waiting apparently has not decided to formally
introduce his plan at an upcoming Arab League summit.
There also have been differing reports of the plan's
particulars.

The real impetus behind the Abdullah plan seems to
be a cynical bid to divert increasingly critical
American attention from the Saudi kingdom's double
game. The Saudis have been portrayed as one of the
United States' most reliable allies in the region.
At the same time, the royal family has patronized
Wahhabism, the virulently radical strain of Islam
that has brought the world Osama bin Laden and his
Al Qaeda terrorist cells, most of the Sept. 11
hijackers and a worldwide network of madrasas, or
religious schools, busily indoctrinating young
Muslims to hate and attack Western infidels. It also
has become clear that Saudi Arabia is perfectly
willing from time to time to increase oil prices
at the expense of world economies and to impose
restrictions on U.S. use of Saudi bases.

In the months since Sept. 11, a growing chorus on
Capitol Hill, in the press and even in some quarters
of the Bush administration, has shown that American
patience with the Saudis is wearing thin. One
suspects that Abdullah saw the need for a "charm
offensive" in the form of a new peace initiative
for the Middle East.

To be sure, Israel has no good options at the moment.
The same applies to the U.S., as one of Israel's few
friends and its principal ally. Among the worst of
the available options, though, would be for either
Israel or the U.S. to embrace a warmed-over--and
thoroughly discredited--effort to strip the Jewish
state of land it requires for its own defense.

There can be no guarantees that despotically governed
Arab states--especially Saudi Arabia--would live up
to their part of the bargain any more than they have
in the past. Even if today's rulers promise to do so,
their successors cannot be relied upon to follow suit.

There is much that Saudi Arabia can and should do,
from opening up its bases to a needed U.S.-led
effort to end Saddam Hussein's misrule, to shutting
down its madrasas, to providing humanitarian relief
and job opportunities to Palestinians whom their Arab
brothers see fit to keep rotting in refugee centers.

As far as the Abdullah plan goes, though, the
American and Israeli response should be the same:

    "Thanks, but no, thanks."

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., who held senior positions in
the Reagan Defense Department, is president of the
Center for Security Policy in Washington.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     4.    VATICAN FOOT-DRAGGING

Jersualem Post Editorial   (February 24)

 - In what appears to be the latest in a
series of stalling tactics, the Vatican recently
announced that it would not open its controversial
World War II archives for at least another three
years. This unfortunate decision, which is certain to
cast a pall over Catholic-Jewish relations, comes
less than a year after a joint commission of
historians investigating the Church's wartime role
was forced to suspend its activities as a result of the
Vatican's unwillingness to cooperate.

By further dragging its feet on granting free and
unfettered access to its archives, the Vatican is once
again raising serious doubts about its commitment
to pursue the truth and clarify the historical record.

The question of the Vatican's behavior during the
Holocaust, and particularly that of Pope Pius XII, has
proven to be one of the more shameful episodes in
the Church's recent history. Pius XII's cold
indifference to the Nazi murder of European Jewry,
including the roundup and deportation of Rome's
Jews from right under his windowsill, has been the
focus of sharp criticism from Jewish organizations
and others for decades. In 1933, it was Pius who
approved the infamous Vatican-Nazi Concordat, a
treaty that preserved Catholic privileges in Germany
in exchange for the Church's cessation of political
activity. At the time, Adolf Hitler said that the accord
"gives Germany an opportunity and creates an area
of trust which is particularly significant in the
developing struggle against international Jewry." And
throughout the war years, the pope never once
publicly condemned the Nazi genocide, a step that
might very well have saved untold numbers of
Jewish lives.

In recent years, a slew of popular and scholarly
books has generated new interest in the subject, in
the process shining the spotlight on the Vatican's
stubborn refusal to open its wartime archives, which
are believed to contain a treasure trove of invaluable
historical documentation. In October 1999, the
Church finally agreed to the establishment of a
commission of six historians - three Jews and three
Catholics - to study the Vatican's role during the
Holocaust and the question of Pope Pius XII's
behavior. But by July 2001, the commission's work
had unraveled after the Vatican refused to answer a
series of detailed questions submitted by the
historians and denied them free and open access to
its archives. In November 2001, Hebrew University
Prof. Robert Wistrich took the extraordinary step of
resigning from the commission in protest, saying:
"The Vatican has not been cooperative at all up until
this point... The Vatican is not really interested in
allowing us to pursue our work further."

Perhaps seeking to quell growing discontent over its
stance, the Vatican did announce on February 15
that it would partially open its pre-war archives next
year, releasing selected documents relating to its
ties with Nazi Germany from 1922 to 1939. But this
is hardly a satisfactory step. As Tullia Zevi, leader of
the Union of Italian Jewish Communities, has said,
this is "just an indirect way of saying no to the
release of documents on Pius XII."

By denying historians full access, and insisting on
the sole right to decide which records to release, the
Church's actions will do little to dispel concerns that
it is engaged in a cover-up of some unpleasant
historical truths. Indeed, the Vatican announcement
indicated that among the first documents to be
released will be those regarding Pius XII's "charity
and assistance." Hence, this selective screening of
archival material seems designed more as a
public-relations stunt than as a quest for historical
accuracy.

Oddly enough, it appears that the timing of the
Vatican announcement may have been motivated by
the upcoming release of a new film, Amen, by
director Constantin Costa-Gavras. The film, which is
based on Rolf Hochhuth's 1963 play The Deputy,
shows Pius refusing to act on incontrovertible
information he received about the Nazi Holocaust
against the Jews. As Pope John Paul II is said to be
insistent on beatifying Pius XII, the Vatican obviously
fears the impact the film will have on public opinion
about the wartime pope. According to Rabbi Marvin
Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, "This is
an important film on one of the best kept secrets of
the Vatican. The fact is that Pius XII knew as early as
1942 that Hitler had initiated a 'final solution,' but he
still continued his silence."

What the Vatican does not seem to fully appreciate
is the damage that the archives issue has caused to
efforts to mend Catholic-Jewish relations. For
centuries, the Jewish people suffered unimaginable
persecution at the hands of the Church, from the
Crusades to the Inquisition to the blood libels of the
Middle Ages. If Jews and Catholics are to succeed
now in forging a relationship of mutual respect, it can
come about only through a full and open accounting
of the past, one in which the sins of the Church are
neither minimized nor ignored. Sadly, by delaying
this process still further, the Vatican has succeeded
only in fueling, rather than healing, this unfortunate
rift.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     5.    'RACHEL IN HER DEATH HAS INSPIRED US WITH LIFE'

By Gila Fine  -  Jerusalem Post

KARNEI SHOMRON (March 1) - Two weeks after
the Karnei Shomron terrorist bombing, Rachel
Theler, 16, was laid to rest yesterday in the Karnei
Shomron Cemetery, alongside Keren Shatsky and
Nehemia Amar, both killed in the attack. Mortally
wounded, Rachel remained unconscious until her
death Wednesday afternoon.

Hundreds attended the funeral. Her parents, Michael
and Ganette, were accompanied by their sons, Zvi,
13, and Lior, 14. Lior was also wounded in the attack
and was given leave from the hospital to attend his
sister's funeral.

Rachel's friends, a group of 15- and 16-year-olds
attending their third funeral in two weeks, stood
huddled together, crying and consoling each other.
They spoke of Rachel's generosity, her happiness,
and her love of life.

"Once again we're standing here to eulogize one of
our friends," Chani Friedman, herself released from
the hospital on Monday after having been severely
burned in the attack, said at her friend's grave.
"When we try to think about what we can say about
you, we can't stop crying and laughing at the same
time. All the memories we have of you are funny
memories. Your smile and laughter could turn
anything difficult into happiness. Rachel, even though
you're no longer with us, your smile, true happiness,
and caring will always be with us and keep us
strong."

Hudi Lieberman, head of the local council, appealed
to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. "The blood of our
youth, our children and soldiers, is shed every day,
and you are acting out of fear and weakness. Don't
get used to these deaths. Act with strength and
determination to end them."

Rabbi Dov Oron, a local rabbi, spoke about the
inspiring strength of the Theler family. "When they
took Rachel away from us, she in turn gave life to
two others, and eyesight to another two. Rachel in
her death has inspired us with life."

Rachel's liver and heart were donated for transplant
to two men, and her corneas were given to two
children.

Ganette Theler said she had donated her daughter's
organs, because she thought it was important that
other people benefit from her tragedy, especially
during this time of so many terrorist attacks. "If one
can help someone else live, one must donate," she
said. "I feel that part of my daughter is living in two
other people who gained life from her donation. I
know that's what my daughter would have wanted."

The sister of the man who received the heart said
her brother had been waiting five years for a
transplant. "It definitely is an admirable thing for
families of terror victims to find the strength of
character after losing a child in such a terrible way to
think of saving the lives of others. It's a heroic
courage that you don't see every day."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

     6.    QUOTES TO NOTE

   "Peace with Israel is permissible only on condition
    that it is a temporary peace, until the Moslems build
    up the [military] strength needed to expel the Jews."

Sheikh Abdel Aziz Bin-Baz, the mufti of Saudi Arabia
(January 1995).
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

   7. HIGHLIGHT ARTICLES

THE BELLY OF THE BEAST
Know this my friends, we face a primitive, barbaric enemy
who does not know the meaning of mercy nor civilized
behavior. Their brutal leaders have kept the people in the
7th century enslaved to customs intended to keep them
backward and dependent. We in the Free West are at war
with radical Islamic primitives, some of whom wear
pin-striped suits and were educated at fine Western
universities. Do not confuse the suits nor their refined
language of their spokesmen and women, because
underneath their cultivated veneer are savages who will
tear your throat out or stone you if given the chance.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/islam/beast.html

ANTI-SEMITES: ENEMIES OF HUMANITY
There is a stark reality to the statement.
“To be against Israel is to be against the Jews.”
I am inclined to add that to be against Israel is to
reject Christianity. I say this because Jesus and all
of his apostles were Jews. Jesus was born, preached,
and died in Israel. To reject Israel, the nation that
has come back to life out of the ashes of the Holocaust,
is to reject not just Jews, but Christianity as well.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/antiholo/enemies.html

For more great reading, visit our new EDITORIAL ARCHIVE
http://christianactionforisrael.org/previous.html

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
PLEASE FORWARD TO FRIENDS AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO SUBSCRIBE
Archive:   http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/cafi-list/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Become a WITNESS TO THE NATIONS and let them know what great things
our Lord is doing for Israel and what great things He will continue to
do for her, His firstborn. Please read the 'Witness to the Nations'
document and if you agree with what you have read, please place your
name on this most Holy List and stand with all those who hold firm to
the promises of God and the blessings of Abraham.
http://christianactionforisrael.org/witness/home1.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

      PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS NEWSLETTER.
 Comments/Suggestions newsletter@christianactionforisrael.org
       SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE INFO BELOW.