Prof. Irwin Cotler’s Presentation on the Subject of Freeing Terrorists in the Context of International Law

By

-

October 4, 1999

On September 14, 1999, the renowned international human rights lawyer and professor of law at McGill University, Irwin Cotler, delivered a comprehensive presentation at the Beit Agron International Press Center concerning the current release of Palestinian Arabs who had been convicted of murder and attempted murder in the context of terror activities.

The Palestinian Authority and the PLO define these people as “political prisoners.”

Cotler carefully explained that Israel’s freeing of these “political prisoners” (which he argued from international law were not political prisoners at all, but rather terrorists) actually violated the following fundamental principals of international law.

First, Cotler explained, states are obligated to prosecute and punish violators of international crimes such as terrorism as a matter of fidelity to the rule of law.

Second, people who commit international crimes such as terrorist acts are considered “hostis humani generis”, or the enemies of all humankind. As such, all states have the legal responsibility to prosecute and punish the terrorists.

Third, violators of international crimes bear criminal responsibility for their actions, and states are therefore obliged to prosecute and punish any perpetrators.

Finally, each victim of terrorism deserves the right to due process and the “right to justice.”

Since any kind of amnesty or pardon granted for violators of international crimes would removes the victims’ right to justice, freeing Palestinian terrorists would be a flagrant disregard and breach of international humanitarian law.

Aside from explicating how the release of Palestinian terrorist defies international law, Cotler also upbraided Israel’s Justice Minister Yossi Beilin’s rationale for releasing the Palestinian prisoners.

According to Cotler, no perpetrator of international crimes, regardless of religion, should be granted amnesty according to international law. In that context, Cotler also rebuked Beilin’s notion that Jewish murders should not be released from prison (because they acted alone in committing a murder) while Palestinian convicts should be freed (since they pursued Palestinian national interests, which have now reconciled by the State of Israel.)

Although most of Cotler’s breifing was dedicated to the issue of prisoner release, he also spent time praising a landmark decision by the Israeli Supreme Court which forbid the use of torture during interrogation, even of terrorists.

By applying basic principals of international law, the Court ruled that Shabak (Israel’s Security Service) would no longer be allowed to use torture in order to extract information about potential terrorists or terrorist attacks. Cotler urged Israel to apply international humanitarian laws to the issue of Palestinian prisoner release just as it did in the Shabak case.

Prof. Irwin Cotler, who has represented tens of poltical prisoners and human rights figures throughout the world over the past thirty years, including Nelson Mandela, Andre Sacharov and Natan Scharansky, he noted that not one of them had ever been convicted of terror activity. The difference between the Palestinian Arab convicts who expect to be released and the prisoners whom Cotler has represented through the years could not be more clearly pronounced.

Rabbis for Human Rights Responds to David Bedein

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

September 14, 1999

David Bedein wrote in his April article, “Rabbis Who Ignore Human Rights”, “Ten years ago, a group known as the Rabbis For Human Rights”… was formed to relate to the human rights and civil liberties of the non-Jew in the land of Israel.” In fact, we are a universal human rights organization which has also defended the rights of Jews, including Ethiopian Jews, agunot (Jewish women who can not remarry because they can not obtain a Jewish divorce), and currently we are part of a coalition to defend Israeli health care.
David wrote, “The Rabbis For Human Rights have instead chosen to identify and coordinate its actions with the PLO, the Palestinian Authority, and UNRWA.” We have never identified or coordinated actions with any of these bodies. In fact, while as rabbis we believe that we our mandate is to speak to our fellow Jews about human rights abuses they have committed against Jews or non-Jews, we have expressed our concern about PA human rights abuses to the PA and to Chairman Arafat himself when we have had the opportunity. In October of 1995, in a meeting with Chairman Arafat, we presented Chairman Arafat with a document (which was sent to David Bedein) expressing concern regarding PA human rights abuses and asking that he do more to help locate Israeli MIA’s. When RHR chairperson Rabbi Levi Weiman-Kelman participated in a larger delegation meeting with Arafat, he did the same. Although it is not our mandate, we have expressed concerns from time to time when Palestinian human rights activists have been arrested, etc.
David wrote, “As a matter of policy, The Rabbis for Human Rights have maintained a silence in the face of daily executions orchestrated by the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. In addition to the general concerns outlined above, RHR has specifically expressed our concern on this issue, as David himself acknowledges in his current article.

Now regarding David Bedein’s current article. In this article David thankfully refrains from the factual errors which characterized the previous article. He also apparently accepts our statement that our primary mandate as rabbis is to speak to Jews, although he backtracks on this in his subsequent list of questions and “epilogue.” David therefore concentrates on the fact that Israel finances a high percentage of the PA’s budget and therefore has responsibility for the widespread human rights abuses perpetrated by the PA.

David Bedein raises serious and thought provoking questions. I will be perfectly honest and admit that, before David raised the question, I had not given much thought to the level of Israeli funding of the PA. I have not checked the accuracy of David’s figures, nor have I spoken with this directly with organizations with whom we work, such as LAW (Cited by David).

I suspect that, when I do ask, LAW will not support the withholding of funds which would lead to the collapse of the PA, but rather actions to strengthen those fighting to democratize the PA from within. However, this is speculation, and I will issue a correction if I find out otherwise. I must also add, that while silence can be seen as tacit support, we have never actively supported any of the policies which David decries. In general, I can add that during the Rabin/Peres years, there was a principled disagreement between those, such as Yossi Sarid, who argued that some sacrifices in the field of human rights were temporarily justifiable for the sake of achieving peace. Human rights organizations, such as Betzelem, disagreed. We did not publicly take part in this debate as far as I know (I began to work for RHR in the summer of 1995.) I would say that our position is more toward the Betzelem side….

What is the implication of David Bedein’s questions regarding our “support” for Israeli funding of various Palestinian institutions? The implication seems to be that we are not truly concerned about Palestinians. If we were, we would be shouting “gevalt” about these issues that he brings up. Somehow the fact that we do not automatically adapt the issues which David brings up indicates illegitimacy, insincerity or some other deficiency on our part. He states in his “epilogue”, “For RHR to not conduct press conferences and public forums concerning the PA’s suppression of human rights and civil liberties would negate its definition as a human rights organization.” This is analagous to saying that we don’t really care about economic justice for Israelis because we work on health care issues but not housing policy. Now it may come as a surprise, given our accomplishments over the year, but I currently hold a 3/4 time position with RHR, we have a field director at 1/4 time, and a 1/4 time secretary. That’s it! After sending me the article to respond to, David posed 5 additional questions about PA injustices and asks when we will convene a press conference to condemn each one of them. Not only have we sent a statement to David on one of the issues and not only are we again speaking about speaking to Palestinians as opposed to Jews, but when was the last time that RHR on its own (as opposed to as part of a coalition) held a press conference on anything? I wish that we had half the capacity that David attributes to us.

The fact is that I would fully support any organization that wishes to research and address these issues in a serious way. We may do it ourselves at some point. However, I wish that David Bedein would invest the energy he has invested in trying to find fault with RHR in attempting to rectify the issues that we do work on.

David has repeatedly expressed to me concern about some of our issues, but the continued effort to criticize RHR is a convenient way to avoid dealing with them. Even if David is 100% correct about the evils of Israeli funding of the PA, that does not in any way lessen the evils of the Israeli policy demolishing homes in Area C and East Jerusalem when most of these families, whose title to their land is undisputed, have almost no chance of obtaining a legal permit. Estimates of standing demolition orders go as high as 6,0000. Neither does Israel’s funding of the PA lessen the evil of attempts to move groups of Bedouin such as the Jahalin out of their encampments by bulldozing them in the middle of winter and giving them shipping containers to live in. They do not justify mistreatment of foreign workers or cuts in our health budget.

I wish to conclude with a true story. A number of months ago an angry woman contacted me by email listing injustice after injustice perpetrated by Palestinians against Jews. My response was, “You are right. Every one of the injustices which you list is terrible. I am sure that with your deep concern for injustice you are equally bothered by the terrible injustices perpetrated by Jews upon Palestinians.” I proceded to enumerate some of them, and suggested that we dedicate two days. On one she would guide me to visit with Jewish victims of Palestinian crimes, and on the second I would guide her to visit Palestinian victims of crimes perpetrated by Jews. (If David had been part of the conversation, we could have added a third day dedicated to crimes perpetrated against Palestinians by Palestinians.)

This woman begged off, saying that the issues which I was bringing up weren’t important, that she didn’t have time, and that maybe we could do it toward the end of the summer. I’m still waiting. Injustice is injustice is injustice. The fact that organizations with limited resources concentrate on certain issues shouldn’t be taken as a lack of concern for other issues. In the words of our sages, “I am a creature of God and you are a creature of God. My work may be in the city, yours is perhaps in the field. As you rise early to your work, so I rise early to my work. As you do not claim that your work is superior to mine, so I do not claim that mine is superior to yours. And should one say, I do more important work and the other less important work, we have already learned: more or less, it does not matter, so long as the heart is turned toward heaven. (Talmud Bavli: Berakhot 17a). There are enough issues and enough work for many human rights organizations.

Instead of finding fault with what each of us doesn’t do, we would all be better served by respecting and responding to what each of us does manage to do.

May 5760 be a year of human rights for all of our global community.

Rabbi Arik W. Ascherman
Executive Director
Rabbis For Human Rights

David Bedein’s Response to Rabbi Asherman

By

David Bedein

-

September 14, 1999

Dear Rav Arik,

I am more than pleased to publish your reponse to my piece.

In terms of my response to you, please know that it is because I have expectations from the Rabbis for Human Rights that I indeed raise these issues of moral and Jewish consequence. I would never think of raising such matters of ethical concern to Meretz or the Mafdal. No lehavdil necessary.

My concern and credibility on the issue of home demolitions is reflected in my continued legal fight on behalf of a group of Arab homeowners near Bani Nayim. Betzelem sang my praises back in 1992 when I won an injunction against the civil adminisrtation from touching their property.

What I vociferously object to is you again raising the unsubstantiated number of “6,000” home demolition orders, with no source nor documentation to back up this figure. What the use of such a figure does is to leave the uniformed human rights activist with the impression that this is the general Israel and, indeed, Jewish policy in dealing with the matter of Arab homes. You could just as well cited the Israeli government estimates for the other figure for the thousands of homes that have indeed been built illegally, and work it from there. I am planning a major news story about Beit Tzfaffa where the illegal housing construction has become rampant, and where the Jerusalem municipality has not enforced any existing laws in this respect.

I remind you that the PLO used fabricated human rights reports throughout the Intifada to bolster their case to the world media. Do you remember their lie about the IDF killing children with teargas? Or another one about the IDF “targeting” children after the PLO put them in the front line to die? (Dauod Kuttab’s inciteful piece in the Journal of Palestine Studies from February 1988 described that methodology of the use of kids in riots in great detail)

The point is that I am focusing on RHR because your moral judgement of Israel reaches beyond the shores of our country, and were you to focus on individual cases and were you to warn about a specific number of incidents, I and others from everywhere on the political spectrum would join you in the concern that the Rabbis for Human Rights has raised.

Yet the minute that you throw out figures which have not been substantiated, the holy issue of human rights loses all credibility.

The issue of the RHR coordination with the PA/PLO is reflected only by those who sign petitions together with RHR. Discretion is the better part of valor when you become part of a coalition that includes PA/PLO entities and when you march with groups like the Christian Peacemakers Team.

I of course know that RHR raised human rights issues with Arafat. The fact that he ignored you should be a source of outrage and should be a matter that we hear about. The fact that you did write to him and meet with him is step one. Not to respond when he continues his suppression of civil liberties and when he continues to order the murder of his people would give the impression that you acqiesce in such actions.

shtikah c’hoda’ah dami = the Talmudic point that “silence is agreement”, could well be applied here.

Yes, Betzelem back in 1995 was critical of the PA. That was before Yizhar Baer and Bassam Eid left them. Their low profile in regard to PA human rights abuses over the past few years speaks for itself.

The trampling on human rights and civil liberties remains one of the characteristics of the current negotiation process between Israel and the PA.

RHR may have some leverage with the new Israeli government. Perhaps it will use that leverage to make the peace process contingent on the respect for human rights and civil liberties, including those of the Jewish and Arab victims of Arafat and the PA.

At a time when the Israeli government spokesmen shrug their shoulders at the prospect of letting out prisoners who have murdered Arabs or prisoners who have tried to murder Jews, I would expect to hear the voices of Rabbis. If the act of murder and of attempted murder by people who express no regret and indeed take pride in their act is not a cause of concern to eighty Rabbis, am I wrong in not expressing some confusion about human rights priorities?

My hope in the new year is that you indeed become a forceful conscience for the state and people of Israel. We sure need one.

B’vracha leshana tova umetukah.

David Bedein

Incitement: The Missing Element in the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum*

By

David Bedein

-

September 14, 1999

The agreement signed between Israel and the PLO on Sept. 4th, 1999 was different in one significant way from the Oslo accords that were reached in August, 1993 and the Wye Accords that were reached in October, 1998.

The element that was missing was that there was no call and no requirement for the Palestinian Authority to cease its incitment to war against the state and people of Israel.

The new curriculum of the Palestinian Authority, which indeed inculcates a new generation of Palestinian Arabs for war with Israel and for liberation of all of Palestine, is described on the website of the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, at www.edume.org.

The legal advisor to the office of the Israeli Prime Minister mentions that the call for the PLO to cease incitment is implicit in all agreements between Israel and the PLO.

The question remains: why was it not explicit?

^*The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum on Implementation Timeline of Outstanding Commitments of Agreements Signed and the Resumption of Permanent Status Negotiations Official Text – http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0fo30.

Mother of Murdered Soldier Questions the Release of Palestinian Terrorists

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 31, 1999

The release of Palestinian terrorists would be “an obscenity” said Esther Wachsman, the mother of Cpl Nachshon Wachson who five years ago was kidnapped, held hostage and murdered by Palestinian terrorists.

Speaking independently to a packed hall at Beit Agron, Jerusalem, Wachsman declared that it was her moral duty as a bereaved mother and a citizen to speak out for justice and morality. It would be a travesty of justice, she said, to see the sentences of killers and their accomplices overturned.

“Our children killed after Oslo are not victims of peace, they are victims of terror – victims of evil” – she said.”Peace does not have victims.” The daughter of Holocaust survivors, Wachsman said that it was inconceivable at this date “that we are hunting Nazis and releasing terrorists.”

The people who carried out the illegal instructions issued by (then PLO chairman) Yasser Arafat, were like Nazis obeying instructions, and like Nazis also punishable, Wachsman noted.

Mohamed Deif who masterminded her son’s kidnapping is alive and well and free she said, recalling that three years ago, US President Bill Clinton had sworn at Nachshon’s gaveside on Mount Herzl in the presence of Shimon Peres and then US ambassador Martin Indyk that he would not go forward with the peace process until Mohamed Deif had been apprehended and sentenced.

The head of the Gaza Police Force in a meeting with Yehuda Wachsman, Nachshon’s father, had admitted that he knew where Deif was and said that he could arrest him at any time, but was prevented by Arafat from doing so.

Like all his predecessors, Prime Minister Ehud Barak has said that he will not release any Palestininan prisoner who has killed an Israeli or anyone from Hamas. Esther Wachsman received a message to this effect on Sunday from Barak’s bureau chief Danny Yatom.

Wachsman said that she did not have too much confidence in that promise being kept.

“We have been lulled into a situation where we’re tired. We want peace and I’m afraid that we want it at any price,” she said.

Fundamentalist Christian Groups in Israel: A Warning of Things to Come in the Millenium?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 31, 1999

The purpose of this paper is to identify and provide brief analysis of members of two Christian fundamentalist groups which are currently residing in the vicinity of the Mt. Of Olives. While these groups vary slightly from each other in exact denomination and particular ideology, they share a common expectation: a return of Jesus sometime in the immediate future.

This expectation has prompted the members who comprise these groups to abandon their homes, careers, and in some instances families, so that they might travel to Israel and await what they believe will be the Second Coming of Jesus.

Affiliation of these individuals with their respective groups has transformed what may have existed as a fairly isolated phenomena consisting of several individuals spread throughout the Jerusalem area into sizable, organized groups whose exact intentions and beliefs are not known by the general public. The following is an attempt to present information acquired through personal interaction with members of these groups over a three-month period. Also, an important aspect of the research I conducted of these groups was to provide a basic conjecture concerning their capability for causing harm to Israeli society and to recommend what action, if any, should be taken to prevent such harm. These conclusions and recommendations will be included in this paper.

House of Prayer

The first group, and affiliated members, to be dealt with, The House of Prayer, currently consists of approximately ten active members, each residing in the town of Bethany (Arabic: Azaria). The patriarch, a man approximately 55 years old, refers to himself as Brother David. Brother David arrived in Israel 20 years ago from the U.S. where he claims to have been a preacher, and proprietor of a trailer park. Brother David does not utilize a last name, a common practice among ministry members, and has destroyed his passport. His residence within Israel is illegal and has resulted in his arrest on several occasions. The consequence of one such arrest was a two-month imprisonment in a Jerusalem jail. During his jailing Israeli police attempted and failed to ascertain Brother David’s identity and national origin. This failure resulted in an inability of the authorities to process him for deportation; Brother David was released.

Following this incident, attempts by authorities to deport Brother David were apparently abandoned and Brother David was allowed to continue building the membership of his ministry with little legal interference. He has, on three to four occasions been detained for questioning by Israeli police although, to my knowledge, he has never been formally charged with any offense.

During this interval of time Brother David made the acquaintance of Sharon (a.k.a.- Sister Sharon). Sharon, a woman approximately 50 years old, and mother of seven, is a native of Iowa who later moved to Grass Valley, California. Sharon, like Brother David attributes her decision to relocate to Israel and await the rapture and Second Coming of Christ to a call by G-d. During the imprisonment of Brother David Sharon assumed the bureaucratic duties of the ministry and has since remained the administrator of the ministry handling the money soliciting functions of the group as well as the details of the ministry’s charity functions. Brother David has preferred to concentrate on the social aspects of the ministry which include the leading of Wednesday night prayer meetings and conducting occasional tours of the Jerusalem area for the benefit of visiting Christians.

Brother David, with the aid of Sharon, relocated the ministry from a religious Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem to the Arab village of Azaria from which the ministry currently operates. The principal reason given for the move was an attack by Haredi youth on David and Sharon during which their residence was vandalized and partially set on fire; the occurrence of this incident has not been confirmed by additional sources. The move to Azaria allowed Brother David over time to acquire houses intended for housing of visiting Christians and ministry members; ten houses in the village are now rented or leased by the ministry.

While the ministry underwent changes in physical location its membership also underwent transformation. Perhaps the most profound alteration to the ministry membership was the addition of Brother Raymond, the son of Sharon.

Raymond is a tall, thin man roughly 36 years of age; tattoos displaying crucifixes as well as the word G-d written in Arabic decorate his arms.

His eyes are the most striking component of his physical appearance as they display an intensity which defies exact description yet affect all who make his acquaintance. Raymond’s personality is similarly striking. He immediately greets a stranger with his witness and an offer to read his poetry. Notable elements of Raymond’s witness include his reference to his twelve-year imprisonment for petty theft, and subsequent release from prison and transformation into a born-again Christian. Raymond’s spiritual revival resulted in his travelling to Israel where he eventually joined his mother to await the rapture and Second Coming. Both Raymond and Sharon claim that he was not aware of his mother’s exact whereabouts and that their reunion was merely coincidental, or as they would prefer it be described – a miracle.

Raymond is highly educated in New and Old Testament scriptures, theories of government conspiracy, and he possesses a genuine talent in the delivery of this knowledge to others. Raymond apparently struggles (see poetry) at times to remain on his newly chosen path although I never personally witnessed any major transgressions. Raymond smokes and occasionally drinks but I have seen no evidence of alcoholism or substance abuse of any kind. He has in one instance been accused of domestic violence. I saw no physical evidence of abuse on his wife nor was I able to investigate the truth of the claim. It is my opinion that Raymond is capable of violence if provoked. Raymond does not appear to hold clear suicidal tendencies yet a severe disruption in his life could result in such inclinations. Also of interest concerning Raymond is a severe weight loss which I have observed over the period of time I was in contact with him.

With the issue of personality at hand I would to describe Brother David in more detail. David is approximately six feet tall with brown hair, a mouth of missing teeth, and a larger than average build; features which combine to produce a man of an imposing physical stature. In striking contrast to his physical appearance is his generally gentle demeanor. Well educated in scripture, New and Old, Brother David acts as the head of the ministry, although no such formal title actually exists. Brother David occasionally deviates from the soft manner in which he normally speaks during times when he feels the need to reprimand ministry members. On one occasion I was present when Brother David instructed a member to disconnect, in mid-conversation, a cellular telephone call which the member received during a prayer meeting.

While Brother David may be the official (or unofficial) director of the ministry his authority is not unchallenged. It came to my attention that a rift exists between him and Brother Raymond over the issue of what David believes was Raymond’s hurried decision to marry. Sharon also seems to question David’s authority although both she and Raymond do not openly disobey his wishes; one example of this is their secret ritual of smoking in Sharon’s apartment. A power struggle does seem to exist though it is a fairly quiet one.

In the event of David’s passing Sharon would be the most likely candidate to assume control of the loosely structured ministry. This may soon be a possibility considering the fact that Brother David refuses to accept medical treatment and at the time of my departure from Israel he was suffering from labored breathing and high fever. Brother David does not, to my knowledge harbor intentions to commit violent acts against himself or others but would violently resist deportation if it appeared an actual possibility, as would Sharon and Raymond.

Sharon’s personality, in comparison to the other members of the group, may be described as down to earth. It is not unusual to overhear Sharon settling minor disputes or attempting to abate the concerns or fears of David. It is also Sharon, as mentioned earlier, who controls the financial aspects of the organization. Sharon believes strongly in the impending rapture and Second Coming of Jesus and related government conspiracy theories, but presents herself in a far more rational manner than the others.

Sharon is an attractive woman and it is unknown whether she or David were ever romantically involved. At times it appears that Sharon humors rather than respects Brother David but I have not known the two to argue openly. It is my opinion that Sharon does not pose a threat to herself or the Israeli public but, as previously stated, would violently avoid arrest if she felt it would lead to deportation; a fact which she has personally attested to.

Continuing with the treatment of member personalities one is led to Karen, Brother Raymond’s wife. Karen is a 40-43 year old self-proclaimed former Las Vegas showgirl, drug abuser and prostitute. It is the author’s belief that her claims are strongly exaggerated as it is the custom of born-again Christians to stress the difficulties which they faced prior to their ‘salvation’ so as to emphasize their reformation. Karen claims to have attended ‘Christian Boot Camp’ for a period of years before venturing to Israel. She hails from a wealthy family yet rarely mentions this.

Shortly after her induction into the ministry Karen married Raymond in a ceremony conducted by Sharon; the marriage holds no legal authority. This marriage remains a sensitive issue between Raymond and Brother David.

Karen often appears distraught and ill tempered in Raymond’s presence. It is highly likely that Karen will undergo some form of severe emotional trauma within the coming years. She should be closely monitored.

Al, an athletically built man about 45-50 years of age, arrived in Israel from the U.S. approximately seven years ago, because of his strong personality he also deserves close attention. Al is a learned man who acts as a tour guide of Jerusalem and other Israeli sites but it is unknown whether or not Al is a registered tour guide. He claims to have spent time abroad in several other countries including Japan and he possesses a blatantly arrogant attitude. While he clearly believes himself to be quite knowledgeable, it is this author’s opinion that he is of quite average intelligence and attained no more than a high school education.

Al’s most particular mannerisms surface when he is confronted by a person or persons who do not share his opinions concerning Christianity. This is a rather common occurrence as Al thrives and delights in confrontation and considers his beliefs both unique and infallible. The author is at a loss to give a concise explanation of his ideals although it is known that Al does not accept Jesus as the Lord but solely as the messiah. Al claims others in the House of Prayer share this belief yet refrain from expressing it out of fear of being ostracized; this conjecture cannot be confirmed or denied.

Al’s attitude has proven potentially dangerous to other members of the ministry; a claim which is based on an account of verbal abuse reported to me by a ministry member. This person, Kathy Frank, a Messianic Jew, and mother of three young children, was harassed by Al. His behavior concerned Miss Frank to the point that she became concerned for her safety and physically compelled Al to vacate her house after he refused to comply with her verbal request. During the argument, Al made it clearly known to Kathy and her family that he does not view them as true Christians. The account was verified by Kathy’s eldest daughter, Rebekah.

It is reasonable to assume that Al will continue to live in the village of Bethany and remain an integral member of the ministry. As the power struggle within the group escalates and Brother David’s health continues to worsen, Al may begin to establish himself as the logical replacement of Brother David as the ministry head. It is unlikely that the core members will accept this willfully and a significant upheaval, consisting of the purging of members who hold views in opposition to those of Al, will take place within the group. Such a shift could result in the complete disintegration of the ministry.

As expressed in the preceding paragraphs, Al demonstrates potentially violent behavior. His abusive behavior currently remains at the verbal level but may intensify under any number of seemingly normal situations. He should be monitored regularly and if possible, it would be beneficial for the Israeli government to examine the legality of his role as a tour guide and his visa status.

Sharing a strong friendship with both Al and Brother Raymond is Rod Higdon, a 40-year-old former country singer. Rod initially emerges as a relatively reserved personable Christian man of high values. However, his passionate soliloquies, which discuss the coming rapture, destroy any notions one might harbor of Rod as a reserved young man. Rod speaks to those who will listen of the immediate need to accept Jesus or face a future in hell. He also fervently offers advice to any person who refuses to embrace his beliefs and therefore will not experience the rapture; “Do not allow the mark of the beast to be put upon you!” Rod warns. “Better to have your head cut off your body, than to serve Satan,” Rod has explained. Rod physically demonstrates his readiness for the future rapture by wearing a robe that he has fashioned specifically for the event.

Despite Rod’s attempts to present himself as a genuinely benevolent man, sources within the group offered contradictory evidence. The House of Prayer occasionally distributes used clothing to the local Arabs and volunteers its services to a village orphanage. According to the source, Rod has refused to work at the orphanage, choosing instead to pay other members of the ministry to fulfill his philanthropic duties. Rod justifies his refusal with the following statement; “My job here is to be in front of the cameras. That is the only work I will do.”

Also of extreme interest is Rod’s unique relationship with Coby (Jacob), an Israeli military intelligence officer stationed in the nearby settlement of Moly Ad Amine. Coby has been visiting the House of Prayer in an official manner since the arrest of the Denver 11, or the Concerned Christians, in early January. As part of his routine observance of the group, Coby conducts formal interviews with ministry members; all interviews have been held at the Jerusalem Hilton. While the majority of the ministry offers polite cooperation, Rod has become a paid informer of Coby’s. In return for weekly meetings with Coby at which Rod provides detailed information concerning the group’s activities, Rod receives monetary compensation. Rod also communicates with Coby by telephone. The exact amount of payment which Rod is given, is unknown; however it is this author’s belief that the pay is between 200-300 shekels per interview. Rod has also solicited and accepted help from Coby in renewing his visa.

Rod is a man of subtle contradictions; the polite born again contrasted by the fervent rapture awaiting fire and brimstone spouting man. The loyal, friendly ministry member, is challenged by his role as a paid informer of Israeli intelligence. Rod maintains close friendships with Al, Raymond, and Brother David; his role as provider of information does not appear to have affected these relationships. Al’s behavior has, to this author’s knowledge, been challenged only by one fringe member of the ministry. Rod will most likely continue to reside on the Mt. Of Olives for an extended period of time, although he may travel back to the U.S. if he is in need of money (Rod receives stipends from his father) or if such a return would benefit his music career. As of early June Rod was considering a marriage to a Florida Native. In closing this analysis of Rod, it should be stated that he does not appear a physical threat by himself, but seems capable of being influenced by group pressure.

The final members of the House of Prayer will be described as a social unit. Said group consists of a widowed mother, Kathy Frank and her three children; Rebekah, David, and Tamara; all natives of St. Petersburg, Florida. Kathy’s deceased husband was a messianic Jew and the family identifies as such, although neither Kathy nor her children may be considered Rabbinically Jewish.

Following the loss of her husband in 1997 to a rare form of brain cancer, Kathy Frank visited Israel with her eldest daughter Rebekah in what was essentially an exploratory voyage to determine the feasibility of moving her entire family to the State of Israel. Kathy and her husband had considered such a move for several years although they had never realistically explored it. Kathy and her daughter returned to Florida invigorated from their journey but Kathy had not yet come to a final decision regarding the relocation of her family. During the interval of time, between Kathy’s return to the U.S. and her ensuing decision to move her family to Israel, Ms. Frank viewed a network news broadcast, which highlighted Brother David and the House of Prayer. Kathy cites this broadcast as having provided her the knowledge to contact Brother David once she had returned to Israel with her family. Despite this fact, Sharon vehemently denies that any person has ever been guided to the House of Prayer by any power less than G-d.

The Frank family became formal members of the ministry in February 1999 yet have essentially remained personally estranged from the larger group. This may be attributed to both the Frank’s tight family structure as well as their personal identification as Jews. Members of the House of Prayer have often commented about the obvious contradictions of Kathy Frank’s wish to lead a double life as both a fundamentalist Christian and as a Jewish woman. Some members of the ministry fear that should Kathy’s family be presented the opportunity to make Aliya, the Franks would distance themselves from the ministry in an attempt to be seen by the Israeli government as suitable candidates for citizenship. Being known members of a Christian cult would most likely have an adverse affect on the Franks’ citizenship eligibility.

The fears of the ministry concerning Ms. Frank are not unfounded. On 4/13/99, Mrs. Frank consulted the Ministry of Interior in reference to her eligibility as a potential Israeli citizen. The immigration officer informed Ms. Frank that she and her children may apply for Aliya pending the presentation of a valid katuba, a Jewish marriage certificate. Since this initial consultation Ms. Frank has begun to seriously consider the option of Aliya and has discussed undergoing orthodox conversion if necessary. She has also made attempts to conceal her ties with the House of Prayer as she fears these ties may adversely affect her ability to make Aliya. However, these attempts may be considered wholly futile due to the frequent interviews Israeli intelligence officers have conducted with Kathy, her children, and other ministry members.

Kathy Frank, a petite woman, roughly 45 years old, has offered reluctant cooperation during such interviews. She has expressed concern for her family’s future well being as a result of meetings with intelligence officers and has described these interviewers as extremely hostile. Frank has considered ceasing cooperation with Israeli intelligence and has voiced this view during ministry meetings. This topic has proven a cause of disagreement with other members who have urged her uninterrupted cooperation with authorities and dismissed her claims of harassment as overreaction. Several ministry members have spoken directly to the author in regards to this issue and appear extremely displeased with her behavior during her interviews with Israeli officials.

Despite the adversities of attempting to raise a family in a foreign country and at times being regarded as an outsider in her community, Kathy has, to this author’s knowledge chosen to stay both affiliated with the ministry, and to remain in the country, more specifically in the town of Bethany. Ms. Frank has on several occasions spoken of her attraction to the Arab village regardless of its lack of aesthetic appeal, the mentally retarded neighbor who often allows himself into the Frank apartment, and the status of Bethany as Palestinian controlled area. Her decision to remain in the village is most likely due to her position as a single mother whose only social contacts are her children and the ministry. Kathy’s familiarity with the town may be another important factor in her need for stability which she does not currently wish to abandon. Should Kathy make contacts in a more favorable section of the country or make Aliya she would undoubtedly remove herself and family from the village of Bethany.

Ms. Frank is a strong personality although she is quite naive. She has little knowledge of current political affairs and seems oblivious to seemingly simple precautions which one must take while abroad. One example is that Frank and her children purchased food from local Arab street vendors and only realized the connection between consumption of this food and stomach ailments after being advised of the potential health hazard associated in eating this type of food. Frank’s knowledge of religion pales in comparison to that of other ministry members and she is extremely susceptible to suggestion. A statement spoken by one member or other individual, no matter if factual or not, may easily be adopted by Frank as truth.

In spite of these flaws, Frank remains an effective head of her family, all of whom are home-schooled. The eldest, Rebekah Frank, a seventeen year old whose appearance belies her age, seems to bear a large portion of the responsibility for the household. Rebekah acts in many ways as the representative of the family, scheduling appointments, making telephone calls, and handling email. She is a reserved young woman and has a strong aura of innocence which may be attributed to her sheltered childhood and exclusion from both public and private school systems. Her quiet demeanor may also be connected with the recent loss of her father.

Rebekah abhors the frequent media attention which has been given to the family from the time of their arrival at Ben Gurion Airport. She avoids the press when possible and is paranoid of their intentions. She may be coaxed, at times, into appearing on film though immediately afterwards she regrets her decision. Her avoidance of the media is based both on distrust as well as a basic adolescent embarrassment of appearing on worldwide television broadcasts.

Rebekah has adjusted relatively well to her surroundings. She has become involved with a Christian youth group based out of King of Kings and has begun babysitting for an orthodox family in the settlement Mole Adamin; she has kept her babysitting secret from the ministry for fear of their disapproval. Because of her exposure to the Jewish settlement, Rebekah has shown increased interest in Israeli society and has begun to consider Israel as a permanent home. She has also spoken of the possibility of working on a kibbutz or joining the Israeli military.

Approximately three years younger than Rebekah is her brother David, a tall boy of dark complexion and awkward mannerisms. David, like Rebekah has assumed certain burdens as a result of the absence of a father figure. On David’s shoulders has been placed responsibility for the religious leadership of the family. Ms. Frank encourages David to spend solitary hours studying bible and she has often spoken of a vision which David “received” during the family’s first week in Israel. As David’s stay in Bethany continues he is likely to take on many of the beliefs shared by the other ministry members concerning the end of times and rapture.

It should be noted that throughout David Frank’s life he has lacked a stable environment, a situation which was exacerbated by the passing of his father and the recent displacement of his family. Lacking a strong male role model and normal contact with peers David may face a difficult adult life as a result. He is not entirely without friends though, David often plays with children of the Branch Davidians, a primarily black ministry located near his home. David, unlike his elder sister, does not attempt to identify with Judaism or Israeli society, preferring to cling more to his Christian fundamentalist identity. David’s future is unpredictable and it would be in both his and the Israeli government’s best interests to periodically monitor David’s progression from adolescence to adulthood in the coming years. It is possible that David could emerge in adult life as a leader of another Christian ministry based on his early experience with the House of Prayer.

The youngest of the three children is Tamara, aged nine. There is very little to say about Tamara other than she is extremely shy and refuses to appear on film. When visiting the Frank’s apartment Tamara is most often found hiding in the bedroom away from the cameras and journalists. Kathy occasionally encourages Tamara to present herself to interviewers, yet to the author’s knowledge Tamara has never agreed to do so.

Two informal members of the House of Prayer also need to be mentioned in order for this to be considered a thorough report. These persons, John Wilbert and Steve Moshne stayed in the town of Bethany for short periods of time before moving on to their respective locations. John and Steve’s extreme passion for scripture is the only basis for their association.

John Wilbert is an approximately 55-year-old ex-carpenter and native of Florida. Wilbert is an extremely secretive and paranoid man with a criminal history, which includes a charge of assault on an officer. During his time as a member of the ministry Wilbert avoided all weekly meetings and never appeared on film or spoke with any media representatives. He often criticized Brother David’s open dealings with the media. John is extremely well versed in scripture and popular conspiracy theories and has published a small pamphlet which deals with Christian fundamentalism.

In April, Wilbert abruptly left the ministry citing the unlawful marriage of Brother Raymond and Karen as his main justification; Wilbert resided in an apartment owned by Raymond and considered himself to be living in a house of fornication. Wilbert then moved to the Tabasco youth hostel located in the Old City of Jerusalem. He remained in this area for several weeks; his whereabouts are currently unknown. Wilbert has exhibited extreme paranoia and hostility, and his exact location should be ascertained before the coming millenium. It is most likely that he could be found in the Galilee region or that he will reappear near Yaffa Gate, in Jerusalem.

The second short-term member of the ministry, Steve Moshne, is a unique case. Born in Ramallah, Moshne was reared as a devout Muslim. Moshne’s family moved to the United States during his adolescent years and Moshne began to question his Muslim faith. Moshne’s questioning eventually led him to the conclusion that his Muslim faith was false and that Christianity is the only true faith. Moshne embraced Christianity wholeheartedly, has participated, and intends to continue participating in mission activities whose general focus is on Palestinian Muslims; he is a fluent speaker of Arabic.

Steve speaks with a stutter at times and seems to have trouble communicating his ideas clearly. He struggles between his identity as a Palestinian Christian and as a fundamentalist American Christian. At the heart of this internal struggle is the benevolent view towards Jews held by the majority of ministry members and fundamentalists in general. Steve realizes the need to respect Judaism if he wishes to remain a member of the community but his impression of the Israeli as a conquering force over his Palestinian brethren creates extreme difficulties for him. Steve’s Arab identity denies him the luxury of viewing the Arab/Israeli situation neutrally as the other ministry members must.

Steve appears at times emotionally unbalanced and has admitted that he is willing to risk his life in his attempts to convert Palestinian Muslims. During this author’s last visit with Steve, he explained his intentions to relocate to a Palestinian Church outside of Ramallah. From this base, he intends to pursue his proselytizing goals. His whereabouts are currently unknown and his safety should be considered in extreme jeopardy if he is indeed attempting to convert Ramallan Palestinians.

Having closely examined all core and auxiliary members of the House of Prayer, a clearer picture emerges of the common traits which members share.

All members share a common belief of an imminent second coming of Christ, they share a strong knowledge of Bible when compared to general society, and they have an intense distrust of the U.S. Federal government, reinforced by frequent exposure to books and audio tapes which deal with government conspiracy theories. All members expect the occurrence of the rapture within their lifetimes, although some may not admit this.

Currently, the House of Prayer is loosely structured and its membership and leadership may undergo radical changes in the coming years because of the instability of the member’s psychological makeup and internal and external social pressures.

House of David

The second Mount of Olives based religious order whose members the author scrutinizes are followers of the 7th Day Adventist Branch Davidian movement; members of this group are predominantly black. This group which will hereon be referred to as “the Davidians” has stationed itself in Israel to await the rapture and Second Coming of Christ, just as the House of Prayer. The Davidians, under the leadership of Brother Solomon, a.k.a. Winston Rose, are affiliates of the greater Davidian organization which spans the world and strictly follows organizational dogma. The Davidians are legalistic Christians, observing kashrut laws as well as fasts and other Jewish holidays, although many of the dates of these celebrations have been readjusted by Brother Solomon to correspond with what he believes are the correct lunar based dates. Approximately 10-14 Davidians, including Solomon’s wife and mother, reside in the town of Bethany; the author was unable to gain sufficient access to members other than Solomon.

At the core of the Davidian’s organization is the leadership of Brother Solomon, a Jamaican native and well-educated former English teacher. Solomon goes to great lengths to ensure that he is at all times properly groomed and he will not appear on camera in clothing other than a full suit. His tall stature, booming accented voice, and well trimmed full beard, all act to form the outward appearance of a calculated and authoritative leader. This outward appearance is matched closely with a superb intellect and astounding knowledge of scripture supplemented with a thorough understanding of complex Davidian texts. Solomon believes that he has been appointed by G-d to serve as the next and final prophet in a line of Davidian prophets. Based on his status as a prophet Solomon cites scripture which states that G-d does not withhold information from his prophets, specifically information concerning the end of times. Acting under this assumption Solomon has implemented a complex mathematical formula whose product produces several important dates. He claims to have received heavenly guidance in the determination of these dates, most importantly the date of the rapture, which he calculated to July 20, 2001.

All Davidians outwardly accept this date as valid. In the case that the rapture does not occur on July 20, 2001 Brother Solomon has stated that he will then rework his formulas and arrive at a new date; According to Solomon, the failure of the rapture to take place could be due to G-d having chosen to allow mankind additional time to prepare for the end of time.

Members of Solomon’s ministry, formally “The House of David” are, for the exception of two transient members, black Americans. These members, like Solomon, pay great attention to their outward appearance and take pride in a certain level of self-denial and strict obedience to Biblically based laws. While race does not appear as an issue to Solomon, members identify strongly as a black group and have complained of racist treatment by their Palestinian neighbors. This author had the unfortunate opportunity to be present during such an incident. Following a special Friday evening Passover service, I accompanied Rebekah and David Frank and a Davidian youth to the Frank’s home, located at the bottom of the hill. While walking, our group was approached by two Palestinian plainclothes police officers. At the sight of the officers, the Davidian youth, age 14, began to walk quickly. One of the officers roughly seized the youth by the arm and pulled him near. The Palestinians, in broken English, accused the Davidian of committing an act of vandalism at a nearby school; two boys had been reported near the area. Despite the presence of David Frank who also fit this description the police focussed their attention solely on the black youth. Eventually the situation was resolved by the author and the boy was remanded to my custody. Following the incident I questioned the Davidian youth and he revealed the frequency with which such harassment has been levied upon the black ministry members. Similar incidents have not been reported by any of Brother David’s congregation.

The House of David has received a great deal of publicity recently, although much of it fails to recognize the actual beliefs of the Davidians, focusing instead on their connection with the Davidians of Waco, Texas.

The Mt. Of Olives Davidians are unique in their own right, as they are the only ministry in the vicinity which has specified a date on which the rapture will occur. Though Brother Solomon may be capable of coping with an error in his calculations of this date, it is likely that such an error could adversely affect his leadership status and general stability of the ministry. The group should obviously be monitored with increasing intensity as July 20, 2001 approaches; if Waco serves as any indication of their possible behavior in times of stress, human lives may be at stake.

One additional note concerning the House of David, members vary radically from those of the House of Prayer in one major area. Davidians do not place great emphasis on conspiracy theories and rarely talk, if at all, about threats posed by the U.S. government. Unlike House of Prayer members, Davidians are not exposed to outside propaganda; instead they are inundated with various booklets published by Solomon and 7th Day Adventist Prayer books. In this way the House of David is much more insular than the House of Prayer. Also, membership does not fluctuate often, primarily as a result of the presence of Solomon’s immediate family as ministry members. However Brother Solomon expects a surge in membership during the coming months due to the proximity of the millenium.

Shared Characteristics of Both Ministries

The examination of both ministries reveals that while the two groups vary in certain aspects, their core beliefs are nearly identical. In addition to the common factors listed in the preceding analyses all members of both ministries hold the following as truths: (The following utilizes quotes taken directly from Hebcom Report, David Ramati 1999).

The end times as prophesized in Daniel, Ezekial, and the Book, of Revelations are near.
Jesus will gather the faithful in the “rapture of the true Church”.
The ingathering of the exiles (Jews to their homeland) is a certain sign of this.
The reign of the anti-Christ and the false prophet are about to start.

Additionally, members of both ministries as well as many fundamentalist Christians believe:

The Pope is the anti-Christ or the false prophet.
The Temple must be rebuilt; in order to do so the Mosque must be removed (either by Divine intervention or by man) from the Temple Mount.
It is the duty of every true Christian to “witness” against the false prophet, and the anti-Christ and to ready himself for the rapture of the true church which will occur simultaneously around the world and on the Mt. of Olives.

Furthermore, ministry members and many Christian fundamentalists give credence to the following government conspiracy theories:

The U.S. is slowly establishing a New World Order, the culmination of which will put the U.S. under United Nations Control.
The U.S. government created the AIDS virus as a biological weapon.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the guise of preparing for the Year 2000 computer bug, is building concentration camps for the internment of Christian Americans.
The Oklahoma Federal building was not bombed by Timothy McVeigh. The building was destroyed by government officials in an effort to destroy documents which were threatening to the President.
Foreign soldiers have begun to be stationed in the U.S. Finally, the fundamentalist Christian community, which is inclusive of both ministry memberships, believes that alien sightings do take place. However, the visitors are not aliens but agents of the devil.

A set of common beliefs such as the above creates a strong bond between the majority of Christian groups which have chosen to establish themselves in Israel and elsewhere. Though various ministries in Israel may differ in their ideologies concerning scriptural interpretation and the exact dates of the rapture and Second Coming, they remain a united force in the encouragement of the establishment of Christian based ministries in the Jerusalem area.

Contrary to the impression relayed by many media sources, these groups are not anticipating the end of times to occur on January 1, 2000. Contrarily, the House of David, the one group which has allocated a specific date, expects the destruction of the world to take place in the year 2001. A seven-year period of calamity, specified in the book of Revelations, must begin before the rapture and Second Coming are permitted to transpire. The House of David believes that the world has already entered this stage (which will conclude Jan, 2001) while the House of Prayer does not feel it has yet experienced the beginning of the seven years. Rather, they feel the millenium may serve as a point of reference from which the world will embark on the period of destruction and horror which these groups await.

Questions Placed to the “Rabbis for Human Rights”

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 31, 1999

The Rabbis for Human Rights aims to educate Jews, especially Israeli citizens, that they bear a burden of moral responsibility in the area of human rights and civil liberties, especially in regard to Palestinian Arab population.

In a recent interview, the director of the Rabbis for Human Rights, Rabbi Arik Asherman recalled that he began his career in human rights as a student, when he helped organize student protests to boycott representatives of regimes that were oppressive of the human rights and civil liberties of their own people.

The context of Palestinian Arab civil rights and human rights today is that the five-year old Palestinian Authority now rules 96% of the Palestinian Arab population, with the state of Israel providing 63% of the funding for the operating budget of the Palestinian Authority. Israel also provides direct aid for the PA schools and PA security forces, while helping to facilitate aid from the US, Canada, the EU and other nations for the PA.

That means that Israeli citizens bear a heavy responsibility for everything that transpires within the PA.

Yet what epitomizes Israel’s human rights policy in this regard is that the Israeli government has facilitated a provisional Palestinian regime that remains devoid of human rights and civil liberties.

This is not coincidental nor happenstance. This policy occured with malice aforethought.

The late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin openly stated in the early stages of the Oslo process that Israel would establish a Palestinian Arab regime that would be devoid of human rights and civil lilberties. Bli bagatz vebli bitzelem were Rabin’s rallying call that formulated the Israeli attitude to the Palestinian entity in formation, declaring that Israel would establish a Palestinian Arab regime that would be devoid of human rights and civil liberties to the Arab population that would come under its control.

Where was the outcry of the Rabbis for Human Rights when Rabin announced such a policy? I recall no press conference convened by the Rabbis for Human Rights after Rabin announced such a policy. Only adulation for Rabin, before and after his death.

Yet after meeting with Arafat in 1995, Rabbi Asherman acknowleged that Arafat rejected the call of the Rabbis for Human Rights for improved human rights and civil liberties within the PA.

Previous to that, the letter sent to Arafat by the Rabbis for Human Rights in August, 1994 that objected to Arafat’s policy of executing Arabs who were too friendly to Israel was also rejected out of hand by the same Arafat.

Rabbi Asherman explained that the Rabbis for Human Rights addresses itself to the behavior of Israeli Jews, not to the behavior of Palestinian Arabs.

Since that is the case, how can the Rabbis for Human Rights continue to support the policies of the Israeli government to mandate that the Israeli taxpayer continue to finance an Arafat Pinochet regime?

How can the Rabbis for Human Rights support continued Israeli financing of the PA, when the PA announces support for legislation that declares the death penalty for anyone who sells land to a Jew in Jerusalem?

How can the Rabbis for Human Rights continue to support Israeli funding for PA humanitarian efforts, when the PA will provide little accountability for the funds that the PA receives?

How can the Rabbis for Human Rights not ask for a cessation of Israeli arms to the PA after a human rights group like LAW documented that tens of people have died due to the abuse of firearms since the establishment of the PA.

How can the Rabbis for Human rights not call for a cessation of aid to the PA when Arafat’s policies of summary execution and kidnapping of political opponents have been so widely documented?

How can the Rabbis for Human Rights not question Israel’s participation in the funding of UNRWA, which continues to force Palestinian Arab refugees to remain in the squalor of refugee camps, under the specious premise and promise of the right of return to homes that no longer exist? Is that not a violation of human rights of the worst degree?

It goes without saying that Israeli government complicity with PA and UNRWA policies that deny civil liberties and human rights to Palestinian Arabs should not be tolerated.

The sensitivity of the Rabbis for Human Rights for Palestinian Arab civil liberites is well understood and deserves much respect. Yet how can the Rabbis for Human Rights confuse respect for Palestinian human rights with continued Israeli taxpayer funding of the Palestinian Authority?

And considering the fact that many of the Rabbis for Human Rights happen to be American citzens, how can the Rabbis for Human Rights support continued American taxpayer funding for Arafat’s Pinochet regime?.

Following the concerns that I have mentioned about the relationship of the Rabbis for Human Rights to Israel’s policy of funding Palestinian Authority, despite the PA record on human rights and civil liberties towards Palestinian Arabs, the time has come to pose five questions concerning the actions of the Rabbis for Human Rights in relation to policies of the PA towards Jews.

The Palestinian Authority has adopted a policy of welcoming murderers within its midst and then freeing them. What is the reaction of the Rabbis for Human Rights to such a policy? Will the Rabbis for Human Rights convene a press conference and public forum to condemn such a policy?

The Palestinian Authority has introduced a new school curriculum that inculcates a new generation of Palestinian Arabs to make war on the Jewish state and on Zionism. This curriculum also denies the holocaust and portrays Israel asa a Nazi-like entity. The curriculum can be found on the website of the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, at www.edu.org.

What is the reaction of the Rabbis for Human Rights to such a policy? Will the Rabbis for Human Rights convene a press conference and public forum to condemn such a policy?

The Palestinian Authority refuses as a matter of policy to amleiorate the squalor of the UNRWA refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the “right of return”. What is the reaction of the Rabbis for Human Rights to such a policy? Will the Rabbis for Human Rights convene a press conference and public forum to condemn such a policy?

As matter of policy, Arafat continues to praise those Palestinian Arabs who have murdered Israelis.What is the reaction of the Rabbis for Human Rights to such a policy? Will the Rabbis for Human Rights convene a press conference and public forum to condemn such a policy?

On August 4, 1999, Arafat called for a Jihad to liberate all of Palestine and all of Jerusalem.What is the reaction of the Rabbis for Human Rights to such a policy? Will the Rabbis for Human Rights convene a press conference and public forum to condemn such a policy?

Within the Framework of the “Rules of the Game”

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 17, 1999

Hizballah is liable to look for revenge by “selectively firing” Katyushas, attempting headline-grabbing attacks in southern Lebanon in the coming days or by concentrated attacks on IDF and SLA positions.

The elimination of military leaders has been part of the rules of the game in southern Lebanon for years. More than this — it is a permanent and mutual policy.

Israel and Hizballah routinely gather information on each others’ commanders, and constantly search for ways to hit at them. Only two weeks ago, pictures and names of IDF commanders were discovered in a Hizballah cache in the western part of the security zone. These pictures, it should be noted, were not being gathered for the historical record. Hizballah commanders constantly change their routes and check their cars, out of fear of explosive devices. They know very well that they are potential targets for assassination.

In a war like that being conducted in southern Lebanon, the assassination of a military commander has much greater moral and operational significance than in other forms of combat, and both sides know this. When Hizballah killed Brigadier-General Erez Gerstein, they saw this, according to their public declarations, as a legitimate operation within the “Grapes of Wrath” understandings. The fact that Hassan Salameh, killed yesterday, was a senior military commander, connected to the second level of the organisation’s hierarchy — was not apparently sufficient to stop the heads of the organisation from threatening revenge.

A different possible form of Hizballah response might have been to have fired Katyushas at unpopulated areas, and to have tested the Israeli response. If firing of this kind was carried out, and the IDF did not respond in line with the norm set on June 24 (when the IAF attacked infrastructure targets in Lebanon) — then Israel would suffer serious strategic damage, and would return to the same low point in its deterrent capacity at which it stood prior to those attacks.

If not by Katyushas, — the Hizballah will seek its revenge through a large-scale terrorist attack in southern Lebanon in the coming days, or in a concentrated attack on IDF and SLA positions.

The order of the day in Israeli policy in Lebanon is to maintain quiet. The elimination of a senior military commander, which is liable to set the area ablaze with fighting, does not exactly jibe with the possibility of starting a dialogue with the Syrians. But because Israel did not take responsibility for the assassination, the issue of the prudence behind the action is not, as it were, on the agenda.

Exercises in the Art of War

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 17, 1999

The Chairman of the Palestinian Authority is nervous and speaks aggressively. Hamas and the activists get the hint: He will not oppose a little “pressure” on Israel, which will also press the Americans. The result: Modest attacks, such as the ones this week. The relative security that Israel has enjoyed during the past year is not guaranteed. Barak to Arafat: Israel will not negotiate under the shadow of terrorism.

Arafat is under pressure these days. A great deal of pressure, say security sources who know well what goes on in the Palestinian Authority. He had developed a high level of expectations regarding Ehud Barak and now is not certain if they will be realized. Sharp criticism has been leveled against him from both the Arab world and from within the Palestinian ranks, and it seems that even the Americans have cooled their relationship with him. As always, when Arafat is anxious, nervous and angry, the Palestinian “street” wakes up and begins rioting and committing acts of violence. The same sources are quick to clarify that Arafat is not the man who directly initiated the wave of Palestinian violence that began this month and is now gaining strength. But the recent angry and warlike statements of the Rais and senior Palestinian officials signaled to both Hamas leaders and Fatah street activists (the Hawks) that “modest physical pressure” on Israel will not harm, and may even help, the Palestinian Authority in the present critical period.

Arafat has done nothing to correct this impression, even after it became perfectly clear that the terrorist organizations and violent institutions loyal to the Palestinian Authority — those who were under its iron control during the period of the election and government formation — had resumed their activities. Arafat and his security chiefs know well that they are riding a tiger that is hard to control. They are aware of the fact that the recent shootings in Samaria and Hebron were carried out by Hamas personnel, who were sent by their organization to torpedo the revitalized peace process. This objective appears to be against Arafat’s general interest which actually wants the process to go forward. But it seems that the PA Chairman believes that low- level violence is useful in order to hint to the Israeli government and public opinion what could happen on the ground should Wye not be implemented in both spirit and deed, and in order to create a feeling of urgency in the American administration.

Therefore, Arafat is not sending his security chiefs to carry out effective pre-emptive strikes against the local cells. However, the security forces and counterintelligence service do continue to aggressively attack Hamas’ professional hard-core in order to prevent mass terrorist attacks which could halt the peace process in its tracks.

Barak’s Warning

Approximately two months ago, a senior security official sent an unequivocal message directly from Barak to Arafat, according to which Israel will not agree to implement the Wye accord or continue negotiations on the permanent settlement under the pressure of terrorism. Arafat believes the message, but he continues to try to walk a fine line.

The division of labor is clear enough: The shootings in Samaria and Hebron are carried out by local Hamas cells, so that Arafat can disclaim any responsibility for their actions, without trouble; the violent demonstrations at Netzarim junction, in Hebron and at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus are carried out by the Fatah Hawks, who, while belonging to the organization that Arafat heads, have their own leadership which criticizes Arafat’s policies, thus enabling him to disclaim direct responsibility for their actions as well.

In the event that these demonstrations get out of control, Arafat can show magnanimity towards Israel, and order his police to disperse them without great effort. This is how he has acted in recent weeks, with not a little success from his point of view.

What is now happening on the ground is the exact dose that Arafat prescribes: Sporadic and not very professional or effective operations mostly carried out against settlers or IDF forces in the territories. That is enough to send a message.

But we have seen a clear escalating trend this week. There were two attacks Tuesday, including the deliberate running-over of soldiers at Nahshon Junction inside the State of Israel’s territory. The conclusion is that if the disputes between Barak and Arafat continue or even worsen, one can expect a parallel intensification of the violence in the territories in their current format.

A Militia Army

According to Israeli analysts, Arafat has never neglected the use of violence and terrorism as a lever to advance his goals. The results of the 1996 elections, which raised Netanyahu to power, taught him that terrorism could become a two-edged sword that hurts him and prevents him from achieving his political goals. Therefore, he is careful now, and sends out his security apparatus to collect intelligence and to foil specific initiatives by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to commit massive attacks.

His forces have reaped successes in this field recently. Security cooperation with Israel is generally quite good, for the same reason and same objective. But at the same time, Arafat is careful not to destroy Hamas’ infrastructure so that it can be used — if necessary — as a strategic weapon of terrorism.

Arafat regards the suicide bombers who carry explosives on their bodies into the heart of population centers the same way that Syria and Iran regard their ballistic missiles — as a strategic weapon, to be used against the Israeli civilian homefront if the Palestinians’ strategic interests are in danger. He will use this weapon if and when he concludes that Israel is preventing him from establishing the Palestinian state more or less in the format that is acceptable to him. When the Hamas infrastructure is at issue, the intention is the organization’s social, economic and religious activities which enable its leaders to recruit fighters and send them for training abroad.

Alongside the suicide terrorism, which is Arafat’s strategic weapon, the PA Chairman has a fighting force which can be activated for guerrilla warfare. What is called the “Palestinian National Police” is in fact a militia army that can be used against settlements, roads and IDF bases in the territories. The fighting that broke out after the opening of the Western Wall Tunnel in September 1996 shows what these forces can do. The IDF is prepared for such an eventuality, and has fortified the settlements, but if Arafat decides to use this option it could claim many victims from both sides.

Four factors are behind Arafat’s current distress, causing him to drift towards renewed violence. First, he is concerned that Barak is a more sophisticated version of Netanyahu — he speaks nicely but does not intend to carry out the Wye agreements as written and prefers the Syrian channel over the peace process with the Palestinians. Senior PA officials have claimed to Israelis with whom they have met, that, “We gave Israel security during the elections, enabling Barak to be elected, and now you prefer the Syrians to us.” The hint was that only one mass terrorist attack would be enough for Israel to put the Palestinians back at the top of the agenda.

The second factor for Arafat’s feeling of distress is the fact that the American administration, at Barak’s request, has abandoned its role as mediator and judge of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and has returned to the role of assistant. This is a retreat, from Arafat’s perspective, and is costing him an important lever of pressure on Israel. During the Netanyahu government, Arafat took care to restrain Hamas mainly in order to protect the special relationship he developed with Washington. Now he fears that his relations with Washington have returned to their earlier format, and this is what might cause him to lose his motivation to fight terrorism.

The third factor is the venomous criticism directed at Arafat from Arab countries like Syria, Libya and Iran as well, and of course from the Palestinian opposition. This is occurring at the same time that he is trying to bring about a reconciliation with the Palestinian rejectionist front in order to build a united front for the fateful permanent settlement negotiations. The reconciliation is vital for him in order to block the charge that he does not represent all Palestinians, thus limiting his negotiating flexibility.

The pressure on him is enormous, say the analysts. The economic situation in the territories is not improving, the Fatah field operatives are angry with him because he gave the important and income-generating offices to his close associates from Tunis, and only gave them the leftovers. This is why the Hawks are challenging his rule and carrying out operations that anger him.

Arafat is in a Hurry

In light of all this, Arafat feels he has to hurry. He feels that his position in the territories is weakening, and that if he does not declare a Palestinian state by May 2000, he might miss the train and not achieve his dream to be the first president of an independent Palestinian state. Hamas, under the leadership of Sheikh Yassin, would build on his ruins. Hamas has so far avoided a frontal conflict with Arafat, but it is gradually building up its power.

There can be no doubt that the joint operations of the GSS and the Palestinian security forces have recently struck hard at Hamas’ operational ability. The organization’s military ability has also been weakened due to internal conflict between Sheikh Yassin and its leaders in the territories, and between the organization’s leaders in Jordan, Dr. Mussa Abu-Marzouk and Khaled Masha’al, and Imad al-‘Alami who operate from Damascus and Lebanon.

The Hawk’s leaders also oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state according to Arafat’s formula, and want to carry out attacks to torpedo the peace process and force Israel to surrender under the pressure of violence. Yassin knows that if Hamas operates on this principle, it could drag Arafat into a war to destroy him, and cause the majority of the population — which supports Arafat’s policy goals — to resist him. He therefore prefers build his economic and political power and to wait for the moment when Hamas will inherit the PA’s political apparatus and what it has won from Israel. Then it can continue the struggle to establish an Islamic state in the entire land of Palestine.

Hamas in the territories is obeying Yassin for now, and the organization’s leaders abroad are therefore trying to build a model for operations in the territories based on secret, isolated and separate cells, who receive their orders directly from Amman and Damascus. They are also trying to give these cells the operational ability to carry out attacks using material, means and methods not used by Palestinian terrorists up till now, and which will enable them to carry out mass attacks inside Israeli territory. For this purpose, they are sending terrorists from the territories to Iran to learn new operational methods, and they even pay the Iranians for this service. One cell of this type has already been caught by the GSS and its members put on trial.

An additional important source of power for the militant Hamas is the prisoners held in Israeli jails. A very senior official recently noted that the control in Israeli prisons is, in practice, held by security prisoners. This permits them to direct and initiate terrorist attacks and street violence from inside the jails, with the primary objective of pressuring Israel to release Hamas prisoners without regard to whether they have blood on their hands or not.

In light of these facts, it can be concluded that the relative security Israel has enjoyed during the past year is not guaranteed. It is reasonable to assume that for a little while — mainly during the permanent settlement negotiations — we are likely to face a wave of Palestinian violence and terrorism, far more serious and dangerous that which we have witnessed up until now.

Did Anyone Hear ‘Jihad’?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 17, 1999

Did Anyone Hear ‘Jihad’?

The problem is not a new one: Palestinian leaders purport to seek peace with Israel but their actions suggest otherwise.

The question is how to respond, as when Yasir Arafat speaks in moderate tones to Western officials and reporters and then calls for jihad, or holy war, when addressing Arab audiences.

In the first several years after the signing of the Oslo Accords between the Palestinians and Israelis, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres tended to either not respond or to dismiss the Palestinian leader’s rhetoric as simply that – words – while insisting that he be judged on his actions. The trouble was, Arafat’s actions were often deeply problematic. The Palestinian Authority flagrantly violated key aspects of the accords – giving terrorists safe haven, exceeding the limit of the Palestinian police force and failing to curb anti-Israel propaganda on television and in schools. But the Israeli government was so intent on moving negotiations along that it looked the other way, until a series of terrorist attacks wrecked the momentum.

For the next three years, Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized the need for reciprocity, pointing out numerous and flagrant Palestinian violations of the agreement with Israel. These were cited as the basis for Jerusalem’s unwillingness to carry out some of its Oslo pledges. Neither approach was effective. Ignoring Arafat’s words and actions only emboldened him, and coming down hard on him spoiled Israel’s relations with the U.S. as well as the Arab world.

Last week, with a new Israeli prime minister in place operating on overdrive in trying to improve the negotiating climate, Arafat celebrated his 70th birthday by calling for jihad against the state and people of Israel, and praising “the children of the stones,” the instigators of the deadly intifada. So much for extending the olive branch.

But there are indications that despite Ehud Barak’s goal of concluding a peace deal with the Palestinians, he is not willing to tolerate such behavior. A senior Israeli army official held a briefing with the press in Israel the other day and criticized Arafat’s behavior. (Washington had no comment on the latest Arafat flare-up, after cautioning him repeatedly against such volatile talk.) Further, the Israeli official, who did not speak for attribution, accused the Palestinians of providing safe haven for terrorists and doing little to prevent further attacks or to confiscate weapons. David Bedein, a media researcher in Israel, noted that it was the first time in the last six years that a high-ranking Israeli army official convened a press conference to put the Palestinians on call in this manner, accusing them of “planting the seeds of war.”

The impression is that Barak seems to be holding firm on security issues while seeking to advance the peace process. It’s a delicate balance, one that has not worked until now.

On Tuesday, in wake of a Palestinian youth’s would-be suicide mission – he was shot dead after trying to run over a group of Israeli soldiers – Barak did not accuse the Palestinian Authority of duplicity, or lax security. Instead, he said the incident strengthened Israel’s resolve to cooperate with Palestinian security officials to prevent terrorism. Whether Barak can walk the fine line of insisting on reciprocity while going forward on negotiations remains to be seen, but it is clear that this issue is of critical importance to the future of the peace process.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30

Israel Behind the News

Prof. Irwin Cotler’s Presentation on the Subject of Freeing Terrorists in the Context of International Law

Rabbis for Human Rights Responds to David Bedein

David Bedein’s Response to Rabbi Asherman

Incitement: The Missing Element in the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum*

Mother of Murdered Soldier Questions the Release of Palestinian Terrorists

Fundamentalist Christian Groups in Israel: A Warning of Things to Come in the Millenium?

Questions Placed to the “Rabbis for Human Rights”

Within the Framework of the “Rules of the Game”

Exercises in the Art of War

Did Anyone Hear ‘Jihad’?

Column from the Director