The
Policy of УTerritory for PeaceФ
ver since the Six-Day War of June
1967, it has been assumed by every American Administration that peace between
Israel and her Arab-Islamic neighbors depends on IsraelТs withdrawal from the
territories she conquered in that war, specifically, the Sinai, Judea-Samaria
(the so-called West Bank), Gaza, and the Golan Heights.а American policy-makers still believe,
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that desire for lost territory,
not implacable ideological hostility, animates IsraelТs Arab-Islamic
adversaries.а IsraelТs Labor Party has
encouraged this perception of the Arab-Israel conflict; so too, with less
fervor, has the Likud.
ааааааааааа Accordingly, the Carter
Administration mediated the March 1979 Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty by which
Israel withdrew from the Sinai.а More
recently, the Clinton Administration mediated partial implementation of the
August 1993 Oslo or Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles, in consequence of
which the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from Gaza, Jericho, Ramallah, Hebron,
etc., and await orders to withdraw from most, if not the remainder, of
Judea-Samaria.а Some 200,000 Jews in
Judea-Samaria will then be dependent for their security on the PLO-Palestinian
Authority whose 40,000-member Arab police-force -- twice that of IsraelТs -- is
led by former terrorists.а This is the
bizarre consequence of the policy of Уterritory for peaceФ pursued
intermittently by Israel with the prompting of the United States.
ааааааааааа
ааааааааааа To anyone who has not
sacrificed his intellect to the now deified УPeace Process,Ф the policy of
Уterritory for peaceФ and the agreements issuing therefrom have not brought
peace to Israel and offer no promise of doing so.а Since Oslo, Arab terrorists -- PLO as well as Hamas -- have
slaughtered more than 300 Jewish men, women, and children; 2000 more Jews have
been wounded, many maimed for life.а
Several of these Jews were/are American citizens.а
ааааааааааа
ааааааааааа While pundits in Israel
and the United States intone the mantra of peace, weapons of war
are being smuggled into Gaza from Egypt, the creator and patron of the
PLO.аа It matters not that
Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel.а
Arms are also being smuggled into Judea-Samaria from Jordan.а It matters not that Jordan, too, has a peace
treaty with Israel.а Nor does it matter
that Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists have headquarters in Amman, JordanТs
capital.а Welcome to the Middle East.
ааааааааааа The truth, obscured by
every American President and Israeli Prime Minister, is that the УPeace
ProcessФ is a charade, a tactic employed by Arab leaders to truncate Israel and
thereby facilitate its ultimate demise.а
Evidence for this conclusion will be found in a detailed report issued
by Congressman Jim Saxton (Rep-NJ), brief passages of which are cited above.а Notice that the report was published before
the Arab suicide bombings which occurred in Jerusalem in July and September
1997.а Those bombings compelled Israel
to deploy additional police and military forces in Jerusalem to protect not
only its own citizens, but tourists, Americans included.аа This counterterrorism activity diminishes
IsraelТs ability to defend itself from abroad.аа Strategic analyst Professor Louis Rene Beres of Purdue
University warns that IsraelТs (entirely understandable) preoccupation with
counterterrorism has now effectively compromised the country's capacity to
prepare for or prevent the war described in Congressman SaxtonТs report.а Beres writes:
ааааааааааа
Arafat and his
collaborators are operating according to a very precise strategy of attrition
and annihilation.а By practicing terror
against Israelis on a regular but intermittent basis -- one that allows the
charade of a "Peace Process" to enchant the Americans and others who
always hope too much -- a policy of attrition is successfully weakening
Israel's capacity to ward off the coming war of annihilation.а At the same time, the attritional benefits
of such terrorism are augmented by a less tangible but still significant
corrosion of Israel's will to survive.а
Military analysts customarily distinguish between wars of attrition and
wars of annihilation.а Yet, such wars
need not be mutually exclusive; they can be complementary parts of a single
belligerent strategy.а So it is today
with respect to present and future aggression against the Jewish State by
Israel's multiple Islamic enemies.1
What
Motivates IsraelТs Government?
ааааааааааа
he question arises:а Why have IsraelТs political leaders pursued
a policy with such deadly and I dare say predictable consequences?а Why have they been willing to yield tangible
land, which is irreversible, for a nebulous and revocable peace?а Do they really believe that their
Arab-Islamic neighbors have abandoned their once proclaimed ambition to destroy
the Jewish State?аа Aware of the 15-year
civil war in Lebanon, the 8-year war between Iraq and Iran, the military
collaboration between Iran, Syria, and Iraq, the vilification of Jews and
Israel in EgyptТs state-controlled media -- in short, the details of the Saxton
report -- why is it that IsraelТs political leaders are willing to take risks
for peace that no other government would dare ask of its people?
ааааааааааа This is not an academic
issue.а This issue concerns not only
Israel but the United States. Quite apart from our historic friendship with
Israel, its security and ability to defend itself are connected with AmericaТs
strategic interests in the Middle East.а
Another war in this region will probably involve weapons of mass
destruction and an Arab oil embargo that could cripple the economies of the
democratic world.а Hence it is of vital
importance that we examine, candidly, whether the desire for peace is the only
motive that prompts IsraelТs political leaders to surrender strategic territory
to its Arab adversaries?а Let us begin
by asking:а What do IsraelТs political
leaders really think of IsraelТs adversaries?
ааааааааааа It was only after she
left office in 1974, and then only in her memoirs, that Golda Meir publicly
admitted:а УI have never doubted for an
instant that the true aim of the Arab states has always been, and still is, the
total destruction of the State of Israel, or that even if we had gone back far
beyond the 1967 lines to some miniature enclave, they would not still have
tried to eradicate it and us.Ф2
ааааааааааа At this point, recall
the Madrid Peace Conference of October 31, 1991 co-sponsored by the United
States and the former Soviet Union.а
Attending were delegates from Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon as well
as proxies of the PLO.а While the
delegates from Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were preparing for that conference,
delegates from these same countries, as well as from 57 other Arab-Islamic
regimes (400 in all, including high-ranking PLO representatives) were attending
the УInternational Conference to Support the Islamic Revolution of PalestineФ
held in Teheran ten days earlier. аAll
the delegates, without exception or qualification, signed 28 resolutions issued
by this conference, resolutions hostile not only to Israel, but to the United
States.а For example, Resolution 3 calls
for the Уelimination of the Zionist existence.Фа Resolution 11 Уcondemns the efforts of the United States to hold
the so-called Middle East peace conference.Фа
Resolution 15 Уstrongly condemns the extensive presence of the U.S. in
the sensitive region of the Persian Gulf.Ф Resolution 22 emphasizes Уthe need
for an all-out jihad against the Zionist regime.Ф
ааааааааааа Among the countries
that signed these resolutions was Egypt, a supposed ally of the United States
which had erased $7 billion of Egyptian debt in exchange for EgyptТs nominal
participation in the U.S.-led coalition against Iraq in the Persian Gulf
War.а Moreover, EgyptТs Уsemi-officialФ
newspaper Al-Ahram saw fit to publish the conference resolutions in full
and without a word of government condemnationЧthis, despite EgyptТs peace
treaty with Israel.а Yet no Israeli
spokesman dared proclaim that the Teheran Conference made nonsense of the
projected Madrid Peace Conference.а In
any event, the Teheran Conference confirmed Golda MeirТs judgment regarding
IslamТs inherent hostilityа toward
Israel (to say nothing of America).3
ааааааааааа
The same judgment will be
found in Prime Minister Benjamin NetanyahuТs book A Place Among the Nations.а In the introduction of the Hebrew edition,
written in 1995, Netanyahu refers to the Oslo peace process and warns in
unambiguous terms:а
After the far-reaching
concessions, in land and power, that Israel will be effecting in its withdrawal
to the 1967 boundaries, after the УsolemnФ propaganda ceremonies that will
accompany these withdrawal agreements ... we will find ourselves dwarfed and
weakened, facing a bitter and miserable reality: then we will hear around us
demands that are hard even today, only with renewed vigor, thatа weа
mustа continueа toа
giveа upа territory Уthatа wasа capturedа illegally,Фа
andааа Уin contravention of the
original [UN] partition planФ; even among us there will be those who support
the claim that we do not have a right even to the tiny area of land that
remains ours.а This process will lead
either to another terrible war or to the destruction of the State of Israel.
Once he became IsraelТs Prime Minister, however, Mr. Netanyahu adhered
to this deadly process. He rationalized his behavior by saying he was obliged
to honor the agreements of his predecessors, the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon
Peres, even though he had written that those agreements would emasculate Israel
and endanger its existence.а
ааааааааааа But what of Rabin and
Peres?а When they shook hands with
Yasser Arafat in those Уsolemn propaganda ceremoniesФ to which Netanyahu
alludes, did they really believe that the leader of the PLO had ceased to be a
terrorist, that he had become a convert to peace?а Or did they believe that he could be compelled, perhaps by
American pressure, to overcome his past and not only renounce terrorism, but
suppress terrorist activities in the territories that would eventually come
under his control?а Which ever the case,
surely Mr. Rabin and Mr. Peres must have been profoundly concerned about
IsraelТs strategic vulnerability once the country was reduced to a 10-15 mile
strip on which dwell 80 percent of its population.а Besides, might not IsraelТs truncation erode their peopleТs
morale or confidence in the future, especially when surrounded by an
ideologically and culturally hostile Arab-Islamic world?
ааааааааааа Let us consider only
Mr. Peres.аа On June 27, 1975, at which
time Peres was IsraelТs Defense Minister, he told an interviewer from Davar,
a Labor Party newspaper, that Уthe lack of minimal territorial space would put
us [Israel] in a position of having absolutely no early warning ... and would
engender among the Arabs an irresistible urge to attack the Jewish state from
all sides and destroy it.Фа This remark
anticipates the conclusion of the Saxton report.а Yet Mr. Peres obviously changed his mind since he gave that 1975
interview.а No doubt the leading
architect of the Israel-PLO Agreements would say that circumstances in the
region have changed since 1975.а He
could point to the Israel-Egyptian Peace Treaty of 1979 as indicative of the
emergence of a УNew Middle East,Ф one committed to peace.4
а
(He maintains this position
despite the Saxton report.)а On the
other hand, Mr. Peres contends that the advent of missile warfare has made
territory and national borders irrelevant.а
There are American and Israeli generals as well as civilian strategic
experts who would dispute this position.а
They might point to IraqТs invasion of Kuwait, as well as AmericaТs
military build-up in Saudi Arabia, in the Persian Gulf War as a refutation that
missile warfare renders territorial depth irrelevant.5
ааааааааааа Can it be that Mr.
PeresТs change of attitude regarding IsraelТs borders was also influenced by
partisan political considerations?аа I
am treading on delicate grounds, but IsraelТs future is at stake, and so are
the best interests of the United States. а
ааааааааааа When Mr. Peres stated
in 1975 that the lack of minimal territorial space would put Israel in a
position of having absolutely no early warning and would engender among the
Arabs an irresistible urge to attack the Jewish state from all sides and
destroy it, his Labor Party had been in uninterrupted control of the government
for 27 years, that is, from its inception in 1948.а What made that monopoly of power possible was the alliance of
IsraelТs religious parties, for Labor never received more that 51 of the
KnessetТs 120 seats (despite the partyТs domination of the media and the
economy as well as the countryТs educational and cultural institutions).а
ааааааааааа In June 1977, however,
a minor revolution took place:а the
Likud Party came to power joined by the religious parties.а LaborТs political future looked bleak
indeed, for the Jewish population of the country was becoming increasingly
religious, largely because of the high birthrate of religious families, but
also because tens of thousands of secularists were leaving the country.а To compensate for its diminishing electoral
base among Jews, Labor would have to attract more Arab voters to its banner if
was to regain power.а But this means
Labor would for the first time become dependent on IsraelТs Arab parties to form
a government and to exercise its prerogatives.
ааааааааааа There is now an
abundance of evidence that, prior to IsraelТs 1992 Knesset elections -- the
elections that brought Labor back to power -- some of its spokesmen met
secretly with high-ranking PLO officials in Cairo and London.а The quid pro quo emerging from those
clandestine meetings was this:а PLO
chief Yasser Arafat would induce IsraelТs Arab citizens and parties to support
Labor, in return for which, a new Labor Government would legalize such meetings,
engage in serious Уland-for-peaceФ negotiations with the PLO, with the object
of creating, step-by-step, a Palestinian state with Arafat as its President.6а
ааааааааааа Labor, together with
its Left-wing ally Meretz, won 56 Knesset seats, five short of a majority. аThe majority was made possible by the five
seats of IsraelТs two Arab parties.а
This is not to say that the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of August 1993
was merely a Machiavellian drama.7а Let us probe a little deeper.
ааааааааааа As a socialist party,
Labor has an internationalist orientation that contradicts the nationalist
dimension of Zionism.а Indeed, when
Shimon Peres was Foreign Minister under the premiership of Yitzhak Rabin, he
applied for IsraelТs membership in the Arab League!а Israel, he declared, has entered a УPost-ZionistФ era -- he might
well have said a УPost-JewishФ era.а
Consistent therewith, and under RabinТs authority as Defense Minister,
the words УZionismФ and УJudaismФ were erased from IsraelТs Soldiers Code of
Ethics.8
ааааааааааа Here we touch on a
fundamental dilemma:а How can Israel
remain a Jewish State when almost 20 percent of its citizens are Arabs, most of
whom not only identify themselves as УPalestiniansФ or as part of the УArab
Nation,Ф but supported Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War despite his
threat to incinerate Israel, including themselves?а
ааааааааааа
Arab
Attitudes Toward Israel
ne can hardly blame these
proud Arabs for not wishing to live under a Jewish majority -- which is why they
are exempt from military service (i.e., for security reasons).аа Mr. Peres is obviously aware of this
demographic and ideological dilemma, which, given the prolific Arab birthrate,
has explosive ramifications.а Perhaps he
believed that these Arabs could be assimilated, could become УIsraelis,Ф if
only Israel ceased to be a Jewish State and were transformed into a state of
its citizens?а But consider a 1994
symposium held by the Dayan Institute of Tel Aviv University.а
ааааааааааа Participating in that
conference were prominent Arab citizens who spanned the entire spectrum of
political opinion, from those who were members of the Labor Party to those who
were undisguised supporters of the PLO.а
ааааааааааа Professor Howard
Adelson comments:а УWithout an
exception, those Arabs pointed out that even if a new Arab state were to be
created between Jordan and Israel, that would be insufficient because almost a
million so-called Israeli Arabs would still be living under СforeignТ
domination.а The claim of the Arabs was
that, if the Jews truly wanted peace, they would have to change the name of the
state so as to reflect the entire population rather than merely the Jewish
majority.а The state, in effect, would
have to become a bi-national one with a new flag and a new national anthem.Ф9
ааааааааааа Adelson concludes that
inasmuch as the Arab participants in this conference also insisted on the
enactment of an Arab law of return to admit all Arabs who supposedly fled from
the land as well as their descendants, the success of the Oslo process (or the
American-Israel policy of Уterritory for peaceФ) entails the disappearance of
the Jewish State.
ааааааааааа It required Arab
suicide-bombers to awaken pundits from their Oslovian slumbers.а Not all.а
But leaving the benighted as well as entrapped or timid politicians
aside, it is now obvious that the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement was based on
sand, to say nothing of deception.а It
should also be obvious that Arafat, who sanctifies suicide bombers as Уholy
martyrsФ and embraces Hamas murderers as Уbrothers in blood,Ф remains what he
has never ceased to be, a terrorist chief dedicated to IsraelТs
destruction.а Hence it is inane or
willful ignorance to demand that Arafat suppress terrorists in areas under the
control of his Palestinian Authority, so many of whose officials are themselves
unrepentant terrorists.
ааааааааааа Mr. Netanyahu knows
this. Like his predecessors, however, Netanyahu is trapped in the Уpolitics of
peace,Ф the politics that even well-meaning men use to gain or retain
power.а But let us examine such behavior
from another perspective.
IsraelТs
Political Institutions
s previously indicated, ever since the
Six-Day War, every Israeli government, regardless of its political complexion,
has been under pressure from the United States, more precisely, the State
Department, to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders.а Nevertheless, how Israeli politicians react to American
pressure depends not only on their own moral and intellectual character but
also on the character of IsraelТs political institutions, a factor
ignored by virtually all commentators.а
Let me explain.
ааааааааааа IsraelТs Government,
i.e., the Cabinet, is composed of a multiplicity of parties.а Mr. NetanyahuТs Cabinet consists of no less
than seven parties, each with its own agenda!аа
This makes it virtually impossible for IsraelТs Prime Minister to pursue
a firm and coherent foreign policy or national strategy conducive to his
countryТs long-term interests.а
Meanwhile, the lack of Cabinet solidarity renders the Government more
subject to international pressure.аа
ааааааааааа As is well-known, the
multiplicity of parties in Israel is the result of proportional representation
based on a threshold of only 1.5 percent.а
This is by far the lowest electoral threshold among some fifty countries
using proportional representation.а What
is more, Israel is the only reputed democracy that employs proportional
representation with fixed party lists and without constituency elections.а The entire country constitutes a single district,
and voters cast their ballots in parliamentary elections for political parties,
not for individual representatives.а
This has grave consequences.
ааааааааааа Assume that the leader
of party A is IsraelТs Prime Minister, and that the leaders of parties, B,
C, D and E are his Cabinet Ministers -- a typical Israeli
concoction.а Now, because a majority of
the KnessetТs members (MKs) owe their position and perquisites to these parties
and not to the votes of constituents, they cannot function as judges of their
GovernmentТs policies as do legislators in all democratic countries.а If an MK were to vote against his Government
he would be committing political suicide.а
This will inhibit him from resisting policies he deems unwise or
self-destructive.10а He will then be less able to resist the same
foreign pressure prompting his Government to pursue that questionable
policy.а Meanwhile, because the voters
have no individual Knesset Member accountable to them, whom they could then expect
to uphold their basic interests -- which may well be opposed to the
GovernmentТs foreign policy -- they themselves, the voters, will become unduly
sensitive and more subservient to Уworld opinion.Ф
Therein is a hitherto
unnoticed reason why Israeli governments -- no longer in the youth of аZionism -- have yielded to the American State
DepartmentТs post-Six Day War policy of Уterritory for peace,Ф contrary
to the deepest convictions of a large majority of IsraelТs Jewish population.
If this majorityТs convictions on the territorial issue have since been eroded,
a basic cause is this: they lack Knesset representatives of their own
choosing.11
Although Israel may be a
unique case, nothing so weakens this country as the absence of a
Legislature separate from the Executive, one whose members are directly
accountable to the voters (and not simply to their party).
Clearly, IsraelТs political
leaders are handicapped by IsraelТs political institutions, above all by its
electoral laws.а Fundamental change is
needed, which can best be accomplished -- I do not say now -- by the adoption
of a written Constitution.а To
facilitate discussion and a deeper understanding of IsraelТs institutional
flaws, the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the Middle East,
an American-Israel research organization, has designed a Constitution
involving, inter alia, a presidential-parliamentary system with
institutional checks and balances, constituency elections (with a threshold
that would eliminate small parties), and a comprehensive Bill of Rights.а In contrast to current practice in Israel,
agreements with foreign states or entities would require public hearings and
serious parliamentary debate.а Treaties
would require the ratification of extraordinary parliamentary majorities; they
would not be ratified by Уsolemn propaganda ceremoniesФ on the White House
lawn.а By elevating its dignity and
power, the parliament could rally to the support of the Government should the
latter be subject to perverse international pressure.
Why
AmericaТs УEven-HandedФ Diplomacy is Destructive
propos of such pressure, let us
now examine the significance of the American State DepartmentТs Уeven-handedФ
diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel and her Arab neighbors -- the diplomacy
guided by the dogma of Уland for peace.Фааа
ааааааааааа The formula Уland for
peace,Ф at least in the present context, is fundamentally irrational.а First of all, unlike Уpeace,Ф not only is
land tangible and its surrender irreversible, but the land Israel is expected
to surrender is precisely the land which various Arab states used as launching
pads to attack Israel before the Six-Day War.
ааааааааааа Second, if A is
willing to surrender land for peace, while B is willing to go to war to
obtain that land, it follows that whereas A prefers peace to land, B
prefers land to peace.а The asymmetry
does not bode well for peace.а Knowing
that A prefers peace to land, B need only threaten war to obtain
more land from A.а This is
precisely the conclusion drawn by Mr. Netanyahu in the above cited passage from
A Place Among the Nations.
ааааааааааа Third, substitute
Israel for A and IsraelТs neighbors for B and it will be seen
that the asymmetry between them is rooted in the conflicting character of their
respective regimes.а Insofar as Israel
is a democracy, a regime based on the primacy of consent, it cannot, in
principle, pursue a foreign policy of conquest.а In contrast, because IsraelТs neighbors are autocracies, regimes
based on the primacy of coercion, their policy toward Israel will be modulated
by intimidation or the threat of war.
ааааааааааа To be Уeven-handedФ in
a conflict between a democracy and a dictatorship is to succumb to moral
equivalence.а Moral equivalence roughly
describes U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.а I say УroughlyФ because it should be obvious that Washington
exerts more diplomatic pressure on Israel than on IsraelТs autocratic
adversaries.а Again and again American
administrations importune democratically minded Israel to make good will or
gratuitous concessions to the Уother sideФ regardless of the Уother sideТsФ
undemocratic character.аа But even if
Washington were in truth Уeven-handed,Ф such a policy, in the long run, favors
IsraelТs adversaries and thereby conduces to war.
ааааааааааа By placing Israel and
Arab-Islamic dictatorships on the same moral level, the American government
dignifies and strengthens the rulers of these dictatorships, and renders them
more arrogant and ambitious.а That
EgyptТs tourist maps refers to all of Israel as УPalestineФ is a reflection of
the nature of that regime, even if the slight is intended for domestic
purposes!
*а *а *
Conclusion
ranted that the American-Israel
policy of Уterritory for peaceФ has increased the likelihood of a catastrophic
war (recall Czechoslovakia and World War II); granted that IsraelТs burgeoning Arab
population represents a demographic time-bomb that threatens to transform
Israel into another Lebanon; and granted further that IsraelТs existing
political institutions hinder firm and forthright political leadership, what
can be done to prevent IsraelТs sudden or eventual demise?
ааааааааааа First, both the U.S.
and Israel must renounce the policy of Уterritory for peaceФ and adopt a new
form of diplomacy.12а
ааааааааааа Second, and bearing in
mind the ominous Saxton report, the United States should announce that any attack
on Israel will be deemed an attack on the United States and dealt with
accordingly.а The U.S. should therefore
move its embassy to Jerusalem and thereby affirm Jerusalem as IsraelТs
undivided capital.
ааааааааааа Third, the U.S. should
call for an international moratorium on the shipment of arms to the Middle
East.а
ааааааааааа Fourth, Israel must
reform its political institutions.а All
citizens, on pain of losing their citizenship, should be required to perform
national service (individual exemptions aside) and acknowledge, by an oath of
loyalty, IsraelТs sovereignty as a Jewish State.а
ааааааааааа Fifth, ArafatТs
Palestinian Authority should be denounced for what it is, a terrorist
hotbed.а It should be quarantined and
disbanded and its criminals should be brought to justice.13
ааааааааааа Sixth, Israel and the
United States should formulate a functional (as opposed to a territorial)
autonomy plan for Arabs in Judea-Samaria and Gaza based on the idea of a canton
under IsraelТs sovereignty.
ааааааааааа
ааааааааааа Seventh, consistent with
the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
United States should promote gradual implementation of constitutional democracy
in Arab-Islamic world.а For this purpose
it should call for an International Conference on Constitutional Democracy.
а
ааааааааааа Epilogueааа
resident John Adams, a Harvard
graduate, said that the Jews, the first teachers of ethical monotheism, have
been the greatest benefactors of mankind. The Seven Noahide Laws of Universal
Morality have long been part of American and international law. The УHigher
LawФ doctrine of the American Declaration of Independence is rooted in the
Bible of Israel.а On the eve of the
American Revolution, Harvard president Samuel Langdon referred to the Уcivil
polityФ contained in the Torah (the worldТs first Written Constitution) as an
Уexcellent general modelФ for American government.14
ааааааааааа The bond between
America and Israel is profound, and our own self-respect as a nation under God
requires that we be faithful to the nation that gave mankind the Book of Books,
hence that we do nothing to impair IsraelТs strength and dignity as a Jewish
State.а Together, Israel and America are
the best hope of humanity and for peace in the Middle East.
*а *а *
