PLO Dissapointment with Bush Speech

By

-

June 24, 2002

The Palestinians are disappointed in President Bush’s speech and particularly in the demand that they replace their leadership, which implies a demand to remove Arafat from power.

The Palestinians were also disappointed that Bush did not call on Israel to “stop its aggression” and to begin negotiations immediately with a strict timetable for implementation.

But in an attempt to appease the US and to maintain an open channel of discourse with the administration, the Palestinian leadership and Arafat issued a statement referring the to speech positively. But off the record Palestinian officials said: “This speech presented Sharon’s ideas combined with the American vision of two states. The demand to replace Arafat is not realistic.”

Officially, Arafat said that he welcomed the ideas raised by President Bush in his speech and he considers them to contribute and promote the peace process. “The leadership hopes to discuss the necessary details to secure the success of these ideas through direct and bilateral meetings with the American administration and with the consultation of the quartet [the US, Europe, Russia and the UN] and the Arab brothers.”

This piece ran in Yediot Aharonot on June 25, 2002

Confession of an Israeli analyst of Islam and Arab statecraft: I believe Arafat

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 23, 2002

On May 15, 2002, Yasir Arafat addressed the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramalla. The occasion was the 54th anniversary of the Nakba (“the disaster” of Palestine, i.e. the establishment of the State of Israel on May 15, 1948). In his speech Arafat referred to the suicide attacks against Israeli citizens, stating that these attacks “do not serve our cause, but rather subject us to angry criticism on the part of the international community”. Arafat called upon the Council to deal with this problem (which has aroused serious discussions among Palestinians and Arabs in general) from the vantage point of the “Hudaybiyya Conciliation Accord, out of our concern for the patriotic and national interest of our [Palestinian] people and [Arab] nation, in order to strengthen worldwide solidarity with the Palestinian people and its cause”.

What is behind this reference to Hudaybiyya? It conveys the following twin messages.

“The Hudaybiyya Conciliation Accord” was an agreement which the Prophet Muhammad signed in the year 628 A.D. with the infidels of his tribe, the Kuraysh. He did so upon their refusal to join the community of Islam, when he realized that he could not defeat them militarily. Two years later, having consolidated his power, he attacked Holy Mecca, slaughtered the men of his own tribe and torched all the symbols of their heathen culture.
Islam regards the actions of the prophet as religiously sanctioned models for the behavior of the faithful. In fact, the authorized collections (Hadith) of Muhammad’s acts and pronouncements are among the important sources for the Islamic authorities of every generation in deciding questions of religious law. Thus, the prophet’s way of treating his agreement with the Kuraysh is perceived as the ideal procedure for Muslims when dealing with non-believers: When Muslims cannot impose their will for expanding the rule of Islam by force, they are permitted to sign temporary agreements with the non-believers. Such agreements are to be kept until Allah grants a sufficient increase in Muslim power. At that point the faithful are allowed (or obliged) to break the agreements and to impose Islamic terms on the infidels. Why else would Allah have granted them the power to prevail?

In referring to Hudaybiyya, Arafat meant exactly this: Any agreement with Israel is — in his eyes — no more than a Hudaybiyya Conciliation Accord. This is eminently clear to anyone who reads the Islamic sources, preferably in Arabic. (Internet sites in English tend to portray a rather conciliatory picture of Islam, for Western consumption, by rephrasing Islamic messages.)

The proof for this is inherent in the second message of the quotation from Arafat’s speech. Suicide attacks at this juncture are not condemned as vile inhuman acts but are held in abeyance because they are presently incapable of advancing Palestinian goals. At present, the Palestinian cause can best be served by avoiding international condemnation and by promoting the encouragement and sympathy of the world community.

What does Arafat mean? That suicide attacks are evil and should be removed from now on from the arsenal of legitimate weapons in the struggle against Israel? Not at all. If anything, recruitment and training of shahids is accelerating. What he advocates for the near term is a change in the modus operandi. Does he promise not to use suicide attacks again? By no means. Does his most recent call to desist from attacks upon civilians remind us of his record of broken promises made to Rabin (1993), Netanyahu (1996) and in many public declarations between 1993 and 2000? They do indeed.

As a student of Arab politics and as a Zionist with personal past involvement with efforts to promote peace and understanding between Israelis and Arabs, I do indeed believe Arafat’s message: he does wish to come to an agreement with the Israelis, but, as he points out to his followers, any agreement with non-Muslims, such as a commitment to stop suicide attacks, is simply a modern version of Hudaybiyya. As such, in accordance with Islamic principles which form the basis of the political culture in the Arab sphere, such a commitment may (or must) be broken at the right time. Clearly, before long, when in Arafat’s judgment suicide attacks will again be helpful to the Palestinian cause, he will once again call upon his followers to go out and sacrifice their lives in Israel’s streets (‘millions of shahids marching to Jerusalem’).

Great tragedies have occurred in international affairs when governments try to understand potential enemies in terms of their own political culture. The events of September 11 can serve as one recent example. Israeli ignorance of Islamic traditions and Arab culture have brought about many serious political and military setbacks, from the surprise attack which started the Yom Kippur War (October 6, 1973) to our lack of realism all through the Oslo process, 1993-2000. We shall continue to disregard the Islamic tradition only on pain of more naive dreams, by Israeli and Western leaders, dreams which are totally detached from the Middle Eastern reality, a reality which is becoming increasingly colored by the Islamic brush.

Bar-Ilan University, Israel
mkedar@mail.biu.ac.il
Phone: +972 54 778 908

Department of Arabic and research associate of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies

A Child Describes A Terror Attack On Her Home Which Resulted in the Murder of her Mother and Three Siblings

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 23, 2002

“My mother and I were watching television on the upstairs floor. Suddenly we heard shots.”

Avia, 13, recalls the night of horror at Itamar, from her bed at Petah Tikvah’s Schneider Hospital.

“I turned off the television and got under my parents’ bed. Mom went downstairs, and then it got quiet. Someone came into the room and I saw his legs. I thought it was my brother, but then he started speaking in Arabic, and I realized he was a terrorist. He shot at the rooms next door and then sat down near the bed and replaced a clip. Suddenly someone fired. It got dark in the house. I heard soldiers coming, they threw a grenade, but nothing happened. When they threw the second grenade, I was hit in the stomach, and then the terrorist went out of the room and went into the bathroom. The soldiers asked if I could see him, I said I couldn’t, and ran outside.”

“I was taken to an ambulance, and from there to a helicopter and I was flown to the hospital.”

Boaz Shabu, the father, said that on his way home from work he heard about the terror attack in Itamar. “I called home, and I called my wife’s cell phone, and there was no answer. There was no answer on my son Neria’s cell phone either. I knew that terrorist had gone into my house. At the army base I called again, this time from an unlisted phone, and then they told me that it was my house. I said that I’m the father. When I got to the house, soldiers kept turning my head around, so I wouldn’t see the bodies. I said I want to see Rachel and Tzvika, and it was a very hard sight to see.”

Boaz does not know yet whether they will stay in Itamar. “What is certain is that I will never ever go back to that house. At most, I’ll go to another house in the community,” he said. Whereas Avia said, “I don’t know if I want to go back to Itamar.”

At his room at Sheba Hospital at Tel Hashomer, Assael Shabu recalls the terrible night. “My brother Avishai and I were watching television. The terrorist came in and started shooting at us. The bullets hit Avishai and missed me. I hid under the pillow and that’s how I was saved. Only when the soldiers came into the house, did they find me.”

Assael, who lost his mother and three of his brothers, was seriously injured. He was evacuated to the hospital where he underwent an operation and his leg was amputated.

Yesterday, at around 6:00 a.m., Assael woke up for the first time and asked his aunt where his mother is. Later he told his aunt that he saw the soldiers rush into the house and yell, “There are dead people here.” He said he knew his brother Avishai had been killed because he could not hear him crying.

The relatives by his bedside have not yet told Assael that his mother and two other brothers were killed in the terror attack.

Today, Assael’s sister Avia is to be transferred from Schneider Hospital to Sheba Hospital, so that the two siblings can be together.

This piece ran in “Maariv” on June 23, 2002

Israeli Intelligence Shares Data With US Concerning Arafat’s Direct Involvement in Latest Terror Attacks

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 23, 2002

Israel conveyed to the US up-to-date and extremely detailed intelligence which demonstrates Yasser Arafat’s personal involvement in the recent terror attacks in the heart of Israel, including last week’s terror attacks. Shortly thereafter, President Bush called Prime Minister Sharon and expressed understanding of Israel’s right to defend itself.

Early Thursday morning, Washington time, a special Israeli envoy arrived at the offices of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and hand-delivered the Israeli material to her. The material included decisive and clear-cut evidence illustrating the connection between Arafat and the terror attacks. Israeli security establishment officials also presented the same documents to the CIA representatives in Israel.

A senior American source said that the prime minister gave instructions to transmit the intelligence immediately after a telephone conversation he had with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday evening, in which he reiterated the personal link between Arafat and terror attacks in the heart of Israel. The source said that the material was immediately passed on to President Bush himself. The source also divulged that the detailed information that Israel conveyed to the administration in Washington played a major role in the green light from the American capital to Jerusalem to embark on a comprehensive military operation in PA territory. White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer also said that Israel has a right to defend itself.

Furthermore, the American source said that the Israeli material gave the Washington administration officials a further reason to postpone President Bush’s speech, at least for the time being. “The material shown to the Americans made them have second and third thoughts about the speech,” said the senior source.

The source also said that the material reinforced the American understanding that the Israeli demand to select an executive prime minister for the Palestinian Authority instead of Arafat, is a basic demand from which Israel cannot shift.

For the present, it seems that the Americans will continue supporting Israel with regard to a military operation in the Palestinian cities, and will hold off on the diplomatic speech at least until President Bush returns from the meeting of the G-8 leaders in Canada this weekend.

This piece ran in Maariv on June 23, 2002

Glorifying Suicide Bombers: Now a Secular Vision of “Palestine”

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 23, 2002

On Wednesday, at French Hill in Jerusalem, the Palestinians reached a new record of dubious worth: the 120th suicide bomber since the beginning of the el-Aksa Intifada on September 29, 2000. And this is still not the end. Hamas promised, in a pamphlet distributed on Tuesday after the suicide attack on the Gilo bus, to begin a suicide attack offensive described as, “Suicide attackers from every direction — suicide attackers in a chain, one after the other.”

Fatah, the Marxist PFLP, and of course the Islamic Jihad, have all adopted suicide bombing as a strategic weapon. GSS commanders say that the production of bomb belts is not quick enough to equip the number of volunteers waiting in line to commit suicide.

120 suicide bombers, men and women, do not constitute a fringe phenomenon. They are a sign of a societal norm, a reflection of a new Palestinian culture. This is a phenomenon that enjoys the support of the Palestinian street and leadership, not only in public opinion polls but also in the expressions of happiness after each attack, at the funerals for the suicide bombers, in their pictures on every street corner and in the songs praising them. [… ]

In recent months the chorus of praise has also been joined by the mothers of the suicide bombers. More and more mothers chose to be hotographed with their son the suicide bomber before he leaves for the mission, to congratulate and encourage him. Last Saturday, before Mahmud Hassan Abed of the Sheikh Raduan neighborhood in Gaza left for a suicide mission at Dugit, he had his picture taken with his mother and a Kalashnikov. After he was killed, his mother did not mourn — on the contrary, she celebrated, distributing sweets to relatives. The mother of Hamza Samoudi, who blew up the bus at Megiddo on June 5, was proud of her son: “Hamza wanted to get me into Paradise… He is taking women, the beautiful girls of Paradise, he lived and died as a hero, a blessed hero.”

On the Palestinian street these mothers are known as Hansa, after Hansa the daughter of Amr, who lived in the time of the Prophet Mohammed and became a role model, a kind of Palestinian “Hannah and her seven sons.” Hansa took part in the battle of Kadesiya, one of the most important of Mohammed’s battles, and encouraged her four sons for fight even if it cost them their lives. According to the Koran she told them, “Remember that the eternal world (Paradise) is better than this transitory world.”

They Know What They’re Doing

This new heroic culture has lead to an upheaval: suicide bombings are not viewed as attacks caused by despair, disappointment or in revenge, but as acts of hope. The goal of a suicide bomber is not killing for the sake of killing, but as a means to break Israel’s power of endurance — to undermine society, to shatter the economy, to remove the Sharon government and to force Israel into accepting the Palestinians’ conditions for the permanent solution. The Palestinians feel that have already created a small earthquake that has cracked the social and economic walls in Israel. They believe with a bit more effort they can cause Israel’s collapse.

Hamas leaders said this week, “the suicide bombers are the strategic weapon for reaching deterrence and balance. The Palestinians are creating a new life through the gate of suicide bombings.”

It is worth taking a look at the human profile of the suicide bombers. In Gilo it was Mohammed el-Ghoul, an MA student at A-Najah university in Nablus, which has earned the title of “suicide college.” Over 30 of them have come from this academic institution. Around half of the 120 suicide bombers have university education, another 35% have high school education, and the rest have elementary school education. In other words, these are not rash and unstable people, but suicide bombers who know very well what weapon they are using.

It Will Reach Europe Too

Salah Shahada, commander of the Hamas military wing, said this week in an interview on the organization’s Internet site that the rush of people wanting to become suicide bombers indicates mental health and is not a way of running away from a situation of despair and frustration. He laid down four principles in the process of choosing suicide bombers: “religious devotion — observing prayers, charity and good deeds. Parental satisfaction — we check if the young person is liked by his family and that he is not the only breadwinner, we don’t take single children. His ability to complete the assignment and most important, we ensure that the suicide act be such that it motivates more suicide bombings and encourages jihad among the public.”

In Palestinian terminology, even officially, nobody talks about suicide, but about sacrifice. Even Sari Nusseibeh and Hanan Ashrawi, who on Wednesday released an opinion calling to stop these acts, called the suicide bombings “military acts whose goal is against Israeli civilians.”

The Palestinians have a sense of being pioneers. Arabic television has helped them spread this sense to Arab countries. Clerics from all over the Moslem world, led by Sheikh Kardawi of Qatar, considered the greatest of religious rulers, have given their blessing to these acts, including by women. Even Sheikh a-Zahar, Mohammed Tantawi, has bowed to pressure and issued a ruling that views suicide bombings as legitimate from a religious aspect. Arafat’s mantra “millions of shahids marching to Jerusalem” has become the slogan at demonstrations in Egypt, Jordan and Iraq. In marches of support of the Intifada in Germany, France or Belgium, children march with dummy explosives belts. “If these is no war against this cancer, it is liable to spread to Europe too,” security sources said this week.

Only on Wednesday night, after the terror attack at French Hill, when the sword of exile was placed at his neck, did Arafat realize that he was liable to end his career as president of Palestine. Only then he called on his people to stop the terror attacks against Israeli civilians. But his call came too late, after the phenomenon of suicide bombers has become rooted — thanks to him as well — and he no longer has the ability to put a stop to this norm.

This piece ran in Yediot Aharonot on June 21, 2002

Palestinian Authority Official Rejects Idea of a Provisional State

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 16, 2002

Yasser Abed Rabbo: Special Ministerial Committee to Present 100-Day plan to President Arafat –

“Any declaration of a Palestinian state before Israeli withdrawal effectively consolidates the occupation and the present status quo”

www.palestine-pmc.com/statments/2002/june/stat-15-6-02.html

June 15, 2002
Palestine Media Center-PMC

Mr. Yasser Abed Rabbo, Minister of Culture and Information, declared that the Special Ministerial Committee would present the main points of the 100-day plan to President Yasser Arafat, in order for it to be ratified at the weekly Ministerial meeting.

In an interview with the Palestinian daily Al-Quds, Mr. Abed Rabbo stressed, “The Ministerial Committee, which the President has initiated, will work on a daily basis to lay down the ideas and approaches, prior to the [Ministerial] meeting, in preparation for their assessment and to accelerate the process of their ratification.”

The Minister added that the committee is working on presenting a set of detailed practical suggestions with a specific timetable, in order to implement all articles, which include monetary, economic, security and judicial reforms.

Furthermore, the Minister emphasized that the plan entails implementing the most urgent of such reforms on the condition that “the international community cooperates with us to end the racist Israeli plans to divide the Palestinian Territory into fragmented cantons, and to stop the continuous reoccupation of Palestinian cities, towns and refugee camps.”

“It would be hypocritical of the international community not to support us and to stand silent against the destructive Israeli policy, while it calls on us to achieve the [reform] program which we are currently preparing for and to which we are devoting all our time, efforts and skills,” stated Mr. Abed Rabbo. Regarding a possible “provisional” state, the Minister underscored, “A provisional state is unacceptable to us, because it means accepting a permanent state on mere parts of the Palestinian Territory, and on isolated cantons under Israeli administration. For this reason, we call for a final agreement, once and for all, as it is the only means to free the Palestinian and Israeli peoples from the dangers of a destructive and long-standing conflict.” He added that the Palestinian leadership welcomes any progress in the American position. However, what is needed is not a new ‘vision’ or ‘program’ or ideas about a provisional state – which is unprecedented in human history – that entails a state with no borders, no sovereignty, and no geographical connection.

“What we need is a detailed plan to implement international resolutions, and a mechanism supervised by the quartet with a specific timetable to implement this plan, which aims at ending the Israeli occupation and its withdrawal to the June 4th 1967 borders, and the subsequent declaration of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital,” he emphasized, adding that “any declaration of a Palestinian state before Israeli withdrawal effectively consolidates the occupation and the present status quo.”

Mr. Abed Rabbo further stressed that “before praising our intentions to undertake reforms, the American Administration ought to stop Sharon’s destructive plans, which pose the biggest obstacle to implementing such reforms, particularly the creation of so-called ‘buffer zones’ and a ‘security wall’, making the lives of Palestinians in dozens of border villages intolerable.”

“Washington must not play the role of the “observer”; it must eliminate the Israeli measures which paralyze our ability to achieve the bare minimum of our reform program. It is not possible to improve the living standards of a nation who lives inside one big jail, nor is it possible to establish effective, administrative institutions in light of daily Israeli aggression and destruction,” the Minister concluded.

The Fence on the Green Line: How Ridiculous

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 16, 2002

“This has no political significance,” the wolf told Little Red Hiding Hood, “it’s just a security fence, a barrier on the seamline to stop terrorists, just like the one in the Gaza Strip.” Nonsense.

If this were a security fence, they would have put it somewhere else entirely, 15 kilometers more to the east.

The fence, whose construction began this week, more or less follows the Green Line, it is a political, and not a security fence. From a security aspect, it will be more of a burden than an asset. The fence will shrink to zero the warning expanse for Kfar Saba and Petah Tikva, Rosh Haayin and Modiin, Bat Hefer and Kochav Yair. All the forces that today safeguard Kfar Saba from deep inside, will be stuck maintaining the fence, and they will be alerted only after a terrorist already crosses it and the electronic warnings go off. But from the time the fence is crossed until a terror attack is committed in the middle of a neighborhood or a mall, there is no expanse in which to catch the terrorist.

And that is the main bluff, but not the only one, when comparing the Sharon fence to the Gaza fence. While it is true that almost all the suicide bombers have come from Samaria and not from Gaza, it is not true that terrorists do not cross the fence around the Gaza Strip. There is no problem in crossing it, and it has been crossed hundreds of times. In some cases, terror attacks were also perpetrated, such as when the soldiers in the outpost near Kerem Shalom were killed, or when terrorists infiltrated Nahal Oz or when they placed bombs in the fields of Alumim.

In most of the cases, the terrorists were caught before managing to carry out their mission. Explosives belt to be used for an attack were found near Moshav Birchiya in a hiding place. Because the fence is not a barrier, but a system of alert. There is no fence too difficult to cross. Every fence can easily be cut or climbed over, or dug under, and if it is electric, it can easily be de-electrified. Getting across is very easy. What is hard is to get across without discovery, and that is what makes the Gaza fence effective.

A terrorist who (easily) crosses the fence knows that in an hour or two it will be discovered that he crossed and that the pursuit for him will begin. To commit a terror attack, he has this amount of time to act. He has to find a target of less than an hour’s walking distance from the place he crossed the fence. And around Gaza, there are no such targets.

This is not the situation on the seamline. There, there are targets in abundance, there one can cross and disappear immediately. There, with relative ease, even if you look Arab, you can get on a bus or hail a taxi.

And this is the second bluff. The real reason for the fact that almost all the suicide bombers come from Samaria and not from Gaza is not the fence that does exist in the Sharon and does exist in Gaza, but because of something that there is in the Sharon and isn’t in Gaza: somebody waiting on the other side. In Gaza, the fence separates between an area that is entirely Arab and an area that is entirely Jewish, and a terror cell walking around there stands out like a Maccabi fan in a Beitar bleacher, while on the seamline, this is a fence that has an Arab population on both sides of it.

Most of the suicide bombers crossed the Green Line on foot, because even today, when there is no fence, there are barriers and there are patrols and there are lookouts from planes, and it is very hard to cross by car. But when a terrorist reaches our side by foot, there is usually somebody waiting for him here who has arranged transport for him. From this aspect, there are a few places on the seamline where a fence will be more like the fence that goes through Rafah. The one that weapons and drugs and people continually cross over and under between Egypt and back, and no one can stop it.

If somebody wants to put up an effective fence that will protect Kfar Saba and Hadera, they must put it up far to the east of the Green Line and keep all the barriers and roadblocks that exist there today between this fence and Kfar Saba. Those who recommended and those who decided to put up the fence on the Green Line know this. They know that their fence will not promote security, but just the reverse. But they want the fence for its political significance. The fence is a fact on the ground. Like a settlement. Only in the other direction. The fence says, by means of the fact on the ground: up to here is ours, from here on it isn’t ours. The settlers frequently use the term “driving stakes in the ground.” In this case this is no image, stakes are being driven, and stakes in the ground are what will determine the future.

The builders of the fence know this. They are trying to dupe us that it has no political significance, because they want to harness the fear of the residents of the Sharon, Hadera and Afula to their wagon. But the only thing it does have is political significance. To create facts on the ground, to mark the future border of the country and to even determine the boundaries of society, who is in and who is beyond the fence.

And where are the demonstrations, where is the NRP, why do we hear nothing from the Likud? And our prime minister, Ariel Sharon, a man who understands a thing or two about creating facts and the meaning of driving stakes, where is he in this matter, among the dupers or the duped? Is he a partner to the plot, or has he fallen asleep on watch.

This piece ran in Yediot Aharonot on June 14, 2002

Dr. Yossi Beillin: Israel’s Shadow Foreign Minister? To Whom is Beillin Beholden?

By

David Bedein

-

June 16, 2002

On June 2, 2002, Dr. Yossi Beillin called a rally to launched his new movement – “Shachar”, which will undoubtedly represent a continuation of Beillin’s activities in the ECF – the Economic Cooperation Foundation.

ECF was founded by Beillin more than 10 years ago, while Beillin was in the opposition, in between the National Unity government of Peres-Shamir, 1984-1990 and the government of Rabin-Peres, 1992-1996, when Beillin played a crucial role in foreign policy decision making power in both governments.

In its formal declaration of principles, submitted to the Israel Registrar of Non Profit Organizations of the Israel Minister of Interior in January, 1991, the ECF declared that its aim was to facilitates allowing for the intervention of the European Union in any negotiations that would take place between Israel and the Arab world. The terms assistance or involvement are not used – The word intervention is used, even though advocacy of European “intervention” runs contrary to the policies of all Israeli governments not to allow any foreign entity to intervene in the internal matters of Israeli foreign affairs.

The ECF advocacy of European intervention led to a decision of the European Union To formally retain the services of the EDF. Indeed, from documents received and perused by “Makor Rishon:, it can now be reported that on October 29th, 1999, the EU provided a retainer of 400,000 Euro to the ECF for the year 2000.

The ECF was also funded during the years 1992-1994, by the Norweigan government through its then minister of State Affairs, Mr. Terje Larson, who was the initiator of the Oslo Peace Talks, and also the host of the negotiations that went on between Yossi Beillin and Arafat advisor Abu Mazen, which produced an unofficial and unsigned agreement that was reached between Beillin and Abu Mazen, which formed the basis of the as yet unknown understandings that launched the Oslo agreement between the Israeli government and the PLO in 1993.

The ECF also received funding from foundations based in Europe, the US and Canada, including the Ford Foundation, which maintains close ties with the State Department, and the Kahanoff Foundation in Canada, which is closely connected with the Herzog family in Canada.

Meanwhile the ECF also receives funding from the Fredrich Ebert Foundation – a political foundation associated with the SPD party in Germany.

Funding from foreign governments for political purposes has caused a stir in the Israeli political arena. On May 4th, 2002, MK Uri Ariel from the National Unity party, raised a parliamentary question in the Knesset on this topic to the Minister of Interior, asking him to investigate how funds pouring from foreign governments to the ECF are being used, and what obligations or contracts the ECF had had undertaken towards these foreign governments. After all, there is no free lunch.

Ariel also proposed a Knesset resolution which would forbid any future European government intervention in the negotiations that Israel holds with its Arab neighbors. That resolution passed the Knesset overwhelmingly.

Accountability

To this date, the ECF has not submitted a report of its financial activities for the year 2000, to the Israel Registrar of Non-Profit Organizations, as required by Israeli law.

As a result, back on January 25, 2002, the registrar sent the ECF a strongly worded letter stating that “We are unable to provide the above non-profit organization with a permit stating that its books are in order for the year 2002.”

On June 2, 2002, Beillin’s spokesman, Mr. Uri Zakai, sent a fax to “Makor Rishon”, confirming that the ECF has indeed not yet submitted its books for the year 2000 and blamed it on technical reasons, promising that it would be taken care of by the end of the month.

Beillin, who had left his seat with the government of Israel and the Knesset, in March, 2001, when Sharon’s government took office, is today as the senior researcher for ECF. This, despite the fact that according to records of the ECF Beillin left the ECF back in 1995.

According to ECF Director of Projects, Ms. Avivit Bar-Am, the ECF coordinated a forum for 40 non-government Israeli organizations involved in all the components of negotiations with the Palestinians. According to Bar-Am, the ECF provides these non-government organizations with technical support and advice in fund raising. Under Beillin’s close supervision and directives, Beillin’s forum continues to meet and work with Palestinian colleagues throughout this entire period of conflict.

Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom, a member of the “Rabbis for Human Rights” and the liaison between the RHR and the ECF, notes that that Beillin’s forum meetings serve as “a moral encouragement for peace activists”.

Beillin uses this forum to advise the EU as to how to direct its funds for non-government organizations

EU documents examined by “Makor Rishon” showed that the EU uses Beillin as the ultimate decision-maker for the destination of the funding. One of these documents, From October, 1999, noted that Dr. Yossi Beillin had advised the EU to fund the “Four Mothers” organization, the seemingly spontaneous grass roots movement that. Organized the movement for Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon.

The ECF forum for Non-governmental organizations also works together with Israeli Arab organizations to communicate their concerns to the current Israeli prime Minister’s National Security Council. In a ECF protocol from June 5th, 2001, it is disclosed that the ECF forum serves as “the only channel for dialogue between Israeli Arab organizations and the Israeli prime minister”, going on to state that “Israeli Arabs feel more comfortable working with the ECF than directly with the National Security Council which is subjected to the prime minister.

So not only is Beillin a gatekeeper for the EU – he is also a gatekeeper and liason for PM Ariel Sharon.

One factor that allows for the ECF’s “non-government organizations forum” to function is that it does not appear on the PA’s non-government organization’s black list which boycotts many other Israeli non-government organizations.

Avivit Ish-Am reports that foundations often transfer funds to the ECF which are designated for Palestinian purposes, because they trust that the ECF will transfer the monies to their intended sources. This is a transparent maneuver designated to prevent monies reaching questionable sources in the PA. In this respect, Beillin is in fact, playing the role that the PA was supposed to play in the areas under their control.

The ECF operates in 4 main arenas:

Policy planning and implementation. This relates to issues concerning the permanent status of the Palestinians. They deal with issues concerning refugees, security, settlements, borders, economy and Jerusalem.
Crisis managing and prevention of crisis. In this respect, The CF serves as negotiator with leaders from both camps and operates as emissaries between Israel and the Palestinians. At a time of war and conflict, it is indeed unusual for a a private foundation should be engaged in such a role.
In this respect, the ECF takes credit with hammering out the wording of the Mitchell Report, which puts the onus of the outbreak of violence on Israel, even if it does not blame Sharon’s visit on the Temple Mount in September 2000 as the reason for the outbreak of violence. The Mitchell Report was compiled during the period that Beillin served as Justice Minister in Barak’s government, and issued while Sharon was prime minister, in May 2001.
Planning the final status of the Palestinians, which is directed towards building a framework for peace following the signing of any formal agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
The ECF adopts European models of trans-border cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians. One example is the 1999 “Cooperation South” project between the municipalities of 70 cities from the Haifa region and Jenin. That ECF initiative is funded by the German government.
The ECF deals with the internal issue of the Israeli Arabs. In cooperation with the Palestinians and Jordan, they are working on a long-term plan to integrate the Israeli Arabs as a national minority into Israeli society

In a taped interview with a foreign journalist in August 2001, Beillin affirmed that he initiates negotiations with the Palestinians on all levels even though he knows that that “there is no talk of peace” in the Arab society and that “there are no peace activists among the Palestinians”.

Beillin blames this state of affairs on the current political system of the PA. Nevertheless, Beillin believes that it is possible to simply overlook this fact, and it in no way stands in the way of his tireless efforts to continue with his peace initiatives together with Avraham Burg, who is among the founders and activists of ECF as well as Foreign Minister Shimon Peres.

At times, says Beillin, the work is done by himself and Burg while at other times they work in coordination with Peres.

EU sources confirm that Peres has advised the EU to fund ECF projects.

Beillin estimates that “it is unrealistic to wait for a cease fire in order to begin political negotiations”. Beillin goes further and openly states that he does not want the Labor government to wait for a cease fire and that he will continue to negotiate with the Palestinians even during continuous Palestinian terror attacks against Israel.

According to Beillin, the most important thing for him at this time is a return to the negotiating table. He states that the Israeli government’s policy not to negotiate under fire “is irrelevant” to him.

When asked what he would do in the scenario of Arafat forming a coalition with the Hamas and the Islamic jihad, Beillin states that this form of government would be an artificial one and might raise certain difficulties, but “will certainly not prevent me from continued cooperation with the PLO and the PA.”

In effect, the ECF is preparing background in all the areas of negotiations that the government of Israel is unwilling to deal with.

According to Ravid Druker, author of the best selling book “Ehud Barak – Test Results”, pg. 288: “The fear of dealing with ‘sacred cows’ created a situation where none of the official bodies of the government of Israel was able to deal with loaded issues such as refugees, dismantling settlements, Jerusalem, not to mention the ability to put a complete final solution on the negotiations table. The IDF, the GSS and the Foreign Ministry never dared to deal with these issues in depth… into this vacuum the ECF entered. Gilad Scher (Director of the prime minister’s office during Barak’s government) was employed in the past as one of the security specialists prepared by the ECF. His assistant, Gidi Greenstein was an ECF employee. A very unusual situation was created where a group of people outside of the establishment… had more influence on the negotiations than both the establishment and the GSS combined. Most of the Israeli work papers on the subject of refugees and Jerusalem were based, for instance, on the models and phrasing given by the ECF.”

Ravid also points at crucial projects of the ECF which continue to this day and influence the current state of negotiations.

“The ECF were able to produce a framework for regional security even after Ehud Barak’s exit from the political arena. The framework involves a discreet political cooperation between Jordan, Israel and the PA. Jordan sent senior ex-generals, and the negotiations took place under the full knowledge of King Abdullah. Representing the Israeli side were Yair Hirshfield and Ron Pundak who were joined by security men such as Colonel (res) Baruch Spiegal, who was the deputy coordinator of the Israeli government’s operations in the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians were also involved. The Belgium government sponsored and funded those meetings.”

The most astounding fact in all of this is that, according to Druker, the ECF reached an agreement with the differing parties in which they “agreed upon bringing in a international troops [to oversee a peace agreement].. and that according to the agreements, these troops will be made up of Europeans and Americans with a specific mandate given by the Security Council.”

Ravid’s investigations fit closely with the reality of Beillin’s meetings which took place throughout May, 2000, in London. Beillin, Burg, MK Naomi Chazan and former Chief of Staff Amnon Lipkin Shachaff met with senior PLO officials and the PA in London and in Dublin and continued to lay out a framework involving all the issues concerning the present negotiations.

Ravid Druker reveals in his book that under Barak’s government, Beillin sought after the Foreign Minister office for himself. Although he had to make do with Justice Minister it would seem that Beillin has annointed himself as the self-nominated Foreign Minister of Israel dealing in delicate and far reaching negotiations which have serious implications for the people of Israel who have never elected him to office.

Beillin regularly enters areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority to negotiate with Arafat and other PA officials there, even though the area is a defined as a closed military zone and even though Beillin is neither a member of the Israeli government or the Israeli Knesset.

The Israel Ministry of Defence, under the control of Israel Labor Party Leader Ben Eliezer and the GSS, under the control of Prime Minister Sharon, have done nothing to muzzle Beillin or to stop him from conducting his negotiations.

The question remains: to whom is Beillin beholden?

Translated from Makor Rishon, June 7, 2002

Minn Star Tribune Admits Errors in Coverage of Alleged Massacre in Jenin

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 15, 2002

MINNEAPOLIS, MN, – After weeks of controversy over its Middle East coverage, the Minneapolis Star Tribune has acknowledged that its handling of May news reports about a Jenin “massacre” was, in the words of Star Tribune editors, “awful,” an “editorial disaster,” an “egregious stumble,” and an “embarrassing wart.”

The newspaper has been under fire for weeks by Minnesotans Against Terrorism for systematically deleting references to terrorism directed at Israeli civilians and doctoring national wire service copy to distort its news reports about Israel.

Responding to questions raised by Minnesotans Against Terrorism, Star Tribune editors publicly admitted in a May 12 column that the newspaper was wrong when on May 3 it re-wrote wire service stories combined from the New York Times and Associated Press (AP) in a manner which radically distorted the meaning of a Human Rights Watch report on casualties in the Jenin refugee camp.

Both the New York Times and AP stories told readers in their very first paragraph that Human Rights Watch found “no evidence” of the alleged Jenin “massacre.” But when the story was re-published in the Star Tribune, its editors fundamentally altered the story, deleting the New York Times headline — “Rights Group Doubts Mass Deaths in Jenin… ” – – and moving Human Rights Watch’s dismissal of the claimed Jenin “massacre” from the first to the 21st paragraph of the Star Tribune story.

This particular doctoring of wire copy by the Star Tribune led Wall Street Journal Online to say “the Star Tribune committed an act of bias so blatant that (its reader representative Lou) Gelfand was forced, this past Sunday, to ‘own up to a mistake.'”

In his May 12 column revealing what he called the Star Tribune’s “egregious stumble” and “embarrassing wart”, Gelfand quoted Star Tribune assistant managing editor Roger Buoen saying that these distortions were ” absolutely not” good journalism. “The top of (the Star Tribune) story did not reflect a key finding of the report by the Human Rights Watch,” confessed Buoen. “The report’s finding that there was no evidence that Israeli troops carried out a massacre at Jenin was far too deep in the story. It should have been reported in the first sentence of the article.”

Minnesotans Against Terrorism, which had been in discussions with Star Tribune managing editor Pam Fine about the Jenin “massacre” hoax and other incidents of distorted news coverage, welcomed the Minneapolis newspaper’s acknowledgement of its errors.

“We’re very gratified that the Star Tribune’s managing editor candidly acknowledged that the paper’s coverage of the Jenin story was ‘awful,'” says Marc Grossfield, a co-founder of the group. “She has said that there have been ‘editorial disasters’ in their reporting on the Middle East, and that steps are being taken to make sure these mistakes don’t continue to occur.”

“The people most betrayed by the Star Tribune’s bias are the newspaper’s readers,” adds Grossfield. “Incredibly, when the Star Tribune received word from trusted news sources — the New York Times and the Associated Press — that the “Massacre in Jenin” story had been investigated and proven false, rather than a front page pronouncement of “No Massacre”, the Star Tribune instead buried that news.”

“If a lie makes the front page headline of the Minneapolis paper, then so too should the truth,” concludes Grossfield. Fortunately, we have other sources from which we can get unbiased and accurate news on the Middle East. But for those alternatives to the Star Tribune, Minnesotans might still believe the hoax that a massacre occurred in Jenin.”

One promising sign of reform at the Star Tribune, says Mark Rotenberg, co-founder of Minnesotans Against Terrorism, is the newspaper’s increased use of the word “terrorism” to describe the targeted killing of Israeli civilians. Rotenberg noted that since Minnesotans Against Terrorism’s April 2 advertisement decrying the newspaper’s refusal to call these killings “terrorism,” Star Tribune readers finally have begun seeing dozens of references to “terrorism” incidents and “terrorist” groups operating against Israel.

“Clearly, Minnesotans Against Terrorism has had an impact in improving the fairness of the Star Tribune’s coverage,” observes Rotenberg. We look forward to working constructively with the Star Tribune’s new Editor and Managing Editor to continue improvement in the news coverage of terrorism against Israelis. However, we will also continue to scrutinize the newspaper to be sure they don’t slide back into their shameful past practice of censoring and distorting wire copy. The public interest is not served when Star Tribune editors indulge in a private agenda that skews their coverage of the Middle East.”

Rotenberg noted that Star Tribune Vice President Ben Taylor acknowledged to the Los Angeles Times on April 28 that his newspaper’s decision to censor the words “terrorism” and “terrorists” in an April 3 New York Times wire story was a mistake by an editor who “misinterpreted” the newspaper’s policy. “We were very embarrassed,” the Star Tribune’s Taylor told the Los Angeles Times.

Last April 2, Minnesotans Against Terrorism took out a full-page advertisement signed by Gov. Jesse Ventura, U.S. Senators Paul Wellstone and Mark Dayton, and more than 350 other Minnesota leaders of multiple faiths condemning the Star Tribune’s refusal to identify groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigade as terrorist organizations, and their targeted killing of civilians as terrorism. Minnesotans Against Terrorism’s critique of the Star Tribune — including its mid-April revelation that the paper systematically cleansed New York Times wire copy of all references to the word “terrorism” on the very day that the Star Tribune managing editor assured readers that it “will continue to publish the word terrorist when… it appears in wire stories” — generated national and international attention. More than 40 articles, and as many TV and radio stories, have covered Minnesotans Against Terrorism’s efforts, including Fox TV News with Brit Hume, the Wall Street Journal, the O’Reilly Factor, MSNBC-TV, the Washington Times, the Washington Post the Jerusalem Post, the Denver Post and the Chicago Tribune. “We are proud to be part of an emerging national dialogue about fairness and accuracy in news coverage of terrorism against Israelis,” observed Grossfield.

The non-profit Minnesotans Against Terrorism was founded by attorney Mark Rotenberg and marketing executive Marc Grossfield, two Minnesotans who were eyewitnesses to a terrorist suicide bombing in Jerusalem. In addition to calling attention to the Star Tribune’s biased news coverage, the group has expanded its activities to include sponsoring speeches by counter-terrorism experts, coordinating rallies, and other educational activities that focus attention on the terrorist threat faced by Israelis and Americans alike.

UJC Reverses Policy Over the Green Line

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

June 15, 2002

After 35 years of confining its Israel-designated funds to within the Green Line, the primary fund-raising arm for the American Jewish community has changed its policy. In an historic move, the board of trustees of the United Jewish Communities, meeting Monday in Chicago, unanimously “adopted a broad interpretation of the UJC charter to permit the organization to provide assistance to Jews around the world, irrespective of where they live,” according to an official statement.

“We are changing the process,” said UJC president and CEO Steve Hoffman in an interview Tuesday, though the group is not changing the wording of its charter, which dates back to 1960.

Acknowledging “the environment has changed” since the outbreak of the Palestinian violence in September 2000, with the need for human services growing in the Jewish communities of the West Bank and Gaza, Hoffman said his group felt the need to “re-examine our charter and our practice.”

He said he consulted with attorneys recently who concluded “it would be within our charter to provide relief and rehabilitative services to Jews anywhere.”

The board action came in response to increasing criticism from some quarters that UJC was providing social services and humanitarian relief for Jews all over the world – except for those 200,000 or so living in Jewish settlements beyond the 1967 borders in the Holy Land.

The disapproval has increased over the last 20 months as more than 100 Jews living in those areas have been killed by Palestinian terrorists and hundreds more wounded. Critics charged that some of the Jews most in need of relief services were not being provided for because of the politics of the situation.

UJC launched an Israel Emergency Campaign in October that has raised more than $265 million, the largest campaign for Israel since the Yom Kippur War in 1973. But the fact that the emergency campaign did not provide armored buses, bulletproof vests or medical or psychological services directly to communities in the disputed territories, though many have been under attack, raised troubling questions within the Jewish communal world.

There was also uncertainty because some individual Jewish federations provide funding beyond the Green Line and others do not. Adding to the confusion, UJC maintained that even though its services did not cross the Green Line, it was open to all, as long as people came into Israel proper to avail themselves of the help offered.

All that should change now, according to Hoffman.

“I don’t want people to have to think who is worthy [of receiving social services] and who isn’t, depending on where they live,” he said. “And I don’t want our campaign used for political purposes. What we want is for services to be determined by need.”

Until now many felt that UJC was hostage to liberal politics for several decades, and some major donors opposed to the settlements had threatened to withdraw or decrease their donations if funds were distributed, through the United Israel Appeal, beyond the Green Line. But a UJC official noted Tuesday that the mood of the American Jewish community has shifted rightward as a result of the terror attacks on Israel and the U.S.

“The Jewish community is less liberal now, particularly after September 11, and we don’t think there will be a significant backlash to our decision,” the official said, adding: “We are going to deliver services where they are needed. We simply feel it’s the right thing to do.”

UJA-Federation of New York, long resistant to funding or sending missions across the Green Line, played a key role in the UJC shift this week.

John Ruskay, executive vice president and CEO of the local charity, said that in recent months “there was increasing recognition” that regardless of where terror incidents took place, “we wanted to reach out to those Jews and their families and provide support, wherever they live.”

Toby Klein Greenwald, a journalist living in Efrat, a settlement south of Jerusalem, wrote an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post last week highly critical of the UJC’s longstanding policy. The article recounted her “disturbing” conversation with Hoffman in which she questioned him closely about not giving money directly to communities in need.

Hoffman countered with several arguments, including one about concern for the organization’s IRS tax status, though that was proven to be a red herring 14 years ago.

Contacted after hearing of the UJC statement this week, Greenwald welcomed it as “wonderful,” though she cautioned “the proof will be in the tachlis [practicality]” in whether there is “a positive response to requests for services in a timely and forthcoming way.”

Greenwald said “the whole country is traumatized” and there is a great need for psychological counseling. Just last Friday night a substitute teacher in her 12-year-old son’s school was murdered, she said, and when she spoke with the youngster about his feelings, he said, “it’s not the first time.”

The original funding policy came when UJC’s predecessor, the United Jewish Appeal, interpreted its mandate of providing dollars for Israel to mean within internationally recognized, pre-1967 Israel. That is how the matter remained until now. Over the years there were times the policy was questioned internally, but there were concerns about angering the State Department, which is opposed to settlements, and perhaps prompting a challenge to the organization’s tax status.

In hindsight, officials acknowledge that the ideal time to have made a change would have been when the UJA was reconstituted as UJC several years ago and the charter could have substituted the phrase “the Jewish people” instead of “Israel” as the beneficiary of funds.

“That would have solved the problem quietly,” a UJC official noted, “and avoided all this controversy.”

This ran as a front page article in the Jewish Week of NYC on June 14, 2002

Israel Behind the News

PLO Dissapointment with Bush Speech

Confession of an Israeli analyst of Islam and Arab statecraft: I believe Arafat

A Child Describes A Terror Attack On Her Home Which Resulted in the Murder of her Mother and Three Siblings

Israeli Intelligence Shares Data With US Concerning Arafat’s Direct Involvement in Latest Terror Attacks

Glorifying Suicide Bombers: Now a Secular Vision of “Palestine”

Palestinian Authority Official Rejects Idea of a Provisional State

The Fence on the Green Line: How Ridiculous

Dr. Yossi Beillin: Israel’s Shadow Foreign Minister? To Whom is Beillin Beholden?

Minn Star Tribune Admits Errors in Coverage of Alleged Massacre in Jenin

UJC Reverses Policy Over the Green Line

Column from the Director