Full CNN profiles of Netanyahu/Arafat: Worthy of Feedback to CNN

Note: The one time CNN uses the word “terrorist” is about Netanyahu’s political movement, with no specifics, no justification for the use of the word. The one terror incident mentioned concerning Arafat is Munich, 1972, and its “alleged” connection to Fatah. The eader of the Black September which murdered the Olympic athletes is today a high ranking security officer of the PA “Police”. Not worthy of mention. But what about Ma’alot 1974, Lod 1972, the US diplomats murdered on Arafat’s orders in the Sudan in 1974 ? What about the fact that the PLO operated aerial piracy for more than a decade? Not worthy of mention?

Perhaps some feedback to CNN sponsors is long overdue…

Jack Golbert

Here are the CNN profiles:

CNN Insider
Benjamin Netanyahu
Israeli Prime Minister

Born: October 21, 1949; Tel Aviv, Israel
Education: BA (architecture), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1974; MBA, 1976
Military Service: Israeli army (Sayeret Matcal anti-terrorism force), 1967-72; Army, 1973
Occupation: Diplomat
Family: Wife, Sara Netanyahu; 1 son, 1 daughter (from first marriage)
Religion: Jewish
Early Years: Participated in several high-profile commando missions including a raid on a hijacked jetliner outside Tel Aviv, 1972; Was pursuing a business career in the United States when his brother Jonathan was killed in the Israeli raid on a hijacked plane in Entebbe, Uganda, 1976; Returned to Israel and founded the Jonathan Institute, a group that studies the origins of terrorism and develops strategies to combat it.

Political Career:Deputy chief of mission, Israeli Embassy, Washington, DC, 1982-84; Israeli Ambassador to UN, 1984-88; Member of Parliament, 1988-96; Deputy Foreign Minister, 1988-91; Deputy minister, office of prime minister, 1991-92; Likud Party leader, 1993-; Prime Minister, 1996-
Office: Kiryat Ben-Gurion, 3 Kaplan St, P.O. Box 187, 91919 Jerusalem, Israel

Related Site: Israel Information Service

Sources: Current Biography, 1996, Who’s Who in the World, 1996; Israel Information Service

Benjamin Netanyahu’s political philosophy is representative of Israel’s so-called revisionist movement, which evolved into the conservative Likud Party after Israeli independence in 1948. This political philosophy espouses Israel’s justification in carrying out terrorist revenge attacks against Arab civilians and the British government, and argues that Israel’s borders should extend eastward to include what is now Jordan. It rejects the relinquishing of any Israeli territory as dangerous to the country’s security.

In the 1977 election, the Likud Party, for the first time in Israel’s history, won enough votes to knock the Labor Party out of power. The Likud Party then launched a feverish expansion policy to build Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, disturbing the native Palestinian population. Netanyahu aligned himself with the Likud Party and found in it a home for his hawkish views.

In 1982, Netanyahu was appointed deputy chief of mission at the Israeli mission to the United States. He served as Israel’s U.N. representative 1984-88, deputy foreign minister 1988-91 and deputy prime minister 1991-92.

Netanyahu gained international prominence during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when he was interviewed live on Cable News Network as Iraqi Scud missiles fell on his country. His remarks and demeanor aroused sympathy for the Israeli cause. In 1992, he served as Israel’s chief spokesman at the Middle East peace conference in Madrid, establishing himself as a shrewd negotiator.

Netanyahu was elected leader of the right-wing Likud Party in 1993 and elected prime minister in May 1996. He was a fierce opponent of the pacifist policies of his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin and the Labor Party, which had followed the mainstream Ben-Gurion tradition of military restraint and a willingness to compromise on territory for the sake of peace.

He won the election by persuading a majority of Israelis to join him in opposing relinquishing Israeli control of the city of Jerusalem. He also opposed Israel’s 1993 land-for-peace agreement with the Palestine Liberation Organization, which granted self-rule to Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu will have to walk a very fine line in following his conservative political approach. Although he may successfully defend Israel’s security, he runs the risk of igniting violent confrontations with the Arabs, arousing opposition from liberal, pacifist Israelis, as well as angering the chauvinistic, conservative Israeli settlers who, living among hostile Arab neighbors, depend on the Israeli government for their defense.


Yasser Arafat
Palestinian Leader

Born: August 24, 1929; Cairo, Egypt
Education: Degree in engineering, University of Fuad I (now Cairo University), 1956
Family: Wife, Suha Tawil
Religion: Muslim
Early Years: In 1946, began procuring arms for an anticipated battle for Palestinian territory; Helped found Fatah, a guerrilla group dedicated to the liberation of Palestine, mid 1950s; Began mounting raids into Israel, 1965; Elected chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 1969.
Recent Years: Signed draft agreement with Israel providing for Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and the West Bank town of Jericho, 1993; Awarded Nobel Peace Prize along with Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres, 1994.
Office: Gaza City, The Gaza Strip, via Israel

Related site: The Palestine Home Page

Source: Current Biography, 1994; Biographical Dictionary of the Middle East

The Palestinian-Arab politician, former terrorist and nationalist leader Yasser Arafat was born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat al Qudwa al-Hussein in Cairo, Egypt, on August 24, 1929, son of a successful merchant. His mother died when he was 4, and he went to live with an uncle in Jerusalem, at that time a British protectorate. It was during those years that Arafat was first exposed to the clash between native Arabs and immigrant Jews who aspired to build a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

When Arafat went to college in Cairo, he undertook a study of Jewish life there, associating with them and reading the works of Zionists such as Theodor Herzl. By 1946 he had become a convinced Palestinian nationalist and was already procuring weapons in Egypt to be smuggled into Palestine in the Arab cause.

When the first of five Arab-Israeli wars broke out in 1948, Arafat slipped into Palestine to fight the Jews. He was incensed when he and his compatriots were disarmed and turned back by other Arabs who did not want the help of Palestinian irregulars. After the Jews won the war, Palestinians suffered another humiliation when the Arab states concluded a peace with Israel that dispossessed three quarters of a million Palestinian Arabs, leaving them stateless. He maintained that the Arab states should have accepted a U.N. proposal to divide Palestine into two separate states — one for the Jews, and one for the Palestinian Arabs.

In the mid-1950s Arafat and several Palestinian Arab associates formed a movement which became known as Fatah, an organization dedicated to reclaiming Palestine for the Palestinians. This and other groups eventually operated under an umbrella organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization, formed in 1964. Running Fatah became Arafat’s full-time occupation, and by 1965 the organization was launching guerrilla raids into Israel.

Israel again emerged victorious in the Six-Day War of 1967, and captured the Golan Heights from Syria, the West Bank from Jordan and the Gaza Strip from Egypt. The war widened the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to include other Arabs. In 1968 Arafat and the Fatah got international publicity when they inflicted a significant defeat on an Israeli incursion into Jordan. The PLO’s activities increasingly troubled Jordan’s King Hussein however, and in 1970 he forced the Palestinians to leave Jordan. They set up bases in Lebanon and continued to carry out raids against Israel from there.

In 1972 Arafat was vilified because of an alleged involvement with the Arab terrorist Black September group that massacred Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

In 1974, Arafat addressed the United Nations in New York. The sympathetic world body voted to give the PLO observer status at the U.N. and acknowledged the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. That year Arafat appeared to be willing depart from his desire to destroy Israel and instead reach a political settlement with the Israelis.

The bleakest period for Arafat and the PLO came in June 1982 when, provoked by terrorist raids, Israel launched an all-out counterattack, destroying the PLO headquarters in Beirut and forcing the PLO out of Lebanon. Arafat re-established PLO headquarters in Tunisia. Soon however, world attention was drawn away from the PLO toward rioting by Palestinians in the West Bank and their plight in the Israeli-occupied territories. The PLO supported the West Bank Palestinians, and the international sympathy they aroused thrust the PLO back into prominence.

In the Algiers Declaration of November 1988 the PLO proclaimed an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and recognized Israel’s right to exist. Further, Arafat declared before the United Nations that the PLO renounced terrorism once and for all, and supported the right of all parties to live in peace — Israel included. The United States declared itself ready to negotiate, and by the year’s end some 70 countries had recognized the PLO. This diplomatic victory was undermined when Arafat backed Iraq in the Persian Gulf War. Hussein’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait split the Arab world into pro-and anti-Iraq camps.

Although long deemed a “terrorist organization” by Israel, the PLO recognized Israel in 1990. In 1993, Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin forged a peace agreement. which provided for the gradual withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Palestinian Authority — the Palestinian governing body in the occupied territories — was created under the 1993 peace agreement. The Palestinian Authority’s legislative body, the 88-seat Palestinian Council, was elected in January, 1996, and Arafat won a landslide victory as its president.

Rabin and Arafat shared a Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for their achievement in bringing peace.

Arafat has been criticized by Israel and others for a lack of control over extremist Palestinians such as Hamas. Arafat has vowed to crack down, and repeatedly has expressed sorrow over Hamas terrorist acts, but remains the champion of Palestinian rights and their quest for a homeland.

How Israel Can cope with the PLO by Adopting a Proactive Approach to the Media

Edmund Burke, who supported the war against his mother nation, was once asked if he would support the French Revolution. His answer was negative, because “the end is the means in process”. To paraphrase Edmund Burke, a regime conceived in terror would adopt a policy of terror against its own people.

The PLO reality is such that it is a nation state in formation, for better or for worse.

The PLO now operates its own army and rules villages, cities, refugee camps, farms, industries and schoools, with all the responsilbilities inherent in statehood.

The PLO’s new Palestinie Authority benefits from the direct and personal prestige of the President of the United States, along with the recognition of almost every nation on the face of the earcth.

Indeed, the PLO now communicates with every level of Israeli society and every segment of Israeli politics, openly or covertly.

However, since its ascendence to power, the PA has also established the precedent of welcoming killers and car thieves within its miudst, while all the PA outlets of communication continue incitement for war against Jews and the state of Israel. Leading the pack is Arafat, who, with the exception of one single speech delivered on the day that he took over in of Hebron, continues to address his people in the most warlike of terms against the Jewish state.

The newfound status and recognition of the “PLO state in the making” makes it difficult and almost counterprodcutive fprt Israel to engage in a frontal media campaign against the PLO.

The prestige of statesmen and reporters around the world are now tied in to the PLO.

The PLO itself is now on the center stage of the world, yet that very exposure can provide the hint to Israel as to how to conduct its media relations in the near future.

The time has come to move the realm of Israeli public relations into the private business, so that new ways can be pioneered that will report the reality of what Israel now faces for the Jewish world, at least, to understand what is going on.

And the way to project any idea to the Jewish mind remains the mainstream media, especially because Jews remain the greatest news junkies in the world, especially in regards to Israel.

With the PLO at center stage, I would suggest that Israelis work with Palestinian media professionals who are also disaffected with Arafat to promote media productions in the following areas:

  1. Human rights and civil liberties within the Palestine Authority
  2. Public funds and corruption in the PA
  3. PA arms supply of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad
  4. PLO involvement with narcotics trafficking.
  5. UNRWA regulations that keep Arab refugees in a situation of squalor
  6. Continuing Arafat incitement
  7. Anti Israel curricula in PA schools and media
  8. Orders carried out by the PA army to kill dissidents within the PA

    And in the positive realm, Israel can continue to project the possibilities for better and positive relations with between Jews and Arabs in the future, once the PA is deemed to be obsolete. The untold story of Jewish-Arab cooperation in the realms of trade, commerce, education, health and dialogue can provide the media with newsworthy stories, ad infinitum.

    What Israel needs is a proactive approach, privately funded, for the media to be presented with the news stories that will reflect another reality in Israel.

    A framework exists, known as the Institute for Peace Education Ltd, just waiting for partners to build a new level of news coverage for Israel in the next few years.

Special Book Review

Knesset and Government Directory: The 14th Knesset
edited by Boris Karassni and Ronit Chacham
published by Policy Publishing House Ltd
2 Laskov Street, Tel Aviv 64736 Israel
256 pp.
Cost: 130 shekels

The above directory is a first of its kind. The most helpful guide to the sraeli government and Knesset that has ever been written. The fact that mos Israelis in any walk of life, from lawyers to union organizers to lobbyists generally do not know a thing about how to contact the Knesset or how laws re made remains an unusual fact of life in Israel. This short directory contais every possible fax number and name of every Knesset administrative assistat whose job it is to make the laws of the state of Israel. Particularly helpful is the delineation of the Knesset committees and lists of officials in every overnment office in Israel. A must for anyone who wants to influence Israeli government policy.

Escalation in the North

Iran, Syria, the HizbAllah and Palestinian terrorist organizations actively prepare for escalation in the strikes against Israel. The terrorist strikes from Lebanon may be used by Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad to attrite Israel and even instigate a widening of the crisis leading to a wider Syrian-Israeli confrontation. The recent reinforcing and training of the HizbAllah and other terrorist organizations by Iran constitute the key to this potential escalation. The Israeli Government is fully aware of these developments.

In a May 9, 1997, interview with Haaretz, IDF Intelligence Corps chief Moshe Ya’alon pointed to the growing role of terrorism in Assad’s policy. While negotiating for peace, Assad is simultaneously exercising other options by which it hopes to exert pressure on Israel, both in the Lebanese theater and by means of terror.

Damascus hosts the headquarters of all the Palestinian terrorist organizations. Violence and terrorism while negotiations are in progress is the tool Assad has chosen. Concurrently, Damascus is keeping all other options open.

The Syrians have a war strategy based on the element of surprise.

Echoing the strategic percept of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Syrians opt for seizing territory with the intention of using it to then initiate a political process that will compel Israel for major concessions.

Gen. Ya’alon assesses that Syria would not require foreign aid to launch a limited war, and that it in the event of a war it would activate the HizbAllah in Lebanon. A likely scenario leading to war will have Assad bring[ing] about a deterioration of the situation that would enable him to be perceived as reacting to an Israeli maneuver, for example in Lebanon. And even the continuation of the current level of violence in South Lebanon is of strategic importance. The on-going confrontation with the HizbAllah is an unwinnable war as long as Iran is there concedes Uri Lubrani, the coordinator of Israel’s activities in Lebanon.

The emergence of such Syrian-Iranian strategic capabilities in Lebanon is the result of an intensive joint effort. In the first four months of 1997 alone, the Iranians flew to Damascus 37 plane loads — all Boeing 747 Jumbo Jets — of weapons and ammunition for the HizbAllah. Among the weapons supplied are advanced shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, Raad anti-tank guided missiles (an Iranian development of the Soviet lethal AT-3 SAGGER with longer range and more powerful warhead), Fajr-3 240 mm Katyusha-rockets (with a 40km/25mile range), sophisticated electronic systems for bombs and mines, as well as a host of other weapon systems and large quantities of ammunition.

At the same time, Syria and Iran are expanding a program of intense military training for HizbAllah, Amal, and Palestinian terrorists (mainly the PFLP-GC) in bases in both Syria and Labanon. Moreover, Syrian and Iranian officers and NCOs now deploy along with the newly trained terrorists into south Lebanon, thus ensuring better and more efficient use of the new weapons.

The deployment of these quality assets has already been reflected in a series of engagements with the IDF and the SLA in which the Hizballah and Palestinian forces demonstrated better skills and tactics, as well as mastership of advanced weapons. The HizbAllah’s large-scale attack on the Sujud strong-point on May 12 (Israel’s Independence Day), and the fierce clash with an IDF patrol on the night of May 15-16 that resulted in three Israeli fatalities and five wounded, are the latest examples of the newly acquired improved capabilities, audacity and courage of the terrorist forces in southern Lebanon.

No less important is the impact that this deployment of reinforcements has already had on the HizbAllah units in southern Lebanon. After a winter of setbacks and mounting casualties in the relentless fight against the IDF and the SLA, cracks emerged in some of the local HizbAllah units. The crisis was so severe that recruitment markedly declined and there were even numerous cases of desertion — an unheard of phenomena among the ideologically committed fighters of the HizbAllah. The arrival of the Syrians, Iranians, and fresh elite fighters boosted morale and rejuvenated the entire HizbAllah-Palestinian system in southern Lebanon.

And this is only the beginning. There is mounting evidence that Syria, Iran, and their sponsored terrorists — particularly the elite forces of the HizbAllah and the PFLP-GC — are actively preparing for the launch of spectacular operations against the IDF and the SLA. Among these are plans to kidnap Israeli soldiers, surprise barrages of long-range rockets against Haifa, exploding massive car-bombs with suicide drivers in order to inflict heavy casualties on the IDF, and anti-aircraft ambushes aimed to challenge the invincible lethality of the Israeli Air Force.

Meanwhile, Damascus also activated the new arrangements with the Palestinian terrorists in the territories. Israel now has information that the March 1997 bombing in Cafe Apropos in Tel Aviv was conducted not only in the aftermath of a green light from Yassir Arafat, but also in coordination with the HAMAS command center in Damascus — itself controlled by Syrian and Iranian intelligence.

The gang [that carried out the bombing] has links of some sort with the external HAMAS organization, which is headquartered in Damascus. The connection is with Damascus, Ya’alon stressed. By now, Israeli intelligence has ample information about widespread preparations throughout the PA-held zones for the resumption of terrorist strikes, including spectacular and suicide operations, against Israel. The Islamist organizations are convinced that the time is ripe for the resumption of terrorist campaigns. There is an atmosphere in the field of terror attacks, Yaalon told the Knesset Foreign Affair and Defense Committee on May 13.

Presently, the Islamist forces in south Lebanon, and particularly the HizbAllah, have no doubt about the meaning of the impending escalation of terrorism throughout the region. For example, on May 9, 1997, the HizbAllah’s organ — al-‘Ahd — published an analysis of the recent developments in south Lebanon.

The HizbAllah stresses the use of escalation in south Lebanon as means to break the political deadlock between Israel and Syria, albeit blaming Israel for the belligerence. “Though the escalation… the Zionist enemy is seeking to achieve security and political objectives by keeping the south under a controlled degree of tension.” The Israeli government can no longer withstand the political price of impasse in the peace process because of the building international pressure. “The search for an outlet from the political deadlock is a permanent policy for Israeli governments and the Lebanese arena has remained one of the places fit for such an outlet, which takes the form of military escalation, as was the practice in similar circumstances.”

Significantly, the HizbAllah analysis anticipates the possibility of the fighting in south Lebanon escalating to a regional war. Al-‘Ahd notes that “several sources are expressing fears that there is a Zionist plan [to escalate the fighting against the HizbAllah in south Lebanon] in preparation for pouncing on it through a large-scale aggression against the south, especially as the political climate in the region is overcast and regional moves are pointing to new military alliances under US political and military cover that are beating the drums of war [against Syria] and preparing for it. Lebanon cannot in this case be immune from all this because it will be a direct target in any war in the region or Zionist aggression in the south that might possibly be carried out as a substitute for a large-scale war. In both cases, Lebanon remains the target of the Zionist escalation.”

And the HizbAllah vows to do all in its power to derail Israel’s plans. The growing flow of better weapons and skilled fighters from Iran and Syria will be of use in this endeavor.

Arafat’s Policies Disastrous

Editor’s note: Edward Said, who lives in New York and teaches at Coumbia University is among the most well known Palestinian personalities alive. Said’s books and essays are now banned by the “Palestinian Authority” And though he has devoted a lifetime to the Palestinian cause nothing that he says can now be found in Palestinian newspapers, TV or radio. As Said wrote last July in The London Review of Books after visiting the “autonomous” territories, “… by order of the Minister of Informa- tion… security men appeared in all Gaza and West Bank bookshops and confiscated every one of my books. I am now banned in Palestine for having dared to speak against our own Papa Doc.”

Arafat loathed and has brought Palestinians to lowest point in their history

When I visited Hebron last July, I paid a call on an old friend, Mayor Mustafa Natshe, to find out what he saw as the future of his town. He told me that he had pleaded with Yosser Arafat and his men during the 1995 negotiations that led up to Oslo “not to sign an agreement that would give a Palestinian seal of approval to the 450 illegal settlers – most of them fanatics squatting with such offensive, even murderous, insistence in the centre of an Arab town.

`It isn’t just the principle of the thing that is so galling,’ he said, `but the fact that giving them this foothold in our midst by partitioning the town makes it possible for them to use Hebron as a precedent for staying in all their other settlements, extending their reach further all over the West Bank.’

Natshe’s pleas went unheard, as Arafat and his team pressed ahead with their Israeli peace `partners’ who consolidated their gains with, I suspect, a sense of disbelief. How else could even the most hardened Israeli explain that the Palestinians had accepted a formula for ‘coexistence’ in Hebron which gave 450 people (with the Israeli army guarding them) the choicest 20 per cent of the town’s commercial centre, whereas the 160,000 resident Palestinians were expected to be happy that they got 80 per cent, so bogged down with conditions as to make it a peripheral part of the Israeli enclave.

What sort of `strategic’ calculation by the Palestinian leadership produced acquiescence in the Israeli settler population being allowed to carry arms, abetted by Israeli patrols given virtually the run of the surrounding hills, while the Palestinian police were limited to a few poorly armed men, theoretically subject to Israeli restraints?

Nevertheless, there seemed to be genuine euphoria among Hebronites, for whom the presence of Israeli settlers and soldiers has been so unpleasant an ordeal; just seeing some of them leave in the hope of not having them come back on quite the same basis as before supplied a good day’s worth of celebration.

But much of the jubilation will be as short-lived as it was when Ramallah and Nablus went through the same happy catharsis 18 monhs ago. Hebron was not liberated: 80 per cent of it was given the right to administer municipal affairs – sanitation, health, postal delivery, education, local security and traffic – under the Palestinian Authority’s jurisdiction, with israel still in charge of security, access, water and overall sovereignty.

The ambiguities are evident in reports from Hebron in the press. On the first day,there were reports citing Netanyahu and Sharansky as to how Hebron is still Israeli, backed up by statistics showing continued Israeli control over the city. The next day, editorials and stories predicted a Palestinian state emerging soon from the messy Palestinian `archipelago’ that has left the West Bank and Gaza divided into lots of little parts without territorial continuity or sovereignty.

On American TV, the de riguer scene of Arafat and Netanyahu shaking hands with American mediator Dennis Ross between them showed a grim-faced Arafat anxious to speed away into the night. As the New York Times coyly put it in its jubilant report of how well things went, the actual amounts of land to be ceded to the Palestinians were left entirely to “Israel’s discretion”.

Now this is precisely how things were left in the Oslo 2 documents, since just before the Washington signing the Israelis calmly removed the specific areas of re-deployment already agreed with the Palestinians and left the timetable. Apparently, Arafat demurred at this, but under American pressure was made to sign. His latest heroics during the Hebron negotiations were meant to make up for what had happened earlier; but he failed again. No wonder he didn’t want to answer any questions.

It has been no secret that America, which has sub-contracted out its Middle Eastern policy to Dennis Ross and his coterie of experts, placed Arafat under pressure. Israel’s political concerns and its exaggerated obsessions with security and terror were adopted by the American middlemen, who were acting as anything but honest brokers. There was also an important confluence of strategic aims that united Netanyahu and Ross: that there should never be anything resembling real Palestinian self-determination.

And three-and-a-half years after Oslo began, `autonomy’ for Palestinians is all that has been achieved, in tiny enclaves on the West Bank whose roads and access are controlled by israel. An important town like Ramallah now has settlements on three sides. Sovereignty in the true sense of the word remains in Israel’s hands, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Why do so many Israelis seem upset by this agreement, which keeps them firmly in charge throughout the still-Occupied Territories ?

The reason is an ideological fanaticism so deep and all-encompassing that most western and even Arab readers do not have an adequate sense of its imperatives. Despite the millions of Palestinians in Palestine, they have always been considered aliens, to be tolerated at most or to be driven out or treated either as non-existent or as juridical inferiors.

Palestine is considered to be the land of the Jewish people entrusted to Israel; no non-Jews are doctrinally allowed to use or have this land. That is why Netanyahu, more honest than Peres, has always refused to accept the formula `land for peace’, and why sovereignty accorded to non-Jews has not, and will not be, an admissible oncept in negotiations.

I believe these positions are also shared, by the `acceptable’ Israelis whose views are aired in western media as representative of the peace camp, and who brilliantly conceal their real views of Palestinians beneath conscience-rending, anguished prose. They never bring up sovereignty for Palestinians. Many of them (including the egregious Henry Kissenger) speak of a Palestinian state, which they say they would accept, but none of them has specified sovereignty and real self-determination for Palestinians.

Trying to put myself in the shoes of the PLO men who continue to produce such disadvantageous agreements that do nothing to change the course of Israeli policy, I keep asking what our leader must be thinking. They certainly do not do very much talking, and share very little with their people beyond the usual triumphalist nonsense.

All I come up with is a series of unflattering rationales for going on as before, with equally bad results and equally tragic consequences for the whole people. One is that as long as the peace process guarantees the centrality of the PLO and its leader, then anything goes. Another is that being so out-gunned and out-smarted by Israel, you feel you have no choice but to go on, trying to brazen it out vis-a-vis your own people with hopeful but ultimately misleading speeches and promises; meanwhile, you surround yourself with supporters who tell you what you want to hear, and are anxious to help you set up feel-good things like a bag-pipe bend, a few luxurious cars and houses, and postage stamps with your face on them. The best thing is to go on as many state visits (none of them necessary) as possible, one day Stockholm, another Paris, another Cairo.

A third rationale is to make more concessions, accepting all the humiliating Israeli concessions in the wishful fantasy that some day you’ll either stop having to make concessions or the Israelis will give you a few things back.

Fourthly, you can say that this is politics, a dirty business, and so we proceed with the Israelis like partners in crime; never mind that they get all the advantages, a lot of commercial deals have come our way.

There may be one or two more possibilities, but none explains the Palestinian streets’ acceptance of this appalling situation, which seems to worsen daily. Many of Arafat’s adviser are intelligent men and women, quite a few with long histories in progressive politics. Why are they so silent? And why do the most gifted so willingly accept a few material advantages (a car, an office, a VIP designation) in return for continuing to work with a man whose tactics they loathe and whose mistakes over the past few years they known – and say openly – has brought as Palestinians and as Arabs to one of the lowest points in our history?

Why silence, and why co-operation ? Do they feel no obligation towards the truth and to the misery of a people whose continuing dispossession could have been alleviated a thousand times better than the PLO has done ?

In the meantime, most people in America and in Europe genuinely believe that peace has improved things for the `area’, and that for the first time in 30 years the Palestinians are getting their freedom.

This is the cruelty of the Palestinian dilemma. We want to show that we desire peace, yet because of that `peace’, the daily lives of all but a tiny handful of wealthy businessmen, security chiefs and PA employees have become a good deal worse.

For at least six months, the mainstream media in the US and Europe have been filled with stories about the diplomatic front, the negotiations, the impasses and the final breakthroughs, and completely void of anything that shows real Palestinian lives on the ground.

There has been no coverage of the thousands of students in Gaza who cannot go back to their schools and universities on the West Bank (forbidden by Israel); nothing about the large number of Palestinians prisoners still festering (and in some cases being tortured to death) in Israeli prisons; nothing about the horrors that a large family in Gaza with unemployed father must go through to survive; nothing about the systematic, almost daily reprisals against Palestinians who try to prevent their own dispossession by Israeli settlers and army; nothing about what it means for a Palestinian to try to get in and out of Gaza (or about all West Bankers who have been forbidden entry into Jerusalem for a year); nothing about the checkpoints that make the little West Bank enclaves seem like stifling ghettos; nothing about life under Craft’s dreadful regime, with books, newspapers and magazines censored or banned, the security services threatening average people, and corruption killing the possibility of regular daily business.

And nothing, above all, about the total absence of law or the rule of law in the Palestinian autonomy areas.

Given all this, plus the sense of frustration and hopelessness felt by every Palestinian at the cruel farce our leaders are forced to enact,it becomes an absolute duty to describe the actualities of quotidian life under the peace process – unadorned and in the greatest detail possible.

The world must be told by us what our people under occupation are still going through. This is not a matter of money, but of discipline and will. If every one of us first took it upon him or herself to be informed, and then attempted somehow to break through the official snd media silence – with a letter to the editor, a call to a radio or TV station, the setting-up of groups to do this kind of work systematically and collectively – – then we will be beginning our attempt at liberation, a laughably modest attempt it is true, but surely a great deal better than passivity and silence.

The present situation cannot last. There are too many inequities and injustices right at the heart of Palestinian life. Who is preparing for the next, post-Hebron phase?

When I visited Hebron last July, I paid a call on an old friend, Mayor Mustafa Natshe, to find out what he saw as the future of his town. He told me that he had pleaded with Yosser Arafat and his men during the 1995 negotiations that led up to Oslo “not to sign an agreement that would give a Palestinian seal of approval to the 450 illegal settlers – most of them fanatics squatting with such offensive, even murderous, insistence in the centre of an Arab town.

`It isn’t just the principle of the thing that is so galling,’ he said, `but the fact that giving them this foothold in our midst by partitioning the town makes it possible for them to use Hebron as a precedent for staying in all their other settlements, extending their reach further all over the West Bank.’

Natshe’s pleas went unheard, as Arafat and his team pressed ahead with their Israeli peace `partners’ who consolidated their gains with, I suspect, a sense of disbelief. How else could even the most hardened Israeli explain that the Palestinians had accepted a formula for ‘coexistence’ in Hebron which gave 450 people (with the Israeli army guarding them) the choicest 20 per cent of the town’s commercial centre, whereas the 160,000 resident Palestinians were expected to be happy that they got 80 per cent, so bogged down with conditions as to make it a peripheral part of the Israeli enclave.

What sort of `strategic’ calculation by the Palestinian leadership produced acquiescence in the Israeli settler population being allowed to carry arms, abetted by Israeli patrols given virtually the run of the surrounding hills, while the Palestinian police were limited to a few poorly armed men, theoretically subject to Israeli restraints?

Nevertheless, there seemed to be genuine euphoria among Hebronites, for whom the presence of Israeli settlers and soldiers has been so unpleasant an ordeal; just seeing some of them leave in the hope of not having them come back on quite the same basis as before supplied a good day’s worth of celebration.

But much of the jubilation will be as short-lived as it was when Ramallah and Nablus went through the same happy catharsis 18 monhs ago. Hebron was not liberated: 80 per cent of it was given the right to administer municipal affairs – sanitation, health, postal delivery, education, local security and traffic – under the Palestinian Authority’s jurisdiction, with israel still in charge of security, access, water and overall sovereignty.

The ambiguities are evident in reports from Hebron in the press. On the first day,there were reports citing Netanyahu and Sharansky as to how Hebron is still Israeli, backed up by statistics showing continued Israeli control over the city. The next day, editorials and stories predicted a Palestinian state emerging soon from the messy Palestinian `archipelago’ that has left the West Bank and Gaza divided into lots of little parts without territorial continuity or sovereignty.

On American TV, the de riguer scene of Arafat and Netanyahu shaking hands with American mediator Dennis Ross between them showed a grim-faced Arafat anxious to speed away into the night. As the New York Times coyly put it in its jubilant report of how well things went, the actual amounts of land to be ceded to the Palestinians were left entirely to “Israel’s discretion”.

Now this is precisely how things were left in the Oslo 2 documents, since just before the Washington signing the Israelis calmly removed the specific areas of re-deployment already agreed with the Palestinians and left the timetable. Apparently, Arafat demurred at this, but under American pressure was made to sign. His latest heroics during the Hebron negotiations were meant to make up for what had happened earlier; but he failed again. No wonder he didn’t want to answer any questions.

It has been no secret that America, which has sub-contracted out its Middle Eastern policy to Dennis Ross and his coterie of experts, placed Arafat under pressure. Israel’s political concerns and its exaggerated obsessions with security and terror were adopted by the American middlemen, who were acting as anything but honest brokers. There was also an important confluence of strategic aims that united Netanyahu and Ross: that there should never be anything resembling real Palestinian self-determination.

And three-and-a-half years after Oslo began, `autonomy’ for Palestinians is all that has been achieved, in tiny enclaves on the West Bank whose roads and access are controlled by israel. An important town like Ramallah now has settlements on three sides. Sovereignty in the true sense of the word remains in Israel’s hands, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Why do so many Israelis seem upset by this agreement, which keeps them firmly in charge throughout the still-Occupied Territories ?

The reason is an ideological fanaticism so deep and all-encompassing that most western and even Arab readers do not have an adequate sense of its imperatives. Despite the millions of Palestinians in Palestine, they have always been considered aliens, to be tolerated at most or to be driven out or treated either as non-existent or as juridical inferiors.

Palestine is considered to be the land of the Jewish people entrusted to Israel; no non-Jews are doctrinally allowed to use or have this land. That is why Netanyahu, more honest than Peres, has always refused to accept the formula `land for peace’, and why sovereignty accorded to non-Jews has not, and will not be, an admissible oncept in negotiations.

I believe these positions are also shared, by the `acceptable’ Israelis whose views are aired in western media as representative of the peace camp, and who brilliantly conceal their real views of Palestinians beneath conscience-rending, anguished prose. They never bring up sovereignty for Palestinians. Many of them (including the egregious Henry Kissenger) speak of a Palestinian state, which they say they would accept, but none of them has specified sovereignty and real self-determination for Palestinians.

Trying to put myself in the shoes of the PLO men who continue to produce such disadvantageous agreements that do nothing to change the course of Israeli policy, I keep asking what our leader must be thinking. They certainly do not do very much talking, and share very little with their people beyond the usual triumphalist nonsense.

All I come up with is a series of unflattering rationales for going on as before, with equally bad results and equally tragic consequences for the whole people. One is that as long as the peace process guarantees the centrality of the PLO and its leader, then anything goes. Another is that being so out-gunned and out-smarted by Israel, you feel you have no choice but to go on, trying to brazen it out vis-a-vis your own people with hopeful but ultimately misleading speeches and promises; meanwhile, you surround yourself with supporters who tell you what you want to hear, and are anxious to help you set up feel-good things like a bag-pipe bend, a few luxurious cars and houses, and postage stamps with your face on them. The best thing is to go on as many state visits (none of them necessary) as possible, one day Stockholm, another Paris, another Cairo.

A third rationale is to make more concessions, accepting all the humiliating Israeli concessions in the wishful fantasy that some day you’ll either stop having to make concessions or the Israelis will give you a few things back.

Fourthly, you can say that this is politics, a dirty business, and so we proceed with the Israelis like partners in crime; never mind that they get all the advantages, a lot of commercial deals have come our way.

There may be one or two more possibilities, but none explains the Palestinian streets’ acceptance of this appalling situation, which seems to worsen daily. Many of Arafat’s adviser are intelligent men and women, quite a few with long histories in progressive politics. Why are they so silent? And why do the most gifted so willingly accept a few material advantages (a car, an office, a VIP designation) in return for continuing to work with a man whose tactics they loathe and whose mistakes over the past few years they known – and say openly – has brought as Palestinians and as Arabs to one of the lowest points in our history?

Why silence, and why co-operation ? Do they feel no obligation towards the truth and to the misery of a people whose continuing dispossession could have been alleviated a thousand times better than the PLO has done ?

In the meantime, most people in America and in Europe genuinely believe that peace has improved things for the `area’, and that for the first time in 30 years the Palestinians are getting their freedom.

This is the cruelty of the Palestinian dilemma. We want to show that we desire peace, yet because of that `peace’, the daily lives of all but a tiny handful of wealthy businessmen, security chiefs and PA employees have become a good deal worse.

For at least six months, the mainstream media in the US and Europe have been filled with stories about the diplomatic front, the negotiations, the impasses and the final breakthroughs, and completely void of anything that shows real Palestinian lives on the ground.

There has been no coverage of the thousands of students in Gaza who cannot go back to their schools and universities on the West Bank (forbidden by Israel); nothing about the large number of Palestinians prisoners still festering (and in some cases being tortured to death) in Israeli prisons; nothing about the horrors that a large family in Gaza with unemployed father must go through to survive; nothing about the systematic, almost daily reprisals against Palestinians who try to prevent their own dispossession by Israeli settlers and army; nothing about what it means for a Palestinian to try to get in and out of Gaza (or about all West Bankers who have been forbidden entry into Jerusalem for a year); nothing about the checkpoints that make the little West Bank enclaves seem like stifling ghettos; nothing about life under Craft’s dreadful regime, with books, newspapers and magazines censored or banned, the security services threatening average people, and corruption killing the possibility of regular daily business.

And nothing, above all, about the total absence of law or the rule of law in the Palestinian autonomy areas.

Given all this, plus the sense of frustration and hopelessness felt by every Palestinian at the cruel farce our leaders are forced to enact,it becomes an absolute duty to describe the actualities of quotidian life under the peace process – unadorned and in the greatest detail possible.

The world must be told by us what our people under occupation are still going through. This is not a matter of money, but of discipline and will. If every one of us first took it upon him or herself to be informed, and then attempted somehow to break through the official snd media silence – with a letter to the editor, a call to a radio or TV station, the setting-up of groups to do this kind of work systematically and collectively – – then we will be beginning our attempt at liberation, a laughably modest attempt it is true, but surely a great deal better than passivity and silence.

The present situation cannot last. There are too many inequities and injustices right at the heart of Palestinian life. Who is preparing for the next, post-Hebron phase?

Dr. Sa’di Al-Krunz Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC)

Dr. Sa’di Al-Krunz of Al Azar University is a Fatah representative from the Deir Al-Balah District in the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC).

IMRA interviewed Dr. Al-Krunz in English on May 19. The interview, in its entirety, appears below.

IMRA: Does the current impasse in Israel-Palestinian Authority (PA) relations hurt Palestinian national unity?

Al_Krunz: No. I don’t think it is hurting Palestinian national unity. When we have troubles we are united.

IMRA: What about Chairman Arafat’s position?

Al_Krunz: It isn’t not hurting Arafat’s position. It is helping the opposition of the people to the peace process. The percentage of people supporting the peace process is decreasing in a very bad way.

IMRA: Is time on Netanyahu’s side or Arafat’s side?

Al_Krunz: The time is on Netanyahu’s side because they are building settlements and this helps their position.

IMRA: Does that push the Palestinians to compromise?

Al_Krunz: I don’t think so. We want – that is both the people and the Palestinian Legislative Council – to stop the process. Today, with the peace process, we are protecting the settlers. The Palestinian Police is acting like Lahad’s army in South Lebanon.

IMRA: If there is no peace process then what do you see in its place?

Al_Krunz: I don’t think that what the Israelis see now of peace and prosperity will continue. There will be more military operations agaisnt the Israelis because under these circumstances the Palestinian Police will have to be with the people. Arafat can’t be tough with the Palestinians and he can’t make concessions. There can’t be any security cooperation with Israel.

IMRA: Will the stalemate lead to war?

Al_Krunz: You see that the Palestinian problem is the core problem in the Middle East. The relations between Israel and the entire Arab world will be bad. Even Israeli relations with the Gulf countries will also be affected. If there was peace then you would have warm relations between Israel and all the Arabs states along the lines that Israel used to have with Jordan.

IMRA: What will happen ultimately?

Al_Krunz: After the Madrid Conference things between Israel and the Arabs countries started to improve – to the benefit of everyone in the Middle East. After what has happened I think we will return to what was before Madrid.

IMRA: What happens with the PA?

Al_Krunz: Believe me, if Israel came back to the territories that they occupied before – including Gaza – it would be better for the Palestinians. I talk with the people and many feel this way.

IMRA: A return to the occupation is preferable to the current situation?

Al_Krunz: We have nothing to lose if it continues this way. What are we gaining from the current situation? A return to Israeli occupation would be better so that we can fight with no constraints. Right now under the situation we are helping them confiscate Palestinian land. Since the peace process started the rate of settlement activity is maybe ten times what it was in the past. Today the settlers are feeling safe in Gaza, Nablus, etc. so there are new settlers arriving because they feel safe. We are in a bad situation. Before, any settler who wanted to come to Gaza would think twice.

IMRA: And then?

Al_Krunz: What I believe is that what the Israelis will gain from constructing new settlements is nothing compared to what they will gain by making peace with the Arabs. And if Israel makes peace here it can make peace with everyone in the Middle East because things will change. Because instead of hating each other we would understand that there is Israel, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, etc. and we have to work and live together etc.. If the peace process would go in same direction as during the time of Rabin/Peres it would be good for all – more money for everyone, a better life, etc..

IMRA: What do you think of the Beilin-Mazen plan?

Al_Krunz: We know nothing about Beilin-Mazen. Maybe there was some talk. Some kind of agreement. But nothing official that could be said to be more than the thoughts and opinions of Beilin and Abu Mazen.

The Likud isn’t sincere about the peace process but we are sincere as we have no choice.

IMRA: One of the major issues is the return of refugees to within the Green Line. What do you think is the solution?

Al-Krunz: For me I believe that only solution is to apply the United Nations resolution – every person who wants to return can return. But if we reach the situation that have peace and love between neighbors then why should that be a problem? I used to live in Indiana with all kinds – Jewish, Indians, you name it, and there was no problem.

The apartheid in South Africa ended. The Jewish state which was built with the idea of keeping out the Arabs will lead to the same results that happened in South Africa. It is inevitable that the world won’t accept this. I have visited Germany and other European countries and I see that the sympathy is for the Palestinian people. Maybe not yet in the United States but eventually it will be.

IMRA: The Israeli Labor Party keeps talking about separation. It sounds like you feel separation is impossible.

Al-Krunz: You see everyone knows that you can’t draw a line. You can draw a line but it won’t be a real line. They will have no choice but to allow the refugees back into all of Palestine. We have refugees everywhere. If there are Jews who want to return to their homes within the autonomy that would be OK. In the end we would have two states – one with a Palestinian majority and the other with a Jewish majority.

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

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.”