Friday, November 15, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

Barak’s Position that Charter Canceled Firm Despite Singer

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

IMRA interviewed Labor MK Ehud Barak’s spokeswoman, Meirav, in Hebrew, on January 26 and again on January 28, 1998.

January 26:

IMRA: What is MK Barak’s view regarding the changing of the Palestinian Charter?

Meirav: As Ehud said last Saturday, the Charter has been canceled and any step to add and strengthen that is welcome.

IMRA: Former Foreign Ministry Legal Adviser Yoel Singer, who played a pivotal role in negotiating the Oslo agreements, said in an interview on Israel Radio this week that the Palestinians have not changed the Palestinian Charter and that this is in violation of the Interim Agreement and the Ross Note. Does Singer’s statement change Barak’s position that the Charter has already been changed?

Meirav: I’ll get back to you.

January 28:

IMRA: Any news?

Meirav: I think you can stay with what Ehud said last Saturday: the Charter has been canceled and any step to add and strengthen that is welcome.

IMRA: So the fact that Yoel Singer says that it wasn’t canceled does not make an impression on him.

Meirav: He said what he said and he thinks that any steps which will strengthen this is welcome.

IMRA: But the fact that someone who was closely tied with the peace process says that it wasn’t canceled doesn’t change his position.

Meirav: I do not think that you can conclude from this such a general conclusion.

IMRA: When Yoel Singer makes such a statement is he considered suspect?

Meirav: You know what, we can leave it as ‘no response’.

IMRA: I am not arguing with you.

Meirav: Look, I tried to talk to him about this and he told me ‘as far as I am concerned anything which strengthens it is welcome.’

IMRA: But he isn’t ready to tell you if this changes his view.

Meirav: It is not necessary to relate to one matter or another. This is what he said.

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

Arafat Gets US Assurances Clinton Says He’ll Push for Israeli Withdrawals

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

WASHINGTON – President Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright promised Yasser Arafat yesterday that they would push Israel to withdraw quickly from more West Bank territory, but they demanded that the Palestinian leader quash terrorist groups and tone down anti-Semitic rhetoric in official publications.

Conceding that the Middle East peace process is moving slowly, Clinton’s aides announced that Albright will need to meet with Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the next few weeks in Europe.

For days, the administration had sought to downplay this week’s separate meetings with Arafat and Netanyahu. Noting that both sides still disagree about land returns, security arrangements, and the final status of Jerusalem, the State Department spokesman, James P. Rubin, said yesterday, “We do not believe that there has been agreement on these various difficult issues.”

Arafat wound up a day of meetings in the White House and the State Department saying he was pleased with the Americans’ attitude and was “not asking for the moon” as he sought West Bank handovers.

Arafat’s canceled tour of the Holocaust Museum is a tale of slights and slip-ups.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Clinton wants Israel to pull out from at least 10 percent of the West Bank in the next stage. That jibes with administration reports that Clinton is seeking a “double-digit” amount. Israel has turned over 37 percent of the West Bank, and a peace accord signed with the Palestinians in 1993 does not specify how much more is to be handed over.

Erekat said Clinton assured his Palestinian guests, “I want a credible and significant redeployment. I want two digits.”

Clinton’s morning meeting in the Oval Office with Arafat lasted just over an hour, like the meeting with Netanyahu. “As long as there is a pressure and efforts by President Clinton, I’m fully confident that the peace process will be protected,” said Arafat.

By the accounts of US officials, this time Clinton and others upbraided Arafat politely but firmly several times during the day for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Spokesman Mike McCurry said, “The president gave the chairman things to think about.”

Ironically, just as Clinton is again getting personally involved in the peace talks, some scholars say he appears to be distracted by the controversy over an alleged affair with a former White House intern.

“What is left of the peace process is shredding, there is a major crisis with Iraq that must be resolved, and what’s the center of attention here?” said Judith S. Yaphe, visiting fellow at the National Defense University. “When you have to spend all your time doing damage control worrying about this latest revelation, I think it makes it very difficult to concentrate on these… issues.”

Netanyahu, who flew back to Israel Wednesday night, was unrepentant about openly courting the Rev. Jerry Falwell, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and other Clinton foes, who say Israel should defy demands to hand over land to Arabs. In his last speech in Washington, Netanyahu offered a public message to Arafat: “You haven’t done anything, and you ask us to give up additional territory to be bases for terrorism.”

Netanyahu said all the West Bank towns that Israel turned over to the Palestinians have started producing TNT for bombs.

This story ran on page A02 of the Boston Globe on 01/23/98.

Al Ahram on Israel Scene and Peace Process

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The following are excerpts from articles which appeared in the Egyptian English weekly, Al-Ahram.

A Watershed in Israel
by Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

David Levy’s resignation should not be regarded as one other minister quitting Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition, but as the beginning of the end of an entire Israeli strategy. Much will depend on the Arab parties devising a counter strategy.

… Given the uncertainties surrounding the entire peace process, it is not surprising that radicalism is acquiring the upper hand throughout the region.

… The most dangerous manifestation of the growing radicalisation of the region is the upsurge of terrorism. In Algeria, it has claimed over 1,000 victims since the beginning of Ramadan alone. And, though the body count in the Luxor massacre was nowhere near as high, for Egypt it has set a new record of brutality. Faced with these developments, Washington cannot continue to turn a blind eye to Netanyahu’s provocative behavior, without losing its credibility as an honest broker, not only in Arab eyes but in the eyes of the whole world.

Real Facts on the Ground
by John Whitbeck
an international lawyer, based in both London and Paris,
who writes frequently on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process

Whether or not Mr. Netanyahu likes it, the state of Palestine already exists, and Palestinian statehood is not even an issue in the “permanent status” negotiations which, according to the Declaration of Principles signed in September 1993, must reach an agreement not later than May 1999.

According to the Declaration of Principles, the issues to be covered during “permanent status” negotiations are “Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.” Palestinian statehood is not mentioned, but the reference to “borders” and “other neighbors” would make no sense except in the context of an agreement between states. Israel’s eventual formal acceptance of Palestinian statehood is clearly implicit in the terms of the Declaration of Principles, but, as a matter of international law, Israel’s prior acceptance is not an essential precondition for the state of Palestine to exist.

While extending diplomatic recognition to foreign states lies within the discretion of each sovereign state, there are four customary criteria for sovereign statehood: a defined territory over which sovereignty is not seriously contested by any other state; a permanent population, and willingness of the state to discharge international and treaty obligations; and effective control over the state’s territory and population.

While Israel has never defined its ultimate borders, the state of Palestine has effectively done so. They encompass only that portion of historical Palestine occupied by Israel during the 1967 War. Sovereignty over expanded east Jerusalem is explicitly contested, even though, after three decades, none of the world’s other 192 sovereign states has recognised Israel’s claim to sovereignty. The sovereignty of the state of Palestine over the Gaza Strip and the rest of the West Bank, however, is uncontested.

Israel has never dared even to purport to annex these territories, presumably recognizing that doing so would raise awkward questions about the rights (or lack thereof) of those who live there. Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in favor of the Palestinians in July 1988. While Egypt administered the Gaza Strip for 19 years, it never asserted sovereignty over it. Since November 1988, when Palestinian independence and statehood were formally proclaimed, the only state asserting sovereignty over those portions of historical Palestine which Israel conquered in 1967 (aside from expanded east Jerusalem) has been the state of Palestine, recognized as such by 124 other states encompassing the vast majority of humanity.

… Palestinian statehood is not within Israel’s power to grant or deny. The Palestinian state exists. Only once this most fundamental “fact on the ground” is absorbed by Israel — and American — public consciousness will it be possible for meaningful “permanent status” negotiation to begin and for both peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians to be achieved.

Oslo’s Last Chance
by Graham Usher

There is a growing realisation on the part of the Fatah leadership especially that the period of Palestinian concessions in the hope of American action is over. “We understand that the longer the situation stays as it is the weaker and more unpopular the PA will become.” admits Fatah’s West Bank leader, Marwan Barghouti. “The people judge whether the PA or Fatah is weak or strong according to progress on the ground. If the further redeployments happen, this will strengthen Fatah. But the reverse is also true. This means that we must concentrate on the political and internal fronts at the same time. Internally, the priority is to maintain the national dialogue with Hamas and the other opposition parties.

Politically, we must continue our efforts in the international community and with the Israeli peace camp to pressure Netanyahu. We have to put him in a corner.”

The problem is that Fatah and the PA have been trying to do just that for the past year and have gleaned neither redeployments nor a halt to settlement building. In this sense, Arafat may be right when he calls the Washington meetings the “last chance” for Oslo. But Barghouti is less convinced that “a renewed Intifada” would be the outcome should Washington again fail to deliver the goods. “I don’t expect any future resistance would follow the Intifada model”, he says. “It would rather be by guns.”

The Challenge of Israel
by Edward Said

We claim that we want statehood and independence, yet none of the most basic institutions of statehood are in anyone’s mind. There is no basic law where the Palestinian Authority rules today, the result of one man’s whim not to approve such a law, in flagrant defiance of the Legislative Assembly. Our universities are in an appalling state, starved for money, desperately run and administered, filled with professors who struggle to make a living but have not done a stroke of research or independent work in years. We also have a large and impressive group of extremely wealthy businesspersons who have simply not grasped that the essential thing for any people is a massive investment in education, the construction of a national library, and the endowment of the entire university structure as a guarantee that as a people we will have a future.

… It is no use blaming the failures of the current PLO on a few inadequate and corrupt individuals. The fact is that we now have the leadership we deserve, and until we realize that we are being driven further and further from our goal of self-determination and the recovery of our rights by that leadership which so many of us still serve and respect, we will continue to slide downwards.

… We need the support of the Arab intellectual and cultural community which has devoted too much time to slogans about Zionism and imperialism and not enough to helping us fight the battle against our own failures and incompetence. The challenge of Israel is the challenge of our own societies.

Commentary on Claimed Change to Palestinian Charter

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

When President Clinton’s national security adviser, Sandy Berger, said before the Netanyahu/Arafat visits to Washington that “this is the time for tough decisions”, I assumed he had both parties in mind.

Unfortunately, comments coming out of the Clinton Administration before the trip gave reason to believe that this was not going to be the case.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s one-sided comment that “it is important for us to move forward on these further redeployments and to fulfill some of the obligations of the interim [Oslo] agreements that has to do with opening airports and safe passage,” certainly did not jibe with “even-handedness”.

The Washington visits clearly illustrates just what kind of “tough decisions” Clinton’s team had in mind for Arafat: the decision to hand over yet another letter about the Palestinian Covenant and an agreement to a photo opportunity at Washington’s Holocaust Museum.

The Clinton Administration’s satisfaction with Arafat’s handling of the Palestinian Covenant is a real puzzle:

Back on September 9, 1993, Arafat promised in a letter to Yitzhak Rabin that “the provisions of the Covenant which are inconsistent with the commitments of this letter are now inoperative and no longer valid. Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.”

But nothing happened.

When The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement On The West Bank And The Gaza Strip was signed in Washington on September 28, 1995, Arafat promised “The PLO undertakes that, within two months of the date of the inauguration of the Council, the Palestinian National Council will convene and formally approve the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.”

But nothing happened.

With elections in Israel approaching, the Palestinian National Council met and is reported to have decided “The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the P.L.O and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993” and “Assigns its legal committee with the task of redrafting the Palestinian National Charter in order to present it to the first session of the Palestinian central council.” The canceled articles were not specified.

A week later, on May 5, 1996, Gaza attorney Faisal Hamdi Husseini, the head of the Palestine National Council (PNC) Judicial Committee announced that he would submit a new Palestinian Covenant in three months in which 21 articles will be changed or canceled. Keep in mind the number 21, I will be returning to it shortly.

Three months passed and Husseini didn’t do anything. But this didn’t stop the Clinton Administration and Shimon Peres from asserting that Arafat had, in fact, honored this obligation.

Which brings us to the first of several “Catch-22” situations: If Clinton and Peres were correct in their claim that Arafat actually changed the Charter, why did Dennis Ross include in the January 15, 1997 Note for the Record that “The process of revising the Palestinian National Charter will be completed.”

And they were supposed to act on this “immediately”.

They didn’t.

Last Thursday Faisal Hamdi Husseini told me “There has been a decision to change the covenant. The change has not yet been carried out.” He noted that there were no technical problems holding up the process: “When one side advances matters, the second side will also advance.”

There is only one way to change the Charter, and it’s stated explicitly in the Charter itself: “Article 33: This Charter shall not be amended save by [vote of] a majority of two-thirds of the total membership of the National Congress of the Palestine Liberation Organization [taken] at a special session convened for that purpose.”

But Arafat has no plans to convene the PNC to approve an explicitly amended Charter. Instead he produced yet another letter. This time addressed to President Clinton.

And in a masterstroke of ex-post engineering, this letter declared that when the PNC voted they thought they were dropping or changing a total of 28 articles – 7 more than Husseini, the man responsible for putting together a revised Charter, said he was going to deal with!

Instead of advising Arafat to finally get to work, State Dept. spokesman James Rubin said that the US considers the contents of the letter “an important step towards completing the process of revising the charter. As far as what additional steps need to be made, at this point all we want to say is that these need to be discussed directly between the parties.”

Does it matter that the PNC hasn’t really amended the Charter? Here is the paradox: Is it that the Clinton Administration doesn’t want to press Arafat for a PNC vote because it doesn’t think he can pull it off? If this is so then a crucial assumption at the very foundations of the Oslo process is false.

And if this underlying assumption is false, it would be folly for Israel to continue trading land for worthless paper.

The visits could have been a watershed event in which Clinton finally insisted on Palestinian compliance. Instead we are witness to continuation of his destructive “damn the violations full withdrawal ahead” policy.

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 Runs “Police-State” in Arafat’s “Self-rule” Areas

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

JERUSALEM (Reuters 20th January, 1998) – A leading Palestinian human rights group, accusing the Palestinian Authority of acting like a “police state,” issued a scathing report Tuesday detailing widespread human rights abuses in Palestinian-ruled areas in 1997.

“The mechanisms of a police state are in place. The Authority is practicing these mechanisms as the average citizen looks on in horror,” the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) said in its annual report, “The State of Human Rights in Palestine.”

The report said torture and extra-judicial killings in Palestinian Authority custody were the most severe human rights violations in self-ruled areas.

“Seven Palestinians died in custody during 1997, compared to only four in 1996,” said the report, distributed at a Jerusalem news conference by PHRMG director Bassem Eid.

“There were no investigations and the perpetrators were punished only in one case. The high number of deaths is connected to the official and long-standing tolerance of torture by the security services,” the report said.

It stressed that in Palestinian-controlled areas, “more and more Palestinians are engaged in the important work of arresting, torturing, and occasionally killing each other, much as they did during 1996 and 1995.”

The report said illegal arrests and arbitrary detentions were the norm rather than the exception in Palestinian Authority areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

It said the judicial system, both military and civilian, was in danger of becoming entirely irrelevant for Palestinian citizens as hundreds of prisoners were denied their day in court…

The report detailed systematic violations of freedoms of speech and the press and said journalists lived in fear of either arrest or torture for publishing articles critical of Palestinian President Yasser Arafat’s self-rule authority.

The Palestinian Authority has come under sharp criticism from local and international human rights groups for abuses it carried out in areas under its control since its establishment in 1993.

Human rights violations have intensified after crackdowns against alleged members of Muslim militant groups which have killed scores of Israelis in suicide attacks aimed at undermining Israel- Palestinian peace deals.

Palestinian officials said that human rights abuses were acts carried out by individuals in the security apparatus but were not police policy. “We are not angels but our human rights record has improved in recent months and continues to improve,” insisted Ibrahim Abu Dagga, human rights adviser to Arafat.

The PHRMG dismissed such claims, stating that torture carried out by the Palestinian security forces was “frequent and routine”.

“What is absolutely verifiable is that torture is taking place throughout the West Bank and Gaza with the knowledge and approval of our executive branch,” the report stated.

“To talk of ‘improvement’ in such a context is a way of mocking the victims,” it said….

Injustice and Mockery Characterize Arafat’s “RULE” LAW

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Today, 19th January, 1998, the Palestinian State Security Court met at the Military Court Headquarters in the Office of then Governor of Jericho to try Nasser Abu Arrous and Jasser Salaami’. Following a closed thirty-minute hearing, prior to which the defendants had not received notification of their charges nor were they permitted to appoint their own defense attorneys, the State Security Court handed down a sentence of 15 years hard labor. The charges, trial and imprisonment of the two defendants are a serious violation of human rights and are unlawful under the relevant legislation in the West Bank.

Nasser Abu Arrous, aged 23 years of Nablus, and Jasser Salaami’, 25 years also of Nablus, were arrested four days ago by the Palestinian General Intelligence Service. Following an announcement by the Palestinian National Authority yesterday that the State Security Court would try the two for charges connected to the bombings in West Jerusalem on 13 July 1997 and 4 September 1997, LAW sent its attorneys to represent the Abu Arrous and Salaami’ at trial.

At 10.00 hours local time the attorneys at LAW sought to enter the Governor’s offices in order to represent the client, but were told by the court police that the court was not yet in session. After ninety minutes the lawyers were called into the building, in which it transpired the State Security Court had been in session. The Chair of the State Security Court, Colonel Marwan Fedar, immediately on the arrival of the defense lawyers, handed down a sentence of 15 years hard labor for Nasser Abu Arrous and Jasser Salaami’. The two had been charged with offences under the Revolutionary

Punishment Law of the Palestine Liberation Organization 1979. The charges related to the commission of terrorist acts, article 174, and damaging national unity, article 178.

These codes do not form part of Palestinian law and have no validityin the West Bank including Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. Consequently the accusations, charges, trial and sentence are all unlawful and thetwo defendants are facing 15 years imprisonment for non-existent offenses.

The trial of Abu Arrous and Salaami’ was conducted, as with other trials of the State Security Court, in violation of basic principles of fair trial. The defendants were not permitted to prepare a defense, appoint their own defense attorneys, the trial was conducted in closed session and it is unclear what rules of procedure were employed.

The trial and sentence again demonstrate that the State Security Court is a serious violation of human rights. While the Court continues to exist it defies and destabilizes the basic foundations of justice: the rule of law, fair trial and the independence of the judiciary. Since its establishment in February 1995 the State Security Court has successively tried political opponents as an expedient means of incarceration.

LAW calls for the immediate abolition of the State Security Court, as it corrupts law and judicial procedures in the Palestinian areas of the Occupied Territories. It also calls for all decisions of the State Security Court to be reviewed by the Palestinian High Court.

Pat Robertson Interviews Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu felt the brunt of White House pressure Tuesday, being treated to what might be described as “snub diplomacy.” The Israeli leader was not accorded the usual diplomatic courtesies often given to a head of state, such as staying at Blair House or a special White House dinner. But following a tightly controlled meeting with President Clinton, Netanyahu endured several grueling hours of “tag team” negotiating with U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and others.

The Israeli prime minister apparently held his ground, demanding that the U.S. hold the Palestinian leadership more accountable in living up to past peace agreements.

When the pressure sessions finally broke up, Albright conceded to a friend, “I can’t say a lot has happened here.”

Sources tell CBN News that President Clinton is now trying to engineer a face-to-face meeting between Yasser Arafat and Netanyahu in Washington, hoping for a breakthrough.

Pat Robertson spoke at length with the Israeli Prime Minister immediately following last night’s negotiations. Here is that in-depth interview.

(Begin Transcript):

Robertson: I hear you’ve had a grueling day — eight hours of meeting the President, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger, and others — how did it go?

Netanyahu: Not too bad.

Robertson: Really? What are they asking you?

Netanyahu: They’re trying to cook up an arrangement to get over this interim settlement business, which is complicated.

Robertson: If they want a percentage of land in the double digits, are you going to give it to them?

Netanyahu: What we’re trying to do is effectively find out whether the Palestinians will comply with their promises, and we can give a certain amount of land, not a hell of a lot, because there’s not much there. We need minimal ramparts, minimal buttresses for Israel’s security, and that I won’t give up.

Robertson: What do the Palestinians want? What do you really think their goal is?

Netanyahu: That’s the problem. We keep on telling them that they have to show us that they are annulling — canceling — the charter that they have that still calls for our destruction. That was promised to Israel four years ago when the Oslo Accords were signed. They have yet to deliver on this basic promise, so obviously, the question mark is always there: are they out to destroy Israel, if they won’t amend the basic constitution that they have that calls for Israel’s destruction? I think the first thing they should do is amend that charter.

Robertson: Have you ever heard Yasser Arafat make a speech in Arabic where he acknowledges the existence of Israel and is for its integrity?

Netanyahu: I can’t say that I have, but I may have missed a particular instance. But you’re quite right — there’s a difference in the way Palestinian leaders speak in English and the way they speak in Arabic, and they’re seldom held accountable for it. I must say that we in Israel are held accountable for every word that we say. And we say the same thing to the Israeli public and to the American public: we want peace, we’re prepared to move for peace, but it’s got to be a peace that we can live with, a peace that we can defend. That’s the only peace that has meaning — peace with security.

Robertson: There was an article in today’s paper by Natan Sharansky about the whole concept of Hebron. There were certain undertakings dealing with Hebron, and I understand the Palestinians haven’t been keeping that, is that true?

Netanyahu: Yes, it is, unfortunately. We kept our side of the deal: we redeployed from Hebron itself, we released women prisoners who were terrorists. I didn’t like it, but the previous government had committed to it, and I kept the promise. We decided on the redeployments — all of these were exactly our commitments under the Hebron Accords. Unfortunately, the Palestinians failed to do all those things that they promised: they’ve failed to collect illegal weapons; they’ve failed to lock up the terrorist leaders and operatives; they’ve been releasing them. They’ve failed to stop the incitement for violence in their official media; they’ve failed to annul that charter that they promised to annul. So it’s not a good record; I wish I could be sitting opposite you and telling you a different story. I wish I could say a year after Hebron, they kept their promises; that’s essentially what they want for the next phase. People ask us, Why do you insist they keep their promises? And I say, How can you expect us to sign the next agreement if they fail to keep the previous agreement? That makes common sense for anyone who’s signed any agreement.

Robertson: Is the Clinton administration going to hold them to those accords, or are they glossing them over?

Netanyahu: Well, I hope so, Pat, because the promises in the Hebron Accords were made to the Clinton administration. Each side promised the United States, which was a signatory to these accords, that it would fulfill its part. Well, we’ve fulfilled our part, and they haven’t fulfilled their part. But the ones who should be most concerned with compliance is the United States, which certainly wants its word and its signature to be honored and to have meaning.

Robertson: What about your domestic support? I’ve heard there’s some division. You’ve won a couple of key votes, but by narrow margins. Are the Israeli people behind you now?

Netanyahu: I think the overwhelming majority of people are behind our demand for Palestinian compliance, our insistence on security, that they fight terrorism as they promised to do. They support the fact that we fight terrorism, and that we have had some successes with this. And above all, they want our concept of peace with security, which means that they support our view of a final settlement that leaves Israel with these defensible borders, and also leaves us with land that we view as historically precious to the Jewish people. This is the land of Judea — that’s where the word Jew comes from — Jerusalem remaining undivided, forever a united city. For these things, we have overwhelming support.

Robertson: Yasser Arafat wants a capital in Jerusalem; he wants a vast majority of the West Bank. Are you going to give it to him?

Netanyahu: No. He’s not going to get that.

Robertson: Well, will there ever be peace without it, do you think?

Netanyahu: There will be peace if he abandons these extreme demands. If he pursues these extreme demands, we will have the foundations for future conflict. If he gets most of the West Bank in his hands, Israel will be indefensible, and an indefensible and weak Israel is merely a prelude to more conflict in a major war, rather than to peace. So if we’re going to have peace, he’s got to understand that he too must make compromises in his territorial demands. Secondly, a divided Jerusalem — this would be a tragedy, a catastrophic descent into the past when the city was divided by a Berlin Wall with barbed wire and snipers on either side. I’m not going to let that happen. It’s just not going to happen.

Robertson: There are a couple of other players that are acting up in the Middle East: one is Iraq, who possibly has deadly anthrax that’s capable of reaching Israel. And I understand the Iranians have now got intermediate missiles, and possibly even long-range ICBMs. What about them — what does your intelligence say?

Netanyahu: Actually, we share a very close intelligence with the United States, and we view these regimes, Iran and Iraq, that are feverishly arming themselves with ballistic missiles and sundry kinds of unconditional warheads, we view that as a great danger to the peace and stability of the Middle East, and I must say, beyond the Middle East. Could you imagine Iran with ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear weapons capable of reaching not only Israel, but in the second instance, the heart of Europe, and within a dozen years the eastern seaboard of the United States? That’s a frightening thought, and therefore, we should do everything in our power to prevent the arming of Iran with these weapons of long-range delivery. In fact, the main supplier of this ballistic missile technology is Russia, and we’ve been trying to persuade the Russians — “we” meaning the United States and Israel and other countries — we’ve been trying to persuade Russia to stop the supply of this deadly technology to Iran. I said to President Yeltsin, One day, they’ll train those missiles at you; you’ll be in as great a danger as we are. Well, I hope that the Russians will see the light; in any case, we’re not going to stop our efforts to make them see the light.

Robertson: You had a predecessor once upon a time who made a preemptive strike against one of your enemies; it probably saved us all some terrible consequences. Is there any thought of the United States, or maybe a coalition, doing that with Iran?

Netanyahu: Well, I don’t want to pre-judge anything, but certainly not even on your show, Pat.

Robertson (laughing): Well, we’ll leave that aside then. I’ll get to something more pleasant. I understand you’ve got inflation down to 7 percent; your economy’s doing very well. That’s a tremendous achievement.

Netanyahu: We have brought inflation down to its lowest level in thirty years. We took the inflation rate and cut it by more than 50 percent. In a mere 18 months, we’ve lowered a huge deficit that we inherited from the previous government — we’ve narrowed that down by a third in that time period. We’ve privatized 30 times more than the previous government, so we’re committed to having a liberal, free-market economy in Israel, which has been waiting a long time for this. If you add the fact that Israel has some of the greatest technology in the world, this combination of high technology and free-market principles, I think, argues well for Israel. We’re going to have, I think, a very prosperous country by the time we’re finished.

Robertson: American Jews — are they with you, are they against you? I understand that the councils and presidents of leading American Jewish organizations wrote the President to say that you need to be more evenhanded in regard to negotiations between Israel and the PLO. How are they treating you — what do you hear from them?

Netanyahu: Well, I was very gratified when I came into Washington yesterday. It was a cold day, but I had two wonderfully warm receptions. One from the representatives of the American Jewish community, and one from the representatives of the American Christian community. Many of the evangelical denominations of the United States came together; I understand that I was able to unite them. And I think it wasn’t me — it was their love of Israel, their support for Israel. It was very heartwarming, and I must say I felt the same thing from the representatives of the Jewish community here.

Robertson: What would you like our audience to do? How can they help you, because it’s predominantly evangelical; we haven’t had many Jewish people who watch my program. What would you like this audience to do for you or for Israel?

Netanyahu: I think they’re already doing it. I think they expressed that support by their own statements, by the letters they write to the editors, by the fact that they communicate to their representatives — their congressmen, their senators — to support Israel. They understand that a strong Israel is the best friend the United States has in the Middle East, where it doesn’t have many friends. It’s the best friend, it’s the most loyal friend, it’s one that shares the ideal of freedom and democracy and respect for individual lives and individual rights. It’s a very deep bond that we have, and every time I come here, may I say that from the opportunities that I get, such as appearing on this show, that bond is self-evident.

Robertson: Are you optimistic about the future? I know it’s cloudy and uncertain, and full of trouble…

Netanyahu: Yes, I’m optimistic, because I think that the people of Israel have undergone such a tremendous odyssey and have overcome the greatest adversity in the annals of nations. Fifty years ago, we were a windswept leaf: we had experienced the Holocaust, we were a decimated people. But fifty years later, we have a thriving state — not free of problems, but look at what we have: one of the finest armies in the world, a growing economy, technology, science, and above all, faith in our future and in the friendship we have of those like-minded peoples and individuals around the world.

Robertson: I think I can say truthfully for all of us on this program, God bless you and God bless Israel. Thank you for being with us.

Netanyahu: Thank you very much, Pat, I appreciate it.

Rabbi David Ariel-Yoel

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Excerpts from interview conducted on January 23, 1998 with Rabbi David Ariel-Yoel, Rabbi of Harel, Reform Synagogue located at 16 Shmuel HaNagid Street, Jerusalem, Israel

Rabbi Ariel-Yoel is also the head of the Beit HaMidrash learning academy that is located at Hebrew Union College, funded in part by grants from the Israel Ministry of Religious Affairs and the New York Federation of Jewish Agencies.

Conducted by Toby Greenwald, Israel based journalist

Q: A few months ago, you performed a ceremony for a same sex couple. Would you do more in the future? I believe that you referred to this as a “commitment ceremony”.

A: “Yes. About eight months ago, I performed a commitment ceremony for a same sex couple. I would do such ceremonies also in the future. I believe that one of the bigger challenges of our generation is to try and bring back the homosexual and lesbian communities into being part of the Jewish tradition The religious clergy fought against such recognition…. If today you are an Orthodox Jew and a homosexual, you are in a lot of trouble. Research shows us that a loving and caring relationship should also get a religious and a public recognition. I believe that such a lesbian and homosexual relationship, if they want to form a family, if they want to be part of Am Yisrael, should get a public and a religious recognition. History teaches us that such a family can be a stable and a long-lasting relationship. It is important that our Rabbis should reach out to homosexuals and lesbians and make them feel at home inside Judaism. I have to admit that public reaction to the ceremony that I performed surprised me. I have to admit hat I had no knowledge that the reaction would be as it was. I got alot of support and hundreds of letters and e-mails, and manly from younger people, my age who understand the need for such ceremonies The attack that I received were mainly from inside our own movement, from lay persons, not only against me personally, but against the decision of that was made by the Reform Rabbinical Council of Israel that allows Reform Rabbis to perform such ceremonies according to their own conscience and their own beliefs… Twenty years from now, all such things will be seen as natural, like women Rabbis and women Cantors. Such matters will be seen as natural…. No one will see this as anything that is out of normal…. Sexual relationships between couples are their own private matter…. The Reform movement does not see that anything should interfere with what happens in the a couple’s bed…. When I perform a heterosexual wedding, I do not necessarily encourage heterosexual experience”.

Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Evans & Novak
Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan
Aired November 29, 1997 – 5:30 p.m. ET

Rowland Evans, CNN host: I’m Rowland Evans. Robert Novak and I will question one of America’s most influential and most criticized black leaders on the eve of his mission to the Middle East.

Robert Novak, CNN host: He is Minister Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

Minister Farrakhan was attacked nearly two years ago when, after his million man march, he visited the Middle East and met with Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammar Qaddafi. This was his response then to criticism that he ought to be registered as a foreign agent.

Louis Farrakhan, Leader, Nation of Islam: I am not an agent of Lybia or any foreign government. And there is no need for me ever to follow that law that I should register.

On Monday with war drums rolling in the mid east, Minister Farrakhan leaves for a three month journey that will include Cuba, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Egypt, and maybe Libya. Once again, his travel plans drew fire. This time from Tommy P. Baer, International President of B’nai Brith, who said quote “he obviously didn’t hear the American outrage, after his last visit. Maybe he will here it now.”

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Novak: Minister Farrakhan what do you hope to accomplish on your trip, mainly to the Middle East?

Farrakhan: Well, I hope to be a voice for peace. That is the most troubled area in the world, that could lead the world into that great cataclysmic war which is called in scripture, Armageddon. And I really do not think the political leaders are acting in their best manner for peace. And therefore, I would hope that the religious leaders of Israel, the religious leaders of the Muslim world, will awaken to the tremendous responsibility that is their as the children of Abraham to lead that part of the world toward peace.

Novak: As a Muslim, what is your message to the Muslim leaders of the Middle East?

Farrakhan: I would hope first that we would see the reconciliation of differences between Muslims who have been combatants in serious wars in the past, that have take the lives of millions of young muslims.

Second, I would hope that the idea of terrorism, the idea of the slaughter of innocent human life might be replaced by the kind of spiritual dialogue that leads to sane policies. For every time an innocent life is lost, the media will say Muslim terrorist, and this leads to growing hatred, dislike for the religion of Islam.

Novak: So you would advise the leaders of Hamas for example, to discontinue their campaign of terror against Israel?

Farrakhan: I would also advise Israel to discontinue the bathing of these settlements in east Jerusalem and sit down over the question of what is justice for Israel. What is justice for Palestinians.

Novak: But you will also advise the Hamas to…

Farrakhan: I think the leader of Hamas have already said, they will forswear violence and terrorism for the dialogue toward peace.

Evans: Mr. Farrakhan, you will be going to Iraq, will you not?

Farrakhan: Yes I will.

Evans: Will you be seeing Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq?

Farrakhan: I don’t know, but I hope to.

Evans: And if you do sir, will you tell him to open up all of his possible places, of refuge for weapons of mass destruction, which the United States and the United Nations now claim he has kept concealed?

Farrakhan: You know, the claims that to me and to thinking people are absolute fabrications to justify wicked intentions against Iraq. What have these weapons inspectors being doing in Iraq for nearly seven years? This is the only country that I know, that a war has ended. Yet 1.4 million Iraqis, including 680,000 children have died, since the war is over. That war is continuing, and that war must end.

Novak: Sir, should the U.S. bomb Iraq, if the inspectors — the UN inspectors are not permitted into all the places were the UN says he may be concealing weapons of mass destruction?

Farrakhan: American has enormous military power. She could bomb Iraq without losing much life or planes. But is that the wise approach for the leader of the world? Is that the best approach? I think not.

Novak: So you’re saying the answer to that is no? We should not.

Farrakhan: Absolutely.

Novak: What would be the impact in the Islamic world if the United States decided it was necessary to punish Saddam Hussein on this question of weapons inspections?

Farrakhan: Everyday that American misuses her great power and influence, she loses not only the friendship of the Muslim world, but she begins to lose the friendship of her own allies. This is not a wise policy, and I believe that the foreign policy advisors, who advise American administration on a policy toward the Middle East, need to have some new advisors, some fresh information because, I think American can do this better than what she’s doing.

Novak: Sir, I want to ask you a controversial question. Do you equate the possible damage to the world — President Clinton or the Secretary of Defense here has said, that Saddam Hussein biological weapons to kill every human being — do you equate that in anyway with Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons?

Farrakhan: Well, nobody is asking Israel to destroy some of her weapons of war. But is seems to be a part of America’s foreign policy to weaken every nation in the Middle East who could in effect be considered a threat, not just to their Arab neighbors, but a threat to Israel. This is not an even-handed policy. It is not wise, and it will backfire as it is.

Evans: Are you going to visit Israel on this trip?

Farrakhan: I would hope that the Israeli government will allow me into Israel so that I might speak to Israeli political and religious leaders, and Palestinian political and religious leader and hopefully see what the dialogue could produce.

Evans: Have you asked to be granted permission to enter?

Farrakhan: I will.

Evans: What is your expectation?

Farrakhan: I don’t know. I have such a terrible image in Israel. I don’t know whether they would let me in, but if they are as I think they should be, they would let me in.

Evans: Well, maybe I can help you improve the image. Every time anyone says anything, even moderately favorable toward you, a lot of your critics come up with a quotation like touches the Weekly Standard, and this quotation is sometime ago, where you addressing the Jewish people about Israel saying, quote “she will never have peace, because there can be no peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your gutter religion under his holy and righteous name.” End quote. Sir, we all say things sometimes, that we regret. Once and for all would you like to take back those words?

Farrakhan: Israel has not had any peace in 40 years. She doesn’t have peace now. Peace can only be structured on the principles of justice and fair dealing. And if the leaders in Israel, and the leaders of the Palestinians are willing to sit down and negotiate a proper settlement for peace for the sake of the children of Israel and the children of the Palestinians, I think that, that would be the wise step. I can’t take back what I believe is truth.

Evans: What about the gutter religion?

Farrakhan: Oh, I never, never referred to Judaism as a gutter religion.

Novak: Sir when you…

Farrakhan: Our actions.

Novak: Sir, when you see President Qaddafi of Libya, will you use your good offices to really make the point hard with him, that he should permit two Libyans, who are being held on the suspicion of being involved in the Pan Am 103 downing in Lockerbie, Scotland, to go to trial?

Farrakhan: Sir, with all due respect. You know, in America jurist prudence a person is presumed innocent until proved guilt. Charges do not necessarily mean that the person is actually in fact guilty. America charged somebody else with that first, then several years later they charged the Libyans.

The Libyans under international law do not have to surrender their nationals to be tried in Britain or in America, but America use her terrific influence to impose sanctions on an entire people over an incident that they have not conclusively proved that their charges is correct. What Muammar Qaddafi is saying is, I will surrender my nationals to a third, or neutral country to be tried by Scottish jurists. I think we ought to go to trial somewhere to find out where the truth lies.

Evans: Mr. Farrakhan, we’ve got to take a break for messages. When we come back, we’re going to ask Minister Farrakhan what did Mayor Daily of Chicago tell him the other day. In a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Evans: Well Bob, I couldn’t have gone into Balto-latin (ph). Do you think you could?

Novak: No I don’t believe so. We’re not in that class.

Mr. Farrakhan, you met in Chicago with Mayor Daley, this last week. He came under a withering attack from Jewish groups, and then he said he had lectured you to be more careful in your comments. Is that true? Did he tell you that?

Farrakhan: Well, I think his honor was very forthright. We talked about working with the city to decrease crime and violence in the black community. Increase economic opportunity, and also we talked about easing racial tensions and religious tensions. This was my offer to his honor. And the mayor was very frank. He said well, you know you can’t just have a partnership with this city administration. The partnership has to be with all the people of the city, including, of course, the Jewish community.

And certainly I had no problem with that. We live in the city, and so I said certainly we should have such a partnership. And I would hope that he would use his good office to try and promote that kind of dialogue that would lead to that. And my chief of staff suggested that it might be best if it came through the Civil Rights Commission, headed up by a black man by the name of Mr. Woods. And he thought that, that was a good suggestion.

And of course, the mayor has come under withering attack, which is unfortunate. Because there will be a backlash. You know there are many people who do not like the fact, that when a mayor is voted on by the public, and he has — he’s the mayor of the whole city.

And I represent considerable influence, I believe in that city, that the mayor should not even speak with me, should not get to know who Farrakhan is, and what Farrakhan is about. And then for him to have this withering attack by members of the Jewish community. How will the Irish feel? How do the Italians feel? How do others feel who are non Jewish.

Evans: Mr. Farrakhan, has President Clinton asked your advice about his call for a national dialogue on race issues?

Farrakhan: No he has not.

Evans: He has not.

Farrakhan: No. I am sure that he would be just like Mayor Daley, he would come under a withering attack for daring to ask me such a question.

Evans: Well, let me ask you this sir. Has Professor John Hope Franklin, his Chairman of the commission or the committee that is doing this work for… Have you had any contact with him?

Farrakhan: No sir, I have not.

Evans: How — how do you explain that sir? I mean you are, whether one likes or dislikes, loves or hates Minister Farrakhan, you are a leader. You got a million or close to a million black here two years ago. How do you explain that sir?

Farrakhan: Well, I think that in truth, honesty will dictate that persons who are in positions of power or who seek upward mobility in a system like this would not like to include somebody in a panel that might cause criticism or pain to come to them. And so most black leaders will meet me behind the door and tell me how much they appreciate Farrakhan, but publicly, they cannot embrace me for fear that they would lose some of the support that they get from Jewish philanthropy, and corporate America.

Novak: Sir. On October 16th you called for African Americans to stay home, not to go to work. By all measurements, not many blacks in America heeded your words. Was that a mistake on your part to make that call?

Farrakhan: Oh, no. The day of atonement is a serious call. And it, like many what you would call holy days or holidays, have to pick up momentum. I think that for the first year that we asked our people to stay at home during the million man march, they did that. And the first anniversary of the million man march, at 11:00 on a Wednesday morning in New York city, nearly 150,000 people gathered to observe the day of atonement with only two weeks of advertisement.

Now we are calling on our people to stay at home, to stay from work, to fast, to pray to reconcile differences. I believe like all holidays, it will pick up momentum as people see the value of such a day.

Novak: Earlier this year in Philadelphia, working with Mayor Ed Rendell, you made a speech in regard to the racial tension in the Grays Ferry area and you called on blacks not to demonstrate because it would be considered provocative and confrontational. Does that represent a major change in your outlook toward strategy and tactics?

Farrakhan: Not at all. You know, when we say we are a people of peace, and the Honorable Elijah Muhammad striped us of all weapons — no Muslim carries a weapon at all. We have no weapons in our homes. We mean that we are a people of peace. And to walk into Grays Ferry in the heat of that, with 4,000 to 5,000 angry men, could be considered provocative. And if violence broke out as a result of that, we’re not the kind of person that turns the other cheek. So if violence broke out, we would fight. So knowing that, we thought it would not be the wise thing to do.

Evans: Mr. Farrakhan, we only have a second before we go take a break. You supported Jesse Jackson for president in 1984. Do you regret that?

Farrakhan: No. Not at all.

Evans: If he runs again sir, in 2000 and ask for our support, will you campaign with him?

Farrakhan: That I would have to wait and see. I don’t want to see symbolic running. I want to see a candidate that can win, and a candidate that will use the black vote to leverage something more than a job for a few well placed blacks. But if we’re going to vote in the election, what will come out of it for the masses of our people? That we’d be looking for.

Evans: We’ve got to take a break Minister Farrakhan. When we come back with the Minister in a moment after these messages, we’ll have the big question.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

Evans: The big question for Minister Farrakhan. Sir, last year you knocked on the Republican door. Has anyone answered?

Farrakhan: It must have been a silent knock, but in truth, I would like to see black people more evenly distributed between the Republican and the Democratic parties. I really don’t think all blacks should be concentrated in the Democratic party. I believe that blacks should be balanced in the Republican party and we should leverage our votes to see what we can get for the masses of our people.

Novak: Has any Republican, knowing that is your message, said we’d like to talk to you about that Minister Farrakhan — we’d like to sit down and talk to you?

Farrakhan: Well, I’m almost afraid to say because of the withering heat that that person might get from segments of the community might not be good for that person politically. But yes, there are those who would sit and who would talk with me and who would dialogue with me. But I do not wish to subject them to that, no.

Novak: I understand what you’re saying. Minister Farrakhan, thank you very much. Safe journey on your trip to the Middle East.

Farrakhan: Thank you.

© 1997 Cable News Network, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Farrakhan & Moussa Interviews

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The following are excerpts from articles which appeared in the Egyptian English weekly, “Al-Ahram” of Al-Ahram Weekly 8-14 January 1998, “Africa encounters Farrakhan” by Gamal Nkrumah

Louis Farrakhan’s recent world tour was part of his effort to bring Africa, the Muslim world and Black America closer together.

In an interview with Al-Ahram Weekly, Farrakhan stressed that he had “never made contact with Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiya or any other such organization.” Al-Gama’a Al-Islamiya, Egypt’s largest militant Islamic group, claimed responsibility for the Luxor massacre — saying it was meant to secure the release of its leaders imprisoned in American and Egyptian jails….

“I do not advocate violence. I cannot condone violent acts except in self-defense. Even when it concerns our struggle in America….

“I can overthrow the system by means of the Qur’an. Over 80 percent of the two million African-American men who answered my call to demonstrate in Washington against racial oppression in America were Christian. The Reverend Benjamin Chavis, who was instrumental in organizing the March, is now a Muslim. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America today.”

In Cairo, Farrakhan did not meet with top-level political personalities, but he did meet with the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Mohamed Sayed Tantawi. He was unable to meet with Grand Sheikh Nasr Farid Wassel, the Grand Mufti of Egypt, but met with leaders of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood and members of the Islamist-oriented Labour Party at the home of the party’s leader Ibrahim Shukri.

Farrakhan has set himself a difficult task: he is currying favor with the secular establishments of predominantly Muslim nations, with socialist and nationalist patriotic groups as well as with Islamists. He says that so far his tour has been successful. What seems to have not gone down so well are the accusations swirling around that Farrakhan has been hobnobbing with militant groups.

Before he left his headquarters in Chicago, Farrakhan said that he is on a 52-nation world tour that will take him to several countries dubbed by Washington as “rogue states”, including Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, North Korea and Cuba. Farrakhan explained that he did not use his American passport to travel to Iraq, and therefore, did not violate the U.S. travel ban on Iraq…. Farrakhan was accompanied by an entourage of about 50 people.

Elegantly dressed in his trademark bow tie, he spoke to representatives of the international media at a well-attended press conference. He also lectured at the African Society, a historical landmark which housed many of Africa’s liberation leaders in the ’50s and ’60s. His audience at the Africa Society were mainly representatives of Al-Azhar University’s 12,000-strong African student community, and he spoke about Islam and Pan-Africanism. He paid tribute to Egypt’s late president Gamal Abdel-Nasser, who had received both Elijah Mohamed and Malcom X in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

“Living up to history” — and interview of Foreign Minister Amr Moussa by Hosny Guindy and Hani Shukrallah,

Moussa: I must say that this policy of Netanyahu’s has not been entirely a bad thing because it has brought into sharp focus the real Israeli demands under the Likud, with no sugar coating on them — none whatsoever. So, it has all become very clear. As such, you either have to deal with it, challenge it, or succumb to it. This is what makes the situation critical… And this is why I say we are approaching the moment of truth.

Reporter: This seems to imply that Netanyahu did not create a new reality — he simply revealed what was already there?

Moussa: No, not exactly. I do not think that he created a complete new reality. But certainly the policy and approach of the Labour party are different from those of the Likud.

At any event, this is what Netanyahu has confronted us with. He is telling us: this is it.

Now you are asking could the previous government have reached the same point? There are different schools of thought on this matter.

Some would argue that yes of course the previous government would have brought us to where we are now. They use the example of [the massacre of 100 Lebanese civilians] in Qana to substantiate this point. Indeed, some would also question the fundamental difference between someone who wants to give you 10 percent [in West Bank redeployment] and another who wants to give 20 percent. True, 20 percent is better than 10 percent, but both are entirely inadequate in terms of the decent and reasonable requirements of a balanced approach to peace.

The problems with Oslo, the settlements and the redeployment were there long before the [recent] cabinet crisis.

It is true that one of the pretexts that Mr. Netanyahu liked to use was that he was having a hard time pleasing all the members of his coalition. But the answer to this [argument] is that you either see yourself as dealing with a major problem, which is Middle East peace, of great regional and international importance, and [accordingly] you act as a statesman or you concern yourself with votes here and there and use the local Israeli scene to justify your inability to embark on a balanced peace process.

If this is the case then let us talk frankly and say that this peace process is not going to work, or that it needs greater decisive US intervention in terms of evenhandedness, as I said before.

Israel as a state and not as a Jewish people — Arab Jews were always a part of this region — has no such common history with the Arab world, but is seeking to establish new bonds with us.

So, there are already long-standing foundations for Arab-Iranian and Arab-Turkish relations, but not for Arab-Israeli relations.

The Israelis, however, seem ignorant of the fact that they are not, especially right now, laying down the right foundations on which we can build a healthy relationship. Instead, they are laying down the wrong foundations and as a result our relations with them will always be tense, as long as they continue to pursue their course in the same manner as heretofore.

The Israelis are ignorant of the facts of history — an ignorance that could perhaps be attributed to a certain type of arrogance on their part. This, in fact, is Netanyahu’s biggest error. It is a strategic and an historic error.

It is not just a mistake that he makes when it comes to the treatment of the Palestinians or procrastination with the Syrians. It is rather a major strategic error whose long-term impact Netanyahu cannot see.

We accept that Israel is in the region to stay; but we are talking about it as a destabilising force in the region or as a constructive force?

If we are talking about it as a destabilising force, than this is a different story altogether.

But the future of the region should be based on cooperation between all its inhabitants. This is a matter that Rabin and Peres were getting to understand. But the Likud seems unable to grasp it.

Therefore we should work on formulating healthy and balanced relations that are based on common interests.

We have to have a relation where we can say that the Israelis are treating the Palestinians fairly.

But as long as Arab citizens say that Israel is being unjust to the Palestinians, there will never be a harmonious regional community. It is just not possible.

Reporter: As regards the dialogue between Hamas and the PLO which is reportedly due to open soon in Cairo, what is the Egyptian role in this process?

Moussa: This is a dialogue that has been going on for a long time. They were here for talks about two years ago.

We support all efforts that aim at closing Palestinian ranks because any rift or strife between the Palestinian political forces can only harm the Palestinian cause.

It does not matter which Palestinian forces we are talking about because the Palestinians still have no state. They are struggling to achieve self-determination and an independent state.

In the course of this struggle, it is in the interest of the Palestinians to close ranks behind Yasser Arafat.

All groups should refrain from squabbling because any rift would only serve the interests of the other side.

Our thanks to Dr. Joseph Lerner, Co-Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) for sharing these pieces with us.

1...1,1831,1841,185...1,200Page 1,184 of 1,200

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2477 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
430 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
daniel
daniel
0 POSTS0 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

© 2003-2020 All rights reserved. Articles and Special Reports on IsraelBehindTheNews.com are copyrighted. Every reader is welcome to reprint any and all articles, and with citation.