Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Israel joins NATO parliamentary assembly

Israel was voted in a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly on Tuesday, after previously only enjoying monitor status. The decision was made during the spring session of the organization being held this week in Ljubjana, Slovenia.

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is the inter-parliamentary organization of legislators from 14 member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, and is a forum for international parliamentary dialogue.

This is an important step on the way for Israel to join NATO as a full member.

But there is a fundamental question about this possibility. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

If a NATO-member Israel is attacked by Arab countries, according to a strict interpretation of this 1949 Treaty, Israel would not expect the aid of other NATO countries the same way that the European and North American members would - since it is not a part of Europe.

So while the possibility of Israel joining NATO is probably welcome and would help Israel's diplomatic efforts, it does not necessarily help Israel's defense in a fundamental way.

Also see NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer's speech in Israel in February. In this speech he makes it clear that NATO is reaching out to Arab countries as well as Israel, and it seems that NATO is trying to remake itself to be more relevant in a post-Cold War world, to be more of a political player and less a defense pact:

This Alliance is no longer the static organisation of the Cold War. In fact, the very moment the Cold War ended, that old NATO ceased to exist. NATO today is an agent of political change. NATO enlargement has been a key factor in overcoming the division of Europe. NATO’s cooperative mechanisms, such as Partnership for Peace, have turned this Alliance into the hub of a network of continent-wide cooperation – cooperation that encompasses the most diverse countries, from Switzerland to Uzbekistan. And NATO’s military involvement in the Balkans has created the conditions for long-term stability and reconciliation in a troubled region.
[...] On that basis, last June, at NATO’s Istanbul Summit, we agreed, in close consultation with Israel and other partners in this process, to try to move our relationship to another level – in short, to move from dialogue to partnership. We want to further intensify our political dialogue; to promote greater interoperability between our military forces; and to encourage greater cooperation on defence reform, as well as in the critical fight against terrorism. These are all areas where we have a lot to offer to each other, and where working together is beneficial to us all.
[...]
I am happy to note that Israel has very recently stepped forward with a list of concrete proposals for enhancing our cooperation. These proposals cover many areas of common interest, such as the fight against terrorism or joint military exercises, where Israel’s expertise is very much valued. They underline your country’s desire for a strenghtened relation, and we are looking forward to working with Israel in the framework of an individual action programme.

NATO's outreach is certainly flexible enough to allow each partner to go its way, at its own rythm. So the stage is set for a more substantial cooperation between NATO and Israel. In doing so, we also want to make sure to keep everybody on board in this Dialogue and to take account of the overall even-handedness of the process at large.

In that context, further positive developments in the Peace Process, as we seem to witness them now, should allow our nascent partnership to achieve its full potential, both in terms of bilateral and regional cooperation.

The enhanced Mediterranean Dialogue will go a long way towards putting the relationship between NATO and its Middle Eastern partners on a new footing. At a certain stage if the current positive trend continues, Allies might also have to look into the possibility to extend this dialogue to others in the region. In that regard, you will remember that NATO Heads of States and Government in Istanbul did not exclude, at some stage to cooperate with the Palestinian Authority under our initiatives, subject of course to an approval by the North Atlantic Council.

If long-term stability for the region is our common goal, we have to build bridges to the wider region as well.

This is what we are trying to do with our Istanbul Cooperation Initiative. Through the ICI, we have offered cooperation to countries of the broader region of the Middle East, starting with countries from the Gulf. Right after we launched this initiative at our Summit last June, we received a lot of positive feedback. And this was, quite frankly, no surprise. Because in the Gulf region as well, there is a growing awareness that we face common challenges, and that we need to meet them together. With Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar we have already moved to the stage where we are in the process of developing a programme of activities that will be open to them. And I am sure that other countries will follow this example.

So this is interesting and welcome news but not necessarily a clear pro-Israel vote on the part of Europe.

UPDATE: Capt. Diggs (who pointed this out to me) responds:

NATO's primary mission is to be the military arm of politics for the free world.
( "war is politics by other means", Karl Von Clausewitz )

Despite talk of politicizing NATO, it is highly unlikely. The US, as well as other members vehemently oppose this. And of course, without the US, there is no NATO.

My thoughts on the statements to arab nations is that this is some soothing diplomacy in the face of active courting by NATO, of Israel.
Israel has already worked with NATO in both war gaming and military exercises.
NATO eyes Israel as a strategic, not political, asset. They have the 6th most powerful military in the world, superb technology and innovation, and unfortunately, experience. They are also located at an extremely important geographical junction.
I would believe that NATO is eyeing the world through the lens of what is happening in the Muslim and arab world today. That being that confrontation is most likely with these arab/muslim countries.
NATO's countship of Israel despite the political heat from the arab world is quite telling.
As I said, Israel is not a political asset for NATO.

Article 5 of the NATO charter is the very foundation of NATO, and without it NATO becomes just another roundtable of jawboning politicians.

The clause statement concerning the "North Atlantic" has already been amended to include Greece and Turkey.

In short, there is no point to being a member of NATO except for the protection it offers militarily.

At least, IMO.

Elephants in the room

When you see pundits talking about the Arab-Israeli conflict or terror at large, there are very often a few elephants in the room that for some reason they pretend to ignore. Occasionally it is useful to point some of these elephants out.

"Disengagement" will be followed by increased terror. Every single military and intelligence analysis comes to this conclusion.
Israel will need to retain troops in Gaza after "disengagement" to try to stop Qassam rockets from hitting Israeli towns proper. So in the end, the process will keep just as many Israeli soldiers in the same area.
The maximal Palestinian concessions conceivable for a peace agreement is very far apart from the maximal Israeli concessions. Everyone assumes that in the end the Palestinians will accept a Barak-style plan, yet no Palestinian leader has ever said that this would be acceptable.
The terror suspects that get arrested in the US and Europe, whether they support Al Qaeda or Hamas, are usually successful professionals - doctors or professors. They live good lives in the West. They do not support terror because of "desperation" - they support terror ideologically.
Islam may be a religion, but from a geo-political perspective, it is also an ideology. The Islamic ideology includes the desire, and possibly the obligation, to literally take over the world - politically, militarily or otherwise. As such, it is a world threat. It is more accurate to compare Islam to Communism or Nazism than it is to compare it to Buddhism or Christianity.

Any other elephants out there?

Sharansky on Amnesty and disengagement (Time)

Once again, Natan Sharansky shows clarity and consistency.

Too bad these attributes are in such short supply.

AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS A THING OR TWO ABOUT GULAGS, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S ACCUSATION THAT GUANTANAMO IS THE GULAG OF OUR TIMES?

The violation of human rights at Abu Ghraib was very serious, but it was only a few people. In Guantánamo, the human-rights violations were much more serious because they were part of the system.

BUT IS IT REALLY A GULAG?

I have very serious criticisms of Amnesty. There is no moral clarity. It doesn't differentiate between what I call fear societies and free societies. In the democratic world, there are violations of human rights, but they are revealed and dealt with. In a fear society, there are no violations of human rights because human rights just don't exist. All citizens are deprived of those rights. Amnesty International says it doesn't support or oppose any political system, so it ends up with reports that show a moral equivalence between, for example, Israel and the terrorist regimes that attack it.

HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE WORLD'S VIEW OF ISRAEL'S HUMAN-RIGHTS RECORD?

Amnesty doesn't examine Hamas, only Israel. It ignores violations by terrorist organizations. We find the unfortunate situation that somehow there's no difference between terrorists targeting civilians and democratic countries targeting terrorists.

SO ISRAEL IS THE FOCUS OF HUMAN-RIGHTS ACTIVISTS BECAUSE IT HAS DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS THAT MAKE PROTEST POSSIBLE?

Look, violations by Israel are on the world's agenda, but Sudan's aren't. Human-rights organizations create an atmosphere in which dictatorial regimes dictate the human-rights agenda of the entire world.

IS WORLD PRESSURE THE REASON FOR SHARON'S DECISION TO WITHDRAW FROM GAZA?

That's why he told me he decided on it. The withdrawal shouldn't be unilateral. It should be connected to changes by the Palestinians. It's an illusion to think that the pressure on us will stop.

DOESN'T THE GAZA WITHDRAWAL HELP PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS, THOUGH?

It's clear that with [Abbas], there's a better chance for progress than with [Yasser] Arafat. But only if he is under strong pressure toward democratic reforms. The disengagement is unilateral, so it means zero pressure for reform.

WHEN YOU RESIGNED FROM SHARON'S CABINET, YOU CALLED THE PLAN A "TRAGIC MISTAKE."

We are missing a historic opportunity, with a new Palestinian President, to link all contacts to progress toward democracy. Instead, in some months, we will find ourselves in a situation of increased terror and a weakened Israeli society.

BUT ABBAS SAYS DEMOCRACY IS THE BASIS OF HIS POLICY. HE EVEN WANTS HAMAS TO RUN IN PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS IN JULY.

If the Palestinian Authority is not fighting Hamas as a terrorist organization, then Hamas keeps its weapons. He's giving more and more time to the terror groups to strengthen themselves, and he's not competing with them to create better welfare for his people.

SHOULD SHARON MAKE SOME KIND OF CONCESSION TO ABBAS TO STRENGTHEN HIS STANDING WITH HIS OWN PEOPLE?

Sharon is refusing to make concessions to [Abbas], but he's making a huge concession to Hamas by withdrawing from Gaza. It encourages Hamas and Hizballah and al-Qaeda. It will hamper everyone around the world who's fighting terror.

DO YOU THINK SHARON IS ANXIOUS ABOUT THE WITHDRAWAL?

I'm sure he is. But he knows how not to show it. He's a general who goes ahead with the implementation of his plan, regardless.

Another example of our moronic academia: Israel to blame for Palestinian men killing their wives

Thanks to Mark at Auterrific for uncovering this beaut:

Within a period of a month, five women, Shadia Jidawi from Tulkarem, Yusra Al ‘Azamy from Gaza, Faten Habash from Ramallah, Rudaina Shukirat (pregnant 8 months), and her sister, Amany Shukirat from Jabal Mukaber, were killed for challenging patriarchal norms.

Challenges to patriarchal norms, within the context of conflict and militarization, are often answered with threats of violence and in worst cases, murder. Women are invariably most vulnerable. In the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), the increase of violent measures against the Palestinians by the Israeli Occupying Forces has not been matched by any increased accountability to international human rights and humanitarian law. This lack of accountability and justice seeps into the consciousness of Palestinian society where some Palestinian men transfer this entitlement to commit violence to their own families in order to reassert their authority and power. These men--no longer able to find or even reach employment because of the restrictions of movement, no longer able to even feed their own families--are forced to swallow their dignity and accept help from foreign development agencies and humanitarian aid agencies. Their use of violence becomes a coping mechanism that addresses their own inabilities to perform their traditional roles as providers for their families, that addresses their loss of dignity and “manhood,” and finally, their loss of control and authority over their women.

Within this context of the systematic breakdown of social institutions and because law is not enforced, women become the tools of the patriarchal elite to reclaim their power. Traditional roles and responsibilities are further entrenched. Girls are pulled out of schools and forced into early marriage. Development of institutions, systems, and legislation that could protect women comes to a standstill. The empowerment of women becomes a threat and a liability and women’s rights organizations are vilified and seen as trivial.

It is between the forces of patriarchy and militarism that the lives of these five women and all Palestinian women are positioned and it is only through addressing and understanding these forces that we, as women’s organizations, and civil society, can hope to change the lives and futures of Palestinian women and Palestinian society as a whole.

Translating this new-age gobbledygook into English, this professor at Wichita State University is claiming that any violence that Palestinian men use against Palestinian women is Israel's fault!
Such utter stupidity, such incredible vacuousness from a Ph.D (History of Consciousness) may not be unusual any more but it is still shocking. Part of me actually wants to see the quality of "scholarship" that is behind this abstract. Are "honor killings" in Egypt and Jordan also the Jews' fault, I wonder? Do Palestinians have no responsibility whatsoever for their crimes, even against their own people? Do "scholars" such as Dr. Gordon have the tiniest bit of actual research to back up these claims? If their students disagree, are they penalized? Has there been an uptick in Israeli violence towards women since the Intifada, and if there was, would these bogus scholars blame the Palestinians?

And perhaps most relevant, if these fake academics are so upset at the restrictions that Palestinians have in their movement, why are they not in the forefront to try to dismantle the UNRWA, which is the single organization most responsible for keeping the Palestinians in camps for decades rather than having them integrate into surrounding Arab societies where presumably the men wouldn't feel so emasculated anymore?

The answer to that last question would go a long way towards finding out how much Dr. Gordon truly cares about women's rights and how much she just hates Israel.

UPDATE: A great observation from Rachel Ann on Auterrific about this:

What the good professor is actually saying is that sometimes there is an excuse for spousal abuse.

UPDATE 2: It does not appear that there is any evidence that Dr. Gordon wrote this drivel. She links to the website of the WCLAC and her resume shows that she has great interest in the issue of feminism and Palestinians, and she calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities, but it is not clear at this time that she supports the stupidity quoted above.

I'm so vain

Yours truly gets mentioned twice in the latest roundup of the Jewish blogosphere, this week called Havale Havawlim #22, hosted by Mystical Paths.

The first question is, which will end up with more spelling variants - Chanukah/Hanuka/Xannucah or H[a|e|o|ah]v[a|ai|ay|ei|eigh][l|ll][e] H[a|ah|o]v[aw|a|e|ah|o][l|ll][i|y][m|mm]?

And the second question is, will my streak of consecutive mentions ever threaten Joe Dimaggio's consecutive game hit record?

Anyway, the honored article this week was this one. (I didn't even self-nominate - I dunno, it just doesn't feel right.) Callie has suggested that I write a book about the history of pre-Israel Palestine based solely on Palestine Post archives, and I have to admit that the idea is appealing. I doubt that I could find the time, but if members of any publishing house out there that stumbles onto this small are darkly lit corner of the blogosphere want to contact me, I won't hang up on them.

The rest of HH is quite good, reflecting the spiritual side of the two holy-looking bearded gentlemen who run Mystical Paths.

The era of suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may be over and the culture of violence is changing in the region, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said in an interview aired on Sunday.

Abbas, who was in Washington last week to meet U.S. President George W. Bush, said Palestinian-Israeli violence was down 90 percent in the past four months and he was optimistic for the future.

Asked in an interview with ABC's 'This Week' whether the era of suicide bombing was over, he said: 'I believe it is over.'

'We have started to deal with the culture of violence, we stopped the culture of violence and the Palestinian people have started looking at it as something that should be condemned and it should stop.'

Reading this, one would be surprised that someone on Palestinian television called for genocide of all Jews two weeks ago!

More surprising news from the former culture of violence:

Three members of a Hamas cell were killed and two were wounded seriously Sunday evening when a car exploded in the Sagiyah neighborhood in Gaza City, Palestinians said.

Israeli security officials said that Israel had nothing to do with the explosion and assessed that it had been caused by a device that exploded prematurely, Army Radio reported.

And yet more peaceful news:

A Hamas member was killed in the Gaza Strip on Sunday as he tried to fire a rocket-propelled grenade at nearby Israeli targets, the Israeli Army said.

Clueless Muslim letter-writer says we nothing to fear

I just ran across this from, presumably, a Muslim intellectual printed in a Boston newspaper:

To the editor:
About abusing the Qur'an. Very disturbing to any Muslim (which I am), Christian or Jew (Hindu or Buddhist).

But Christians and Jews, labeled in the Qur'an as the 'People of the Book,' don't have to fear the worst - that the Muslims will flush their holy book, the Bible or the Torah, down the toilet just to be mean. Muslims, not even the most hateful of the bunch would ever do that. I guarantee it. Why?

Because Muslims believe in the Bible, the Ten Commandments, the Psalms of David, the Gospel of Jesus. Believing in one God, the Books of that one God (revelation), the Prophets of that God, the Angels, and the Day of Judgment, are the five articles of faith in Islam. So, no. The unimaginable, no matter how mean-spirited, barbaric, or ignorant the West (following the leadership of GW Bush) persists on being, we can all rest assured, the worst won't happen.

Mary Lahaj
M.S. Islamic Studies
Boxborough

Wow. Where to start?

First of all, Mary, the "worst" is not that a Bible will be desecrated by Muslims. The worst is that human beings will be slaughtered by Muslims. I wish you could guarantee that this wouldn't happen as easily as you can guarantee that no Muslim would possibly flush a Bible down the toilet.

And since Muslims are slaughtering other human beings daily, I can't imagine such a guarantee.

But Mary, you certainly haven't been following the news. Muslims have not only flushed Bibles down the toilet - they've flushed Korans too! And Saudis destroy thousands of (non-Wahhabi) Korans and Christian Bibles as well. They have also famously destroyed Hindu temples, churches and the Buddhist statues.

In fact, it is difficult to find anything that fanatic Muslims have not destroyed when given the chance - buildings, people, societies, peace, religious symbols, each other.

No, Mary, I'm not staying up nights worrying about Muslims destroying Bibles. If that was the worst that they did, the world would be a better place. For a Muslim (MS no less) to call the West "mean-spirited, barbaric, or ignorant", without mentioning a word about the depravity of a Muslim world that makes heroes out of the 9/11 hijackers, makes one wonder about the quality of your education.

Daughter of Ziyon updates her blog

The beautiful and talented Daughter of Ziyon has finally updated her blog with the provocative entry: "Stupid oblivious girls."

Israeli unemployment at 5-year low

Very good news, showing better than anything that the intifada didn't do the damage that the Arabs hoped.

Unemployment in Israel in the first quarter of 2005 has fallen to its lowest level in five years, before the outbreak of the intifada in September 2000. The unemployment rate fell to a seasonally adjusted 9.1% in the first quarter, down from 9.8% in the preceding quarter and 10.9% in the first quarter of 2004, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported today.

Cancer treatment in Israel saves Arkansas boy

A Cabot family is back home tonight after more than three months in Jerusalem. 14-year-old Dakota Hawkins and his family went there so he could be treated for a rare blood cancer.

After hospitals in the U.S. exhausted treatment options, the Hawkins found out about a procedure in the Middle East not approved by the FDA. Two weeks ago we told you Dakota was suffering complications, but doctors finally decided he was strong enough to make the trip home.

Dakota underwent cell transplants that fought the leukemia. His mom and brother were the donors. And the results, they say, can only be called a miracle. Today Dakota is cancer free.

But friends and family wouldn't rest until they saw Dakota themselves. They waited at Little Rock National Airport Thursday evening. His cousin, Bethany Cameron says, "I don't want to let go when I see them, I’m just so excited.” “It feels like part of our hearts has been missing. It's been the longest three and a half months in our lives,” adds Dakota’s aunt, Donna Cameron. Dakota's cancer treatment came with no guarantee, so the reunion is an emotional one.[...]

Dakota will continue to see doctors and may need to return to Israel for one more cell transplant. The family also expressed disappointment the treatment that saved Dakota’s life is not approved by the FDA. It took hundreds of thousands of dollars for the family to travel to Jerusalem and get the procedure done. They are thankful to the community in Cabot who helped raise that money.

Barry Rubin: Peace is hopeless if the aim of the Palestinians is total victory

It is interesting that this was published in the Lebanon Daily Star. (hat tip to JihadWatch)

Although he is not too explicit about this, the broad implication is that Palestinian leaders would prefer that their people remain pawns and weapons against Israel than for them to live in peace alongside Israel. Which is not much of a "leadership," is it?

The central question of the Arab-Israeli - or at least the Israeli-Palestinian - conflict is whether it is a "normal" struggle over territory or an existential battle set by religion, identit, and other factors much less susceptible to resolution through compromise.

Many observers, drawing analogies from other issues without properly examining the specifics of the Arab-Israel case, conclude that it is a normal conflict and, consequently, can be easily settled if only the right formula is found. In fact, though, for much of the Palestinian side the question has remained one of total victory, in which only Israel's extinction and replacement by a Palestinian Arab, and perhaps Islamic, state extending between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is the acceptable solution.

This is not to say that all Palestinians think this way. Indeed, one could well argue that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his closest allies understand how impossible and dangerous this kind of thinking is for the Palestinians themselves. This does not mean, however, that they can change this thinking in the face of militants, gunmen, Fatah hard-liners, propagandists, opportunists, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other forces. To challenge this basic self-definition of the movement too openly or decisively would be political suicide as well as being dangerous to their personal security.

Only the continued priority that the movement places on total victory, no matter how long it takes, rather than on getting a state and easing immediate Palestinian suffering can explain the course of events. The ultimate failure of the peace process in the 1990s was due to this orientation. In 2000, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat turned down both the opening and later best offer of Israel and the United States as even a framework for a negotiation in which he would have no doubt received more.

The basic rejection of agreeing to end the conflict in return for an independent Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem was due to the view that a long struggle would bring about Israel's collapse and total Palestinian victory. The same can be said of the demand for a "right of return" for all Palestinian refugees and their descendants, which would provide a tremendous opportunity to subvert Israel from within. In private conversations, and now openly with the revival of the call for a "one-state" solution, we encounter the Palestinian refusal to accept a peace in which their state lives alongside Israel.

The methodology of terrorism, the continuing demonization of Israel on a daily basis by the Palestinian Authority and its media, the insistence, even in 2005, of officially mourning Israel's original creation, and many other practices, reflect this world view. A more subtle aspect is putting the priority on violence and agitation rather than on building the infrastructure of a future state. In pursuit of total victory - or at least keeping the door open for its pursuit - the Palestinian movement has squandered international goodwill and the huge financial aid it received in the 1990s.

In making peace, then, the problem is not the precise delineation of borders or the status of every square centimeter of East Jerusalem, but this basic conceptual issue. How can there be compromise if Palestinians are daily taught that Israel is doomed and that they will ultimately win? Why else would it not be obvious to the Palestinians that their interest lay in making a post-occupation Gaza Strip into a showcase that would bolster a comprehensive solution as the next step?

This situation is in large part the legacy of Arafat, who never sought to transform the Palestinian struggle into a normal movement for a state. Even in the 1990s he refused to foreclose a permanent "revolution until victory." He made hardly a single speech designed to move his people toward a compromise peace.

Now, ironically, the rise of Hamas to the point of seizing control over the Palestinian movement toward statehood - or at least having veto power over its diplomatic positions - is based on the foundation that Fatah has built. The nationalist leadership told the people for years that Israel would collapse, that Palestinians had a right to all the land, that violence was the only tactic that worked, and that compromise was treason. For decades, including the last one, Palestinians were told that the measure of legitimacy was with those who killed the most Israelis and took the most intransigent line.

This is not to ignore the many other factors involved in creating this situation, from Israel's own positions in negotiations to the corruption of Fatah. But the point is that this history has been funneled through a hegemonic Palestinian conception of the conflict that has not fundamentally changed.

If the Palestinian people were really offered a bold alternative by a credible leadership, they could be convinced to take a different road. But this has not happened. Now, Hamas and a new generation of Fatah militants threaten to lead the movement openly back to where it was in the 1970s. Such an outcome would be a tragedy of monumental proportions on top of what already is one of the greatest political tragedies of the last century, guaranteeing additional decades of futile struggle.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center of the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center. His latest book, "The Long Road to Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East," will be published by Wiley in September. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons.org, an online newsletter that publishes contending views on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

AUT reverses boycott; Palestinian teachers show how "peaceful" they are

Rare good sense from British academics....and more of the usual idiocy from Palestinian academics.

British Lecturers overturned their decision to boycott Haifa and Bar-Ilan universities in a vote on Thursday.

Britain's 40,000-member Association of University Teachers voted last month to boycott the academic institutions for actions that it said undermined Palestinian rights and academic freedom.

It also referred a motion to its executive committee to boycott the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The association said last week it would reconsider the boycott.

Meanwhile, Palestinian professor Sari Nusseibeh, who last week urged an end to the boycott, has been under attack by many Palestinians who have been calling for his dismissal from his job as president of Al-Quds University.

Several Palestinian political and academic groups issued statements strongly condemning Nusseibeh, accusing him of normalizing ties with Israel and acting against the interests of the Palestinian people. (Normalizing ties is a crime, after all.)

Leaflets distributed in some areas in the West Bank and Gaza Strip branded the widely respected Nusseibeh a "traitor" and "collaborator." (I see they stopped just short of calling him a "Jew.")

Nusseibeh, along with Menahem Magidor, president of Hebrew University, made the statement in a joint declaration in London at an international gathering of scholars debating human rights.

The two criticized the British boycott against the University of Haifa and Bar-Ilan University, describing it as "wrong and unjustified." They said "problems should be resolved through dialogue, not through sanctions."

"Our position is based upon the belief that it is through cooperation based on mutual respect, rather than boycotts or discrimination, that our common goals can be achieved," they said in their statement.

"Our disaffection with, and condemnation of, acts of academic boycotts is predicated on the principles of academic freedom, human rights and equality between nations and among individuals."

The Palestinian Union of University Teachers and Employees published a statement on the front page of the Palestinian Authority's daily Al-Ayyam in which it accused Nusseibeh of "normalizing relations with the Sharon government" despite the prime minister's policy of "bullying the Palestinians and stealing their land."

"This constitutes a strong blow to the Palestinian national consensus against normalization with Israel," the statement added.