Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East analyst & commentator
December 4, 2000
To accuse Israel of using excessive force in the face of an armed
rebellion is not all that unusual for the United Nations. When they deal
with Israel, the nations have always employed double standards. One
standard for their countries' actions and policy for riots, insurrection
- even war - and a totally different standard for the Jewish State of
Arrogance & Chutzpah & a Plan
Former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, head of an international 'fact
finding' committee demanded by Yassir Arafat and the Arab nations will
research the present conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Their
results are likely to be skewed or warped by reports from Mary Robinson,
head of the U.N. Commission for Human Rights. After a brief tour of the
region, Ms. Robinson, in keeping with the extreme bias of the U.N., has
already gone on record by accusing Israel of using excessive force.
Please note that, as a sop to Arafat, she cancelled her appointments
with Ariel Sharon, the leader of Likud, causing Ehud Olmert, Mayor of
Jerusalem and Natan Sharansky to cancel their appointments with her
because her declared agenda was distinctly hostile and one-sided in
favor of the PLO. Israel, in anticipation of the usual U.N. kangaroo
court conclusions, has vigorously objected to the Mitchell so-called
Congressman Eliot Engel, (Dem. NY) co-chair of the bipartisan
congressional U.N. Working Group, castigated Mary Robinson for calling
on Israel to dismantle settlements and urging the international
community to send a protection force to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Engel said: "I do not believe that under your mandate as High
Commissioner for Human Rights you should comment officially on political
issues that Israel and the Palestinians have chosen to resolve in
bilateral negotiations... In particular, your recommendation 'that
the construction of new settlements should cease and those located in
the midst of heavily populated Palestinian areas should be removed' is
not a human rights issue and must be settled at the bargaining table.
Moreover, I fear that your suggestion that Israel withdraws in the face
of organized violent action by Palestinians will only bolster those who
choose to employ such violence to coerce Israel to pull its forces
There is a Purpose & a Plan
So, in its typical arrogance, when making life and death decisions for
Israel, the U.N. continues its biased attitude and a 'modus operandi'
driven by the Arab/Muslim nations. The Mitchell committee has been
assembled for a much more far reaching goal that to merely study the
conflict and offer an opinion. The Committee's report is to establish a
basis upon which the U.N. can initiate 'corrective action' against
Israel. That translates into first placing unarmed U.N. observers in the
region, followed by an expanded, armed U.N. force.
Look for a preponderance of American troops, accompanied by French,
English and Russians as was done in Kosovo under a U.N. mandate. The end
product is to establish a Palestinian State, forcing Israel to withdraw
first to the pre-67 borders and beyond. President Clinton presumption is
that a pacified Palestinian State will not turn into a terrorist State,
subverting Jordan and linking up to Syria, Iraq and Iran in order to
take over Saudi Arabia and the Gulf oil nations. This plan is a slight
variation of the U.S. State Department/Pentagon plan to place American
troops on the Golan Heights in phased stages using a U.N. observer force
as a false screen for phase one. (This is still in the hopper.)
Will George Mitchell actually research the matter objectively and
possibly go against Mary Robinson and the U.N.'s biased conclusions -
thereby upsetting the regional plan? Probably not. But, on the off
chance that Mitchell and his Committee will do an honest and diligent
job, let us outline some of the work which they must do first.
As the riots did not occur in a vacuum, one must explore the events that
preceded the so-called 'spontaneous' riots themselves and the expansion
and continuations of the riots. Note! The word and meaning of 'riots'
must be thought of as a flexible condition since what was initiated as
riots immediately ramped up into a preplanned controlled state of armed
insurrection, using children and civilians as human shields, concealing
armed shooters. The word "riot" was only correct in part, as Arafat
signaled his regional control agents to engage in an armed insurrection
using civilian rioters as cover.
But, before the Mitchell Committee creates its own scale of acceptable
force vs. excessive force, one must explore existing standards and
policies which nations use within the U.N. for dealing with riots,
insurrection and armed conflict. What is on their books by way of policy
and law? Also, how have they themselves actually used force within their
countries during the past 50 years? These are member nations of the U.N.
who have voted condemnation of Israel - despite their own sometimes
abominable track record of suppression (necessary or otherwise.)
Some examples to study should include:
- Britain suppressing the IRA
- Russia suppressing the Chechen rebels
- China vs. its own people
- Iranian Islamic Fundamentalists vs. its liberal student movement
- Egypt's suppression of its Muslim Brotherhood
- Sudan's suppression of its Animists and Christians
- France vs. the Algerians
- India and Pakistan vs. their minority oppositions
- African nations & their methods of suppressing opposing factions
- Ruandan Genocide of the Tutsis
- U.S. policy and rules of engagement, using Police and Federal
troops against mass rioting.
Examples of Dictatorships or Monarchies in the Middle East
Kuwait attacked Arafat's local Palestinians after they rose up as a
fifth column to assist Saddam Hussein in taking over Kuwait. 350,000
Palestinians were forcibly transferred to Jordan. Similarly, Saudi
Arabia forcibly transferred more than 300,000 Palestinians to Jordan who
were considered as an imminent threat to their rule.
On the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, Egypt killed rioting
Palestinians to eliminate their first 'Intifada' in December 1987.
Syria liquidated 20,000 of its own civilians, destroying the town of
Saddam liquidated Iraqi Kurds.
War Without Casualties
We, Americans had the advantage of bombing the Iraqis from miles up with
'smart' bombs. Most of the Gulf War was conducted with massive force at
safe distances. Our ships sent cruise missiles hundreds of miles. Rules
of engagement were laid down by President George Bush and implemented by
General Colin Powell and General Norman Schwarzkopf. Compare this to
Israel's dilemma of having to protect her citizens within rock-throwing
or sniper rifle distance from their enemies.
Then there is the example the U.N. forces in Kosovo with Americans and
British planes once again virtually safe as they bombed their targets
from thousands of feet in the air. Here again, the U.N. approved attack
plans used overwhelming force to end the conflict quickly with minimum
casualties. This would be called "Excessive Force" except when it is the
U.N. defining the terms.
Use of Force to Suppress Insurrection
The use of force to suppress insurrection has many faces. Many of those
countries in the U.N. choose maximum force when faced with rioters
rather than exercising restraint.
The Arab nations and Arafat in particular cynically use their own
civilians as human shields by putting children, women and unarmed men in
harms' way. They deliberately enlisted them to become involuntary
extensions of their planned violence, especially when the televised
'war' shows children and women as victims and martyrs.
Recall the use of force by the United States against Vietnamese
civilians because they were forced to be Human Shields as an organic
extension of the Viet Cong. Remember how those pictures of the naked,
napalmed girl aroused antiwar sentiment in America? How many other
remembrances would we have to regurgitate to properly study the use of
so-called excessive force against protesting civilians in America? Which
nation's conscience is clear enough to cast the first stone?
Within the 52-year conflict between the Arab nations and Israel,
documented history indicates that civilians were consistently used by
the Arabs in various ways to advance the war goals of the Arab nations.
Civilians were often used as 'Human Shields' just like those the
American soldiers faced in Vietnam. The use of civilian Human Shields
was fairly common during the six wars initiated by the Arab nations
Egypt quite often placed Triple AAA (anti-aircraft guns) on top of
school roofs - serving 2 purposes. 1. It delayed offensive targeting by
Israeli aircraft. 2. If the anti-aircraft guns were hit, there was an
immediate hue and cry that Israel was targeting schools and children.
Egypt also placed ground-to-air missiles in parking lots of hospitals
and school yards for the same goals. The public relations propaganda,
then as now, intended to present Israel as using excessive force against
In Lebanon, Arafat used underground bunkers and various apartment
buildings as storage facilities for ammunition, explosives and weapons -
deliberately located in the center of densely populated refugee camps.
Using human Shields was a primary motivation. In the Lebanon war, Arafat
sent kids with Rocket Propelled Grenades, called the RPG kids, against
Israeli soldiers who were often killed while they hesitated to shoot at
kids. Recall the silence of the United Nations when Syria invaded
Lebanon and bombed the Palestinian arms depots in the center of the
During the 8-year war between Iran and Iraq, Iran sent children (holding
tickets to Muslim Paradise) running across minefields to clear the way
for the Iranian soldiers.
The So-Called 'Al Aksa' Riots
Were the riots spontaneous? No! There were several killings of Israelis
by Palestinians before September 28 (the eve of Rosh Hashana) when Arik
Sharon walked around the Jewish Temple Mount, our holiest Jewish site.
The preparations and incitements of the Arab populace began weeks and
months before that. Civilians were told to store food, medical supplies,
generators and all materials needed if Israel declared martial law after
the preplanned riots started. American and European Intelligence were
well-aware of these preparations but neither did anything - as in the
Arafat increased what Oslo allowed as a "lightly-armed Police force of
24,000" to some 50,000 well-armed Paramilitary forces in uniform - plus
between 9 to 20 Secret Services with an unknown number of armed non
uniformed men, estimated at 30,000. This Palestinian buildup preceded
what they called the 'spontaneous' Al Aksa riots.' In fact, they began
the same week Barak hosted Arafat for a cordial dinner at his home. But,
Arafat ignored Barak's hospitality and all his concessions because he
needed and wanted an armed uprising - for which he gave one of his
infamous 'green lights'.
Arafat engaged in a major buildup of smuggled arms that were illegal
under Oslo including, heavy automatic machine guns like AK 47
Kalashnikovs, shoulder-fired missiles, antitank and antiaircraft
missiles, plastique explosives, armored vehicles, huge quantities of
weapons and ammunition. The monies donated by the U.S., European
countries and Israel to build Palestinian Infrastructure for the
civilians, instead went to build an army, deep concrete bunkers for the
elite and to stockpile these masses of stockpiled illegal arms. Here,
again, U.S. and European Intelligence were fully aware of these
preparations which were ignored by the leaders of the nations. The CIA
has been training the Palestinian Authority Police and Secret Services
since the 1993 signing of Oslo.
Arafat also organized the working associations and integration of
various known terrorist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the
Tanzim (fighters of his own Force 17). Shortly after the 'spontaneous
riots' began, he progressively released Hamas terrorists from prison,
many of whom had expertise in bomb-making and planning of terrorist
operations. Releasing these terrorists resulted in an immediate increase
in sophisticated bombings and skilled sniper shootings.
The so-called spontaneous 'Intifada' (uprising) was actually a
synergistic operation, with linkage to civilians (especially children).
Arab civilians under the Palestinian Authority and those Arabs within
Israel who held Israeli citizenship were expected to perform as a fifth
column (and they did). This is why Kuwait and Saudi Arabia forcibly
transferred more than 700,000 Palestinians to Jordan after the Gulf War.
Civilians were armed as was Arafat's armed Para-Military Police. Each
segment was expected to participate, sometimes on their own or in
connection with each other under Arafat's military command.
Casualties were not only expected but mandatory. During the staged and
well-coordinated street scenes, children (preferably) and teens would
place themselves in positions of jeopardy in order to insure world media
photos and video pictures of pathetic child victims or Israeli
'excessive force. Why would Israel shoot at these children and teens
'only' throwing stones? Stones can and do kill. But, behind the children
were the well-armed Palestinian Para-Military forces and their snipers -
carefully concealed - often in civilian homes. For example, Arafat's
Muslim Palestinians took over the Christian town of Beit Jalla, just
south of Jerusalem, and fired nightly into the Gilo residential
neighborhood of Jerusalem. As the Palestinians were firing over the main
road to South Israel via two tunnels, these roads were closed due to the
danger almost every night - and often during the day - from Rosh Hashana
until now. This was the paradigm or pattern in dozens of locations
within Israel and Judea, Samaria and Gaza. This was not a riot of
civilians but a full scale armed conflict masquerading as an
insurrection - with all the terrorist operations directed increasingly
against Israel's civilians.
Because the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) under orders of Defense Minister
Ehud Barak, did NOT employ sufficient force to stop the shooting,
Arafat's hoped for disruption of everyday living was wildly successful.
Arafat's propaganda war was even more successful. Arafat, through his
Palestinian Authority Television, school curricula and summer camps,
etc. had inculcated in the children, the heroic concept of 'Shahada':
Muslim Martyrdom for Allah which was easily taught and absorbed by
impressionable children. To them it was a wonderful game wherein death
was an exciting experience to aspire to. These mind games inflicted on
children produced a high that easily surpassed any drug stimulant.
Children, even their parents, were euphoric while confronting Israeli
soldiers in the streets with rocks and gasoline bombs (Molotov
cocktails) against Jews they were taught to hate and kill.
The so-called 'spontaneous' riots were, a carefully orchestrated set of
steps, designed to ramp up violence with many casualties and staged for
the accommodating world media while simultaneously using the Arab block
countries in the U.N. to vote condemnation of Israel for the use of
This was something like the boy who killed his parents and then demanded
mercy from the judge because he was an orphan.
The Mitchell Committee, pressed by the U.N. through Mary Robinson will
be hard put to take all of these factors into account and be truthful.
Behind all of this is Arafat's desire to force the placement of U.N.
troops to 'ostensibly' protect the civilian Palestinian population from
Israel's 'excessive force'. Just as they did in Lebanon under the
'non-watchful' eyes of the U.N.I.F.I.L. (United Nations International
Forces In Lebanon), this will allow the Palestinian terrorists to mount
assaults and then hide behind the U.N. troops. Of course, they (U.N.
Forces) will be forced into harm's way by the Palestinians and the
necessary Israeli defense. So, Israelis will find it very difficult to
respond as the U.N. troops might be hit. In the past U.N. troops had no
effect against Arafat's terrorists, refusing to stop or disarm them. In
a way, they provide a voluntary Human Shield for Arafat's Terrorism
against justifiable response by Israel.
Strangely, Israel has been out of step with her own neighbors in terms
of dealing with uprisings. When Arafat's Palestinians broke over 20
agreements with King Hussein of Jordan threatening his regime, King
Hussein and his brother mounted a force in September 1970 and liquidated
a minimum of ten thousand (10,000) Palestinians and creating a 'Black'
September. This was not considered the use of excessive force by Egypt,
Syria, Iran, Iraq or the U.N.
Israel has exercised significant restraint which has led to the
What then can we conclude from all of this? Quite simply (as mentioned
earlier) the U.N., the U.S. State Department Arabists and the E.U.
(European Union) have coalesced into a strike-force, dedicated first to
truncating Israel and then eliminating her. Minimally, they wish to
establish a Palestinian State which presumably will not be another
terrorist nation threatening Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Oil States.
Mary Robinson and George Mitchell's investigating Committee are merely
tools for subverting Israel strength and sovereignty. Look for their
written condemnation, followed by a creative punishment from the U.N.
Look for the E.U. to attempt embargoes after the Mitchell Committee
concludes that Israel has used excessive force. And then look for
someone or some country to stand up for Israel's right to exist and
right of self-defense. You won't find them, unless our new President ins
a stand-up guy.
1. "US Congressman Blasts UN Rights Commissioner" by Janine Zacharia
JERUSALEM POST 11/30/00