Long-Delayed Cure for Arab Terror

By Victor Sharpe

IHC Abstract from 2002

This article emphasizes how the recent Palestinian massacre of Jewish worshippers at Hebron was labeled by CNN and Associated Press as having been carried out by “militants” against “settlers”.

The writer further notes how the victims of these massacres were “shamefully made a hot potato between two leftist political rivals.” By this, he means that the deaths were a direct result of the IDFÂ’s withdrawal from the Arab occupied hills surrounding the Jewish community. This withdrawal was ordered by the ex-Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Minister in the coalition government, Benjamin ben-Eliezer, in order to win points in his battle against left wing rival Amram Mitzna for leadership of the Labor party.

A suggestion is made in this article that every time an act of Palestinian aggression takes place, Israel should permanently take over the area from which the attack was launched as a deterrent to further aggression. Here is Victor Sharpe’s article.

========================================================================

I heard about the Palestinian atrocity in Hebron just before the Sabbath began. I also saw the yellow journalism of the media.

The vileness of the Palestinian massacre of Jewish worshippers is bad enough, but the egregious insult to the victims by the CNN and Associated Press usage of the term Palestinian militants is unbearable.

Are the Moslem hijackers who flew the planes into the Twin Towers called militants? Are the Moslems who bombed the Bali nightclub called militants? No, they are rightly called terrorists. Yet when Jewish worshippers are murdered, the media calls them militants. Equally the use of the pejorative term “settlers” instead of “worshippers” speaks volumes about the unbridled bias and insensitivity of much of the media towards the Jewish State.

There was an earlier massacre of the ancient Hebron Jewish population in 1929, when an Arab mob systematically slaughtered over 60 Jewish men, women and children. That was when the territory was under the British Mandate. Now a new Arab massacre of Jews has taken place seventy-three years later. This time the terror came, as the beleaguered Jewish community in Hebron warned it would, from the Arab occupied hills overlooking the tiny Jewish enclave. The Abu Sneineh hills are from where a Palestinian gunman recently murdered the little child, Shalhevet Pass, as she was held in her mother’s arms. The Israel Defense Force (IDF) later controlled the hills and held them for several months, thus providing relief and safety for the Jewish civilians below.

But the ex-Israeli Defense Minister and Labor Minister in the coalition government, Benjamin ben-Eliezer, ordered the withdrawal from the hills in order to win points in his battle against left wing rivals for leadership of the Labor party. The Defense Minister then precipitated a political crisis by withdrawing Labor from the coalition to win votes against his extreme leftist challenger, Amram Mitzna. This slaughter of Jewish worshippers could have been avoided if they had not been shamefully made a hot potato between two leftist political rivals.

The salutary lesson to the Palestinian Arabs must now be a complete and permanent liberation of the terror infested hills, which dominate the embattled Jewish community below. The area should be annexed to Israel and Jewish communities established on its heights. The hills should be renamed the Shalhevet Pass Hills and Israeli flags should fly as a reminder to all Arabs that there will be permanent territorial consequences if they continue to murder Jewish civilians.

If the Israeli government displays such courage, it will, without doubt, come under enormous international pressure – in particular from the morally bankrupt European Union, the United Nations and, alas, the present US State Department. But an Israeli government that stands firm and does not blink first, may yet reap an enormous blessing.

An armistice with the Arab world – never a true peace while Arabs remain loyal to Islam – can be achieved when, and only when, ancestral and Biblical Jewish land is systematically recovered from Arab occupation each time there is an act of Palestinian aggression.

Equally, the loathsome puppet master, Yasser Arafat, who pulls the demonic strings of Palestinian terror, must be plucked from his lair in Ramallah and dropped somewhere within the vast Arab land mass. There is no other way to finally end the horrific slaughter of the Jews.

Source: Original article contributed by the author, an IHC member, 16 November 2002.

The author writes on Jewish history and the Arab-Israel conflict.

© Victor Sharpe
Israel Hasbara Committee – http://www.infoisrael.net
You can find this article online at www.infoisrael.net/cgi-local/text.pl?source=4/b/i/archives/261120023?=

February 17, 2026 | 8 Comments »

Leave a Reply

8 Comments / 8 Comments

  1. Query:

    u.s.supreme court recognizes use of eminent domain to replace blighted neighborhoods

    AI Overview:
    +7

    The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized, and in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) solidified, that governments may use eminent domain to seize private property for economic development or to remove “blighted” areas. The 5-4 Kelo decision Wikipedia broadly defined “public use” in the Fifth Amendment to include private redevelopment, prompting many states to pass laws limiting these powers.
    The Institute for Justice
    The Institute for Justice
    +4
    Key details regarding the Supreme Court and eminent domain:
    Blight and Economic Development: The 1954 Berman v. Parker case first allowed condemning blighted areas for redevelopment, which was later expanded to include general economic development.
    The Kelo Decision: The Court ruled that transferring private land to another private owner for economic development is a valid “public use”.
    State-Level Backlash: Following Kelo, numerous states passed legislation to restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development.
    Definition of Blight: While Kelo allowed for economic development, many state reforms still permit eminent domain if the area is specifically declared “blighted”.
    Smith Gambrell Russell Law Firm
    Smith Gambrell Russell Law Firm
    +3
    Despite these rulings, the use of eminent domain for private development remains controversial.

    • Query:

      Mayor giuliani evicted families where drugs were found

      AI Overview:

      +8
      During Rudy Giuliani’s tenure as Mayor of New York City (1994–2001), his administration implemented aggressive “zero tolerance” and “quality of life” policies that included efforts to evict tenants from public housing (NYCHA) if drugs were found in their apartments, often referred to as “one strike and you’re out” policies.
      City Journal
      City Journal
      +4
      Key aspects of this approach included:
      “One Strike” Policy: Giuliani pushed for strict enforcement, allowing the city to move for eviction if a tenant, a family member, or a guest was involved in drug-related activity in or around the apartment.
      Drug-Free Parks and Neighborhoods: Giuliani expanded initiatives to rid neighborhoods and parks of drugs, often focusing on high-crime, low-income areas.
      Targeting “Stash Houses”: Law enforcement under Giuliani targeted apartments used by dealers to store drugs, leading to the displacement of families.
      Impact on Families: These policies were part of a broader, often criticized, strategy to improve “quality of life” by removing those perceived as disorderly, which included families in public housing who were sometimes evicted based on the actions of one household member.
      City Journal
      City Journal
      +4
      These actions were part of a wider, more punitive approach to social services and housing, which also saw increased pressure on the homeless population.

      • Query:

        were tory’s expropriated and expelled during the american revolution

        +6
        Yes, Tories (Loyalists) were extensively expropriated and expelled during and after the American Revolution. State governments seized land and property via confiscation acts, while many Loyalists faced violence or formal banishment, resulting in an estimated 60,000–100,000 fleeing to Canada, Britain, and the Caribbean.
        Wikipedia
        Wikipedia
        +4
        Key details regarding the treatment of Loyalists:
        Confiscation of Property: Many states passed Loyalist Property Acts, allowing the government to seize assets, land, and businesses, which were often sold to fund the war effort.
        Expulsion and Banishment: Prominent Loyalists and those deemed dangerous were explicitly banished, with some states passing laws that threatened execution if they returned.
        Violence and Harassment: Beyond formal laws, many Tories faced tarring and feathering, imprisonment (e.g., at New-Gate Prison), or threats from local Patriot committees.
        Exodus (“The Loyalists Diaspora”): Roughly 15% to 20% of the Loyalist population left the United States, with a large number relocating to Canada, where they were known as United Empire Loyalists.
        Compensation: The British government compensated many of these exiles, paying out over £3 million for losses incurred.
        Wikipedia
        Wikipedia
        +6
        This systematic dispossession was a core aspect of the social and political transformation during the war, effectively removing a significant portion of the population that remained loyal to the British Crown.
        Cambridge University Press & Assessment
        Cambridge University Press & Assessment
        +1

        • Query: abraham lincoln quote tarring and feathering

          Abraham Lincoln is credited with a famous anecdote about a man being tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail, who remarked, “If it was not for the honor of the thing, I would much rather walk”. Lincoln often used this story to humorously describe the difficult, uncomfortable nature of the presidency.
          Bartleby.com
          Bartleby.com
          +3
          Context: The quote is often associated with the early days of his presidency, around 1861, as a witty response to inquiries about how he enjoyed his new role.
          The Analogy: The “honor” represents the high office, while the uncomfortable, humiliating act of being tarred and feathered represents the intense pressure, scrutiny, and burdens of the presidency.
          Source: The anecdote appears in literature detailing Lincoln’s personal stories and, as documented in “Lincoln Talks: A Biography in Anecdote” by Emanuel Hertz, reflects his known use of humor in stressful situations.
          Bartleby.com
          Bartleby.com
          +2

          Lincoln’s birthday: February 12, 1809

          Belated Happy Birthday Abe

          “did lincoln expropriate confederate property and expel them”

          +7
          “Yes, President Lincoln signed into law the Confiscation Acts of 1861 and 1862, which officially authorized the U.S. government to seize property—including slaves—used to support the Confederate rebellion. While not forcibly expelling all citizens, these measures allowed the military to confiscate assets and free slaves in occupied Confederate areas.
          UH – Digital History
          UH – Digital History
          +3
          Property Expropriation: The First Confiscation Act of 1861 allowed the seizure of property used for military purposes, and the Second Confiscation Act of 1862 authorized the seizure of property and freeing of slaves owned by people supporting the rebellion.
          Expansion of Authority: These acts, along with the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, targeted the economic and slave-based resources of the South.
          Approach to People: While the acts targeted Confederate property and assets, they were designed to punish rebellion rather than “expel” citizens. Conversely, Lincoln encouraged surrender and return to allegiance, notes this Facebook post from Appomattox Court House National Historical Park.
          Pardons: Later, in 1863, Lincoln offered to restore property (except for slaves) to Confederates who took an oath of allegiance, as shown in this article from The Raab Collection.
          U.S. Senate (.gov)
          U.S. Senate (.gov)
          +5
          While Lincoln was initially hesitant regarding the constitutionality and potential to alienate border states, he signed these acts as military necessities”

  3. I have been suggesting a variation of this for a longtime. First of all, Israel should annex and control every square inch of Judea and Samaria, but since it either can’t, or won’t, then at least do this: Every time there is a terrorist murder, build a new settlement on land that the savages think is theirs, and name it after the victim of the attack. The settlement should also be built in a strategic location, and perhaps have an integral military post.

    1