EU and Russia Stand with Arafat

A week after President George Bush’s speech, a sharp dispute came to light on Tuesday between the US and EU, Russian and UN representatives over the issue of boycotting Yasser Arafat.

In a meeting between Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs William Burns and representatives of the “quartet” — an international collaboration of the US, Russia, Europe and the UN to find a solution to the Middle East conflict — the former announced that that the administration’s stand on Arafat is unequivocal: the US would continue to work for the PA to have a source of authority other than Yasser Arafat.

Burns asked that European, Russian and UN representatives follow the US administration’s example and avoid meeting with Arafat. However, “quartet” representatives rejected this request and announced that they would not boycott Arafat and would continue to maintain contact with him. The EU representative said that preparations must be made for the possibility that Arafat would win the elections that will be held in the Palestinian Authority and it is inconceivable that there be a break between him and the international community.

American sources said after the meeting that the US will continue to work to persuade all sides that there is no possibility of making progress as long as Arafat continues to head the Palestinian Authority. The administration is to decide in the next few days how to implement President Bush’s speech. Among other things, the question of whether to send Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet to the region to help promote the reforms and examine the possibility of convening an international conference, will be decided.

Yossi Bar adds from Rome: In an interview to the Italian newspaper La Stampa, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said: Arafat made two mistakes, he supported terror and he lied to Bush. She said that the Palestinians need a leader who is capable of leading the people to make reforms.

This ran in the July 4, 2002 issue of Yediot Ahronot

New Revelations: How Funds of the P.A. Wound up in Arafat’s Pocket

Revelations came to light this week, for the first time, of the incredible ways that Palestinian Authority money passed in only one direction — into Yasser Arafat’s private pocket.

This enabled him, for example, to buy — at a generous price — the silence of his parliament members.

In contrast to previous reports on corruption starring Arafat, which came from sources outside the Palestinian Authority, this time the source comes from home: Muawiya el-Masri, a serving member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, who presented a gloomy picture, backed up by proof.

“When faced with the phenomenon of corruption and the disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars, the ministers of the Palestinian cabinet stand weak and powerless,” el-Masri, a member of the PA Economic Committee, revealed in an interview to the Jordan weekly A-Sabil. “Every one of them is dependent on Arafat and is controlled by him. The budget, the sources of funding, the donations and the decision as to where to channel all the money — is all in the hands of one person: Yasser Arafat.”

El-Masri, who survived an assassination attempt two months ago, after he signed, along with 19 other Palestinian MPs, a petition protesting monetary corruption in the PA, also recounted the juggling involved in transferring revenues on sales of goods such as kerosene, cigarettes, condensed milk and cement: “The revenues, including money from EU and US donations, comes to over a billion dollars a year, but none of this money ever got to the government ministries,” he said in the interview. “The money all flowed to the office of Mohammed Rashid, Arafat’s personal financial adviser. Arafat doesn’t care what the Americans and the Europeans say. He administers the money with his own shrewd methods. Everybody knows that he controls the money.”

El-Masri revealed in the interview that some close Arafat associates, including Fuad Shubaki, in charge of military procurement, or Rashid Shabak, from the security apparatus, appealed directly to Arafat and got money “under the table,” without the sums being recorded anywhere. As an example of theft, he presented ways in which the budget for the Palestinian Health Ministry is apportioned.

“The Health Ministry was promised USD 104 million, of which 24 million were allocated as salaries, and the rest for routine expenses: building hospitals, buying medicine and medical equipment. In the end, the patients were forced to ‘lend’ money to the Health Ministry to fund operations and treatment.”

El-Masri relates a long list of stormy meetings at the PLC, during which grave charges were made over the “escape route” of hundreds of millions of dollars meant to fund daily life in the Palestinian Authority: “In one meeting we raised the matter of corruption. Suddenly, Minister Saeb Erekat started shouting and tried to come to Arafat’s defense.

“Everyone immediately started to try and silence him, and one minister commented to him ‘don’t be so naive.’ Erekat told him, ‘yes, it’s true, I know that I’m naive, I know that some of the rais’s associates get hush money. I know, for example, that Marwan Kanafani (Arafat’s PR adviser) gets USD 40,000 a month not to open his mouth in parliament meetings, and I know of others who get similar amounts, meant to ensure our parliament a calm atmosphere.”

In contrast to them, el-Masri reveals, members of the Palestinian Audit Committee, which was established a few years ago to examine complaints of a network of corruption — among other reasons in response to a European demand, after the Europeans heard of the corruption and demanded to know where their donations were going — were given a “punishment” from Arafat: after they wrote a severe report pointing at the rais’s office and his close financial adviser Mohammed Rashid, it was decided to stop paying them their salaries.

The harshest charges coming from el- Masri’s vehement remarks have to do with the close ties between Arafat and his financial adviser, Mohammed Rashid, also known as Khaled Salaam. El-Masri reveals details from one of the parliament meetings in Ramallah in which the finance minister, Nashashibi, announced “I have no money,” and told those present that he had taken a loan of USD 35 million from “Salaam” to pay the salaries of Palestinian Authority workers.

“Nobody here knows where this Rashid came from,” el-Masri complains, “nobody had any convincing explanation for how this man, who is not even a Palestinian, managed to take control of hundreds of millions of dollars belonging to the Palestinian people.”

The parliament, el-Masri reveals, decided not to let Arafat off the hook: “We insisted and asked him ‘why do you rely on someone who is not even Palestinian? How it is possible that this Rashid is the treasurer of the ‘el-Kuds committee,’ which controls hundreds of millions of dollars in donations from all over the Arab world, while we do not see even one dollar?’ In response, Arafat informed us, ‘Rashid is my financial adviser, and you must accept this. You have no choice.'”

El-Masri also tells of the “reforms” undertaken by the rais in the government ministries in the wake of American pressure: “While Arafat did indeed appoint a new finance minister and a new interior minister, the other ministers were just moved around, like in a game of musical chairs, from one ministry to another. The two new ministers have no power. The chairman forbids them from making any move without his personal signature. No signature, no money. And if he already does promise them money, it turns out that the millions have rolled into his private pockets.”

El-Masri, who describes himself as “a sworn opponent of corruption, but not an opponent of the Palestinian Authority,” reveals that the last report put on the chairman’s desk regarding money theft, bribes and corruption, was prepared five years ago, in 1997, and since then the Audit Committee has been discontinued.

“The committee chairman brought the report, which included grave findings, to Arafat and asked him ‘should we make it public?’ The chairman said ‘of course,’ and prepared to make a fervent speech against corruption and the need to battle it. We asked, in response, that he punish the errant ministers, but Arafat surprised me — instead of deposing them, he chose to appoint them to new jobs in the government ministries, and even added three new, weak, ministers, to collaborate with his monetary machinations.”

The question of funding the Palestinian terror organizations, which was revealed in the hundreds of documents that the IDF took from the mukataa in Ramallah, also came up in the interview. El-Masri, who was asked if the rumors that Arafat paid terror organizations and those who committed suicide bombings and shooting attacks against Israelis were true, replied:

“Arafat is the person who funded absolutely everything. The decision as to whom to give and how much was in his hands. By means of this funding, he was able to subject these organizations to his authority.”

This article ran in Yediot Ahronot on July 4th, 2002

Critics pressing U.N.R.W.A.

Efforts to investigate the United Nations Relief and Welfare Agency, which is accused of allowing terrorism to flourish in the refugee camps it services, are falling flat on Capitol Hill and in the United Nations.

But those pressing the issue, including Jewish groups, say they will persevere.

Scrutiny of the U.N. agency began with Israel’s Operation Protective Wall, launched in April to root out terrorism in the West Bank.

One-third of Palestinian suicide bombers have come from the refugee camp of Jenin, serviced by UNRWA.

Israel’s operation confirmed an elaborate terrorist infrastructure in the camp and set into motion a clamor for an investigation into the negligence or even abetment by the U.N. agency that gets 30 percent of its funding, or nearly $90 million a year, from the United States.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) sent letters to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan calling for an investigation into UNRWA. Lantos’ harsher, more detailed letter calls the agency “complicit in terrorism.”

Staff of the House of Representatives’ International Relations Committee have made investigative tours of the UNRWA camps.

And Alan Baker, legal adviser to Israel’s Foreign Ministry, visited Washington last week to raise the issue with the State Department, members of Congress and the media.

In the last month, two senior UNRWA staff members have defended the agency in closed-door briefings to staff of the House International Relations Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

While the efforts have resulted in dialogue, there are no State Department or legislative plans to withhold funding of the agency. And Capitol Hill insiders say a congressional hearing on the subject is unlikely anytime soon.

It would not be politic for the United States to withhold the paychecks for the 11,000 Palestinians working for UNRWA in the West Bank and Gaza, according to one House staffer.

“We think we’re making some of our points by having a dialogue with UNRWA,” another congressional source said. The “hearing process is not always the best way” to “move the ball on this.”

For his part, Annan responded to the lawmakers’ letters, defending UNRWA and blaming local authorities for security matters.

“The United Nations has no responsibility for security matters in refugee camps, or indeed anywhere else in the occupied territory,” Annan wrote Lantos.

“Depending on whether a camp lies in Israeli or Palestinian-controlled areas, either the government of Israel or the Palestinian Authority is responsible for preventing unlawful activities,” he continued.

“Far from being complicit with terrorism, the United Nations is striving to alleviate human suffering in the area” and “help the parties renew their negotiations on a permanent status agreement,” Annan wrote.

In his letters to Lantos and Specter, Annan included a detailed explanation by UNRWA’s commissioner general, Peter Hansen, who reiterated that UNRWA does not “supervise” the camps, and stated that the agency has won approval by Israel and the United States.

Israel concedes that UNRWA does important humanitarian work on behalf of the refugees.

But Israel has been long concerned about certain aspects of UNRWA, said Mark Regev, spokesman of the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

“Events in Jenin led to a heightened awareness” of UNRWA’s failure to halt terror and pushed the issue into “higher gear,” he said.

Israel was particularly incensed by “U.N. officials giving credence to Jenin massacre rubbish,” Regev added, referring to the rumors, since proven unfounded, that Israel carried out a massacre during its military operation there.

But Israel’s outspokenness has little “bearing on this issue,” according to one Hill staffer.

“You may not like what UNRWA does or doesn’t do but their mission is very clearly defined,” she said, referring to the popular complaint that UNRWA – unlike the U.N. High Commission on Refugees, which seeks a “durable solution” for the world’s refugees – keeps Palestinians in refugee status.

Any change to UNRWA’s mandate, which is providing humanitarian relief without a role in finding a solution to the refugee problem, will have to take place at the U.N.’s General Assembly, where Israel and the United States are likely to find few supporters, she said.

That mandate, along with the low financial contribution by Arab countries to UNRWA, remain “ongoing concerns” for Lantos, one of his spokesmen said.

However, Lantos, at the helm of the congressional crusade of inquiry into UNRWA, has no immediate plans to sponsor legislation on the subject.

For its part, a State Department official said, “the Department of State is working with UNRWA to ensure that they are taking every possible measure to protect their facilities and assistance programs from misuse by criminal elements.”

However, she said, “We note that ultimately it is the responsibility of the local authority” and “we’ve urged the Palestinian Authority to act effectively in the camps where it has responsibility.”

But passing the buck to local authorities is disingenuous, according to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which has been pressing the issue.

“They’re trying to shirk their responsibility,” said AIPAC’s press secretary, Joshua Block.

The UNRWA refugee camps are “the shelter for terrorist groups that launch attacks against Israeli civilians,” Block said.

AIPAC will continue to push for hearings on the U.N. agency, he said, adding that members of Congress are interested in pursuing the issue.

The World Jewish Congress, which is also lobbying Congress to examine UNRWA, agreed the issue is not over in Washington.

The WJC is seeking for Congress and the Bush administration to take a “closer look” at UNRWA, whether that’s an internal investigation or open hearings in Congress, a WJC official said.

This piece ran on the JTA wire on July 2, 2002

Keeping the UN in Line

So far this year, US diplomats have secured the removal of Mary Robinson,High Commissioner for Human Rights; José Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons; and Robert Watson, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They were ousted because they weren’t doing what Washington told them to do.

In the line of fire now are UNRWA, the agency that for more than fifty years has fed and educated Palestinian refugees, and its head, Peter Hansen; and Secretary General Kofi Annan, once lauded by US Jewish organizations for opening doors for Israel.

Both cases are egregious examples of blaming the victim.

At the time of Israel’s takeover of Jenin, Hansen condemned the refusal of the Israel Defense Forces to allow ambulances and relief workers into the camp.

He also protested the Israeli use of UNRWA schools as military posts and interrogation centers and the destruction of the agency’s clinics. Around the same time, Foreign Minister Shimon Peres invited Kofi Annan to send in investigators. This suggestion was enthusiastically moved in the Security Council by US ambassador John Negroponte.

Israel promptly announced that it would not accept Robinson, Hansen and UN Special Representative for the peace process Terje Roed Larsen as investigators.

Then it made it clear that it would not cooperate with anyone sent by the Secretary General.

By then, Annan himself was under fire. Within a month of becoming president of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Mort Zuckerman was assailing him and Hansen and declaring that “UNRWA is the godfather to all terrorist training schools, notably in Jenin.”

AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, joined in with a press release headed “Camps of Terror,” alleging that “as the sole agency mandated to manage the Palestinian refugee camps, UNRWA has effectively turned a blind eye toward terror activities within the camps… Inside the camps, where 99 percent of UNRWA’s staff is comprised of locally recruited Palestinian refugees, food storage facilities and warehouses have become depots for ammunition and explosives to be used in terror attacks against Israelis.”

That led to a joint call by Tom Lantos, ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee, and Tom DeLay, the GOP whip, for Congressional hearings on UNRWA, with a suggestion of ending US funding, which pays for a third of UNRWA operations.

Jumping on the bandwagon, Republican Eric Cantor of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism repeated the allegations.

Hansen has pointed out that the agency’s sole responsibility is education, health and feeding the refugees: It has never administered the camps or maintained any police force.

He added that from 1967 on, “We have not received from the Government of Israel any complaint related to the misuse of any of our installations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip… Since October 2000 to-date, and even though hundreds of UNRWA staff have been detained and subsequently released, the Israeli authorities have never provided any information or lodged any complaint with UNRWA concerning the official or private activities of any UNRWA staff member.”

There is a very real fear that Lantos & Co. will soon demand Hansen’s head as the price for continued UNRWA funding. He was recently reappointed to another term, but so was Bustani just before he got the boot. Also in his first year of a second term is Kofi Annan, who is about to produce a report on Jenin mandated by the General Assembly. Even Israeli government lawyers admit that the IDF breached international humanitarian law in Jenin, which was why Israel changed its mind about allowing the inquiry. People close to the Secretary General are beginning to worry thathe will come under increasing attack in the same spirit of vilifying the messenger, and that the Likud-tinged alliance with the Christian and conservative right will revive the old attacks on the UN.

So far, the State Department has been defending UNRWA on Capitol Hill, and Colin Powell has a close rapport with Annan. But it remains to be seen how long this outpost of lucidity can hold against the faith-based foreign policy follies of the rest of the Administration and many members of Congress.

This ran on the July 25th issue of “The Nation”
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020715&s=williams1

THE ENEMY WITHIN: The U.N.’s Refugees

JERUSALEM–On Monday, France, Belgium and four other European Union members endorsed a U.N. Human Rights Commission resolution condoning “all available means, including armed struggle” to establish a Palestinian state. Hence, six EU members and the commission now join the 57 nations of the Islamic Conference in legitimizing suicide bombers.

By their logic of moral equivalence, terror is justifiable because its root cause is Israel’s occupation.

That Palestinian terror predates occupation, or that suicide bombings became a tactic of choice only after the initiation of the Oslo process, is too inconvenient to mention.

Unfortunately the U.N. goes beyond giving rhetorical support for terrorism. In a variety of ways, its agencies have been complicit in Middle Eastern terror.

Start with the refugee camps. The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees began operation in 1950. The establishment of Israel, and its simultaneous invasion by five Arab states, resulted in the creation of approximately 600,000 Palestinian refugees. An equivalent number of Jews fled their homes in Iraq, Egypt, Yemen and other Arab countries, and settled in Israel.

As disruptive as it was, the number of Jewish and Arab refugees pales in comparison to that created by the partition of India. There are today more than 100 million descendants of the original 15 million Indian and Pakistani refugees. The U.N. remained outside the conflict, and provided no political or economic incentive for refugees not to settle. Too bad the same restraint has not characterized the behavior of the U.N. and Arab states in the Middle East.

As it is, UNRWA and the Arab League hold Palestinian refugees in limbo. UNRWA operates 27 refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, and another 32 camps in neighboring Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. It counts nearly four million Palestinians as refugees, including those whose grandparents never saw Palestine. (If U.N. High Commission for Refugees criteria are applied, the figure is significantly lower.) In 2001 alone, UNRWA spent $310 million on the camps.

It is these camps that have been at the center of violence between Israeli forces and Palestinian gunmen. On February 28, following a series of Palestinian terror attacks in Israel (including an attack on a young girl’s bat mitzvah celebration), Israeli forces rolled into the Jenin and Balata refugee camps. They remained for three days. Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer explained the Israeli strategy: “We are interested in one thing only, to stop and disrupt this wave of suicide attacks. We intend to go in and get out.”

U.N. officials were instantaneous in their condemnation. Kofi Annan called on Israel “to withdraw immediately.” High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson labeled the incursions “in total disregard of international human rights.” On March 21, a UNRWA spokesman called on Israel to compensate the agency for damage to its refugee camps.

Israel’s raids did damage the camps. But as a result of the operation, Israel uncovered illegal arms caches, bomb factories and a plant manufacturing the new Kassam-2 rocket, designed to reach Israeli population centers from the West Bank and Gaza. Confronted with evidence of illegal Palestinian mines, mortars and missiles, no U.N. official questioned how it was that bomb factories could exist in U.N.-managed refugee camps. Either the U.N. officials were unaware of the bomb factories–which would suggest utter incompetence–or, more likely, the U.N. employees simply turned a blind eye.

Unfortunately, UNRWA is not alone in reinforcing the U.N.’s reputation as an organization incapable of fighting terror. On May 24, 2000, Israel unilaterally pulled back from southern Lebanon, a withdrawal the U.N. certified to be complete. Terror did not end, though. On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah guerrillas crossed the border and kidnapped three Israeli soldiers (including one Israeli Arab), all of whom they subsequently killed. Observers from the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon videotaped the scene of the kidnapping, including the getaway cars, and some guerrillas.

Inexplicably, they then hid the videotape. Questioned by Israeli officials, Terje Roed-Larsen, the U.N. Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, chided Israel for “questioning the good faith of senior United Nations officials.” When after eight months the U.N. finally admitted to possessing the tape, officials balked at showing it to the Israeli government since that might “undermine U.N. neutrality.” That U.N. observers protected and defended guerrillas who crossed a U.N.-certified border, using cars with U.N. license plates while under the cover of U.N. flags, was apparently of no consequence to UNIFIL. Pronouncements aside, U.N. moral equivalency in practice dictates that terrorists are equal to states. Fighting terror compromises U.N. neutrality.

The U.N. has turned a blind eye to terror in Iraq as well. Throughout the spring and summer of 2001, a series of bomb explosions wracked the safe haven of northern Iraq. Kurdish authorities long suspected the complicity of certain U.N. drivers who crossed freely between the safe haven and Iraq proper. On July 19, 2001, Kurdish security arrested a Tunisian U.N. driver found in possession of explosives. A Yemeni national serving as deputy director of the U.N. mission in northern Iraq demanded that the driver be released before any investigation could be completed; he was. The U.N.’s reputation, in other words, trumps protecting innocents from Saddam Hussein’s bombs.

The U.N. has a terrorism problem. Syria, a nation that hosts more terror groups than any other, sits on the Security Council. Along with Iran, Syria is a prime sponsor of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Just two months after Nasrallah declared that “Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities” and that Israel was a “cancerous body in the region… [which] must be uprooted,” Mr. Annan bestowed international legitimacy upon Nasrallah by agreeing to an unprecedented meeting.

U.N. officials can make all the high-sounding pronouncements they desire, but if the U.N. wishes to defuse regional tensions and signal that terrorism is not acceptable, then there must be no equivocation. Perhaps Mr. Annan can be forgiven for not being aware that U.N.-funded refugee camps housed arms factories, or for allowing U.N. complicity in terror cover-ups in Lebanon and Iraq. But in a Middle East where perception is more important than reality, Mr. Annan’s silence is deafening and his moral equivalency is interpreted as a green light for terror. The main casualty is U.N. credibility.

This article ran in the Wall St. Journal, on April 18, 2002

Saudi Sermon Declares War

Saudi Shaykh Khayyat on Government TV calls on God “to deal with the tyrannical Jews and their supporters” and bring about their defeat.

# 1 Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabia TV1 in Arabic, official television station of the Saudi Government, at 0928 GMT 17 May 2002 carries a live sermon from the holy mosque in Mecca.

Shaykh Usamah Ibn-Abdallah Khayyat delivers the sermon, which he begins by saying: “O Muslims, God has willed that the fire of the battle of destiny must not die down, but remain ablaze until He inherits the earth and all that is on it. For it is a battle of right against falsehood, guidance against deviation, and faith against infidelity. Indeed, it is the intifadah of goodness against evil in all shapes and colors, regardless of the different flags, many soldiers, big plots, and serious dangers. This battle is not a new development, but continuous chapters that go back in history, as related in the Holy Koran.”

The imam refers to the battles fought by the prophets; namely, Abraham against idol-worshippers, Moses against the Pharaohs, Muhammad against the Qurayshi infidels of Mecca, and, in recent history, Salah-al-Din against the crusaders in Jerusalem. He then says: “The intifadah by Muslims in Muslim Palestine today is a link in the chain of the battle of destiny. It is a living example of the confrontation between right, which is the defense of religion, holy places, freedom, dignity, and honor, and falsehood, which is usurpation, aggression, and violation of sanctities and holy places.”

Continuing, the imam says: “The battle of destiny is long and with continuous links. But, as in the past when God made right triumph over falsehood and gave victory to the faithful and humiliated the infidels, He would also give victory to Islam and make it raise the flag of right on Jerusalem and its vicinity and humiliate the criminal and tyrannical Jews so they would be a lesson for everyone.”

The imam continues with the theme of “victory of right against falsehood” in the second part of his sermon, saying that the hope for victory should prompt Muslims “to stick to their rights” until God fulfills His promise. He concludes with a prayer to God to support Islam, unify Muslims and guide their steps on what is right, and give victory to the mujahidin in Palestine, Kashmir, and Chechnya. He also prays to God “to deal with the tyrannical Jews and their supporters” and bring about their defeat.

#2 Riyadh Kingdom of Saudi Arabia TV2 in Arabic, official television station of the Saudi Government, at 0931 17 May 2002 carries a live sermon from the holy mosque in Medina.

Shaykh Ali al-Hudhayfi delivers the sermon, which he devotes to repentance, calling on worshippers to repent to God and atone for their sins. He concludes with a prayer to God to strengthen Islam and Muslims, humble infidelity and infidels, and destroy the enemies of religion. He also prays for the unity of Muslims and the victory of “our brethren in Palestine.”

How Arafat Rigged the 1996 PA Elections

During the January 1996 elections, our news agency worked with a Palestinian news team to help Peace Watch cover the PA elections, as reported below. When I asked Amercian election observer team chairman Jimmy Carter about the obvious rigging of the PA elections, he smiled and said that “we have problems like that in Chicago too”. – David Bedein

As the January 1996 elections approached, Arafat was assured of victory for himself and his loyalists in Fatah. The steps he had taken since assuming power had succeeded in bolstering his position and shunting aside most potential challengers. In fact, Arafat almost ended up running unopposed, as the best-known individuals who considered challenging him-including rights activist Iyad a-Sarraj and the popular Haydar Abed a-Shafi (who had headed the Palestinian delegation to the Madrid conference) decided that there was little point in running in the political climate that had been created. In the end, the only person who decided to face off against Arafat was Samiha Halil, a little-known, 72-year-old women’s rights activist, who was hardly in a position to compete for mainstream support in the traditional society of the West Bank and Gaza.

Nonetheless, Arafat took advantage of his monopoly on power to turn a sure victory into a landslide. He adopted an electoral system for the Council races that favored Fatah and undercut the chances of the smaller parties, and that played a role in persuading most Islamic and left-wing groups to boycott the elections.154 Within Fatah, he overturned the results of party caucuses and replaced independent-minded local nationalists chosen in balloting among party activists in each district with his own hand-picked slates-often dominated by loyalists who had come with him from Tunis. During the campaign, PA police stepped up their intimidation of candidates running against Fatah nominees for seats in the Council, while government ministers and other PA officials used the resources of their offices to further their candidacies. On election day, the massive presence of Palestinian policemen in and around the polls-in direct violation of the campaign law Arafat had promulgated-had a clear effect on voters. This effect was especially pronounced with regard to the approximately 100,000 illiterate voters, who were often “assisted” in filling out their ballots by policemen or Fatah officials.155

When the results were announced, it became clear that Arafat’s work had paid off handsomely. He received an overwhelming mandate, capturing 87.3 percent of the votes, compared to 9.9 percent for Halil.156 Though Arafat claimed that he “was looking for 51 percent,” he certainly did not mean it. Winning by a landslide was a strategic goal, whose purpose was to make him appear to be the unchallenged leader of his people.157 Arafat also got most of what he wanted in the Council elections: Fatah won 50 seats and candidates closely tied to it won an additional 17.158 Thus Fatah captured a solid majority on its own, while the broader bloc it commanded won more than three-quarters of the seats-67 of 88. Moreover, about half of Fatah’s 50 spots went to veteran PLO-Tunis officials who had entered the territories with Arafat, while the remainder were mostly local candidates drawn from the ranks of Arafat’s most loyal boosters.159

Since his victory at the polls, Arafat has continued to run the PA precisely as he did before elections. The PA police force has expanded apace, and today has more than 50,000 members. The government payroll has bloated further, and remains a patronage machine in which all important decisions are made by one man. Though Council members, in a rare display of independence, succeeded in passing a comprehensive basic law that would provide a constitutional framework, Arafat has refused to sign it, and the Palestinian Authority has at no point had either a discernible constitutional or legal framework, or anything like an independent judiciary. The media have continued to function as an adjunct of the government, while human rights groups-with a few notable exceptions, including organizations founded by a-Sourani and Eid-have remained weak and ineffective.160

More than three years have gone by since the second set of Palestinian elections were supposed to be held-Arafat and the Council were chosen for terms that were to end on May 4, 1999-but no new elections have been called.161 Ostensibly, the reason for this delay is that Arafat is waiting for the conclusion of final-status negotiations with Israel. But the real reason is that he was content with the results of his first election, and has not yet seen a reason to face the voters again. Even municipal elections, which were supposed to take place during the summer of 1996, have been delayed for six years; in the very long interim, Arafat has continued to make appointments to local offices himself, without the assistance of the voters.

In light of what Arafat did to secure his election victory and in light of the manner in which he governed before and after elections, it is clear that his standing as an elected leader hardly resembles that of the democratically chosen Western leaders who defend him. Thus the claim that he cannot and should not be replaced can hardly be sustained on the grounds of his democratic mandate or credentials.

What is true is that Arafat has made himself irreplaceable in a very different sense: He has acted successfully to destroy the elements of a pluralistic society that had been present in the West Bank and Gaza, and to mold the Palestinian Authority into a police state and a personal dictatorship. As a result, he has done much to damage the prospects of a viable, alternative leadership emerging. In other words, having succeeded in eliminating his opposition, he is now turning to the democratic world and pleading to stay in power on the grounds that he knows of no one who could replace him.

This argument sounds much like that of the apocryphal boy who kills his parents, and then pleads for mercy from the court because he is an orphan. Of course, it contains a kernel of truth: That is, the boy really is an orphan, and the dictator who eliminates his opposition really lacks an obvious successor. Yet it would be a grave mistake for Western leaders, and especially an American government that seeks to lead the free world, to accept the idea that Arafat’s success in building a dictatorship should entitle him to continue representing the Palestinians. On the contrary, Arafat has long ago demonstrated that his continued leadership is inimical to peace, no less than it is inimical to the Palestinians’ own aspirations for a regime that accords them basic freedoms.

It took Arafat nearly two years to pave the way for the electoral landslide that gave him the counterfeit aura of democratic legitimacy that still clings to him, and he has spent an additional six years strengthening his dictatorship and weakening potential opponents. The process of recovering from the damage he has done during this time will no doubt be a long one. But prolonging the current situation by attributing to Arafat a legitimacy that he does not deserve contributes nothing to that process.

Daniel Polisar is Editor-in-Chief of Azure. During the January 1996 Palestinian elections, he led the observer team of Peace Watch, a non-partisan Israeli organization accredited by the Palestinian Authority as an official elections observer.

Notes… 154. On the adoption of the electoral system for Council races and the impact of this system on the decision of Islamic and left-wing groups to boycott elections, see Polisar, “Electing Dictatorship,” pp. 265-283.

155. On Arafat’s efforts to shape the Fatah lists, and on his behavior and that of other PA officials during the campaign and on election day, see Polisar, Electing Dictatorship, pp. 283-310, and reports of the various monitoring groups cited there.

156. These results are as reprinted in jmcc, The Palestinian Council, 2nd ed. (Jerusalem: jmcc, 1998), pp. 49-50. The remaining votes, according to the official results, were invalid.

157. Jon Immanuel, “Arafat Wins 88 percent of Vote; 75 percent of Council to Fatah,” The Jerusalem Post, January 22, 1996.

158. The classification system for assigning nominal independents to the parties is based on my own assessments, which are largely in line with those made by the jmcc in The Palestinian Council, which has become the standard reference on this subject. I am including in the Fatah bloc the single candidate elected on the ticket of the fida party, which ran in an alliance with Fatah.

159. Among the veteran PLO-Tunis officials who won positions were Tayyeb Abed a-Rahim, Nabil Sha’ath, Hakam Bal’awi, Intisar al-Wazir, Fayez Zeidan, and Abu Ala. Among the local loyalists who won seats, the most prominent were cabinet members Saeb Erekat and Freih Abu Medein.

160. On the nature of governance in the Palestinian Authority since the January 1996 elections, see Polisar, “Electing Dictatorship,” pp. 423-474; and David Schenker, Palestinian Democracy and Governance: An Appraisal of the Legislative Council (Washington, D.C.: Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2000). For an optimistic account of PA governance in this period, see Rubin, From Revolution to State-Building.

161. On the requirement to hold elections by May 4, 1999, see Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and Gaza Strip,” September 28, 1995, article 3, section 4; and Palestinian Central Election Commission, “The Palestinian Council, Its Executive Authority, and the President of the Palestinian National Authority: Institutions and Competences,” December 31, 1995.

How CNN Could Establish Integrity: Run Ten Segments on a Day in the Life of the Palestine Authority

On Tuesday morning, June 19th, we began the day with the horrific news of yet another bus bombing in Jerusalem.

A colleague who covers Arabic language media output of the Palestinian Authority, reported how the bus attack was covered on the PBC Voice of Palestine radio station only a few minutes after the attack, in an announcement that would be played all day o the PBC. It was reported as “An attack on a busload of Zionist colonists” on PBC.

No regret, no condemnation.

Yet CNN 11reported that the Palestinian Authority had issued a swift condemnation of the attacks. The CNN news ticker tape running underneath the screen said exactly the same thing. As a former CNN Israel radio correspondent, I immediately called my colleagues at CNN n Jerusalem with the update from PBC radio, and with also called my colleagues at CNN in Atlanta who produce the CNN ticker tape.

CNN in Jerusalem responded by saying that they were relying on the word of PA spokesman Saeb Erakat, who had given them a statement in English condemning the attack, CNN international desk indicated that they would rely on the info received from the PLO public relations office in Washington which is managed by the former US consul in Jerusalem, Mr. Edward Abington.

The CNN policy of reporting the PR statements of Erakat and Abington in English for foreign consumption, as if they reflect the policies and reality of the official PA policy towards terror reflects the CNN policy of how it reports Palestinian terror second hand, in English, without any mention of the PA’s own media coverage of the same event.

At a time when CNN’s reportage from the middle east has come into question, the way in which CNN could demonstrate its integrity would be to launch a CNN series that call be called Inside the Palestinian Authority, which could have ten segments of reportage never seen before on CNN. As a journalist who has covered each aspect of the PA, I can assure CNN that the Palestinian Authority and the PLO would provide full cooperation in the preparation of each of these reports.

The US State Department and the European Union, who have invested so much in promoting the PLO and its Palestinian Authority as a peace partner, would not be too happy with the new CNN series.

Segment One: A day in the Palestinian Authority classroom, where the official new curriculum that inculcates a new generation of Arab youngsters to conquer all of Palestine would be explored.

Segment Two: A day of following the official news coverage of the PBC radio and TV. Follow those messages of Jihad, as they are conveyed to the Palestinian Arab people, and integrate tens of news clips from the years when CNN forgot to follow the PBC. Note how attacks on Beer Sheva, Hadera and Netanya are justified by the PBC, since these “illegal Jewish settlements” took the place of Arab villages in 1948.

Segment Three: A day on the Fatah Website – With the most newsworthy praises forthcoming for the latest attacks on Jews. Note the fact that Fatah never recognizes any two state solution.

Segment Four: A day of interviewing the official pollsters of the PA who will show how the majority of the Palestinian Arab population justifies suicide bombers in the context of liberating all of Palestine.

Segment Five: A day in the life of an UNRWA camp, where thousands of Arabs languish under the premise and promise of the Right of Return. Make sure that you see the Right of Return computer network that operates in UNRWA camps to help Arabs facilitate their return to homes and villages from 1948 that no longer exist.

Segment Six: A Friday in a mosque. Follow the message conveyed on any given Friday in any mosque under the funding and control of the PA. Begin with Jerusalem.

Segment Seven: Review the new and official maps of the Palestinian Authority which show all of Palestine as the location of any future Palestinian state.

Segment Eight: Interview the Hamas officials who are in the Arafat cabinet. Review the Hamas-PLO accord from December 15, 1995 that incorporated Hamas into the PA and do not forget to mention the PA-Hamas agreement from May 9, 1995 in which the PA agreed to supply weapons to the Hamas. Since CNN has not yet reported the Arafat-Hamas cooperative agreements, all this would be new and newsworthy for the CNN viewers.

Segment Nine: Spend a day reviewing Arafat’s unreported speeches to his own people. Start with his recent calls for millions of Arabs to sacrifice themselves to liberate Jerusalem.

Segment Ten: Run a piece on how the Palestinian Authority offers a safe haven for anyone who murders a Jew and takes refuge inside the territories run by the PA. Since PA officials, assailants and victims are ready to be interviewed in this regard, this will be quite a salient human interest story for the CNN viewing audience.

An Immediate Reaction To President Bush’s Policy Speech

Tonight’s speech made me think that I was hearing the thoughts of the poetic prophet Isaiah, preaching to his flock about the vision of the rising of the dry bones in his seven prophesies of redemption.

Far be it from me to call the U.S. President a prophet, far less a false one, but his vision of the process by which to pull our region out of the muck, at least if taken at face value from tonight’s speech, is based on false messianic type hope, a hope that has already cost us way too much blood, sorrow and agony.

Why go far. Immediately following the speech, CNN broadcast an interview with one of Israel’s most recent false prophets, former premier Ehud Barak who said he could accept every word as stated. The former premier (whose English by the way has improved dramatically since he left office) was immediately followed by Saeb Erikat who was having a hard time controlling his venomous anger at the obvious problem he knew he would now face in continuing to spew his regular dosage of verbal poison against Israel.

I feel sorry for Mr. Bush, I really do. He’s in a tough spot and there is nothing he can say or do that will satisfy his critics – so he did the next best thing – he laid out a vision that if, (that’s IF with a capital I and a capital F) adhered to, would in fact bring with it the Shimon Peres dream of a new middle east.

Israelis have a saying, im lasavta sheli hayu galgalim, which can be loosely translated as “and my grandma rides roller skates,” or “ya, right, that’ll happen.”

IF the Palestinians create the coup that the president called for and send Arafat packing; and

IF they found a suitable replacement that could actually govern without corruption; and

IF they actually created the reforms the president called for, separation of the arms of government, free media, real court system, in short – democracy; and

IF that government was able to keep its people in control and stop terror; and

IF the new constitution created included freedom of religion where members of all faiths could vote and serve in the legislature; and

IF members of all faiths and creeds were allowed to own and live on the land, in other words not an apartheid, Judenrein state; and

IF they created a free market economy that satisfied the IMF and World Bank’s strictest criteria; and

IF they began teaching peace in their schools and summer programs; and

IF they added Israel to the maps they use in their schools and propaganda and removed her from their symbols; and

IF and IF and IF and IF…

I too would sign on to the president’s plan and I would be happy to live in such a country — wait a minute, I think I used to live in one, oh yah, now that I think of it – it’s called Canada…

The author is a veteran commentator and IDF reservist in a special forces unit who has been staying in touch with his friends all over the world by way of these e-mails. He is currently completing work on a book that will illustrate the positive changes in Israeli and Jewish society during Operation Defensive Shield.

Dr. Mike Cohen
MTC Analysis & Strategy Systems
Corporate & Not-for-Profit Division
(+972-54) 996-453
mike@mtc.org.il

Bush, Like Clinton, Unwittingly Offered a Prescription for War

President Bill Clinton gave a speech in September, 1993, in which he said that the PLO and Israel would sign an agreement on the White House lawn that would leave the most important issues the future of Jerusalem and the fate of 3.6 million Arab refugees and their descendents from the 1948 war to be “resolved” seven years later.

My oldest son, Noam, then eleven years old, watched Clinton’s speech and shrugged his shoulders, saying “it looks like everybody is preparing a war for when I will be eighteen”.

How correct Noam was. His Israel army combat service commenced in the Fall of the year of 2000, at the time when the war broke out between Israel and the PLO over the “unresolved” issues of Jerusalem and the Arab refugees from 1948.

What the PLO and Israel could not resolve at the negotiating table moved to the field of battle.

President George W. Bush’s June 2002 speech repeated Clinton’s mistake of September 1993.

Despite Bush’s vision of a democratic and accountable Palestinian Arab entity that could live in peace and harmony with Israel, the president again left the tough issues of Jerusalem and refugees for “future” negotiations.

Despite Bush’s concern for the poverty and suffering that afflicts the Palestinian Arabs, Bush once again relegated the poorest of Palestinian Arab society, the Palestinian Arab refugees, to continue a life of squalor in makeshift UNRWA Arab refugee shantytowns that have been their “temporary” abode since 1949, where they have wallowed under the premise and promise of the “right of return” to their homes and villages which they lost in the 1948 war. These homes and villages from 1948 no longer exist, except in the UNRWA educational system which inculcates the idea of the right of return to the precise homes and villages that they left in 1948, even though their abodes no longer exist.

Bush is now considering an additional $50 million for US AID for the UNRWA to keep these Arab refugees in these squalid conditions… instead of initiating an effort to resettle the Arab refugees in a decent and dignified conditions that would douse the flames of their rebellion.

If the US continues to relegate millions of Arabs to their continued “temporary” refugee status until they can be repatriated to homes that no longer exist, the US fans the flames of anger that may kindle even more violence in the future.

As to Bush’s notion that Jerusalem’s status will be negotiated in the future, this also places unrealistic hopes in the imagination of Palestinian Arabs. That is because Israel annexed all of Jerusalem in 1967, after 19 years when Arabs ruled East Jerusalem and denied Jews any access to the Jewish Holy Sites in the Old City of Jerusalem. The current PLO campaign, repeated time and again by Arafat, calls for the liberation of “Holy Jerusalem”. Bush’s speech gives hope to the Palestinian Arabs that they may have an ally in their war to liberate holy Jerusalem.

As in 1993, what the PLO and Israel cannot resolve at the negotiating table will move to the field of battle.

Bush’s speech of 2002, like Clinton’s message in 1993, remains a prescription for war.