Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Elder of Ziyon
The blog will not be updated during the next few days as I celebrate 
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Elder of Ziyon
The Palestinian refugees who abandoned their homes in 1948 were casualties of a war started by the Arab world with the objective of preventing the creation of a Jewish state. Some of the refugees fled at their own initiative; others were, in modern parlance, ethnically cleansed. The nascent State of Israel was fighting a war of existential survival. It owes no apologies for its behavior in 1948.
UNGAR 194 was adopted in 1949 with the aim of ending the new refugee problem quickly by means of return and compensation. When you go back and read it, it invokes a degree of moderation: if refugees agree to 'live at peace with their [Israeli] neighbors', then they 'should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date'. There is plenty of qualifying language here that has enabled Israel, over the years, to insist that UNGAR 194 is not feasible because we are still effectively at war.
The Palestinian national movement, for its part, has turned 194 into a blatant demand that Israel accept the refugees' 'right of return'--a phrase neither mentioned nor implied in that resolution--as a condition for peace. Hardline Palestinians argue that Israel must allow millions of refugees to inundate the country, thereby in effect compromising its status as a Jewish state and negating UNGAR 181, which explicitly created 'Jewish and Arab states' in Mandatory Palestine. Moderate Palestinians insist that ways can be found to reassure Israel that only a small portion of the refugees would actually return. But they too are very insistent that Israel at least recognize the 'right' of all refugees to return.
In other words, for moderate Palestinians an acceptable final status peace agreement would involve a relatively symbolic return of, say, tens of thousands of refugees, coupled with agreed language regarding UNGAR 194 that could be understood by the Palestinian national movement as Israeli acknowledgement of guilt, or blame, or shame, for having created the refugee problem in the first place. Many Israelis understand this as a demand that Palestinians be awarded psychological compensation in the form of an Israeli admission that Israel was 'born in sin'--that Palestinians were 'right' and Israel 'wrong' in 1948. That is not what UNGAR 194 is all about. That is not what Israel is all about. This cannot and must not be the basis for peace.
This set of Palestinian demands relies on a remarkable Arab achievement regarding the Palestinian refugees over the past 50 years. Not only has UNGAR 194 been distorted beyond recognition in the Arab narrative, but Palestinian refugees have been awarded their own unique UN agency, UNRWA (United Nations Relief Works Agency), while all the rest of the world's refugees make do with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Further, statutes have been promulgated by UNRWA to ensure that refugee status is passed on from generation to generation, to eternity. Thus the Palestinian refugee problem grows exponentially with every passing year. With a fifth generation of Palestinian refugees upon us, and factoring in intermarriage between refugee and non-refugee Palestinians, we are seemingly guaranteed that this problem will never be resolved because virtually all Palestinians will soon be able to claim refugee and 'return' status. Nowhere else in the world has a refugee problem been treated, or mistreated, this way.
There are a few Palestinians who recognize the absurdity of the Palestinian right of return demands. But in the Palestinian mainstream, generations of Palestinians have been educated on the concept that Israel will indeed eventually recognize the right of return and repatriate those refugees who so desire. Thus the refugee issue has become perhaps the single most difficult obstacle to peace.
I can conceive of one possible compromise position that might somehow, at some point, be useful in reaching agreement on the refugee issue. Israel would reiterate categorically that it rejects the right of return. But in the spirit of UNGAR 194, it would offer to repatriate those original refugees, i.e., Palestinians who themselves left the country in 1948, who wish to spend their last years in Israel and are prepared to do so in a spirit of peace. No extended families-only the original refugees themselves, all at least 56 years old, who would number between a few thousand and a few tens of thousands.
Palestinians could, and hopefully would, interpret this as a humanitarian gesture that goes to the core of their grievance. Israelis could claim to be faithful to the original intent of UNGAR 194, without in any way validating the Palestinian narrative regarding 1948 or the Palestinian interpretation of UNGAR 194, both of which are antithetical to the spirit of a genuine two state solution and to reconciliation between the two peoples.
If we cannot invoke a compromise of this nature regarding UNGAR 194 and the right of return, I fear we will remain far from an agreed end to this conflict.
"
- Wednesday, September 29, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
Jewish Leaders Condemn Move by Presbyterian Church
Jewish and Protestant leaders clashed over Israel yesterday as the heads of several major U.S. Jewish organizations condemned the Presbyterian Church's decision to begin selective divestiture in companies operating in Israel.
After a polite but tense meeting in New York, Presbyterian officials and leaders of the Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism promised to continue their dialogue. But neither side gave any ground.
___Conflict in the Mideast ___
SPECIAL REPORT
spacer
Latest News From the Mideast:
• Israel Divestiture Spurs Clash (Post, Sept. 29, 2004 )
• 7 Palestinians Killed in Spate Of Violence (Post, Sept. 28, 2004 )
• Israel Accuses Syria of 'Directing Terrorism' (Reuters, Sept. 27, 2004; 11:27 AM )
• Full Mideast Coverage
spacer
Graphic:
• One Land, Two Peoples A look at the history of the conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews.
_____Religion News_____
• Displays of Perseverance (The Washington Post, Sep 25, 2004)
• A Mission To Salvage Holy Message (The Washington Post, Sep 24, 2004)
• An Array of Takes on Thomas (The Washington Post, Sep 18, 2004)
• U.S. Says Saudis Repress Religion (The Washington Post, Sep 16, 2004)
• Va. Episcopalians Enlist Ex-Archbishop's Services (The Washington Post, Sep 16, 2004)
• More Religion Stories
_____Free E-mail Newsletters_____
• Today's Headlines & Columnists
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
• Breaking News Alerts
See a Sample | Sign Up Now
"Holding something over the head of Israel to change its conduct, while holding nothing over the heads of the Palestinians to change their conduct . . . has caused utter dismay in the Jewish community," Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, told reporters. "It is unbalanced, it is unwieldy, it will not work."
Jewish-Presbyterian relations have been in turmoil since the 2.4 million-member Presbyterian Church's General Assembly voted 431 to 62 in July to "initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel" and also decided to continue funding messianic congregations that target Jews for proselytizing.
The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the stated clerk, or highest elected official, of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), said the church does not plan a "blanket divestment" of its $7 billion in investment funds from companies operating in Israel. Rather, he said, it will target businesses that it believes bear particular responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians and will give them a chance to change their behavior before selling their shares.
Presbyterian officials cited one possible example: Caterpillar Inc., which manufactures bulldozers used by Israel to demolish Palestinian homes that are built without permits or belong to families of suicide bombers.
Kirkpatrick said the church would also pull its money out of any companies that are complicit in supporting terrorism.
Rabbi Paul Menitoff, executive vice president of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, said the Presbyterian resolution was a "lopsided" action that blamed one side in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
"There is plenty of guilt and plenty of blame to go around," he said. "But . . . the expectation is that there will be a certain fairness in the critique."
Jewish leaders also expressed concern that other Protestant groups, such as the worldwide Anglican Communion, appear to be considering punitive measures toward Israel. Last week an Anglican delegation toured Palestinian areas and reportedly called for divestiture to end the "draconian conditions" of Israel's "continuing occupation."
The Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative advocacy group in Washington, issued a report this week saying that mainline Protestant denominations devoted 37 percent of their human rights declarations over the past four years to criticism of Israel, far more than any other foreign country.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
Interviewer: 'Would You, as a Human Being, be Willing to Shake Hands with a Jew?'
I like the phrase "as a human being," meaning that of course Jews aren't human. Nice touch, Akhmed! - EoZ
Respondent 1:
"Of course I wouldn't be willing to shake hands with a Jew, for religious reasons and because of what is happening now in Palestine, and for many reasons that don't allow me to shake a Jew's hand."
Respondent 2:
"No. Because the Jews are eternal enemies. The murderous Jews violate all agreements. I can't shake hands with someone who I know is full of hatred towards me."
Respondent 3:
"No, the Jew is an enemy. How can I shake my enemy's hand?"
Interviewer: "Would you refuse to shake hands with a Jew?"
Respondent 4:
"Of course, so I wouldn't have to consider amputating my hand afterwards."
Interviewer: 'If a Child Asks You Who 'Who are the Jews,' What Would You Answer?'
Respondent 5:
"The enemies of Allah and His Prophet."
Respondent 6:
"The Jew is the occupier of our lands."
Respondent 7:
"The murderers of prophets. Our eternal enemies, of course."
Respondent 2:
"The murderers of prophets, that's it."
Respondent 8:
"The solution is clear, not only to me but to everyone. If only [the Muslims] declared Jihad, we would see who stays home. We have a few countries… There is one country with a population of over 60-70 million people. If we let them only march, with no weapons even, they would completely trample the Jews, they would turn them into rotten carcasses under their feet. There is another country that donated money, saying, 'I am behind you, I'll support you with weapons, just wage [ Jihad ].'
"But the cowardice inside us, deep within our hearts, was instilled by the Arab leaders, may Allah forgive them. They breast-fed us with it from the day we were born to this very day it has grown with us."
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
self-death
...A meeting of the International Moral Court was held in the French capital September 23-25 to expose the crimes of the theocracy in Tehran. Having lived under religious fascism, I prepared myself psychologically for three days of horrific stories and images.
... Following the administrative procedures a film was shown; smuggled out of Iran, it pictured scenes of despicable horror. We all watched the unwatchable: a man lay on a stretcher while another, bearded and looking like an official, read what seemed to be a court sentence. Then a man dressed in white comes in — presumably a physician — bends over the lying man and applies the sentence.
There is only one word to describe the horror of what I saw: horror. There is other word for the act of tearing out a living man's eyes; there is no adjective to describe it. The whole assembly was plunged into a macabre silence. In the next scene, another man, lying alive and awake on a stretcher, watched his physician-torturer cut his fingers with a hand-mower. Next, a third man, or woman — there is no way of distinguishing the gender of someone wrapped up like a mummy — is buried, alive and awake, up to his chest, before being stoned to death. It barely takes a minute or two before the chest and head of the living mummy start circling around in a dance of death. What magnifies to near-infinite the evil of these scenes of barbarity is the unbearable accompanying cry, "Allah Akbar!" — "God is Great!"
"The situation becomes so explosive, every now and then, that they bring in their Lebanese commandos," Ali told me, turning his head away from that sickening screen. "Lebanese?" I asked. "Yah, Lebanese. They run out of local hands to repress, so they rely on their network. These guys are physically huge and mentally sick. Speaking not a word of Persian, they just beat. A friend of mine got caught the other day by one of these patrols. The guy was so colossal that he sucked my friend in through the car's window with just one hand. They laid him on the car's floor and started beating him. I never saw him again. Seventeen of us disappeared like this in our hood alone. Eleven never came back. Those who did return, including one of my own childhood friends, were so profoundly disrupted psychologically that no one would ever talk of his ordeal."
The projection is followed by testimonies of those who survived the heart of darkness. Coming back from death, a woman goes to the microphone, and, as she speaks, the room sinks into silence once again. A Kurdish sympathizer of an armed opposition group, she was arrested in her native Kurdistan in 1982. Hanged naked upside down — to "tear apart the self that is in every one of us," she says — she was then raped, over and over again. Gang rape, rape with a bottle...
"We will never forgive our parents for having done this to us with their revolution," says Ali, staring at nowhere. "My father said once that they did it because they thought they would get free oil at their door step. Can you believe that? Now, people won't take to the streets anymore. I mean, what for? Every one saw what they did to Zahra Kazemi [a Canadian journalist killed while in the custody of the government in Tehran]. Did the Canadians do anything in outrage? Did the Canadian government take any significant retaliatory step? Every one knows that the mullahs have huge personal savings and investments in Canada. So why should we sacrifice ourselves by defying Lebanese mercenaries in our own neighborhoods? Is the world going to recognize that we exist? Has anyone among the Iranian expatriates supported us? Has any Iranian even come to the refugee camps to see in what miserable conditions we live? We hate the mullahs so much that we could hang every single one of them on every single tree in Tehran, but, so long as we, the Iranians, are only "I" and never "Us" — so long as the West is behind the mullahs — no one will take the matters to the streets any more."
I leave the courtroom, sick of myself, sick of bearing my being. I retire to an adjacent room to write and forget. "Did Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times ever talk to Ali when he toured Iran a few months ago? He has never lived under fascism, has he? Mr. Kristoff doesn't have to face the Lebanese Hezbollah in the streets of New York, does he? So why does he advocate reforming the theocracy and flooding it with American dollars? The "reform" movement is dead, Mr. Kristoff. The aspiration for liberty and a life without fear, for a life with dignity, is not."
"We are 70 percent of the people," said Ali before I left him. They are the most redoubtable weapon of mass destruction against the mullahs, I keep telling myself. They are the end of the tunnel, if only we could recognize that there is tunnel out there and not a dead-end — if only we decided to lend them our voice.
If only...
— Ramin Parham, editor of Iran Institute for Democracy, is an independent commentator based in Paris.
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
A highly respected Muslim leader in Norway supports suicide bombers if the aim is to kill enemies.
Basim Ghozlan, the manager at Det Islamske Forbundet, one of the largest Muslim organizations in Norway, stated that suicide bombers are accepted if they kill enemies.
«If the goal in itself is accepted, than this should also be accepted,» Ghozlan said to the Norwegian radio channel Kanal 24.
In a Q&A section at the Muslim website islam.no, Ghozlan respond to a young boy who asked about suicide bombers. The Muslim leader answered the boy’s question by defending the use of suicide bombers.
«If you attack a cruel enemy, then it’s not a coward way, rather the opposite. The people who do this are actually very brave,» Ghozlan answered.
He stressed that for example Israel claims that all settlers are legitimate goals for suicide bombers.
Must not strike the innocent
«Suicide in order to hit the enemy: if the war is legal, seen from Islamic point of view, and if you do not have any other way of striking the enemy than by giving your own life, this is allowed.
The demand not to hit the innocent must not be forgotten. Unfortunately, we see in many cases that suicide bombers hit many more innocent than they wish to. In Iraq innocent people are killed almost daily because of such blind bombs. This is no jihad. The Prophet never urged anyone to do anything like that.
If it happens in occupied areas where the suicide bombers attack settlers and soldiers, it is another issue. The situations have to be discussed separately,» Ghozlan wrote in his answer to the boy.
Frightening
«I almost become a little scared when I hear this,» said Petter Eide at Amnesty International Norge.
He stated that Ghozlan’s statements are completely unacceptable.
«What he says is that he is actually legitimates murder,» Eide said to Kanal 24.
He urges Muslims in Norway to reject Ghozlan’s statements.
«I really hope the Muslim environment in Oslo address these statements because they are completely unacceptable,» Eide said.
Frida Nome, an expert in Middle Eastern issues, said that she did not think these statements were shared by most Muslims.
«I don’t think Muslims in general support this,» Nome said. «I think it’s odd that he dare say this in Norway.»
Note the willful blindness exhibited in the two latter quotes. - EoZ
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
Since the intifada erupted four years ago, 1,017 Israelis were killed, of them 70% were civilians and 30% members of Israeli security forces, data published by the ISA this (Monday) afternoon after four years of confrontation reveal.
According to the data, Palestinian militants perpetrated 13,730 shooting attacks and 138 suicide bombings. Nearly 5,600 Israelis were injured during the time period, of them 82% civilians and 18% security forces personnel.
The bloodiest year was 2002 during which 452 Israelis were killed and 2,309 sustained injuries. A significant drop has occurred since then, culminating in 2004 during which 97 Israelis were killed, another 441 injured.
However, the firings of Kassam rockets have risen steadily in the past year. In 2002, only 25 rockets landed within the Green Line, 15 in Gaza and two on the West Bank. In 2004, 118 landed in Israel and 41 in the Gaza Strip.
The ISA also outlined the growing involvement of Hezbollah in Palestinian terrorist activities. The Lebanese terror group mode of operation concentrates on assisting terrorists or foreign accomplices penetrate Israel, smuggling arms, financial backing and setting up a terrorist infrastructure in Palestinian territories or among Israeli-Arabs.
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
Further evidence emerged Monday of the direct link between the armed wing of Fatah, Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the Palestinian Authority.
Obituary notices distributed in the West Bank town of Salfit by Fatah and the PA's General Intelligence Force revealed that the local commander of the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, who was killed on Sunday when his M-16 rifle exploded, had doubled as a security officer.
Jihad Hassan, who is also known as Abu Naaim, was the commander of the Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Salfit and has been wanted by Israel for the past two years.
Residents said Hassan purchased two days ago from an arms dealer an M-16 rifle that had been apparently booby-trapped by Israel's Shin Bet. They said the rifle exploded on Sunday while Hassan was carrying it, amputating his right arm.
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
JERUSALEM - Israel would not be able to destroy Iran's nuclear installations with a single air strike as it did in Iraq in 1981 because they are scattered or hidden and intelligence is weak, Israeli and foreign analysts say.
Israeli leaders have implied they might use force against Iran if international diplomatic efforts or the threat of sanctions fail to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons.
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said this month Israel is 'taking measures to defend itself' - a comment that raised concern Israel is considering a pre-emptive strike along the lines of its 1981 bombing of an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak near Baghdad.
Speculation has also been fueled by recent Israeli weapons acquisitions, including bunker-buster bombs and long-range fighter-bombers.
Israel's national security adviser, Giora Eiland, was quoted Monday by the Maariv daily as saying Iran will reach the 'point of no return' in its nuclear weapons program by November rather than next year as Israeli military officials said earlier.
Concern about Tehran's nuclear development intensified last week when Iran's Vice President Reza Aghazadeh said Iran has started converting raw uranium into the gas needed for enrichment, an important step in making a nuclear bomb.
The declaration came in defiance of a resolution passed three days earlier by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, demanding Iran freeze all uranium enrichment - including conversion. The group's 35-nation board of governors warned that Iran risked being taken before the U.N. Security Council, which could impose sanctions.
Iran denies it is developing nuclear weapons, saying its nuclear development program is aimed at generating electricity. Israel and other countries, including the United States, doubt that.
Recent Israeli weapons purchases could be crucial in a possible strike.
In February, Israel received the first of 102 American-built F-16I warplanes, the largest weapons deal in its history. Military sources say the planes were specially designed with extra fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran.
In June, it signed a $319 million deal to acquire nearly 5,000 U.S.-made smart bombs, including 500 'bunker busters' that can destroy six-foot concrete walls, such as those that might be found in Iranian nuclear facilities.
Military and strategic analysts in Israel and abroad say even with the new weaponry, Israel lacks the ability to carry out a successful strike against Iran's nuclear installations.
'You have to have solid intelligence, you have to know what to hit ... The intelligence on Iran is very weak,' said Alex Vatanka, an expert on Iranian security issues at Jane's Sentinel Security Assessments in London.
Israeli strategic analyst Reuven Pedatzur pointed to a claim last year by Iranian opposition figures that foreign intelligence services have been unaware of two of the Iranian nuclear facilities.
'There is no good intelligence on Iran, and this is the proof,' he said. 'Any Israeli attack on Iran would cause huge political damage, and in the end, the program would proceed.'
After Israel attacked the Osirak reactor, it came in for worldwide criticism. Arab opposition to an Israeli strike against Iran - particularly if it appeared to be unprovoked - would likely be widespread and intense. It could lead to attacks against Israeli and Jewish institutions abroad and condemnations from the United Nations.
Other difficulties in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities include their dispersal throughout the country, their sophisticated defense systems and the likelihood that some of the installations have been replicated, said Cliff Kupchan, vice president of the Nixon Center in Washington, a former Clinton administration Iranian expert who met with Iranian officials during a visit there last year.
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
The current focus in Israeli discussion on whether some Jews have to leave their homes makes consideration of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan unnecessarily and harmfully divisive and misses the real issue of whether the current proposal improves or worsens Israeli security now and for the future.
The widespread agreement among Israelis that ultimately Gaza should not be part of Israel is virtually irrelevant to the question of whether Gaza disengagement is good for Israel now. Opposition to the proposal is not based on a concern for keeping Gaza.
Gaza disengagement needs to be evaluated on the assumption that it will result immediately or shortly in the loss of Israel's ability to control Gaza's borders with the world. It is unlikely that even the Israeli leadership believes that Israel can control these borders if it 'gets out of Gaza' as he proposes.
Read the whole thing, it's pretty long - EoZ
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
The Palestinian Authority prime minister called on his people to 'reconsider' their fight against Israel. 'This anniversary should make us all -- the people, factions, and Palestinian Authority -- reconsider the past four years, where we went wrong and where we went right,' Ahmed Qurie told reporters in Ramallah on Tuesday, referring to an armed revolt launched on September 28, 2000. Many Palestinian moderates have urged for an abandonment of terrorism and guerrilla tactics in favor of a non-violent quest for statehood alongside Israel. But Hamas and Islamic Jihad, two leading terrorist groups, vowed to continue seeking the Jewish state�s destruction.
- Tuesday, September 28, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
By Jackson Diehl
Monday, September 27, 2004; Page A19
Two and a half years ago this week, the Israeli army launched an offensive against the Palestinian towns of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem -- which, it said, had become havens for extremist groups and suicide bombers who made daily life in Israel unbearable. Images of flattened houses and civilian casualties soon filled the world's television screens: Palestinian spokesmen claimed, falsely, that thousands were being massacred. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declared himself "appalled." President Bush publicly called on Israel to withdraw "without delay." Some editorial writers -- such as this one -- argued that the offensive would do more harm than good.
As Americans and Iraqis now debate what to do about insurgent-held Iraqi towns, it's worth revisiting that Israeli campaign -- because what followed offers a counter to some of the conventional wisdom. Yes, there are innumerable differences between the West Bank and Iraq. And yet the salient point is that through the robust use of military force, Israel has succeeded in reducing the level of violence it faces by more than 70 percent.
Despite occasional feints at diplomacy, the strategy pursued by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been unadulterated. Israeli forces have invaded and swept Palestinian towns and refugee camps repeatedly. They have carried out hundreds of "targeted killings" of suspected militants, often through air strikes. They have assassinated the Islamic clerics and political leaders who inspired the bombers. Not only has this relentless warfare not been leavened with reconstruction projects or a nation-building program, but Sharon has done his best to destroy existing Palestinian political and governmental institutions.
Yet it's now undeniable that the "military solution" that so many believed could not work has brought Israelis an interlude of relative peace. In 2002, 228 Israelis died in 42 suicide bombings; in March 2002, as Sharon launched his offensive, 85 died in nine attacks. This year there have been 10 suicide bombings and 53 Israeli deaths; last week's bombing in Jerusalem was only the second such bombing in more than six months. While the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement remain dismal, and no one expects the violence to end, life in Israel has returned to something approaching normal.
The cost in lives has been lower than commonly believed. For example, in the invasion of Jenin's refugee camp, Israel wiped out the leadership and infrastructure of terrorist organizations responsible for more than two dozen suicide bombings. But human rights groups later documented only 52 Palestinian deaths, of which 22 were civilians. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers died. Since 2002, Palestinian deaths have declined along with those of Israelis. The uproar over the offensive, and what has followed it, has seriously eroded Israel's standing in Europe and elsewhere. But the consequences of that loss are mostly intangible.
So should the U.S. Army stop worrying about the collateral damage of an invasion of Fallujah? Of course not: The United States, after all, is still primarily focused on political goals in Iraq and not merely an end to car bombings. Yet the Israeli experience does suggest that it's wrong to insist, as many in Washington do, that a military campaign against the terrorists' bases could not substantially improve security conditions for both Americans and Iraqis. The visuals would be awful and the outcry loud, on al-Jazeera and maybe at the United Nations. But if the reality were modest civilian casualties and heavy enemy losses, the result might be an opportunity to pursue the nation-building that now is stymied.
This raises another question: Could U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies duplicate the Israeli army's success? Here the outlook is debatable. Israeli officials I've spoken to are themselves doubtful. One major reason for their military success, they say, has been superior intelligence: Thanks to decades of investment in human sources as well as high technology, Israeli forces know who their enemies are and are very good at finding them. Moreover, by 2002 there was a strong political consensus in Israel that there was no choice but to take the offensive against the terrorists and bear the inevitable costs. As the U.S. presidential campaign is demonstrating, Americans are deeply divided over whether the war in Iraq is worth fighting.
One thoughtful Israeli I spoke to said that as he watches the U.S. mission he thinks not of Jenin but of Lebanon. There, Israel's 1982 invasion and subsequent attempt to fashion a new political order deeply divided its society and led to a losing situation from which retreat was all but impossible. It was 18 years before Israel finally exited from Lebanon and stopped the slow but excruciating accretion of its casualties. That history is not nearly as encouraging as the more recent tactical victory over terrorism -- but it's another possible forecast of the American future in Iraq.
Monday, September 27, 2004; Page A19
Two and a half years ago this week, the Israeli army launched an offensive against the Palestinian towns of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah and Bethlehem -- which, it said, had become havens for extremist groups and suicide bombers who made daily life in Israel unbearable. Images of flattened houses and civilian casualties soon filled the world's television screens: Palestinian spokesmen claimed, falsely, that thousands were being massacred. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan declared himself "appalled." President Bush publicly called on Israel to withdraw "without delay." Some editorial writers -- such as this one -- argued that the offensive would do more harm than good.
As Americans and Iraqis now debate what to do about insurgent-held Iraqi towns, it's worth revisiting that Israeli campaign -- because what followed offers a counter to some of the conventional wisdom. Yes, there are innumerable differences between the West Bank and Iraq. And yet the salient point is that through the robust use of military force, Israel has succeeded in reducing the level of violence it faces by more than 70 percent.
Despite occasional feints at diplomacy, the strategy pursued by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been unadulterated. Israeli forces have invaded and swept Palestinian towns and refugee camps repeatedly. They have carried out hundreds of "targeted killings" of suspected militants, often through air strikes. They have assassinated the Islamic clerics and political leaders who inspired the bombers. Not only has this relentless warfare not been leavened with reconstruction projects or a nation-building program, but Sharon has done his best to destroy existing Palestinian political and governmental institutions.
Yet it's now undeniable that the "military solution" that so many believed could not work has brought Israelis an interlude of relative peace. In 2002, 228 Israelis died in 42 suicide bombings; in March 2002, as Sharon launched his offensive, 85 died in nine attacks. This year there have been 10 suicide bombings and 53 Israeli deaths; last week's bombing in Jerusalem was only the second such bombing in more than six months. While the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement remain dismal, and no one expects the violence to end, life in Israel has returned to something approaching normal.
The cost in lives has been lower than commonly believed. For example, in the invasion of Jenin's refugee camp, Israel wiped out the leadership and infrastructure of terrorist organizations responsible for more than two dozen suicide bombings. But human rights groups later documented only 52 Palestinian deaths, of which 22 were civilians. Twenty-three Israeli soldiers died. Since 2002, Palestinian deaths have declined along with those of Israelis. The uproar over the offensive, and what has followed it, has seriously eroded Israel's standing in Europe and elsewhere. But the consequences of that loss are mostly intangible.
So should the U.S. Army stop worrying about the collateral damage of an invasion of Fallujah? Of course not: The United States, after all, is still primarily focused on political goals in Iraq and not merely an end to car bombings. Yet the Israeli experience does suggest that it's wrong to insist, as many in Washington do, that a military campaign against the terrorists' bases could not substantially improve security conditions for both Americans and Iraqis. The visuals would be awful and the outcry loud, on al-Jazeera and maybe at the United Nations. But if the reality were modest civilian casualties and heavy enemy losses, the result might be an opportunity to pursue the nation-building that now is stymied.
This raises another question: Could U.S. forces and their Iraqi allies duplicate the Israeli army's success? Here the outlook is debatable. Israeli officials I've spoken to are themselves doubtful. One major reason for their military success, they say, has been superior intelligence: Thanks to decades of investment in human sources as well as high technology, Israeli forces know who their enemies are and are very good at finding them. Moreover, by 2002 there was a strong political consensus in Israel that there was no choice but to take the offensive against the terrorists and bear the inevitable costs. As the U.S. presidential campaign is demonstrating, Americans are deeply divided over whether the war in Iraq is worth fighting.
One thoughtful Israeli I spoke to said that as he watches the U.S. mission he thinks not of Jenin but of Lebanon. There, Israel's 1982 invasion and subsequent attempt to fashion a new political order deeply divided its society and led to a losing situation from which retreat was all but impossible. It was 18 years before Israel finally exited from Lebanon and stopped the slow but excruciating accretion of its casualties. That history is not nearly as encouraging as the more recent tactical victory over terrorism -- but it's another possible forecast of the American future in Iraq.
Monday, September 27, 2004
- Monday, September 27, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
Read the whole thing; it is long but a good encapsulation of how Israel's Left (which now apparently includes Sharon) responds to challenges from the Right. - EoZ
What Is Really Shocking, and Who Is Really Inciting?
by Nadia Matar
Last week I sent a letter to the head of the Deportation Administration, Mr. Yonatan Bassi, in which I wrote that the fact that he plans to send a personal letter to each of the inhabitants of Gush Katif designated for transfer, and that his letter contains a "personal appeal and initial explanation of the evacuation process," fills me with chilling associations from the Holocaust. I attached to my letter one that had been written by the Berlin Judenrat in 1942 to the Jewish community, with details and explanations of the approaching deportation. I wrote to Bassi that, in my opinion, the document from 1942 was chillingly similar to the letter that he was about to send. I further stated that I believe that "Yonatan Bassi is a much worse version of the Judenrat in the Holocaust, for then in the Holocaust, this was forced upon those Jewish leaders by the Nazis, and it is very difficult for us to judge them today. But today no one stands with a pistol to Ba! ssi's head and forces him to cooperate with the deportation of the Jews of Gush Katif and northern Samaria." I added that "whoever aids in the deportation of the Jews of Gush Katif and northern Samaria in actuality aids an anti-Semitic act, and will be so remembered to everlasting abhorrence." I concluded the letter with an emotional appeal to Bassi that "he still can resign from his contemptible position and enter Yom Kippur, the Day of Judgment, clean and at peace with his conscience, without being part of the modern Judenrat - the Deportation Administration" (the entire letter in Hebrew and the letter from 1942, also in Hebrew, can be seen at the Hebrew language Women in Green web site: .
The letter received wide exposure, and I must admit - I am shocked. I am shocked by the responses of the establishment and the state media. All cry out to high heaven, because of the use of the strong epithet I applied to Bassi - while, on the other hand! , no one is disturbed by the criminal act that Ariel Sharon seeks to commit, with Bassi's help, against which I cry out in my letter: the brutal deportation of Jews from their inheritance and their homes - most of whom are already the third generation on the land - men, women, and children, against their will, solely because they are Jews. This will be accompanied by the razing of their homes, the elimination of their lives' undertaking, the destruction of scores of synagogues, ritual baths, kindergartens, libraries, and schools; the disinterment of dozens of bodies from the cemeteries - many of them, the victims of Arab terror. And the trauma of ethnic cleansing will be followed by the ultimate crime: the handing over of all the Judenrein territory to the Arab enemy, territory that is the inheritance of our forefathers, that they were given by G-d, and that no Jew is permitted to give away. This is a national crime that will (correctly) be interpreted by the Arab enemy as a victory! for terror, and will incite it to continue to murder Jews in Israel and throughout the world, knowing that these murders will result in additional "disengagement" plans - and this time from Netanyah, Haderah, Askhelon, Beersheva, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem.
Instead of this terrifying scenario shaking every Jew to the very depths of his soul, instead of this scenario causing every public figure in Israel - the politicians, the Rabbis, civil rights activists, journalists, and others - from stopping their everyday routine to cry for help "Gevalt!", instead of this scenario resulting in a general strike by the entire country until the despicable plan is shelved, instead of all that, this is accepted naturally, with frightening tranquility. Yes, they "express sorrow and identification with those earmarked for uprooting and transfer, "but there is no shock, no outcry of "Gevalt," no proclamation that this is inconceivable, as if this were a heavenly decree! And about what is ever! yone alarmed? About the victim daring to call the hangman names!!
Just imagine the response in Israel and the world if the French government were to declare that "because of the great antagonism between Muslims and Jews in Paris, all the Jews must leave Paris by the end of 2005." All the houses of the Jews, the synagogues, the schools, and all other Jewish properties in Paris would be put at the disposal of the Muslim community. Jews who would oppose the evacuation would be forcibly placed in internment camps by the French security forces. Just imagine the response in Israel and the world if the Israeli Prime Minister were to declare that "by the end of 2005 there will no longer be any Arabs in Israel." Every Arab who would dare to resist the evacuation would be removed forcibly by the security forces and would be arrested. In each of the cases depicted above, a worldwide outcry would result. Everyone would compare the decree to the Holocaust period. Derogatory epit! hets would be hurled at those implementing the deportation, and the entire country would be disrupted by violent demonstrations, that would be organized spontaneously as soon as the plan became known.
And I ask: how is it that when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proclaims to the entire world that "by the end of 2005 there will no longer be any Jews in Gaza," and even adds that the operation to deport Jews, simply because they are Jews, is not limited to Gaza, but also that additional extensive portions of our land, our homeland, will be handed over to the Arab enemy and become Judenrein - this is accepted without an upheaval similar to the outcry that would arise in response to either of these two scenarios?
What Is Really Shocking, and Who Is Really Inciting?
by Nadia Matar
Last week I sent a letter to the head of the Deportation Administration, Mr. Yonatan Bassi, in which I wrote that the fact that he plans to send a personal letter to each of the inhabitants of Gush Katif designated for transfer, and that his letter contains a "personal appeal and initial explanation of the evacuation process," fills me with chilling associations from the Holocaust. I attached to my letter one that had been written by the Berlin Judenrat in 1942 to the Jewish community, with details and explanations of the approaching deportation. I wrote to Bassi that, in my opinion, the document from 1942 was chillingly similar to the letter that he was about to send. I further stated that I believe that "Yonatan Bassi is a much worse version of the Judenrat in the Holocaust, for then in the Holocaust, this was forced upon those Jewish leaders by the Nazis, and it is very difficult for us to judge them today. But today no one stands with a pistol to Ba! ssi's head and forces him to cooperate with the deportation of the Jews of Gush Katif and northern Samaria." I added that "whoever aids in the deportation of the Jews of Gush Katif and northern Samaria in actuality aids an anti-Semitic act, and will be so remembered to everlasting abhorrence." I concluded the letter with an emotional appeal to Bassi that "he still can resign from his contemptible position and enter Yom Kippur, the Day of Judgment, clean and at peace with his conscience, without being part of the modern Judenrat - the Deportation Administration" (the entire letter in Hebrew and the letter from 1942, also in Hebrew, can be seen at the Hebrew language Women in Green web site: .
The letter received wide exposure, and I must admit - I am shocked. I am shocked by the responses of the establishment and the state media. All cry out to high heaven, because of the use of the strong epithet I applied to Bassi - while, on the other hand! , no one is disturbed by the criminal act that Ariel Sharon seeks to commit, with Bassi's help, against which I cry out in my letter: the brutal deportation of Jews from their inheritance and their homes - most of whom are already the third generation on the land - men, women, and children, against their will, solely because they are Jews. This will be accompanied by the razing of their homes, the elimination of their lives' undertaking, the destruction of scores of synagogues, ritual baths, kindergartens, libraries, and schools; the disinterment of dozens of bodies from the cemeteries - many of them, the victims of Arab terror. And the trauma of ethnic cleansing will be followed by the ultimate crime: the handing over of all the Judenrein territory to the Arab enemy, territory that is the inheritance of our forefathers, that they were given by G-d, and that no Jew is permitted to give away. This is a national crime that will (correctly) be interpreted by the Arab enemy as a victory! for terror, and will incite it to continue to murder Jews in Israel and throughout the world, knowing that these murders will result in additional "disengagement" plans - and this time from Netanyah, Haderah, Askhelon, Beersheva, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem.
Instead of this terrifying scenario shaking every Jew to the very depths of his soul, instead of this scenario causing every public figure in Israel - the politicians, the Rabbis, civil rights activists, journalists, and others - from stopping their everyday routine to cry for help "Gevalt!", instead of this scenario resulting in a general strike by the entire country until the despicable plan is shelved, instead of all that, this is accepted naturally, with frightening tranquility. Yes, they "express sorrow and identification with those earmarked for uprooting and transfer, "but there is no shock, no outcry of "Gevalt," no proclamation that this is inconceivable, as if this were a heavenly decree! And about what is ever! yone alarmed? About the victim daring to call the hangman names!!
Just imagine the response in Israel and the world if the French government were to declare that "because of the great antagonism between Muslims and Jews in Paris, all the Jews must leave Paris by the end of 2005." All the houses of the Jews, the synagogues, the schools, and all other Jewish properties in Paris would be put at the disposal of the Muslim community. Jews who would oppose the evacuation would be forcibly placed in internment camps by the French security forces. Just imagine the response in Israel and the world if the Israeli Prime Minister were to declare that "by the end of 2005 there will no longer be any Arabs in Israel." Every Arab who would dare to resist the evacuation would be removed forcibly by the security forces and would be arrested. In each of the cases depicted above, a worldwide outcry would result. Everyone would compare the decree to the Holocaust period. Derogatory epit! hets would be hurled at those implementing the deportation, and the entire country would be disrupted by violent demonstrations, that would be organized spontaneously as soon as the plan became known.
And I ask: how is it that when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proclaims to the entire world that "by the end of 2005 there will no longer be any Jews in Gaza," and even adds that the operation to deport Jews, simply because they are Jews, is not limited to Gaza, but also that additional extensive portions of our land, our homeland, will be handed over to the Arab enemy and become Judenrein - this is accepted without an upheaval similar to the outcry that would arise in response to either of these two scenarios?
- Monday, September 27, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
The tactical benefits of hitting Izz al-Din al-Sheikh Khalil are marginal. But the psychological and strategic benefits are great.
In keeping with tradition, Israel will never directly acknowledge that it had a hand in Sunday's assassination.
Nevertheless, the strike came after repeated finger-pointing and warnings by Israel that it would widen its war on terrorists and that no place was immune.
Perhaps Israel's Mossad was helped by a subcontractor? Perhaps they were even Syrian? The point is that Bashar Assad was caught red-handed. After declaring that the Hamas leadership had all cleared out of town, one of them found himself blown to bits right there in the capital.
Hamas was quick to blame Israel and that too further humiliated Assad by exposing that Israel or its agents could strike in the heart of his country with impunity. Leaders here know that Assad's options are limited. He would never seek a frontal conflict with a much mightier Israel. With the Americans breathing down his neck to remove his troops from Lebanon, retaliating at Israel through its proxy Hizbullah also seems remote.
- Monday, September 27, 2004
- Elder of Ziyon
This is a fascinating if somewhat implausible story. - EoZ
Maariv InternationalLondon based Arab daily claims Arab intelligence service providing the Mossad with vital information.
The respected London based Arabic daily Al Hayat reports that an Arab intelligence agency has been cooperating with the Mossad, providing it with significant and sensitive information about Hamas, especially its international activities.
According to the report, the Mossad requested the assistance, as it was unable to obtain the required information by itself, and has had little luck in penetrating Hams and other Islamic terror organizations, due to their effective counter-intelligence operational capabilities.
The information provided to the Mossad has given it detailed information on Hamas leaders, especially its leader Haled Mashal, who Israel attempted to assassinate in Jordan several years ago, and his deputy Mussa abu Marzouk. In addition the Arab intelligence agency has also furnished Mossad with detailed information on Hamas bureaus in Damascus, Beirut, Teheran and the Persian Gulf.
A western intelligence source hints that the Arab country in question may be Egypt. It claims that President Mubarak is gradually putting an audacious new strategy into place, which, if successful could provide credible foundations for a new Middle East power structure.
According to the intelligence source, the strategy is based on the assumption that Cairo can initially wean Damascus and the Palestinian terrorist organization from their alliance with Iran. The second stage is then to get Iran itself on board, after isolating it and leaving the Shiite Persians with no allies of any significance in the Sunni-Arab world.
Success of his endeavor would make the region a much friendlier place for the United States. Failure, he fears, would bring about the untimely withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and significantly weaken America’s status as a superpower.
Mubarak is using a sophisticated blend of sticks and carrots to get the Palestinians and Syria on board. The cooperation with the Mossad against Hams is to ensure that if it becomes necessary, the stick will be long, hard and sharp.
The strategy was devised by Mubarak and his veteran political adviser, confidante and alter ego Osama al-Baz. Its first step is achieving secret, far-reaching understandings between involving Syrian leader Bashar Assad and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.
Mubarak believes he has persuaded Syria to pull away from its key role in the regional terror machine by reining in the influx of al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists entering Iraq via Syria, halting the flow of weapons and funds from Damascus to the Iraqi Baath insurgency, and staunching the supply of arms and money from Syria and Lebanon to the Palestinian terrorists.
Assad also indicated a willingness to curb the Damascus-based headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and try and convince them to accept Egypt’s proposal of a 12-month ceasefire supervised by American, Egyptian, Jordanian and European observers.
On Thursday, September 23, Assad took a fist tentative step in this direction, throwing Hamas leader Haled Mashal and Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Salah out of Damascus. He also closed both groups' command and communications centers, cutting off phones and electricity. Mashal has been dividing his time between Qatar, Damascus and Cairo, but he will nevertheless feel the loss of the Syrian capital. Neither welcomes him unconditionally. Qatar denies the Hamas chief a resident’s permit and Cairo stipulates his continued acceptance of a ceasefire with Israel. If this ban from Damascus remains in force, Teheran will be the only capital where he can stay with no strings attached
In addition he has taken some other steps towards defusing the crisis with Washington. These include an agreement with the US regarding patrolling the Syrian-Iraqi border, and a crack down on militants and terrorists joining the uprising in Iraq. Some small restrictions have been placed on the 3,500-4,000 Iraqi Baath leaders granted asylum in Syria. Assad has also agreed to dismantle his non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) programs with Iran’s consent, which has been footing most of the bill.
Israel has been asked to reciprocate with a 12-month halt on all military action against Palestinian commands and terror bases, once the planed cease-fire comes into effect. During this period too, Sharon will be required to demonstrate whether he is able to execute his disengagement plan and withdraw all military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank, as well as make good on his promise to the United States to dismantle unauthorized outposts.
Arafat’s goodwill and the cooperation of his security services are the prerequisite for the success of the plan. However, until the moment of writing these lines, the Palestinian leader had still not given the Egyptian president an answer, despite repeated promises to do so.
In return Mubarak would actively take Syria’s side in negotiations over the Golan Heights, and, if necessary facilitate an accord between Damascus and Washington over this issue, which could make it extremely difficult for Israel not to accept.
US officials are keeping track of the Mubarak-Assad interchange without committing themselves. First, they say, Damascus must demonstrate that it means business by showing goodwill on two urgent issues: to stop providing the guerrillas in Iraq with a logistical base, and to end its occupation of Lebanon. Only if and when Assad delivers on those two counts would Washington contemplate getting involved in any way with the Golan issue.
On Lebanon too, the US administration does not object to an unwritten understanding that would enable Syrian troops to retain some armed presence in Lebanon, as the US sheriff’s deputy, to make sure Islamic militants remain neutralized. This would allow Assad to ensure any Lebanese government does not go too far in negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, as long as the Golan issue remains unresolved. The border with Israel would remain quiet, but Israelis will not be able to flock to Beirut and Lebanon’s ski resorts until Assad gets most of the Golan back.
This leaves Iran. Cairo, Washington and Jerusalem are all aware that Iran holds the keys to the success or failure of the entire initiative. Teheran however is also on the horns of a dilemma. So far its Iraqi policy has failed. Al Sadr’s uprising, which was hatched in and supported by Teheran, was a flop. In addition, its aid to both Shiite and Sunni insurgents in Iraq, including allowing al Qaeda personnel to enter the country and providing them with safe haven has not materially impacted the US will and capabilities to remain in Iraq for a long haul.
The Egyptian strategists believe that if they succeed in isolating Iran, leaving the Shiite Persians with no significant allies in the Arab-Sunni world, they will prefer joining the pax-Americana to standing alone against it.
Well seasoned in the evanescent nature of Middle East peacemaking and diplomacy, Mubarak and al Baz have set a precise timeline for the ripening of their multilateral project, precisely one week before the November 2 presidential election in America.
They reason that the guerrilla, terrorist war will peak then in Iraq. With this heavy cloud over his campaign, Bush will be badly in need of a ray of light. The announcement of a 12-month ceasefire in the Israel-Palestinian conflict after four years of warfare could lift his chances immeasurably at the twelfth hour.
The Egyptians also figure that a week will not be long enough for the ceasefire to break down, a predictable outcome given the track record of truces in this region. But by the time its does, Bush will be home and dry. He will also owe Mubarak big.
What will the Egyptian president expect as his reward? Our sources suspect he will not be satisfied with anything less than White House backing for his son, Jimmy Mubarak’s appointment to succeed him as president of Egypt.
For Mubarak this is a win-win situation. If he succeeds he historical stature will equal that of his mentor Sadat, a statesman who totally transformed the Middle East and reaffirmed Egypt’s preeminence as the ultimate leader of the Arab world.
If it fails, he has lost nothing, since so far he has acted extremely covertly, not risking loss of face. Neither he, nor anyone in Egypt would lose any sleep if Syria, Iran and the Palestinians end up in open and full scale conflict with the US and Israel. In fact, he probably secretly welcomes such an outcome. A nuclear capable Iran not part of the pax America-based international order poses a major potential threat to Egypt. Having an angry and possibly vengeful President Bush, no longer fettered by pre-election considerations, take care of that problem for him would not be such a bad outcome.
An interesting question is why Al Hayat, which is owned by Saudi interests chose to air this information at this time. Was the motive to help Cairo exert subtle pressure on Hamas by letting it be known that Israel is in a position to strike at its leaders, or is it a move by Saudi interests, possibly linked to Islamic militants, to wreck the initiative by publicizing it?
Maariv InternationalLondon based Arab daily claims Arab intelligence service providing the Mossad with vital information.
The respected London based Arabic daily Al Hayat reports that an Arab intelligence agency has been cooperating with the Mossad, providing it with significant and sensitive information about Hamas, especially its international activities.
According to the report, the Mossad requested the assistance, as it was unable to obtain the required information by itself, and has had little luck in penetrating Hams and other Islamic terror organizations, due to their effective counter-intelligence operational capabilities.
The information provided to the Mossad has given it detailed information on Hamas leaders, especially its leader Haled Mashal, who Israel attempted to assassinate in Jordan several years ago, and his deputy Mussa abu Marzouk. In addition the Arab intelligence agency has also furnished Mossad with detailed information on Hamas bureaus in Damascus, Beirut, Teheran and the Persian Gulf.
A western intelligence source hints that the Arab country in question may be Egypt. It claims that President Mubarak is gradually putting an audacious new strategy into place, which, if successful could provide credible foundations for a new Middle East power structure.
According to the intelligence source, the strategy is based on the assumption that Cairo can initially wean Damascus and the Palestinian terrorist organization from their alliance with Iran. The second stage is then to get Iran itself on board, after isolating it and leaving the Shiite Persians with no allies of any significance in the Sunni-Arab world.
Success of his endeavor would make the region a much friendlier place for the United States. Failure, he fears, would bring about the untimely withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and significantly weaken America’s status as a superpower.
Mubarak is using a sophisticated blend of sticks and carrots to get the Palestinians and Syria on board. The cooperation with the Mossad against Hams is to ensure that if it becomes necessary, the stick will be long, hard and sharp.
The strategy was devised by Mubarak and his veteran political adviser, confidante and alter ego Osama al-Baz. Its first step is achieving secret, far-reaching understandings between involving Syrian leader Bashar Assad and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.
Mubarak believes he has persuaded Syria to pull away from its key role in the regional terror machine by reining in the influx of al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists entering Iraq via Syria, halting the flow of weapons and funds from Damascus to the Iraqi Baath insurgency, and staunching the supply of arms and money from Syria and Lebanon to the Palestinian terrorists.
Assad also indicated a willingness to curb the Damascus-based headquarters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and try and convince them to accept Egypt’s proposal of a 12-month ceasefire supervised by American, Egyptian, Jordanian and European observers.
On Thursday, September 23, Assad took a fist tentative step in this direction, throwing Hamas leader Haled Mashal and Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Salah out of Damascus. He also closed both groups' command and communications centers, cutting off phones and electricity. Mashal has been dividing his time between Qatar, Damascus and Cairo, but he will nevertheless feel the loss of the Syrian capital. Neither welcomes him unconditionally. Qatar denies the Hamas chief a resident’s permit and Cairo stipulates his continued acceptance of a ceasefire with Israel. If this ban from Damascus remains in force, Teheran will be the only capital where he can stay with no strings attached
In addition he has taken some other steps towards defusing the crisis with Washington. These include an agreement with the US regarding patrolling the Syrian-Iraqi border, and a crack down on militants and terrorists joining the uprising in Iraq. Some small restrictions have been placed on the 3,500-4,000 Iraqi Baath leaders granted asylum in Syria. Assad has also agreed to dismantle his non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological) programs with Iran’s consent, which has been footing most of the bill.
Israel has been asked to reciprocate with a 12-month halt on all military action against Palestinian commands and terror bases, once the planed cease-fire comes into effect. During this period too, Sharon will be required to demonstrate whether he is able to execute his disengagement plan and withdraw all military forces and settlers from the Gaza Strip and the northern West Bank, as well as make good on his promise to the United States to dismantle unauthorized outposts.
Arafat’s goodwill and the cooperation of his security services are the prerequisite for the success of the plan. However, until the moment of writing these lines, the Palestinian leader had still not given the Egyptian president an answer, despite repeated promises to do so.
In return Mubarak would actively take Syria’s side in negotiations over the Golan Heights, and, if necessary facilitate an accord between Damascus and Washington over this issue, which could make it extremely difficult for Israel not to accept.
US officials are keeping track of the Mubarak-Assad interchange without committing themselves. First, they say, Damascus must demonstrate that it means business by showing goodwill on two urgent issues: to stop providing the guerrillas in Iraq with a logistical base, and to end its occupation of Lebanon. Only if and when Assad delivers on those two counts would Washington contemplate getting involved in any way with the Golan issue.
On Lebanon too, the US administration does not object to an unwritten understanding that would enable Syrian troops to retain some armed presence in Lebanon, as the US sheriff’s deputy, to make sure Islamic militants remain neutralized. This would allow Assad to ensure any Lebanese government does not go too far in negotiating a peace treaty with Israel, as long as the Golan issue remains unresolved. The border with Israel would remain quiet, but Israelis will not be able to flock to Beirut and Lebanon’s ski resorts until Assad gets most of the Golan back.
This leaves Iran. Cairo, Washington and Jerusalem are all aware that Iran holds the keys to the success or failure of the entire initiative. Teheran however is also on the horns of a dilemma. So far its Iraqi policy has failed. Al Sadr’s uprising, which was hatched in and supported by Teheran, was a flop. In addition, its aid to both Shiite and Sunni insurgents in Iraq, including allowing al Qaeda personnel to enter the country and providing them with safe haven has not materially impacted the US will and capabilities to remain in Iraq for a long haul.
The Egyptian strategists believe that if they succeed in isolating Iran, leaving the Shiite Persians with no significant allies in the Arab-Sunni world, they will prefer joining the pax-Americana to standing alone against it.
Well seasoned in the evanescent nature of Middle East peacemaking and diplomacy, Mubarak and al Baz have set a precise timeline for the ripening of their multilateral project, precisely one week before the November 2 presidential election in America.
They reason that the guerrilla, terrorist war will peak then in Iraq. With this heavy cloud over his campaign, Bush will be badly in need of a ray of light. The announcement of a 12-month ceasefire in the Israel-Palestinian conflict after four years of warfare could lift his chances immeasurably at the twelfth hour.
The Egyptians also figure that a week will not be long enough for the ceasefire to break down, a predictable outcome given the track record of truces in this region. But by the time its does, Bush will be home and dry. He will also owe Mubarak big.
What will the Egyptian president expect as his reward? Our sources suspect he will not be satisfied with anything less than White House backing for his son, Jimmy Mubarak’s appointment to succeed him as president of Egypt.
For Mubarak this is a win-win situation. If he succeeds he historical stature will equal that of his mentor Sadat, a statesman who totally transformed the Middle East and reaffirmed Egypt’s preeminence as the ultimate leader of the Arab world.
If it fails, he has lost nothing, since so far he has acted extremely covertly, not risking loss of face. Neither he, nor anyone in Egypt would lose any sleep if Syria, Iran and the Palestinians end up in open and full scale conflict with the US and Israel. In fact, he probably secretly welcomes such an outcome. A nuclear capable Iran not part of the pax America-based international order poses a major potential threat to Egypt. Having an angry and possibly vengeful President Bush, no longer fettered by pre-election considerations, take care of that problem for him would not be such a bad outcome.
An interesting question is why Al Hayat, which is owned by Saudi interests chose to air this information at this time. Was the motive to help Cairo exert subtle pressure on Hamas by letting it be known that Israel is in a position to strike at its leaders, or is it a move by Saudi interests, possibly linked to Islamic militants, to wreck the initiative by publicizing it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
