I.а The УHonest BrokerФ

Ever since Henry KissingerТs shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East, the term Уhonest brokerФ has been bandied about to describe AmericaТs role in the Arab-Israel conflict.а What exactly is an Уhonest brokerФ?

First of all, the mere fact that the adjective УhonestФ qualifies the noun УbrokerФ suggests that brokers are usually dishonest or have a reputation for being so.аа

Second, according to WebsterТs dictionary, Уa broker is one who, for a fee or commission, brings parties together and assists in negotiating contracts between them.Фа As thus defined, a broker appears to be impartial or even-handed with respect to the parties he brings to the negotiating table.а Nevertheless, he performs his services for a fee.а Nothing in the definition of a broker suggests that he is concerned about justice.

Accordingly, while he assists in negotiating a contract between parties, the broker makes no judgment as to whether any of the parties to the contractа isа honestа orа dishonest,а trustworthyа or untrustworthy.а Indeed, so long as he can be confidentа about receivingа his fee,а the contracting

parties might as well be scoundrels.а Or, if one party happens to be a knave and the other a foolЧand of course the fool may be ruined by signing a contract with a knaveЧthis is not the primary concern of the broker.

Because the broker is not concerned about justice so much as about his fee, there is no such thing as a wholly impartial or disinterested broker.а Indeed, judging from the motivational theories of the social sciences, all human behavior is animated by self-interest.а From this it follows that the idea of an Уhonest brokerФ is a myth.а It also follows that those who pose as Уhonest brokersФ in the Arab-Israel conflict are perpetrating this myth to advance their own interestsЧof course under the façade of Уpeace.Фа I am obviously alluding to the United States.а

Now recall the Middle East Peace Conference held in Madrid in October 1991.а The U.S. invited various parties to this conference to help them negotiate peace agreements.а Consider the reputed character of the parties.

One, Israel, is a parliamentary democracy.а It is based on the primacy of consent and publicity rather than coercion and duplicity.а Hence Israel has multiparty elections and a free press to maximize consent and minimize deception.

Contrast the Arab regimes invited to the Madrid Conference:а Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon (to which add proxies of the PLO).а All are dictatorships.а All are based on the primacy of force and fraud.а They do not have a multiparty system or a free press, indeed, all their media are state-controlled.а

But the United States is a democracy.а Its leaders would have us believe they are impartial or Уeven-handedФ in the Arab-Israel conflict, including the conflict between Israel and ArafatТs PLO or Palestinian Authority.а Strange!а For this conflict is between a democracy and various dictatorships.а To be Уeven-handedФ in such a conflict is to place democracy and dictatorship on the same moral level.а It is to imply that one form of government is no more just than another. (No wonder justice is not the primary concern of our Уhonest brokerФ!)

One would think, however, that the United States, a democracy, would be biased in favor of democratic Israel.а And yet, whoever occupies the White House, the American State Department clearly favors the Arabs.а It has vehemently opposed Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, thereby prejudging the final status of these areas.а It has called eastern Jerusalem Уoccupied territory,Ф thus supporting the Arab line.а It has called for IsraelТs return of the Golan Heights to Syria, a terrorist state that has annexed Lebanon.

But now the question arises about the brokerТs fee.а What does the U.S. expect to gain as the Уhonest brokerФ of the Arab-Israel conflict?а Perhaps we should first ask, what did the U.S. gain when the Carter Administration brokered the 1975 Interim Agreement, the 1978 Camp David accords, and the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt (which saw Israel surrender the Sinai and its 17 billion dollar infrastructure, including the most sophisticated airbases and Alma oil fields)?

The U.S. not only lured Egypt from the Soviet camp, but it became EgyptТs most important arms supplier.а Of course, to be Уeven-handed,Ф and in view of IsraelТs loss of the Sinai, the U.S. increased its sale of arms to the Jewish state.а This prompted Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia to spend tens of billions of dollars purchasing sophisticated military hardware from American arms manufacturers.а Brokering the Arab-Israel conflict was good business, especially when the Soviet Union was a competitor in the region.

But now, with the decline of the Soviet Union, it appears that Washington wants to broker an end to the Arab-Israel conflict as part of the State DepartmentТs New World Order.а What is the brokerТs fee?а Is it money, power, or glory?а Whatever the case, one thing is certain.а Someone will have to pay the fee of this Уhonest broker.Ф

II.а Political Stupidity

I have often said that if political stupidity were oil, Israel would be the worldТs greatest exporter!а Year after year Israeli governments, Left and Right, invite the United States to mediate IsraelТs conflict with this or that Arab stateЧnow with the PLOЧdespite the American State DepartmentТs pro-Arab bias.аа To appreciate the inability of IsraelТs political leaders to overcome this stupidity, let us go back to June 6, 1990.а On that day, former MK Elyakim HaТEtzni addressed the Knesset and delivered a powerful speech in which he exposed the treachery and hypocrisy of the American government in its relations with Israel.а

Mr. HaТEtzni, a brilliant lawyer, pointed out that not only has Washington repeatedly betrayed the Jewish state, but that while it constantly intones the language of peace it repeatedly sows the seeds of war in the Middle East.аа Before elaborating this point,а Ha'Etzni admited that certain Israeli politicians have been accomplices to Washington's peace of perfidy.а From Ha'Aretz (3 June 1990) he quoted the following statement of Alan Casdon, one of the leaders of the Simon Wiesenthal Center:

"It was very bad when [Shimon] Peres, the then Minister of Finance came and tried to tempt the United States government to help him topple the [Shamir] government.а Peres promised the Secretary of State [James Baker] that he [Peres] could set up a narrow government.а He told him that he intended to meet the Palestinians in Cairo, and [he] encouraged President [George Bush] to utter statements hostile to the present [Shamir] government."

This recalls Abba Eban's 1984 interview in the weekly magazine Parade:а "The United States must exert heavier pressure on Israel to get it to make an effort to make peace.а That would be the greatest gift that you Americans can still grant us, and all the people in this country who have become tired of war."а While some call such behavior the "politics of peace," others describe it as a "politics of perfidy."а But now let us examine the American contribution to this peace of perfidy.

"The Likud was not in power," Ha'Etzni reminded his colleagues, "when the United States tried to prevent the establishment of the [Jewish] state and maintained a weapons embargo against us throughout the War of Independence. Nor were Jabotinsky's disciples in power "when the U.S. forced us to withdraw from the Sinai, Gush Etzion, and Dahariya during that war, and prevented us from imposing a victor's peace on our enemies.а We were forced to agree to ceasefire accords that created the horrid precedent which has no parallel anywhere in the world, according to which Israel can never win a war.Ф

УSince then, HaТEtzni continued, Уevery victoryЧeach one of which was purchased with precious bloodЧwas taken out of our hands by the United States at the negotiating table, where we never enjoyed give-and-take, but only give."

And so "a Jewish war is different from all other wars, a Jewish victory is different from all other victories."а

Contrast some military victories of the United States.а Thus, after defeating Mexico in 1848Чin a war which could hardly be called a war of self-defenseЧthe United States had no moral compunctions about annexing New Mexico and California.а Nor did the U.S. harbor any qualms about annexing Texas after American settlers expelled the Mexican government.а Texas was not exactly the historic homeland of the American people.а Nevertheless, the military victory of the U.S. over Mexico did bring peace between Americans and Mexicans.а Israel's military victories over its Arab enemies have not brought peace, thanks in no small measure to the government of the United States.

Recall the diplomatic outcome of Israel's 1948-49 War of Independence.а The U.S. imposed on Israel the Rhodes armistice agreements, which required the fledgling state to withdraw on all fronts.а Far from leading to peace, those agreements brought upon Israel the 1956 war in the Sinai from which it was again forced to withdraw by Washington.а

This retreat, Ha'Etzni avers, planted the seeds for the next war, the Six-Day War of 1967.а "When that war ended, the U.S. forced on Israel [UN Resolution] 242, which reiterated the principle that every Israeli victory must end in retreat."а Nor is this all.а

"Even the routing of the [Egyptian] Third Army in the Yom Kippur War was prevented by the United States.а The price in blood that we paid in that war was because of a conscious decision [by the Government of Israel] not to land a preemptive strike [against Egypt]."а The decision was taken to please Washington, but to no avail.

Hence Ha'Etzni admonishes, "the time has come to tell the United States:а 'Your actions do not bring peace; they sow the seeds of war.а They spread a security net beneath the feet of our enemies.а If, G-d forbid, they win in war, they will destroy our State to its very foundations.а If they are defeated, you will give them back everything.'"

Referring to the УfirstФ Bush Administration, Ha'Etzni continued:а "As of now, you are trying to impose on us a 'Palestinian state' under the leadership of the PLO murderersЧthis, too, in the name of peace.а As of now, you are dictating to us that we must give up the heart of our homeland ... Hebron, Jerusalem, Bethel, Bethlehem, Jericho, and Shechem, the Land of the Bible.а If this is friendship, we have no need of enemies.а If this brings peace, no aggressor needs make war again.а Such 'peace' will, G-d forbid, be our end."

Mr. Ha'Etzni is scornful of Washington's self-righteousness.а "You do all this in the guise of an honest broker.а Allow us to remind you:а You are not brokers, because you have taken the side of the Arabs.а And you are not honest, as you proved when we came to you on the eve of the 1967 war to ask you to fulfill your obligation [to keep the Straits of Tiran open], the one you took in exchange for [Israel's] retreating from the Sinai.а You couldn't find the document!"

It should also be noted that the United States failed to act when, in violation of the ceasefire agreement terminating the 1970 War of AttritionЧto which Washington was a partyЧEgypt moved its SAM missiles to the west bank of the Suez Canal.а The late Senator Henry Jackson then warned that the movement of those missiles was a clear prelude to warЧas it turned out, to the Yom Kippur War of 1973.

Despite the Israel-Egypt peace treaty of March 26, 1979, the U.S. has turned a blind eye toward EgyptТs on-going hostility toward Israel.аа In spite of that treaty, Egypt has been supplying its client, PLO chief Yasser Arafat, with arms via tunnels leading into Gaza.а Also, U.S. hypocrisy regarding the PLO terrorism has become utterly grotesque.а Again and again the State Department has ignored PLO responsibility for the murder of hundreds of Jewish men, women, and children.аа Ha'Etzni excoriated the American government for having decided that burning a Jewish woman and her three children alive in the Bus 405 horror of 1990а is not terrorism.а And he goes on to denounce the colossal moral obtuseness of the U.S. by adding:а

"You have decided that a barbaric, bestial action that is unknown among mankind, even among the headhunters of Borneo [namely], the monstrous phenomenon in which mothers send their children with hatchets, firebombs, and rocks to face the fire of soldiers, in order to supply the world with atrocity picturesЧthat too is not terrorism.а You are not honest brokers."

What is more, the United States is actually supporting this barbarism. The U.S., Ha'Etzni bitterly remarked, has no moral justification to sit in judgment on Israel's dealing with its Arab enemies.а The U.S. killed a million Vietnamese people in a war conducted 10,000 miles from the American homeland.а "We have been under attack for Е years.а And we have still not killed even as many of our enemies as the number of people Е killed [by the U.S.] in Panama in one night.а For every house of a murderer that we have destroyed, how many city blocks of houses did the United States destroy in Panama City?"а

(If the hypocrisy of the United States is obscene, what shall we say of European democracies that supply Israel's enemies with the technology for constructing weapons of mass destruction?)

Finally, Knesset Member Ha'etzni warned Israel:а "The United States has 'put out a contract' on the settlements in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.а It calls them 'obstacles to peace.'а Here is our answer:а We know where a 'Palestinian' peace leads.а If we are an obstacle to this kind of peace, then the obstacle ought to be strengthened and fortified."а An appeal in vain.а The Sharon Government supinely accepted the Mitchell Report which rewards Arab terrorism by requiring Israel to freeze Jewish settlements!

Moreover, Sharon yielded to the cease fire plan of CIA Director George Tenet, which not only allows the Palestinian Authority to retain possession of mortars and missiles proscribed by the Israel-PLO Agreement, but also prohibits Israel from taking preemptive action against terrorist acts.а In other words, IsraelТs enemies must be given the first strike, which means Jews must die before the Government reacts!а Sharon has thus undermined IsraelТs deterrent power.а This applies not only to the PLO but to Iran and Iraq, which possess weapons of mass destruction.а Thus, by accepting WashingtonТs mediation in the Arab-Israel conflict, Israel is becoming a non-viable, let alone a sovereign state.

III.аа The Myth of IsraelТs Dependence

It will be objected that Israeli governments cannot help but accept WashingtonТs mediation because of IsraelТs economic and military dependence on the United States.а Belief in the existence of this dependency is widespread among Jews throughout the world.а This is one reason why many American Jews feel threatened by any rift between Israel and the U.S..а They believeЧand their desire for commodious living prompts them to believeЧthat Israel's survival ultimately depends on American largess.аа The Israel-Palestinian Arab conflict, they point out, has tarnished Israel's moral image and is undermining U.S. support for the Jewish state.аа (Of course they also fear that IsraelТs negative image will arouse anti-Semitism.)

The moralistic view of U.S.-Israel relations made it easier for many American Jews to support the Oslo policy of "territory for peace."а Unfortunately, Israel's political leaders indulge and even foster this factitious moralism and pacifism.а By so doingЧthat is, by concealing the truth about U.S.-Israel relationsЧIsrael's political leaders have been undermining the security and well-being of their country.

American foreign policy-makers are pragmatists, not moralists.а U.S. aid to Israel is animated by national self-interestЧpious platitudes to the contrary notwithstanding.а Israel is and has been America's biggest strategic bargain.а According to Gen. George Keegan, former chief of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, while Israel received $18.3 billion in military grants from the U.S. between 1974-1990, Israeli aid to America was worth between $50-80 billion, namely, in intelligence, Soviet weapons systems captured and transferred to the Pentagon, research and development savings, technology, and testing Soviet military doctrines up to 1990.а

Moreover, the bulk of the $1.8 billion Israel currently receives in military aid must be spent in the United States, where it provides jobs for an estimated 50,000 American workingmen.а It should also be noted that Israel would not need this amount of military aid were it not for huge American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.а Stated another way, U.S. military aid to Israel creates a demand for, and the purchase of, tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S. weaponry by these and other Arab states.а American arms manufacturers have thus a vested interest in opposing any reduction of military aid to IsraelЧand so do their representatives in Congress.а Directly and indirectly, Israel has enriched a welter of American corporations.а For this reason alone, American congressmen, irrespective of their attitude toward Israel, will oppose cuts in military aid to the Jewish state.

As for the $1.2 billion Israel receives from the U.S. in "economic" assistance, it does not go into building up Israel's economy.а Most of the money is used to repay pre-1974 loans for military hardware, loans that were given to Israel at a high rate of interest.а Every cent of this money is being collected by Washington.

Furthermore, ever since 1971, when Israel first received significant amounts of aid from the United States, the Jewish state has helped secure NATO's southern flank.а It should also be recalled that in 1970, at Washington's behest, Israel prevented a Syrian invasion of Jordan.а By protecting Jordan from this client of the former Soviet Union, Israel thwarted Moscow's ambitions in the Middle East.а (By the way, it would be naive to think that Russia has permanently abandoned its historic objectives in this region.)

Finally, Israel would not have been financially indebted to the United States had she not withdrawn from the Sinai.а By so doing Israel lost a $17 billion infrastructure, including her most sophisticated air bases, as well as Israeli-developed oil fields which, by now, would have made the country energy-independent.а In fact, Israel has had to spend more importing oil than she has thus far received in U.S. "economic" assistance.а It were as if the United States beggared Israel to display American "charity."а Viewed in this light, the Israel-bashing that goes on in the United States is nothing less than perfidious.

But now the question arises:а What prevents Israel's political leaders from telling the truth about this grotesque state of affairs?аа Do they fear the loss of $1.8 billion in military aid?а Perhaps this was true in 1985, when IsraelТs Gross Domestic Product was $24.5 billion.аа But today, when IsraelТs GDP is $106 billion, the $1.8 billion it still receives in military aid is a mere 1.7% of its GDP, a figure which cannot be deemed indispensable for Israel's survival (contrary to the fears of many America Jews).а Indeed, if Israel had an honest government animated by Jewish pride, it could dispense with American "charity" entirely!

IV.а The Motives of Israeli Politicians

What underlies the hoax which IsraelТs political leaders have foisted on the Jewish peopleЧagain, that Israel's survival depends on America's $3 billion aid package.а One way of explaining the motives of these politicians is to view their behavior from the perspective of contemporary political science.а In other words, instead of attributing the behavior of IsraelТs political elites to American pressure or to their own lack of wisdom and courageЧa common sense approachЧlet us see what political science can teach us about these politicians.

According to the school ofа Уvalue-freeФ orа morally neutral political science that dominates academia, politicians are animated solely by the desire for power, a desire rooted in the primacy of egotism in human nature.а This egotism or self-aggrandizement is disguised by the language of altruism or concern for others.а For example, politicians disguise their own self-interest in the name of such platitudes as the "public interest," Уdemocracy,Ф and Уpeace.Фа Which means, in effect, they deceive the public.а

The public, presumably, consists of gullible people who like to believe that politicians, in principle, are dedicated to the "common good" or "justice."а But "value-free" political science denies the existence of the common good; there are only private goods.а What individuals like they call "good"; what they dislike they call "bad."а Moral values are purely subjective, dependent on one's personal preferences or interests.а Such is the teaching of contemporary political science, a teaching propagated by virtually every college and university in the democratic world.

But as a result of the pervasive influence of this teaching, the public has become less gullible; in fact, it is becoming downright cynical.а This is especially so in Israel where the self-seeking character of western-styled politics, parties, and politicians is glaringly apparent.а Indeed, a recent Knesset-conducted poll indicates that 88% of the people in Israel regard Knesset Members as mere job-seekers unconcerned about the Уcommon good.Ф

Now, it should be emphasized that if there is no "common good," then what is called the "public" is nothing more than a mere aggregation of individuals and groups motivated by the egotism political science attributes to human nature in general, and to politicians in particular.а This has profound consequences for the politics of democratic societies.

Given the primacy of egotism, the politics of democratic societies will be dominated by two passions:а fear of violent death, especially of war, and love of comfort.а How to avoid the one and gratify the other are the paramount issues that divide democratic politicians.а Democratic politics is therefore preoccupied with "peace" and "prosperity."а But this means, according to "value-free" political science, that democratic politicians do not pursue peace as a good in itself, for nothing is good in itself.а Whatever they say or do is nothing more than a means of advancing their own self-interest or lust for power.а By this circuitous route we are led back to the peace of perfidy.

Because of the implacable hostility of the Arab world toward the Jewish state, Israeli politics revolves around the Arab-Jewish conflict and the quest for "peace."а Complicating this politics is Israel's relationship with the United States.а Washington, we have seen, has been portrayed as an "honest broker" in the Arab-Jewish conflict.а But political science teaches that nations are animated not by "justice" but by their own self-interest.а Again we see that the notion of an "honest broker" is a myth.а

The U.S. has enormous investments in the Arab world.а Not only does America import oil from the Persian Gulf, but sales and services to Arab states by American arms manufacturers, construction firms, and a welter of hi-tech corporations amount to billions of dollars a year.а Some 50,000 Americans are employed in Saudi Arabia; their annual income must exceed $7 billion.а Is it any wonder that Washington has ever been committedа to Israel's withdrawal to its pre-1967 borders?а

As for the $3 billion U.S. aid package to Israel, it may be regarded as compensation for the security risk and financial burden Israel assumed by abandoning the Sinai, as well as payment for the priceless intelligence and weaponry data Israel provides the American Defense Department.а (As previously noted,а the $1.8 billion in military aid to Israel creates a demand for, and the purchase of, tens of billions of dollars of U.S. weaponry by various Arab states.)

But if it is true, as political scientists maintain, that the dominant motivation of politicians is the desire for power and prestige, it would then follow that Israel's political leaders have a personal interest in fostering the hoax that their country's survival depends on American aid.а This conclusion gains credence from the fact that no Israeli government has undertaken serious steps to liberate Israel from this fictitious dependency.

Since Israel's political leaders know that Israel's dependence on American aid is not only a hoax, but one that strengthens the U.S.-Arab alliance against Israel's retention of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, as well as the Golan Heights, one must also suspect the motives of these politicians in dealing with the Arab-Jewish conflict.а Can it be they are exploiting that conflict for their own personal aggrandizement?

V.а УPeaceful CoexistenceФ

If politics, as Уvalue-freeФ political science maintains, is a mere struggle for power, then the moral values or ideologies politicians profess are nothing more than a facade by which they conceal their own self-interest.а From this it follows that professions of "peace," whether made by democrats or autocrats, are merely a cover for self-aggrandizement.а Apply this to Zionists.

Both secular and religious Zionists have propagated the dogma that Jews and Arabs could live together in peace and equality in the Land of Israel.а This dogma was made official in 1948 with Israel's Declaration of Independence, which prescribes political equality to all inhabitants of the State regardless of religion.а Accordingly, the Arab citizens of IsraelЧthey now number more than one millionЧenjoy all the civil and political rights of Jews.а (Which means they enjoy more freedom and a higher standard of living than will be found in any Arab or Islamic state.)

Nevertheless, such is the basic hostility of these Arabs to the State of Israel that they have been exempted from military service.аа They therefore constitute a disloyal body of citizens.а Indeed, the vast majority identify themselves as УPalestiniansФ or as members of the УArab Nation.Фааа Hence the Zionist dogma that Jews and Arabs can live together in peace and equality, once a well-intended error, is now a transparent lie.

To ignore this lie, as so many do, is to insult the followers of Islam.а Muslims regard the Jews as usurpers of Arab land and as "infidels," and the Koran teaches them what to do with these УinfidelsФ:а "Kill them wherever you find them" (Sura 2:190).а ArafatТs war against Israel, cheered by УIsraeliФ Arabs, is the logical result.а It is also the spearhead of the Arab-Islamic war against the Jewish state.

Despite this obvious and implacable hostility, Israel's political leaders persist in professing the dogma that Jews and Arabs can live together in peace and equality.а Why?а Because to say otherwise is to place in question the justice of the Jewish return to, and settlement of, the Land of Israel!а Not Zionism, not the Balfour DeclarationЧwhich does not even mention the ArabsЧbut the democratic dogma that Jews and Arabs can live in peace and equality is all that can now legitimize the State of Israel in the eyes of the world.

Israel's political leaders are compelled to profess the language of peace and democracy lest they delegitimize the State of Israel and thereby undermine their own political prerogatives.а

Recall that former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, addressing a joint session of the American congress shortly after his election in May 1996,а deniedа that there is a Уclash of civilizationsФ in the Middle East!аа From this disingenuous remark one may proceed to speak of Уpeaceful coexistenceФ between Jews and Arabs, as did Ariel Sharon when he walked on the Temple Mount in September of last yearЧthe walk that provided the pretext for ArafatТs armed war against Israel.аа

To all but fools, the peace process is a bloody fraud, perpetrated by Jewish politicians as well as by Arab autocrats.а Of course their aims differ fundamentally.а Peace is simply an Arab ploy by which to manipulate the United States into pressuring Israel back to its pre-1967 bordersЧthis, to facilitate Israel's eventual demise.а Both Arafat and the late Faisel Husseini have declared, Уpeace means the destruction of Israel.Фа

In contrast, Israel's political leaders are ever intoning the mantra of УpeaceФ to win American and European support for the Jewish state on the one hand, and to legitimize their own power on the other.а To acknowledge the Arab-Islamic worldТs unrelenting animosity toward Israel would be to expose their own duplicity.

VI.а Conclusion:

Again and again Israel's political leaders have resorted to deceit in shameless disregard of the nation's honor and security.а Various politicians have exploited the peace issueЧwhich is to say the Arab-Israeli conflictЧto promote their own political ambitions.а Had the Labor Party not been dependent on the Arab vote, the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993 would never have been consummated.

The folly and deceit underlying Oslo continue. The Sharon governmentТs policy of УrestraintФ vis-à-vis ArafatТs war against Israel has not gained international support for IsraelТs cause.а Europe, with the qualified support of the U.S., has rewarded Arafat by calling for international supervision of the conflict.а This will not prevent Arab terrorism; it will only further diminish IsraelТs independence.

By fostering the myth of Israel's dependency on the one hand, and by maintaining a climate of fear by emphasizing peace and security on the other, Israel's political leaders have duped the people into believing that theyЧthese politiciansЧare indispensable to the country's survival.

Since its political leaders know that Israel's dependence on America's $3 billion aid package is not only a hoax, but one that strengthens the U.S.-Arab alliance against Israel's retention of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, one must also suspect the motives of these politicians in dealing with the Arab-Jewish conflict.а Horrible as it may seem, they are exploiting that conflict for their own personal aggrandizement.

It so happens, however, that the egotism to which modern political science reduces human behavior is not an original idea.а Consider only the negative precepts of the Ten Commandments.а Do they not clearly indicate that egotism, or what the rabbis call the Уevil inclination,Ф is a basic tendency of human nature?а But this is precisely why the Torah was given to Israel:а to overcome that universal tendency and present mankind the example of a holy nation, one that sanctifies GodТs Name.

We may therefore say that, although the egotism modern political science attributes to mankind applies to Jews, the extent is inversely proportional to the degree to which these Jews have internalized the precepts and teachings of the Torah.а

Accordingly, the issue confronting Israel is not its conflict with the Arab-Islamic world, which has subordinated the Jewish state to American interests.а That conflict is but a consequence of a more fundamental one:а the veracity of Torah versus the mendacity of politics.а Only the Torah can enable Israel to dispense with the Уhonest brokerФ and enable Jews to take their destiny into their own hands.аа

Finally, the peace of perfidy will end only when Israel becomes faithful to the Torah and thereby makes peace with God.

*а *а *