Placing a Population Under Curfew During a Tme of War

We hear of the great suffering of the Palestinian population under constant curfew. Residents of entire cities are stuck inside their houses most of the day, most of which are crowded, badly ventilated and not air-conditioned in this blazing heat. The adults don’t work, the children don’t go to school and cannot play outside, the pantry is getting even more bare and there is very little money to stock it during the few hours when the curfew is lifted. Tanks move about the streets with ear-splitting noise and strike fear into the hearts of many, and sometimes shots are heard and adults or children lie lifeless because of a mistake, or because of thoughtlessness or because of a soldier’s overly light finger on the trigger.

Their suffering is indeed terrible and continuous and it must not be ignored, it must be noticed and we must empathize with the distress of masses of innocents. But it must also be remembered and we must remind others that this curfew has a reason and it was imposed from a real lack of choice. The fact is that 24 days went by without there being a suicide attack inside the Green Line, until last night’s terror attack in Tel Aviv.

This attack, like the attack on Tuesday near Emmanuel, is very painful, but there is great value in reducing the frequency of terror attacks, which had become intolerable. The curfew works, not perfectly, but quite efficiently. The responsibility for the great suffering that he causes lies solely with Yasser Arafat, who thanks to the policy he has been conducting for two years, has almost brought another catastrophe onto his people. Arafat sowed the wind and his people reap the storm. Wretched are the Palestinian people who have him as their leader and they must ask themselves why they insist on sticking to him. In their eyes he is the symbol of the struggle and of resistance, but are they really in need today of a struggle and resistance conducted in a blood soaked terrorist fashion that only toughens the Israeli positions, or perhaps they need to finally replace this broken record, to accept a cease-fire and to begin a process of healing the wounds.

There is a general consensus in the world, some of its explicitly expressed, like by the US president and some secretly in private conversations, such as among Arab leaders, that Arafat has ended his role and is an obstacle on the path to reaching an agreement. All speak of his natural death as the best thing that could happen in the Middle East and only he himself and his people insist on dancing together the death dance that leads nowhere. It is true that many among the Israeli Left accuse the government and the IDF of having too heavy a hand, but they must turn their accusatory finger at the Palestinians and their leader, who last night continued to signal us that they have chosen to continue with the abhorrent path of terror and prefer this over opening horizons of hope.

Palestinian Authority Ceremony Honors Families of Suicide Bombers

Palestinian Authority ceremony honors families of suicide bombers

On Thursday, July 18, 2002, The PA Minister of Communications, Imad Falluci (The Hamas leader who was brought into the PA cabinet as a result of the PA-Hamas coalition accord that was signed in Cairo on December 15, 1995) invited the press to a ceremony in which the families of suicide bombers were each awarded with checks from Saddam Hussein.

The official award provided by the PA for the families of suicide bombers was decorated with a picture of Saddam Hussein in the center and buttressed with flags of the PA and Iraq in each corner.

A film of the ceremony was shown on offcial Palestinian Authority PBS TV last night. and also aired on IBA TV

The Justice Minister Yose Beilin: Revelation that he Supported the “Right of Return” at Taba

If the Israeli left doesn’t act before it’s too late, the coming election campaign will focus on the following 90 words: “Since 1948, the Palestinians’ yearning has been enshrined in the twin principles of the `right of return’ and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state deriving the basis from International Law. The realization of the aspirations of the Palestinian people, as recognized in this agreement, includes the exercise of their right to self-determination and the comprehensive and just solution for the Palestinian refugees, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194, providing for their return and guaranteeing the future welfare and well-being of the refugees, thereby addressing the refugee problem in all its aspects.”

Yasser Arafat didn’t write those 90 words, nor did Nabil Sha’ath or Yasser Abed Rabbo. They are Article 7 of a document that was given to the official representatives of the Palestinian people at Taba, on January 23, 2001.

Then-justice minister Yossi Beilin, head of the Israeli team on the refugee issue, wrote them. The meaning is clear: acceptance of the idea of return. Israeli acceptance that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement would be based on adopting the principle of return as it appears in UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

UN resolution 194 was passed in the UN on December 11, 1948. Article 11 of the decision says clearly: “The refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date.” Therefore there’s no room for mumbo jumbo about this. No pulling of wool over the eyes. The combination of Article 7 in Beilin’s Taba document and the official language of 194 yields full Israeli and international recognition of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in Palestine as soon as possible.

This is politically explosive material, and it’s doubtful if the state of Israel could withstand the blast.

Beilin believes he neutralized the device through two other formulations that appear in the document he drafted. Article 5 of the non-paper clarifies that “the desire to return will be implemented in such a way that will confirm to the existence of the state of Israel and the homeland of the Jewish people.”

Article 8 says that the return to Israel “will be limited to an agreed number of refugees.” Thus, seemingly, the dramatic document says one thing and its opposite. On the one hand, it gives the right of return to the refugees wherever they are, some 4 million people, a sweeping right of return (which includes Israel inside the Green Line boundaries) and on the other hand, it proposes mechanisms for immigration that will not allow more than a few tens of thousands to actually come.

That internal contradiction is dangerous. When Israel withdraws to the corrected 1967 borders and stands opposite a sovereign Palestinian state, its security margins will be very narrow. It cannot allow itself any mistakes or ambiguity. Therefore it needs an unequivocal Palestinian retreat from the demand for the right of return.

But the Taba document does not give Israel that bare necessary minimum. On the contrary, the Taba document intensifies the pressure for return by upgrading the principle. It turns UNGAR 194 from a sleepy recommendation by the UN to a relevant decision that makes a commitment and founded in international law. At the same time, Beilin’s document denies Israel the safety net that the Clinton Framework offered: an explicit declaration that the right of return does not extend to Israel proper. The former Israeli minister makes a whole series of proposals on critical issues that endanger Israel far more than the former American president’s. Thus, from the Israeli point of view, the Taba document is a breathtaking gamble. It opens the gates of sovereign Israel to an uncontrollable process of return.

Israeli media coverage of the Taba document was feeble. The most fateful 90 words in the history of Israeli diplomacy did not get much attention. But now, as welcome steps are being taken to form a new platform and framework for the Zionist left, it is impossible to ignore any longer what took place at Taba. Those who believe in the basic historical justice of the Zionist left must make clear that they reject what was done in the name of the historical left on January 23, 2001.

Yossi Sarid was at Taba. He does not like the Taba document and he well understands where it could lead Israel. He now has the responsibility to declare openly that the Taba document is annulled. The more responsible and wiser leader of the peace camp must make clear that the united peace party he is building disassociates itself from the Taba document as well as the spirit and concepts of Taba. If Sarid doesn’t do so, the new social democratic party will become, whether it likes it or not, the party for return and end up on the fringes of Israeli politics

This article ran in Haaretz on July 11, 2002

Documents Seized From Arafat’s Headquarters

On September 14, 1998, a figure who was anonymous at the time to most of the Israeli public, Marwan Barghouti, the Fatah secretary general on the West Bank, wrote a short memo to the boss, Yasser Arafat, that read: “In honor of Brother President Abu Amar, may God protect him, in the name of the homeland and of the return, I request your decision in the matter of employing four of the brothers, members of the Tamoun sub-district branch committee, to a full time position in one of the security organizations, so that they can be employed in the Tanzim.” This is followed by a list of names and ends with a parting blessing: “and may you be leaders and commanders of the homeland and of the people, Marwan Barghouti.”

On the margins of the page, diagonally, Arafat added a laconic order in his own hand to the three senior commanders of the security organizations: “Do what is needed to employ them.”

This seemingly innocuous memo, which is published here for the first time, is one of the numerous documents that prove the great fraud. Since 1997, Arafat and his men deliberately and systematically, and in blatant violation of the agreements signed with Israel, created a series of militias, shadow armies ostensibly unlinked to the Palestinian Authority. They secretly relocated personnel and resources from the PA’s security organizations to these militias in order for them to compete with the rising popularity of the Islamic terror organizations.

In fact, from the time of the Western Wall tunnel clashes [September 1996], the PA armed these militias in anticipation of a violent confrontation with Israel. In January 2001, the Israeli public learned the hard and painful way about the local Tanzim militias. Despite the Tanzim’s involvement in terror attacks, the PA leaders, particularly Arafat, insisted that they were unconnected to the terror industry or that he had any control over it. However, the hundreds of thousands of documents seized in the course of Operation Defensive Shield, of which only a small part have been translated until now, unequivocally prove that Arafat and his men knew, initiated, prepared, fanned and continued to fan this fire.

The mukataa documents and the documents seized from Palestinian headquarters in seven of the eight major cities in the West Bank are now laid out in a huge IDF Intelligence hangar, which normally is used to store APCs. Early last week a reserve soldier sat in the middle of the hangar, wearing a T-shirt and army fatigue pants, eating tuna and going through a document in Arabic taken from Rais Arafat’s office. The air conditioner was broken, and the reservist occasionally made use of the fascinating document as a fan. All around him were huge piles of crates and drawers. Tons of files and cartons, containing the most secret secrets of the Palestinian Authority. In fact, the entire organizational memory of the PA is in Israel’s hands. A GSS official who works in the territories and is familiar with the material seized, describes it as “the wettest dream I’ve ever dreamed. This is a very rare situation, in which all our main collection targets have become available overnight. Documents for which we would have had to pay a fortune to agents just for part of them, are now available to all, we just need enough people to read and translate them.”

There does not appear to be anyone today, except perhaps for the Palestinian Authority, who doubts the authenticity of the documents. The question of credibility pertains only to the interpretation that the IDF gives them. Thus far, for example, a single document has not been found with Arafat’s signature on an order to commit a terror attack, or an admission that he knows that so and so committed or will commit a terror attack. Nor does IDF Intelligence expect to find anything like that. If Arafat approves a payment to someone, and Israel claims that that individual was involved in terror, we can accept Israeli intelligence and assume that Arafat knew of it — or not. In some cases the verdict is straightforward, since the documents show that the Palestinians themselves knew very well who was doing want and who was wanted by Israel.

At first, the Palestinians contended that it was all a fabrication. After that they said that the documents were authentic, but don’t prove anything. After that they again went back to the fabrication argument, and recently conveyed a demand through European institutions to have the documents returned to them, because they can’t function without them. After all, it’s very hard to argue with documents with Arafat’s signature on them. IDF Intelligence has also made a graphological comparison between Arafat’s signature on the seized documents and his signature on the Oslo accords, where he promised to eradicate terror.

Israel is gradually releasing parts of these documents to prove the PA’s direct involvement in terror. At first they were greeted with great suspicion, but eventually acquired credibility and became the most important factor for Bush’s aggressive speech. Last week IDF Intelligence opened the hangar to Yedioth Ahronoth for a rare glimpse. Most of the documents reviewed here are being released for the first time. As far as possible, they were examined independently and are not based on IDF Intelligence translations.

This partial sample unequivocally corroborates the most chilling arguments of senior IDF Intelligence officers on the depth of the PA’s involvement in terror, on the great degree of details that Arafat controlled when it came to approving expenditures, above and below the table, and the great gap between the partner we imagined we had, the partner we wanted, and what we got.

The Tanzim Shadow Army

In the 1995 interim agreement between Israel and the PA the official Palestinian police forces were explicitly defined and the Palestinians promised to create a uniform command hierarchy, under the control of the PA Council. However, Arafat never honored these agreements and never dreamed of dismantling the Tanzim. Just the opposite, he exploited the official security organizations as surrogates for the undercover militias. More and more requests to employ Tanzim activists on the payroll of the security organizations piled up on the rais’s desk. Thus, for example, in May 1999, Bashir Naafa, a senior member of the General Security Service, writes to Arafat about 35 people to whom he wants to pay a salary from the coffers of General Intelligence for their practical employment in the Tanzim.

All in all, the documents show that around 130 activists, most of whom belonged to Fatah but some were affiliated with other organizations, were integrated by September 2000 in the local branches with the status of “attaches” to the various security organizations. These people received a salary from the PA, while in practice worked for the local militias.

By the start of the second Intifada, in September 2000, the PA had a dilemma in regard to these “attaches.” In January 2001 the Supreme Council for National Security decided to return the attache employees to the National Security Service. The employees themselves were opposed and wrote a personal letter to Arafat, saying: “At this time the Tanzim is in desperate need of more people… in light of the unusual conditions of the Intifada and the leading role of Tanzim-Fatah in it, returning the fighters to the General Security Service would have a negative effect on its performance.” Arafat turned the letter over to the commanders of his security organizations and ultimately almost all the activists were kept as part of the Tanzim.

One example of such an activist is Nasser Awis, the commander of the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades in Samaria, who officially was a captain in the National Security Service, but who in practice belonged to the Tanzim in Nablus. He operated cells that committed terror attacks, including, according to Israeli intelligence, terror attacks in which 17 Israelis were killed (the terror attack at the bat mitzva in Hadera in January 2001 and others in Tel Aviv, Netanya and Jerusalem). Awis continued to receive a salary in early 2002, even when he did not respond to calls to return to the National Security Service. He was eventually arrested by the IDF in April 2002. He admitted under questioning that he received money from the PA thanks to the lists he passed on to Marwan Barghouti, who passed them to Arafat. The money was sent in checks by means of the Nablus branch Fatah secretary.

Two other attache employees murdered Ophir Rahum on January 17, 2001. Rahum was lured into coming to the territories by a honey trap on the Internet. One of them was killed by Israel a short time later. The other killer, Abed el-Fatah Tzabari Moussa Dola from Tanzim-Fatah in Ramallah, demanded that he remain on the list of attache employees of the General Security Service so as to continue to receive a salary from the PA — four months after the murder.

The documents show, therefore, unequivocally, that even when it was clear to the senior PA echelons that members of its security organizations were involved in terror, they did nothing, but continued to fund them. Some of the documents seized show that not all the commanders in the field were happy with this practice. Thus, for example, on February 21, 2001, the commander of the General Security Service in the Hebron area, Abed el-Fatah Jaidi, sent a detailed list to the rais’s office of “soldiers from the General Security Service in Hebron attached to the Tanzim-Fatah, who have not reported back for service.” He did what he was supposed to, but the PA continued to pay the salaries of these activists. Other assistance was given to the militias by means of direct allocations to local branches as well as supplying them with arms.

The local militias, which were funded and armed by these methods, ultimately served the purpose for which they were established, and were at the forefront of the fight against Israel. They began to commit terror attacks using the name El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades and, at the end of 2001, they began to commit large-scale shooting attacks and in early 2002, launched a murderous series of suicide bombing attacks inside Israel, in which they later on also used women suicide bombers. These terror attacks were led by the local Tanzim organizations in Nablus (where 30 attache employees received a salary from the PA) and in Ramallah (40 attache employees).

The strategic decision that Arafat made — to strengthen the local militias instead of dismantling them — did not only work against Israel. Ultimately it also led to the dismantling of the PA itself. The militias turned into war barons who decided matters on the Palestinian street.

Their activists took over the food shipments and demanded that the municipalities pay them a salary and cover their expenses for gas and cellphones. Thus, for example, the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades in Bethlehem wrote in November 2001: “To the brothers, leaders of the Bethlehem municipality and honored members of the council:

“May the blessing of the homeland be upon you. With the blessing of the pure blood which saturates the soil of our beloved region, we greet you and thank you for the enormous efforts you have made to build and develop this district… we have an issue to raise with you. This issue is your participation in a small part of the expenses of our daily needs, which are very onerous for us. We pay a price that does not exceed NIS 5,000 a month as membership dues for using the radios by members of the military branch. In addition, we also pay for fuel, which is a basic and important component for our moving from place to place, and this is in accordance with our national interest… your participation in this will lead to our glorification and our pride. […]”

Experience showed that those who tried to refuse such an appeal did not enjoy good fortune. In the PA there is an extensive network of extortion by elements connected to the PA toward Christian businessmen in the Bethlehem area. Thus, for example, gold rings were found on the fingers of the assassinated Atef Abayat — rings that belonged to the Christian businessman, George Nissan. In other cases, Fatah activists extorted respected businessmen, owners of souvenir shops, property owners and gas station owners in cooperation and in coordination with the Palestinian security organizations, who would summon the businessmen for a talk to clarify fabricated suspicions against them of collaboration with Israel. Arafat’s Note System

In one area Israeli PR efforts were counterproductive: it was said that Arafat was out of it, it was said that he did not have control, the world’s attention was directed to his trembling lips. But he was not out of it, absolutely not. One of the things that will make it difficult for Arafat to deny his direct involvement in terror is his insistence on approving, in his own hand, any expenditure exceeding USD 250 from the PA’s defense budget. This is the conclusion that IDF Intelligence has reached from the documents that were seized and examined so far. This penchant of his made him a very busy treasurer.

Thus, for example, in January 2001, he approved in his own hand-writing to “supply immediately” arms to the militia known as the Popular Struggle Front, commanded by Samir Rousha (30 Kalashnikov rifles and 15 pistols).

In May 2001 the same organization asked for “special help” for the fight against Israel. Arafat approved that month USD 25,000 and a month later, another USD 20,000. Arafat also approved paying USD 100 to each of the 65 activists of the Palestine Liberation Front, who were involved in the fighting. During the same period, this organization carried out a suicide bombing at the Checkpost intersection in Haifa, numerous shooting attacks and planted bombs in the territories.

The seized documents show that Arafat did not interfere in the decisions of the intermediate levels, who suggested who was eligible for aid, but always made sure to reduce the amount. Thus, for example, in the letter of July 2001 sent by the Fatah secretary in Bethlehem, Kamal Hamid, who asked for USD 2,000 “for each of the brothers whose name appears below,” Arafat erased the numbers and wrote in his own hand “USD 300 for each man.”

On November 7 of that same year, the same Kamal Hamid wrote to Arafat with another request for “urgent assistance of USD 3,000 for each of the following brothers, commanders and fallen, who fell in battle, and to pay some of their debts.” Some names appear on this new list who were supported by Arafat while they were alive, including Atef Abayat. Another star on the list is Hassan Abu Shaira, who shot to death Lt.-Col. Yehuda Edri, an agent handler. Arafat again only interfered in the size of the sums, he erased the numbers and wrote “to the Finance Ministry, Ramallah, pay USD 800 to each.” This Abayat was wanted by Israel for a long time and Israel conveyed requests to the PA to arrest him several times.

Arafat was quite picky in his insistence on approving all expenditures himself. He also made sure to clarify where every shekel, dinar and dollar went. Among the many documents, some of the daily correspondence that Arafat received was also found. One of them is a report from MBC on Saudi donations to the families of shahids. Arafat wrote next to this report to check immediately with the Saudis why this money was being sent directly to the families and did not go through the PA. This began an illuminating correspondence between the Palestinian ambassador in Riyadh and the kingdom’s authorities. The documents show that the Saudis, politely but firmly, did not agree to transfer the money through the PA’s coffers, for their own reasons.

The PA’s budget is made up mainly of money from the customs duties that Israel levies and passes on to the PA (and which was stopped in the course of the fighting), from taxes that the PA levies in a very partial manner, especially after the Intifada started, and from donations. The Arab states give the PA monthly assistance of USD 35 million. The EU gives the PA USD 9 million a month, around ten percent of its budget.

A section on funding Fatah does not appear among the official budget sections of the PA that is shown to the EU and to the International Monetary Fund. The money was taken from the PA salaries bank account in the Bank of Jordan. At least 60 such checks were seized in Ramallah, which show how money was transferred by Barghouti to dozens of local and sub-branches of Fatah and Tanzim in the West Bank. In a similar fashion, funding was transferred to the branches of the Shabiba movement and to the student councils of the movement in places like Bir Zeit.

Many documents were seized in Barghouti’s office in Ramallah that deal with transferring payments to Tanzim cells and to the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades. In most cases, requests for money from the field landed on Marwan Barghouti’s desk. In a few cases the heads of the branches bypassed Barghouti and appealed directly to Arafat or other senior officials in the security organizations, such as Tawfik Tirawi. Tirawi, for example, sent a letter to Arafat asking for monetary assistance for the families of assassinated men, including the commanders of the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades in Bethlehem, Atef Abayat and his assistant Jamal Nuora.

Time and again Barghouti comes across as a sort of mediator between the field operatives and Arafat. He is the one who recommends to Arafat to whom to give and how much. Thus, for example, he writes, “to honored President Abu Amar, may God protect him:

“Please agree to pay USD 3,000 to each of the following, as they are wanted by the occupation forces and are eligible for aid”… this letter is accompanied by a list of 20 activists.

An interesting letter was sent to “our warrior brother Abu el-Kassam (Marwan Barghouti), may God preserve him” from Khaled Abed el-Aziz Mohammed Sif, a member of the Fatah council in Nablus. “It is my wish to inform you,” he writes to Barghouti, “that I and a group of my colleagues who are wanted are unable to find anyone to give us help at these difficult economic times. I wish to tell you that we have been active for over five months in committing quality actions as part of the struggle, but we face severe problems in a lack of ammunition, and have none at this stage… we are wanted by the occupation forces. This complicates matters and, at this point, we cannot even pay rent. I am the only one who receives a sum of NIS 500 a month.” Sif adds at the end of the letter his phone number and notes, “the bearer of the letter is the mother of one of the members of our group.” At the head of the page Barghouti wrote to one of his aides “follow up on this and carry it out.”

Arafat’s and Barghouti’s close monitoring of every penny from the PA budget did not prevent, to use an understatement, corruption. As previously reported, the documents that the IDF seized corroborated evidence of the extensive corruption of senior PA officials, who built for themselves mansions at the expense of the public, as well as corruption inside the various organizations, including those that generally are considered to be ideological and clean, such as Islamic Jihad. Thus, for example, the documents show that among senior Islamic Jihad officials in the Jenin area a bitter dispute broke out over the disappearance of a huge sum of money relative to the organization, USD 127,000, which was passed by the leader, Ramadan Shalah, to support the families of those killed and detained.

The Revolving Door

One interesting document that was found last week and which is printed here for the first time demonstrates unequivocally the practice of the phenomenon Israel dubs the “revolving door policy.” This refers to the PA’s method of releasing from jail or granting “holiday furloughs” to many dozens of activists from the military arms of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, after most of them were never put on trial or questioned.

The document includes a recommendation to Brig. Gen. Haj Ismail, one of Arafat’s close associates, to release 27 Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists arrested by the PA. Senior Palestinian officers write: “To the honored brother Brig. Gen. Haj Ismail Jabar, may God protect him, commander of the General Security Service in the West Bank,” and asks: “Please approve the release of the 27 detainees arrested since no proof was found in the course of their interrogation of involvement in illegal activities.”

The GSS claims that this recommendation was adopted and the activists on the list indeed were released. IDF Intelligence Research claims that the entire list is of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists, including some who were involved in suicide bombings, manufacturing bombs, Kassam rockets and planting bombs. Three of them were caught by the IDF in Operation Defensive Shield and at least one was killed. This was Ashraf Hamza Hassan Draghama of Tubas, who was involved after his release in planning suicide bombings and shooting attacks in Hamam el-Malih in the northern Jordan Valley. One IDF officer was killed and two soldiers were injured in that attack.

This document is from February 2, 2002, when there was a relative escalation in terror attacks. At the time the Islamic opposition was increasing its pressure to release more and more of its activists from PA jails. That very same day, in the course of a meeting of the PLO Central Committee, representatives of the Palestinian opposition at the meeting called to release all those imprisoned in PA jails. In total, in the period before Operation Defensive Shield, the PA arrested 144 people. In other words, this document led to the release of 20% of them.

Israel says that the term “no proof of their involvement in illegal activities was found in the course of their interrogation” is a legal manipulation, since terror attacks outside the PA are not against PA law. Thus, formally, these activists did not commit any offense. A reading of the original in Arabic makes it clear that there is no question about the membership of these 27 in Hamas or Islamic Jihad, two organizations publicly involved in terror against Israel.

Cross-checking the list with the data banks of Israeli intelligence also shows at once that these are well-known names. Thus, for example, Nimr Ibrahim Darawza of Nablus, whom the GSS says is a senior assistant to Hamas in Samaria. In October 2001 Darawza headed a cell that planned to send a suicide bomber to the Sharon area. This was prevented at the last moment. Abbas Fawaz Ali Naaura, a Hamas activist from el-Bireh, is also on the list, who is suspected of belonging to a cell in Ramallah that manufactured bombs and Kassam rockets. He was arrested in Operation Defensive Shield. He is an American citizen and before his affiliation with Hamas was clear, the American consulate in East Jerusalem asked the PA to release him.

The Hornets Ask for Cash

The documents that the IDF seized prove painfully how close the ties were between the legitimate Palestinian security organizations and Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and how naive often was the conception that made a distinction between the “good” organizations and the “bad” ones. The Palestinian security organizations consistently refrained from stopping terror attacks in time, including suicide bombings. At best, they looked the other way from the actions of the Islamic terror organizations and at less than best went so far as to warn the activists of planned Israeli raids and arrests.

Thus, for example, a document was seized in the mukataa belonging to Palestinian General Intelligence, with a list of “the people that must be warned when there are planes in the air.” The list includes the names of all the senior Tanzim and Hamas activists whom Israeli intelligence alleges were involved in terror attacks against Israel.

A document from the headquarters of the Preventive Security Service in Ramallah notes that General Intelligence was involved in the suicide bombing that was carried out by Wafa Idris on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem, the first by a woman, in which one person was killed and 131 injured. The document notes that immediately after the attack, Tawfik Tirawi, the commander of the Preventive Security Service, tried to prevent it coming to light that Idris was behind the attack, and tried to persuade her brother, in exchange for benefits, to say that she had moved to Jordan.

The cooperation between the terror organizations and the security organizations in Jenin stands is particularly salient. The documents show that there was a joint umbrella organization for all these organization under the title “the joint forces” to protect it from the IDF. One document mentions even a joint operations room. Another document notes that the deputy director of the Preventive Security Service in the city provided Hamas and Islamic Jihad with weapons, which came from “the weapons storeroom in northern Palestine, the contents of which were stolen” (referring to the storeroom in Kibbutz Manara).

An internal Fatah report from September 9, 2001, addressed to Barghouti, says: “of all the districts, Jenin is the district with the best and with a tremendous number of fighters who belong to Fatah and to all the national and Islamic groups. The Jenin refugee camp is considered, rightfully so, as the center and where the headquarters of the Jenin district are concentrated, a hornets nest, as the other side calls it. The Jenin refugee camp has an exceptional number of fighters and people who initiate national actions. Nothing can defeat them, and nothing scares them. They are willing to make any sacrifice. It is not strange that Jenin is known as the capital of suicide bombers.”

Another Fatah document writes that Jenin is “a Fatah fortress,” and that the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades members in the camp are “the ones who consolidated the Fatah presence and its ability to act.” A letter from the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades to “brother Marwan Barghouti” from May 2001 notes that there are 63 fighters of the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the Jenin district divided into four units. Their activity, it says, “focuses on ongoing clashes using machine guns, grenades, explosives and mortar shells. Their activities focus on the bypass road that the settlers use.”

The letter goes on to list the “achievements of clashes in the Jenin district” and ends with a request and a threat: “so far we have not received a budget for all these actions, which entailed great expenses, whether in ammunition, weapons and fuel or whether in giving assistance to wanted men, all of whom have to provide for their families. We hope that you will help us all you can, particularly in light of the fact that the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades has accumulated debts approaching USD 10,000. We must note that elements that oppose us have undertaken various steps, which wish to invest this money. We all hope that just as we promised loyalty to you in the past, so you will always help us and provide us with the budget for this activity, so that we can continue the resistance and develop it further.”

[Beneath are two inserts that appeared in the context of the main article:]

Who was Influenced by What

The Israeli intelligence community conducted a study to find out just what impact the seized documents had on world public opinion, and which of the documents tilted the scales. The study is still in its preliminary stages, but the interim conclusions that have been drawn indicate that Yasser Arafat’s personal involvement had the most impact [on world public opinion]. In that sense, Israel needs to thank Allah that the Palestinians did not use electronic signatures (which immediately would have been suspected as an Israeli forgery), and that the documents indicate that the rais insisted on personally authorizing every security expenditure over 250 dollars.

Among the array of documents bearing Arafat’s signature, one needs to be mentioned in particular. It was a letter that was sent to Arafat by Hussein A-Sheikh, a leading Fatah official in the West Bank, in which he requested that Abu Amar authorize 2,550 dollars in support to each one of the “following brothers.” At the head of the list submitted by A-Sheikh was Raed Karmi, the commander of Tanzim in Tulkarm, and Ziyad Mohammed Daas, a high-ranking commander in Tanzim who was behind the terror attack at the Hadera bat mitzva party. Arafat instructed that each of them was to receive 600 dollars. Arafat authorized with his own hand a request that was signed personally by Raed Karmi for urgent financial assistance for a list of Fatah activists who were involved in deadly terror attacks.

The presentation of these documents to the Americans and the Europeans, who subsequently forwarded them to Arab leaders, led to a real change. It was not that Israel’s image was improved in any meaningful way, but Arafat’s name was blackened for eternity. Israeli officials are particularly proud of the impact these documents had on the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia who, while openly saying nothing, spoke very bluntly in their talks with US officials and in private conversations with one another.

IDF Intelligence Branch officials said that the international media was not persuaded immediately, but only gradually so, and as a result of the sheer amount of material. The IDF Intelligence Branch officials who were responsible for the presentation of the material needed to work hard to rehabilitate their credibility. The media catastrophe surrounding the Karine A affair, in which every possible mistake was made, and the pompous tone assumed in Danny Naveh’s report caused the journalists to suspect at first the authenticity of the documents.

The Americans were persuaded far more easily than the Europeans. The American intelligence officers, politicians and media all were prepared to see the overall context and to treat the issue like a legal case that was built on pieces of evidence. The IDF Intelligence Branch describes the European approach as being far more emotional, if not superficial. Some of the media in Europe, for instance, were willing to consider Arafat’s payments to Raed Karmi as assistance to terrorism. Others argued that the documents were irrelevant.

Ultimately, in addition to the documents that bear Arafat’s signature, the thing that convinced Bush were Arafat’s statements in a variety of forums about the need to “release the anger,” and particularly the documents that Israel seized in May and June (which have not been released for publication yet), which clearly indicate that even after Operation Defensive Shield and in the wake of the countless warnings that he received, the PA leader did not change his ways.

Some of the documents that were released to the public in the past number of months are on public display at the Information Center for Intelligence and Terrorism, at the Intelligence Heritage Center, which is the official memorial site for the fallen intelligence operatives in Glilot that is directed by Maj. Gen. (Res.) Meir Amit. The intention is to establish a library with a computerized index of the Arafat documents, once they have been sifted through. A number of unique collections of seized documents are open to the public at the center.

What the Europeans Knew

The documents and raids demonstrated that quite a few European officials knew in real time what the Palestinians were doing. For example, the head of the German liaison office to the Palestinian Authority, Andreas Reinicke, approached Jibril Rajoub on March 5, 2002 and told him that armed Palestinian men had seized control of the Talithakumi school in Beit Jala, which is funded by the Protestant Church in Berlin. The school is situated on a ridge, and Palestinian gunmen fired from its surroundings on Israeli vehicles on the tunnel road. Reinike was afraid of an Israeli military response and asked Rajoub to help remove the gunmen. “The school is known and enjoys a high degree of respectability in Germany,” he wrote to Rajoub. “You cannot imagine what a ruckus would be raised… if it were to become known that the school grounds served as a battlefield.”

In the course of Operation Defensive Shield the IDF also entered the UNRWA office in the Jenin refugee camp. IDF Intelligence Branch officials who were present at the time of the raid discovered that the walls of the European director’s office were plastered with pictures of shahids from suicide terror attacks.

This article appeared in the weekend magazine of Yediot Aharonot, July 11-12, 2002

Do UNRWA Schools Foster Violence?

BEACH CAMP, Gaza Strip – The tall, whitewashed wall that surrounds the food distribution center of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency here is decorated with murals of exploding Israeli boats and burning jeeps.

Alongside the murals, boldly drawn Arabic calligraphy posted by the Islamic extremist group Hamas, which is dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state, praises a militant named Hamdi Arafat who died while killing Israelis.

Inside the distribution center, from which vast quantities of flour, rice, oil, and sardines are distributed to Palestinian refugees by the United Nations agency, unemployed men complain that the food aid does not go to those who need it most because the agency is corrupt – though not as corrupt, they quickly add, as the Palestinian Authority.

At the UN agency’s Beach Elementary Boys School nearby, custodians have just finished stripping a year’s layer of posters glorifying suicide bombers from the classroom. Exploding grenades, flaming machine guns, and the slogans of Hamas and Islamic Jihad festoon the outer walls. The UN agency’s teachers, a custodian says, do not dare stop children from putting up the graffiti and posters.

Israelis and their American supporters cite such holy war images in and around the schools as evidence that the UN agency bears major responsibility for allowing the Palestinian camps to become strongholds of terrorism. Its defenders maintain that the relief agency is a force for moderation among Palestinians, and does what it can to control violent sentiment in the camps where it carries out its humanitarian work.

The UN agency is the dominant social institution in the camps, providing almost all food aid, education, and health services. Israeli officials and the agency’s critics say it is inconceivable that the camps have become centers of militant activities without the knowledge, and perhaps the consent, of the relief agency.

“Bomb-making, indoctrination, recruiting, and dispatching of suicide bombers all are centered in the camps,” said Alan Baker, chief counsel of the Israeli Foreign Ministry, after he returned last week from consultations in Washington and New York about the UN agency.

“It is not UNRWA’s role to police the camps,” Baker said, “but UNRWA functions in the schools and in society, and when it saw such developments and recognized they are in violation of Security Council resolutions, they should have reported this to the secretary general.”

Security Council resolutions prohibit the use of refugee camps for military training and the manufacture and storage of weapons. Secretary General Kofi Annan refers to camps as protected areas that should not be used for any purpose that could put the refugees at risk.

Peter Hansen, the Norwegian national who has been commissioner general of the UN agency since 1996, says the assertion by Jerusalem and Washington that “UNRWA is condoning and supporting terror… is outrageous. There is no evidence to support it.”

He dismissed media reports that the Israel Defense Forces found an agency facility in use as an arsenal in the Balata refugee camp in Nablus. “We do not have a warehouse in Balata camp,” he said.

“We have done everything possible” to keep gunmen out of agency facilities, Hansen said. “Where we found gunmen have gained access, we protested strenuously to the Palestinian Authority and demanded that they do their job.”

He also said that agency schools often are used as detention centers and sniper bases by Israeli troops operating in the West Bank.

“UNRWA demands that staff not engage in any political activity, and not glorify suicides,” Hansen said. “We do our best to take down posters” that glorify the deeds of suicide bombers and gunmen. But, he said, “I’m not saying there’s never been a teacher who has given vent to deeply felt sentiments in contravention of our regulations. You can’t separate people from their political feelings.”

Regarding allegations that incitement to hatred is condoned in agency schools’ curricula, Hansen said: “We have to use the curriculum of the host country. Here in Gaza, that is the Egyptian curriculum. In the West Bank, it is Jordanian. We have done what we can to make up for some of the phraseology, which I admit is not to my liking. You should be able to talk about a Jew without saying `dirty Jew.”‘

Hansen was dismissive of the tributes to bombers painted on the walls of the UN agency’s compounds: “We have so many more important things to do than look to the outside appearance of the facilities.”

But to the Israelis and to many Palestinians, the good work of the agency does not excuse what they see as a go-along-to-get-along policy toward corrupt Palestinian politicians, a policy they say leads the agency to tolerate profiteering on food supplies that are supposed to be free, and to turning a blind eye to extremist elements.

In the Beach Elementary Boys School, posters in the corridor lionize Sultan Abdul Hamid bin Abdul Maggid, who told Zionism’s founder, Theodore Herzl, that “if you pay me the world in gold… I will not accept you in Palestine because I am serving God, the Islamic nation, the nation of Mohammed.”

School maps show only Muslim cities; Tel Aviv and Nazareth do not exist. During the school year, the walls are papered with portraits of suicide bombers, which are stripped off during vacations only to be replaced as soon as the students return.

“The students bring the pictures of the martyrs and suicide bombers – a lot of pictures – and the teachers feel they cannot tell them to take them down,” says Khaled Abu Daya, a longtime construction worker in Israel who is a part-time custodian on a meager agency salary. “The students will oppose them and call them collaborators.

“The students here are too young for these things,” he said.

Abu Daya and many others interviewed on a recent general food distribution day were upset by what they saw as corruption in the UN agency that parallels the corruption of the Palestinian Authority.

“My neighbor has a Mercedes, his sons have jobs, and he receives rations from UNRWA as a hardship case,” Abu Daya said. “He has bought land, he has built a house, and he still is listed as a hardship case,” entitling him to free supplies of flour, rice, and other foodstuffs over and above what ordinary refugees receive.

Inside food distribution compounds, outside their gates, and at nearby stores, the coupons Palestinians use to claim emergency food aid made available through the UN agency by international donors are bought and sold. The food itself, in packages clearly marked “not for resale,” is openly resold.

Faez Abu Amri, a temporary food-distribution worker for the UN agency, says that “90 percent of the people who are getting this food aid do not need it,” while the truly needy get less than they should have.

“I see people with boats, stores, and jobs” who get the food and resell it, or sell their food coupons, he said.

Israelis see the UN agency’s tolerance of armed militants in the camps and its policy of distributing food to all registered refugees, no matter how prosperous they may have become over the decades, as indicative of an agency that is not fulfilling its mission either for refugees or for the international community.

“Sometimes you create something that cannot stop itself,” says Eliezer Sandberg, parliamentary leader of Israel’s Shinui Party. “That is UNRWA. What they do does not contribute to solving the problem of the refugees.”

Nevertheless, Baker, the Foreign Ministry official, says Israel “feels the continued functioning of UNRWA is important…. UNRWA has all the infrastructure and facilities to make a major contribution to bringing Palestinians out of this culture of violence.”

Charles A. Radin can be reached at radin@globe.com .
This article ran in the Boston Globe on July 8, 2002

The “Afirmative Action Policy of the Jewish People”

The media has missed the context of the Israel cabinet decision to restrict residence in some communities to Jews.

Israel is quietly and systematically clearing land to prepare for massive Jewish immigration from the world over.

Israel has recently upgraded its efforts to facilitate the immigration of Jews from France, now affected by an outbreak of wave of anti-semitism, and from Argentina, now affected by economic disaster, and from certain isolated parts of the former Soviet Union.

And there are other parts of the world where Jews are consideration emigration to Israel, in small numbers or en masse.

Israel expects that the current trickle of immigrants might become a tidal wave at any moment.

That is the purpose of Israel: To welcome Jews from the world over, even if these Jews arrive without a penny to their name.

Israel builds cities and towns from scratch, to accommodate Jews to the one Jewish state that is ready to absorb Jews, no matter how many, at any given time.

The July 2002 Israeli cabinet decision to designate communities for Jews followed the 1998 “Burg/Sharon plan” which was adopted by the Jewish Agency and the Israeli government, where the Israeli government designated that government owned lands in the Galilee and Negev regions would be allocated to the Jewish Agency for Jewish development. Throughout the years, Israel law has directed the Jewish Agency to raise funds from Jews around the world and then to lease land to the Jewish Agency for the specific purpose of settling Jews.

That plan was adopted when Avrum Burg, now speaker of the Knesset, was the chairman of the Jewish Agency and Ariel Sharon, now prime minister of Israel, was the Israel Minister of Infrastructure.

All this occurs as Israel’s Arab Bedouin population in the Negev also demands those same state-owned lands in the Negev that have been allocated for Jewish development.

According to Zvi Zammeret, the director of the Ben Zvi Institute In Jerusalem, the Arab Bedouin population in the Negev has quintupled in this generation, growing from 25,000 to 150,000 in less than 35 years. The Arab Bedouins have used the National Security Institute Child Allowance system that provided some funds for children under18 as a way to support large families in a bigamous society that encourages Arab men to have multiple wives and produce many children.

Israel must therefore find a way to develop new housing for its Arab Bedouin population, who have demonstrated loyalty to The state of Israel and who have served in the Israeli army since the genesis of the Jewish state.

Israel faces a tougher challenge in Galilee.

The “Association For Recognition of Forty Arab villages”, supported by local Israeli Arab groups, along with Saudi Arabia and the New Israel Fund, has spearheaded vocal opposition to the transfer of state-owned lands for Jewish development in the Galilee.

They claim the right to rebuild Arab villages that had been displaced there in 1948, whose residents fled to Lebanon and Syria during the 1948 war.

Arab refugees and their descendents from the Galilee have been languishing in “temporary” UN refugee camps ever since, inculcated with the idea of “Right of Return” to villages that no longer exist, rather than being resettled permanently in Lebanon and Syria.

Simply put, they claim that land registered under Arab ownership from before 1948 must be transferred back to Arab ownership.

All this occurs at a time when the million UN Arab refugee camp residents in Lebanon and Syria make plans to return en masse to the Galilee region.

If Israel were to recognize the “right of return”, that would set a precedent to all 531 Arab villages and neighborhoods that were abandoned in 1948, and pose a challenge to land ownership for the vast majority of Jews in Israel.

Besides which, the influx of one million hostile Arabs in the Galilee would pose a severe security challenge to Israel.

The “Right of Return” campaign will now gather momentum and use the slogans and tactics reminiscent of the civil rights movement in the US and the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.

That campaign will claim that Israel’s designation of land for Jews and its refusal to recognize the “right of return” as a “human right” would transform Israel into a racist state.

In 1978, when I worked as the US representative of the Israel Association of Social Workers, encouraging immigration to Israel for Jewish social service professionals, I appeared on a panel with the Rev. Jesse Jackson at the international conference of the Council of Social Welfare, which that took place that year in Los Angeles.

Jackson characterized the Zionist endeavor to seek Jewish immigration as a “racist” endeavor.

I countered by couching Zionism as the “affirmative action policy of the Jewish people”, as a policy for Israel to create incentives for a people to go home after a difficult 1,900 year exile.

Interview with the Outgoing IDF Commander in Chief Shaul Mofaz

On Tuesday, Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz said goodbye to the Paratroopers Brigade. 36 years after reaching the brigade for the first time, he returned there for the last time. He landed at the base in midday, and insisted on crossing it on foot in the oppressive heat.

The staff prepared a short presentation in his honor, which reviewed his milestones in the brigade. “My name is so and such” said the first person to rise, “I am a soldier in the 890 regiment, Mofaz was a soldier in the regiment in 1966.” “My name is so and such,” said the second, “I am the commander of a mortar platoon in the 890 regiment, Mofaz was the mortar company commander in 1969.” “I am deputy commander of the newest platoon,” said the third, “Mofaz was deputy commander in 1970.” The last in line was the brigade commander, Col. Aviv Kochavi. “Mofaz,” he said, “was commander of the brigade in the years 1984 to 1986.”

At the end of the presentation Mofaz was invited to speak. He stood up on the small stage, uncharacteristically without papers, looked at the people sitting in the small auditorium, officers and close family members. “I came to Israel at the age of nine,” he said. “We lived in Eilat, money was scarce, and my late father sent me to study in Nahalal. I was a dairy farmer there, and from the age of 15 got up at 5:00 a.m. every morning to milk the cows. I milked three times a day.”

“Since I lived far away,” he related, “I went home on leave once every month and a half, not like today’s soldiers. When I reached the age of 18, I volunteered for the paratroopers and reached here. There were huge eucalyptus trees, and the custom was before each meal to climb a rope tied to the top of the tree, using your hands, and climb down the same way.”

“I had strong hands from the milking, and when I came down from the tree the tough sergeant looked at me. ‘What is your name,’ he asked. ‘Mofaz,’ I answered. ‘And where are you from,’ he asked. I was silent for a moment, thinking what to say to him – from Iran, from Eilat, or from Nahalal. Since I connected the question to the rope climbing, I said from Nahalal. And so, for a long time people called me ‘the Nahalalite’ and this was a great compliment for me: to be from the [Jezreel] Valley.” [Meaning one of the early pioneers.]

“And then,” he said with his voice cracking, “I remembered what my father told me when I left the house, and had a rough time. ‘It is all for the best,’ he said, ‘All for the best.’ And this saying follows me everywhere, throughout my path in life. You should never give up, you must stick to your goal and realize it, since it is all, ultimately, for the best.”

When leaving the auditorium of the Paratroopers Brigade, Lt. Gen. Mofaz seemed as though after a long series of farewell meetings with different units in the army, he realized that here it was really over. He would not come here any more, not pore over the maps, not ask questions nor receive answers.

“An appointment with zero credit”

Shaul Mofaz replaced Amnon Lipkin-Shahak in the office of the chief of staff in July 1998. People interviewed to this article had difficulty remembering an appointment of a chief of staff that aroused such great commotion. Yitzhak Mordechai was defense minister at the time, and Maj. Gen. Matan Vilnai was the leading candidate, a fourth ‘prince’ after Dan Shomron, Ehud Barak and Lipkin-Shahak.

“An appointment with zero credit,” said one of the interviewees. “A decision that required a great deal of explanations,” as another phrased it. The media said he would have to walk around with a learner’s “L” on his back, that he could be a worthy appointment only if the entire General Staff was killed in an aerial crash and he was the sole survivor.

Mofaz could have been saved some of this bombardment had he not been caught in the line of fire in the fierce and ancient feud between Vilnai and Mordechai, which began in the paratrooper regiments and continued in the first Intifada, when the two served simultaneously as OCs of commands, Vilnai in the south and Mordechai in the Central Command. Vilnai claimed then that Mordechai gave inaccurate situation descriptions and glossed over facts. Mordechai claimed that the choice was unrelated to the old feud, but was not very convincing.

Mofaz maintained his silence, and buried himself quickly in a whirl of activity, which would characterize his four years in office. A chief of staff with a hoe, said military correspondents, the kind who would spend time in Tze’elim rather than Washington.

Question: During the entire period, you never referred to the unflattering statements that accompanied your appointment. Were you hurt by them?

“I regard this today in the same way I regarded it then: I did not think that this chorus would decide a thing, and I do not think so today. The decision for the appointment, like other decisions made during my term of office, are too weighty for these people.”

Question: These people?

“Those critics, who thought they could determine for the army what to do and whom to appoint.”

The proving period

Ten days after assuming his position, Mofaz took the General Staff to a three day workshop at Kiryat Anavim, to discuss what was defined as the “IDF 2000 Program.” 29 working teams were established at the end of the workshop. Six months later the findings were presented and recommendations were submitted. Meanwhile, Mofaz met with Meir Shetrit, when the latter received the finance portfolio, and presented the plans to him, including efficiency and downsizing plans. “Who do these transparencies belong to,” asked Shetrit, surprised at the depth of the proposed cuts, “the army or the Finance Ministry?”.

“The proving period,” it is called today by Maj. Gen. (res.) Yom Tov Samia, who last served as OC Southern Command. “Everything Mofaz did at the time was examined through a magnifying glass, and he made a great effort to prove that the choice was correct.”

“As for operating the working teams – Mofaz arrived with a clear plan, wrapped in committee cellophane. But I do not remember any committee submitting a proposal different from his initial outline. In any case, there is no doubt that what he did in that period, before the beginning of the conflict with the Palestinians, had not been done in the army since the Yom Kippur war.” […]

Several months after entering his position Mofaz ordered the soldiers at the Kirya to arrive fifteen minutes earlier, at 7:45 a.m. instead of 8:00. He also ordered the army to allow holding non-religious funerals. Later on he supported the right of Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror to express his opinion about the peace songs (“Children of the ’73 Winter”) in closed military forums, “even if my opinion,” he said, “differs from his.”

In a panel discussion, at the annual memorial ceremony for casualties of the Shaked commando, he said that he was in favor of parent involvement but not parent intervention. “The soldiers’ parents should not and cannot tell the army how to train, dress or feed the soldiers.”

Mofaz held a meeting with parents of soldiers once every four or five months. Several dozen parents were selected at random by the computer, and invited for a talk. Parents said things there that few if any chiefs of staff had ever heard.

Civil and substantive relations

In his term of office, Mofaz saw three prime ministers and four defense ministers. For a large part of his time in office, he actually worked directly with the prime minister.

“I would prefer not to refer to this issue now,” he says. “I do not think that it should be discussed in the media. As a rule, the relations between myself and the prime ministers and defense ministers were characterized by trust and dialogue, especially during periods of battle, with full understanding for the needs of the army.”

Question: Both Sharon and Ben-Eliezer reprimanded you more than once after statements that they viewed as improper, and pointed out that the government has an army, and not the reverse.

“I would not sum up our relations based on these statements. The relationship was very good.”

Question: With the present defense minister as well?

“The relations with the defense minister were civil and substantive. If there were disagreements, they impaired my functioning as chief of staff, and some of them might have been avoided.”

Question: Such as?

“Several statements that could have been avoided. In any case, I do not think more than that should be said today.”

Question: Starting with the withdrawal from Lebanon, there was continuous criticism of your political involvement.

“In my opinion, this is part of the Israeli way of life, and it did not impair my ability to work whatsoever. In no case was the activity of the IDF affected by statements by the political echelon not directly responsible for the army’s activity.”

During Mofaz’s term of office, three soldiers were abducted by Hizbullah, who gradually entrenched themselves along the new line in the north. For the first time since the Yom Kippur War, reserve soldiers were drafted with emergency call-up orders. The army entered the West Bank twice, in Operation Defensive Shield and Operation Determined Path.

At the end of his third year in office, he was interviewed by Alex Fishman, military correspondent for Yedioth Ahronoth, and myself. “Do you like your position,” we asked him. “I don’t know,” he said, “if ‘like’ is the appropriate word, but I would be willing to fill this position for another four years.” “Four actual more years?” we asked. “Actually so,” he answered.

“Do you feel the same way today,” I ask.

“At the time,” said Mofaz, “I attributed the question to my strength to carry on.”

Question: And today you are out of strength?

“No, but my term of office has come to an end. If I knew the conflict was going to end in six months, or even in another year, I might ask to continue in order to finish what I started. But this is not the case, and the baton must be passed on.”

The Palestinians Realize that They Made a Mistake

In September 2000 riots broke out at the Temple Mount and the “el-Aksa Intifada” began, which turned into an “armed conflict” which turned into a “low level war.” The IDF went back into the territories, the West Bank was practically re-occupied, the PA is on the brink of collapse. From a window of opportunity and hope for an end to the conflict, nothing is left.

“I’ve gone through four wars in my 36 years in the army,” Mofaz says, “hundreds of operations, but this war is the hardest.”

In the first year of fighting, the settlers demanded to let the IDF win. The army demanded to be allowed to demolish houses, to neutralize those responsible for terror. The West Bank and Gaza Strip were subject to closures and blockades, as well as a long series of roadblocks, which became targets for terror attacks.

In February 2001, the Sudra roadblock was attacked. One soldier was killed, one wounded. That same month, the roadblock at Ein Arik was attacked. Six soldiers were killed. Less than two weeks later, a Palestinian sniper shot and killed seven soldiers and three civilians at a roadblock near Ofra.

In Kissufim, a Palestinian crossed the fence, killed a soldier, injured four people and escaped. In August 2001, two members of the Popular Front infiltrated the Marganit outpost in the Gaza Strip, killed three soldiers and wounded seven. A month later two Palestinians infiltrated Elei Sinai, shot and killed two young people and injured 13. A cell that infiltrated the Africa outpost killed four soldiers. A terrorist who infiltrated Moshav Hamra in the Jerusalem murdered a mother and her daughter.

There were those in the army who began to speak of Lebanon-ization. That defense armoring had replaced initiative.

The chief-of-staff became the most threatened man in the country, and the ring of security around him tightened. That did not affect the pace of his work. In December 2001, at the ceremony when the IDF Intelligence commander was changed, Mofaz said that the PA was tainted with terror up to its head, and caused a furor.

Question: Now, when we are back in the West Bank, what will happen?

“Right now, the most urgent thing is to stop terror.”

Question: And at the same time, the situation is escalating. We’ve captured almost all of the West Bank and are talking about staying there along time, something that seemed unlikely a few months ago.

“In any case they are escalating the situation.”

Question: But so are we.

“We are doing it as part of our efforts to prevent terror attacks.”

Question: And yet there still are terror attacks, and the price in blood is terrible.

“I don’t think this is a decree from heaven. It is mainly due to the fact that the Palestinian leadership has not abandoned the path of terror.” Question: If so, then the solution is the re-occupation of all the territories?

“I’ve said before that if this leadership is replaced, perhaps it will be possible to have a new horizon, a process in which the PA itself combats terror.”

Question: Do you see anyone in the PA doing this?

“I think that the Palestinians realize that they made a mistake when they chose violence and did not try to continue diplomatic talks.”

Question: Who realizes this?

“The leadership around Arafat. People who realize that terror detracts from their international status, who realize that the world sees them as another terror organization, while they want to create for themselves an image of freedom fighters. People who realize that as long as Arafat leads them, there will be no agreement. Already back in Taba he proved that he prefers an armed conflict.”

Question: How many of his 18 ministers think this way?

“More than half.”

Question: And yet, even you say that they will do nothing to remove him. What is the source of his power?

“It’s historical. In the eyes of the Palestinian people he is the symbol of the struggle, even though in my opinion he is in a process of becoming weaker.”

Question: Should he be exiled?

“I contend that time is now working against us. As long as Arafat is around, we will not be able to reach an agreement, and he will continue to wield terror. We already have 561 people killed. In terms of the US, this is 30,000 killed, and we saw how they reacted after a lot less than that. My approach is that those who use terror against us must be removed from the region. At first this might cause a great stir, but very quickly a new coalition will be created that will seize the leadership. And in any case, the damage he will cause outside will be less.”

Question: The GSS is opposed to exiling him.

“Not only the GSS. So is the Mossad. They argue that this can only be done if a new situation is created.”

Question: Such as a terror attack on the Azrieli Towers?

‘I don’t want to get into this. I’m only noting that they mention a large scale terror attack. In my opinion, we shouldn’t wait. We’ve already had enough opportunities: the attack at the Dolphinarium, the Karine A, the slaughter at the Park Hotel on seder night. As long as we don’t get Arafat out of here, terror will continue, and the situation will escalate. The question is if we are willing to drag this out and to pay the price.”

Question: Ten 20, 50 dead a month?

“About these numbers, and every effort must be made to reduce them. If there is any chance that the sky will clear if Arafat is not here, we must take our fate in our hands and go for a move that shapes events, and not moves that react to them.” [… ]

We Did All We Could, We Were Outside

The decision to prepare the army for a confrontation in the territories was made by Mofaz in the midst of what still seemed to be a peace process. Maj. Gen. (Res) Samia says this was one of the most important decisions that Mofaz made.

The conflict found the army well-prepared, but ten months later, Mofaz said in an interview to Yedioth Ahronoth that his successor would inherit this conflict from him. What he did not foretell was that the conflict would put the army back into the cities of the West Bank.

The escalation might put us back in Nablus and Ramallah, which we will have to re-conquer, we asked him at the time. I don’t believe that will happen, he said then.

A week ago, in the command room of the Nahal Brigade above Ramallah, he leaned over a map of the city with the commanders. Why aren’t you going into el-Amari [refugee camp] he asked. We are, they said, we’ve already been there four times.

And what did you find, he asked. A few guns, they replied.

We can keep the civilians under curfew for two-three weeks, the brigade commander said. Less, said OC Central Command Maj. Gen. Yitzhak Eitan. Then they discussed the vacuum created in the city, the services nobody was providing, the threat to the troops, which would grow the longer they stayed. We are preparing ourselves mentally for a stay of months, the chief-of-staff said. [… ]

Question: Could our use of force have been excessive? That this is what exacerbated the conflict and fanned the flames?

“The IDF’s use of force was measured and appropriate.”

Question: And yet, on the one hand we’ve kept on using more force, while on the other hand, the Palestinians intensified the fighting. It began with Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and then the Tanzim joined.

“The Tanzim joined because Arafat ordered them to and also funded their acts. First in the territories and then later inside the Green Line. As for the use of force: we know that using military force can reduce terror and lower the flames. This was proven in Operation Defensive Shield and now again in Operation Determined Path. And with this being the situation, we will have no choice but to stay a long time in the Palestinian cities.”

Question: Months? “At least.”

Question: And then what, we restore the Civil Administration or military rule?

“Neither. We will help them run their civilian lives, we will allow food, water, fuel in. All in a way that takes their needs into account on the one hand, and security on the other. We will not make any relief measures in places where there is terror.”

Question: There is terror everywhere, all the time.

“In my opinion, what happened in the last 20 months has brought the Palestinians to the conclusion that they will not achieve their goals by using violence. Certainly after Bush’s’ speech.”

Question: Whom they see as Ariel Sharon’s ally.

“That may be, but they also realize that this is the biggest superpower in the world.”

Question: Are you worried about the possibility that we are returning to a pre-Oslo situation, that we might have to take this whole journey all over?

“We’ve tried everything, we were outside [the cities], but if there is no choice we will remain in the territories, and we know this carries a price.”

Question: But we have no choice?

“We do.”

Question: Replace the Palestinian leadership?

“If Arafat continues with terror, that is what we must do, even if right now this is not acceptable.”

Question: Do you have hope in the separation fence?

“A fence that is part of an entire system can be effective. Right now we are talking about a fence that is 100 kilometers long. There is another 300 kilometers without a fence. In any case, a fence will not resolve this conflict.”

Question: So this means that this investment is wasted in the long term? “It’s hard to judge today.”

Question: Instead of blowing up in Netanya, the suicide bombers will blow up in Lod?

“The section where the fence is being built is the section that is easiest to infiltrate. This was the thinking behind the Enveloping Jerusalem plan too. But in the meantime, our staying in the cities is very important.”

Question: Are you worried about a Lebanon-ization of the territories?

“That could happen. It depends on the effectiveness of our actions. And in any case, this is preferable to terror attacks.”

I voiced my opinion

After four years in office, Shaul Mofaz is perceived as one of the more highly political chiefs of staff. He opposed the withdrawal from Lebanon without an agreement, and left no doubt as to his position. On the day Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced the withdrawal without an agreement, he said the price could be excessive.

“I am not upset by the criticism,” he says. “I think I was a chief of staff who voiced his opinion. This was not always to everyone’s taste, and the reactions were divided accordingly: people whose worldview agreed with what was said defined it as a professional opinion, and people who opposed my opinion said it was the expression of a political stance.”

Question: You expressed your opposition to the withdrawal from Lebanon after the prime minister’s announcement.

“I also said it in the cabinet.”

Question: You opposed the government decision to withdraw from Abu Sneina. “Here too, I voiced my opinion in the cabinet as well.”

Question: And outside the cabinet.

“I don’t think that was the problem.”

Question: You opposed the Clinton proposal.

“The proposal was examined by the General Staff from the security standpoint, and there was a sweeping consensus that it involves danger to the State of Israel. This is also what I said in the cabinet. When one of the ministers said to me that I had not left a single stone standing, the prime minister told him: ‘Let the chief of staff speak his piece.'”

Question: Yossi Sarid, in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that on the other hand you did not express a professional opinion regarding the unlawful settlements, nor state your position on the proposed law to recognize first degree relatives of immigrant soldiers as citizens of the state.

“I did not see fit to address this issue in my parting from the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. These two issues are political and not military.”

Today too, Mofaz does not retract his opposition to the withdrawal from Lebanon without an agreement. “In the long term,” he says, “the withdrawal from Lebanon will have negative strategic effects, although in the short term it did bring quiet to the northern border.”

This interview ran in Yediot Aharonot on July 5, 2002

From the Entebbe airport to the El Al Counter in LA

The news of an Arab terrorist shooting two people to death at the El Al Counter in the Los Angeles International Airport broke in Israel just as the Israel Broadcasting Authority’s TV Channel One was telecasting previously unseen footage of the IDF rescue operation at the Entebbe, Uganda airport exactly 26 years ago to the day, after the Arab terrorists had been holding 109 Israeli Jewish passengers from an Air France flight that had taken off from Tel Aviv a few days before.

As we flipped through internet radio news channels to hear more about what happened in LA, news announcers around the world praised the efficient and professional response of the Israel’s two El Al security guards, one of whom wrestled the Arab terrorist and while the other one shot him to death.

No other airline retains trained armed security personnel

As we followed breaking news in LA, we returned to watch the Entebbe footage of how the IDF executed the PLO hijackers and rescued more than one hundred Jewish hostages from the hands of the PLO, at a price of the commander of that operation, Yonatan Netanyahu and three of the hostages.

Headlines around the world that coincided with America’s two hundredth birthday were filled with adulation and pride for the unprecedented swift and professional IDF response to the hijacking of Jewish passengers to a remote part of the world where they were separated by the PLO from the other passengers in way that Joseph Mengele would have been proud of.

In 1976, no media outlet had any problem describing an armed Arab attack on Jewish passengers as an act of terror.

Yet the FBI official on the scene in Los Angeles was quick to tell CNN that this would only fall into the “Israeli definition of a terror attack, because “a man of Islamic descent killed Jews”.

The FBI official would not comment on the Koranic verses of Jihad that the killer had tacked to his apartment door.

The FBI, in its pretense to be fair and balanced, questions the “terrorism part” of the attack.

To lift the FBI’s intellectual standing and understanding of what terrorism is, the time has come for the US government to appreciate the definition of “terror” and “terrorism”,

According to the authoritative source, “The Oxford Dictionary.” “terror” is defined as…

“Extreme fear: the use of such fear to intimidate people, especially for political reasons: a person or thing that causes extreme fear”

“Terrorism” is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

FBI officials might want to interview relatives and friends of the victims, to ascertain as to whether their sentiment could be called terror-stricken after the violent death of their loved ones, as well as to debrief the passengers who witnessed the attack

And what is the “Israel connection” to the “spirit of July 4th”?

Just look to the Second Amendment of the American Bill of Rights; “The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed”.

For 1900 years, there had been no Jewish army where Jews could bear arms to defend themselves.

The concept of “turning the other cheek” to a killer may have been coined in Israel.

When the Jewish state was established, “turning the other cheek” was immediately annulled.

On a personal level, my oldest son, Noam, now serving in an IDF combat unit, recently received a letter from one of his American friends, who asked about the “risk” of joining the IDF.

Noam’s response: What about the risk of not defending yourself?

From the IDF rescue at the Entebbe airport on July 4, 1976 to the rapid response of the EL AL security personnel on July 4, 2002, the message is clear: Israel will not take the risk of not defending itself.

Saudi Arabian King’s Two Brothers Provided Financial Aid to Suicide Bombers

Two high-ranking personages in the Saudi government oversaw the monarchy’s financial support mechanism for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This information was extracted from documents the IDF seized in the course of Operation Defensive Shield.

The two high-ranking officials are the brothers of King Fahd, Prince Salman bin Abed el-Aziz and Prince Naif bin Abed el-Aziz, the interior minister and the chairman of the Saudi Intifada aid committee. The committee prepared lists of shahids and provided financial support directly to their families in the territories. Each family received approximately USD 5,300, or 20,000 rials. The documents the IDF seized pertain mostly to terror attacks that pre-dated the Intifada, and the financial support was given in the first months of the Intifada.

The most important document has the following title: The Arab Saudi Kingdom, the Saudi el-Aksa Intifada Support Committee, the General Secretariat, Riyadh.” Among the names of the 24 shahids on the list are the names of Majdi Abu-Warda, who committed the suicide bombing attack on bus #18 in February 1996 (26 people were killed); Moussa Abed el-Kader Ghanimat from the village Tzurif, who carried out the bombing attack at cafe Apropos in Tel Aviv in March 1997 (three women were killed); Sufian al-Jabarin, the perpetrator of the suicide bombing attack on bus #26 in Jerusalem in August 1995 (four people were killed). Also on the list are the names of Ibrahim Sarahna, who committed a suicide bombing attack in Ashkelon in February 1996 in which a woman soldier was killed, and Iyad Batat, a Hamas activist who was responsible for a series of shooting attacks.

The role played by the two high-ranking Saudi figures is pointed to in the correspondences between the Palestinian ambassador to Riyadh, Mustafa Dib, and Yasser Arafat. In January 2001 the Saudi interior minister announced that he had allocated 124 million rials to the families of the “el-Aksa Intifada martyrs.” In the wake of this statement, Arafat complained to the Saudis that he was being bypassed and that the Saudis were sending money to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and not to Fatah. Arafat responded to his ambassador’s report about the Saudi interior minister’s statement with a hand-written note: “please inform me to whom these funds were transferred, because nothing has reached the deceased and the injured.”

As a result, Dib wrote a letter to Prince Salman, the chairman of the support committee. Arafat also sent Dib to meet with the high-ranking Saudi officials. He asked for Saudi permission to send a Palestinian delegation to Riyadh to coordinate the money transfers. After his meeting with Prince Salman, Dib wrote to Arafat that the Saudis independently know which families of shahids need to be supported. They also indicated that they did not trust the PA as a conduit and preferred to work directly with the families.

This article ran in Maariv on July 4th, 2002

Bargouti Admits Terror Involvement

Marwan Barghouti confessed in his GSS interrogation that he was involved in terror attacks in which dozens of Israelis were wounded and killed. New testimony has been revealed,uncovering the involvement of Palestinian security mechanisms in terror attacks.

In recent weeks, significant progress has been noted in Barghouti’s interrogation. He confessed his involvement in directing and financing shooting attacks. In addition, Barghouti said that he referred Ismail Radaida, a Palestinian who expressed willingness to commit suicide, to a senior Force 17 official in Ramallah, Mahned Diria, who would send him on an attack. Diria himself was killed by Israel a few months ago.

The heavy involvement by Force 17 (Arafat’s presidential guard) in terror attacks also becomes clear from a series of events that have been released for publication: the interrogation of Amar Nasser el-Din, a senior Tanzim operative in Hebron, revealed that members of Force 17 also took part in terror attacks that were carried out in the area. Among them were Hatem Jemal and Yar Sharbati. Freij Adwan, a Palestinian police officer from Ramallah, told in his interrogation that Force 17 operatives had suggested he join them in forming a cell that would carry out terror attacks against Israeli targets. Adwan said that during the operation of the unit, which carried out shooting attacks and smuggled weapons, he met with Barghouti, who financed the unit.

Adwan also said that a videotape filmed by the cell that carried out the terror attack on the Atarot-Givat Zeev road, was given to Tawfik Tirawi, director of the general intelligence mechanism in Gaza. According to him, the tape was given to Yasser Arafat, who watched it himself.

Tirawi’s involvement in terror attacks, which led to his becoming wanted by Israel following Ma’ariv’s exposure of it, also came up in the interrogation of Issa Jibarin, a Tanzim operative from Ramallah, who said that last March, Tirawi ordered him to help a terrorist infiltrate the Green Line to perpetrate a shooting attack. The attempted attack was thwarted by IDF soldiers, and following that, Tirawi confiscated Jibarin’s car and took away his identity card. Mahmad Hamaisa Abu Tul, a Tanzim operative from Jenin, said that he had received a Kalashnikov assault rifle to commit a terror attack against IDF troops in Ramallah.

This piece ran in Maariv, July 4, 2002