Prof. Zimmerman Invokes Himmler Comparison

By

-

January 17, 2003

Some 60 people attended a talk by Prof. Slavoj Z’izek, Professor of Philosophy from the University of Lubliana, Slovenia, at a rally sponsored recently by “Yesh Gvul” in Jerusalem.

Prof. Z’izek’s topic was Citizenship and Responsibility–especially relevant to those Yesh Gvul members who have chosen to refuse to accept one obligation of their citizenship by refusing IDF orders to serve in areas beyond the 1949/67 armistice lines – Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan or Jerusalem

The evening was moderated by Prof. Moshe Zimmerman, professor of history and the head of the department for German Studies of the Hebrew University. Zimmerman gained notoriety a number of years ago when he publicly equated Jewish children from Hebron with Nazis. “There is an entire sector in the Jewish public which I unhesitatingly define as a copy of the German Nazis. Look at the children of the Jewish Hebron settlers: they are exactly like the Hitler Youth,” Zimmerman stated in a 1995 interview.

Zimmerman wasted no time in setting visiting Prof. Zi’zek straight at the Yesh Gvul meeting when Zi’zek responded to an audience question by explaining, “I didn’t mean to imply that your state is Nazi Germany.” Zimmerman replied: “That’s my privilege as an Israeli…”

Zi’zek’s talk was an engaging speech about the ethics of “my country, right or wrong.” Using examples from his own Balkan region, Zi’zek drew some sympathetic comparisons with Israel. “You’re nowhere near us in terms of cruelty,” he said, referencing unspeakable acts of the various forces of the Balkan war. He called the actions of those who refuse to serve in the territories, “heroic.”

Zi’zek made repeated references to rape–explaining that in interviews with rape victims in the Balkans, most of the women said that the worst humiliation was not the act itself, but the fact that it was committed in front of family members.

Responding to his talk on behalf of Yesh Gvul was spokesperson Tally Gur.

(Gur also works as the spokesperson for the Association for Civil Rights in Israel)

“I’ve heard of some cases of rape” by IDF soldiers, she said. “I know there is some evidence of rape in the first intifada,” she went on. “I hope there are not, but there are some cases in this current intifada too.”

“But even the daily actions of the IDF in front of relatives plays a part here. It’s micro-political (sic) humiliation. We see it as very brutal and systematic,” Gur informed the visiting professor. “It’s become part of the occupation regime.”

Moving from the acts of soldiers to the acts of the government, Gur concluded: “Israel does everything to violate the rights of those living in the West Bank. She asks other states to put pressure to reform the Palestine Authority and then it bombs Arafat’s compound. It’s quite a game to play…”

Zi’zek responded by explaining his opposition to international intervention.

“I saw the fiasco of UN and US intervention (in the Balkans). They tried to impose a multi-cultural solution–but the people simply hated each other…”

Gur said that there are other moral questions that people like her ask themselves every day. We should be asking the police why they stop certain people and not others like me? “Is it because they look a certain way?” she asked.

Closing the evening, Zimmerman alluded to a reference made by Prof Zi’zek about the November 1943 speech by Heinrich Himmler. “Bringing together the Himmler speech with the question of citizenship was very audacious. We should take it up and think about it. It means the comparison [presumably between Nazi Germany and Israeli actions] is relevant…”

PASSIA: US acknowledges that US AID Finances the Leading Palestinian Arab Media Lobby Organization

By

David Bedein

-

January 12, 2003

Ever wonder who is behind the well-oiled Palestinian propaganda operation that reaches out to every media outlet and every college campus in sight?

Well, look no further than the US taxpayer.

The US government has finally acknowledged that US AID indeed funds PASSIA, the organization that trains Palestinian Arab media professionals in the art of transforming the image of the Arab-Israeli struggle into an Arab David against an Israeli Goliath. US AID reports directly to the White House, which makes that allocation of particular significance.

On February 7, 2002, a staffer of the US House International Relations Committee provided Israel Resource News Agency with a list of Palestinian Arab agencies that were supported by US AID. That list included PASSIA, the foremost Palestinian Arab media and lobbying training center.

Since February 2002, the U.S. state department spokesman and officials of US AID had declined any comment about US funding of the Palestine Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA) even though the PASSIA’s study program booklets printed since 1998 read “kindly supported by USAID” just above the copyright.

However, Israel Resource News Agency has obtained a memo dated August 26th, 2002, in which US AID acknowledged that it had been funding PASSIA since March 1997, to the tune of $1.2 million per annum, yet only in a “generic” and non-specific way, with he proviso that no funds would be used to lobby the US Congress. In its statement, US AID also mentioned that the US government also applied rigorous standards of financial accountability to the funds that it remitted to PASSIA.

Funding for PASSIA was also provided by:

The Ford Foundation
The Rockefeller Foundation
Freidrich Ebert Stiftung
The European Union
Canada Fund
The Government of Japan

Yet David Nassar, former field director of the Arab/American Institute of Washington D.C. (AAI) who directs the PASSIA “Civil Society Empowerment” project and authored and collated the corresponding booklets, states that the program was designed specifically “to meet the specific needs of Palestinian society”.

On page 7 of the booklet entitled: “Advocacy and Lobbying”, published in January, 2002, he asks: “what are the large groups that your audience in Palestine are to fall into?”

Answer: “Everyone from the Chairman on down… PIC members… and the press, who “often does not respond but write what they are told to write.” Readers of this American taxpayer funded exercise are instructed to: “hit their targets as we (AAI) do in the US all the time” where “the goal does not necessarily have to be identified.”

One such “target”? (page 13) The United States Congress who “cut aid to the Palestinians for not improving the way in which the P.A. deals with suicide bombers The objective? “To do whatever we (they) needed to stop this resolution” sponsored by California Senator Diane Feinstein and Kentucky’s Mitch McKonnel.

On page 16, we learn that the last thing Mr. Nassar did before leaving the United States, “was to organize four press conferences in the state of Ohio. “Because the Members of Congress from that State have contributed to violence in the Middle East by the Palestinian’s calls for freedom, one of the words we really wanted to make sure was in there.” Only afterwards did they determine “who should be a source and look for a credible messenger. Because it is important (if the Palestinians) are to win to provide the idea that everybody wins.”

On page 25, we come to learn that “the people who have been granted authority to monitor are the ones that are the most corrupt, because who is watching them?”

Yet when it comes to PASSIA’s own disclosure, page 37 informs that “despite the many positive rewards of it, [disclosure] we tend to refrain from it valuing highly the concept of ‘tassatur’ (secrecy)” because “disclosure of a stand or a position requires that we must also defend it.” Although “putting forward strategies to improve the quality of education in Palestine will support the Palestinian question” are fine, since education is considered (by the US) one of the main factors that develops society.”

“Education” of a totally different sort, is what is offered in their booklet: “Media and Communication Skills” which begins with the clearly Palestinian revisionist version of Israeli/Palestinian history under the non-generic heading: “Palestinian Society: the Challenges”.

“The first challenge rose with the Balfour declaration of 1917, which called for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine: a clear violation of the rights of the Palestinian people…”

“The second challenge, was to restore the Palestinian self-identity and resist the expansion of Jewish settlement in Palestine….”

“The third challenge, arose when the Arab League involved itself in making major decisions relating to the future of the Palestinians… “”The fourth challenge was the most difficult; namely to achieve unity after the dispersion of the Palestinians following the War of 1948. The aim of the State of Israel, since its declaration, was to create entities and prevent unity or direct communication between areas where Palestinians existed within the cease fire line…”

It is however interesting to note, that under the heading: Israel Occupation in 1967, Mr. Nassar writes: “The impact of the Israeli Occupation on the development of the Palestinian civil society was minimal due to the practices of the military authority”…in direct contradiction to the claims made daily by the leaders of the intifada. However, in the next paragraph, he goes on to state:

“The establishment of the PLO in the mid 1960’s contributed to the success of the attempts to create and re-structure civil institutions in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, the institutions were forced to function under abnormal conditions and severe military occupation restrictions far away from the Palestinian leadership.” And that the intifada emerged due to local deteriorating political and economic conditions…This resulted, amongst other things, in the increase of foreign aid to local institutions.” In chapter two: Palestinian Civil Society and the Policy process, by Dr. Nabil Khatib, Director of the media center at Birzeit University, we learn that it is not just Israel but the (then) existing PNA that PASSIA holds in its sights:

“Whilst the media is not supposed to have any predetermined interest in a particular issue…. (they) the media only aims at defending the general objective and the general good, one has to take into account that this is not always the case… Sometimes we need as Civil Society Organizations, (CSO’s) to make use of the international media in order to exert pressure on both the PNA and the Israeli government by developing an international public opinion.”

“In the particular [not generic] case of Palestine, we have now neither self rule, nor autonomy… that in our case, the self-rule has the potential to lead to statehood…”

“In order to influence the general policy in one way or another, all CSO’s should know how to influence the media. The best known way to do this is to come up with a hidden agenda, and deciding on the most suitable time to release information to the media… in order to direct the media towards a predetermined slogan, a defined demand… The best method for exerting pressure, is to transform a problem into a public opinion issue, using the media.”

That US taxpayer-funded “how-to” manual was written in 1998.

When it comes to media manipulation, PASSIA’S job was made easy for them, as the booklet continues into chapter 6, a ‘discussion’ between their moderators; Dr. Khatib, Rami Khouri, of Jordanian television and Tudor Lomas, and two journalists who offered their advice:. Eric Weiner, of National Public Radio – another US taxpayer funded enterprise, and Lyse Doucete of the BBC.

We are first told by Weiner, that “being balanced, according to their mandate, can be frustrating” and urges the audience/reader “to present your stories on a human level and not rely on the facts.” As they “have to justify their existence which makes it easier to get through to us.”

Ms. Doucete, who refers to suicide/ homicide bombers as “honor” killers, believes “her job is to translate” rather than simply report the news because “Israel is led by a Prime Minister who believes that it is not Israel’s policy that is wrong, just that they have to explain it better.” And so admonishes the Palestinians that “if you want to beat the Israeli’s, you have to beat them at their own game…” There follows eight pages of clear instruction on how the Palestinians can manipulate the press to their own advantage. Weiner: “…the fact that you have 1000,000 pounds from the British government… is not particularly interesting. But, if you explain why it is going to make such a difference by saying “Did you know that since the closure was imposed we haven’t been able to get paper through to Bethlehem… we are far more likely to be interested.”

Doucet: “You should also know how to pick your target… Always be smart about where you pitch your story, and pitch it at the right time…. It is true that Israel is treated with kid gloves and not held to the same standards as Iraq when it comes to UN resolutions…”In terms of financial responsibility of PASSIA, this organization is registered under The Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations in the Israel Ministry of Interior, along with all other Jerusalem based organizations.

A review of PASSIA’s publicly accessible financial records show that PASSIA does not mention US AID as a funding source, nor does it even record the income of US AID in its annual recorded income.

The legal advisor to the Israel Registrar of Non Profit Organizatons provided a report ated May 5, 2002, in which he stated that, indeed, US AID allocations do not appear anywhere in the records of PASSIA.

In addition, the receipts provided by PASSIA for the purchase of PASSIA materials bear no mention of its registration number, as required by law, a procedure considered to be a felony by the adapted Ottoman law which regulates the operation of non-profit organizations.

So much for US requirements for rigorous standards of financial responsibility.

Evaluating the US State Department Memo on PASSIA

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 12, 2003

Foggy-Bottom Do’s

In direct violation of stringent, federal government law, The United States Department of State, Office of International Development (USAID) just keeps on blithely funding the Palestinian Authority’s,Congressional arm-twisting department: the Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs (PASSIA).

They do this on orders that came directly from the Clinton White House, there by by-passing Congress, despite the U.S. federal law that reads: USAID money cannot be used for lobbying the U.S. Congress in any form”.

They do this in-spite, or more accurately, because the U.S. Congress is unaware that they do, and they do it by claiming, in a 9/4/02 State Dept. memo that:

“PASSIA is a non-profit organization research institution that focuses on issues of democracy, good governance, rule of law, reform and communication among religious groups in Jerusalem.”

USAID goes on to say that:

“It (PASSIA) is not affiliated with any government.

Which is of course a lie since the Palestinian Authority is “the duly elected government” of the Palestinian People”. This means that while the Administration is fighting a war on international terror, the State Department is pouring millions of dollars, hand-over-fist, directly into the coffers of Yassar Arafat.

USAID’s initial funding, we are told, was to:focus on training, mid-career professionals drawn from Palestinian civil society organizations to advocate and lobby in the Palestinian domestic context in a generic sense.”

The second federal largess (1.4million, given quarterly and only after the previous quarter’s worth has been used in full, came in January, 2002, just four months into their second intifada.

It is at this point in the memo, that the claim is made that they, (the Palestinian Authority) is ecumenical” and that these unaccounted for US taxpayers dollars are being spent for: ” generic”, local, PA community use only.

Which would be fine, except that Michigan, Kentucky, California and Ohio are not located in either Gaza or the West Bank. They are American states, who’s State Department is funding what is at best, their manipulation…

Until now, USAID got away with it, because this Clinton policy holdover goes directly into their, appropriations fund, thereby avoiding the process of congressional oversight authority, while at the same time, circumventing the law these public servants are sworn to uphold. The official State Department reasoning behind this secret practice of governmental hostage taking, reads like this:

” In the case of PASSIA, our funding of the series does not free PASSIA funding up for other activities…Our funding does not mean they have funds freed-up for some other activity or line purpose.” And so goes this line of appeasement/encouragement reasoning: “If we did not fund this activity, PASSIA would not conduct it or they would seek funding from another mainstream donor.” One might ask here, if that isn’t exactly the point. One might also ask if there was even the hint of Foggy-Bottom embarrassment at such flagrantly violationist behavior? Not so much as a hint:

“On the contrary,…USAID feels well-positioned…because we are proud of the example of democracy and good governance embodied with the American system. We are a good example”

It is here that the current occupants of the Department of State might be reminded that nowhere in American history, did the US government condone, let alone engage in the practice of blowing up babies out of their carriages, or their grandmothers in the act of feeding them.

This USAID admission comes only after evading the question first put to them over a year ago by David Bedein, bureau chief of Israel News Resource Agency, (IRNA). The funding, according to the memo, began in March 31, 1997, on orders directly from the Clinton Oval Office.

The booklets PASSIA produces in conjunction with their twelve-week training courses in lobbying, media manipulation and “good governance”, thanks just the USAID on their flyleaves (should anyone on ‘oversight’ have ever cared to look) but the USAID does not act.

Covering a Conference to Mobilize Support for the PLO in Jerusalem

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 10, 2003

The Invitation:

“SHAML Palestinian Refugee & Diaspora Center & The Alternative Information Center Humanitarian and Political Aspects of the Palestinian Condition

Wednesday afternoon, 8 January 2003

Ambassador Hotel, East Jerusalem

Palestinian Refugee and Diaspora Center (Shaml) and the Alternative Information Center are most pleased to invite you to attend in this meeting of international scholars researching catastrophes and human disasters around the globe and local researchers and field practitioners working in local or international agencies. The panel members will all be local or locally based workers, who will present a variety of opinions and analyses from the perspectives of Palestinian practitioners and intellectuals, Israeli and Palestinian human rights advocates and local and international humanitarian agencies.

Plan for the panel

The panel will be held in two parts.

Participants:

Lee O’Brien, OXFAM’s senior policy advisor
Palestinian Health Work Committees – Dr. Naim Abu-Teir
A representative of UPMRC
Physicians for Human Rights Israel – Ruchama Marton, President and Founder and Hadas Ziv, Director of Occupied Territories and East Jerusalem Project
B’tselem – Dr. Anat Bilezki, Chairperson
MSF Jerusalem Branch – Olivier Maizoue, Manager
AIDA Humanitarian Facilitator, Charlotte Dunn OXFAM Senior Policy Advisor
UNRWA Deputy commissioner-General – Karen Koning Abu-Zeid
Dr. Gadi Algazi, activist in Taayush Jewish-Arab Partnership

Panel Part 1: Analysis of the Current Situation

Head of Panel: Dr. Sari Hanafi, Director of Shaml

16:30 – Introduction by Dr. Hanafi
16:50 – 18:00 – 4 panel participants will present their views, 15 minutes each.
18:00 – 18:30 – round table discussion
18:30 – 18:45 – Break

Panel Part 2: Humanitarian Aid in broad perspective

Head of Panel: Michael Warschawski, AIC, Board member

18:45 – 19:00 – Introduction by Michael Warschawski
19:00 – 20:00 – 4 remaining panel participants will present their views
20:00 – 20:45 – Open Discussion
20:45 – 21:00 – Conclusion by Dr. Sari Hanafi
21:00 – Dinner at the hotel restaurant

Our aim in convening this panel discussion is two-fold:

To present the current situation of the Palestinian people from humanitarian and political perspectives;
To discuss the complex combination of political aspect/analysis/practice and the humanitarian aspect/analysis/practice.

The panel theme and problematics will be presented by Dr. Sari Hanafi, Director of Shaml: Palestinian Refugees and Diaspora Center.

Following an introduction, panel members will give a short presentation, concentrating on personal/organisational views of the current humanitarian crisis situation and his/her analysis of the current processes.

A debate will then be opened. The following are leading questions for the debate:

How do you/your organization view the use of humanitarian discourse? We are referring here to the use of terms such as ‘human disaster’, the call for humanitarian emergency aid, the manipulation of this language by the Israeli government etc.
How do you perceive the outcomes of humanitarian practice, whether done by small and local organizations – Israeli or Palestinian, governments, international NGOs, UN agencies? This question calls for reflection on possible or past outcomes. Can the humanitarian aid projects and involvement affect the struggle for a strong Palestinian state, market, civil society?
How are these questions relevant to the Israeli society? This question refers of course to the political responsibilities/duties of the Israelis, but also invites a reflection on the fact that Israel and Palestine are in many aspects interconnected. What are the social/economic/political outcomes that humanitarian discourse/practice has on Israeli society?
Do you/your organization see any tension arising due to the division of labour between humanitarian assistance and human rights advocacy? Do they use different moral discourses but have one political agenda?

Sincerely yours,

Palestinian Diaspora and Refugee Centre, Shaml, an independent NGO dedicated to Palestinian refugees and the Palestinian Diaspora, was established in 1994 by a group of concerned academics and human rights activists who felt the need to examine issues pertaining to Palestinian refugees in a comparative perspective, encompassing relevant experiences in other parts of the world.

The Alternative Information Center is a joint Palestinian-Israeli initiative centred on commonly held beliefs of equality, social justice and a world free of racism, colonialism, sexism and all forms of discrimination. The AIC is an alternative information pool for critical and progressive analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian political, social and cultural reality.

The debate will be in English

Confirmation: info@shaml.org
Tel: Shaml: 2988442, AIC: 624 11 59

Report on the “Panel on Humanitarian and Political Aspects of the Palestinian Condition at the Ambassador Hotel”

8 January 2000

Sponsored by Shaml: Palestinian Refugees and Diaspora Center and the Alternative Information Center

No official material re: participants or agenda was available. Printed material from various organizations was. Of note: An Apartheid Calendar from AIC and an AIC magazine with a senseless and outrageous article by Michael Warshawski.

Two panels convened. Each time there was an introduction, an opportunity for each panelist to speak, and then questions/discussion.

Panel 1. Moderator: Dr. Sari Hanafi, Director of Shaml. Panelists: a representative of Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (who identified himself without mike and very low, so that name was not audible); Dr. Naim Abu-Teir, from the Palestinian Health Work Committees; UNRWA Deputy Commissioner-General Karen Koning Abu-Zayd; and Dr. Gadi Algazi, from Taayush.

Dr. Hanafi (whose English was weak) introduced the proceedings by asking questions such as “Is this a conflict or a post-conflict situation?” [interesting!] “What is the role of humanitarian organizations? Is it to be a witness?

The two Palestinians spoke first, primarily documenting the current Palestinian situation re: unemployment, poverty, etc. According to the representative of the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees, there is a partial collapse of the Ministry of Health and NGOs are taking responsibility. Ambulances are stopped and many die at checkpoints. Not everyone has PA National Health Insurance; 65% are served by NGOs or private sector. He, to his credit, spoke about aiming for peace and hatred in the next generation. Need to find out who he is! He spoke like a professional, concerned with realities on the ground. Dr. Abu-Teir spoke as a politician, talking about need to focus on the occupation to way to provide relief. There are apartheid policies and the occupation is the only cause of the situation.

Karen Abu-Zayd was very offended by the Wall Street Journal article calling for abolition of UNRWA. She responded to claims that UNRWA breeds dependency: Pre-Intifada, only 6% of the refugees was getting direct assistance. These are “people who are independent, live their lives, have their jobs.” Now there are 13,000 in Gaza and 9,000 in the West Bank getting direct assistance – food, etc. [This is actually a low number out of millions – when terrible poverty and hunger is claimed!!] She is concerned about demolitions, which are up to 10/night. In Gaza 1,500 homes need to be rebuilt, in the W.B., 750. There has to be compensatory education because of closures, and psychological counseling. There is a security problem: 6 staff members have been killed. UNRWA can’t do its job. There is collective punishment. UNRWA stands behind their installations and staff against charges that there is involvement with terrorism. In DC (primarily) and here, there are charges that UNRWA perpetuates the refugee problem. But the problem will be solved when the political situation is resolved and they can go back. There is an attempt to decentralize UNRWA services. The question is asked sometimes is UNRWA aiding the oppressor: if it were not here would it be so bad the problem would have to be solved? There is “erosion of our principles – our privileges and immunities” (e.g., getting trucks through). Israelis are the “most difficult interlocutors” UNRWA has to work with anywhere. [This to laughter and applause.]

Gadi Elgazi, a dangerous, passionate man, addressed the political situation. He says Taayush is an “anti-colonial movement.” As he spoke he said, “I assume you here are all political activists wearing different hats.” There is a balance of forces – Israeli and international – against Palestinians. There needs to be a higher political price for the Israelis. This could be through mobilization of the masses. Not enough to talk of victimhood. Need to put Israel’s policy in awkward situation. A model of how to do this is the olive tree campaign. Even though lost on the ground, made Israel look bad. The question is how far Israel can be challenged through humanitarian agencies, which can be used to strengthen the popular struggle. Suggests youth clubs and women’s groups be used to rally popular resistance.

Discussion: Members of a workshop in Tel Aviv sponsored by Van Leer on the Catastrophe of Globalization were present, led by Adi Ophi. One member raised a question re: violence and what to be done about it. Response of Abu-Teir was that it was all the fault of occupation, daily humiliation. “If you put a hungry cat in a corner and try to kill it, it will scratch you.” Someone – unidentified – at the back of the room said that yes, we know the cause, but the question is still what we do about it. (She drew an analogy with drug dependency – whatever its cause, it needs resolution.) Answer she received was that removing the occupation is the solution – there is no accountability acknowledged by the Palestinians. Abu-Teir also spoke about needing to do a “scientific” study to see what’s going on.

Lee O’Brian commented from the floor that politicizing the humanitarian organizations is what they are always criticized for doing.

Panel 2. Moderator Michael Warshawski, of AIC. Panelists: Ruchama Marton and Hadas Aiv of Physicians for Human Rights; Dr. Anat Bilezki B’tselem; Lee O’Brian, Oxfam; Oliver Maizoue, MSF (? Medical Services).

Warshawski, during introductions, said nothing that made particular sense or seemed of consequence.

The two women, primarily Ruchama, made a horrific and shameful presentation. “We are part of the occupying society” and are “observers of Israeli violations of human rights.” Spoke at considerable length about stopping ambulances at checkpoints, medications not allowed through, etc. Said the ambulances are stopped as a power play, to humiliate Palestinian physicians.

Anat Bilezki spoke briefly (having relinquished part of her time for the lengthy report on ambulances held at checkpoints) and off the record. She said, “Politics is the be-all and end-all of humanitarian work.” B’tselem is more activist now, not just objectively gathering information. Must do political work through human rights perspective, using NGOs to make political points. Activists, humanitarians, NGOs all play roles.

Lee O’Brian, Oxfam, explained that she has lived in the territories for 16 years, spent 5 years with UNRWA. She spoke primarily about humanitarianism – in a sense that is broader than how the term is often used. She sees it not just as relief, but also referring to humanitarian law. With law, there is an attempt to reach an objective international consensus, although how it is used depends on politics.

Humanitarian law does not just bring restitution, it also confers obligations. If the Palestinian people make the point that humanitarian law says they are entitled to statehood, then they have an obligation to honor other aspects of international humanitarian law, e.g., regarding the protection of civilians, which means they stop suicide bombings.

Assessing PM Ariel Sharon’s Crisis

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 10, 2003

Perhaps it really is hunting season, as Sharon described what he thinks is being done to him, but now is also the season of inflamed passions and dizziness over the innumerable spins, over the revival of old stories and over the fantastic inflation of new stories. But the steam rising from this cauldron in which politicians, media advisers, lawyers, State Attorney’s Office officials, police and press are stirring, heats our head and clouds our view. This great drama, of which one of its highlights was last night on television (until it was interrupted) might be dwarfed in another two-three months and we will be astonished at ourselves that we became caught up in this excitement, but what can we do, it’s the season.

Why dwarfed? Because judging by all signs, this story of the loan, the lien, the South African connection, the farm, the banks and Sharon’s sons, does not really show signs of criminal acts, but more of clumsy handling, insensitivity to details and to Ariel Sharon’s and his sons’ obligation to report.

It is unpleasant and improper, but that’s no reason to fall from power. Only in two cases could the affair have criminal significance: if the money that Cyril Kern loaned could constitute bribery, and considering his long friendship with the Sharon family and his detachment from all business in Israel, this does not appear likely, or if Cyril Kern himself is the anonymous donor from Annex, which would make all the convoluted details of this deal into a criminal and wrong move, and there are no signs of this either.

On the other hand, while we said that the Sharon family’s handling of this affair was clumsy, this is too fine a word for their handling of the media. Particularly yesterday. It’s hard to know if Sharon’s gamble to talk flagrant election PR when he began to speak was deliberate, in order to be interrupted before getting to the stage of tough questions on live television, or if he thought he could get away with this, taking a chance that he was breaking the election law. It is unpleasant when the prime minister crudely tramples the law in front of all the people of Israel, and this no doubt made its impression. It was also very unpleasant to see Ariel Sharon trying to persuade the public that his sons received a loan for an enormous sum from one of his best friends without his knowing about it. Such things don’t happen. Not really. And the main thing: he refused to detail for the public where he suddenly received the large amount of money that supposedly got him out of all his money troubles.

In such cases, the prime minister must come forth and give the public, if he wants to restore his credibility, a full x-ray of the money chain. Sharon, twice in one week, presented partial information, and this gave a clear impression that he has something to hide.

And again, on the other hand, Sharon’s great anger, who feel that plots and conspiracies are being woven against him, is understandable. He can, and rightly so, ask why the documents in the affair of the Greek island, which incriminate his son Gilad and which have been sitting for two years in the police offices without Gilad being questioned about them, are suddenly being pulled out. He can ask why the letter of request to South Africa was sent a short time before the elections and how it found its way to the press, replete with outspoken allegations, an even shorter time before. His subjective sense is that a combined effort of his political rivals, of the police, of the State Attorney’s Office and media officials is being made. To the press’ credit, we can say that it usually runs after stories because journalists like good stories and don’t bother to stop and reflect about the interests of the persons leaking them. Justifiably. That is not their job. But the public can reflect on this and guess, without too much difficulty, who the leakers are, who is fanning the flames into hysteria and what their motives are.

Arik Sharon came to his abbreviated press conference yesterday concerned about his fall in the polls, but somewhat cheered by a poll conducted by the Geocartography Institute that came out yesterday showing the a large majority of the public does not believe that there is suspicion of criminal activity in this affair. The public feels uncomfortable but still does not believe, in the main, that the prime minister is a crook.

The problem is that at the rate that affairs are coming up, who knows what else the public will see in the time left before elections and how much time there will be to seriously examine these revelations and the possibility must taken into account that with so many affairs around, people will be convinced that something really is going on and change their mind on election day. These revelations may be genuine and harsh. On the other hand, they may be empty revelations that are inflated and embellished. If that happens, it would be terrible: an unfounded campaign of lies would change the government. This already happened once, sort of: in the 1992 elections, the slogan “corrupt officials, we’re sick of you” was coined, based mainly on the charges against Sharon’s close friend Uri Shani. The Likud was brought down partly because of this slogan. Five years later, the affair ended with a conviction for very minor offenses. This is not only unfair. This is dangerous for democracy. The fury of voters whose party is deposed because of tricks of this sort is liable to be poison to majority rule. It’s best to beware.

This news analysis ran on January 10, 2002 in Maariv

Official PA TV: Pressures Exerted on Palestinian Children to seek Shahada – Death for Allah

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 10, 2003

TV: Child Writes to Mother, “Rejoice over My Death”

“Ask for Death – the life will be given to you.” This slogan, which was broadcast on Palestinian television on July 5th of last year, was also the headline chosen by the authors of Palestinian Media Watch as the title of their 40th research report. This report examines the social pressure exerted by the Palestinian Authority [PA] on children to die as “Shahids” [Death for Allah].

The written findings of the report are presented with a CD, which is not easy to watch. The televised evidence, includes educational films specially prepared for children that have been broadcast in the Palestinian Authority, texts from PA schoolbooks, and quotes from statements issued by political and religious figures in the Palestinian Authority.

One particular “educational” film clip, which was broadcast regularly during 2001 and 2002 as often as three times a day, shows a child writing a farewell letter to his mother in which he declares, “Rejoice over my death and do not cry for me,” and also “How sweet is Shahada [Death for Allah] when I embrace you, my land.” This text is recited over a backdrop of a picture showing the child falling to the ground “embracing” the earth.

One short broadcast shows the most famous child Shahid, Muhammad Al-Dura, whose death was captured on camera, apparently calling to Palestinian children, “Join me in Paradise.” A child actor plays Al-Dura in fictional scenes of his life in Paradise, frolicking in an amusement park with a kite and on the beach. “How pleasant is the fragrance of Shahids.I go with no fear or tears,” says the fictional Al-Dura. The program begins with the caption, “I am waving not to part, but to say you, ‘Follow me.’ And is signed: “Muhammad Al-Dura”

The report also displays texts that appear in widely-used school books published by the Palestinian Education Ministry, such as the “Song of the Shahid,” which is found in four different publications. In one book, “Islamic Education for the Eighth Grade,” on page 176, states that, “The Moslem sacrifices himself for his belief, and wages Jihad [Holy War] for Allah. He is not swayed, for he knows that the date of his death as a Shahid on the field of battle is preferable to death in his bed.”

The November 2000 issue of “Al-Hayat Al-Jadida,” a PA newspaper, quotes “The sports teacher of Wajdi Al-Hattab,” [a 14 year old student] “responded to Allah’s call and achieved the Shahada he yearned for.”

The teacher relates that, “Wajdi asked me to give out cake when he becomes a Shahid.” The newspaper also reports that Wajdi’s classmates “swore that they would follow the path of Shahada until the liberation of Jerusalem.”

The author of the report, Itamar Marcus, writes that many cultural programs “encourage Shahada and show approval for those who are killed. Many television broadcasts include songs and dances accompanied by photographs of violence and highlight how right it is to die for the sake of Allah.”

Marcus gives the example of a song [broadcast 3 times on PA TV] that was composed in memory of Wafa Idris, the first woman suicide bomber. The song was recorded at a concert in Egypt, and it describes Idris as a “flower” and a “heartbeat of pride.” “In death, you have brought life to our will,” the song continues.

In the past Marcus and his institute issued a comprehensive report into Palestinian study material and helped to expose Yasser Arafat’s “Hudaybia Speech,” in which Arafat compared the Oslo Agreement with the Hudaybia Pact, which the prophet Muhammad signed expressly in order to break later. This time Palestinian Media Watch also brings relevant quotes from Yasser Arafat, who expresses his pride in the Shahids. In a speech given to children who were attending a summer camp, Arafat states, “You are the peers of Faris Ouda [a youth who planned his own death as a Shahid] Onwards together to Jerusalem.” In response, the children call out, “Millions of Shahids marching to Jerusalem.”

The report also brings examples of the statements issued by the parents of suicide bombers, in which they welcome their children’s deaths, and express their satisfaction and joy. The mother of one boy who was killed states: “Praise to God, the Master of the Universe. I can raise my head up high and I have glory and pride. My son is a Shahid. But it is not just my son. All of the Shahids are my children.”

The mother of Abbas Al-Awiwi states, “The greatest mother’s day present I received this year is the death as a Shahid of Abbas.”

Marcus and his staff also bring quotes from speeches delivered by religious leaders. Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim Madi stated on Palestinian television in June 2001: “Shame upon he who does not educate his children the education of Jihad. blessings upon he who dons a vest of explosives belt on himself or on his children and goes in to the midst of the Jews”.

Sheikh Abd al-Razak stated on Palestinian television on 22nd March 2002: “Allah has planted within our youth the love of Jihad, the love of Shahada. Our youth have turned into bombs, they blow themselves up among them [Israelis] day and night.”

Marcus and his colleagues have concluded that, having been exposed to such messages, young Palestinian children from the ages of six till nine play “death” games and role-play the dead. Children between the ages of 10 to 13 express the will to die, sometimes in televised interviews, and from the age of 14 some even take part in suicide attacks.

This piece ran on January 8.2003 in HaAretz

Does Arafat have an American Insurance Policy??

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 6, 2003

It is safe to assume that Yasser Arafat did not wait last night anxiously for the decision of the Israeli political echelon, which convened in the Prime Minister’s Bureau in Tel Aviv last night to decide on Israel’s response to the terror attack at the old bus station in Tel Aviv.

Arafat has an American insurance policy, a presidential policy that no harm will come to him until after the war in Iraq.

Three out of the four people who were summoned to the meeting with Sharon last night support expelling Arafat: Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu believes that the conflict with the Palestinians would already be behind us had Israel expelled Arafat and his top advisers a year ago already, for example, by means of landing them in Lebanon on board a helicopter. That is also the opinion of Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Finance Minister Silvan Shalom.

Prime Minister Sharon’s hands are tied on the question of dealing with the Palestinian leader more than his ministers’ are. Let us assume that his adviser were to whisper to him to make a decision to exile Arafat now, and thereby divert public attention away from the damage of the police investigation into Likud corruption on the eve of elections. But Sharon will not heed that advice for two reasons: firstly, because he is not prepared to take political calculations into account when making diplomatic-security decisions. Secondly, Sharon made a commitment to President Bush to show restraint in Israel’s responses to Palestinian terror attacks.

And if one wants to find another reason why Arafat can be at ease we will remind you that today a team of senior Israeli officials will arrive at the White House in Washington to discuss the special aid package request of USD 12 billion-four billion as a grant and eight billion as loan guarantees.

Anyone who asks Uncle Sam for huge sums like that has to behave just the way Bush expects. It is reasonable to assume that the three ministers will not pressure Sharon into making any far-reaching decisions such as an attack on Islamic Jihad headquarters in Damascus or the occupation of the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu has been careful not to push for extreme measures: he is aware of the difficult situation Sharon is in because of the reports about the involvement of his sons, Omri and Gilad, in the Likud scandals. Netanyahu has already picked up the scent of his chance to take Sharon’s place sooner than anyone might have thought.

Mofaz believes that Arafat’s day will come, even if it takes some time. That is why the defense minister will recommend that the IDF continue with its policy of proactive measures to prevent terror attacks, that we grit our teeth and deal with the root of the problem-Arafat-in another few months. Mofaz believes there is a single scenario that could change that decision: in the event of a massive terror attack prior to the American campaign in Iraq, a situation could evolve in which Arafat would be expelled from Ramallah.

Political officials last night began to question whether the resumption of terror attacks in city centers would tip the scales in any given direction in the few remaining weeks until elections. The answers to those questions were not unequivocal, but it seems that the scandals in the Likud in the course of this past year will overshadow every other story.

This appeared in Yediot Aharonot on January 6, 2002

Danger of Foreign Troop Intervention in Jerusalem

By

David Bedein

-

January 3, 2003

The latest panacea for Middle East peace, now gaining momentum, is the dispatching of foreign troops whose dual task would be to create a Palestinian Arab state and mitigate Arab terror. Foreign troops would drive an armed wedge between the warring Israeli and Palestinian Arab entities in order to create a semblance of peace.

On December 5, at an international security seminar in Herzliya, former US ambassador Martin Indyk proposed introducing US troops who would act as a peacekeeping force with or without a peace agreement.

On December 12, the Canadian representative to the Palestinian Authority, Steve Hibbard, told a Palestinian Authority publication of his proposal to dispatch Canadian troops to the Middle East. On December 13, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky’s spokesman gave an interview in which he endorsed US troops who would be dispatched to patrol Ramallah and other Arab cities.

On December 16, Meretz went a step further and called for an international army dispatched here to keep the peace. On December 17, a senior official of the European Union delegation to Israel noted the mobility of 20,000 European peacekeepers now based in Macedonia and their readiness to be deployed to facilitate Middle East peace.

But have advocates of an armed international presence considered the consequences of their suggestion?

Those who advocate an armed international presence claim foreign troops have succeeded in preserving peace accords in the region. After all, foreign troops patrol the borders of Israel and Egypt. They patrol the armistice lines with Syria and with Lebanon. What would be the difference?

Foreign troops stationed in the Sinai desert patrol an international border following a peace agreement accepted by both Israel and Egypt. Foreign troops patrol the Syrian and Lebanese cease-fire lines following armistice agreements accepted by Israel, Syria and Lebanon.

But foreign troops dispatched to patrol Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza, would be stationed where Israel, the PLO and the entire Arab world have reached no agreement since 1948.

That’s the difference.

The PLO, based in the provisional Palestinian Authority in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, asserts its right to wage a war to regain the 531 Arab villages lost in 1948. Meanwhile, millions of Arab refugees wallow in UNRWA Arab refugee camps since 1948 under the premise of the “right of return” to those 531 villages, which have been replaced by Israeli cities, collective farms and woodlands.

Israel asserts its right to annex and settle all the lands it acquired after the 1948 war, along with some of the lands acquired in 1967 – a right no nation has ever recognized. It asserts its right to Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem – a right no nation in the world, including the US, has ever recognized.

All this spells out a formula for continued conflict in the unresolved 1948 war. International troops would fight for the policies of their respective governments, which would bode ill for Israel.

A likely scenario: Foreign troops are dispatched to the hilly village of Beit Jala overlooking Bethlehem and towering over Gilo, the southernmost part of Jerusalem. The stated purpose of the armed international peacekeepers is to facilitate the transformation of Beit Jala into a thriving suburb of Bethlehem as part of a future vibrant, independent Palestinian Arab entity, and to stop shooting attacks against Israel from the village.

A few days after foreign troops take up their positions, armed Beit Jala residents positioned on the roof of the strategically placed Flowers of Hope school fire rockets and mortars into Gilo, blowing up Jewish homes and killing tens of Jewish residents.

The response is not long in coming. The IDF fires at the source of the mortar shells, blowing up the school and killing hundreds of Arab schoolchildren and dozens of foreign peacekeepers stationed nearby.

Headlines around the world: “Israelis kill schoolchildren and foreign peacekeepers.” Within days, world revulsion against Israel leads to an international campaign for Israel to evacuate Gilo. Hundreds of foreign troops are dispatched to impose martial law and a curfew on Gilo, defined by the world as an illegal settlement.

This would be the likely consequence of any international armed presence in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem. It would automatically turn into a disaster for Israel – and Jews around the world bear the consequences. Even the US, regarded as the friendliest country to Israel, sees no place for any Jew to live anywhere beyond the 1949-67 armistice lines.

Several years ago, a delegation of Israeli American citizens living beyond the 1967 lines asked the US consul in Jerusalem about the human rights of Jews in these Jewish communities that have been under constant terror attack. The consul responded: “If you live there, then you have no human rights.”

Most recently, the US embassy in Tel Aviv was asked if the repair of the old Hurva synagogue in the old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, taken back by Israel in 1967, would be considered “illegal settlement activity.” The answer from the US embassy, whose ambassador is an observant Jew, was that it would.

Now imagine US, Canadian and EU troops enforcing their anti-settlement policies with massive armed force.

Conclusion: Any armed international presence would immediately become a target in the line of fire, and Israel would be blamed for the casualties among them.

Final Draft of Bush Road Map Rejects Israeli Demands

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 3, 2003

In the final version of the road map for an Israeli-Palestinian arrangement, most of the Israeli demands for corrections were rejected,as indicated by an analysis comparing the final document to the Israeli comments. This contradicts claims made in Jerusalem that this was an Israeli achievement.

The comparison was made between the final road map, which was finalized during the latest meeting of the Quartet, which includes the US, the EU, the UN and Russia, and the comments Israel submitted on the first draft.

Among others, Israel requested to determine that one of the conditions for progress is the replacement of the Palestinian leadership with a “new and different leadership”,meaning the replacement of Arafat. The final version makes no explicit mention of changing the leadership and states only that it will be possible to make progress when the Palestinian people have a leadership that acts strongly against terror.

According to the sources, the Israelis also demanded that the US be the one to supervise the process and its implementation, but the final document states that the Quartet will meet regularly to evaluate the performance of the parties. Israel also requested that there be no reference in the document to the Saudi plan, but the final document says that the arrangement will be based, among others, on the plan of Prince Abdullah and bring an end to the “occupation that began in 1967”, in complete contradiction to the Israeli request.

Israel also met with disappointment on the issue of settlements. Israel requested that questions relating to the settlements be discussed in the final status arrangement. In the final document, even the condition that existed in the previous draft of the document vanished, which had stated that the freeze on settlements would take place unconditionally after a comprehensive cease fire. On the matter of Jerusalem as well, Israel’s request not to re-open the Palestinian institutions in the city was rejected, and the document states that the institutions that were closed will be re-opened.

Israel’s main achievement is in fact the American agreement to begin the implementation of the document only after the elections in Israel.

Sources in Jerusalem said that the final document has not reached Israel, and this is a non-binding document.

Shefa Fund Fights Charge of Aiding IDF Deserters: Bedein Responds

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

January 2, 2003

At a time of economic difficulties in Israel, it has now become a profitable enterprise to desert the IDF and to “refuse to serve”.

Now that is what we call a financial incentive for IDF desertion, thanks to the Shefa Fund.

Who ever said that crime does not pay?

The Shefa Fund, Yesh Gvul and the Courage to Refuse campaign may be in for a surprise and soon face their day in court.

The former Israel cabinet secretary Attorney Gideon Saar has written that the Israeli penal code defines those who will incite IDF soldiers to disobey orders as a felony crime which carries a penalty of seven years in jail upon conviction.

As a result, the Israel State Prosecutor’s Office is considering taking legal action against organizations which have been conducting the current high profile campaign to encourage IDF soldiers to desert the IDF.

The question remains: Will the Shefa Fund organizers have the courage of their convictions to stand trial in Israel or will they continue to fund IDF troops to disobey orders from their diaspora peanut gallery in the comfortable Germantown community in Philadelphia? – David Bedein.

A left-leaning Jewish charity that funds two organizations supporting Israeli soldiers refusing to serve in the territories is fending off accusations from Israeli rightists that its contributions “finance desertion” from the Israeli army.

The charity, the Philadelphia-based Shefa Fund, allows donors to earmark tax-deductible donations to two Israeli groups that back soldiers who refuse orders to serve in the West Bank and Gaza. About 500 reserve soldiers have openly stated their refusal to serve in the territories during the last two years, and more than 100 have been charged with disobeying orders, typically drawing sentences of three to four weeks in military prisons.

The charge of “desertion,” technically a capital offense, was raised in a mass e-mail sent out December 6, 2002, by the Israel Resource News Agency, a tiny Jerusalem news agency operated by David Bedein…

In his message, titled “Jews Who Finance Israelis To Desert IDF Must Be Stopped,” Bedein, a native Philadelphian, called the Shefa Fund’s activities “political,” claimed its Israeli beneficiaries were paying soldiers to “desert their units” and urged action by supporters of Israel to “bring the tax authorities down on their back.”

Since Bedein’s Internet dispatch, which has been followed up by mass e-mail attacks from other Israeli rightists, the Shefa Fund said it has received more than 300 e-mail messages, many hostile but some supportive. Some messages were sufficiently “inflammatory” that the fund decided to alert local police as a precaution, said a fund official, Rabbi Mordechai Liebling.

The Israeli Supreme Court this week dismissed an appeal by eight soldiers who claimed their refusal to serve in the territories qualified as conscientious objection. The court ruled that since the eight were willing to carry out most military duties, their refusal constituted only “selective conscientious objection,” which is not recognized in Israeli law.

In a statement, the Shefa Fund’s president and board chairwoman, Jeffrey Dekro and Debbie Fleischaker, criticized the Israeli rightists’ “extremely inaccurate and highly inflammatory e-mail campaign that challenges our fundamental right to exist.” The statement said the charges that its Israeli beneficiaries encourage desertion were false and called the suggestion that the fund’s grants violate its non-profit status “outrageous nonsense.”

The fund’s statement said that more than 800 individuals had earmarked donations to support the two Israeli groups, Yesh G’vul and Courage to Refuse. Liebling said that the fund has given approximately $42,000 to Yesh G’vul since June and $30,000 to Courage to Refuse since July for “their educational work… to inform the Israeli public about what their beliefs are.”

Yesh G’vul was founded in 1982 by Israeli soldiers who objected to serving in Lebanon. Courage to Refuse was started last January by eight army reservists who object to Israel’s current military activities in the territories. In a founding statement, the group declared: “We shall not continue to fight beyond the 1967 borders in order to dominate, expel, starve and humiliate an entire people.”

According to the Courage to Refuse Web site, 511 reservists have joined the campaign, pledging not to serve in the territories.

Bedein told the Forward that the Shefa Fund was “fomenting a rebellion among Israeli soldiers” with its support for Yesh G’vul and Courage to Refuse.

“This is crossing a red line, and a very serious red line, in terms of encouragement of desertion from the Israeli army,” he said. Bedein has cited a translation of a Yesh G’vul leaflet that accused the Israeli army of committing “war crimes” against the Palestinians and offers assistance to soldiers who decide to refuse to serve in the territories.

Yesh G’vul activist Ram Rahat-Goodman, however, called Bedein’s assertion that his organization promotes desertion “an outright lie.”

Rahat-Goodman and Courage to Refuse spokesman Amit Mashiah said that their organizations do not encourage soldiers to refuse to serve in the territories, instead encouraging them to make their own decisions. Rahat-Goodman said his group encourages soldiers who have already decided to refuse to serve in the territories to show up for their army call-ups and simply refuse assignments to the territories. Mashiah said that reservists involved with Courage to Refuse “believe that Israel needs a very strong army,” remain attached to their units and continue to serve in assignments within the Green Line.

Mashiah said that of 115 soldiers affiliated with Courage to Refuse who have been imprisoned so far for their actions, all had been charged by the army with refusing an order, not for desertion.

Chaim Gans, a Tel Aviv University law professor and director of the school’s Minerva Center for Human Rights, said that what members of Courage to Refuse and Yesh G’vul are doing “is clearly not desertion, since they are not absent from service. They refuse to comply with the particular command to serve in the territories.” Gans is a signatory to a faculty petition supporting Courage to Refuse.

Bedein said that he would take the same aggressive stance toward organizations that encouraged soldiers to disobey orders to dismantle settlements. Several prominent West Bank rabbis have spoken publicly in favor of such disobedience, but no efforts are known to have been made to target their American supporters.

This article ran in the Forward on January 3, 2003.

Israel Behind the News

Prof. Zimmerman Invokes Himmler Comparison

PASSIA: US acknowledges that US AID Finances the Leading Palestinian Arab Media Lobby Organization

Evaluating the US State Department Memo on PASSIA

Covering a Conference to Mobilize Support for the PLO in Jerusalem

Assessing PM Ariel Sharon’s Crisis

Official PA TV: Pressures Exerted on Palestinian Children to seek Shahada – Death for Allah

Does Arafat have an American Insurance Policy??

Danger of Foreign Troop Intervention in Jerusalem

Final Draft of Bush Road Map Rejects Israeli Demands

Shefa Fund Fights Charge of Aiding IDF Deserters: Bedein Responds

Column from the Director