Shameless in Gaza

Gaza is the most conservative of Palestinian communities; its Islamist militants once set fire to a sea-front hotel, a restaurant and other such dens of iniquity.

So imagine the pious horror at the opening of Gaza’s first and only nightclub. On a Thursday evening of the Muslim weekend, I found the Zahra al-Mada’in, the Flower of the Cities, packed almost to capacity, not just with lonely young men come to admire Gaza’s first belly dancers and songstresses – locally recruited gypsies – but with entire families, women, children and even a babe-in-arms.

In other smart or risque places, you can add illicit liquor to your Coca-Cola, but here, in another Gazan first, you can order your scotch or your Israeli Maccabee beer on the very premises. However the oddest thing is not so much the place, but the clientele: they are mainly “Tunisians”, not Gazans at all.

Tunis was Yasser Arafat’s last headquarters in exile, and “the Tunisians” is a nickname which Gazans gave to those, officially known as “returnees”, who came with him when, following the Oslo accord he established himself here instead. There are about 10,000 of them, bureaucrats who run his Palestinian Authority, former guerrillas who dominate his enormous security apparatus.

The Tunisians” have “come home” to the soil of Palestine itself. But the terrible irony is that they are not merely strangers in their own land, they are for the most part disliked, despised, even hated. It is they who introduced such abominations as Zahra al-Mada’in.

But it is not just Hamas and Islamic Jihad, or bigots in general, who feel the shock. Liberals who welcome any challenge to the dour local mores feel it too. For almost everyone, “the Tunisians” are as alien, as unfit to rule, as those – Turks, British, Egyptians, Israelis – who came before them.

And because they are actually Palestinians, and came as “liberators”, the shock is even worse. Arafat’s Palestine Revolution never made itself very popular, among governments, elites or even ordinary people of the territories it passed through.

But at least in Jordan, in the sixties, its men truly fought and died. So, though with less purpose or conviction, did they in Lebanon in the seventies and eighties. Obviously, during the eighties and nineties, they could not fight from Tunis, and other far-flung Arab countries in which they fetched up, but at least, as members of the world’s richest liberation movement, they continued to pump money into local economies.

Here, in the homeland itself, far from fighting the former Zionist foe, they lead the collaboration with it. They may attract money in the form of international aid to this poorest of Palestinian communities, but they take at least as much away from it. They are oppressive, and immeasurably corrupt.

“We live in amazing, shameful times,” said one of Gaza’s merchant princes, and a former Fatah fighter himself, “but you should know that every revolution has its fighters, thinkers and profiteers. Our fighters have been killed, our thinkers assassinated, and all we have left are the profiteers. These don’t think even primarily of the cause, they don’t think about it at all. They know that they are just transients here, as they were in Tunis, and, as with any regime whose end is near, they think only of profiting from it while they can.”

This is a damning indictment, but if any system can be measured by the conduct of its bureaucrats it is a fair one. In fact, the justice of it hits even a casual visitor in the eye. Just go to the district of Rimal. Rimal means “sand”, and on this former wasteland there is now arising, at incredible speed, the most up-market neighborhood of “liberated” Gaza.

You might not think it at first sight; a sand-smothered, refuse-strewn mess of empty lots amid shacks that are disappearing and half-finished concrete monsters that are taking their place, it differs little in spirit from the rest of this desolate, infinitely decrepit and unsightly city.

But it is mainly here that “the Tunisians” have taken root, with their amazing array of “ministries”, “authorities” and special “agencies”, police stations and sentry posts, choice rooftop apartments, villas and places of entertainment.

Here is Arafat’s own sea-front bureau, al-Muntada, The Club, with all the “presidential” trappings he so adores, and here in the very next building, is the Zahra al-Mada’in cabaret.

Here you will sooner or later run into Suha, his young wife, out for lunch at Le Mirage, an exclusive sea-front restaurant, with her infant daughter and a posse of Force-17 bodyguards. You will run into her, at least, when she is not in Paris, where she does her shopping and can find a decent hairdresser, unlike the first, disastrous Gazan one, who reportedly turned her blonde locks almost orange.

And you are bound to come across Susie, her ample British nanny who affects leopard-skin tights and often has too much to drink, a condition in which she is apt to dispense indiscretions about the presidential household, threatening, some fear, another Middle Eastern nanny scandal of Netanyahu proportions.

Among the fancy new villas, fanciest is that of Abu Mazen, key negotiator of the ill-fated Oslo accord. It is not clear who paid for this $2 million-plus affair, all balconies and balustrades in gothic profusion, but the graffiti which some irreverent scoundrel scrawled on its wall proclaimed that “this is your reward for selling Palestine”.

Lifestyles match. Nabil Shaath, the highly articulate minister of planning much seen on Western TV screens, recently took a wife young enough to be his daughter. He required four receptions to celebrate this event, in Cairo, Gaza, and two in Jerusalem. Because his Israeli friends could not go to the one in East Jerusalem’s Orient House, that “illegal” outpost of the Palestinian Authority, he had another in the Ambassador Hotel.

For salutary contrast with Rimal, just stroll up the coast where, just beyond Le Mirage, you will come upon the awful squalor and open sewers of the Shati’ refugee camp, conditions resembling those n which most Gazans live.

There, in a windowless concrete block they call “the cafe”, I asked some day laborers, idled by yet another Israeli border closure, whether they thought that Gaza’s per capita income, far from rising, had actually fallen by as much as 39 per cent since the Oslo accord. For that is what a recent UN survey says. “More like 75 per cent,” one replied. “some no longer think it a shame to send their children out to beg.” That also seems to be borne out by the UN report, which records an “alarming” increase in “child labor”.

More shocking, really, than the contrast itself is what lies behind it. When he first came here, Arafat said he would turn Gaza into a “new Singapore”. Palestinian businessmen, who made their fortunes building the Arab oil states, would help him build his.

But, three years on, it is clear that none will seriously touch it. Not just the Israelis deter them, with their repeated frontier closures that bedevil businessmen as well as workers. In truth, Arafat does not want them either.

For they would undermine his control, achieved through a combination of police surveillance and money power. So instead of any kind of independent, creative, wealth-producing capitalism, he and his coterie of unofficial economic “advisers” have thrown up a ramshackle, nepotistic edifice of monopoly, racketeering and naked extortion that enriches them as it further impoverishes society at large.

Two years ago, the al-Bahr company barely existed. Al-Bahr means “sea”. But Gazans now dub it “the ocean”, because, they say, “it is swallowing Gaza whole”. Legally speaking, not being officially registered, it should not be operating at all. Yet it is so brazen about its powerful connections that, to the impotent indignation of the Palestinian “parliament”, it even uses the Authority’s letter heads.

It belongs to Arafat, or, more precisely, to his wife Suha and the other “shareholders” who handle his private finances. Al-Bahr – who else? – runs the Zahra al-Mada’in nightclub.

The premises were supposed to go by open tender to the most qualified bidder. But Arafat just signed a decree placing it in his protege’s hands. It is never by fair, and often by quite foul, means that Arafat Incorporated moves into real estate, entertainment, computers, advertising, medicine, insurance. Only the most powerful Gazan businessmen can resist its encroachments. It goes chiefly after small and medium fry. These are pressed into “partnership” with al-Bahr.

Al-Bahr is the new, strictly domestic instrument of Arafat’s takeover of the Gazan economy. It complements already existing monopolies, for the import of such basic commodities as cement, petrol or flour, which he operates in complicity with the Israelis. For example, out of the $74 for which a ton of cement is sold in Gaza, $17 goes to the Authority, and $17 into his own account in a Tel Aviv bank.

It is no secret what Arafat uses this money for. “I shall give you all you want if you obey and protect me – and give me all I want.”

That has always been his message to his nomenklatura, and it has been amazingly successful. For what resistance can be expected from an apparatus whose minister of civil affairs, Jamil Tarifi, a big contractor, goes on building Israeli settlements even as the Palestinian people threaten a new intifada over Har Homa?

Or whose high officials use their VIP cars to sail through Israeli checkpoints on their way to the fleshpots of Tel Aviv even as Israeli border closures rob day laborers of their menial wage?

Rarely can a revolution have degenerated like Arafat’s and yet survived. It only survives because, in robbing his people to bribe his bureaucrats, he has proved so great a commitment to the peace process that the parties on which he now completely depends – Israelis, Americans, the international community at large – are willing to ignore, even encourage, his manifest corruptions.

The Israelis may be embarrassed by the latest, scandalous revelations of their leading newspaper, Ha’aretz, about the Arafat slush fund that the great peace-maker, Yitzhak Rabin, authorized.

But so long as Arafat goes on bending to their conception of the peace, they will go on letting him draw on it.

European governments would be far more embarrassed if it were established that Arafat really does earn far more from al-Bahr and his illicit monopolies than from all their aid combined. But unless the scandal becomes too great, they will go on paying too. But they delude themselves if they think that they can go on propping him up for ever. And in this regard, it seems, Arafat and his “Tunisians” are more clear-headed than they are. They know that there is a point beyond which even he cannot go without risking his people’s wrath.

Small wonder then that, according to Ha’aretz, a part of Arafat’s secret fund is earmarked for “emergency situations”, such as a coup or a civil war, in which he, his family and immediate entourage could be forced to flee into exile once more, and re-establish the leadership from there. They know, better than anyone, that the peace process, and all they get out of it, is built, like the Zahra al-Mada’in, on nothing more solid than the fine white powdery sands of Rimal.

M.K. Ran Cohen’s Letter to Yassar Arafat

The following is IMRA’s translation of the Hebrew letter sent by Meretz (Peace Now) M.K. Ran Cohen to Chairman Yasser Arafat. M.K. Cohen provided IMRA a copy of the original Hebrew letter.

The Knesset
MK Ran Cohen
Jerusalem

13 Iyar 5757
20 May, 1997

Chairman of the Palestinian Authority Mr. Yasser Arafat
Gaza

Dear Sir,

Re: Prohibition of Murder and Execution

As someone who has worked for and yearned for a humane solution of peace and security for the State of Israel and the Palestinian people for 30 years, I feel a moral and state obligation to turn to you with the expectation that you will forbid and publicly denounce acts of murder and execution within the area of the Palestinian Authority in general and regarding the sale of land in particular.

The reaction of your assistant, Marwan Kanafani, this morning, causes the greatest of concern. Kanafani does not differentiate between the prohibition on the sale of land as is practiced by the “Jewish National Fund”, and the justification and approval of murder, which was never given in Israel. It is the full right of the Authority, of course, to set its position regarding the sale of land, but between this to permitting murder lies a moral void.

Mr. Chairman, you can denigrate those who shout “death to the Arabs” at the same time that the Palestinians are denounced for the murder of land dealers. But you cannot ignore two vital considerations:

1. The State of Israel did not carry out a death sentence, even in the case of first degree murderers who slaughtered innocent citizens (mostly Jews, a minority Arabs).

2. The Palestinian people, on its way to a Palestinian state, must free itself from terrorist and cruel elements and images, both for its own good and for the good of good neighborliness and peace with Israel.

There is not yet evidence to the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority for the murder and the investigation continues, but the stain exists. And for that I ask you to rise and publicly announce your position forbidding murder!

Regards,

MK Ran Cohen

Watching Palestine Authority TV

Itamar Marcus does not recognize the Yasser Arafat that most Israelis know from their television sets. As the head of the Palestine Media Review, a relatively new nonprofit media outfit that monitors the official Palestine Authority television network, Marcus gets a very different picture of the Palestinian leader.

“There are two Arafats,” he says, playing a video his group has assembled from the Palestinian Broadcasting Company (PBC) to prove his point. It shows a collection of incitement speeches made by Arafat and other Palestinian leaders. In many of them Arafat calls for the crowd to spill their blood in order to liberate Palestine, assuring them a place in paradise. Banging his fist on the podium and shouting for emphasis, Arafat reveals a face that is rarely, if ever, seen in the West. By showing these clips to the public, Marcus hopes to unveil what he sees as the PLO’s true intentions.

During the early years of the Oslo peace process, Marcus says, the public constantly heard from Rabin and Peres that Arafat was a trustworthy partner. In particular, they made a distinction between Arafat, who, they claimed, was fighting for peace, and Hamas, who was fighting against it. Last year, before the Israeli elections, Arafat appeared on PBC praising the leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, referring to him as “our beloved Sheikh.” Arafat was also televised at the funeral of Hamas terrorist Abu Ayash, where he proclaimed him to be a “holy martyr.” Marcus believes that this and other examples, such as the PLO’s failure to change the Covenant, helped shape the election results, causing people to seriously question whether the other side was bargaining in good faith.

Besides influencing public opinion, Marcus also hopes to affect decision-makers. One subject that he has recently brought to their attention is the Palestinians’ continuing use of the map of Palestine, which encompasses the entire state of Israel. In one PBC clip, a map of Israel hangs on the wall of a kindergarten classroom. In the top left-hand corner is a Palestinian flag. The tape has numerous other examples, from the Fatah emblem, which shows two interlocking rifles on top of the state of Israel, to the Hebron Liberation Celebration in which dancers perform in front of a conspicuous map of Israel.

Marcus noted that in many scenes the cameraman purposely focuses on the map for several seconds. This emphasis gives the viewers the impression that they are going to receive all of Israel, not just the areas outside the “Green Line”, creating unrealistic expectations. Arafat has thus made it almost impossible to compromise, Marcus said, making it difficult to make future progress in the peace process. In order to foster a situation in which a final settlement can be reached that is acceptable to both sides, he sent to Knesset members a petition along with a copy of the tape, asking them to request Arafat to stop displaying the map of Israel as the future Palestine.

Amazingly, few people, even in Israel, monitor the Palestinian airwaves. Marcus attributes this partly to the politics of the Israeli media, which prefers to show clips of Arafat seemingly calling for peace instead of war. The practice of turning a blind eye towards what Arafat says to his own people produces a distortion in understanding the unfolding of events. An example of this is the commonly held assumption that the riots of last September were spontaneous, a boiling over of public outrage due to the opening of a tunnel alongside the Temple Mount. A segment of the tapes disputes this, showing that days before violence erupted Arafat issued a particularly vociferous speech in Arabic, inciting Palestinians to violence in Israel.

For the most part both the Israeli and American press pay little if any attention to Arafat’s proclamations in Arabic. Some journalists, however, have made use of Marcus’s work, such as George Will, who questioned Dennis Ross about a picture he received from Marcus with Ross sitting in Arafat’s office, a map of Israel hanging behind them. Ross ignored the question. Recently Marcus has sent copies to the U.S. House International Relations and U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committees, hoping they will exhibit more concern over images of crowds chanting before Arafat, “The soul and the blood we’ll give for thee, Palestine.” Perhaps if members of Congress start asking similar questions, Clinton administration officials will find it increasingly difficult not to answer.

Fighting Speed … and Apathy of Israel’s Ministry of Transportation

Speaking before a concerned audience at the Beit Agron Press Center on May 6, 1997, Dr. Eli Richter, a board member of the Center for Driver Research and Injury Prevention, condemned the number of road casualties as a “blot on our lives,” calling for citizens to take action against a transportation ministry which has failed to stem the rising tide of casualties that occur on Israel’s hazardous roads.

Israel is the only Western country that has witnessed a rise in road deaths over the past six years.

Citing the success and subsequent cancellation of last year’s project in Netanya, in which on-line roadside electronic enforcement was coupled with a widespread publicity campaign to reduce the speed on the roads, Richter, accompanied by two scientists, Prof. Gerry Ben-David and Zvi Weinberger, accused the Israel Ministry of Transportation of canceling the project just as it was beginning to prove its effectiveness.

The Netanya project, carried out between March and July 1996, was based on the premise that speed is the leading cause of deaths and serious injuries on the road. Richter said that studies all over the world have supported this claim, and that countries which have instituted programs aimed at lowering the speed on the roads have seen a reduction in fatalities of as high as fifty percent.

During the six months of the project, the number of citations rose from 80 during the same period in the previous year to more than 2500, witnessing a corresponding drop in the average speed, which fell between ten and twenty percent. Traffic casualties dropped from 328 to 248. These numbers are even more dramatic when one compares them to the rest of the country, which saw a rise in casualties over the same period.

The speakers claimed that a country-wide implementation of the Netanya project could save 200 lives annually. The Ministry of Transportation canceled it after six months, claiming it had failed. Prof. Ben-David attributed this in part to special interests, including oil companies and commercial trucking, which make more money when people drive at high speeds. Insurance companies, which in Israel operate as a cartel, also increase their profits when road crashes increase. Dr. Richter accused the scientists who criticized the Netanya project of having offered their services to these “special interests”, drawing a comparison between them and scientists who for years denied the harmful effects of smoking while receiving money from the tobacco industry.

The rest of the meeting dealt with methods of community organization, so that citizens could bring pressure on seemingly ineffective government officials. “It’s time to let other people try,” said Weinberger, exhorting the crowd to “throw the rascals out.”

A Program That Could Be Applied Anywhere in Israel to Reduce Speed, Death and Injury

a. Introduction

  1. The Center for Driver Research and Injury Prevention operated a five month project for speed control and injury reduction in the Israeli resort town of Netanya between March and July 1996. The project was carried out with the participation of the Transport Ministry Safety Administration, the Israel Police Force, the Netanya Minicipality, the Metuna Voluntary Organisation, and the Betz Safety Center at the Hebrew Universtiy Hadassa School of Public Health.
  2. The aim of the project was to reduce the number of road casualties (dead and injured) using online roadside electronic enforcement, together with widescale publicity.

b. Results

  1. The number of speed citations increased over the five month period of the project 30 – fold, compared with the corresponding period in the previous year, from less than 80 citations in 1995 to some 2500 citations in 1996. The average speeds in Netanya were reduced by between 10 and 20% during the project, though speeds increased to their former value one month after the end of the project.
  2. The results for the period of the project in 1996 compared with the corresponding period of 1995 were as follows. The number of road deaths dropped from 9 in 1995 to 5 in 1996 (a reduction of 4-5%). The reduction in deaths was more pronounced between intersections, where it dropped from 7 to 2 (a reduction of 70%). The overall number of traffic casualties dropped from 328 to 248 (a reduction of 24%). The number of injury related crashes dropped from 215 to 176 (a reduction of 18%), while the number of severely injured and killed dropped from 46 to 35 (reduction of 23.9%).
  3. The 1996 casualty reductions in Netanya were unique compared with large rises in ten comparison towns in nearly all crash categories. The results for Netanya show an overall 50.1% drop in traffic casualties, and a reduction of 34.7% in injury related crashes in comparison with the trends in the comparison towns.
  4. There was a progressively cumulative impact of the program during the 1996 March to July operation period. The program was stopped just as its impact on crash and injury reduction was shown not to be a chance reduction.
  5. There was a remarkable influence of the project on two Netanya roads (Ben Gurion and Ben Zvi Boulevards) where the pre-project travel speeds were particularly high. The following combined results were obtained for these roads during the project.

    a. Sharp drop in travel speeds.
    b. 100% reduction in killed and seriously injured – from 15 to 0 !!!

c. Conclusions

  1. The results of the Netanya Project prove that the combination of extensive publicity and speed enforcement – brings about swift and substantial reductions in the number of traffic casualties, especially in urban areas where high travel speeds represent a substantial crash risk. Similar results were found in other countries.
  2. In our opinion the operation of this program in ten towns (similar to the comparison towns) would permit an annual reduction of some 1000 traffic casualties. Country-wide operation of the program (urban and interurban) would permit an annual reduction of some 10,000 casualties including 200 fatalities. Such a large scale program would begin giving results within two months of operation.

Where is Beilin Going?

“I think we are witnessing the last gasps of violence by those Palestinians who want to block this accord,” Yosse Beilin told Jerusalem Post reporter David Makovsky. Way back on November 30th, 1993!

Labor MK Yosse Beilin has never been big on Palestinian violations. When he was Deputy Foreign Minister he even asked AIPAC to stop compiling reports on PLO compliance. And today he is doing his best to minimize their significance.

Beilin and his fellow travelers have a problem now with Netanyahu. As of this writing it appears that the PM may actually insist on some measure of Palestinian compliance before continuing down the Oslo path. In fact, the Ministers’ Committee for National Security set some clear requirements, including the confiscation of illegal weapons and action on Israel’s requests for the transfer of terrorist suspects. Something which few observers believe the Palestinians will ever do.

Days before the signing of the Declaration of Principles, Amos Oz wrote in the Jerusalem Post that “Once peace comes, Israeli doves more than other Israelis, must assume a clear-cut ‘hawkish’ attitude concerning the duty of the future Palestinian regime to live by the letter and spirit of its obligations.”

Since then Oz, Beilin and the rest of the Left have done just the opposite.

If Oslo was truly just an “experiment”, as Beilin and others originally presented it, then it wouldn’t be such a disaster if it failed. But as Beilin now readily admits, Oslo was not a test but instead an attempt by the Labor-Meretz coalition to create permanent Palestinian facts on the ground before the 1996 elections. Forget about all the talk about “mandate” and “democratic process”. The Left was determined to make the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza unstoppable, regardless of what the Israeli people should decide when given their first chance to vote since “Oslo” became more than a city in Norway. So here we are after the elections and Netanyahu is finally starting to do the little that he can under the very agreement which Beilin and his colleagues drafted. Under the agreements which they negotiated, Israel can build settlements, set the extent of each of the further redeployments (FRD) and require strict controls on Palestinian ports. These same agreements require the PLO to break up and disarm Palestinian militias, transfer terrorists to Israel for prosecution and refrain from incitement.

Got the score? Israel is acting legally and the PLO isn’t. So instead of talking about violations of the agreements, Beilin talks about violations of some amorphous “spirit of Oslo”, giving equal footing in his “five point plan” to legal Jewish construction and illegal Palestinian arms smuggling. And instead of calling straight out for an end to Palestinian terror, Beilin opts to sap it of meaning by making it a mutual call against terror and violence, knowing full well that this means bolstering the Palestinian equation that a bomb in Apropo is no more violent than a bulldozer on Har Homa or the imposition of temporary restrictions on the entry of Palestinian workers.

It’s bad enough that Beilin and his ilk are doing everything they can to deny Israel its moral advantage in the court of world opinion. But this isn’t the only reality which they have distorted.

Labor leaders assured the public that everything was under control since the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin had a “map in his mind” of the final agreement. Beilin, a key player in the negotiations, recently admitted that Rabin never let him take a peak at the map. After he was murdered, Leah Rabin explained to Beilin that Rabin had no plan.

The “Beilin-Mazen plan” may also not be what Beilin has been telling the public. When Dr. Khalil Shikaki, the Columbia University educated head of the Center for Palestine Research and Studies (CPRS) in Nablus, released his most recent poll, he surveyed support for what he terms “a Palestinian version of the so-called Abu Mazen-Beilin Permanent Status Plan.”

When I asked Dr. Shikaki how he came up with the idea that there were different Palestinian and Israeli versions to Beilin-Mazen, he explained that there are “two readings of the same document…There is no such thing as an accurate reflection of the document. It’s a question of how people see it. Both sides tell the people what they want to see in it.” Shikaki’s version is “based on newspaper reports and conversations with various people.”

It would be easy enough to clear the air on this question if Beilin would make the document public. But as Orit Shani, MK Beilin’s Legislative aide, explained, “Beilin and Peres are the only Israelis who have seen it.”

Beilin’s spokesman, Amir Abramowitz, also hasn’t seen the plan. But that doesn’t stop him from denying Palestinian claims that the plan includes an understanding that the Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem will ultimately be under Palestinian sovereignty.

Likud MK Michael Eitan, whose Beilin-Eitan plan is touted by Beilin as an extension of Beilin-Mazen, also hasn’t seen the plan. “Out of all the hours we spoke, Beilin gave an oral presentation of the Beilin-Mazen plan which took between a quarter hour and twenty minutes.”

Eitan himself claims that the Beilin-Mazen plan doesn’t matter to him. But if the plan does not exist, or is subject to radically different interpretations, then the compromises made by those who endorsed it in the belief that this was the last step towards an agreement were nothing more than a weakening of what at best may be Beilin’s idea of Israel’s opening position.

What drives Yosse Beilin to do this? I’ll leave that to the psychologists. But don’t expect a purely logical explanation. After all, here is a man who, instead of dealing with the world as it is, insists on “convincing himself that ‘yihyeh tov’ [it will be good]…I simply am not prepared to live in a world where things can’t be solved.” (“Haaretz” 7 March, 1997).

We all share Beilin’s hope that our problems can be solved. But that doesn’t mean ignoring reality to get there.

Dr. Aaron Lerner,
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
P.O.BOX 982 Kfar Sava
Tel: (+972-9) 760-4719
Fax: (+972-9) 741-1645
imra@netvision.net.il

Eisenhower Regretted That He Pushed For Sinai Withdarwal

When President Bill Clinton won his second term, Rowland Evans and Robert Novak joined forces to put out a column urging him to follow the example of President Dwight Eisenhower to “stand up to Bibi Netanyahu.”

“Remember what Eisenhower did to Israel in Sinai!” is embedded in American middle east policy. For Zionists it is a reminder of the U.S. at its roughest. For Israel’s opponents, it is the optimal standard. In Israel’s 1956 joint military undertaking with Britain and France, Eisenhower warned Israel of severe consequences were she not to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and Sinai. All U.S. assistance would end and financial contributions to Israeli institutions would lose their tax exempt status. There would be serious U.N. declarations and the U.S.S.R. might intervene. After only two days of these warnings Israel complied.

Peter Golden in his “authorized biography” of Max M. Fisher “Quiet Diplomat” (1992) relates that in October 1965 Fisher met with President Eisenhower in Gettysburg to get agreement to accept the U.J.A. medal for his role in the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps twenty years earlier. French General Pierre Keonig leader of the French Resistance and British Field Marshall alexander were also to be honored.

Golden reports that toward the end of the visit Eisenhower “wistfully commented ‘You know, Max, looking back at Suez, I regret what I did. I never should have pressured Israel to evacuate the Sinai'” (all references are to pages xvii and xvix). Eisenhower’s remark astonished Fisher.

Fisher was not the only one who was told of Eisenhower’s change of mind. Nixon told Golden: “Eisenhower…in the 1960s told me — and I am sure he told others — that he thought the action that was taken (at Suez) was one he regretted. He thought it was a mistake.”

Although Fisher knew this for 27 years before publication of his “authorized biography” he evidently never sought to give it publicity beyond the biography. It is still essentially unknown. Had Eisenhower’s rethought position been known in 1965, it might well have been helpful to Israel.

After reading the biography, I wrote Fisher asking why he hadn’t publicized this change in Eisenhower’s thinking. Unfortunately, he canceled our scheduled meeting in Jerusalem.

The Gettysburg visit brought a change in Fisher’s life aspirations. Golden relates that Eisenhower “almost as an afterthought” as they started to depart said: “Max, if I had a Jewish advisor working for me, I doubt I would have handled the situation the same way. I would not have forced the Israelis back.” Fisher was “struck…with the impact of epiphany. If Fisher had been unsure of the of the extent of power an unofficial advisor could wield with a president, he now had his answer, and from an unimpeachable source: the influence exerted could be decisive. It was exactly the role Fisher hoped to play.”

Author Peter Golden regarded Fisher’s 1965 Gettysburg visit with Eisenhower so crucial that he related it in biography’s introduction titled “Eisenhower and the Revelation of Sinai”. Yet, somehow that revelation escaped the attention it deserved.

Dr Lerner was a white house economic advisor from 1952 until 1986. He now lives in Jerusalem and works with IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis

Palestinian Lawyer, With 23 Other Political Detainees, Held in Palestinian Prison Lawyers Refused Permission to Visit

Palestinian political prisoners held in PA prisons and interrogation centers have been refused the right to see their lawyers. At the Interrogation Center for the General Intelligence in Jericho, 24 political prisoners are being held and denied the right to see their lawyers and, in many cases, their families.

In one typical example, Attorney Hossam Arafat, 35 years old and from Rami near Tulkarem, has been held in the General Intelligence Interrogation Center in Jericho since 8 February 1997. Security officials informed him at the time of his arrest that he had been arrested for political reasons. The 24 political prisoners held here have not been formally charged nor tried for their activities. Mr. Arafat, after languishing two months without a formal charge or trial, went on hunger strike on 22 April. After he was informed him that negotiations were underway with President Arafat, he ended his hunger strike on 26 April. Nothing has changed for him yet.

In addition, the General Intelligence services only allowed his family to visit him once, on 24 April. His family reported that he was weak after two days of hunger strike. His lawyer has not once been allowed to visit him in his formal capacity as a lawyer, but only as if on personal visits.

A lawyer from LAW visited Mr. Arafat on 30 April and was refused permission to see him as a lawyer and as a representative of LAW. He was admitted for a personal visit only.

Twenty of 24 political prisoners at the Interrogation Center are listed below:

  • Husam Arafat – Tulkarem lives in Ramallah.
  • Abdel Kareem Said Khamis – Deheishe
  • Abdallah Abu Ayash – Hebron
  • Abdallah Mohammed Khalil Salah-Dar Salah/ Bethlehem
  • Abdel Fatah Khamis – Deheishe Refugee Camp/Bethlehem
  • Jamal Ahmad Al-Garuz El-Arub/Hebron
  • Fuad Muhsein-Deheishe
  • Ata Kitkat-Hebron
  • Hasan Judeh-Nablus
  • Nedal el-Asmar- Jenin Refugee Camp
  • Sliman el-Fayyed- Jenin
  • Riad Ali-Tulkarem
  • Ibrahim Samada’a-Jenin
  • Azam Yacub-Tulkarem
  • Husni al-Hashash-Nablus
  • Ibrahim Sif Abahrah-Jenin Refugee camp
  • Ahmad Khalil – Hebron
  • Wadah al-Asmar-Jenin Refugee camp
  • Adnan Sawafta-Hebron
  • Mursi-Sebastia

Local law guarantees the right of prisoners to a lawyer and international law protects the freedom of speech and opinion. LAW believes continued incarceration without a right to a lawyer, and continued arrests for political activities, undermine democratic principles and the rule of law. These policies, in contravention of accepted principles, further highlight the dangerous and illegal practices of a Palestinian Authority struggling to control its political opposition.

LAW – The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment is a non-governmental organization, dedicated to preserving human rights through legal advocacy. LAW is also an affiliate member of the Paris-based International Federation for Human Rights.

Stone Throwing is Peaceful

IMRA interviewed Marwan Barghouti, Secretary General of Fatah in the West Bank, in English:

IMRA: The English translation we have of the Fatah decisions from the March 23rd meeting includes a “call on the masses of the people to go out against the settlements via all legal means…” Is that an accurate translation – “legal”.

Barghouti: Yes. By “legal” we mean “peaceful.”

IMRA: What kind of “peaceful” activities do you have in mind. Can you give some examples?

Barghouti: Peaceful activities. Demonstrations, marching.

IMRA: Rock throwing?

Barghouti: You mean stone throwing.

IMRA: Stone throwing?

Barghouti: Yes. Including stones. I don’t think that stones are violence. It is peaceful to throw stones.

IMRA: You also call on the people to “close the bypass roads before settler traffic.” How do you see closing the roads?

Barghouti: With stones.

IMRA: Throw stones at the cars?

Barghouti: Close the roads by putting stones in the road.

IMRA: This is legal?

Barghouti: Of course it is legal


The following are the decisions passed at the end of a meeting of the Supreme Council of Fatah on 23 March in the evening at Beit Sahour:

To place the responsibility for the serious breakdown in the peace process and all developments which result from it on the Israeli government. To consider the decision of the government of Israel regarding the establishment of new settlements, as an act of terror and aggression against the Palestinian people, the Arab nation, and international legitimacy.

To emphasize the support of Fatah in the Palestinian Authority and president Abu Amar in the struggle with this policy. To emphasize the strengthening of unity among all political, national, Islamic forces and the masses of the Palestinian people. To call on the PLO and the Palestinian Authority to stop the negotiations with the Israeli side and stop all measures of coordination with Israel, principle among them security coordination.

To call on the masses of the people to go out against the settlements via all legal means and close the bypass roads before settler traffic.

To declare a condition of general alert among the ranks of the Fatah movement throughout the homeland. To call on the peace camp in Israel to fill its role and increase its activities within Israel in order to put pressure on the government of Israel, which is drawing the region again into violent turmoil.

To punish the land agents.

To consider Land Day a Palestinian day for popular processions in all the cities, villages and camps in the homeland and camps in the diaspora under the slogan “Jerusalem eternal capital of Palestine” and “No peace with settlements”.

To call on the Arab public throughout the Arab homeland to hold demonstrations as a sign of solidarity with Palestine and in the defense of the Arabness of Jerusalem.

To denounce the position of the U.S. which leans completely in favor of the Tel Aviv government.

To praise the decision of the Palestinian Authority to free many prisoners from Palestinian Authority prisons, and call on it to free everyone.

To call for the branch committees to hold conferences of the movement in every district with the participation of all activists, public structures and movement offices, in preparation for popular conferences with the participation of all Palestinian forces. To praise the popular action in the Hebron district, Bethlehem, Jerusalem and the rest of the homeland and in particular the general strike held by the people in the camps in Lebanon on 23 March.

To call on the masses to boycott Israeli products which have a substitute in Palestinian markets.

(Al-Hayat al-Jadida – 24 March, 1997)

Editor’s note: Marwan Bargouti has been suggested as the liason between the Israeli settler population and the Palestine Authority

Dr. Aaron Lerner,
Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
P.O.BOX 982 Kfar Sava
Tel: (+972-9) 760-4719
Fax: (+972-9) 741-1645
imra@netvision.net.il

PLO Covenant Remains Unchanged

Like a cat with nine lives, the PLO Covenant refuses to die, leaving doubts about the seriousness of the fledgling Palestinian entity’s acceptance of Israel’s right to exist.

That is the message of a panel discussion consisting of journalists and academics, in which a video of the famous PNC vote was shown, sponsored by the Middle East Forum at the Beit Agron Press Center last night.

Speaking before a packed audience, Professor Yehoshua Porat of Hebrew University, an expert on Palestinian nationalism, said the Palestinian National Council has failed to make the changes required by the Oslo Agreement, which calls for the PNC to remove all articles in the Covenant calling for Israel’s destruction.

This accusation comes just over one year after the historic PNC voting session in Gaza, after which Shimon Peres proclaimed that Arafat had fufilled his promise to amend the thirty two year old charter.

Porat countered Peres’s claim, pointing out that the resolution adopted by the PNC that day only declared the PNC’s willingness to change the Covenant, legally leaving it unaltered. Porat also noted that the resolution, which calls for abrogating those articles which stand in contradiction to Oslo, did not specify which articles were to be changed, leaving the Covenant in a state of ambiguity.

Porat revealed that Peres’s belief that the PNC had cancelled the Covenant resulted from a misunderstanding between him and his legal advisor, and Nabil Sh’ath. The day before the vote, Sh’ath told the legal advisor that he would submit to the PNC the next day a resolution calling for the cancellation of the Covenant. However, Sh’ath presented a different resolution, which would then send the matter to the Central Council. He did not relay this change to his Israeli counterpart. When Peres heard the next day that a resolution had been adopted, he assumed that the PNC had fulfilled its mission.

While not disagreeing with Porat’s claim that the Covenant was not legally altered, Joel Greenberg, Jerusalem correspondent for the New York Times, questioned whether this was a cause for concern. Recounting an incident between Israeli and Palestinian negotiators at the Madrid peace talks, Greenberg described how no one on the Palestinian team had a copy of the Covenant when the Israelis brought up the issue. The Israeli negotiators had to provide the Palestinians with one. By this time, Greenberg argued, the Covenant had become a dinosaur. A Palestinian researcher participating on the panel concurred, noting that Arafat had accepted UN Resolution 242, which recognizes Israel’s right to exist, back in 1988. While not officially changing the charter, this change of direction on the part of the PLO made the Covenant obsolete. The legal process of abrogating the charter was completed in the fall of 1996, he said, but did not provide any evidence to verify it.

The showing of the video cast doubts on the claim that the Covenant had ceased to have any importance for the PLO. Speaking before the members of the PNC, Saleem al-Za’anoon, PNC chairman, stated:

“…if we amend those articles, whose amendment is demanded it will mean that we have paid a very high price. And if we prepare a new proposal, it will be less damaging than the 1st solution.”

Porat asked why the PNC failed to change the Covenant in compliance with Oslo if by this time it no longer had any importance. He noted that Arafat has defended his apparent acceptance of Israel to Arab critics by basing it on the PLO resolution of 1974, which calls for the PLO to set up a state on any part of Palestine, and then use it as a launching pad from which to liberate the rest of Palestine. Porat said he does not know that Arafat is acting according to the “phased plan”, but said that he is in doubt since Arafat has not changed the Covenant.

Porat further pointed out that besides not specifying which articles were to be annulled, the resolution did not say all articles that contradict Oslo would be changed. This is a crucial distinction, and it is unlikely that such a semantic error escaped the PNC’s attention. After all, Resolution 242 calls on Israel to withdraw from lands occupied during wars, instead of from the lands or all lands. Israeli officials have argued on occasion that on this basis they have fulfilled their obligations under 242, and therefore do not have to cede more territory. Presumably Palestinians are familiar with this argument.