This week in the official Palestinian Authority media

This week, the Palestinian press dwelt on the Palestinian achievements in the Camp David summit, and how Israel was pulled closer to the positions held by the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). In one interview, Palestinian negotiator Saib Arikat recounted an important conversation between President Bill Clinton and P.A. Chairman Yasser Arafat, the conversation, in fact, that brought about the failure of the Camp David summit. In the conversation, Clinton attempts to persuade Arafat to settle for the concessions offered by Israel which included, among others, the dismantling of all the Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip, an exchange of territories, and a withdrawal from 90% of Judea and Samaria:

Arikat: “While the President [Arafat] listened, the American leaders stated their warnings [about the consequences of refusal]. They did not stop until he [Arafat] retorted: ‘Thank you very much for the effort you put in, but I am not prepared to agree to treason and I will never agree to give the Israelis any sovereignty whatsoever on any part of Jerusalem. We are weak now, but [some day] some one will come who will liberate [the city]’.”

Arikat added that Clinton became angry and said: “Good, go back to Gaza as a hero, and be the hero in the eyes of the Christians and the Moslems… but you will return and remain isolated in the Middle East; the Barak goverenment is on the verge of collapse, and the peace process will collapse.”

President Yasser Arafat replied to Clinton: “We are prepared to work on the peace process… day by day and hour by hour, but I will not agree that [even] one inch of Jerusalem will be under Israeli sovereignty.”

Clinton retorted: “Gaza will be cleansed of settlers, there will be a road between the West Bank and Gaza, absolute Palestinian control of the passages, the Palestinian state will be declared on 90% of the West Bank, there will an exchange of territory, and their will be Palestinian control over many religious sites in Jerusalem!” The President responded to Clinton, “You don’t see the picture in its totality, which is that I came [here to Camp David] with a broken heart because I am negotiating on only 22% of historical Palestine, and this is the painful concession that remains with the the Palestinian people; I will not concede more than that and the Palestinian people will never weaken. [Al Ayyam, 8 August 2000].

In another interview, Arikat described the Israeli proposal to divide Jerusalem, including the proposal that “the seat of the Palestinian government will be in the area of the Temple Mount”:

“…[Saib Arikat] said… ‘Israel submitted proposals to divide Jerusalem into a number of districts, where districts that are outside the borders of Jerusalem, that we don’t recognize to begin with, will be subject to Palestinian sovereignty; a few neighborhoods inside Jerusalem will be subject to full Palestinian autonomy, and a municipal body will be established to administer Jerusalem’s affairs. And side by side, there will be Palestinian sovereignty over the holy places and the seat of the Palestinian government will be in the area of Ha-ram (the Temple Mount), and Israel will hold the remaining sovereignty at the bottom of the illustrious Ha-ram (Temple Mount) of Jerusalem… Arikat [also] said that the subject of the refugees was a major point of contention during conversations that took place in the course of the summit.” [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 13 August 2000].

After the recent events in Lebanon, Israel is seen by Palestinian society as a nation that cannot endure adversity and military challenges, as opposed to the Palestinians who are prepared to sacrifice and fight for their cause. The Palestinians view this as Israel’s Achilles’ heel and they intend to use the threat of violence, as well as controlled actual violence, to weaken Israel’s resolve and ability to hold on to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This position was expressed this week by a leading member of the United National Front of the Villages of ’48, Yusuf Alsalem:

“…Alsalem emphasized that Barak has no other option but to acknowledge the Palestinian rights that are recognized by international law… especially since our Palestinian people. are prepared to make sacrifices in order to achieve independence; as for the Israeli people, it cannot tolerate the consequences of continuing violence and bloodshed, from a psychological, economic, and social standpoint…”. [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 13 August 2000].

At the same time that the P.A. is discussing peace with Israel, messages of the Palestinians’ not coming to terms with Israel’s existence as well as not recognizing her existence, are accentuated over and over in every newspaper and periodical, often quite explicitly, as in the following examples:

“Minister of Justice Farich Abu Midyen… called for ‘co-existence with the Israelis, in accordance with the example of South Africa or other bi-national states, but the problem is that the Israelis want a Jewish state”. [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 10 August 2000].

The Secretary-General of the Movement for the Islamic Struggle: “Jerusalem never was the capital of the Hebrew state and we will note what is emphasized in the Koran: The end of the Zionist entity is a Koranic necessity, there is no place for [Israel] no matter how long it takes [to disappear]…” [Palestinian Television 6 August 2000].

At times, the tool for expressing this non-acceptance of Israel is the use of terminology of non-recognition. For example, defining Israeli cities as “Palestinian cities”, or characterizing Israel as “the occupation”. The following are a few examples:

“The city of Akko (Acre) in occupied Palestine… [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 10 August 2000]. “The occupation tried to entice the residents of Um Al-Farg… which is near Nahariya, and the occupation set up at the site of the village the ‘Ben Ami’ base…”… [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 10 August 2000].

Crossword puzzle clues: “A Palestinian city”. The correct answers are “Akko (Acre)” and “Nazareth”. [Al Quds, 6 August 2000]. The Justice Minister Farich Abu Midyen refers to Israel as the “Hebrew State” [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 10 August 2000]. The expressions, “the settlement of Kfar Veradim” and “the settlement of Ma’a lot” are used to refer to Israeli towns and cities within the Green Line [Al Ayyam, 10 August 2000].

The press frequently contains announcements of activities that emphasize the Palestinian refusal to come to terms with Israel, such as trips to “… regions that were captured in 1948 – in order that the children will be aware of the Palestinian cities and areas from which the residents were expelled…”

Lately, there are reports of the cultivating and strengthening of the links between the P.A. and Hamas:

“… Salim Alzanun [the chairman of the Palestinian National Council] said: ‘At the present stage, we have decided to enter into a national dialog with Hamas and the [Islamic] Jihad, with the goal of including them in the P.L.O. and its institutions…” [Al Hayat Al-Jadida, 6 August 2000].

Israeli Arabs continue to be portrayed in the Palestinian media as Palestinians who represent the Palestinians vis-a-vis Israel. Knesset member Ahmad Tibi recently appeared on a television program where he complemented Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak by stating that Barak really and truly aspires to peace, but added that Barak must stake out a bolder position, in order to conform to the desires of the Arabs. For the duration of the interview, whenever M. K. Tibi spoke of the Palestinians, he used the first person plural, i.e., “we” or “our society” and the like [Palestinian Television, 10 August 2000].

The media repeatedly praises the most murderous of terrorists that attacked Israel and similarly praises the terrorist acts themselves. In a quote from a book about Dal’al Al Ma’grabi, a woman terrorist that participated in the Coastal Road Bus terrorist massacre in which more than 35 Israelis were killed, it mentioned that the terrorist, who felt fatigued during the attack on the bus thought, “how pleasant is a [good night’s] sleep after a hard work day”. [Al Ayyam, 10 August 2000].

Every Friday, the Palestinian Television broadcasts sermons from mosques. The sermons of the P.A.’s religious leaders continue to exhibit a non-compromising Hamas line and present Israel-Palestinian relations as a religious war. The Islamic preacher Dr. Ahmad Yusuf Abu Halbiah, permits the shedding of Jewish blood as mandated by a heavenly decree:

“The resurrection of the dead will not occur, until you battle with the Jews and kill them…” [28 July 2000], and “Oh, our Arab brothers… Oh, our Moslem brothers… don’t leave the Palestinians alone in their their war against the Jews… even if we are destined to serve as the vanguard… Jerusalem, Palestine, and Al Akza will remain as the focal point of the struggle between truth and falsehood” [11 August 2000].

The writer directs Palestinian Media Watch and also serves as the research director for the Center for the Study of the Impact of Peace

Eastern Jerusalem Arabs paying taxes to remain Israeli and avoid PLO annexation

(August 4 2000)

Arabs of eastern Jerusalem have begun paying up all their debts to the Jerusalem Municipality, including all the taxes and fees, in the hope that this will strengthen their links to the Jerusalem [Jewish] Municipality.

Hatzofeh: Eastern Jerusalem Arabs Pay Their Municipal Debts Hoping This Will Spare Them From Annexation by the Palestinian State

Many of them are also bringing their Interior Ministry documents uptodate so that, if a Palestinian state is established, they will be able to claim Israeli citizenship and demand to remain in Israel rather than be annexed to “Palestine.”

Among those doing the above are also Arab residents of villages on Jerusalem’s periphery which Israel annexed in the wake of the Arab-Israel War of 1967. Among these is Wallaja village on the outskirts of Bethlehem.

Jerusalem Arabs fear a political arrangement that will transfer them to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority. In private conversations with Israeli politicians, senior Palestinian officials admit that if a referendum were to be conducted among the Jerusalem Arabs asking them whether they would rather be annexed by the Palestinian Authority or remain under Israeli jurisdiction, the overwhelming majority would vote to remain under Israel.

Palestinian Summer Camp Offers the Games of War

NABLUS, West Bank, Aug. 2 — It is summer camp time for 25,000 Palestinian teenagers, and strikingly unusual camps they are, too. As run by the men who handle psychological warfare for Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, they allow no horsing around in the dorm, no fun-in-the-sun by a cool clear lake, no rousing sing-alongs beside a roaring campfire.

Instead, there is the chance to stage a mock kidnapping of an Israeli leader by masked Palestinian commandos, ending with the Israeli’s bodyguards sprawled dead on the ground. Next, there is the mock attack on an Israeli military post, ending with a sentry being grabbed by the neck and fatally stabbed. Finally, there is the opportunity to excel in stripping and reassembling a real Kalashnikov rifle.

In the summer of the latest Camp David talks, a summer that was supposed to produce a final peace settlement between Israel and its Palestinian adversaries, the Palestinians’ idea of a teenage boys’ camp is a reminder of how deep old enmities run. At 90 two- and three-week camps on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip, youths from towns and villages already ceded to Israel by Mr. Arafat’s Palestinian Authority are learning the arts of kidnapping, ambushing and using assault weapons.

“As President Arafat says, this is the generation that will plant the Palestinian flag on the walls of Jerusalem,” said Dr. Wajieh Affouneh, a 49-year-old dental school graduate who joined Mr. Arafat’s Fatah organization in a refugee camp. In the 1970’s and 80’s, he participated, according to other aides, in some of the operations that made the Palestinian cause synonymous with attacks on Israeli and other targets. Dr. Affouneh is now a top man in the “political guidance” department of Mr. Arafat’s National Security Forces, the armed police unit permitted under the Oslo accords.

In the camps around this biblical town 35 miles north of Jerusalem, the mood is a throwback to the days before Mr. Arafat joined Israeli leaders in the peacemaking effort that faltered last week at Camp David, mainly over the future of Jerusalem.

Since the current cycle of talks began in Oslo in 1993, both sides have made generous use of the tactics of bluff and threat, and have still made impressive strides toward peace. But the display today in the yard of what was once a notorious Israeli prison seemed more than old-time propaganda, even if there was an element of that. What the youths and their mentors had prepared for a graduation parade on Thursday appeared to a visitor to be steeped more in the Palestinian mind-set of the 1970’s than the conciliatory postures of today.

In the mock kidnapping, an Israeli official walked across the old prison yard surrounded by eagle-eyed security men. Suddenly a reporter approached with a tape recorder. The target stopped, only to be grabbed by the reporter, now flourishing an imitation pistol. As the target was dragged off, other mock kidnappers shot seven of the bodyguards dead.

For 1,000 Palestinian youngsters standing in neatly ordered platoons, cheering, the exercise seemed like ripping good stuff.

Afterward, many predicted that their generation would someday take up arms against Israel over Jerusalem. At indoctrination sessions in the camps, the youths have been told that Mr. Arafat, at Camp David, rejected American proposals that would have given the Palestinian Authority a foothold in parts of Jerusalem, demanding instead that Israel surrender the entire eastern half of the city it seized in 1967.

Fikri Fouad, a 15-year-old village boy, said Palestinians had learned during the Oslo peace effort to live with a split view of Israelis — “as people that we can make peace with, but still our enemies, too.” He added: “If we can get Jerusalem without weapons, it is better. But if there is a need to liberate Jerusalem with weapons, we will be ready for that.”

Other youths offered opinions that would be grist for the mill of Israeli politicians like Ariel Sharon, the hawkish former general who has accused Prime Minister Ehud Barak of endangering Israel with his acceptance of American proposals on Jerusalem. At a news conference on Tuesday, Mr. Sharon said any Palestinian foothold in the city would encourage Mr. Arafat to press the “real” Palestinian goal of recovering Tel Aviv and Haifa, along with the rest of Israel.

Suleiman Nubaim, 16, said the Camp David talks had given new relevance to what he and his friends had been taught about the exploits of the freedom fighters, or “fedayeen,” the name taken by Palestinian guerrillas of the pre-Oslo period. Like many youths, he said he wanted to join the Palestinian forces.

“I want my country to be free,” he said. “It’s been my dream since I was a small boy.”

Asked how he defined Palestinian freedom, he said it included having Jerusalem, and then the rest of Israel. “As long as Israel occupies any part of our land, in Tel Aviv or Jaffa or Haifa,” he said, “we have not liberated our homeland.”

Although these camps have been run for five years with some weapons training, it is only this summer that they have caused noticeable controversy in Israel. Since Camp David, Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, the Israeli Army chief of staff, has cited the training in the summer camps as evidence of the risks of a new Palestinian upheaval. Israeli officials have said security has been tightened all across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, especially near the 145 Jewish settlements that have been the cause of much Palestinian ire.

Mr. Affouneh, the Arafat aide who oversees the Nablus camps, said weapons training was only a small part of a wider program that included inculcating the benefits of discipline and physical fitness, and teaching the youths about the history of Palestine before and since 1948, including the armed struggle led by Mr. Arafat. “We joined the Palestinian national movement when we were their age,” he said, referring to the men who now lead the Palestinian Authority, “and we are creating a continuum between our generation and theirs.”

In any case, he said, weapons used in the camps — judging by the graduation rehearsal, American-made Smith & Wesson revolvers in addition to the Kalashnikovs — were “legitimate” under the Oslo accords.

These allowed Mr. Arafat to establish an armed police force but denied him the right to acquire heavy weapons. In practice, even Palestinian officials admit that the Russian mafia, with the foothold it has gained in Israeli life, is smuggling an enormous number of rifles and other small arms into Palestinian-controlled areas.

Dr. Affouneh said Israeli alarm at the weapons training was hypocritical, since Israel was one of the world’s most heavily-armed countries. “Israel is a country with nuclear weapons, whereas we have no air force, no tanks, and no arms industry,” he said.

“All we have is a small number of rifles. And even today, just a few miles from here, Jewish settlers are being encouraged by the Israeli government to build up their arms stockpiles. Tell me, who are the victims, and who are the victimizers?”

Other officials noted that recent Israeli news reports had identified a hitherto-secret Israeli Army training camp where troops rehearse storming a mock Palestinian village being used as a base for attacks on Israelis. What’s good for Israel, the Palestinians seemed to be saying, is good for Palestinians.

Dr. Affouneh drew a closer parallel, saying that a part of the Zionist movement that survived the transition to Israeli statehood was Gdudei Noar, or Gadna, a corps that introduces tens of thousands of Israeli teenagers to army life. In recent years, the organization has shifted from weapons familiarity to sports, physical fitness and camping, but Dr. Affouneh said the Palestinian summer camps were essentially the same.

“We hope that we will achieve our rights through negotiations, so that summer camps like these will cease to exist,” he said. “There is nothing we want more than a full and genuine peace, including Jerusalem, which would allow us to end the weapons-training and concentrate instead on teaching our young people about computers, and swimming and other recreations. That has always been our hope.”

Arafat lies about his birthplace

What a difference a birthplace makes: How, contrary to the facts, was Arafat born in Jerusalem?

One of the pieces of information leaked to the Arabs at Camp David (to Muhammad el-Abzi of the international Al-Quds newspaper) stated that Prime Minister Ehud Barak suggested to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat that he set up his presidential offices in the village of Abu Dis, which is actually a suburb of East Jerusalem.

Abu Dis is even closer to the Old City and the Temple Mount than the Israeli Knesset building, and Barak allegedly said to Arafat that this would make it possible for him to pray every day at the Al Aqsa mosque.

To this Arafat purportedly replied, “My office will be in the Old City, on the property that is registered in my family’s name, the Al-Qadwa family.”.There seems to be some mistake in this statement, because there is no evidence that the Al-Qadwa family, which is Arafat’s father’s family, had any property in the Old City of Jerusalem.

The family that did have property there, and still does, is the Abu Sa’ud family, which is Arafat’s mother’s family. The large old house belonging to the Abu Sa’ud family tribe, which was among the oldest and most established Arab families in Jerusalem, stood on what is now the southern corner of the plaza in front of the Western Wall, adjacent to the Mugrabi Gate that leads from the plaza to the Al Aqsa mosque.

That house was destroyed in the summer of 1967 in accordance with a decision by the government of Israel to evacuate and demolish the whole Mugrabi neighborhood in order to expand the plaza at the foot of the Wall.

Arafat has claimed in the past that he was an eyewitness to the destruction of his mother’s home. In the summer of 1967 he was still an unknown figure, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization sent him to infiltrate the West Bank via the Jordan river in order to set up a cell of guerillas to wage a grass roots war against the Israeli occupation. After spending a few weeks in the underground here, Arafat returned to east of the Jordan river, and that is apparently the last time he visited Jerusalem.

Arafat has, of course, enormous national, religious and political interest in Jerusalem, and it was the reason that the sides did not succeed in reaching an accord at Camp David. This interest, however, is coupled with a complex personal story. All the official PLO publications have always stated that Arafat was born in August 1929 in his family’s home in East Jerusalem.

Several newspaper researchers have investigated this statement and found it to be untrue.

Arafat was born in Cairo. His father, Abd al Ra’uf Arafat Al-Qadwa, was the son of a well-known family from Gaza and nearby Khan-Yunis, who had married Zahava Abu-Sa’ud from Jerusalem. In 1927, the couple had emigrated from Palestine and settled in Egypt. Two years later their son Yasser was born. When Yasser was three years old, his mother died and his father sent him to spend some time with his mother’s family in Jerusalem. During the 1930s, Yasser lived alternately in Jerusalem and in Gaza, and after his father remarried, his family sent him back to Cairo, where he spent the rest of his youth.

What is bad about this biography? Is something not correct? It seems that during Arafat’s early years as a PLO activist, he found it a great drawback to have been born in Egypt, in a foreign country, and not in the Palestinian homeland.

His friends also found it strange. Many of the young Arabs who volunteered to serve the PLO immediately after the Six-Day War noted with astonishment that their leader, whom they were meeting for the first time, spoke Arabic with an Egyptian accent. Arabs from Middle Eastern countries can easily recognize the country of origin of any other Arab they meet by his accent – and here the man who claimed to be a warrior representing and leading the Palestinian people spoke with an Egyptian accent.

Could the solution to the hardship of the Palestinian people and the refugees be spearheaded by a man whose speech indicated that he was not a Palestinian and was apparently also not a refugee?

Not only this, but the issue of birthplace is also among the most important components of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. There is hardly a discussion in which the Palestinian claim of birthright is not raised – they were born here, this is their homeland, and they therefore deserve sovereignty over it. This counters the Jewish claim to the land, inasmuch as the Jews are foreigners, most of whom were born abroad and immigrated here.

And what could Arafat say to all this, when he, too, was born abroad? Furthermore, his father and mother left their homeland of their own free will. They were not expelled by a hostile imperialistic government and were not refugees displaced by a wave of Jewish settlers who stole their land, but they had simply picked up and gone down to Egypt because they felt they could earn a lot of money there (Arafat’s father apparently emigrated to Egypt to claim ownership of a plot of land in Cairo that had belonged to his grandmother). How credible could all the Palestinian claims to standing firm on their ownership of their homeland be if the father of the national leader deserted the homeland to chase after riches?

Arafat was aware of all this. He understood that it would be better for whoever wanted to lead the Palestinian nationalistic struggle if his biography stated that he was born in Palestine, and there is no better birthplace than the Old City of Jerusalem, in a house adjacent to the Al Aqsa mosque.

It was easy for Arafat to say that he was born in Jerusalem because he was familiar with his grandparents’ home from his childhood. When, several years ago, journalists showed him copies of his birth certificate and other documents attesting to his birth in Egypt, he replied that they were forgeries made by his father so that he would be exempt from paying tuition, as are all Egyptian residents who were born in Egypt. Arafat said that his mother came back from Cairo to Jerusalem to give birth to him in the family home, adding that he spent most of his childhood in Jerusalem and only went to Cairo when he had almost finished elementary school. On several occasions Arafat related his blurred memories as a child in the Old City, near the Wall, when there were clashes between Jews and Arabs during the pogroms (or the Arab rebellion, as they call it) of 1936 to 1939.

In interviews during the 1980s and 1990s, Arafat gave detailed accounts of the years he spent in the Abu-Sa’ud family home in Jerusalem, and spoke very little of the Al-Qadwa family home in Gaza, or about his youth and freedom in Cairo.

There are very few members of the Abu-Sa’ud family tribe still living in Jerusalem. Arafat’s closest relatives there are some first cousins, the descendents of his mother’s brothers and sisters. One of them, the engineer Ahmed Al Husseini who died recently, was the head of the East Jerusalem Electric Company. The family still owns a house and a plot of land in Ras el Amud, above the village of Silwan, next to the section of land that was purchased by philanthropist and settlement supporter Irving Moskowitz, on which a small Jewish neighborhood is now being built.

The place on which the original family home stood, below the Mugrabi Gate, currently serves Jewish worshipers at the Western Wall plaza. Even if a permanent accord grants Arafat presidential office space in the Old City, it is highly unlikely that it would be on the spot where his grandparents’ home once stood.

Why Peres was defeated: the betrayal of the public trust

Over a period of six months, our news agency hired a leading financial investigations firm to monitor the financial dealings of the Peres Center for Peace, while delivering the documentation of these findings to every key member of the Knesset concerning the financial discrepancies of the Peres Center.

These financial investigators examined the accessible public records of the Peres Center that were provided by the registrar of non-profit organizations of the Israel Ministry of Interior.

What the record showed was that the center that Peres had personally organized was delinquent in every aspect of what can be called the “public trust”.

The Peres Center refused to disclose its foreign contributors, as required by law.

The Peres Center refused to disclose its senior staffers who received exorbitant salaries, as required by law.

The Peres Center did not pay the appropriate taxes that an organization in the political realm is supposed to pay, as required by law.

The Peres Center remunerated the law firm of one of its founding members, Yitzhak Hertzog, in the amount of more than $250,000, in violation of the law.

The Peres Center would not provide the government with an explanation as to what it did with more than $2,000,000 that disappeared from the coffers of the center.

Meanwhile, the Peres Center initiatiated a $60 Million investment fund to transfer money to a corrupt PLO agency, Pal-Tel communications, a company owned in part by Osama Bin Ladin.

The Peres Center would not disclose where it got the funds for such an investment and whether it knew of the involvement of Bin Laden in such a venture.

Although the popular investigative journalist of Maariv, Yoav Yitzhak, had last year written three articles in the Fall of 1999 that was based on this research concerning these financial discrepancies of the Peres Center, the press in the Spring and summer of 2000 turned a deaf ear to our findings.

To begin with, Maariv, whose publisher had meanwhile been jailed, was less than enthusiastic to allow Yoav Yitzhak to further explore these issues.

The editor of Maariv, indeed, had meanwhile been appointed to be an advisor to Israel Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

However, the reporters for all of these media outlets met with our news agency and demonstrated great enthusiasm for this story, until the editors vetoed their reporters.

Besides Maariv, the story was self-censored by the editors of Yediot Aharonot, the “Mishal Ham” investigation show of Israel TV, HaAretz, Makor Rishon, Yom HaShishi and IBA Israel news radio.

There was a breakthrough on July 13, when the leading Israeli economics paper, Globes, reported two articles based on the Peres Center which appeared on page 2 – The first, concerning the accusation of the registrar of Non-Profit organizations which stated that the Peres Center would not provide for an accounting of more than $2,000,000.

The other article concerning the fact that the Peres Center was providing 73% of its budget for exorbitant administrative costs.

However, no other media outlet picked up on the story.

The reporters from the various media outlets all reported that their editors were under pressure not to report the story.

Self-censorship of the media concerning Peres hit new heights when the Jerusalem Post canceled its July 28th investigative story that was based on our documentation, after which we encouraged a “citizens for clean government” organization to sponsor an ad on the front page of the July 28th edition of the Jerusalem Post which would state some of the financial discrepancies of the Peres Center so that the people should know about before they voted.

HaAretz, which had also self-censored an article on these findings, refused to run the same ad in Hebrew.

However, integrity won the day.

At least six MK’s say that they used this investigative material played a key roles in their decision to vote for Moshe Katzav, and, most significantly, against Shimon Peres.

Epilogue:

This is not the first time that the integrity of Shimon Peres as a candidate for public office has been called into question.

On April 23, 1996, Peres, then a candidate for re-election as Prime Minister of Israel, declared that the PLO would cancel its covenant that calls for Israel’s destruction in a special meeting of the PNC that was to be convened the next day.

Only one TV crew covered the PNC’s special session.

Since it was held on Israel Independence Day, the Israeli media was “off”.

After the session, Peres declared that the PLO had indeed canceled its covenant, and this was the most important day in Zionist history. Clinton chimed in with coordinated praise of the PLO and the Oslo process.

Except that the tape of the session was shown repeatedly before the May 29, 1996 election.

A picture is worth a thousand words: The PLO had decided to create a committee, not to cancel its covenant. Peres and Clinton were lying.

In 1996 and in the year 2000, Peres was exposed in a betrayal of the public trust. It was that betrayal of the public trust that denied him election as the prime minister and the president of Israel.

PMW – This Week in the Palestinian Media 3 August 2000

While the Camp David talks were still in progress it was evident from the PA media that the talks were headed for failure. Had Arafat intended to move toward Barak and from his traditional positions, he would have had to prepare his public opinion via the media under his control.

Instead he permitted the Palestinian leadership to make pronouncements that cornered him into the same inflexible positions, which were published in Palestinian Authority’s (P.A.) official newspaper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. Arafat even allowed his newspaper to print that it would be considered “treason” were he to compromise in general, and on Jerusalem and the refugee issue in particular, and that the Palestinians would not view themselves bound by any such agreements. Pointing to these “pressures” at home Arafat went to Clinton and said he couldn’t compromise. Barak would have to give in on everything or there would be no agreement.

The following are some examples of the way the media created this “pressure”:

A headline on a newspaper article that appeared during the height of the negotiations read:

“Abu Al-Naja [Deputy Speaker of the of the Palestinian Legislative Council]: ‘Any agreement that detracts from our legitimate rights is void and not binding. The article went on: “… leaders and activists of the people’s party, of [national] institutions, and representatives of the summer camps’ political cadre demonstrated opposite the Legislative Council in Ramallah [regarding].. the right of return… and the rest of the other rights that to forgo them or even some of them is treason against the [Palestinian] people, that will bring confrontation…” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 20 July 2000].

And in the same newspaper:

“Marwan Al-Barghouti, a member of the [Palestinian] Legislative council, said that the Palestinian ‘street’ will consider any Palestinian-Israeli agreement that does not include an adherence to the principles of the 1967 borders, Jerusalem, and the refugees as an illegitimate agreement and not binding…” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 20 July 2000].

And if this is not enough, the leadership of the Palestinian Authority was warned that an Arafat retreat from the maximalist positions would bring about a new military and political structure:

“Legislative Council member Husam Hadar said that the refugees [both] inside and outside of the Palestinian territories would be forced to set up a new political-military organization, that will cut across the existing organizations, in the event that the leadership will offer concessions at this stage regarding the right to return. Hadar warned the Palestinian leadership against signing any peace agreement with the Israeli side that does not include a general [solution] to the problem of the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes…” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 20 July 2000].

Again, all this appeared in Arafat’s official newspaper.

Along with the calls not to compromise, threats of violence continued at an unprecedented pace, creating an eve of war atmosphere. A conspicuous example is the Fatah announcement of a general draft for boys under the age of 16:

“The Fatah movement announced a general call-up in its ranks as a preparation for the next stage. The movement announced the opening of registration for boys until the age of 16, for weapons training… The individual responsible for the movement made it clear that the movement will offer military weapons training to all boys under the age of 16, and noted that there is a strong response on the part of the boys…” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 20 July 2000].

“Other calls to violence threatened the use of “all available means – from the kitchen knife to the Kalachnikov rifle” [Head of Regional Defense] and the ultimate purification of the land from the defilement of the settlers”. [Governor of Khan Yunis, Sakhr Basiso, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 20 July 2000].

Palestinian TV contributed to the eve of war atmosphere, by its repeated broadcast of military parades, video clips of violence against Israeli soldiers. One example: the TV program entitled “Fathers and Sons”, broadcast a video clip containing an assortment of old file film of Israeli tanks, Israeli soldiers firing on rioters, violent confrontations and arrests, and images of wounded and killed Palestinians. In the voice-over heard during the video clip broadcast, the announcer read the following in a dramatic voice:

“Oh Satan’s agents (directed at Israeli soldiers on-screen), Oh enemies of mankind. I am Man the son of Man, I have been robbed, I have been pursued, I am frightened, every day I die… and in my death, is life; I am the flame of life…” [21 July 2000].

As part of their ongoing attempt to formulate a distinct cultural identity the PA tries to create a link between themselves and Jesus. This week a TV program “Good Morning Jerusalem” broadcast an interview with a Palestinian artist displaying his new paintings, among them is a painting of Jesus standing between two Israeli soldiers, with the following explanation:

“… Our struggle today against the Other [Israel-ed.] is an eternal struggle; one can say that it began 2000 years ago and it continues until today. I portray this with the figure of Jesus who came to the world with the gospel of justice, and the other side did what they did to him, and the Palestinian demands the same justice, and they [Israel] deal with us the same way. In this painting I exemplify this idea: The Israeli soldier, as we see him, is wearing an army uniform, while Jesus has nothing other than the Truth. When they searched Jesus upon his entry into Jerusalem, they found a stone, a slice of bread, fish, and he was chained. This is the Palestinian from the beginning of the struggle until it’s end…” [July 23 2000].

In general, the official position of the P.A. is to portray Jesus himself as a “Palestinian” and their “historians” go to great lengths to create this myth. Note how Jesus is treated in this recent article about the Israeli city Nazareth. [It is also worth noting that the PA portrays all Israeli cities as Palestinian cities under occupation.]

Under the headline: “Nazareth: The City where the Jews Murdered the First Palestinian of Her Sons”, the article continued: “[Nazareth] became famous as the place where the Lord Messiah grew up… The Jews tried to attack the city many times in order to disperse the people of Nazareth and uproot them, just as they obliterated many Arab villages, and established settlements in their place. However Nazareth’s Palestinians still preserve their Palestinian customs and traditions… The deeply rooted Palestinian language still flows off of the tongues of the Nazarenes, to the extent that one senses when one speaks to them, that time and the forces of the Zionist occupation did not succeed in altering the face of Palestinian Nazareth, and that she did not forget and will not forget her first son [Jesus] that the Jews betrayed and handed him over to the Roman emperor, and persisted until he was taken out to be killed… and their is no escaping that one day the Redeemer will come to Nazareth in order to bring back joy [to the city].” [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida 24 January 2000].

Blood libels like that Suha Arafat who said that Israel gassed Palestinians, are heard regularly from P.A. officials. One of the repeated claims is that Israel is spreading drugs in the Palestinian territories, and that Israel’s goal is to undermine and destroy the Palestinian youth via drug addiction.

Palestinian TV expressed it as follows in the local news broadcast this week:

“[Social Affairs] Minister Intisar Al-Wazir stated that her office provides all possible assistance to those fighting drugs, but the Israeli authorities are diligent about sending them into Palestinian society.”

A final word on Jerusalem. While the Camp David summit failed, partially because of PA opposition to Israeli rule in Jerusalem, a person only following the Palestinian media would conclude that the Palestinian Authority already rules over Jerusalem. Political and national-social events occur daily. An example from this week: “The Jerusalem club will host the P.A. table tennis championship this morning in the Palestinian capital.” [Palestinian TV 21 July 2000]. They relate to Jerusalem as if it were the capital city of “Palestine”, already under Palestinian rule.

Palestinian Refugee Issue Complicates Israeli-PA Negotiations

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) — Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat heads to Washington next week, with two issues foremost in his mind: the future of Jerusalem and the future of Palestinian refugees who fled their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflicts.

Arafat has said of both issues, “there is no concession.”

Arafat is scheduled to meet with President Clinton in an effort to advance the peace process to the point where a three-way summit between Clinton, Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak can be arranged.

“The Palestinian refugees have a right to return to their homeland and [for] compensation,” Walid Awad from the PA Ministry of Information said at a recent seminar on the topic, hosted by the Israel Resource News Agency at the Beit Agron Press Center in Jerusalem.

Solving the problem, Awad said, will be an “awesome task” and “very, very complicated.”

The PA is demanding that all Palestinians who fled and their descendants be allowed to return to Israel according to U.N. resolution 194 or that compensation be paid to those who do not wish to return.

Israeli Prime Minister Barak has said that he will not allow any refugees to return to Israel, but recent media reports have indicated that Barak’s resolve may be weakening and they say he may be willing to allow a limited number of refugees to return.

The situation is complex, partly because the Palestinian refugee question is a factor in negotiations between Israel and virtually every other Middle Eastern player.

Two-thirds of Jordan’s population is of Palestinian origin, and the camps in Lebanon recently gained attention as a possible breeding ground for anti-Israel terror attacks, given Israel’s withdrawal from south Lebanon two weeks ago.

More than 3.6 million Palestinians are registered as refugees with the United Nations Relief Works Agency. According to UNRWA, there are 1,541,405 Palestinian refugees in Jordan, 373,440 in Lebanon, 378,382 in Syria, 576,160 in the disputed West Bank and 808,495 in the Gaza Strip as of last November.

A Palestinian refugee is defined as a person who lived in British Mandatory Palestine for two years, “who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict,” and who took refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank or Gaza Strip. The descendants of those people also are considered refugees.

Although, more than 1,384,000 so-called Palestinian refugees now live under Palestinian Authority control, they are still considered to be refugees.

UNRWA originally recorded 700,000 Palestinians who lived in the area under British rule for at least two years. Over the years, from those 700,000 people, the number of defined refugees has grown five-fold, to 3.6 million refugees today.

According to Awad, the 50 year-old problem will be solved only if two conditions are met: the establishment of a Palestinian state on all land that was controlled by Jordan until the 1967 Six-Day war; and the right of Palestinians from all over the world to freely live there.

“The Israeli government must assume responsibility for what happened to the Palestinian refugees,” Awad said. Then a “pragmatic solution” can be found.

Israel has long argued that the situation of the Palestinian refugees was artificially induced for political reasons. In fact, the number of Arabs who fled Israel was roughly equivalent to the number of Jews forced to flee Arab lands as a result of the establishment of the State of Israel.

Fledgling Israel managed to absorb the Jewish refugees within 10 years, Israel contends, but 50 years later, one third of Palestinian refugees and their descendants still languish in 59 camps.

“[Many] stay for political as well as symbolic reasons,” Sami Mshmsha, Spokesman for UNRWA in Jerusalem said.

Any refugee who can secure “economic improvement” is free to leave the camps, Mshmsha said, but those who live in the camps are on the lowest rung of the ladder economically.

Ironically, he added, there is a high literacy rate in the camps. Palestinian refugees are often highly educated and among the most highly educated in the Palestinian population, while Palestinians in general are among the most highly educated in the Arab world.

“They are astute politically. No one can tell them what to do,” he said. However, “they don’t use education as passports to a better life” but rather to further their national interests and ideology. Those who are not highly educated often become activists, joining the PLO and its cadre, he said.

“I’m sorry to see the third generation of refugees rotting in camps,” Prof. Rafi Israeli, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem said. But he said it is a disaster that they brought upon themselves by refusing to accept the original 1947 U.N. partition plan of British controlled Palestine, which proposed to divide the area into separate Jewish and Arab states.

“Too bad for them they lost the war,” Israeli said. “If you start a war and lose it, you pay the price,” he said, referring to the all-out war waged against the pre-state and new state of Israel by the Arab world in 1947-48 and subsequent wars.

The problem with allowing Arab Palestinians to return in mass to sovereign Israel, Israeli said, is that it will do away with the Jewish state altogether.

Two-thirds of the Jordanian population is Palestinian – originally, Jordan was to be the Arab State divided from Palestine.

A second Palestinian State is in the process of being established in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. If as many as 3.6 Palestinians are allowed back into Israel, combined with the one million Israeli Arabs in a country of just six million, they will tip the balance toward an Arab state, he said.

“There will be no more Jewish State,” Israeli said. “There will be three Palestinian States.” Israeli suggests instead that Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and the PA each absorb the refugees who are living there.

The issue of Palestinian refugees is one of several due to be solved by the September 13 deadline for reaching a final understanding between Israel and the PA.

It should be noted that President Clinton endorsed the in principle “right of return” for Palestinian refugees last July 2, 1999, five days before Prime Minister Barak was sworn in as Israel’s Prime Minister. On June 14, 2000, on the eve of Arafat’s meeting with Clinto to discuss the refugee issue, Barak gave a speech to the Israel Council for Peace and Security in which he declared that Israel would indeed assume the moral responsibiltiy for the Arab refugee problem.

How the Oslo Opposition Movement Plays Into the Hands of the “Peace Now” Camp

In the left-wing newspaer, Al HaMishmar, back in October, 1993, an intimate of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, industrialist Yekutial Federman, published a simple public relations strategy for the PM to deal with the increasing opposition to the Oslo accords. His counsel was simple: isolate and demonize the opposition to the accords. Federman counseled Rabin to portray the opposition as being totally ideologically oriented in a non-ideological society, while being concerned only for their real estate which may soon be up for grabs in a forthcoming peace deal. Federman presented the odds as very easy: 3 or 5 percent of Israeli society against the desire of everybody else for peace.

Federman assured Rabin that he could rely on the precedent of the failed opposition to the peace treaty with Egypt and the devastation of Yamit and eighteen other settlements in the Sinai, as demolished by the icons of the Israeli right – Menachem Begin, Ariel Sharon and Rafael Eitan, who in 1982 were then the prime minister, Defence minister and IDF chief of staff.

For the last seven years, the protest movement against the Oslo accords has functioned in accordance with the analysis of Yekutial Federman. The leaders of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan and the Jordan Valley and the few ideologues whom they have managed to align themselves with have organized themselves on the basis of the idea that if they yell loud enough about their concern for the parcels of land upon which they live, and show themselves to be reasonable people who believe in Zionism and living a normal life, then the Israeli government will back down from the Oslo process.

What we have here is a community of people who essentially convince themselves to be more convinced by the day, while not addressing the concerns of 90% of the people of Israel, who do not perceive the importance of areas beyond the green line. The people of the Golan have not stressed enough that Syrian control of the Golan would represent a life threat to the people of the Galil. The council of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria have not conducted any thorough nor systematic effort to educate the people of greater Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheva and Jerusalem that the permanent deployment of the Palestinian Liberation Army in Judea and Samaria will threaten the entire coastal plain of Israel, let alone the Negev and Jerusalem.

Essentially, the Oslo opposition movements have unwittingly served the interests of Federman formula, and strengthened the notion promoted by the “Peace Now” camp that the opposition is only interested in promoting a minority ideology and the private interests of their own parcels of real estate. The Oslo opposition movement has consistently ignored the Sadat/Yamit precedent. The people who lived in Yamit were peaceful people, some of whom were ideologically committed to Zionism. Once the Israeli government had convinced the people of Israel that it peace was more important than any sentiments for Yamit and its suburbs, 95% of the people of Israel supported the demolition of eighteen thriving Jewish communities.

Today, the settlers and the Oslo opposition movement project themselves as nice people with friendly faces a string of advertisements, as if this would prevent them from being moved out of their homes in the interests of what the public perceives to be a peace agreement.

So long as the public assumes that what the other side is offering is peace, public opinion in Israel will support the “peace now” position that supports the uprooting of settlements, no matter how many people have to be removed.

What the settlement movement and the Oslo opposition have not done is to conduct any kind of campaign to convince the public that the other side does not want peace.

Arafat Aides Complain of Conflicting Orders

Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat is issuing conflicting policy decisions to his aides as he is being pressed by the United States to reach a compromise on a final status agreement with Israel.

Sources close to Arafat said he is telling aides to raise the prospect of compromise with Israel, the United States and even some Palestinian circles while the PA chairman renounces their positions and maintains a hardline stand. The result, the sources said, is that aides are being discredited in Palestinian society.

“Arafat doesn’t want to make any decisions,” a senior source said. “So, what he is doing is sending all sorts of conflicting messages through his aides and then renounces them if the reaction is not positive.”

The sources said at least three of Arafat’s aides have been “burned” by the PA chairman. They are PLO Executive Committee secretary Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian Legislative Council speaker Ahmed Qurei and PA security chief Mohammed Dahlan. Abbas has been touted as a possible successor to Arafat.

Last month, Arafat sent Abbas and Qurei to Stockholm to conduct final status negotiations with Israel and later both indicated that an agreement could be reached. But Arafat dismissed any report of progress and dismissed any prospect of compromise on such issues as the future of Palestinian refugees and Jerusalem.

Dahlan was said to have been angered by Arafat’s orders to address last month a Palestinian refugee committee in Gaza. Dahlan told the panel that the refugee problem was not regarded as an obstacle with Israel because most refugees would prefer compensation and resettlement in the West. He said Israel has agreed to allow 10,000 Palestinian refugees a year to enter the Jewish state from Lebanon.

Later, Arafat said Dahalan was not speaking for the PA.

The PA sources said Arafat’s conflicting orders have exacerbated the dispute between aides of the PA chairman. Abbas and Qurei are pressing for the PA to work toward a framework agreement of a final status accord with Israel while PA minister and senior negotiator Saeb Erekat wants the focus to be on Israeli implemention of the interim agreements.

On Monday, Israeli and Palestinians negotiators will meet in Washington to resume talks. The Palestinians will include Dahlan, Erekat and Qurei. who will meet in two separate sessions. One will discuss final status negotiations while the other will deal with interim issues.

“We had agreed to discuss Jerusalem, the capital of the Palestinian state,” Qurei said.

For his part, Erekat said Israel and the Palestinians have reached an understanding that Israel will free all 1,650 Palestinian security prisoners once the sides agree on a final peace treaty. Israeli officials said they envision a mass release once a peace accord is completed.

Should Israel Bomb Damascus Now?

Syria openly provides airfields and roads to supply the Hizbullah terror organization in Southern Lebanon, a group which declares that its purpose is to galvanize the Moslem world to invade and overthrow the state of Israel and to replace it with an Islamic state.

Syria openly provides a haven for the ten Palestinian Arab terror organizations that have sworn to destroy any peace process between Israel and its neighbors, including the negotiations between Israel and the nascent Palestinian Authority.

Syria openly floods Israel with narcotics, according to Israel’s National Drug Enforcement Authority.

Syria openly runs a school system that trains a new generation for war to liberate all of Palestine and Jerusalem from the Jews.

Syria openly runs a state-controlled media that communicates a daily message that compares Israel to a Nazi regime.

Syria openly rules the nation of Lebanon, since its invasion and takeover of the Lebanese regime in 1987.

The consensus in Israel is that the IDF should take strong preemptive action to stop the attacks from Hizbullah at its northern border.

The question to ask is whether the time has come for Israel to attack the source of its problem in the north: to hit the Syrian supply lines, drug routes, poppy fields, communications facilities and terror headquarters.

To attack Lebanon, Syria’s surrogate, would seem to leave the job half-done.