Within the Framework of the “Rules of the Game”

By

-

August 17, 1999

Hizballah is liable to look for revenge by “selectively firing” Katyushas, attempting headline-grabbing attacks in southern Lebanon in the coming days or by concentrated attacks on IDF and SLA positions.

The elimination of military leaders has been part of the rules of the game in southern Lebanon for years. More than this — it is a permanent and mutual policy.

Israel and Hizballah routinely gather information on each others’ commanders, and constantly search for ways to hit at them. Only two weeks ago, pictures and names of IDF commanders were discovered in a Hizballah cache in the western part of the security zone. These pictures, it should be noted, were not being gathered for the historical record. Hizballah commanders constantly change their routes and check their cars, out of fear of explosive devices. They know very well that they are potential targets for assassination.

In a war like that being conducted in southern Lebanon, the assassination of a military commander has much greater moral and operational significance than in other forms of combat, and both sides know this. When Hizballah killed Brigadier-General Erez Gerstein, they saw this, according to their public declarations, as a legitimate operation within the “Grapes of Wrath” understandings. The fact that Hassan Salameh, killed yesterday, was a senior military commander, connected to the second level of the organisation’s hierarchy — was not apparently sufficient to stop the heads of the organisation from threatening revenge.

A different possible form of Hizballah response might have been to have fired Katyushas at unpopulated areas, and to have tested the Israeli response. If firing of this kind was carried out, and the IDF did not respond in line with the norm set on June 24 (when the IAF attacked infrastructure targets in Lebanon) — then Israel would suffer serious strategic damage, and would return to the same low point in its deterrent capacity at which it stood prior to those attacks.

If not by Katyushas, — the Hizballah will seek its revenge through a large-scale terrorist attack in southern Lebanon in the coming days, or in a concentrated attack on IDF and SLA positions.

The order of the day in Israeli policy in Lebanon is to maintain quiet. The elimination of a senior military commander, which is liable to set the area ablaze with fighting, does not exactly jibe with the possibility of starting a dialogue with the Syrians. But because Israel did not take responsibility for the assassination, the issue of the prudence behind the action is not, as it were, on the agenda.

Exercises in the Art of War

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 17, 1999

The Chairman of the Palestinian Authority is nervous and speaks aggressively. Hamas and the activists get the hint: He will not oppose a little “pressure” on Israel, which will also press the Americans. The result: Modest attacks, such as the ones this week. The relative security that Israel has enjoyed during the past year is not guaranteed. Barak to Arafat: Israel will not negotiate under the shadow of terrorism.

Arafat is under pressure these days. A great deal of pressure, say security sources who know well what goes on in the Palestinian Authority. He had developed a high level of expectations regarding Ehud Barak and now is not certain if they will be realized. Sharp criticism has been leveled against him from both the Arab world and from within the Palestinian ranks, and it seems that even the Americans have cooled their relationship with him. As always, when Arafat is anxious, nervous and angry, the Palestinian “street” wakes up and begins rioting and committing acts of violence. The same sources are quick to clarify that Arafat is not the man who directly initiated the wave of Palestinian violence that began this month and is now gaining strength. But the recent angry and warlike statements of the Rais and senior Palestinian officials signaled to both Hamas leaders and Fatah street activists (the Hawks) that “modest physical pressure” on Israel will not harm, and may even help, the Palestinian Authority in the present critical period.

Arafat has done nothing to correct this impression, even after it became perfectly clear that the terrorist organizations and violent institutions loyal to the Palestinian Authority — those who were under its iron control during the period of the election and government formation — had resumed their activities. Arafat and his security chiefs know well that they are riding a tiger that is hard to control. They are aware of the fact that the recent shootings in Samaria and Hebron were carried out by Hamas personnel, who were sent by their organization to torpedo the revitalized peace process. This objective appears to be against Arafat’s general interest which actually wants the process to go forward. But it seems that the PA Chairman believes that low- level violence is useful in order to hint to the Israeli government and public opinion what could happen on the ground should Wye not be implemented in both spirit and deed, and in order to create a feeling of urgency in the American administration.

Therefore, Arafat is not sending his security chiefs to carry out effective pre-emptive strikes against the local cells. However, the security forces and counterintelligence service do continue to aggressively attack Hamas’ professional hard-core in order to prevent mass terrorist attacks which could halt the peace process in its tracks.

Barak’s Warning

Approximately two months ago, a senior security official sent an unequivocal message directly from Barak to Arafat, according to which Israel will not agree to implement the Wye accord or continue negotiations on the permanent settlement under the pressure of terrorism. Arafat believes the message, but he continues to try to walk a fine line.

The division of labor is clear enough: The shootings in Samaria and Hebron are carried out by local Hamas cells, so that Arafat can disclaim any responsibility for their actions, without trouble; the violent demonstrations at Netzarim junction, in Hebron and at Joseph’s Tomb in Nablus are carried out by the Fatah Hawks, who, while belonging to the organization that Arafat heads, have their own leadership which criticizes Arafat’s policies, thus enabling him to disclaim direct responsibility for their actions as well.

In the event that these demonstrations get out of control, Arafat can show magnanimity towards Israel, and order his police to disperse them without great effort. This is how he has acted in recent weeks, with not a little success from his point of view.

What is now happening on the ground is the exact dose that Arafat prescribes: Sporadic and not very professional or effective operations mostly carried out against settlers or IDF forces in the territories. That is enough to send a message.

But we have seen a clear escalating trend this week. There were two attacks Tuesday, including the deliberate running-over of soldiers at Nahshon Junction inside the State of Israel’s territory. The conclusion is that if the disputes between Barak and Arafat continue or even worsen, one can expect a parallel intensification of the violence in the territories in their current format.

A Militia Army

According to Israeli analysts, Arafat has never neglected the use of violence and terrorism as a lever to advance his goals. The results of the 1996 elections, which raised Netanyahu to power, taught him that terrorism could become a two-edged sword that hurts him and prevents him from achieving his political goals. Therefore, he is careful now, and sends out his security apparatus to collect intelligence and to foil specific initiatives by Hamas and the Islamic Jihad to commit massive attacks.

His forces have reaped successes in this field recently. Security cooperation with Israel is generally quite good, for the same reason and same objective. But at the same time, Arafat is careful not to destroy Hamas’ infrastructure so that it can be used — if necessary — as a strategic weapon of terrorism.

Arafat regards the suicide bombers who carry explosives on their bodies into the heart of population centers the same way that Syria and Iran regard their ballistic missiles — as a strategic weapon, to be used against the Israeli civilian homefront if the Palestinians’ strategic interests are in danger. He will use this weapon if and when he concludes that Israel is preventing him from establishing the Palestinian state more or less in the format that is acceptable to him. When the Hamas infrastructure is at issue, the intention is the organization’s social, economic and religious activities which enable its leaders to recruit fighters and send them for training abroad.

Alongside the suicide terrorism, which is Arafat’s strategic weapon, the PA Chairman has a fighting force which can be activated for guerrilla warfare. What is called the “Palestinian National Police” is in fact a militia army that can be used against settlements, roads and IDF bases in the territories. The fighting that broke out after the opening of the Western Wall Tunnel in September 1996 shows what these forces can do. The IDF is prepared for such an eventuality, and has fortified the settlements, but if Arafat decides to use this option it could claim many victims from both sides.

Four factors are behind Arafat’s current distress, causing him to drift towards renewed violence. First, he is concerned that Barak is a more sophisticated version of Netanyahu — he speaks nicely but does not intend to carry out the Wye agreements as written and prefers the Syrian channel over the peace process with the Palestinians. Senior PA officials have claimed to Israelis with whom they have met, that, “We gave Israel security during the elections, enabling Barak to be elected, and now you prefer the Syrians to us.” The hint was that only one mass terrorist attack would be enough for Israel to put the Palestinians back at the top of the agenda.

The second factor for Arafat’s feeling of distress is the fact that the American administration, at Barak’s request, has abandoned its role as mediator and judge of Israeli-Palestinian relations, and has returned to the role of assistant. This is a retreat, from Arafat’s perspective, and is costing him an important lever of pressure on Israel. During the Netanyahu government, Arafat took care to restrain Hamas mainly in order to protect the special relationship he developed with Washington. Now he fears that his relations with Washington have returned to their earlier format, and this is what might cause him to lose his motivation to fight terrorism.

The third factor is the venomous criticism directed at Arafat from Arab countries like Syria, Libya and Iran as well, and of course from the Palestinian opposition. This is occurring at the same time that he is trying to bring about a reconciliation with the Palestinian rejectionist front in order to build a united front for the fateful permanent settlement negotiations. The reconciliation is vital for him in order to block the charge that he does not represent all Palestinians, thus limiting his negotiating flexibility.

The pressure on him is enormous, say the analysts. The economic situation in the territories is not improving, the Fatah field operatives are angry with him because he gave the important and income-generating offices to his close associates from Tunis, and only gave them the leftovers. This is why the Hawks are challenging his rule and carrying out operations that anger him.

Arafat is in a Hurry

In light of all this, Arafat feels he has to hurry. He feels that his position in the territories is weakening, and that if he does not declare a Palestinian state by May 2000, he might miss the train and not achieve his dream to be the first president of an independent Palestinian state. Hamas, under the leadership of Sheikh Yassin, would build on his ruins. Hamas has so far avoided a frontal conflict with Arafat, but it is gradually building up its power.

There can be no doubt that the joint operations of the GSS and the Palestinian security forces have recently struck hard at Hamas’ operational ability. The organization’s military ability has also been weakened due to internal conflict between Sheikh Yassin and its leaders in the territories, and between the organization’s leaders in Jordan, Dr. Mussa Abu-Marzouk and Khaled Masha’al, and Imad al-‘Alami who operate from Damascus and Lebanon.

The Hawk’s leaders also oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state according to Arafat’s formula, and want to carry out attacks to torpedo the peace process and force Israel to surrender under the pressure of violence. Yassin knows that if Hamas operates on this principle, it could drag Arafat into a war to destroy him, and cause the majority of the population — which supports Arafat’s policy goals — to resist him. He therefore prefers build his economic and political power and to wait for the moment when Hamas will inherit the PA’s political apparatus and what it has won from Israel. Then it can continue the struggle to establish an Islamic state in the entire land of Palestine.

Hamas in the territories is obeying Yassin for now, and the organization’s leaders abroad are therefore trying to build a model for operations in the territories based on secret, isolated and separate cells, who receive their orders directly from Amman and Damascus. They are also trying to give these cells the operational ability to carry out attacks using material, means and methods not used by Palestinian terrorists up till now, and which will enable them to carry out mass attacks inside Israeli territory. For this purpose, they are sending terrorists from the territories to Iran to learn new operational methods, and they even pay the Iranians for this service. One cell of this type has already been caught by the GSS and its members put on trial.

An additional important source of power for the militant Hamas is the prisoners held in Israeli jails. A very senior official recently noted that the control in Israeli prisons is, in practice, held by security prisoners. This permits them to direct and initiate terrorist attacks and street violence from inside the jails, with the primary objective of pressuring Israel to release Hamas prisoners without regard to whether they have blood on their hands or not.

In light of these facts, it can be concluded that the relative security Israel has enjoyed during the past year is not guaranteed. It is reasonable to assume that for a little while — mainly during the permanent settlement negotiations — we are likely to face a wave of Palestinian violence and terrorism, far more serious and dangerous that which we have witnessed up until now.

Did Anyone Hear ‘Jihad’?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 17, 1999

Did Anyone Hear ‘Jihad’?

The problem is not a new one: Palestinian leaders purport to seek peace with Israel but their actions suggest otherwise.

The question is how to respond, as when Yasir Arafat speaks in moderate tones to Western officials and reporters and then calls for jihad, or holy war, when addressing Arab audiences.

In the first several years after the signing of the Oslo Accords between the Palestinians and Israelis, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres tended to either not respond or to dismiss the Palestinian leader’s rhetoric as simply that – words – while insisting that he be judged on his actions. The trouble was, Arafat’s actions were often deeply problematic. The Palestinian Authority flagrantly violated key aspects of the accords – giving terrorists safe haven, exceeding the limit of the Palestinian police force and failing to curb anti-Israel propaganda on television and in schools. But the Israeli government was so intent on moving negotiations along that it looked the other way, until a series of terrorist attacks wrecked the momentum.

For the next three years, Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized the need for reciprocity, pointing out numerous and flagrant Palestinian violations of the agreement with Israel. These were cited as the basis for Jerusalem’s unwillingness to carry out some of its Oslo pledges. Neither approach was effective. Ignoring Arafat’s words and actions only emboldened him, and coming down hard on him spoiled Israel’s relations with the U.S. as well as the Arab world.

Last week, with a new Israeli prime minister in place operating on overdrive in trying to improve the negotiating climate, Arafat celebrated his 70th birthday by calling for jihad against the state and people of Israel, and praising “the children of the stones,” the instigators of the deadly intifada. So much for extending the olive branch.

But there are indications that despite Ehud Barak’s goal of concluding a peace deal with the Palestinians, he is not willing to tolerate such behavior. A senior Israeli army official held a briefing with the press in Israel the other day and criticized Arafat’s behavior. (Washington had no comment on the latest Arafat flare-up, after cautioning him repeatedly against such volatile talk.) Further, the Israeli official, who did not speak for attribution, accused the Palestinians of providing safe haven for terrorists and doing little to prevent further attacks or to confiscate weapons. David Bedein, a media researcher in Israel, noted that it was the first time in the last six years that a high-ranking Israeli army official convened a press conference to put the Palestinians on call in this manner, accusing them of “planting the seeds of war.”

The impression is that Barak seems to be holding firm on security issues while seeking to advance the peace process. It’s a delicate balance, one that has not worked until now.

On Tuesday, in wake of a Palestinian youth’s would-be suicide mission – he was shot dead after trying to run over a group of Israeli soldiers – Barak did not accuse the Palestinian Authority of duplicity, or lax security. Instead, he said the incident strengthened Israel’s resolve to cooperate with Palestinian security officials to prevent terrorism. Whether Barak can walk the fine line of insisting on reciprocity while going forward on negotiations remains to be seen, but it is clear that this issue is of critical importance to the future of the peace process.

Justice Must be Delivered to Victims of the Maccabiah Bridge Disaster

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 3, 1999

Australian Jewish Community leaders strongly supported the victims of the Maccabiah Bridge Disaster at the dedication and naming of the Warren Zines Reserve on Sunday, July 25, 1999.

In the presence of the Mayor and Councillors of the Waverley Municipality, the State director of Magen David Adom, Israel Consular officials, leading Sydney Jewish communal identities and numerous members of the community, Maccabi World Union (MWU) was again criticised for its unsatisfactory conduct following the Maccabiah Bridge Disaster on July 14, 1997.

Warren Zines, together with three others, Greg Small, Yetty Bennett and Elizabeth Sawicki were killed and 66 others were injured in the Disaster. The Reserve, donated by Sydney property developer, Hymie Meyerson, was dedicated to honour Warren Zines and the other victims of the Disaster and will stand as a permanent memorial in their honour.

Peter Wertheim, President of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies told the gathering: “The memory of those who died and the many more who still struggle with the consequences of the tragedy can only truly be consecrated by the attainment of justice. Justice demands that those who are accused of wrongdoing stand down from all positions of authority until their culpability or innocence is established. Justice also demands that the entire structure of the Maccabi World Union and the way in which the Maccabiot have been organised be reviewed to ensure that the overriding responsibility for the safety and well being of the participants can never again be devalued in so cavalier a fashion as occurred two years ago. Only when all the demands of justice have been met can our consciences be satisfied and the spirit of those who died rest in peace.”

Dr Ron Weiser, President of the Australian Zionist Federation added: “Whilst the Israeli justice system is dealing with five people who have been criminally indicted and for whom we expect the judgments to be brought down towards the end of the year – there still remain two people in high position in Maccabi World Union who should not be there and it is to the undying shame of Maccabi organisations in the U.S.A., in Great Britain, in Canada and elsewhere that they do not support us in the matter – indeed they oppose us.

I would just like to say that I have been privileged to come to know the bravery and dignity of those that survived. I have seen strength of character, of purpose and of decency – people who should never have known such sorrow – good people with whom we are all proud to walk.

The Australian Jewish community stands behind you and beside you – we will not rest, until we find the justice we seek for you and for all of us.

It is not your issue alone – Kol Yisrael Arevim Ze La Ze“.

The JNF planted trees in honour of the victims of the Disaster.

Speech by Dr Ron Weiser, President, Zionist Federation of Australia at the Naming of the Warren Zines Reserve on Sunday, 25th July, 1999

Distinguished Guests – Friends

Today, as we gather to dedicate this reserve, just over 2 years since the terrible tragedy of the bridge collapse at the 15th Maccabiah, we all have the opportunity to pause and reflect on and remember that 4 members of our community perished and scores were injured in an accident that should never have happened.

This reserve will give us a permanent place to remember real people and what occurred.

The bridge collapse initially brought about the nadir in the relationship between Israel and the Australian Jewish Community – even though the games were organised by an international Jewish sporting body and not by the Israeli Government itself.

Nevertheless – Kol Yisrael Arevim Ze La Ze – we are all responsible for each other.

And so the Zionist Federation took the lead, with the support of communal organisations, to attempt to deal, with the aftermath.

All along the way we have sought only some basic and moral justice:

The acceptance of responsibility by those people who should do so
The payment of just and speedy compensation
Action to ensure the future safety of such events
Land the fulfilment of commitments and promises made by Maccabi World Union
Whilst the Israeli Justice system is dealing with 5 people who have been criminally indicated and for whom we expect the judgements to be brought down towards the end of this year – there still remain 2 people in high position in Maccabi World Union who should not be there and it is to the undying shame of Maccabi Organisations in the USA, in Great Britain, in Canada and elsewhere that they do not support us in this matter – indeed they oppose us.

We have been working extremely hard for the Israeli Government – even though they are not legally liable – to pay out the compensation and avoid years of painful and arduous legal struggle with the various insurance companies involved.

Having recently returned from Israel and after discussions with many members of the New Israeli Keneset – across the spectrum of the various parties – including with the new speaker of the Keneset – our friend Avraham Burg – I have a degree of optimism that there is a genuine feeling there to resolve this aspect.

For this and in order to ensure that future Maccabiot will not be organised in a similar manner to the 15th, we need the continuation of the Keneset committee of inquiry – again – I have good reason to be optimistic that the Keneset will reform the committee.

And finally, despite the fact that the Israeli government paid all of the loan monies requested of it – on time, in full and without strings attached – MWU has not – and we must continue to press MWU to honour their own unambiguous promise.

My friend and colleague, Peter Wertheim, will speak on both of our behalf about those that died, but I would just like to say that I have been privileged to come to know the bravery and dignity of those that survived.

I have seen strength of character, of purpose and of decency – people who should never have known such sorrow – good people with whom we are all proud to walk.

The Australian Jewish community stands behind you and beside you – and we will not rest, until we find the justice we seek for you and for all of us.

It is not your issue alone.

As I said before – Kol Yisrael Arevim Ze La Ze

Thank you

Speech by Peter Wertheim, President, NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, to the Dedication and Naming of the Warren Zines Reserve on Sunday, 25th July, 1999

Mr Mayor, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is now a little more than two years since the Australian Jewish Community was rocked to its foundations by the terrible tragedy of the bridge collapse at the 15th Maccabiah Games. We all felt the pain and the shock of losing four popular and well-regarded members of our community and witnessing the injuries of 70 others. In an accident that was clearly preventable and should never have happened.

As we dedicate this reserve, let us spare a moment to remember the four precious lives that were taken from us before their time.

Yetty Bennett was part of the bowling team. Her three children, Mark, Jeff and Ilana, were orphaned as a result of her loss, as their father had died suddenly from a heart attack three years earlier. Yetty’s partner at the time, Frank Gaensler, was clinically dead when he was plucked from the river after the bridge collapse. But he was resuscitated and in January this year, he had the joy of seeing his son, Brian, named ‘Young Australian of the Year’.

Friends have praised Yetty as someone who faced a lot of adversity in life but always overcame it. She loved her sport and going to Israel meant a lot to her. She was a loving mother and an extremely good person who touched the hearts of all who knew her.

Elizabeth Sawicki died in hospital from organ failure twelve days after the bridge collapse as a result of the deadly fungus contained in the Yarkon River. Elizabeth represented the Australian team in the bridge competition. She left behind her husband, Henry, and four children.

Greg Small has been described by friends as a dedicated family man and a good friend who loved his sport. Greg was accompanied by his wife Susan when they crossed the bridge. The couple had been high school sweethearts. They went to the Maccabiah Games as part of the ten Pin Bowling Team. Ironically, it had been a four-year ambition of Greg’s to participate in the games. As a result of the bridge collapse, Greg lost his life and Susan sustained multiple breaks to her ankle, as well as injuries to her lower back and neck. Now Susan has to contend not only with her physical disabilities, but also with the need to support herself financially and her two children, Joshua and Rebecca, without the family breadwinner.

Warren Zines died from a stroke four weeks after the bridge collapse, leaving behind his wife, Lynette and three children – Adam, Shelley and Lisa. Warren had represented Australia in the Lawn Bowls competition. Lynette and two of his children were with him in Tel Aviv in the days immediately before he passed away. Warren’s first grandchild was born to daughter Shelley two days after the bridge collapse.

One of Warren’s team mates described him by saying that “Warren was a gentleman and mild mannered…. The salt of the earth. Every time we saw each other, we hugged. He was so considerate and warm.”

Let us spare a thought also for the 70 injured athletes and, in particular, for Sasha Elterman, who has had over 30 operations in her battle against the effects of the deadly fungus which was contained in the Yarkon River when she and her team mates were plunged into it. Their unfailing courage and dignity in the face of everything that has happened has been an inspiration to all of us.

We are here today to dedicate this reserve, and the trees, which have been planted in it, to the memory of the victims. It is a beautiful location and one, which, in a physical sense, is appropriate to recall the affection and esteem in which the victims were held by their families and friends in the community.

But in a deeper sense, the memory of those who died and the many more who still struggle with the consequences of the tragedy, can only truly be consecrated by the attainment of justice – justice for the families of the dead and justice for the injured and those who support them. Justice demands that all the facts of the tragedy – before, during and after the bridge collapse – be brought out into the open and that those who were responsible for the tragedy be tried and, if found guilty, convicted and punished.

Justice also demands that those who are accused of wrongdoing stand down from all positions of authority until their culpability or innocence is established. It demands that the Maccabi World Union provide immediate financial assistance, without pre-conditions, To the financial dependants of those who were killed and also to those who were injured and those who care for the injured.

And finally, justice demands that the entire structure of the Maccabi World Union and the way in which the Maccabiot have been organised be reviewed to ensure that the over-riding responsibility for the safety and wellbeing of participants can never again be devalued in so cavalier a fashion as occurred two years ago.

Only when all of the demands of justice have been met can our consciences be satisfied and the spirits of those who died rest in peace.

PLO State to Include at Least All West Bank and Gaza

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 3, 1999

When permanent status negotiations begin, borders of the state of Palestine, including Jerusalem and all other territories occupied in 1967, will be determined by the terms of reference of the Oslo Agreement.
the “peace of the brave”, must ensure the rights of Palestinians as set forth in international resolutions. These rights must include, among others, the Palestinians’ right of return to the land from which they have been exiled.
From now on, all international forums and contacts should be mined in order to bring to bear the maximum amount of international pressure on Israel.
Palestinians sense a lack of seriousness on the part of the Palestinian leadership and note the gap between its statements and its practices… Committees recommended by the Central Council to prepare the way for full Palestinian sovereignty have never been activated… The efforts of the whole world to support us will not be of any use to us if we fail to get the credibility we need from our own people.

Borders First – Official Fatah Website
http://www.fateh.net/e_editor/99/150799.htm

In agreeing recently to play the role of mere “facilitator”, rather than mediator and referee, in the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, the US appears to be abandoning its responsibilities as a co-sponsor of the peace process. This role change creates a situation similar to the one that existed before Netenyahu’s election in 1996. It appears that the Labour Party is trying, before the word of Dennis Ross becomes absolute in the region, to forestall any obstructionist moves on the part of the Likudniks and their US supporters. We have already lived through the difficulties which resulted from the pro-Israeli bias of the Oslo Agreement. Now, if we are to prevent a total breakdown in the peace process, it is time to lay down new terms of reference for negotiation.

The Oslo Agreement set forth objectives, along with schedules and deadlines. In order to evaluate what has been achieved in the past five years, we need to compare these stated objectives with the actual results which came about. Sound management of the process in the days and weeks ahead cannot rest on good will alone.

Clearly, on the Palestinian side, there is an enormous gap between objectives and results, all the way from the Oslo Agreement through the Wye Memorandum. Indeed, so few achievements were made that it could be said that the major result of the five-year process was Palestinians’ success in keeping their objectives unchanged — despite the massive pressure put on them by both Ross, Netenyahu and their respective governments. Both parties, US and Israeli, made every effort to impose their own vision on the Palestinian leadership. Again and again, in myriad ways, representatives of both countries attempted to lower the expectations of Palestinians regarding our future.

What Palestinians need now is not simply a new chapter in our dealings with Israel. Just as important is the need to open a new chapter in our internal relationships among our own Palestinian people. Palestinians today are painfully aware of the gap that exists between the verbal commitments made by the Palestinian leadership and the practices of that leadership. Instead of being fed more statements, we need to define, once and for all, a national consensus on each of the issues that confront us.

Already, in calling for merging implementation of the Wye Memorandum with negotiation of final status issues, Barak is making it clear that, in this respect at least, he is taking a stand every bit as dangerous as any taken by Netenyahu. In failing to implement the Wye Memorandum by canceling the third Israeli troop withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, and thus failing to carry out Israel’s commitments under the interim agreements, Barak is, in effect, arranging things so that in the final status negotiations, Palestinians will have to re-negotiate issues that have been negotiated already. In the June 16 issue of Ha-aretz, the Israeli left-wing daily, Yuel Marcos wrote that Barak has implicitly threatened Arafat that if the third withdrawal does not become part of the final status negotiations, then negotiations could drag on endlessly. Barak cannot, he told Arafat, begin the negotiations with such a large territorial concession. Barak also warned, according to Marcos, that negotiation of all final status issues will be extremely difficult. Obviously, what is being suggested — and none too subtly — is that Palestinians should expect to make concessions regarding the final status issues if they want to see the interim commitments fulfilled.

Despite the lack of concrete achievements during Netenyahu’s term, Palestinians in fact made significant progress in a realm less tangible but just as vital: that of international consensus on the justice of our cause. Such consensus will be essential when final status negotiations do begin. The Berlin Declaration on Palestinian self-determination, for instance, in raising the subject of United Nations Resolution 181, will have an important influence on the issue of Palestine’s borders. In the same international resolution which created the state of Israel, Resolution 181 affirms the right of Palestinians to create their own state. The resolution further establishes international law as the arbitrator for determining the borders of the Palestinian state.

The Palestinian leadership insist that the Wye Memorandum and the remaining as-yet-unimplemented parts of the Hebron Protocol, as well as all other interim issues, be fairly concluded before final status negotiations begin. Palestinians insist that issues which have already been negotiated, but not implemented by the Israeli side, are not to be subject to re-negotiation as final status issues. Final status issues must include only those not already negotiated — issues which will be tough enough when tackled separately, such as the third phase of Israeli troop withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank and the related issue of future borders of the Palestinian state.

The Israeli Labour Party now in power must undertake to fulfill all obligations its government has already assumed without subjecting them to the Likud’s destructive influence. Clearly, the Israeli army should withdraw from all the Occupied Territories except those related to the issues of Jerusalem, Israeli military installations, borders, and settlements established before the signing of the Oslo Agreement. (Settlements established after the Oslo Agreement were signed are illegal under the terms of that agreement and should be dismantled immediately.) This means that Israeli troops should withdraw from all of Area C, with the exception of lands related to the issues just mentioned. This is the scope of withdrawal which is in line with the spirit of the Oslo Agreement. When permanent status negotiations begin, borders of the state of Palestine, including Jerusalem and all other territories occupied in 1967, will be determined by the terms of reference of the Oslo Agreement.

The historic peace agreements grew out of the need to put an end to all wars in the region and to establish a true and lasting peace. Such a peace, called first by Palestinians and now by Barak, echoing them, the “peace of the brave”, must ensure the rights of Palestinians as set forth in international resolutions. These rights must include, among others, the Palestinians’ right of return to the land from which they have been exiled. The term “peace of the brave” implies that both parties to the peace should achieve historic rights based on principles fair to both. The term also suggests that our belief in the future of humanity should help us bring about the kind of democracy that guarantees a just and lasting peace.

The Palestinian “state” that Barak has talked about does not meet these criteria. Barak’s vision of a Palestinian state is to Palestinians no more than a symbolic step along the path toward statehood. A “state” on a mere 3% of the area of Palestine is not a state at all, but rather, at best, a kind of limited autonomy. A “state” in which half of the population lives in refugee camps is not a state. A “state” in which land can be confiscated at will for settlement by another people, with no concern for human values, is not a state. Finally, a “state” without Jerusalem as its capital may be a state for most, but is not the state of Palestine.

Our state will be achieved on the basis of full separation from Israelis. As Barak himself has said, quoting the American poet, “A good wall makes good neighbors.” The Palestinian “wall” that is likely to achieve real peace and stability is one that gives our state its borders with Egypt in Gaza in the South and with Jordan in the East.

As we enter the permanent status negotiations, we will require new terms of reference, ones that Oslo does not provide. We also require adherence to the Fourth Geneva Convention, despite the opposition of Israel and the US.

US opposition to the convening of the conference in Geneva is merely one more sad reminder of US pro-Israeli bias. It shows, further, to what lengths the US is prepared to go in denying Palestinians the right to employ the legal mof the internatiocommunity to advance our cause. Over the objections of both Israel and the US, the conference was indeed held, with the sole concession that sanctions allowable under international law not be discussed, as a gesture of good will towards the newly elected Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak. From now on, all international forums and contacts should be mined in order to bring to bear the maximum amount of international pressure on Israel. Such connections and the international support they bring will go far to strengthen the position of the Palestinian negotiating team in any future negotiations.

The conflicting positions taken by different sectors of Israeli society toward the Geneva conference confirm the importance of the event. On the one hand, the conference was officially described as a “non-event on a non-issue”. On the other hand, Moshe Zack described the conference as a destructive event for Israel. In the Jerusalem Post Zack wrote that the conference was based on United States General Assembly resolutions that consider East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by the Israelis. The conference opens the way for the international community’s adoption of measures against Israel that no US veto can deter. Finally, Zack noted that Palestine was invited on an equal footing with countries that signed the Geneva Convention.

Barak’s call for resumption of negotiations on all tracks — Syrian and Lebanese as well as Palestinian — means that the leadership of the three should coordinate a unified strategy for achieving a just peace in the region. This strategy should be based on a full understanding of both the positive and negative aspects of agreements reached with Israel. Meanwhile, the Palestinian call for a summit including Egypt and Jordan in addition to Syria, Lebanon and Palestine indicates how deeply Palestinians are committed to the larger Arab cause.

The importance of united international and Arab positions does not constitute an alternative to a unified Palestinian strategy on present and future requirements. As was mentioned at the beginning of this article, Palestinians sense a lack of seriousness on the part of the Palestinian leadership and note the gap between its statements and its practices. Official Palestinian reaction to Barak’s moves came very late. Committees recommended by the Central Council to prepare the way for full Palestinian sovereignty have never been activated. In fact, three months have passed without any of these committees having been convened. Such lassitude can only strengthen the position of those who do not respect the Palestinian institutions that endorse decisions which are at once most dangerous and most important. The Central Council, it should be mentioned, is the Palestinian institution that endorsed the Oslo Agreement. It also represents the Palestinian National Council, and filled the legal vacuum created by the expiration of the interim negotiation period.

The efforts of the whole world to support us will not be of any use to us if we fail to get the credibility we need from our own people.

Revolution until victory!

“Don’t Release Murderers”

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 3, 1999

(July 26) – Since Prime Minister Ehud Barak’s return from Washington, rumors are flying about the upcoming release of terrorists, with or without “blood on their hands.”

There have been attempts of redefining who “really” has blood on their hands and who doesn’t; there has been talk of separating “killers” who actually pulled the trigger or stuck in the knife, and those who “merely” aided and abetted.

There have been suggestions of “goodwill” gestures, whereby terrorists tried and sentenced by Israel will be released.

All of these ideas are not new. The same ambassadors of “goodwill” brought up these immoral travesties of justice to the late Yitzhak Rabin, and to prime ministers Shimon Peres, and Binyamin Netanyahu.

On each of those occasions, I spoke to those three prime ministers, and pointed out to them that my son Nahshon’s kidnapper “merely” aided and abetted the three other terrorists who murdered him and were themselves killed in the failed rescue attempt at Bir Naballa, where he was held hostage for six days.

For us, the nightmare of those six days, which shook the entire country, indeed our entire people, as well as people of goodwill everywhere, has never faded.

I sat at the trial of the driver of that cursed car that kidnapped my son, listened to his attorneys and the IDF prosecutors who asked for life imprisonment, and was witness to his sentencing, in a fair and democratic trial. Any reversal of the justice meted out to that monstrous kidnapper of my son would be a mockery of justice, a travesty of law and order, and an act of extreme immorality.

With all due respect to the peace process, and with the true hope and prayer for Barak’s success in bringing true peace to our region, I do not believe that overturning acts that were right and just can lead to peace. All of these values must go hand in hand, and an act of injustice and moral corruption cannot ever further peace.

We must never sell out one value for the sake of another, a principle which I am certain Barak would agree with, as did his predecessors, among them his mentor, Yitzhak Rabin, as did US President Clinton as well, in a private conversation with my husband and myself at our beloved son’s graveside.

May right and justice prevail in our land.

Esther Wachsman, an American trained educator who has lived in Israel for the past thirty years, is the mother of seven Israeli-born sons, one of whom, Nachshon, was kidnapped and later murdered by Arab terrorists in October, 1994.

Biochemical Warfare Threat to Israel?

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

August 3, 1999

The likelihood of a chemical terror attack in Israel’s cities is such that Minister of Defense Ehud Barak ordered the Chemical Response Unit on full alert during these critical days of the peace process.

Lets picture the scenario.

VX gas is released along the shore-line of Tel aviv. What happens?

The sirens are sounded. Citizens have no idea what is going on. Many assume it is a prank. Some turn on the radio and hear that they are requested to go to sealed rooms and put on gas-masks. Gas? But there is no crisis with Iraq; no missiles have fallen. Some turn to the foreign media. They hear that terrorists have released a lethal gas in central Tel Aviv and the authorities are presently checking the wind direction.
Citizens in Tel Aviv, most without adequate shelter, most without access to gas-masks, begin to flee the city. The roads become blocked and they begin to run on foot.

Who can run faster than the wind?

Presently this is the best protection offered to us. Instructions published by HAGA relate only to a missile attack and give no instructions what so ever for response to Chemical, Biological or nuclear terror attack. This must reflect a lack of coordination of security policy regarding civilians and non-conventional weapons which is leaving Israel’s citizen’s tragically vulnerable and mis-informed.

The gas masks, if we have them, are ineffective four hours after breaking the seal. We have presently no civilian answer for a second strike on the civilian frontier.

With limited budgets and confused priorities it seems citizens have no choice but to demand security measures that have otherwise been sorely neglected.

For more information and press contacts: Yael Haran (04) 984-0310
The Sleeping Giant
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/7663
harans@internet-zahav.net.il

Clinton and the Right of Return

By

David Bedein

-

July 13, 1999

On July 1, 1999, President Clinton stated that American policy was that Palestinians have a right to live “wherever they would like to live”.

Clinton’s policy statement resounded through the Palestinian media and the United Nations Relief and Work Refugee Agency (UNRWA) camps which have serviced Palestinian Arab refugees in “temporary” shelters since 1948, under the premise and promise of the UN resolution #194, that assures the 3.6 million Palestinian Arab refugees under the aegis of UNRWA that they have the “inalienable right of return to the villages that they left in 1948, which now constitute Jewish communities throughout Tel Aviv, Haifa. Ashkelon, and at least 200 kibbutzim and Moshavim.

Far from being a theoretical notion, the “right of return” remains a living program that moves the hearts and minds of 3.6 million Palestinian Arab refugees. For UNRWA camp residents, the “right of return” is not a dream: it is a plan of action.

The policies of UNRWA, whose greatest funder for the past fifty years remains has been the US, reassure Palestinian Arab refugees that they may indeed realize their right of return”, while the new Palestinian Authority forbids housing assistance or eve voting rights to UNRWA camp residents, under the premise of the “right of return”. >

Toward that end, the curriculum of the Palestinian Authority Educational system, funded in part by the US, stresses the “right of return”, as UNRWA school principals and teachers inculcate a new generation of Palestinian youth to prepare themselves to return “home”, and that does not mean to the west bank and Gaza.

Meanwhile, a senior US State Department official told me that Under Secretary of State Dennis Ross has reassured the Israeli government that UN resolution #242 (that recognizes Israel’s 1967 ceasefire lines) supersedes UN resolution #194.

However, nobody bothered to tell that to 3.6 million people who linger in UNRWA refugee camps, who are also assured by US officials in the employ of UNRWA that they have the right to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948.

Egyptian Al-Ahram: Peace Only if ’48 Refugees Return Home

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

July 13, 1999

Full Text:
Even if the statement made by US President Bill Clinton last week that millions of Palestinian refugees “should be given the freedom to settle wherever they want to” was a “slip of the tongue”, as the new Israeli government would like to believe, it was a Freudian slip that may have revealed more than Clinton intended. Any objective mind would agree that the Palestinians are entitled to enjoy rights equal to those of other human beings. All human beings are “chosen people” — one ethnic or religious group alone cannot claim that title for itself.

If the US led NATO in a long war to force Slobodan Milosevic to accept the return of nearly one million Albanian refugees to their homes in Kosovo, why is the world’s sole superpower not moving at all to help more than four million Palestinian refugees dispersed worldwide by the “pioneering” Zionists, the builders of modern Israel, return to their homes? President Clinton was apparently taken by surprise when the question was put to him by an Egyptian writer who accompanied President Hosni Mubarak on his visit to Washington.

Although it has been 51 years since Zionist gangs systematically terrorised and massacred thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians to empty the land of its real owners, many of the million Palestinians expelled in 1948 continue to hold the keys to their houses. The names of their villages and towns have been changed in an effort to rewrite history, but they can still remember every street and alley, and continue to feed that information to their children and grandchildren. If any Palestinian refugee was given the “freedom” to choose where he or she would like to settle, the answer would definitely be: Palestine, my home, my land.

If the new government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak recognises this important fact before starting negotiations with the Palestinians, the outcome of these talks must necessarily be a just and comprehensive peace. Without justice, peace will never exist. And justice will be served only when the Palestinian refugees are allowed to return to their homes.

Article researched, located and shared by IMRA, “Independent Media Review and Analysis”.

Abu Mazen: No Negotiations Unless Barak Drops Red Lines

By

Center for Near East Policy Research

-

July 13, 1999

The following are excerpts from an interview of the Palestinian Authority’s chief negotiator, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) published in the Palestinian weekly, El Ashaab, on 5 July, 1999:

[The interviewer is not identified; the interview took place in Abu Dhabi.]

Question: What happens if Ehud Barak fails to back down from his four noes?

Mazen: If the four noes are the maximum of what Barak is willing to give then there will be no final status talks.

…

Question: After Barak won there has been a return to talking about the Beilin-Abu Mazen agreement. Does such an agreement exist?

Mazen: No. A document does not exist. An agreement does not exist. All that there was was dialogue between myself and Beilin regarding the final status issues. Beilin wanted to tell Yitzhak Rabin about this dialogue but before he could Rabin was murdered and the dialogue ended.

Question: Could the dialogue be the basis for the coming talks?

Mazen: Like all dialogue it could be a basis but it is also possible to go to back to the starting point.

Question: What about Jerusalem?

Mazen: Jerusalem is occupied Arab land like the other occupied Palestinian land. Resolutions 242 and 338 should be implemented – Israel should withdraw from all occupied territory.

Israel Behind the News

Within the Framework of the “Rules of the Game”

Exercises in the Art of War

Did Anyone Hear ‘Jihad’?

Justice Must be Delivered to Victims of the Maccabiah Bridge Disaster

PLO State to Include at Least All West Bank and Gaza

“Don’t Release Murderers”

Biochemical Warfare Threat to Israel?

Clinton and the Right of Return

Egyptian Al-Ahram: Peace Only if ’48 Refugees Return Home

Abu Mazen: No Negotiations Unless Barak Drops Red Lines

Column from the Director