Monday, November 25, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

The Telltale Silence of the Post-Oslo Palestinian Press

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

(Lecture for the conference: “A 21st century Dialogue: Media’s Dark Age?” Athens, 24th – 28th May 1998, organized by “Women for Mutual Security”)

The Palestinian Authority oppresses its people and intimidates its press. In what follows I shall give examples of this intimidation, nine in all, picked out of a multitude. But let me say at the start that this fact should not come as a surprise. Oppression may be said to be a corollary of the Oslo agreement. The logic is simple: The strong side, Israel, took advantage of its strength, cutting a deal that gave the weak side, the PLO, as little as possible. The designers of Oslo set up, in other words, a situation where people, a great many people, were bound to oppose the deal they had gotten. Although they lacked the foresight to make real peace, they did foresee the opposition to the nasty, brutish thing that they did make, and they were careful, therefore, to provide the new non-state with a huge police force and plenty of rifles. Imprisonment without trial is the norm. Torture is carried out wholesale. Numerous security organisations vie with one another in extortion, and big brother is everywhere. The curbing of the press is merely a part of this general picture. The most alarming aspect in the story has been the speed with which the press agreed to lay down its weapon, the pen.

The first acts of oppression

The press was the first to be hit. Arafat arrived in Gaza on July 1, 1994. Twenty-seven days later, forces of the Palestinian Secret Security invaded the offices of Al-Nahar, then the second largest daily in the Territories. They forbade the distribution of Al-Nahar in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. (According to the Oslo accords, in fact, they had no jurisdiction at the time in the West Bank – except for Jericho – nor in Jerusalem, but when it comes to oppression, Israel gives the PA a free hand.) No explanation was given, but it was understood that the closing of Al-Nahar had to do with the paper’s pro-Jordanian tendency. The rest of the Palestinian press hardly covered the event. Palestinian human rights activist Bassem Id, then of B’tselem, initiated a protest demonstration, and eight journalists showed up. Perhaps all the others thought it wouldn’t happen to them – They, after all, are not “pro-Jordanian”! The epilogue: Al Nahar began publishing again after several weeks, but it soon collapsed financially. (For the full story Challenge # 27).

Four months later it was the turn of the biggest Palestinian daily, Al-Quds, also published in Jerusalem. On November 18, Authority forces killed fourteen Palestinians during a demonstration at a mosque in Gaza. The opposition party Hamas held a mass rally protesting the massacre. Gaza’s Chief of Police, General Ghazi Jibali, sent the press his estimate that 5000 people had attended. To his consternation, Al-Quds preferred the estimate of a foreign press agency, which had counted 12,500. Jibali’s response was to keep Al-Quds from entering the Gaza Strip. He simply blocked the papers at the Erez checkpoint for a number of days, claiming that heavy rain and floods were preventing their distribution. I interviewed the chief editor of Al-Quds, Maruan Abu Zuluf, concerning the strange weather in Gaza. He firmly adherred to his right to publish whatever he saw fit. (Challenge # 29: “Gaza Weatherman”). Ever since that incident, however, Al-Quds has never dared to publish a word contradicting the official Palestinian line. Not even a paid ad.

The third incident involved an independent Palestinian opposition paper called Al-Uma, which was also located in Jerusalem. In the eighties its owners, members of the Khatib family, had put out a left- wing daily, Al-Mithaq, but Israel had closed it down. In January 1995, however, Israel granted the Khatibs a license for Al-Uma. Four months later the paper published an unflattering cartoon of Arafat. Thirty armed Palestinians, members of Preventive Security, entered the print shop and confiscated the plates. The angry editors alerted human rights organizations. Palestinian figures signed a petition. On May 3rd, the offices of Al-Uma were burned. The Khatibs never went back to publishing (Challenge # 32).

Self Censorship

Since these incidents, the Palestinian Authority has licensed quite a few new media projects. Some of these function as mouthpieces for the Authority – for example, Al Khayat al Jadida or the radio station, Sout Falastin. All, however, mouthpieces or not, practice strict self-censorship. This may seem odd at first, because the Authority itself, with super-democratic panache, forgoes all official censorship. On June 25, 1995, Arafat signed the Palestinian Press Law, which guarantees the right to freedom of opinion and a free press. It does contain, nonetheless, several vague and potentially restrictive provisions. Article 37(3), for example, prohibits the publication of anything that “may cause harm to national unity”.(Human Rights Watch, op. cit.) In reality, censorship Arafat-style has proved to be more zealous and harsh than Israel’s ever was. To quote the Authority’s radio

director, Ali Khayan: “The opposition can express its own opinions, but some things are not allowed because we need time to explain what it means to be democratic.” (Challenge # 32.)

Under Israeli occupation Palestinian journalists did indeed suffer from oppression. There are stories of chief editors, in house arrest, who edited major dailies from their homes. Numerous journalists were kept in Administrative Detention for renewable periods of six months at a time. But such measures did not intimidate them. When they got out, they went back to their work. Today it is different. Why?

First, there are no rules.

During the period of direct Israeli occupation, every Palestinian editor had to send the entire paper to the censor. (The Israeli media, in contrast, only have to send articles that relate to security). The censor would send the Arab paper back, marking what had to go. The censor decided what was fit to print. There was no guesswork, and there were no personal reprisals.

Today Palestinian editors have to guess what might not be accepted, and if they guess wrong, they find themselves in trouble. According to the data of Human Rights Watch /Middle East (Vol. 9, No. 10, Sept. 1997), in the first two years of self rule, 25 journalists and photographers “guessed wrong.” One of them was Fayez Nur-A-Din, a photographer for Agence France Press. He photographed some boys washing a donkey in the sea at Gaza. This was a bad guess. The Special Intelligence Service detained him for ten hours on May 13, 1996. They beat him and whipped him, accusing him of being in the pay of French intelligence in order to “harm the image of the Palestinians.” The donkey, it seems, should have been a Jaguar.

In the report cited above, Human Rights Watch / Middle East gave many examples of self censorship. Most of the journalists were afraid to give the researchers their names. “The problem,” said one, “is not that Arafat doesn’t want this or that item to be published. The problem is, journalists are afraid that maybe he won’t like it – so they just stay quiet.”

“Frankly,” said another, “we wish the Authority would tell us exactly what we can and cannot publish. That would be easier. It seems that it is impossible to talk about the security apparatus, or violations relating to trials, prisons, and torture, or the president. The president is sacred.”

The latest story of this kind is that of Abbas Momani, a photographer working both for Reuters and Al-Quds. The Authority had attributed the death of Hamas bomb-maker Muhi a-Din Sharif, “Engineer # 2,” to a dispute within Hamas. It claimed that Hamas leader Adel Awadalla had killed Sharif. Shortly after the Authority made this accusation, photographer Momani received a phone call telling him to go to a flat in Ramallah. Here he received a video cassette, in which a masked man claiming to be Adel Awadalla denied having killed Sharif. He brought the cassette to his manager, Paul Holms, and they discussed whether or not to air it. Holms took full responsibility, and the video was distributed and broadcast on April 8. The Authority found the video believable enough to change its story, blaming Adel’s brother instead. (See Challenge # 49.) But it also closed the Reuters office in Gaza. On April 9, photographer Momani received an order to come for investigation to the office of Preventive Security Chief, Jibril Rajoub. When Rajoub heard, however, that Paul Holms was going to accompany him, he cancelled the meeting. Instead, Momani was arrested by another security branch the next day – then released. On May 5 he was arrested again, this time by Rajoub’s men. Four days later, at 3 a.m. he escaped by jumping from a third-floor window of the interrogation building, breaking his leg, and in this condition he managed to reach the hospital. His brother came to help him, and Momani told him how they had hung him by his legs from the ceiling and whipped him with electric cables. (The report was later confirmed by human rights activist, Bassem Id.) They had wanted him to confess, said Momani, that he himself had made the video. His brother helped him leave the hospital for another flat, but here Rajoub’s men caught up with him, arresting him again. As to how they treated him after that, we do not yet know – he was released on May 14, a day before this writing.

According to the Israeli weekly, Kol Ha-Ir, neither of Momani’s employers, Reuters or Al-Quds, reported his first arrest. Nor did any of the Palestinian media. After his escape, most continued to ignore the issue. Journalists Michal Schwartz and Diana Mardi, from our “sister paper” in Arabic, Al-Sabar, contacted Paul Holms of Reuters. He told Schwartz that the agency was following his case, and that it had put out a statement on May 6 for “whoever wanted to publish it.” Mardi asked the editor of Al-Quds, Maher al-Sheikh, why his paper had failed to print a word on the matter, seeing that Momani is one of their journalists. He answered: “Our paper doesn’t publish news of that sort.” Mardi pressed him: “Of what sort”? The editor answered: “News concerning arrests on the part of the PA.” “Why not?” she asked him. He answered: “Because we are afraid. We are afraid of the authorities.” (From an interview on May 11, 1998, published in Al-Sabar.)

The Momani story brings us to the second reason for self censorship.

Second, the journalist stands alone.

Momani stood alone.

Here is an earlier example. At midnight on December 24, 1995, Al-Quds was about to print an article on page eight about Arafat’s meeting with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch. A phone call came, in which editor Maher Alameh was instructed to move the piece up to page one. (How, by the way, could the Authority have known exactly what was to be printed on which page?) In a moment of exceptional courage and resolution, Alameh refused. He was arrested and imprisoned in Jericho for five days. Not a single Palestinian newspaper, including Al-Quds, reported the case. (Human Rights Watch/Middle East, op. cit.). After Alameh’s release, he refused to talk about the matter.

In the post-Oslo situation, when you stick your neck out as Alameh did, you’re practically alone. Pre-Oslo you were a hero, part of a fighting people. Solidarity was widespread. The atmosphere was such that if you hadn’t served time in an Israeli prison, something was wrong with you. Since the entry of the Palestinian Authority, however, most opposition factions have been co-opted, or else they are looking for ways to be co-opted. The atmosphere is one of fear and despair. No lawyer can protect you when you are taken in the middle of the night to be interrogated, say, in Jericho. Nor does it help if you work for a foreign news agency. The agencies want to keep their offices running. This (partially) explains why journalists, who were in the forefront of the Intifada, have retired into the woodwork.

Other kinds of media

Does this mean that Palestinians don’t know what is happening? No. They can get information from Israeli radio and television. Ever since the Oslo process began, however, Israel’s media have either avoided or played down Arafat’s violations of human rights. The Israeli establishment measures him, after all, by the strength with which he curbs the opposition. It is remarkable, for example, how quickly most of the Israeli press adopted, one after another, the Authority’s changing versions of how Hamas Engineer #2 was killed, although no account withstands the slightest examination. (Challenge #49.)

Despite the lack of an uncompromising press, alternative Palestinian channels have opened occasionally, but they too have encountered interference.

The Palestinian National Council (PLC) is an elected Parliament. Each member represents a constituency. One cannot simply arrest him or her without, as it were, gagging a whole group of voters. This fact provides PLC members with a measure of freedom to speak. It was the Council, for example, which exposed the astonishing scope and depth of corruption in the Authority. (Challenge # 43 # 45) The Palestinian papers did not dare publish what the elected representatives had revealed. Journalist Amin Abu Warda told People’s Rights (a human-rights monthly of the organization, Land and Water):”The print media avoided reporting on Council sessions right from the start. Editors consistently censored reports about the sessions, especially when the members criticised Arafat or his associates.” (March 1997.) But outside media could and did. Stories appeared in Al-Sabar and Challenge, and later in the Hebrew daily Ha’aretz. The Ha’aretz article was translated into Arabic, and circulated in the Territories like an underground leaflet.

The Council legislators fought for the right to have their sessions broadcast directly. They finally won this at the beginning of 1997. Viewers watched with interest. Too much, it appears. All through March, April and May,when corruption was on the agenda, all kinds of static broke out on the screen. The manager of the broadcasting company, Da’ud Kuttab, complained about this to the Washington Post. He found himself in jail for a week. The broadcasts have not resumed.

Another path that seemed relatively free was that of local cable TV. The channels carry many open discussion programs, in which people can speak out. During the recent Gulf Crisis, these talk shows were very popular and militant. They too were forced to close, however, after the U.S. pressured Arafat to stop showing solidarity with Iraq. The story of the Palestinian press is sad, if not demeaning. But one can hardly expect to find a free and thriving press alongside a regime that is basically scared of its people. The press will stand on its feet only when Palestinians face the fact that their current leadership cannot be reformed and that peace must be re-negotiated. Only then will it be possible for a democratic sovereign state to arise, one with enough self-confidence to tolerate pictures of children washing donkeys in the sea of Gaza.

Roni Ben Efrat
Editor of Challenge
Ma’agalei Yavne 7/23
Jerusalem 93582, Israel
Tel & Fax (+972-2) 679-2270
e-mail: odaa@p-ol.com
(Source: INFOPAL)

NAKBA: The Palestinian Arabs Miss Their Opportunity…

By
David Bedein
-

As Israel celebrated its fiftieth anniversary with appropriate pomp and circumstance, the new Palestine Authority, the entity that rules all of the Palestinian Arab population in Gaza and 95% of their population on the west bank, had planned memorial day of reckoning of their own for May 14th, 1998, the date that marks the Gregorian calendar day marking the pioneering of the state of Israel. That day is referred to in Arabic lore as “Nakba”, the day of “disaster”.

To commemorate the Nakba, the official television station of the Palestine Authority, the PBC, the Palestine Broadcasting Corporation, ran two days of military marching music that accompanied file footage of Palestinian Arabs firing weapons and hurling stones at Israeli troops and civilians. In addition, the PBC ran a special children’s program, screening it every hour on the hour, during which Arab children are portrayed running from their burning homes, with the children picking up the charred wreckage and declaring that they will fight to liberate and reclaim their homes in Tel Aviv, Haifa and Acre. Palestine Authority chairman Arafat also repeated a canned speech on PBC-TV, in which he echoed the call for “resistance” and demanded “Al Awdah”, the “right of return”.

Not all Israelis saw Palestinian Arab commemoration of the Nakba in itself as an entirely negative phenomenon. In the words of Prof. Gad Gilbar, rector of Haifa University, such a day should indeed be observed with reverence by the Palestinian Arab people, as a time of reckoning, introspection and second thoughts.

After all, Gelber noted, the Palestinian Arabs had rejected the chance for a state of their own that had been legislated by according to the November 29, 1947 UN resolution #181 that had mandated two states to be carved out of the former British mandate – one Jewish and one Arab. The failed attack of seven Arab armies and the Palestinian Arab militias to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state thwarted Palestinian Arab hopes, and, for fifty years, the United Nations has sparked the hope of return for three million Palestinian Arabs who are descended from the half a million Arabs who became refugees as a result of that war. The UN did that by maintaining them as refugees, under the promise and premise of repatriation to homes and villages that no longer exist. Back in 1958, Abba Eban, Israel’s eloquent ambassador to the UN, warned that Arab nationalists were “prolonging” the suffering of refugees so as to use it as a humanitarian weapon against Israel

Eban, now head of the International Center for Peace in the Middle East and just as eloquent, continues to express his fear -forty years later- that the Palestinian Arab leadership will continue to manipulate the refugee/right of return issue, just as they are on the threshold of an opportunity for their own national state. In the oft-repeated words of Abba Eban, “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Gelbar’s call to the new Palestine Authority, will be more realistic this time, and to use the NAKBA as a genuine opportunity to adopt an idea and ideology of coexistence for a Jewish and Arab national entity that could make peace with each other.

Yet Palestinian Authority attention on the day of the Nakba did not focus on the UN “partition resolution” #181 or the UN “territories for peace” resolution #242. Instead, what the PA repeatedly proclaimed and quoted was UN resolution #194, a decision enacted on December 10, 1948 that mandates the “right of return” for Palestinian Arabs who left their homes and villages to return to the villages where they came from, even if they do not exist. The PA is well aware that the US, Canada, the EU nations, Japan and Scandinavian countries introduce #194 every year, and that renewed mandate serves as the basis to provide funds for UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which operates more than thirty refugee camps, in Gaza, the west bank, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, confining three million Palestinian Arabs to what the UN defines as “temporary shelters” for all of these years.

Encouraged by the UN, Palestinian Arab refugee camp residents will not settle for life on the west bank and Gaza. The first decision of the Palestine Authority, indeed, was to disallow housing improvement in these UNRWA camps, since these homes are temporary dwellings.

On Thursday, May 13, the morning that the rioting started, Omar Bessisso, the head of Relations and External Media Department in the PA’s Ministry of Information, granted an interview to Raanana journalist Aaron Lerner, in which he stated that “the central message of today is that ‘… our Palestinian refugees must return to their homeland.” Bessisso stressed that every refugee must be given the right to choose between compensation and returning to within Israel.

It was therefore no surprise when Palestinian Arabs, carrying United Nations flags in every city and refugee camp under the control of the Palestine Authority began their processions on Thursday, which very quickly erupted into violence. Since Israeli troops no longer patrol Arab cities in the west bank and Gaza, casualties were not as great on both sides as they could have been.

Missing from the lips of Palestinian Authority spokesmen in Arabic for the past four years has been any call for Palestinian Arab independence that would be confined to the west bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.

Arafat could could have had his moment of international media attention without Palestinian Arab dead and wounded. After all, the PA orschesrated a well-planned moment of silence with sirens, along with large mock-up keys to the lost homes and pictures of the no-longer existant five hundred and eighteen Arab villages that would assure good media coverage. The PA also organized parades from the refugee camps, where family clans marched with signs around their necks that depicted where each and every Arab refugee family had left in 1948.

Tragically, Arafat’s violent focus on the 1948 refugees and his continuous cries to liberate Jerusalem have moved the Palestinian Arab people away from a compromise with the workable deal that the vast majority of Israel would be prepared to live with.

Abba Eban’s premonition that the Palestian Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity could not have been more true on the day of the Nakba.

PALESTINE: 50 Years of Occupation – Call For Action

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

In The Name of Allah, The Most Merciful The Mercy-Giving

Islamic Association For Palestine (IAP)
P. O. Box 74353
Dallas, Texas 75374
Tel: (+97-2) 669-9595
Fax: (+97-2) 669-9597
E-mail: info@iap.org Homepage: www.iap.org/50years

“Glory to (Allah) who did take his servant for a journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque (al-Aqsa mosque) whose precincts We did Bless – in order that We might show him some of Our signs: for He is the One Who hearth And seeth all things.” (Qur’an, Surah 17, Verse 1)

The year 1998, marks the 50th anniversary of the occupation of Palestine; the displacement of its indigenous population; and the destruction of it’s cities and villages. In 1917, the British government issued the infamous Balfour declaration which viewed “with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People… ” At the time of the Balfour declaration, the Arabs of Palestine owned 97.5% of the land, while Jews owned only 2.5% of the land.

In the 1948 war, “the zionists” occupied 80.48% of the total land of Palestine, expelled 800,000 civilians from their homes and lands, committed 120 massacres, and destroyed more than 475 villages. According to a 1997 United Nations study, there are approximately 3,093,174 Palestinian refugees registered.

In 1998, we, the Muslims, the Arabs and the Palestinians, did not forget Palestine. We did not forget Yaffa, Haifa, and Bisan. We did not sell our lands, nor did leave them voluntarily, and nor did we permit anyone to take our homes and fields. Fifty years later, we, the children of refugees, are intent on coming back to our homes, villages and fields. If it was not possible in the past fifty years, then insha’Allah, it will be in the next fifty years.

During the month of May, the Islamic Association For Palestine is launching a long series of events to commemorate the 50 years of occupation of Palestine and the Palestinian dispossession and resistance.

List of events planned in all cities:
(for more details, please contact IAP)

New Jersey, NJ:
* 5/17 Rally, Downtown NYC.
* 5/24 One Day Conference: “Palestine: 50 Years of Occupation”

Los Angeles, CA:
* 5/16 One Day Conference: “United for Al Quds”

New York, NY:
* 5/17 Rally, Downtown NYC.
* 5/24 Conference: “Palestine: 50 Years of Occupation”

Detroit, MI:
* 5/15 Rally at 2:00 p.m., by IAP joined by 8 local organizations.
* 5/15 Conference at 7:00 p.m. by IAP joined by 15 local organizations in English.
* 5/17 Conference at 12:30 p.m. to be held at St. Mary’s church, by Detroit-area Arab-American Coalition in commemorating Palestine * 5/17 Lecture at 8:00 p.m. in the Cultural Association of Franklin.
* 5/29 Conference by IAP (in Arabic).
* 5/30 Rally and cultural program @ Cobo Hall, by Detroit-area Arab-American Coalition in Commemorating Palestine.

Chicago, IL:
* 5/15 Rally at the Downtown
* 5/17 Palestine Day

Dallas, TX:
* 5/16 One Day Conference – “Palestine: 50 Years of Occupation”

San Francisco, CA:
* 5/16 One Day Conference – “United for Al-Quds”

Toledo, OH:
* 5/16 One Day Conference – “United for Al-Quds”

Columbus, OH:
* 5/7 The Palestinian Heritage Exhibition of Traditional Arts & Crafts
* 5/12 The Documentary Film: In the Memory
* 5/14,15 Remembering the Martyrs: Candle Light Vigil
* 5/16 Conference: Peace and Justice for Palestine 50 Years of Occupation

Washington, D.C.:
* 5/15 Rally
* 6/16 One Day Conference: “United for Al-Quds”

For more details about the above activities as well as other activities in different cities, please conatct IAP. If you like, and we do encourage you, to do a similar activity in your area, campus, mosque, church etc., and you need help, please feel free to contact IAP. A request form for materials and other resources that can be used in different activities and programs will follow, In Sha’a Allah.

PA Ministry of Information on Right of Return

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

IMRA interviewed Omar Bessisso, Head of Relations and External Media Department in the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Information, in English, on May 14, 1998:

IMRA: What do you see as the central message of the events taking place today (the “march of the million”)?

Bessisso: The central message is that we are here. This is our homeland. Our Palestinian refugees must return back to their homeland. That is the central message.

IMRA: When you say that the refugees must return to their homeland….

Bessisso: According to UN Resolution 194 which means that the refugees have the right to come back or have compensation.

IMRA: Is it their decision? Do they have to be offered the choice between the two?

Bessisso: Yes, yes. According to United Nations Resolution 194 which dates from 1949 in the United Nations.

IMRA: Do you have any sense as to what the proportion of refugees would return if offered the choice between compensation and return?

Bessisso: It is up to everybody but I think that most of them now are realistic and they are ready to have a realistic solution. Which means a solution which can live. But it is up to every refugee to decide what he wants. Either to return back to his home or to have compensation. I can not decide on behalf of them.

IMRA: The Israelis who I speak with tell me that the underlying assumption that they made in the Oslo Process was that they would not have the refugees coming back into Israel because they want separation and if the Palestinian refugees come back then Israel turns into a having a very substantial Arab population rather than an Arab minority.

Bessisso: For us, according to the Oslo Agreement, the refugee question is postponed to the permanent solution.

IMRA: They talk of Beilin-Mazen and they think that this means what while there may not be a formal understanding that there is some kind of understanding that in the end the refugees of ’48 won’t come back into Israel.

Bessisso: You see, once a Jewish person who has nothing to do with Palestinian land has the right to return – to come to Israel – as an Israeli citizen, then the Palestinians, who is the real owner of the land, must have the same right. This is in principle. But, once we have negotiations of a settlement we have to be realistic and negotiate over every option. The Beilin-Mazen plan is one of the options.

IMRA: You said before that you cannot impose on a refugee that he can’t come back and instead takes compensation.

Bessisso Yes, yes. But actually you know we have about three hundred thousand refugees in Lebanon and the same number in Syria and about more than a half million in Jordan. These Palestinians must have the right to return back to the Palestinian state which we declared in the Gaza Strip and West Bank, or to their homeland which is known as Israel now. But, the Israelis up to now are now saying that the refugees don’t have the right to return to the West Bank and this is one of the main problems.

IMRA: I guess that what I am puzzled by is that on the one hand the Palestinian Authority will negotiate with Israel on some kind of arrangement but on the other hand you are telling me that whatever is negotiated the Palestinian refugees would have the options of picking between some kind of negotiated compensation and returning. So what’s the deal? Whatever you would negotiate you would still leave open the option to the refugees to return to within ’67 borders.

Bessisso: Yes. You see, once we agreed to establish our state on the 1967 border we must have full sovereignty. That means a state which can decide its fate. It can decide who are its citizens and all Palestinians – the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as well as those living outside of the country – even the Palestinians in Europe or the United States must have citizenship in this state.

IMRA: But if they say that they are originally from Jaffa and want to return there rather than to Nablus then they would still have the right to say ‘I don’t want to go to Jaffa, Nablus doesn’t interest me.’

Bessisso: No. I think that once we sign a final settlement this kind of talk must be stopped.

IMRA: You mean you would stop them from deciding to go to Jaffa instead of Nablus?

Bessisso: I think that once we reach a historic solution between us and the Israelis I think that every claim must be stopped. The Israelis must stop calling the West Bank “Yehudah and Shomron” and once the Palestinians solve the problem according to UN Resolution 194 they must stop talking about return to Jaffo.

IMRA: But I thought that you just told me a minute ago that Resolution 194 does give them the right to return to Jaffo.

Bessisso: Yes. They have the right. But remember They must be realistic. They cannot go.

IMRA: So you would deny them the choice afterwards.

Bessisso: I think the situation now, denying them the right to return. But as a symbolic gesture maybe they can get three thousand or five thousand of the Palestinians to return and that’s all. Under the framework of uniting families.

IMRA: You mean a limited number.

Bessisso: Yes, yes.

IMRA: So only some would be allowed to truly make the choice.

Bessisso: Yes yes.

IMRA: Do you see from a practical standpoint the possibility that you may be creating a problem by focusing so much on the return of the 1948 refugees that they may get a hope that they will be able to return to Jaffa when here you are telling me that in the end they won’t be returning back. For example, yesterday when you had the march with the keys [to homes with Israel]. Doesn’t this have the problem of raising expectations that they will be able to come back?

Bessisso: We don’t raise new expectations by this demonstration and activity. Actually, as I told you in the beginning, we have one message: We are here. It is our homeland. We have the right to establish our independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip according to the announcement in Algeria and the refugee problem must be solved in accordance with the UN resolution and that’s all.

IMRA: Resolution 194 which would allow them to return to within the Green Line.

Bessisso: Yes. Yes.

IMRA: You say in Algeria which resolution are you talking about?

Bessisso: The announcement of the Palestinian State.

IMRA: How does that fit in with the earlier plan of stages. That the PLO will take whatever land it can get as a stage.

Bessisso: No. You mean the 1974 Nine Point Program. This is very old. We have overcomed it by the announcement of the Palestinian state. Once we recognized Resolution 242 and 338 we accept to establish a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

IMRA: Ehud Barak said two days ago that his red line is that the large settlement blocs would remain under Israeli control. Is that a total impossibility?

Bessisso: I think that it is possible if the settlers are ready to obey Palestinian law.

IMRA: You mean Palestinian sovereignty.

Bessisso: Yes.

IMRA: Not Israeli sovereignty.

Bessisso: Right. They can have Israeli citizenship but they must observe our law.

IMRA: You would ignore the issue as to whether the settlements are on Palestinian owned land?

Bessisso: No. I think that since the Palestinian question is a very special case we have to have a very special solution.

Even if we accept them for a period of time maybe they will accept to live in peace with the Palestinians and this is OK and maybe they will decide to leave the Palestinian land and return back to Israel.

IMRA: Does the same apply to Jerusalem – to those Jewish neighborhoods beyond the Green Line like Ramat Eshkol and French Hill?

Bessisso: The Jerusalem question is very special and specific. It is a religious and nation case and has to be handled from a very special point of view. I think that for Arab Moslems and Christians, Jerusalem must be under Palestinian sovereignty. We hope for an open city in Jerusalem for all followers of religion – Palestinians and Israelis.

IMRA: But the status of those Jewish neighborhoods beyond the Green Line would be under Palestinian sovereignty.

Bessisso: Yes, yes. We have to think about a special solution for Jerusalem, but under the principle that Israeli forces and administration must return to the pre 1967 borders.

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

Marwan Barghouti: Blow Up Settlements, No Deal on Jerusalem

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

IMRA interviewed Marwan Barghouti the head of Fatah West Bank in English, on May 17, 1998. Barghouti is also a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council.

IMRA: Before the “Nakba” march last Thursday, the Palestinian Authority (PA) expected at least a million people to participate. Why do you think the turnout was so much lower?

Barghouti: I think that there were more people than were expected. In all the centers of the cities in the West Bank and Gaza – Nablus, Jenin, Tulkarem, there were very big demonstrations. huge numbers. This despite the boycott by the Islamic Movement and Hamas of the marches.

IMRA: So the reports by the press of around 20,000 people in Nablus were incorrect?

Barghouti: More than 60,000 in Nablus. It was the largest one. And there were also in Hebron, Ramallah and Jenin. Under the difficult circumstances in the peace process and under the suffering of the economic situation I think it was a huge success.

IMRA: Also on Friday only 20,000 people came to the Al Aksa Mosque while in the past over a hundred thousand have come to the Mosque on a Friday. Were these reports also wrong?

Barghouti: You know that the people from the West Bank and Gaza cannot reach Jerusalem. I was there. I was in all the streets in the city and there were more than 2,000 Israeli soldiers and policemen there. They reoccupied the city. It was like the first moment that they occupied the city. It reminded us of the 5th of June 1967. This is the situation.

IMRA: What does it mean at the rallies when models of settlements are blown up. What is the message supposed to be?

Barghouti: That means that the people are very angry about the enlargement of settlements and the building of settlements. This is an important thing in the view of the Palestinian people. They feel that this thing is putting their future at risk. And this is a dangerous thing that the Palestinians are facing. So this is to encourage the people to resist the settlement policy.

IMRA: So blowing up models of settlements is in order to encourage people to resist the settlements.

Barghouti: Yes. And I think that we have the legitimacy to resist the settlement policy.

IMRA: To blow up settlements?

Barghouti: To fight, to resist the settlements.

IMRA: So that would include blowing them up.

Barghouti: Everything. Because the settlement policy is terrorism. We have the right to fight against the terrorism.

IMRA: Two weeks ago Yasser Arafat met with a group visiting from the United States and he is reported to have said at that meeting that he would be willing to consider Abu Dis as the Jerusalem capital. What do you think of that.

Barghouti: No. No. I think anybody who is saying that is a traitor.

IMRA: Is this just positioning or if the only way Arafat can make peace is by doing this then if he did It Arafat would be a traitor.

Barghouti: This is not acceptable for any Palestinian or Arab and I think that the issue of Jerusalem is the core of the peace process in the Middle East. If the Israelis accept everything except Jerusalem then the peace process will collapse.

What is the meaning of a Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital? It would mean having a state composed of some village here and there and refugee camps. The soul of the Palestinian state will be Jerusalem.

IMRA: When you say ‘Jerusalem’ you mean all of Jerusalem beyond the 1967 line?

Barghouti: Yes, yes. Of course.

IMRA; There is no compromise on that.

Barghouti: Yes. Of course. I don’t think that we have to make compromise after this. I prefer to live without peace and continue to fight without accepting a compromise on Jerusalem.

IMRA; If the PA had Al Aksa Mosque and other areas in eastern Jerusalem but not all of eastern Jerusalem?

Barghouti: Eastern Jerusalem is not just Al Aksa.

I am not a religious man. Jerusalem for me is the important thing as a Palestinian. It is the title of Palestine. And also from a geographical point of view it is very important, for example, for the South and North of the West Bank. Jerusalem united the Palestinians over history. It is the symbol of the Palestinian people.

IMRA: So even if you got part of Jerusalem but had to compromise on other parts that wouldn’t be enough? It would blow it up?

Barghouti: Why do we have to do this compromise?

We did the historical compromise when we accepted two states for the two peoples in historical Palestine. According to UN resolution Palestine is to be two states with more than 60% Palestinian and the Israelis by force took more than 77% and now they want to partition the remaining 23% – this is the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza. I don’t think that this would be justice – peace. Maybe it would last 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. But finally it will collapse.

IMRA: Would Arafat also be traitor if he did something along the lines of Beilin-Mazen regarding settlements. That the large settlement blocs would remain under Israeli control?

Barghouti: I have full confidence in Mr. Arafat that he will refuse this. Any Palestinian who accepts a compromise on the pre- 67 War borders would bring a disaster for the Palestinians. I don’t like to use this word but regarding Jerusalem it is very clear that anybody who accepts will be a traitor from the standpoint of the Palestinians.

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

The Unclean Side of Daimler-Benz

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

West Lafayette, Indiana, May 17, 1998. I speak for all those who can no longer speak for themselves. I speak for those endless railway cars of Jewish slave laborers whose seemingly inexhaustible supply in Nazi Germany made them less than slaves. I speak for those starved and brutalized victims of unspeakable horrors inflicted by a “respectable” and venerated German corporation during World War II. I speak for the speechless victims of Daimler-Benz.

Today the entire business world is aglow about a “marriage made in heaven,” the mega-merger of Chrysler with Daimler-Benz. Lost in this grand celebration of new fortunes to be made is the extraordinary history of one corporate partner. During the War, hundreds of thousands of Jews were coerced into forced labor by many major German industrial firms under conditions which the judges at Nuremberg said “made labor and death almost synonymous.”

In actuality, the victims were barely bits of sandpaper, rubbed a few times by their masters, judged useless and then burned – literally – with the garbage. Daimler-Benz was one of these firms.

Together with other privileged German corporations, Daimler-Benz traded and transhipped Jewish forced laborers with nary a hint that they were dealing in human beings. Purchased from the SS, with the understanding that they should not be kept alive for too long (so as not to slow down the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question”), the bewildered and tortured slaves were often housed in tiny animal kennels or underground chambers before “selection” for the gas chamber. After the War, when some very small number of Jewish claimants called upon Daimler-Benz and other criminally-responsible German firms to make some sort of restitution, the victims and their survivors were cruelly rebuffed.

Only last November, a German court upheld its government’s policy of rejecting compensation claims by Nazi-era slave laborers. The judges based their decision in part on the fact that the pertinent German companies had already paid the Nazi SS for the forced laborers they had “employed” and that therefore no “further compensation” to Jewish victims was owed by the companies.

Most of these companies, of course, including Daimler-Benz, are still in business and are doing better than ever. Not one of these companies, including Daimler-Benz, has ever made more than a token payment to their former Jewish slaves. Today, one of these companies, Daimler-Benz, has even become a new and important giant in American industry, darkening both Wall Street and Main Street in ways that are largely without precedent.

During the War, Daimler-Benz did pay salaries for their slaves, but the payments were made directly to the SS, which naturally kept the money. The ties between the German industrialists at Benz and other concerns were more intimate than is generally realized. The industrialists were all heavy contributors to Himmler’s personal fund. For a Christmas celebration in 1943, Himmler invited these magnates to his own headquarters. An SS film on eradicating Jewish “vermin” was screened, and the distinguished group was entertained by a male chorus of SS men.

How did the victorious Allies mete out justice to the German industrialist murderers? No corporate director or manager was compelled to stand before the International Military Tribunal. In subsequent trials against certain leading directors, several defendants were found guilty of crimes against humanity for exploiting Jewish slave labor. Although many were sentenced to long prison terms, by January 1951 not a single corporate criminal was still in jail.

An act of “clemency” by John J. McCloy, United States High Commissioner, gave all of these Germans their complete freedom. A mere half-dozen years after the War, all of the criminal German business leaders were free to regain huge personal fortunes. The Jewish slaves who had endured the unendurable were left only with abject poverty, crippling illness, limitless pain, and incessant nightmares.

So the Nazi-era crimes of Daimler-Benz have been forgotten or forgiven on Wall Street and Main Street. After all, there is a lot of money to be made in this merger, and no reasonable investor wants to be limited by what is past. Yet, memory, not forgetfulness, is indispensable to justice, and justice is what America is supposedly about.

At a minimum, therefore, if only not to degrade further the memory of Daimler-Benz’s murdered Jewish slaves – the past must be recalled. For Daimler-Benz, the past is irremediably part of its present, silent but heavy.

Rene Louis Beres
West Lafayette, Indiana

Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of many books and articles dealing with Israeli security matters. His Austrian-Jewish grandparents were murdered at the SS-killing grounds in Riga, Latvia.

When the Perceived Security Interests of Israel and the US Clash

By
David Bedein
-

There are times when the perceived security interests of the US and Israel clash. Yet every time that American and Israeli security interests do not coincide, people seem surprised.

In 1984, former New York Times middle east bureau chief and retired head of the New York-based Council of Foreign Relations, Peter Grose, wrote in his award-winning book, ISRAEL IN THE MIND OF AMERICA, that crises in Israel-US elections often occur during the second term of an American president who will not stand for another term.

Truman, in 1949, enforced an arms boycott of Israel, Eisenhower in 1957 forced a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai, Nixon in 1973 delayed vital arms to Israel during the Yom Kippur War, and Reagan in 1988 provided official recognition to the PLO, overriding strong objections from then-Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres.

In 1989, I asked a retired official of Reagan’s state department how he could understand the decision of an extremely pro-Israel Reagan administration to cozy up to Arafat and the PLO…As recently as May, 1987, I had covered Reagan’s secretary of State George Schultz declare “HELL NO, PLO” to a cheering convention of AIPAC, the lobby for Israel on capitol hill.

What Reagan’s former senior state department appointee told me was that US policy towards Arafat was based on the premise that Palestinian Arabs in the gulf states must be moved far from the “oil spigot” of the oil-rich Persian gulf, where Palestinians represented a permanent threat to the flow of Arab oil to nations around the globe.

The US “offer” to Arafat to place thousands of Palestinian Arabs on the west bank and Gaza seemed like a perfect solution, Reagan’s aide told me. Indeed, almost a year later, Iraq invaded Kuwait, an event which displaced almost 400,000 Palestinian Arabs and sparked the Madrid peace process that lead to an autonomous Palestinian Arab entity on the west bank and Gaza.

Today, the Clinton Administration goes through the final stages of stabilizing a Palestinian Arab entity on the west bank and Gaza into something that will resemble a Palestinian Arab nation state.Arafat has openly stated that he remains ready and willing to continue to serve American interests throughout the Arab world, thereby driving a wedge between American and Israeli interests. There is no question about it – Israel is interfering with that process.

That is not because Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs do not want peace. It is not because the Israeli Knesset does not favor the concept of “territories for peace”. The Palestine Authority does not offer “peace for territories “.

In violation of the Oslo accords, Yassir Arafat instead promotes daily official Arabic-language broadcasts on Arafat’s official Palestine Broadcasting Corporation that call for full scale war to liberate all of Israel. In violation of the Oslo accords, the PA issue weapons to Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, which await for the imminent return of Sheikh Achmed Yassin from Iran. In violation of the Oslo accords, Yassin promises to work within the Palestine Authority to conduct new mass suicide attacks throughout the state of Israel. In violation of the Oslo accords, Arafat and the Palestine Authority have instead adopted the policies of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA, the agency that runs the Arab refugee camps. Instead of advocating a Palestinian state in the west bank and Gaza, Arafat and the PA assure the “right of return” for UNRWA’s three million Palestinian Arab refugees to stake claim to the villages that they left in 1948, all of which have been transformed into Israeli cities and collective farms.

Surprisingly, the US government votes each year for renewal of the UNRWA #194 mandate of the “right of return” for all Palestinian Arab refugees to displace the state of Israel.

You might state that the new Palestine Liberation Army represents no real threat to Israel’s overall security.

Yet in violation of the Oslo accords, the PLA has quadrupled its strength to 50,000 troops. In violation of the accords, the PLA has made a formal alliance with Iraq. The question facing Israel remains: What if the PLA were to invite well equipped troops from Iraq, Iran and other nations to help them liberate lands taken in 1948 or to help liberate Jerusalem?

This is where American and Israeli security interests may part. If the PLA organizes terror threats against Israel, the White House does not perceive this as an attack on direct American interests. From the American point of view, Israel can take care of itself.

There’s the rub. Israel and the US maintain different security interests.

The American government wants to tame a potential virulent Palestinian Arab entity, only to ensure that the Palestinian Arabs will not attack American interests.

Israelis maintains its own security interests, and that is why there will be a crisis in American-Israeli relations.

What Message Does Israel Convey by Dispatching a Publicly Funded Transvestite to Win the Eurovision Contest?

By
David Bedein
-

Does the victory of Dana International as Israel’s entry in the Eurovision contest on Saturday nite, May 9, 1998 in Birmingham, England represents a slap in the face of the people of Israel and of Europe?

Dana Interational’s appearance was funded by the Israeli taxpayer, not by a private concern nor by any lobby group.

The people of Israel remain by and large committed to family values.

That commitment to family values overwhelmingly includes the 20% of Israel’s population of non-Jews who share a family value vision that is commonly held by Jews, Christians and Moslems.

Clearly stated, family values mean that sexual relations belong to a context of heterosexual family relations.

A common theme to all three religions in Israel holds that if a person is born with traits as a man and a woman, or with any other handicap, that person deserves all the compassion and understanding in the world for his/her infirmity. As a social work professional, I see a crying need for appropriate treatment of people who suffer such incapacities, and no one should be judgmental or angry with a person who has been born with such problems.

Yet to hold up a transvestite as a publicly funded model for Israel and all of the world to glorify can carry a skewed message from the government and people of Israel.

It is as if a people who have promoted family values throughout the centuries are now proclaiming that “we didn’t mean it after all”.

It would have been one thing for Dana International to have performed on behalf of a gay rights club or any other group that would have advocated regonition of transvesticism as a legitimate form of sexual expression.

In a free world of expression, that would be their right.

No one should interfere with such a right of assembly or freedom of speech.

It is quite another thing to place such a person in a representational capacity of the state of Israel.

Perhaps we should privatize the arts in Israel so that such a problem of representation does not surface again?

After all, Israel remains a place of diverse religious, ethnic, and, yes, sexual cultures, for which no one can claim a representational monopoly.

Tikkun’s Rabbi Michael Lerner

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-
The complete, unedited text of the message broadly distributed by Tikkun’s Rabbi Michael Lerner

Date: Friday, May 08, 1998 10:29:27
From: Rabbi Michael Lerner
To: [distribution list]

In the days when the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal were calling me “the guru of the White House” (because Hillary Clinton had adopted my call for “the politics of meaning” with its goal of “changing the bottom line” in American society from an ethos of materialism and selfishness to an ethos of love, caring, and ethical/spiritual/ecological sensitivity), Hillary made it clear to me that she and Bill both had been reading TIKKUN Magazine since 1988, and that she and Bill both agreed with its call for a Palestinian state that would agree to live in peace with Israel. Then, as now, there was only one question in their minds: what would be the domestic political cost for such support?

The continuing resistance of Netanyahu to implementing the Oslo Accord ahs particularly vexed the Clintons, because they put their own esteem on the line to make it happen. Hillary was so ecstatic the day of the signing that she told me that it was the most significant day in the Clinton’s presidency. To see it unravel under Netanyahu’s mean-spiritedness has been increasingly upsetting.

So Hillary decided to give Netanyahu a signal, by letting him know that the Clintons might be willing to talk about a Palestinian state unless he makes some immediate forward motion on the Oslo process. Likely result: there will be lots of fanfare next week as the two sides enter “final status” negotiations. But you can also be sure that not much is going to happen during those negotiations–because Netanyahu is totally unwilling even to consider giving anything more, and he will use the issue of Jerusalem as his trump card to prevent forward movement.

The only thing that might change that is the possibility of the Clintons’ being willing to recognize a Palestinian state when it is declared by Arafat in 1999 (as he says he will if Oslo is never implemented–and it won’t be). Part of the reason Arafat cares so much about this second stage is that he believes that whatever the Palestinians get at this point is all they ever will get, at least until a new government comes to power in Israel.

The only thing that could change that is if Israel fears that unless it implements Oslo it will face a Palestinian state recognized by most states in the world, including the U.S.

But that will never happen if Bill is made to suffer serious political costs for Hillary’s current statement. If the media bombards her with negativity for her courage, Bill is unlikely to want to pursue this path of putting any more significant pressure on Netanyahu during the final status negotiations.

And the bombarding has already started. Typical is a NY Times story May 8 by James Bennet that says “American Jewish groups reacted with alarm to Mrs. Clinton’s remarks.” Bennet quotes the American Jewish Committee, but as is normal with the media, fails to contact Peace Now, TIKKUN, The International Rabbinical Committee, the Israel Peace Lobby, or anyone else who might give the position of the (majority( of younger American Jews who support the peace process and believe that Israel’s best security interests lie with a peace accord that creates a Palestinian state.

And you can count on more of the same from most American Jewish newspapers–reflecting the position of the UJA/Federation crowd and the AIPAC activists. These people refuse to acknowledge publicly what they know privately: that most American Jews have already figured out that the best way to stop terrorism is to give the Palestinian people a stake in some existing reality in which their needs for land and for dignity are taken seriously. Israel’s security is always in doubt when it intentionally and provocatively denies the legitimate human needs of the Palestinian people.

Yet untless these voices are countered, and Hillary is given lots of support in the public arena, she and Bill are unlikely to be willing to use their “bully pulpit” to put pressure on Israel to reach a final status accord. The reaction NOW on THIS issue of a Palestinian state will have a big impact on whether she or he is willing to out on a limb again.

That’s why I’m writing to you to ask if you might consider doing one of three things that could make a big difference:

1. Contribute money to an advertisement in the NY Times and (money permitting) other newspapers, that would say: “Yes, Hillary, we support your call for a Palestinian state. We, too, believe that the Palestinian people have the same rights as other peoples to national self-determination. Peace will only come when the Palestinian people feel that their dignity is recognized–and that will take not only concessions of land and the active dismantling of settlements created in the West Bank to make Israeli withdrawal impossible, but a spirit of reconciliation in which Israel recognizes and acts in ways that show a basic respect for the rights of the Palestinian people, and Palestinians do all that they can to undermine those terrorists and other forces in their community who are unwilling to ever accept a peaceful resolution of the conflict with Israel.” If you wish to help us raise the $50,000 that it costs to place such an ad, make your check (or send us your credit card info and amount to charge it) to TIKKUN, and mail to TIKKUN Israel ad, 26 Fell St, S.F., Ca. 94102.

2. Write a letter to your local newspaper and to the NY Times, supporting Hillary Clinton’s call for a Palestinian state, objecting to media coverage that only quotes the establishment and ignores TIKKUN and Peace Now, and urging others to let the Clintons know that they will not be politically isolated if they put pressure on Netanyahu. Send such letters also to the White House and to your elected representatives in the House and Senate.

3. Let us know what kind of support you might be willing to give were we to try to create an organization of progressive Jews who articulated a peace politics on Israel, a social justice agenda on domestic issues, an anti-racist, anti-sexist, and anti-homophobic perspective, and did all this in the context of affirming a non-denominational but pro-Jewish observance kind of Judaism (rooting all this in the language of Torah, along the lines I follow in my book Jewish Renewal: A Path to Healing and Transformation, published by Harper/Collins, 1996). Even if you did not personally join, would you financially or politically support it?

If you have other ideas on how to publicly support Hillary, please let me know. What I am sure of is this: this is a critical moment, and if the negotiations begin in Washington in a climate in which the Clintons have been made to feel that they were taking too big a political risk, it won’t much matter what they believe privately, because they have not always been known for their poltiical courage when faced with political risk.

Rabbi Michael Lerner
Editor, Tikkun Magazine

Palestinian State, Fighting Terror

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The following are selections from articles which appeared in the Egyptian English weekly, “Al-Ahram” of Al-Ahram Weekly 30th April – 6th May, 1998

“The Criterion: a Palestinian State”
by Salama A. Salama

[Heading:] As Israel celebrates its fiftieth anniversary, Mohamed Sid-Ahmed argues that the establishment of a Palestinian state is the real criterion by which progress in the Middle East peace process should be gauged.

Actually, the establishment of a Palestinian state is not only a qualitative issue that involves combining certain ingredients to justify the claim that a Palestinian state exists, but also a quantitative issue, related to the dimensions of that state and the configuration of its frontiers, and not only what sovereign prerogatives and security safeguards it will enjoy.

It is worth noting in this respect that a number of prominent Israelis, such as Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, are now calling for the establishment of a Palestinian state. provided it remain demilitarised and without real sovereign prerogatives. They are joined in their call by leading Jewish figures outside Israel, notably in the United States. The problem is that a state is a state only if it enjoys full and unrestricted sovereignty and calling an entity which does not enjoy such sovereignty is a sham.

… The rationale here is to satisfy the Palestinians formally with a passport and a flag, while denying them real power and political parity with the state of Israel, as required under the provisions of the UN General Assembly’s 1947 resolution.

… Some Arab parties are also interested, for reasons of their own, in foiling the Palestinians’ ambition to establish an independent state. One reason is that it will be difficult to reconcile sovereignty for the Palestinian state with its subordination to pan-Arabism. According to the tenets of pan-Arab ideology, the Palestinian issue concerns all the Arabs and not only the Palestinians. Accordingly, the latter are not entitled to have the final word on key decisions related to the Palestinian issue. Another reason is the difficulty of drawing a line of demarcation between the Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian Authority on a number of particularly touchy issues, not only in the West Bank, but more particularly concerning Arab and/or holy rights in East Jerusalem. True, Jordan has given up much of the previous prerogatives it enjoyed in the West Bank, but issues are much less clear when it comes to Jerusalem, all the more so with Israel’s open practice of playing off the two Arab parties against one another.

“A Question of Implementation”
by Amira Ibrahim

[Heading:] Arab interior and justice ministers have signed their first anti-terrorism treaty but, as Amira Ibrahim writes, much will depend on the parties’ commitment to implementation.

After five years of studies and debates, Arab interior and justice ministers gave their stamp of approval last week to the first Arab Treaty for Combating Terrorism. The treaty was signed on 22 April at the Arab League headquarters.

… The League’s Council of Interior Ministers issued a statement lambasting Israel as one of the main sources of terrorism in the region. “Israel pretends that it embraces democracy and combats terrorism only to achieve its colonisation schemes, on the one hand, and distorts the image of Arabs and Muslims on the other,” the statement said.

… While Arab human rights groups were studying the legal consequences of the accord, a statement by an Egyptian militant group condemned the treaty as hostile to the Islamist movement.

The statement signed by Abdallah Al-Mansour, secretary of the Islamic Jihad — Vanguards of Conquest group — said the treaty aimed at “encircling ” youths of the Muslim nation.

“Arab governments should reconsider their positions and refrain from implementing the treaty,” said the statement, which was faxed to the London-based, Arabic-language newspaper Al-Hayar.

1...1,1781,1791,180...1,201Page 1,179 of 1,201

Column from the Director

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

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