Tom Gross Mideast Media Analysis

Rabbi’s anger will fuel terror, say critics

August 29, 2002

CONTENTS

1. "Resign, Rabbi Sacks" (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 28, 2002)
2. "Misplaced criticism" (Daily Telegraph, Aug. 28, 2002)
3. "Courage to speak out" (Guardian, Aug. 29, 2002)
4. "Rabbi's anger will fuel terror, say critics" (Times, Aug. 28, 2002)
5. "Israel's UK embassy rebukes British chief rabbi" (Jerusalem Post, Aug. 29, 2002)
6. "Corrupt: Leading Rabbi accuses Israel" (Daily Mirror, Aug. 28, 2002)


CONSIDERABLE PRESS REACTION TO COMMENTS BY BRITISH CHIEF RABBI

[Note by Tom Gross]

There has been considerable press reaction to the comments made on Tuesday by the British Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. According to the Associated Press: "Sacks has been unavailable for comment since a storm of controversy broke over the interview in Britain, but Sara King Scott, his spokeswoman, confirmed to The Associated Press that he had given the interview and the quotes reproduced by The Guardian were correct."

Not surprisingly, the chief rabbi's remarks were further sensationalized in the headlines of those European newspapers with an anti-Israel policy. For example, the headline in Britain's second highest circulation paper, the (Daily) Mirror, which has a readership of several million, was " Corrupt: Leading Rabbi accuses Israel".

Sacks's comments were also widely reported and further distorted throughout the Arab media. Critics point out that it would have been naive of Sacks to suppose otherwise. Some British commentators noted with amazement that "although Dr Sacks criticized Israel's right to defend itself, he does provisionally support military action by Britain in Iraq."

I attach some examples of the press reaction below, with a summary first for those who don't have time to read the pieces in full.

-- Tom Gross

 

SUMMARIES

“MORALLY INEXPLICABLE AND ASTONISHINGLY NAIVE”

1. "Resign, Rabbi Sacks" (The Jerusalem Post editorial, Aug. 28, 2002). "It is precisely because of both his reputation and standing that his recent remarks on Israel in a newspaper interview can only be described as morally inexplicable and astonishingly naive," says the paper. "Diaspora Jewish leaders are not required or expected to blindly support the Jewish state, or even to refrain from criticizing Israel. But they are required not to endorse the gross double standards and false morality applied by Israel's most bitter opponents... Israelis have sacrificed their own lives to save Palestinian lives, by fighting terrorism in a way that no other democracy has or would. Where was Sacks's eloquent voice when 23 soldiers died fighting from house to booby-trapped house in Jenin, when every other would country would have simply bombed the trapped terrorists and their civilian hostages from the air? There is a fine line between constructive criticism delivered in a conscientious manner and ill-conceived censure whose main effect is to cheer our enemies and those of the Jewish people everywhere."

 

“MISPLACED CRITICISM”

2. "Misplaced criticism" (The Daily Telegraph editorial, Aug. 28, 2002). While the paper is broadly supportive of the Chief Rabbi, it accuses The Guardian of cynically misrepresenting the Chief Rabbi's comments to serve its own agenda: "The context in which he spoke, however, is important. Dr Sacks made his comments in an interview with the Guardian, which ran an extract from his new book, The Dignity of Difference, a serious work of moral theology. However, "Chief rabbi calls for mutual toleration from world faiths" is less enticing than the Guardian headline: "Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi". It is legitimate for an author to provide arresting remarks to publicise his book, but it was at best naive for Dr Sacks to utter them in a newspaper that has been unremittingly hostile to Israel."

 

GUARDIAN PRAISES THE “COURAGE TO SPEAK OUT”

3. "Courage to speak out" (The Guardian editorial, Aug. 29, 2002). In addition to praising the chief rabbi, this editorial is much more understanding of Israel's plight and predicament than the Guardian's editorials usually are. The Guardian makes the admission – amazingly for an influential paper of the left – that outside Israel, "Some of that anti-Israel feeling stems from anti-Semitism."

 

“MORAL BLINDNESS”

4. "Rabbi's anger will fuel terror, say critics" (The Times, London, Aug. 28, 2002). "Leading Zionists criticised Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, for "moral blindness" after he made unprecedented criticisms of Israel. Zionists said that his comments would be used by enemies of Israel to fuel further violence against the Jewish state."

 

“SACKS HAS APPARENTLY FORGOTTEN THAT THE STATE OF ISRAEL IS AT WAR”

5. "Israel's UK embassy rebukes British chief rabbi" (The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 29, 2002). "In this war of self-defense," the Israeli embassy said, "Israel maintains the highest moral ground and adheres to a strict ethical code as a democratic, civic society governed by the rule of law. Any infringements by a few individuals are dealt with accordingly by the judicial system... Sacks has apparently forgotten that the State of Israel is at war, with the Palestinian terror campaign about to enter its third straight year. This is a war that Israel neither sought nor initiated, but one that was foisted upon it by an obstinate foe bent on its destruction. In such a situation, morality demands that the Jewish people defend themselves, and that is precisely what the people of Israel have been doing."

 

“CORRUPT”

6. "Corrupt: Leading rabbi accuses Israel – Violence by Israel harms Jewish faith, says Britain's leading rabbi" (The Mirror, Aug. 28, 2002)



FULL ARTICLES

SACKS FAILS TO GRASP THE “TRAGEDY” OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

Resign, Rabbi Sacks
Editorial
The Jerusalem Post
August 28, 2002

As chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, Dr. Jonathan Sacks holds one of the more prominent, and highly visible, rabbinical positions in the Western world.

Since assuming his post in 1991, he has become a regular on British radio and television, presenting the people of Queen Elizabeth's realm both Jew and non-Jew with an image of Judaism that has been both erudite and appealing. Rabbi Sacks has authored more than a dozen books, lectured at universities such as Oxford, and even received an honorary doctorate from the archbishop of Canterbury.

Yet, it is precisely because of both his reputation and standing that his recent remarks on Israel in a newspaper interview can only be described as morally inexplicable and astonishingly naive.

Speaking with The Guardian long one of Israel's harshest critics he said that Israel's response to the Palestinian issue is "incompatible" with the ideals of Judaism and is "corrupting" Israeli culture. "I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic," he said. "It is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals."

Going one step further, Sacks spoke of "things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew." In particular, he noted, he was "profoundly shocked" by reports of smiling Israeli soldiers posing for a photograph with the corpse of a slain Palestinian. He also asserted that in 1967 he was "convinced that Israel had to give back all the land for the sake of peace" and added that he does not renounce that view now.

Sacks's views, it will be said, are similar to a fair number of Israelis and their political representatives. But therein lies the rub. Sacks is not an Israeli and he is not here with us fighting this war.

Diaspora Jewish leaders are not required or expected to blindly support the Jewish state, or even to refrain from criticizing Israel. But they are required not to endorse the gross double standards and false morality applied by Israel's most bitter opponents.

For Sacks to lecture us about "our deepest ideals" is worse than insulting. It implies that we are not as appalled by exceptional looting and gruesome grandstanding as much as he is. It pretends that we want peace less than he does. And it deprecates the fundamental value that we are fighting for our freedom and our very lives.

Sacks has apparently forgotten that the State of Israel is at war, with the Palestinian terror campaign about to enter its third straight year. This is a war that Israel neither sought nor initiated, but one that was foisted upon it by an obstinate foe bent on its destruction. In such a situation, morality demands that the Jewish people defend themselves, and that is precisely what the people of Israel have been doing.

Indeed, rather than "corrupting" us, this war of self-defense has brought out some of our finer qualities, such as patriotism, national pride, and a willingness to make personal sacrifices on behalf of the common good. Further, Israelis have sacrificed their own lives to save Palestinian lives, by fighting terrorism in a way that no other democracy has or would. Where was Sacks's eloquent voice when 23 soldiers died fighting from house to booby-trapped house in Jenin, when every other would country would have simply bombed the trapped terrorists and their civilian hostages from the air?

When young Israelis faithfully answer the call of reserve duty, they are embodying the highest of Jewish values and standards, for they are leaving aside the safety and security of their homes, donning uniforms, and going out to defend their families and their nation from attack.

As Rabbi Sholom Gold of Jerusalem told the BBC yesterday, "The only moral response that is compatible with Jewish belief is to stand up and fight and defend yourself. And every act of that sort is not immoral; on the contrary, it is the height of morality." What Sacks fails to grasp is that the "tragedy" of the current situation lies not in the fact that Israel has chosen to defend itself, but that the Palestinians chose the path of violence, in the process sending the entire region into a morass of hatred and bloodshed.

By assailing Israel, he has done his fellow Jews a grave disservice, sowing defeatism rather than deliverance. There is a fine line between constructive criticism delivered in a conscientious manner and ill-conceived censure whose main effect is to cheer our enemies and those of the Jewish people everywhere. Wherever one might reasonably draw that line, Sacks has crossed it by a wide margin. If Sacks is so embarrassed by the spectacle of Jews defending themselves as best and as morally as they know how that he cannot contain himself, that is his right, but he cannot at the same time hold office as leader of an important Diaspora Jewish community.

 

“IT WAS PREDICTABLE THAT THE GUARDIAN WOULD TURN HIS WORDS INTO AMMUNITION FOR ITS OWN PURPOSES”

Misplaced criticism
Editorial
The Daily Telegraph
August 28, 2002

The Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, is no stranger to controversy, and he has certainly stirred one up with his latest remarks about Israel. Dr Sacks sees the present conflict as "tragic, because it is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals".

He cannot abide the "hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture". He is made "very uncomfortable as a Jew" by "things that happen on a daily basis". The only example he gives is his "profound shock" at pictures of cheery Israeli soldiers posing with a dead Palestinian.

Note the careful emphasis on "the long run"; note, too, that he is shocked, not by the killing of terrorists in self-defence, but by any hint of triumphalism. It is a pity that Dr Sacks did not say more clearly what exactly disturbs him. A nation engaged in a struggle for survival is likely to do many things that make outsiders uncomfortable; that does not make them wrong.

In arguing that hatred may ultimately corrupt the hater, Dr Sacks is merely restating a truism of Judaeo-Christian morality. He is, of course, not a politician but a rabbi, and his target was not Israeli policy, but the moral consequences of a siege mentality.

He cannot be faulted for measuring the conduct of his fellow Jews by the law of Moses. And it is Israel's greatest strength that, as an island of democracy in a sea of despotism, it sees self-criticism not as a luxury but as a necessity.

The context in which he spoke, however, is important. Dr Sacks made his comments in an interview with the Guardian, which ran an extract from his new book, The Dignity of Difference, a serious work of moral theology.

However, "Chief rabbi calls for mutual toleration from world faiths" is less enticing than the Guardian headline: "Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi". It is legitimate for an author to provide arresting remarks to publicise his book, but it was at best naive for Dr Sacks to utter them in a newspaper that has been unremittingly hostile to Israel.

It was predictable that the Guardian would turn his words into ammunition for its own purposes, so distracting attention from the deeper message of his book.

Jews and Gentiles alike may reasonably debate whether Dr Sacks meant to give comfort to Israel's enemies. He has surely earned the right to the benefit of the doubt. When Israel has never been more embattled, when anti-Semitism is again ubiquitous, and when British Jews have never felt less secure, however, his own community might have expected a more robust stance.

There is a time and a place for a chief rabbi to draw attention to Israel's faults. This was, perhaps, the wrong time; and it was certainly the wrong place.

 

“A MESSAGE OF MORALITY”

Courage to speak out
The chief rabbi sets the right example
The Guardian
August 29, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/comment/0,10551,782047,00.html

For Jews in the diaspora to criticise Israel's conduct has long been a matter of extreme delicacy verging on a taboo. Opinion leaders provoke debate on many public issues, but on Israel the conventional view in the Jewish community was that there were only two policies, either unqualified support or discreet silence. Those who broke the unwritten rule were reminded that as non-Israelis they could not understand the dangers and pressures that weigh on the country every day and night.

So when Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks decided to air controversial views about Israel's conduct in the occupied territories, he knew he would cause a storm. He has had a volume of email from Israel, much of it hostile. Jews in the United States (where the loyalty principle is strong) have also been vigorous in attack. Among British Jews the mood has been more balanced, with many applauding the chief rabbi for his courage and for his argument that "there are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew". In Israel too there have been influential voices of praise. Arik Aschermann of Rabbis for Human Rights, an organisation of reform, orthodox, conservative and reconstructionist rabbis, made the point that chief rabbi Sacks was saying things "which many others believe but are hesitant to say out loud".

There are many reasons why the old policy of "diaspora, silence please" no longer holds water. With the advent of the suicide bomber striking indiscriminately inside Israel, Jews who visit Israel are as much at risk as those who live there. By coming to Israel they feel and share the same fear. Also, in their lives outside Israel many Jews report increased discomfort as concern rises over Israel's policies. Some of that anti-Israel feeling stems from anti-Semitism. Often it is nothing of the kind: it is simply a reasoned critique of Israeli policies. When diaspora Jews share those views, to say so publicly is not a betrayal of Judaism but a duty to be honest. Still, the greatest reason for abandoning silence is the one Rabbi Aschermann cites. It gives encouragement to those Jews who have not yet dared speak out.

It is an old paradox that there has always been fiercer debate and louder dissent among Israelis than in the diaspora. What Rabbi Sacks said is by no means radical in Israel. Hundreds of soldiers and reserve officers feel that prolonged occupation of Palestinian territories is making them do things that undermine Jewish values. Some have chosen to go to prison rather than serve in the West Bank and Gaza. Others agree, but reluctantly answer the call out of solidarity with their brother soldiers. Yet it is also true that the breadth of debate in Israel has diminished in the last two years. The fact that the two main parties share power in a coalition government has made frontal opposition hard. The suicide bomb attacks have created a tighter sense of national unity.

With an election on the horizon, the mood of conformity may not last much longer, especially now that Amram Mitzna, the potential Labour party standard-bearer, has shown a clear willingness to reopen the debate about the need for serious political negotiations with the Palestinians, the folly of trying to maintain all the settlements and the bankruptcy of relying exclusively on military force. For Jews abroad to join this discussion can only be beneficial. Rabbi Sacks has not gone into detail on the political choices or negotiating positions on offer. His is a message of morality, but it is no less urgent a part of the debate.

 

“MORAL BLINDNESS”

Rabbi's anger will fuel terror, say critics
By Ruth Gledhill and Ross Dunn
The Times (of London)
August 28, 2002

Leading Zionists criticised Dr Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, for "moral blindness" after he made unprecedented criticisms of Israel yesterday.

Zionists said that his comments would be used by enemies of Israel to fuel further violence against the Jewish state.

Dr Sacks, whose family live in Jerusalem, said that Israel's stance was incompatible with the deepest ideals of Judaism, and that the conflict with the Palestinians was corrupting the culture of Israel.

In an interview with The Guardian, Dr Sacks said things were happening daily that made him feel uncomfortable as a Jew.

In response, Eric Graus, president of Likud-Herut, a British-based movement that promotes the Zionist ideology, said: "It is unfortunate that the Chief Rabbi has allowed himself to be used by people who, at best, cannot be described as friends of Israel.

"Some of his comments as reported in the media can only act as an encouragement to our enemies to further intransigence and violence against Israel and the Jewish people.

"The overriding concern which governs (the) policy of the Israeli Government is the saving of life, which is a cardinal principle of the Jewish faith.

"By failing to recognise that Israel is acting in the highest tradition of the Jewish people, the Chief Rabbi is displaying a moral blindness."

Mr Graus, also speaking as a co-chairman of the (British) National Zionist Council, added: "We are worried that this will be used by the Arabs as an indication that there is a split and that their acts of violence and terrorism are working and that it will encourage more violence.

"I do believe that the Israeli Government is acting with extreme moderation compared with how anyone else would act under the circumstances."

Rabbi David Rosen, a former Chief Rabbi of Ireland and now international director for inter-religious affairs of the American Jewish Committee, also said that Dr Sacks's remarks might be used by Israel's enemies. It must be made clear, he said, that Israel had tried to make peace with the Palestinians but its offers had been rejected.

"The perspective (of) Israel and the majority of the Jewish people, is that we are in this situation against our will, not of our choosing.

"In essence, the criticisms of Chief Rabbi Sacks are perfectly valid, as long as the context is clear. Unfortunately, I am sure there are those who will pick up on this with glee for nefarious purposes, and want to find an opportunity to bash Israel."

Eric Moonman, president of the Zionist Federation, said: "It is not a question of apportioning blame or saying any individual Israeli is wrong. We all share a deep concern. The Chief Rabbi has considerable vision in a way that few have got in Britain. He is entitled to try and express that."

Dr Sacks's comments were welcomed by the progressive wing of the Jewish community. Rabbi Dr Jonathan Romain, a spokesman for the Reform Synagogues of Great Britain, said: "I welcome his comments. I regard him as representative. You can only be a true friend of Israel if you reserve the right to be critical when necessary, just as any citizen of this country would do."

Rabbi Dr Charles Middleburgh, executive director of the Union of Progressive and Liberal Synagogues, said: "The Chief Rabbi has been very courageous in speaking out. He has not said anything that progressive rabbis have not been saying for ages. But the point is that he has said it.

"There are now deep levels of concern throughout the Jewish community about the effect that the current situation is having, not just on the political and military realities but actually on the soul of Israel."

The Labour MP Gerald Kaufman said: "I have a very high respect for the Chief Rabbi and I am pleased that he has come round to the kind of thing I have been saying for many, many months now. I think the impact will be considerable.

"Of course it will arouse some hostility among those people who believe that there is absolutely nothing the Israeli Government does that should be criticised.

"But it will not have any impact in Israel. Sharon will not pay any attention to comments from an enlightened cleric in the diaspora."

 

ISRAEL’S UK EMBASSY REBUKES BRITISH CHIEF RABBI

Israel's UK embassy rebukes British chief rabbi
By Douglas Davis
The Jerusalem Post
August 29, 2002

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1029920598843

The Israeli Embassy has taken the unprecedented step of publicly rebuking British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks over comments he made earlier this week.

In a statement Wednesday "in reference to the interview on 27 August 2002 in The Guardian with the Chief Rabbi Professor Jonathan Sacks," the embassy points out that Israel has been "forced to fight for its existence as a Jewish state and to protect its citizens" in a war of self-defense.

"This tragic war, which no other democracy has had to face in recent times, is not of Israel's making and contrary to its wishes," the statement said.

"It has been imposed upon Israel by the Palestinian leadership, who rebuffed Israel's far-reaching offer of peace and instead adopted a strategy of indiscriminate terror and virulent incitement."

In this war of self-defense, the statement continued, "Israel maintains the highest moral ground and adheres to a strict ethical code as a democratic, civic society governed by the rule of law. Any infringements by a few individuals are dealt with accordingly by the judicial system."

It notes that peace has always been a moral and strategic objective of Israel, and that successive governments have made "great efforts" to end the conflict and achieve peace with the Palestinians and the wider Arab world.

"Those Arab leaders who have renounced violence have reached historic achievements with Israel through peaceful negotiation. Yet the only result of this Palestinian campaign of terror has been to destroy many innocent lives and to shatter families, dreams and goodwill on both sides.

"The Palestinians' aspirations can only be addressed through peaceful dialogue. The current national unity government of Israel has repeatedly stated that, once the necessary measures are taken by the Palestinian leadership to end the campaign of terror, it is more than willing to resume negotiations and address all the outstanding issues."

In the interview, which was intended to publicize his latest book, Sacks told The Guardian that the ongoing violence is "forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals."

He said the current situation is "nothing less than tragic" and added that he was "profoundly shocked" by reports of Israeli soldiers being photographed smiling alongside the body of a dead Palestinian.

Such things, he said, "make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew," adding that "there is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with the absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture."

Sacks has been unavailable for comment since a storm of controversy broke over the interview on Tuesday.

 

“CORRUPT”

Corrupt: Leading Rabbi accuses Israel
Violence by Israel harms Jewish faith, says Britain's leading rabbi
By Fiona Cummins
The (Daily) Mirror
August 28, 2002

Britain's Chief Rabbi warned yesterday that Israel's conflict with the Palestinians was corrupting its Jewish beliefs.

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said the nation's actions were "incompatible with our deepest ideals".

Professor Sacks, who normally offers only full public support for Israel, revealed that he was "profoundly shocked" by the scene of smiling Israeli servicemen posing for a photograph with the corpse of a dead Palestinian.

He said: "There are things which happen on a daily basis that make me very uncomfortable as a Jew.

"There is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with an absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture."

Prof Sacks, leader of Britain's 280,000 Jews, added: "I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic because it is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals."

He called for Israel to bring an end to its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And he even admitted that he would be willing to meet Muslim fundamentalists, including Sheikh Abu Hamza, the north London cleric who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden and who has compared Jews to Satan.

Prof Sacks's comments, made during an interview in The Guardian, prompted a sharp rebuke from Rabbi Sholom Gold, Dean of the Jerusalem College for Adults, based in Israel. Rabbi Gold said: "We who are living here, day in and day out, our perspective is the one that really counts."

He told BBC Radio 4's The World at One that the Palestinian agenda was "the destruction of the state of Israel".

"For this, there is only one response. The only moral response that is compatible with Jewish belief is to stand up and fight and defend yourself. And every act of that sort is not immoral. On the contrary, it is the height of morality.

"I have a great deal of respect for the Chief Rabbi ... therefore, it is extremely sad for me to hear him make comments of such a nature, which, for all intents and purposes, will now make him irrelevant in the world Jewish community."

Back in London, however, Labour MP Gerald Kaufman said: "I have a very high respect for the Chief Rabbi and I am pleased that he has come round to the kind of thing I have been saying for many, many months now. I think the impact will be considerable.

"Of course, it will arouse some hostility among those people who believe that there is absolutely nothing the Israeli government does that should be criticised.

"But it will not have any impact in Israel. Sharon won't pay attention to comments from an enlightened cleric in the diaspora."

Rabbi Dr Charles Middleburgh, who is executive director of the Union of Liberal and Progressive Synagogues, welcomed Prof Sacks's comments.

Dr Middleburgh said: "I salute Jonathan Sacks for the courage he has shown in expressing these views in the certain knowledge that they would not go down very well in certain quarters.

"I would like to think that Rabbi Sacks's views, rather than making him less relevant to the general debate, will actually help to make him more relevant. I think that Rabbi Sacks will be getting a lot of flak from the orthodox sections in the Jewish community.

"But I hope very much that – as far as he goes, and, of course, many of us would like him to go much further and express much more detail than he has – we will give him support."


Israel set on tragic path, says UK chief rabbi

August 27, 2002

“I WOULD EVEN SIT DOWN WITH ABU HAMZA”

I attach a news report ("Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi") from today's Guardian of London, followed by the interview that the UK chief rabbi gave to the Guardian. Among other things, the news report states that "[Rabbi] Sacks says he would even sit down with Sheikh Abu Hamza – the fundamentalist north London cleric who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden and who describes himself as a Taliban sympathizer. Yesterday Abu Hamza was quoted saying it was "Okay" to kill non-Muslims, and equating Jews with Satan."

It is worth reading the interview because it is not clear that the news report accurately reflects the full gist of the chief rabbi's remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or in what way his remarks are "unprecedentedly strong" – compared to the things he and many other Jews and Israelis on both the left and center-right regularly say.

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLES

“I REGARD THE CURRENT SITUATION AS NOTHING LESS THAN TRAGIC”

Israel set on tragic path, says chief rabbi
Guardian interview will shock Jewish community
By Jonathan Freedland
The Guardian
August 27, 2002

Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, today delivers an unprecedentedly strong warning to Israel, arguing that the country is adopting a stance "incompatible" with the deepest ideals of Judaism, and that the current conflict with the Palestinians is "corrupting" Israeli culture.

In a move that will send shockwaves through Israel and the world Jewish community, Professor Sacks departs from his usual policy of offering only public endorsement of Israel, and broad support for moves toward peace, by giving an explicit verdict on the effect that 35 years of military occupation and decades of conflict are having on Israel and the Jewish people.

"I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic," he tells the Guardian in an exclusive interview. "It is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long run with our deepest ideals."

He goes on to speak of being "profoundly shocked" at the recent reports of smiling Israeli servicemen posing for a photograph with the corpse of a slain Palestinian. "There is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with the absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture."

He also admits that in 1967 he was "convinced that Israel had to give back all the [newly-gained] land for the sake of peace" – and he does not renounce that view now.

Prof Sacks is at pains to underline his continuing, avowed support for the Jewish state – citing repeated efforts by Israel to make peace, and the Palestinians' failure to take the same "cognitive leap" towards compromise. Nevertheless, and despite the careful phrasing of his remarks, referring twice to dangers "in the long run", many in rightwing Jewish and Israeli circles will be angered by his comments.

"The nature of these comments are quite unlike anything he has ever said before," one senior Jewish community figure said yesterday. "The right will be surprised and angry." Liberal and dovish Jews are bound to welcome his statements.

Since becoming chief rabbi in 1991 of Britain's Orthodox Jews, and the de facto leader of the country's 280,000-strong Jewish community, Prof Sacks has successfully avoided any overtly political pronouncements on Israel.

He has preferred to be a public defender of the country and to offer broad support for the pursuit of peace as a divinely-sanctioned endeavour. At the time of the Oslo peace process, he was in regular correspondence with the Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

But he has steered clear of opining on the moral status of Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, in sharp contrast with his predecessor, Immanuel Jakobovits, who sparked outrage more than a decade ago when he condemned Israel for "lording it over" the Palestinians.

Community insiders predicted that Prof Sacks' latest comments could prompt a similar wave of fury. Much of Anglo-Jewish opinion has followed the Israeli shift to the right since the outbreak of the current intifada two years ago.

The chief rabbi is bound to cause further controversy by calling for dialogue with the most extremist representatives of radical Islam.

In today's interview, timed for the publication of his new book, The Dignity of Difference, which is serialised in the Guardian this week, Prof Sacks says he would even sit down with Sheikh Abu Hamza – the fundamentalist north London cleric who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden and who describes himself as a Taliban sympathiser. Yesterday the sheikh was quoted saying it was "OK" to kill non-Muslims, and equating Jews with Satan.

Nevertheless, Prof Sacks says a meeting between the two is "a thought worth pursuing. I absolutely don't rule it out."

The chief rabbi, 54, also reveals that he has already met one of Iran's highest-ranking clerics, Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi-Amoli. At a meeting brokered by the Foreign Office and never disclosed until now, the two met for secret talks during a UN conference of religious leaders in New York in 2000.

"We established within minutes a common language", says Prof Sacks, the "particular language believers share."

The chief rabbi's new book is subtitled "How to avoid the clash of civilisations", and aims to offer the world a roadmap away from disaster. He calls on orthodox faiths in particular to realise that difference is not a problem to be managed, but an "essential" part of creation itself.

 

“PROPHET OF HOPE”: AN INTERVIEW WITH BRITAIN’S CHIEF RABBI

Prophet of hope
Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has always wielded more clout than the size of his 280,000 strong flock would suggest, but now he has embarked on his most ambitious mission yet: to map out a way for different cultures to get along in a globalised world. He tells Jonathan Freedland why he is willing to talk to even pro-Taliban imam Abu Hamza.
The Guardian
August 27, 2002

The chief rabbi is deeply, fiercely ambitious. Not personally, you understand, but for the human race. He sets his sights high; his goals are on an epic scale. His latest book, The Dignity of Difference, is typical, its aim summarised in the subtitle: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilisations.

"I'm issuing a call in a number of languages," he declares, "and to a number of different constituencies, to say, 'Guys, we have to begin to conceptualise our world in a different way if we are to survive the 21st century.'" The book seeks to offer nothing less than a new "mode of coexistence for the whole planet".

Not bad for the spiritual leader of a community numbering no more than 280,000 (less if you count only the orthodox Jews his office formally represents). But that fact has never inhibited Jonathan Sacks. Through his broadcasts – he's a Thought for the Day regular – and his regular newspaper columns, he has become a recognised voice in the national conversation. His easy gift with the soundbite, delivered in his trademark mellifluous tones, carrying their vague hint of the transatlantic, has made him a media favourite. When the conventional wisdom grew especially harsh on George Carey, it proclaimed Sacks as the pre-eminent religious leader in the land (a position he may have to cede now that Rowan Williams is heading for Canterbury). He has regular contact with Tony Blair and describes as one of his "loveliest friendships" his connection with Gordon Brown. The chancellor has apparently called Sacks into No 11 for several conversations on how the latest New Labour thinking "plays out in the Jewish sources".

So the chief, as Jewish community activists tend to refer to him, is used to punching above his weight. That, and stellar academic credentials, have equipped him with the confidence to ask the big questions.

The latest challenge is to construct a way for different cultures to get along in a globalised world. The old mechanisms were fine in their day, says Sacks: the principles of religious tolerance or separation of church and state worked well inside the boundaries of a nation state. But we are no longer living in neatly defined, single societies; now we inhabit a world where "everything affects everything else", whether it's terror or economics. So now we need "a doctrine strong enough to allow different groups to live together without an overarching political structure."

Sacks' manoeuvre is to see the problem as the solution; to view difference not as a difficulty to be overcome, but as the very essence of life. He's looked at the latest thinking in biology, which confirms how similar we all are – all life made up of the same four basic characters of genetic code – but also how essential difference is, with every ecosystem dependent on bio-diversity.

He's gone back to his roots as a Cambridge economics undergraduate, including, in the new book, both a critique of the excesses of global capitalism and a moral defence of the free market. Sacks reminds himself of Ricardo's rule that, when one man trades axe-heads with another who catches fish, they both benefit.

But biology and economics were not enough for Sacks. He wanted an argument that would persuade the three great Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – that difference is a virtue. Since orthodox religion is responsible for so much of the world's bloodshed, with September 11 only the most obvious example, it was no good coming up with secular, rational arguments for diversity. He needed a proof that would come "from the heart of the whirlwind". He went back to the sacred texts that the three major faiths share.

Sacks looked at the first 12 chapters of Genesis, before Isaac and Ishmael part: the symbolic moment when Judaism and Islam begin their separate journeys. "The key narrative is the Tower of Babel," Sacks explains. "God splits up humanity into a multiplicity of cultures and a diversity of languages." God's message to Abraham is: "Be different, so as to teach humanity the dignity of difference."

That may sound like a statement of the multicultural obvious, but the chief rabbi knows that, for the orthodox faiths, such talk marks a profound shift. Instead of the familiar notion of "one God, one truth, one way", Sacks is claiming divine approval for human variety.

And he believes that even religious fundamentalists will have to take notice of this message – because it's right there, within their own sacred texts. "Religious tolerance or pluralism have always been secular doctrines that could be dismissed as western or decadent by fundamentalists. This idea they cannot dismiss."

But such talk will surely not fly with the most hardline Muslim clerics, those who endorse, for example, the Hamas and Islamic Jihad suicide bombings against Israelis? Don't be so sure, comes the answer. It turns out that Britain's chief rabbi has had several secret meetings, previously undisclosed, with a variety of radical Muslims, including Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi-Amoli, one of Iran's highest-ranking clerics. They met during a UN conference of religious leaders in 2000; the Iranian requested the meeting, the foreign office arranged it.

"We established within minutes a common language, because we take certain things very seriously: we take faith seriously, we take texts seriously. It's a particular language that believers share." A language, says Sacks, which most Muslims feel is not understood in the west.

That encounter, among others, gave him the confidence to believe it was possible to "speak across difference". Now he is convinced that, if both sides to any conflict – whether a marriage dispute or a bloody war – truly listen to each other, they can, eventually, reach a resolution.

But aren't there some differences too wide to bridge? Could Sacks "hear the voice of God" from the mouth of a Muslim extremist who approved of terrorist violence? Could he even bring himself to meet such a man?

"Yes."

Would he meet, say, Abu Hamza, the sheikh of Finsbury Park, a Taliban sympathiser who admits to sharing the views of Osama bin Laden?

"Yes." In fact, Abu Hamza sent a message of support to the Jewish community of Finsbury Park, north London after its synagogue was recently desecrated. So a meeting with the sheikh is, says the chief rabbi, "a thought worth pursuing. I absolutely don't rule it out."

This is not, insists Sacks, "Pollyanna-ish optimism", but a conviction born of experience. He believes that even the widest chasms – those that could end in a clash of civilisations – can be bridged, so long as each side gives the other a respectful hearing. The only impossibility is dialogue with people "who kill those with whom they disagree." He could not sit down with a would-be suicide bomber: "In order to listen, I have to be alive."

Hovering above our conversation, and much of the book, is, inevitably, the Middle East. So much of what he says – about the need for both sides to listen to the pain, and hear the narratives, of the other – applies directly to the conflict of Israelis and Palestinians. Yet that conflict appears, explicitly at least, only rarely in the book.

Which feeds directly into a critique often made of Sacks by the Jewish left: that he has failed to follow the bold lead set by his predecessor, Immanuel Jakobovits. Despite his reputation as an ultra-conservative on social issues such as homosexuality, and as Margaret Thatcher's favourite cleric, Jakobovits was renowned inside Israel and the wider Jewish world as a dove, advocating territorial compromise with the Palestinians long before it became fashionable. He infuriated many rightwing Jews with his stance against Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, but he never wavered.

Sacks has maintained no such position, so that even now – 11 years into a term that began when he was 43 and could run until he is 65 – many Jews admit that they can't quite pin down his views on this most urgent of questions. One observer, who has followed his career closely, says the chief rabbi has a knack for wrapping his pronouncements up in parable, quotation or ambiguous language, balancing his statements with qualifications, so that "both left and right end up feeling he is on their side". It is a handy skill in a politician but, to his critics, this eagerness to please has been Sacks' key failing, on communal issues as well as Israel: he has worked too hard at keeping all wings of Britain's factional Jewish community on board, and not hard enough at setting a lead.

So what are his views of the current Israeli situation? What does he make of the ancient Jewish command, quoted in his book: "Do not ill-treat a stranger [i.e. a non-Israelite] or oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt"? How can that square with Israel's 35-year-long occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?

"You cannot ignore a command that is repeated 36 times in the Mosaic books: 'You were exiled in order to know what it feels like to be an exile.' I regard that as one of the core projects of a state that is true to Judaic principle. And therefore I regard the current situation as nothing less than tragic, because it is forcing Israel into postures that are incompatible in the long- run with our deepest ideals."

That statement will be incendiary in some Jewish and Israeli circles, and he is reluctant to go further, to specify which Israeli actions might be incompatible with those "deepest ideals" of Judaism. He wants, instead, to put the other side, to explain how the Israeli peace camp is repeatedly "checkmated" by Palestinian terror: every time Israeli liberals preach compromise, Palestinians kill more innocents. He wants to stress how Israel made the "cognitive leap" towards compromise when former prime minister Ehud Barak offered major concessions two years ago, and how "there has been no parallel cognitive leap" on the Palestinian side. And he does all this fluently and with passion, his language always accessible – proving why it is that Jewish communal leaders now regard Sacks as Israel's best defender in Britain.

Still, when pressed, he will admit the anguish Israel's own conduct causes him. "There are things that happen on a daily basis which make me feel very uncomfortable as a Jew." He was "profoundly shocked" by reports of smiling Israeli soldiers posing for a photograph with the corpse of a slain Palestinian. "There is no question that this kind of prolonged conflict, together with the absence of hope, generates hatreds and insensitivities that in the long run are corrupting to a culture."

Would he join those rabbis who have described the occupation as morally corrupting? He answers by telling how, in 1967, in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day war, he had a rare argument with his late father. "I was convinced that Israel had to give back all the land for the sake of peace. My father, bless him, was convinced that Israel's neighbours would never make peace. Thirty five years later, I think we were both right."

Would it not help if he was less roundabout on this topic? No, he says, people listen to "a still, small voice" more readily than a loud one. Besides, in desperate times, a prophet is called on to give a message of hope: Jews feel so beleaguered by the current Middle Eastern situation, he says, it is his job to encourage, not scold.

He's more direct on Iraq. He would support military action on three conditions: if there was a clear objective and endgame, a broad coalition of support, and very strict safeguards against civilian casualties. Was the new archbishop of Canterbury wrong to speak out against a war? "That's what is called the dignity of difference," says Sacks, his eyes screwed up in a benign smile.


Memri responds to the Guardian

“SELECTIVE WHITAKER”

[Note by Tom Gross]

As a follow-up to my previous dispatch (The Guardian attacks Memri, August 13, 2002), I attach by Memri’s president, Yigal Carmon, “Media organisation rebuts accusations of selective journalism” (The Guardian, August 21, 2002).

In his piece Carmon asks does “Whitaker read the Arab press at all?”

But it certainly appears that he does. While Whitaker spent 1,700 words (about twice the length of a standard Guardian op-ed) attacking Memri as a “mysterious organization” with an “air of secrecy,” he forgot to tell Guardian readers that in addition to his work as Middle East editor of The Guardian, Whitaker also runs an anti-Israel website called Arab Gateway (http://www.al-bab.com). Among other things, Whitaker’s site has pages about non-Arab minorities in the Middle East, such as Berbers and Kurds – but no page on Jews. And Whitaker’s site has a “Palestine” section but no “Israel” section. I attach extracts from an HonestReporting.com dispatch (August 15, 2002) covering this. This was also reported on previously in The Wall Street Journal online.

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLES

“AN EXAMPLE OF SELECTIVE JOURNALISM”

Media organisation rebuts accusations of selective journalism
A Guardian Unlimited article recently questioned the neutrality of a US-based institute that translates articles from Arabic newspapers. Here, the institute’s president responds
By Yigal Carmon
The Guardian
August 21, 2002

Brian Whitaker’s Selective Memri is an example of selective journalism.

Disregarding the Guardian’s own code – “A newspaper’s primary office is the gathering of news” – Whitaker has simply recycled inaccurate and previously published material.

Two days before his piece appeared on the web, he called our Washington office to ask for the Arabic original of an article translated by Memri from the London daily Al-Hayat. He could have used this opportunity to check his facts. He chose not to do so.

To start with, Memri is not a “mysterious organisation”. Our telephone number, fax and email appear on every dispatch. True, the office address is no longer posted on our website. Whitaker may scoff, but we have received threats from rightwing radicals in America.

Had he asked, we would have provided him with our addresses in Washington, London, Berlin, Moscow and Jerusalem (as well as informing him that I retired from government office almost a decade ago).

We could also have told Whitaker that we have over 30 employees of different nationalities, rather than six. But then, facts might have got in the way of a “good story”.

Memri is involved in a variety of projects, apart from translating material into most European languages and Turkish: an economic project, headed by a former World Bank expert, an Arab anti-Semitism documentation project, studies of school books from Arab educational systems, monitoring Friday sermons in the Arab world.

Most important and innovative is our reform project, which highlights liberal voices, not only from western capitals, but also from within the Arab and Muslim world, courageously calling for political, religious, social and economic reform, and taking all the risks involved.

Is this “Selective Memri”? No, it’s Selective Whitaker. He cites the Memri-translated “Blood Libel” – an article that resurrected an ancient myth that accuses Jews of using the blood of (non-Jewish) children to make a special pastry for the Purim religious festival – published by the Saudi al-Riyadh daily.

This is a paper which, contrary to Whitaker’s statement, is identified as government-controlled by the Saudi government’s website, by the BBC and by news agencies such as Associated Press.

It is true that the editor later apologised and the columnist was sacked. Memri reported all this, giving the paper credit even though these events came in the wake of severe US criticism.

Whitaker implies that this was a marginal case – another article deliberately “selected” by Memri that merely reflects the “ignorance of many Arabs – even those [as] highly educated” as the author of the piece – a university teacher.

Does Brian Whitaker still think it mere ignorance when the major Egyptian government daily Al-Ahram follows a similar line? The government-appointed editor-in-chief is currently facing prosecution in France (and possible prosecution in the UK) for incitement to anti-Semitism and racial violence.

The editor is prepared to do battle over his right to spread this poison and he is supported by most of Egypt’s literary elite, parliamentarians, trades unions and various organisations throughout the Arab world.

Surely the Guardian’s editorial board would agree that this goes far beyond ignorance. It is the deliberate dissemination of a Blood Libel.

Another supposedly marginal issue “selected” by Memri is the Ode to Terrorism by the Saudi Ambassador to the UK, Ghazi Al-Qusaybi. Were Whitaker a regular reader of the Arab papers published in London, he would know that it is not a matter of poetry.

Al-Qusaybi has authored several articles expressing the same political position (Memri Dispatches 251, 256, 389 at www.memri.org). Indeed, does Whitaker read the Arab press at all? Or does he rely on Arab Media Watch?

If this is the case, we could provide him with some documentation on their bias. In any event, I wouldn’t blame him for seeking assistance. Monitoring the Arab media is far too much for one person to handle. We have a team of 20 translators doing it, and we can’t possibly cover it all.

Whitaker’s view of Memri’s work is not shared by others. In fact most of the well-known media in the US respect and frequently quote Memri, for example the New York Times, Washington Post, New Republic, The New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe and Miami Herald.

The Guardian itself published Thomas Friedman’s column (October 16 2001) commending Memri translations. The Qatari Al-Jazeera television channel also trusts Memri and frequently asks me to appear on their programmes.

Even the Palestinian National Authority website has posted our material – with attribution. On the other hand, it is interesting to see whom Whitaker did choose to quote to back up his allegations against Memri. Ibrahim Hooper is the spokesman of CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which supports Hamas.

 

“… WHITAKER ALSO RUNS THE ANTI-ISRAEL WEBSITE ARAB GATEWAY…”

Extracts from HonestReporting.com dispatch
August 15, 2002

Also this week, the Guardian’s Middle East editor, Brian Whitaker, authored a piece entitled “Selective Memri” (August 12). He article is an attack on Memri, the Middle East Media Research Institute (http://www.memri.org), which provides translations of articles and speeches from various Arabic sources.

In his attack, Whitaker acknowledges that “nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri’s translations.”

So what’s the problem?

For starters, Whitaker quotes Ibraham Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who complains that Memri depicts the Muslim world in a bad light. Hardly a valid criticism, considering that Memri merely translates the Arabic media!

Whitaker also denounces Memri for employing three former members of Israeli intelligence. What Whitaker doesn’t tell us is that Memri’s founder, Colonel Yigal Carmon, and most of his young staff, are on the left wing of the Israeli political spectrum. Carmon was an advisor to the late Yitzhak Rabin and is a supporter of territorial compromise.

Whitaker scoffs at the fact that the names of Memri’s staff and office address were removed from their website due to concern of attack by Arab extremists. Whitaker calls this an “over-the-top precaution.” One wonders if the Guardian would consider itself “over-the-top” for taking such precautions to protect its own staff from violence.

Read the article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Most surprising of all is that while Whitaker spends 1,700 words attacking Memri as a “mysterious organization” and its “air of secrecy,” he has forgotten to tell Guardian readers of his own secrets. For in addition to his work as Middle East editor of The Guardian, Whitaker also runs the anti-Israel, website Arab Gateway (http://www.al-bab.com).

Arab Gateway lists viciously anti-Israel “associate sites,” such as that of the spuriously-named “Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding” (http://www.caabu.org).

Whitaker’s site has pages about non-Arab minorities in the Middle East, such as Berbers and Kurds – but no page on Jews. The site’s section on “maps” lists a “country map of Palestine” (we didn’t know Palestine was a country), but upon clicking the link it takes you to a file at the Univ.of Texas archives with a slightly different name: “israel_map.jpg”.

See a beaming photo of Whitaker on the “about” page of Arab Gateway at
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/about.htm.


Jenin: The rush to judgment

THE MASSACRE THAT NEVER WAS

[Note by Tom Gross]

I attach an article below, written earlier this month in response to the UN’s August 1 findings that there was no massacre in Jenin this past April. The piece was commissioned by a British newspaper but then unused for political reasons. [TG adds: It was later published on several websites, and incorporated into two books of essays, including one by Random House in New York, though it never appeared in the UK.]

The first part of the article covers some of the same ground as a previous article I wrote in late April titled “Jeningrad,” but adds some parts about the BBC. The latter part deals with the British media’s continuing failure to publish adequate corrections to their original reports – even though the UN report was compiled with input from UN officials, the mayor of Jenin, five UN member states, private relief organizations and international groups such as Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch.

The Guardian’s new editorial (August 2) was subtitled “Israel is still wanted for questioning”. The Independent’s reporter Phil Reeves wrote a comment piece (August 3) about his own misreporting, but instead of just apologizing, offered up such excuses as: “My report that day – written by candle-light in the damaged refugee home in the camp, where we spent the night – was highly personalised.” (As if writing by candlelight is an excuse to lie…)

Reeves, whose (unedited) news reports in the Independent are regularly reproduced alongside articles by David Irving-style American Holocaust deniers in Arab newspapers such as Asharq Al-Awsat, is soon to leave Israel and be posted by the Independent to Delhi.

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLE

“THE MYTH OF JENIN – THE MASSACRE THAT NEVER WAS – MAY WELL CONTINUE TO POISON THE ATMOSPHERE FOR YEARS TO COME”

Jenin: The rush to judgment
By Tom Gross
August 5, 2002

The story of the British media and Jenin falls into three parts. First, there was the rush to judgment – judgment against Israel. Then there was the refusal to retract once the true facts became known. Finally, there is the continuing failure to publish adequate corrections of the original reports, even though the United Nations – which even Israel’s fiercest critics don’t accuse of being unduly sympathetic to the Jewish state – has officially confirmed that no massacre took place in Jenin in April, and that the majority of the 52 Palestinians killed there (along with 23 Israelis) were armed combatants.

Of course, journalists often get things wrong in the heat of the moment, and there isn’t the space – or the need – to correct every mistake. But the extraordinary nature of the falsehoods disseminated during the battle of Jenin surely warrant a little introspection on the part of the journalists responsible. You would have thought they would have been moved to ask themselves how they came to harbour such unfair and unfounded views of Israel.

The language initially used by many reporters and commentators in the British media was sweeping and extreme. Israel’s actions in Jenin were “every bit as repellent” as Osama bin Laden’s attack on New York on September 11, wrote The Guardian in its editorial of April 17. “We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide,” wrote AN Wilson in the Evening Standard, on April 15. “Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life,” reported Janine di Giovanni, in the Times, on April 16.

The “quality” press spoke with almost wall-to-wall unanimity, backing up their views with horror stories which have turned out to be complete fabrications. The Daily Telegraph, for example, ran headlines such as “Hundreds of victims ‘were buried by bulldozer in mass grave’”, and gave graphic and entirely false accounts of Palestinians being “stripped to their underwear, searched, bound hand and foot, placed against a wall and killed with single shots to the head.”

Newspapers devoted page upon page, day after day, to tales of mass murders, common graves, summary executions, and war crimes. Israel was compared to the Nazis, to al Qaeda, and to the Taliban. One report even compared the thousands of supposedly missing Palestinians to the “disappeared” of Argentina.

The television coverage was, if anything, worse. The BBC’s Orla Guerin cited Palestinians saying that Israelis troops “were scooping dead bodies with bulldozers” and that they had shot dead Palestinians “as they tended sheep.”

But Guerin’s language (“Israel is prepared to go all the way”, Israel is committing “terror from above”, “nothing is sacred” for Israel, and so on) reveals only one element of her misreporting. The choice of camera angles, her tone of voice, her facial expressions, the leading questions she asked of Palestinians (“are you afraid he is going to die?” etc) – all these gave viewers a very inaccurate picture of what was actually going on.

In comparison, little air time was given to the Israeli version of events, which was available, in meticulous detail, throughout the operation, and scant attention was paid to the 23 Israeli deaths in Jenin – still less to the fact that they were evidence of the dangers which the Israeli forces incurred in order to avoid collateral damage to Palestinian civilians. At the same time, Yasser Arafat’s representatives were given ample opportunity to air their incredible tales of Israeli atrocities, while both TV and print journalist forgot to remind their viewers that Arafat’s spokespeople, like those of the other totalitarian regimes that surround Israel, have a habit of lying a lot.

It is not as if the evidence wasn’t there at the time. Some foreign journalists, especially Americans, presented an accurate picture. On April 16, for example, Phil Reeves in the Independent was reporting that “A monstrous war crime that Israel has tried to cover up for a fortnight has finally been exposed”. On the same day, Newsday’s reporter in Jenin, Edward Gargan, wrote: “There is little evidence to suggest that Israeli troops conducted a massacre of the dimensions alleged by Palestinian officials.” Molly Moore of the Washington Post reported: “No evidence has yet surfaced to support allegations by Palestinian groups and aid organizations of large-scale massacres or executions.”

The Los Angeles Times reported that Palestinians in Jenin “painted a picture of a vicious house-to-house battle in which Israeli soldiers faced Palestinian gunmen intermixed with the camp’s civilian population.” Even Egyptian newspapers like Al-Ahram provided similar accounts. But not the British media – or, for that matter, the media elsewhere in Western Europe, who with very few exceptions were equally biased.

Few of us find it easy to admit that we have been wrong, so perhaps it is not surprising that apologies weren’t forthcoming in April. But with the passage of time one might have hoped for some soul-searching, above all now that the UN report has officially concluded that no massacre took place and charged Palestinian militants with deliberately putting their fighters and equipment in civilian areas in violation of international law. Instead, the perpetrators have just dug themselves in deeper.

In an editorial last Friday (subtitled “Israel is still wanted for questioning”), The Guardian wrote: “Israel resorted to random, vengeful acts of terror involving civilians” and added “As we said last April, the destruction wrought in Jenin looked and smelled like a crime. On the basis of the UN’s findings, it still does.”

The editorial didn’t make mention that the UN report – compiled with input from UN officials, the mayor of Jenin, five UN member states, private relief organizations and international groups such as Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch – stated that the number of Palestinian civilians who died in Jenin was somewhere between 14 and 22 i.e. less than the 29 Israeli civilians killed in the Passover massacre, and the hundreds of others murdered by the 27 other suicide bombers dispatched from Jenin in the months that preceded Israel’s incursion.

Likewise the Independent. On Saturday, the paper’s chief Jerusalem correspondent, Phil Reeves, whose news reports from Jenin in April had extended to 3000 words, wrote a comment piece on the subject. Reeves could have just said: “Sorry, Independent readers, for so badly misleading you.”

But he didn’t. Instead he offered up such excuses for his misreporting as: “My report that day – written by candle-light in the damaged refugee home in the camp, where we spent the night – was highly personalised.”

In Israel, Reeves is known for the angry letters he dispatches to those publications which have charged him with bias – not just the rightist Jerusalem Post, but the leftist Ha’aretz, and the left-leaning Jerusalem Report magazine. Instead of being so dismissive of such a wide range of critics, perhaps Reeves should ask himself why his (unedited) news reports from the Independent, as well as those of Robert Fisk and some other British journalists, are regularly reproduced alongside articles by David Irving-style American Holocaust deniers in Arab newspapers such as Asharq Al-Awsat.

For those of us familiar with the working methods and attitudes of the international media in Israel (I reported there for British and American papers between 1995 and 2001) the rush to false judgment over Jenin came as no surprise. It fits into a deeper pattern of false reporting and systematic bias. But whatever the motives, the damage is likely to be long lasting. Myths have a way of living on, even when the true facts become known; and the myth of Jenin – the massacre that never was – may well continue to poison the atmosphere for years to come.


Abu Nidal: was he colluding with the Saudis?

August 21, 2002

CONTENTS

1. "Iraq: Abu Nidal shot himself in the mouth, died 8 hours later" (AP, August 21, 2002)
2. "Claims that Abu Nidal held talks with Saudis" (AP, August 21, 2002)
3. "Chronology of Abu Nidal's major attacks" (AP, August 20, 2002)
4. "Abu Nidal-Chronologie des Schreckens..." (Baltic News Watch)



[Note by Tom Gross]

ONE OF THE WORLD’S MOST WANTED TERRORISTS

I attach three articles, all from AP, and one item in German from Baltic News Watch, relating to the death earlier this week of Abu Nidal in Baghdad, and the claims by a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah that Nidal recently held talks with Saudi and Kuwaiti officials.

Nidal, previously head of the Fatah-Revolutionary Council, killed at least 275 people and wounded around 1000 more in dozens of attacks on mainly Israeli and American targets. These include the massacre of 22 Jewish worshipers during Sabbath services at the Neveh Shalom Synagogue in Istanbul on Sept. 6, 1986; the killing of six people in a grenade attack on the Jo Goldenberg restaurant in Paris's Jewish quarter on Aug. 9, 1982; the killing of 18 people at the El Al ticket desks at Rome and Vienna airports on Dec. 27, 1985; the killing of 88 people on a TWA flight from Israel to Greece Oct. 8, 1974; the killing of 32 passengers on board a Pan Am jet at Rome Airport on Dec. 17, 1973.

He also assassinated a number of Palestinian, Jordanian and Egyptian moderates. (There are a growing number of Germans and Austrians on my list, and I also attach a chronology of Nidal's attacks in German at the end of this email.)

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLES

ABU NIDAL SHOT HIMSELF IN THE MOUTH, DIED 8 HOURS LATER

Iraq: Abu Nidal shot himself in the mouth, died 8 hours later
The Associated Press
August 21, 2002

Abu Nidal, formerly the world's most wanted terrorist, shot himself in the mouth as Iraqi officials waited to take him to court, the head of Iraqi intelligence said Wednesday.

Giving Iraq's first press conference on Abu Nidal, Tahir Jalil Haboush said the feared Palestinian extremist had entered Iraq illegally from Iran on a false Yemeni passport.

Iraq had never admitted hosting Abu Nidal until reports of his death in Baghdad emerged this week. Palestinian officials in the West Bank said Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Banna, had been found dead in the Iraqi capital on Friday, his body riddled with bullets.

Haboush told reporters that an unidentified Arab state had informed his government in 1999 that Abu Nidal had entered Iraq. He did not give a more accurate date for Abu Nidal's entry.

He said Iraqi officials investigated Abu Nidal's whereabouts. When they found him, a group of security officers were sent to his apartment with orders to bring him to court.

Haboush did not explain why it took so long for Iraq to find Abu Nidal.

When the security officers arrived at his home, Abu Nidal said he needed to go to his bedroom to change his clothes. A shot was fired, and the officers found that Abu Nidal had shot himself in the mouth, Haboush said.

Abu Nidal was rushed to hospital where he died eight hours later.

Haboush was asked what day Abu Nidal died, but did not reply.

 

CLAIMS THAT ABU NIDAL RECENTLY HELD TALKS WITH SAUDI AND KUWAITI AGENTS

Claims that Abu Nidal held talks with Saudis
The Associated Press
August 21, 2002

Iraq Tuesday confirmed Abu Nidal's death, saying the feared Palestinian terrorist leader had committed suicide.

Baghdad's first official confirmation of his death came amid claims that Abu Nidal recently held talks with Saudi and Kuwaiti agents and that plans for an American attack on Iraq were found in his Baghdad apartment.

The claims, made yesterday by a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah, were quickly rejected by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

But these reports and the murky circumstances surrounding Abu Nidal's death he is said to have suffered several gunshot wounds fueled speculation outside Iraq concerning his final days.

"Yes, I confirm his suicide and an official will give you full details [today]," Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz told reporters yesterday without elaborating.

Abu Nidal who had targeted Israel, Palestinian Liberation Organization figures, and Arab officials for associating with Israelis is widely believed to have been living in Baghdad since sometime in 1999.

On Monday, two senior Palestinian officials in the West Bank said Abu Nidal had been found dead of gunshot wounds last Friday in his Baghdad house.

The officials suggested Abu Nidal had committed suicide, but they did not explain how he could have shot himself several times. Yesterday, a senior Palestinian official in Ramallah said Abu Nidal had been in contact with Saudi and Kuwaiti officials before committing suicide.

The Palestinian official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Associated Press that Iraqi intelligence agents had been following Abu Nidal to check on his alleged dealings with the Gulf states.

The official did not elaborate on the substance of the contacts, but said Iraqi intelligence arrested three of Abu Nidal's men early last week before raiding his Baghdad house late Wednesday.

The raid sparked clashes between the agents and Abu Nidal's guards, two of whom were wounded, the official said.

Abu Nidal ran into another room where he committed suicide, the Palestinian official said.

The Iraqi agents later found classified documents concerning an American attack on Iraq in Abu Nidal's house, the official said without elaborating on the documents.

Agents arrested three more of Abu Nidal's men, since releasing two.

"Kuwait has never had anything to do with him [Abu Nidal]," Khaled al-Jarrah, the undersecretary of the Kuwaiti Foreign Ministry, told the AP in Kuwait. "We find such reports surprising. They are absolutely baseless."

A Saudi official in Riyadh, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP that Saudi Arabia had never contacted Abu Nidal, whose real name was Sabri al-Bana.

A senior Iraqi official reportedly told CNN earlier yesterday that Abu Nidal killed himself after Iraqi agents accused him of conspiring with anti-Iraqi forces.

Iraqi officials have not commented on Abu Nidal's alleged links to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

In London, the Iraqi National Accord released a statement saying it had learned Saddam had ordered his intelligence apparatus to "finish... Abu Nidal because he holds vital information." The accord, which was involved in an unsuccessful 1996 coup attempt against the Iraqi president, did not elaborate.

The radical faction that Abu Nidal formed which went by the name Fatah-Revolutionary Council killed at least 275 people and wounded hundreds more in dozens of attacks on American airliners, airports, sidewalk cafes, and synagogues. He was also regarded as a gun for hire, offering his violent services during the past 30 years to various governments.

 

ABU NIDAL BLAMED FOR KILLING OR WOUNDING ABOUT 1,000 PEOPLE IN 20 COUNTRIES

Chronology of Abu Nidal's major attacks
The Associated Press
August 20, 2002

Abu Nidal's radical Palestinian faction has been blamed for killing or wounding about 1,000 people in 20 countries since 1973. The following are some of the best known.

• Jan. 29, 1994 Abu Nidal followers shoot dead Jordanian diplomat Naeb Imran Maaytah outside his embassy in Beirut. Abu Nidal and two other men are sentenced to death in absentia by a Jordanian court; two other defendants are captured and also face the death penalty.

• Jan. 16, 1991 Two days before the Gulf War begins, Abu Nidal's terrorists kill two of PLO leader Yasser Arafat's top aides: Salah Khalaf, Arafat's long-time deputy, and Hayel Abdel-Hamid, the PLO's security chief. Khalaf's chief bodyguard also dies in the raid on Khalaf's home in Tunis, the PLO's headquarters-in-exile.

• July 11, 1988 Five gunmen attack the Greek cruise ship City of Poros, killing nine people and wounding 98. French authorities later issue arrest warrants for four Abu Nidal operatives.

• Sept. 6, 1986 Two gunmen posing as photographers machine-gun the Neveh Shalom Synagogue in Istanbul during the morning Shabbat service, killing 22 Jewish worshipers and wounding six.

• Sept. 5, 1986 A Pan Am jumbo jet carrying 358 people is hijacked at Karachi Airport. Twenty people are killed when security forces storm the Boeing 747.

• April 2, 1986 A bomb explodes aboard a TWA Boeing 727 as the plane approaches Athens airport. Four passengers are sucked out through a hole in fuselage and plummet to their deaths.

• Dec. 27, 1985 Eighteen people are killed and 120 wounded in simultaneous attacks on El Al ticket desks at Rome and Vienna airports by seven Abu Nidal gunmen.

• Nov. 23, 1985 An Egyptian airliner with 97 passengers is hijacked to Malta by four gunmen. Six passengers are slain before Egyptian commandos storm the plane the next day. Sixty passengers die in the shootout.

• July 11, 1985 Two bombs kill eight people and wound 89 in Kuwait. The attack is seen as part of Abu Nidal's campaign to blackmail the Gulf Arab states into paying him not to attack them.

• April 10, 1983 Issam Sartawi, a leading PLO moderate and Yasser Arafat's main link to Israeli left-wingers, is shot dead during a Socialist International conference in Lisbon. Abu Nidal claims responsibility.

• Aug. 9, 1982 Two gunmen kill six people and wound 22 in a grenade and automatic weapons attack on the Goldenburg restaurant in Paris's Jewish quarter.

• June 18, 1982 Kamel Hussein, head of the PLO's Rome office and a close associate of Arafat, is killed when his booby-trapped car explodes in the Italian capital.

• June 2, 1982 Israel's ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov, is critically wounded by gunmen. The three-man hit team is captured. Israel uses the assassination attempt as the pretext to invade Lebanon to crush the PLO three days later.

• Feb. 18, 1978 Three months after Egyptian president Anwar Sadat's historic peace visit to Jerusalem, his old friend Yusuf al-Sibai is shot dead by two gunmen while attending a conference in Nicosia, Cyprus. The killers seize hostages and try to hijack a plane at Larnaca airport. Fifteen Egyptian commandos, sent to help end the siege, are gunned down at the airport by Cypriot national guardsmen because of botched communications.

• Oct. 8, 1974 A TWA airliner flying from Israel to Greece is blown up by a bomb over the Aegean Sea, killing all 88 people aboard.

• Dec. 17, 1973 Five terrorists set a Pan Am jet on fire at Rome Airport with thermite bombs, killing 32 passengers.

 

ABU NIDAL CHRONOLOGY (IN GERMAN)

Abu Nidal-Chronologie des Schreckens...
Baltic News Watch

Juli 1980 – Abu Nidals Gruppe ermordet israelischen Handelsdelegierten in Brόssel.

Mai 1981 – Ermordung des Prδsidenten der φsterr.-israelischen Gesellschaft Heinz Nittel.

August 1981 – Angriff auf die Synagoge in der Seitenstettengasse in Wien 2 Tote und 17 Verletzte.

Juni 1982 – Versuchter Mord an den israelischen Dipolmaten Shlomo Argov in London. Auslφser des Krieges im Libanon.

Juni 1982 – PLO -Vertreter Husayn Kamal in Rom wird durch eine Autobombe getφtet.

August 1982 – 6 Tote und 22 Verletzte nach einem Granatenanschlag auf ein kosheres Restaurant in Paris.

August 1982 – Mordversuch am Konsul der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate in Bombay.

August 1982 – Schussattentat auf einen Vertreter der VAE in Kuwait.

September 1982 – Dipolmat aus Kuwait wird in Madrid ermordet.

Oktober 1982 – Anschlag auf Synagoge in Rom-1 Toter, 10 Verletzte.

April 1983 – Issam Sartawi, Vertrauter Arafats wird bei Konferenz der Sozialistischen Internationale in Lissabon erschossen.

Oktober 1983 – Mordversuch an jordanischen Botschafter in Rom.

Oktober 1983 – Jordnischer Botschafter in Indien wird schwer verletzt.

November 1983 – Wachen bei jordanischer Botschaft in Athen werden angegriffen, 1 Toter, 1 Verletzter.

Dezember 1983 – Franzφsisches Kulturinstitut in IzTnir in der Tόrkei angegriffen.

Mδrz 1984 – Britischer Diplomat in Athen ermordet.

November 1984 – British High Commissioner in Bombay, Indien ermordet.

Dezember 1984 – Ismail Darwish, ein Berater Arafats wird in Rom ermordet.

Dezember 1984 – Jordanischer Diplomat in Bucharest ermordet.

Mδrz 1985 – Britischer Journalist Alec Collett wird entfόhrt und angeblich ein Jahr danach ermordet.

Mδrz 1985 – Angriff auf jordanische Fluglinie in Rom, gleichzeitig δhnliche Angriffe in Athen und Nicosia.

Juli 1985 – British Airways Bόro in Madrid zerstφrt, eine Frau wird getφtet, 27 verletzt. Fόnf Minuten spδter wird das Bόro der jordanischen Fluglinie in Madrid angegriffen, zwei Verletzte sind die Folge.

September 1985 – Angriff auf Cafe de Paris in Rom, es werden 38 Menschen verletzt.

September 1985 – Entfόhrung einer Egyptian Air-Maschine nach Malta,60 Tote bei Befreiungsversuch δgyptischer Einheiten.

Dezember 1985 – Angriff auf Schalter der EL AL in Wien und Rom Insgesamt werden 16 Menschen getφtet, darunter ein Kind, 60 Verletzte sind zu beklagen.

September 1986 – PAN AM Flug 73 in Karachi entfόhrt, 17 Tote, όber 150 Verletzte.

September 1986 – Bei Angriff auf Synagoge in Istanbul werden 22 Betende getφtet.

Juli 1987 – Bombe bei einem Restaurant in Qalqilya in der West Bank, (London) Evening Standard werden 15 Personen verletzt.

Mδrz 1988 – Angriff auf Alitalia Maschine in Bombay-Kapitδn wird schwer verwundet.

Mai 1988 – Eine Bombe explodiert in Nicosia, Zypern in der Nδhe der israelischen Botschaft. 3 Tote und 17 Verletzte sind die Folge. Abu NIdals Leute behaupten damit Abu Jihads Tφtung zu rδchen.

Mai 1988 – In Khartum, Sudan werden das Hotel Acropole und der Sudan Club angegriffen. 8 Personen werden getφtet, 21 durch die Schόsse der Attentδter verletzt.Fόnf britische unter den Toten und fόnf US-Bόrger unter den Verletzten.

Am "Hφhepunkt" seines mφrderischen Wirkens zδhlte Abu Nidals Truppe um die 500 Mitglieder. Diese wird fόr insgesamt 900 Todesopfer verantwortlich gemacht. Nach Angaben der pal. Behφrden entzog sich Abu Nidal alias Sabri Al Banna durch Selbstmord einer Verhaftung.


“With unyielding faith”: The EU and the Palestinian Authority

CONTENTS

1. "U.S. think tank urges EU to halt funding to PA" (AP, August 21, 2002)
2. "Dialogue needed, before we turn into a leper state" (Ha'aretz, August 21, 2002)
3. "With unyielding faith" (By Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Die Zeit, August 15, 2002)


IS EU MONEY BEING USED TO FUND TERRORISM AGAINST ISRAELI CIVILIANS?

[Note by Tom Gross]

I attach three pieces concerning Israel and the European Union (and first a brief summary for those who don't have time to read the full articles):

1. "U.S. think tank urges EU to halt funding to PA" (AP, August 21, 2002). A U.S. think tank is asking the Bush administration to press for an independent investigation into whether EU monies are being misused to fund terrorism against Israeli civilans.

2. "Dialogue needed, before we turn into a leper state" (Ha'aretz, August 21, 2002). Israel's ambassador to the European Union warns Israeli prime minister Sharon not to ignore Europe. "Such neglect will cost us dearly in the future," he says. The ambassador states that Israel must "draw Europe into a serious, genuine dialogue, one which will deal not only with ongoing events, but also with deeper levels." The ambassador disagrees with Colin Powell's recent comment that anti-Semitic phenomena in Europe are "manifestations of repressed emotions, ones which were always present in Europe, but which were concealed in the aftermath of World War II."

3. "With unyielding faith" (By Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Die Zeit, August 15, 2002). This is a very long piece translated from the leading German newspaper "Die Zeit" August 15, 2002. It is a follow-up article to Die Zeit's in-depth analysis ("Arafat Bombs, Europe Pays" June 7, 2002) referred to in my previous dispatch, and further examines allegations that European government aid money is being used by the Palestinian Authority to help finance the murder of Israeli Jews.



FULL ARTICLES

HERITAGE FOUNDATION URGES EU TO HALT FUNDING TO PA

U.S. think tank urges EU to halt funding to PA
The Associated Press
August 21, 2002

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative private research group, is urging European leaders to stop funding the Palestine Authority in light of its "overwhelming anti-Israel bias" and allegations the aid funds Palestinian terror.

In a report, the foundation asked the Bush administration, which circumvents the Palestinian Authority in its assistance program, to press for an independent investigation into whether European Union funds are misused.

Direct aid to the authority, which is headed by Yasser Arafat, should be halted until elections are held and the leadership is changed, said a Heritage report prepared by Nile Gardiner, a visiting fellow in security policy.

The European Union gave the Palestinian Authority an estimated $3.36 billion between 1994 and 2000, and continue to give the Authority about $10 million a month.

Many European leaders have equated the terrorist actions of Palestinian militants with legitimate measures taken by the Israeli Defense Force, Gardiner said. "The Europeans apparently want to project power in a region where they believe their diplomatic and economic influence rival that of the United States," he said.

President George W. Bush in June said Palestinian leaders were helping terrorists rather than opposing them. He called for the ouster of Arafat and said the United States would assist in establishing a Palestinian state only if corruption was ended.

Three Palestinian Cabinet ministers appointed by Arafat held talks this month in Washington with senior administration officials at the White House, the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency.

Gardiner said the Bush administration should advise the European Union that it will not waver in supporting the Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and that the EU should withdraw its support for "Arafat and his cronies and curb its anti-Israel rhetoric."

An international task force will meet in Paris on Thursday and Friday to consider ways to reform the Palestinian Authority.

American, Russian, European Union, United Nations, Norwegian and Japanese officials will attend, as well as officials from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

Two American diplomats, David Satterfield and Elizabeth Cheney, left Washington on Tuesday to attend the talks. The talks could produce a new burst of assistance to the Palestinians.

 

“POLITICAL AND INTELLECTUAL GAP BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EUROPE IS WIDENING”

Dialogue needed, before we turn into a leper state
By Sharon Sadeh
Ha'aretz
August 21, 2002

Apart from a few visits to a limited number of capitals and preciously few calls to brief continental leaders, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has not paid much attention to Europe. Nor do ministers in his government walk the extra mile to get close to Israel's largest trade partner. "Such neglect will cost us dearly in the future," warns Harry Kney-Tal, Israel's ambassador to the European Community.

Kney-Tal, 58, who held senior diplomatic posts in the U.S. and elsewhere as an Israeli diplomat, completes his term in Brussels in a few weeks. Preparing to return home, he's worried and frustrated. The political and intellectual gap between Israel and Europe is widening he says. Without corrective steps, Israel is liable to end up boycotted as a pariah state, like South Africa in the days of apartheid. As he sees it, Israel has done little, if anything, to forestall this eventuality.

European Union states, and Belgium in particular, have in recent years turned into trouble spots for Israeli diplomats. Anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish targets, coupled with vocal, strident support for the Palestinian Authority and vehement criticism of Israel's military activity – such trends, and others, appear to reflect a one-sided, hostile viewpoint. Tendentious, negative treatment of Israel in the media reinforces this impression. Commentators, particularly on Israel's right, often argued that Europeans criticize Israel in the name of lofty moral principles which veil what is little more than resurgent anti-Semitism. This view is backed by some U.S. officials.

A few months ago, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted saying that anti-Semitic phenomena in Europe are "manifestations of repressed emotions, ones which were always present in Europe, but which were concealed in the aftermath of World War II." Such views are superficial and one-sided, Kney-Tal believes. They lead to a faulty understanding of European Union dynamics and goals.

Kney-Tal adds that relations between Europe and Israel have also worsened because the EU leadership "recoils from information which contradicts its value systems and perceptions, some of which are based on stereotypes" regarding Israel, the dispute and the Middle East.

PERCEPTUAL GAP

A clear illustration of the perceptual gap between Israel and the EU involves the connection between Palestinian incitement and suicide attacks. "Both Israel and the Europeans denounce incitement," Kney-Tal explains. "But when it comes to the meaning of the phenomenon, the sides express differing interpretations. In Israel, a close link is made between the school texts, media reports, official statements, mosque sermons - and suicide attacks. In Europe, this interpretation is totally rejected. We recognize that there is terror, the Europeans tell us, but their reference is to terror attacks like those of the Catholic underground in Northern Ireland, or the Basque underground in Spain: these were aimed mostly at political figures or symbols of government, and were not designed to kill indiscriminately, as happens in our case." Often terrorists in Western Europe give advance warning about where explosives have been put, in order to limit casualties.

"Up to September 11," Kney-Tal says, "the Europeans would use the term 'cycle of violence' in the Israeli-Palestinian context. In their view, it wasn't clear which side initiated violence; nor was this issue of who started it very important. There is an attack and then a response, which inevitably leads to another attack and so on. They didn't attribute special import to suicide attacks; they viewed them as a local Israeli problem.

"We, of course, saw things differently: there is a process of incitement, which causes terror attacks and, then, escalation of violence. There were also differences of opinion regarding incitement in Palestinian schoolbooks. We warned about the phenomenon; they promised to look into it. Their findings differed from ours. They wanted to show that incitement in Palestinian school texts was disappearing. We said: take a closer look, that's not the case. But they're not conscious of nuances which are very sensitive issues for us. That's not because they are anti-Israel; it's because they relate to the issue on an emotional plane which differs entirely from our own."

The Europeans, says Kney-Tal, after having reached a rational decision in favor of reconciliation, and having lived for six decades under peace and economic prosperity, have a problem in grasping Israel's difficult plight. "After the Second World War, Europe decided to abandon the use of force as a means to resolve disputes, and to set up the European Union, which operates on the basis of shared interests... What drives them [the Europeans] crazy is states in the world like the U.S. and Israel, which don't recognize purely rational-legal rules of the game, and which believe that there are situations which require them to exercise their right of self-defense by resorting to the use of massive military force. The Europeans don't believe in a zero-sum game; instead, they try to cultivate interests shared by all the sides, while trying to create the widest possible common denominator."

After two devastating world wars, Kney-Tal says, Europe doesn't want to believe that there are situations in which arrangements can't be forged by negotiations. It has succumbed to cognitive dissonance: were the Europeans to indicate agreement with the claim that the Palestinian Authority uses incitement, and that such incitement leads to irrational actions such as suicide attacks, such agreement would contradict the manner in which the situation has been analyzed up to now, and the way they have wanted to view matters.

"They simply cannot accept this turn of logic – incitement leads to suicide attacks. Such acceptance would entail rejection of the creature they've created, the Palestinian Authority, an entity established largely through European assistance and funding," Kney-Tal says.

The European Union is proud that it enabled the Palestinian Authority to survive in recent years, in a period when Israel enforced severe economic sanctions against it.

"Their claim is that they haven't done so because they are especially altruistic, but instead because they've understood – unlike Israel, and now unlike the U.S – that the legal Palestinian framework needs to be preserved in the long term, and that this system is headed by a leader, Arafat, who was elected legitimately, in order to guarantee negotiations, and progress in the diplomatic process," Kney-Tal says. "In other words, the Europeans are basically telling us we know better than you, because we're not so involved emotionally in this story, and we can look at the situation in a sober, detached, neutral way, relating to the two sides equally. Thus, they are extremely critical of the American position, which is so supportive of Sharon and Israel's government."

"The dispute with Europe," explains Kney-Tal, "worsened in tandem with the degenerating crisis with the Palestinians... For us, it became clear that the rational negotiation framework, which was constructed in the Oslo process and which featured gradual progress for both sides toward the establishment of two states for two peoples, went awry, and collapsed. The Europeans have a different view."

The EU has refused, and continues to refuse, to play any part in a process that might lead to a collapse of the Palestinian side. Such a process, the EU believes, would paralyze the diplomatic process, and create a situation of absolute terror and anarchy.

"Such a state of chaos is the exact opposite of what Europe wants right now," says Kney-Tal. "Europe assumes that if the Palestinians will, in the end, have a state, then they would be involved in building their nation; and that is why the PA has to be preserved at all costs, if the Palestinians are to have such a role. For years, they [the Europeans] were apathetic both to our appeals calling for reforms in the PA, and to our claims that incitement leads to attacks and that EU assistance allows Arafat to divert money to terror. The challenge, as they see it, is to prove that these claims are unfounded, and that we are basically exploiting such charges manipulatively in order to force them to sever their assistance, and turn their backs on the PA."

For the Europeans, "the rational negotiating process comes before everything else. It has to continue, come what may, because once we make it to the end of the process, and a solution is forged, then a new era of healing will arise, and the time will be ripe for really dealing with incitement. In other words, [Europe's view] is that fundamental, root problems must be dealt with first, and then their symptoms can be addressed. And, as they see it, the root cause of the dispute is the occupation. Take care of the occupation, they say, finish it, and then one of two things will happen: either there will be quiet, or we will understand that there's no quiet because the Palestinians have wider goals. We say the opposite: We can't deal with the root problems without first taking care of their symptoms. In this respect, the difference [in interpretations] is vast."

Europe remained adamant, Kney-Tal explains, even when the Camp David and Taba talks broke down. "This was a rational process; the sides sat around a negotiating table. But then it became clear that this [the talks] doesn't work; but they refused to accept this could be so. In a way, they were in a state of denial. At first, they had to be satisfied with versions offered by Ehud Barak and Shlomo Ben-Ami. A year later, a counter version propounded by former Clinton adviser Robert Malley came out, refuting Israel's claims. The French loved it. His articles were translated instantly and circulated in the media. They accorded with the world view which held that there are two sides, and responsibility for the failure rests equally with both. Once again, this European view reflected a rationalist approach to conflict resolution."

As Kney-Tal sees it, those in Israel who present themselves as belonging to the peace camp have helped the Europeans abide by their refusal to draw a logical connection between incitement, funding and suicide terror attacks. These Israelis say claims about incitement leading to terror belong to the right-wing, which wants to topple the PA. The European Union relates to the peace camp as a potential partner for the continuation of dialogue with the Palestinians, Kney-Tal says.

ATTITUDE CHANGE

During the last year, after the September 11 attacks in the U.S. and the steep rise in the number of suicide attacks in Israel, the European Union's tone and approach have changed. "There has been some progress in the EU's position," Kney-Tal says. "They are talking now explicitly about taking action against Palestinian terror...They are more balanced, and even express solidarity with Israel. The list of terror organizations deemed illegal by the EU has grown, and now includes Hamas' military wing, and Islamic Jihad. Recently, they added eight Palestinian and Arab organizations, including the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Of course, in order to maintain balance, they added the [Jewish] Kahane Hai and Kach groups. They also toughened up terms for the conferral of money to the Palestinians, and tightened supervision of this funding."

Kney-Tal is worried about a new generation of Western European leaders who grew up on on the Palestinian-Arab narrative. "That narrative, which is reinforced by Israeli or former Israeli researchers, has nearly totally taken over the academic, polticial and media discussion of the issues," he says. "It is appropriate to the popular world view in Europe nowadays, which is pacifist and post-modernist, full of guilt toward the former colonies and full of sympathy for oppressed nations demanding self-determnation. It also serves electoral interests as well as the traditional interests of realpolitik, which takes up a large part of EU policy.

At the same time, he fears, there is a an accelerating process of delegitimization of Israel, which is gradually being perceived – though at this stage only in intellectual circles, but the trend will grow – as a crude, brutal, and racist country that tramples on civil rights.

"I'm worried about the fact that Israel and Europe have not been able to build a framework which enables and facilitates Jewish-Christian dialogue," says Kney-Tal. "The Europeans are building frameworks for deep and profound discussion only with those Israelis whose viewpoints are close to their own, with Israelis who justify the EU line and thereby provide moral validity to the European position. They [Europeans] understand neither Israel's reality, nor Israel's rich cultural diversity.

"The second problem is the absence of an intellectual dialogue. Academics in Israel are keeping mum, and I'm worried that the intellectual elite [in Israel] still hasn't grasped that its in the same boat: should Israel be engulfed by the waves, it, too, will go down. I remain flabbergasted that some academics from Israel signed a European petition calling for the severance of scientific and cultural connections with Israel."

As Kney-Tal sees it, Israel has no choice but to "draw Europe into a serious, genuine dialogue, one which will deal not only with ongoing events, but also with deeper levels. That's what is really lacking. Our relations with Europe are asymmetrical, due to our small size and their large one. This asymmetry has to be converted into a different sort of cooperation, one unlike what we have had up to now. We must initiate this; we need to sharpen the messages, and reach understandings based on shared interests in security and democracy."

 

“IS MIDDLE EASTERN TERRORISM SUBSIDIZED BY EU AID MONEY”

With unyielding faith (sequel to "Arafat Bombs, Europe Pays")
By Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff
Translated from German from Die Zeit
August 15, 2002

(This is the longer online version. An abridged version appeared in print)

Is Middle Eastern terrorism subsidized by EU aid money? A view from the frontlines of a static war between the Israelis and the Europeans.

The murder took place while the Bloombergs were on their way home from the stationery store. They have five school-age children. It is August 5, 2001, a hot day in the Middle East. The drive from Kfar Sava to the village of Karnei Shomron takes about 40 minutes. The back road winds through the hills above Tel Aviv. Three cars drive close behind one another. The Bloombergs are in the middle one. Near the village of Azun, the Bloombergs pass a slow-moving car. Suddenly its window opens and someone fires and hits the driver of the second car. That was Stephen Bloomberg. He was seriously injured, as was his 14-year-old daughter Tzippi. His wife Techiya, 40-year-old and five months pregnant, didn't survive the drive home.

A year later, Stephen Bloomberg, or Shimon as he is called in Israel, is confined to a wheelchair. He continues to live in Karnei Shomron with his children, whom he has to take care of by himself. He still drives the highway toward Tel Aviv three times a week. He returned to work as an aircraft engineer, but only part time on a count of his children and his disability. His telephone voice is firm He is a man who believes in fate. You can't waste your life trying to avoid danger, he says.

Bloomberg immigrated from England, lived in the city at first, got married and finally decided 12 years ago to escape the crowds and buy himself a single-family home. So he moved his family to Karnei Shomron and became a settler. The land "was empty when the village was established, we didn't displace any Palestinians" he said. It sounded like an excuse for his decision. On the other hand he also came because he read about this piece of land – "Judea and Samaria" – in the Bible. So Bloomberg, in turns both fully aware and terribly naive, settled into the middle this bloody war, which long ago ceased to distinguish between combatants and civilians, between Israel and the occupied territories. Bloomberg is a victim of the violence, one of thousands on both sides, but one whose name will stand out, at least in Europe.

Stephen Bloomberg has filed suit in a Tel Aviv district court. He's demanding 20 million Euros in damages, not from the shooters, nor their operators, but from the European Union. His lawyers argue that the EU is negligent in that it transfers 10 million Euros a month in budgetary assistance to Yassir Arafat's Palestinian Authority. The Israeli government, his lawyers argue, has repeatedly warned that it believes direct payments could be diverted to pay for terrorism. Documents containing proof have been turned over. The EU knows all about it, but closes its eyes, says attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner.

Israeli agents suspect two Palestinians in the fatal attack on the Bloombergs. Both are in custody, but haven't been charged yet. The purported shooter is a man by the name of Farid Azouni. Samar Abu Hania gave the order. The former is a policeman, the latter is the chief of police in Qalqilia. Both are civil servants. They draw part of their salaries from the very Palestinian budget that Europe subsidizes every month. Stephen Bloomberg considers this unacceptable. "My parents pay taxes in England and look on as their money goes to sponsor an organization that helped kill my wife and injure my child and me."

This fall the case of EU aid for Arafat will probably end up in court. The EU has addressed the matter curtly and unequivocally: It has seen "no evidence" for the allegations. That has become the European refrain. They've been repeating it since the Israeli government first published documents confiscated from Yassir Arafat this spring which allege misuse of European aid funds (Die Zeit24/2002 [translated here])

EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten disputes all of the allegations in the strongest terms. Standing before the European Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee on June 19 he said that the EU Commission had "painstakingly examined" all of the Israeli government's documents. They found "no proof, I repeat, no proof that European aid funds were used for anything other than their intended purpose". Patten refers to an old report from the days of the peace process, according to which the EU has implemented "the most comprehensive and intrusive oversight system" of any comparable situation in the post-war era.

Patten denied the Israeli charges in his long parliamentary address, but didn't refute them in detail. Until today there has been no comprehensive public examination of how Israel and the EU could reach such different conclusions from the same facts. To that end, Die Zeit has recently examined all of the official PA files that Israel presented to the EU in June. It has spoken and corresponded with experts from both sides and has interviewed Palestinian professionals at length. All sides have provided comprehensive information, while the Palestinian experts would not agree to be quoted, not even on condition of anonymity. (All of the documents sourced in this article are available on the Die Zeit website [at this link]) What emerges is a picture of bitter static warfare. Neither side will budge, but the EU's position has come under heavy fire.

The documents in question are sitting in an Israeli army hangar. A lone journalist, Ronen Bergman, was apparently the first to see the originals and he reported in the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot on July 12 about enormous mountains of paper, towers of cardboard boxes and stacks of filing cabinets, being sorted through by reservists and Arabic translators. The institutional memory of the Palestinian Authority lies within, confiscated by the occupation army from Arafat's headquarters, the Mukata; as well as from administrative offices throughout the West Bank. At first the Palestinians claimed that the documents were forgeries. Then they claimed that their contents were irrelevant. Since then they've asked for the documents to be returned. The EU disputes neither the authenticity of the documents, nor their translation from Arabic, but only their interpretation. For example, the Israeli conclusions of the story about the attack in Hadera on January 17, 2002

That evening Nina Kardashova, age 12, celebrated her Bat-Mitzva, her debut as an adult in the Jewish faith. Her family organized a party. 180 guests came to the event hall in Hadera. Someone happened to capture the events of 11pm on videotape. The scene was later shown on Channel 2. A man came in the through the entrance. The guests had their backs turned, many were dancing. The man pulled a gun out from underneath his coat, an M16. Before the tape broke off, one could see for an eternal second how the man kept firing into the crowd. The cameraman threw himself on top of the dancing Bat Mitzvah girl, in order to shield her. Someone threw a chair at the gunman. Apparently as he was trying to reload, the gunman was attacked and shot. Six people were killed.

The gunman was identified as Abed Al Salem Hasuna. Israeli police also determined who recruited the murderer, gave him the weapon and about 100 Euros of spending money, and who arranged the transportation to Hadera and recorded the confession video as well as informed the media after the event. That man was arrested on April 8, 2002 and charged with multiple murders in July 2002 in Tel Aviv. According to the indictment, the man's name is Nasser Awis. He allegedly planned three attacks that left a total of 20 dead and 120 injured.

Nasser Awis, age 32, comes from the Balata refugee camp near Nablus. He is a member of Arafat's Fatah movement and is northern West Bank district chief of its military wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade, which took credit for the Hadera attack. The investigation revealed that Awis is employed as a public servant in the Palestinian Authority. As an officer in the General Intelligence, one of the security services, he's supposed to be fighting terrorism and preventing anarchy. That is why part of his civil servant's salary is paid for by European taxes.

The Nasser Awis case appears in an Israeli document with the title "The Palestinian Authority Employs Fatah Activists Involved in Terrorism and Suicide Attacks" [Document #2 at this link]. This tome has been presented to the European Union. Nevertheless the EU Commission wrote in its assessment: "There is no evidence that any person involved in terrorist acts has actually been recruited into the PA security services". Didn't the EU consider the Awis case? In an interview, an EU diplomat in Jerusalem was not as uncompromising as the Commission. Couldn't Awis simply have been an unstable individual who was moonlighting as a terrorist? That was certainly possible. The EU can't be ultimately responsible for the mental health of every Palestinian civil servant, when all it does is subsidize the PA's budget. Could this have been an isolated incident?

Then what about the case of Marwan Zallum, included in the same documents that the Israelis presented to the Europeans. He is member of the anti-terror special forces, but similarly listed in Israel's investigation findings as a terrorist.

And the case of Samar Abu Hania, the police chief who ordered Techiya Bloomberg's murder?

And what about suicide bomber Mohammad Hashaikh, a policeman from Nablus whose case was portrayed in the earlier Die Zeit article?

And what about Abdel Karim Abu Nafa, a policeman from Jericho, whose suicide attack was mentioned in an article in Foreign Affairs?

All civil servants, all subsidized by Europe, all isolated incidents. How many isolated incidents does it take to form a pattern?

Europe's diplomats in the Holy Land argue as follows: Everywhere in the world there are policemen who misuse their service weapons and their authority. What counts is how strictly the security apparatus acts against criminals from its own ranks. To that the EU Commission writes: "If any evidence comes to light that the PA is knowingly employing members of terrorist organizations, the PA will need to act immediately to take these people off the payroll and bring them to justice. The EU will not accept that funds fall into the hands of terrorist organisations."

But how does the Palestinian security apparatus actually respond to reports of murder by state officials? A document from Tulkarm contains that information and it has been presented to the EU. It is a report from February 6, 2002 by a civil-servant named Hamdi al-Daruch, who is a regional chief in the security service, and who is subsidized by EU tax funds. The report is regarding the "General Situation Among Armed Fatah Members in the District", that is to say the Al-Aqsa Martyr Brigades. The report is aimed at another one of the European funded salarymen, security chief and Arafat-confidante Tawfiq Tirawi. It estimates that there are "between 15 - 20 armed Fatah men" divided into three squads. At least one of these squads is difficult to control, the writer complains. In some cases there was "a complete breakdown of relations" between the "arms bearers" and the security apparatuses. There is no longer any joint work with them. All this "at a time", he complains, "when the concept developed whereby the arms bearers of the Fatah constitute first and foremost a support for the Palestinian Authority and its security apparatuses". The bureaucrat proposes a remedy: "It is necessary to remove some of the parasites who mixed in with the arms bearers and those who did not fire one bullet at Israelis in order to discard their financial burden"

There are no problems with other units, the security chief reports. The best squad is "very active" and "maintains with us continuous coordination and contacts". It operates on "bypass roads and even in the depth of Israel". It conducts "high quality successful attacks", most recently the "coordination and planning of the operation in Hadera" Even the name of the operative fingered by Israel, Nasser Awis, shows up in the document. [The complete report appears in Die Zeit's Document 2, appendix B]

Here the evidence indicts not just a lone Bat-Mitzvah terrorist, but an entire organization. Everyone involved within Arafat's circle are officials and draw part of their salaries from Europe. They're not stopping terrorism, they're bragging about it. This explains the cooperation between the Al-Aqsa Martyrs and the PA. Are we talking here about what the EU views as an institutional isolated incident?

On June 17, 2002 the EU declared the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades to be a terrorist organization, months after the Americans did so. If it is serious about drying up its financial sources, it could start by finding out how many of its cadres are actually Palestinian government employees, whose wages are subsidized by Brussels. It would be worth their while, claim the Israelis.

Exactly how many, the Israeli military isn't sure. Sometimes they write of "a hundred" sometimes of "hundreds" of members of various Fatah militias that similarly receive European-subsidized salaries for their service in the security forces. They believe they have figured out the system. Arafat and his people have methodically built a small shadow army, that has no ostensible connection to the Palestinian Authority, the Israelis say. The claim is that the PA has recruited specific militants out of its own employment rolls, or otherwise nurtured them – and in any event using European money.

And this where begins that part of the story that the Israelis don't like to tell. One hears it, for example, from military officers when the official interview is over. The Fatah militias were apparently formed years ago and the experts in Jerusalem knew all about it. But they kept silent. Why?

The rationale comes from David Makovsky, a historian of the peace process (Making Peace with the PLO). He writes in the Washington Post, that after the Oslo Agreement of 1993 Israel considered Palestinian internal affairs to be diplomatically irrelevant. "Because Yassir Arafat was seen as the source of Palestinian legitimacy, his authoritarianism wasn't just part of the deal, but was welcomed outright" Makovsky offers. "Everyone believed that an Arafat with unrestrained power could do more for Israel's security". Therefore the formation of loyal Fatah militias and its integration into the state structure was seen as an appropriate tool against the growing popularity of the radicals from Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Only after these militias started aiming their weapons at Israelis during the Intifada, say analysts in Jerusalem, did Israel sound the alarms with the western financiers of Arafat's administration. Yet the EU wasn't convinced that there had been a marriage between Arafat's PA and the militants of the Fatah movement.

At the center of Israel's investigation stands Fatah functionary and Arafat-confidante Marwan Barghouti, chief of the Tanzim militia in the West Bank. He has been in Israeli custody since April 2002 and is accused of being the commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs. He has not yet been indicted [he was formally indicted shortly before this article went to press -SMS] Israeli troops found checks and checkbooks in his office. He apparently used them to make payments to Fatah groups and Fatah members who were later implicated in terror attacks. The Israelis found 70 such money transfers and forwarded several copies to the Europeans. It's important to understand where he got the money to pay for the military infrastructure. Barghouti always drew from account number 01810058/4 at the Ramallah branch of the Bank of Jordan. That is the salary account of the Palestinian Ministry of Finance. This is the agency that receives the European aid funds.

The EU Commission doesn't dispute the fact that Barghouti could avail himself of civil service salary funds. But they write that the exhibited checks were "dating from 1998-99", i.e. before the EU provided budgetary assistance, which began in June 2001. Remarkable. Didn't the EU look closely at the Israeli documents? If they had, they would have found, on page 52, a money order from October 2001, precisely during the time when the EU was funding the PA's salary account.

In response an EU diplomat in Jerusalem says: a single money transfer order from the time of the Intifada is not credible evidence for indirect financing of the Intifada out of public funds. They asked the Israelis for additional evidence. None was forthcoming. The Israelis probably couldn't deliver it, because in April 2000 EU pressure worked and the PA finally established an integrated account for the Finance Ministry, the EU claims. Barghouti's method of indirect financing was no longer possible.

That sounds satisfactory. In fact, the Israelis have no evidence in its place. Yet assume that the Europeans are right. Is it then reassuring if Arafat's authority had previously funded militant Fatah groups using indirect means before the Intifada started and the EU implemented direct assistance? Shouldn't this raise red flags at the EU Commission? What would have to happen before suspicions are aroused?

All questions ultimately lead to Yassir Arafat. As the Israelis interpret the documents, Arafat appears as Lord of the Night, as an omnipotent head terrorist. The underlying assumption is that he is incontrovertibly evil. But if one interprets the documents with less prejudice it is still alarming what one reads in them. They provide, among other things, evidence of Arafat's loss of control. He appears as someone who is driven to curry favor with the warlords and the militants so he doesn't lose out to the Islamic competition. And therein lies the problem.

But so far no piece of paper has surfaced that shows Arafat's signature ordering an attack. And nobody expects to find one. It's more complicated than that. The Palestinian leader comes across in the documents as an old-fashioned micro-manager. Every expense larger than 250 Euro comes across his desk to be signed. That may be impractical and inconvenient but it ensures that Arafat is kept informed, like a village mayor, about every detail – even details of which the EU wished he remained ignorant.

Israel has shown the EU various documents that were addressed to Arafat. For example on May 15, 2001 twelve "activists in the blessed intifada" were recommended to him as "the best of the fighting brothers" who are "wanted by the occupation authorities because of their deeds". The Honorable President, may God protect you, should approve the employment of the brothers. The process of nationalizing the terrorism thereby reaches the president's desk. But Arafat didn't sign. Why not? Because he isn't amenable? Or because he knows that this signature could cost him his monthly millions from Europe. Arafat assigns the list to be processed by a senior aide. Months later, on August 6, 2001, the list is faxed to the chief of Special Forces. He is apparently supposed to employ the fighting brothers. Whether that happened is unproven. The International Criminal Court will not bring an indictment against Arafat on the basis of these documents. But this type of administrative camouflage can be appropriately judged in a political context.

And how does the EU respond to these ideas for creative use for its millions? It writes that Israeli documents provide, once more, "no evidence" for the deliberate recruiting of terrorists into the security services. Arafat has forwarded hiring recommendations in 134 cases without conveying specific instructions. "Any effective approval by Arafat for these recruitments would have required him to add the standard 'to hire' or similar instruction to his signature", writes the EU.

Whoever accepts this argument would have to view Arafat as a bulwark against terrorism. Accordingly his own people would be building militias, on behalf of which they petition the PA president's European-filled coffers, while Arafat himself imposes superbly moderating influence against the war strategy of his own apparatchiks.

This view of Arafat is borne of an unyielding faith in his goodness. The EU cries "no proof!" yet generously disregards the plethora of direct and circumstancial evidence. The EU is acting like the wife who assiduously overlooks the stranger's lipstick on her husband's collar and doesn't believe that she's been betrayed until there's a private detective with an incriminating videotape standing at the door.

The Israelis have tried to calculate in Euros what they consider to be the extent of the fraud. They claim that the Palestinians have used "money laundering techniques", such as keeping two sets of books and managing a shadow budget. 14% of the aid, the Israelis say, was diverted. The most important technique, in Israel's estimation, is a foreign currency trick. The PA's international aid arrives in Euros and dollars and is converted into Shekels. The PA employees receive their salary in shekels, at a fixed and dramatically lowered exchanged rate. The PA pockets the rest. Because the Shekel is constantly being devalued, the PA can hold the rest of the funds – most recently nearly $8 million a month.

The EU-Commission doesn't dispute that the PA is using an unrealistic exchange rate. It is, the EU writes, an "old condition imposed by international donors", that has since been retracted in cooperation with the new reformist Finance Minister, Salam Fayad. The EU is unconvinced that the foreign exchange profits were used to manipulate the budget. They argue as follows: With the outbreak of the Intifada, Palestinian tax revenues had been withheld. The import taxes and customs duties that were levied on behalf of the Palestinians (e.g. at ports) had been held back by Israel, in violation of the agreements. Therefore the PA found itself in a liquidity crisis. Its remaining revenues were insufficient to pay its employees' salaries.That's why the EU helps out each month. And with the exchange rate profits, the PA could now pay "three salaries when before there was only enough for two and a half".

This actually seems to be the weakest link in Israel's chain of evidence. The exhibited documents don't quite support the far-reaching conclusions. The Israelis had to play them up to make them convincing. In the meantime the magnitude of the redirected aid funds is unclear. That weakens the argument, but it is beyond dispute in principle. Curiously that is the only point of accord in the static war between the Europeans and Israelis.

The Israelis have found documents which show that Palestinian security officials pay a mandatory deduction from their European-subsidied wages, in the amount of 1-2% of their salary. These are membership dues in the Fatah movement. The EU Commission doesn't dispute this. They don't see anything wrong with it. Because, they write, "Fatah is the majority party in the democratically elected Palestinian parliament." The deductions are "not dissimilar to the mandatory deductions from salaries for trade union members' fees in some EU countries". Here the European argument is, perhaps unintentionally, cynical. None of the European labor unions are known to be under suspicion for financing a military wing that conducts deadly bombings.

The whole dispute stands larger-than-life like a symbol of mutual misunderstanding in this bloody phase of the eternal Middleeastern conflict. Europe's diplomats feel they've been put on the defensive by a roughshod campaign. They say the Israelis aren't dealing with the facts. They are only trying to legitimize the uncompromising policies of the hardline prime minister Ariel Sharon. The Europeans therefore won't change their position in order to prevent the West Bank from falling into anarchy. The Israelis say that the truth is the other way around. The Europeans, they say, don't care about the facts. "They won't let the facts interfere with their political views", said one general, who analyzed the files. The Europeans simply won't let themselves abandon Arafat. One hears the same argument from the left. "You need to build a concrete wall between the Europeans and Yassir Arafat" said Benjamin Ben Eliezer, Defense Minister and head of the Labor Party. And diplomats working for the moderate Foreign Minister Shimon Peres write that the EU Commission apparently sees Arafat's PA as a law-abiding administration of a Westminster democracy: "Whoever paints such a picture is at best naive, and at worst deluded".

Independent voices in this dispute are rare. On July 18 the first policy brief on the use of aid money appeared, from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The author is Matthew A Levitt, a former FBI investigator, who now researches the financing of terrorism. His summary says: "No specific Euro can be traced to the purchase of a specific bullet". But that's not even necessary. The PA's financial support for terrorism has been "well documented". Europe's decision makers should therefore be "increasingly concerned and embarrassed". Despite "repeated denials" of the EU Commission the problem remains that "there is no complete, publicly available accounting of how the PA spends its money – including the cash it gets from the EU".

Naturally, Europe should have had a debate about Arafat's aid money long ago. Has it failed? Does it serve peace? Does it support or prevent democratic reforms? Does it make sense to concentrate on Arafat and his "Tunis-clique" Should Arafat even be given cash? Do humanitarian projects alone have a future? Such questions serve the discussion, because there is no end in sight for European aid to Palestine. If it ever came to actually establishing a state, Europe would have to play a role. Every peace arrangement would require substantial aid packages. Both the Americans and the Israelis would demand them from Europe – provided they cannot be diverted for other purposes.

Instead of a debate, Europe has Chris Patten. He now seems to want to solve the problems that he constantly said didn't exist, with the motto "Everything was fine until now, in the future we'll make it even better". Patten naturally knows how bold he was being when he wrote the EU foreign ministers on May 7 that there were "stringent ex-post control mechanisms" for the EU direct aid. Whatever these mechanisms might have been, they were not strong, strict or stringent.

There is only the IMF, the International Monetary Fund. It provides technical assistance to the PA, assists with assembling the budgets and checks the so-called budget execution. It looks at the essentials of compliance with budget planning and whether sums are booked correctly. The IMF doesn't monitor how funds are actually used. That would be an accounting and managerial audit. That's not part of the IMF's mandate. What this means is, where the European budgetary assistance actually goes has never been subject to an independent audit.

Chris Patten is now pressing the Palestinians to make all their finances transparent and to establish an independent state comptroller. In fact there already is one, but it's not independent, as the Los Angeles Times reported on July 14. The newspaper's correspondent visited with the director of the agency. His name is Jarar Kidwa and is a dead ringer for Yassir Arafat. Which is no surprise, since the two are cousins.

Kidwa reports that he had recently called his cousin. "I said to Arafat: 'let me do this. I'll clean up the whole administration.' but Arafat stayed silent. Kidwa published the first corruption report of the Palestinian Authority in May 1998. It indicated how officials misused public funds. The report created such an uproar that Arafat prevented any additional publications. But Kidwa kept looking for fraud and mismanagement. Yet he could never examine certain investments, the security services and Arafat's office. Each year, only one man may see his report. "Our enemies could use this report against us," Kidwa said, "So I only give it to the President."

On the day after this article appeared in the Los Angeles Times Chris Patten wrote the PA and made the independence of Palestine's top financial controller a condition of future EU aid. Jarar Kidwa can now test the limits of his new freedom. As of last week he has the assignment to examine the expenditures of the security services during 2001.

Supporting documents referenced in the article are also available (in English) from Die Zeit online at this page The documents available for download at that page are as follows:

Documents 1 - 3: Compiled by Israeli military intelligence from Palestinian documents that were captured from PA offices in the West Bank in the spring of 2002. These documents implicate the PA in terror attacks carried out by the Fatah Tanzim militia and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Document 4: In June 2002 The EU dismissed Israeli allegations as unsubstantiated. For the first time the EU addresses these issues in detail by answering a set of questions posed by Die Zeit on July 26, 2002.

Document 5: Questions posed by Die Zeit to the Israeli governemtn to address the European responses in Document 4.

Document 6: Statement by an IMF Staff Representative regarding the PA's Fiscal Situation, Policies and Prospects.

Document 7: An exchange of letters between Chris Patten and PA ministers regarding financial transparency

Document 8: A "secret" Israeli military intelligence critique of IMF Supervision of the PA Budget.

Document 9: An internal EU memo addressing allegations made by the Israeli military intelligence in Document 8

Document 10: Link to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy policy paper "Accounting and Accountability


“Arafat’s a billionaire”

August 14, 2002

* This is an update to the July 30 dispatch Arafat's missing millions

 

CONTENTS

1. Arafat's billions
2. Lavish shopping sprees
3. "Arafat bombs, Europe pays"
4. U.S. aid money used to glorify murderer of Israelis and an American
5. "Arafat has $2.4bn, parliament told" (The Australian, August 14, 2002)
6. "What $1.3b could do" (Jerusalem Post, August 14, 2002)
7. "US money for a Palestinian girls' school, named for a terrorist who murdered 36 Israelis and an American" (Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin, August 7, 2002)



[Note by Tom Gross]

ARAFAT’S BILLIONS

According to the report below, Yasser Arafat's wealth (donated by Arab and European Union countries among others) is greater than that of Jeff Bezos, founder and chairman of Amazon.com (Bezos is worth $1.23 billion, according to Fortune magazine). Arafat's fortune could feed 3 million Palestinians for an entire year, buy 1,000 mobile intensive care units, fund 10 hospitals for 10 years, and still leave $585m to fund other social projects, according to the report.

LAVISH SHOPPING SPREES

There are regular reports in the French media (not attached here) about Arafat's wife's lavish shopping sprees in Paris. On June 5, the Kuwaiti daily Al-Watan published documents it received from a Cairo branch of a Middle Eastern bank showing that Arafat had deposited $5.1 million into his personal account for his wife and daughter, who live in Paris and Switzerland. According to the report, the money came from Arab aid funds that had been allocated for the Palestinian people.

“ARAFAT BOMBS, EUROPE PAYS”

While European Union leaders such as commissioner Chris Patten continue to claim ignorance, and most European papers don't seem to think it is worth writing about, the German newspaper Die Zeit (on June 7, 2002) ran a special investigation, headlined "Arafat Bombs, Europe Pays". The paper probed into Arafat's use of the 4.1 billion euros he has been given by the EU during the last few years, and concludes that some of it has been used to finance suicide attacks.

U.S. AID MONEY USED TO GLORIFY MURDERER OF ISRAELIS AND AN AMERICAN

I also attach the Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin (August 7, 2002), based on a report in the Palestinian daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, on July 30 2002. US aid money is being used to renovate the Dalal Mughrabi girls' high school in Gaza. Dalal Mughrabi is the terrorist who on March 11, 1978, participated in the murder of 36 Israelis and an American nature photographer, Gail Ruban, in a shooting spree along the Haifa-Tel Aviv highway.

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLES

ARAFAT HAS $2.4 BILLION

Arafat has $2.4bn, parliament told
The Australian (one of Australia's leading daily newspapers)
August 14, 2002

Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat has financial assets estimated at $US1.3 billion ($2.41 billion), army intelligence chief Major General Aharon Zeevi has told the Israeli parliament.

Arafat had made his fortune through a "monopoly on importing" in the Palestinian territories, Zeevi told the parliament's foreign affairs and defence committee.

However, he said Arafat's financial adviser, Mohammad Rashid, had imposed "a bit of order into the Palestinian Authority's accounts".

Israel has accused Arafat of both corrupt financial practices and sponsoring attacks on Israel, while its main ally, the United States, has demanded a new Palestinian leadership.

Since Israel upped its military campaign against Palestinian militants in the spring, Arafat's popularity has dropped inside his own political movement Fatah and among the general population, Zeevi said. But despite it all, Arafat continues "to pull all the strings," he added

 

ARAFAT COULD “FEED THREE MILLION PALESTINIANS FOR A YEAR”

What $1.3b could do
By Tal Muscal
The Jerusalem Post
August 14, 2002

With wealth greater than that of Jeff Bezos, founder and chairman of Amazon.com ($1.23 billion, according to Fortune magazine), Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat could pour his money into new housing, hospitals, and health care.

For $1.3 billion, 40,625 six-family dwellings could be built for PA residents ($32,000 per unit).

It could feed 3 million Palestinians for an entire year, and leave $892 million to be spent on 1,000 mobile intensive care units ($69,900 each), as well as funding for 10 hospitals, such as Gaza's Ahli Arab Hospital, for 10 years, leaving $585m. to fund other social projects such as:

Computerization of 10 hospitals at a cost of $4.57m.

The annual salaries of 10,000 medical employees ($4,200 each).

Hepatitis vaccinations for 3 million PA residents ($11.25 per injection).

The price quotes are based on statistics of NGOs providing humanitarian assistance to the PA, presented by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

 

U.S. MONEY FOR PALESTINIAN GIRLS’ SCHOOL NAMED AFTER TERRORIST

"US money for a Palestinian girls' school, named for a terrorist who murdered 36 Israelis and an American"
By Itamar Marcus
Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin
August 7, 2002

The Unites States has been attempting to bypass the Palestinian Authority [PA] misuse of American financial aid by directly funding specific projects. However, even in these projects, US money can be used to promote terrorism in subtle but effective ways.

One of the ways a society teaches its children values is by glorifying chosen individuals. The PA as policy continues to glorify as heroes, terrorists who have killed the greatest number of Israelis, especially in educational structures for children.

Dalal Mughrabi is the woman terrorist who participated in the murder of 36 Israelis and an American nature photographer, Gail Ruban, in 1978. A girls' high school named for the terrorist – "The Dalal Mughrabi School" – is now being renovated with money from USAID – through ANERA (American Near East Refugee Aid). A school named after a terrorist promotes murder and terrorism as positive values to children in general, and especially to those children studying in that school. US money is helping to support an educational structure that is inherently promoting terrorism and glorifying the murderer of an American.

This school's name is not an exception. Numerous schools, summer camps and sports teams are named for terrorist-murderers, including Ayyat al-Akhras, the woman suicide bomber, and symbols of violence continue to be used in educational and sport structures. The background poster of a UNICEF funded summer camp includes a gun.

The following are a series of recent news items, as they appeared in Palestinian sources, that demonstrate this Palestinian Authority policy of glorifying terrorists and violence and demonstrates the use of foreign money in some of these projects.

News Items on schools, summer camps, and sport team names:

1. Dalal Mughrabi – the terrorist who participated in the bus hijacking and murder of 36 Israelis and American Gail Rubin, in 1978. USAID is renovating the Dalal Al- Mughrabi school.

News Item: "Announcement: Palestinian National Authority Ministry of Schools and Higher Education Hebron District"

"Building contract tender for the Dalal Mughrabi girls' high school [Al-Shuyukh village Hebron district] With funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through ANERA (American Near East Refugee Aid)"

The ad has the logos of the USAID, the Palestinian Authority and ANERA. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida July 30 2002]

2. Ayyat al-Akhras – The woman suicide bomber who killed a number of Israelis as she blew herself up in a supermarket in Jerusalem. The Palestinians named a children's summer camp in her name.

News Item: "Today the activities begin in the tenth Scouts summer camp, the Shahid -Seeker [suicide bomber]- Ayyat al-Akhras Camp. The camp's activities will last one week." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Aug. 4, 2002]

3. Jihad al-Amarin – commander of "Al-Aqsa Martyrs" terror organization, responsible for murder of numerous Israelis. The Palestinians named a children's summer camp in his name.

News Item: "Yesterday the first summer camp of the Fatah movement began its activities on the Gaza beach, with the participation of 150 children. The camp is named after the Shahid Jihad al-Amarein, commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Gaza" [Al-Quds July 29, 2002]

4. Baha Sa'id – Killed two Israeli soldiers in a terrorist attack. The Palestinians named a football [soccer] team in his name.

News Item: "Two great victories to the Shahid Baha Sai'd team in the Deir al-Balah Shahid football championship." [Al-Ayam July 26 2002]

5. Fuad al-Shubaki is responsible for attempting to smuggle a weapons ship with many tons of missiles and other illegal weapons from Iran to the Palestinian Authority. He is now held in jail. Calling for his freedom was chosen as the slogan for a summer camp.

News Item: "The Socialist Youth Group opened its third summer camp in Gaza, with the slogan "Freedom to the fighter Fuad al-Shubaki, The great fighter." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida Aug. 4 2002]

6. The summer camp poster includes a gun in a UNICEF funded summer camp.

News Item: "The scouts organization held a ceremony marking the conclusion of the summer camp." [PA TV, July 29, 2002] On the TV screen in the background is one sign: "Camp funded by UNICEF" and on another are: "UNICEF", a Palestinian flag, and a tree holding a rifle. The UNICEF funded summer camp is likewise used to incite Palestinian children to hatred against Israel as the speeches broadcast from the camp ceremony were attacking Israel and did not deal with normal summer camp activities – sports, culture etc.


Dispatches from Europe: Prague, Moscow, Romania, Belgium

DISPATCHES FROM EUROPE

[Note by Tom Gross]

I attach the following:

1. "Jewish quarter evacuated in Prague as flood waters rise, Israel to give aid" (Israel Radio, August 14, 2002).

2. "Romania probes suspected Jewish mass grave" (Reuters, August 13, 2002). This new discovery in northeast Romania is important. Although many details of the 1941 atrocities (carried out by the Romanians not the Germans, and then concealed by the postwar communist regime), have been revealed since the overthrow of communism, many Romanians still refuse to believe that their troops killed Jews in World War Two.

3. "Jews look back on 1952 atrocity" (The Moscow Times, August 13, 2002). The 50th anniversary of Stalin's infamous execution of leading Soviet Jews on Aug. 12, 1952, is commemorated in Moscow. Among those tried and executed were several prominent Yiddish writers, including the poet Yitzhak Feffer and the novelist David Bergelson.

4. "Belgium's fears of anti-Semitism and extremism come out of the closet" (Ha'aretz, August 13, 2002). The recent attack on the Brussels chief rabbi, a number of shootings against synagogues, and the murder of an elderly Moroccan couple, has led the Belgian king, Albert II, to publicly condemn anti-Semitism and racism for the first time.



FULL ARTICLES

JEWISH QUARTER EVACUATED IN PRAGUE

Jewish quarter evacuated in Prague as flood waters rise, Israel to give aid
Israel radio
August 14, 2002

As flood waters continue to rise in the Czech capital of Prague, authorities have ordered the evacuation of the old city including the historic Jewish quarter. Israel has announced that it is offering the Czech Republic aid in the wake of the severe flooding. Israel Radio reported that the Foreign Ministry would evaluate the needs of the republic before deciding on the nature of the aid. So far 200,000 people have been evacuated from their homes and the damage is estimated at $2 billion.

 

ROMANIA INVESTIGATES SUSPECTED JEWISH MASS GRAVE

Romania probes suspected Jewish mass grave
Reuters
August 13, 2002

Romanian authorities on Monday began excavating a site in the northeast of the country suspected of holding the bodies of Jews massacred during World War Two.

"We will dig trenches and send any findings to specialized forensic laboratories," vice-prefect Valentin Soroceanu told Reuters by telephone from the village of Popricani, near the city of Iasi. Thousands of Jews perished in the Iasi region in 1941 after the Romanian government allied itself with Nazi Germany.

The decision to launch the investigation came after a local newspaper printed the accounts of several Popricani villagers who said they had witnessed the mass killing of Jews in a forest near the village in 1941. "I saw when they were ordered to dig their own graves. Men, women, children... they were digging and crying. They were all machine-gunned," an elderly villager told Iasi television last week.

Although many details of the 1941 atrocities, concealed by the former communist rulers, have been revealed since the overthrow of communism some 13 years ago, many Romanians refuse to believe that troops killed Jews in World War Two.

The first victims were shot dead in July 1941 in Iasi when Romanian fascists, under the rule of military dictator Marshal Ion Antonescu, killed 12,000 Jews in northeastern Romania.

Scores of Jews were loaded onto overcrowded cattle trucks and traveled aimlessly around Romania for days while the authorities discussed their fate. Hundreds died from starvation and thirst.

"So far, we have found only cartridge cases. It's true that this site was also the scene of heavy fighting between the Russians and Germans in 1945. But we continue the investigations," archaeologist Silviu Sanie, a leader of the Iasi Jewish community and a member of the Popricani investigating team, told Reuters.

Antonescu sent 150,000 Jews to Nazi death camps, but some Romanians still revere him as a hero for fighting back the Russian army to regain Romanian territories lost to the Soviets. Communists executed Antonescu as a war criminal in 1946, but after the 1989 fall of communism, his statue was displayed in several cities.

The leftist government led by Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, pushing Romania's bid to join NATO and the European Union, banned fascist symbols, including Antonescu statues. However, reports in the local media suggested some resistance among local mayors to the new legislation.

 

MOSCOW JEWS COMMEMORATE 1952 ATROCITY

Jews look back on 1952 atrocity
The Moscow Times
August 13, 2002

Marking the 50th anniversary of one of the last spasms of Stalinist terror, members of the Jewish community gathered in a Moscow synagogue Monday to reflect on the improvement of their condition in Russia over the past half-century and to warn that anti-Semitism still plagues the country.

The ceremony commemorated the Aug. 12, 1952, execution of 13 members of the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in the basement of Lubyanka, the infamous headquarters of the Soviet secret police.

Although the number of victims was small in comparison with the tens of millions of people estimated to have died under Stalin, the killings are seen as an especially shocking demonstration of how the system had become debased by paranoia and bloodlust.

The committee had once been an important propaganda tool for Stalin in the fight against the Nazis and the Soviet Union allowed some of its members to travel to the United States for fund-raising events.

But after Russian Jews were electrified by the creation of Israel in 1948, Stalin began to see the group as a potential threat to his grasp on power and members were arrested and tried in secret. Among those tried and executed were several prominent Yiddish writers, including poet Yitzhak Feffer and novelist David Bergelson.

"We have a task. Those of you living today – do everything so that such a tragedy cannot be repeated," prominent rabbi Adolf Shayevich said at the opening of the memorial ceremony. "You all very well remember the system that broke and destroyed its children."

Israeli Ambassador Nathan Meron chose to reflect with melancholy satisfaction on how Russia now has close relations with the Israel that the Kremlin once feared. "It is very sad that they [committee members] were not living to see... the establishment of diplomatic relations between the state of Israel and the new Russia," Meron said, and went on to praise improvements for Jews in Russia. "The life of the Jewish community in today's Russia is free, without limits," he said.

However, some speakers bitterly noted recent indications of resurgent anti-Semitism in Russia, drawing attention to the appearance of anti-Semitic flyers at some bus shelters and to the case this year when a woman was injured when removing an explosives-rigged anti-Jewish sign placed along a highway.

Yevgeniya Albats, a prominent journalist, said Russia's Jews must fight against such eruptions of prejudice, saying that previous oppressions were encouraged by Jews' failure to fight back. "It was because we were silent. It was our fault," she said.

The ceremony ended with a performance by singer Mark Aizkovich, who has written songs based on the poems of some of the writers killed 50 years ago. Smiling broadly, he urged the gathering of about 150 people to remember the joy the authors brought their readers, but got only some hesitant hand-clapping to lively passages before attendees began drifting out.

 

BELGIAN ESTABLISHMENT FEARS RISE OF ANTI-SEMITISM

Belgium's fears of anti-Semitism and extremism come out of the closet
Ha'aretz
By Sharon Sadeh
August 13, 2002

The Belgian establishment is worried. The recent steep rise in attacks on Jews, including a December 2001 attack on the Brussels chief rabbi and a number of recent shootings against synagogues across the country, along with increasing hostility toward Muslims, have not only stained the country's image and strained its diplomatic relationships, but have also exposed the incompetence of the country's authorities.

King Albert II used the July 21 National Day celebrations to publicly address this phenomenon for the first time. In his speech to the nation, the king talked about the wave of racism sweeping Europe and Belgium, specifically mentioning the murder of an elderly Moroccan couple in Brussels by right-wing extremists.

"Other communities are suffering from the increasing phenomenon of intolerance, such as attacks on synagogues in the country," the king said. He added that it would be "inconceivable that they [perpetrators] would try and bring the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East to us."

Even if the king refrained from explicitly mentioning the Jewish community, which numbers about 30,000-35,000, Israeli representatives were satisfied that the Belgians finally said publicly what had been discussed behind closed doors or at events organized by the Jewish community: that cracks in the country's social fabric were becoming noticeable, and that the Jews were victims of anti-Semitism linked to political motives, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Top Israeli diplomats, however, said that in the absence of any vigorous campaign to limit incitement to violence against Jews, it is doubtful that things will improve.

"The Western European governments condemned the attacks on Jews in a weak and feeble manner," said Harry Kney-Tal, Israel's ambassador to the European Communities. "They know that these acts are carried out in the vast majority of cases by elements in the Muslim minority, but they fear that by pointing an accusing finger, they will contradict their policy of neutrality, as well as probably be interpreted as taking a stand or choosing a side," he said.

Diplomatic sources said that the Middle East conflict has become an internal political issue, and a number of parties have decided to support anti-Israel legislation in the hope that it will "score them points" with the 500,000-strong Muslim community when the fall election campaign begins.

This also led the Belgian government to support a new bill that will practically ensure that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon can be tried by Brussels for his alleged role in the Sabra and Chatilla massacres.

Diplomatic and electoral interests are not the only reasons preventing the Belgian authorities from taking action against individuals inciting against Jews and against extreme Muslim groups such as the Al Aqsa association, which raises money for Hamas in a number of European countries. International treaties signed by Brussels, such as the Schengen Treaty, which removes internal border controls between member states, makes the surveillance and location of suspected terrorists more difficult. In meetings between Belgian and Israeli officials, it emerged that Brussels also lacks a body to oversee the work of dozens of law enforcement and security organizations spread out through the country's four levels of power: federal, regional, provincial and municipal.

Belgium, like many other European countries, is trying to understand the roots of the Muslim organizations' radicalization. The Belgian parliament probed extremist Islam and prepared a secret report, parts of which were leaked to the media. According to the report, the government's current handling of the issue is insufficient, and senior EU sources believe that Belgium, like other Western European nations, is not prepared to deal with a mass terror attack.

The heads of the Brussels-based CEJI (European Jewish Information Center) asked the Council of the EU four months ago to restrain Arab countries who participated in the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process) meetings, which Israel also attended.

A top EU official told Ha'aretz that the organization has no intention of conditioning the financial aid given to Arab states and governments where incitement against Israel and Jews is rife to the Arab authorities taking concrete steps to stop this.

"I don't think that tying our aid to a particular line is likely to be productive," he said. "We cannot control the press, and I don't see how you could do so in practical terms. We try by cooperating with those countries to steer them toward more open and liberal attitudes, but that doesn't mean that we should dictate to them what line to take."


The Guardian attacks Memri

August 13, 2002

AN “ISRAELI ORGANIZATION”

[Note by Tom Gross]

In line with many other international news outlets, the British newspaper, The Guardian is obsessed by Israel. In another of their pieces today (attached below), the newspaper attacks Memri (www.memri.org), as an "Israeli organization."

The Guardian says that "The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon. Mr – or rather, Colonel – Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin. Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three – including Col Carmon – are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence."

Memri is a non-governmental organization. I know Yigal Carmon and several of his staff in Jerusalem. His staff are all young and graduates of Arab and Farsi language courses at Israeli universities. They are highly professional and objective. And most voted for Ehud Barak against Ariel Sharon in last year's elections.

The Guardian's suggestion that Memri does not also provide translations from the Hebrew media, is completely untrue.

The Guardian scoffs at the fact that the names of Memri's staff and office address were removed from their website as a result of death threats being made against them by Arab extremists, calling this an "over-the-top precaution".

-- Tom Gross



SELECTIVE MEMRI

Selective Memri
By Brian Whitaker
The Guardian
August 12, 2002

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html

Brian Whitaker investigates whether the 'independent' media institute that translates the Arabic newspapers is quite what it seems

For some time now, I have been receiving small gifts from a generous institute in the United States. The gifts are high-quality translations of articles from Arabic newspapers which the institute sends to me by email every few days, entirely free-of-charge.

The emails also go to politicians and academics, as well as to lots of other journalists. The stories they contain are usually interesting.

Whenever I get an email from the institute, several of my Guardian colleagues receive one too and regularly forward their copies to me – sometimes with a note suggesting that I might like to check out the story and write about it.

If the note happens to come from a more senior colleague, I'm left feeling that I really ought to write about it. One example last week was a couple of paragraphs translated by the institute, in which a former doctor in the Iraqi army claimed that Saddam Hussein had personally given orders to amputate the ears of military deserters.

The organisation that makes these translations and sends them out is the Middle East Media Research Institute (Memri), based in Washington but with recently-opened offices in London, Berlin and Jerusalem.

Its work is subsidised by US taxpayers because as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit" organisation, it has tax-deductible status under American law.

Memri's purpose, according to its website, is to bridge the language gap between the west – where few speak Arabic – and the Middle East, by "providing timely translations of Arabic, Farsi, and Hebrew media".

Despite these high-minded statements, several things make me uneasy whenever I'm asked to look at a story circulated by Memri. First of all, it's a rather mysterious organisation. Its website does not give the names of any people to contact, not even an office address.

The reason for this secrecy, according to a former employee, is that "they don't want suicide bombers walking through the door on Monday morning" (Washington Times, June 20).

This strikes me as a somewhat over-the-top precaution for an institute that simply wants to break down east-west language barriers.

The second thing that makes me uneasy is that the stories selected by Memri for translation follow a familiar pattern: either they reflect badly on the character of Arabs or they in some way further the political agenda of Israel. I am not alone in this unease.

Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations told the Washington Times: "Memri's intent is to find the worst possible quotes from the Muslim world and disseminate them as widely as possible."

Memri might, of course, argue that it is seeking to encourage moderation by highlighting the blatant examples of intolerance and extremism. But if so, one would expect it – for the sake of non-partisanship – to publicise extremist articles in the Hebrew media too.

Although Memri claims that it does provide translations from Hebrew media, I can't recall receiving any.

Evidence from Memri's website also casts doubt on its non-partisan status. Besides supporting liberal democracy, civil society, and the free market, the institute also emphasises "the continuing relevance of Zionism to the Jewish people and to the state of Israel".

That is what its website used to say, but the words about Zionism have now been deleted. The original page, however, can still be found in internet archives.

The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.

Mr – or rather, Colonel – Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin.

Retrieving another now-deleted page from the archives of Memri's website also throws up a list of its staff. Of the six people named, three – including Col Carmon – are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.

Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian.

Col Carmon's co-founder at Memri is Meyrav Wurmser, who is also director of the centre for Middle East policy at the Indianapolis-based Hudson Institute, which bills itself as "America's premier source of applied research on enduring policy challenges".

The ubiquitous Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's defence policy board, recently joined Hudson's board of trustees.

Ms Wurmser is the author of an academic paper entitled Can Israel Survive Post-Zionism? in which she argues that leftwing Israeli intellectuals pose "more than a passing threat" to the state of Israel, undermining its soul and reducing its will for self-defence.

In addition, Ms Wurmser is a highly qualified, internationally recognised, inspiring and knowledgeable speaker on the Middle East whose presence would make any "event, radio or television show a unique one" – according to Benador Associates, a public relations company which touts her services.

Nobody, so far as I know, disputes the general accuracy of Memri's translations but there are other reasons to be concerned about its output.

The email it circulated last week about Saddam Hussein ordering people's ears to be cut off was an extract from a longer article in the pan-Arab newspaper, al-Hayat, by Adil Awadh who claimed to have first-hand knowledge of it.

It was the sort of tale about Iraqi brutality that newspapers would happily reprint without checking, especially in the current atmosphere of war fever. It may well be true, but it needs to be treated with a little circumspection.

Mr Awadh is not exactly an independent figure. He is, or at least was, a member of the Iraqi National Accord, an exiled Iraqi opposition group backed by the US – and neither al-Hayat nor Memri mentioned this.

Also, Mr Awadh's allegation first came to light some four years ago, when he had a strong personal reason for making it. According to a Washington Post report in 1998, the amputation claim formed part of his application for political asylum in the United States.

At the time, he was one of six Iraqis under arrest in the US as suspected terrorists or Iraqi intelligence agents, and he was trying to show that the Americans had made a mistake.

Earlier this year, Memri scored two significant propaganda successes against Saudi Arabia. The first was its translation of an article from al-Riyadh newspaper in which a columnist wrote that Jews use the blood of Christian or Muslim children in pastries for the Purim religious festival.

The writer, a university teacher, was apparently relying on an anti-semitic myth that dates back to the middle ages. What this demonstrated, more than anything, was the ignorance of many Arabs – even those highly educated – about Judaism and Israel, and their readiness to believe such ridiculous stories.

But Memri claimed al-Riyadh was a Saudi "government newspaper" – in fact it's privately owned – implying that the article had some form of official approval.

Al-Riyadh's editor said he had not seen the article before publication because he had been abroad. He apologised without hesitation and sacked his columnist, but by then the damage had been done.

Memri's next success came a month later when Saudi Arabia's ambassador to London wrote a poem entitled The Martyrs – about a young woman suicide bomber – which was published in al-Hayat newspaper.

Memri sent out translated extracts from the poem, which it described as "praising suicide bombers". Whether that was the poem's real message is a matter of interpretation. It could, perhaps more plausibly, be read as condemning the political ineffectiveness of Arab leaders, but Memri's interpretation was reported, almost without question, by the western media.

These incidents involving Saudi Arabia should not be viewed in isolation. They are part of building a case against the kingdom and persuading the United States to treat it as an enemy, rather than an ally.

It's a campaign that the Israeli government and American neo-conservatives have been pushing since early this year – one aspect of which was the bizarre anti-Saudi briefing at the Pentagon, hosted last month by Richard Perle.

To anyone who reads Arabic newspapers regularly, it should be obvious that the items highlighted by Memri are those that suit its agenda and are not representative of the newspapers' content as a whole.

The danger is that many of the senators, congressmen and "opinion formers" who don't read Arabic but receive Memri's emails may get the idea that these extreme examples are not only truly representative but also reflect the policies of Arab governments.

Memri's Col Carmon seems eager to encourage them in that belief. In Washington last April, in testimony to the House committee on international relations, he portrayed the Arab media as part of a wide-scale system of government-sponsored indoctrination.

"The controlled media of the Arab governments conveys hatred of the west, and in particular, of the United States," he said. "Prior to September 11, one could frequently find articles which openly supported, or even called for, terrorist attacks against the United States ...

"The United States is sometimes compared to Nazi Germany, President Bush to Hitler, Guantanamo to Auschwitz," he said.

In the case of the al-Jazeera satellite channel, he added, "the overwhelming majority of guests and callers are typically anti-American and anti-semitic".

Unfortunately, it is on the basis of such sweeping generalisations that much of American foreign policy is built these days.

As far as relations between the west and the Arab world are concerned, language is a barrier that perpetuates ignorance and can easily foster misunderstanding.

All it takes is a small but active group of Israelis to exploit that barrier for their own ends and start changing western perceptions of Arabs for the worse.

It is not difficult to see what Arabs might do to counter that. A group of Arab media companies could get together and publish translations of articles that more accurately reflect the content of their newspapers.

It would certainly not be beyond their means. But, as usual, they may prefer to sit back and grumble about the machinations of Israeli intelligence veterans.

* Join Middle East editor Brian Whitaker and Washington correspondent Julian Borger at 1pm on Tuesday August 13 for an online chat to discuss the growing threat of a US military attack on Iraq.


Goldenberg bows out

“A WHIRLWIND OF MASSACRES AND SIEGES”

[Note by Tom Gross]

To mark the end of her tenure as the (UK) Guardian's chief Jerusalem correspondent, Suzanne Goldenberg sums up her experiences and feelings in a 2000 word essay published in today's Guardian. Although some of the things Goldenberg says are true, as has so often been the case in her reporting she has also interwoven a lot of misleading information into her essay (copied below).

Goldenberg, who is to take up a new post as The Guardian's Washington correspondent, also speaks of the "the rise of McCarthyism" in Israel and compares photographs of alleged Israeli actions in the West Bank to "the pictures taken by British souvenir hunters more than 150 years ago, after the crushing of a rebellion by Indian soldiers against the East India Company in a whirlwind of massacres and sieges in 1858."

For those of you who don't know, although the circulation of The Guardian (at about half million sales per day) is not particularly large by British standards, it is a highly influential publication, being the newspaper of choice for Britain's academics, high school teachers, and media elites (and read, for example, by many BBC staff.) It also has sister arrangements with liberal-left papers throughout Europe, and many of The Guardian's articles appear in other languages in papers such as Le Monde.

For those of you interested in reading my own piece on Suzanne Goldenberg, The Guardian, and other media matters, written as a result of my having escorted The Guardian's chief editor and features editor round parts of Jerusalem and Bethlehem last year, click here. (The piece is on three web pages, and does not end at the bottom of the first page.)

-- Tom Gross



“IT’S GONE BEYOND HOSTILITY”

'It's gone beyond hostility'
After two and a half years in Jerusalem, the Guardian's award-winning Middle East correspondent is moving to a new post in Washington. Here she looks back on the desperate violence she has witnessed during the intifada and reflects on how both Palestinians and Israelis have been brutalised by the experience
By Suzanne Goldenberg
The Guardian
August 12, 2002

There was gunfire on the day I moved out – a crack or two, followed by a burst of automatic fire and silence before the familiar wail of the ambulances made it horribly clear that this wasn't fireworks or a car engine -backfiring. The fatal shooting – a Palestinian gunman shot dead a security guard from the telephone company before being killed himself along with a Palestinian bystander – was just around the corner at the Damascus Gate of the walled city, and sounded very loud from our front porch. The packers, strangers to Jerusalem from the relatively sleepy northern town of Atlit, were shaken. When they had walked through the door, less than three hours before, the television was showing scenes of carnage from a suicide bombing of a bus in the Galilee. Another attack? They turned on a radio to hear the latest score of death, but almost immediately resumed packing.

The moment was a last reminder of the intimacy of the violence of the past 22 months. Most Israelis – even if they and their loved ones have never been close to a Palestinian suicide attack – can identify at least with the location: their bus route, their cafe, their falafel stand. So can Palestinians, of course, with Israeli tanks thundering up and down the streets of their cities and towns in the West Bank.

Children rattle off the calibres of the various weaponry they hear and see deployed around – and far too often at them – by the Israeli army. Almost every single Palestinian I have met here can count someone within their immediate family either dead or injured by Israeli soldiers. Some poor unfortunates have been shot twice, in their own homes. All have their own stories of lesser injury: the casual brutality with which Israeli soldiers restrict normal movement at checkpoints, the mix of fury and boredom after 50 days of living by Israel's clock, under near constant curfew. But despite the proximity with which they live and die, Israelis and Palestinians, in the main, are interested in knowing only their strand of the story. And while it would seem abundantly clear to the outside world that Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat have brought only disaster, Israelis and Palestinians appear not to be suffering from doubts, but from certainties.

Increasingly, Israelis are resistant to hearing or seeing anything that challenges their version of events, a nationally adopted cant that basically says: "We are the victims, they are terrorists and the whole world is against us."

Palestinians, naturally, see themselves as universal victims as well. The competition for victimhood reached its apogee a few days after September 11, when Palestinians and Israelis held candelight memorials with astoundingly similar placards: "We know how you feel, we are victims of terrorism too."

The sanctification of victimhood has gone further since then. Liberal Israeli commentators talk about the rise of McCarthyism. At the same time as supporters of Israel rage against the sacking of two Israeli academics from the editorial boards of obscure journals of translation in Manchester, lecturers at Israeli universities face disciplinary measures – sometimes at the instigation of their colleagues – for expressing support for the country's tiny movement of conscientious objectors in the classroom. Peace activists – and they exist only on the margins of Israel's far left nowadays – are also threatened with legal proceedings for encouraging the investigation of Israeli soldiers for war crimes. The limits of Israel's democracy are as circumscribed as they have ever been, says Jeff Halper, an American peace activist who immigrated here in 1973.

"It's gone beyond hostility. You are simply dismissed. People don't listen to you. They have no idea what in the hell you are talking about. It is so clear to people that we are the good guys, and they are terrorists that just want to kill us."

Such certainties do not exist any more in western countries. Since the Vietnam war, Americans have gazed on their military with a large dose of scepticism. Nobody seriously believes the army is always right. But despite two years of atrocity and siege, and growing criticism in Europe and even in America of Ariel Sharon's pursuit of a military solution to the conflict with the Palestinians, Israelis continue to see themselves as part of an ideal. Many believe that their country operates on a higher ethical standard than most. Phone-in callers to radio chat shows regularly congratulate themselves – with no apparent irony – on living in the best country in the world before going on to bewail the mess the Palestinians – not their own leaders – have got them into. Israeli politicians and generals are fond of describing their army as the most "moral" force in the world and its citizens generally believe them.

And so none of the Israelis I spoke to were as struck as I was at the photographs that have begun appearing in Israeli newspapers since the army reoccupied the West Bank in June. The first searing image appeared at the beginning of July: a grinning Israeli soldier looming over two Palestinian captives, kneeling in their underpants before a cache of seized weapons. Their hands were bound behind their backs, and they were blindfolded. Once fearsome Palestinian terrorists turned into human trophies of war. The photographs reminded me of the pictures taken by British souvenir hunters more than 150 years ago, after the crushing of a rebellion by Indian soldiers against the East India Company in a whirlwind of massacres and sieges in 1858. Once fearsome opponents turned into human trophies of war.

Since arriving in Jerusalem in February 2000, seven months before the eruption of the Palestinian uprising, I have lost count of the times I have heard Israelis describe Palestinians as animals, savage beasts intent on inflicting terror. Only Israelis rarely use the word Palestinian – their neighbours are much more commonly described as Arabs, part of that collection of more than 20 countries most have never seen. "Only an animal could do something like this," said a young woman at the illegal Jewish settlement of Emmanuel the day after Palestinian militants killed nine people in an ambush. "Not even animals kill just for the fun of it, like they do."

Waves of suicide bombings by Palestinian militants have done much to feed that impression, enabling Israelis to deny the Palestinian humanity. So has the footage from the West Bank and Gaza shown on Israeli television: the beaming children waving their hands in the air for the cameras in celebration of a suicide attack, the ritual of martyrs' funerals, with masked men bristling with weaponry firing guns in the air as a final send-off.

In recent weeks, a few Palestinian intellectuals have spoken out against the cult of bombers, recognising that suicide attacks are destroying their own society from within – and its image from without – at the same time as they are rendering it near impossible for activists inside Israel to mobilise greater publics in support of peace. But even these petitions and advertisements against suicide bombings are not voiced in moral terms. And they have not explicitly condemned suicide bombings – it would be seen as too confrontational – but cocooned their criticism in the phrase "attacks against civilians in Israel".

A few days after one such petition was published in Israeli newspapers, one of the signers, a university lecturer, told a friend in Ramallah: In her heart of hearts, she still felt that the Israelis had not absorbed their full share of suffering yet. Halper and others argue that the mutual blindness between Israelis and Palestinians is far older than the current intifada. "The problem is that Zionism never recognised that there exists a Palestinian people; in other words, a people with a distinct identity, with a distinct character, with a history of their own, with legitimate claims to the country," he says.

"I look at the intifada like a prison revolt, and the attitude of the Israelis is, 'what right do these inmates have in our country to resist our rules?' One thing that is hard to explain is this tremendous rage at the Palestinians in which you dehumanise them, in which you can just do anything to them with utter disgregard to them as human beings. That rage comes because these are people that don't accept our exclusive claims to the country and therefore we have to eliminate them."

It is, of course, also true that many, many Palestinians are unwilling to admit the humanity of Israelis. The other week, I watched the funeral of 15 Palestinians – including nine children and three women – who were killed when Israel dropped a one-tonne bomb on one of the most crowded neighbourhoods of Gaza City to assassinate the man who was arguably one of its most dangerous enemies – the founder and military commander of Hamas.

Tens of thousands of Palestinians coursed down Gaza's main street, furious and vengeful. Munira Shurab, a middle-class housewife, watched them pass from her balcony. "The hate in my heart now is too big to describe to you. I never thought I was capable of hating so much but, day after day, the anger increases," she says.

I have watched a similar transformation among other acquaintances in the West Bank and Gaza: a trained Hebrew teacher, who studied in Israel, who now feels incapable of maintaining former contacts with Israeli peace activists; peace educators who now find it impossible to ring their fellow teachers in Israel – though they find themselves wondering after a bombing or a shooting if their colleagues are alive. Such sentiments cut across class and geography. The Shurabs are an ambitious family. Munira's eldest son, Amjad, has just completed the first year of a law degree. He says he wants to be a lawyer because Palestinians desperately need due process, a state based on the rule of law. He also believes that suicide bombings are perfectly defensible.

Many Palestinians have tried this argument on me. Israelis have F-16s, Apache helicopters and tanks, they say, all we have are our human bombs. A corollary goes something like this: even if Palestinian militants open fire on Jewish settlement blocs, the range of the weapons is so poor they generally miss or inflict little damage, so why does that count as violence?

At the heart of these arguments is the belief of many that in this nasty war for a state, the Palestinians can afford no distinction between civilian and soldier. "There are no civilians in Israel. All the Israelis are military, all of them," says Amjad Shurab. "They are all military and they all have weapons and guns, and the moment they are called up they are going to be using their weapons against me."

No women, no children, no ordinary people just struggling to survive an intolerable situation. Only massed ranks of soldiers, not quite human. It's a reasoning I have encountered dozens of times among Palestinians. Though Palestinians make a point of tracking political events in Israel – knowing that they contain the key to their future – their interest has been blunted over the past few months. There is no difference, they say now, between Ariel Sharon, or any other Israeli leader. None can be trusted to negotiate a just peace; at heart, all are the same.

It is a kind of thinking that has overwhelmed Israeli society. Where racist remarks were once confined to a close circle of friends – whose views were known and presumably similar – the old inhibitions have slipped away. The slow winding down of a Friday afternoon into the Jewish Sabbath is a rarefied time in Jerusalem, a few hours when the city permits itself to relax. Government offices are shut. Shops and banks close early. Errands done, people while away the afternoon in cafes, as did we last week.

They were playing Edith Piaf and conversations started easily in Hebrew, English, Russian and French – for once not on "the situation" but movies, living in America, bad driving habits. Then the man at the end of the table chimed in: "Erasure," he said, inspired by talk of an Arnold Shwarzenegger movie. "That's what Israel needs to do."

There was a moment's embarrassed silence. We were strangers after all. But he persisted. "Imagine if you could erase them all, starting from Jerusalem, Tulkaram and Ramallah."


Gold for Israel, 30 years on from Munich

CONTENTS

1. Alex Averbukh becomes the first Israeli athlete to win gold at major international sporting event
2. Another victim of the Hebrew University attack dies
3. More Fatah terrorism
4. "Athletes, families join in memorial for victims of 1972 Olympics" (AP, Aug. 12, 2002)
5. "Epic day for Jackson and Averbukh" (Malaysia Star, Aug. 12, 2002)


ALEX AVERBUKH BECOMES THE FIRST ISRAELI ATHLETE TO WIN GOLD AT MAJOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING EVENT

[Note by Tom Gross]

Thirty years after Palestinian terrorists massacred Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, pole-vaulter Alex Averbukh has become the first Israeli athlete to win a gold medal at a major international sporting event, the European Athletics Championships – held this year in Munich. Averbukh's victory made the front page of all major Israeli newspapers, together with reports on the memorial service for the Olympic victims.

Averbukh's success was even reported in the media of countries usually hostile to Israel. (See, for example, story "Epic day for Jackson and Averbukh" from the Malaysia Star, below.)

At a ceremony commemorating the slain athletes, Ankie Schpitzer, the widow of fencing coach Andrei Schpitzer, one of the 11 victims, assailed the International Olympic Committee, which until today has refused to commemorate the Munich victims out of fears of an Arab boycott of the games. (See story attached below "Athletes, families join in memorial for victims of 1972 Olympics.")

Averbukh's success came on the evening that two more Israelis died as a result of Palestinian terror attacks.

ANOTHER VICTIM OF THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY ATTACK DIES

Daphna Spruch, 61, became the eighth victim of the July 31 terror attack at Hebrew University, after she died as a result of injuries sustained in the bombing. It was noted at her funeral yesterday that Spruch, who worked as an information systems coordinator at the university, was a left-wing activist for the Women in Black organization and a frequent attendee at demonstrations calling for an "end to the occupation." Spruch is survived by three children, Asia, Adam, and Anna. Two people (of the 86 wounded in the Hebrew University attack) remain in critical condition.

MORE FATAH TERRORISM

Also on Saturday, Yafit Herenstein, 31, of Moshav Mechora in the Jordan Valley, was shot dead outside her home by Palestinian gunmen. Her husband Arno was also shot and injured while he attempted to rescue her. She is survived by her two young daughters, Shai and Hen. The military wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction claimed responsibility for the attack.

-- Tom Gross



FULL ARTICLES

MEMORIAL SERVICE FOR ELEVEN ISRAELI ATHLETES KILLED AT 1972 MUNICH OLYMPICS

Athletes, families join in memorial for victims of 1972 Olympics
The Associated Press
August 12, 2002

Relatives and athletes joined in a memorial service Sunday for the 11 Israelis killed at the 1972 Munich Olympics, standing in a moment of silence, listening to songs and speeches, and promising not to forget.

Amid heavy security and in cool, drizzly weather, 25 relatives of the athletes who were killed were joined by the Israeli team in Munich for the European athletics championship, which ended yesterday.

The one-hour ceremony took place at the monument to the victims, a large stone tablet placed at the bridge linking the former Olympic village to the Olympic stadium. The victims' names are etched in the stone in German and Hebrew, with the solemn words: "In honor of their memory." An Israeli flag was draped across the tablet, with 11 candles burning and fresh wreaths laid at the foot of the monument.

It is the first time since the Munich Olympics that the village is being used by athletes, including the 17-member Israeli athletics team.

During the ceremony, police helicopters circled above, the main highway passing under the bridge was closed off in both directions, and police sharpshooters scanned the area from atop the bridge supports.

On September 5, 1972, Palestinian terrorists stormed an Olympic Village apartment house at the Munich Olympics, killing two Israeli athletes and holding the others hostage.

In a botched rescue attempt after a 20-hour standoff, nine more Israeli athletes were killed, as well as five terrorists and a German policeman.

The Israeli ambassador to Germany, Shimon Stein, said the Israelis were killed "in cold blood, with the knowledge of [current Palestinian Authority Chairman] Yasser Arafat."

In the rescue attempt at the Fuerstenfeldbruck airfield just outside Munich, the Israelis died in two helicopters after a shootout between the terrorist and police. Ankie Schpitzer, the widow of fencing coach Andrei Schpitzer, one of the 11 victims, said it was difficult for her to see the police helicopters providing security for the ceremony, because of the memories they brought back.

She criticized the rescue attempt as "incompetent and stupid." "We are here not to forget and not to forgive," said Schpitzer, who was at the 1972 games with her husband.

She also assailed the International Olympic Committee, which has refused to commemorate the victims out of fears of an Arab boycott of the games.

Michal Rot, the 20-year-old daughter of Esther Rot, an Israeli athlete in 1972 who escaped capture because female competitors were in a different building, performed a song she composed in memory of the tragedy.

Among the Israeli athletes attending the ceremony was Alex Averbukh, who on Saturday won the pole vault competition, giving Israel its first gold and the first medal of any kind at a major athletics meet.

"It was unbelievable," Nili Abramski, a 10,000-meter runner, said of her teammate.

"To think that he did it in the same stadium, it was the most amazing thing," Abramski said. "And to hear the Israeli national anthem in this stadium."

There was no investigation of the events until 1992, when files were smuggled from Germany to Israel. Since then, the city of Munich, the state of Bavaria and the German federal government have offered about $3 million to the families of the athletes, a belated and indirect admission of partial responsibility.

 

AVERBUKH FOUGHT BACK TEARS AS ISRAELI ANTHEM RESOUNDED AROUND STADIUM BUILT FOR 1972 GAMES

Epic day for Jackson and Averbukh
Malaysia Star
August 12, 2002

Colin Jackson and Alex Averbukh shared the spotlight on a day of history and emotion at the European athletics championships on Saturday.

Briton Jackson became the first athlete to win four consecutive European track titles with a stylish victory in the 110 metres hurdles final, while Averbukh handed Israel their first gold medal from a major championships in the city where 11 Israelis were killed during the 1972 Olympics.

The 35-year-old Jackson, eager to make up for his recent failure to win a third Commonwealth title in Manchester, clocked a winning time of 13.11 seconds for a place in the record books.

"It was very fortunate for me to come back and run very well after the disappointment of Manchester," said Jackson, who needed the fastest time by a European this season to shrug off a brave challenge from Stanislavs Olijars.

The Latvian remained in contention until the final hurdle before having to settle for silver in 13.22 seconds, while Poland's Artur Kohutek took the bronze in 13.32.

"I was very cool and calm," said world record holder Jackson, who plans to end a prolific career that also features two world titles after the world indoor championships next March in Birmingham.

The 27-year-old Averbukh, who won the men's pole vault final, fought back tears as the Israeli anthem resounded around the stadium built for the 1972 Games, during which his compatriots were murdered by Palestinian guerrillas.

"Of course I was thinking about what happened but it's better to think about the future," said the Russian-born Averbukh, who has been through hard times, losing his father, who was also his coach, last December.


Hero of World Trade Center attack laid to rest in Israel

August 05, 2002

[Note by Tom Gross]

Here is a summary of the article attached below for those who don't have time to read it in full:

A computer programmer hailed as a hero for remaining with his quadriplegic friend rather than flee the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center was laid to rest in Israel on Monday. Abraham Zelmanowitz, 55, who worked on the 27th floor of the trade center's south tower, refused to leave behind his co-worker of many years, Ed Beyea, who couldn't descend the stairs in his wheelchair. Both died when the tower collapsed. A small bundle of Zelmanowitz's remains, which were identified late last week, were wrapped in a white cloth and buried next to his parents' graves in Jerusalem's old city.


“HE WAS A REAL HERO WHO GAVE UP HIS LIFE TO HELP HIS CO-WORKER”

Hero of World Trade Center attack laid to rest in Israel
The Associated Press
August 5, 2002

A computer programmer hailed as a hero for remaining with his quadriplegic friend rather than flee the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center was laid to rest in Israel on Monday.

In an act of final closure, the family of Abraham Zelmanowitz, 55, buried his remains next to his parents at the cemetery overlooking Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives, a revered resting place for many religious Jews.

"We are fulfilling his final wishes," said his sister-in-law Evelyn Zelmanowitz who was among a small group of family members who accompanied Zelmanowitz's remains from New York.

"He's able to have a final resting place, which is something that we all had hoped for, for his sake and ours too, some place we could come to mourn him and pay tribute to him," she said.

Zelmanowitz, whose remains were identified late last week, was hailed as a hero and praised by President George W. Bush for his act of compassion.

Zelmanowitz, who worked on the 27th floor of the trade center's south tower, refused to leave behind his co-worker of many years, Ed Beyea, who couldn't descend the stairs in his wheelchair. Both died when the tower collapsed.

"For us he's a big enough hope and inspiration for all mankind at a time of such unspeakable evil that someone could teach us how to behave, to feel compassion for one's fellow man," Evelyn Zelmanowitz said.

She said that she had spoken to her brother-in-law by phone soon after the plane plowed into the tower. Zelmanowitz had told Beyea's nurse to leave the building, since she had children to think of, she said.

"He was very calm. He said the air was clear and that they were waiting for a medical team to help evacuate his friend. That was the last we heard of him," she said.

In a moving ceremony in Hebrew and Yiddish held at a yeshiva religious school in Jerusalem, friends paid tribute to Zelmanowitz, a key member of the ultra-Orthodox community in Brooklyn and a regular visitor to Israel.

"He was the epitome of kindness and good deeds," saidfamily friend Herzel Schechter. "He was a real hero who gave up his life to help his co-worker."

Later a small procession moved onto the cemetery where a small bundle of Zelmanowitz's remains, wrapped up in a white cloth, were buried in a grave in front of his parents. The cemetery is considered an important place for its closeness to the site where the first and second temples of Judaism stood, in what is now the Old City.

"He appreciated the holiness of Israel and this cemetery," Schechter said.


“Annihilate Hamas”

August 04, 2002

CONTENTS

1. A wave of terror attacks
2. "Would it have mattered if Nazi brown shirts also ran food kitchens?"
3. "Annihilate Hamas" (Editorial, Jerusalem Post, August 5, 2002)



A WAVE OF TERROR ATTACKS

[Note by Tom Gross]

Yesterday a wave of terror attacks in Israel left 13 people dead (11 Israelis and 2 Phillipinos).

Nine people were killed and over 60 wounded, some severely, in a suicide bomb attack aboard a crowded bus near Safed.

In Jerusalem, two Israelis were killed by a Palestinian gunman who opened fire on a Bezeq (telephone company repair) truck near the Old City.

In the evening, Palestinian gunmen opened fire on a private car, killing a mother and father and injuring their children – one 3 years old, one six months old.

In the Gaza Strip, a Palestinian armed with a Kalashnikov assault rifle and eight grenades was killed as he attempted to kill Jews.

In Nablus, three soldiers were wounded when a bomb exploded.

One Israeli was seriously wounded and three others were lightly wounded near Avnei Hefetz, when Palestinian terrorists fired on a car whose family occupants had just given a ride to a hitchhiker.

On the "Wallerstein Road" a roadside bomb was detonated alongside two passing jeeps wounding four Israelis, one seriously.

Hamas, in a statement issued on Hizbullah's Manar television station in Lebanon, claimed responsibility for the bus attack, and large crowds took to the streets of Gaza and the West Bank in celebration.

“WOULD IT HAVE MATTERED IF NAZI BROWN SHIRTS ALSO RAN FOOD KITCHENS?”

Today's "Jerusalem Post" carries an editorial titled "Annihilate Hamas," which I attach below. The paper says that "Hamas has launched a genocidal campaign against the Jewish people, and that Hamas's leaders are not only openly spouting the modern day equivalent of Mein Kampf and the Final Solution, they are carrying it out on a daily basis. They are murdering Jews as Jews, with the goal of annihilating the Jewish state."

Given its genocidal intentions and actions, distinguishing between the "political," "spiritual," and "military" leaders of Hamas is ludicrous and offensive, says the paper. "Would it have mattered if Nazi brown shirts also ran food kitchens? How does calling Yassin a "spiritual" leader show respect for religion in general and Islam in particular?"

-- Tom Gross


“MURDERING JEWS AS JEWS, WITH THE GOAL OF ANNIHILATING THE JEWISH STATE”

Annihilate Hamas
Editorial
The Jerusalem Post
August 5, 2002

Israel has a habit of complaining that the world does not treat the terrorists who attack us as terrorists. The truth is that Israel does not always do so either. While the leaders of al-Qaida are wanted men, the leaders of Hamas live out in the open, available to be interviewed by one and all.

In one of many interviews from his comfortable home in Gaza City, Hamas "spiritual" leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was asked by the Italian newspaper Corriere Della Sera why Hamas targets civilians, such as university students, he explained, "They are considered by us to be enemy soldiers." Asked whether bombing at Hebrew University was in response to Israel's killing of its top terrorist mastermind, Salah Shehadeh, Yassin responded, "We don't operate that way. These are not acts of retribution. We do not struggle out of revenge, but rather to liberate our land." Finally, when asked whether Hamas would be satisfied with an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-June 1967 borders, Yassin stated, "Israel was born in violence and it will die in violence. The Jews have no right to the land of Palestine."

Behind the rhetoric of revolution and justice, there is a word for Hamas's stated goal: genocide. As our columnist Caroline Glick pointed out on Friday, Hamas's leaders are not only openly spouting the modern day equivalent of Mein Kampf and the Final Solution, they are carrying it out on a daily basis. They are murdering Jews as Jews, with the goal of annihilating the Jewish state.

Given its genocidal intentions and actions, distinguishing between the "political," "spiritual," and "military" leaders of Hamas is ludicrous and offensive. Would it have mattered if Nazi brown shirts also ran food kitchens? How does calling Yassin a "spiritual" leader show respect for religion in general and Islam in particular?

Earlier this year, Great Britain went farther than the European Union in that it outlawed 21 terrorist groups but even Britain was careful to ban only Hamas's "military" wing. Again, this distinction tends to drive Israelis batty, but it is a distinction that Israel has, at least until now, clearly followed.

Salah Shehadeh's replacement, Muhammad Deif, reportedly lives in hiding with the knowledge that Israel could attempt to eliminate him at any moment. Yassin, and a small steering committee of Hamas leaders, live in their homes surrounded by their families, advisers, and supporters.

On June 25, The New York Times reported on one such a group of "150 young men who gathered outside Sheikh Yassin's house to protect him."

Said, a 20-year-old member of this crowd, explained why they were there: "We want jihad." These terrorists, in other words, are surrounded by ready-made crowds of "civilians" who knowingly risk their lives as part of their fevered support for jihad read genocide against Israel.

Israel should obviously attempt to kill or capture these men as surgically as possible, without unduly risking the lives of our soldiers. But we should not be deterred by their deliberate use of civilians as human shields, contrary to the laws of war and the practice of any besieged democracy.

Some argue that it is a mistake to target "political" leaders, because it would open Israel to attacks against our political leadership. But Israel has already had one minister assassinated, and there is no reason to believe that our leaders are not already targets. More fundamentally, it is wrong for Israel to recognize any parallel between its elected leadership and terrorist chieftains.

Finally, there is the argument that "political leaders" are easily replaced. Perhaps. But anyone who not only calls for, but plays an active, decision-making, role in a genocidal campaign against the Jewish people should fear for their lives. The harsh truth is that, while Israel leads the roster of victims in the global war against terrorism, in fighting back we lag behind.


Bill Clinton: I’d die for Israel

CONTENTS

1. Bill Clinton claims he would take up arms and "fight and die" for Israel
2. "Bubba: I'd fight and die for Israel" (New York Post, August 2, 2002)
3. "Clinton enlists in Israel's aid" (Washington Times, August 3, 2002)


[Note by Tom Gross]

EX-PRESIDENT CLINTON CLAIMS HE WOULD TAKE UP ARMS AND “FIGHT AND DIE” FOR ISRAEL

Bill Clinton has said that he would take up arms and "fight and die" for Israel if Iraq attacks the Jewish state. The remarks, made last week at a Jewish children's fund-raiser in Canada, were first reported in the Toronto Star, and then given prominence on Friday as the cover story in the New York Post.

I attach the New York Post article below, followed by a story from the Washington Times which notes that many U.S. veterans are "outraged" and "mystified" by Clinton's new "gung-ho attitude," especially considering the lengths to which he went to avoid serving in Vietnam.

While some commentators in the U.S. media have welcomed Clinton's apparent show of support for Israel, others have accused him of "a shameless bid to be invited to address other Jewish fund-raisers" for which he is paid $100,000 a pop, and said "he should sign up today – to fight for the U.S. in Afghanistan."

Clinton also confirmed that contrary to what continues to be reported by anti-Israel elements in the western media, Yasser Arafat was offered control of 97 percent of the West Bank while he was president.



FULL ARTICLES

“I WOULD GRAB A RIFLE AND GET IN THE TRENCH…”

Bubba: I'd fight and die for Israel
By Andy Geller and Richard Johnson
The New York Post
August 2, 2002

Bill Clinton – who avoided serving in Vietnam – says he would take up arms and "fight and die" for Israel if Iraq attacks the Jewish state.

"If Iraq came across the Jordan River, I would grab a rifle and get in the trench and fight and die," the ex-president said to wild applause at a Jewish fund-raiser in Toronto.

Clinton made his bombshell remarks to 350 people who paid $1,000 to break bread with him on Monday night at a dinner for the Toronto Hadassah-WIZO children's charity.

Clinton, who tried but failed to make peace in the Middle East the legacy of his presidency, decried the current cycle of violence in Israel.

"I don't think there is a military solution to this," he said. "But I know there's not a terrorist solution to it."

Clinton also said he disagreed with President Bush that peace can be achieved only when Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is gone from power.

Nevertheless, he said it is important for the United States to remain involved because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."

The ex-president said the best solution to the Middle East conflict is an interim settlement that would "establish a Palestinian state now."

But he stressed that the creation of such a state must be preceded by security assurances for Israel and a timetable to resolve other issues.

Clinton said Arafat made a "disastrous mistake" by turning down past peace proposals that would have given the Palestinian leader control of 97 percent of the West Bank.

Yet, Clinton said, "There is reason for hope.

"I think this will be resolved on the terms the Palestinians walked away from."

Clinton couldn't be reached for comment yesterday because he was on a plane to Aspen, Colo., his spokeswoman said.

Clinton, who opposed the Vietnam War, signed up for the ROTC to avoid immediate induction when he received a draft call in 1969.

He later changed his mind about the ROTC and decided to take his chances with the new draft lottery.

 

“ISRAELIS BELIEVE THAT AMERICA IS THE ONLY BIG COUNTRY THAT CARES IF THEY LIVE OR DIE”

"Clinton enlists in Israel's aid"
By Stephen Dinan
The Washington Times
August 3, 2002

Former President Bill Clinton says that during his presidency, he would have been ready to "grab a rifle" and fight in the trenches if Iraq or Iran had invaded Israel.

"The Israelis know that if the Iraqi or the Iranian army came across the Jordan River, I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die," Mr. Clinton told the crowd at a fund-raising event for a Toronto Jewish charity Monday.

The fighting words surprised veterans groups and prompted chuckles among Republicans, who saw a stark contrast with his behavior during the Vietnam War, when he avoided military service on behalf of the United States.

"Many veterans are going to react with outrage, and they're going to be mystified as to where this gung-ho attitude emerged," said Steve Thomas, spokesman for the American Legion.

During Mr. Clinton's successful presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996, he was dogged by charges that he dodged the draft for Vietnam. In September 1992, the head of the ROTC unit at the University of Arkansas said Mr. Clinton lied in 1969 and used political pressure to dodge the Vietnam War draft by saying he intended to enroll in the ROTC unit.

Lt. Col. Eugene Holmes said he was pressured by draft board officials in Mr. Clinton's hometown, Hot Springs, Ark., to ensure Mr. Clinton was enrolled in the program, thus avoiding induction into the Army. Mr. Clinton never joined the unit, and he has never explained how he avoided two induction notices to report to active duty.

A spokeswoman in Mr. Clinton's New York City office could not be reached for comment yesterday about his remarks, and a spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee didn't return phone calls on the matter.

The 350 attendees at the reception for the Canadian Hadassah-WIZO charity, held in a private home in Toronto, paid $1,000 each to hear the ex-president, who according to Canadian press reports signed autographs and played saxophone with the band before he spoke.

The Toronto Star reported that an unnamed benefactor paid Mr. Clinton's speaking fee, which is said to run as much as $125,000 an appearance.

His remarks have been circulating on the Internet and garnered a front-page display in yesterday's New York Post, but his speech went beyond that. He said the United States must remain engaged in the Middle East because "Israelis believe that America is the only big country that cares if they live or die."

And he criticized Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for not accepting peace plans Mr. Clinton tried to broker during his presidency, but he disagreed with President Bush's insistence that Palestinians install a new leader before peace can proceed.

Mr. Clinton tried to broker a Middle East peace accord in the waning days of his presidency. His wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, New York Democrat, courted Jewish voters aggressively during her successful Senate bid in New York.

Jim Dyke, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said Mr. Clinton's appearance was out of step with the tradition of former presidents.

"President Clinton has always been someone who enjoys the spotlight. He seems reluctant to play the more constructive role that other former presidents have played," Mr. Dyke said.

As for the president's remarks about joining the soldiers in the trenches, Mr. Dyke refused to comment directly, saying, "We've always known he had lots of fight in him."

The story drew laughs elsewhere on Capitol Hill, though. "He just wants to be loved, is that so wrong?" quipped one Republican aide, who said it sounded as if the former president was going to say what it took to get applause from the group. "It's almost a Gore-ish thing to say – to go so far in an effort to ingratiate yourself."