Rabbi David Ariel-Yoel

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

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

Conducted by Toby Greenwald, Israel based journalist

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

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

Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan

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

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

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

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

(END VIDEO CLIP)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Novak: But you will also advise the Hamas to…

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

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

Farrakhan: Yes I will.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farrakhan: Absolutely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farrakhan: I will.

Evans: What is your expectation?

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

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

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

Evans: What about the gutter religion?

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

Novak: Sir when you…

Farrakhan: Our actions.

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

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

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

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farrakhan: No he has not.

Evans: He has not.

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

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

Farrakhan: No sir, I have not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Farrakhan: No. Not at all.

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

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

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

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

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

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

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

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

Farrakhan: Thank you.

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

Farrakhan & Moussa Interviews

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Palestinian Authority Request the Transfer of Israelis?

Recently a number of Israeli commentators have defended the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) refusal to transfer terrorists to Israel by claiming that this is acceptable behavior since Israel does not extradite Israelis to the PA. This argument, however, ignores the irrefutable fact that the PA has no authority to request the transfer of Israeli suspects.

According the Interim Agreement, Israel has sole criminal jurisdiction over offenses committed by Israelis and the PA can only request the transfer of non-Israelis. As for civil cases against Israelis which fall within the PA’s jurisdiction, PA imprisonment orders against Israelis are effected by the Israeli police so they serve their punishment in Israeli rather than Palestinian prison.

The relevant sections of the Interim Agreement are presented below:

Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement On The West Bank And The Gaza Strip
Washington, 28th September, 1995

Annex IV Protocol Concerning Legal Matters

ARTICLE I Criminal Jurisdiction

2. Israel has sole criminal jurisdiction over the following offenses:

….

b. offenses committed in the Territory by Israelis.

ARTICLE II Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters

2. Cooperation in Criminal Matters

… b. Where an offense is committed in the Territory by an Israeli acting jointly with an individual under Palestinian personal jurisdiction, the Israeli military forces and the Palestinian Police will cooperate in conducting an investigation.

c. The Palestinian authorities shall not arrest Israelis or place them in custody. Israelis can identify themselves by presenting Israeli documentation.

However, when an Israeli commits a crime against a person or property in the Territory, the Palestinian Police, upon arrival at the scene of the offense shall, if necessary, until the arrival of the Israeli military forces, detain the suspect in place while ensuring his protection and the protection of those involved, prevent interference with the scene of the offense, collect the necessary evidence and conduct preliminary questioning, and in any case shall immediately notify the Israeli authorities through the relevant DCO.

d. Without derogating from the jurisdiction of the Council over property located or transported within the Territory, where the property is being transported or carried by an Israeli, the following procedure shall apply: The Palestinian authorities have the power to take any measures necessary in relation to Israeli vehicles or property where such vehicle or property has been used in the commission of a crime and present an immediate danger to public safety or health. When such measures are taken, the Palestinian authorities shall immediately notify the Israeli authorities through the relevant DCO, and shall continue to take the necessary measures until their arrival.

3. When an Israeli is suspected of committing an offense and is present in the Territory, the Israeli military forces shall be able to arrest, search and detain the suspect as required; in areas where the Palestinian Police exercise powers and responsibilities for internal security and public order, such activities shall take place in coordination with the Palestinian Police, in its presence and with its assistance.

4. Israel shall hand over to the Palestinian Police the Palestinian offenders to whom Article I, paragraph 1.b applies, together with any collected evidence.

6. Summons and Questioning of Witnesses

a. Where the statement of a witness who is an Israeli or other person present in Israel is required for a Palestinian investigation, the statement shall be taken by the Israeli Police in the presence of a Palestinian Police officer in an Israeli facility at an agreed location.

7. Transfer of Suspects and Defendants

a. Where a non-Israeli suspected of, charged with, or convicted of, an offense that falls within Palestinian criminal jurisdiction is present in Israel, the Council may request Israel to arrest and transfer the individual to the Council.

ARTICLE III Civil Jurisdiction

4. Israelis, including registered companies of Israelis, conducting commercial activity in the Territory are subject to the prevailing civil law in the Territory relating to that activity. Enforcement of judicial and administrative judgments and orders issued against Israelis and their property shall be effected by Israel, within a reasonable time, in coordination and cooperation with the Council.

ARTICLE IV Legal Assistance in Civil Matters

3. Enforcement of Judgments

c. Without derogating from the civil jurisdiction of the Palestinian courts and judicial authorities in accordance with Article III, imprisonment orders against Israelis, and orders restraining Israelis from traveling abroad (excluding interim orders before a judgment was given), shall only be issued by Israeli execution offices and effected by the Israeli police.

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

Redeployment – What Does That Mean?

The next round in the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations deals with the redeployment issue. The Israelis want redeployment from a minimum amount of territory in Judea in return for a maximum effort to meet their security needs. The Palestinians want a maximum re-deployment in return for security arrangements that they feel they can realistically live with given the Byzantine political realities facing their Palestinian Autonomy.

The real facts on the ground level are strikingly different. While both sides negotiate and argue about what percentage will fall under control of what group, the truth is that about 85% of what was Judea and Samaria is already under tactical control of the PA.

The Israelis have found themselves to be in a difficult tactical military situation. The only area that they control is the area that the IDF soldiers actually occupy, in their bases, or in the Jewish settlements.

The lifelines connecting the settlements and bases to Israel proper are patrolled by the IDF but not under their control. The terrorists can strike at any passing Jewish bus, civilian vehicle, or military transport at will and disappear back into the areas under exclusive PA control.

What then is the real issue? The real issue is simply a matter of political control. The main cause for conflict during this transitional period centers on the destruction of Palestinian housing. This housing was built without obtaining building permits from the IDF civilian affairs command. On the Jewish side, the freeze on all building or expanding of existing settlements is still in effect.

At the same time as the political debate continues, most of Judea and Samaria lie woefully underdeveloped and neglected. The utilization of it’s natural resources, water table, sewage treatment, and other ecological issues which affect all residents, Jewish and Palestinian alike, have yet to be addressed in a non-political atmosphere of grass-roots co-operation. The medical needs of the peoples living in this area are not being properly dealt with. No properly staffed and operated hospitals exist which can compete with the complex medical centers found elsewhere in the world. The reasons for this are mainly political. The finances, human resources, and the desire for co-operation in this area exist. There is, at this time, a window of opportunity, which can bring about the realization of a better life for all the peoples in Judea and Samaria. Politicians on both sides who neither live in the area nor understand the complex grass-roots survival issues involved, are closing this window.

What should be done is to create an internationally monitored housing authority, which would supervise two separate departments, one operated by the PA and the other by the Israelis. In the event of conflict of interests, a tribunal consisting of international authorities acceptable by all sides concerned would settle the issues. Under this plan, all houses presently in existence should be retroactively granted building permits.

All new Palestinian housing and expansion of the Jewish settlements should be left exclusively in the hands of this newly created housing authority. What this plan would do is allow for the natural commercial and industrial expansion of infrastructure in Judea and Samaria without political restrictions.

Jewish and Palestinian joint housing and business ventures should be encouraged to build housing and industrial parks, roads, hospitals, schools, and the necessary infrastructure to support hi-tech industries.

This program could well be called Industry for Peace, and there is no reason why the program couldn’t be moved forward in parallel to the political track.

For the man on the street, political realities usually take a back seat to the reality of health, security, welfare, and education. No matter how the political lines are finally drawn, the economic infrastructure, which will provide the bread and butter of co-existence, must be established_and established now.

PLC Rep. Hatem Abdul Kader: Arafat Can’t Compromise On Jerusalem

IMRA: interviewed Jerusalem Fatah Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) Representative, Hatem Abdul Kader, in English, on January 3rd. The entire interview follows:

IMRA: You are quoted in the weekly “Al-Bayader Al-Siyasi” today as saying that you don’t thing that the Palestinian Authority (PA) is doing enough in Jerusalem. Is that an accurate quote? What do you think they should be doing?

Abdul Kader: I think that the PNA can do many things in Jerusalem but for some reason, which I don’t understand, they have stopped. Why? I don’t know exactly.

We have, in the Jerusalem Committee of the PLC, made many decisions about east Jerusalem, but the PNA has not accepted any decisions.

IMRA: Do you think that this indicates that Yasser Arafat in the end may be willing to compromise on Jerusalem?

Abdul Kader: I think that maybe Yasser Arafat has an agreement with the Israelis about east Jerusalem- I don’t know exactly. When I talk about Jerusalem I mean the city and the villages around the city. The region. It is part of Jerusalem. But the PNA is also not doing anything about the electricity, water, building, housing. Nothing. But in Gaza they are doing all the things.

IMRA: Do you think that if Yasser Arafat would try to cut a deal with the Israelis, with something like Beilin-Mazen that talks about Abu Dis as the Jerusalem capital of Palestine, that the public would accept this? That he could get away with this?

Abdul Kader: No, no, no. Nobody has accepted it. Not the Palestinians. Not the Arab world. Not the Moslem world. Jerusalem is Jerusalem. It is our capital. In my opinion we need all of east Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state.

IMRA: What do you think would happen to Yasser Arafat if he did make such a deal?

Abdul Kader: I think it would be illegal.

IMRA: What do you think would happen? What would the public do to him?

Abdul Kader: I am sure that Yasser Arafat isn’t doing anything like this. Abu Mazen-Beilin can talk what they want, but I think that there is nothing on the ground.

IMRA: One last question. Recently I have asked a number of Palestinians what they think what will happen to places like French Hill and Ramat Eshkol, areas beyond the 1967 borders which have been populated by Israelis and developed for many many years. They are quite strong that even those areas would be within the Palestinian state. Do you feel the same way?

Abdul Kader: I think that east Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine. We think two capitals for two states. East Jerusalem and west Jerusalem. I think that east Jerusalem and west Jerusalem must be open, but not united. Two municipalities, two capitals, two cities, but it must be open.

IMRA: What do you see happening to the Jewish neighborhoods beyond the 1967 borders in east Jerusalem?

Abdul Kader: I don’t think It is a problem for us.

IMRA: They would be part of Israel?

Abdul Kader: No, no. It is not a problem for us. Any Jews who want to live under Palestinian rule in east Jerusalem are welcome.

IMRA: So they would be living in the Palestinian state.

Abdul Kader: Yes. And have all the rights like the Palestinians. We don’t want to transfer all the Jews from east Jerusalem.

IMRA: Many of the Jews living in east Jerusalem are living on property with 49 year leases – they don’t own the land, its government land. What happens to these people since they don’t actually own the land?

Abdul Kader: Any Jews who have paper – a right to land or buildings in east Jerusalem are not a problem for us. We are talking about the capital. About the policy. We want east Jerusalem under the Palestinians. But if any Jews have a building or land it is no problem for us.

IMRA: So they would become Palestinian citizens?

Abdul Kader: Yes. And also we have Palestinians in east Jerusalem who own buildings in west Jerusalem. We have papers to land and any Palestinians or Jews who have papers – any rights to buildings or land it is not a problem. I think that all of east Jerusalem must be under Palestinian rule.

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

Building Religious/Cultural Bridges Between Arab and Jewish University Students

When the late Anwar Sadat made his historic dramatic trip to Jerusalem 20 years ago, he asserted the importance of bridging the gap between Arabs and Jews by breaking what he called the “Psychological Barrier.” existing between the two peoples. While real and objective problems need to be solved between Israelis and the Arabs as part of a peace settlement, certainly the psychological atmosphere existing between Israelis, and Palestinians is a factor which can either enhance or retard the possibilities for peace to develop. In this article we will suggest that the insufficiently explored commonalities between the Islamic and Judaic cultures can serve as a psychological bridge of the type which President Sadat spoke of, referring to concrete examples.

As educators of university students we would like to share our experiences as supervisors of a unique student dialogue which has been taking place for the last several years. The dialogue has involved students from Bar-Ilan University and Palestinian students from a variety of Palestinian universities. We believe that the experiences of the above-mentioned dialogue points the way and serves as an excellent head-start toward the possibility that both Arabs and Jews can achieve positive perceptions of each other. In contrast to the belief that religion only serves to fan the flame of conflict, the dialogue has shown that the religious cultural background of both Islam and Judaism can contribute to a friendly psychological atmosphere which will bridge the gap between the two peoples.

When our students met for the first time three years ago in Bethlehem, it wasn’t clear what common agenda could be found as a foundation for constructive dialogue. The answers though appeared to come from the students themselves. It began with an innocent question by a Jewish woman student to an Arab female student who asked if she wore the head covering for the same reason that an Orthodox Jewish woman would. This first exchange led to other questions and answers, for instance concerning similarities and differences between the observances of Ramadan and Yom Kippur, the Kosher and Halal food, the way the two peoples worship the same G-d, the teachings of the two religions, the belief of the Moslems and Jews in the same one G-d, the respect and belief of the Moslems of all the prophets and not discriminating between anyone of them, the belief of the Moslims that Prophet Abraham is the grandfather of all Arabs and Jews. As a result of the last-mentioned point, one of the most important things concluded was the idea that Moslims and Jews as descendants of Abraham could achieve improved perceptions of each other. Also they discussed the origins and similarities among the three monotheistic religions. A variety of topics were initially discussed. The way the Qu’ran and Prophet Mohammed recommended the good treatment of the neighbors. Even during war, the Islamic teachings advise the Moslims not to kill children, elderly people or women. In one meeting the story and significance of creation as presented in both the Torah and Qu’ran were compared; in another meeting, essential prayers and religious credos in both Islam and Judaism were explored as expressions of the faith which Arabs and Jews hold dear.

As students from both sides wished to continue their meetings, it became clear to us that a continued comparison between Islam, Judaism (and Christianity) served as a highly constructive foundation for dialogue. Many important issues were dealt with in a thoughtful manner such as the challenge of bio-ethics, or the ethics of life concerning both biological and social ecology; how the two religions update religious structure and observance in each era; and the manner in which prayer is performed by the two peoples. Students were pleased to discover almost identical terminology or concepts for many elements in the two religions, as reflected in culture and language (for instance such as the name of G-d). On several occasions high level student faculty delegations from Japan and India, who were interested in bio-ethics from a religious perspective and in conflict resolution, joined and enriched our deliberations.

Besides the intellectual stimulation, the experience of scores of our students can make an important contribution for conflict resolution. Experts in inter-cultural communication believe that when groups in conflict discover some elements of commonality in an opposing group, the way can be opened for a lessening of tension and new more positive mutual perceptions to emerge.

Again, the activity of the Arab-Israeli students can be instructive. After discovering commonalities in the two religious cultures in the semi-formal circle discussions which opened our meetings, students were then able to divide into their own informal discussion sub-groups, and over coffee and refreshments, to discuss freely and openly any topic that was on their minds including highly controversial political issues in a warm, friendly and respectful atmosphere.

Interactions between the Israeli and Palestinian students and faculty have not remained limited to the formal meetings. Personal relationships have developed which have survived the vicissitudes of sometimes turbulent current events; members have reacted constructively during tragedy and difficulty and have visited each other on personal occasions of both illness and celebration, thus creating a strong human bond for the dialogues to continue.

From our experience, we do not assume that achieving a formal Israeli-Palestinian peace will be easy. Both the Israeli and Palestinian members of the dialogue are proud members of their communities and have their respective religious and national principles. However we have found that we can enrich each other and together discover deeper elements such as our similar religious heritages which can serve to create a new atmosphere that would generate hope instead of despair, while the official leaders on both sides are summoned to arrive at a peace agreement ultimately to serve both of our peoples.

We sincerely hope that our efforts will be encouraged by the formal leadership on both sides and that other groups will follow our example. In recent years, courageous leaders have come forward to enable the peace process to develop. President Sadat understood the importance of breaking the psychological barrier between Arabs and Jews and building new bridges between them, and Yitzhak Rabin sensed new possibilities in the region. It is their legacy which we wish to honor and enlarge upon., as we tap into the cultural backround of Islam and Judaism as a basis for conflict resolution and perception change to occur.

Ben Mollov is a lecturer in political science at Bar-Ilan University and coordinates the department of Political Science at the Ashkelon Regional College under Bar-Ilan’s auspices.

Musa Isa Barhoum is an assistant professor at Al-Quds Open University. He is in charge of the Department of Educational Technology. He has taught in a number of Palestinian universities.

Myth of a Demilitarized Palestinian State

It is a commonly held assumption that a demilitarized Palestinian Arab state would emerge from the current entity known as the Palestine Authority, which would serve the “security interests of the state of Israel”, given the Palestine Authority contracted responsibility to disarm Arab terror groups that function within territory under its control.

The question remains: Is it too late for PA demilitarization? The current Palestine Authority operates a Palestine Liberation Army which acts as an umbrella force that licenses arms for each and every armed faction within the Palestine Authority, including the Palestinian groups that oppose any accord with Israel: Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, the Palestinian Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Fatah Hawks. Back as May 9, 1995, the Palestine Authority’s official Palestine Broadcast Corporation ( the PBC) officially announced the PA policy to license arms for each of these groups, each of which appears on the list published by the State Department that are defined as terrorist organizations.

The series of “Oslo accords”, signed by Arafat and three successive Israeli prime ministers – Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu, cosigned and witnessed by Russia and the US, allow for a Palestinian Arab armed force that would have 9,000 men and women under arms. Arafat signed an accord which provided that any Palestinian under arms would first have to be vetted by Israeli intelligence to ensure that he did not have a background in terror activity. Yet as early as December 10, 1993, it was discovered that the PLA had drafted two Arab residents from the west bank community of Tequa who had murdered the curator of the Herodian, David Rosenfeld, in 1982. They had been released when the Israeli government handed over more than 1000 convicted Palestinian Arab terrorists in exchange for 6 Israeli soldiers who had been captured by a PLO terror group in Lebanon. David Rosenfeld’s widow complained to Israeli prime minister Rabin, whose office responded on June 10, 1994 that the PLA was indeed drafting convicted killers into their armed forces without Israeli government approval. On June 20, 1995, Israel Minister for Public Security Moshe Shachal confirmed to me in a videotaped interview that the Palestine Liberation Army had grown to more than 19,000, and that more Israel no longer had any information as to the personnel then serving in the PLA. In December, 1995, Arafat announced that his commanders for Ramallah and Nablus would the men who planted bombs in Jerusalem’s Zion Square on July 5, 1975, killing thirteen people.

American intelligence experts place the number of PLA troops at more than 50,000.

Living in a generation which has witnessed the victories of the non-mechanized Viet Cong and the Algerian FLN “liberation” armies over the mighty forces of the US and France, the question remains, what are the security implications for Israel of the PA’s current Palestine Liberation Army?

Whatever possibilities existed for a demilitarized Palestinian state, the 1998 reality of the PA’s Palestine Liberation Army flies in the face of any such suggestion.

Palestinian Arab Refugees as “Peripheral” to the Peace Process

A commonly held assumption is that the entire matter of Palestinian Arab refugees is “peripheral” to the progress of the peace process. This view is shared on all sides of the Israeli political spectrum – namely, that the Oslo peace process supersedes any interest in three million Palestinian Arab refugees, one million of whom still reside in the UNRWA (UNITED NATIONS RELIEF AND WORKS AGENCY) camps that were set up in 1949. The rest live near the camps and receive benefits from UNRWA – free services for health, education, water, electricity and some food commodities.

In 1958, Abba Eban, then Israel’s ambassador to the UN, characterized the UNRWA policy of maintaining Arab refugees in transit camps as a crass manipulation of human suffering that would only fan the flames of war against the new state of Israel. Dr. Eli Lasch, head of medical services in Gaza for Israel’s Civil Administration until 1985, asserted that UNRWA maintained Arabs at a starvation level before 1967. Israeli troops who entered UNRWA refugee camps in 1967, were shocked to discover that Jordanians and Egyptians had allowed no electricity or running water in the camps, while forbidding the camp residents to work outside of the camps. Meanwhile, however, camp residents were living according to the precise streets, neighborhoods and villages that they had left in 1948. UNRWA neglect of Arab refugees before 1967 did not foster expectations among Arabs who wallowed hopelessly in camps. Israel’s development did.

Israel’s post-1967 modernization of the Arab refugee camps provided Israeli contractors with a source of a subsidized labor force whose health, education and welfare was taken care of by UNRWA, while UN member states upgraded their contributions to UNRWA to improve quality of life in the camps. The 1998 UNRWA budget exceeds $400 Million – the only budget designed to keep refugees as refugees.

The message of the Intifada, which broke out in Gaza UNRWA camps in 1987, was that jobs, sacks of flour and running water would not provide for realization of Palestinian Arab nationalist ambitions. Palestinian Arab refugees asserted that they define their ambition as their “inalienable right of return” to the homes and villages that they left in 1948, even if they now provide land for Israeli towns, cities, and hundreds of collective farms. The “inalienable right of return” as proscribed by the biennial UN resolution #194, doesn’t compensation for Arab refugees in lieu of their return to pre-1948 homes.

UNRWA residents, who maintain the highest educational level in the Arab world, thanks to subsidized elementary and high school education, along with generous University scholarships, prepare themselves for their return. They see how a Palestinian entity with a Palestine Liberation Army has formed overnight, with international and Israeli recognition. They do not see that the realization of their dream as far off.

At a time when the Palestine Authority forbids improving UNRWA homes in anticipation of “return”, a new spirit dominates the camps. In 1998, “We’re going home” is on the lips of Palestinian Arab refugees The home that they sing of is not in the west bank or Gaza, but rather within the state of Israel proper, in the neighborhoods that they left in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, Tzfat and the more than 200 Arab villages that now house collective farms, known as Moshavim or Kibbutzim.

The Palestinian Arab refugee population is infested with expectation.A cardinal principle of revolution holds that people whose expectations are not realized will be explode into a revolution whose goal is to overthrow the existing order.

Peace Now on PA Material and Hebron

IMRA interviewed Mossy Raz, political secretary of Peace Now, in Hebrew, on December 19.

IMRA: This week the Prime Minister’s Office released a collection of anti-Semitic material which has come out of the Palestinian Authority (PA), including material denying the Holocaust broadcast on the PA’s official television station, their Ministry of Information Internet site which claims that there is no archeological evidence of a tie between the Jewish People and Jerusalem, etc. How do you, as a man of peace engaged in dialogue with Palestinians, see this?

Raz: I see it as very serious. I see it as I imagine you or any other Israeli sees similar incidents – in their thousands – in the United States, France or other countries.

IMRA: We are not talking about something from marginal people. We are talking about something which came out from the PA’s Ministry of Information. We aren’t talking about marginal group. This is the official site of the PA.

Raz: This in on the archeological mater?

IMRA: Yes, the archeological matter – that not even one piece of archeological evidence that there were Jews living in the Old City of Jerusalem has been found. Apparently they are not aware of the Burnt House or the Hasmonean Palace.

Raz: First of all I don’t think that there are many such incidents. Again, we both know how unimportant such offices as the Ministry of Information are to the PA.

So they had some kind of failure – not that I take it lightly, but I don’t see how this goes any where. We have friendly relations with many countries – something we don’t have with the PA, we still have relations between us of hatred and breaking of agreements.

IMRA: Countries which deny the historical connection of the Jews to Jerusalem?

Raz: That isn’t the official position of the PA.

IMRA: Only their Ministry of Information.

Raz: They didn’t say there is no tie.

IMRA: They say there is no proof of a tie.

Raz: Understand, I don’t want to defend every stupidity of theirs. I only say that you have to put it in its proper proportion.

IMRA: I spoke with the Palestinian Minister of Religion Tahboob, and he explained to me that since the Western Wall is the “al-Baraq Wall” if they are in control they will allow Jews to pray facing it but they can’t get within two meters of the Wall since it is part of the al-Aksa Mosque.

Raz: Since they will not control that area, the whole matter doesn’t interest me.

IMRA: Because you don’t think they will control the Wall?

Raz: No.

IMRA: Why not? If they control Jerusalem?

Raz: You are drawing me into describing my solution for Jerusalem. I see as the solution that Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem will be like Rehavia and the Arab neighborhoods will be like Ramallah. If it is like that then the Wall will be like Rehavia.

IMRA: So the entire matter is not relevant?

Raz: Yes. Clearly there are struggles between us which are religious – like the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. I don’t follow everything he says as you do, but if you were to tell me that he said that if he controls it that he won’t let Jews in…

IMRA: He explains a simple thing: The Cave of the Patriarchs is a mosque. And Jews – or for that matter anyone who is not a Moslem – can come to visit inside as a tourist, but he can’t pray there.

Raz: Yes. Yes. It is clear that to a great extent there is a religious dispute which makes it difficult to reach a solution where the two sides have the same place holy to them.

IMRA: If you knew a priori that the moment you allow them to control a place like the Cave of the Patriarchs that they will be in a situation that they would have a hard time facing their people if they permitted Jewish prayer, that they would not permit Jewish prayer, then would you say that the site can’t be given to PA control?

Raz: No. I don’t agree with you. Since the land has to be divided. There are two nations. Certain places require certain arrangements. The City of Hebron will be entirely under Palestinian control beyond any shadow of a doubt. It is impossible that there will be any arrangement except one under which all of Hebron, including the Cave of the Patriarchs, is under Palestinian control.

IMRA: Even if you know, a priori, that that means barring Jewish prayer there.

Raz: As an Israeli I will be very happy if they also permit Jews to pray there but I think that Jews, and in particular Israelis, will find it difficult to protest this matter after we have destroyed hundreds and thousands of mosques and after we have prevented freedom of religion for Moslems in so many places. It would be very hypocritical for us to say ‘we found one place in this land where our freedom of religion is denied’. For every place that Jews are denied freedom of religion I can show you a thousand places were Moslems are denied freedom of religion.

IMRA: What’s the big deal about the Wall? We are talking about a supporting wall.

Raz: From a religious standpoint?

IMRA: From a national standpoint. From a religious standpoint we are talking about a supporting wall of the Temple Mount as compared to the Cave of the Patriarchs. I am trying to understand why from a national standpoint this is so much more important. That you are so certain and convinced that it has to be held.

Raz: We are entering a theological argument and I am not a religious man. I know that 999 out of every 1,000 citizens in the State of Israel think that the Wall is more important than the Cave of the Patriarchs. Now I am not interested in a historical arguments as to why it is important.

It has another advantage. It is in Jerusalem. In the Jewish Quarter. The Cave of the Patriarchs is in Hebron which has a Palestinian majority, and this has to also be kept in mind. So when you think of the future of the two places there is no comparison between them in terms of their political futures.

IMRA: I heared Shimon Peres when he was on television with Yitzchak Shamir and he said something like this: what is more important, stones or sons. And just last week I spoke with Brig. Gen. (res.) Aharon Levran and he said that if you are concerned only with defending “little Israel” – Gederah to Hadera, that there are areas in the West Bank which are strategically more important than Jerusalem. Why then this bitter dispute with the Palestinians over Jerusalem.

Raz: The approach is distorted because you are explaining to me that we should take additions from the West Bank in order to protect Israel and I say to you that 10% of Israel is Jerusalem so if you take away Jerusalem you give up on part of Israel. It is OK to talk about areas which you think are necessary to add to Israel for its defense but you can’t touch anything in Israel.

IMRA: I am raising this for a different reason. When I talk with many Palestinians – not Hamas – members of the PLC, even ministers, and they tell me that they want all of the Old City and all of Eastern Jerusalem. And I think to myself, if Shimon Peres is right, that in every case sons are more important than stones, then why this whole story with the Old City and the rest? They also are stones.

Raz: That’s true. Everything is a question of proportions. I can’t tell you that today that I know how the solution will be. Of course if we give back 39% it can always be argued that, by the same token, we could have returned 100%.

I say one thing. In my eyes stones are not holy and we have to use the fact that we conquered the territories in 1967 which until now only brought us disasters – with the exception of one good thing – something which is more important than anything else and that is that it can be used to reach a peace arrangements.

Now if it were possible to have a true peace and return 40% of the area then believe me, I would not object. I think I know the cost, more or less, of peace. I do this on the basis of conversations with Palestinians. And I do not think that the Wall is part of the price while the Cave of the Patriarchs is part of the price.

In any case, I think that it is worthwhile to reach an agreement which is based on the principle of our returning territory from 1967.

IMRA: Labor leader Barak talks about separation of the Palestinians from the Israelis as if there will be some kind of Berlin Wall separating the two while in contrast the Palestinians see things more Peres style – something like a binational state or two states with much interaction.

Raz: This is something which I think is very important, very interesting and cuts across the camps in Israel. I believe in a combination of the two. I think most do. In the first stage we have to have separation – and we basically already have this even if it mean violations of the agreements. But in the long range there has to be a situation of living more together – otherwise it isn’t peace.

So in the short run I see something like what Barak is talking about and in the long run what Peres is talking about.