Israelis Suffering From Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome

One out of ten Israelis suffers from post-trauma stress syndrome. Most of them are women. 75% of Israelis harden themselves and avoid the sights of terror attack, to cope with the trauma.

A new Israeli study that examined how the terror attacks from September 2000 to April 2002 affected Israelis, was presented yesterday at a conference at the Medical Center in Tel Aviv. The study, conducted by Prof. Avi Blich, director of the Lev Hasharon psychiatric hospital, together with Prof. Zehava Solomon and Dr. Mark Galkopf, was based on a study conducted among a representative sample of 512 Israelis aged over 18.

A first sampling showed that 16% of respondents were involved in a terror attack, 22% had a friend or relative killed or wounded in a terror attack, 9% were involved in terror and also knew someone else involved.

The answers found that terror attacks affect nearly all Israelis. It also found that around 10% of Israelis suffer from PTSS. People who undergo serious trauma are liable to experience a heavy suppression reaction that causes changes in their mood as well as various physical reactions, such as trembling, making it difficult for them to get back to routine.

This PTSS, the study found, from which half a million Israeli suffer, makes them emotionally handicapped. These people experience the traumatic event over and over, making it hard for them to function or to sleep at night and unable to function as formerly for many years. It was also found that the chances of women suffering from the syndrome are 5-6 times higher than for men. No difference was found in the responses between those involved in terror attacks and those not involved at all. For the sake of comparison, throughout the United States, two months after 9/11, 11.7% of the population developed PTSS.

Prof. Blich said yesterday, “the public in Israel is paying a heavy social price. Dulling the senses safeguards us, but we should realize that we pay a price for our emotional suppression. We become inattentive to what is happening to our society, and obviously even more so to the other side.”

The Effect of Terror on the Israeli Psyche

What do we suffer from?

57% feel despondent
55% avoid public places, don’t get on buses, etc.
50% suffer from sleeping disturbances
37% relive events over and over
27% feel removed, suffer from temporary memory loss, a sense of alienation, etc.
10% suffer from PTSS

How do we deal with it?

82.8% phone their relatives and friends repeatedly
80% get some sort of social support
74.8% have developed the ability to cut themselves off emotionally from events
59.8% are helped by their faith
50.6% use humor
5.3% of Israelis use cigarettes or alcohol

This appeared in Yediot Ahronot on November 20, 2002

The US Ultimatum…

The revised version of the road map sponsored by the US administration and the Quartet calls for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in 2003 with provisional borders. This Palestinian state will have a seat at the UN.

The United States has not presented Israel with a copy of the new document, but its main points were leaked by a variety of sources and have reached the top political echelon in Jerusalem. The US has informed Israel that at issue is not a new draft version, but a “rolling paper” in reference to which the parties will be asked to voice their reservations. The Americans also said that the document kept changing from one moment to the next and that it would change once again after Israel had submitted its reservations.

Officials in Israel were very critical of the US administration’s conduct on this issue. A high-ranking Foreign Ministry official said: “while the Americans reached an understanding with Sharon about freezing talks on the road map until after the elections, behind Israel’s back they continued to churn out irreversible papers that have bearing on Israel’s fate.”

Officials close to Foreign Minister Binyamin Netanyahu say that the new road map is worse than its precursors and it harbors numerous risks to Israel. Conversely, professional civil servants in the Foreign Ministry note that it was their impression from the new road map that a number of improvements from Israel’s point of view had been made. Following are the central tenets of the new road map:

  • The date of the establishment of a provisional Palestinian state was moved from the second stage of implementation to the first. The new road map notes that the Quartet will act to secure international recognition for the Palestinian state and to have it accepted as a member of the United Nations. This means that an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders will be established in 2003 and will be given a seat at the UN.
  • A complete freeze of the construction in settlements has been moved from the second stage of implementation in the road map to the first stage, including construction in the Jerusalem periphery.
  • The new version of the road map obliges the Palestinians to achieve immediately and unconditionally an end to violence against Israelis everywhere in the first stage of implementation.
  • The new road map no longer demands that Egypt and Jordan return their ambassadors to Israel once Israel has withdrawn its troops to their pre-Intifada positions in response to Jordanian and Egyptian protests that the issue was their own internal affair and should not be linked to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

This article ran in Yedioth Ahronot on November 21, 2002

General Assembly of Jewish Federations Gathers in Philadelphia Under a Cloud of War

It is difficult for any large organization to switch gears.

The United Jewish Communities The UJC of North America, which comprises all major Jewish organizations in North America, gathers this week for its annual “General Assembly” at the Marriot Hotel at 12th and Market Streets in Philadelphia, under the cloud of a new war looming in the Middle East.

Why is this “G.A.” different from annual meetings of the GA in the past?

This General Assembly follows more than a decade of “general assemblies” in which the UJC prepared its constituent Jewish federations for an era of peace.

As recently as October 13, 1999, the same UJC offered Yassir Arafat the Isaiah Award for Peace, as a gesture of support for Arafat’s role in the Oslo peace process. After the prize was prematurely leaked the UJC cancelled the public event, although Arafat’s office reported that the UJC did indeed provide Arafat with the peace prize in private.

Today, awards for Arafat are not on the UJC agenda.

Last week’s news that Arafat’s own Fateh troops conducted a massacre at the left wing Kibbutz Metzer, killing a mother, her two small children a woman school teacher and the kibbutz secretary struck a deep note of shock throughout the Jewish world, even in some Jewish groups who had held out hope of some kind of settlement with Arafat’s Palestine Authority would be possible.

For those participants in the UJC General Assembly who had any illusions about whether the Fateh attack on Kibbutz Metzer did not reflect policy change for Arafat, a new addition to the Fateh website (www.fatehorg.org) on the morning that followed the Metzer attack provided the answer. Since the November 12th attack, the Fateh has conducted an daily interactive internet survey in which Arafat’s organization asks its constituents as to “where it preferred to conduct martyrdom attacks with four options given: – On the areas taken by Israel after 1948 (like Kibbutz Metzer, founded in 1953 on the ruins of an abandoned Arab village); On areas taken by Israel after 1967 (Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria);. On areas taken by Israel in 1948 AND 1967, or not at all. Option Number Three, favoring attacks on almost all of Israel, continues to lead the winner of the Fateh interactive website with a 66% response rate to the idea of attacking anywhere in Israel.

In light of such a bleak prospect for peace with Arafat’s Palestinian Arab entity, the government of Israel has dispatched a team of security experts to brief the UJC General Assemble and to prepare Jewish Americans for the prospect of a widened war in the middle east, both with the Palestinian entity and with its ally and sponsor, Iraq.

Israel also dispatched its deputy prime minister, the former Soviet prisoner of Zion, Natan Scharansky, to ask Jewish groups for assistance that Israel will ask for in the months to come.

This will not the first time that the nascent state of Israel has reached out to the Jews of the US for support.

In 1948, the year of Israel’s birth, the Jewish state’s future prime minister Golda Meir crisscrossed the US, recruiting funds and volunteers to fight in Israel’s war for independence.

Since that time, Israel has dispatched countless emissaries to their co-religionists in the US to ask for help in the tremendous burden of absorbing thousands of Jews from Ethiopia, the former Soviet Union and. of late, from Argentina.

Israel has always viewed the Jews in the US as its strongest ally, and this week’s gathering at the UJC General Assembly in Philadelphia provides no exception to that perception.

Yet Israel should not be under any illusions that Jews in the US will continue to provide automatic unified support for the Jewish state, even during a time of war.

There are at least a dozen small Jewish organizations in the US work closely with the Palestinian Authority, and at least three organizations in Philadelphia that raise funds to support Israeli soldiers who choose to desert their units at this time.

Can Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister Scharansky win over those participants at the UJC General Assembly who still believe in the chance for peace with Arafat’s Palestinian Authority?

That is the $64,000 question of the week at the Marriot.

War without death: The Pentagon Promotes a Vision of Combat as Bloodless and Antiseptic

Leon Daniel, like others who reported from Vietnam during the 1960s, knew about war and death. So he was puzzled by the lack of corpses at the tip of the Neutral Zone between Saudi Arabia and Iraq on February 25, 1991.

Clearly there had been plenty of killing. The 1st Infantry Division (Mechanized) had smashed through the defensive front line of Saddam Hussein’s army the day before, February 24, the opening of the Desert Storm ground war to retake Kuwait. Daniel, representing United Press International, was part of a press pool held back from witnessing the assault on 8,000 Iraqi defenders.

“They wouldn’t let us see anything,” said Daniel, who had seen about everything as a combat correspondent.

The artillery barrage alone was enough to cause a slaughter. The attack began with a 30-minute bombardment by howitzers and multiple-launch rockets scattering thousands of tiny bomblets, followed by a wave of 8,400 American soldiers riding in 3,000 battle tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, Humvees, armored personnel carriers and other vehicles.

It wasn’t until late in the afternoon of February 25 that the press pool was permitted to see where the attack occurred. There were groups of Iraqi prisoners. About 2,000 had surrendered. But there were no bodies, no stench of feces, no blood stains, no bits of human beings.

“You get a little firefight in Vietnam and the bodies would be stacked up like cordwood,” Daniel said. Finally, Daniel found the division public affairs officer, an Army major.

“Where the hell are all the bodies?” Daniel said.

“What bodies?” the officer replied.

Daniel and the rest of the world would not find out until months later why the dead had vanished. Thousands of Iraqi soldiers, some of them alive and firing their weapons from World War I-style trenches, were buried by plows mounted on Abrams battle tanks. The Abrams flanked the trench lines so that tons of sand from the plows funneled into the trenches. Just behind the tanks, actually straddling the trench line, came Bradleys pumping 7.62mm machine gun bullets into the Iraqi troops.

“I came through right after the lead company,” said Army Col. Anthony Moreno, who commanded the lead brigade during the 1st Mech’s assault. “What you saw was a bunch of buried trenches with people’s arms and land things sticking out of them. For all I know, we could have killed thousands.”

A thinner line of trenches on Moreno’s left flank was attacked by the 1st Brigade commanded by Col. Lon Maggart. He estimated his troops buried about 650 Iraqi soldiers. Darkness halted the attack on the Iraqi trench line. By the next day, the 3rd Brigade joined in the grisly innovation. “A lot of people were killed,” said Col. David Weisman, the unit commander.

One reason there was no trace of what happened in the Neutral Zone on those two days was that Armored Combat Earth Movers came behind the armored burial brigade, leveling the ground and smoothing away projecting Iraqi arms, legs and equipment.

PFC Joe Queen of the 1st Engineers was impervious to small arms fire inside the cockpit of the huge earth mover. He remained cool and professional as he smoothed away all signs of the carnage. Queen won the Bronze Star for his efforts. “A lot of guys were seared,” Queen said, “but I enjoyed it.” Col. Moreno estimated more than 70 miles of trenches and earthen bunkers were attacked, filled in and smoothed over on February 24-25.

Hidden from the public

What happened at the Neutral Zone that day has become a metaphor for the conduct of modern warfare. While political leaders bask in voter approval for destroying designated enemies, they are increasingly determined to mask the reality of warfare that causes voters to recoil.

There was no more sophisticated practitioner of this art of bloodless warfare than President George H.W. Bush. As a Navy pilot during World War II, Bush knew the ugly side of war. He once recounted how a sailor wandered into an aircraft propeller on their carrier in the South Pacific. The chief petty officer in charge of the flight deck called for brooms to sweep the man’s guts overboard. “I can still hear him,” Bush said of the chief’s orders. “I have seen the hideous face of war.”

Bad Press

The elder Bush was badly stung by the reality of warfare while president. After the 1989 American invasion of Panama — where reporters were also blocked from witnessing a brief slaughter in Panama City — Bush held a White House news conference to boast about the dramatic assault on the Central American leader, Gen. Manuel Noriega.

Bush was chipper and wisecracking with reporters when two major networks shifted coverage to the arrival ceremony for American soldiers killed in Panama at the Air Force Base in Dover, Del.

Millions of viewers watched as the network television screens were split: Bush bantering with the press while flag-draped coffins were carried off Air Force planes by honor guards.

Afterward, on Bush’s orders, the Pentagon banned future news coverage of honor guard ceremonies for the dead. The ban was continued by President Bill Clinton.

Shortly after Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, Bush summoned battlefield commanders to Camp David, Md., for a council of war. Army Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf, chief of Central Command with military responsibility for the Persian Gulf region, flew from Tampa, Fla. He and Central Command’s air boss, Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Homer, were flown from Andrews Air Force Base, Md., by helicopter to the retreat in the Catoctin Mountains near Thurmont, Md. Homer said golf carts took them to the president’s cabin. Bush was wearing a windbreaker.

“The president was very concerned about casualties,” Homer recalled. “Not just our casualties but Iraqi casualties. He was very emphatic. He wanted casualties minimized on both sides. He went around the room and asked each military commander if his orders were understood. We all said we would do our best.”

According to Homer, he took a number of steps to limit the use of anti- personnel bombs during more than 30 days of air attacks on Iraqi army positions. Schwarzkopf’s psychological warfare experts littered Iraqi troops with leaflets that warned of imminent attacks by B-52 Strategic Bombers. Arabic warnings told troops to avoid sleeping in tanks or near artillery positions because they were prime targets for allied aircraft attacking day and night.

“We could have killed many more with cluster munitions,” Homer said. Cluster bomblets are dropped from aircraft and create lethal minefields around troop emplacements.

But Bush’s Camp David orders were also translated into minimizing the perception — if not the reality — of Desert Storm casualties. The president’s point man for controlling these perceptions was Dick Cheney, then secretary of Defense. And to Cheney, that meant controlling the press, which he saw as a collective voice that portrayed the Pentagon as a can’t-do agency that wasted too much money and routinely failed in its mission.

“I did not look on the press as an asset,” Cheney said in an interview after Desert Storm. He was interviewed by the authors of a Freedom Forum book, “America’s Team — The Odd Couple,” which explored the relationship between the media and the Defense Department.

To Cheney, containing the military was his way of protecting the Pentagon’s credibility. “Frankly, I looked on it as a problem to be managed,” Cheney said of the media.

Control of Information

This management had two key ingredients: Control the flow of information through high level briefings while impeding reporters such as Leon Daniel. According to Cheney, he and Army Gen. Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, orchestrated the briefings because “the information function was extraordinarily important. I did not have a lot of confidence that I could leave that to the press.”

The relentless appetite of broadcasting networks made Pentagon control a simple matter. Virtually every U.S. weapon system is monitored by television cameras either on board warplanes and helicopters or held by military cameramen or individual soldiers.

This “gun camera” footage may be released or withheld depending on the decisions of political bosses of the military. So when the air war began in January 1991, the media was fed carefully selected footage by Schwarzkopf in Saudi Arabia and Powell in Washington, D.C. Most of it was downright misleading.

Briefings by Schwarzkopf and other military officers mostly featured laser- guided or television-guided missiles and bombs. But of all the tons of high explosives dropped during more than a month of night-and-day air attacks, only 6 percent were smart bombs. The vast majority were controlled by gravity, usually dropped from above 15,000 feet — 35,000 feet for U.S. heavy bombers —

where winds can dramatically affect accuracy. And there never was any footage of the B-52 bomber strikes that carpeted Iraqi troop positions.

98% Accuracy, A Fiction

Films of Navy ships launching Tomahawk cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf were almost daily fare from the military. Years later, the Navy would concede that these subsonic jets with 2,000-pound warheads had limited success.

Tomahawk missiles are guided by onboard computers that match prerecorded terrain maps, shifting left or right as landmarks are spotted. But the faceless desert offered few points of reference and most Tomahawks wandered off, just as the French Legion’s lost platoon did in the Sahara. The only reliable landmark turned out to be the Tigris River and Tomahawks were programmed to use it as a road to Baghdad and other targets. But Iraqi anti- aircraft gunners quickly blanketed the riverside. The slow-moving Tomahawks were easy targets.

During the war, the Pentagon claimed a 98 percent success rate for Tomahawks. That number later dwindled to less than 10 percent effectiveness.

Just as distorted were Schwarzkopf’s claims of destruction of Iraqi Scud missiles. After the war, studies by Army and Pentagon think tanks could not identify a single successful interception of a Scud warhead by the U.S. Army’s Patriot anti-missile system.

Schwarzkopf portrayed Air Force attacks on Scud launch sites as successful. The Air Force had filled the night sky with F-15E bombers with radar and infrared systems that could turn night into day. Targets were attacked with laser-guided warheads. In one briefing in Riyadh, Schwarzkopf showed F-15E footage of what he said was a Scud missile launcher being destroyed. Later, it turned out that the suspected Scud system was in fact an oil truck.

A year after Desert Storm, the official Air Force study concluded that not a single Scud launcher was destroyed during the war. The study said Iraq ended the conflict with as many Scud launchers as it had when the conflict began.

In manipulating the first and often most lasting perception of Desert Storm,

the Bush administration produced not a single picture or video of anyone being killed. This sanitized, bloodless presentation by military briefers left the world presuming Desert Storm was a war without death.

That image was reinforced by limitations imposed on reporters on the battlefield. Under rules developed by Cheney and Powell, journalists were not allowed to move without military escorts. All interviews had to be monitored by military public affairs escorts. Every line of copy, every still photograph,

every strip of film had to be approved — censored — before being filed. And these rules were ruthlessly enforced.

Reporters Driven Away

When a Scud missile eventually hit American troops during the ground war, reporters raced to the scene. The 1,000-pound warhead landed on a makeshift barracks for Pennsylvania national guard troops near the Saudi seaport of Dahran.

Scott Applewhite, a photographer for the Associated Press, was one of the first on the scene. There were more than 25 dead and 70 badly wounded. As Applewhite photographed the carnage, he was approached by U.S. military police,

who ordered him to leave.

He produced credentials that entitled him to be there. But the soldiers punched Applewhite, handcuffed him and ripped the film from his cameras, Applewhite said. More than 70 reporters were arrested, detained, threatened at gunpoint and literally chased from the front lines when they attempted to defy Pentagon rules.

More than 150 reporters who participated in the Pentagon pool system failed to produce a single eyewitness account of the clash between 300,000 allied troops and an estimated 300,000 Iraqi troops. There was not one photograph, not a strip of film by pool members of a dead body — American or Iraqi.

Even if they had recorded the reality of the battlefield, it was unlikely it would have been approved by the military-controlled distribution system. As the ground war began, Cheney declared a press blackout, effectively blocking distribution of battlefield press reports. While Cheney’s action was challenged by Marlin Fitzwater, the White House press secretary, the ban remained in effect. Most news accounts were delayed for days, long enough to make them worthless to their editors.

Accounts of Iraqi troops escaping from Kuwait — the carnage on the so- called Highway of Death — were recorded by journalists operating outside the pool system.

Schwarzkopf repeatedly brushed off questions about the Iraqi death toll when the ground war ended in early March. Not until 2000, during a television broadcast, would he estimate Iraq losses in the tens of thousands. The only precise estimate came from Cheney. In a formal report to Congress, Cheney said U.S. soldiers found only 457 Iraqi bodies on the battlefield.

To Cheney, who helped Bush’s approval rating soar off the charts during Desert Storm, the press coverage had been flawless. “The best-covered war ever, ” Cheney said. “The American people saw up close with their own eyes through the magic of television what the U.S. military was capable of doing.”

Patrick J. Sloyan is a reporter for Newsday. He wrote this article while on an Alicia Patterson Foundation fellowship, and it first appeared in the APF Reporter.

©2002 San Francisco Chronicle.
This piece ran in the San Francisco Chronicle on November 17, 2002
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/11/17/IN178228.DTL

From Metzer to Hebron

A straight line connects the massacre in Metzer with the pogrom in Hebron. This line is drawn underneath four chilling words which, in the past two years, have become routine: Jewish blood is forfeit. Everywhere in the Land of Israel, in the ’48 borders and in the ’68 borders. We,afflicted by a total eclipse of the senses,are the only ones who differentiate between one murder scene and another.

The applause for the noble way in which members of Kibbutz Metzer accepted the terrible blow that they suffered-and this nobility itself, consisting of nothing but messianic mutterings about the peace that will come if Israel stops its actions in the territories-contributes to the next blood to be spilt. The justification that they gave for the massacre committed against them, one heard by the whole world, gives the green light for the murderers in Hebron and for those who will come after them.

The damage that they caused us was huge, partly because the world looking at the scenes of the murders does not know what to think: If the victims themselves say it, what position do you expect us to take?

The noble behavior of the people of Metzer will cost us more and more blood. More and more children will be killed in their sleep, or in the middle of a game in kindergarten, and the reaper will visit more and more families, as happens every day.

Because life here, let’s just say it, has become no less than Russian roulette. Our blood is also forfeit because of the admiration, which has become universal, for the wise, responsible, and balanced leadership of the Sharon government.

What is wise about this leadership if our blood is forfeit everywhere? How is it responsible if every day families are wiped off the face of the earth? What is balanced about it if every one of us asks himself deep in his heart, when will my turn come, or the turn of my loved ones?

They mock Binyamin Netanyahu when he repeatedly calls to get rid of Arafat, like Cato, who nagged the Roman senate to eliminate Hannibal. They claim that this will only set off a wildfire.

Arafat is a symbol. He is the embodiment of incitement, murder, and the forfeiture of Jewish blood, and has been for decades. By eliminating this symbol we will signal to the world that the period of restraint is over: from now on we will defend ourselves with all methods at our disposal, not with one hand tied behind our back.

Because our will to live and our lost self-respect are the burning issues now on the agenda. These are matters that the new prime minister will have to provide answers for in a quick and powerful fashion. He owes it to us.

This column appeared in Maariv on November 17, 2002

Abba Eban: the June 1967 map represented Israel’s “Auschwitz” borders

When Abba Eban, appeared at the United Nations following the Six Day war, Israel’s foreign minister, he described the fragility of Israel’s 1949-1967 map as Israel’s “Auschwitz” lines.

Abba Eban, who died on November 17, 2002, will forever be remembered as Israel’s most articulate foreign minister

The following statement by Abba Eban was cited in the Jerusalem Post of August 18, 1995 by Jerusalem Post columnist Moshe Kohn:

“We have openly said that the map will never again be the same as on June 4, 1967. For us, this is a matter of security and of principles. The June map is for us equivalent to insecurity and danger. I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz. We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history.”

– Abba Eban, Israeli Statesman, in Der Spiegel, November 5, 1969
(with thanks to Dr. Aaron Lerner and to Clarence Wagner for locating this item)

On July 26, 1978, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, whose parents and older brother were murdered by the Nazis, commented on Israeli Televsion about Abba Eban ‘s use of the term “Auschwitz lines”, when he described the June 4, 1967 map, saying that “you have never heard such an extreme term from me… because there will be no Auschwitz here”.

Yet Abba Eban had a way of presenting Israel’s case in the context of the traumas of Jewish history.

Most Creative Murder Design

Israel Resource News Agency has decided to award Yassir Arafat and the Fateh, the mainstream organization of the PLO, with a citation for the most creative murder design on the web.

The Fateh web site, www.fatehorg.org, in the spirit of Palestinian Self-Determination, cordially asks its readers as to where they prefer to murder Jews.

The question, placed on the interactive Fateh website on November 13, 2002, following the Fateh attack on Kibbutz Metzer in which the PLO took credit for murdering a mother, her two children, a school teacher and the kibbutz secretary, is…

“Where do you want to prefer to conduct martyrdom attacks?
Option no. 1: Inside the 1948 lines?
Option no. 2: Inside the 1967 lines?
Option no. 3: Within both the 1948 and 1967 lines?
Option no. 4: Not to continue to attack at all?”

Here are the results so far, after five days of interactive murder polling:

Option no. 1: Kill Jews inside the 1948 lines: 5.80%
Option no. 2: Kill Jews inside the 1967 lines: 11.59%
Option no. 3: Kill Jews inside the 1948 and 1967 lines: 66.34%
Option no. 4: Not to kill at all: 16.26%

The Creative Murder Web Design Award will be provided to Mr. Edward Abington, the former US State Department official and 1993-1997 US Consul in Jerusalem who is now the registered foreign agent for the PLO in Washington, based at Bannerman Associates, which is located at:888 16th Street, N.W. 7th Floor, Washington, DC 20006

A copy of the Creative Murder Web Design Award will also be presented to Mr. Martin Indyk, the former US state department official and former US ambassador to Israel who now runs the Sabban Center For Near East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Mr. Indyk gained notoriety for publicizing a falsified report on April 24, 1996 that Arafat had convened a special session of the Palestine National Committee to cancel the PLO covenant which called for Israel’s extermination. The PNC did meet on that day, and decided to form a committee to consider changes in its charter. The US congress had enacted binding legislation that forbid Arafat from entering the US without the necessary changes in the PLO charter. Indyk sent the White House, State Department and Congress a letter in which he announced that the PNC had cancelled the PLO covenant.

Does US Concept of PA “reform” allow for the Murder of Dissidents?

The US government has dispatched special envoy David Satterfield to work with the PA to implement “democratic reform”.

The US and the other funders of the nascent Palestinian Authority are counted among the leading democracies of the world.

You would expect a democracy such as the US to require that a respect for human rights and civil liberties would be an integral part of the support that they provide for the developing Palestinian Arab entity.

Wrong.

A case in point: On August 24, 2002, The Jerusalem Post Arab Affairs correspondent reported that Arafat had ordered 200 of his critics to be rounded up.

The expectation is that all 200 dissidents will be executed for their criticism of the Palestinian Authority.

Arafat’s spin doctors have put out the word that these detainees are “collaborators”.

Over the past three months, we have asked the US consul in Jerusalem if the US government will ask the PA to refrain from murdering dissidents, as part of its commitment to a process of “democratic reform. ‘

After all, killing critics does not seem to be appropriate to the democratic process.

Yet the consistent response of the US Consul’s press attache in Jerusalem is that that the subject of executing critics does not appear on the agenda of democratic reform of the PA that Mr. Satterfield is currently discussing with senior members of the Palestinian Authority.

When asked why the policy of executing critics does not appear on the agenda of democratic reform, the press attache to the US Consul consistently reports that he cannot get an answer from the US State Department.

Does that mean that the US middle east policy for Palestinian Arab democratic reform would allow for capital punishment for dissent?

It certainly looks that way.

Were the People Murdered in Hebron the Victims of Benyamin Ben Eliezer’s Primaries?

A dozen soldiers and combatants, headed by the commander of the Hebron Brigade, Colonel Dror Weinberg, on Friday night paid the price of Fuad Ben-Eliezer’s primaries. These casualties are the result of the former defense minister’s decision to pull the IDF out of most of Hebron some two weeks ago, only because of primaries’ calculations,and Fuad’s desire to cast himself as a statesman promoting diplomatic processes.

The commander of the Hebron brigade who was killed, Colonel Dror Weinberg, was among the chief opponents in the army of the withdrawal from Hebron. He was not alone. He was supported by nearly the entire military chain of command above him, including the chief of staff, the OC Central Command, the commander of the Judea Division, Brig. Gen. Amos Ben-Avraham. But the leading opponent was Weinberg. He said, as the commander in the field, that the terrorist infrastructure in Hebron had still not been eradicated completely, that the IDF was still capturing wanted men on a daily basis and that an IDF troop withdrawal would undermine its ability to gather intelligence. Hatzofe reported three weeks ago the statements made by high-ranking officers who issued warnings in internal discussions that now sound like veritable prophecies: “Terror in Hebron has not been wiped out yet. As soon as we are no longer there, we won’t be able to continue with our ‘terrorist harvest’ and the terror organization’s ability to recover will be far easier.” The officers also warned that an IDF withdrawal would result in the loss of intelligence that was vital for the war on terror. “People won’t agree to cooperate with us again,” they warned.

The IDF presented its thoughts but the defense minister had considerations of his own. “Judea First” indeed was the beginning of one of the Palestinians’ most stunning successes in the last two years.

This article appeared in the November 17th, 2002 issue of HaTzofe

Interview: with Michael Widlanski: Voice of Palestinian Reverts to pre-Oslo Orientation

Michael Widlanski is an expert in the Arab media who is now completing his PHD on the subject of the Palestinian Authority Broadcasting system. He also lectures at the Rothberg School of the Hebrew University.

IMRA interviewed Widlanski, in English, on 11 November:

IMRA: Israel Television Channel One’s Arab Affairs Correspondent Oded Granot reported on Mabat tonight that the PA was against the murderous attack at Kibbutz Metzer. In contrast, Channel Two Arab Affairs Correspondent Ehud Ya’ ari, ridiculed Arafat’s announcement of an investigation – noting that he did not call for the arrest of the perpetrators – or even their being barred from his Fatah. How do you see the situation?

Widlanski: This morning we got proof again that Arafat has basically reverted to the pre-Oslo model of Yasser Arafat. His Voice of Palestine radio station – his official radio station – opened up its news this morning with two items: First the heroic martyrdom of two citizens who were blown up in their car North of Tulkarem. The occupation forces claim that they were about to carry out an operation.”

Pay attention to that first item. It refers to the “heroic martyrdom of two citizens” and “they were about to carry out an operation.”

In other words people who were about to carry out a suicide attack inside Israel are referred to as “citizens” and “they were heroically martyred”.

The second item is the Kibbutz Metzer item: “The Brigades of the Martyrs of Al Aqsa kill five Israelis in an armed attacked on the colony of Metzer.”

The “colony”. The term they use in Arabic is “musta’amara”, which is a very very denigrating term. It is a term that is even worse than the term “musteltanau” which means settlement. It is a term that is not used commonly in Arab parlance.

This announcement was read by the senior anchor of Voice of Palestine himself, Nizar al-Ghul, opening up the morning news.

This is a very significant fact. It comes less than a week after the attack on Kfar Sava – also inside the Green Line. Then also there was no condemnation. Instead, Arafat’s personal spokesman, Nabil Abu Rodeina, was on radio and he said “all of this is the fault of the Israelis”.

There was not a word of condemnation. Not a word of restraint. Not a word of disapproval. It wasn’t even termed “counterproductive”.

Now later in this morning’s news show, at 7:40 in the morning, Nizar al-Ghul continued with a commentary and this is what he said:

“Well, dear listeners, according to Israeli sources the infiltration operation occurred Sunday night in the village of Awanea, what the Israelis call Kibbutz Metzer, leaving five people dead. According to Israeli sources, the operation took place at around 11:00 p.m. as two armed men infiltrated into the kibbutz. After the event the spokesman for the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade which belongs to the Fatah movement took responsibility for the operation which left five dead and eleven wounded – three of them in critical condition.”

IMRA: That’s to say that in their own broadcast they made the connection between the Al Aqsa Brigade and Fatah clear.

Widlanski: Absolutely. They were practically bragging about it.

Listen to the last line: “Those who carried out the operation made good their escape.”

In other words, they were listing the Israeli casualties – even more than really occurred – and they were counting them as a real operation.

Now what’s interesting about this is the woman reading the 10 minute news summary on the 8 a.m. newsreel (that is the big news of the day -remember we are in the middle of Ramadan now so the big news program is at 8 a.m. rather than 7 a.m.) uses the identical language as the previous reports.

She refers to the “operation” (not “terrorist attack” – nothing like that) “at the Metzer colony”. She also refers to it as “hujoum musaleh” – “armed attack”.

The language they are using is the language of what the Palestinians have always called the armed struggle.

Basically Arafat has gone beyond, through his people in Voice of Palestine (and they couldn’t be doing this on their own), even what so-called “moderate” Hani al Hassan said recently when he declared that attacking Jews beyond the Green Line was fine.

In fact, in the 8 a.m. report they said that five “amustamaline” – five “colonists” were killed. That is to say that if you are killed you are ipso facto a devil.

This is basically a return to pre-1993 rhetoric and it should give a lot of people cause to worry because it is showing an inverse reaction because as Israel and the United States loosen the restraints on Arafat and actually give him money he actually gets worse.

IMRA: What kind of control is there on Voice of Palestine Broadcasts?

Widlanski: Very tight. Arafat controls all the vetting of the people in the station. If there is any doubt about how to cover something they ignore it for a while and wait for official instruction.

Interview conducted by:
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA
(Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel (+972-9) 760-4719
Fax (+972-3) 725-5730
imra@netvision.net.il