Britain’s Gulf War Commander Says Air Strikes Won’t Work Against Iraq

LONDON (AP) Britain’s Gulf War commander said today that air strikes alone would not be entirely effective against Iraq.

Using “the rather blunt weapon of a single strike military force… has never worked in history,” retired Gen. Sir Peter de la Billiere told BBC Radio 4.

“You usually have to have balanced forces if you want to achieve a military objective. These will not be balanced forces and are likely to have side effects which will be very unwelcome,” he said.

De la Billiere said he believed the West probably had an idea where Iraqi weapons were being stored, but air strikes would not be fully effective _ and a ground attack was out of the question.

The West does not have the necessary forces in the region and it would take months to put troops in place, he said.

De la Billiere spoke as U.S. and British leaders warned that time was running out for a diplomatic resolution to the standoff over U.N. weapons inspections.

The United States and Britain have aircraft carriers in the Gulf preparing to launch air strikes if necessary. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said today that any attack to open Iraq’s suspected weapon sites would be “significant.”

Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright

As released by the Office of the Spokesman U.S. Department of State

Secretary Albright: Well, good afternoon everybody. Before departing for the Gulf, I want to set my meetings with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat in perspective. Two challenges define my current mission to the region: Our determination to prevent Saddam from threatening the security and stability of the region with weapons of mass destruction, and our commitment to get the Arab-Israeli Peace Process back on track. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s continued defiance of the Security Council and obstruction of UN’s weapons inspections is greatest to the peoples of this region. Saddam has used his arsenal against three of the countries I am visiting on this trip: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Israel. Indeed, he has used chemical weapons against his own people. We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities. They are a threat to Israelis and to Palestinians. They are a threat to Saudis and Kuwaitis. They are a threat to Iranians and a threat even to Iraqis themselves. Weapons of mass destruction kill without discrimination.

Let me say to the people of Israel in no uncertain terms, as I will say to the people of Saudi Arabia and the people of Kuwait: The United States stood with you when Saddam Hussein attacked you six years ago. The United States stands with you in the face of Saddam’s latest threat today. Of course, there may be differences between us about how to pursue Middle East peace, but let me say directly to the Israeli people: Nothing will ever shake the iron- clad commitment of the United States when it comes to the security of Israel. Although Saddam is bent on keeping this region mired in conflict, and stuck in the past, the United States is determined to keep the Middle East focused on the future and moving towards peace. And that is the second purpose of my mission. A week and a half ago, the President — President Clinton met with Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman Arafat to lay out his ideas to get Israeli-Palestinian negotiations back on track. He sent me here to elaborate on those ideas, to solicit the reactions of both leaders and to impress upon them the importance of making hard decisions so we can move ahead. At my request, and in an effort to report quickly, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Chairman have both agreed to send emissaries to Washington late next week to follow up on our discussions this weekend. I understand that the issues involved in the four-point agenda are difficult and complex, and I have no illusions about how challenging these negotiations are. But both parties must remember that the four-point agenda is not an end in itself. Israelis and Palestinians must move to permanent status negotiations in order to ultimately secure a lasting peace.

We have been stalled at this point in the peace process, negotiating the same issues for a long time — frankly, far too long. There is far too much at stake for this to go on. Over the last several years, Arabs and Israelis have concluded extraordinary agreements and established unprecedented ties. The current stalemate which has lasted for more than a year now is eroding those gains and threatening the entire process. There is only one way to avoid further deterioration: both parties must work to restore the lost sense of partnership by taking the hard steps to put the process back on track. It is no longer enough to simply talk about wanting peace; it is time to make the difficult decisions and exercise the leadership necessary to achieve it.

Question: Six years ago the Bush Administration pressured Israel not to respond when thirty-nine scuds fell on Tel Aviv and eleven Israelis were killed. Considering the dicey situation in Iraq is this the time really to be asking Israel to give up territory, territory a small country considers very vital in a very dangerous neighborhood?

Secretary Albright: First of all as I have said in these remarks we believe that one of the major reasons to push back on Saddam is so that he would not be a threat to the countries in the neighborhood, and as I stated, we are committed to helping them in any way that we can if they in some way should be attacked. It is obviously always up to each country to determine its own way of defending itself, but as I’ve said, our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable. I think it’s also very important to understand that we have two highly important problems going on at the same time. The peace process is one in which we have all invested a great deal of time and energy. We believe that it has to go on, that every determination has to be made to move it along, and at the same time it is very important to make clear our determination to thwart Saddam Hussein’s ability to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten his neighbors. So while these problems are both going on simultaneously, we have to deal with them independently and we have to make our views on both known very clearly.

Question: Madam Secretary, given the fact that there’s a belief that lack of progress in the Middle East peace process spills over into our relations in the rest of the region, are you concerned that an apparent lack of progress here at this point will erode support, or will have a negative effect on support in the Gulf for the main part of your mission there, which is to–

Secretary Albright: My purpose on this mission is to explain where we are in terms of our determination to thwart Saddam Hussein in his ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors, and I think that the important part here is for me to explain why in itself that is an important mission, and I am not making any connection between the two.

Question: Madam Secretary, you met with King Hussein on Friday. There have been reports now that his health is not good. Could you give us some idea of how he seemed and whether you detected any change in him, or whether he referred to his health at all.

Secretary Albright: Well, I’m a doctor, but not that kind, and I found him in very good spirits, looking terrific, very relaxed, and we had a very good discussion. I think also that he is a keen and astute observer of what is going on in the region. I appreciated his insight and his views and also his understanding for the approach that we were taking as far as Saddam Hussein was concerned, and very much appreciate a letter that was published today in which he makes clear that he holds Saddam Hussein responsible for the consequences of his actions, and for the failure to abide by Security Council resolutions. So I was just very, very pleased to have the opportunity to meet him and Queen Nur, and they both looked great to me.

Question: Madam Secretary, is the military option which the United States has realistic in terms of (inaudible)? Can it achieve goal of eliminating weapons of mass destruction or..?

Secretary Albright: Well, let me say that we believe that the kind of military action we would take, and let me parenthetically say here, that we continue to prefer the diplomatic route and believe that that is the best solution to it but, if diplomacy runs out we have reserved the right to use force and, if we do so, it will be substantial and it will be directed at what President Clinton stated were the objectives of it, which is to thwart their ability to acquire and develop weapons of mass destruction and to threaten their neighbors. And I must say, in that regard, that if they do, in fact, in some way, threaten their neighbors or do damage to them, our response to that will be swift and forceful and so they should have no doubt about that aspect.

Question: Did Israel request U.S. protective equipment for use in case of chemical or biological attack? And may I ask also, did you receive any good answers from both Israelis and Palestinians today?

Secretary Albright: Well, first of all, we will obviously be in very close consultations with the Israelis in terms of their security needs. I don’t think it is appropriate for me to go into any detail on that but, just to repeat again that our support for Israel, security is unshakable and that we will continue to consult very closely on the whole question here. On did I receive any good answers, I received some answers. I think, I must say that I had hoped that we would get further on this trip than we have but there has been some minimal progress and I appreciate, as I said in my statement, that both leaders have agreed to send envoys to Washington and my sense is that they are doing what President Clinton asked them to do which is to absorb and think about the ideas that he presented and that they are increasingly realizing the fact that they are the ones that have to make the hard decisions, that the United States will be there with ideas and support but they are the ones that have to make the tough decisions and so I am not as satisfied as I wish I could be in terms of the level of answers that I got but we did get some answers and I am glad that the process is continuing in the way that it is.

Question: Madam Secretary, do you think that this visit, your visit now to the region, did you get good answers from your visit or would it remind us of the visit you have done before some months? And something else, do you think this try, this American try, is a try as a peace mediator or it’s a try to have more Arab supporters if the military option will be taken by the United States?

Secretary Albright: Well, first of all, I think I answered the question about what answers I have gotten on the peace process and again, I would just say that I consider my trip here worthwhile for that purpose because it follows up on some very intensive diplomacy that took place this fall in other places and also the meetings that we had in Washington. But, I would have wished that more could have come out of it and we will continue to press and, I wish frankly that, as I said, that there had been more.

In terms of the other subject, let me say that I have been very satisfied with my overall trip in terms of the Iraqi situation. I have now met with Foreign Minister Vedrine, Foreign Minister Primakov, Foreign Minister Cook, and what I have found, is that there is unity in all of those leaders in their belief that Saddam Hussein has to carry out his obligations that the Security Council has laid on him, and that there should be unfettered and unconditional access for the inspectors. I was very pleased with – – obviously Foreign Secretary Cook has been supportive from the very beginning, and is one of the people upon whom — with whom we have a great partnership and work with very closely. I was very pleased of the support that came from Foreign Minister Vedrine who made clear that all options were open. We had some disagreements with Foreign Minsiter Primakov who believes that the chances for diplomacy are better than I do, frankly. But as I’ve already talked about King Hussein’s support, and certainly the support here. What is very hearteneing, is that as I said initially, that every one of those people understand the need for delivering a strong message to Saddam Huseein about unconditional, unfettered access. and, as I also said earlier, the purpose of my trip was to explain the U.S. position, welcome the support of those who would support us, and to make clear what President Clinton said so eloquently in the State of the union message: that we are going to do all we could to thwart Saddam Hussein in his ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction and threaten his neighbors.

Question: Madame Secretary, I wonder if you could tell us how you elvaluate the reports and signs that you’re getting that Iran may be re-thinking its position on the Middle East Peace Process. We understand the Administration may have gotten word through Arafat that Khatemi is a little less hostile to the process than his — some other officials is Iran. And a senior Iranian official in Davos over the last two days apparently has made some statement suggesting that Iran would be more interested in some kind of a dialogue between Iranians and Israelis, and that there may be division on the Middle East Peace Process within the government.

Secretary Albright: Let me say this: I was very interested initially when reports came through about some of the resolutions taken at the OIC meeting in tehran, where Iran was obviously the Chair of the OIC for three years. And I think some important steps were taken there to indicate some support for the Middle East Peace Process, a minimal. And we are following very closely, obviously whatever statements they are making, because as you know, one of the three major problems that we have with Iran, is the we have felt that they have not been helpful with the Middle East Peace Process. So we will follow that. As you also know, President Clinton as part of his Eid message, directed a section to the Iranian people, explaining our respect for their history and culture, and speaking about the importance of having — of excamining the possibility of exchanges and having a cultural dialogue between the peoples. We will have to see again what these various signals mean, and clearly what we have — are witnessing is a discussion of ideas in the Iranian Government. And as we have all said it is intriguing, some of it is encouraging. But again, I think we are going to have to watch this closely and be open in a way as the President was to what we are hearing.

Question: Madam Secretary, did you find Arafat supportive of U.S. goals?… dealing with the stand-off on weapons inspections with Iraq?

Secretary Albright: Well, what Chairman Arafat did was repeat what he said to me in Bern that he believes that Security Council resolutions should be abided by, and he made that very clear again that the resolutions needed to be carried out. I felt that he understood the difficulties posed by what Saddam Hussein was doing and the general problems that it posed for us specifically, but you will have to ask him more directly.

Question: Madam Secretary, I’d like to ask you about oil-for-food. Kobi Anan is presenting today proposals to expand oil-for-food from 2 to 5 billion dollars per semester. I was wondering if you would support an expansion on that scale?

Secretary Albright: First of all let me reiterate that it was the United States who actually initiated the whole concept of oil-for- food, because we have no fight with the Iraqi people and understand their suffering. I think we understand their suffering better than Saddam Hussein does. First of all we wanted the oil-for-food program to be carried out swiftly, and it took Saddam Hussein a year or so to even get the mechanism into place so that the oil- for-food could in fact be carried out. We will be examining Kobi Anan’s suggestions specifically, but in a general way, but I can say that we do support an expansion of the oil-for-food program.

Question: Mrs. Secretary, I’d like to ask how you evaluate the step taken yesterday by the Central Committee of the PLO regarding the Covenant, the Palestinian Covenant?

Secretary Albright: Well, it is my understanding that they have put the issue of the Covenant on an agenda item to be discussed. They have written letters to Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton making clear which articles of the Covenant they consider invalid, and we consider that an important step forward, and I understand this question is going to be on the agenda as an important step in terms of what is being asked of them.

Question: Madam Secretary, as the technical team, evaluation team, arrived to Iraq yesterday and another team for biological team. Why don’t you wait the technical team, evaluation team, of twenty- two members and the second thing as most of the Arab countries do not support a military strike — Egypt, Syria and some Gulf countries — are you worried of more radicalization in the Arab world and more fundamentalism after a U.S. strike against Iraq. Thank you.

Secretary Albright: First of all, I think we are watching to see what the results of the technical evaluation teams are going to be, but the main thing that we are pressing for because that is the structure that has been established is for the UNSCOM inspectors to be able to carry out their work unfettered and in an unconditional way. That is what this is about. I think that we are assessing the situation from the perspective of what we believe needs to be done in order to make sure that countries in the region are not threatened by Saddam Hussein who has had and could have and probably has weapons of mass destruction. As I have mentioned, there are Arab countries that are asthreatened by his weapons as anybody, and therefore we believe that the action that we take if we in fact have to use force would be done to the end of trying to help those countries, and I have said in my initial remarks, weapons of mass destruction know no borders or nationalities, and I think that we believe that if we have to use force, we will be doing it for the correct reasons. But again, let me say, that we are trying to sort this out diplomatically. We all prefer a diplomatic solution, but the window for carrying out that diplomatic solution and the time for it seems to be narrowing.

Thank you.

Saudis Will Not Help in Iraq Attack

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — America’s closest ally in the Persian Gulf — Saudi Arabia — also could be its toughest challenge in building support for a military attack on Iraq.

Saudi resistance, spelled out in comments Sunday by a senior Saudi official, complicates U.S. efforts to get full cooperation from countries in the region at a time when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was arriving to consult on the stand-off between the United Nations and Iraq.

“Saudi Arabia will not allow any strikes against Iraq, under any circumstances, from its soil or bases in Saudi Arabia, due to the sensitivity of the issue in the Arab and Muslim world,” the Saudi official told The Associated Press, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Even U.N. Security Council approval of an attack would not change the Saudi position, the official said.

The United States has plenty of fighter jets and troops afloat in the Persian Gulf, but it relied heavily on Saudi and Turkish bases during the 1991 Gulf War.

These days, Turkey, too, is reluctant to allow itself to be used as a launching pad. Ankara announced Sunday it would send Foreign Minister Ismail Cem to Baghdad to help negotiate a diplomatic end to the standoff over U.N. weapons inspections.

Iraq has been sparring with U.N. inspectors and the United States over access to suspected weapons sites, and U.S. calls for military strikes have been getting louder in recent weeks.

Bill Richardson, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday that he has received commitments from two countries to publicly support the United States should it decide to attack Iraq.

“The United States will not be alone,” Richardson said during a world forum in Davos, Switzerland. He refused to identify the countries.

The U.N. inspectors must certify Iraq has destroyed all of its weapons of mass destruction before the U.N. Security Council will lift tough economic sanctions imposed after Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait in 1990, prompting the Gulf War. The Security Council insists on unfettered access for its inspectors; Iraq contends access to some sites, including presidential palaces, would violate its sovereignty.

Albright explained America’s position Sunday night in talks with the emir of Kuwait, Sheik Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah.

State Department spokesman James P. Rubin said Albright told Kuwaiti officials: “The United States stood with you when Saddam Hussein attacked you seven years ago; the United States stands with you in the face of Saddam’s threat today.”

Rubin said Albright believes she has “the 100 percent support” of the government of Kuwait.

She was to consult Monday with leaders of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, then fly Tuesday to Egypt.

The United States has more than 4,000 troops and dozens of warplanes at bases in Saudi Arabia. Saudis, however, have been increasingly uncomfortable about their close ties with Washington since the June 1996 bombing of a U.S. military barracks in eastern Saudi Arabia. Nineteen American servicemen died in the attack, blamed on Muslim extremists.

U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia and Turkey were used extensively during the Gulf War, when an American-led coalition drove Iraq out of Kuwait. But the last U.S. missile strike against Iraq — a 1996 attack to punish President Saddam Hussein for sending troops into a Kurdish “safe haven” in northern Iraq — was launched from U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Today, the United States has more than 24,400 troops aboard two aircraft carriers, the USS George Washington and the USS Nimitz, and their escort ships in the gulf. About half of the 342 warplanes in the gulf also are sea-based.

To many in the Arab world, a military strike on Iraq seems pointless, given that Iraqi citizens already are struggling from the seven years of economic sanctions. There also is distrust of Washington for its unwavering support for Israel.

“All Arabs, with one voice, should say to America, ‘enough,'” said the Al-Ittihad daily in the United Arab Emirates. “If Saddam abused international law once, Israel has done it 100 times.”

Others say an attack on Iraq may be designed to divert attention from the sex scandal surrounding U.S. President Clinton.

“If Clinton’s administration is suffering a crisis because of his involvement in a sex scandal, 20 million Iraqis suffering under seven years of United Nations sanctions should not have to pay,” said the Emirates’ Al-Bayan daily.

There were several calls Sunday from for a non-military solution to the latest stand-off:

  • Iranian President Mohammad Khatami urged the 55-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference to try to resolve Iraq’s dispute with the United Nations peacefully, state-run Iranian radio reported.
  • Egyptian Foreign Minister Amr Moussa told Associated Press Television in Davos that Egypt and other Arab countries were seeking a political solution. “I am not optimistic, but I would say I am hopeful,” he said.
  • Qatar’s Al-Rayah daily called for demonstrations against Albright’s visits to gulf capitals, something unheard of in the conservative region.

“We feel sorry that we haven’t heard of one Arab demonstration greeting Albright with placards carrying the word “no,” the Arabic-language paper said.

Russia, too, is working toward a nonmilitary solution, sending envoy Viktor Posuvalyuk to Baghdad for his second attempt at a negotiating a solution in less than a week.

France said Sunday it will send a top diplomat to Baghdad within 48 hours to “warn Iraq” about the risks it faces by not complying with U.N. weapons inspections.

Barak’s Position that Charter Canceled Firm Despite Singer

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

January 26:

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

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

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

Meirav: I’ll get back to you.

January 28:

IMRA: Any news?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IMRA: I am not arguing with you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Al Ahram on Israel Scene and Peace Process

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


A Watershed in Israel
by Mohamed Sid-Ahmed

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Oslo’s Last Chance
by Graham Usher

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

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

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


The Challenge of Israel
by Edward Said

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

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

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

Commentary on Claimed Change to Palestinian Charter

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

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

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

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

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

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

But nothing happened.

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

But nothing happened.

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

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

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

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

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

They didn’t.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Injustice and Mockery Characterize Arafat’s “RULE” LAW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pat Robertson Interviews Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

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

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

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

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

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

(Begin Transcript):

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

Netanyahu: Not too bad.

Robertson: Really? What are they asking you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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