The Worst Alternatives Prof. Paul Eidelberg

The Worst Alternatives
 
Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Mon Dec 24, 2012 8:28 am (PST) . Posted by: "Yaacov Levi" jlevi_us
 
Analysis of various parliamentary
electoral rules reveals diverse methods of dividing power between political parties
on the one hand, and the voters’ freedom of choice on the other.  Israel has the worst of these two alternatives,
 
A simple example is the “Personalized
Proportional Representation” system used in Germany.  There, the voter is given two votes, one for
an individual candidate and one for a party list.
The candidate vote is for a single-member district contest that is won by a
plurality. The second vote is for a
party list, and is used to provide compensatory seats to those parties which
did not receive in the single-member districts the seat share proportional to
their nationwide vote share. This is an excellent system. 
 
Obviously related to the method of forming a government’s
Legislative Branch is the method of forming its Executive Branch. Various
commentators—the present author among them—have argued that Israel should replace
its parliamentary system, which produces a government consisting of five or more
rival parties, with a Unitary Executive or Presidential or semi-Presidential
system. Let’s define these terms beginning with the latter.
A semi-presidential system features both a prime
minister and a president who are active participants in the day to day
functioning of government. It
differs from the parliamentary system in that it has a
popularly elected president who is not a ceremonial figurehead,
and it differs from the presidential system in that it has an executive
prime minister who has some responsibility to the legislature.
How the powers between president and prime
minister are divided can vary greatly between countries.
For example, in France the president is responsible for foreign policy and the prime minister for
domestic policy. In this case, the
division of power between the prime
minister and the president is not explicitly stated in the constitution, but
has evolved as a political convention.
Consider Finland, Although Finland employs a
system copied from France, the division of executive power is explicitly stated
in the constitution: "the foreign policy is led by the president in
cooperation with the cabinet". Most executive power thus resides in
the cabinet or Council of State headed by the prime minister.
As in Israel,
the prime minister is leader of the party gaining largest number of votes in
the elections for the parliament. He
or she has the responsibility for forming the cabinet out of several political
parties and negotiating its platform.
This arrangement, in principle, is not conducive to coherent and resolute
national policies. Logic, however, is not the last word in politics.  
Still, Finland’s Constitution has redeeming
features. Unlike Israel’s
parliament, Finland’s (unicameral) Parliament is independent. It can override presidential vetoes and its acts
are not subject to judicial review. The
members of parliament are elected on the basis of Proportional Representation
through open
list multi-member districts.
With an open list, voters have some influence on
the order in which a party's candidates are elected.
In contrast, a closed list allows a small number of the party leaders to
determine the order of candidates and gives the voter no influence at all on
the position of the candidates placed on the party list.
 This approximates the situation in Israel
despite party primaries.
Now consider Ireland. Article 6
of its Constitution states that all powers of government "derive, under
God, from the people.  To this extent Catholic
Ireland is closer to the Hebraic Republic of antiquity than one can say of today’s
Jewish state of Israel! But it also means that political parties must take into
account the religious convictions of most citizens more so than is the case f
Israel. This affects the balance of power between parties and the people, and it
favors the people, which cannot be said of Israel, where the power of the religious
is disproportionate to the secularists, and, as we shall see, to the advantage of
the latter.

Ireland’s Constitution provides for a directly elected, ceremonial President and a bicameral parliament in which the lower house is
dominant.  In the elections to the lower house, the voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no
candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the
candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes
transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until
one candidate achieves a majority.

Turning to the upper branch, the Senate: unless there has been an reported change,
Ireland’s Constitution prescribes that 49 members of its 60 members must
be elected from five panels of candidates having professional knowledge of, and
practical experience in, the following domains of public concern: “(1) National
Language, Culture, Literature, Art, Education and such professional interests
as may be defined by law for the purpose of this panel; (2)Agriculture and allied interests ...; (3)Labor, whether organized or unorganized; (4)Industry and Commerce,
including banking, finance, accountancy, engineering and architecture; (5) Public
Administration and social services...” Ireland’s Constitution thus prescribes a Senate consisting of well-educated personalities—professionals,
not amateurs who become instant legislators or cabinet ministers as do retired
Israeli generals.
 
Contrary
to the rulings of Israel’s ultra-secular Supreme Court, Ireland’sConstitution
explicitly states that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or
indecent matter" is a criminal offence.
 
 
Moreover, under Ireland’s Constitution the State must
"protect the family" and its "imprescriptable rights, antecedent
and superior to all positive law".
 The State must also ensure that economic
circumstances do not oblige a mother to work outside of the home.

In conclusion, the Irish Constitution is more democratic, more rational,
and more conducive to professionalism and public spiritedness than the anarchic,
ego-driven system of government prevailing in the State of Israel. Indeed, the
same may be said of the 80 governments I have examined and which are classified
as democracies.. 

I will go further. Israel’s present system of governance is less subject to
public discussion than the system Jews receivedat Mount Sinai. 

And so, to the religious and other Zionists vying for seats in Israel’s
Knesset, and who perpetuate its method of distributing power between parties and the people,  Merry Christmas! 

Islamic Cease-Fires Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:48 am (PST) . Posted by: "Yaacov Levi" jlevi_us

Tactical Hudna and Islamist Intoleranceby Denis MacEoinMiddle East Quarterly (extracts)Summer 2008, pp. 39-48The use by Westerners of the word hudna highlights an anomaly. Whenever journalists, diplomats, or commentators covering the Middle East use a non-English word, it will almost always be Arabic or perhaps Persian; seldom do they use any Hebrew words. Never has a U.S. or British newspaper, for example, used the Hebrew word for cease-fire (hafsakat esh). This is odd as Israel is the other side to these cease-fires. The majority of Arabic terms reproduced in Western language newspapers are concerned with either military topics (jihad, mujahideen, fida'iyin, shahid)[1] or religious affairs (fatwa, mulla, ulema, ayatollah, Shari'a, Allahu akbar).[2] There is nothing wrong with borrowing Arabic words. However, doing so without understanding the word's nuance and historical development will render deficient any understanding of that word's true meaning.Here, it might be possible to consider hudna somewhat of an exception—it can be translated accurately as truce or cease-fire. Its contemporary usage — at least in English and other European languages — is exclusive to the conflict between Israel and its adversaries, whether Islamist terror groups in Gaza, the West Bank, or southern Lebanon, or states such as Syria. In Iran, it is used alongside the Persian term aramesh.[3] Still, hudna retains a historical context that colors its meaning, if not in Western papers, then in Arabs' understanding.The concept of hudna deserves a close look: It is not a Qur'anic term, nor is it the only Arabic word for a cease-fire or truce; others include: muhadana, muwada'a, muhla, musalaha, musalama, mutaraka, andsulh. But hudna is the most prominent. It is the first word used in Muslim history to mean cease-fire, specifically in the context of the seventh century Truce or Treaty of al-Hudaybiyya, often termed the Sulh al-Hudaybiyya (peace of al-Hudaybiyya).Named after a village outside Mecca, the truce came six years after Muhammad and his followers abandoned Mecca for Yathrib, today's Medina. This move, known as the hijra (emigration) is of enormous significance for the classical understanding of jihad, inasmuch as it sets a pattern of retreat followed by regrouping and rearming, which permits an attack on the territory previously left behind.[4] In March 628 C.E., Muhammad and his followers sought to return to Mecca to perform a pilgrimage. At Hudaybiyya, Muhammad "marched till he reached al-Hudaybiyya which lies at the limit of the Haram [sacred territory of Mecca] area at a distance of nine miles from Mecca."[5] Muhammad and the rulers of Mecca, most of whom had yet to convert to Islam, negotiated a truce, the essence of which was to permit the Muslims to return unarmed on pilgrimage each year for the next decade. It came to an end two years later, however, following an infraction by a tribe allied tothe Meccans. In 630, Muhammad entered Mecca with a small, armed force and took the city peacefully. Hudna, in other words, amounted to a temporary truce.Today, radical groups and conventional Muslims alike often use the term hudna when they divide areas not controlled by Islamists into a realm of Islam (dar al-Islam) and a realm of war (dar al-harb),[6] or pagan ignorance (jahiliyya). The leading exponent of this latter concept was Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood ideologue Sayyid Qutb (1906-66) who, in his 1964 treatise, Ma'alim fi 'l-tariq (Milestones), wrote:Lastly, all the existing so-called "Muslim" societies are also jahili societies. We classify them among jahili societies not because they believe in other deities besides God or because they worship anyone other than God, but because their way of life is not based on submission to God alone. Although they believe in the unity of God, still they have relegated the legislative attribute of God to others and submit to this authority, and from this authority they derive their systems, their traditions and customs, their laws, their values and standards, and almost every practice of life.[7]For Qutb's fellow travelers and intellectual successors, Muslim countries that are not theocracies—any state except Iran, Saudi Arabia to a limited degree, or Sudan—are treated as though they had reverted to paganism.Fear of FitnaOver the course of history, hudna became the standard term to describe a cessation of hostilities during jihad. Muslims distinguished the hudna from other forms of disengagement, such as those applied to tribal feuds, clashes between city factions, rebellions against the monarch or his provincial governors, or fitna, sedition or civil strife. Fitna was the greatest fear of classical Muslim society, which aspired above all things for perfect order both under a caliph or sultan and under religious law as mediated by the ulema or religious scholars, and, more narrowly, the fuqaha or jurisprudents.[8]By being unaware of fitna, most journalists ignore something vital to the course of Islamic civilization and the development of Islamic thought. For all the greatness of their architecture, scholarship, and literature, traditional Islamic societies were prey to disintegration. Muslim societies lacked the stability of China. Western societies overcame such tensions by creating nation-states. This did not mean that either Chinese power or European states remained constant over time, only that they were remarkably stable when compared to Muslim dynasties—at least those that arose before gunpowder enabled leaders to retain control through sheer force….The House of IslamShould a Muslim victory seem remote, the caliph could declare a truce in the interests of the umma. Rudolph Peters, Islamic law professor at the University of Amsterdam states, "According to some schools of law, a truce must be concluded for a specified period of time, no longer than ten years."[11] Hanafi law, however, permits the Muslims to terminate a truce arbitrarily: The "imam may denounce the armistice whenever the continuation of warfare is more favorable for the Moslems than the continuation of peace," he continues.[12] Such a truce is necessary when the Muslims are weak relative to their enemies. It can also occur when there is fitna within an Islamic state.[13] These truces serve as protection against further violence to enable Muslims to regroup and gather their strength, whereupon they can issue a fresh declaration of jihad. Such a treaty is a hudna, distinct from sulh where the non-Muslim state pays tribute to a more powerful Muslim one, oran 'ahd, a covenant of security, in which protection for Muslims is reciprocated. ….What Went Wrong?What went wrong? Muslims face a horrid choice: Either God is punishing them for some collective sin, or God has abandoned them. It is unthinkable that communities like the Christians and Jews, whom Islam teaches to be inferior, or even outright idolaters such as the Japanese should enjoy the good things that had been promised to the Muslims in the Qur'an. But, there is a flip side: If enough Muslims believed that God is punishing them or had abandoned them, faith would be undermined, and Islamic society would break down….Modern HudnaWhat does this mean for the present hudna, or any that is likely to follow it? The jihad is waged against the entire world, but Israel has become its focus. Since the jihad is deemed unending, and since Israel is going to stay, there will be no end to the religiously-inspired struggle. The Hamas covenant, for example, is unequivocal: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals, and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."[26]The best that the international community can hope to achieve is a political solution, but this cannot occur unless a way is found not only to control the violent tendencies of the extremists but also to rework Muslim theology and social thought. There is no Muslim equivalent to Reform, Conservative, or Reconstructionist Judaism. Almost all the great Muslim thinkers of the last century have been deeply conservative….Can Western governments do anything to prevent a new hudna running its usual course? Diplomats may propose carrot and stick strategies, offering financial and political incentives to dismantle the culture of violence with disincentives for any return to killing. In the end, though, the onus is on the Palestinians and their allies. If they could impose a hudna on their own side and not fire Qassam and Grad rockets, smuggle weapons, or infiltrate suicide bombers into Israel, there could be a chance for Gaza to develop. But such a scenario is a pipe dream so long as Hamas remains a viable entity.Denis MacEoin holds a Ph.D. in Persian studies from the University of Cambridge. He taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University and was for many years an honorary fellow at Durham University. He is currently the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University and author of The Hijacking of British Islam (Policy Exchange, 2007).

Fw: Insanity Mon Nov 26, 2012 7:46 am (PST) . Posted by: "Yaacov Levi" jlevi_us

Two Types of InsanityProf. Paul Eidelberg The Ayatollah Khomeini’s disciple, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, is the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Nasrallah famously declared: "We are going to win [against Americans and Israelis] because they love life and we love death." In other words: “We Muslims are going to win because infidels love life, something transient, whereas disciples of Muhammad love death, something eternal.” This is why American and Israeli leaders are infatuated with short-lived cease fires.This said; let us probe two types of insanity, one manifested by Muslims, then other by assimilated Jews.  The Islamic love of death, or “Necrophelia,” should be understood as a mental disorder. We must face the awful fact that countless Muslims — at least ten percent of the 1.5 billion Muslims that support jihad —suffer from a psychosis latent in Islam, which is obviously immune to reason. This psychosis is most clearly manifested in the Taliban, whose police posted placards read, “Throw reason to the dogs—it stinks of corruption.”Of course, mental disorders exhibit gradations. But even mild manifestations of this disorder make nonsense of any cease-fire with Hamas, who use women and children as human shields. Evident here is a display is the crudest paganism, quite consisted with Nasrallah “we love death mantra” Mantra.But if Islam is the carrier of insanity, what shall we say of Jews? Judaism is reputed to be the religion of reason. What shall we then say of Israel’s cabinet which agreed to a cease fire with Hamas, that is, with unadulterated Muslims? Are the Jews in that cabinet also insane, indeed, are animated, subconsciously, by a love of death?If so, perhaps their subconscious love of death should be defined as a desire to cease being Jews, that is, to cease being the victims of Jew-hatred or antiSemitism?  But all evidence indicates that this desire not only fails to diminish Jew-hatred, but exacerbates anti-Semitism. And if this is evident, must we not deem such Jews insane—though some may prefer to call them stupid.Let us probe deeper. No animal, mouse or lion, desires to be anything other than what it is. The reason may be attributed to the fact that no creature other than man possesses a soul or “self-hood”; hence none would ever think of asking “What am I”? Another way of putting this is to recall Nietzsche’s adage that “man is the beast with red cheeks”—the only creature that blushes or has a sense of shame.  From this one might conclude that to enter into a cease-fire with a terrorist organization like Hamas is not only irrational but also indicative of shamelessness. What else is one to say of Israeli prime ministers who shook the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat or of Mahmoud Abbas. This suggests that the first casualty of egalitarian democracies is the sense of honor.Now let’s probe a little deeper. Can it be that Nasrallah’s love of death is indicative of a psychotic sense of honor is symptomatic of an irrational deity and theology—precisely the counterpoint of the shamelessness of those Israeli leaders who have abandoned the supremely rational God of Abraham? Recall the words of the Prophet Isaiah (44:24, 25): “I am the Lord that makes visionaries mad … that turns wise men backward, and makes their knowledge foolish.” Enter Benjamin Netanyahu. Yes, insanity is conspicuous in the Middle East — we saw it in the “Arab Spring.” It is also evident in State of Israel. Not because the people of Israel want regime change. If they really did, sanity would begin to flow into this God-forsaken region.

We Told You SoHow Israel can deal with the situation brought upon us by witless 'experts'.November 22, 2012by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed

We Told You SoAs a result of the Oslo Accords, we said they would attack us from anyplace we withdrew from.We said that missiles would be fired on Ashkelon from Gaza, and allthe leftist, delusionary peace seekers, claimed that we wereterrifying the public ­ and now, ‘Gush Dan’ (greater Tel Aviv) isunder fire.We warned that retreating from Gush Katif would strengthen ourenemies, but government and security officials responded arrogantlythat, on the contrary ­ withdrawal would increase security.We warned that abandoning the ‘Philadelphia Corridor’ at theEgypt-Gaza border would lead to the flow of weapons and missiles intothe Gaza Strip, and they said there were agreements with thePalestinians and Egyptians that nothing would trickle in from Sinai toGaza. And lo and behold, for years, a constant supply of missiles andother weapons have streamed into Gaza through Sinai.We said that retreating would bring Hamas to power, and they argued ­on the contrary, it would strengthen the P.L.O.We said that if, after the withdrawal, we have to fight them, it wouldbe much more difficult; we would have to fight in urban areas, and oursituation in the eyes of the world would be much more problematic.They argued the exact opposite ­ if after retreat the Arabs open fireon us, we will be able to strike them relentlessly.We asked: “But they will shoot missiles from civilian homes?” Theyanswered, condescendingly: “First of all, they don’t have missiles.Secondly, if they do fire a missile, we’ll destroy the houses fromwhich they are fired.” And now, when they constantly fire missiles, itturns out that from the world’s perspective, there is absolutely nolegitimization to bomb inhabited houses.Israeli MediaIf the mainstream Israeli media were honest, they would broadcast thetaped recordings of all the leaders responsible for the Oslo Accordsand the retreat from Gaza, so everyone could hear their foolishpromises, and realize just how distorted their ability to correctlyanalyze the situation is.If the media were honest, they would demand that all those whosupported retreat apologize before the Israeli people for what theycaused, and disappear from the public arena. Instead, the media invitethem into the studio, allowing them to talk freely, as if nothingterrible was done on their part, and they still deserve to beconsidered “experts”.No matter how much we criticize the Israeli media establishment, itwill still fall short of the harsh criticism it truly deserves.Alienation from Their People and HeritageThe only explanation for this painful phenomenon is that the centralfigures in the media establishment are alienated from their people andheritage. True, they do not dare speak badly about IDF soldiers, orresidents of the southern and central areas who are being attacked.But in their hearts, they embrace the “just” position of the enemy,hoping that if we accept the enemies’ claims that this land belongs tothem, the Arabs will then be ready to accept Israel’s existence withinthe borders of the so-called Green Line.Consequently, they believe there is no solution other than providing a“political horizon” for the Arabs, in other words ­ continuedwithdrawals. Any opposing position, relying on our right to all of‘Eretz Yisrael’ (Land of Israel), appears groundless to them, becausethey deny its moral foundation.What drives them to Believe in Delusions of “Peace?”It is generally believed that religious people are less realistic,because they rely more on their faith than on an objective analysis ofreality, whereas people lacking faith are able to analyze a situationobjectively, and as a result, their short-term assessments are moreaccurate.Yet here we have a situation where precisely those who are faithful toTorah, the nation, and the land assess the situation accurately,whereas the unbelievers are mistaken in their delusions and falsehopes ­ which repeatedly blow-up in all our faces.The explanation for this is that they are no less religiouslycommitted ­ to a form of idol worship. Their god is called ‘Peace Now’or ‘human rights’. This is exactly the sin of idolatry taking onevalue and worshipping it, without giving consideration to balance withother values.In contrast, Jewish faith is careful to state that God is exaltedabove all definition, for He is beyond all values, and all of them areincluded within Him. God desired to grant merit to Israel, and gavethem Torah and mitzvoth with the aim of teaching them to balancevalues. The leftists, who are alienated from their Jewish heritage,are searching for a god who will give hope and meaning to their lives.Many of them previously believed in communism, and embittered thelives of many people. Today, they believe in ‘Peace Now’, and bringall these troubles upon us.A Gradual AwakeningFortunately, a process of awakening is taking place among the public.Many people are already aware of the appalling bias of the leftist“experts” and the media, and of their alienation to their people andhomeland. Many understand that their “analytical interpretations” aremerely a type of ‘entertainment’, whose connection to reality andlogic is flimsy.In order to advance this welcome process ­ although doing so hasbecome boring and annoying ­ we must reiterate, over and over again,the guilt of the leftists. We must repeat “we told you so” over andover, and continue to spread the videos of their stupid remarks on thesocial networks.Besheva and Arutz Sheva ReadersSome might ask: “What good is it writing such things in the nationalreligious Besheva newspaper? Shouldn’t we try to get them published inother media outlets?”It certainly is important to publish such articles for the widerpublic. However, it is more important to resolve and define issuesamong the right, because they are the ones who can bring about change.People aware of the appalling situation of leftist “experts” and themedia establishment, can lead the necessary change. If they forcefullydemand change in the media, justice system, and academic research,which has shamefully inclined to the left ­ in a gradual process, mostof the people that support our position, will join in the call.The Long-Term SolutionIn the long-term, the only solution to the security situation is torestore Israeli control over the Gaza Strip. We must return to thesituation we were in twenty years ago, but this time, with the clearconviction that this land belongs to the Jewish nation, we havereturned to the land after two thousand years of exile, and we willnever abandon it. Any Arab, who wants to treat us with dignity andrespect, can live an honorable life. Anyone who wants to fight? Wewill fight him with all our might.To achieve this, we need to strengthen Israeli consciousnesssignificantly. It could be that even without proper strengthening, thesecurity situation will force us to return to complete militarycontrol in the Gaza Strip, just as the army controls Judea and Samariatoday. But even then, without a profound exploration of Israel’sdestiny, there will never be quiet.Currently Proposed SolutionsThe problem is that in the present situation, the citizens of Israellack the moral courage to restore our control of the Gaza Strip, andwe are left with the question of how to deter the enemy frombombarding our cities for the time being.In an attempt to offer a solution, we must first review thesuggestions that have already been placed on the table.Let’s return to the position of the leftist “sages” and the militaryleaders who lick their boots. Before the withdrawal from southernLebanon and the Gaza Strip, they declared that if after retreatingthey continue to bombard us, we will set southern Lebanon on fire,bomb the Gaza Strip relentlessly, and the entire world will identifywith us.As we know ­ these words are meaningless. It doesn’t matter nowwhether their statements were said out of stupidity or willfully ­ inorder to throw sand in the eyes of innocent Jews. In practice, had welistened to them, we would have paid an unbearably harsh priceinternationally.Currently, the leftist “sages” advocated a halt to the operation inGaza, and granting the Arabs a “political horizon” by returning tonegotiations with Abbas. If this weren’t so sad, it would be funny.How can negotiations with Abbas, who is hated by Hamas, curb theshelling from Gaza?! On the contrary! To show us who really is incontrol, they will shell us even more! And how could they possiblyimagine that if another Palestinian state were established, inaddition to the one they already have in Gaza, it would not fall intothe hands of Hamas, who seek the destruction of the State of Israel?If we listen to them, the problems they have caused us so far will beParadise compared to the hell that awaits us.There are some defense-oriented people who suggest sending troops intothe Gaza Strip, striking the terrorists, and then retreating. Theproblem is, the price we are liable to pay for this, in the life ofsoldiers, and international criticism, is not worth the damage done tothe terrorists, which at best will result in a short-term deterrence.A Change in Aerial Bombing PolicyThe most plausible solution is to increase the bombardment from theair, in three directions: towards houses and property, towards theterrorist leaders, and towards the supply of arms.We must announce that from now on, for every mortar shell they fire atus, we will destroy at least one house. For every primitive missilethey fire, we will destroy five houses. For an advanced missile, tenhouses. And for the most advanced missiles ­ dozens of houses. So theythemselves can fulfill They can then fulfill the Arabic curse “yourhouse should be destroyed”.If they damage our economy by shutting down the south, they mustsuffer twice as much. To avoid harming their citizens, we will have togive advance notice of the time and place of the bombing, so they canflee.Houses intended for destruction should, of course, start with thehomes of terrorist leaders and their surrounding neighborhood ­ forour Sages said,“woe to the wicked, and woe to his neighbor.” To winthis battle, such bombings might suffice. Of course, we will meet withhypocritical condemnation from the U.N., but not enough to causelong-term damage.We will have to return to the policy of targeted killings. The problemwith targeted killings began after the assassination of the massmurderer, Salah Shehadeh, about ten years ago. In that operation,fourteen other people were killed, including his family members andneighbors.Afterwards,the left launched a publicity campaign in Israel andthroughout the world against the IDF They demanded that the commandersresponsible be brought to trial. They also petitioned the High Court.True, the judges did not dare harm the commanders themselves; but withshocking irresponsibility, they caused the defense establishment tochange the procedures.Since then, it is extremely difficult to strike at terrorists. Theyknow that as long as they are in the presence of their family ­ theirlives are guaranteed. If we don’t want to endanger the lives of oursoldiers through land operations, it is necessary to announce thatfrom now on, we will also assassinate terrorists in the company oftheir families. Indeed, we will attempt to strike only the terrorists,but the proximity of civilians will not prevent us from taking actionagainst them.In order for there to be no doubts about it, and for the deterrenceof this policy to be complete, it is necessary to provide backing forthis position through lawyers, to announce it publicly, and if needbe, even to pass a law in the Knesset.And most crucial, army intelligence invariably knows when weapons aresmuggled into the Gaza Strip. Every such supply convoy must beshelled.