B’Tselem: Press Release: Attacks Against Settlers – Violation of Int’l Law

By

-

June 25, 2001

B’Tselem condemns Palestinian statements supporting attacks against settlers

In the last few days there has been an increase in fatal attacks on settlers by Palestinians. During this period, several figures in the Palestinian National Authority have publicly stated that such attacks are legitimate due to the illegal status of the settlements and the fact that the settlers are armed.

Statements of this kind undermine fundamental principles of both international human rights law and international humanitarian law. The fact that individuals live in a settlement does not affect their civilian status. This is a civilian population that includes children. The fact that there are many incidents of settlers engaging in illegal violent acts against Palestinians cannot justify such statements.

Establishment of the Israeli settlements contravenes international law, making them illegal. Since the settlements violate international law, the settlers have no right to settle there permanently. The demand to evacuate the settlements in the context of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement is legitimate. However, it is clear that this in no way justifies the attacks on settlers.

A fundamental principle of international law is not involving civilians in fighting. The position that “all means” must be used in the battle against Jewish settlement is unacceptable, and blatantly contradicts this principle.

B’Tselem urges the Palestinian National Authority to renounce these statements and to formally declare its’ opposition to attacks on settlers

Issued on June 21, 2001

Sacrifice of Israel’s Settlements?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 25, 2001

When the PLO states that Israel must remove itself from “all occupied territories”, few people question what exactly do they mean by “all occupied territories” – the general concept being that they want Israel to leave the territories conquered in 1967.

Such a concept has been convenient for all Israeli governments to accept because the alternative would be the end of the State of Israel. It has enabled them to cover up the Palestinians true intent: to return to what they define as the “illegal Israeli occupied territories” to places such as Umm Khalid and Bayyarat Hannun – Netanya, Tabsur – Ra’anana, Kafr Sabs – Kfar Sava, Qumya – Kibbutz Ein Charod, Wa’arat al Sarris – Kiryat Ata, Qatra – Gedera, Sarafand al-Kharab and Wadi Hunayn – Nes Tziona, Yibna – Yavne, Abu Kishk – Herzliya, Saqiya – Or Yehuda, Jarisha – Ramat Gan, al-Jammasin al-Gharbi, al-Mas’udiyya, Salama, and al-Shaykh Muwannis – Tel Aviv, al-‘Abbasiyya – Savyon, ‘Ayn Karim – Ein Karem, Dayr Yassin – Givat Shaul. These are just a few places mentioned among the 531 “Illegal Israeli settlements” occupying “ethnically cleansed/destroyed Palestinian villages” within “Occupied Palestine from 1948”.

The PLO has a website which lists column after column the names of the previous Palestinian villages according to areas inside Israel, placing next to them the names of the current Israeli neighborhoods, towns and kibbutzes which have taken the place of these villages. To gain a full perspective of what the Palestinians are really after, check out the website: www.palestineremembered.com

Interesting enough, aside from Hebron, there is not one Jewish settlement in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip mentioned as an Illegal Israeli settlement which has taken the place of a Palestinian village. The reason for this is simple. All land in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip has been acquired by legal means. Any land belonging to Palestinians in the “occupied territories” from 1967, remain in Palestinian hands. Not one Israeli settlement built on land conquered in 1967 took the place of an Arab home, village or land. In the following paragraphs I will detail how the lands in the “occupied territories” of 1967 have been acquired.

As final proof that what the Palestinians are really after are their previous homes from 1948, one needs only to look back to less than one year ago when previous Prime Minister, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians over 95% of the “occupied territories” from 1967 including parts of Jerusalem. If that is what the PLO was really after, they would have taken this unprecedented generous offer and built a Palestinian state on these lands. Instead they have launched a campaign of terror against Israel, which shows no signs of letting up. The negotiations with Israel exploded over the “Right of Return” issue – the return to the borders of 1948.

After viewing the Palestinian website of “Illegal Israeli settlements on occupied Palestinian territories”, one can begin to understand why all Israeli governments were willing to use the “Israeli settlements from occupied territories in 1967” as negotiating pawns (“Freeze the settlements”, “remove settlements” “give back! settlements”). It really is not much different from the way the Palestinians have used their Palestinian refugees sitting in the refugee camps for 53 years as their political pawns. What is totally unacceptable is the widespread intentional lie that the settlers are sitting on land stolen from the Palestinians. This lie has been allowed to prevail for the sole purpose of it serving the goals of the governments of Israel to distract Israeli public opinion as well as the world at large from the Palestinians true intent. To return to the “occupied lands” which today make up most of the State of Israel.

Particularly offensive is the stand the Israeli-left take in demonstrating against the settler movement living on land conquered in 1967. Their senseless allegations even after the final showdown between Barak and Arafat that the “settlements are the obstacle to peace” are inexcusable. Many of these accusers are sitting themselves in what is defined by the PLO as “illegal occupied settlements”. Their own flat refusal to negotiate over their own homes within the Green Line which are on the PLO’s list of demands stand in glaring contrast to their demands that Israeli settlers leave their homes (which were not taken from any individual Arab) and hand them over to the Palestinians, who never owned them in the first place.

The state of Israel had every right to take possession of the Arab villages and properties from 1948 which were acquired during a defensive war when the Arabs of Palestine together with five invading Arab armies sought to destroy the newly created State of Israel. Just like all the European countries which once populated millions of property owning Jews, (Poland’s population consisted of 50% Jews) never relinquished the property back to the original Jewish owners who were either murdered or to the few remaining survivors or to their descendants – Israel had taken possession of these lands for its own purposes. If anything, Israel had a moral right to do so, since the Arabs who either fled their homes or were advised to do so by the invading Arab armies were Israel’s enemies and out to destroy it – unlike the Jews of Europe who were persecuted for the sake of being Jewish.

Professor Yossi Katz, from the Geography Department at Bar Ilan University and author of 13 books on related issues, explains the process of acquiring land in the West Bank and Gaza. “The process of taking possession of the land in the West Bank after 1967 was done in a completely legal fashion and did not involve in any shape or form the taking over of Arab owned land.”

“There are three categories for possession of land in the West Bank and Gaza. The first category is purchase of land from Arab land owners. This was common from 1967 until the mid 1980’s until death threats were made by Arab nationalists on Arab land dealers who sold land to Jews. Even with this death threat over their heads, there are still Arab land owners who have been successful in selling land either in secret or through a middle man. This of course is a completely legal action.”

“The other category for taking possession of the land is through what is called ‘administrative territories’ – which means state owned lands. These state owned lands originally belonged to the Turkish government when Palestine was ruled by the Ottoman Empire (over a 400 year period). Meaning that from the start these were state owned lands – not owned by private individuals – which passed through various hands depending on who was ruling Palestine at the time. Afterwards these lands were transferred to the British when they ruled, then to Jordan when they conquered the territory in 1948 and finally the state lands became Israel’s when the area was conquered by Israel in 1967.”

These disputed lands – called “state lands” – never belonged to the Palestinians. All the Palestinians who fled their homes in 1948, did not own one grain of land on the West Bank. Any Arabs living on the West Bank and Gaza on privately owned land, continued to hold on to their land and grow, and expand without Israeli intervention.

“There is another category of lands which is called “Mawat” – dead lands: barren rocky lands, public lands. The state is allowed to declare them as its own based on the fact that no one is in possession of them and that they are not cultivated. To determine that these lands do not belong to anyone, the state checks the land registries, airview photographs showing the lands to be uncultivated and then when convinced that these lands have no ownership, advertises in Arabic in the Arab newspapers that the state has declared these lands as its own and anyone having any kind of legal deed to contest this is invited to do so. If any Arab is able to produce a land deed proving the land is theirs, then the state leaves the land to the Arab.”

“The third and smallest category of possession of the land, was the expropriation of the land. The expropriation of land was done legally. This is important to state because all the lands which the Arabs left in 1948 – four million dunams out of which 20 million dunams was land belonging to the State of Israel in pre-1967 were expropriated in the same fashion. Aside from the 12 million dunams of land in the Negev, there were eight million dunams of land left. Four million dunam of that land, i.e. 50% of settled land inside the pre-1967 borders of Israel was land left behind by the fleeing Arabs in 1948.”

“These lands were seized by the state’s Guardian of Absentee Assets after which the lands were transferred through a law called the “Development Authority law” – The Law for Transferring Assets, 1951. In this way the lands which were expropriated were transferred to the hands of the state of Israel. Since this same method was used for the expropriation of lands in the West Bank and Gaza, then if there is any question about it, it needs to be directed also to the lands within the Green Line which were transferred to Israel through the same method. All expropriation of land is part of Israel’s legal system. It is done legally.”

It is time to unmask the Plo’s true intent to take over the entire land of Israel. They see the entire State of Israel as “conquered Palestine” comprised of two parts: Conquered Palestine from 1948 and conquered Palestine from 1967. To be fair, the PLO have never concealed their true intent. They have stated it in their claims over and over. From the time of the Oslo Accords signed in 1992 they stated very clearly that it was their full intent to repossess their lands from before 1948. The Israeli governments are no less guilty that the rest of the world in hearing only their own rhetoric – that once the Palestinians have their own state on the “conquered territories from 1967”, they will be satisfied and finally lay down their weapons of war and live peacefully side by side with the State of Israel in the New Middle East. The legal status of the settlements in the West Bank and Gaza should not be a pawn in settling this issue.

Sharon and Katsav Refuse to Help Pollard

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 19, 2001

Israel succeeded in obtaining a pardon for Marc Rich, a billionaire fugitive from the law who never spent a day in prison. Israel even bailed Goussinsky out of his troubles with the Soviet Union, “rescuing” him from house-arrest in a villa in Spain. In both cases neither one ever rotted in prison for serving the State of Israel; in fact neither one ever spent even a day in prison. Israel has repeatedly demonstrated that it knows how to work intensively behind the scenes with foreign governments to achieve its goals.

But the case of Jonathan Pollard is another story. Somehow, the State of Israel just can’t seem to rescue Pollard. After all, what did Pollard do? He was no billionaire like Rich or Goussinsky, filling people’s pockets with money. All Pollard did was to give the State of Israel vital security information about the preparations Iraq and other Arab States were undertaking to destroy the Jewish State. This information, deliberately withheld from Israel by the United States, allowed Israel to be prepared for the Gulf War and for the on-going threat to her existence.

Message from America

A window of opportunity to free Pollard opened just before Passover 2001. A senior American official sympathetic to the case sent a message to the Pollards that President Bush would be open to a Passover request for clemency if it were presented by an important religious figure acting as an official representative of the Government of Israel. The official said he believed that such a request would make it easy on Bush to make this holiday gesture to Israel on a humanitarian basis. Pollard’s severely deteriorated health, the result of 16 years of incarceration in the harshest circumstances, would be factored into the humanitarian gesture as well.

When this became known, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, HaRav Mordecai Eliyahu immediately sought a meeting with the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. He was accompanied to the meeting by Minister Rechavaam Ze’evi, attorney Larry Dub, and Jonathan’s wife, Esther. Although Esther is not in good health herself, the result of a brush with cancer, she immediately put aside all else to fly to Israel for the meeting with the Prime Minister.

The meeting was held 4 days before Seder night. The original request had been made much earlier.

“Just the fact that His Honor HaRav Eliyahu was willing to drop everything on the Eve of the Holiday to go to Washington, shows just how convinced he was that he would be able to fulfill the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim and succeed in gaining Jonathan’s release, ” said Rabbi Shmuel Zafrani, spokesperson for the Rav and head of the Meiri Yeshiva in Jerusalem. “The Rav was willing to fly to Washington right up to the last moment before the Holiday so that Pollard would be freed.”

The Prime Minister is Not Impressed

The only one who was not impressed by the urgent message about a window of opportunity that had come from America was the prime minister, Ariel Sharon. “All of our attempts to even get a meeting with the Prime Minister were initially rebuffed,” Esther recalls. “We then enlisted the help of the Rechvaam Ze’evi, Minister of Tourism. It was only because of Ze’evi’s persistence that the meeting was finally scheduled. Even then, the Prime Minister’s office kept rescheduling the meeting, using the most implausible excuses, trying to frustrate us into cancelling. Of course we did not.”

Esther Pollard adds, “The Prime Minister’s lack of responsiveness to this golden opportunity was terribly disappointing, but consistent with his past lack of action. For example, some years ago I met with Mr. Sharon when he was Leader of the Opposition. I gave him a request from Jonathan that he write a specific letter on Jonathan’s behalf, which he readily promised to do. We are still waiting for the letter.”

After a brief pause, she continues, “I am at a loss to understand this kind of attitude on the part of the Government of Israel. We are talking about a bona fide Israeli agent who has done so much for Israel, including spending the last 16 years of his life in an American prison on behalf of the Jewish State, and I, his wife, have to plead for a meeting with the Prime Minister? Something is just not right here.”

HATZOFEH: Are you sure that the Prime Minister’s Office did not agree to your request for a meeting before the intervention of Minister Ze’evi?

POLLARD: ” Let me give you an example. A week after the meeting with Prime Minister Sharon took place, our attorney Larry Dub received a letter from the Prime Minister’s office responding to his original request for a meeting, made a month earlier. Larry received the PM’s response April 11; it was dated March 8th. It rejected the request for a meeting and indicated a complete lack of interest on the part of the Prime Minister in any aspect of the Pollard case. The letter indicated that “for all matters pertaining to the Pollard case [we should] contact Mr. Moshe Kochanovsky, who is in charge of this issue.”

This kind of insidious and insincere response from the Government has plagued Esther Pollard for years. It was the standard response of the Barak Government which re-appointed Moshe Kochanovsky, supposedly to oversee the Pollard case. Kochanovsky has no authority actually to assist the Pollards and he certainly has no standing in Washington to seek Pollard’s release He was appointed as nothing more than a “dead letter drop” to assist the Government in dispensing with the Pollard issue. In fact, Kochanovsky is so irrelevant to the Pollard case that Sharon did not even include him in the meeting.

Kochanovsky had previously resigned from the case before being reinstated by the Barak government. The Government claimed that Kochanovsky was responsible for all aspects of the case, yet in reality he had no authority to do anything to minimize the suffering of the Pollards, not even to help them secure financial assistance. For this he referred them to the Prime Minister’s legal advisor. The Pollards were told to submit a list of their expenses and receipts which would be studied and then a decision would be taken whether or not to pay them anything at all. This stands in marked contrast to standard government policy which assures that all agents in captivity receive a salary – no questions asked- which goes to their wives or families. But for Pollard, just empty promises and not a cent.

Larry Dub inadvertently tested the willingness of the Government to make good on its promises of financial assistance when Dub was invited by the Government to submit a bill for payment of his legal services. He was told that his bill would initiate a process to negotiate payment. Dub never saw a cent. Instead, at a particularly delicate moment when a case Dub had filed for Pollard in Israel’s Supreme Court was about to be decided, Dub’s bill wound up being splashed across the pages of the Israeli press, calling into question his motive for representing Pollard.

President Katsav Also Refuses

The message about the possibility that Bush would look favorably upon an official request to free Pollard for the Passover Holiday if made by an important religious figure, also reached President Moshe Katsav. Katsav was asked to include the Rishon leTzion, Ha Rav Mordecai Eliyahu, in his official delegation which was about to travel to Washington to meet with the new American President. To this day, Katsav has never officially responded to HaRav Eliyahu or to Jonathan Pollard’s request.

Esther Pollard: “The only response we know of we received via a third party, who repeated to us what he had been told by one of Katsav’s people. According to Katsav’s advisor for political affairs, there were 2 reasons why Katsav would not include HaRav Eliyahu in his delegation: a) because “only professionals could accompany Katsav” – an absurd claim, and b) because “if the Rav is so influential in Washington, then let him arrange his own meeting with Bush.”

Jonathan Pollard has written to Katsav in the past. He sent a letter to the President which was hand-delivered by Dani Naveh. In it Pollard asked the newly-elected President of Israel to mention his name in his inaugural address. Pollard explained that by mentioning his name when the eyes of the world would be upon him, and expressing support for the Israeli agent, his lot in prison would be eased, at least temporarily, and a new momentum for his case might be initiated. But Katsav made only oblique reference to Israel’s POWs and MIAs and no reference at all to Pollard.

In despair, Pollard again wrote to Katsav on May 13, 2001. Among other things, the letter said:

” My rabbi, His Honor HaRav Mordecai Eliyahu wishes to accompany you to your upcoming meeting with President Bush. It is his goal to fulfill the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim and with G-d’s help to secure my release…

Not so long ago, in your own hour of need, you turned to HaRav Eliyahu for help and asked him to intercede in Heaven on your behalf.. He responded to your request without delay, offered you comfort support and advice, and did all that you asked of him…

Mr. Katsav, isn’t it ironic that that when you needed the help of HaRav Eliyahu, you did not hesitate to turn to him, and now when the Rav turns to you for assistance in the name of Heaven, you do not hesitate to refuse him.

It is possible that you were elected to the Presidency of Israel precisely for such an occasion as this. If the Rav accompanies you to Washington to meet with the American President, G-d will be with you and you surely will succeed. How can you possibly refuse?

But Katsav did indeed refuse.

The Prime Minister Promises to Answer

When the meeting with the Prime Minister finally took place, HaRav Eliyahu, Minister Ze’evi, Attorney Larry Dub and wife Esther Pollard each reported to the Prime Minister, one after the other, that Jonathan Pollard’s very life was at risk. His health, they reported, is poor and deteriorating daily as a result of his long years in the harshest conditions in prison, and that if he is not released soon, he will likely die. Sharon listened politely, smiled from time to time, and appeared to be taking notes. “When we got up to leave we notice that what we assumed were notes on the important points of the meeting were instead just doodlings,” said Esther Pollard, who felt she was watching her hopes for the new window of opportunity for her husband’s release being dashed.

Finally the Prime Minister rose as if to signal the end of the meeting, promised to look into the request to send the Rav to Washington and to get back to them with a response.

“To this day we still have not received an answer and not only is Passover long since gone, so is Shavuot, ” says Rav Eliyahu’s spokesperson, Rabbi Shmuel Zafrani. He adds: “Over the years we could not help but notice that there is something mysterious and underhanded about the Israeli Government’s handling of the Pollard issue.”

No doubt he is correct. All the questions that have been put to the Prime Minister’s spokesperson for years, including our own questions, have all been met with the same implausible response, without exception. It is hard to understand how they do not get tired of recycling the same old response – which underscores their indifference – a response which is readily contradicted by the reality of how very little they have done for this man for the last 16 years.

Even the official Israeli recognition that Pollard was a bona fide agent came about only as a result of a series of lawsuits that Pollard filed in Israel’s Supreme Court. And by the time that that occurred in 1998, Pollard was already a veteran in the American prison system.

The only one who did not use the standard response to silence Pollard appears to be Binyamin Netanyahu. Unlike Ehud Barak who completely rebuffed Pollard, Binyamin Netanyahu did not see any harm in openly seeking Pollard’s release – especially after he had been in prison for 14 years and absolutely no progress had been made through “quiet diplomacy.”

“The unavoidable conclusion to be drawn,” says Esther Pollard, in fluent and polished Hebrew, “is that they simply do not want Jonathan out of prison.” She explains, “Why the Americans feel this way is simple: Jonathan continues to be a convenient tool for those elements within the Administration who have no use for the US – Israel special relationship. These officials routinely exploit the case as a means of calling into question both Israel’s reliability as an ally and the American Jewish community’s loyalty. As well, successive Administrations have found the case useful for squeezing dangerous concessions from Israel.

“But the big question,” Esther adds, ” is why is Israel cooperating? Why doesn’t Israel want Jonathan out? For example, Jonathan’s release was obtained at Wye as an integral part of the Wye Accords. According to Binyamin Netanyahu and other officials who negotiated the deal at Wye, Ehud Barak was well aware of this when he released the 750 murderers and terrorists who were the price paid for Jonathan’s release. When Barak released the murderers why didn’t he insist that the US live up to its end of the deal ? Sharon was an eye witness to the deal made at Wye. Why isn’t he insisting on Jonathan’s release?”

Pollard Turns to his Rabbi

When it became obvious to the Pollards that the Sharon Government was not taking any initiative to secure Jonathan’s release, Jonathan turned to his rabbi, the former chief rabbi of Israel, HaRav Mordecai Eliyahu.

HaRav Eliyahu has visited Pollard in prison numerous times over the years. His first visit occurred while Jonathan was held in solitary confinement in USP Marion, the harshest prison in the federal system.

As a result of a broken plea agreement Pollard was cast into USP Marion, where he spent nearly 7 years in solitary confinement. In the plea agreement, Pollard pled guilty, gave up his right to a trial, cooperated fully with the Government, and in return was assured a lighter sentence – the median sentence for such an offense being 2 to 4 years of actual jail time and in many cases even less. Instead, in complete violation of the plea agreement, Pollard found himself slapped with a life sentence and locked away in Marion.

“The Rav’s first visit to Jonathan in Marion shocked and stunned us. The harshness of his treatment was out of all proportion,” says Rabbi Zafrani who has repeatedly accompanied Rabbi Eliyahu in his prison visits to Pollard. “Right from the start there was a special bond between the Rav and Jonathan and since that first visit the Rav has consistently done everything in his power to try to free him.”

Among other things, the Rav has met with various American officials including former President Reagan and the late Cardinal Law who was the spiritual advisor to George Bush Sr. Rav Eliyahu repeatedly wrote to President Clinton offering take Pollard into his personal custody and be his guarantor. He had also made the same offer to the Justice Department under Bush Sr.’s Administration.

“If anyone would tell HaRav Eliyahu, ‘drop everything you are doing and fly to Washington to meet an American official in order to free Pollard,’ the Rav would drop everything and go. That is because he sees the mitzvah of pidyan shvuyim for Jonathan Pollard as being of the utmost urgency and importance.”

In February of 2001, the Rav again visited Jonathan in prison. He found Pollard in dangerously poor health, not getting the medical treatment he needs, oppressed in every way, sometimes even forced to work on Jewish holidays. If Pollard refuses to do as he is ordered he will be punished even more severely and deprived of the few inmate rights that he still has.

And what is going on in Israel in the meantime? To this day Prime Minister Sharon has not responded to HaRav Eliyahu. According to Esther Pollard, Minister Ze’evi spoke with Sharon after their meeting and learned that, “Sharon has no intention of doing anything for Jonathan Pollard.. not this week, not next week, not next month, and not next year. Not at all.” Esther said that Ze’evi told her, “I am ashamed. I am utterly ashamed of the response I received from the Prime Minister.”

What is Really Behind Israel’s Silent Treatment?

All of the Israeli figures who have at various times taken up the cause of Jonathan Pollard have met with the same response that is given to Israeli journalists who want to write about the case and who have been asking the same questions for the last 16 years. All are rebuffed with the same worn out excuse that ” Owing to the sensitivity of the Pollard case, silence is the best approach. Any publicity given to the matter can only hurt Pollard’s chances.”

The writer of this article asked Prime Minister Sharon’s spokesperson why it is that after so many years of successive prime ministers claiming that they were secretly working for Pollard’s release – secret initiatives that have obviously failed – why doesn’t the Government just come out now and state publicly for all the world to hear that it has not abandoned Pollard, that it has not forgotten him and that, in spite of any embarrassment that his case caused the State of Israel, Israel owes him a debt of gratitude. There was no response from the Prime Minister’s office.

The writer made a second attempt to get a response from the Prime Minister. I asked what he is afraid of? Netanyahu secured the promise of Pollard’s release as part of the Wye Accords, so what is there to fear? The world did not come to an end when this became known publicly. Even Bill Clinton didn’t faint when the name Pollard was spoken aloud. On the contrary, Clinton even promised to free him. Of course in typical Clinton fashion, he ultimately reneged on America’s end of the deal. Nevertheless, the question remains: Why is Sharon so afraid to collect on the commitment that was secured by Netanyahu at Wye?

A woman, one of the Prime Minister’s spokespersons, carefully wrote down my comments and my questions and promised to pass them on. She said that the only response she could give me for the moment is the official one: that the Government is working on Pollard’s release but can’t reveal what it is doing. I never received any further response to my questions.

All of this amounts to what is essentially the silent treatment.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer and Congressman Anthony Weiner have each separately attempted to find out once and for all, the truth about the Pollard case. In the last year, both of these legislators have had briefings by American Intelligence officials and have seen the Pollard file. Both Weiner and Schumer have publicly stated that they saw nothing in the file and heard nothing in their respective briefings which would even remotely justify the harsh sentence Pollard received.

Even the old canard that Pollard was responsible for the deaths of American agents in the Soviet Union has long been laid to rest. The true culprit, Aldrich Ames, was caught, indicted, and convicted of these crimes. But Pollard continues to be accused in the press by unnamed government sources” of crimes that he never committed. These claims are made only in the court of public opinion, never in a court of law where Pollard might have the opportunity to challenge his accusers and to demand that they produce evidence. There is, of course, no evidence. Nevertheless, Pollard remains in prison.

Following President Katsav’s refusal to include Rav Eliyahu in his delegation to Washington, I contacted Katsav’s office and spoke with his spokesperson. She said that Katsav had investigated, and his “sources” indicated that the only one who could possibly secure Pollard’s release would be a politician. She said that Katsav had worked and would continue to work for Pollard’s release. Obviously she must have been referring to those official Israeli “sources” who have been peddling the same old song-and-dance routine to Israeli journalists for the last 16 years that, “Initiatives for Pollard’s release are on-going but cannot be discussed for fear of doing damage.”

At this time, Pollard has two new cases before the courts in America. One of them seeks access to the secret portions of his sentencing record. Since the day he was sentenced to life in prison, in complete violation of his plea agreement, neither Pollard nor his attorneys has ever been allowed to access the documents again to challenge them in a court of law – a complete violation of his constitutional due process rights. The other case demonstrates, with full documentation, that Jonathan Pollard was sentenced on the basis of falsehood and lies, without effective assistance of counsel. Pollard’s American attorneys have asked the court to vacate Jonathan’s unjustly-obtained sentence and for the first time to hold a full hearing of all the evidence in the case. Both of these cases will take a long time to make their way through the system, and Pollard runs the risk of dying in prison before they are fully heard.

The new legal documents represent a higher level of proof of the justness of Israel’s request for Pollard’s release. Israel could use these documents to save his life, but has yet to act. Pollard’s American attorneys sought a meeting with Sharon the last time that he was in the United States. They offered to brief him on the legal cases and to assist him in his efforts to seek Jonathan’s release, if he were so inclined. Their offer was rejected.

“Look, if it were only me or Jonathan’s lawyers who were saying so, then you might be able to dismiss us. But in this case it is the Rishon leTzion, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, who is on record that we are talking about a man who is so ill that he is facing imminent death in prison, G-d forbid, if something is not done immediately to save him,” says Esther in a heartbroken voice, “and still they do nothing.”

Both she and Jonathan are ill. And, after sixteen long years that this tragic affair has dragged on, people are tired of hearing the details.

“But I will never stop fighting for Jonathan, and we will never stop believing in a miracle,” Esther declares.

This artcile ran in Hatzofeh Magazine on June 1, 2001

Colonel Rajoub Describes Israel’s Breaches of the Tenet Work Plan

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 19, 2001

[IMRA: Below is the complete text of an item prepared by the PA’s media center.

Please note the difference between the comments below and the commitment by Yasser Arafat in that first letter to Yitzchak Rabin on September 9, 1993 (and as repeated in the agreements): “The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations.”]

Palestine Media Center (PMC) Sunday, June 17, 2001

Today 17 June, Palestinian chief of Preventive Security in the West Bank, Colonel Jibreel Rajoub held a press conference at the Palestine Media Center (PMC). The conference addressed the continued Israeli settlers’ attacks and Israeli breaches of the ceasefire work plan.

The Colonel began by stating that the Palestine National Authority had announced a ceasefire in response to a number of Arab, regional, and international initiatives – the last of which was Mr. Tenet’s plan – that aimed to put an end to the bloodshed in the area. “Working with it [the work plan] represents a serious effort on the part of the Palestinian leadership, to establish a ceasefire in preparation for political negotiations.”

Col. Rajoub added, “For the Palestine National Authority (PNA), a ceasefire means the following: First, an end to all aggressions, beginning with the use of a firearm and ending with using warplanes. Secondly, a ceasefire means reining in on the Israeli settlers’ actions and their continued attacks against the Palestinian civilians’ persons, property, and pride throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thirdly, an end to all aggressions against the Palestinian land, including razings, building new Israeli settlements or enlarging the existing ones. Fourthly, an end to all the humiliating actions taken against our civilians on the Israeli occupation army’s checkpoints. A ceasefire also means that it would apply to all the Palestinian land, whether it remains under Israeli occupation or is currently under Palestinian control.”

He emphasized, “Occupied East Jerusalem is included to this area because of its status as an occupied Palestinian territory. Any aggression against our civilians in these areas constitutes a breach of the ceasefire.”

Col. Rajoub emphasized the PNA’s commitment to the enforcement of the ceasefire as a first step towards reestablishing political negotiations. He elaborated that in order to enforce the ceasefire, two things must be achieved. “The first being the removal of all the elements of tension in the area, including the siege, closures, releasing all the political prisoners, and putting an end to all [Israeli] settlement activities and controlling the Israeli settlers’ actions. The second issue is the immediate and serious return to negotiations, governed by a set time-table so that the Palestinian People can once again have hope for their future.” The Col. stressed that without the implementation of these two items, the “result would only be a temporary truce, after which the region would once again explode.”

The Colonel pointed out that the government must decide whether it considers the ceasefire applicable to the settlers or not. The Col. emphasized that the Israeli settlers’ attacks during the past week can only be considered as “a clear violation of the ceasefire”.

Col. Rajoub then emphasized that the Palestinian leadership and political forces “are united in their commitment to secure the success of the ceasefire.” However, the ceasefire can not continue while the closure, settlement activities, and continuous aggressions against the Palestinian People persist, the Colonel explained.

The Colonel underscored that the Palestinian leadership made its objections to certain items of the work plan known. Most important of these, according to Mr. Rajoub, is the Palestinian leadership’s rejection of creating buffer zones.

Mr. Rajoub also stated that all actions, present and future, shall be guided by international law and relevant United Nations resolutions. The Col. concluded by emphasizing that the American intervention came once an all out explosion in the region became eminent. He stated, “the application of international law and legitimacy is the only way to secure stability in the region. However, if Israel does not respect the sincere international efforts to bring about stability and peace to the region, it will bring calamity upon the entire region”.

The Conference concluded at 12:30 p.m.

Arafat Comments on his Conditions for a Ceasefire Continuation

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 19, 2001

Arafat, speaking to the Arab Monitoring Committee in Amman, on June 18, 2001: “The cease fire and all other security measures, agreements and meetings will not last if Israel does not halt its settlements, old and new, take immediate steps to stop its aggression, lift its military, economic and financial siege and its security blockade, open our international passes and engages in direct negotiations to bring an end to the Israeli occupation, eliminate Israeli settlements, let the Palestinian people build its independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital, and solve the Palestinian refugee problem on the basis of UN resolution 194…”

Source: Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, June 19, 2001.

Acknowledgement:

Yigal Carmon
President
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
Website: www.memri.org

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

A letter from Norway: A Call to Reveal Antisemitism in Norway

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 19, 2001

My wife and I are Israeli Jews living in Norway in the last years. I am a biologist and web designer and my wife is a chemist researcher. We established an organization that balances the media war against Israel. There are Christians and Jews all working together, supported by about 30 organizations.

The Norwegian press is mobilizing against Jews in a horrifying way. The same antisemitic arguments used 50 years ago are used now against Israel, i.e. Jews.

Pro-Israeli articles are not published in newspapers.

Pro-Israeli facts are not subject for radio and TV.

Almost every single day Norwegians TV and other media attack Israel. If they don’t find strong enough arguments, stronger interviews are imported from international sources, as long as they blame the Jews.

During the Holocaust it was Norwegian people who collected the Jews and sent them to Auschwitz, not Germans. The Jews here remember it and are frightened, so many don’t support Israel from fear of being identified.

Attacks on Jews occurred, even if not to the extent of physical violence as known in central Europe.

Emails with antisemitic stereotypes are every day “pleasure”. Last time I got an antisemitic telephone call was yesterday. A man called and told me that the terrible things that happen “down there” are because Jews continue to behave violently and crude, continuing their way as described in the Bible: people who abandon The Lords ways and every short period do crimes against The Lord and humanity. The reason why we all suffer there, he said, is because we killed Jesus and never accepted him as Messiah. He explained that it is natural that we now “kill Palestinian children and steal their land”.

The ideas are old and Norwegian media use the same arguments.

The mobilization of the main (governmental) Norwegian TV and radio channel, NRK, is well documented by the editor of the excellent Norwegian newspaper Dagen, Odd Sverre Hove. We can soon publish a translation to English of this three month work beginning from September 2000. He investigated every day media bias and published the report. However, Norwegian media, not only NRK, refuses to discuss any criticism of itself. Therefore, Israel is under a growing danger of isolation also by Norway and Jews are exposed to growing hatred.

Last Saturday many 700-800 Norwegians demonstrated for Israel.

As a rule, Norwegians do not demonstrate.

Please contact us to help Israel.

Norwegian expert on Norwegian media bias and Israel (klik below for JP interview with him):
Odd Sverre Hove, odd.sverre.hove@dagen.no
tel: (+47) 5555 9701 mobile: (+47) 9776 5024
www.dagen.no
private: p. (+47) 5617 0988

I will be glad to contact and help our nation as much as I can. I am available anytime for Hebrew/English interview: Erez Uriely, uriely@online.no
Israeli activist and organizser of media balancing activity in Norway tel/fax: (+47) 69921422; mobile: (+47) 917 06 146

Norwegian media bias – ‘the worst in Europe’ (June 18: 12:45) A demonstration was held by both Christian and Jewish groups outside The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) building in Oslo, Norway over the weekend to protest the pro-Palestinian coverage of the intifada. RM: www.jpradio.com/ram/010618hov.ram.

MP: www.jpradio.com/asx/010618hov.asx.

Thank you very much and peace for Jerusalem

Address and tel:
Erez Uriely
Seljeveien 18, 1825 Tomter, Norway
E-mail: uriely@online.no
Tel/Fax: (+47) 6992 1422

Where Are Arafat’s Secret Accounts?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 5, 2001

In the early morning hours of Friday,April 20, a group of armed masked men knocked on the door of the home of Jawad el-Russein in Abu Dhabi. El-Russein, the PLO treasurer, opened the door and was met with drawn weapons and an offer he couldn’t refuse — to accompany them. According to reports that reached London, he was flown, while bound, in Arafat’s plane to the Palestinian Authority. Only a few PA officials were privy to the secret operation. Even today, only a few people know where the man who was the senior money man in the PLO is being held.

Members of el-Russein’s family, who live in London, were given very sketchy information about his whereabouts. They say that he was acquainted intimately with the PLO’s financial set up overseas. They say that there are some PA officials who are trying to prevent the treasurer from sharing this information with others. “El-Russein is a walking time bomb for senior PA officials, including Arafat himself,” confirm Israeli sources.

El-Russein and Arafat are old acquaintances and their relationship is complex and charged. For years el-Russein was the PLO’s chief bookkeeper. He is familiar with the smallest details of the organization’s assets, how they are held, where, and who exactly has the right to sign. He is the man who knows the private bank accounts of the chairman and how PLO money has been spent from the early 1980s to this very day.

Arafat, according to reports, began to fear recently that el-Russein was about to open his mouth. And the distance from that to his abduction in Abu Dhabi was short.

The el-Russein family is not without means. The daughter, Mona Boanas, acquired infamy in British tabloids for her close relations with Culture and Sport Minister David Mellor. The family pulled strings and moved heaven and earth in an attempt to release el-Russein. Scotland Yard became involved (el-Russein is a British subject) as did the secret service, MI5, to a certain extent. The Palestinian Authority adamantly denied it was holding him. Until recently.

“PA intelligence agents are holding el-Russein in a secret hideaway,” confirmed here, for the first time, the speaker of the Palestinian parliament and the chairman of “Samad,” the PLO’s economic arm, Ahmed Qurei, a.k.a. Abu Ala. According to Abu Ala, el-Russein was not abducted. “What do you mean abducted?! He was legally arrested in Abu Dhabi at an extradition request made by the PA and brought here. He took a loan of a few million dollars from us, and did not return it. We are demanding of him that he return the money.”

Abu Ala’s version is puzzling in light of the fact that there is no extradition treaty between Abu Dhabi and the Palestinian Authority. The Justice Ministry there did not publish any announcement on the matter, nor did the PA. Moreover, why should the PA, or the PLO, lend millions of dollars to its treasurer?

According to articles published in England, el-Russein was abducted indeed. The reason for his abduction may constitute further proof to allegations raised in the course of the years about corruption in the PLO’s monetary set-up. “It’s hard to believe that the PA’s intelligence agents, who are busy with urgent matters, would get involved in such a complex operation, one that perhaps violates Abu Dhabi’s sovereignty, if this was purely a loan,” officials in Israel say. “Only a very important reason for the chairman could prompt him to take such an irregular measure.”

For Israel, the importance of the information stored in the abducted treasurer’s head is of even more urgency nowadays. The signing of the Oslo agreements in 1993 changed overnight the way the Israeli intelligence community viewed the PLO and the Palestinian’s economic activity, rendering it irrelevant — or at least that’s what they thought. The economic department of the IDF Intelligence research branch and the parallel unit in the GSS nearly fell into degeneration. The PLO became a legitimate organization and its money management were no longer of any interest to Israel. “Money that goes in or out of the PA does not interest us,” many in the security establishment were wont to say, “If the Palestinians choose to be corrupt, that’s their business.”

The el-Aksa Intifada changed this premise. The questions that had been central before the Oslo agreement, and which were neglected since, are now of interest Israel again. How is the Palestinian Authority funded? Does it make use of money given for welfare to purchase weapons or to augment its security organizations? Is it active inside the Green Line (particularly in Jerusalem and among Israeli Arabs) disguised or covered by other organizations? To what extent do organizations that do not bear the title PLO fund the Intifada? And how much money does the rais have in his pocket, in the territories and in banks overseas?

The answers to these questions could determine Arafat’s standing in the territories, his ability to persevere and his ability to influence the next moves in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In his book, The Armed Struggle and the Search for a State, the most comprehensive and impressive research ever done on the PLO, Dr. Yazid Saigh describes the rare access el-Russein had to Arafat’s most carefully kept secrets. The latter in 1984 appointed el-Russein, one of his oldest and most loyal friends, to the senior position in order to strengthen his control over the monetary and organizational set-up in Fatah, in particular. and the PLO in general. El-Russein made sure to transfer from the Palestinian National Fund to Arafat’s personal account, every month, between 7.5 and 8 million dollars, for what was termed operational needs of the “Palestinian liberation army,” a branch of the PLO.

A secret and internal Fatah investigation in 1993 found that to this account alone, el-Russein transferred USD 540 million. This account has never been under any sort of supervision and today as well, apparently, there are only three people who know exactly what happened to the money: Arafat, el-Russein, and the powerful secret consultant, Mohammed Rashid, the person in whom Arafat places full trust.

“When Arafat was the PLO chairman in exile, the organization’s economy was run by a system of notes signed by the chairman,” says Brig. Gen. Gadi Zohar, formerly a senior officer in IDF Intelligence Branch and the coordinator of government activities in the territories. He says “the person who truly knows the details and who handled the large projects is, of course, Abu Ala.”

El-Russein and Abu Ala know each other well. Abu Ala’s central position before the Oslo agreements, a position he holds to this day, was head of the “Samad” organization, or by its full name, “the Palestinian Sons of Shahids Project.” In practice, this is the Palestinian counterpart to the Histadrut with an economic branch called “Samad el-Iktisadi,” which over the years became a huge economic organization controlling assets of tremendous value.

The establishment of the Palestinian Authority forced a transition from an underground/operational/secret organization to an autonomous authority meant to be legal and structured, prior to becoming a state. However, this transition was not complete. Arafat, Israeli sources believe, did not order the PLO to internalize the change. “Samad” remained intact, activity-less, but still worth a great deal of money. Leading PLO and PA officials consistently refuse to divulge information about the extent of the organization’s assets outside the PA. Publishing these numbers would undoubtedly generate immense agitation in the Palestinian street. How is it possible, many would ask, that we suffer here from economic recession while PLO functionaries control huge sums frozen overseas without using them.

The fighting with Israel has generated a great deal of internal tension inside the PA. Lately, because of the Intifada, calls have again been heard to stamp out corruption and to invest all resources in helping the suffering Palestinian people. In the last several weeks, in parliament and among the public, the phrase “min heik hada laka?” (Where did you get that?) is frequently heard. This saying was originally said in the Egyptian parliament and was used by those fighting corruption, and is once again relevant.

It is very very difficult to determine what is the true extent of the PLO’s assets. […] The organization does not release information about its economic activity. Another riddle that el-Russein could solve for Israel is the precise nature of the link between the PLO and the PA to various ostensibly non-political Palestinian organizations. The most important of these, with whom el-Russein was in contact, is the “Palestinian Welfare Society.”

Col. Shalom Harari from the IDF Intelligence Branch, who is familiar with daily life in the territories, researched the subject in the 1980s and wrote a few reports about the Palestinian Welfare Society. “A real danger to Israel,” Harari described it, “political subversion.” The welfare society, the reports noted, purchases assets throughout the territories and inside the Green Line, supports families of killed or maimed terrorists, is linked to funding PLO activities, and forms alternative institutions to the Israeli rule.

These reports were greeted with indifference at first. The GSS was preoccupied with the first Intifada and did not attribute a great deal of import to political subversion. An unknown organization that gives money to schools, hospitals and kindergartens did not spark too much interest. The IDF Intelligence Branch was interested principally in the PLO overseas, so that the “Welfare Society” fell between the cracks.

This indifference came to a halt in 1988, after a group of experts broke into the computer network of “Samad,” the PLO’s economic branch that linked PLO headquarters in Tunis to its economic delegations overseas. The breakthrough exposed an immense monetary turnover and numerous bank accounts, mainly in Europe, and a complex network of ties and people handling the money. Computer experts realized that they had not uncovered the entire picture. They were under the impression that there was not one central bank account, but a mosaic of monetary reservoirs whose destination would change, usually, according to who the owner of the account was or who its courier was.

Close monitoring of the computer network sometimes showed the route of a money shipment, from its beginning as a mysterious grant, through several couriers until its final destination, for example, “shahid allowances,” paid from bank accounts in East Jerusalem. In this large web of private and official accounts, of couriers and anonymous donors, the name “welfare society” came up again and again as a central economic organization in the Palestinian world and one that Arafat sees as part of PLO assets and as an emergency reserve. From that point on, it was clear to the Israeli intelligence community that the “welfare society” should be of a great deal of interest to them.

In recent weeks, Harari’s reports and other materials on the “welfare society” were taken out of the archives. The dust-covered files suddenly took on new urgency and tangible significance. Israel believes that today as well, the “welfare society” holds extensive assets and money. Intelligence sources say that without much difficulty they were able to trace many funds of the organization transferred to purchase lots in Jerusalem and its environs, or transferred to Israeli Arabs, to the Bedouins and also to support the families of Intifada casualties.

These are not necessarily suspicions of involvement and funding of violence, which were also raised in the past but were never proven. In a crazy world where friend becomes fore overnight and yesterday’s allies shoot mortars today, what appeared half a year ago as legitimate act is today interpreted as political subversion.

A European group made a study this past year of the various economic aspects of the Palestinian Authority. In doing so it encountered over and over the name “welfare society.” With the help of various means, mainly technological, thousands of documents and notations relating to the society were collected. Due to (mainly political) disagreements among the group doing the research, it was stopped. The material, along with its initial conclusions, was given to Yedioth Ahronoth and it appears here for the first time.

Even a hasty perusal of the documents makes it immediately clear: this is not a group of community center counselors, but an immense multi-branched, intricate, well-oiled economic body, built like one gigantic knot of innumerable bank accounts, and a never ending chain of money transfers, organizations and sub-organizations. Thus, for example, the CV of a senior bookkeeper in the welfare society in the Palestine branch, Saliva G. Shada, under the heading “work experience,” writes that her job entails managing money transfers in the welfare society “from over 20 accounts in five countries in seven different currencies.”

“Despite the quarrels and the differences over the years between Arafat and the heads of the welfare society, Arafat views the colossal assets of the society that are invested overseas, along with “Samad’s” assets, as part of his ‘Plan B'”, says one of the directors of the European investigation, “this is his economic reserve in case he is forced to leave the territories.”

The European researchers encountered frequent unclear money transfers from the organization’s accounts to Arafat himself. Thus, for example, on January 1, 2000, Abed el Aziz Shakshir and Munzar el Halidi, two of the organization’s directors, sent a letter to Jean Pierre Bouli, director of the Arab Bank in the Geneva branch. They asked him to make a USD 150,000 transfer from bank account number 225.200.00.00.333 to the welfare society’s account in the same branch, number 225.200.03.00.333.

The senior directors serve as investment consultants and their private businesses fuse with the organizations supported by the society. In contrast to most of the Palestinian non-government organizations and non-profit associations supported by international bodies, the “welfare society” operates with the direct funding and almost exclusive support of private Palestinian institutions and Arab governments. The material collected by the European group shows that the means and the methods used to manage its assets and investments are more like an international investment organization than a humanitarian welfare organization.

Many of the documents cite two names linking between the non-government organizations and financial centers throughout the world: the Arab Bank and its owners, the Shuman family, the promoter of the welfare society, and one of the most influential families in the Arab world.

The welfare society manages most of the investments (cash, stocks, funds and real estate) by means of four international private investment companies: Inost Corp. — a company working from New York, London and Bahrain specializing in investments of private and public bodies from the Persian Gulf in the U.S. and Western Europe; Carlisle — a group that works in Washington, specializing in investments and in real estate companies and which today manages an investment portfolio of over USD 21 billion; Flemings, one of the largest investment companies in Britain, and Capital International.

As of today, the organization’s investment portfolio is worth about USD 50 million. In 1998 it was worth about USD 32 million.

In parallel to the money in investment companies, the society also manages money by means of an intricate network of accounts in Arab Bank branches all over the world. Today they have accounts in branches in Geneva, London, Athens, Amman, Dubai, Beirut, Ramallah and Gaza. More activity takes place in the Bank of Palestine in Gaza and even Barclays Bank in Jerusalem.

A small example of the extent of the organization’s activities can be seen from an examination made in the Arab Bank’s Geneva branch. On September 22, 1999, in this branch alone, the organization had at its disposal in cash a sum of over USD 10 million, managed by means of several accounts [the bank account numbers follow…].

The “Palestinian Welfare Society” is not alone. Throughout Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for many years, dozens of organizations and non-profit associations, non-governmental and international organizations are active. Various governments, the World Bank, the UN, the EU, private bodies and institutions and wealthy Palestinians, sent and still send hundreds of millions of dollars.

“Whereas in the 1980s a large part of these organizations were indeed welfare organizations, the trend of non-political involvement changed after the signing of the Oslo agreements,” says a senior Israeli security source, “we fear that some of them, who enjoyed complete autonomy from us, began to be used by the Palestinian Authority as a conduit to whitewash capital and to send it to East Jerusalem and other places in Israel.”

“Even if we ignore the information the security establishment has about the use of these assets, it is not at all clear to us why this money must be overseas,” says a source in the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem. “We are talking about enormous assets that the PLO still holds all over the world, and the explanation of an economic reserves for times of crisis, is not reasonable. It is inconceivable that official or semi-official Palestinian bodies, linked to the PA umbilically, continue to hold such a large quantity of assets overseas while the PA economy is starving for outside investments and Arafat’s subjects in the territories suffer from a low standard of living, unemployment and poverty. How, in these days, can they suddenly invest in building a computer center in Lebanon or in buying real estate in Saudi Arabia?

“The moment the independent Palestinian Authority was established, there is no justification of maintaining this body separate from the PA. Selling its assets and transferring the money paid for them to the territories could help in the battle against poverty, and therefore also against Hamas and be to the benefit of Arafat’s survival.”

Various declarations of organization heads of not being involved in politics do not conform to the facts. Thus, for example, one organization supported by the welfare society is the saraya, scouts, in Ramallah. Internal welfare society reports show that in 1987 alone, it transferred a sum of USD 100,000 to the scouts, money that was used to pay for legal aid given to movement members arrested in the Intifada.

One of the welfare society’s projects is called “children of the future.” The European group that investigated the welfare society had questions as to the real goal of this project. In the period between July 1998 and July 2001, this project was budgets with USD 289,704, a large sum for the PA. Israel suspects that the money from the project was transferred to goals that do not only foster the children of the future, or at least not in the usual sense of fostering. The suspicions relate to transferring some of this money to encourage activity related to recent events in the territories.

The welfare society claims that all the money is invested in educational projects, but cannot explain why the computer files show sketches of T-shirts for children saying “Intifada” and “el-Aksa,” as well shirts saying “el-Kuds” under a large saying “no entry.” These computer files were written a long time before the Intifada erupted, supporting IDF Intelligence Branch’s contention that the September events were planned long before Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount.

One document of the welfare society reads that “the organization today gives direct assistance to families of the martyrs, to rehabilitation centers and to those wounded in recent events in Palestine… in light of the emergency situation and the Palestinians’ urgent need for help, we have established the el-Aksa Intifada fund….”

A branch of the Arab Bank in Jordan manages the money of this fund.

Col. Shalom Goldstein, formerly of IDF Intelligence Branch and today Ehud Olmert’s adviser for East Jerusalem, says that the activities of Palestinian organizations in Jerusalem serves as a cover for the PA itself. “We have known for a long time on the use the PA makes of this. The Oslo agreements prohibit the PA from operating in Jerusalem and the Palestinian leadership understood that the most ‘legitimate’ way of circumventing this prohibition was to make use of those independent organizations that were already active in the city before the PA’s establishment.” […]

It’s not hard to find evidence of real estate purchases and other investments in Jerusalem in the European research. […] Among the documents collected by the European group, are also many sketches of sites in the Old City and in East Jerusalem, diagrams of the Temple Mount, aerial photographs of Jerusalem showing the key points and land registration papers for property bought by the organization or one of its branches.

Some of the big money that passes through the organization makes its way to the accounts of its directors. In terms of the territories, the directors of the society earn enormous salaries. The acting CEO, Victor Kashkus, earns USD 7,500 a month; the CEO in the PA, Rafik Husseini, earns USD 6,080 a month and others earn a bit less. All in all, the welfare society spent in 1998, according to the European group, USD 586,254 on salaries.

The researchers stressed that the society’s founders are also very wealthy businessmen who have economic interests of their own in the Middle East and their involvement is very pronounced. Thus, for example, Abdel Majid Shuman appointed on February 15, 2000 Abdul Mohassan el Kutan and Abdul Aziz Shakshir, two members of the Arab Bank board of governors, to manage the investment portfolios of all the companies who manage the welfare society’s money. This sort of work is generally left to bank clerks.

These wealthy Palestinians behind the welfare society are also behind the two main Palestinian companies for purchasing properties in Israel and in the PA, Padico and Jadico. They are owned by the Arab Bank and the Shuman family and Saudi prince billionaire Walid Bin Talal.

The activities of these two companies touch on, but do not overlap, with that of the welfare society, and not coincidentally. Upon the establishment of Jadico, its chairman, Abed el Majid Shuman, told reporters: The company’s goals, which numbers 240 shareholders, are the purchase, development, management and selling of property in East Jerusalem. Shuman even emphasized: “The company was founded to halt the Judaization of Jerusalem.”

And indeed, since its establishment, the company as invested many millions in buying land and property in the PA, in East Jerusalem, and some sources say, in other places inside the Green Line.

“There’s nothing wrong with government or non-governmental Palestinian bodies helping raise the living standards of PA residents,” says Shalom Harari. “However, I see the welfare society as very dangerous because this organization is building the foundations for a state within a state and for the cultural autonomy of Israeli Arabs. The society encourages creating separate institutions inside the State of Israel.”

The big question is how much money the PLO has. It depends who you ask. It’s hard to get el-Russein’s version at the moment. The CIA estimated a decade ago that the PLO had assets worth 8 to 14 billion dollars. This wealth was accumulated by a 5% tax paid by every working Palestinian in Arab countries. But not only taxes.

Until the Gulf War in 1991, says the French newspaper Le Figaro, the organization’s cash reserves amounted to more than 7 billion dollars. Arafat divided this immense sum among numbered accounts in Zurich, Geneva and New York.

The closing of the “International Bank for Credit and Trade” because of its managers’ involvement in terror and drug trading, in a joint operation of Interpol and the World Bank in July 1992, exposed many secret bank accounts of Arafat and his people worth millions of dollars.

The end of the Gulf states’ support for the PLO and the deportation of the Palestinian workers in the wake of Arafat’s support for Saddam Hussein, brought it to the verge of bankruptcy. Some of Samad’s assets were sold at the time to pay for the PLO’s day-to-day activities. It’s not clear which activities.

But the PLO, say Western intelligence assessments, recovered. In 1993, on the eve of the famous handshake between Arafat and Clinton and the White House lawn, the Scotland Yard published a report saying that most of the PLO’s income was from “donations, extortion, bribes, illegal trade in arms, drug trading, money laundering, fraud, etc.” In that same assessment, the British descried the PLO “the richest organization of all terror organizations.” In 1994 the British repeated this assessment and even stated that because of the Oslo agreements, the illegal activities of the PLO had grown and put much more money in Arafat’s and his colleagues in the PL O leadership’s pockets. This money was put into real estate investments and industry in various places, as well into Swiss and other bank accounts.

The GAO report of the American Congress accountant from 1995 estimated PLO assets at 10-13 billion dollars, with an annual income of 1.5 to 2 billion. The report has never been published in full and was classified top secret.

These estimations are exaggerated, Israeli and other officials think.

They are a result of a clever disinformation campaign put out by Israel in the 1970s and 1980s to aggrandize the PLO’s economic strength. Many of the exaggerated figures are from items disseminated by Israeli officials and delegates to the international press.

“The PLO’s assets are less than published,” Brig. Gen. Gadi Zohar says. “What they have overseas mainly serves as a personal insurance fund of the Palestinian leadership. Like every third world leader, Arafat too never knows when he will have to get on a plane and make tracks.”

Nevertheless, figures collected in Israel and elsewhere show that the PLO, today as well, still has very large assets, worth about a billion dollars. The list includes tax free stores at the Kenyatta airport in Kenya, at the airport in Lagos Nigeria, in Tanzania and Mozambique; the ownership and part ownership in African airlines and the Maldives islands; farms, shoe factories, refineries, stocks of giant companies like Mercedes, investments in large industrial companies traded on the Frankfurt stock market, Paris and Tokyo; land in Mayfair London, shares in the Monte Carlo radio station and other radio stations.

The PLO is also the owner, or was in the past, of many newspapers (one of which, Sawat el Bilad, was edited by Mohammed Rashid when he was in his revolutionary stage) and many buildings in Cyprus, Greece, France, Spain, Jerusalem and Lebanon.

And in the meantime, the economic situation in the territories is harder than ever. More than 30% of the population lives on less than $2.10 a day. Unemployment is rampant and the economy has suffered from the Intifada. The official debt of the PA has grown from USD 1.7 billion in 1995 to USD 3.8 in 1999.

Officially, PA spokespeople say they are doing all they can to transfer PLO assets to “Palestine.” Mohammed Rashid declared that he personally is in charge of the process meant to dismantle the PLO’s economic empire. Chairman of the Palestinian National Council Salim Zaanoun claims that he heads a committee meant to restore Palestinian assets from Syria and Lebanon from the hands of private people who fraudulently took them over.

The Palestinian media, apropos Zaanoun, has published in the last few months reports about his private fortune, proving there are other sides in addition to suffering in being a senior Palestinian official. These reports say that Zaanoun bought a large house in Amman for him and his family, costing 7 million dinar (around USD 10 million). Zaanoun claims this building was bought for the PNC and cost 210,000 dinar only.

Senior sources in the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, responsible for monitoring the money donated to the PA, say that in violation of promises, the PA is not transparent of PLO assets overseas. They say there is no indication that Arafat plans to sell any of them soon and use them for his people’s benefit.

“Write whatever you like,” Abu Ala says, chairman of the PLO economic wing. He also says that “Samad” no longer exists in practice. […] He says: “We moved Samad here. It was established in Lebanon and remained in Lebanon until it was destroyed by the Israeli army. They destroyed the factory and the workshops belonging to Samad and even stole some of our textile machines.”

Question: What about the farms in Africa?

Abu Ala: “Yes, we have a few large projects with a few African countries, but nothing close to the propaganda you have.”

Question: And the duty free shops?

Abu Ala: “We’ve sold them all, there’s nothing left.”

Question: And your assets in Syria, the offices, the land, the money?

Abu Ala: “We have some assets in Syria. So what?”

This feature appeared in Yediot Aharonot on June 1, 2001

How to Stop Terrorism

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 5, 2001

The horrible murders of the last few days are tearing at the hearts of the whole nation, and causing a feeling of no way out for some of us. We are being told that terrorism cannot be stopped at all, and certainly not by military means. I completely disagree with this statement. Terrorism can be stopped only by rehabilitating Israel’s power of deterrence and the willingness to employ it when needed.

Netanyahu Speaks

We stopped the terrorism from Egypt and Jordan using military means, many years before there were any sort of diplomatic processes with them. But there is no need to look back decades. In the three years of my government’s tenure, we took terrorism off the national agenda. In 1996 we were elected to stop the wave of buses exploding and suicide bombers. In the 1999 elections, the security issue was no longer on the table. After three years that were nearly completely quiet and safe, I handed over to my successor a tranquil country whose citizens had a sense of security.

Arafat is the same Arafat, Hamas is the same Hamas, and the suicide bombers are the same suicide bombers. What has changed?

During my government’s tenure, we rehabilitated Israel’s power of deterrence, and would not accept terrorism as part of our daily routine.

Following our firm reaction to the events of the Hasmonean Tunnel and the three terrorist attacks in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Arafat understood three things:

That I am prepared to use the IDF’s full force against the Palestinian Authority, even to the extent of toppling it.
That the ministers supported this policy.
That the government I headed would employ this policy despite all the international pressure.

Understanding the threat from us to his regime caused Arafat to take action against the Islamic terrorist organizations and to lock up terrorists. After the 1999 elections, Israel’s policy was changed utterly and completely. The government that replaced mine returned to the policy of the Oslo government: it expressed a willingness for excessive concessions to the Palestinians, including under fire (and even hurriedly withdrew from Lebanon). As in the days of Oslo, the result was the same: a wave of terror once again engulfed the country.

In order to bring the power of deterrence back to Israel, we have to once again insist on three things:

Israel is prepared to use any power necessary to stop the terror, including to the extent of paralyzing the Palestinian Authority and causing its collapse. Arafat is not worried about his people, upon whom he has brought one disaster after another, but he is certainly worried about his continued rule.
The government must stand together behind this policy, which the majority of the people support.
Israel will explain to international public opinion that we are implementing the natural right of any country to defend its citizens. This PR campaign is ever so much simpler with the present American administration, and with a coordinated diplomatic-PR effort, it will succeed.

These steps will bring about a halt to terror, and perhaps even before the Palestinian Authority collapses. But should Arafat not understand this, his successors will surely have learnt the lesson. In order to survive in power they will have to stop the terrorism against us.

The key to stopping the terror is not in the identity of the regime facing us or its intentions, but in deterrence. Arafat will not forsake the ideology of destroying Israel, which was once again exposed at Camp David. But he, or his successor, will stop the terrorism when they are forced to choose between it and the continuation of their rule. Ghadaffi is the same Ghadaffi, but he forsook terrorism when the U.S. bombed Libya and imposed heavy sanctions on it. North Korea is the same North Korea, but it too has moved away from using terrorism as a result of the incredible economic and international damage that terrorism had caused it.

The conception of Oslo, which is that relations of peace with the Palestinian can be established based on the assumption that they had altered their intentions towards Israel, was mistaken. In its place, the concept of security which has served Israel since its establishment, which brought about the cessation of fighting with two of our neighbors, and which ultimately enabled the establishing of peaceful relations with them, must be brought back: a strong Israel which knows how to stand up for itself and is prepared to use its power when necessary.

This article ran in Maariv on June 3, 2001

Sara Blaustein’s Son Mourns a Murdered Mother

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 5, 2001

You’d never know it from looking at her, but apparently my mother was a dangerous woman. On Tuesday, she was shot to death on her way to what must have been a sinister deed. Why else would she be killed in a horrible manner? If the gunmen who so callously ripped my mother away from me felt that they needed to put a bullet through her head in order to stop her, she must have been quite a dangerous woman indeed.

Oh, she put up a good front, though. On the outside, you’d never know my mother was this scheming devil, like these anonymous shooters seemed to have known. To her husband, she seemed like the loving woman he married fourteen years ago. To her children, she seemed like the stern but nurturing mother of her four kids. To her granddaughters, she was the doting Savta that brought them treats. And to her neighbors, she was a caring friend who would do anything asked of her.

But my question to the shooters is this: If my mother was so dangerous that she needed to be killed in order to stop her, when did she have time to do all of her nefarious planning? Was it before she saw her daughter off to school in the mornings? Perhaps it was between her prayers, recited daily? Or maybe it was when she was on her way to her classes every day, where she learned Holy Scriptures in holy sites.

I lived with my mother for twenty-three years, and she must have had me fooled but good. Here I thought she was a kind woman who delighted in entertaining guests whenever the opportunity arose. A woman who volunteered her time and money to charitable organizations of all sorts. A woman whose loss is being felt in communities spanning from her childhood home in Bensonhurst and the entire New York City area, to the home of her dreams in Israel.

Thousands of people came to her funeral on Wednesday night to mourn for her and weep over her grave, but these thousands of people must have been wrong. The men that drove by and killed her must have been right. Because only a terrible person deserves to be left so unprotected by her government, to allow her to be killed so brutally. And besides, if she were any good at all, wouldn’t her government exact some measure of justice? Of course it would.

But my mother is dead. She was shot by a passing car on the highway. And nothing was done about it. Apparently her killers were right – my mother was a dangerous woman.

Yoni Berg

On behalf of himself and the other mourning children of Sara Blaustein: Adena Mark, Samuel Berg, Atara Blaustein

June 1, 2001

Sara Blaustein: A Man Remembers His Murdered Wife

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 5, 2001

My wife, Sara Blaustein, was brutally murdered in a drive-by shooting by Arab terrorists last Tuesday on the road from our home in Efrat to Jerusalem. We had moved to Israel with our 13 year old daughter, Atara, last summer fulfilling our life’s dream of living in the Land of Israel. My wife’s life revolved around her family, which meant more than just her husband and children, but by extension included the entire Jewish world. Anyone who ever needed any kind of charity – be it food, money, volunteering, or any other means of help – never came away from her empty-handed. The driving force of her personality, which was helping others at all costs, made it easy for her to make the transition to life in Israel. She instantly found her niche in the town of Efrat, where she continued to attend to her fellow-man at every opportunity.

My wife and I are among the 200,000 Jewish Israeli citizens of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Often, we are referred to as “settlers”, which to many connotes some form of fanaticism. Actually, my Sara was a perfect example of a member of our community. She was not an extremist in any way. She was simply another Jewish citizen returning to her national home.

Her outlook on life was that of a true American – she firmly believed in the ideal of justice and equality for all its citizens. Her faith in American values makes her loss all the more tragic, because it was American policy that lead directly to her death.

I was astonished to discover that the United States has a website offering a reward for the capture of any terrorist who acts against American citizens worldwide EXCEPT for acts of Arab terrorism. Such a blatantly racist and anti-Semitic policy was nothing short of an invitation for the gunmen to kill my wife. But more than that, it was a betrayal of the faith she had in the American government, and in the American way of life which she cherished so much.

Adding insult to injury, there was no representative of the United States government at her funeral. When contacted, the embassy claimed that Efrat was out of their jurisdiction, while the American Consul-General refused to send anyone in order not to make “a political statement.” Aside from this being callous, it’s extremely hypocritical. In 1996, the Consul-General at the time, Ed Abington (who now works for Yasser Arafat in Washington) made a condolence call to the Arab village of Husan – minutes away from where my wife was murdered. The Consul-General went to console a family whose son had been killed.

Yet my family, now sitting Shiva, has not merited a visit from our country’s representatives. Why is there political discrimination in American consolation policy between Arabs and Jews?

The juxtaposition of all these things – the lack of US reward for the capture of Arab terrorists, the imposed restraint by the US on Israel from pursuing my wife’s killers, and the lack of common decency by the American government in failing to pay a mere condolence call – leaves me feeling not only abandoned by a cold, unfeeling government which does not seem to care about a murdered American, but also betrayed by a policy which must share in the responsibility for that murder.

Norman Blaustein

June 1, 2001

Israel Behind the News

B’Tselem: Press Release: Attacks Against Settlers – Violation of Int’l Law

Sacrifice of Israel’s Settlements?

Sharon and Katsav Refuse to Help Pollard

Colonel Rajoub Describes Israel’s Breaches of the Tenet Work Plan

Arafat Comments on his Conditions for a Ceasefire Continuation

A letter from Norway: A Call to Reveal Antisemitism in Norway

Where Are Arafat’s Secret Accounts?

How to Stop Terrorism

Sara Blaustein’s Son Mourns a Murdered Mother

Sara Blaustein: A Man Remembers His Murdered Wife

Column from the Director