A Campaign Of Organized Terrorism Throughout Israel

This is no longer the question of a single terrorist operation, but rather of a campaign of organized terrorism thought the country: Suicide bombers, car bombs, shooting and bombs. The objective of the terrorists is to kill as many Israeli as possible, to sow as much fear and terror and try to use terrorism to force [Israel] to agree to conditions dictated by the Palestinians.

This is an around-the-clock campaign of terrorism, and its aim is to undermine our way of life: That of a woman who goes to the market, a couple shopping at the supermarket, innocent passengers on a bus and train, as well of teenagers on a weekend outing.

This is terrorism which receives the support and encouragement of the Palestinian street, the Palestinian leadership and Arafat. He knows how to make statements against terrorism, but on the ground does nothing to stop this madness.

This is no longer terrorism only by Islamic Jihad, Hamas or Tanzim. This is a terrorism by all of the Palestinian organizations. The ideological borders have been blurred. They are all united under the umbrella of a single ideology, that of sowing the terror of terrorism in Israel.

This is terrorism that does not take into account the times and schedules of a visit by envoys and mediators. This is a terrorism which also knows how to slap senior envoys such as Zinni in the face, and let them him know he is not wanted here, that we will get the job done against Israel and the Jews ourselves.

This is a campaign of terrorism that regretfully has not received the sincere and sweeping condemnation of Europe. On the contrary. There are European countries which say this is a “legitimate struggle.” Even the American reaction is ambiguous and unsatisfying.

There is no choice. One has to stand strong against this terror, to continue taking all the preventative measures, and to employ all means available to prevent terrorists form leaving PA territories, even if it entails suffering for civilians. Everything must be done to prevent Palestinians from crossing the Green Line.

The Palestinians must understand, even if the explanation will be made the hard way, that if they do not expunge this terrorism from their midst, they are likely to pay a far heavier price. T

his article ran in Yedioth Ahronoth on November 30, 2001

Does Peres Still Plan to Fund Raise for Arafat in Oslo?

The spate of terror attacks in Israel on December 1st and 2nd found Israel Foreign Minister Shimon Peres chairing a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem on the morning of December 2nd in his role as the acting prime minister of Israel, in the absence of travelling Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.

At that cabinet meeting, Peres issued a series of statements to demand action and not words from Arafat and the PA in response to Arab terror.

Yet on that morning of December 2nd, the Jerusalem Post ran a news story that reminded its readership that Peres was still planning to meet Arafat on December 10th in Oslo, together with the “donor nations” that provide the PA with its operating budget for health, education, welfare and security expenses. That gathering in Oslo is on the occasion of the 100th anniverary of the Nobel Prize. Arafat, Rabin and Peres shared that prize in December, 1994.

Indeed, the EU provides the PA with $10 million EURO per month for its security services. Israel Resource News Agency has received documentation that the EU officials in Jerusalem know that the PA security services openly fund, train and arm the Hamas cadres that have been carrying out the terror acts in all parts of Israel. The IDF confirms that Hamas and the Islamic Jihad conducts its activities with the full cooperation with these same PA security forces. (See Israel Resource Review of October 31, 2001)

When I was in Brussels on November 9, EU officials affirmed that their aid to the PA is with the full knowledge and endorsement of the Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Shimon Peres.

EU officials also affirmed that their support for the organizations affliiated with Yose Beilin is also with the endorsement of the Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs. Mr. Peres.

EU officials also affirmed that their funding of PA education is with the endorsement of the Israel Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Peres.

Indeed, the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs took a major step to deflect criticism of the new school books of the Palestinian Authority by co-sponsoring a seminar for the foreign media and the diplomatic corps in Jerusalem on November 27, 2001, in which Prof. Nathan Brown made a presentation that refuted the idea that the PA school books were filled with incitement. Prof. Brown is affiliated with George Washington University and with the Middle East Institute, an Arab interest group in Washington. Prof. Brown has also assisted the PA to plan their constitution.

So there you have it: An Arabist from Washington, has been given credibility by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Shimon Peres has stated on many occasions that the Oslo Process will not be reversed, no matter what.

Will Peres fly to Oslo to salvage Arafat and the PA next week? Time will tell.

Palestinian Authority Textbooks: Another View

In 1999 and 2000, I conducted research on the establishment of the new Palestinian curriculum by collecting documents, textbooks, and interviewing Palestinian educators. Since that time, I have continued the research by continuing to survey textbooks and discussions of educational issues by Palestinian educators. This research was supported by a Fulbright grant through the United States-Israel Educational Foundation (USIEF) and another grant from the United States Institute of Peace (USIP). The conclusions of the research are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views either of USIEF or USIP.

I am aware of the international controversy surrounding Palestinian textbooks. Most accusations against the books are based on reports from the “Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace” (CMIP). Although that organization presents reports that are tendentious and misleading, few independent reviews have been conducted. Therefore CMIP reports–which seek to obscure rather than highlight the changes that have been made–are not frequently challenged. I hope that my own review of Palestinian textbooks can help correct the inaccurate impressions prevalent in international discussions of the issue.

The Palestinian Authority has published two sets of books. The first, the National Education series, was designed to supplement the interim use of Jordanian and Egyptian books. That series was written in 1994. It contained no racism or incitement. It also mentioned no region as Palestinian other than those occupied by Israel in 1967. It was largely silent on most sensitive political issues. The second series of books, a comprehensive curriculum, has been completed for grades one, two, six, and seven. Remaining grades will be added, two at a time, over the next few years. The newer books have broken some of the silence of the earlier books but still generally treat sensitive issues with circumspection. Based on a review of those books, I can state the following:

Racism

The new books are devoid of racism and anti-Semitism. Thus, the PA should be credited with removing such material from the curriculum rather than maintaining it. The CMIP relies for its claims on the Palestinian decision to continue use of older Egyptian and Jordanian material. The Egyptian and Jordanian books do contain problematic material, though they were adopted only as an interim measure. Palestinian educators are highly critical of the books in question and anxious to replace them (as they have now done for four grades). Oddly, Israel actually participated in continuing the books. Palestinian schools under Israeli control in East Jerusalem used the Jordanian books with the offensive material but they were not allowed to use the 1994 National Education books devoid of any offensive material (because they were written by the Palestinian Authority). Only in 2000 did some East Jerusalem schools begin to switch to the new Palestinian curriculum.

History

The Palestinian books strive to create a strong sense of Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim identity in students. This dominates their treatment of history. Thus, they concentrate on trying to demonstrate a continuing Arab presence in Palestine. Though they do not deny a Jewish presence, they do not dwell on it. In Islamic education, the books have to confront Muslim-Jewish relations (in the early days of Islam) and Muslim-Christian relations (during the Crusades). The books clearly take the point of view of the Muslims in both instances. But they also clearly support peaceful relations (for instance, by lauding Saladin for insisting that people of all faiths should have access to Jerusalem). The books do not treat Jewish history in any comprehensive manner, positively or negatively.

Present

Perhaps the most difficult issue is how to present Palestine in the present, since all matters (statehood, borders, Israeli settlements) remain unresolved. The books deliver no consistent message. Sometimes they seek to avoid the subject (for instance, a group of schoolchildren takes a trip from Gaza to Jerusalem; the books make no mention of the fact that checkpoints and closure make such a school trip impossible). Sometimes they convey the Palestinian national consensus (that Jerusalem must be their capital, that Israeli settlements harm Palestinians) while bypassing other issues. Sometimes they try to distinguish between “geographic” or “historic” Palestine with “political” Palestine. Thus they sometimes discuss (generally briefly) some areas within Israel’s 1967 borders. But each book also contains a foreword describing the West Bank and Gaza as “the two parts of the homeland.” In short, political realities are confusing and difficult for educators to describe to children. It would be unfair to describe such confused treatment as “delegitimation of Israel.”

Violence

Similarly, the books do not encourage violence. They do urge students to be willing to make self-sacrifice for the religion or nation (as most schoolbooks do), but they do not urge violence in that regard. One book does contain a poem praising the children who threw stones in the first intifada, but at the same time praises Gandhi at some length for non-violence.

In closing, allow me to make three observations:

The efforts to discredit Palestinian textbooks have already caused some damage. Many leading Palestinian educators have argued that the new curriculum should be designed not only to promote nationalist identity but also the skills of democratic citizenship. Stung by international criticism, education officials tend to be less open to such contributions than they were in the past. The cause of educational reform has been obstructed by the harsh and unfair international criticism. Schoolbooks are products of the broader political situation. The original plan for the Palestinian curriculum (produced in 1996) involved the introduction of Hebrew-language instruction as an elective in secondary school. I believe that plan is still in effect. But the deterioration of the broader political context has taken a toll. In 2000, a first-grade book had a picture of a coin from the era of the British mandate with Palestine written in both Hebrew and Arabic. In 2001, after a year of the second intifada, a picture of a Mandate-era postage stamp erased the Hebrew. The Palestinian curriculum is not a “war” curriculum. Neither is it a “peace” curriculum. A real peace curriculum will follow, not precede, a comprehensive peace.

I hesitate to compare the Israeli and Palestinian educational systems.

Their situations are different, and I conducted no study on Israeli textbooks. But my children have attended Israeli schools and I have tried to keep abreast of research by Israeli academics. My impression is that both Israeli and Palestinian schools handle an awkward political situation similarly: they are actually more similar than either side would like to admit!

Nathan Brown is Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, George Washington University.
He can be contacted at
nbrown@gwu.edu

The Continuing EU Role in PA Education

Herb Keinon’s Jerusalem Post news report of November 2, 2001, indicating that “E.U. money has been used for Palestinian textbooks”, was refuted by Ambassador Giancarlo Chevallard (Head of the Delegation of the European Commission) in his letter of November 9) Although this is technically correct, (the money for the textbooks per se deriving from a group of individual “donor nations” of Europe and not from the EU Commission), it is equally true that EU funding is supporting didactic methods to disseminate anti- Israel messages which incite to violence and negate the existence of the State of Israel.

It is clear that there has been a lack of supervision of the Palestinian curricula on the part of the EU, and until recently, on the part of the donor nations. Efforts to bring this to the attention of the Commissioner for External Affairs of the European Union, Christopher Patten, were a failure.

During an interview conducted with Jean Breteche the Representative of the European Union for the West Bank and Gaza Strip areas, by myself in conjunction with the Center for Near East Policy Research, we specifically asked about textbook funding. Breteche told us that the European Union does not fund Palestinian Authority textbooks.

He went on to emphasize, however, that funding of Palestinian education is a major mandate for the EU, the large sums of money provided to the P.A. to be used for “infrastructure”, such as building schools, training teachers, etc.

It is known that PA teacher training incorporates the use of teachers’ guidebooks as translated by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace (for Palestinian Media Watch), and shown to be filled with specific instruction as to how to teach the same incitement laden material which appears in the Palestinian textbooks.

I had previously corresponded directly (July 2000) with Commissioner Patten, providing ample documentation both of textbook incitement, and also of European policy of total autonomy for a developing nation receiving aid, as laid out in “Education: a basic human right: development cooperation and basic education: policy, practice and implementation”, a program created by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Dutch Government for the EU.

Commissioner Patten’s response to me stated that the European Commission does not run the development programs of the EU Members States, and that in view of our concern regarding the textbooks, we should address ourselves directly to these European member states.

This we had already done, as I had indicated to him. Consequent to our inputs with the individual donor nations funding the textbooks, the Italian Consulate representatives agreed to monitor the books, and thereafter canceled the 5 million dollar grant to the PA for the textbooks, as has the Vatican, while there are indications that the World Bank has also cut funding.

It is to be noted that the new PA textbooks introduced September 2000, while lacking specific exhortations to violence, still negate the existence of the state of Israel, claim all areas of Israel to be Palestine, praise Izzadim-al-Khassam, the hero of Hamas, as a Palestinian hero, and in population statistics omit Jews but include Israeli Arabs, West Bank and Gaza Palestinians and “Diaspora” Palestinians for a total figure of more than 8 million Palestinians in “Palestine” by which they mean the combined geographic areas of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. Additionally most of the prior textbooks with overt incitement are yet to be replaced, and are in continuing use.

In answer to a further urgent letter to Patten in October 2000 after the start of the current Intifada, requesting names of those within the European Commission or the European Parliament who might have a brief regarding Palestinian education, I received a further similar response to the effect that…. “the European Commission is not itself competent to modify the Palestinian curricula, nor is it responsible for development programs of EU Member States.”….. Patten gave me no names of others I might contact, in this regard.

Of importance to note is that currently, the official Palestinian television media have stepped up an emotionally laden drive directed at Palestinian children exhorting them to Martyrdom for the Palestinian cause against Israel.

While Chevallard states that the EU regularly supports “projects supporting peace, understanding, reconciliation…..”, these projects (as outlined to me by Patten) consist of support of People to People projects including Palestinian-Israeli youth dialogues, (which according to moderate Palestinians have been a no-go for some time), and referral to the Trilateral Commission against Incitement to Violence, (which has not met for more than two years).

The hope for the success of any upcoming peace treaty with the Palestinians lies with terminating the incessant brainwashing of Palestinians and its youth. It is a duty incumbent upon the European Union to seriously address this matter instead of indulging in euphemistic exercises which obfuscate its current policies.

New School Books Omit Israel: New Report on PA l School Textbooks

JERUSALEM – A new range of textbooks used in Canadian-funded Palestinian schools has failed to fulfill promises to the international community to modify Palestinian hostility to the Jewish presence in Israel and promote peace in education.

According to 58 new textbooks and two teachers’ guides for grades 1, 2, 6, 7 and 11 published in the past two years by the Palestinian Authority, Israel does not exist — nor does the concept of peace, a U.S. study has found.

Children are encouraged from the earliest school age to hate Israelis, glorify “martyrs” and seek the “liberation” of all of Palestine, including Israel.

The analysis of the textbooks, published this week, was carried out by the New York-based Center for Monitoring Impact of Peace (CMIP), a non-profit organization dedicated to encouraging a climate of tolerance and mutual respect between peoples and nations.

The study reveals the Palestinian Authority (PA) has removed some anti- Semitic stereotypes that were featured prominently in Jordanian and Egyptian textbooks previously used in the West Bank and Gaza, but no positive or even neutral images of Jews and Israelis have been introduced.

“The PA curriculum does not teach the acceptance of Israel’s existence and instead of working to erase hateful stereotypes, it is instilling them into the next generation’s consciousness,” said Yohanan Manor, CMIP’s vice-chairman.

When presented with the report’s main findings, a spokes- man for the Palestinian Education Ministry, which published the textbooks, refused to comment. “I have nothing to say about this,” he said.

The new textbooks are being used throughout the Palestinian-controlled areas in the West Bank and Gaza in 1,300 schools administered by the Palestinian Authority and 261 run by the United Nations Relief & Works Agency (UNRWA).

Since 1993, Canada has contributed $165-million in direct aid to Palestinian development programs, including education, plus a further $10-million annually to UNRWA.

An additional grant of $5-million, announced in May by John Manley, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, is about to be distributed through the World Bank to a series of projects, including new schools and libraries.

The offensive textbook material has been included despite commitments made by the Palestinian Authority in the May, 1994, Cairo Agreement, where both parties undertook to “ensure that their educational systems contribute to the peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.”

“Incitement in Palestinian media and schools betrays any interest in peace and must come to an end if Palestinians are to be credible as partners for peace-making,” Dennis Ross, a former U.S. Middle East envoy, wrote this week.

While there is recognition in the Palestinian textbooks of a sovereign Jewish state under King David in ancient times, the modern state of Israel is never shown. Every map in every subject — from Grade 2 math to Grade 7 geography — marks the entire area of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine and fails to show any modern Israeli cities such as Tel Aviv or Hadera.

The Oslo peace process, which brought the Palestinian Authority into existence, is hardly mentioned and nowhere is the idea of peace with Israel promoted.

A similar report by CMIP a year ago on 360 textbooks used in Israeli schools found dozens of examples where Israeli children were being taught to recognize Palestinian claims and problems and where an effort was made “to prepare the younger generation for openness and peace.

“Islam, the Arab culture and the Arabs’ contribution to human civilization are presented in a positive light,” the report on Israeli textbooks found.

“No book calls for violence or war. Many books express the yearning for peace between Israel and the Arab countries.”

Mr. Manor said CMIP did find some isolated examples of “prejudice, patronizing expressions and disrespect to Arabs” in books used in ultra- orthodox Israeli schools and the organization raised objections with representatives of those educational systems.

But the Palestinian textbooks are replete with images of violence and hatred in all contexts, reinforcing negative views of Israelis even in subjects far removed from history or politics, the new study found.

A Grade 2 language textbook prompts young children to describe a series of brightly coloured pictures in which Israelis uproot trees, expel Palestinians and destroy their houses. A Grade 1 science book illustrates a magnifying glass by enlarging a text which reads “Palestine is Arab.”

Mr. Manor expressed particular concern at the representation of Jews and the Hebrew language and their connection to the Holy Land.

Jewish immigration to Palestine since the 16th century is described in negative terms as “infiltration” and Hebrew is referred to as a dialect rather than a language.

A Grade 7 “national education” textbook lists Christian and Muslim holy places in Palestine but no Jewish ones.

The same book refers to “the attempt to Judaize some of the Muslim religious places” such as the Western Wall in Jerusalem and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron — both were built by the Jewish King Herod

A population table for Palestine in a Grade 6 National Education textbook lists 1.9 million people on the West Bank, 1.1 million in Gaza, 1.1 million “Palestinians of the Interior” (i.e. Israeli Arabs) and 4.4 million “Palestinians of the Diaspora.” The five million Jews living in Israel are not mentioned at all.

This article ran in the National Post of Canada on November 25th, 2001

Executive Summary: The Report of the New Palestinian Authority School Books

Following is a summary of the findings of a survey conducted by the Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace, of the new Palestinian Authority Textbooks.

The findings were presented at a press conference held on November 21, 2001 in Jerusalem, by the Chairman of the Center, Mr. Andre Marcus and the Vice-Chairman, Dr. Yohanan Manor: In the two academic years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) introduced 58 new textbooks and two teachers’ guides for grades 1,2,6,7 and 11. CMIP has conducted a comprehensive survey of these textbooks in order to determine how they relate to peace, tolerance, recognition and reconciliation according to criteria set by the international community.

CMIP has found that the new PNA textbooks do not fulfill these criteria in educating to peace and reconciliation with Israel, but rather foster a multi-faceted rejection of its existence. The educational approach employed by the PNA does not reflect international standards as defined by UNESCO. The textbooks do not teach acceptance of Israel’s existence on the national level, and instead of working to erase hateful stereotypes, the new PNA curriculum is instilling them into the next generation’s consciousness.

The concept of peace with Israel is not to be found anywhere in the Palestinian schoolbooks.

The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, based on the Oslo Accords, is not mentioned.

They fail to teach the youth to see Israel as a neighbor with whom peaceful relations should be desired.

Tolerance, both in a historical and a contemporary context, is addressed at length in the Palestinian textbooks.

It is described as being based on Islam’s traditional approach of “accepting the members of the monotheistic religions” and “respecting the People of the Book in their religion,property and ceremonies”.

However, in their examples, the textbooks refer only to tolerance between Moslems and Christians.

The Jews are not mentioned. The Jewish connection to the Holy Land is confined to antiquity.

From the Roman period onwards this Jewish link is ignored. The Jews’ return to Palestine is described as “infiltration”. Zionism is mentioned in a negative context only.

The Jews are not “deserving” of Palestine. Hebrew is not considered one of the languages of the land.

The State of Israel, a member state of the UN since 1949, is not recognized.

It is referred to by substitute names such as the lands within the “green line”, “interior” or “1948 lands”. Its name does not appear on any map, nor do any towns, villages and projects (industries, harbors, railways, etc.) created and developed by Israel.

Israel is presented as the usurper and occupier since its establishment in 1948.

By contrast, the State of Palestine (Dawlat Filastin) is often referred to and its name appears with the official emblem of the Palestinian National Authority, on the cover and the front page of many textbooks. Palestine stretches from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and is exclusively Arab.

The 5.5 million Jewish inhabitants are not counted.

The maps that appear in the textbooks continue to disregard the existence of the State of Israel.

In most cases no names are given at all. In other cases Israel’s place on the map is marked “Palestine”. There are several maps that delineate the contours of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but do not name them.

Areas located in the territory of Israel within its 1949 borders, such as the Negev, are presented as an integral part of Palestine.

The Arab population of Israel is counted among the inhabitants of Palestine.

Jerusalem is presented as belonging to the Palestinians alone, and as the capital of Palestine.

Its central importance and holiness for the Jews are not mentioned, neither is the fact that the Jewish population constitutes the vast majority of its inhabitants.

The holy places in Palestine are exclusively Muslim and Christian.

There is no reference to Jewish holy places as such. Rather, they are presented as Muslim holy places that the Jews have attempted to Judaize, such as the “Tomb of the Patriarchs” in Hebron, “the Western Wall” a.k.a. “the Wailing Wall”, in Jerusalem, and “Rachel’s Tomb” in Bethlehem.

There are a series of references to the liberation of Palestine, presented as a struggle against Israeli occupation. At times, the liberation from Israeli occupation points to the territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip occupied by Israel in 1967.

Sometimes this expression refers to the territory of the State of Israel, within its 1949 borders.

There is an explicit reference to the Israeli occupation of 1948 and another to the need to establish an independent Palestinian state on the entire national soil.

The struggle for the liberation of Palestine is presented mainly as a military one.

There is no direct support of terror in the textbooks, but the Feda’i and the Shahid are praised as the spearheads of this struggle. Palestinians hanged by British Mandate authorities for murders of Jewish civilians are presented as Shahids.

Those arrested and jailed in Israeli jails for acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians are depicted as “prisoners of war”.

Jihad continues to be glorified and martyrdom is praised, with special attention given to the martyrs of Palestine.

There is no attempt to encourage reconciliation with Israel.

Israel is presented exclusively as inhumane and greedy. It has destroyed the Palestinian villages, driven them away, seized their lands and water, inflicted on them pain and loss, taken over their holy places.

Israel is responsible for the obliteration of Palestinian Arab national identity, the crippling of Palestinian economy, and for social and ecological ills.

Israel is accused of being responsible for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, with no consideration being given to the consequences of the Arab and Palestinian rejection of the 1947 UN Partition Plan. The solution to this problem presented in PNA textbooks is “the return of every refugee” to his former home, i.e. to the territory of the State of Israel within its 1949 borders.

Although bilateral treaties and accords have determined the allocation of land and water between Israel and the Palestinians by mutual agreement, (The Israeli-Palestinian Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, 1995, Article XI and Appendix I article 40,and the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty 1994, Annex II.). Israel is accused of robbing the lands and waters from the Palestinians.

Reference to the Jews is minimal.

Although their historical connections to Palestine are mentioned, these references do not provide the pupils with at least a basic knowledge of Jews and Judaism, as one of the three monotheistic religions.

Several of these references, however, contain negative generalizations attributing traits of trickery, greed and barbarity to the Jews, and insinuation that they do not keep agreements and treaties as Muslims do. Accusations of racial discrimination that were leveled against Israel in a textbook published in 1995 have since been removed (in 1996 and 2000).

Inaccuracies in determining and presenting historical facts appear in several instances, particularly in the textbooks of Grade 7. For example, statements such as: “[Israeli] attempts at obliterating the artistic [Palestinian] heritage:.Setting fire to the antique pulpit of Saladin in the al-Aqsa Mosque.” (National Education, Grade 7, p. 55).

“The Arab Jebusites built it [Jerusalem] five thousand years ago in that distinguished place and it has remained since that time a capital of Palestine during the ages.” (Geography of Palestine, Grade 7, p. 77) are to be found in the textbooks, as well as the falsification of a stamp issued by the British Mandatory Government.

The Palestinian textbooks use terminology that is associated with war and violence and is likely to create prejudice,misunderstanding and conflict, such as: “The demographic weapon” will play “a positive role in winning the Arab-Israeli conflict” (The Palestinian Society-Demographic Education, Grade 11 (2000), p. 29), and:”The coming of the Jewish throngs to Palestine continued until 1948 and their goal was taking over the Palestinian lands and then taking the original inhabitants’ place after their expulsion or extermination.” (National Education, Grade 7, p. 20)

The tendency towards educating pupils to reject and delegitimize Israel that was prevalent in the PNA textbooks of 2000-2001 has not been addressed in the new textbooks.

Instead, it appears to have gained impetus through instilling animosity and the implicit aspiration to replace the State of Israel with the State of Palestine.

The website for the Center for the Monitoring the Impact of Peace is www.edume.org .

Why the PA Textbooks Remain a Secret to the Israeli Public

The school system of the nascent Palestinian Authority, established in the wake of the Oslo peace process, has fostered the first curriculum since Nazi Germany to train children in the art of war against the Jews. Yet the thorough research of the school books of the Palestinian National Authority remain a secret to most people in Israel. Why?

When the CMIP presented its evaluation of the Palestinian Authority school books at a well attended press conference at the King David Hotel on November 21, 2001, several media outlets were noticably absent: the three main Israeli newspapers were not there: HaAretz, Yediot and Maariv.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, which supplies releases to all the Jewish media and Jewish organization, was also not there. The JTA bureau chief in Israel, David Landau, co-author of the seminal 1993 volume, New Middle East, the book that promoted the Oslo process, has never reported about PA education.

Israel TV was there, yet preferred to delay the news of the press conference from its main 9 p.m. newscast until the less viewed midnite newscast.

Israel Kol Yisrael Radio news ran a story of the press conference on exactly two newscasts.

The people in Israel are therefore left in the dark concerning the PA curriculum.

Two days before the press conference, the Beligian Foreign Minister visited Israel, the PLO press agency WAFA announced that the Belgian government would be funding this year’s set of PA school books.

When I asked the Belgian foreign minister’s press secretary about the reason for the Belgian funding of the school books, she specifically mentioned that she had heard that the CMIP had reported that there had been an “improvement” in the content of the books.

The CMIP could only point to cosmetic improvements in the books, such as the “recognition” of the Jewish connection to Palestine during the time of King David.

Queries to the Israel Foreign Ministry concerning the school books produced a response:

The Israel Ambassador to Belgium, Mr. Shaul Amor, was instructed to discuss the school books with the Belgian Foreign Minister, while the Israel Foreign Ministry issued a release that it would conduct its own inquiry concerning the PA school books.

This would represent the first time that the Israeli government has conducted a study of PA textbooks.

The question remains as to whether the Israeli government will ever protest the content of the PA school books to the funders of PA education.

The Israeli public at large does not yet know about the PA curriculum.

In the Shadow of 1914: The Current Situation

With each passing day, the political landscape across the globe looks increasingly like August 1914. Then, it took only the assassination of an Austrian archduke by a Bosnian-Serb nationalist to ignite the First World War.

The second decade of the century was a time of fear and deep suspicion, of secret alliances and dark conspiracies. Militarism was on the rise and great-power rivalries dominated world politics. For a young, naïve generation the promise of modernity was about to collide with the forces of an older, more-sinister world. It would be a costly fight.

Eighty years later, another assassin is on the prowl. This time he’s an Islamic fundamentalist with dreams of a Middle East free of Western influence. His goal is nothing less than a resurgent Muslim civilization and a new world order that no longer includes the United States at its helm.

The weapon of choice for Osama bin Laden is not the bullet, but commercial jetliners, and possibly biological toxins, targeted at the heart of American cities. With his vast resources and a network of committed followers, he may just have initiated the first global conflict of the 21st century. Such is the power of terrorism.

Two months after the attacks of September 11, all the pieces are coming together. A coalition of antiterrorist countries, led by the United States, is being formed on one side. A loose coalition of rogue states and committed terrorist organizations has formed on the other. Each side has issued ultimatums from which it cannot comfortably retreat.

Propaganda and patriotism have aroused popular anger. Armies are on the march. The antagonists have a clear and uncluttered vision of what’s right. Each has a global reach. Each has weapons of mass destruction. Each has God on its side.

President George W. Bush has declared a global war on terrorism. His spokesmen have acknowledged that the fight may yet extend to 60 or 70 countries, each home to an underworld of crime and subversion. It could take years before the scourge is eradicated. The United Nations has been mobilized with every state being asked to weigh into the fight. “Either you’re with us or you’re against us,” is the battle cry out of Washington.

As always, the Middle East remains a flash point for conflict. Its nations are restless, frightened and poised for war. Terrorism has reached a crescendo in Israel, with scores of Israeli citizens and Palestinians being killed and injured each week. A senior Israeli minister has been assassinated. The prospect of peace has all but vanished. Oslo is dead. Both the Israeli and Palestinian societies are at a breaking point. Each has warned the other that a single act of violence could unleash a chain of events leading to a regional meltdown.

In Egypt, the government has said it will not stand by if Israel mounts a major offensive against the Palestine Liberation Organization inside of territory it controls. Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, continues to probe Israel’s northern defenses, attempting, yet again, to drag Jerusalem into the Lebanese quagmire. Other terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine are itching for an opportunity to strike at Israeli urban centers in the hope of demoralizing the population, instilling panic and bringing about the collapse of the Jewish state.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation in the world, finds itself on the verge of disintegration. Rising popular anger over the U.S. campaign against Afghanistan coupled with mounting social unrest, economic collapse and increasing religious militancy could lead to widespread destabilization across Southeast Asia.

Megawati Sukarnoputri, Indonesia’s president, ominously has warned that the nation is in danger of becoming the “Balkans of the East.” She said, “If [violence] continues, we will split into lots of small races, into lots of small countries, all of which will be weak in the face of outside forces.”

To build its antiterror coalition, the United States has looked first to NATO, invoking Article Five of the Atlantic Charter for the first time in history. Old rivals of the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance now are joined against a new enemy. An attack on one is an attack on all.

Great Britain has committed its largest force to battle since the Falklands War. London joined Washington in launching the first strike on Afghanistan, using submarine-launched cruise missiles while also dispatching SAS commandos.

French support of Operation Enduring Freedom consists of intelligence-gathering, reconnaissance aircraft and mine-clearing ships. The Germans are providing 3,900 troops along with airborne medical craft, armored reconnaissance vehicles and nuclear/biological/chemical detection equipment. The Italians have offered an aircraft carrier and up to 2,700 soldiers. Canada is committing 2,000 troops, six ships, six aircraft and a commando unit.

The Australians, too, have rallied to the allied battle standard with troops and equipment. Always eager for a good scrum, the Aussies once again find themselves up against a Muslim foe. Afghanistan may not be Gallipoli, but its defenders are equally ruthless and the terrain just as challenging.

In what is their first overseas deployment since World War II, Japan is providing military support to the U.S. antiterrorist effort. Many Chinese are worried that this could signal the beginning of a remilitarized Japan. Beijing has moved troops to its westernmost province as a precaution and closed its border with Afghanistan.

Russia, too, is on heightened alert, its leaders mindful of the fury of radical Islam and its potential to spread chaos well beyond the borders of Afghanistan. The Kremlin is concerned that U.S. forces operating within its sphere of influence in Central Asia may not leave after the fighting. No less than seven of the former Soviet republics have pledged their support for the war effort. Some are allowing U.S. troops to be based on their soil. Naturally, the Kremlin is nervous. Once again, the “Great Game” is being played out in Asia.

There may yet be a popular backlash in those countries bordering Afghanistan – Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan – where dissident Muslim minorities are displeased with offers made by their governments to aid the U.S.-led coalition. The signs of a geopolitical collision are everywhere.

Popular discontent and a mounting refugee crisis threaten to topple the government of Pakistan, which has the second largest Muslim population in the world. Were this to occur, the Pentagon is set to launch a commando raid to seize the country’s stockpile of an estimated 23 nuclear weapons. Sympathies for the Taliban run deep within Pakistan. Across the Muslim world, thousands of recruits are heeding the call to jihad and flocking to Afghanistan, via Pakistan, for a millennial fight against the infidel. Iraq, like the proverbial Cheshire cat, waits quietly in the wings.

Rising disaffection within Saudi Arabia could bring down that regime, throwing into chaos a significant portion of the world’s oil supply and leaving unresolved the future of Islam’s holiest shrines. The same is true for Egypt, where not since the 1940s has the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood enjoyed such broad, popular support. Today, university students, the country’s middle class and the Egyptian intelligentsia have joined with the impoverished masses in a growing wave of opposition to the Hosni Mubarak regime.

The Great War erupted in 1914 when mass discontent and old political rivalries led small states to challenge the composition of the existing social order. Then, as now, terrorism merely was the catalyst for chaos, a pretext for settling old scores.

But the price the great powers paid for their blunder into global war was more than they ever had imagined. Fratricidal destruction, economic ruin, the beginning of the end of empire and the collapse of monarchical rule across Europe brought closure to a world that had emerged with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and ended in the trenches of the Somme.

To be sure, World War I was bitter medicine. Yet, it did clear Europe of its strangling undergrowth of petty autocracies and many of its protected monopolies. Ultimately, the war led to the growth of modern governmental institutions and the triumph of democracy in Europe.

Much as in August 1914, many U.S. allies in the Muslim world are undergoing social and political convulsions. Several may not outlast the current turmoil. Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Indonesia fear that, whichever way they turn, the ides of March may be upon them. Embrace too closely the U.S.-led war effort and the Muslim world will see this as a betrayal of Islamic unity. Show only lukewarm support for the coalition and these countries may find themselves at odds with Washington.

These are unsettling times, a period when the destinies of countries are shaped by historical currents outside their control. To its credit, the Bush administration has come to understand that the war in the Middle East is more than just a fight to defeat terrorism. It is a fight to determine the shape and political composition of the region for the next 100 years. For the United States, this is a defining moment, a historical contest over whether our ideas of democracy, freedom and modernity will reign supreme in the new century or whether anarchy and asceticism will assert its hold over great swaths of the world.

To be sure, the assassination of one archduke reasonably cannot be compared to the murder of more than 3,000 innocent people, but its consequences can. Punitive strikes against those responsible for the worst foreign attack ever on American soil certainly are justified. An expanded war beyond the borders of Afghanistan may be a necessity. Yet, in marshaling a highly militarized world into a broad antiterror coalition, there always is the risk that events could ignite a global conflict that quickly could escape our government’s control.

U.S. policymakers must remain mindful of history in all they do. The guns of August 1914 have awakened to our drumbeat. The memory of a lost generation hangs heavy over the world tonight.

This article appeared in Insight Magazine, December 10, 2001 issue.

Rand Fishbein is President of Fishbein Associates Inc.,
former staff member U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittees
on Defense and Foreign Operations

How Is Israel to Respond When They Attack Our Airports?

On Monday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell will deliver a speech at the University of Louisville in which it is expected he will set forth an American plan for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. In a meeting with European leaders this past Tuesday, Secretary Powell announced that he was wrong last spring to have accepted Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s demand that a total cease-fire of seven days precede any resumption of negotiations or freeze in Israeli building activities in the Jewish towns in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Powell now publicly sides with the Arab view that Israel must enter negotiations while its citizens and cities remain under constant attack. The ramifications of this US position shift are that the Bush Administration now apparently accepts the Palestinian- Pan-Arab view that terrorism against Israelis is a legitimate way for Palestinians to express opposition to Israeli policies.

The American adoption of this Palestinian – Pan-Arab position, together with President Bush’s embrace of the call for the establishment of an independent state of Palestine raises a number of questions for Israeli military strategists. What is the strategic significance of the establishment of a state abutting Israel that overtly engages in terrorism and other forms of violence against the Jewish State? How will an independent Palestinian state differ from the Palestinian Authority from a military perspective?

How will an independent Palestinian state impact the regional military balance between Israel and its Arab neighbors? How will international backing of Palestinian terrorism impact Israel’s ability to ensure its survival? Finally, how must the answers to these questions impact the government’s policies regarding Israel’s positions in negotiations that will take place under fire and under increasing American pressure to establish an independent State of Palestine as quickly as possible?

According to retired IDF Major General Meir Dagan, former terrorism advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, and military affairs advisor to Ariel Sharon during his tenure as Opposition Leader, “After a year and two months during which the Palestinian Authority has actively waged a terrorist war against Israel, there can be no room for doubt in anyone’s mind that the Palestinian entity that will be established will be hostile to Israel and as a result, Israel will have to relate to this state as an enemy state.”

Although it is now clear that the new State of Palestine will be hostile, what will be the practical significance of this hostility? Last week, the Ariel Center for Policy Research published an analysis entitled, “The Palestinian Security Forces: Capabilities and Effects on the Arab-Israeli Military Balance.” The author, IDF Lt. Col. (res.) Gal Luft, who is now completing his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, served as a battalion commander in the Gaza Strip and West Bank throughout most of the 1990’s and in that capacity worked closely with the Palestinian forces. Luft judges that Arafat has amassed a regular military force of 46,000 troops. In addition he estimates approximately 40,000 additional personnel are members of the PLO’s Tanzim militia, augmented by several thousand additional forces in the Islamic Jihad and Hamas terrorist organizations. Because many members of the regular security forces also serve in the Tanzim militia, it is difficult to arrive at the precise number of Palestinian forces.

Arafat’s regular forces are disbursed among thirteen separate and distinct security organizations, the largest of which, the National Security Forces, numbers some 14,000 soldiers who are organized into brigades and battalions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. This body, which constitutes the backbone of the Palestinian fighting forces, has yet to take part in the fighting against Israel. In an interview early this week Luft explained, “The most reasonable explanation for this is that Arafat decided not to have his main force take part in the fighting in order to continue to enjoy the image of the underdog fighting a fierce, professional army. The problem is that no one seems to notice that his main force has been standing on the side watching. When the IDF invaded six cities in the Palestinian controlled areas and met with zero resistance, it seems that the lesson the army took away is that it can come and go as it pleases – like a knife cutting through margarine. The truth is that the Palestinians made the decision not to resist us. If they decide otherwise, the picture will look completely different.”

Luft contends that the term “Police Force” that was attached to the Palestinian forces is a misleading distortion of reality. “There is no Palestinian police force here,” he says. “There is a Palestinian army. It is organized as an army, trained as an army and carries out the fighting functions and operations of an army.”

When the Palestinian Authority was first established, everything seemed different. Israel armed the Palestinian forces and ensured they were adequately trained. According to Brigadier General (res.) Dov Gazit, who served as the first Coordinator of Activities with the Palestinian Police for the IDF, “We operated from the assumption that they were supposed to provide us with security and quiet. During the initial phase, when they first came into the field, things looked promising. Aside from some isolated incidents, the daily cooperation went smoothly.” On the other hand, the built-in contradiction between the Israeli expectation for cooperation and the Palestinian national aspirations was clear to anyone who wished to see. “They did not confiscate illegal arms as they were treaty-bound to do. They also absolutely refused to implement other key elements of the security accords such as extraditing suspected terrorists to Israel and they had difficulty carrying out arrests of terrorists. We accepted this state of affairs at the time because we understood that they were just getting organized and they had a need to be sensitive to their public opinion,” Gazit recalls.

According to Luft, the first big fault-line in cooperation between the Israeli and Palestinian forces developed in September 1996, in the wake of the Israeli Government’s decision to open a subterranean tunnel under the Western Wall in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority’s decision to react to the action by firing on Israeli forces caught the Israeli army by complete surprise. Luft contends, “For us the battles were a partial eye-opener because they showed our forces in the field just how quickly our relations with them could turn from cooperation to confrontation. On the other hand, we still didn’t understand that we had to stop viewing the Palestinian forces as a police force and had to start looking at them as a military force.”

For their part, the Palestinians viewed the battles of September 1996 as a total military victory and a true watershed event. Luft notes, “The Palestinians refer to the battles as ‘The September War.’ In three days of fighting they killed more of our forces than we killed of theirs, and among our casualties, they killed a Colonel and moderately injured another Colonel and a Brigadier General.” Luft continues that in the aftermath of what the Palestinians considered an unvarnished success, they embarked on a vast build-up of their force levels and worked intensively to improve the quality of their forces and their battle-readiness. Palestinian commanders were sent to Pakistan, Egypt, and other countries to receive advanced training.

These commanders then returned to the Palestinian Authority to train the troops in the field. Luft points out that the improvement of the Palestinian forces was demonstrated when, “Shortly before the current so-called intifada began, the Palestinians conducted a brigade exercise and they didn’t look bad at all.”

Last week, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres promised that the Palestinian State that he will help establish would be demilitarized. Luft rejects the Foreign Minister’s announcement out of hand with a mixture of derision and anxiety. “All the talk about demilitarization is just hot air. Such talk is more a sedative for the Israeli public than a statement with any real substance. If until now the Palestinians broke every promise and breached every commitment they took upon themselves regarding limitations on their force levels, type and quantity of weaponry and cooperation in destroying the terrorist infrastructures and organizations, what evidence exists that they will behave differently as a sovereign state? To the contrary, the Palestinians will have much less to lose by breaching their signed commitment and we will have much greater difficulty enforcing our positions once they have their state. If for instance the Palestinians place heavy artillery on the heights commanding the West Bank and aim their guns toward Ben-Gurion International Airport, what will Israel do? How will we explain to the world that we attacked a sovereign state that everyone supports because its actions were a clear provocation and we needed to defend ourselves? In the Versailles Peace Treaty, the Allied governments limited the German army to one hundred thousand troops. Twenty years later we had the Whermacht. All these announcements about a demilitarized state are cheap demagogy – an attempt to hide the truth from the Israeli people.” While Luft is concerned with what he views as the IDF’s underrating of the already existing Palestinian forces, he does not believe that the Palestinian Army will be able to mount a serious threat to Israel in a conventional war between the two countries. The greater danger that he foresees is the role that the Palestinian army will play as part of a coalition of Arab states in a regional war against Israel. “The most problematic scenario for Israel is the highly likely possibility that the Palestinians will participate in an Arab coalition against us. They have an interest in such a war and they will have the capacity to sabotage our mobilization of our reserve forces and are liable to damage the IDF’s ability to move forces and tanks to the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights.

Here then, the Palestinian military threat is transformed from organized terrorism to a blow on Israel’s strategic capabilities to prevail in a regional war.”

Luft agrees with Major General Dagan that no doubt exists that signing a peace treaty will in no way reduce the Palestinians’ hostility toward Israel or lower their level of motivation to fight Israel. He explains, “We have to understand that the key to a state’s military strength is its perception of the threat arrayed against it. Without a doubt the Palestinians feel threatened by Israel. In addition to the threat perception you must add the huge mobilization potential of the Palestinian army because 75 percent of Palestinians are under the age of 35. We also mustn’t forget the fact that Palestinian society is highly militaristic.” In summary, Luft concludes that granting sovereignty to a Palestinian state will increase the maneuvering room of an already existing enemy army, while at the same time reducing Israel’s ability to enforce its positions and ensure its security.

Major General (res.) Yom Tov Samia, until recently the Commander of the Southern Command of the IDF, explains that in his view, it isn’t the Palestinian regular forces who manifest the primary threat to Israel but rather “the commingling of regular forces and terrorist squads and the backing that the terrorists receive from tens of thousands of regular forces.” From Samia’s perspective, “We have to reach a situation where in the framework of a Palestinian state, there won’t be armed militias operating at the side of the Palestinian army. There will be a need to demand that their forces are consolidated under one command hierarchy and one Chief of Staff who will not be Arafat or his successors.”

General Dagan agrees with General Samia’s assessment and in his view, it is not the Palestinian forces at their current levels that constitute the paramount threat to Israel from the Palestinians, but rather the integration of terrorists and terrorist doctrine into the Palestinian regular forces that manifest the greatest danger – a danger he views as a threat to Israel’s very survival. “The Palestinian state will constitute a strategic threat to the survival of Israel because of the absorption of terrorist doctrine into its fighting forces. The sense the Palestinians have now, that they can operate from bases in close proximity to Israeli population centers without fear of Israeli military reaction will only be amplified after they receive independence. From their territory the Palestinians can destroy the whole fabric of life in Israel, to an extent that will make life here completely unbearable over time. They will be able to repeatedly and continuously sabotage our electrical grids, our telecommunications lines and infrastructures, and they will be able to deplete our water supply and pollute our environment – lowering our air quality, polluting our soil and our streams. They will be able to terrorize our citizenry with mortar and Katyusha rocket attacks on our urban centers. In short, by creating a reality of a war of attrition, they will embitter our lives to an extent far greater than what they have accomplished until now, and over the course of time, bring about the disintegration of the State of Israel. Plainly, from their actions and behavior up to now, one can conclude without any reasonable doubt that not only will they have the ability to do this, they also have the desire to do this.”

Generals Samia and Dagan also agree that in addition to the Palestinian terrorist threat, from a military perspective, the Palestinian state must not have the ability to raise a true conventional army. To prevent this, both insist that Israel must ensure it retains complete and sole control over the international borders of the Palestinian state.

According to General Samia, in a future accord between Israel and the Palestinian entity, “Israel must insist that the Palestinian army will not be an army in the full sense of the word. It must be a limited force without heavy weaponry. In order to ensure that this is the case, it must be agreed that for the next fifty years, Israel will be the sole party responsible for ensuring security against foreign threats. The only armed force that can be deployed west of the Jordan River is the IDF.”

General Dagan adds, “I am not so much bothered by the term ‘sovereignty’ as I am concerned by the content behind it. If, from a purely military perspective the Palestinians retain more or less what they have today, then we can live with it. The damage they can do to us in a regional war will be point specific, limited – temporary control over an isolated settlement or delaying the movement of our heavy equipment to the Jordan Valley for a few hours. Things like these will not, at the end of the day, influence the IDF’s ability to win the war. The main problem will arise if they are granted control over any international border. Then they will automatically become a regular member of an Eastern front arrayed against us that will include Iraq, Syria and Jordan. If this is allowed to happen, then, in the event of war, we can have our first engagement of Iraqi armored forces not on the Jordan River, but in Ramallah, ten kilometers from Jerusalem. This is the real danger. On the other hand, if we can limit their sovereignty in a way that will ensure our control over the lateral roads that cross the West Bank to the Jordan Valley and we continue our sole control over the international borders, we can live with it.”

After Secretary of State Powell’s address on Monday, Israel will be forced to enter into negotiations with the Palestinians from an extremely weak bargaining position. By not seizing the diplomatic and military initiative in the wake of September 11th, the Israeli Unity Government enabled the Arab bloc to link the establishment of a Palestinian state to their support for the American war against Islamic terrorism. Powell’s latest announcement that he is removing America’s backing from Prime Minister Sharon’s position that negotiations cannot be undertaken under fire creates a situation unprecedented in its bleakness. It deprives Israel of international support for its claim that the granting of Palestinian statehood must be conditioned on that state living at peace with the Jewish State.

It can be reasonably assumed that the international community, led by the Bush Administration, which now openly differentiates between the right of other sovereign states to self-defense and the right of the State of Israel to act to ensure its survival, will reject the views expressed by Generals Samia and Dagan, and Lt. Colonel Luft’s assessments regarding the military threats to Israel emanating from a Palestinian state. Given the current international climate, insistence by Israeli negotiators that Israel retain control of all international borders even after the establishment of the Palestinian state is liable to cause a major crisis in Israel’s relationship with the United States. However, as the experts explain, Israel has no choice. In the words of General Dagan, “The establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state, in the full sense of the word will be catastrophic for the State of Israel.”

This article ran in the weekly newspaper, Makor Rishon, on November 16, 2001

The Rabbi Who Favors a Binational State

Viewers of CNN news probably are familiar with Rabbi Arik Ascherman, the tall, thin bearded man who places himself before Israeli bulldozers on their way to demolish Palestinian homes or olive groves. There he stands-until Israeli soldiers drag him away.

The American-born, Harvard-educated idealist explains that he had an epiphany during the sixth and seventh months of the current intifada. It was then that he graduated from protesting the war against civilians to performing acts of resistance, such as defying bulldozers and trying to refill ditches blockading Palestinian villages.

“I’ve moved to a different space,” he said recently in Los Angeles, which he visited as part of a nationwide American tour. “I am trying to get through to the average Israeli, to make him understand the wholesale war that is being waged against the non-combatant Palestinian population.”

Ascherman stressed that RHR works for the human rights of Jews, Palestinians and foreign workers alike. It has condemned both Israelis and Palestinians, he explained, but contends that it is Israel who holds most of the power.

“The work I do isn’t fun,” stated the dedicated humanitarian, speaking to a small audience at the Workmen’s Circle in Los Angeles on May 9. “As a rabbi and a Zionist, it’s not a great pleasure to work in the deepest, darkest secrets of Israeli society that most would rather think do not exist.”

Rabbi Ascherman first locked horns with Israel’s Catch-22 mentality in his attempt to preserve the house of Saleem Shawarmah. The modest house has come to symbolize Israel’s policy to make it nearly impossible for Palestinians to receive legal building permits. Then, when they are forced to construct a house without a permit, their homes are demolished for having been built illegally.

Shawarmah built his house in 1996 in the West Bank village of Anata.

“Anata is the biblical Anatot, home of Jeremiah the Prophet,” Rabbi Ascherman noted. “I wonder what he would have to say about all this if he were here today.”

The house was demolished in July of 1998, rebuilt, and demolished again in August 1998. In the summer of 1999, the house again was rebuilt and dedicated.

“Israel lives in a bubble in which it claims every action is carried out according to law,” Rabbi Ascherman said. “It is important to step back and look at the big picture-that no Palestinian is getting a permit-and then step forward and recognize the absurdity of the micro view that questions the legality of the decision.”

When it questioned the reason for the demolition of the Shawarmah house, RHR was told that the family had no permit to build on agricultural land, that the house was on a slope with a steep incline, or was too close to a strategic road.

“When all these excuses resulted in bad public relations, the government floated a trial balloon that two co-owners of the land had failed to sign a permit to build,” the rabbi continued. “We replied, ‘Fine, tell us who the two co-owners are and we will get their signatures.’ The civil administration stated it couldn’t release this information, then it claimed it had lost the file. Finally, we signed up everyone in the village and we never found these two co-owners.

“Thirty days ago,” the rabbi told his audience, “the Israelis bulldozed Saleem’s home again. I was arrested for trying to prevent the demolition. I believe his house was targeted because it has become a symbol of the struggle against house demolitions.

“Micro or macro,” he pointed out, “the political decision is not to let Palestinians live in Area C.”

Area C, Rabbi Ascherman explained, is West Bank land under total Israeli control; still-to-be-negotiated Area B is under Palestinian civilian and Israeli military jurisdiction; and Area A is Palestinian-controlled land.

Nonetheless, he said, he believes RHR’s efforts have helped the Palestinians, and that house demolitions diminished drastically since the organization, as a member of the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions, became involved in 1998. He qualified this, however, by noting that, three months after the onset of the al-Aqsa intifada in September 2000, the Israeli army and civil administration resumed demolishing Palestinian homes.

Since Ariel Sharon came to power in March, the rabbi added, there have been three days of massive demolitions, and more have been ordered.

All Jewish Israelis, he said, were angry when, in October, Israeli Arabs protested in sympathy with Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. “There was anger when Israelis had to turn on the radio to learn what roads were safe inside the Green Line,” Ascherman recalled.

“Yes, the Palestinian protests inside Israel were violent, but there was no use of arms,” he specified. “High unemployment was a major factor in the demonstrations. Testimony at the commission of inquiry has highlighted excessive use of force and the fact that some of the demonstrations were taking place peacefully inside villages. Twelve of the 13 Israeli Arabs were killed in an area under the command of Alec Ron,” the rabbi noted, “whom the Palestinians identified as racist.”

The Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem has released a report documenting that, across the Green Line, Palestinians only took up firing arms after Israeli security forces shot to kill rock-throwing youngsters. This report, he stressed, revealed that, in some cases, Israelis were firing in self-defense, but that in many others, excessive force over and beyond military regulations was exercised. According to B’Tselem, ambulances, medics and humanitarian workers dispersing medicine and food were targeted by Israeli soldiers and prevented from carrying out their emergency work. Photos provided by the Israeli army to back up allegations that Palestinian ambulances were running guns were not of ambulances at all.

Turning to the failed Camp David peace talks, Rabbi Ascherman noted that “the average Israeli says [Israeli Prime Minister Ehud] Barak offered more to the Palestinians than any other Israeli leader.” Although Barak had “moved the peace negotiations forward by light-years,” Ascherman added, “before too many crocodile tears are wept, look at how the Palestinians perceive this.

“We had warned for a long time that the Palestinians had tuned out on negotiations between the leaders because actions speak louder than words,” he continued. “Parallel to the negotiations, the Palestinians were victims of a quiet war of settlement expansion, tree uprootings, unfair water allocations, and withholding the freedom of movement. They didn’t perceive this as a peace process. This quiet war against the Palestinians is something for which we Israelis must accept responsibility.”

Israeli Media Blackout

Ascherman decried the Israeli media’s near-blackout on the work of RHR and other Israeli peace organizations. Allowing that the situation has improved slightly, he lamented the scant coverage of what is happening to Palestinians during their intifada.

“Every hour, Israelis hear about Palestinian attacks,” he said, “but they don’t know the rest of the story-the targeting of medics and health workers, the uproooting of 30,000 olive trees, the humiliations, blockades and excessive force against unarmed protesters.

“When I talk to Israeli reporters,” he said, “they ask if my source is Palestinian or the army. When Palestinians are automatically discounted as a legitimate source…something is wrong.”

At the onset of the current intifada, Ascherman said, one of RHR’s first important efforts was to help Palestinians prevented by the siege from leaving their villages to harvest their olives. “When we were there,” he recalled, “the army protected us from the settlers and the media showed up.”

Israel is mowing down Palestinian olive trees, the rabbi said. The systematic destruction of a staple of the Palestinian economy-its olive trees, some of which are hundreds of years old-Ascherman finds particularly egregious. RHR is seeking international donations to support families whose trees have been uprooted. In addition to replanting saplings, RHR is trying to support families who will suffer economic losses for six to 10 years, until new trees bear fruit. Palestinians estimate this loss at $75 per tree per year. In addition, RHR is selling olive oil for families who can’t sell their oil because they are forbidden from transporting goods into Israel or across borders.

The residents of Deir Istia appealed to the Israeli high court against a plan to destroy 1,500 olive trees. The army wanted to remove the trees after an Israeli woman was seriously injured by stones thrown from an olive grove.

“We won, and only 10 trees were cut down,” Ascherman said. “What is really going on,” he acknowledged, “is wholesale pressure against the Palestinian people.”

“I’m not saying the Palestinians are angels,” the rabbi added, “but Israel is the dominant power, it holds all the cards. As a rabbi, it is my duty to talk to Jews about injustice. In the year 2001, we have the scientific technology to disperse crowds, even riots, without using lethal force.

“The assaults on Palestinian civilians have been so massive that it has forced me to move to another level,” he said. “The bottom line is I have a two-year-old daughter and I want to be able to say the right thing in a few years when she asks, ‘Daddy, what were you doing when the Palestinians were being assaulted?'”

Rabbi Ascherman is married to Rabbi Einat Ramon, the first Israeli-born woman to be ordained as a rabbi. They hold the distinction of being Israel’s only rabbinic couple.

Despite death threats from right-wing extremists who charge RHR with harming Israel’s best interests, Ascherman says his efforts to break down Palestinian stereotypes are in Israel’s long-term interests.

“It’s almost like deja vu when I call on families living in tents or caves and the parents waken their children to introduce them to us,” Rabbi Ascherman related. “Even though these are humiliated people whose homes have been destroyed, they tell their children they want them to meet religious Jews who are helping them.”

During the question-and-answer period, the rabbi was asked if the Conservative and Reform Jewish movements have been active in RHR.

“They tend to concentrate on their struggle for recognition in Israel,” he relied, “and don’t want to get involved as movements.” He pointed out, however, that RHR is the only Israeli rabbinical organization comprising Reform, Orthodox, Conservative, Renewal and Reconstructionist rabbis and students. Many Conservative and Reform rabbis, he added, become involved as individuals.

When asked about the right of return for Palestinian refugees, Rabbi Ascherman was silent for a good half a minute before responding that his personal belief is in one secular democratic state in which everyone has the right of return.

“I believe that in the long term, we need a world without borders or nation states as we know them today,” he explained. “However, I don’t believe it will work to do this in Israel/Palestine alone, or that such a solution is workable in the short term.”

He qualified this by stating that there are only a handful of Israelis willing to consider this premise, because “this can only be done when a state is no longer necessary to guarantee the physical and cultural safety of Jews in our historic homeland.”

Pat McDonnell Twair is a free-lance writer based in Los Angeles