Middle East Archives II
Please Note: You can now translate this site into French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Please click here.
Meet the brave... Meet the Children of the Intifada ... Meet the soul of the Palestinian people ...
picture provided by: Nizar Sakhnini
NO RETURN = NO PEACE
NO JUSTICE = NO PEACE
OCCUPATION AND SUPPRESSION MEANS RESISTANCE
"History shows that there are no invincible armies."
~ Josef Stalin ~
See Video of Murder of 12 yr Old Muhammed Aldurra and his father Jamal who was injured taken by French TV Crew or See frame by frame picture
Concessions, or International Law? Omar Turk ~ Dec. 30
Scare Arafat, Eric Silver ~ 29 December
Clinton's Proposals: What's Hard For Barak And What Arafat Takes Exception To, Nahum Barnea ~ Dec. 29
Who Believes In Hocus-Pocus? Guy Bechor ~ Dec. 29
The Moral Problem, Arjan El Fassed ~ Dec. 29, 2000
Israelis, Americans Hope For PA 'Yes' To Peace Plan, Ha'aretz Staff ~ Dec. 29
Negev Leaders Begin Fight Against Transfer of Land to Palestinians, Iris Baram ~ Dec. 29
Settlers Say Evacuation Means War, By Margot Dudkevitch, Jerusalem Post ~ Dec. 29
Barak Campaign Intends To Reveal Classified Portion Of Sabra And Shatilla Massacre Report, Yossi Verter ~ Dec. 29
Clinton: Then and Now on Refugees, Sherri Muzher ~ Dec. 29
Sham Summit Promised Little For The Palestinians, By Robert Fisk ~ December 29
Violence Shatters Palestinian Boom - But Mideast Flare-up Seen as Just 'Hiccup', Stephanie Nolen ~ December 29, 2000
Talks With U.N. Should Respect Iraq's Principles, XINHUA ~ Dec. 29
Iraq Urges AL Intervention to Halt U.S., British Aggressions, XINHUA ~ Dec. 29
Iraq Ready To Resume UN Talks When Embargo Is Lifted, AFP ~ Dec. 29
Two-Faced Discrimination, David Yerushalmi ~ December 28
Iraq Calls For Dialogue With Kuwait, Saudi On Eve of Gulf Summit, AFP ~ Dec. 28
Israeli Troops Injure 3 Attackers at Border, Lebanon Says, AP ~ December 28
The Making Of A Palestinian, Jaffer Ali ~ Dec. 28
Media Spin Remains in Sync With Israeli Occupation, By Norman Solomon ~ Dec. 28
They Entered Qana, By Nizar Qabbani ~ Dec. 28
A View From the Other Side. . .The 100,000 Are Already Here, By Avraham Tal ~ Dec. 28
A Palestinian View of Clinton's Mideast Proposals, by Rashid L. Khaladi ~ December 28
Sweating the Details in The Middle East, By Cameron W. Barr ~ Dec. 28
Bahija Réghaï - a Letter to Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada - Israeli Palestinian Peace Negotiations, By Bahija ~ Dec. 28
An Intifada in Search of a Leadership, By Amira Hass ~ December 27
Peace Can't Be Built on These Fictions, by Ali Abunimah ~ December 27
Saudis, Egyptians tell Arafat to Wait for Bush, Reuters ~ Dec. 27
Mideast Summit Called Off, By Greg Myre ~ Dec. 27
Palestinian Refugees Could Pose an Obstacle, Bahija Réghaï ~ Dec. 27
Clinton Peace Plan Opposed: Only a Third of Israelis, Palestinians Support His Proposals, By Matthew Kalman ~ Dec. 27
A Flawed Peace Plan - Editorial, Times Union ~ December 27
Option Of Reaching Agreement With Bush Prior To Israeli Elections Being Examined, by Ben Caspit and Eli Kamir ~ Dec. 27
INS Must Stop Using Secret Evidence, By Niels W. Frenzen ~ December 21
Bethlehem Diary, by Toine van Teeffelen ~ October 23-30
Concessions, or International Law?
Omar Turk ~ Dec. 30, 2000
Editor,
This letter is in response to the editorial (or zionist spin more appropriately), "A flawed peace plan," Editorial -- Times Union, December 27, 2000.
The first line of the editorial is correct, but is applied to the wrong side. Yes, the proposals are "one-sided and inadequate," but against the Palestinians!
The writer repeatedly refers to "concessions" by both sides to lead to a "secure piece." On what grounds does he base the "concessions" to be made by the Palestinians? Certainly not International Law. Do I really need to remind the world of UN Resolution after UN Resolution, guaranteeing the right of return AND compensation to Palestinian refugees and the return of occupied Palestinian land? Does complying to International Law interpret into a concession?
I, and any rational thinking person, do not.
Does the writer want us also to believe that the Haram Al Sharief (Noble Sanctuary) is not a Muslim holy site, and thus should not be under Palestinian control? For many years the Isreali occupation forces have prevented Palestinian Muslims from worshipping at the third holiest site in Islam. And has, in the past few months, only allowed boys under 12, and men over 45, from praying at the site. Does he/she believe that any Palestinian will accept the status quo?
I, and any rational thinking person, do not.
The author then admits that 350 people have been killed in the past three months, and that many are children, but then belittles the reader with the comment, "Palestinian children have been sacrificed by their elders for the sake of turning world opinion against Israel." Does this person live in such a thick blanket of hate and ignorance, that he/she doesn't see that Palestinians are being killed by bullets and missiles, fired from Isreali tanks and helicopters? Does he/she think that Palestinians are sub-human, and thus would want their children killed for "world opinion"? Does he/she think that "world opinion" is more important to Palestinians than the lives of their children?
I, and any rational thinking person, do not.
The writer then tells the reader of the "fears a flood of Palestinian settlers," that "would skew the country's demographics and politics." The author is obviously is ignorant to the 52 year plight of the Palestinian refugee, and would prefer to see the people suffer in squalid refugee camps on land not their own, rather than return them to there rightful homes and property that was stolen from them. All this, as not to change "demographics." What about the million or so non-Jewish Russian immigrants that are now living on Palestinian lands? Does he/she think that Palestinian refugees will give up their most fundamental human rights for "demographics?"
I, and any rational thinking person, do not.
So, as you see, the irrational spin and untruths, cannot hide the FACTS that the RIGHT OF RETURN, soverenty over the Haram Al Sharief and Jerusalem, and FREEDOM for the Palestinian people, as prescribed by International Law, is the only way to "secure" a real and just peace in the Middle East. Any less than that, is unacceptable to me, or any rational thinking person, and that is---guaranteed.
END
Eric Silver in Jerusalem, The Independent - 29 December
The United States is orchestrating an international drive to persuade Yasser Arafat to accept American bridging proposals as a basis for concluding a final peace agreement with Israel. The Palestinian President was reported yesterday to have received 50 telephone calls from world leaders urging him not to give up.
The campaign was launched after Egypt early yesterday cancelled a summit meeting at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh between Mr Arafat and the Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barak. Mr Arafat said after emergency talks in Cairo yesterday with the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, that he was "still examining" President Bill Clinton's ideas. Plans for the Israeli and Palestinian leaders to go to Washington this weekend have been put on hold.
However, despite yesterday's bomb attacks in Tel Aviv and Gaza, none of the protagonists is ready to pronounce the last rites on the peace process that began in Oslo seven years ago. The less pessimistic Israeli commentators still suggest that Mr Arafat is going to the brink in the hope of squeezing one more concession out of Mr Barak, who is desperate for something tangible to show the voters in prime ministerial elections barely six weeks away.
Others are questioning whether Mr Arafat is psychologically ready to put an end to the conflict, even though he must know that the alternative to Mr Barak's flexibility is the intransigence of his right-wing Likud challenger, Ariel Sharon.
The Sharm el-Sheikh summit, due to have taken place yesterday, unravelled on Wednesday night after the Palestinians sent a letter to the Americans that had so many reservations that Washington refused to take it seriously.
Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, at a late night cabinet meeting, Mr Barak secured a majority of 10 to two in favour of accepting the Clinton draft as a basis for a deal, provided the Palestinians accepted it too. But when he was informed of the Palestinian letter, Mr Barak abruptly changed his mind about going to Sharm. After yesterday's Mubarak-Arafat meeting, he again dropped tentative plans to join them in Cairo. An Israeli official insisted last night that nothing would move until they heard from the Palestinians.
Both Israelis and Palestinians wanted the US president to be more specific. He is believed to have spelled out principles rather than a blueprint for peace. The difference was that Mr Arafat seemed to be saying "No, but...," while Mr Barak was saying "Yes, but..." Mr Clinton's guidelines have not yet been published, but Nahum Barnea reported yesterday in Yediot Aharonot, the biggest-selling Hebrew daily, that they run to six pages. According to this account the President proposed that Israel give up 94-96 per cent of the West Bank.
It is also taken as axiomatic that Israel will withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip. Some 80 per cent of the West Bank settlers would be concentrated in blocks close to the old Green Line border, which would be annexed to Israel. The Palestinians would be compensated with land in Israel's Negev desert adjacent to the Gaza Strip. The key to security concerns, Yediot Aharonot reported, would be an international force to supervise implementation of the deal. The evacuation would be staggered over three years. A small Israeli force would stay for a further three years in the Jordan valley. Israel would also retain three early-warning stations. On the make-or-break issue of Jerusalem, Mr Clinton proposed Israeli rule over Israeli neighbourhoods and Jewish holy places, Palestinian rule over Arab neighbourhoods and Muslim and Christian holy places. Mr Clinton suggested full de facto Palestinian control over the Haram al-Sharif, but that a way should be found to respect Jewish reverence for the site, which to them is the Temple Mount.
On the second crucial issue of up to 3.5 million Palestinian refugees who have not given up hope of returning to their old homes inside Israel, the President acknowledged a right of return to "historic Palestine", but not specifically to Israel. He suggested that they be absorbed in the new Palestinian state, in areas that Israel would transfer to Palestine, in Middle East countries where they are already living, in third countries that would welcome them as immigrants, and (to a lesser degree) in Israel.
According to the Nahum Barnea account, Mr Clinton ended with the veiled threat: "When I leave my job, all my ideas go with me. You will have to start again from scratch." Yasser Arafat, it seems, does not scare that easily.
END
Clinton's Proposals: What's Hard For Barak And What Arafat Takes Exception To
by Nahum Barnea, Yedioth Ahronoth ~ Dec. 29
Ehud Barak is waging a battle these days on two contradictory fronts: he must persuade the Israelis that the basic lines of the agreement, as formulated by Clinton, are a victory for Israel, while persuading Arafat that this is it, Israel has reached the limit of its concessions. There is nothing left to squeeze.
Barak accepted the ideas positively. However, his team prepared several dozen reservations, either in order to improve the agreement or for bargaining purposes. Arafat, in contrast to Barak, believes that the president's outlines are not fair. That is what the Americans understood last night from the heap of reservations he submitted to them.
All in all, the ideas reflect the victory of demography over every other component in the lives of the two people. Demography wins out over geography, over history, over ideology. The rule Clinton set for Jerusalem -- areas populated by Arabs be Palestine, areas populated by Jews are Israel -- is valid, in effect, for all the territories: areas where there is massive Jewish settlement become Israel, empty areas or those populated by Arabs become Palestinian. The borders would be a knotty problem of enclaves for both sides.
For 80 years, since Trumpeldor and Tel Hai, the Zionist movement has been debating the question of how borders are set, by diplomatic demands or by the Jewish settler. The Left believed at one time in settlement and the Right believed in diplomatic efforts. Then they reversed.
Clinton's guidelines decide this debate in an interesting way. Quantity is the decider. Isolated settlements would be evacuated or dried up. Because of the political and humane difficulty in evacuating settlers, settlement blocs become of primary importance. Keeping Maale Adumim, Givat Zeev, the Etzion Bloc, the Modiin Bloc, the Ariel Bloc and others is a great achievement for Barak, but it is very likely that because of that, he could not get more in Jerusalem.
Most Israelis believed that the compromise between the Palestinians and us would be somewhere inside the territories captured in '67. The Palestinians saw the compromise as the Green Line. But the precedent set in the agreement signed by Begin won: In general, Israel returns to the Green Line.
The president did not set out the ideas in writing. He preferred to dictate them to the sides, word by word. American sources stressed last night that this is not an "American plan," but rather the parameters, the guidelines, to end the conflict between the two sides.
At the outset, Clinton states the price: Israel will concede 94-96% of the West Bank and give areas inside Israel to the Palestinians, that come to half, or a third, of what the latter will give. Leasing is also an option (Palestinian sources mention an Israeli proposal to lease Kiryat Arba and the Jewish Quarter in Hebron, and perhaps the northern part of the Gaza Strip).
80% of the settlers would be in blocs with territorial contiguity. A minimal number of Palestinians would be annexed to Israel (according to sources in the negotiations -- tens of thousands).
The key to security will be an international force. The force would only leave by mutual consent. It would supervise the implementation of the agreement. The agreement would be carried out over three years, with the international force coming into the area in stages. At the end of the process, a small Israeli force would remain for another three years in specific spots in the Jordan Valley under the auspices of the international force. If the atmosphere is positive, the Israeli force could leave sooner.
There would be three early warning stations, manned by Israelis. Palestinian liaison officers would have a presence in the stations (Israel is considering whether it would not be better to have aerial stations with airships). After a period of ten years the issue of the stations would be re-examined, by mutual consent.
The IDF would be allocated areas in the Jordan Valley to deploy military forces during emergencies. The IDF could only bring in troops after an emergency situation was declared in Israel, after a mobilization of the reserves and after the international force is notified. Roads would be allocated for the troops' entry, but these roads would be under Palestinian control (at Camp David, in the security talks between Maj. Gen. Yanai and Gilead Sher with Abu Ala and Mohammed Dahlan, five roads were mentioned for the plateau above the Jordan Valley. For example, the area between Nebi Moussa and the Jericho Valley).
The Palestinians would have sovereignty over the skies, but both sides would work out arrangements for training flights and the air force's operational flights (in effect, there is Palestinian consent to allow the air force to act as usual. The Atarot airport in northeast Jerusalem would be operated jointly).
According to Clinton's blueprint, a gap remains between the sides over the issue of demilitarization. Israel demands that Palestine be demilitarized. The Palestinians speak of a "situation of limited arming."
Clinton suggests a formula for a compromise: a non-militarized state. The security of Palestine would be based on a strong local force and on the international force, for defending its borders and for deterrence.
As for Jerusalem and the refugees, the president felt that the gaps had more to do with phrasing than essence. In other words, in practical terms, agreement was reached. What remains is the symbolic, rhetorical problem. Jerusalem: Whatever is Arab becomes Palestinian. Whatever is Jewish -- Israeli. This principle would also be applied to the Old City (the president does not say so, but both sides agreed that the Old City would have to have a unique regime with strong international involvement. That is also the status of the churches. The idea of full internationalization for the Old City was discussed or rather the Old City as well as sensitive areas around it such as the Mount of. Olives and the City of David. However each side demanded sovereignty over the areas most sensitive to it -- Israel, the Western Wall and Jewish Quarter; the Palestinians, the Temple Mount and Moslem Quarter.)
The president calls on the sides to draw up a map for Jerusalem that gives maximum contiguity to both sides (sometimes this contiguity is not achieved by an area but by means of a road. Problems of implementation, both sides admit, are extremely difficult, mainly in north Jerusalem).
As for the Temple Mount, Clinton says that the gap is not over practical administration, but over sovereignty as a formal term, and the need to respect the religious beliefs of both sides. The Palestinians would have full control, de facto, of Haram a-Sharif, but nonetheless a way would be found to respect the beliefs of the Jewish people and there would be international supervision.
On this matter the president raises various alternatives: Palestinian sovereignty for the Temple Mount compound but with Jewish links to the Holy of Holies and the area underneath the mount. Or alternatively, joint sovereignty over the excavations under the mount and behind the Western Wall.
Refugees: Israel, the president states, is willing to recognize the moral and material suffering caused as a result of the '48 war and the need to share in the international efforts to rehabilitate them.
The basic gap is over the right of return. The president understands how hard it is for the Palestinian leadership to appear as if it has abandoned this principle. On the other hand, Israel cannot accept immigration that would be against its policy and change its Jewish character. Palestine would be the focus for absorbing refugees who wish to return. Five systems of rehabilitation would be offered: in Palestine, in areas that Israel would transfer to Palestine, in countries where refugees live today, in third countries, and in Israel.
The right to be rehabilitated to Palestine would be in full. In other countries, it would be according to those countries' wishes. Israel would announce its policy for absorbing refugees.
The Palestinian people has the right to return to historical Palestine. There is no specific right of return to Israel itself, but there is the right in principle to return to the region.
Refugees in Lebanon would have first priority. Both sides agree that implementation would constitute the realization of UN Resolution 194 on refugees.
All the pretty words lead to one practical point: there is no right of return into Israel unless Israel unilaterally decides to accept this. If the final agreement looks like this, Israelis can relax.
The sides did not reach agreement on supervision for Palestine's external borders with Jordan and Egypt. The Palestinians demand full control over the crossings. Israel demands invisible Israeli supervision or American supervision. Another problem is guarding the border with Jordan: would this be by Palestinian forces or international forces who would thwart the infiltration of would-be immigrants.
The real problem with the right of return is not in the agreement, but in reality. If Palestine's external border is not efficiently blocked, and the border with Israel is open, what we will have is creeping right of return, with thousands of Palestinians from Palestine and the Diaspora living and working in Jaffa, Haifa and Tel Aviv.
The capital of Palestine, says the president, would be el-Kuds. The agreement would mark an end to the conflict. It would obligate the release of all prisoners.
Israel would receive, so the president says, a true end to the conflict, tangible security, it would maintain its link to religious values, it would have 80% of the settlers added to Israel and it would have a Greater Jerusalem, recognized by the world.
He adds a veiled threat to the sides: When I leave my job, he says, all my ideas go with me. You will have to start from zero. Arafat, judging by his non-final moves yesterday, is not impressed by the threat. He has heard them once before, at the end of Camp David.
END
Guy Bechor, Yedioth Ahronoth ~ Dec. 29
Will he or won't he sign an agreement, will he or won't he accept the American proposals? This question has occupied the government over the last few days, and it is always in regard to Yasser Arafat personally. As if by his signature the dream of "awda" (return) will evaporate and a one hundred year old violent national conflict will end. This personal approach of the Israeli government to the Palestinians was also illustrated upon the outbreak of the Intifada, when the decision to begin violence was attributed to Arafat, and the assumption was that he had exclusive control over the violence. Just as there was a simplistic approach in that battle, and the Israeli leadership finally understood that in the Palestinian spectrum there are many colors, the situation is now the same, with peace. This concentration on Arafat alone, as if he were the only Palestinian player in the issue of peace, and only by his order does anything happen, is misleading for the same reason.
The State of Israel has become used to dealing with the Arab governments and with narrow, elite margins in the Arab societies. It was easy, because these governments displayed a pragmatic approach, and Arab countries are centralist and completely control their public. Thus it was possible to reach two peace contracts, with Egypt and with Jordan. But that was also the curse of these contracts: they are still contracts with governments, not with societies, and so are fragile and lacking a stable base.
This is not so in Palestinian society. The Palestinian Authority does not have centralized authority like the other Arab countries. It is the most open and critical of Arab societies and so Yasser Arafat's status was seriously damaged during this last Intifada. This could be an advantage from Israel's perspective, because Palestinian society is the only Arab society at the moment that can really reach a social and complete peace with its immediate neighbor, Israeli society. But it is also a disadvantage, because a personal, improvised agreement with Arafat could well be rejected by it. That would mean the continuation of violence, even after the signing of an agreement, which could be seen as illegitimate by this society. Because, of course, the test of every agreement is its implementation, not the fact that it was reached.
The Oslo agreement was reached by Israel with the PLO, which was then in exile, disconnected from the Palestinian public, from its pains and dreams. This is not the case today. This means that Arafat, who knows well the strength of his society and the degree of its bitterness, might make demands that are impossible from Israel's perspective, or he might sign in the end, but the agreement signed will not be implemented by him or by his public. In both cases, the chances of achieving reconciliation with the Palestinian public will be postponed for many years. This will be eternal proof that it is impossible to reach a real understanding with the Palestinians, and the desperation on both sides will grow.
With such lamentable opening statistics, and with Israeli society embittered and angry, the Israeli government now expects Arafat to do some sort of political hocus pocus and shift his people from a situation of fighting, hostility and anger to a position of peace, friendship and fraternity. It is hardly likely in the allotted time, with the psychological damage of the Intifada, the undermining of trust on both sides and the relations between this government and the Palestinian population, that this can happen. Why look far -- is Ehud Barak able to do this in Israeli society?
END
Arjan El Fassed ~ Dec. 29, 2000
Every state is composed of human beings, the vast majority of whom accept and act upon a set of moral principles, aspects of a general code of distinguishing right and wrong. All human action may be judged, with varying accuracy and relevance, in moral terms. The moral issue becomes pertinent when commands of the state to the individual represent a direct contradiction of what that individual has been taught to regard as right and good. The classic instance is the taking of human life.
Following a provocative visit by Israeli war criminal Ariel Sharon to the holy site of Al-Haram al-Sharif in occupied Jerusalem and Israel's excessive and disproportionate violent aggression against the Palestinian people, killing 319 Palestinians and wounding more some 10,000, once again we are reminded that peace does not come without justice. Once again we are reminded that no peace will be just and durable when it is not based on a foundation of universal human rights and international law, that is built on morality and ethical conduct.
No moral code makes a senseless death morally justifiable, and sanity argues that the continued existence of humankind is a desirable goal. The force of international morality is given form by means of an international consensus. Whether expressed formally in the resolutions of the United Nations or informally by a rather amorphous "world public opinion" shaped and directed by global broadcast media, collective moral judgment is now a factor that policymakers cannot avoid taking into account. The global concern over human rights is a prime example.
However, the basic rights of Palestinians are still denied. The world agreed that Palestinians are human beings with the right to life, liberty and security of person. The world believed that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith. The subjection of the Palestinians to Israeli subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
Likewise, the world, formally recognized the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, their right to their property and to the income derived from their property. The world, through the United Nation, recognized that the continued displacement and dispossession of Palestinian refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and declared that full respect for the inalienable rights of the people of Palestine is an indispensable element in the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.
The distinguished American prosecutor at Nuremberg, Robert H. Jackson, formerly a US Supreme Court Justice, made this famous assertion in his opening statement: "And let me make clear that if this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment." This crucial promise to the future has not been kept.
There have been no serious effort to apply these legal standards, despite the numerous occasions on which universal human principles have been flagrantly violated by Israel. The international community has failed to carry out their moral responsibility. The terrible events that take place in Palestine, involving the loss of lives of hundreds of Palestinian men, women and children, raise important issues concerning the legal responsibility of the political and military leaders of Israel.
The world cannot overlook the extent to which Israeli participation in prior massacres directed against the Palestinian people creates a most disturbing pattern of a political struggle carried on by means of mass terror directed at civilians, including women, children and the aged. Many well-documented occurrences of Israeli terror over the years have taken place.
Israel is clearly responsible for grave violations of international law, and the political and military leaders involved in the undertaking are individually liable for their roles in aiding and abetting the perpetration of massacres, as well as for their failure to apprehend, or even to accuse or lay complaint against, those principally responsible for directing the massacre and those who committed these atrocities.
Human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. This approach, adopted by the international community at the World Conference on Human Rights, applies also to peace. Strict adherence, de facto and de jure, to international human rights law and international humanitarian law is the prerequisite for creating trust and strengthening security in the wider sense. The Israeli occupation of Palestine is the root cause of human rights violations in the area.
However, until such time as authoritative institutions enforce these rights and the world recognizes that its morality will be judged on its fulfillment of its legal and moral obligations, morality will continue to be a limitation on state action, difficult to define but impossible to ignore.
END
Israelis, Americans Hope For PA 'Yes' To Peace Plan
Ha'aretz Staff ~ Dec. 29, 2000
In the aftermath of terror strikes in Tel Aviv and the Gaza Strip, and Yasser Arafat's reservations over U.S. President Bill Clinton's peace proposals, pessimism engulfed officials in Washington and Jerusalem yesterday.
Working behind the scenes, American officials strenuously pressured Arafat, hoping to wrest a positive PA commitment to the proposals. Refraining from casting blame upon either of the sides for stalling the momentum generated earlier in the week after he presented his proposal, Clinton indicated that no meetings with Israeli and Palestinian leaders will be held until the sides embrace the basic framework he has submitted.
"There's no point in additional talks if the two sides don't first accept the parameters I've presented," Clinton stated yesterday. Scarcely concealing his frustration stemming from Arafat's refusal to make a commitment to the proposals, the U.S. President quipped that "it's true that we are all operating under a deadline, but only some of us know what that deadline is." Last Saturday, when talks ended in Washington, the U.S. President asked both sides to reply to his proposals by the middle of the week.
Clinton emphasized yesterday that his proposals are an attempt to settle disputed issues in a fashion suited to the "basic needs" of both sides.
Israeli officials hope that Arafat's unenthusiastic response to Clinton this week was a tactical ploy. Israeli sources even cited a new potential breakthrough date, January 1st, a day when Arafat will meet with a committee formed to oversee resolutions reached by the recent Arab states summit. "Perhaps Arafat will try to muster Arab support for possible concessions" during this meeting, one source speculated.
After two meetings totaling eight and a half hours, Israel's cabinet decided at 2:30 A.M. Thursday to accept Clinton's peace proposals. A government statement described the proposals as a "contribution to the resumption of intensive talks" Israel, the statement added, "will request a number of clarifications on subjects pertaining to its vital interests."
Only two government ministers (Rabbi Michael Melchior, who is overseas, and Roni Milo) opposed the decision; two other ministers (Matan Vilnai and Ra'anan Cohen) abstained.
PA Chairman Yasser Arafat met yesterday with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. The PA Chairman's visit to Cairo came instead of an anticipated discussion in Sharm al-Sheikh that was supposed to have involved Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, Arafat and Mubarak. The Sharm al-Sheikh discussion was canceled as a result of Arafat's noncommittal reply to Clinton. Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami informed his Egyptian counterpart, Amr Moussa, that the Sharm al-Sheikh discussion should not be held before Arafat submits a final reply to Clinton.
Mubarak's meeting with Arafat yesterday was part of a sustained effort undertaken by the Egyptian President to promote the American peace proposals, while incorporating some revisions consistent with Palestinian demands.
After returning to Gaza, Arafat described his meeting with Mubarak as "important, necessary and productive." Arafat said that he does not rule out the possibility of his participating in a summit meeting with Ehud Barak.
Other Palestinian spokesmen rejected yesterday suggestions that the PA is responsible for derailing the peace process anew. They suggested that Clinton's proposals deviate in crucial respects from standards outlined by UN resolutions. "We took up the peace process in order to apply international law," stated top PA negotiator Saeb Erekat.
Erekat declared that "absolute clarity" concerning Clinton's proposals is vital. Erekat chided U.S. officials for utilizing an approach he described as "constructive ambiguity;" in an effort to reach an agreement, he added, important matters cannot be addressed using vague formulations.
U.S. officials interpreted yesterday's pipe bomb explosion in Tel Aviv as a demonstration of the imperative of reaching an agreement. The terror strike was another reminder of the need "to work together" in opposition to the enemies of the peace process, the White House Spokesman stated.
Meantime U.S. officials disclosed additional details of Clinton's proposals yesterday, correcting some reports that have appeared recently in Middle East media. Among other clarifications, the officials indicated that Clinton's plan refers explicitly to Palestinian "sovereignty" on the Temple Mount; also, though under an agreement Israel would acknowledge "emotional and financial damages" suffered by Palestinian refugees since 1948, the accord's formulations do not blame it for the refugee situation.
According to a report published in The New York Times, leaders from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan have expressed support of the U.S. peace plan in conversations with Clinton. American sources say these affirmative responses reverse the intransigent opposition shown by Arab leaders to proposals aired at Camp David last summer. Samir Ragab, the editor of the state-run Egyptian daily Al-Gomhuria who has close ties with Mubarak, wrote yesterday that Egypt favors continual negotiation and revision of peace proposals, and adamantly opposes a "take it or leave it" approach. He also claimed that Arabs will be unable to assent to an agreement which leaves Israel in charge of areas on and below the Temple Mount area. "Several high-ranking sources have informed me," Ragab wrote, "that there is no avoiding re-formulating several clauses [in Clinton's proposal] pertaining to the subject of control of areas on and below the Temple Mount, and that consultations continue between the sides in an attempt to 'revise' the American proposals."
END
Negev Leaders Begin Fight Against Transfer of Land to Palestinians
By Iris Baram, Ha'aretz Correspondent ~ Dec. 29
On Thursday morning, the heads of Negev settlements began preparing for their battle against the government's plan to transfer a segment of the Negev to the Palestinian Authority. According to the government plan, which exchanges land for a permanent agreement, 150 square kilometers of the Halutza sand dunes will go to the Palestinians.
During a protest Thursday morning in Nitzana, Luba Eliav, a Nitzana resident and longtime Labor Party member, announced that he opposes the transferal of land. The heads of the local councils of Kadesh Barnea, Kmehin, Azua and Nitzana announced their intention to form a protest committee and called on others in the Negev to join them. The chairman of the Negev Development Authority, Shmuel Rifman, called on all heads of local councils to join the fight for the entire Negev.
Next week the heads of the Negev settlements plan on a mass protest across the street from government offices and calling for the establishment of additional settlements in the Negev, as well as strengthening the settlement near Nitzana.
END
Settlers Say Evacuation Means War
By Margot Dudkevitch, Jerusalem Post ~ Dec. 29, 2000
JERUSALEM (December 29) - Settlers warned yesterday that if Prime Minister Ehud Barak signs an agreement with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat leading to mass evacuation of settlements, the inevitable consequence will be civil war, a new war with the Arabs, or both.
A peace treaty is expected to lead to the dismantlement of up to 100 settlements in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and the Jordan Valley.
"Arafat's dream is to be the Herzl of a Palestinian state," said Benny Kashriel chairman of the Council of Jewish Communities in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, adding "the settlement community is facing the battle of its life, people are fighting for their homes and livelihood, I believe it will be a harsh, bitter and violent battle."
Settlers are preparing a string of activities, including a hunger strike scheduled to start on Sunday, and street protests and demonstrations.
Kashriel, who is mayor of Ma'aleh Adumim, said that Barak's reported readiness to give up sovereignty over the Temple Mount and large areas of Samaria, Binyamin, Hebron, Gush Etzion and the Judean Desert is still not the full story.
"According to information I have received, Barak is willing to make additional concessions in order to reach an agreement. If an agreement isn't reached it won't be because of Barak but Arafat, who has realized that if the violence and bloodshed continues he has more to gain," he said.
Kashriel added that even if an agreement between the sides is reached, the Palestinians won't sit back quietly, they will want more, but by then the situation will be far worse. "The Jerusalem neighborhood of Maalot Dafna is only 50 meters from Sheikh Jarra and Shuafat is only 100 meters from Givat Hamivtar. The Palestinians encouraged by their success will perpetrate more attacks," he said.
Yesha Council spokeswoman Yehudit Tayar called Barak's actions irresponsible and willful. "He appears to be callously ignoring the continued violence and bloodshed," she said. "He plans to abandon tens of thousands of Israeli citizens and evict thousands more in his distorted and obscene attempt to whip the public into an agreement with terrorists." Yesterday Peace Now harshly protested the decision by Housing Minister Binyamin Eliezer to continue to renew the former government's designation of the settlements as areas of highest national priority.
The movement's Prof. Galia Golan said she found it hard to understand how Barak could have authorized such a decision at such a sensitive moment.
"Further development of the settlements, especially places like Netzarim and Psagot, can only lead to more bloodshed and make the achievement of a viable peace accord more difficult than it already is" she said. "We call upon the Prime Minister to immediately reverse the decision."
END
Barak Campaign Intends To Reveal Classified Portion Of Sabra And Shatilla Massacre Report
By Yossi Verter, Ha'aretz Correspondent ~ Dec. 29, 2000
MK Elie Goldschmidt, head of public relations for the re-election campaign of Prime Minister Ehud Barak, announced Friday that the Labor party will act to reveal the classified portion of the Kahan Commission report on the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacres in Beirut in which Christian militias slaugtered hundreds of Palestinians. Likud chair and primeministerial candidate Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister at the time.
"Sharon's role in the Lebanon war must be revealed to the public," Goldschmidt said, adding that as of late the Likud candidate has adorned the mask of an older and wiser man, but "he has no plan and no way to achieve piece." According to Goldschmidt, Sharon is orchestrating a "masquerade," but the public must know "that with his actions of the past 20 years, most importantly during the Lebanon war, Sharon distanced Israel from peace."
Two of the slogans to be used by the Barak campaign - "We cannot return to the days of Sharon" and "Israel must have peace" - were revealed at a press conference Friday. The press conference, held at the new Labor headquarters in the Hatikva neighborhood of southern Tel Aviv, marked the launch of Barak's PR campaign.
Goldschmidt stressed the Likud also understands the problems presented by a Sharon candidacy, and therefore is working to conceal during the campaign. He called on Sharon to participate in as many as possible debates with Barak, "in order for him to say if he intends to reach peace with the Palestinians and prevent diplomatic and security deterioration, after he proclaimed that he would not shake Arafat's hand and opposed the peace agreement with Jordan."
Head of the Barak campaign's response team, Environment Minister Dalia Itzik, described the Likud slogan "Only Sharon will bring peace" as "insolent," considering Sharon has always acted hastily. She added that Israeli citizens must decide between "a prime minister searching for the path to peace, although he has not yet found it, and someone who is going to war."
END
Clinton: Then and Now on Refugees
By Sherri Muzher, Dec. 29, 2000
"We're proud of what we did because we think it's what America stands for, that no one ever, ever should be punished and discriminated against or killed or uprooted because of their religion or their ethnic heritage," said President Bill Clinton as he visited the Stankovic Camp in Macedonia in June.
Less than two weeks later, President Clinton said, "I would like it if the Palestinian people felt free and were free to live wherever they like, wherever they want to live." Some interpreted these comments to signify the president's support of the right of return of the 3.7 million Palestinian refugees, although within hours of the second remark U.S. assurances were made to the Israeli Embassy that U.S. policy had not changed in this regard. That policy, according to a U.S. State Department official, is that the issue of the Palestinian right of return is to be decided infinal status negotiations.
And here we are in 2000, and Clinton is pressuring the Palestinians into giving up their right of return to what is now Israel-- guaranteed by international laws.
In Kosovo, we saw the resolve of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to make life miserable for the Serbians in Yugoslavia and the message was simple: We'll stop the bombing when you stop driving theAlbanian Muslims out of Kosovo.
Whether the use of NATO military measures was necessary continues to be a topic for debate, but the decisiveness to reverse the flow of refugees from their homeland was nothing short of remarkable and exemplary. Within days, busloads of refugees, escorted by representatives of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNCHR) were heading back to the Kosovo capital of Pristina. Hundreds of thousands of Kosovar refugees have since returned to towns and villages allover Kosovo.
What was so strikingly different between the atrocities which befell the Kosovar refugees and those that befell the Palestinians of 1948? Consider this chilling testimony, which would bring a sense of déjà vu for any Kosovar refugee.
"Outside the gate the soldiers stopped us and ordered everyone to throw all valuables onto a blanket. One young man and his wife of six weeks, friends of our family, stood near me. He refused to give up his money. Almost casually, the soldier pulled up his rifle and shot the man. He fell, bleeding and dying while his bride screamed and cried. I felt nauseated and sick, my whole body numbed by shock waves. That night I cried, too, as I tried to sleep alongside thousands on the ground. Would I ever see my home again? Would the soldiers kill my loved ones, too" - Father Rantisi of Ramallah's Evangelical Home for Boys, author of Blessed Are the Peacemakers
Much of the world's shock and horror at Serb ethnic cleansing of Kosovars stemmed particularly from Serbian atrocities intended to frighten Kosovars away. Again, comparisons to the Palestinian nakba are haunting. The infamous massacre at Deir Yassin was cited by Israeli forces to instill fear in other Palestinians that if they did not flee, they would meet the same fate as the massacred men, women and children of that village, seized by Jewish militias in April 1948. 750,000 Palestinians fled. Essentially the massacre was perpetrated by design, as were the recent Serbian atrocities. Former Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, who ordered the Deir Yassin massacre, once referred to it as one of the greatest victories of Zionism because its "political and economic significance can hardly be overestimated."
It's true that times were different back in 1948. The CNN cameras were missing, and the world was still experiencing the guilt of its complacency during the abhorrent tragedy of the Jewish Holocaust. That is all the more reason for the U.S. to end the suffering of Palestinian refugees in 2000.
The U.S. prides itself as a nation that not only is a militarysuperpower but also a moral superpower. To merit that label, then it?s time for President Clinton to stop pressuring Palestinians into accepting what he knows is wrong. Clinton should also note that 74% of Americans support the right of return for Palestinians, according to a Zogby poll.
In an era when human rights have become a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy, President Clinton's penchant for a legacy, domestic politics and Israel's well-heeled lobbying groups should take a backseat. A true peace in the Middle East will have to provide for Palestinians to live with dignity. Otherwise, our rhetoric in Kosovo was meaningless.
END
Sham Summit Promised Little For The Palestinians
By Robert Fisk, The Independent ~ December 29, 2000
In the end, it was the same old story. The Israelis would make "one last step for peace". They would probably concede -- according to a number of inaccurate Western newspaper reports -- Palestinian "sovereignty" over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif mosques in Jerusalem. And Yasser Arafat would be blamed if he turned down the last chance he would ever get for a real peace in the Middle East.
Thus was yesterday's doomed summit at Sharm el-Sheikh promoted -- and upon these factual untruths it died before it was ever held. Of course, Ehud Barak pulled out. Of course, Mr Arafat could not accept the terms, because Israel was offering the Palestinians "control" of the surface of the mosques, it never offered "sovereignty". And by midday yesterday, Mr Barak's security adviser, Danny Yatom, was saying just that. Mr Barak, he announced, "will not sign an accord which transfers sovereignty [over the Temple Mount/ Haram al-Sharif] to the Palestinians".
The result? The world believes that Mr Arafat turned down what he had always demanded, and the cancellation of the Sharm el-Sheikh summit was entirely his fault. Having claimed in the past that Israel was offering 92 per cent of the West Bank -- and then 94 per cent -- to the Palestinians, the Americans insisted that the latest Clinton proposals would give Mr Arafat 95 per cent.
But a careful reading of the Clinton document proves this to be untrue. With the Dead Sea waters that would become Palestinian "territory", with the Israeli army "buffer zones", with the "rental" of the Kiryat Arba settlement land, with the exclusion of the West Bank land illegally annexed into Jerusalem by the Israelis (including the massive Male Adumim settlement), Arafat was still likely to get no more than 64 or 65 per cent. And the Palestinian Authority knows all too well what "control" would mean in Jerusalem. While Arafat's men collected garbage, supplied the traffic cops and kept their own people in order, the Israelis would continue to hold sovereign power over all Jerusalem.
Palestinian "control" of Palestinian "neighbourhoods" of Jerusalem would recreate the insanity of West Bank areas A, B and C where Israelis and Palestinians variously "control" all of an area or share parts of it. One Jerusalem street would have Palestinian policemen, the next Israelis. And the Israelis, of course, could besiege a street just as they can currently besiege a town on the West Bank.
Then there was the "swap" of Palestinian land on the West Bank that Israel would keep in return for "some land outside the Gaza Strip in the south of our country", as one Israeli journalist put it on Wednesday night. The only small detail about this piece of generosity that was not mentioned was that the "land" Israelis would hand over happens to be desert. In return for keeping settlements illegally built on occupied territory, Mr Arafat would be the recipient of a patch of sand.
For Mr Arafat's millions of refugees, there would be no more "right of return" -- goodbye to UN General Assembly resolution 194 -- merely a profound hope that some could go to the new "Palestine" where they never had their home, or go to Israel as part of a family "reunion" agreement. In reality -- and with tens of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon or settled in northern Europe and America -- this is probably what will, one day, happen.
But bundled in with the rest of the Clinton proposals, Mr Arafat and Mr Barak were never going to make a deal. That much is certain. Along with the fact that the ever-more humiliated Mr Arafat is going to be blamed yet again for turning down that infamous "last chance for peace".
END
Violence Shatters Palestinian Boom - But Mideast Flare-up Seen as Just 'Hiccup'
Stephanie Nolen, Globe and Mail, Canada ~ December 29, 2000
RAMALLAH, WEST BANK -- Sept. 28 was supposed to be a very good day for Sam Bahour. He spent it in Tel Aviv as part of the first-ever Palestinian delegation to Comdex, an annual international exhibition for the information technology sector.
He and his colleagues from the nascent Palestinian high-tech industry stole the show.
Their pavilion was mobbed by curious Israelis and international visitors.
The same day, another of Mr. Bahour's interests, Arab Palestinian Investment Co., a $100-million (U.S.) company with plans to build five shopping malls in the West Bank and Gaza, was publicly traded for the first time on the fledgling Palestine Securities Exchange.
But it was also the day that right-wing Israeli leader Ariel Sharon paid a visit to Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, a spark for the wave of violence that has now raged for three months and claimed more than 350 lives, at least 322 of them Palestinian.
Now, just when things were supposed to be brightest for Sam Bahour, the Palestinian economy is losing $8.5-million a day in wages and investment.
Unemployment has shot from 10 per cent in early September to 40 per cent. Construction and any movement of goods, including all trade with Israel and the outside world, are frozen. An $18-million high-tech industrial park in the northern West Bank town of Qalqilya, funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), has been bombed into rubble.
"I woke up the morning [of Sept. 29] to find myself in a mini-war," he said.
But Mr. Bahour, like many Palestinian business players, clings to hope that enough of a foundation has been laid that when this flare-up of the conflict has been played out, they can return to building the new economy of Palestine.
"The last two months are only a hiccup in our development process -- not the end of it," Mr. Bahour said. "There is a resilience to the Palestinian private sector that will allow it to bounce back."
Yesterday, hopes of a breakthrough in the Middle East process dimmed after the abrupt cancellation of an Israeli-Palestinian summit on the latest U.S. peace proposal and two bomb attacks that killed two Israeli soldiers and injured another 16 people.
Since the Oslo peace deal was signed in 1993, there has been an economic transformation in the Palestinian territories -- with rapid growth in some unlikely sectors. Palestinians now have a state-of-the-art telecommunications network, 15 software houses and their own Internet domain suffix (dot-ps). There are also bottled water companies, medical supply firms, electronics manufacturers and some glitzy tourist developments -- not truly New Economy as defined in the West but a significant advancement from olive pressing.
No question, the past three months have been bad: Gross domestic product was growing at 6.1 per cent through the first half of 2000 and was projected to keep on at well above 5 per cent next year.
But since the violence began, Israel has sealed off the West Bank and Gaza, barring 120,000 workers from jobs in Israel or Jewish settlements and halting the movement of goods. Now, the World Bank says, annual GDP will fall by 42 per cent in 2000 -- or $1.7-billion in a $4-billion economy. A couple of weeks ago, the Bank deviated from its usual business of lending money, giving an emergency $12-million grant to the Palestinian Authority.
Before the Oslo deal, the Palestinian economy was built almost entirely on wages earned by labourers who travelled each day into Israel. Those who stayed at home worked in agriculture, the backbone of the Palestinian economy, and in some limited industrial production, largely building supplies, such as gravel, and food products.
But when the Palestinian Authority was established, Palestinians had several things going for them. For one, they are, as a people, unusually well educated, with one of the highest ratios of university degree holders per capita. "Palestinians have put a huge premium on education," explains sociologist Salim Tamari of the Institute of Jerusalem Studies, "because since 1948, they have had no other hope."
Second, perhaps surprisingly, there was a lot of capital to be had. While Palestinians in the territories are poor, with an average gross national product per capita of just $1,700 (10 per cent of Israeli's GNP per capita), many Palestinian refugees have prospered -- as engineers in the Gulf states, for example, or business owners in North America.
And the diaspora has all but lined up to invest in the homeland, leading to a weird fusion of financial and social mandates for new businesses. When the Palestine Electric Co. was listed, for example, it needed to raise $19-million -- and got $70-million.
"We concentrate on projects that will absorb unemployed labourers," said Farouq Zuaiter, general manager for the huge holding company Padico, whose holdings include tourism, real estate and the Palestine Electronics and Electrical Company. "There is a very thin line between our economic objectives and our social objectives. For the founders [of Padico], the main target was not financial return, although a certain level of return allows us to grow." For the last three years, the company has paid investors, the bulk of whom are international, a return of 10 per cent.
Technology emerged early on as a focus of this new economy: born, in part, by proximity to Israel's flourishing high-tech industry, and also by an early insight by a few entrepreneurs who sensed that Palestinians could leapfrog directly to new technology because there was no infrastructure to replace after years of underdevelopment.
The Information Technology Unit at Bir Zeit University in Ramallah estimates that there are about 22,000 Palestinian Internet users, not bad given that only 7 per cent of households have computers. There are about a dozen local Internet service providers.
Early in 1999, the group of high-tech companies banded together in a trade association called the Palestinian Information Technology Association (PITA). "We have no natural resources but we have great education, and there were a lot of Palestinians in the diaspora who were already working in high tech -- many came back and are doing fine," said Ibrahim Barham, PITA president. "The government and the local business community threw themselves behind the idea."
The trade association now has 50 members, including firms such as the 25-person software house Bisan, which makes an accounting package now the local favourite. Two local venture capital firms have more software companies in development.
International players are being attracted by the local industry: Hewlett-Packard Co. has chosen Ramallah as its regional centre for the Levantine region, and serves Syria, Jordan and Lebanon from the West Bank. Cisco Systems Inc. is funding one of its training centres at Bir Zeit University, while Oracle Corp. is funding a training centre in the city. Several multinational tech companies are said to be considering the West Bank as a site for their Middle East support call centres.
"It's a lower rank of skill set," Mr. Bahour said, comparing Palestinians to the rash of startups in Israel. "We're more like India or Ireland [doing the grunt work of programming]. We don't have the polished skills or marketing for the U.S. market."
Mr. Bahour, the son of refugees, is also managing director of Applied Information Management, a communications and technology consulting firm in Ramallah. But he was first recruited from Ohio in 1995 to head up PalTel, the private telecommunications provider, after the PA took control of the telecom from Israel, then quickly realized there was no one in the territories with the skill to run the service. The company has now wired 95 per cent of towns and villages with phone lines, putting in fibre-optic lines and microwave towers in areas that often don't yet have electricity.
In 1999, PalTel introduced the Jawwal cellular network. Until then, 80,000 Palestinians subscribed to one of two Israeli providers. When PalTel got a licence, and awarded L.M. Ericsson Telephone Co. Inc. of Sweden a contract to build a global systems network, Israeli operators could no longer operate legally in PA areas -- and many Palestinians switched over for nationalist reasons. Jawwal now has more than 35,000 subscribers.
PalTel is now valued at 3.36 Jordanian dinars (71 cents U.S.), and has the highest trading volume on the Palestine Securities Exchange. (Trading on the PSE is in Jordanian dinars or U.S. dollars until a Palestinian currency can be developed.) PalTel's share price has risen from 1 JD to a high of 5.50 JD. In an indication of the level of diaspora willingness to invest, PalTel did an initial public offering before there was a stock market -- the IPO was almost five times oversubscribed.
There are 25 other firms listed on the Al-Quds [Jerusalem] index of the Nablus-based bourse.
The PSE ranked first among Arab financial markets in 1999 with a 53-per-cent increase in the Al-Quds index; trading volume rose 117 per cent that year over 1998 levels for a total of $150-million. Total market capitalization at the end of 1999 was $849-million, almost double the previous year.
Mr. Bahour's pet project is a group of shopping malls, the first in the territories. The first mall is under construction in Ramallah. In a town where some farmers still bring produce to market on donkeys, he is building a 10,000-square-metre North American-style mall with a supermarket, a cinema complex, clothing stores and fast-food outlets. The project will cost $10.2-million and is set to open in the spring.
The Palestinians also have a recent natural gas find, estimated to be worth as much as $6-billion at current prices, off the shores of Gaza. PA president Yasser Arafat lit the first test flares in October; BG Group of London has a concession to drill the deposit, a mile beneath the surface.
There have been concerns about the monopolistic role of the PA, which has a piece of all these companies. There is no question that many of Mr. Arafat's insiders have done well in the past seven years. Many of their family businesses have grown rich paving new roads, importing new products.
But Mr. Bahour notes that a Higher Council for Development was created last year in response to complaints about monopolies and is carefully scrutinizing the PA's role in all deals. Audits by the Legislative Council indicate the situation is improving.
Any development in the Palestinian economy depends on relations with Israel, which -- as the current travel and trade restrictions illustrate -- still in many ways controls the levers of the Palestinian economy.
"We must deal with the Israelis in a smart way," he said. "Beyond them, there is a world out there we can tap."
END
Talks With U.N. Should Respect Iraq's Principles
XINHUA ~ Dec. 29
BAGHDAD (Dec. 29) XINHUA - The upcoming talks between Iraq and the United Nations next month should respect Iraq's principles, a report carried by the official daily Al-Iraq said on Friday.
Under the four principles, the talks with the U.N. should be aimed at lifting the decade-old U.N. sanctions; the U.N. should recognize the "great" efforts Iraq has made in implementing the U. N. resolutions on the Iraqi issue; Iraq should be allowed to freely use its natural resources and no country can be allowed to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs.
Iraq is ready to have "constructive" talks with U.N. Secretary- General Kofi Annan or any U.N. organizations, the report said, stressing that the talks should respect the principles put forward by the Iraqi government.
Annan has expressed that the hope that the upcoming talks between U.N. and Iraq will be able to break the impasse over weapons inspection in the country. At a year-end press conference at the U.N. headquarters in New York on December 19, the U.N. chief said he and Iraqi officials planned to begin talks in New York in early January as the Iraqi issue remained a challenge for the world's leading body.
Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tareq Aziz has said that Iraq was ready to hold "a comprehensive dialog" with the U.N. with no preconditions and that the dialog must not be conditioned on that Iraq accepts the U.N. Resolution 1284.
The U.N. resolution, adopted last December, offered to suspend the sanctions for renewable periods of 120 days if Iraq shows " full" cooperation with the U.N. arms inspectors.
Iraq has rejected the resolution and barred the return of the U. N. arms inspectors who left the country at the end of 1998 shortly before the United States and Britain launched air strikes against Iraq.
Iraq has been under U.N. sanctions ever since it invaded Kuwait in 1990, and the sanctions will not be lifted until the U.N. arms inspectors report that Iraq is clear of weapons of mass destruction.
END
Iraq Urges AL Intervention to Halt U.S., British Aggressions
XINHUA ~ Dec. 29
BAGHDAD (Dec. 29) XINHUA - Iraq Friday urged the Arab League (AL) to intervene to halt "the continuous aggressions" by the United States and Britain, the official Iraqi News Agency (INA) reported.
In a letter to AL Secretary-General Ahmed Esmat Abdel-Meguid on Friday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Mohamad Said Al-Sahaf elaborated the continuous aggressions by the U.S. and British warplanes on December 9-15.
The infringement were aimed at "harming Iraq's sovereignty, territorial integrity, infrastructure, civilians and civil installations," Sahaf said. Moreover, "We ask you to demand the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments to stop their logistic support to the aggressions," he added.
Sahaf accused Saudi Arabia and Kuwait as "full partners" in the U.S. and British aggressions against Iraq, the INA said. U.S. and British aircraft use bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to mount their patrols and bombings of the southern no-fly zone which was imposed after the 1991 Gulf War, with the so-called aim of protecting the region's Shi'ite Muslims from "the persecution of President Saddam Hussein."
A similar zone was imposed over northern Iraq with a claim to protect the Kurdish community there. Baghdad has never recognized the no-fly zones, saying their imposition has never been authorized by United Nations resolutions.
END
Iraq Ready To Resume UN Talks When Embargo Is Lifted
AFP ~ Dec. 29
BAGHDAD, Dec 29 (AFP) - Baghdad is ready to resume dialogue with the United Nations on condition that the crippling decade-old embargo imposed on it is lifted immediately, Al-Iraq newspaper said Friday.
"Iraq is not opposed to a constructive and fair dialogue with the United Nations and its secretary-general (Kofi Annan) as long as that involves no preconditions" on the part of the world body, the paper said.
"The United Nations must take into account fundamental issues to start this dialogue including the immediate lifting of the unjust embargo imposed on Iraq, " it said.
The paper said the organisation "must also recognise the great efforts undertaken by Iraq and the fact that the country has conformed to all UN Security Council resolutions" tied to Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Baghdad and the United Nations are expected to reopen a dialogue in January, more than a year after a UN Security Council resolution, introduced in December 1999, offered a suspension of sanctions in return for Iraq's cooperation with a new arms control regime.
There have been no arms control inspections in Iraq since the UN evacuated its inspection team from the country in December 1998 shortly before air raids by the United States and Britain.
END
David Yerushalmi, Maaleh Adumim ~ December 28, 2000
I am forever amazed at your editorial duplicity. Time and time again you call for the rule of democracy and decry the impact of religious discrimination. Yet, you explicitly call for denying the Palestinians a right guaranteed to them under international law. Let's assume your point is that it is better to be pragmatic than righteous.
What will you do with the Arab Israelis who are citizens? First, let's promote them to the status of true citizens, granting them the economic and social benefits of Jewish citizens.
Now, that being done, and certainly that is the only fair thing to do, how do you justify a right of return for Jews who have absolutely no connection to the land, and not for Arabs who have lived here for generations? What will you do when their birth rate produces a greater and greater number relative to Jews?
At some point, as the population shift moves in their direction (there aren't many Iron Curtains left to fall, and indeed with globalization more and more of the best and brightest of Israel's high-tech elite are leaving for greener pastures), what policy will you use to prevent a "bi-national Arab majority"? It will by nature be discriminatory.
Indeed, your moral claims about the peace process notwithstanding, you argue quite well for the denial of the Palestinians internationally-recognized right of return in order to discriminate for a Jewish majority. Have you no moral misgivings?
Why should we not simply embrace democracy as the president of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Aharon Barak, dictates? What gives Jews some special rights to this land? The Bible? You must be kidding, in view of what we mostly hear from you and your opinion pundits, demanding separation of church and state.
That leaves only international law or brute force. You've abandoned brute force (i.e., nationalism as primitivism, recalling Shimon Peres's New Middle East) so you must rest your now shredded kippa (skull cap) on the rack of international jurisprudence.
That being done, you've been exposed as a racist, have you not? Why should the Palestinians who were chased or frightened from their homes be granted forced compensation and exile when their Israeli Arab brethren enjoy the fruits of the only "democracy" in the Middle East?
Why should we "democrats" be fearful of the New Middle East, just because it makes Jews a minority in Palestine? Is there some moral imperative upon which you draw your forceful argument to maintain Israel's racist policy of exclusion?
END
Iraq Calls For Dialogue With Kuwait, Saudi On Eve of Gulf Summit
AFP ~ Dec. 28
BAGHDAD, Dec 28 (AFP) - Iraq's ruling Baath party called Thursday ahead of a Gulf summit for dialogue with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait aimed at a reconciliation with its neighbours after a decade of enmity.
The Muslim and Christian holidays "could be an opportunity for ... a constructive dialogue to forget the pains of the past and reach a reconciliation ending division and humiliation," said the party's mouthpiece, Ath-Thawra.
In reference to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which were not named, Ath-Thawra said its invitation was addressed to "those whom Satan has deviated from the path of jihad," or holy war.
The two neighbours had "allied themselves with the US-Zionist enemy in thinking that they could thus break the determination of the Arab world to struggle for its rights," said Ath-Thawra.
It urged Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, which provide air bases for US and British warplanes to overfly Iraq, to revise their policies.
END
Israeli Troops Injure 3 Attackers at Border, Lebanon Says
AP ~ December 28, 2000
MARJAYOUN, Lebanon (AP) -- Israeli troops shot and wounded a Lebanese man who was about to throw a hand grenade across the fence on the Lebanese-Israeli border Thursday, Lebanese security officials said.
Two other Lebanese who threw stones were wounded by Israeli fire earlier, the officials said, speaking on customary condition of anonymity.
The officials said Kawthar Nawfal, 25, was on the point of hurling a hand grenade across the border fence at Sheik Abbad hill when he was spotted by Israeli soldiers who shot him in his left leg.
A fellow Lebanese demonstrator quickly restored the safety pin while the grenade was still in Nawfal's hand, the officials said. Sheik Abbad hill is about 30 kilometers (18.5 miles) south of Marjayoun, a major town in south Lebanon.
About an hour earlier, some 90 Hezbollah supporters threw stones at Israeli troops stationed across a barbed fence, smashing a surveillance camera, the officials said.
Israeli soldiers opened fire, wounding two members of the crowd, the officials added. The wounded were identified as Assem Aramdash, 22, and Mohammed ali Kassem, 5.
They were rushed to a local hospital, witnesses and the security officials said.
There was no immediate word from the Israeli army on the two incidents.
Israel has frequently complained about stone throwing and other provocations along the Lebanese border since it withdrew its troops in May, ending an 18-year occupation of south Lebanon.
The Lebanese government has refused to deploy troops along the frontier, saying it does not want to serve as Israel's border guards.
But, in a separate development, the government was forced to send more troops into south Lebanon on Thursday after a traffic incident threatened to inflame inter-religious tension.
Troops in armored personnel carriers drove through the southern towns and villages of Blida, Blatt, Dibbin, Qlaia, Khiam, Kfarkila and Marjayoun, while others manned roadblocks and checked cars entering or leaving the area Thursday.
Security officials said the trouble began with a traffic accident Wednesday between a car carrying two government workers from the predominately Christian town of Qlaia and another vehicle driven by a man believed to be a member of the Shiite Muslim Amal guerrilla movement, which fought to oust Israeli troops from south Lebanon.
The accident led to a scuffle and shots being fired into the air. The Qlaia men were forced into the other car and were driven away, the officials said.
The abducted men were later released unharmed, but police took them into custody for questioning. In the meantime, security forces searched for the kidnappers.
Many of the male residents of Qlaia had belonged to the now defunct South Lebanon Army, a militia that fought alongside the Israeli occupation forces. Most of Qlaia's population fled to Israel in the wake of the Israeli withdrawal, but many of the former SLA members have since returned to face trial before a military court on charges of collaborating with the enemy.
Interior Minister Elias Murr, who is responsible for the security forces in south Lebanon, met security chiefs early Thursday in Marjayoun. By noon, security forces had detained seven people, the officials said.
Copyright 2000 The Associated Press.
END
By Jaffer Ali ~ Dec. 28, 2000
Amidst the polemics that rage on and off line, sometimes it is helpful to take a step back to understand the human dimension of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. If you please, indulge the following reminisces for I believe that they reveal why Israel must necessarily abandon Occupation.
My father was born in the small West Bank village of Beitunia in 1930. His family owned an orange grove in Lydda and after 1948 neither he, nor his siblings ever saw the grove again. He came to the US for good in 1949. He was a "man's man" with shoulders that appeared Atlas-like to me while growing up.
When he was alive, I only saw my father cry three times in my life. The first time transformed me forever. I was eleven years old and the year was 1968. My father received a package in the mail. Apparently he had donated some money and he received a book. I do not remember what kind of book, but inside when he opened it, I will never forget what I saw. It was a small Palestinian flag.
My father took it out and with his head bowed...he wept. I distinctly remember a sense of bewilderment. I had never seen this hulk of a man cry before. I quizzically asked, "Yaba, what's wrong?" But he never told me. His was a generation that found these emotional outbursts confusing and embarrassing. But somehow I "instinctively" knew what had happened. And something happened to me. That day I became a Palestinian.
It was the next year in school that I had my first speech class. Most of the boys gave speeches on football and baseball and the girls on dolls and make up. My speech was on thedisastrous consequences of the Balfour declaration.
Fast forwarding to the year 2000, history has somehow come full circle. This time, I am the father. One evening my wife, three boys and I decided to break the Ramadan fast at a restaurant. The waitress came over to ask what beverage we wanted. I answered for the table, "Bring three Cokes for the boys and two glasses of water."
My ten-year-old looked at me with surprise and said, "Yaba, should we be drinking Coca Cola? We should order something else because Coke is helping the Israelis." With this statement, my ten-year old became a Palestinian. Now, if you think that our home is a den of indoctrination, you would be dead wrong. He overheard me speaking about a Middle Eastern boycott of American goods, which included Coke. I believe my son "instinctively" knew that we should not lend ourselves to helping Israel brutalize our brothers and sisters, even indirectly.
These two incidents, separated by more than thirty years, reveal something fundamental, almost metaphysical. What connects ALL Palestinians in the world is a shared psychicexperience. And this experience solidifies a Palestinian identity, no matter where one lives. Diaspora has not eradicated this identity. Time has not eradicated it. Neither prosperity nor privation has eradicated it. Being a Palestinian transcends geography and time. It is an eternal thought that lies dormant, waiting for a chance to express itself.
In the refugee camps of Jordan, Syria and Lebanon every Palestinian dreams of freedom and living in dignity without despair. In the villages of the West Bank and Gaza every Palestinian dreams of a life without identity cards, without Israeli snipers shooting the eyes out of children in dubious self defense. Every Palestinian living in countries from Australia to the US is connected to every other Palestinian. We will not go away.
Israel has falsely assumed that time was on its side. Their belief was that successive generations of Palestinians would assimilate into neighboring Arab countries. Israel believed that creating conditions of deprivation would cause a mass exodus without a longing to return. They have forgotten their own history. Israeli brutality has solidified Palestinian identity and demands its expression.
My father died almost twenty years ago and before he became ill, he looked me in the eye and said, "Son, I may not live to see Palestine, but Insha'Allah you will." While it is true that Palestinians clutch the past to preserve our identity, we are ready to embrace the future. My father's hope still rings in my ears.
Jaffer Ali is a Palestinian-American businessman who writes on business Ethics, management theory and political topics.
END
Media Spin Remains in Sync With Israeli Occupation
By Norman Solomon ~ Dec. 28
The formula for American media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is simple: Report on the latest developments in the fragile "peace process." Depict U.S. officials as honest brokers in the negotiations. Emphasize the need for restraint and compromise instead of instability and bloodshed. In the world according to news media, the U.S. government is situated on high moral ground -- in contrast to some of the intractable adversaries. "The conflict that had been so elaborately dressed in the civilizing cloak of a peace effort has been stripped to its barest essence: Jew against Arab, Arab against Jew," a New York Times dispatch from Jerusalem declared as fierce clashes in occupied territory neared the end of their second week. Soon afterwards, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright proclaimed: "The cycle of violence has to be stopped." Such pronouncements from Washington get a lot of respectful media play in our country.
Rarely do American journalists explore the ample reasons to believe that the United States is part of the oft-decried cycle of violence. Nor, in the past couple of weeks, has there been much media analysis of the fact that the violence was overwhelmingly inflicted on Palestinian people. Within days, several dozen Palestinians were killed by heavily armed men in uniform -- often described by CNN and other news outlets as "Israeli security forces." Under the circumstances, it's a notably benign-sounding term for an army that shoots down protesters.
As for the rock-throwing Palestinians, I have never seen or heard a single American news account describing them as "pro-democracy demonstrators." Yet that would be an appropriate way to refer to people who -- after more than three decades of living under occupation -- are in the streets to demand self-determination. While Israeli soldiers and police, with their vastly superior firepower, do most of the killing, Israel's public-relations engines keep whirling like well-oiled tops. Days ago, tilted by the usual spin, American news stories highlighted the specious ultimatums issued by Prime Minister Ehud Barak as he demanded that Palestinians end the violence -- while uniformed Israelis under his authority continued to kill them.
Beneath the Israeli "peace process" rhetoric echoed by American media, an implicit message isn't hard to discern: If only Palestinians would stop resisting the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, it would no longer be necessary for Israeli forces to shoot them. "Israel Extends Time For Peace," said the lead headline on the Oct. 10 front page of USA Today. "Israel early today extended a deadline for Palestinians to end rioting," the article began. At this rate, we may someday see a headline that reads: "Israel Demands Palestinians Stop Attacking Bullets With Their Bodies."
Of course, amid all the nifty Orwellian touches, the proper behavior of people whose homeland remains under occupation has never quite been spelled out. But U.S. media coverage has reflexively mimicked the themes coming out of the White House and State Department. It all makes sense -- as long as we set aside basic concepts of human rights -- as long as we refuse to acknowledge that without justice there can be no real peace. For American journalists on mainstream career ladders, it's prudent to avoid making a big deal about Israel's human rights violations, which persist without letup in tandem with Israel's occupation of land it captured in the 1967 war.
Many pundits are fond of cloaking the occupiers in mantles of righteousness. And we hear few questions raised about the fact that the occupiers enjoy the powerful backing of the United States. The silence is usually deafening, even among journalists who write opinion columns on a regular basis. The U.S. government's economic and military assistance to Israel adds up to a few billion dollars per year. Among media professionals, that aid is widely seen as an untouchable "third rail." To challenge U.S. support for Israel is to invite a torrent of denunciations -- first and foremost, the accusation of "anti-Semitism."
Occasionally, I've written columns criticizing U.S. media for strong pro-Israel bias in news reporting and spectrums of commentary. Every time, I can count on a flurry of angry letters that accuse me of being anti-Semitic. It's a timeworn, knee-jerk tactic: Whenever someone makes a coherent critique of Israel's policies, immediately go on the attack with charges of anti-Jewish bigotry. Numerous American supporters of Israel resort to this tactic. Perhaps the difficulties of defending the Israeli occupation on its merits have encouraged substitution of the "anti-Semitic" epithet for reasoned debate. Like quite a few other Jewish Americans, I'm appalled by what Israel is doing with U.S. tax dollars. Meanwhile, as journalists go along to get along, they diminish the humanity of us all. "Ask not for whom the bell tolls."
END
By Nizar Qabbani ~ Dec. 28
The face of Qana
Pale, like that of Jesus
and the sea breeze of Nisan ...
Rains of blood .. and tears ..
* * * * *
They entered Qana stepping on our [charred] bodies
Raising a Nazi flag in the lands of the South ...
and rehearsing its stormy chapters ..
Hitler cremated them in the gaschambers ..
and they came after him to burn us ..
Hitler kicked them out of Eastern Europe
and they kicked us out of our lands
Hitler did not find the time to destroy them
and relief earth of their mischief ...
They came after him ..
to destroy us
* * * * *
They entered Qana
Like hungry wolves
Putting to fire the house of the Messiah..
Stepping on the Thob of Hussain..
and the dear land of the South
* * * * *
Blasted Wheat, Olive-trees and Tobacco
and the melodies of the nightingale
Blasted Cadmus in his bark
Blasted sea and the gulls
Blasted hospitals
nursing moms
and schoolboys ..
Blasted the beauty of the Southern women
and murdered the gardens of the honeyed eyes
* * * * *
We saw the tears in Ali's eyes
We heard his voice as he prayed
under the rain of bloody skies ..
* * * * * *
Who ever will write about the history of Qana
Will inscribe in his parchments
This was the second Karbala
* * * * *
Qana unveiled what was hidden
We saw Amrika
Wearing the old coat of a Jewish Rabbi
Leading the slaughter
Blasting our children for no reason
[Blasting] our wives for no reason
[Blasting] our trees for no reason
[Blasting] our thoughts for no reason
Has it been decreed in her constitution,
She, [Amrika], mistress of the world,
In Hebrew .. that she should humble [us] al-Arab?
* * * * *
Has it been decreed that each time a ruler in Amrika
wants to win the presidency that he should kill us ..
We al-Arab?
* * * * *
We waited for one Arab to come
pull this thorny prick from our necks
We waited for single Qureishite
A single Hashemite
A single Don Quixote
A single Qabadaya, for whom they did not shave the moustache
We waited for a Khalid .. A Tariq .. or Antara ..
We were eaten Tharthara (while engaged in vain talk)
They sent a fax
We read its text
[Way] after paying tribute
<