Ramallah as a Center of Terror: Background Information

By

-

March 17, 2002

Ramallah is located on a major crossroads in the West Bank, with a commanding view of its surroundings, ensuring a continuity of population from the city of Jerusalem northwards.

The Ramallah area is composed of two main sectors: the lower city of Ramallah and the city of el-Bira (a separate municipality) to the east. South of the city is the el-‘Amari refugee camp and to its north is the town of Bir Zeit (known for its university, the largest on the West Bank), and the Jalazoun refugee camp.

Ramallah is one of the two major Palestinian seats of power. The central Palestinian governing institutions are located within Ramallah, including: offices of the Legislative Council, the executive branch and a large number of Palestinian West Bank security forces’ headquarters.

Arafat, until recently, had divided his time between Gaza and Ramallah, due to the presence of central governing institutions presence in both cities.

Ramallah is a relatively modern city with Jerusalem-style high-rise buildings. In the past, Ramallah constituted a tourism and entertainment center. The Ramallah district contains 220,000 residents. Of these some 57,000 are located in the cities of Ramallah and el-Bira.

Ramallah Axis of Terrorism

Since the beginning of the current conflict, Ramallah has stood out as a major center of terrorist activity against Israeli civilians and security personnel. The terrorist infrastructure in the city, and at times in the entire West Bank, are dependant on senior Fatah leadership and senior commanders of the Palestinian security apparatus.

Since the death of Raed Karmi on January 14, 2002, the city has become the capital of Palestinian terrorism, from which many terrorist attacks have emanated. Among those we may count the suicide attack in Tel Aviv’s Sea Food Market restaurant, the terrorist infiltration of ‘Ayn ‘Arik, and the attack on civilians and IDF soldiers at the British Police roadblock.

Palestinian Security Forces

Due to the fact that Ramallah constituted an administrative and governmental center, the Palestinian Authority security forces established their headquarters in the city. The National Security headqarters is located in Ramallah’s Mukt’ah as are the headquarters of Force-17, Preventive Security and Civil Police.

The Palestinian security forces, and especially Force-17, have played an active role in major terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF troops perpetrated within in the Ramallah area, in Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel. The mutual relationship existing between the Fatah in Ramallah and members of the security forces (often on a personal basis, due to the fact many security force personnel were originally from the Fatah) has blurred the distinction between the Palestinian security forces and the Fatah. The former participate actively in terror operations, either as individuals or on an organizational level (e.g. Force-17).

Terrorist Organizations

The major terrorist organization operating out of Ramallah is the Fatah, headed by Arafat. Marwan Barghouti, Secretary General of the Fatah, who is also head of the Tanzim, serves directly under him. Many senior Fatah leaders have established themselves in Ramallah. Fatah is responsible for a long list of deadly terrorist attacks (suicide operations, shooting attacks, kidnappings and bombings) which took the lives of many dozens of Israelis. Following the death of local Tanzim leader Raed Karmi on January 14, 2002, the Fatah changed its modus operandi from shooting attacks on roads to suicide bombings in Israeli cities, and terrorist attacks against IDF checkpoints.

Other terrorist organizations operate from the city, among them the Hamas which had carried out the major suicide bombings in Jerusalem (e.g. the Sbarro pizzeria bombing, the Jerusalem pedestrian mall double-suicide bombing and the recent Cafe Moment attack which claimed the lives of 11 Israelis). Their operatives enjoy protection of the security forces who do not stop the activities in the city. Even though Ramallah is not the primary site of Hamas activity on the West Bank, Ramallah does constitute a “relay station” for suicide attacks in Jerusalem.

An additional terrorist organization that operates in and from the city is the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This organization, even though it is relatively small, has chosen Ramallah as the main focal point for its military and political operations. The leadership of the terrorist organization within the territories are situated in Ramallah. It has carried out a large number of spectacular attacks which have claimed the lives of many victims. Among these: the bombings in the Ariel hotel and the Karnei Shalom mall, and the assassination of the late Minister of Tourism Rechavam Ze’evy, whose murderers departed from and returned to Ramallah. The organization now specializes in suicide bombings.

The remaining Palestinian terrorist organizations, such as the Islamic Jihad, maintain “representatives” in Ramallah. They cooperate together and with the official security forces of the Palestinian Authority.

List of Major Terrorist Attacks Emanating from Ramallah

12 October 2000 – Lynching of two IDF reserve soldiers who entered the city by mistake. The incident took place in the Ramallah Police Station.
30 October 2000 – A shooting attack in which Eish-Kodesh Gilmor, a guard at the East Jerusalem National Insurance branch was killed.
13 November 2000 – A shooting attack near Neveh Tzuf, in which Sarah Leisha and two Israeli soldiers were killed.
24 November 2000 – A shooting attack at the Tapuah Junction, in which an Israeli civilian Ariel Jeraffi was killed.
21 December 2000 – A shooting attack on the Modi’in-Jerusalem highway (Route 443), in which an Israeli civilian, Eliahu Cohen, was killed.
31 December 2000 – A shooting attack near Ofra, in which Binyamin Zeev Kahane and his wife Talia were killed.
18 January 2001 – Ofir Rahum, a high school student, was seduced by a female terrorist who he met in an Internet chat room and was murdered in Ramallah.
8 February 2001 – A car bomb was detonated in Jerusalem, wounding five.
27 February 2001 – A shooting attack near Ofer Camp. Three civilians were wounded, one severely.
21 March 2001 – A car bomb in Jerusalem’s Mea Sharim district.
23 April 2001 – A car bomb was detonated in Or Yehuda.
1 May 2001 – A shooting attack at an Israeli car in Beth El in which an civilian, Assaf Hershkowitz, was killed.
8 May 2001 – Initiation and direction of a shooting attack in Itamar, in which an Israeli civilian, Arnaldo Agranionic, was killed.
27 May 2001 – A car bomb in Jerusalem’s Russian Compound.
12 June 2001 – A shooting attack in Ma’aleh Adumim, in which a Greek Orthodox monk was killed.
18 June 2001 – An explosive device (which did not explode) on a motor scooter in Haifa.
2 July 2001 – Two car bombs exploded in Yahud.
24 July 2001 – An 18-year-old boy, Yuri Gushchin, was murdered. His body was found in Ramallah.
9 August 2001 – The Sbarro pizzeria suicide bombing, in which 15 people were killed and 100 wounded.
4 September 2001 – Suicide attack on Jerusalem’s Nevi’im Street, in which 12 were wounded, three seriously.
17 October 2001 – Assassination of the former Israeli Minister of Tourism, Rechavam Ze’evy.
11 December 2001 – Terrorist attack on the Jerusalem pedestrian mall, which claimed the lives of 11 civilians.
22 January 2002 – Shooting attack on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem in which Sarah Hamburger and Svetlana Sandler were killed and 33 injured.
27 January 2002 – Suicide attack on Jaffa Street in Jerusalem, by a female terrorist, in which one person, Pinhas Tokatli, was killed and 101 wounded.
19 February 2002 – Shooting attack in ‘Ayn ‘Arik, in which six Israelis were killed and one wounded.
22 February 2002 – Shooting attack on a car near Atarot, in which Valery Ahmir was killed.
25 February 2002 – A shooting attack in Neveh Ya’akov, in which Galit Arbiv was killed.
27 February 2002 – Gad Rejwan killed by a Palestinian worker in the Atarot industrial zone.
27 February 2002 – A female suicide bomber blew herself up in the Maccabim checkpoint, injuring two people.
3 March 2002 – Shooting attack at the British Police roadblock near Ofra, in which 10 were killed in six injured.
5 March 2002 – A shooting and grenade attack in the Sea Food Market restaurant in Tel Aviv, in which three people were killed.
9 March 2002 – Suicide bombing in Jerusalem’s Cafe Moment, in which 11 people were killed and 50 wounded.

Israeli-Palestinian Ceasefire and Security plan, Proposed by CIA Director George Tenet, Which Took Effect on 13 June 2001

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 17, 2002

The US Embassy in Tel Aviv has written to Israel Resource that the US has never published the Tenet plan, which has been widely discussed as the basis of current negotiations between Israel and the PLO/PA. The US government has never even shared the Tenet plan with the US Congress, let alone with the American people.

The Israeli government has stated to Israel Resource that it will not publicize the contents of the Tenet plan, since it is a confidential US government document.

Here is the Tenet Plan, as revealed by the Avalon project of the Yale University Law School:

The security organizations of the Government of Israel (GOI) and of the Palestinian Authority (PA) reaffirm their commitment to the security agreements forged at Sharm el-Sheikh in October 2000, embedded in the Mitchell Report of April 2001.

The operational premise of the work plan is that the two sides are committed to a mutual, comprehensive cease-fire, applying to all violent activities, in accordance with the public declaration of both leaders. In addition, the joint security committee referenced in this work plan will resolve issues that may arise during the implementation of this work plan.

The security organizations of the GOI and PA agree to initiate the following specific, concrete, and realistic security steps immediately to reestablish security cooperation and the situation on the ground that existed prior to 28 September.

1. The GOI and the PA will immediately resume security cooperation.

A senior-level meeting of Israeli, Palestinian, and U.S. security officials will be held immediately and will reconvene at least once a week, with mandatory participation by designated senior officials.

Israeli-Palestinian District Coordination Offices (DCOs) will be reinvigorated. They will carry out their daily activities, to the maximum extent possible, according to the standards established prior to September 28, 2000. As soon as the security situation permits, barriers to effective cooperation – which include the erection of walls between the Israeli and Palestinian sides – will be eliminated and join Israeli-Palestinian patrols will be reinitiated.

U.S.-supplied video conferencing systems will be provided to senior-level Israeli and Palestinian officials to facilitate frequent dialogue and security cooperation.

2. Both sides will take immediate measures to enforce strict adherence to the declared cease-fire and to stabilize the security environment.

Specific procedures will be developed by the senior-level security committee to ensure the secure movement of GOI and PA security personnel traveling in areas outside their respective control, in accordance with existing agreements.

Israel will not conduct attacks of any kind against the Palestinian Authority Ra’is facilities: the headquarters of Palestinian security, intelligence, and police organization; or prisons in the West Bank and Gaza.

The PA will move immediately to apprehend, question, and incarcerate terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza and will provide the security committee the names of those arrested as soon as they are apprehended, as well as a readout of actions taken.

Israel will release all Palestinians arrested in security sweeps who have no association with terrorist activities.

In keeping with its unilateral cease-fire declaration, the PA will stop any Palestinian security officials from inciting, aiding, abetting, or conducting attacks against Israeli targets, including settlers.

In keeping with Israel’s unilateral cease-fire declaration, Israeli forces will not conduct “proactive” security operations in areas under the control of the PA or attack innocent civilian targets.

The GOI will re-institute military police investigations into Palestinian deaths resulting from Israel Defense Forces actions in the West Bank and Gaza in incidents not involving terrorism.

3. Palestinian and Israeli security officials will use the security committee to provide each other, as well as designated U.S. officials, information on terrorist threats, including information on known or suspected terrorist operation in – or moving to – areas under the other’s control.

Legitimate terrorist and terror threat information will be acted upon immediately, with follow-up actions and results reported to the security committee.

The PA will undertake preemptive operations against terrorists, terrorist safe houses, arms depots, and mortar factories. The PA will provide regular progress reports of these actions to the security committee.

Israeli authorities will take action against Israeli citizens inciting, carrying out, or planning to carry out violence against Palestinians, with progress reports on these activities provided to the security committee.

4. The PA and GOI will move aggressively to prevent individuals and groups from using areas under their respective control to carry out acts of violence. In addition, both sides will take steps to ensure that areas under their control will not be used to launch attacks against the other side nor be used as refuge after attacks are staged.

The security committee will identify key flash points, and each side will inform the other of the names of senior security personnel responsible for each flash point.

Joint Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) will be developed for each flash point. These SOP’s will address how the two sides handle and respond to security incidents; the mechanisms for emergency contact; and the procedures to deescalate security crises.

Palestinian and Israeli security officials will identify and agree to the practical measures needed to enforce “no demonstration zones” and “buffer zones” around flash points to reduce opportunities for confrontation. Both sides will adopt all necessary measures to prevent riots and to control demonstration, particularly in flash-point areas.

Palestinian and Israeli security officials will make a concerted effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons, including mortars, rockets, and explosives, in areas under their respective control In addition, intensive efforts will be made to prevent smuggling and illegal production of weapons. Each side will inform the security committee of the status and success of these efforts.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will adopt additional non-lethal measures to deal with Palestinian crowds and demonstrators, and more generally, seek to minimize the danger to lives and property of Palestinian civilians in responding to violence.

5. The GOI and the PA, through the auspices of the senior-level security committee, will forge – within one week of the commencement of security committee meetings and resumption of security cooperation – an agreed-upon schedule to implement the complete redeployment of IDF forces to positions held before September 28, 2000.

Demonstrable on-the-ground redeployment will be initiated within the first 48 hours of this one-week period and will continue while the schedule is being forged.

6. Within one week of the commencement of security committee meetings and resumption of security cooperation, a specific timeline will be developed for the lifting of internal closures as well as for the reopening of internal roads, the Allenby Bridge, Gaza Airport, the Port of Gaza, and border crossings. Security checkpoints will be minimized according to legitimate security requirements and following consultation between the two sides.

Demonstrable on-the-ground actions on the lifting of the closures will be initiated within the first 48 hours of this one-week period and will continue while the timeline is being developed.

The parties pledge that even if untoward events occur, security cooperation will continue through the joint security committee.

CIA chief conceded failure of mission

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 14, 2002

TEL AVIV, June 12: A senior Israeli security official said on Tuesday that US CIA chief George Tenet had told him he considered his mission aimed at brokering a ceasefire between Israel and the Palestinians had failed.

“He said his mission failed because the Palestinians didn’t accept his plan,” the official said, adding that Tenet was expected to leave the region in a day or two. “The next stage is shrouded in a cloud of question marks because this was the only game in town,” senior Israeli foreign ministry official Oded Eran said. Israel announced it had accepted the Tenet plan, but Eran said Israel wanted to be certain there were no “loopholes” to ensure a complete halt to the intifada.

The Palestinians said they gave “conditional approval” to the plan, but that they rejected certain conditions, including the arrest of hardliners accused by Israel of masterminding attacks and any delay to the lifting of a crippling closure on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In addition, they said an Israeli proposal for a buffer zone between Israel and the Palestinian territories was “unacceptable.” “We are speaking about fundamental differences,” West Bank preventive security chief Jibril Rajoub told Voice of Palestine radio.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the army would continue to open fire on Palestinian targets if Israeli troops are in danger, and reserved the right to carry out “deterrent defensive operations. “I want to underline clearly that no terrorist cell preparing an attack will be immune,” he told an Israel chamber of commerce lunch in Tel Aviv.

The Palestinians said they had given “conditional approval” to Tenet’s ceasefire plan, which is based on recommendations in the Mitchell committee report on the circumstances leading to the Palestinian uprising. According to Israeli media reports, which Washington refuses to confirm, Tenet’s plan requires an immediate Israeli withdrawal of its forces to positions before the uprising broke out and a lifting of the closure. The Palestinians have to immediately enforce the ceasefire, arrest about 20 guerillas from the Hamas and Islamic Jihad movements and collect all illegal weapons in areas under their control, the reports said. At the end of a six-week cooling-off period, the two sides should start implementing confidence-building measures called for by the Mitchell panel, headed by former US senator George Mitchell, they said.

The commission last month called for an immediate ceasefire, an Israeli freeze on settlement-building and full Palestinian efforts to prevent “terrorism” in order to move back to the negotiating table. US ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk said there were signs of a turning point in the cycle of violence.

“It is possible, possible that we have reached a turning point in the violence,” Indyk said in a lecture at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University. “There are now indications, still tentative, that the Palestinian Authority may finally be trying to take action to stop the violence, including turning off hateful incitement.” But Indyk said it was “critical” that Israel eases its blockade of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, if calm takes hold, to avoid the Palestinian people turning against Yasser Arafat’s declaration of an unconditional ceasefire.

The leading Haaretz newspaper reported that Tenet has decided to extend his visit to the region by another day, but a US diplomatic source would not comment on the CIA director’s mission. However, the source said US special Middle East envoy William Burns “will continue his meetings on the implementation of the Mitchell commission report, on the framework and timelines.”

In other diplomatic moves, United Nations chief Kofi Annan is due to start Tuesday a week-long trip to the Middle East. “If Tenet has to leave empty-handed, it will mean that one of the top American officials has failed to restore calm and we are heading for an inevitable escalation,” Israeli Transport Minister Ephraim Sneh told Israeli radio. He said if Arafat set conditions to his acceptance “it means he does not want a real ceasefire.” >But Rajoub complained that Israel was insisting on maintaining “occupation and aggression” while demanding stability and calm.

Violence has dropped off sharply since Arafat called for a ceasefire 10 days ago following a bloody suicide attack in Tel Aviv that killed 20 people and the bomber. But an Israeli baby and a 23-year-old Palestinian both died Monday of injuries sustained last week from stones thrown by Palestinians and Israeli bullets respectively. And the Israeli army said three mortar bombs were fired Tuesday at the Jewish settlement of Morag in the southern Gaza Strip, causing no casualties or damage. -AFP

Has UNRWA allowed their Refugee Camps to Become the Host of Terror Activity?

By

David Bedein

-

March 14, 2002

Israel Minister of Defence and newly-elected Labor Party leader Binyamin Ben Eliezer has been declaring that the Arab refugee camps represent a haven for killers, and a threat to the security of all Israeli citizens.

Not a day goes by that we do not hear about these refugee camps:

suicide bombers who come from refugee camps;
killers who take asylum in refugee camps;
mortars that are fired from refugee camps;
food warehouses in refugee camps which have been transformed into storage bins for artillery shells, ammunition and mortar rounds;
Al Quaeda squads which are based in refugee camps;
refugee camps which organize official celebrations in honor of their recently-martyred suicide bombers.
Who runs these “refugee camps”? There is one agency with absolute authority over Palestinian refugee camps – and it is not the PLO, not the P.A., not Hamas, Islamic Jihad or any other Arab entity.

The agency which runs these refugee camps in none other than UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency! This body was established by the UN after the 1948 War of Liberation, with a mandate to administer ‘temporary shelters’ until such time as the refugees earned/won/were granted the right to return to the homes and villages they had fled in ’48 – even if these villages no longer existed!

UNRWA, therefore, remains the only refugee agency in the world whose apparent purpose is to perpetuate the status of refugees as refugees! Indeed, the official curriculum of the free UNRWA education system is based on that idea – that refugees must remain refugees until such time as they are repatriated to their homes.

Peter Hanson, the Danish-born Director of UNRWA, explains that “the right of return” remains the motto of UNRWA, and the cause which unites all of the Palestinian people.

Sammy Messhassha, Head of Public Affairs for UNRWA in Jerusalem,acknowledges that UNRWA is well aware of the fact that thousands of armed Palestinian Authority security personnel make their homes in UNRWA camps, and that UNRWA does not object to such a phenomenon.

P.A. media analyst Ghassan Khatib remarked to CNN, in a February/2000 interview, that every young man in the UNRWA Balata refugee camp now has his own personal weapon! How? Each UNRWA camp hosts a local steering committee which is in charge of distributing the funds received as charitable donations from relief organizations and donor countries around the world. And it is that committee which decides whether to provide food rations or weapons with the money at their disposal.

In light of such evidence, will the nations and organizations which contribute so generously to UNRWA – including the United States, Canada, E.U., and even Israel -now demand that UNRWA disarm these hotbeds of terrorism masquerading as refugee camps? Or not.

At this time, as UNRWA food storage bins are turned into ammunition dumps to supply armed weapons to the Palestinian gunmen, UNRWA issues urgent memos for donor nations to urgently allocate funds to UNRWA.

There is one question for the UNRWA donor nations to ask: Where has all the flour gone??

Previous Articles Written in Israel Resource Review

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 14, 2002

7th July, 1997
The Refugee Dilemma: A Day in the UNRWA Arab Refugee Camps by Shawn Cohen
Sidebar: What you need to know about U.N.R.W.A. by David Bedein

1st December, 1997
“40 Minutes in Palestine” by Michael Cohen

29th December, 1997
Commonly Held Assumptions: Palestinian Arab Refugees as “Peripheral” to the Peace Process by David Bedein

13th October, 1998
Why is the Shuafat Refugee Camp Seething? by David Bedein

13th July, 1999
Clinton and the Right of Return by David Bedein
Peace Only if ’48 Refugees Return Home by Al-Ahram Weekly Editorial

15th June, 2000
Palestinian Refugee Issue Complicates Israeli-PA Negotiations by Julie Stahl

9th May, 2000
Orient House Orients the Visitor to the Palestinian State by David Bedein

26th October, 2001
The PLO: Aiming to Bring 300,000 Arab Refugees to the Galil by Uzi Benziman

5th October, 2001
UNRWA Director Peter Hansen Opposes Solving Palestinian Refugee Problem

28th March, 2001
Canada’s role in the ‘Right of Return’ by David Bedein

Whither the Saudi Initiative? A Balloon Bursts

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 12, 2002

The more time that passes, the more feathers are plucked from the “Saudi initiative” – the informal plan of Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah for “complete” Israeli-Arab peace.

But prior to a serious debate about the ever-changing substance of this initiative, there are a few things worth knowing about Saudi Arabia.

Between the years 1974 and 2001 the small Saudi Arabian kingdom sold petroleum and its products at a total sum of 1,300 billion dollars. Or in words: One-thousand three hundred billion dollars.

These legendary oil revenues were not invested in developing the country. Product per capita in Saudi Arabia dropped from 29,000 dollars annually in 1980 to 7,400 dollars this year. Unemployment skyrocketed to 16 percent. Education on all levels is crude and behind the times. There are no good universities in Saudi Arabia, no research institutes, no culture. There is no hi-tech. No army. Industry and agriculture are losing enterprises that are subsidized.

So where is the money? It was stolen and divvied up by the members of the royal house. According to estimates made by Merril Lynch, the financial assets held by the wealthy Saudis outside its borders amount to 1,000 billion dollars. 1,000 billion dollars.

Five percent of the Saudi wealth would solve not only the destitution of all the Palestinian refugees, but could also lay the foundation for the existence of a prosperous Palestinian economy for generations to come. But what do the princes in the Saudi court care about the fate of their brethren who wallow in the camps?

Saudi Arabia remains a corrupt medieval kingdom in which the rich play with their technological gadgets and hold their assets safe in foreign banks. There is no democracy in Saudi Arabia, no equal rights, no civil legal system. It is no surprise that it is ruled by a crown-prince who would have been convicted in any court in the enlightened world of the crime of bigamy.

Nothing prepares him and his ilk to initiate an Israeli-Palestinian “peace plan.”

Saudi Arabia revises its initiative: No more normalization

Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 2) by Smadar Peri — The Saudi Arabians are now offering less to Israel in return to a full withdrawal to the 1967 borders. From now on there is no talk of full normalization. Instead, Israel is being offered complete, but “frozen” peace.

This clarification was presented by Saudi Arabia in the meeting of Arab foreign ministers that was held yesterday in Cairo in advance of the Arab League summit meeting in Beirut at the end of March. Political sources said that full peace would mean formal diplomatic relations and nothing more. Conversely, normalization also includes trade relations, tourism and visits — which is something that most Arab leaders are averse to.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher lowered expectations yesterday when he defined the Saudi peace initiative as “ideas” and stressed that “there are a few initiatives now, among which are the Saudi ideas.”

These articles appeared on March 11, 2002 in Yediot Aharonot

Israeli Press Analyis of the Terror Attack on Israel’s Northern Road

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 12, 2002

Terror Returns to the Galilee

Ma’ariv (p. 2) by Avi Ashkenazi et al. — Terror returned to the Galilee. As a result of shots from an ambush near Kibbutz Metzuba, six Israelis were killed, including a mother and daughter, an IDF officer and another three civilians. Two terrorists were killed, and by last night, it was still not clear whether a third terrorist had fled, after footprints of another person were found in the area. The Fatah military wing, the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, claimed yesterday, “A Palestinian cell that infiltrated from Lebanon” carried out the terror attack.

At about 12:30 p.m. the terrorists stationed themselves on a hill about three and a half kilometers from the Lebanese-Israel border. They shot to death a shepherd from Moshav Betzet, Ofer Kanerik. Afterwards they fired at a number of vehicles, including a Subaru in which a mother and her 15-year-old daughter, Lynn and Atara Livne, were traveling, and another private vehicle in which Yehudit Cohen of Shlomi was traveling. The three women were killed.

Then they shot at another two vehicles and a public bus on its way from Safed to Nahariya carrying a driver and a passenger. The passenger was slightly injured. The bus driver managed to get away and drive the bus to nearby Kibbutz Metzuba.

Afterwards the terrorist killed the driver of a truck transporting earth: A single bullet penetrated the window and hit him. The sixth dead person is Lt. German Rojyakov, killed while storming the terrorists. Yitzhak Friedman, 68, from Moshav Betzet, saw two figures walking near his orchard yesterday at about 8:30 a.m.: “They wore IDF uniforms and had M-16 rifles, but no helmets. I think that one of them had reddish hair. I said hello to them, they were about 20 meters from me, but they continued to walk and didn’t even look at me. I was very lucky they didn’t shoot me.”

Policeman Ilan Cohen from the Nahariya police was on his way to the police station for the afternoon shift when he heard the shooting. “He immediately left his car and was the first to return fire at the terrorists. In essence, he kept them covered until the first police cars arrived a few minutes later,” related a senior police officer from the northern district. After a short gun battle, Cohen was injured in his foot and fell bleeding in the middle of the road.

IDF forces arrived. These were Nahal forces manning the outpost at nearby Rosh Hanikra. They stormed the terrorist in an open area while firing volleys and climbing the hill. Brigade Commander Col. Dror Rofeh killed the two terrorist in a face to face battle. The deputy commander was killed while covering for him.

The driver of the regional council truck, Eli Ohana of Shlomi said: “I was just about to unload the truck at the banana fields under the hill, and then fire was opened at me. I was able to see one of the soldiers shooting at me very clearly, he wore army clothes and webbing. It was frightening. I don’t know where I got the strength, but I jumped out of the window of the truck and lay on the ground so as not to be hit.”

The terrorists used a weapon with a silencer during their attack so as to make it difficult to discern their location. This became clear yesterday in the investigation.

Execution: Palestinians; Planning: Hizbullah
Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 1) by Alex Fishman (news analysis) — Yesterday’s attack in the Western Galilee was a joint production: The voice was that of Hizbullah, but the hands were Palestinian.

The findings have not received final confirmation so far, but the picture that is emerging points to an attack carried out by Palestinians, members of Islamic Jihad, who trained in Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon and were sent by Hizbullah to carry out a quality attack inside the Green Line.

The two Palestinians apparently crossed the Lebanese border without triggering the fence’s warning systems. This is a very worrisome possibility, one which has operational ramifications for the functioning of the Northern Command along the border in the future. The Northern Command will have to discover the method that the organizers of the attack found to penetrate the fence without being discovered. Until then, more forces will have to be concentrated along the fence. In Gaza, too, the terrorists have found ways of getting through the fence. In one of the most recent attacks, near Kissufim — in which a Givati soldier was killed — it turned out that the terrorists simply hopped over the fence using a ladder. And information of this sort no doubt moves between the various sectors.

It is believed that the two crossed the fence under cover of the attack carried out by Hizbullah two days ago near Ghajar. We have seen this before: Hizbullah draws the attention of the IDF to one sector and then carries out an operation in another. The two had been inside the Green Line since two nights ago. This is enough time to find a good lookout point, follow activities in the area and comfortably choose the best target for attack.

Nothing that could identify them was found on their bodies, which only strengthens the assumption that they were sent by professionals who want to confuse the enemy. Because the moment that it becomes clear that this was an attack carried out with Hizbullah involvement, Israel will have to deal seriously with the matter and exact a painful price in order to prevent the reoccurrence of such incidents in the future.

Hizbullah wants to kill two birds with one stone: to help their forlorn brothers in Ramallah, as their secretary promised, and also to enjoy the anonymity of the two unidentified Palestinians, to cause Israel confusion and embarrassment and save itself from an Israeli counter-strike.

Israel must decide that it will no longer be the punching bag for every leper and outcast in the Middle East. The minute that it is proven that this was a cross-border infiltration, Israel should react immediately and in strength, but not against Hizbullah. There is really no point in getting into a war of attrition with Hizbullah and in opening a second front. The target should be the Lebanese government and Syrian interests in Lebanon. And it should be a blow so strong that Hariri will change his mind about holding the meeting of the Arab League in Beirut.

FINGERPRINTS
Ma’ariv (p. 1) by Oded Granot (news analysis) — The lethal terror attack on the Shlomi-Metzuba road in the Western Galilee is marked with the fingerprints of Hizbullah even if a breach in the border fence has not yet been located, and as of last night, the identity of the terrorists is not yet known.

Hizbullah may have infiltrated perhaps even 24 hours ago and stayed overnight in a hiding place, leaving to carry out the terror attack in the light of day.

The terrorists might also have been a Palestinian cell from the territories that was prepared and instructed by Nasrallah’s men in Lebanon for the operation.

And it might have been a Fatah cell from the Lebanese faction of the El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades that trains in Lebanon with the aid of Hizbullah in order to infiltrate and carry out terror attacks inside Israeli territory.

The important point is that Hizbullah recently made it its goal to heat up the northern front by carrying out a large scale terrorist act and not necessarily by firing Katyushas from Lebanese territory. Such a terror attack fits in well with the organization’s need to prove that it is active militarily against Israel and that it is, in fact, keeping its promise to help the Palestinian struggle in the territories, without directly embroiling the government of Lebanon.

At least three Hizbullah spokesmen, led by Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, have stressed the urgent need to “go from words to deeds” in the last two days. This need to inflame the armed confrontation between the Palestinians and the Israelis has become more urgent on the eve of the visit of American envoy Anthony Zinni to the region, who is coming here to push for a cease-fire agreement. Hizbullah is not interested in a cease-fire, just as Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not interested, and even announced yesterday that it makes no difference if the Americans are sending an envoy, the armed resistance must not stop.

And it is no accident that Hizbullah was one of the first groups in the Arab world to express vehement opposition to the Saudi initiative for full peace in exchange for a full withdrawal, and announced that Sharon should not be offered a way out of the complicated situation he finds himself in.

If the assessment that Hizbullah was involved in the terror attack in the north is found to be correct, this will indicate that the organization is changing its methods of confrontation against Israel, which up to now have been limited to shooting at IDF outposts on Har Dov, firing anti-aircraft fire at IAF aircraft, efforts to recruit and operate cells to carry out terror attacks from within the territories, and smuggle weapons from Jordan and other places.

Such a change may be a Hizbullah attempt to provoke Israel to respond militarily against them, which would then justify firing Katyushas at northern communities and enable them to open another front against the IDF.

Mofaz: “Hizbullah wants to open a second front”
Ma’ariv (p. 4) by Avi Ashkenazi et al. — “Hizbullah wants to carry out terror attacks acts to show support and solidarity with the Palestinians and to cause Israel to respond, which would lead to a conflagration on the northern border,” said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz a short while before the terror attack on the northern border. “There is no doubt that Hizbullah, with the encouragement of Iran and Syria, wants us to respond in such a manner that a second front is opened, while we are in the midst of a campaign on the Palestinian front. We must act carefully and not be dragged into such a situation,” said Mofaz.

Yesterday senior security sources spoke about “cautious assessments” that those who carried out the terror attack near Kibbutz Metzuba came from inside Israel but were coordinated with Hizbullah. “It is not clear to us from where the terrorists came. There were no signs of infiltration on the border fence, but the proximity, as well as the fact that it was a well-armed and well-trained force, raises the suspicion that it was an infiltration from Lebanese territory,” said a senior source.

A very senior source in the north pointed out, “If it turns out that the terrorists infiltrated from Lebanese territory, it changes the whole situation on the northern border and Israel will have to respond powerfully. Therefore we are not in a hurry to say where the terrorists came from, until we know the answer one hundred percent.”

Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said yesterday: “It should be clear that Hizbullah cannot fire one bullet in the air without Syria. But I don’t intend to bring about an escalation. As far as things are up to me, the matter will remain an incident on the border.”

The initial investigations carried out so far focus suspicions in two main directions as to the identity of the terrorists: a Palestinian cell, or an Israeli Arab cell.

At first, security establishment officials thought that Hizbullah was behind the terror attack. According to this theory, the terrorists infiltrated Israeli territory several days ago, maybe even on Monday, under cover of the terror attack carried out at the IDF Lilach outpost north of Maayan Baruch. However various examinations conducted along the electronic fence did not reveal any indications of an infiltration from Lebanese territory. Thus, senior officials tend to negate the possibility that a Lebanese Hizbullah cell carried out the terror attack.

The suspicion that the terror attack came from Israeli territory is based mainly on the clothing and equipment of the terrorists. The two were dressed in IDF uniforms with webbing, and one of the weapons they were carrying with them, an M-16 rifle, was IDF-issued. It is believed that the equipment was stolen from the IDF (or sold by criminal elements), and transferred to hostile elements in the PA or among Israeli Arabs.

Senior officials believe that Hizbullah was indirectly connected to the attack, and possibly financed and trained the terrorists who operated near Kibbutz Metzuba. This assessment is corroborated by the amount of effort needed by Palestinian terrorist organizations to carry out a terror attack so far from PA territory. “It is not clear why they made such an effort to go so far, as from the minute the terrorists crossed the seamline, they could have fired in crowed populations centers, without taking the risk of getting caught on the way,” a senior source said.

Lebanon officially claimed yesterday that the terror attack was not carried out from its territory. The Hizbullah television station claimed last night, “The fighters of the holy Intifada in PA territory succeeded in deviating from their war inside the territories and going to northern occupied Palestine, from where they attacked a bus and car near the settlement of Shlomi.”

MIRACULOUS SURVIVAL
Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 3) by Goel Beno — Yitzhak Friedman, 67, a farmer from Moshav Betzet, recounted that at 8:30 a.m. yesterday he saw the two terrorists inside the moshav and thought that they were IDF soldiers.

“In the morning, I went to open the water pipe in the moshav. Suddenly I heard the sound of someone stepping on dry leaves. Twenty meters from me I saw two guys quickly crossing the road. I said, ‘good morning, guys,’ because I thought that they were soldiers, and I continued on my way. One had a Kalashnikov and one had a long M-16. I did not report it to the police because they did not make me suspicious. It was a miracle that they didn’t shoot me. Later, when I arrived at the scene of the attack, I saw on the bodies of the terrorists the weapons that I had seen in the morning.”

Israel’s Nightmare
Ma’ariv (p. 3) by Yaakov Erez — The terror attack yesterday in the north was a serious terror attack, but if it turns out that Hizbullah is behind it, then its significance is even more serious: it will be the signal of the beginning of a “second front,” which is Arafat’s dream and Israel’s nightmare.

As of last night, there was no irrefutable proof of any direct involvement of Hizbullah in the terror attack. But recently, enough evidence has accumulated that the organization indeed intends to again ignite the northern front. First there was talk, arrogant threats by Nasrallah and other senior organization officials. After that, a short while later, two terrorists suddenly appeared on the main road near Shlomi.

It is not yet known where the terrorists came from. But it would be reasonable to assume that they left on Monday night. Perhaps by chance, or not by chance, there were shooting incidents on Monday night between Hizbullah operatives and an IDF force near Maayan Baruch. Is there a connection between the two events? As of last night, no evidence was found of anyone crossing the border fence from Lebanon into Israel. But past experience has proven that Hizbullah likes to open fire in one sector in order to engage and distract, and to attack in another sector.

The details will become clear later. But there is no doubt that Arafat is pleased with what happened yesterday in the north. Form his point of view, especially when the IDF is absorbed in its operations in the territories, searching Jabalya and occupying Ramallah, it is convenient when a new threat develops and Israel is compelled to face two fronts and split up its forces.

If it turns out that the terrorists came from the territories, and that it was a Palestinian terror attack, it will be necessary to examine how they made their way across such a great distance from Area A territories to the northern border, whether they were aided by anyone and how they stationed themselves at the point they chose for the lethal attack.

But if it turns out that Hizbullah’s hands were pulling the strings, directly or indirectly, then this is the horror scenario we’ve already been through in the past, and whose realization could make Israel face a new reality Press clips from Israeli media: March 13, 2002.

Translations courtesy of “Israel News Today”

A Wound for Life: My Son Caught in the Line of Fire at his Yeshiva

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 12, 2002

You might want to sit down before you read this.

Gilad’s school/”Mechinah” program in Atzmona in the Gush Katif (Gaza) area was attacked Thursday night at approx. 11.30 p.m. A lone terrorist came into the settlement right near the south eastern section near the school. Mostly all of the 120 boys were in the “Beit Midrash” study hall as Thursday nights they stay up most of the night learning. (Remember– these boys are not force to learn but do it for “torah l’shma” just for the sake of learning.)

Unfortunately, two boys were out at their cabin. The terrorist killed them first at point blank range. He then proceeded to the styudy hall. Luckily another boy near the door thought he heard something and told everyone in their section to get down and shut off the lights. Gilad says that he looked outside and saw the terrorist heading for the study hall. Gilad, in his 6ft 3in frame crept under his desk like the others. The terrorist went straight in, and thank G-d, didn’t notice the 70 boys on the floor. But, He went towards the room on the end which was lit and the boys there didn’t know what to expect. The terrorist let off his m-16. The rabbi.teacher had a gun and shot back. The Rabbi got 2 bullets in him. The terrorist threw a few grenades. The carnage in that room totaled 3 boys dead with around 3 0 injured. The terrorist went out and was met by a local lt. col who killed him in a chase.

Gilad called us at 11. 45 to tell us “I’m ok, but others are not”. We didn’t know what he was talking about and put on the news on the radio and tv. The incident made the news right away. Gilad called back at 12.30 and told us of the gruesome details.

The next day, Friday, it was on the news. 23 boys were hospitalized with wounds for life. Gilad phoned to tell us that he was going to the 5 boys funerals. 4 in Jerusalem and the other in Petach Tikva. Transportation was being provided by the school. Gilad returned 15 minutes before Shabbat commenced. He was sunburned and literrally drained. (He actually looked quite well with his pony tail and now much darker skin.) He’ll be 19 on April 20th and already has been to more funerals than I have by 35.

On Friday night in Schul, the Rabbi announced special psalms to be said before the shabbat prayers and then he gave a short sermon. The Rabbi remarked that he attended some of the funerals. But, he told of the faith of one boy who he has known for 12 years and who went to each funeral. He was talking about Gilad, whom he did mention by name. He said that he saw Gilad with his mates and showed such strength and faith that he needed to commend him. He knew that Gilad knew some of these boys for a number of years as they went through high school and junior high school together.

The schule’s announcements included that they wished to be together with Gilad and his prayers for “Gomel” ( fate) being good to him this day.

Just three months ago, all of the families were invited on Hanukah to see this unique community. On one side, the refuge camp of Khan Yunis. The other side, a beduin camp leading to Rafiach and the Egyptian border. Conversely, on the eastern side, the most beautiful beaches seen in Israel. Sand as white as snow which would be the dream of any resort in the world would want to possess.

So, I had a strong drink (southern comfort) on Shabbat. Although I should have had it Thursday night or Friday night as, for sure, I lost some sleep. Gilad and my other sons also joined me in a “l’haim” and maybe you all should, too. Nahum is a business consultant and accountant who lives and works in Jerusalem. Nahum is married and the father of four boys, ages 14 to 22. Gilad is son number three, and will be 19 next month.

Manic Depression in Israel? The Eroded Spirit of Israeli Society

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 8, 2002

There is a sense among the public of depression, powerlessness, and even despair over the situation. Indeed, we are undergoing a monstrous wave of terror, unprecedented in its atrocity, but still this sense is unjustified.

The public, it appears, suffers from a sort of manic depression when it comes to events. In the Oslo years we held hedonistic festivities to mark the end of the era of war, and it was precisely then that there was cause for deep concern, because of the deception regarding our true relations with the Palestinians and Arabs. We so much wanted peace and stability in the region that we ignored all the signs that heralded trouble. Today the situation is the opposite: deep depression, personal and collective, when there are in fact signs that herald good.

Israel is one of the 25 richest nations on earth, with a GNP of USD 114 billion a year, the same as all the neighboring Arab states combined (the PA’s annual GNP is USD 2.5 billion, of Jordan USD 9 billion, of Lebanon 18 billion and of Egypt 83 billion). Per capita, we have already passed Greece, Portugal, Spain, and we are not far from Italy, France and Britain. The Israeli economy is strong despite everything. True, there is unemployment and the economic situation is difficult but even in these days, there is no capital fleeing Israel, according to Governor of the Bank of Israel David Klein. The future is Israel’s: except for the United States, Israel tops the world’s nations when it comes to hi-tech innovation and Internet startups, a branch that is likely to again prosper soon.

If we fear an all-out war, there is no Arab regime in the entire Middle East that wants to go to war against Israel, not even Iraq. No Arab country can afford to fund such a war, because they are all sunk in great economic distress. Many in the region realize that the Palestinian disturbances are not just an Israeli problem, but rather of all them: there is no tourism, no work, no foreign investment. In contrast to the impression in the world media, the Islamic movements are in decline in the Arab world, because their message is viewed more and more as illusions for the masses.

The Palestinian Intifada has brought to Israel social solidarity that we have not had for years. Not that our differences have been solved, but there is deep sense of a shared fate that prevents further polarization. Not that we should not protest against a weak government that cannot find its way, but today it is clear to everyone which lines should not be crossed in social relations. Thus, if there those among the Arabs who hoped to disintegrate Israeli society, the results were the reverse.

The separation fence, which will ultimately be built, will safeguard Israel in the future from a demographic aspect and will maintain its identity as a strong Jewish state. It will prevent, unlike what occurred in the Oslo years, our being deluged by Palestinians, infiltrators from the Third Word into the First World, coming to work, to live and to become citizens.

And finally, experience teaches us that no Arab ruler has ever reached a serious agreement with Israel unless he had no other choice. So it was with Sadat when Egypt could not provide bread to the masses, with Arafat after the Gulf War, with Hussein after Oslo and with Bashir Jumayel in the Lebanese civil war. This is likely to happen now, too. The Oslo process did not get the sides to truly know each other. Perhaps this blood bath will in fact get the Palestinians, as well as the Israelis, to realize that they have no other choice but to recognize the other side’s rights, on the way to rapprochement and quiet.

This article ran in the March 7th issue of Yediot Aharonot

The Fatah Website: “A Strategy of Peace”

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

March 8, 2002

With thanks to IMRA for posting this.

[IMRA: Once again Yasser Arafat’s Fatah makes clear – (even in English!) that they do not consider themselves obligated to honor the signed commitment that was a necessary condition for Oslo – that the Palestinians would not use violence. Abandon that commitment and Oslo is (as it has become) a farce. And, contrary to the narrative below, Palestinian violence began (continued) from day one of Oslo.

Note also the interesting wording: “The areas to be reoccupied are those where the confrontation should occur although it might be bloody for the Israeli side.” = kill Israelis in the territories but there also “might be” killing Israelis inside the Green Line.]

The Declaration of Principles (D.O.P.), i.e. the Oslo Accord, signed in 1993, introduced a strategy of peace between the P.L.O. and the government of Israel. The agreement did not elicit the required consensus, but later it won the absolute majority. This gave it the momentum it needed to develop into the interim stage during which the PNA, its legislative council, and the President were elected and the negotiations were launched.

In the same year, however, the Israeli electorate rejected the Oslo peace approach when they refused the candidate of the Labor Party, Shimon Peres. Instead, Netenyahu was brought into office as the representative of a party, the Likud, that voted against the Oslo Accord.

The Palestinian strategy of peace was met with one of war from the Israeli side. In fact, one can think of the September 1996 uprising as a Palestinian reaction to Israeli attempts to abandon their commitments under the Oslo Accord. It was then President Clinton who forced Netenyahu’s government to sign the Hebron Protocol. Although the Protocol had more votes in the Knesset than the Oslo Accord did, the Likud representatives remained faithful to their nature.

They showed their disregard for peace when their party launched a campaign to build a settlement on Abu Ghneim Mountain. The step was in line with the Likud’s ideology that rejects the dismantling of settlements. It also denies all the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people including the establishment of a Palestinian state, the return of Jerusalem, or the right of return for the Palestinian refugees – all the basic requirements of peace.

Despite Clinton’s efforts that led to the signing of the Wye River Memo, the peace process deteriorated as a result of Netenyahu’s government insistence on lowering the expectations of the Palestinian people through the use of force.

Netenyahu left the political scene to be replaced by a Laborite of Likud tendencies- Barak. He adopted his predecessor’s policies in trying to lower our expectations. His proposals at Camp David II showed his true intentions after he refused for months to fulfill Israel’s obligations under the agreements signed. These proposals were reflected in Clinton’s that were originally phrased by the Zionist Denis Ross. They violated different aspects of UN resolutions. In fact, Barak later acknowledged that his proposal concerning Jerusalem was not real, and it was put forward just to know the PNA’s position on the issue.

The war on the Palestinian people escalated in the aftermath of Sharon’s obnoxious visit to al Aqsa Mosque. The Palestinians reacted in order to stress their desire for a true peace based on international legality. The Intifada has aimed to emphasize the Arab and Islamic character of al Aqsa and Jerusalem in addition to the other basic national principles.

Many observers think that Sharon does not have a political project to offer at the negotiating table. This is not fully true; Sharon has a complete political project that he wants to impose on the Palestinian people. He does not believe in negotiations since he assumes that there isn’t an equal partner. But he will not succeed where his predecessor failed.

At Camp David II, President Arafat refused Clinton’s proposals that apparently suggested an Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the area of the West Bank. As a matter of fact, Israel was supposed to move its troops out from only 69% of the West Bank area. 26% of the area was left out to be controlled by Israel, and this includes places like Jerusalem, the Dead Sea, the demilitarized zone, and al Latroun. The 69% from which Israel was supposed to withdraw is made up of three cantons in addition to a fourth in Gaza.

It is clear that what was offered at Camp David II did not represent a golden opportunity. In comparison, Sharon’s political project suggests a withdrawal from 42% of the West Bank area leaving final status issues to be negotiated in a prolonged interim period.

The Israeli military escalation against the peaceful functions of the Intifada elicited a Palestinian military response against the Israeli occupying army and the illegal settlers. This enabled Barak and, later, Sharon to picture the Intifada as part of a military confrontation between two parties. It should be noted here that the right to resist occupation is legitimate in areas internationally endorsed as occupied areas.

Israel has been using its military power in an unequal confrontation to impose Sharon’s political project on the Palestinians. For this purpose, Israel turned the Palestinian territories into a battlefield. It controlled the roads and practiced all evil acts including the assassination of Intifada activists, the occupation of PNA-controlled areas, and besieging cities and villages.

All these practices failed to undermine the Palestinian steadfastness despite the support Sharon has received from the US Administration. He was allowed to ‘tame’ the Palestinians during the first hundred days of his government. In addition, the US envoys approved his demand of having seven days of quiet as a prelude for implementing the Mitchell report.

Sharon continued to invent methods for eliciting Palestinian reactions although President Arafat declared a cease-fire and more than seven days passed without any major incidents. He thought that the September 11th events could open the way for him to become a partner in the ‘war against terror’.

The explosions in Haifa and Jerusalem could never have been better timed to serve Sharon’s interests. The US peace envoy, Zeny, was in the area; Sharon was visiting Washington to meet George Bush; and the US was about to achieve an easy victory in Afghanistan without the need for an Arab support. Killing civilians, i.e. Israel settlers, as a result of a legitimate act of resistance was easily depicted as an act of terrorism whereas the state organized terror of Israel became legal. The Palestinian position became more awkward, especially after the US demanded the PNA to outlaw the military wings of Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP.

The situation deteriorated rapidly after the US adopted the Israeli position concerning ‘terrorism’. On his first visit to the area, general Zeny told President Arafat that his mission goes beyond implementing the cease-fire and it ultimately aims to establish a Palestinian state in line with the US’ s vision. Zeny’s second visit coincided with the Jerusalem-Haifa explosions that the US strongly condemned. The allegation that a Palestinian weapon shipment was on its way from Iran to the PNA complicated the situation although the PNA denied any connection to the ship.

The issue of the weapon shipment was seen as a violation of the peace agreements from the US and Israeli identical perspectives. However, if the fulfilling of obligations towards the peace agreements is the criterion upon which the US passes its judgement, what about the Israeli insistence on adopting a strategy of war and aggression against the Palestinian people? President Arafat declared on more than one occasion our adherence to the peace agreements signed with Israel. But this should not be read as a sign of weakness or surrender.

The Intifada is an integral part of the Palestinian peace strategy since it represents the only way of defending the rights that Sharon’s government persists in denying. It will remain so as long as Israel uses its arsenal to impose its version of peace that has no relevance to the UN resolutions. As a matter of fact, the Israeli flagrant violation of the peace agreements makes it unethical for any party to accuse the PNA of harboring terrorism on the false pretext of ordering a weapon shipment.

If Sharon’s government aims to destroy the possibility of future coexistence, it becomes a Palestinian responsibility to ensure that our peace strategy forbids the harming of Israeli civilians. This is in line with our Islamic heritage, and there is no justification for following the example of Sharon’s heinous aggression. We have the right to obtain weapons that we can use against Israeli tanks and fighter planes but not against Israeli civilians.

Sharon and the US managed to invest the question of the weapon shipment and placed much of the responsibility on President Arafat personally. Sharon found a golden opportunity to settle old scores with Arafat after twenty years of the battle of Beirut when he was dismissed from the Israeli ministry of war.

In his last visit, general Zeny found that the Israeli National Security Council offered the political leadership two options that specify the military strategy to be followed:

To deal with Arafat as a leader who cannot conclude an agreement, but not to harm him personally. The Council called for adopting a scenario of continued pressure on Arafat to force him out of the Territories as a first step of replacing him with a more realistic leader.
To place pressure on Arafat in coordination with the US Administration, assuming that Arafat would not make a strategic decision to fight terrorism, but he would adopt tactical measures that would lead to relative quiet. Israel in this case will be able to impose an interim solution to be completed later with a new leadership. (Aluf Ben, Haaretz, 5th January, 2002)

It seems that Sharon has adopted the second option excluding the first option since he knows from his experience that Arafat’s expulsion will only flare up the Intifada. The option he adopted is in line with the US current policy that wants neither to harm Arafat nor to destroy the PNA. However, the public support that Arafat has received made Sharon modify his plan that is based on the following:

To keep Arafat within the range of the Israeli fire;
To carry out demands that Arafat would not do to maintain the national unity that Sharon aims to harm;
To reoccupy parts of the PNA-controlled areas, a step that no longer attracts the attention of the US Administration nor that of the leaders of the Arab neighboring countries;
To control most of the PNA-controlled areas leaving an area of 5-10% from area (A) to prepare the grounds for implementing Sharon’s plot.

This plot is based on the following points:

To sign a new agreement that nullifies all previous ones, but it will have the same terms of reference;
To declare the state of Palestine with its temporary borders in areas A&B (42% of the West Bank area plus the Gaza Strip);
To put a time line for an interim period during which the final status issues would be negotiated;
The US Administration will pledge that the final borders of the state of Palestine are those of 4/6/1967 and what can be agreed on through negotiations including Jerusalem;
To cease all forms of violence and incitement.

Israel and the US assume that what the Palestinian people might reject now will become later acceptable in better conditions to be prepared by some of those who wish to succeed Arafat. Should we therefore allow the plot to proceed until the last castle is broken through? The answer is no. We should not allow the Israeli elephant, Sharon, to destroy our china shop nor that of the Israeli people. After all, the two peoples know the advantages of living in peace and harmony.

It is the responsibility of all the forces in the Palestinian society to turn the current state of emergency into one of confrontation. This requires an emergency central committee comprised of all forces not forgetting the desirable effect that the presence of foreign delegations would have on the international community. The areas to be reoccupied are those where the confrontation should occur although it might be bloody for the Israeli side. The Israeli society has to raise its voice against Sharon whose criminal acts bring hate and disasters.

To defend our national project, we have to maintain our right to resistance, strengthen our national unity, end political detention and release all prisoners who might be arrested by Israel.

Disillusioned are those who think that a positive response to the demands of Sharon and Zeny will end Sharon’s greed. ‘Hell’ is the name of the Israeli army’s current operation, and it is an indicative name since it echoes our understanding of hell on the judgement day when hell keeps on asking for more; it never gets satisfied- like Sharon.

Revolution until Victory.

Israel Behind the News

Ramallah as a Center of Terror: Background Information

Israeli-Palestinian Ceasefire and Security plan, Proposed by CIA Director George Tenet, Which Took Effect on 13 June 2001

CIA chief conceded failure of mission

Has UNRWA allowed their Refugee Camps to Become the Host of Terror Activity?

Previous Articles Written in Israel Resource Review

Whither the Saudi Initiative? A Balloon Bursts

Israeli Press Analyis of the Terror Attack on Israel’s Northern Road

A Wound for Life: My Son Caught in the Line of Fire at his Yeshiva

Manic Depression in Israel? The Eroded Spirit of Israeli Society

The Fatah Website: “A Strategy of Peace”

Column from the Director