Tuesday, November 26, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

Bombs in Machaneh Yehudah and American Assuarances

By
David Bedein
-

The car bomb that exploded in Jerusalem’s bustling Machane Yehudah marketplace on Friday morning found me in the city of Hebron, now under the rule of the Palestine Authority, only an hour south of Jerusalem, where I was standing with a Palestinian journalist colleague, covering a military parade of the Islamic Hamas movement.

We watched masked Arabs, brandishing automatic weapons, marched though on the streets of downtown Hebron, in a demonstration that was licensed by the Palestine Authority, with weapons that were licensed by the Palestine Authority since May, 1995.

The Hamas demonstrators chanted “death to the Jews”. “liberate Jerusalem”, and “We shall return our lands from 1948”, “down with Zionism”. These are the slogans that you would expect. They also burned American and Israeli flags. All under the watchful eyes of the Palestinian police.

Yet only two weeks ago, I covered the Wye plantation talks, where the Palestine Authority committed itself to disarming the weapons of Hamas and other groups opposed to the peace process.

Unless these guns paraded by Hamas were manufactured by Mattel or Hasboro, it would seem that these weapons were supposed to have confiscated by Arafat’s police.

Returning to Jerusalem, I visited the media lab of Palestine Media Watch, a professional media office that follows the official Palestinian media.

I was curious to see how the car bomb in Machaneh Yehudah was being reported on official Palestine Authority Television, especially since the US government had recently issued stinging criticism of what the American consulate in Jerusalem had described to the Palestine Report, a local Palestinian weekly, as “a network of incitement that was harming the peace process”.

While I waited to hear the Palestine Authority TV news, Official Palestinian TV featured an interview with Imjad Fallouji, the elected leader of Hamas in Gaza, the Palestinian minister of communications, and a member of Arafat’s inner cabinet. Imjad Fallouiji was not asked about Hamas military parades or about Hamas car bombs. What the Palestine Authority TV announcer did ask Fallouji was for him to explain the implications of “970”, the new area code that the Palestine Authority telephone system received this week at the International Communications conference that was recently held in Minneapolis.

When the PBC newsreel finally came on the air, the announcer mentioned the “explosions” that took place in the Machane Yehudah marketplace, mentioning that terrorists indeed had carried out the act, with no sound of regret, yet with a perfunctory condemnation of the attack, as the Palestinian Minister of Justice Freich Abu Medein simply saying that the “attack does not serve Palestinian interests”, yet without any specific criticism of any particular Palestinian group.

I recalled that during the Wye summit, an Arab threw a grenade at a bus in Beersheva, resulting in the Palestine Authority radio spokesman also saying that “the attack does not serve Palestinian interests”… yet blaming Israeli nationalists for throwing the grenade.

In today’s newscast, however, the Palestine Authority TV announcer went on to declare that the real crime was the continuing Israeli policy of adding Jewish homes in an Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem, Ras Al Amud, an area that lies contiguous to one of the oldest Jewish cemeteries in Israel, on the hill known as the Mount of Olives.

Calling the Palestine Authority office in Ramallah, I asked the PA spokesman if there was any plan to disarm the Hamas marchers whom I had watched that morning.

The PA spokesman was surprised by my question. “They weren’t firing their guns, were they?”

This reminds me of the statement made only a week ago by Arafat’s aide, Saeb Erakat, who assured Palestinians in an interview with an official newspaper of the Palestine Authority that all of the Hamas leaders who had been arrested during the widely publicized round-up of Hamas after an attack on an Israeli school bus the previous day would indeed be released, if they could prove that they had no direct involvement in the attack on the bus.

At the end of my Friday work day at the press center, I received another call.

An American Israeli citizen of Jerusalem, Joyce Boim, the mother of a teenage boy, David, who was gunned down by a young Palestinian Hamas member, Amjad Hanawi, back in May, 1996, called to inform me that the Israeli government has issued an official statement that the Palestine Authority has released Amjad Hanawi, despite the fact that Hanawi was convicted of her son’s murder in a Palestinian court back in February, after Joyce had lobbied members of Congress to demand that her son’s killer be brought to justice.

After President Clinton made a personal call to Arafat, Amjad was indeed arrested.

I have requested a response from the American consulate press spokesman for the past two months to the rumor that Amjad Hanawi was set free by the Palestine Authority. I have received only one response from the American consulate spokesman: “To the best of our knowledge. Amjad Hanawi is in prison”. To the question as to whether the American consul or a representative of the American consulate has visited the Palestine Authority jail where Amjad is supposed to be in prison, the answer that I have received is: “no”. Joyce Boim has received the same answer.

At the Wye summit, an idea was mentioned that the US would judge as to whether the Palestine Authority was keeping its commitments on matters concerning the disarming of terror groups and the incarceration of terrorists.

In this regard, the US state department officially announced that, as far as the US was concerned, the Palestine Authority had fulfilled the security promises that Arafat had made to Israel and the US at the Wye River summit.

Yet the US knows full well that the PA allows the Hamas to operate openly and flaunt its weapons in Hebron and elsewhere in the Palestine Authority under its jurisdiction. The US knows full well that the PA arrests and releases convicted killers like Amjad Hanawi. And the US knows full well that the PA condemnations of killings are half-hearted, to say the least.

In less than one month, US President Clinton will arrive in Gaza, to address a gathering of the Palestine Authority, in which he is expected to attest to Palestinian compliance with Israel’s security needs.

How people in Israel will respond to President Clinton’s “Palestine Authority security assurances” remains unclear at this time.

Arafat Health Scare Puts Peace Process in Jeopardy

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader, is suffering from Parkinson’s disease, according to a report compiled by Israeli military intelligence. He is receiving treatment for symptoms of tremor and muscular rigidity but shows no sign of becoming incapacitated, it claims.

Palestinian officials have previously dismissed suggestions that Arafat’s health is declining, saying they are the result of a disinformation campaign by Israel to destabilise the Palestinian government. However, sources familiar with the report, drawn up by Amman, Israel’s military intelligence branch, describe it as “raw intelligence” from an extensive dossier on the medical and psychological profiles of prominent figures worldwide. The report emphasizes that “in spite of the symptoms, Arafat’s mental and psychological functions show no signs of deterioration”. It says it could be years before Parkinson’s, a progressive disease of the nervous system, renders him incapable of fulfilling his duties.

According to the report, Arafat, 68, is being treated with L-dopa, a drug used in Parkinson’s patients to counter weakness and tremor caused by deficiencies of a compound called dopamine that affects impulses between nerves and muscles. It also claims that Arafat is suffering from sclerosis – abnormal hardening – of the brain tissue.

The diagnosis will come as no surprise to those who have seen him at close quarters in recent months. In September he collapsed at an Arab League meeting in Cairo. He fainted at a session of the Palestinian legislative council last month and was taken to hospital. Those who have met Arafat in recent weeks say he sometimes has difficulty in speaking. His lower lip, hands and feet tremble involuntarily and his memory is said to lapse.

The intelligence report indicates that his handwriting has changed and his face has become frozen, a typical side effect of Parkinson’s. His gait and posture are said to have stiffened and his eyes are sometimes fixed on a point in the distance. The report concludes that he is in constant pain.

Arafat, however, has been written off many times before. In 1967 he narrowly escaped capture when Israeli troops occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the six-day war. In 1982, Israel’s attacks on Lebanon forced him to flee by ferry with a ragged band of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) fighters to Tunis.

His luckiest escape came in 1992 when his plane was forced to make a crash-landing in the Libyan desert.

Aides to Arafat claim his obvious nervous disorders are the harmless result of a blood clot that developed after the accident. They say the frustration of dealing with an Israeli government he accuses of obstructing the Middle East peace process has also taken its toll on Arafat’s nerves.

Despite such pressures, he remains “as strong as an ox”, according to close advisers. While he no longer maintains a regime of 16-hour working days, Palestinian officials still wait all night outside his room for a brief meeting.

Their denials that Arafat is seriously ill have failed to half speculation among Middle Eastern analysts about who might succeed him. Mahmoud Abbas, the secretary-general of the PLO, appears a likely candidate.

However, most observers agree that Arafat’s death would undermine the Palestinian leadership. Without his authority, they say, overcoming Islamic militants and striking a peace deal with Israel would be much more difficult. Most dangerous of all could be a resurgence of support for Hamas, the Islamic fundamentalist group, which has mounted a series of suicide bomb attacks in Israel.

Some Israeli hawks welcome the prospect of instability that would follow the Palestinian leader’s death. They believe any deterioration in his condition could provide an opportunity to ditch the Oslo peace accord he signed with Yitzhak Rabin, the former Israeli premier who was assassinated two years ago by a right-wing extremist.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, has made no significant concessions. Many believe the death of Arafat would signal the end of the Middle East peace process.

Palestinian Reactions to the Wye River Memorandum III

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Revising the Charter and Security Issues

Part II, Section C, Paragraph 2, of the Wye River Memorandum, requires the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Central Council to reaffirm the January 22, 1998 letter from PLO Chairman Yasir Arafat to President Clinton concerning the nullification of the Palestinian National Charter provisions that are inconsistent with the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel on 9/10 September 1993. The Memorandum further states that there will be a meeting, addressed by President Clinton, of the PNC, as well as the members of the Central Council, the Council, and the Palestinian Heads of Ministries to reaffirm their support for the peace process and the aforementioned decisions of the Executive Committee and the Central Council.

The Wye River Memorandum also requires Israeli and Palestinian cooperation in arresting terrorists and for the Palestinians to provide the Israelis with a list of present and former Palestinian police men, so that it can be determined if the size of the Palestinian police force is within the limits prescribed by the Oslo Accords.

The following are excerpts from the Palestinian media:

The Palestinian National Charter:

In a speech to the Palestinian Legislative Council [PLC] plenum. Chief Negotiator Saib ‘Areikat, said: “…the joint session of the PLO-Executive Committee, Palestinian National Council [PNC], Central Council and the Palestinian Legislative Council is merely for the purpose of listening to President Clinton’s speech. There will be no voting. It is [said] clearly in the Wye memorandum, and we have an American letter on that. Anything else that is said on that matter is Netanyahu’s business. We have nothing to do with it. The Palestinian side will not review the issue of the Palestinian National Charter yet again.

“We have two letters from the US that will be presented at the [right] time. One of the two deals with the National Charter; while the other deals with six points that relate in part to the implementation of the agreement, to mutual ties between the two peoples and to the bilateral committees.” ‘Areikat declined to elaborate on these letters.1

In an interview with a French news agency ‘Areikat said, “We have officially received two collateral letters from the American administration. Both are signed by Secretary of State Albright, including an American guarantee on the seven points in the agreement, which pertain to unilateral actions, security, the Palestinian National Charter, and to a timetable for implementation.”

Commenting on the issue of unilateral actions, ‘Areikat stressed that the American administration had made a commitment to halt any unilateral action that violated the status quo on the ground and might affect the final status negotiations. ‘Areikat said that the two letters confirmed that the Wye Security Memorandum was the basis upon which the security commitments of both sides would be established, and that the American administration was committed to its role as supervisor of the implementation by both sides.

In addition, the letters emphasized that the PNC is the body that should ratify the letter President Arafat sent to President Clinton earlier this year. In the letter to Clinton, Arafat mentioned the National Charter clauses that were amended in mid 1996. ‘Areikat said that the two letters from the United States stressed President Clinton’s confirmation to attend a large meeting of both PNC members and members of other Palestinian organs in support of the peace process and mutual ties between the two peoples – Americans and Palestinian.2

General-Secretary of the Presidium Taib ‘Abd Al-Rahim said that it had been agreed [with the Israelis] that the Palestinian Central Council, which is an intermediary between the PLO Executive Committee and the Palestinian National Council [PNC], was the body authorized to ratify the letter Arafat had given to President Clinton in reference to Palestinian National Charter clauses that had already been amended in the last plenum of the PNC. ‘Abd Al-Rahim added that a meeting comprising PNC members, Palestinian Legislative Council [PLC] members, Cabinet Ministers and national figures would be held. “There, Clinton will address them in support of the peace process. [The meeting] will not end with a vote, but with a round of applause. This is because the meeting is meant for applauding and stating that we support the letter Arafat had sent. We will say that the PNC had already dropped from the charter all the clauses that were in violation of the [Oslo] Accords.”3

Arresting Wanted Terrorists

Addressing the PLC plenum, Saib ‘Areikat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said that the agreement compelled the Israeli side to take the necessary steps to prevent terrorism and crimes against the Palestinian people. He disclosed that the Palestinians have sent the Israeli government a list of Israeli terrorists, toward whom it takes a ‘revolving-door’ policy, and demanded that they be arrested.

‘Areikat said, “Netanyahu must realize that reciprocity is the foundation. There will be no foundation for security collaboration, if the Israeli Premier will continue on sparing terrorists, while ignoring the fact that seventy five percent of all Israelis support the agreement…”4

Reducing Palestinian Police Force

In an interview in the daily Al-Quds, Commander of the Palestinian Police Ghazi Jebali, said that the Israeli demands to reduce the number of Palestinian Police personnel posed “no problem [for him]. This can be overcome through reorganization of personnel; so that those stationed some place could be of service somewhere else. This problem can be overcome through a policy of transfers.”5

1 Ibid
2 Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 4, 1998.
3 Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, November 3, 1998.
4 Al-Ayyam, November 4, 1998.
5 Al-Quds, November 4, 1998.

Al-Ahram Weekly: For the First Time, Egypt Admits Sinking the Dakar

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Giving Chase to an “Enemy” Sub
by Galal Nassar
Al-Ahram Weekly 29th October – 4th November, 1998

Heading: A high military official confirmed in the presence of President Mubarak that the Egyptian navy was responsible for the 1968 sinking of the Israeli destroyer Dakar. [IMRA: The Dakar was a submarine.]

[IMRA COMMENT: This story does not relate how the Dakar was sunk. Was it struck by Egyptian fire or did it break up when diving in an unsafe area when under Egyptian pursuit? More importantly, why did Egypt delay over 30 years before taking credit for being “responsible for the sinking”, especially since Egypt has cooperated in searching for the Dakar?]

Excerpts:

In a show of military might, 74 naval pieces teamed… to stage a naval exercise off the coast of Alexandria. The high point of the exercise, which was watched by President Hosni Mubarak as part of the celebrations marking the silver jubilee of the October 1973 War, was the chase and capture of an “enemy” submarine that was approaching the Alexandria coastline.

In the course of the exercise… Vice Admiral Mohamed El-Wleili, commander of naval training, became the first official to confirm that the Egyptian navy was responsible for the sinking of the Israeli destroyer Dakar [IMRA: the Dakar was a submarine] on 25th January 1968. Several retired officers had said so in the past, but this was the first time it was officially confirmed by an active commander. The disappearance of the Dakar, which was sailing from Britain to Israel [IMRA: on the delivery trip and probably not combat conditioned] off the coast of Alexandria has always been a mystery.

In what could be a message to certain regional powers that seek to acquire modern offensive submarines, the naval exercise featured a search operation for a submarine that sought to approach and attack the Alexandria naval base. American-made Perry and Knox-class frigates, sub-chasers and SH-2G helicopters gave chase to the submarine. The helicopters, which had not been displayed in public before, are equipped with sonar detectors and are armed with anti-submarine missiles.

On the Seventh Day
by Khaled Amayreh
Al-Ahram Weekly 29th October – 4th November, 1998

Quote from Text: “The agreement symbolizes the final downfall of the Zionist ideology which views the West Bank as part of Biblical Israel.”

Excerpts:

Many Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip reacted to last Friday’s Wye Plantation agreement with ambivalence and scepticism, preferring to wait and see how, and if, the agreement would be implemented on the ground.

On the one hand, Palestinians welcomed the promised redeployment of the Israeli army from 10 per cent of West Bank territory in addition to the partial and largely disingenuous redeployment from an additional three per cent, slated to become a “nature reserve”.

On the other hand, the bulk of Palestinians have been disheartened by the stringent conditions attached to the agreement, particularly with regards to security, and also by the uncertainty hanging over a third redeployment.

Supporters of the deal argued that the Palestinians succeeded for the first time ever in regaining Palestinian land from a Likud-led government that embraces the ideology of “Eretz Yisrael”.

“The agreement symbolises the final downfall of the Zionist ideology which views the West Bank as part of historical, Biblical Israel,” said Al-Tayeb Abdel-Rehim, an aide of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. [IMRA: But even non-Zionists know that the West Bank was “part of historical biblical Israel”.]

“We did not get all we wanted,” he said, but added in a self-reassuring tone that “this is an interim agreement…”.

Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a former Minister of Higher Education, warned against infringing on civil liberties, especially freedom of the press and expression in the name of fulfilling commitments.

Another Palestinian councillor, Hosam Khader… a long-time critic of Arafat’s administration, voiced anxiety over the role given to the American Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] in overseeing Palestinian security compliance.

“I’m afraid our entire security apparatus will become an extra-territorial department of the CIA,” said Khader. As expected, Hamas castigated the agreement, saying it amounted to total surrender. Sheikh Nayef Rajoub, Hamas spokesman in the Hebron area, described the accord as a “security pact between Israel and the Palestinian Authority,” saying the “Israelis, Americans and the PA are all after Hamas.”

Netanyahu said a special cabinet session, previously scheduled for today, would not be held pending Palestinian compliance. “As far as we are concerned, and for all practical purposes, we will not be able to begin implementing our part of the agreement until the Palestinians implement their part,” he said.

Netanyahu also criticised statements attributed to chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Ereikat in which he was quoted as saying the agreement stipulated a meeting of the PLO Central Council, rather than the Palestinian National Council [PNC], to strike off anti-Israel provisions from the PLO’s charter.

“We will not settle for anything less than a meeting of the PNC,” Netanyahu said.

His statement drew an angry reaction from Palestinian negotiator Hassan Asfour. “It seems that once again Netanyahu is going to succumb to political blackmail by the settlers and extremists. It shows that Netanyahu has unwillingly signed the agreement under pressure from the American president.”

The opposite interpretations of key parts of the agreement — security and the Palestinian charter — indicate that implementation is bound to face major hurdles.

Meanwhile, Palestinian police arrested a Palestinian on suspicion of killing a Jewish settler on Monday. Police sources in Hebron said the Palestinian, Jamil Khalifeh, confessed to having killed the settler.

Khalifeh was apparently angered by the agreement and acted on his own initiative. His arrest demonstrates PA resolve to combat violence and deny Israel any pretexts for not honouring its commitments. [IMRA comment: Better, it demonstrates the writers ingenuity in finding reasons for the killing of Jews.]

Prudish Reception
by Nevine Khalil
Al-Ahram Weekly 29th October – 4th November, 1998

Heading: Cairo received the Middle East breakthrough cautiously, subscribing to a wait-and-see approach and putting the emphasis on honest implementation.

Excerpts:

Egypt cautioned that the Wye Memorandum… will only prove successful if it is adhered to “honestly” by both parties, especially the Israelis. [IMRA: Not equally the Palestinians?] During separate telephone conversations with President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu after the signing ceremony, President Hosni Mubarak stressed the necessity of “commitment to the new agreement” in order for regional peace to make progress.

Egyptian officials were briefed by the Palestinian negotiators on a daily basis, according to Mubarak. “We gave them advice and helped them overcome the obstacles,”… He asserted that Egypt’s role in the peace process was to “propel, not obstruct, negotiations”.

Mubarak said that Cairo “has no objection” to the Wye Memorandum “because the Palestinians have accepted the agreement out of conviction,” adding that Egypt will “follow the implementation phase closely”.

Mubarak believed that the Israeli leadership is satisfied with the agreement, but expressed hope that Netanyahu’s government will “closely adhere to the articles of the agreement.”

Mubarak stressed that “good will” was necessary for the peace process to “regain its energy”, and said that the agreement “will assist in rebuilding the required confidence between the parties on all tracks.”

“If there is good will, then implementation will be simple,” Mubarak told a gathering of army officers in Suez… “And excuses should not be made on the pretext of security concerns.” The president said that Netanyahu had failed to live up to past peace deals. Of the six points in the 1997 Hebron Accord, Mubarak said, “only two were implemented while the remaining four were ignored.” [IMRA: The Palestinians kept none of their obligations.]

Marble at a Price
by Sherine Nasr
Al-Ahram Weekly 15th – 22nd October, 1998

Heading:… curious goings-on in a cave near Beni Suef

Quote from Text: “these accidents are not reported to the police and no legal or police action is taken”

“Sometimes the dynamite explodes before the worker has taken shelter and then we have a tragedy…”

Excerpts:

One worker was killed and another seriously injured last month while using dynamite to blast marble at the Snour cave, 60 kilometres from the town of Beni Suef in central Egypt. The death of Rabie Tohami Abdel-Tawwab may yet not be the last in the cave. “Since 1990, 15 workers have been killed and 73 others crippled as a result of the use of explosives,” said Emad Abu Zeid, a member of the local (municipal) council of Beni Suef.

Judging by Awad’s account, working conditions at the cave are primitive indeed. “A worker descends into the cave to a depth of 50 or 60 metres. He fixes the dynamite in various locations, lights the fuse and then makes a dash for it, hiding behind the farthest and largest boulder he can find,” said Awad. “Sometimes the dynamite explodes before the worker has taken shelter and then we have a tragedy on our hands.”

Moreover, rocks which may have become dislodged as a result of successive explosions sometimes fall on workers without warning, causing even more harm.

According to Karam Saber of the Land Centre for Human Rights, these accidents are not reported to the police and no legal or police action is taken. “The workers are recruited from nearby villages and each is paid LE10 a day. Certainly, they are not insured medically and when something goes wrong, they are not compensated,” Saber said.

The use of explosives is not only dangerous to workers but to nature as well. The Snour cave is classified as a nature reserve and a 1983 law penalises any action that affects such a reserve.

Translations by Dr. Joseph Lerner,
Co-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

Brinkmanship on a Lame Duck Plantation

By
David Bedein
-

I spent the good part of a week covering the middle east talks at the Wye Plantation, on the Eastern shores of the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland, USA, in an area that is best known for duck hunting.

Indeed, in October of each year, duck hunters and environmentalists usually face off in acrimonious confrontations.

This year, duck wars gave way to three lame ducks who came to the hunt with Israel – a US president under the threat of impeachment, an Arafat who has suffered a series of neurological sezures, and a King Hussein who is the last stages of a valiant fight against Lymphatic cancer.

The advisors to Israel Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu tell me that he has agreed to a deal with the leaders of the US, Jordan and the nascent Palestine Authority on the assumption that their leaders will not and cannot deliver or fulfill the terms of any such deal.

The rationale of the people around Netanyahu for this new version of Bibi brinkmanship has it that the Israeli Prime Minister has gone the extra mile to provide the Palestine Authority with the dignity that it sought, so that it can run a decent society for its own people.

That is because the consensus of Israeli society in the late 1990’s is to make maganimous offers of territory and economic assistance so that Palestinian Arabs will no longer represent a threat to the people or to the state of Israel.

The reciprical demands of the Israeli government seem to most logical and reasonable – that the Palestinians cancel their declaration of war against the state of Israel as embodied in the PLO charter that Arafat has advocated for more than thirty years, and that the Palestine Authority stop providing safe havens for Arabs who will murder Jews and then take asylum inside the territory under Palestinian control.

Netanyahu’s advisors simply assume that Arafat and the Palestine Authority will not fulfill these two basic requests.

They assume that Arafat and his Palestine National Council will continue to communicate a language of war in Arabic to their own people, while talking a language of peace to the western media.

They assume that the new Palestinian schools and Palestinian media will continue to inculcate the PLO covenant to a new generation of Palestinian youngsters.

They assume that killers of Jews wil continue to be acclaimed as heroes in the Palestinian community, and they assume that Hamas and other terror groups will continue to operate with a relatively free hand in the areas under the control of the Palestine Authority.

They assume that the Palestine Authority will continue to encourage the three million residents of United Nations refugee camps to assert their right to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948, even if those villages no longer exist.

Bibi’s advisors assume that Netanyahu will be able to display the PA unwillingness and/or inability to reach an agreement with Israel.

Yet what Netanyahu’s advisors have not counted on is that the public relations apparatus of the Palestine Authority is well placed, so that…

if the Palestine Authority does not convene the Palestine National Council,
if the PA does not change the message in its schools and its media,
if the PA continues to provide safe havens for killers,
if the PA continues to advocate the “right of return” for Palestinian refugees to reclaim the rest of Palestine,
if the PA continues to allow terrorists to operate within its midst…

The PA knows that it can count on world opinion, international media and, yes, Jewish communities around the world and the Israeli government’s opposition to downplay Palestinian violations.

That is because Palestinian Arabs have positioned themselves in the world as the underdog in the middle east conflict.

Tragically, the current Israeli government has no public relations apparatus in place to cope with such a “PR onslaught” in the near future.

That means that the PR offensive for Israel in the world public opinion will rest on private initiative.

Ex-Weapons Inspector Ritter: Don’t Count on Us Monitoring of Wye

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Ritter is a former UN weapons inspector in Iraq.

Question: I understand you have some concerns regarding the implementation of the Wye accord?

Ritter: Yes, indeed. The accord is to be monitored by the CIA, but the real arbiter will be the State Department, and this is a cause for great worry. The entire effort has been politicized – this is the Clinton administration’s own Camp David, and they really cannot afford to let it fail. Therefore they cannot be counted upon to be honest brokers.

Question: In what way do you mean dishonest?

Ritter: Both because the administration wants the accord to work and because they are trying to court the moderate Arab countries, they are more than likely to give the Palestinians slack. For example, if they receive information from the CIA saying the Palestinians are not complying with the agreement, they will simply overlook it. The temptation to gloss over things will be too strong to ignore, because to hold the Palestinians strictly accountable would endanger the whole process.

Question: What has lead you to these conclusions?

Ritter: During my time with UNSCOM, it became very clear to me that Iraq was not being held accountable, and this is an unsettling precedent. The US makes decisions based on politics, not on honesty, and this leads to compromises and concessions. I had a bad experience in Iraq which taught me the US can say one thing, and do another. In addition, I have noted a cooling towards Israel on the part of the State Department, coupled with an unrealistic expectation that Arafat can deliver. It is very important for the US that Arafat not be undermined, and if this means you have to turn a blind eye to an effective crackdown on Hamas, so be it.

Question: Israel has its own ways of monitoring what is going on, and Netanyahu is not one to allow himself to be bamboozled…

Ritter: True, but the Israelis will be faced with so much pressure from the US and the international community that it will be near impossible to say “Wait, the US not being a good monitor.”

Update on Iraq: The US Suddenly Wakes Up?

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

An Israeli reader reported that at the Likud Central Committee meeting on the Wye accord, some members criticized the Gov’t for relying on the US to enforce Palestinian compliance with the provisions on fighting terrorism, citing the US failure to support weapons inspections in Iraq. Itzhak Mordechai, the defense minister, responded by saying, “America led the attack against Iraq.” The reader suggested that “Mordechai is not the brightest.”

Indeed, The Jerusalem Post, Oct 20, reported that David Ivry, a senior adviser to the Israel Defense Minister, warned in an Oct 19 BIPAC [Britain Israeli Public Affairs Center] conference that “While attention and resources [of the West] are focused on economic and social issues, there has been a general decline in budgetary commitments to defense and security issues…. Democratic states are attempting to compensate for their reduced deterrence with international treaties…. ‘Such thinking ignores the failure of the treaties and focuses on what is seen as accomplishments.’… Ivry also warned that while the US ‘is not reacting like it did in the past,’ ballistic missiles are proliferating among non-democratic states, coupled with a race to acquire weapons of mass destruction, particularly chemical and biological weapons. ‘Ignoring this,’ he said, ‘could prove costly,’ adding that ‘we face especially serious consequences’ as a result of the failure of the UNSCOM inspections in Iraq.”

The Washington Times, Oct 28, in a squib entitled “Saddam’s Demise”, reported, “Longtime Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein isn’t long for this world, says one of this nation’s top spies. John Gannon, chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, told a St. Louis audience earlier this month, ‘We expect Iraq’s Saddam to be gone by 2010.’ Mindful that earlier predictions on this score have failed to materialize, Mr. Gannon conceded that his assessment is ‘based as much on pure speculation on our past as informed analysis.'”

The Iraqi statement suspending UNSCOM monitoring, issued Sat by the RCC/Ba’th Party leadership, said, “Iraq has decided to stop all forms of cooperation with UNSCOM and its chairman and to stop all its activities inside Iraq, including monitoring, as from today.” But a few hours later, it was reported that Iraq would allow UNSCOM cameras and sensors to continue functioning. However, late that evening, Iraq’s UN ambassador, Nizar Hamdoon, said that inspectors would have no access to cameras or monitoring installations.

On Sunday, November 1, the BBC reported that Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan confirmed Iraq’s position with “three noes.” Ramadan said, “There will be no co-operation, no inspections, and no monitoring by the US-Zionist spy commission until Iraq’s demands are met.” The BBC said “the international community now effectively has no eyes or ears in Iraq.”

ABC Evening News, yesterday, characterized the Clinton administration’s response, “It’s an old script.” On Sat, UPI, Oct 31, reported that NSC Adviser Sandy Berger, Sec State Madeleine Albright, CIA Director George Tenet, and other top officials met for two hours over Iraq.

Clinton was in Virginia golfing and Berger briefed him afterwards. NSC spokesman, David Leavy, said, “We are reviewing all options with the president and all options remain on the table… This is an affront to the UN and the international community.”

Also, on Sat, Sec Def William Cohen and the JCS chairman, who were about to begin a week-long Asian tour, turned around during a refueling stop on Wake Island and returned to Wash DC. On Sun, Cohen joined the national security team in another two hour meeting. AP, Nov 1, in a story entitled “Immediate Action Vs. Iraq Unlikely,” reported that “the Clinton administration appeared ready to let the Security Council take the lead, and there seemed little chance of an immediate military response…. No additional US forces were being moved to the Persian Gulf region, and US forces had not been placed on alert, said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Anthony Cooper.”

AP also reported that on Sun, November 1,Clinton, out campaigning for Tuesday’s elections, gave an interview to American Urban Radio Network, in which he said, “I personally am very pleased that the UN Security Council, including some people I thought had been a little tolerant with [Saddam] in the past, strongly condemned what he did.”

Iraq is not much impressed. Asked by Qatar’s Al-Jazirah Space Channel, “Does Baghdad not fear that Washington will use this Iraqi stand as a pretext to make a move that will not be in the interest of Iraq?” Nizar Hamdoon replied, “I do not believe there is anything worse than our current situation and than the very negative impact of the continued economic sanctions on the Iraqi people. More than 6,000 children die each month as a result of the sanctions. And this is documented in UNICEF reports. What could be worse?” He was then asked, “It seems, however, that Washington is leaning toward escalation. The National Security Council described the Iraqi decision as very serious. What are the possibilities of the US dealing a military blow to Iraq?” Hamdoon replied, “This kind of statement is not new. We heard it in the past. Making statements is one thing and implementing them is another.

Finally, as the latest stage of the confrontation began, yesterday Iraq opened the biggest int’l trade fair it has held since the Gulf war’s end. As Reuters, Nov 1, reported, trade, industry, and economic ministers from Iran, Turkey, Tunisia, Jordan, and Syria attended the opening, while firms from Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia participated for the first time. AP reported that France shipped in the latest-model Peugeot sedans.

I. Taha Yassin Ramadan’s Three Noes
BBC, Nov 1, 1998

Iraq Says No, No, No; Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan: No Co-operation

Iraq has confirmed that it will not reverse its decision to stop co-operating with the UN disarmament team. Iraqi Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said: “There will be no co-operation, no inspections and no monitoring [of Iraqi sites] by the US-Zionist spy commission until Iraq’s demands are met.”

He reiterated Iraq’s demands for a lifting of the embargo imposed after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

“We will not reverse our decision but we will maintain it until the embargo is lifted,” Mr Ramadan said.

The BBC’s correspondent in Baghdad, Richard Downes says the sanctions, which have strangled the Iraqi economy, are a source of deep anger in Baghdad and it is the country’s number one priority to get rid of them. Iraq has also demanded the restructuring of the UN Special Commission for disarmament, and that its chairman, Richard Butler is sacked.

Baghdad has long been accusing Mr Butler of working on behalf of the United States to prolong the embargo.

The sanctions cannot be lifted until the Special Commission (Unscom) certifies that Iraq has eliminated its weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq insists it has done so, but the commission says Baghdad continues to hide information on weapons, especially those with biological and chemical agents.

The Security Council has unanimously condemned the decision and demanded that it be reversed “immediately and unconditionally”.

But on Sunday the Unscom team stayed in its compound. Our correspondent says that the international community now effectively has no eyes or ears in Iraq. Only a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in charge of the nuclear folder in Iraq’s disarmament, has been allowed to carry on working.

But it is only being allowed to monitor previously inspected sites. The Iraqis have been refusing to allow either Unscom or the IAEA to carry out spot inspections in the country since early August.

Correspondents say the latest move is an escalation in the continuing dispute over inspections with Iraq believing there is no stomach in the international community for a major confrontation.

II. Nizar Hamdoon, the US Won’t Do Anything
Doha Qatar al-Jazirah Space Channel, Television in Arabic
0635 GMT 1 Nov 98

[Telephone interview with Nizar Hamdun, Iraq’s permanent representative at the United Nations, in New York “conducted a short while ago” by ‘Abd-al-Samad Nasir in the studio; recorded] [FBIS Translated Text] [Nasir] What are the motives behind Iraq’s decision to end cooperation with UN inspectors at this time in particular?

[Hamdun] Iraq’s decision was not taken in a hasty way. It took us several weeks since the idea of comprehensive revision emerged. Deputy Prime Minister Tariq ‘Aziz led a large delegation to New York to hold lengthy talks with the Security Council and the UN secretary general. After realizing that all these attempts failed to give Iraq guarantees that these revisions would be fair and just, Iraq took its recent decision not to deal with the UN Special Commission.

[Nasir] What does Iraq hope to achieve through this decision?

[Hamdun] We hope that the entire world will understand the causes behind this Iraqi decision. The decision was taken after long bitter years of unfair treatment by UNSCOM and the United States with its anti-Iraq policy behind it.

[Nasir] Does Baghdad not fear that Washington will use this Iraqi stand as a pretext to make a move that will not be in the interest of Iraq?

[Hamdun] I do not believe there is anything worse than our current situation and than the very negative impact of the continued economic sanctions on the Iraqi people. More than 6,000 children die each month as a result of the sanctions. And this is documented in UNICEF reports. What could be worse?

[Nasir] It seems, however, that Washington is leaning toward escalation. The National Security Council described the Iraqi decision as very serious. What are the possibilities of dealing a US military blow to Iraq?

[Hamdun] This kind of statement is not new. We heard it in the past. Making statements is one thing and implementing them is another thing. I do not believe that the use of military force against Iraq will benefit the United States. Also, the situation in the region will not allow the United States to go that far.

[Nasir] How do you assess the stands of China, Russia, and France, which supported the Security Council stand? Do you believe that Baghdad has lost some of its allies?

[Hamdun] I do not believe so. These countries are fully aware of the Iraqi concerns. They might have been forced, under certain balances, to agree with the United States on issuing the Security Council resolution. These international parties understand well the situation and the Iraqi stand vis-a-vis UNSCOM.

[Nasir] How do you view the future relationship between Baghdad and the United Nations?

[Hamdun] The relationship between Iraq and the United Nations is one thing and the relationship between Iraq and UNSCOM is something else. I do not believe that the relationship between Iraq and the UNSCOM will be as good as it was over the past seven and a half years. Iraq has reached a point where it cannot continue with the same dealings, which does not give Iraq any hope to lift the sanctions. If there will be no lifting of sanctions why should Iraq bear all these problems and concerns with UNSCOM?

[Nasir] What is Iraq’s other alternative then?

[Hamdun] I believe that the economic sanctions themselves will start to erode in terms of their impact. It seems that the United States is not willing to move toward taking any steps that would lead to a partial or complete lifting of the sanctions. This is what the US delegation announced at the Security Council yesterday and this, perhaps, was the straw that broke the camel’s back.

[Description of source: Independent Television station financed by the Qatari Government]

III. Iraq Hosts Largest Trade Fair Since Gulf War
AP, 1st November, 1998

Baghdad, Iraq (AP) — France shipped in the latest-model Peugeot sedans.

The Palestinians brought handmade inlaid boxes from Bethlehem. Iranians came with refrigerators and pharmaceuticals.

They’re among 30 countries taking part in the Baghdad International Fair that opened Sunday, billed as the largest in Iraq since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

The turnout “shows the increasing desire of companies to establish relations with Iraq,” the fair’s director, Fawzi Hussein al-Dahur, told the official Iraqi News Agency.

The 10-day fair opened a day after Iraq took a new stand against U.N. weapons inspections, announcing it was halting the work of weapons monitors until the Security Council moves toward lifting 8-year-old trade sanctions against the country.

As the finishing touches were being put on the pavilions Saturday, participants acknowledged they saw only limited trade opportunities while the U.N. sanctions remain in place.

“Iraq is a good potential market for us,” said Servet Akkaynak, standing amid asphalt cutters and electrical generators from Turkey. “We had a long history of trade, and we’re high on re-establishing ourselves.”

One visitor receiving close attention was Iranian Commerce Minister Mohammad Shariatmadari, one of the highest-ranking Iranian officials to come to Iraq since the two countries fought a brutal, eight-year war in the 1980s.

After meeting Saturday with Iraqi Trade Minister Mohammed Mehdi Saleh, Shariatmadari announced that the two countries would set up joint committees to discuss trade and commercial ventures, INA said. Egypt — with 58 companies constituting one of the largest delegations — showed everything from tractors and reapers to children’s clothes, fruit juice and corn oil.

“This is a good opportunity for Egyptian companies to make contacts for the future,” said Antoun Labib, director of the Egyptian international exhibitions office.

Still, many vendors won’t find buyers until the sanctions are lifted.

The sanctions, imposed after Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait, ban most business dealings, except under the special, U.N.-approved oil-for-food program.

Saturday’s refusal to allow monitors from the United Nations to work — which strengthened an August ban on spot inspections — was meant to push for ending the sanctions. But the Security Council termed the action a “flagrant violation” of U.N. resolutions and urged Baghdad to reverse its decision.

At the Peugeot booth, Iraqi dealer Sadir Bazagan said the shiny burgundy, blue and olive green Peugeot 406s on display would be shipped out of Iraq after the show in compliance with the U.N. sanctions. He noted that Iraqi streets are crowded with Peugeots, but that most date to the early and mid-1980s.

“There was a big market here before the Gulf War,” he said. “We are all waiting anxiously for the future.”

Senior Palestinian Official: PNC Will Not Convene to Amend the Covenant

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

This is the first in a series of periodic updates on issues relating to Palestinian compliance with the October 23, 1998 Wye River Memorandum. This update focuses on the Palestinian obligation to amend the PLO Covenant which calls for Israel’s destruction.

The Palestinian Commitment at Wye

The Wye agreement states (Article II, Paragraph C(2)) that the PLO Executive Committee and the Palestinian Central Council will reaffirm Yasser Arafat’s January 22, 1998 letter to President Clinton concerning the nullification of problematic articles in the PLO Covenant.

Subsequently, according to the agreement, “PLO Chairman Arafat, the Speaker of the Palestine National Council, and the speaker of the Palestinian Council will invite the members of the PNC, as well as the members of the Central Council, the Council, and the Palestinian Heads of Ministries to a meeting to be addressed by President Clinton to reaffirm their support for the peace process and the aforementioned decisions of the Executive Committee and the Central Council.”

The Palestinian Position Since Wye

1) Following is an October 26, 1998 Voice of Israel radio interview with chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. The interview was conducted in English.

“Well, once again, I think the PNC met in 1996 and all articles that were inconsistent with the letters exchanged in 1993 between the Government of Israel and the PLO were changed. And later, President Arafat wrote President Clinton a letter on the 22nd of January 1998 specifying the articles that were either nullified or amended.

And it was agreed at the Wye River that the PLO Central Council will meet to ratify the letter of President Arafat to President Clinton. And then it was agreed that the members of the PNC [Palestinian National Council], the members of the Legislative Council, the labor unions, women’s organizations and all political systems will attend a meeting at which President Clinton will address all these issues.

The PLO will not convene in terms of officially ratifying the articles that were changed. It is the Palestine Central Council, and the agreement is very specific on this.”

2) In an October 26, 1998 interview on official Palestinian Authority television, Saeb Erekat said, “the PNC members, the Legislative Council, the Central Council, women’s groups and labor unions will all convene to listen to Clinton, but not to vote [on changing the Covenant].”

3) On October 26, 1998, the official Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda published the text of the Wye River Memorandum, but the section referring to the PLO Covenant was altered and makes no mention of the PNC changing the Covenant. The newspaper’s version reads as follows:

“PLO Chairman Arafat, the Speaker of the Palestine National Council, and the speaker of the Palestinian Central Council will invite the members of the PNC, the members of the Central Council and the members of the Palestinian Government to a meeting at which President Clinton will speak to reaffirm his [Clinton’s] support for the peace process.”

Palestinian Comments on the Wye River Memorandum

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Following is a summary of the comments found in the Palestinian media regarding the treaty signed on Friday between Israel and the PLO.

Changing the Palestinian Covenant

Unlike the English version of the memorandum, according to which the meeting addressed by Mr. Clinton will “reaffirm the decisions of the Executive Committee and the Central Council regarding the amendment of the Covenant,” the Arabic version printed in the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida states that it will be President Clinton who will “reaffirm his commitment to the peace process.”[1] No Palestinian reaffirmation is mentioned.

his Palestinian version was repeated in a comment made on Palestinian television by the head of the Palestinian negotiating team, Saib Ereiqat, who said, “members of the Palestinian National Council [PNC], Palestinian Legislative Council [PLC], the Central Council, women’s organizations and trade unions will convene to listen to Clinton, not to vote.”[2]

Security Arrangements

The head of the Gaza preventive security apparatus, Muhammad Dahlan, stated categorically that the Palestinians rejected all Israeli terms regarding security. The Palestinian security apparatus will fight only the military, not the political, organizations. Therefore, the political organizations will not be outlawed. When asked whether a formula for fighting terrorism was adopted, he answered that no such formula existed, and that the Palestinians rejected the Israeli demand to act against institutions and against activities in the Mosques. The Palestinians, he continued, also rejected the Israeli demand to participate in the Palestinian plan for action or to see it.[3]

On the issue of confiscating illegal weapons, Dahlan stated that there is no agreement on lowering the number of weapons in the PA’s possession. On the contrary, he claimed that the Palestinians demand more weapons for their security apparatuses, and Israel is still withholding one thousand rifles that belong to the Palestinian people.[4]

About lowering the number of Palestinian policemen, Dahlan indicated that the Palestinians do not intend to lower their number. He said “we have no problem providing one list of policemen and another list of policemen who do administrative work and are unarmed.”[5]

Dahlan said that CIA involvement will be of a “political nature” and that “the fact that it will act as an arbitrator is serving [Palestinian] interests.”[6]

Ideological Changes

alestinian leaders addressed the implications of the agreement on both Zionist and Palestinian ideologies. The agreement’s supporters, such as Minister of Supplies in the PA, Abd Al ‘Aziz Shahin stated that the Israeli right-wing government’s readiness to give away territory indicates that the Zionist ideology is crumbling and that the PLO will succeed in fulfilling its platform sooner or later.[7]

Secretary-General of the Presidency, Al Tayyeb Abd al Rahim, said to the Voice of Palestine Radio that the agreement represents the collapse of Israeli ideology and that Clinton’s commendation to Arafat for the many years he led the struggle of his people represents “an admission that the years-long struggle of the Palestinians is not regarded as terrorism.”[8]

Col. Muhammad Al-Masri, columnist in the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, said that the Israeli side was guided by “Jewish merchant tactics” in discussing every single detail in order “to trap” the Palestinian side. But the agreement “marks the defeat of the Torah ideology” because those right-wing forces in Israel who waved the banners of “Greater Israel” from the Nile to the Euphrates and the “security” of Israel have now joined the negotiations in order to negotiated Palestinian lands that are considered by the Torah ideology to be the land of Israel.[9]

While the Palestinian spokesmen point to the changes in Zionist ideology the Palestinian ideological firmness was reasserted. Fatah member of the PLC Fuad ‘Id said that the agreement is just “one step in the path we have marched for fifty years.”[10] Secretary-General of the Fatah in the West Bank, Marwan Al Barghuthi, commended Arafat for stating that there will be no concession on Palestinian axioms that include the Right of Return, the Right to Self Determination, and the Establishment of an Independent State on the entirety of the Palestinian land with Jerusalem as its capital.[11] Head of the Education Committee of the PLC and member of the Fatah Central Council, Abbas Zaki, said that the Palestinians have talked about an independent state since the ten points plan, [namely, since the “strategy of phases” plan of 1974.][12]

Conditionality

In the negotiations Israel demanded that Israeli concessions would be carried out only if the Palestinian Authority complies with its commitments. Prime Minister Netanyahu stated in several interviews that this conditionality was established in the agreement.

Contrary to the Israeli claim that Israeli fulfillment of its part of the agreement is conditional on Palestinian compliance, Palestinians say their compliance is conditional on Israeli compliance and they will only act if Israel fights terrorist acts by Israeli extremists.

Head of the Preventive Security Apparatus in Gaza, Muhammad Dahlan stated in the interview with Al-Ayyam, “I cannot arrest a Palestinian citizen who killed an Israeli and at the same time give the Israeli the right to commit terrorist acts against Palestinians, for a simple reason: my primary security mission is, as we have said since the first day of the Gaza- Jericho agreement, to protect Palestinian security and defend Palestinian citizens.”[13]

Minister of Supplies in the PA, Abd Al ‘Aziz Shahin, reiterated Arafat’s oft stated refrain that the PA will not act like the SLA [the South Lebanese Army, which fights alongside Israel against the Hezbollah].[14]

Columnist Fuad Abu Hijleh said that the Palestinians also have “lists of wanted Jews who committed terrorist acts and the government of Israel rewarded by releasing them with a bail that is lower than the price of a pack of cigarettes.” The CIA’s mission, according to Abu Hijleh, is to make sure that Israeli killers and blood spillers are punished in really detering manner. “We call for action based on the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth….”[1]5

The Palestinian Intentions Regarding May 5, 1999

Israeli media interpreted some clauses in the agreement as indicating that the Palestinians will refrain from declaring an independent Palestinian state on May 5, 1999. Arafat, in his White House Speech, as well a day later in Vienna, said only that the Palestinian people have the right to declare an independent state. In the local Palestinian media, however, PA and Fatah leaders continue to state that declaration of an independent state is still being planned for May 5, 1999<. Abbas Zaki, head of the Education Committee in the PLC, and member of the Fatah Central Committee, stated categorically that with the end of the interim period in May 1999, a Palestinian declaration of independence cannot be regarded as a “unilateral act” that violates the agreement.[16] Secretary of the Fatah in Jenin, Qaddura Musa stated that the struggle must go on until the fulfillment of all of the Palestinian people’s national rights in their entirety.[17]

Marwan Al-Barghuthi stated that the agreement threatens the Palestinian national unity. Nevertheless he called upon the Palestinian public to cooperate with the agreement on the basis of its being the continued liberation of Palestinian land from the hands of the occupiers. “The agreement demonstrates,” he said, “the Palestinian national determination to achieve victory and create the state on the Palestinian land in its entirety.”[18] Quddura said “The Fatah movement has led the Palestinian struggle on the path and should continue the journey.”[19]

[1] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, October 26, 1998

[2] Palestnian Television, October 26, 1998.

[3] Al-Ayyam, October 26, 1998.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, October 26, 1998

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Ibid.

A Police Chief Calls Wye Accord a Temporary Truce – Jabali Says PA Will Issue Gun Licenses to Fugitives Wanted by Israel

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Following are remarks made by Palestinian Police Chief Col. Ghazi Jabali which were broadcast on official Palestinian Authority television on October 30, 1998, one week after the signing of the Wye River Memorandum between Israel and the PLO.

On the Wye accord with Israel:

“We wish to build an independent state and to build our nation – even the Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, accepted the Khudaibiya agreement, which contained unjust conditions”.

Note: The Khudaibiya agreement referred to by Col. Jabali was signed by Muhammad and the Arabian tribe of Koreish. The pact, slated to last for ten years, was broken within two years, when the Islamic forces – having used the peace pact to become stronger – conquered the Koreish tribe.

On issuing gun licenses:

“There is a law for the licensing of weapons. Every respectable person, every respectable politician, every respectable businessman submits a request and we give it to him. The weapons license is for pistols and it is granted to businessmen, dignitaries, politicians, wanted fugitives, people involved in blood feuds”.

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

1...1,1701,1711,172...1,201Page 1,171 of 1,201

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2478 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
431 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
daniel
daniel
0 POSTS0 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

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