Common Myths of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

By

-

March 31, 1997

Zichron Yaakov, Israel
The Middle East conflict is unique in that every journalist, foreign newspaper columnist, rabbi, politician, political scientist, and Church leader is an armchair expert on Israel’s political problem with the Arab world. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of kilometers away from the region one lives, it can be half way around the world, an “expert opinion” is always at hand by someone who thinks they know more about the Arab-Israeli conflict than the people who are indigenous to the region. These unqualified, completely unsupported standard responses leads to a mountain of myths about the Middle East conflict.

The most common myths:

1) “A Palestinian state is the only way to solve the Middle East conflict.”

Reality:
What if the “Palestinian state solution” doesn’t work? Is there a plan B? What if the Palestinians fail in their attempt to build a stable political arena and a prosperous economy? What if the radicals take over? If anyone has an alternative plan this is one Israeli citizen that would like to hear what it is short of “we’ll cross that bridge when we come to it.” Those who live thousands of miles away from the region should stop being so arrogant and think they know much about how to solve our conflict than we do. When is the last time an Israeli sounded off about how America isn’t doing enough to solve her problems with the blacks? Beyond this, who is to say that for sure, the creation of a Palestinian state is the way to go to solve this conflict. The last thing this world needs is yet another unstable, poor Arab state. Nothing will change for the Palestinian- with a state or without one.

2) “If Israel doesn’t ‘choose’ peace an all-out war in the Middle East will break out.”

Reality:
Based on history, there are other conflicts in the region. An all-out war might soon break-out in the region which will have nothing to do with Israel.

This statement is nothing but an opinion. Who says “if Israel doesn’t choose peace” a war will occur? Why is Israel’s commitment to peace being challenged? When in the past was it ever assumed that Israel would “chose” war over peace? Israel has always been a peace loving nation. When was Israel’s desire for peace ever questioned?

How dare people who live on the other side of the world feel they have a right to “criticize” Israel on “moral grounds” Israel does so much more for peace than the PLO. At least Israel looks like they are trying. The PLO couldn’t care less if their people had one minute of peace or not.

It isn’t about Israel “choosing” peace or not choosing peace. The problem in the Middle East isn’t derived from Israel’s so-called “intransigence.” That notion, that Israel is morally bankrupt due to its treatment of the Palestinians, didn’t exist 20 years ago. Today it is a given in the media. How did this change so fast and why is what serious researchers should be looking into?

3) “If Israel doesn’t leave the territories the Arabs will become so frustrated they will be forced to go to war.”

Reality:
Does this logic work in both directions? What would the world say if Foreign Minister David Levy announced that Israel might be forced to attack Syria because of Assad’s refusal to sign a peace treaty? What if Israel announced: “Iraq and potential threats to the security of the state of Israel. We are going to have to eliminate them.”

Can a people really be so “frustrated” as a result of the “political treatment” they are subjected to, that they are justified in starting wars? Why are the Arabs not condemned for announcing to the worth that “if Israel doesn’t do what we say, we are going to declare war on her?”

4) Yasser Arafat is a moderate and has now recognized Israel’s right to exist.

Reality:
Did Arafat wake up one morning, slap himself on the forehead and say: “Damn it, Israel exists, they exist, why didn’t I recognize that? Have I ever been silly For 24 years I mistakenly believed that Israel should be wiped off the face of the earth, but, suddenly, now, I realize I was wrong all along. I should have made peace with Israel long ago.”

Is it really possible that Arafat goes from being hatred Arab terrorist leader to “sort of an okay guy you can invite to state functions”?

5) “Arafat is so desperate for peace, he’ll take anything. Unless Israel negotiates with the PLO now, Arafat may get cold feet and back off from his recent moderation and renunciation of terror which will strengthen the Islamic Fundamentalist fanatics.”

Reality:
Why does Arafat have a choice? Isn’t he supposed to support “peaceful endeavors?” Who gave him the moral right to exercise the ‘return to the extremist camp’ option? This notion of “take Arafat or get the extremists” argument is crap. If that is the choice there is not choice. Until the Palestinians can put up some decent folk as their leaders they get no independent state. Period.

6) “The present situation cannot go on indefinitely. Time is not on the side of the Israelis. Delays will only weaken Israel’s position and result in a situation being imposed on her.”

Reality:
This conflict, being what it is and far away a real settlement is, could very well go on for a few more decades. It wasn’t meant to be solved. Even outright annexation of Judea and Samaria will not lead to “national suicide” because Israel will always have the option of withdrawing from the territories if the burden of ruling over the Palestinians becomes too onerous. The world has never forced Israel to do anything. Whatever strategic or military mistakes she made she made them on her own mistaken assumptions. Oslo was not forced on Israel. The Rabin government wanted it.

7) “Peace is the ultimate form of security.”

Reality:
Such simplicities don’t work in the Middle East. Peace is the time between the last and the next war. Hopeful optimism won’t alter the basic facts on the ground. Israelis only want to strike a deal they can live with. What they have today stinks for most Israelis. Oslo didn’t help Israel. It only weakened her security and the average Israeli’s positive sense of security. For Israelis peace and security are not to be found in the same sentence.

8) “Israel must learn not to be afraid of peace. Why is Israel missing this historic opportunity for peace?”

Reality:
If the political culture of the Palestinians is left out of the equation, a critical chunk of the Arab-Israeli conflict is neglected. Radical Palestinian leaders shouldn’t be so easily let off the hook. If a Palestinian state never comes into existence it will be their fault. Not ever having a state of their own might be the price the Palestinian people will have to pay for having not chosen more moderate and realistic leaders. Arafat has not served the Palestinians well. Any Palestinian who thinks he has is deluded as to the true nature of Yasser Arafat and the PLO.

9) “A Palestinian state will not be a threat to Israel.”

Reality:
Stupid argument. An unstable Palestinian state would be a threat to the Palestinians. For some reason, only people like Sharon and Shamir believe in the this boogeyman concept of a Palestinian state and how it is supposed to rise up out of the dust and take on and defeat the Israeli army. Nonsense.

10) “Israel has a right to exist and a right to safe and secure borders.”

Reality:
This is essentially a qualifying statement and is usually followed with: “but the Palestinians too have a right to a homeland.”

Why is Israel’s right to safe and secure borders subject for debate? Why does no other country’s right to safe and secure borders need to be reiterated or reassured? What if the Finish representative in the UN stood up one day and announced that due to a conflict over coastal fishing rights, it would no longer acknowledge Sweden’s right to exist? What other country’s existence can be used as a bargaining chip in a political conflict? Even in the height of the Cold War Russia and the U.S. never refused to recognize each others’ existence.

Should Israel really care one way or the other if the Arabs “recognize” her existence? She existed for 50 years without and hasn’t done too bad for herself. Look at living conditions in the Arab world. The Arabs have about a million other socio-economic problems to deal with before they need to worry about whether to “acknowledge Israel” or not.

11) “The Palestinians and the Israelis are destined to live together. The most important step at this point is to get Israel and the Palestinians talking to each other. Eventually the “dynamics of negotiations” will take over and lead to a political settlement.”

Reality:
Why are participants in other conflicts around the world never told “its inevitable they will have to live together”? Do Palestinians who work as garage mechanics in Wadi Joz in East Jerusalem or refugee camp dwellers considers the “dynamics of negotiations” when they look at the their conflict with Israel? What do people who live on the other side of the world know about “dynamics of peace”

12) “Israel has lost its moral soul.”

Reality:
Running shoes have soles. Nations have interests. Have the Syrians or the Algerians “retained their soul”? Even if the majority of Israelis believe that their security interests are best served by maintaining dominion over the disputed territories, their “souls will remain in intact.” Those who proclaim such notions should not be judging which people have “lost their moral soul” and which have not.

13) “The Palestinians are the Jews of the Arab world.”

Reality:
Palestinians truly believe this and feel themselves to be a notch above other Arabs. Yet few of them understand or admit why this is so. It is because they were the only Arab people to actually LIVE with the Jews. This is why they are LIKE the Jews. If the Palestinans took an honest poll and asked themselves who have done them better, the Israelis or their Arab breathe, what would the answer be?

14) A typical Palestinian intellectual speaking: “One day we will have our state. It must be. In may take ten years, but it will come. We have waited 40 years, and we can wait another 40 years. When Israel withdraws from the territories Arafat will announce a state,, the Palestinians will create a democracy, and all the factions of the PLO will become political parties. We won’t need borders or armies because we will have peace.”

Reality:
One world describes the national mindset of the Palestinians: UNREALISM. The Palestinians were turned into “unrealists” by their Arab breathren who have manipulated them for most of the past century by fooling them with the “don’t worry, we’ll throw the Jews into the sea” line and they fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Just about everything Palestinians leaders and intellectuals say or purport is unrealistic or unlikely to happen. It is part and parcel of dream-thinking. Theodore Herzl said: “If you will it, then it is no dream.” With the Palestinians, it is: “If you dream it, it will be.”

15) “Israel can’t afford to miss the opportunity for peace

Reality:
Can the Arabs “afford to miss the opportunity for peace”? Won’t they also suffer if they “miss the opportunity for peace?”

16) “Israel must pay a high price for peace. The fruits of peace are too dear.”

Reality:
Shimon Peres loves this line. If there is a such high price to be paid for peace (in terrorist act) perhaps peace is not worth the price? With peace with the Palestinians, wasn’t threats of terrorism supposed to decline. How come it has grown so much since Oslo was signed?

No Israeli or any other academic has researched the subject of how much Israel has or has not to gain by peace- economically or strategically. For 50 years Israel has performed economic miracles in her short period as an independent state. She has become a leader in developing and commercializing new technologies. Her standard of living is the envy of the developing world.

How much better can “the fruits of peace” make something that is already pretty good?

Joel Bainerman
The Israel Technology Letter
P.O. Box 387
Zichron Yaacov, Israel, 30900
Voice: (+ 972-6) 639-6673
Fax: (+ 972-6) 639-8880
Email: isratech@netvision.net.il

Red Lights & Green Lights: Weapons Control in the Palestine Authority?

By

David Bedein

-

March 31, 1997

At a time when Hamas threatens more terror activity against targets throughout Israel, it may be instructive to note the extent to which the Palestine Authority directly licenses arms for the Hamas instead of confiscating their weapons. The Cairo Accord, signed between the Israeli government and Arafat on May 4, 1994, created strict regulations for firearm possession in the PA, in an attempt to minimize terrorist attacks carried out by Palestinian groups and individuals opposed to the Oslo Accords. Arafat agreed to restrict the possession of firearms by ordering the PA to take three steps: disarm militias, confiscate weapons, and issue gun licenses for pistols only to individuals demonstrating a need for them, and only with Israel’s consent. However, Arafat and the PA have yet to implement that agreement, perpetuating a situation in which the ability of groups and individuals to carry out terrorist attacks remains undiminished.

The PA took no action for eleven months. However, in April 1995, following the Islamic Jihad terror attack near Cfar Darom which took the lives of six Israelis and one American, the PA announced a May, 1995 deadline for turning in illegal weapons. Yet by the appointed deadline, very few civilians had turned only a few dozen weapons. IDF Lieut. Col. Shabak confirmed the Palestinian police had only confiscated a few weapons at the deadline. These numbers pale in comparison to the total number of unlicensed weapons in the PA area of jurisdiction, which, while unknown, were estimated by Arafat himself as early as March 1995 to be more than 26,000.

Five militias under the PA’s jurisdiction remain armed: Fatah Hawks, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and DFLP. Not only has the PA refrained from taking steps to disarm these groups, while high ranking officials continue to state their refusal to do so.

Shortly after the agreement was signed, Col. Jibril Rajoub, head of Arafat’s Preventive Security Service said, “We sanctify the weapons found in the possession of the national factions which are directed against the occupation.” Echoing this sentiment only a year later, Freih Abu Middein, Palestinian Minister of Justice, said the Palestinian police would not disarm Hamas or Islamic Jihad. A senior Hamas official confirmed that the PA had not demanded their disarmament, saying that “the PA is not asking us to disarm, just to report to it.”

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Liberation Army police force continued to issue licenses for automatic weapons and gun permits to well known members of terrorist organizations. Both Shabak and the Palestinian Police commander in Gaza, Gen. Ghazi Jabali, confirmed that Islamic Jihad and Hamas leaders have received permits to carry weapons, Shabak noting, “most of the permits issued thus far have been given to members of the opposition parties.” Shabak also acknowledged that some of these permits were for “light automatic weapons,” a statement confirmed by the Palestinian Minister of Information. As if to allay fears, the PA Minister of Justice, Abu Medein said that he had received assurances that the Hamas and Islamic Jihad members would “keep their weapons at home.”

The issue is not whether or not Arafat turns on or off “green lights” for the Hamas or the Islamic Jihad. Quietly and seemingly unknown to the Israeli public, Arafat has heavily armed both terror groups, and they will decide when and how to use their weapons against Israeli targets.

Why does the Israeli public not know that the Palestine Authority has been issuing weapons to the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, since May, 1995 ? All Israeli media carried the story – but on the back pages and never as a lead item on Israel State TV and Israel State Radio. Nobody wanted to disturb the good news of the peace process. Let alone the momentum.

“Why is this night different …”

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 31, 1997

If he has a son, the son asks.

In contrast to Hanukah and Purim where we are commanded to “publicize the miracle” (and include everyone), on Pesach, the publicizing of the miracle starts first of all with the children. And this is for the reason we mentioned (in the introduction) – that here the goal of the publicizing of the miracle is that the father, at the first available moment, will pass down the principles of faith in the G-d of Israel and the exodus of Egypt to the small son, so as to continue the unbreakable chain. And how tremendous is the fact that the Emunah of Yisrael, despite it’s depth, is simple enough in its basis, that it can be conveyed from father to small boy, by means of a simple story appropriate for a child. This is the significance of the questions which appear here. And it is incumbent upon us to arouse each child, according to his ability, to ask more and more questions. Because the idea is better internalized if he asks and gets an answer, than if he just gets the answer (without asking). And from here one can learn that even if there are no children, the adult should provoke questions for himself and others, in order to sharpen the understanding.

On this night we add another link to the chain of our tradition, conveying the concrete basis of the faith through all the generations, because in such a way can the new generation ITSELF see things properly, despite the fact that “officially”, thousands of years have passed since the event took place. And, behold, he did not see it with his own eyes. But the passing down of the message from generation to generation in such a concrete and precise fashion makes it EXACTLY AS IF HE SAW IT. Just as no one doubts historical events which took place two hundred years ago, since everything is known and passed onward by humanity, so, too can the events of over 3,000 years not be doubted, because the people passed it down in the same way, each one to his children. And this is the difference between Hanukah, Purim, and Passover.

For only on Passover was each one commanded to see himself as if he left Egypt, since this fact is the basis of our faith, and without it, our faith would not have survived in such a precise manner after so many thousands of years, hundreds of generations, and countless tragedies and exiles. In such a way, the child is not only connected to his father, but also to the father of his fathers who lived hundreds of years ago and thousands of years ago, each one being a special pipeline for this message which is intended PERSONALLY FOR HIM! On this night, the Jewish child will also receive upon himself his responsibility for the next generations, to continue the chain and the pipeline, and he will understand that if he does not connect himself to the Jewish People, there is no reason for his existence.

The Four Questions:

The Torah speaks to the Jew in the language and style he understands and can relate to. It even adjusts itself to different types of people. As the midrash in Yilkot Shimoni says, (Dvraim, 776 ): “That you should go with the strict types according to their understanding, and with the moderate types according to their understanding.”

But there are two limitations:

You cannot change the Torah around as you see fit to do so. Adjustments for different people and different situations are already found in the “halacha”, and if it is not in the “halacha”, no man has the authority to change and adjust matters, even if he feels that he is “saving” the Torah.
Even if it is possible conveying the message in different ways to different people, if in the end it doesn’t work and that particular Jew still doesn’t want to listen, he is not dismissed from the Torah, and we are not dismissed from telling him words of Torah. The famous saying, “In the same way that it is a mitzvah to say something that will be listened to, it is a mitzvah not to say something that will not be listened to”, has nothing to do with the essence of the message, and one cannot dismiss someone from mitzvot from the Torah for such a reason. On the contrary, “And whether they listen or refuse to – let them know that a prophet was amongst them”. (Ezekhiel, 3) You just tell them Torah, even if there is a need to “blunt his teeth”, as the Hagadah eventually tells us we should do to the evil son. And even if he blunts OUR TEETH, we will not shut up, as G-d told Yishiyahu, “my children are rebellious. If you accept it upon yourself to be humiliated and beaten by my children, then you may go as my messenger; and if not – you will not go as my messenger…” (Shmot Raba, 7:3)

… and in answering the wise son, we tell him all the halachot, (for this too he requested to know) right up until the last one, which is the Afikoman. And there is a stress here that it doesn’t suffice explaining to him the general idea of Judaism, but rather the halacha, up to the last detail is also needed. This is to teach all those who stress “nationalism” and other aspects of the Jewish idea, but abandon the fulfillment of the halacha and all it’s details. Here we tell the wise son that as much as he gains wisdom in understanding the essence of Judaism, remember that all this is worth nothing if he forsakes the fulfillment of the practical mitzvot and it’s details. In any case, without a doubt the basis of the answer is the story of the exodus from Egypt (“We were slaves..”) which is the base of our faith, and if we believe in this, then we will come to understand that the Torah is truth and it is an obligation to fulfill it, because slaves we were to Pharo in Egypt, and now we are slaves to G-d…

The evil son – “What does this service mean to you?”

The Tanchuma (Shmot 5) says that the evil son says, “Let us be as Egyptians”. And this is the key to understanding this son. He wants to dismiss himself from the yoke of belonging to Am Yisrael and all this “service”. Thus we can understand why he says “to you”. After all, at first glance there should be no connection between throwing away service to G-d (mitzvot), and alienation from the Jewish People which is expressed by his saying, “to you”. But the author of the Hagadah sees the essential connection. Only for a very short time can there be a reality where one can feel a connection to his people without a connection to Torah and mitzvot. And so we see in these times how those who raised the banner of fighting against religion, lost their connection to Zionism, where as those who remained truly faithful to nationalism were those who strengthened their connection to religion.

“Had he been there, he would not have been redeemed”: Why? Because he would have died during the plague of darkness in which all the “Jewish criminals” died. Who “merited” such a nickname? Those WHO DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE EGYPT. And this fortifies what we said earlier: The connection between the evil son who throws away the service to G-d and his alienation from Am Yisrael. And what could symbolize the alienation from Am Yisrael more than his lack of willingness to make Aliyah to Eretz Yisrael, which is the base of the nation; the place which unites the nation and gives life to it and it’s Torah.

“..consequently you must blunt his teeth and reply to him..”

There is no behaving towards him with “Darke Noam”, and we don’t say, “you are our brother”. For the good of the rest of the Jewish People, we must act harshly towards him. He who willfully takes himself out of “Clal Yisrael” and rejects the people and land of Israel must be dealt with harshly. Without a doubt, this harsh treatment will convince others who are borderline (like the son who does not know how to ask) that it is not worthwhile to go in such a way, and thus encourage them to go in the way of the wise son, thereby saving themselves.

The simple son: The Yirushalmi and Rambam call this son, “foolish”. What does the simple son understand? “With a strong hand did Hashem take us out of Egypt”. Anyone is capable of grasping this message of Emunah. True, not everyone can reach high levels of understanding the way of G-d, but anyone can, even the most foolish of people, even he who is totally cut off from anything spiritual, even a gentile – is capable of grasping G-d’s existence through G-d’s strong Hand and Omnipotence. The truth is, that the Torah answers the wise son in the same basic way at the beginning, but with him, the answer is expanded upon greatly with all the details…. (Dvarim 6) The simple son won’t understand this, so we mention to him G-d’s strong Hand, and this is sufficient for leaving an impression upon him that will bring him to real emunah. And an important thing here: The real Emunah, despite it’s awesome scope, does not demand deep wisdom in order for one to accept it (despite the fact that the wisdom certainly deepens the understanding). Any Jew can reach a real and simple level of truth which will obligate him. After all, if this were not so, the Almighty would not be able to expect anything from the foolish!

“For not only one has risen against us to DESTROY US, but in all ages they rise up against us to DESTROY US.”

Here there is a double stress on “to destroy us” – The goal of the goyim is not just to distress us, but rather our very existence is what bothers them. And so it is in this generation, where a piece of territory or another is not what interests them, but rather the annihilation of Am Yisrael, and this illogical hatred of the nations was bred at Mount Sinai.

“But in all ages they rise up against us to destroy us”

What a flat statement to make! And the question may be asked: Was there not a generation where they did not rise up against us to destroy us? But there are different methods to wipe us out. There are those who try to wipe us out physically, like Haman and Hitler; and there are those try to wipe us out physically through trickery, so we that we won’t prevent the attempt to do so. Then there are those who try to destroy us spiritually by assimilation, like Greece. In any case, the rule that Esau hates Yaakov holds in every generation, as we see in this statement.

“And the Holy One, Blessed Is He, rescues us from their hands”.

Many use this verse to support the argument that the Jews do not have to take practical means to save themselves, since in every time of trouble, G-d has promised that he will save us and everything will be O.K. Indeed, it is true that EVENTUALLY, it will be good. But Oy Veh to those who take solace in this! Don’t they understand that the significance of this “solace is that despite the fact that we will never be destroyed, we may suffer pogroms, inquisitions and holocausts? Not just this, but, “And if one tenth remain in it, then that shall be consumed.. (Isaiah, 6:13), and Rashi explains: “Nine parts (out of ten) will perish, and only a tenth will remain, and this too will be consumed” May G-d help us. Is this the scenario we should aspire for? Is it permitted for us to be satisfied and take comfort in this? But rather we must act with self-sacrifice in doing what G-d demands of us so that we may be saved from NEEDLESS tragedy, because it does not have to be!

“… to teach us that our father Yaakov didn’t go to Egypt to SETTLE DOWN PERMANENTLY”

My father and teacher (H”yd) said that when he made Aliyah in 1971 to Israel, he went to Rav Tzvi Yehuda Kook who received him very warmly, (and even told his students to take him to the Kotel, where both rabbis were photographed together). He said that he told Rav Kook that he came to Israel to “settle down”, and Rav Kook said that in the land of Israel, one doesn’t settle down, but rather “rises up.”

The Ten Plagues:

Couldn’t G-d have taken us out of Egypt without all this violence? After all, G-d is Omnipotent, and certainly he could have taken us out Egypt with “Darke Noam” or even by way of a “peace process”. After all, it would seem that what is most important is that the Jews got out of Egypt – for what all this cruelty and vengeance?

The answer is that the goal of the exodus of Egypt was not just that the people of Israel go free, but the major goal was that G-d-hating gentiles and desecrators of His Name who “did not know G-d” (as Pharo said upon seeing Moses the first time), — would know G-d. But the gentile does not grasp the existence of G-d, and certainly won’t accept the concept that He chose the Jews as His people, by way of “awe and spiritual elevation” or through pure intellectual understanding. Only by the way of him seeing and feeling Hashem’s Might and Power can the most obtuse of gentiles understand G-d’s existence and choice of Am Yisrael. And when the gentile insists on not believing in Him, and defames and fights against Israel thereby desecrating the Name of G-d, and empties the Name of G-d from the world, so to speak, then G-d unleashes His arsenal against him, so that “he will know that I am G-d”.

“Because he passed over the houses..”

The salvation from the Egyptians started with the “havdala” (the separation) – that is the willingness of the Jewish People to show their differences between them and the gentiles in a practical way. It was exemplified by the placing of the blood from the slaughtered Egyptian deity on their doorposts without fearing the Egyptian reaction. This readiness for havdala displays proof to one’s emunah. And just as in the first redemption, so it is in our days, where the redemption is dependent on Am Yisrael’s willingness to adopt upon themselves concepts connected to “havdala”, through the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, and without fearing that we will be labeled as “racists”. And it is not for nothing that the internal struggle today between the Jewish People and the Hellenists centers around this concept of “havdala”. Nor is it a coincidence that the entire question of whether to vomit out the Arabs or not, ends up being centered around – not whether it will work, and not even ethics, but rather around “racism”, which at first glance has nothing to with anything. But the truth is that the redemption is dependent upon our separating ourselves from the nations, and most essentially our readiness to adopt for ourselves all the practical halachot which derive from the concept.

40.8% of Palestinians Favor Suicide Attacks Against Israeli Targets

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 24, 1997

The following are the results of a poll of a representative sample of 500 adult Palestinians from Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Hebron conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (PCPO) at Beit Sahour and prepared under the supervision of its President Dr. Nabil Kukali on March 9-11, 1997. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points.

Position on continuing negotiations in the light of Israel’s intransigence in building a settlement on Abu Ghneim.
Continue 27.1%, halt 34.2%, abolish 38.7%.
Position on the stance of President Bill Clinton vis-a-vis a potential settlement in East Jerusalem:
Positive 14.2%, negative 73.2%, no opinion 12.6%.
President Clinton’s invitation to Arafat to visit the United States is a real change in the American policy:
Favor 17.8%, oppose 64.2%, noncommittal 18%.
The Palestinian reaction to the settlement on Mount Abu-Ghneim will be:
a neo intafada 48.3%, a peaceful confrontation 32.6%, abstain 19.1%.
If the answer to question no 4 is a neo-intafada, are you ready to take part in it?
Yes 48.5%, no 27%, no opinion 24.5%.
Are you in favor or against suicidal attacks against Israeli targets?
Favor 40.8%, against 44.1%, noncommittal 15.1%.
If Israel insisted on building the settlement on Abu-Ghneim, are you in favor of the idea of building an equal number of housing units to the Arabs in East Jerusalem in return?
Favor 43.2%, oppose 46.7%, no opinion 11.1%.
Position on the Palestinian action on the local, Arab and international levels to stop building settlements:
satisfactory 16.9%, unsatisfactory 72.4%, noncommittal 10.7%.
Position on the American stance in the UN in the light of latest Veto?
Impartial 9.9%, biased 72.8%, no opinion 17.3%.
Position on the unilateral decision of the Israeli government on the redeployment in 9% of the West Bank.
Israel committed to the peace process 4.5%,
An Israeli hoax to undermine the peace process 67.1%,
Unsatisfactory unilateral step 28.4%.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director
IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
P.O. Box 982, Kfar Sava, ISRAEL
email: imra@netvision.net.il

Arafat Gave “Green Light” for Attacks Against Israel

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 24, 1997

On the night between the 9th and 10th of March, realizing that Israel was firm in its decision to build on Har Homa, Arafat gave the signal to renew terror attacks. He also released the leader of Hamas’ secret military arm from prison, against the advice of his aides. But the assessment is that Arafat will prevent violence if Israel accepts his demands on the further redeployment in the territories.

At a secret meeting with opposition organizations about two weeks ago, Arafat gave a “green light” to resume terrorist attacks against Israel.

A senior official reported this to Israel’s cabinet ministers and the American administration over the weekend. During a meeting on the night between 9-10 March, held after Arafat’s return from the United States — when he realized that Israel is determined to build on Har Homa — the head of the PA demanded from the opposition and from representatives of “Tanzim,” the Fatah activist group which does his bidding, that they prepare stormy, mass demonstrations throughout the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

The senior source assesses that Arafat is trying to pressure the Israeli government to reach a deal. Should Israel accept Arafat’s demands, and should the United States guarantee their implementation, Arafat would prevent the eruption of violence, despite the construction on Har Homa.

Following are the demands:

An Israeli commitment that the next “Further Redeployment” on the West Bank will be far more substantial and meaningful than the current one.
Refraining in the future from unilaterally establishing facts on the ground, as Israel has done on Har Homa. This commitment would mean that Israel would refrain completely from establishing new settlements, or expanding existing settlements in the territories, including in Jerusalem.
Opening the airport at Dahaniya to aircraft and passenger traffic, with virtually no Israeli monitoring of arrivals. Arafat is demanding that, as of next month, Palestinian pilgrims should use Dahaniya to fly directly to Mecca and back.
Opening the “safe passage” between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
Building an independent Palestinian sea port in Gaza.

According to reliable information received by political figures in Israel, at the night-time meeting Arafat convened senior officials from Hamas, the Islamic Salvation Front, the PFLP and the DFLP (Islamic Jihad did not participate). At the end of the meeting, which lasted nearly until dawn, all of the representatives of the organizations understood that the PA chairman is giving them a free hand to carry out attacks against Israel.

This was contrary to a previous agreement which Arafat had reached with representatives of these organizations on the eve of his trip to the United States, according to which they would refrain from terrorism until Israel completes the third redeployment.

On the morning following the meeting, Arafat took another step: he released from jail the leader of Hamas’ secret military wing, Ibrahim Maqadma, who bears responsibility for many attacks committed in the past three years against Israelis and against Palestinian policemen. Maqadma’s release was effected against the advice of Palestinian Preventive Security heads and other Palestinian security officials.

Israeli security sources say that there is already a noticeable increase on the ground of stone-throwing and attacks with “Molotov cocktails.” The stabbing of a soldier at the Tene Omarim settlement, and the two shooting incidents against IDF patrols over the weekend in the Rafiah area, are also being credited to the new “understanding” between Arafat and the rejectionist organizations. In an interview to the Washington Post, Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Mahmud a-Zahar, warned that “the failure of the peace process will push people to other methods — when they are pushed into a corner, you can expect anything.”

Yet, the senior official notes that for the time being Arafat is demanding that Palestinian police refrain from using firearms in the framework of the mass demonstrations that will be held in protest over the beginning of work on Har Homa. The assessment is that this order will not be honored, if the Israeli security forces use firearms and cause the death or injury of many Palestinians. Political sources in Jerusalem believe that in the event of a violent flare-up, Egypt, Jordan and other Arab countries are also liable to join the political campaign against Israel, to the point of suspending diplomatic relations with it.

Palestinians Need Permanent Homes Now

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 24, 1997

One of the most important topics on the agenda of any Middle East peace conference should be how to improve the socio-economic conditions of Palestinians in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Unfortunately, for the Palestinians, the PLO rarely brings up the subject. Getting these families out of the refugee camps just isn’t on their agenda.

Nor is the question as to why the Palestinians have been forced to live in these camps for more than 50 years is rarely raised in official Palestinian circles. Who have been keeping the Palestinians in the refugee camps from being resettled? Not Israel, as there are refugee camps outside of Israel that Israel has no control over.

The existence of these wretched refugee camps is a mark of shame on the Palestinian people. Why, then, do they even still exist?

How many live in the camps? Today less than one in five Palestinians are classified as a “refugee.” One half of the Gazan and one-quarter of the West Bank Palestinian refugees live in camps. The United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) says there are 450,000 refugees in Gaza and 370,000 in the West Bank. According to the United Nations’ definition, one does not have to be resident of a camp to be considered a refugee. Nor does leaving a camp disqualify a resident from receiving UNWRA benefits such as free education until the end of junior high school and health care, but income above a certain level does. Ironically, since the camps are in fact shantytowns, there is even an influx of population as rents are half of those in the surrounding villages or towns.

Many people have this idea of refugee camps of destitute, underfed people who wait around all day for the UN relief workers to come to hand out their rations. The fact is most get up every morning and go to work, usually in Israel- if they can. Some camp dwellers even enjoy a higher standard of living than some of the neighboring villages. For instance, 95% of the population in refugee camps in Gaza have electricity around the clock, slightly more than the surrounding villages and towns. The conditions in many refugee camps in Gaza exceed those of the most remote villages in the West Bank. For example, 98% of the towns, but only 48% of the West Bank villages have electricity 24- hours a day.

Numerous efforts to resettle these refugees have been tried, but all have failed. In l950, long before the territories came under Israeli control, UNRWA suggested moving 150,000 of them to Libya, but Egypt objected. In l951, UNRWA vetoed a plan to move 50,000 Palestinian refugees from the Gaza Strip to Northern Sinai when Egypt refused permission to use the Nile waters to irrigate proposed agricultural settlements. In l952, Syria rejected UNRWA’s initiative to resettle 85,000 refugees in camps in that country. In l959, UNRWA reported that of the $250 million fund for rehabilitation created in l950 to provide homes and jobs for the refugees outside of the camps, only $7 million was spent.

One approach which was partially successful was initiated by Israel in the early l970’s, called the ‘build your own home’ program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps was given to a Palestinian who then financed the purchase of the building materials, and usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into ten different neighborhoods before the PLO, using their time-honored tactics of intimidation, ended the program. The Israeli authorities would say that if the people were able to stand up to the PLO within eight years every camp resident could own a single dwelling home in a clean and uncongested neighborhood.

A major problem in resettlement is that so much of the land in Gaza is owned by a few large, wealthy Palestinian families. If this property were available, Gaza could lower its density of 1,250 persons per square kilometer. Yet even so there is ample living space even in the camps to build three or four story apartment blocks, (building up instead of out is for some reason not part of the Arab culture). Improving the quality of the existing homes inside the camps is a much cheaper undertaking than building entire new neighborhoods.

If the political climate was right, how much would it cost to solve the Palestinian refugee problem?

Most Palestinians economists, such as Dr. George Abed who wrote a book a few years back on the subject, agree that just to build enough homes, without any additional investment in infrastructure or job creation, would cost more than $2 billion just to resettle those refugees currently residing in the West Bank and Gaza.

So why isn’t UNRWA doing just that?

What was regarded as a temporary measure forty years ago has turned into a quasi-political entity which although its mandate prohibits it from doing so, oftentimes claims to speak on behalf of the Palestinians under their administrative wing to Israel and to the world at large. If UNRWA changed its charter to include investments in infrastructure and not strictly in health and education, then much of its $230 million operating budget could be used to actually solve the refugee- resettlement problem.

Political propaganda aside, the inability of the Palestinians to get themselves out of refugee camps and into permanent dwellings is their current number one problem. If the reason why the Arab nations refuse to solve this problem is because the existence of the camps serves to “make a political point,” and if the Palestinians knowingly accept this, then one wonders with this attitude, how the Palestinians would ever be expected to build the infrastructure of a working state? “

The continued existence of the refugee camps should serve as a reminder to all those who believe that the moment Israel withdraws from the entire area of the West Bank the Palestinians’ problems will be solved. In fact, despite their insistence on the ‘right of return’ of all Palestinians throughout the world, this would turn out to be the greatest socio-economic problem the new state would face. In addition to rehabilitating the refugees in the West Bank and Gaza, if refugees from Syria, Lebanon and Jordan returned they would initially have to be fed and housed, and then found jobs. The rate of increase in the territories is very high, about 3.5% a year, with 50% of the population under 15 years of age. More than 15,000 new workers entering the labor force each year.

And, unlike Israel’s experience in absorption which began at least two decades before the establishment of the state, the Palestinians have none. Entire infrastructures will have to be built and expertise obtained, almost immediately. The Palestinians will also have a problem the Jews did not face: rehabilitating the mindset of refugees who have been living in refugee camps for more than four decades and their resultant hatred for Israel.

It is time the Palestinian leadership realized that they can’t go on ignoring this crucial issue. It is one thing to demand that Israel allow Palestinian refugees the right of return. It is another matter to be able to absorb and house these people if and when

Joel Bainerman writes on Middle East political and economic affairs from Israel.

Joel Bainerman
The Israel Technology Letter
P.O. Box 387, Zichron Yaacov, Israel, 30900
Tel: 972-6-639-6673
Fax: 972-6-639-8880
email: isratech@Netvision.net.il

A Secular Israeli Asks: Should Civil Rights of Observant Jews be Protected?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 24, 1997

A major political issue facing Israel now is the question of whether in Israeli democracy someone has the right NOT to desecrate the Sabbath.

Yes, you read that correctly. No misprint.

There has long been tension in Israel because of the politicized “religion” of the demagogues of the various religious parties who have attempted – not very successfully – to coerce people into religious observance, such as through prohibiting bus operations and movie showings on the Sabbath. I regard this as “nuisance religion” and insist that it is not a legitimate function of the government to pressure people to be observant. I also think it arouses antagonism to religion and drives people AWAY from observance. In any case, the scope of nuisance religion is exagerated and does not affect at all most Israelis; when everyone owns cars it does not matter if buses run on Sabbath, and besides there are taxis. And when everyone has a VCR, who cares if cinemas are open or not on Friday night?

But as I say, all that is not what is now at issue, but rather whether Israelis have the right to choose NOT to desecrate the Sabbath.

The issue has come up with respect to Lev Leviov. Leviov is an immigrant to Israel who has done quite well in the Israeli business world, and is also a “hozer b’tshuva”, someone who became religiously observant. Leviov is the owner of a new shopping center in Ramat Aviv, the yuppie Leftist suburb north of Tel Aviv, in which Tel Aviv University sits, in which people like Shimon Peres and Leah Rabin live.

Leviov has decided that in the shopping center, which is his personal property, the stores and services will not operate on the Sabbath. Sure, he will lose some rent, but that is what he wishes.

But that decision has outraged the Leftist lumpenproletariat of yuppie Ramat Aviv. No fair, they screameth. Ramat Aviv is a leftist secular enclave! They insist that Leviov allow all the shops and services to operate in his shopping center mall, since after all they serve the militant secularists of Ramat Aviv, the same folks by the by who have been demonstrating against polluting the Tel Aviv University campus thru allowing a synagogue to be built there. The Labor Party and Meretz pols have joined in and are also demanding that Leviov be coerced into allowing the mall to stay open on the Sabbath, giving the teenagers of Ramat Aviv some place to hang out and play Beverly Hills 90210.

Then along comes Roni Milo, the mayor of Tel Aviv. Now Ramat Aviv is not even in Hizzohuh Da Mare’s jurisdiction, and Milo is from the Likud. But Milo, whose principles are interchangeable with those of the Labor Party left (he favors Oslo) has come out in FAVOR of the forces of darkness attempting to coerce the opening of Leviov’s mall on the Sabbath. Milo is following in the steps of his predecessor Mayor General Shlomo Lahat, who got elected to City Hall as a Liberal Party (part of Likud) candidate and then became Shimon Peres’ booster and cheerleader for Oslo. Milo wants to ride the fence and play the Leftist-metamorphosis option.

The secularists are threatening to invade religious town Bnei Barak on Sabbath with cars and noise as “retaliation” for the human rights abuse being perpetrated upon them by Leviov in his obstinate refusal to allow the Sabbath to be desecrated on his property.

And have a good Sabbath….

Dr. Steven E. Plaut
Graduate School of Business
University of Haifa, Haifa 31905, Israel
Phone (972-4) 824-0110
Fax (972-4) 824-0059 or (972-4) 824-9194
email: rsec792@uvm.haifa.ac.il

Official Complaints Filed to US Ambasssador Martin Indyk

By

David Bedein

-

March 17, 1997

Joyce Boim, an American-Israeli citizen residing in Jerusalem, has filed an official complaint with US Ambassador Martin Indyk, following her meeting with Israel Minister of Justice Tzachi HaNegbi. Mrs Boim had requested that HaNegbi ad the name of Amjad HaNawi. who murdered her son David, age 16, last May, to the list of suspects that Israel was demanding that the Palestine Authority arrest and turn over to Israel. According to Mrs. Boim, HaNegbi simply shrugged his shoulders and refused her request…When I called the Justice Minister’s office for a response, his spokesperson said that since the official meeting did not happen between HaNegbi and his PA counterpart last Sunday, the list was never handed over and the list is no longer relevant.

Mrs. Boim has asked Indyk to intervene in this matter.

Meanwhile, another American-Israeli citizen, Mrs.Esther Wachsman, the mother of Nachson Wachsman, who was abducted and murdered in October 1994, has filed a complaint with Indyk that the Israeli government is not requesting the arrest of Muhammad Deif, a Gaza resident who masterminded the abduction and murder of his son. President Clinton, who visited her son’s grave on March 14, 1996, said on that occaision that Deif was on the list of America’s most wanted criminals and that Israel should not proceed with the process without Arafat handing over Deif. Present to hear and confirm Clinton’s words were Yehudah and Esther Wachsman, US ambassador Martin Indyk, and then-prime minister of Israel, Shimon Peres.

However, there is no record of any official Israeli or American written demand to Arafat to hand over Deif. Palestine Authority Gaza security chief, Nassar Yusef reported to Yehudah Wachsman last July that Arafat had given him orders not to arrest Deif.

Does Rhetoric Replace Policy?

By

David Bedein

-

March 17, 1997

On the evening before the long-planned March 17 meeting with his counterpart in the Palestine Authority, PA justice minister Abu Medein, Israel Minister of Justice Tzachi HaNegbi talked tough, declaring to a cheering Likud audience that anyone in the PA who advocated violence with be dealt with harshly.

HaNegbi pointed a finger at PA leader Yassir Arafat, saying that Israel could easily force him out of his villa in Gaza, back to his villa in Tunis. The reaction to HaNegbi was not long in coming. The PA denounced him in harsh terms, as did the Meretz and Labor party spokesmen.

Meanwhile, the meeting with Abu Medein did not come off as scheduled. The Israeli public perceived that HaNegbi had stood his ground and talked tough policy towards his Palestinian conuterparts.

Yet a somewhat different story remains to be told.

In an interview with Abu Medein on the day of the scheduled meeting, Abu Medein noted that the meeting had already been postponed last Thursday, March 14, the day before the Israel Ministry of Justice had issued a statement that the meeting was to take place.

Abu Medein, while indicating that formal meetings with Israeli officials had for the time being been postponed, also mentioned that on the matter of the “transfer of suspects” issue that there was no reason for a meeting, and that the Israeli government did indeed pass on names of susepcted murderers who had taken refuge in the areas administered by the Palestine authority for his consideration, even though Abu Medein expressed his policy that the PA would ever agree to hand over murder suspects to Israeli custody.

Meanwhile, in the list that the Israel Ministry of Justice did indeed hand over to the PA, HaNegbi did not add the names of the killers of Nachshon Wachsman, David Boim and Yaakov Yamin to the list, even though their families had held a well attended press conference on March 13 to demand that Hanegbi request the arrest of those who murdered their loved ones. Since the attack in Jordan overshadowed the press conference held by the Wachsmans, Boims and Yamins which occurred at the moment of the massacre, their appeal to the conscience of the Israeli public was not heard. All that these families asked was that HaNegbi indeed act to demand the arrest of the Arabs who murdered their loved ones and escaped to the PA havens of refuge for killers.

Yet the Israeli public was kept in the dark on this matter – the more tragic and spectacular continuing news item of the massacre of seven Israeli school girls in Jordan and the condolence visit by King Hussein kept the issue off the news, providing HaNegbi with the cover that he needed.

Meanwhile, HaNegbi has declared on numerous occaisions that if and when the PA refuses to hand over killers who have escaped to the areas under their jurisdiction, then he will resign. Instead, HaNegbi’s protege, Israel Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, declared at the joint news conference with King Hussein on Sunday night March 16th that the policy of his administration is that if there are PLO violations of the accord, no matter what they are, they will not stop the progress of the Oslo process.

Most people in Israel assume that HaNegbi has issued an ultimatum to the Palestine Authority to arrest any killer who has taken refuge in the areas under their control.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

When Joyce Boim met with HaNegbi on Thursday March 13 to discuss her longstanding request to have the Israeli government demand the arrest of her son’s admitted murderer, HaNegbi shrugged his shoulders and murmured that he didn’t know abotu it. This, despite months of calls, consultations and letters, let alone HaNegbi’s fire and brimstone speeches

On the morning of March 17, I asked Hanegbi’s office for a reason as to why the three killers of Wachsman, Boim and Yamin were not on the list of killers that were handed over to the Palestine Authority. His spokeswoman called back in the evening with a unique response: The list was never handed over to Abu Medein because they had no meeting and therefore there is no list.

Except that the Israeli government faxxed the list to Abu-Medein. Tzachi HaNegbi forgets that there is telephone service between Jerusalem and Gaza and that Abu Medein picks up the phone.

So there you have it. HaNegbi shries gevalt and the PA gets away with murder.

The “NEW” Jerusalem Post

By

David Bedein

-

March 17, 1997

It is particularly difficult to critique that which a newspaper does not cover or that which the paper chooses to relegate to the back pages

The new Jerusalem Post, now under the editorship of David Bar Ilan’s appointed successor, a Meretz man, Jeff Barak, has chosen not to cover the continuing case in the Israel High Court of Justice that is being valiantly waged by Joyce and Stanley Boim, Jerusalem Post readers and American Israeli citizens whose son David, age 16, was murdered last May, 1996. Why did Barak deem this less than newsworthy?

The Boims are trying to get a judgement by the High Court that will require the Israel Ministry of Justice to demand the arrest of their son’s killer, Amjad Hamawi, who has found refuge in the safe haven of the Palestine Authority. No major organization in Israel will take up the Boims case – not Yesha, not Young Israel, not Likud, not any civil rights organization with the exception of one civil rights group now in formation called “Ohev Tzedek”. Meanwhile, the Post keeps the court case from the public eye. The public is then led to believe that the Israeli government is doing its best when it is actually doing nothing at all. Why did Barak deem this less than newsworthy?

The Post continues its policy on this matter when it sends a senior reporter and photographer to cover the press conference held on March 13 with the Boims, the Wachsmans and the Yamins, all of whom have loved ones who are murdered and the killers roam freely in the Palestine Authority without a request for their arrest. True, the Post putson one of its inside pages on March 14 a quote from a wire service that describes the press conference in a few hidden lines. However, the Post did not even see fit to pick up on a fascinating, newsworthy aspect of the story, which is that Congressman James Saxton appealed to President Clinton to follow through on Clinton’s direct and personal promise to the Wachsman family that the peace process should not proceed unless and until the Palestine Authority hands over Muhammad Deif, the mastermind of the Wachsman murder. Clinton made that commitment at the grave of Nachshon Wachsman last March 14, 1996. The letter from Saxton was read at the press conference and ignored by the Post.Why did Barak deem this less than newsworthy?

Jeff Barak appears at a public forum in Haifa on March 19th. Perhaps he should be asked about the policies of the NEW Jerusalem Post. Perhaps the owners of the Post should be asked a thing or two.

Israel Behind the News

Common Myths of the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict

Red Lights & Green Lights: Weapons Control in the Palestine Authority?

“Why is this night different …”

40.8% of Palestinians Favor Suicide Attacks Against Israeli Targets

Arafat Gave “Green Light” for Attacks Against Israel

Palestinians Need Permanent Homes Now

A Secular Israeli Asks: Should Civil Rights of Observant Jews be Protected?

Official Complaints Filed to US Ambasssador Martin Indyk

Does Rhetoric Replace Policy?

The “NEW” Jerusalem Post

Column from the Director