Did Barak's offer at Camp David affect you view of the Mideast conflict?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Why is it when America reportedly kills 3000 people, it's collateral damage, while When Israelis kill 28 people in ramallah, most of which are armed militants, it's "opresseion"?


We got the Northern Alliance and Hamid Karzai. Y'all dont got no Northern Alliance (well ya did in lebanon, but not in the territories) and y'all dont got no Hamid Karzai. And we got the force to protect Hamid Karzai, and we even got europeans helping. Y'all dont have the ability to protect a Hamid Karzai even if you had one, and you certainly dont got no outside help. So y'all CAN'T do what we're doing in Afganistan. Unfair. Yup. But you'd better recognize the difference, or things will go VERY badly.

LOTM

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Of course it is oppression. Because the goals of the IDF aren't only military. The goals are also that of intimidation and humiliation. Standard colonial fare.

Obviously

And you know this from an inside source of the IDF?

You know, the American actions were about intimidation and humiliation.

Americans wanted to intimidate future terrorists and rogue states.
They wanted to humiliate the Taliban and Al-Qaida and show the rest that America can beat up anyone.

I guess America is imperialist and opressive.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I guess America is imperialist and opressive.

Beware. He's going to agree with you on this issue.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Eli
Beware. He's going to agree with you on this issue.

Maybe, maybe not. He's already said that America's actions against Al-Qaeda were justified.

[Sirotnikov]

Palestinian Reports on the Taba Negotiations

In a press conference held by the heads of the Israeli and Palestinian delegations in Taba, the Head of the Israeli Team, Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami declared, "We have never been closer to an agreement." However, Abu Alaa', head of the Palestinian team, stated, "Now that the ambiguity has been removed there has never before been a clearer gap in the positions of the two sides."^[1]

According to Palestinian negotiating team member, Saeb Ereqat, the Taba negotiations "Emphasized the size of the gap between the positions of the two sides and the depth of the disagreements... primarily on the subjects of Jerusalem and the refugees."^[2]

In the last few days, details of the negotiations have been leaked to the Palestinian media:

The Refugee Issue

The Palestinians continue to demand that Israel recognize the refugees' Right of Return. According to Abu Alaa', a solution to the Refugee Problem must be implemented in the following order: 1. Israel should recognize its political, legal and moral responsibility for the tragedy of the refugees; 2. Israel should recognize the refugees' Right of Return; 3. negotiations should be held about the mechanism for the return of the refugees; and 4. negotiations should be held about compensation for the refugees.^[3]

Nabil Sha'ath, who led the negotiations on the refugee issue with Israeli Justice Minister, Yossi Beilin, denied reports in the Israeli media: "The Palestinian side did not discuss the Israeli proposal to hand out questionnaires to the refugees in which they would be given the opportunity to choose between return and compensation. The Israelis can say whatever they want, but the starting point of all of our discussions is the refugees' absolute and sacred Right of Return. We know that if the matter was left in their hands, they would prefer that no Palestinian return to his homeland."

Is it conceivable that we would agree to a questionnaire or a poll about the refugees' legitimate right, which is recognized by the UN and the international community? There is a clear resolution about the Right of Return and the right to compensations for all of the refugees. Can a citizen be questioned about his right to his homeland?!"

"What we are currently discussing is the Right of Return and the mechanism of its implementation."^[4]

Sha'ath said that the progress that was made relates to compensation, in which "the Israeli side displays more readiness."^[5]

Sha'ath added that "Everything reported in the Israeli media about an Israeli agreement to the return of 150,000 refugees is incorrect. Unfortunately, the Israeli side proposed only a few hundred, just as it did at Camp David." The Palestinians, on the other hand, are not willing to discuss at all [any] number of refugees that will be allowed to return. "So far, no new numbers have been presented to us," Sha'ath explained, "but we, in any case, are not negotiating [any]number [of refugees who will return] because this would mean that we are conceding the Right of Return [for all of the refugees]."^[6]

Abu Alaa' added, "The disagreement on the refugee issue is great and deep rooted. There is an immense gap between someone who demands the Right of Return and its implementation in accordance with UN Resolution 194, and someone who denies this right... This story has one single headline and all the rest are just subheadings. The headline is the Right of Return... The Israelis must recognize their political, legal and moral responsibility for the tragedy of the refugees. They must recognize the refugees' right to return, and when this recognition takes place, there will be many details to discuss, such as the mechanism and programs for [the implementation of] the Return, and then the refugees' right to receive compensations... The Israeli side rejected this matter completely... stating that they see the reutrn as the destruction of Israel. As far as we are concerned, however, we hold firmly to our position."^[7]

The Territorial Issue

For the first time, the Palestinian side presented a map in which Israel annexes 2% of the territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, in exchange for territory "within the Green Line which is equal in size and quality," reported a source in the Palestinian delegation. The territory that the Palestinians agree that Israel would annex is based on the actual size of the [Israeli] settlement-blocs, and does not include the annexation of territories adjacent to the settlements for security reasons. In addition, the annexation "must not harm the Palestinian centers of population, Palestinian geographical contguity or water sources."^[8] Thus, as Nabil Sha'ath reported, the Palestinians demanded the removal of the by-pass roads that connect the three [Israeli] settlement-blocs.^[9]

The Israeli side, according to the Palestinians, "proposed that the Palestinians get 92% of the West Bank territory occupied by Israel in 1967, and in exchange for the annexation of the rest, the Palestinians will receive Israeli territories equal to 3% of the West Bank territory which Israel occupied in 1967." Israel also proposed that the Palestinians will get the entire Gaza Strip and that the Jewish settlements built there since 1967 be evacuated. Likewise, Israel proposed that the withdrawal will take place over three years, but this was rejected by the Palestinians.

The Palestinians contradict Israeli PM Ehud Barak's statement that the Palestinians agreed to the principle of [Israeli] settlement-blocs and that the remaining disagreement was only about their size. Abu Alaa' said, "If these statements are part of Barak's election campaign, the Israelis can say whatever they want, but it is not correct. We agreed in Camp David to land swaps equal in size and quality, but we did not recognize [the principle of [Israeli] settlement-blocs]...

We refused to accept the Clinton initiative as a basis for the negotiations. The Israelis said that Clinton's proposal should be the basis, but we rejected it. Therefore, when Clinton said that 80% of the settlers should be absorbed [in the settlement blocs], we asked: according to what criterion?! According to what logic? These criteria have no meaning for us and therefore we do not see them as a basis [for negotiations]. As far as we are concerned, the International Legitimacy [i.e. UN resolutions] are the basis for negotiations."^[10]

The Palestinians are opposed to Ma'aleh Edumim and Pisgat Ze'ev becoming a settlement-bloc under Israeli sovereignty and demand the evacuation of these two settlements. The Palestinians also demanded to stop the building at Har Homa, claiming that "this settlement damages Palestinian territorial contiguity."^[11]

Sources in the Palestinian delegation reported that the Palestinian side completely rejected the idea of leasing Palestinian territories by Israel.^[12] These sources added that Israel... expressed its readiness to evacuate additional large settlements which in the past were an Israeli redline, like Beit El and Ofra."^[13]

Security

Sources in the Palestinian delegation reported that the Israelis once again demand five early warning stations in the West Bank, after having conceded them in the past. According to these sources, the Israelis also now demand that Israeli military flights be allowed in Palestinian air space, as well as the deployment of the Israeli army in Palestinian territories in the case of an emergency. The Palestinians rejected the term "in the case of an emergency" and one official Palestinian source said on this issue: "The Israelis have a hard time freeing themselves of the occupation mentality. We cannot agree to security arrangements that impair the sovereignty of the Palestinian state."^[14]

Member of the Palestinian delegation, Saeb Ereqat said, "After the Israelis said that the Jordan Valley will be under Palestinian sovereignty, they demanded the presence of [Israeli] forces under international supervision there. Every time they give us something, they try to take it back in another way."^[15]

Jerusalem

Israel demanded the establishment of a "special regime" in the "holy basin" in Jerusalem and asked that there be a discussion about everyday life arrangements and only then determine sovereignty. The Palestinians rejected this and demanded, first of all, that Palestinian sovereignty over all of East Jerusalem be established. Abu Alaa' said that, as far as he is concerned, the issue of the "holy basin" is a novelty and the Palestinians reject the Israeli proposal, because it concerns areas which are under Palestinian sovereignty.^[16]

The Purpose of the Joint Statement Ending Taba

Since there was no closing of the gap between the two sides on the essential issues, why the joint statement?

According to Palestinian sources, the goal, for both sides, had more to do with PR than substance: "Barak will profit from this by being able to turn to his supporters as the one who made every effort up to the last minute, to reach an agreement. He will also be able to turn to his opposition and say that he carried out negotiations until the last minute, without conceding anything.

As far as the Palestinians are concerned, the sources added, the profit in the positive language in the statement is twofold:

First of all, no one will blame them for the failure of the negotiations.^[17] It should be noted in this regard, that Palestinian negotiator, Muhammad Dahlan¸ who at first described the results of the Taba negotiations as "Bull****" ["Kharta Barta"], denied ever saying that after he was widely quoted in the Israeli press.

Secondly, the joint statement will obligate Ariel Sharon, if he wins the elections, and will limit his ability to foil the negotiations. If he does so he will be internationally isolated."^[18]

Abu Alaa' said in the press conference that the Taba negotiations will obligate any future Israeli government. If Sharon ignores them, Abu Alaa' added, the PLO will return to its political and diplomatic struggle, as well as to struggle "using all means."^[19]

---

^[1] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 28, 2001.

^[2] Al-Quds (PA), January 28, 2001.

^[3] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 29, 2001.

^[4] Al-Quds (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[5] Al-Quds (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[6] Al-Quds (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[7] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 29, 2001.

^[8] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[9] Al-Quds (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[10] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 29, 2001.

^[11] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[12] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[13] Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), January 27, 2001.

^[14] Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), January 27, 2001.

^[15] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), January 26, 2001.

^[16] Al-Ayyam (PA), January 29, 2001.

^[17] Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), January 28, 2001.

^[18] Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), January 28, 2001.

^[19] Israeli TV Channel II, January 29, 2001.

[Sirotnikov]

Why the intifada is planned, and the goal is more than 1967 borders

Three Palestinian Viewpoints on the Intifada and the Future of the Palestinian State

Al-Jazeera, the Qatar-based Arabic news channel, recently hosted a debate on the future of the Intifada and the Palestinian state.[1] Three Palestinian figures participated in the program, representing the three leading political viewpoints of the Palestinian public today. PA Minister of Information, Yasser Abd Rabbo represented the PA's official position, Deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, Musa Abu Marzuq represented the position of the militant Islamic movement, and Bilal Al-Hassan, an analyst with the London-based daily, Al-Hayat, represented the position of the Palestinian left.

Following are excerpts from their discussion:

Borders and Nature of the Palestinian State

The three guests support an independent Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital, at least as a first stage. Abu Marzuq explained that Hamas has no objection to such a state and even said, "A State within the borders of the West Bank and Gaza would be considered an achievement at the present stage." However, he promptly added, "it is clear that if a state is established within the 1967 borders, these will not be its final borders. We must further aspire for borders that will include Palestine in its entirety."

PA Minister Abd Rabbo, on the other hand, refused to elaborate on what will happen once a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is established. "There is almost a consensus among Palestinians that the direct goal is to reach the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the June 4, 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as its capital," he said, "[but] regarding to the future after that, it is best to leave the issue aside and not to discuss it." When asked whether Israel would still be the state of the Jews after the establishment of a Palestinian state, he said that "every attempt to establish a racist state in the region has failed in the past and will fail in the future." However, he immediately declared that "at this point I will stop, [I] do not want to elaborate on this subject."

Bilal Al-Hassan tried to clarify the disputes in Palestinian society regarding the future state, saying, "at this stage we talk about a state within the 1967 borders, but this is not the end of the story." However, he continued, "The expression 'end of the story', has different meanings in Palestinian society," and herein lies the dispute. In Al-Hassan's view, the Palestinian state within the 1967 borders is not the end of the story, "because I aspire, historically, culturally and geographically, to a unified Palestine... This unified Palestine, once the Palestinian state is established, can come about in one of two ways: through peace, or through war. It can be established through peace, if the Israelis accept the logic of a [unified] democratic Palestinian state. If they don't accept this logic, then the logic of history will lead to a confrontation."

The host, Sami Haddad, however, pointed out that the idea of a unified state, which had been brought up in the past by leftist Palestinian factions, is not realistic "because the Jewish state wants to remain Jewish." But Al-Hassan claimed that it is the idea of a Jewish state that is not realistic. "Since the first day of its existence, Israel wanted to become the state of the Jews," he explained, "but it has failed because of the Palestinian Arabs in its midst. Today, one fifth of Israelis are not Jews. The goal of a Jewish state is not realistic, and if Israel adheres to it, it will become a racist state, in the literal sense of the word. Israel must choose between becoming a state of its citizens or a racist state. To choose a Jewish state is to choose a racist state, which means that we will have to fight Israel as if we were fighting a racist state like South Africa."

Negotiations vs. Struggle

The three guests disagreed on the issue of the struggle against Israel. PA Minister Abd Rabbo objected to Hamas' claim that the Palestinian people are divided into those who support struggle and those who support negotiations. According to him, there is only one group, that conducts negotiations and the struggle simultaneously. "Thirty years of struggle," he added, "will be crowned by a settlement, and the settlement to which we aspire is the implementation of the resolutions of international legitimacy. That is, the establishment of a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders with Jerusalem as its capital, and a solution to the Refugee Problem in accordance with Resolution 194."

Abd Rabbo continued "The settlement negotiation process is part of the struggle because a settlement is not a cessation of fighting, but rather a struggle to impose the terms of international legitimacy... All the peoples of the world have fought and in the end have sat at the negotiation table, and that was not an insult to their struggle. On the contrary, when you want to glean the fruits of your struggle, you must sit and negotiate..."

Hamas official Abu Marzuq insisted that negotiation contradicts struggle, because there are binding agreements that force the PA to put a stop to the struggle. Camp David, he said, proved the failure of the path of negotiation.

Bilal Al-Hassan, on the other hand, said that "in principle" he understands that there must be negotiation. He supported Abd Rabbo by saying that "there are no two separate paths, one of negotiation and another of struggle. There is one combined path: one minute you fight and the next minute you negotiate. And one minute you negotiate and the next minute you fight. This is a principle." But Al-Hassan adamantly objected to the way the negotiations have been conducted thus far. He also objected to the current contacts, such as the Peres-Arafat meeting in Gaza, Arafat's acceptance of President Clinton's invitation and Dennis Ross's visit to Gaza. He claimed that the Palestinians must "create a crisis" in the negotiation channels and declare that they are not ready to meet any Israeli or American as long as the Palestinian demands for internationalization are not met.

Abd Rabbo answered sarcastically that "Although we the Palestinians are a superpower, the US is a superpower of at least the same magnitude, and we can not say to President Clinton that we don't want to meet with him. What is important is to tell them exactly what our positions are."

Intifada Tactics

The host raised the issue of contradictory statements by senior officials in the PA and the Fatah, and asked how it was possible that while Arafat orders restraint from shooting in confrontations with the Israelis, the Fatah General Secretary in the West Bank, Marwan Barghuthi, calls for escalation of the Intifada. Abd Rabbo said that "President Arafat did not say such a thing. We said that there are people who shoot out of Palestinian population centers, and this shooting does not lead to any results. Rather, it gives the Israelis an excuse to strike back at those population centers. Therefore we should put an end to this. This statement was blown out of proportion, and it was claimed that there was a cease-fire and that the Intifada is subsiding."

Asked whether Arafat's statement means that it is permissible to shoot from areas B and C, Abd Rabbo refused to answer, saying that he had no intention "of opening a military staff meeting on television and specifying how, when, and by what means we should operate. The Intifida will determine the means and I am in no position to go into details beyond that. I think Israel understands quite well and so do our people."

Bilal Al-Hassan supported Abd Rabbo, saying that "The Palestinian people are not rookies when it comes to Intifadas; they developed methods in the previous one... In other words, if we have the means to continue the struggle over a long period of time, we mustn't exhaust them too quickly. Therefore, whether or not Abu 'Ammar [Arafat] gave the order to stop the shooting now, I see no problem with that... It is possible that in three days, or in ten days, there will be a different decision and a different order by the local command of the Intifada in Nablus or Gaza."

Only Hamas official Abu Marzuq found it difficult to deal with the limitations on using firearms. "For what purpose does the PA keep 30,000 rifles," he asked.

Abd Rabbo replied that "The methods we are using in this Intifada may change in accordance with the requirements of the struggle to end the occupation. I don't want to get into a discussion now about what methods we use today and what methods we will use tomorrow. Such a discussion contradicts the interests of the Intifada. But I can say one thing: if we use all of our means, as Abu Marzuq would like, this will surely lead to the suicide or sacrifice of the Intifada. The battle is long... We must not do stupid things that will hurt the Intifada."

Intifada Strategy

The host asked about the strategy of the Intifada. Minister Abd Rabbo answered, "The Intifada was the people's way of intervening in order to express their objection to the terms which [the US and Israel] tried to force on us in Camp David." He implied that the main goal of the PA, now, is to bring about international intervention. "A week ago we asked the UN for international protection for the Palestinian people," he said, "by international protection, I don't mean observers with cameras or even pistols. Rather, an international protection that will replace the occupying forces throughout the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza. A force that will act as a buffer between us and the occupation."

The host pointed out that the French proposal currently under discussion speaks of unarmed observers, that is, "force with no teeth." Abd Rabbo declared, "This is the situation in the world we are living in. If we want to invent and fight in an alternative, imaginary world, we might as well adopt the slogans of Abu Marzuq. We are realistic. This is the world we face. The US is a superpower and we cannot ignore it. We can curse it as much as we want, but there are political considerations. This is the European position and this is the situation in the region... We did not expect, after the first meeting of the Security Council, to come back at the head of armed international battalions, straight from New York to the Homeland."

The Palestinians and Israeli Public Opinion

Minister Abd Rabbo, who believes that the Intifada should ultimately lead back to the negotiation table, claimed, "We cannot disengage completely from the Israelis or the Americans... Israeli public opinion must see that we are leaving every door open, in case these doors lead to a serious political process with guarantees ultimately for the implementation of the international legitimacy resolution."

Hamas official Abu Marzuq rejected that and stated that Hizbullah proved how to best use Israeli public opinion. "The Four Mothers movement led the Israeli army out of Lebanon. Back then, Israeli public opinion was formed in order to save Israeli soldiers from South Lebanon. When you cause the Israelis casualties, public opinion becomes effective."

Responding, Abd Rabbo demanded that Abu Marzuq "stop using Hizbullah as an example, because the Hizbullah Model is the exact opposite of Hamas... Hizbullah did not try to become an alternative to the Lebanese government, and limited its demands to the implementation of Resolution 425. After the Israeli withdrawal, the shooting stopped. Hizbullah acted flexibly and realistically until it achieved its goals. Hamas' way is completely different. This does not make me happy. I want Hamas to amend its ways, to act realistically and to understand that our battle is a thousand times more complex than that of South Lebanon."

Abu Marzuq replied that the difference between South Lebanon and Palestine is in the way the regime treats the Resistance Movement. "The Lebanese government treated Hizbullah differently than the PA treats Hamas. How many Hizbullah detainees are there in Lebanese jails?! How many Hizbullah shahids [martyrs] were killed by the Lebanese government?!"

[Sirotnikov]

PA Minister: The Intifada Was Planned from the Day Arafat Returned from Camp David

PA Communications Minister, 'Imad Al-Faluji, visited Lebanon and spoke at the 'Ein Al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp. In his speech Al-Faluji stated that the Al-Aqsa Intifada was pre-meditated, and was the Palestinian response to their failure to achieve their goals at the Camp David negotiations. After Israel announced its intention to use Al-Faluji's words to support its response to the Mitchell Commission it was reported that Yasser Arafat pressured Al-Faluji to retract his statements. Subsequently, Al-Faluji announced that he had never made such comments.^[1] However, similar statements by Al-Faluji as well as other Palestinian leaders have been reported previously.

Al-Faluji at 'Ein Al-Hilweh

"The Palestinian people is the strong half of the international equation. It is the secret code and the key to any stability and peace not only in the Middle East, but in the world..."

"You can be sure that your stay here is temporary. We will not allow any force to raise any issue detrimental to the Right of Return to Palestine. I congratulate President Emil Lahud who has said countless times that there will be no solution for the Palestinians that does not include their return to Palestine. To him we respond: 'Yes.' This position has the consensus of the Palestinian people and the Palestinian leadership... We emphasize that the Palestinian leadership will not sign a peace agreement without guaranteeing Palestinian rights, and first and foremost the Right of Return, the liberation of Jerusalem and its return to full Palestinian sovereignty. These are our fundamental Palestinian principles, to which we hold fast and for which we fight."

"The Al-Aqsa Intifada emphasizes these principles and axioms. Whoever thinks that the Intifada broke out because of the despised Sharon's visit to the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is wrong, even if this visit was the straw that broke the back of the Palestinian people. This Intifada was planned in advance, ever since President Arafat's return from the Camp David negotiations, where he turned the table upside down on President Clinton. [Arafat] remained steadfast and challenged [Clinton]. He rejected the American terms and he did it in the heart of the US."

"My visit here in South Lebanon is a clear message to the Zionist enemy. We say: Just as the national and Islamic Resistance in South Lebanon taught [Israel] a lesson and made it withdraw humiliated and battered, so shall [Israel] learn a lesson from the Palestinian Resistance in Palestine. The Palestinian Resistance will strike in Tel-Aviv, in Ashkelon, in Jerusalem, and in every inch of the land of natural Palestine. Israel will not have a single quiet night. There will be no security in the heart of Israel...."

"The Palestinian people are patient, but when they take action - no one can stop them. When the Palestinian people are seized with rage, the world [becomes] familiar with it."

"We say to the Zionist enemy and to the entire world: 'We will return to the early days of the PLO, to the sixties and seventies; 'the Fatah Hawks' will return, as will the ''Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades' [the military wing of the Hamas] and the 'Red Eagles' [the military arm of the 'Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine'].' A new stage will continue until the rights are returned to their owners... we will strike whoever blames us for the failure of the negotiations, because President Yasser Arafat's patience was greater than Job's. Arafat has become the Job of the twentieth century, because of what the US and Israel lay on him..."^[2]

Past Statements by Al-Faluji

Al-Faluji had made similar statements as early as December 2000. Raed Lafi, correspondent for the PA affiliated daily Al-Ayyam reported then that at a Gaza symposium Al-Faluji said: "The PA had begun to prepare for the outbreak of the current Intifada since the return from the Camp David negotiations, by request of President Yasser Arafat, who predicted the outbreak of the Intifada as a complementary stage to the Palestinian steadfastness in the negotiations, and not as a specific protest against Sharon's visit to Al-Haram Al-Qudsi [Temple Mount]."

Al-Faluji continued: "The Intifada was no surprise for the Palestinian leadership. The leadership had invested all of its efforts in political and diplomatic channels in order to fix the flaws in the negotiations and the peace process, but to no avail. It encountered Israeli stubbornness and continuous renunciation of the [Palestinian] rights... The PA instructed the political forces and factions to run all matters of the Intifada ..."^[3]

Al-Faluji's statement at the time were backed by Fatah Central Committee member, Sakhr Habash, who said in an interview with the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida: "In light of the information, [after] analyzing the political positions following the Camp David summit, and in accordance with what brother Abu Ammar [Arafat] said, it became clear to the Fatah movement that the next stage necessitates preparation for confrontation, because Prime Minister Barak is not a partner who can respond to our people's aspirations. Based on these assessments, Fatah was more prepared than the other movements for this confrontation. In order to play the role given to it, the Fatah coordinated its administrative, civilian and sovereign apparatuses, and was not surprised by the outbreak of the current Intifada... The Fatah movement believed that the phenomenon of comprehensive struggle would appear at the final settlement stage..."^[4]

---

^[1] Voice of Israel Radio (Israel), March 6, 2001.

^[2] Al-Safir (Lebanon), March 3, 2001

^[3] Al-Ayyam (PA), December 6, 2000.

^[4] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), December 7, 2000.

[Sirotnikov]

How extremists silence debate

The Future of the Armed Struggle: An Arab Debate

On May 16, 2000, "The Opposite Direction," a well-known political talk show on Al-Jazeera [Qatari TV Channel], which is said to have tens of millions of viewers around the Arab world, hosted a debate between the leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Dr. Ramadhan Abdallah Shalah and Tunisian Intellectual, Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar. The debate revolved around whether the Arabs should continue to use armed violence in their struggle against Israel. Following are excerpts from the debate:

Host:  "...Will [US State Department Peace Process Coordinator] Dennis Ross succeed in bringing an end to the conflict, or are we on the verge of a new Intifada in Palestine, while we witness [the success] of the Lebanese resistance movement?"

Dr. Shalah: "...This conflict started long before Dennis Ross was born and even before the empire on whose behalf he speaks [i.e. the US] was conceived. This conflict erupted before the beginning of the twentieth century and it continues. This was [demonstrated] by [the British] General Allenby who, when the British forces entered Jerusalem [in WW1], stood in front of its walls and declared: 'today the Crusades have come to an end'"

"The conflict continues and the proof is that despite the fact that the last war waged by the Arab armies against Israel took place 27 years ago - the conflict goes on..."

Al-Akhdhar: "...the Lebanese Resistance movement has succeeded because it fought under the banner of international legitimacy. It fought to enforce UN resolution 425... However, this is the first time that an invader and occupier leaves the occupied land, but the occupied protests this withdrawal and demands that they stay. The Syrians oppose Israel's unilateral withdrawal, and so does the Lebanese government and even Hizbullah... It proves that the goal of Hizbullah was not only to liberate the border strip..."

"Regarding Palestine – the conflict is indeed long and has several aspects... it experienced some transformation: from an armed struggle to an Intifada, and then to negotiations. All these are means to achieve one goal: restoring the right of the Palestinian people on the basis of international legitimacy, which demands an Israeli withdrawal from the Arab land that was occupied in 1967..."

Dr. Shalah: "...Al-'Afif Al-Akhdar says that the Lebanese Resistance fought under the banner of international legitimacy and that Israel withdraws on this principle. This is to his credit. After many years in which the Lebanese Resistance was accused by the so-called 'international legitimacy' of being terrorism it is now [regarded as] legitimate... I want to remind him and the viewers that the Resistance did not ask for permission from 'international legitimacy' when it embarked [on its activity], especially since 'international legitimacy' nowadays is a synonym for the US... Everybody knows that this Resistance movement fought the 'international legitimacy' represented by the US... until they left Lebanon defeated after the explosion in the Marines' base..."

"Ze'ev Schiff, a leading Israeli analyst, said on May 12 in Ha'aretz: 'For the first time in the history of Israel's wars, its enemy has beaten Israel in psychological warfare, in part by intelligently using Israel's [own] media. It has been proven that Israel's steadfastness has been corroded, since nobody claims such capability anymore." ...Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar should know that the Lebanese people and the Islamic nation everywhere will celebrate the victory of the heroes of the Resistance over Israel which was regarded once as the unbeatable army. Now it is beaten and fearfully withdraws to its land… pardon, to occupied Palestine..."

Al-Akhdar: "Hizbullah's resistance to the Israeli occupation is legitimate... however, Hizbullah is a terrorist party because it was founded by Khomeini's Iran for the purpose of murdering progressive Shi'ite intellectuals... They also murdered 500 members of the [rival Shi'ite party] Amal, in 1985 in the Tufah District. Hizbullah entered their homes and slit their throats one after the other. Hizbullah kidnapped, on behalf of Iran, innocent people in Beirut for use as hostages and these kidnappings damaged the reputation of Islam and the Muslims throughout the world. Hizbullah has emptied South Lebanon, especially Jezzine, of the Christians. It deported them… Nevertheless, when Hizbullah struggles against the Israeli occupation in order to fulfill Security Council resolution 425, it struggles within the framework of international legitimacy..."

"Israel withdraws, but Iran and Syria behave as if this withdrawal is a punishment, because they do not want it to take place. They want Israel to stay because there are two kinds of occupation in Lebanon that justify one another: The Syrian occupation and the Israeli occupation. The Israeli withdrawal from South Lebanon means that Syria must [also] withdraw from the Biqa' [valley] within a few months, and vice versa..."

Dr. Shalah: "Before I answer the accusations Al-Akhdhar directs at Hizbullah, I want to inform the viewers of the source of these accusations. Al-'Afif wrote on May 7, in Al-Hayat, that as soon as he learned of the downfall of Netanyahu and the rise of Barak, he sent him a telegram saying: 'I congratulate you in the hope for Arab-Israeli peace.' So, these accusations should be treated as if they come directly from Barak's office. Therefore, since the one who makes the accusations is Barak's spokesman, I am not interested in responding to them. If a student at the Hebrew University had written these things in a paper on Hizbullah in a political Science course, any professor with minimal knowledge would have marked his paper 'Zero'..."

Al-Akhdhar: "Hamas and the Islamic Jihad brought Netanyahu to power by carrying out suicide bombings in order to destroy the peace process and eliminate the rights of the Palestinian people. Why? Because Hamas does not believe in a Palestinian State. ...Sheik Ahmad Yassin, Hamas's spiritual leader says ...that, in accordance with The Koran, Israel will disappear in 2027. ...This is Hamas's and maybe Islamic Jihad's too. They want to destroy the peace process and leave the Palestinian people in refugee camps until the year of 2027. …It is a disaster when a political-military organization bases its platform on an interpretation of a Koranic verse... These people should not deal with politics because they are not qualified for it."

Dr. Shalah: "I personally, do not believe these things [the Koranic interpretation predicting that Israel will disappear in 2027]. What is attributed to Sheik Yassin is his personal opinion and he alone is responsible for it..."

"The question is broader, though: Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar believes the Islamic religion is not connected to [the making of] history, politics, or the conflict... While we, in the Islamic movement, believe there is a divine Providence over history... the Jews [also] based their occupation of Palestine on the Torah, but this does not prevent Al-Akhdhar from claiming Islam and The Koran are irrelevant to the conflict. ...I want to ask him in front of one and a quarter billion Muslims whether he believes in The Koran..."

Al-Akhdhar: "Am I under investigation by the Inquisition now? The Koran has nothing to do with history. History is determined by the balance of power..."

Dr. Shalah: "...As you know, the Torah tells the people that Allah created the Heavens and the Earth in six days and on the seventh day, He rested, or maybe he delivered the keys of the world management to Clinton, God forbid. Therefore, I ask him again in front of millions [of Muslims]: does he believe in the Koran?..."

Al-Akhdhar: "He has just revealed his true face. He is an Inquisitor. I did not come here for an Inquisition. You are the one who murders children and you have no right to talk about Allah. Allah does not murder children and innocent people. The Labor Party that founded Israel is not a religious party, Moshe Dayan wrote on his ID 'Religion: heretic.' Israel was not established on the Torah, but rather on secularism..."

"The next stage is the stage of peace. This is a transformation from armed conflict to another type of conflict with Zionism. We must become modern like Israel. We should have modern education that will produce technology experts, engineers, doctors, and scientists. What we have now is the education of the Middle Ages. It produces unemployed religious scholars of the third and fourth degree. We must struggle against the Zionist plan through the liberation of the Arab woman. The Islamists fight the woman throughout the Islamic world. They murder her, slaughter her, and stone her to death..."

Dr. Shalah: "...Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar talks about realism and modernization... and how Israel is the model we should all adopt. …My problem is how can Al-'Afif Al-Akhdhar change his homeland as one changes shoes..."

Al-Akhdhar: "...We must modernize ourselves and leave our backwardness behind. The Islamists want to keep us backward. For example, we should equalize the status of Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic world. One Sheik of the Islamic Jihad, Abdallah Al-Shami, for example, said that after the liberation of Palestine, we will turn the remaining Jews into Ahl Dhimma^[1]. Hamas plans to liberate Palestine to the last grain of land and then turn it into an Islamic Waqf [religious endowment]. What will happen to the Jews that were born there? Hamas and the Islamic Jihad don't talk about them, they just say Jews will become Ahl Dhimma. We will not be able to compete with the Zionist plan unless we equalize the status of the Muslim to that of the Christian, and also to that of the Arab Jew. We should also equalize the status of men and women and modernize the economy and education... the perpetuation of armed struggle at all costs is a tribal mentality. The mentality of the Jahiliya^[2] [era]."

Dr. Shalah: "...As usual, Al-'Afif busies himself with hypothetical questions about the destiny of the Jews. He is worried about the hypothetical case they become Ahl Dhimma. He is not interested in the current situation of the Palestinians... My answer to the hypothetical question is that Al-'Afif should know that throughout history the Jews have never enjoyed a status like the one they enjoyed under the rule of Islam as Ahl Dhimma. By all means, I wish they would have granted us Palestinians in Lebanon and everywhere else in the world the status of Ahl Dhimma..."

[chequita guevara]

It's apparent from your posts that there is a diversity of opinion in Palestine. Why not withdraw completely from the Occupied territories, and let them have their civil war? At the same time, you guys can have yours. Maybe you could just send the fanatacis from both sides into the Negev and let them all fight it out amongst themselves?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It's apparent from your posts that there is a diversity of opinion in Palestine. Why not withdraw completely from the Occupied territories, and let them have their civil war? At the same time, you guys can have yours. Maybe you could just send the fanatacis from both sides into the Negev and let them all fight it out amongst themselves?

?
Where is that apparent?
To me it is apparent, that even the most peacefull and logical ones (see previous describing "debate") are convinced that after several stages there will be only one state with a Palestinain majority.

I do not wish to have only one state with a Palestinain majority.
The arab nations have proved themselves to be a murderous bunch, as they do this to themselves, and tried to do to Israel in 1948. I do not believe for a second, that had they become the majority in Israel, they would have second thougts about slaughtering us, and driving truck-loads of bodies to sea.

Steps:

1. Achieve a palestinian states in the 1967 borders.
2. Achieve internationalization of the 1947 proposal borders, and ask for a referendum of it's citizens.
3. Annex 1947 arab borders.
4. Struggle, whether by international pressure ("palestine was always arab" etc) or war to control All Israel.
4. Alternative: Wait for Israeli-Arab-Palestinians to get majority in Israel.
5. Have referndum in Israel to become country of it's citizens
6. Annex Israel to Palestine vie referndum.


See? No more Israel.

[Sirotnikov]

More Proof that Intifada 2000 is Organized and Pre-Planned

"...the only way to impose our conditions is inevitably through our blood"

Palestinian leaders have attributed the outburst of violence over the last few days to the visit of Likud leader Ariel Sharon and several other Likud MKs to the Temple Mount. Statements that violence is an alternative to a deadlock in the negotiations or failure to achieve Palestinian goals through negotiations have long been a part of Palestinian strategy and have become particularly frequent in the aftermath of the Camp David Summit.^[I]

In the last week there have been many calls for violent confrontation with Israel. For example Director-General of the PA Information Ministry, Hassan Al-Kashef, in his daily column in Al-Ayyam, wrote: "The only way to impose our conditions is inevitably through our blood. Had it not been for this blood, the world would have never been interested in us... therefore the continuation of the popular confrontation is an urgent political need... the power of the Intifada is our only weapon. We should not toss this weapon away until the Arab emergency summit is convened and until we gain international protection... our national duty is to continue the confrontation, continue the Intifada, continue to sacrifice our martyrs so that the blood of our martyrs and injured will not have been spilled in vain... so that the Intifada of Al-Aqsa will be the gate to independence and freedom..."^[1]

Preparations for Clashes in the Wake of Camp David

During the Camp David summit and after its July 25, 2000 failure many Palestinian commentators and officials discussed and urged Palestinians to prepare for a violent confrontation with Israel. On July 14, the Israeli Arab magazine Kul Al-Arab reported that a high-ranking PA security official stated, "The Palestinian people are in a state of emergency against the failure of the Camp David summit. If the situation explodes they are ready for the next bloody battle against the Israeli occupation. The next Intifada will be... more violent than the first one especially since the Palestinian people [now] possess weapons allowing them to defend themselves in a confrontation with the Israeli army. The Lebanese experience of wiping out the Israeli occupation... strengthened the [Palestinian] spirit of armed struggle."^[2]

A week later the same PA security official reported to Kul Al-Arab that a state of emergency has been declared in the PA territories in preparation for a possible confrontation with Israeli forces. He said, "Popular recruitment in the PA territories has increased greatly and the popular Palestinian army has been established... Weapons have already been distributed to citizens by the PA, which supervises training and preparations for a potential confrontation with occupation forces." The source revealed that the training focuses on guerrilla warfare and there is great demand for these courses... He added that the PA has anti-aircraft missiles in all PA territories and that vacations have been canceled in all PA security services.

Mobilizing the Palestinians

Fatah central committee member Muhammad Ghneim stated: "The Palestinian people... have set the end of September as the last date to achieve a settlement realizing the[ir] hopes... [particularly] the right of return for the refugees. Resolution 242 alone is not the basis for a Palestinian-Israeli reconciliation... any disregard of the other resolutions such as 181 and 194 will leave the wound open and the conflict valid."^[3]

The Secretary-General of the PFLP Abu Ali Mustafa, who left the Palestinian rejectionist front and joined the PA, when asked about alternatives to the failure of the Camp David Summit said: "The issues of Jerusalem, the refugees, and sovereignty will be decided on the ground and not in negotiations. At this point it is important to prepare Palestinian society for the next step because we will undoubtedly find ourselves in confrontation with Israel in order to create new facts on the ground. I believe that the situation will in the future will be more violent than the Intifada."^[4]

PA appointed Mufti Ikrima Sabri - warned, "Any approach to Al-Aqsa will face violent opposition from the Palestinians... Jewish prayer at Al-Aqsa will prompt massacres the magnitude of which only Allah knows. If Olmert thinks Al-Aqsa can be like the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron [where both religions share worship] which the Jews have desecrated... he is delusional. We want to clarify to Olmert and his supporters that harm to Al-Aqsa will prompt massacres and rivers of blood."^[5]

Hassan Al-Kashef, in his daily column in Al-Ayyam stated, "Every Palestinian home is able to stockpile a few months of supplies for his basic needs. Every home has enough space for a few bags of flour, rice, sugar, candles, and salt. [The preparations should not be for a military confrontation, rather for a popular Intifada.] It would be a mistake and a sin to prepare for confrontation as an organized establishment with specified camps, locations, and stores. This is exactly what the Israeli army wants, counting on its superiority in weaponry and in the air. The solution guaranteeing our superiority is to go back to our quality as a fighting people that does the Intifada."^[II]

In Al-Ayyam Talal 'Okal said, "It is necessary that millions of Palestinians, wherever they are, go into the streets at the same time. This is the preferred way to counter... Barak's no's and the American bias. The Intifada was a great action to counter the offensive army [of Israel] as well as thousands of armed fanatic settlers. The Intifada was also the strongest and most effective means to convince world public opinion and attract attention to the national rights of the Palestinians."^[6]

Incitement in August

PA Minister, Hasan 'Assur stated that failure to reach a final settlement would force Palestinian military action^[7] and Faisal Al-Husseini, PLO representative for Jerusalem affairs^[8] warned that the peace process's failure could lead to violence. PA Justice Minister Freih Abu Middein stated, "...violence is near and the Palestinian people are willing to sacrifice even 5000 casualties."^[9]

There were other opinions as well. For example, columnist Rasmi Abu Ali who quoted Abu Middein, argued that it is better to refrain from violence: "The option of explosion is feasible for the Palestinians and it can even begin today rather than tomorrow. But if we are to make a rational account we need to count to 100 before we choose this option. The Palestinians are able to inflict heavy casualties on the Israelis. But the question is whether our own casualties will be even greater. We have to be cautious and exhaust the other option before we reach the point of no return..."^[10]

High-ranking PA officials discussed the role of the PA police and the Palestinian militia in the coming crises even before the outbreak of violence. Ghazi Jabali, commander of the PA Police, stated "The Palestinian police will be leading, together with all other noble sons of the Palestinian people when the hour of confrontation arrives..."^[11]

Violence in pre-1967 Israel

Well before the present outburst of violence, high-ranking Palestinian officials warned that violence would spread into pre-67 Israel. Head of the Preventive Security Apparatus in Gaza, Muhammad Dakhlan said, "...If Israel chooses the road of violence the PA can influence the way of life in Israel... If an agreement is not reached and confrontation with the occupation explodes both the Palestinian people and Israel will suffer gravely. Anyone who thinks that the confrontation with us will be easy is delusional. The reactive ability of our people today is greater than the days when the PLO was in Beirut. We will reach an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital even if it is by blood."^[12]

As soon as the violence began Dakhlan's counterpart in the West Bank, Jibril Rjoub warned: "It is possible that the disturbances will move to Israeli populated areas."^[13] The night after his statement the Jerusalem neighborhood Giloh was shot at from the Palestinian village Beit Jala, which is under Rjoub's authority.

PA Minister of Supplies Abd Al-'Aziz Shahin added: "...the Palestinian leadership will conduct the new bloody negotiations in the proper way. ...the successful leadership is the leadership that is not dragged into the battle that the enemy wishes to have. Rather it is the leadership that imposes [on the enemy] the terms of the battle, its location and its weapons."^[14]

Some Israeli Arab leaders confirmed the existence of possible violence in the Israeli Arab community, such as Israeli Arab MK from Israel's Islamic Movement Abd Al-Malek Dahamsheh expressed his readiness: "To be the first martyr [shahid] in defense of Al-Aqsa."^[15]

A Long Term PA Strategy

In fact, throughout the Oslo Process, Palestinian leaders have reiterated this principle, that if the peace process reaches a deadlock they will turn to violence. PA Minister of Planning and International Cooperation Nabil Sha'ath clearly stated this in 1996 at a public conference in Nablus videotaped by MEMRI:

"We decided to begin liberating our homeland step after step. It is now impossible for the peace process to halt. For if it does, all of the acts of violence will return to Israel. ...we honor the peace treaties and non-violence, so long as the agreements are fulfilled step-by-step. [But] if and when Israel says 'enough,' namely, 'we will not discuss Jerusalem, we will not return refugees, we will not dismantle settlements, we will not withdraw to the borders,' in that case it is saying that we will return to violence. But this time it will be with 30,000 armed Palestinian soldiers and in a land with elements of freedom."

"I'm the first one to call for it if we get to a deadlock, we shall return to the fighting and the struggle as we have fought for forty years more; it is not beyond our possibility."

PA Chairman Yasir Arafat has also, personally and explicitly stated on a number of occasions that the Palestinians are prepared to turn to violence if there is a deadlock in the peace process. For example, speaking to a "Fatah" conference in November 1998 he stated, "...the Palestinian rifle is ready and we will aim it if they try to prevent us from praying in Jerusalem... [agreements] better be carried out, because the 'generals of the stones' [i.e. the children of the Intifada] are ready."^[16]

Addressing a March 1999 "Fatah" conference Arafat stated, "We will continue our struggle until... our flag [waves] on the walls, mosques, and churches of Jerusalem, the capital of our independent state, whether some people are happy about it or not. He who doesn't like it may drink the water of the Dead Sea ...the 'Fatah' movement is ready to fight... if anyone tries to diminish our legitimate rights and our right to declare a state."^[17]

---

^[I] MEMRI has monitored this aspect of Palestinian rhetoric for several years. For a few examples see Special Dispatches:

• No. 58: "Violence and the Peace Process in the Palestinian Media," November 18, 1999
  
• No. 52: "PLO Political Bureau Head on Armed Struggle and the Current Peace Process" October 26, 1999
  
• No. 29: "Palestinian Leadership Renews Calls for Violence," March 22, 1999
  
• No. 17: "Calls for Violence and Support of Iraq in the Palestinian Media," December 18, 1998
  
• No. 13: "Arafat's Speech to a 'Fatah' Conference," November 17, 1998
  

MEMRI has also produced videos documenting this strategy.

^[II] Al-Ayyam July 24, 2000. The day of the Camp David failure the PA showed the wide-ranged training of students in summer camps on TV and invited journalists to see it. The editor of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida on July 24 criticized both the training and showing it, claiming that the pictures of kids training with Kalashnikovs serves Israeli propaganda.

---

^[1] Al-Ayyam (PA), Oct. 3, 2000

^[2] Kul Al-Arab (Israel), July 14, 2000.

^[3] Al-Ayyam, July 20, 2000.

^[4] Al-Quds (Palestinian), July 23, 2000.

^[5] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida (PA), July 21, 2000.

^[6] Al-Ayyam, July 24, 2000.

^[7] Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Aug. 24, 2000.

^[8] Al-Hayat (London-Beriut), Aug. 30, 2000.

^[9] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 24, 2000.

^[10] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 24, 2000.

^[11] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 11, 2000.

^[12] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 16, 2000.

^[13] Voice of Palestine, Oct. 2, 2000.

^[14] Al-Ayyam (PA), Oct. 3, 2000.

^[15] Al-Sinara July 15, 2000.

^[16] Al-Ayyam, Nov. 16, 2000. See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 13, "Arafat's Speech to a 'Fatah' conference," Nov. 17, 1998.

^[17] Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, March 20, 1999. See MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 29, "Palestinian Leadership Renews Calls for Violence," March 22, 1999.

[chequita guevara]

Eventually, Palestinians are going to be the majority in Israel. What will you do then? Drive them into the sea as you did in '48? Take away their right to vote? The Jewish state cannot last indefinately without resorting to tyrrany.

[Sirotnikov]

Arab Call on Arafat to Accept Camp David Proposals - October 2000

Arab Call on Arafat to Accept Camp David Proposals

Raghida Dugham, the New York based senior analyst and correspondent for the pan-Arab daily Al-Hayat , (who is known to be affiliated with the Saudi Crown Prince, Abdullah) wrote an article entitled "An Amazing Peace Initiative by Arafat May Turn the Tables on Israeli Escalation"[1]:

"...Now, Arab capitals, as well as the PA, should study their options and be candid presenting the strategies of either peace or its antithesis, whether this is a limited Palestinian war, a wider Arab war, or a no-peace no-war equation, in which case Israel will solve the Palestinian problem unilaterally."

"The first stage in this candidness is included in the possibility of turning the table over the Israeli escalation and provocation by [launching] an amazing peace initiative. Such an initiative requires that Yasser Arafat do what Ayatollah Khomeini did when he decided to drink the "poison cup" and accept the cease-fire with Iraq. It means that Arafat should accept what he rejected before September 28, in the framework of the negotiations results."

"Israeli and Palestinian negotiators had reached an agreement on all the details with the exception of the Al-Haram Al-Sharif which Israel calls 'the Temple Mount,' and sees as a holy site for Jews as well. More than 30 'compromising proposals' were brought up to solve the problem of sovereignty over the holy sites, and especially the Al-Haram Al-Sharif, without reaching an agreement. Ehud Barak withdrew the proposals for Israeli sovereignty but he rejected Palestinian sovereignty. Yasser Arafat was on the verge of accepting the sovereignty of a third party, as long as the party included strong Islamic elements, but he wanted Arab partnership in reaching such a decision."

"The Palestinian President went to Cairo, Amman, Riyadh, Rabat, and other capitals, demanding partnership in reaching this decision, but he was told this was impossible. The best he could get was [Arab leaders] not opposing his decision. He was hesitating while the clock of Israeli domestic political considerations was ticking towards the twelfth hour."

"It may be that the time for an amazing peace initiative based on drinking the 'poison cup' has passed, especially since all the signs show that the political and maybe popular base [in Israel] has given Barak the ladder to step down from his Jerusalem proposals. He has crossed a red line in Israeli terms and the time has come to bring him back to the [Israeli] internment-camp. However, it is possible that the bitterness Israelis have just tasted... will also encourage them also to accept the principle of drinking the 'cup of poison' and accept the amazing initiative."

"If such an option exists, it does not tolerate time wasting, but rather, requires great speed in establishing its foundations, in the Palestinian, Arab, and international [spheres]. This is a very risky and courageous option... By all standards, this is the most dangerous option and it requires composure and preparations for the consequences."

"It is possible that this option does not exist at all due to the situation and because the logic of confrontation took over the logic of negotiation. In such a case, the scenarios of peaceful solutions have become academic and there is no point in searching for alternatives for the American sponsorship, which is biased towards Israel, as some demand... The reality is that the negotiations that were launched in Oslo came the closest to an agreement just before the explosion that came to prevent reaching an agreement."

"The truth of the matter is that the logic of Oslo that launched the bilateral Israeli-Palestinian negotiations independently of the other Arab tracks of the Madrid Summit requires that the Palestinians decide what their options are - negotiations or Intifada - as a basis for any Arab position. This [Palestinian decision] is the missing element at this point... Today the Palestinians require make their own decision and then the rest of the Arabs will support them."

"The Palestinians chose in the 90s to be the masters of their own decisions and excluded the rest of the Arabs from this decision. They had a right to so chose. But to suddenly return and ask to be led by the Arabs is a double-standard and insolent injustice."

"The peace process that started in Madrid in 1991 was replaced in 1994 in Oslo by a Palestinian decision to separate from the Arab multilateral [framework] in the negotiations with Israel. If the Oslo process failed today, it is not the fault of the rest of the Arabs [but rather of the Palestinians'.]

"The different Palestinian sectors should know that the return of the Palestinian issue to the heart of Arab sympathy and thought, does not mean the popular Arab base is ready to participate in a war for the Palestinian cause. War is not only excluded on the level of [Arab] political decision-making, but also in the considerations of the Arab individual who is not subjected to occupation. The Arab public, despite its honest sympathy and solidarity with the Intifada, is unable, and possibly, unwilling to cross the border and send their children armed with stones against the Israeli soldier who is armed with a rifle and hides behind airplanes and tanks..."

---

[1] Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), October 26, 2000.

[Sirotnikov]

Israel's High Court of Justice on the War Against Terrorism

On January 29, 2002, Israel's High Court of Justice (the Israeli Supreme Court) rejected a petition submitted on
behalf of Member of Knesset Muhammad Barakah to block the government's policy of "targeted killings" of
terrorists.[1] The court ruled that it will not intervene in the selection of fighting methods used by Israeli security
forces in the battle against terror.

Furthermore, as indicated by the defense attorneys (the government), the State of Israel "no longer relates to
the intifada as a popular uprising, but rather as an 'armed confrontation.'"[2] Following are excerpts from the court
hearing:[3]

Plaintiff: "Israel is executing people without a trial. Israel is using lethal means against the individual in his home, his office, and his vehicle, at a time when he is not presenting a clear and present danger."

Justice Eliyahu Mazza: "There is another element here called terror, and it is the enemy of all humanity and not of one particular country. We are talking about the killings of innocent people and [terror] attacks. All countries view terror as a joint shared enemy."

Plaintiff: "And who is to determine who is a terrorist?"

Mazza: "Certainly not the court."

Plaintiff: "But the occupying force in the territories, Israel, is responsible for the lives of the inhabitants."

Mazza: "According to our knowledge, there is intelligence on the individuals who are being targeted. And even then [this is done] only due to lack of other means [to prevent terror attacks]. MK Barakah does not need the platform of Israel's High Court of Justice if he wishes to raise political reservations. We are not conducting the war here... the conduct of [Israel's] war against terror is outside the sphere [of this court]."

Plaintiff: "At least, I ask [that the court] will order an intermediate edict that would freeze the policy of executions until a decision is reached regarding my petition."

Mazza: "Do we know how many people will be killed in Israel tomorrow should we order such an edict?... Madam, go out to the streets of Jerusalem and you will see that this is a daily war. The request to prohibit targeted killing means that the court would become involved in administering the war. That would be akin to us telling the defense minister and the chief of staff to use only the infantry rather than tanks when entering Ramallah."

Plaintiff: "You must intervene, since the taking of life is possible only by a decision of an authorized court."

Mazza: "The involvement of the court in the policy of conducting a war is inconceivable when the interest of the state's security is taken into account."

Justice Mishael Cheshin: "I agree that you [i.e., the plaintiff] will tell all those who sent the suicide [bombers] to the Dolphinarium [discotheque in Tel Aviv where a suicide bomber killed 20 teenagers and wounded over 90 in June 2001], to Hadera, and to Jerusalem that only the court has the authority to decide on the killing of people."

Mazza: "[Let's assume that] at eleven o'clock at night, specific intelligence information arrives that the next day there will be a terror attack in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. It is known that the terrorist and those who dispatched him are located in a specific place and if they are not harmed, they may disappear and many people will be killed as a consequence. The defense minister will want to authorize the operation against them and you want him to come to court to debate whether there is sufficient evidentiary basis? Should we also invite the terrorist to the court so we can decide whether he is indeed a terrorist?..."

The judges ruled the following: "The High Court of Justice will not intervene in the choice of fighting methods to be used by the security forces in order to foil terror attacks in advance..."

---

[1] The court hearing was lead by Justices Eliyahu Mazza (who presided), Mishael Cheshin, and Edmond Levy. The state of Israel was represented by attorney Shay Nitzan, backed by the head of the international law division in the army, Colonel Daniel Reisner.

[2] As reported in Ha'aretz, according to the position taken by the defense, the State of Israel "no longer relates to the intifada as a popular uprising, but rather as an 'armed confrontation.' Therefore, the policy is now that of warfare rather than policing. Accordingly, the terrorists that are eliminated are fighters, and worse - illegal fighters who are not entitled to the protection of international law. As such, it is permitted to harm them in order to prevent 'future hostile acts.' Law Professor Emmanuel Gross concurs with this view in an article he published in 'Shnaton Hakirya Ha'academit.' As in the days of President Clinton, he writes, even before September 11, 'The approach was adopted according to which during war as well as in peacetime, when groups or individuals, like bin Laden, pose an imminent threat – killing them in order to prevent the threat should not be viewed as a prohibited assassination.'" I, January 31, 2002.

[3] Ma'ariv, January 30, 2002; IDF Radio, January 30, 2002; I, January 31, 2002.

[chequita guevara]

You've overspammed the thread, killing it. What did this poor little thread ever do to you, you big meanie.