23 January 2004
On Gaza, the Fence, Public Poll, Boston demonstration, Winnipeg lecture, George Soros, Mazal Tov and Congratulations + Misc
Dear friends and colleagues,
Following my last communications on Gaza First, I received a message from Yossi Sarid MK, the head of my party, Meretz (the Civil Rights Party), saying that Meretz had raised the issue several time in the Knesset, without much success. Yossi reassured me that they will keep trying and pushing the issue forward. Unfortunately, Meretz is now in the opposition. Not for very long, I hope.
On the same day of my last communication, two more soldiers were killed in the Gaza Strip. They are there to protect settlers, most of whom wish to leave if given a decent alternative, all with no future there. This insanity needs to stop, the sooner the better!
On January 5, 2004, Akiva Eldar of Haaretz published an article saying that in spite of generous benefits designed to tempt Israelis seeking a house with a garden, 36 years of settlement have brought the ratio of Jews to Palestinians in the West Bank to only 1:10 (in the Gaza Strip it's 1:200). The areas most attractive to about half of all the 220,000 Israelis living in the West Bank are the blocs of settlement nearest the Green Line, which are those with the greatest chance to be annexed in case of an exchange of lands.
According to numbers provided by Peace Now, at least two-thirds of the rest of the settlers are families that sought to improve their quality of life at the time, and now are having trouble selling their homes. Among these prisoners of settlement are thousands of non-Zionist ultra-Orthodox who solved their housing problems in Bnei Brak by moving to Immanuel. According to a study conducted in June 2003 by the Hopp Research Company, headed by Dr. Micha Hopp (and facilitated by three professors from Tel Aviv University), 83 percent of all settlers are willing to leave the territories in exchange for compensation or alternative housing. Only 9 percent said that they might take illegal steps, including passive physical opposition, to prevent their evacuation. This is the "hard kernel," which includes no more than 5,000 adults. Only 1 percent, some 500 people, said they would go so far as to oppose evacuation violently.
The outposts in Samaria and in the Hebron mountains are populated by a handful of zealots, who are fully immersed in the teachings of racism and transfer. They have unleashed the fear of civil war on an entire people. Settlement leaders have learned to draft the primordial fear of war of Jew against Jew into service in order to cut off any chance of peace between Jews and Arabs. The fear of a "rupture in the people" prevented the Rabin government from removing the Kahanist invaders of Tel Rumeida in Hebron the morning after the massacre perpetrated by Dr. Baruch Goldstein in the Tomb of the Patriarchs. Today, with their representatives in power, the evacuation refuseniks throw "the will of the people" in the faces of those who refuse to serve in the territories and call them traitors.
The Fence
Sami Michael, President of the Civil Right Movement in Israel, wrote a letter to each and every MK regarding the fence. Due to its importance I find it appropriate to quote it in full.
TRANSLATION 07 January 2004
13 Tevet 5764
To: Members of Knesset
Re: Route of the Separation Barrier
I am writing to you about the route of the separation barrier that is currently being built, and to warn you of its serious consequences.
The State of Israel is obligated to protect its citizens and preserve their wellbeing. Yet the means selected to achieve this goal must not indiscriminately and mortally violate basic human rights, including the rights to livelihood, health, movement, education, property ownership, and a minimally dignified human existence. It’s superfluous to point out that a population that has its rights denied in such a serious, indiscriminate and constant manner cannot be a “good neighbor”.
According to its current route, the barrier does not separate between Palestinians and Israelis, as its name implies and as could be understood from the security rationale put forth as the basis for its establishment, but rather between Palestinians themselves, and between Palestinians and their lands. The vast majority of the barrier’s route does not pass along the Green Line, but within the West Bank, annexing from the western side both Palestinian residents (17,000 Palestinian residents are expected to live between the barrier and the Green Line, in the “seam zone”) and agricultural land owned by Palestinians (16.6% of the West Bank area will be enclosed between the barrier and the State of Israel). This annexed area is the most fertile agricultural land in the West Bank, providing a significant portion of agricultural production for the West Bank, and containing many sources of water. In addition, thousands of residents are imprisoned in enclaves that the barrier itself creates, surrounding entire communities and disconnecting them from their environs. 56,000 inhabitants are imprisoned in enclaves created by the barrier – including 40,000 residents of the city of Qalqilya – and upon completion, the figure expected to be imprisoned in enclaves will reach close to 160,000 people.
Because of the route of the barrier, which passes through Palestinian living space, 47 gates have been established that are supposed to enable daily movement of farmers to their lands, students and teachers to their schools, businessmen and merchants to their places of work, and more. Furthermore, these gates are open at the most one hour a day at inconsistent hours. What’s more, all traffic beyond the barrier and any presence on the western side of the barrier (the “seam zone”) – even for someone who lives in the seam zone, which has been declared a “closed military area” – requires a permit from the army. As a result, freedom of movement for Palestinians, whose lives are now run against their will on both sides of the barrier, is drastically restricted.
This reality creates total disorder in the lives of the Palestinian civilian population living adjacent to the barrier, and prevents Palestinians from maintaining any semblance of a normal lifestyle. The barrier limits and sometimes prevents access of farmers to their lands, which are the source of their family’s livelihood, access of students and teachers to schools on the other side of the barrier, access of patients to health services, as well as the ability of Palestinians to maintain ongoing contact with their social, familial, economic and cultural environments. This is in addition to the direct violation of the rights of property ownership and the ability to earn a living from agriculture, as a result of the expropriation of lands for the barrier (actually a system of barriers, walls and channels with a width of dozens of meters, that at some points reaches 100 meters in breadth). According to data published by the Secretary General of the United Nations, due to the portion of the barrier that has been established to date, the residents of over 30 Palestinian communities have been separated from their regular health services, residents of 22 communities have been separated from their schools, residents of 8 communities have been disconnected from their sources of water, and the residents of 3 communities have been disconnected from the electrical grid. Because of this barrier, 25,000 Palestinians living in the West Bank have been added to the rolls of those requiring assistance in obtaining basic food items.
In Jerusalem, where the separation barrier is called “the Jerusalem envelope”, the situation is a bit different, but the results are the same: the route of the barrier coincides to a great degree, though not entirely, with the jurisdictional borders of Jerusalem. This border constitutes an administrative border that was established unilaterally, with no consideration for the geographic and social reality on the ground, which never reflected a natural border from the standpoint of the texture of life of the Palestinian population living in the Jerusalem area, due to the vibrant community, commercial, cultural and social life that exists on both sides of this border. Thus, for example, many residents of East Jerusalem were forced to move to its suburbs because of the dearth of housing and limitations on construction in East Jerusalem, but have kept their identification cards as residents of Jerusalem, while maintaining all their connections to East Jerusalem – studies, work, services, and family ties. Therefore, establishing a physical barrier along this border has similar implications to those mentioned above regarding the general barrier: severing Palestinians from their families, places of employment, educational institutions, hospitals and services. Here, also, the security justification is an unclear basis for the particular route of this barrier, which leaves thousands of Palestinians on the Israeli side of the barrier.
Many public figures who have a security background share these claims. Thus, for example, Avraham Bendor-Shalom, former head of the GSS (“Haaretz” 28Nov03), claims not only that there is no security justification for the barrier, but also that “a barrier of this nature could increase terror and attacks”. “In order not to endanger the guards at the transit points, it will be necessary to conduct thorough checks, i.e., slowly. At each transit point there will be daily unrest and fits of rage, and it is clear that there will be attempts to attack, with dead and wounded.”
Most of the separation barrier has yet to be built, and it is not too late to stop construction of the next stages of the planned route. It is important to emphasize that as a human rights organization, ACRI does not express any opinion regarding the decision to build the separation barrier or regarding the idea of separation itself. ACRI stands in opposition to the plan to establish a separation barrier on the currently planned route. This plan mortally and unjustifiably violates the most basic human rights of the Palestinians, damage that is impossible to live with over time, and that in the end will also undermine the security of the residents of Israel.
We see the separation barrier that is being built as important and central to our work. We are available to provide additional details, to meet and to expand upon the issue.
Respectfully,
Sami Michael
President
For additional information: Daniela Bamberger-Enosh, Policy Advocacy Liaison, tel: 051-673570.
Gratitude to Dan Yakir for arranging the translation.
Sharon, it seems, is determined to continue with his plan of a two state solution: one as large as possible; the other as small as possible. Defence is a red herring that exploits the Palestinians. For some obscure reason he thinks that he would be allowed to do this without interruption. He continues to underestimate the Palestinians and world pressure. The Palestinians are not fool. There is no reason in the world for them to allow this to happen. They will continue to fight for a more just solution, and rightly so. Israel spends millions of dollars, at the expense of everything else – education, tourism, health, housing, transportation – in erecting the fence, only to see it going down in later time. What a shame.
I am still hoping that Sharon will one day surprise me. I always remember that he offered Yossi Sarid the no. 2 position in his newly formed party, Shlomzion. Yossi kindly declined the invitation. True, this was a while ago, but Sharon is arguably more of a pragmatist than many politicians I know.
A Public Poll
A recent public poll conducted at Tel Aviv University shows that given the ongoing difficulties in renewing the political negotiations, a clear majority of the Jewish public (59 percent) prefer a swift, unilateral separation by Israel from the Palestinians, with the other alternative being to work for an agreement with the Palestinians even if the process takes a long time (today only 29 percent favor that, and 12 percent have no clear preference). 50 percent are prepared to evacuate the Gaza settlements even in the context of a unilateral separation, but 30 percent are prepared to evacuate them only in the context of a peace agreement with the Palestinians (14 percent oppose evacuating them in any situation and 6 percent do not know). Thus, it emerges that 80 percent are prepared to evacuate all the Gaza settlements in the context of a peace agreement.
As for the West Bank settlements, only 29 percent are prepared to evacuate most of the settlements in the context of a unilateral separation, whereas 37 percent are prepared for such an evacuation in the framework of a peace agreement (27 percent oppose evacuating most of these settlements in any situation and 7 percent do not know). As for evacuating the remote and isolated settlements, 51 percent are already prepared for it even in a unilateral framework, 27 percent only in the framework of an agreement, 14 percent not in any situation, and 8 percent do not know.
A clear majority of the Jewish public (59 percent) prefer a swift, unilateral separation by Israel from the Palestinians. The broad support for separation apparently stems from the very widespread fear (73 percent) that if a solution to the conflict is not found in the near future and Israeli control of the territories continues, the Palestinians will eventually become a demographic majority west of the Jordan and a de facto "binational state" will emerge.
Boston Demonstration
My family and I spent the last week of December 2003 in New England. It was nice to visit places like Gloucester, Ipswich, Manchester, Essex. If I cannot be in my second homeland, at least have a feel for England in the US. Rockport is also a pearl worth visiting. We then traveled to Boston and spent New Year Eve, like thousands of Bostonians, at the Boston Common. At the very entrance of the park there were some dozen demonstrators. What did they demonstrate about? Santa Clause not arriving on time? Commercialization of festivities? More fireworks? Free parking? Or maybe hunger in Africa? War in Iraq? No. Those people exploited the opportunity to protest against Israeli occupation, carrying signs like "Soldiers who kill children is a form of terrorism," "Israel: The New Apartheid State," "US give such and such dollars each day to Israel, at your expense," "US sponsors Israeli Apartheid and Terror," "Another Jew Against Occupation." What can I say? It did not warm my heart. As much as I am against occupation, and think it should not exist anywhere in the world, damaging Israel in such a way does not gain my sympathy. It saddened me.
My gratitude to Fran and Ed Lambeth for facilitating our trip, and to Mindy and Ian Noyes and Kathy and Fred Lawrence for their kind hospitality.
Winnipeg Lecture
I just returned from Winnipeg where I was invited to deliver a few lectures, one of them concerned with the incitement campaign against Yitzhak Rabin, leading to his assassination. I called to exclude incitement from the protection of the Free Speech Principle. To my perfect surprise, during question time two people asked why I did not speak of Palestinian incitement against Jews, and why I am showing pictures of Jews hating Jews. It seems that the debate is becoming more and more polarized. I delivered this lecture before quite a few times in different parts of the world, and no one had ever asked me those questions. Everything is becoming politicized, and scrutiny is quick to appear if your views do not conform to a certain ideology. Some people are unable to separate between the relevant to the irrelevant, allowing their political views to shadow all discussion, and exerting pressure to exclude views they conceive "harmful" from the realm of opinions. This truly saddens me.
My gratitude is granted to Barney Sneiderman for his kind invitation, and to him, his family and colleagues for their nice hospitality.
George Soros
I have completed reading George Soros's biography by Michael Kaufman (Knopf, 2002). Kaufman outlines Soros's life and achievements in detail, focusing especially on his philanthropy. What I find impressive about the man is not only his extraordinary generosity but also his imagination and creative thinking. Soros sent 200 photo copiers to Hungary to promote free expression and to fight censorship in 1984. He gave $100 million to connect every regional university in Russia to the Internet. Soros donated further $100 million to save Russian science from bankruptcy; established the Central European University; gave $50 million to help the Sarajevo citizens withstand the harsh siege during the Bosnian war; created the "Death in America" project to stimulate and promote awareness, discussion and exchange on death and dying; initiated generous support programs for South Africa, China, Eastern Europe, Albania, the former Soviet republics, and the city of Baltimore. To think that one man takes upon himself the role of a humanitarian state is truly amazing. We need more of his kind on this planet.
Mazal Tov and Congratulations
Appointment
Congratulations to Irwin Cotler, who was recently nominated to Minister of Justice in Canada. I was truly delighted to hear about Irwin's nomination and I am certain he will promote justice and human rights in his country and elsewhere. Mazal tov and good luck.
New Books
Cass R. Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent? (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2003).
Leonard Weinberg and Ami Pedhazur, Political Parties and Terrorist Groups (London: Routledge, 2003).
Stephen Newman (ed.), Constitutional Politics in Canada and the United States (NY: State University of New York Press, 2004) as part of their Constitutional Politics series.
Please consider ordering these books to your libraries.
Those wishing to alert readers of their new books are welcome to send me the pertinent information or, even better, send me the books!! I am never tired of reading good stuff. My gratitude is granted.
American Politics
Howard Dean reminds me more and more of Bibi Netanyahu.
Radio talk show
Those living in the Baltimore area may like to know that on Sunday, January 25, between 8:20 and 9 a.m. (I know. It's early) I am invited to voice my political views on radio AM 1300.
Cold Mountain
The book, I was told, is very good. The film won't warm your heart; still you won't see many films better than this one. A perfect candidate for the Oscar. Kidman shines whenever she appears on the screen, and so is the film.
Shabbat Shalom. Have a beautiful weekend.
With my very best wishes,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Tuesday, December 23, 2003
23 December 2003
On Olmert, Gaza, Positive Proposed Legislative Amendment, Rutgers, and Other Concerns
Dear friends and colleagues,
Ehud Olmert
The closest person to Sharon in government is his deputy Ehud Olmert, hence it is interesting to note what he's saying. In a public lecture on the occasion of the annual memorial for David Ben-Gurion, Olmert spoke of the need for a two state solution, of splitting the land, and of the urgency of demography. Some people at the lecture inferred that Olmert, former Mayor of Jerusalem, did not rule out the possibility of giving up East Jerusalem in return for a peace settlement.
Just a few days have passed and Sharon spoke of the possible need for unilateral steps and evacuation of settlements. I do believe in the power of common sense. Sometimes its prevalence is delayed, sometimes it is hesitant, but in most cases it does prevail. The only issues are time and costs.
Sharon also met with Peres. A "routine meeting for updates", so it was claimed. I hope the update was about exploring coalition possibilities in the event the extreme right wing parties will retire from the coalition in the face of a determined Sharon to pursue this moderate line of conduct.
Israeli government continues to spread all kind of messages, some of which are radical and owkish in essence; some of which recognize the need for evacuating land and settlements, even unilaterally. I hope Sharon will surprise me and actually do something further than bombing, killing, and retaliating. Surely he understands, as a former general, that beyond defence there is a need to do something creative to address pressing concerns. I hope Sharon will eventually prove himself as a statesman. As a general, he was excellent in mapping the situation, understanding the alternatives and crafting solutions. He needs to prove that he is capable of doing this also in the political/diplomatic arenas. We know that he is capable of mastering the corridors of the Likud Party. Now it is time to see whether he's able to master world corridors and to put his mark on Israel's history for the better.
Gaza Settlements
During the past month or so, Haaretz took upon itself to publish at least one piece on Gaza, showing the futility of Israel's stay there. I hope this campaign will continue until some common sense will prevail also in governmental corridors. On Wednesday, December 3, 2003, Haaretz published the following article on one Gaza settlement:
Delusional disorder By Avihai Becker
After more than a month of reserve duty in Netzarim, a group of Paratrooper officers declare: Israel has no reason to be there.
Three days after completing an intensive stint of reserve duty in Netzarim, after they had all dispersed and gone back to their homes, several officers from Paratroop Batallion 9263 got together to talk things over. They were united by a sense of urgency. By the feeling that they could
not just go back to the routine after what they'd experienced during their reserve duty. By their shared view that a great outcry was needed, one that they could not express when they were in uniform. "As long as we hadn't talked about it, it was as if we hadn't finished that reserve duty," they say.
The reserve duty they just completed gives their words
special weight. Their battalion left Netzarim showered with praise. The brigade commander told them half-jokingly, `We'll issue you emergency call-up orders so you won't leave." The secretary of Netzarim sent them enthusiastic thank-you letters "for dedicated and successful work in foiling terror attacks ... Thank you for all that you gave, thank you for all that you did."
They were there, they carried out their assignments, did as they were ordered, did not refuse to serve, did not protest, did not try to evade responsibilities. And now they wish to say what's on their mind in the expectation that the society that sent them to risk their lives in Netzarim will listen to them.
It was an impressive bunch that showed up for this conversation: The battalion commander, Tzahi Minervo, 41, who was born and raised on Kibbutz Baram, in the Hashomer Hatzair spirit. His family subsequently moved to the neighboring kibbutz of Malkiya. He has a master's degree in social work, works as a therapist at a mental health clinic in Safed, and specializes in treating anxiety disorders. He also leads a therapy group for violent
husbands in Kiryat Shmona. This year, he will be studying psychotherapy at Haifa University. He missed the first five weeks of the academic year due to this reserve duty. His wife, Michal, is a teacher in the Psagot regional school and leads workshops on promoting dialogue between Jews and Arabs. Their fourth child was born while he was in Netzarim. The others at the meeting were A Company Commander Major Yoav Te'eni, 30, a Tel Aviv bachelor who recently got his law degree and will soon be starting an internship at the State Prosecutor's Office; Operations Officer Major Ahab Becker, 38, a software specialist from Nes Tziona; Intelligence Officer Major Itai Cohen, 33, an analyst from Modi'in; Assistant Operations Officer Major Ronen Samocha, 37, a computer technician from Ramat
Gan, who is married and the father of a little girl; adjutant Major Gil Garash, 40, from Haifa, a refinery manager.
The meeting took place at the home of Sergeant Arik Wilensky, 45, in Beit Oren. Wilensky, a contractor who was discharged from the battalion and from reserve duty four years ago, came to Netzarim as a volunteer. He was the oldest of the participants in this gathering, the only one who fought in the brigade in the Lebanon War.
Verging on the absurd
From the start, these men wish to stress: "We do not represent all the officers of the battalion. There are many good people who came out of Netzarim feeling strengthened. We are presenting our views only."
On the other hand, they add, "We didn't make a big effort. If we'd made just a few more phone calls, we could easily have brought a lot more people here." The message they wish to convey is unequivocal: Israel has no reason to be in Netzarim.
Minervo: "It's our right to express ourselves, because the things one sees from there you don't see from here. We have a perspective that the ordinary citizen doesn't. And what we conclude from the experience that we've been through is that there is something here that is verging on the absurd. These are things that have absolutely nothing to do with right or left. It keeps on going and no one says anything about it. We want to say: Ladies and Gentlemen, Netzarim is not the same as Gush Katif or those weird, remote settlements in Judea and Samaria. Netzarim is the embodiment of delusion and illusion. It's enough to see the armored convoys with the mothers and children to understand."
Te'eni: "Unlike the familiar image of Netzarim residents, and unlike what I also thought, they are people whose outlook is not anti-establishment. I was very surprised when I heard them say that if the state decides to evacuate the place, they won't be an obstacle. This was a real revelation for me. In contrast to other encounters I've had with 'settlers,' these were good people, not fanatics."
Becker: "They're different than what I knew from before. When I served in Netzarim seven years ago, the residents were still spitting on the soldiers. On the other hand, it's a totally surreal place. When you see a pregnant woman with a baby in one hand and a stroller in the other getting out of the armored Safari truck, I think it's crazy. To me, the moral and social and economic price that Israel is paying to hold on to Netzarim is out of all proportion to the benefit."
Te'eni: "I have full respect for the suffering and sacrifice of the Netzarim residents, but the state is first and foremost responsible for the lives and security of its citizens. In
Netzarim, it's beyond reasonable bounds. Staying in Netzarim goes against all logic. The distance between the deaths of citizens and soldiers and so-called normal life is
infinitesimal. It all depends on luck. The state cannot afford to take such a gamble. Just as it decided to halt flights to Toronto when the danger was deemed to be greater than the need, it should behave in the same way now concerning the fate of Netzarim."
Cohen: "The reason we came here is that you could practically explode from the effort required and the unreasonable risk to human life that the mission entails."
Becker: "Such a small point amid 1.3 million Arabs. What are we doing there? Maintaining Netzarim the way it is maintained today is totally unreasonable."
Te'eni: "Just as I feel a duty to serve wherever the state sends me, because that's the basis of democracy, so I feel a civic duty to say the things that were building up inside me throughout the month that I was in Netzarim. If they call me tomorrow, I'll go there again, but it's important to me, for my conscience, to tell the state, even if it doesn't listen, that there are things that it ought to know. This is not a political opinion."
Wilensky: "This group here has put in countless days of reserve duty, well beyond what the average Israeli citizen knows. Why? It's a matter of upbringing. If they call us, we'll go to Netzarim tomorrow and the day after. Tzahi (Minervo) knows that if he summons the old men, two whole battalions will come. The question isn't us, it's our children. Each one of us here will think about whether he's ready to send his child who's about to be drafted into
three years of service in the Shimshon battalion [the battalion that is permanently posted in Netzarim]. I say that he should go to Australia and not to the Shimshon battalion, and it's not that I have anything against the commanders and their people, God forbid. The problem is Netzarim itself."
Samocha: "People have already asked me - `Don't you think it's time to give up this nonsense and not to go if they call you again?' I know that we will all go back and do the job if we are called to do it again, but the dilemma of serving in Netzarim is growing stronger. Look, we all have an alternative. In the end, no one absolutely has to do this reserve duty. Netzarim is not defensible, that's all there is to it. There is no logical reason for civilians
to live there. Not too many years ago, one platoon guarded the road to Netzarim, and the whole area was cultivated and blooming. Now there's a battalion plus guarding Netzarim, there's no trace of the orchards and olive groves, the road is strewn with islands of rubble from factories and residential buildings. The lives of the Palestinians who live nearby have been made substantially worse. Their movement is severely restricted and their lives are in constant danger."
Wilensky: "The IDF got two nuclear submarines, this month we bought 100 planes that cost $24 million each, and at the same time, in the invention of the century - the ultimate solution to terror - we set up a series of
Turkish-era pillbox bunkers along the corridor to Netzarim."
Te'eni: "Netzarim is kept going by politics and ignorance. How many Israeli citizens actually know where it is? The vast majority of the population has no idea. At best, they'll be able to tell you that it's in Gaza. In other words, the argument is about something that's out there somewhere, far off, on the side. When women soldiers are killed, there's an outcry for a moment, and then it immediately subsides and the world goes back to business as usual."
Samocha: "The energy that goes into maintaining `normal life' there is inconceivable, not to mention the calculation of the economic cost versus the benefit. I'm not talking about the cost in the narrow sense - Doing a crude calculation, we found that the direct cost of the month that we served in Netzarim is NIS 12 million. Add to that the indirect costs and the sums are tremendous, I'm talking about the total cost of sanctifying the residency of 60 families, whose lives are in danger, and the lives of the soldiers guarding them, while gravely harming the lives of the Palestinians."
Becker: "The issue isn't money, but how we Israelis look within a society that allows the illusion of Netzarim to exist."
Samocha: "Moving a convoy in and out every 20 minutes is devoid of any military logic. The public also doesn't know that the reason there is no electronic fence surrounding the whole place, so I understood, is due to ambitions of
expanding the greater Netzarim area. To build an expanded Netzarim, another neighborhood in Gaza would have to be evacuated. There's no limit to it."
Te'eni: "My grandfather was in Gdud Ha'avoda, his brother was a leader of the Haganah in Haifa, my father was in the paratroops during the period of the reprisal operations, Arik Sharon was his commander, I was brought up to give and to sacrifice. And it was always
obvious to me that I had to serve in the `vanguard.' On the eve of my departure for Netzarim I was with my father, a person who by every criterion would be seen by the state as one of its finest sons, and I suddenly hear things from him that stunned me. My father, whom I followed into the paratroops, told his son that it wasn't worth it. That he shouldn't go, that he should refuse. This calls for an explanation."
Becker: "When won't we be in Netzarim? When the losses become intolerable."
Te'eni: "I don't remember returning from any other service so emotionally drained. I have no problem with the burden of professional responsibility that I bear as a company
commander and I have no problem with the effort to prevent infiltrations. It's the personal conflict that is so hard. The soldiers have questions and you don't always have answers because you, too, are unable to resolve all the contradictions. It's not easy when you yourself don't understand what you are doing in Netzarim. We need explanations about where they're sending us. We're not doing our compulsory service. And we're certainly not the
Roman legion."
Netzarim, which began as a Nahal settlement in 1972, has never been as fortified as it is now - a month and a half after Hamas gunman Samir Fouda, under cover of fog, snuck into the residential quarters in the heart of the military camp and killed three soldiers: Sergeant
Sarit Shneor, Sergeant Adi Osman and Staff Sergeant Alon Avrahami. Evidence of the tragedy is not easy to find here, apart from a modest memorial corner in one room and the breach in the fence through which the terrorist infiltrated, which has been left as is as a warning. It is surrounded by new concertina wire that was put up after the incident. Another observation post has also been added, overlooking the path the terrorists used. Last week, Reserve Battalion 9263 completed 32 days of reserve duty in Netzarim and handed responsibility for the sector back to the Shimshon battalion. The last time their battalion was called up, in May 2002, they were posted in Gush Katif for 24 days. This summer, when battalion commander Tzahi Minervo was informed where his battalion would be sent in October, he asked his brigade commander, Colonel Motti Baruch, to consider sending them to a hotter sector. "What's there to do in Netzarim?," he protested. "It's a shame to waste such a quality unit on guard duty."
But just five days before the battalion's arrival in Netzarim, tragedy struck and the place became a hot topic in the news. When they got there, they found the people from the Shimshon battalion not only dejected and exhausted, but also, to the best of their judgment, not properly prepared. On the day of the changeover, Ronen Glick, a studio manager at Channel 1 in civilian life, could not stop thinking, "Could it happen to us, too?"
He lives in Anatot, is very right-wing in his political views and did not take part in the meeting in Beit Oren. "It's totally clear to me what we're doing in Netzarim, but I never thought for a moment that someone from the
company who holds views that are the opposite of mine would try to get out of the job. The political debate doesn't interfere with the operational work. Though there are some guys who express their quiet protest by not accepting a drink from the residents."
During preparations for the assignment, Minervo often had to contend with this issue, which is dividing Israeli society. "There are voices that always come up. In a reserve battalion, you certainly cannot avoid a political debate. The issue is never off the agenda. Of course, I permit a dialogue to take place. In the battalion, views from all over the spectrum are represented, from the son of Rabbi Levinger to as far left as you can go. With soldiers who are unsure, I instructed the company commanders to do what they can to make it easier for them to deal with their consciences. They don't have to be put in the vanguard, they can also do guard duty or KP duty. Instead of going out on ambushes, they can be in the observation posts. At the same time, I also made it very clear what the red line is, where I, as commander of the unit, am not prepared to compromise at all. When there's a sudden call to action, there are no exemptions."
Out of the 448 soldiers in the battalion who have served in Netzarim at one time or another and for various periods of time, Minervo has only encountered two cases of refusal to serve. One was eventually persuaded to change his mind, and the other was sentenced by the battalion commander to 28 days incarceration. "A decision that made the adjutant and me cry," says Minervo. "He explained to me that this decision had been building up for years, since the Rabin assassination basically, and that despite his profound doubts he had enlisted in the paratroops and insisted on combat service even on reserve duty, but that just now, he could no longer settle the inner conflict he felt.
"This was no knee-jerk leftist, but a serious fellow who presented the conflict he felt in a genuine, honest way and it wasn't easy for me. I told him that, unfortunately, he left me no choice but to incarcerate him."
Minervo says that the soldier replied, "Tzahi, I take responsibility for my actions."
"In any case," says Minervo, "I admire him a lot more than I do another soldier, a teacher from Jerusalem, who had some big problems. He did not refuse to serve, but his actions were much more destructive. In an attempt to resolve his inner conflict over serving in the territories, he sent letters to the residents of Netzarim in which he explained why they shouldn't be there and why he had to come defend them. The time before that when we were on reserve duty, it happened with the people in Gush Katif.
"This political discussion that he holds when he is in uniform is explicitly against army orders. The explanation that he gave for his actions was that it helped him go back to his circle of friends that is opposed to serving in
the territories and to prove to them that he didn't go to reserve duty for nothing, but to confront the settlers with the facts. But that's not all there was to it. Because of the
friction that arose between him and the platoon commander during outside operations, we had to send him back to Netzarim itself. As soon as he got there, he had comments to make about the orders, and, in my opinion, the damage that he caused to the unit's morale was a lot worse than that caused by the one who refused to serve."
On the way to redemption
A week before the battalion completed its reserve duty, four mortar shells and Qassam rockets landed on Netzarim and the army base there. There was also a hot warning of a roadside bomb on the access road and also a warning about anti-aircraft fire, so movement in and out of the settlement was halted.
At the Netzarim army camp at the entrance to the settlement, 70 schoolgirls, first through eighth-graders, and their teachers waited for the trouble to pass. During the day, they had been on a tour of Jerusalem, following in the footsteps of Rabbi Aryeh Levin, who ministered to Jewish prisoners in the 1920s and `30s. When the buses arrived at the checkpoint, seven kilometers from home, they were forced to wait. There was nothing to do but be patient. A few prayed, some played games or tried to get some group singing going. The tired ones fell asleep.
Netzarim residents are used to being held up this way on their way home. It's a routine part of life there. This time, they were stuck for two and a half hours. Then tanks were spread out near the road, three armored Safari trucks were sent to the army camp, the buses were left behind and the armored, heavily guarded convoy was on its way.
The view along the way, with the pillbox bunkers dotting the road, was eerily reminiscent of scenes from when the IDF was in southern Lebanon.
In the center of the settlement, the girls' parents came to meet them. A visitor did not notice any obvious signs of worry. "I'm here on a mission for the nation," said Sharon Cohen, who had also returned from Jerusalem, from a weekly lesson in the teaching of Rav Kook. "Netzarim is the soft underbelly of the State of Israel, there is no Temple here and no Lake Kinneret. That's why our being here is of such tremendous importance and why this place has to be strengthened. Living in Netzarim requires a dedication that many people are incapable of. I see it as a certain step on the way to redemption."
Call them bourgeois
Meanwhile, a fifth Qassam is heard. In response, the tanks in Netzarim fired on the fourth building of the Zahara neighborhood. The other three high-rises had been blown up in response to the lethal infiltration.
"Since the terror attack, we've seen a sharp increase in the number of incidents," says Itzik Vazana, one of the settlement's spokesmen. "We have no doubt there is a direct connection between this and the propaganda campaign that was waged against us. Clear and simple. To be honest, we prepared ourselves emotionally for such reactions, but we didn't anticipate that it would be this strong. What angered us the most was the distinction that was made between the soldiers and us. We could handle what was written in the articles, but it was the headlines that were especially evil. We found ourselves under assault both by the terror and from home. At times it seemed like the only thing we weren't being accused of was the Black Plague in Europe.
"There are parts of the public that tend to ignore the very basic fact that Netzarim is not just fighting its own war. People have to understand that the roots of the conflict with the Arabs are very deep and even if Golda Meir hadn't founded Netzarim, it wouldn't change anything. I'll tell you something else: Certain elements in politics have marked us as a target. To them, this is the test case for the whole settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. They're not just after Netzarim; they're searching for the crack that will
constitute the precedent."
Vazana came to Netzarim from Atzmona 10 years ago. He is married, a father of six, and a religious studies teacher at a yeshiva high school in Ashkelon. His wife is responsible for the girls who are doing their National Service (Sherut Le'umi) at the settlement. In April 1995, he was seriously injured when a car bomb exploded near the settlement. "My hand was messed up and I lost an eye, but thank God, I came out of it alive. Exactly two hours earlier, eight soldiers and an American citizen were killed by a car bomb at Kfar Darom. I was going home with the family, we were listening to the news on the radio, the road was empty, and then suddenly a suspicious-looking car appeared in front of me. I was able to swerve
jut a little bit to the side and then it happened."
He envisions Netzarim one day being home to 1,500 families. He says there's nothing to talk about in terms of evacuation, or as he prefers to call it, "uprooting" or "exile." "Believe me, we're not thrill-seeking types here. We haven't climbed the Himalayas and we haven't crossed the Amazon. The residents here are simple people, totally ordinary - if you want, you could even call us bourgeois."
Though its population is small, Netzarim is spread over a very large area that includes the abandoned houses of the old kibbutz, the greenhouse area, the military camp and the corridor leading to the settlement. The ratio of soldiers to residents now stands at 1:1. Minervo's company was charged with securing the corridor to and from Netzarim, another was charged with carrying out external missions, and a third was charged with guarding the settlement itself. And another armored company from the 401st brigade is also available if needed.
According to information from the settlement's spokesmen, there are 58 families living in Netzarim. Minervo laughs when he hears this. "Just like what happens at demonstrations, there's a big gap between the numbers the reporter gives, the number the police give and what the organizers say. Some of the houses here are basically empty."
On Tues. December 9, 2003 the Labor Party debated the submition of a bill to the Knesset calling for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the evacuation of settlements with compensation to the settlers. According to a document prepared by the party's political committee and presented by MK Haim Ramon, in the absence of an agreement with the Palestinians, Israel would undertake a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. The army would line up on the border, air and naval control would remain in Israeli hands, and the security zone between Gaza and Egypt would be broadened. Settlers would be evacuated; they would be guaranteed financial compensation and arrangements would be made for their resettlement inside Israel.
MK Benjamin Ben-Eliezer supported the resolution but doubted the public would accept it. He said it would be preferable to start with an evacuation of Netzarim, Morag and Kfar Drom. MK Avraham Burg proposed the faction unite to support the Geneva Accord. Party Chairman MK Shimon Peres supported the initiative, saying, "there's nothing for us to look for in Gaza."
MK Matan Vilnai, however, opposed a unilateral withdrawal, as did MK Ephraim Sneh. Because of their opposition, and the fact that some MKs, including Sneh, did not get a chance to speak on the issue yesterday, the debate was postponed to an unspecified later date. What a shame!!
When I approached Haim Ramon some two years ago to suggest Gaza First he was preoccupied with the Fence. He answered that the fence will be the solution. I am glad he now recognizes the importance of the evacuation of Gaza. Amram Mitzna promised me that if he would be elected to the Prime Minister office, he will carry out the Plan. You know what happened. Shimon Peres did not answer my letter. As some of you know, I have complicated relationships with Peres. I am in a very good company. It seems that most thoughtful people, who are unafraid to express independent opinions, have complicated relations with Peres. He is undoubtedly the shrewdest politician I've ever met but like all humans he has his faults. A major one is his inability to take criticisms.
Proposed Legislative Amendment: A Small Step in the Right Direction
In the Knesset, private bills were tabled to increase the election threshold to 2 percent. This is a positive move in the right direction. The Knesset has far too many parties. Consequently, its legislative effectivity is relatively small, and the government’s ability to sustain power is lessened. The multi-fraction composition opens the way to manipulations, gives rise to blackmail and undermines coalition effectiveness. The existing threshold to enter parliament, 1.5 percent of the electoral vote, gives a lot of leeway to representation and exploitation at the expense of stability, working to further the ends of partisan groups. I would suggest raising the threshold to five percent, as is the case in Germany. Effectively, this law restricts the number of splinter parties in the Bundestag and the regional parliaments and promotes political stability. The five percent clause has been a factor in every federal election since 1957.
Germany has certainly learnt the lessons of its history and can serve as a model also with regard to the voting system. Germany is using a mixed electoral system in which part of the Bundestag is elected in single majority districts in which a candidate must gain the greatest number of votes to win, and part is elected through proportional representation, which gives all parties a fair opportunity to gain some representation in the legislature based on their electoral strength. Germany’s policymakers after WWII wanted to avoid a repetition of the Weimar proportional representation system, which encouraged multiplicity of parties to run candidates for the Reichstag, thereby contributing to political instability and to the rise of National Socialism. In the early 1990s, Russia, Mexico and Japan adopted a similar mixed electoral system. I suggest the same for Israel. Sixty percent of the Knesset to be elected directly via a party list as is now the case in the proportional system, and forty percent to be elected in the provinces. The idea is to split Israel into several provinces in a way that would reflect the various groups in society and their relative prominence. Each voter will cast two ballots: the first for one of the competing party candidates in the province; the second for one of the lists of candidates drawn up by each party. The number of mandates received by the party is based on its percentage of votes in the entire country. The seats are then distributed to the parties according to their strength in each province. The combination of a relatively high threshold and a mixed electoral system would reduce the ability of small interest parties to be elected, will make the Knesset less diversified, with five or six parties at most, and reduce the extortion power of the small parties, some of which would altogether disappear. The Knesset’s power will rise and its effectiveness as a legislative body would grow.
I am not the first to suggest these reforms. They have been put on the public agenda time and again, and every time had been turned down due to pressure exerted by the small parties fighting for their survival. Most notably, the religious parties have resisted such attempts with notable success. Israel needs strong and bold leaders who are able to rise above and beyond their immediate interest to sustain power in order to carry out these reforms to better legislative ability. The Shinui Party is instrumental in pushing this small change in the right direction of increasing the threshold to 2 percent.
Rutgers' anti-Israel Campaign
The photo I attached to my last monthly communication evoked some reactions. Here are a few:
Arthur Lenk wrote from Jerusalem:
The Rutgers poster was a satire organized by Jewish students to protest a controversial pro-Palestinian meeting. It is not real.
Ilana Berman, a student at Rutgers, wrote on the other hand:
hi, yes, the photo is real. The Palestinian Solidarity Movement, in its third year, as well as Charlotte Kates and the attached quote are all real. Though, it should be noted that the rally (for the dates written Oct. 10-12) was clearly very controversial and for many logistical reasons, actually didn't end up being as grand as Charlotte would have liked. This Charlotte (a grad. student of Rutgers - I think in law) was also present outside the auditorium when Sharansky came to speak at Rutgers. She was rallying among many other Muslims and/or anti Israel, pro Palestinians as well as the neturei karta. there's definitely tension on campus and the attachment was definitely accurate. We're trying our best though to spread some peace, and maybe more importantly, some education here on campus.
Norman Cantor of Rutgers Law School wrote:
Rafi, the story is complicated. Ms. Kates is a law student and head of a New Jersey organization that supports the Palestinian interests. The organization as a whole supports the Palestinians, but it is not radical. That is, it pushes for peace through creation of a Palestinian state.
Ms. Kates, herself, is far more radical than most members of her organization. She believes that Israel is a racist, colonialist state and has no right to exist. She supports a "one-state solution" involving destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. She supports "any means" that the Palestinians choose to attain their goals (including, apparently, suicide bombings of civilians). Some Arab student members of her organization resigned because her views were so extreme.
I do not know who wrote the pamphlet. I believe that it was circulated by pro-Israel persons who were satirizing Ms. Kates, mocking Ms. Kates, and seeking to bring pressure on Ms. Kates. She deserves to have pressure applied to her, because her views are, in my estimation, despicable.
In response to the "conference" of Palestinian supporters in early October, Rutgers students and Jewish organizations organized a massive pro-Israel demonstration and conducted many educational sessions on campus. The pro-Israel demonstration attracted approximately 4,000 people and many politicians, including both N.J. senators and the governor of the state. I was there and it was a good way to express support for the Israeli people and the struggle against terrorism.
I hope this explains the complex situation that led to the pamphlet that you saw. It was a satiric document, though it accurately captures part of Ms. Kates' position.
Best wishes, Norman
Terry Heinrichs, York University, Toronto, had sent me the following link
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11010
Martin Golding, Duke University, wrote:
Thanks for your email that contained information about terrorist attacks and terrorism and the media. I should say that I am suspicious about the authenticity of the Rutgers anti-Israel rally. It is of course shocking. But it uses the term "homicide" bombers. This term is typically used by people who do not want to call such bombers "suicide" bombers, and who wish instead to emphasize that murders are being committed by them. Regards, Martin
Rashumon indeed. The search for truth is demanding.
Useful Website
Aviad Ivri from Copenhagen brought to my attention a very useful resource on Israel and current affairs. Please look at http://www.embassy-of-israel.dk
The holiday season is time for fun and Hollywood productions this year are better than average. If you wish to see a film that will warm your heart, go to Love Actually, a must for all Hugh Grant fans. Runaway Jury is a very good court drama, with an original and surprising twist. The script is just on the edge of reality. Mystic River is a very good film, excellent script and wonderful actors, another gem of Director Clint Eastwood. Undoubtedly one of the best films this year. Enjoy!!
May I wish you and your loved ones happy holidays, lots of light, warmth and love all around, and all the very best for a Happy New Year,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Institute for Policy Studies
Johns Hopkins University
Thursday, December 18, 2003
18 December 2003
Dear Friends and colleagues,
Today the Baltimore Sun has published the following article of mine.
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.gaza18dec18,0,6320370.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
All best,
Rafi
The best first step
By Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Originally published December 18, 2003
NOW THAT SADDAM Hussein has been captured and there are better hopes for the democratization of Iraq, it's time to tackle another major crisis in the Middle East - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - by making an innovative, courageous change to break the futile cycle of violence.
It's time to resurrect the plan for Israel to withdraw first from Gaza - known, appropriately enough, as Gaza First. It was proposed by former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in the mid-1980s but never was implemented. The plan is far more reasonable and practical than President Bush's "road map" to peace, which is too far-reaching, given the fundamental lack of trust between the two sides.
Gaza First is certainly more realistic than the adventurous and privately initiated Geneva Accord that is widely disputed in Israel, particularly by the Likud government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But Gaza First could be accepted by many Israelis of all political persuasions. The plan should be implemented because it is in Israel's interest.
The Gaza Strip is densely populated: 226 square miles with more than 1.2 million Palestinians and about 7,500 Jewish settlers in 16 settlements.
Under Gaza First, the government would advise the leaders of Jewish settlers in Gaza that it has decided to withdraw the army from the coastal strip and that Israelis living there would be resettled in Israel. The historical role of the settlers has ended because the cost in blood and money to support settlement in Gaza is too heavy and Israel should no longer support it. Settlers who decided to stay would do so at their own risk.
After an Israeli withdrawal, Mr. Sharon should invite Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to establish an independent Palestinian state in Gaza while Israel closely scrutinizes the region's security. It would be a first step in creating a Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza.
With Palestinian sovereignty would come accountability. Sovereign countries are expected to overcome terrorist organizations. A leader of a sovereign country cannot argue that he does not control his own security forces or people.
An Israeli pullout from Gaza would be appreciated internationally. Israel would be regarded as having made significant concessions to reach a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians at a time when a slim majority of those polled in the European Union said they considered Israel a threat to world peace. Pressure would mount on Mr. Arafat to respond positively.
Unlike the West Bank, where many Jews settled in their recognition of the ancient history of the disputed region, there is nothing holy about Gaza. Evacuation of settlements in Gaza would be very different from a withdrawal from the West Bank.
Further, a precedent exists for Israeli withdrawal from areas that have little meaning to Jewish history. Settlers pulled out from Israeli settlements in the Sinai Peninsula to fulfill obligations in the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. The Israeli government compensated the settlers financially for the loss of their homes.
The economic costs of resettling Israelis after their evacuation from Gaza would be a heavy burden for Israel to bear, particularly now while its economy is shaky. The international community would need to commit a special fund for resettlement.
Critics of Gaza First argue that a pullout would be regarded as an Israeli surrender and a Palestinian victory that would only spur the Palestinians to demand more concessions from Israel. The response to the critics is simple: It is in Israel's interests to withdraw from Gaza because Israel sees no future for its people there; the withdrawal should have been carried out long ago because of the demographics.
We all want peace, but not all of us are willing to pay for it. Peace, like any other precious commodity, is costly. The Palestinians will surely ask for the West Bank, and rightly so. But in order to continue the peace process, both sides must show commitment and sincerity.
Establishment of an independent Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza is only a matter of time. Israel would be far better off initiating its establishment rather than succumbing to international pressure.
At the same time, terrorism is a concrete issue that deserves careful attention. The best way to deal with it is to maintain a separation between a Palestinian Gaza and Israel. Separation entails an economic price, especially for the Palestinians. Therefore, Palestine and Israel may both request economic assistance for Gaza.
If there will be peace, international support will come. It is in Israel's interest not to suffocate Gaza and to enable the Gazans to develop independent economic resources.
It's time to activate Gaza First as a sensible step toward breaking the deadlock in an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Raphael Cohen-Almagor is associate professor at the University of Haifa in Israel, where he heads the Center for Democratic Studies. He is on sabbatical at the Johns Hopkins University.
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Dear Friends and colleagues,
Today the Baltimore Sun has published the following article of mine.
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.gaza18dec18,0,6320370.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines
All best,
Rafi
The best first step
By Raphael Cohen-Almagor
Originally published December 18, 2003
NOW THAT SADDAM Hussein has been captured and there are better hopes for the democratization of Iraq, it's time to tackle another major crisis in the Middle East - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - by making an innovative, courageous change to break the futile cycle of violence.
It's time to resurrect the plan for Israel to withdraw first from Gaza - known, appropriately enough, as Gaza First. It was proposed by former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres in the mid-1980s but never was implemented. The plan is far more reasonable and practical than President Bush's "road map" to peace, which is too far-reaching, given the fundamental lack of trust between the two sides.
Gaza First is certainly more realistic than the adventurous and privately initiated Geneva Accord that is widely disputed in Israel, particularly by the Likud government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But Gaza First could be accepted by many Israelis of all political persuasions. The plan should be implemented because it is in Israel's interest.
The Gaza Strip is densely populated: 226 square miles with more than 1.2 million Palestinians and about 7,500 Jewish settlers in 16 settlements.
Under Gaza First, the government would advise the leaders of Jewish settlers in Gaza that it has decided to withdraw the army from the coastal strip and that Israelis living there would be resettled in Israel. The historical role of the settlers has ended because the cost in blood and money to support settlement in Gaza is too heavy and Israel should no longer support it. Settlers who decided to stay would do so at their own risk.
After an Israeli withdrawal, Mr. Sharon should invite Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to establish an independent Palestinian state in Gaza while Israel closely scrutinizes the region's security. It would be a first step in creating a Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza.
With Palestinian sovereignty would come accountability. Sovereign countries are expected to overcome terrorist organizations. A leader of a sovereign country cannot argue that he does not control his own security forces or people.
An Israeli pullout from Gaza would be appreciated internationally. Israel would be regarded as having made significant concessions to reach a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians at a time when a slim majority of those polled in the European Union said they considered Israel a threat to world peace. Pressure would mount on Mr. Arafat to respond positively.
Unlike the West Bank, where many Jews settled in their recognition of the ancient history of the disputed region, there is nothing holy about Gaza. Evacuation of settlements in Gaza would be very different from a withdrawal from the West Bank.
Further, a precedent exists for Israeli withdrawal from areas that have little meaning to Jewish history. Settlers pulled out from Israeli settlements in the Sinai Peninsula to fulfill obligations in the 1979 Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. The Israeli government compensated the settlers financially for the loss of their homes.
The economic costs of resettling Israelis after their evacuation from Gaza would be a heavy burden for Israel to bear, particularly now while its economy is shaky. The international community would need to commit a special fund for resettlement.
Critics of Gaza First argue that a pullout would be regarded as an Israeli surrender and a Palestinian victory that would only spur the Palestinians to demand more concessions from Israel. The response to the critics is simple: It is in Israel's interests to withdraw from Gaza because Israel sees no future for its people there; the withdrawal should have been carried out long ago because of the demographics.
We all want peace, but not all of us are willing to pay for it. Peace, like any other precious commodity, is costly. The Palestinians will surely ask for the West Bank, and rightly so. But in order to continue the peace process, both sides must show commitment and sincerity.
Establishment of an independent Palestinian state in both the West Bank and Gaza is only a matter of time. Israel would be far better off initiating its establishment rather than succumbing to international pressure.
At the same time, terrorism is a concrete issue that deserves careful attention. The best way to deal with it is to maintain a separation between a Palestinian Gaza and Israel. Separation entails an economic price, especially for the Palestinians. Therefore, Palestine and Israel may both request economic assistance for Gaza.
If there will be peace, international support will come. It is in Israel's interest not to suffocate Gaza and to enable the Gazans to develop independent economic resources.
It's time to activate Gaza First as a sensible step toward breaking the deadlock in an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.
Raphael Cohen-Almagor is associate professor at the University of Haifa in Israel, where he heads the Center for Democratic Studies. He is on sabbatical at the Johns Hopkins University.
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
25 November 2003
Dear friends and colleagues,
Last month, after another Palestinian attack that resulted in the killing of three young soldiers, two of them women, in Gaza, Haaretz called in its editorial to pull out from the Gaza Strip, the sooner the better, explaining that Israel has no future there, and that we are loosing young lives in vain. Early this month the paper described the history of Israeli settlement in Gaza.
I hope Haaretz will continue its campaign to withdraw from the Strip and that the campaign will gain momentum and reach the prime minister and his colleagues.
Yoram Berholtz had sent me the attached photo. I don't know whether this is true or false. If it is true, then it is terrible and something should be done by Rutgers. If it is not, then human creation is sometimes too sickening to my taste.
As expected, Abu Ala resolved his so-called difficulties with his superior Arafat. The nominated government is installed and peace will continue to be stalled.
People of the like of Yossi Beilin, Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseiba can invest all their efforts, in good faith and the best intentions. Please do not raise hopes or expectations. Take a deep breath and wait until Mr. Arafat will step down of the stage of history. I saw him on the news the other day, speaking of his yearning to reinstall the "peace of the brave". For him this peace means tearing people to pieces.
The recent attempt of Beilin to approach the people and mobilize public support for his peace initiative over and above the government's head is interesting and positive for democracy. One may recall two important precedents in which augmented public protest was effective and changed the course of modern Israel's history. The first following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The popular movement led by Moti Ashkenazi led to the establishment of the Agranat Commission which eventually brought about the end of the Golda Meir government and was very instrumental to the election of the Likud Party to power in 1977, and to pushing Moshe Dayan to the hands of Menachem Begin.
The second precedent took place after the massacre of dozens of refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps during the 1982 Lebanon War. The massive public protest led to the establishment of the Kahan Commission which, inter alia, forbade Ariel Sharon to ever serve again as Minister of Defence. It did not prohibit him to serve as prime minister.
This is to say that successful public movements which oppose the existing government are not impossible. Still, they are quite rare. As much as I endorse such democratic motions I do not believe in this Beilin initiative, not only because I do not think the majority of Israelis back the motion but, more crucially, because I think it is futile. While Beilin still believes that he has a partner for the peace tango, I have no shred of evidence to support such a belief. We might as well bang our heads against the wall. The result would be similar: grave headache without any positive repercussions. As much as we yearn for peace, we should stop disillusioning ourselves. Arafat was and remains bad news first and foremost to his own people, and also to Israel, the ME, and to world peace in general.
The recent attacks in Turkey showed us that terrorism is very much alive and kicking. The attacks are more likely to occur where there is infrastructure to support terror. You shut some crannies and the evil will pop up where the valve is loose. Let us recall some of the most brutal terrorist attacks:
August 7, 1988, U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, 231 killed, more than 5,000 injured;
October 12, 2000, USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, resulted in 17 sailors killed;
September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and the Pentagon, nearly 3,000 killed;
April 11, 2002, synagogue in Tunisia, 21 killed;
June 14, 2002, U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, 14 killed, 45 injured;
October 12, 2002, Nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, 202 killed, hundreds injured;
November 28, 2002, Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, 14 killed, 80 injured;
May 12, 2003, western workers' complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 30 killed, 190 injured;
May 16, 2003, five sites in Casablanca, Morocco, 28 killed, more than 100 injured;
August 5, 2003, Marriott Hotel, Jakarta, Indonesia, 12 killed, 150 injured;
November 8, 2003, foreign workers' complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed, 122 injured;
November 15, 2003, two synagogues in Istanbul, 23 killed, more than 300 injured;
November 20, 2003, British Consulate and a London-based bank in Istanbul, 27 killed, 450 injured.
In all countries the terrorist networks have the infrastructure to support them; people who identify with their cause and willing to provide assistance, information, transportation, housing. This is true for all the above-mentioned countries: Tanzania and Kenya, Yemen and Tunisia, Pakistan and Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, Turkey and the United States. It is incumbent on the authorities of these countries to crack and fight-down the webs of terrorism.
I received the following report from HonestReporting.com, detailing how the media whitewash Palestinian suicide bombings by refusing to call them "terror":
On Nov. 8, the Associated Press released a list of "Recent Terror Attacks Around the World" to accompany reports on Saturday's deadly bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The list notes Islamic terrorism all over the world since 1998, but completely ignores all Palestinian terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel. On Nov. 9, Reuters released a similar list of "Worst guerrilla attacks since September 11" that also omitted terror in Israel entirely.
This is becoming a disturbing pattern in media chronicles of Islamic terror ¯ if it happened in Israel, it just doesn't count: AP published a similar list of "Recent World Terror Attacks" on May 19, which also omitted attacks in Israel, and The New York Times Online devotes a special section to world terror that leaves Israel conspicuously absent.
Curiously, AP and Reuters do note the bombing of the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel in Kenya (11/2002). Certainly Kenya isn't the first place that springs to mind when recalling recent Palestinian terror. Are we to conclude that these news agencies consider terror attacks against Israeli civilians in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem somehow less objectionable than those conducted offshore?
You are most welcome to visit HonestReporting website for further information. I would be cautious in reading their reports using a spoonful of salt. Yet they are correct in voicing the above concern.
I was asked what is the size of Israel. It is 20,770 km2, roughly the size of New Jersey, or Greater London, or Wales, or the Kruger Park in SA. We are so much in the news that people tend to lose perspective. The size of the Israeli population is about 6.5 million. Of them roughly 1 million Israelis are Palestinians who do not share the Zionist dream. Another 750,000 are immigrants of the former Soviet Union who arrived to Israel between 1989 and 2002. Most of them lack common understanding of democratic values. No wonder why I see of importance to establish a Center for Democratic Studies at my home university. It is estimated that at least a third of the former USSR immigrants are not Jewish. The government apparently knew this but did not go out of its way to stop their coming. I guess this in order to balance the growing influence of the orthodox and ultra-orthodox who comprise some 15-20 percent of Israeli population.
Let us talk a little about demography. By the end of the 2005, it is estimated that Israel’s population will number 6.8-7.0 million people, an increase of 22%-25% compared with the end of 1995, and an average increase of 120-138 thousand persons per year. The expected rate of increase of the extended Jewish population will be lower than that of the Arab population, despite of the expected continued immigration to Israel and the assumption of a decrease in the fertility level of Arab women. The extended Jewish population is expected to increase from 4.6 million, at the end of 1995, to 5.3 to 5.6 million in the year 2005, an increase of 15%-22%.
At the same time, the Arab population is expected to increase from a million persons to 1.4 million persons, an increase of 35% by the year 2005, due entirely to natural increase. The Moslem proportion of the total Arab population will increase by 2%, and will reach 83%.
The extended Jewish population as a proportion of the total population, presently 82%, is expected to drop to 80% by the year 2005.
The population of immigrants from the former USSR is expected to increase to 870,000-1,000,000 by the year 2005. Its proportion of Israel’s total population will increase from 10% in 1995, to 12%-13% in the year 2005.
By the end of the year 2020, it is estimated that Israel’s population will number 8.2-9.0 million people. This is an increase of 19%-29% over fifteen years, and a drop in the rate of growth as a result of a significant decrease in the expected number of immigrants.
The Jewish population will number 6.1-6.5 million people, and its relative proportion of Israel's total population will continue to decline to 73%-74% of the total population, primarily due to the mixed immigration from the former USSR. All this information is important to bear when one speaks of the urgency to commit ourselves to reach a fair peace resolution with our neighbours, especially considering that I do not foresee another massive Jewish immigration to Israel. Outside the former USSR, the bulk of world Jewry resides in affluent countries and is not expected to practice Zionism in the full meaning of this ideology.
Further information is available on http://www.cbs.gov.il/engindex.htm
I just returned from Florida where I presented some papers. Inter alia I visited the picturesque and carefree Key West. The most common languages I heard during my visit were English and Hebrew. It seems that most, if not all, the shirt shops are run by former Israelis, young and motivated business men. Wherever I meet former Israelis, be it in North America, Europe or Australia they speak of the security problem and the lack of satisfactory jobs as the main reasons for immigration. With the same breath they say that they yearn to visit Israel, to see their families and friends, "for there is no place like home".
This was also the case in Key West. The Israelis I spoke with explain their immigration in the above terms, reiterating that they live in the west but their souls are in the east, in Zion. And the saga continues.
In Miami I met my former student and research assistant, Keren Eyal, who is now completing her Ph.D in Santa Barbara. She was looking for a job in Israel but no university offers an opening in her field. Now she signed a contract with an American university. Another young, talented and productive person will live the Israeli experience in memories and visits from time to time.
Israeli leaders seem unable to assure the most fundamental precondition for the continuation of a life of a nation: to ensure that its young citizens will see their future in Israel.
Finally, congratulations to my Canadian friends. Last month Canada won the world title in stone, paper and scissors. Well done!! It is comforting to know that there is time and energy in our trouble world to carry out such mundane competitions.
Speaking of Canada, next week I am invited to present my forthcoming book, Euthanasia in the Netherlands, at Windsor University School of Law. I look forward to spend some time with Dick Moon and Bruce Elman and to meet some new people.
With my very best wishes,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Dear friends and colleagues,
Last month, after another Palestinian attack that resulted in the killing of three young soldiers, two of them women, in Gaza, Haaretz called in its editorial to pull out from the Gaza Strip, the sooner the better, explaining that Israel has no future there, and that we are loosing young lives in vain. Early this month the paper described the history of Israeli settlement in Gaza.
I hope Haaretz will continue its campaign to withdraw from the Strip and that the campaign will gain momentum and reach the prime minister and his colleagues.
Yoram Berholtz had sent me the attached photo. I don't know whether this is true or false. If it is true, then it is terrible and something should be done by Rutgers. If it is not, then human creation is sometimes too sickening to my taste.
As expected, Abu Ala resolved his so-called difficulties with his superior Arafat. The nominated government is installed and peace will continue to be stalled.
People of the like of Yossi Beilin, Ami Ayalon and Sari Nusseiba can invest all their efforts, in good faith and the best intentions. Please do not raise hopes or expectations. Take a deep breath and wait until Mr. Arafat will step down of the stage of history. I saw him on the news the other day, speaking of his yearning to reinstall the "peace of the brave". For him this peace means tearing people to pieces.
The recent attempt of Beilin to approach the people and mobilize public support for his peace initiative over and above the government's head is interesting and positive for democracy. One may recall two important precedents in which augmented public protest was effective and changed the course of modern Israel's history. The first following the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The popular movement led by Moti Ashkenazi led to the establishment of the Agranat Commission which eventually brought about the end of the Golda Meir government and was very instrumental to the election of the Likud Party to power in 1977, and to pushing Moshe Dayan to the hands of Menachem Begin.
The second precedent took place after the massacre of dozens of refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps during the 1982 Lebanon War. The massive public protest led to the establishment of the Kahan Commission which, inter alia, forbade Ariel Sharon to ever serve again as Minister of Defence. It did not prohibit him to serve as prime minister.
This is to say that successful public movements which oppose the existing government are not impossible. Still, they are quite rare. As much as I endorse such democratic motions I do not believe in this Beilin initiative, not only because I do not think the majority of Israelis back the motion but, more crucially, because I think it is futile. While Beilin still believes that he has a partner for the peace tango, I have no shred of evidence to support such a belief. We might as well bang our heads against the wall. The result would be similar: grave headache without any positive repercussions. As much as we yearn for peace, we should stop disillusioning ourselves. Arafat was and remains bad news first and foremost to his own people, and also to Israel, the ME, and to world peace in general.
The recent attacks in Turkey showed us that terrorism is very much alive and kicking. The attacks are more likely to occur where there is infrastructure to support terror. You shut some crannies and the evil will pop up where the valve is loose. Let us recall some of the most brutal terrorist attacks:
August 7, 1988, U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, 231 killed, more than 5,000 injured;
October 12, 2000, USS Cole off the coast of Yemen, resulted in 17 sailors killed;
September 11, 2001, World Trade Center and the Pentagon, nearly 3,000 killed;
April 11, 2002, synagogue in Tunisia, 21 killed;
June 14, 2002, U.S. Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, 14 killed, 45 injured;
October 12, 2002, Nightclub in Bali, Indonesia, 202 killed, hundreds injured;
November 28, 2002, Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, 14 killed, 80 injured;
May 12, 2003, western workers' complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 30 killed, 190 injured;
May 16, 2003, five sites in Casablanca, Morocco, 28 killed, more than 100 injured;
August 5, 2003, Marriott Hotel, Jakarta, Indonesia, 12 killed, 150 injured;
November 8, 2003, foreign workers' complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 17 killed, 122 injured;
November 15, 2003, two synagogues in Istanbul, 23 killed, more than 300 injured;
November 20, 2003, British Consulate and a London-based bank in Istanbul, 27 killed, 450 injured.
In all countries the terrorist networks have the infrastructure to support them; people who identify with their cause and willing to provide assistance, information, transportation, housing. This is true for all the above-mentioned countries: Tanzania and Kenya, Yemen and Tunisia, Pakistan and Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, Turkey and the United States. It is incumbent on the authorities of these countries to crack and fight-down the webs of terrorism.
I received the following report from HonestReporting.com, detailing how the media whitewash Palestinian suicide bombings by refusing to call them "terror":
On Nov. 8, the Associated Press released a list of "Recent Terror Attacks Around the World" to accompany reports on Saturday's deadly bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The list notes Islamic terrorism all over the world since 1998, but completely ignores all Palestinian terrorist attacks that occurred in Israel. On Nov. 9, Reuters released a similar list of "Worst guerrilla attacks since September 11" that also omitted terror in Israel entirely.
This is becoming a disturbing pattern in media chronicles of Islamic terror ¯ if it happened in Israel, it just doesn't count: AP published a similar list of "Recent World Terror Attacks" on May 19, which also omitted attacks in Israel, and The New York Times Online devotes a special section to world terror that leaves Israel conspicuously absent.
Curiously, AP and Reuters do note the bombing of the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel in Kenya (11/2002). Certainly Kenya isn't the first place that springs to mind when recalling recent Palestinian terror. Are we to conclude that these news agencies consider terror attacks against Israeli civilians in Haifa, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem somehow less objectionable than those conducted offshore?
You are most welcome to visit HonestReporting website for further information. I would be cautious in reading their reports using a spoonful of salt. Yet they are correct in voicing the above concern.
I was asked what is the size of Israel. It is 20,770 km2, roughly the size of New Jersey, or Greater London, or Wales, or the Kruger Park in SA. We are so much in the news that people tend to lose perspective. The size of the Israeli population is about 6.5 million. Of them roughly 1 million Israelis are Palestinians who do not share the Zionist dream. Another 750,000 are immigrants of the former Soviet Union who arrived to Israel between 1989 and 2002. Most of them lack common understanding of democratic values. No wonder why I see of importance to establish a Center for Democratic Studies at my home university. It is estimated that at least a third of the former USSR immigrants are not Jewish. The government apparently knew this but did not go out of its way to stop their coming. I guess this in order to balance the growing influence of the orthodox and ultra-orthodox who comprise some 15-20 percent of Israeli population.
Let us talk a little about demography. By the end of the 2005, it is estimated that Israel’s population will number 6.8-7.0 million people, an increase of 22%-25% compared with the end of 1995, and an average increase of 120-138 thousand persons per year. The expected rate of increase of the extended Jewish population will be lower than that of the Arab population, despite of the expected continued immigration to Israel and the assumption of a decrease in the fertility level of Arab women. The extended Jewish population is expected to increase from 4.6 million, at the end of 1995, to 5.3 to 5.6 million in the year 2005, an increase of 15%-22%.
At the same time, the Arab population is expected to increase from a million persons to 1.4 million persons, an increase of 35% by the year 2005, due entirely to natural increase. The Moslem proportion of the total Arab population will increase by 2%, and will reach 83%.
The extended Jewish population as a proportion of the total population, presently 82%, is expected to drop to 80% by the year 2005.
The population of immigrants from the former USSR is expected to increase to 870,000-1,000,000 by the year 2005. Its proportion of Israel’s total population will increase from 10% in 1995, to 12%-13% in the year 2005.
By the end of the year 2020, it is estimated that Israel’s population will number 8.2-9.0 million people. This is an increase of 19%-29% over fifteen years, and a drop in the rate of growth as a result of a significant decrease in the expected number of immigrants.
The Jewish population will number 6.1-6.5 million people, and its relative proportion of Israel's total population will continue to decline to 73%-74% of the total population, primarily due to the mixed immigration from the former USSR. All this information is important to bear when one speaks of the urgency to commit ourselves to reach a fair peace resolution with our neighbours, especially considering that I do not foresee another massive Jewish immigration to Israel. Outside the former USSR, the bulk of world Jewry resides in affluent countries and is not expected to practice Zionism in the full meaning of this ideology.
Further information is available on http://www.cbs.gov.il/engindex.htm
I just returned from Florida where I presented some papers. Inter alia I visited the picturesque and carefree Key West. The most common languages I heard during my visit were English and Hebrew. It seems that most, if not all, the shirt shops are run by former Israelis, young and motivated business men. Wherever I meet former Israelis, be it in North America, Europe or Australia they speak of the security problem and the lack of satisfactory jobs as the main reasons for immigration. With the same breath they say that they yearn to visit Israel, to see their families and friends, "for there is no place like home".
This was also the case in Key West. The Israelis I spoke with explain their immigration in the above terms, reiterating that they live in the west but their souls are in the east, in Zion. And the saga continues.
In Miami I met my former student and research assistant, Keren Eyal, who is now completing her Ph.D in Santa Barbara. She was looking for a job in Israel but no university offers an opening in her field. Now she signed a contract with an American university. Another young, talented and productive person will live the Israeli experience in memories and visits from time to time.
Israeli leaders seem unable to assure the most fundamental precondition for the continuation of a life of a nation: to ensure that its young citizens will see their future in Israel.
Finally, congratulations to my Canadian friends. Last month Canada won the world title in stone, paper and scissors. Well done!! It is comforting to know that there is time and energy in our trouble world to carry out such mundane competitions.
Speaking of Canada, next week I am invited to present my forthcoming book, Euthanasia in the Netherlands, at Windsor University School of Law. I look forward to spend some time with Dick Moon and Bruce Elman and to meet some new people.
With my very best wishes,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
October 2003
On Settlements, the Fence, the Road Map, the Geneva accord, a Palestinian poll, Terror, Patch Adams and Other Concerns
Dear friends and colleagues,
I wish to share with you the following:
On Settlements
One of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel is the amount of funding that is channeled to the settlements. Budget items were built to conceal this information and no government report has ever been published on the subject. Recently Haaretz, for the first time, presented a nearly complete picture of the additional cost of the settlements, which totals more than NIS 45 billion (roughly $10 billion) since 1967.
The newspaper estimated that annual Israeli government spending on civilian needs in the settlements was more than $500 million, and that the security costs in the West Bank and Gaza were around $900 million a year.
The Haaretz study was difficult to carry out because the Israeli government's budgets have purposefully hidden spending on settlements within other costs, bundling them with subsidies to border communities and those in the Negev Desert, areas where people need to be induced to live either because of risk or limited economic opportunities. This means that those seeking to establish Jewish towns and villages in the occupied lands have benefited from generous government subsidies: personal income tax breaks, grants and loans for house purchases, bonuses for teachers. The Jewish settlers, who now number 230,000 (double the figure of a decade ago), have been granted special bypass highways, water supplies and health clinics. Teachers in the settlements, for example, get four years' seniority, an 80 percent housing subsidy and 100 percent reimbursement for travel, and more. The result is that the average settler family benefits from about $10,000 more per year of government spending than a family living within Israel proper.
The settlement population has been growing at a rate of about 10,000 annually over the past three years, despite the fighting. Early this month the government indicated that it intended to build about 600 new homes in three large West Bank settlements. The plan calls for 530 additional houses in Betar Ilit, a fast-growing settlement south of Jerusalem, along with 50 new homes in Maale Adumim, to the east of Jerusalem, and 24 more in Ariel.
The Bush administration threatens to reduce American assistance extended to Israel in March in the form of the three-year, $9 billion loan guarantees. The further building does not advance the cause of peace. Quite the opposite. Those who voted for Sharon voted for the enlargement of settlements. I am not sure to what extent they fully realized this when they went to the polls. Now they do. I think many of them would rather spend the limited resources we have on other social concerns: welfare, health, education, employment. These are as pressing as the need for further settlements, even according to this government's agenda, which is the most oakish in Israel's history.
The Fence
People ask me repeatedly about the fence. I was against the idea at first, believing at that time in bridges rather than fences, in building relationships instead of divorce. I believed that the fence will not foster mutual co-existence and wanted to find a solution that would be based on trust and mutual cooperation. After some months during which more violence ensued and Israel became a target to grave and bloody terrorist attack with a terrible price, hundreds of people killed and injured, I changed my mind as. Some eighteen months ago I finally deserted the co-existence option and adopted the view of divorce, this in light of generals' estimations that a fence could halt some eighty percent of the suicide attacks.
Having said that, I thought that the wise thing is to construct the fence along he 1967 Green Line borders. If you declare divorce, both sides of the divorce should be as happy as possible. The Sharon government is constructing the fence in a way that would make Israel as big as possible, and the future Palestine as small as possible. The Palestinian Authority cannot be expected to be happy with such a settlement. The fence suffocates them and robs them. The result is building a costly fence that might be removed because it is unjust and unfair. It also means that the children on both sides are going to suffer, as is the case in every unhappy divorce.
On 1 October Israel's government approved construction of new barriers deep inside the West Bank to shield several large Jewish settlements. The move significantly expands the scope of the already fence to wall off much of the West Bank.
Read the following: "Defense Ministry Director-General Amos Yaron agreed in a meeting with Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh Monday that the security fence in Jerusalem would not pass through the middle of the campus as originally planned" (Jerusalem Post, 30 Sept. 2003). How considerate!
The road map and the recent Geneva accord
I was asked about the road map. The roadmap plan was too demanding, too far-reaching without respect to the challenging reality that could not stand to what was required. There it too much hostility, mistrust and bad blood between the two sides, both are fed by radical governments and media that - generally speaking support their respective government. Therefore I support the more moderate Gaza First Plan.
What about the recent Beilin-Abbed Rabbo Geneva accord?
Two important considerations are timing and leadership. Both are not conducive to such initiative that essentially reiterated the 2000 Camp David and Taba proposals, made by Barak and Beilin, and rejected then by Arafat. The same man says now that he welcomes the initiative. You are most welcome to believe him. I have no reason to join you. I don't trust the Palestinians to carry their side of the deal. I think the Geneva accord is fair but the time is not ripe to implement it. I continue to think that a piecemeal process is preferable, namely Gaza First. Sometimes I feel like old Cato.
Terrorism
The phenomenon of suicide bombers is spreading rapidly to Iraq. Don’t be astonished if the suicide bombing phenomenon will spread to other parts of the world.
Every once in a while people ask me to join political petitions and I usually decline and do not pass them around. This one is exceptional. Please read the following petition which asks the United Nations to treat suicide bombings as war crimes and that those who inspire them be prosecuted by the International War Crimes Tribunal.
The Call for UN & World Leaders to Prosecute Organizers of Suicide/Homicide Bombings, performing acts of terror against Civilians, as War Criminals, was initiated by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and written by Dr. Edward S. Beck.
1 [one] million signatures are being sought for this petition.
Click on the following and please take 10 seconds to sign.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/bombings/petition.html
If you can, please cut and send this message to other friends, of whatever faith, who might also agree to sign the petition.
Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit)
In Israel, Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit) Movement together with five prominent writers appealed to open an investigation regarding the killing of Salah Shchade. A bomb weighing one ton was released from an aircraft carrier, killing not only the chief terrorist but also 14 other people and wounded some 150 others. Dan Chalutz, head of our air force, said in the following moment that he "slept comfortably at night", a statement that enraged many people with some conscience and appreciation for human life. I would be surprised if the Court will decide to intervene in a meaningful way in such security considerations.
Consider the following: suppose that the suicide bomber at the Maxim restaurant were to follow the calm sleeper, Dan Chalutz, find out that he uses to eat at Maxim on Shabbat with his family, and bombs herself to pieces next to his table, killing some twenty other people in the blast. Would you condone her action?
Palestinian poll
These are the results of opinion poll # 9, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) between 07-14 October 2003. The poll deals with Arafat’s popularity and other domestic issues, peace and security, public perception of the United States, and local elections. The total sample size of this poll is 1318 from Palestinians 18 years and older, interviewed face-to-face in West Bank (823) and in Gaza Strip (495), in 120 locations. The margin of error is 3%.
The findings show widespread support, reaching 75%, for the suicide attack at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, where 20 Israelis were killed. More than two thirds believe that the Roadmap is dead and 78% believe that current Israeli measures, including the building of the separation wall, reduces that chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the future. Nonetheless, almost two thirds support a return to the Hunda, 85% support mutual cessation of violence, and, for the first time since the establishment of the PA, 59% support taking measures to prevent attacks on Israelis after reaching an agreement on mutual cessation of violence. Furthermore, about two thirds still support a solution based on two states: Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Main Results:
(1) Arafat and Palestinian Domestic Conditions:
• Arafat’s popularity increases from 35% last June to 50% in this poll. This is his highest level of support in five years.
• About 80% of Palestinians believe that Arafat has become stronger and more popular due to Israeli threat to expel or assassinate him.
• Two thirds support Arafat’s declaration of state of emergency while 26% oppose it
• 61% support the appointment of Ahmad Qurai (Abu Ala’) as prime minister and 27% oppose it, but only 48% are willing, and 37% unwilling, to give confidence to his government.
• 60% support placing all Palestinian security services under the command of a national security council headed by Arafat.
• 46% believe that Abu Ala’ and his government will be more capable than Abu Mazen and his government in dealing with Arafat and the presidency; only 12% believe in the opposite.
• But only 22% believe that Abu Ala’ and his government will be more capable than Abu Mazen and his government in reaching an agreement with Israel; 23% believe in the opposite.
• While 62% believe that Abu Ala’ and his government will be able to return to negotiations with Israel, only 33% believe they will be able to control the security situation and enforce a ceasefire. 44% believe they will be able to carry out political reforms.
• Fall of Abu Mazen and his government is the equal responsibility of Arafat and Israel (27% each). Only 17% put the blame on Abu Mazen himself.
• 32% are satisfied with the reform steps taken by Abu Mazen and 54% are not satisfied
• 90% support internal and external calls for extensive political reforms.
• 82% believe there is corruption in the PA and 71% believe that corruption will increase or remain the same in the future.
• Popularity of Fatah increases slightly from 26% last June to 28% in this poll. Hamas’ popularity remains almost unchanged (21%). Total support for Islamists reaches 29% compared to 31% last June.
• Marwan Barghouti (who is jailed in Israel) remains the most popular Palestinian figure for the position of vice president 17%, followed by Abdul Aziz Rantisi (14% compared to 3% in an open-ended question last June), Sa’eb Erikat (9%), Ahmad Yasin and Haidar Abdul Shafi (7% each), Farouq Qaddoumi and Hanan Ashrawi (5% each), Ahmad Quarie’ (4%), Mohammad Dahlan (2%), and Mahmoud Abbas (1%).
The most dramatic development has been the increase in the popularity of Abdul Aziz Rantisi, one of the main Hamas leaders, rising to 14% compared to 3% in an open-ended question last June. The increase in the popularity of Rantisi may reflect the public response to repeated Israeli attempt to assassinate him.
(2) Peace and Security:
• 75% support the suicide attack at Maxim Restaurant in Haifa leading to the death of 20 Israelis.
• 78% believe that current Israeli measures, including the building of the separation wall, reduce the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the future.
• But 64% still support a two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), while only 12% support a one-state solution (for Palestinians and Israelis). 21% want all Palestine back to the Palestinians.
• Percentage of those believing that armed confrontations will not stop and negotiations will not resume soon increases from 24% last June to 39% in this poll. 46% (compared to 56% last June) believe that the two sides will return to negotiations while some violence will continue.
• 68% believe that the roadmap is dead, but 28% believe that it can still be implemented
• 64% want a return to the Hudna that prevailed few weeks ago while 34% oppose it; but 85% (compared to 80% last June) support a mutual cessation of violence while only 14% oppose it.
• If an agreement is reached on a mutual cessation of violence, 59% (compared to 50% last June) would support taking measures by the PA to prevent attacks on Israelis.
• Despite the widespread support for the Hudna and the mutual cessation of violence, 58% would still support Hamas’ decision to oppose the ceasefire.
• 59% believe that current armed confrontations have helped the Palestinians achieve national rights in ways that negotiations could not. In June, 65% shared that belief.
•
(3) Perceptions of the US:
• 96% believe that the US is not sincere when it says it works toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
• 92% believe that the US is not sincere when it says it wants political reforms and clean government in the PA.
• 78% believe the US is not serious in its declared opposition to the Israeli decision to expel or assassinate President Yasir Arafat.
• 97% believe the current US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is biased in favor of Israel.
• But Palestinian evaluation of the current US conditions and policies varies on case by case basis. For example, positive evaluation reaches 85% when evaluating American medicine, science, and technology, and reaches 74% when evaluating the status of gender equality, and 63% when evaluating the status of US economic conditions. Positive evaluation drops to 53% with regards to arts and entertainment, 53% with regard to freedom of press and expression, and 44% to democracy and respect for human rights. Positive evaluation drops further when it comes to treatment of minorities (17%), respect for religious freedom (27%), or foreign policy (23%).
The US response to 11 September has affected Palestinian evaluation of internal American conditions regarding human rights, religious freedom and treatment of minorities especially Arabs and Muslims. The Bush Administration’s support for Israeli assassination and incursion policy contributed to the clear distrust in the US intentions in the peace process. While half of the Palestinians were convinced last June the belief that President Bush was determined to implement the Roadmap and move the peace process forward, this conviction has completely disappeared in this poll.
For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki or Ayoub Mustafa at Tel 02-2964933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org
Patch Adams
My very first cultural event at Hopkins was Patch Adams’s lecture at Hopkins. This guy excels in one liners. Concise ones.
What do you think about abortion?
I am in favour. I grew up in the 1960s (an impressive argument indeed).
What do you think about euthanasia? I am in favour (I guess the assertion is also the argument).
What do you think about the war in Iraq? Negative. Violence is never the way. We should have strove to teach Saddam Hussein how to love (brilliant).
What do you think of the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
Two state solution and evacuation of all settlements. No doubt about it (also no mentioning of the 2000 Camp David talks.).
Adams received a round of applause which prompted him to add one more sentence: And the US government should support the Palestinians to the same extent it supports Israel. More applause.
If everything would be so easy. We just learn how to love, cease violence and all will be fine. Mr. Adams has very good ideas and policies as to how to treat sick people (some depicted in Robin Williams' noteworthy film). His ability to analyze situations is impressive to the extent that the above answers are impressive. He does not even realize that he serves the interests of some more complex people with more complex agendas.
Hopkins news
Hopkins Professor Peter Agre was named co-winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
Dr. Agre, professor of biological chemistry and medicine in the School of Medicine, is the 30th person associated with Johns Hopkins to win a Nobel Prize. Not bad for such a small university.
Personal
I have problems with my e-mail. Some people told me that they wrote me but for some reason I did not receive their messages. My apology. In any event, it is advisable to write to both my Haifa and Hopkins addresses:
ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il and rcohena1@jhu.edu
With my very best wishes,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
On Settlements, the Fence, the Road Map, the Geneva accord, a Palestinian poll, Terror, Patch Adams and Other Concerns
Dear friends and colleagues,
I wish to share with you the following:
On Settlements
One of the most closely guarded secrets in Israel is the amount of funding that is channeled to the settlements. Budget items were built to conceal this information and no government report has ever been published on the subject. Recently Haaretz, for the first time, presented a nearly complete picture of the additional cost of the settlements, which totals more than NIS 45 billion (roughly $10 billion) since 1967.
The newspaper estimated that annual Israeli government spending on civilian needs in the settlements was more than $500 million, and that the security costs in the West Bank and Gaza were around $900 million a year.
The Haaretz study was difficult to carry out because the Israeli government's budgets have purposefully hidden spending on settlements within other costs, bundling them with subsidies to border communities and those in the Negev Desert, areas where people need to be induced to live either because of risk or limited economic opportunities. This means that those seeking to establish Jewish towns and villages in the occupied lands have benefited from generous government subsidies: personal income tax breaks, grants and loans for house purchases, bonuses for teachers. The Jewish settlers, who now number 230,000 (double the figure of a decade ago), have been granted special bypass highways, water supplies and health clinics. Teachers in the settlements, for example, get four years' seniority, an 80 percent housing subsidy and 100 percent reimbursement for travel, and more. The result is that the average settler family benefits from about $10,000 more per year of government spending than a family living within Israel proper.
The settlement population has been growing at a rate of about 10,000 annually over the past three years, despite the fighting. Early this month the government indicated that it intended to build about 600 new homes in three large West Bank settlements. The plan calls for 530 additional houses in Betar Ilit, a fast-growing settlement south of Jerusalem, along with 50 new homes in Maale Adumim, to the east of Jerusalem, and 24 more in Ariel.
The Bush administration threatens to reduce American assistance extended to Israel in March in the form of the three-year, $9 billion loan guarantees. The further building does not advance the cause of peace. Quite the opposite. Those who voted for Sharon voted for the enlargement of settlements. I am not sure to what extent they fully realized this when they went to the polls. Now they do. I think many of them would rather spend the limited resources we have on other social concerns: welfare, health, education, employment. These are as pressing as the need for further settlements, even according to this government's agenda, which is the most oakish in Israel's history.
The Fence
People ask me repeatedly about the fence. I was against the idea at first, believing at that time in bridges rather than fences, in building relationships instead of divorce. I believed that the fence will not foster mutual co-existence and wanted to find a solution that would be based on trust and mutual cooperation. After some months during which more violence ensued and Israel became a target to grave and bloody terrorist attack with a terrible price, hundreds of people killed and injured, I changed my mind as. Some eighteen months ago I finally deserted the co-existence option and adopted the view of divorce, this in light of generals' estimations that a fence could halt some eighty percent of the suicide attacks.
Having said that, I thought that the wise thing is to construct the fence along he 1967 Green Line borders. If you declare divorce, both sides of the divorce should be as happy as possible. The Sharon government is constructing the fence in a way that would make Israel as big as possible, and the future Palestine as small as possible. The Palestinian Authority cannot be expected to be happy with such a settlement. The fence suffocates them and robs them. The result is building a costly fence that might be removed because it is unjust and unfair. It also means that the children on both sides are going to suffer, as is the case in every unhappy divorce.
On 1 October Israel's government approved construction of new barriers deep inside the West Bank to shield several large Jewish settlements. The move significantly expands the scope of the already fence to wall off much of the West Bank.
Read the following: "Defense Ministry Director-General Amos Yaron agreed in a meeting with Al-Quds University President Sari Nusseibeh Monday that the security fence in Jerusalem would not pass through the middle of the campus as originally planned" (Jerusalem Post, 30 Sept. 2003). How considerate!
The road map and the recent Geneva accord
I was asked about the road map. The roadmap plan was too demanding, too far-reaching without respect to the challenging reality that could not stand to what was required. There it too much hostility, mistrust and bad blood between the two sides, both are fed by radical governments and media that - generally speaking support their respective government. Therefore I support the more moderate Gaza First Plan.
What about the recent Beilin-Abbed Rabbo Geneva accord?
Two important considerations are timing and leadership. Both are not conducive to such initiative that essentially reiterated the 2000 Camp David and Taba proposals, made by Barak and Beilin, and rejected then by Arafat. The same man says now that he welcomes the initiative. You are most welcome to believe him. I have no reason to join you. I don't trust the Palestinians to carry their side of the deal. I think the Geneva accord is fair but the time is not ripe to implement it. I continue to think that a piecemeal process is preferable, namely Gaza First. Sometimes I feel like old Cato.
Terrorism
The phenomenon of suicide bombers is spreading rapidly to Iraq. Don’t be astonished if the suicide bombing phenomenon will spread to other parts of the world.
Every once in a while people ask me to join political petitions and I usually decline and do not pass them around. This one is exceptional. Please read the following petition which asks the United Nations to treat suicide bombings as war crimes and that those who inspire them be prosecuted by the International War Crimes Tribunal.
The Call for UN & World Leaders to Prosecute Organizers of Suicide/Homicide Bombings, performing acts of terror against Civilians, as War Criminals, was initiated by Scholars for Peace in the Middle East and written by Dr. Edward S. Beck.
1 [one] million signatures are being sought for this petition.
Click on the following and please take 10 seconds to sign.
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/bombings/petition.html
If you can, please cut and send this message to other friends, of whatever faith, who might also agree to sign the petition.
Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit)
In Israel, Yesh Gvul (There Is A Limit) Movement together with five prominent writers appealed to open an investigation regarding the killing of Salah Shchade. A bomb weighing one ton was released from an aircraft carrier, killing not only the chief terrorist but also 14 other people and wounded some 150 others. Dan Chalutz, head of our air force, said in the following moment that he "slept comfortably at night", a statement that enraged many people with some conscience and appreciation for human life. I would be surprised if the Court will decide to intervene in a meaningful way in such security considerations.
Consider the following: suppose that the suicide bomber at the Maxim restaurant were to follow the calm sleeper, Dan Chalutz, find out that he uses to eat at Maxim on Shabbat with his family, and bombs herself to pieces next to his table, killing some twenty other people in the blast. Would you condone her action?
Palestinian poll
These are the results of opinion poll # 9, conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) between 07-14 October 2003. The poll deals with Arafat’s popularity and other domestic issues, peace and security, public perception of the United States, and local elections. The total sample size of this poll is 1318 from Palestinians 18 years and older, interviewed face-to-face in West Bank (823) and in Gaza Strip (495), in 120 locations. The margin of error is 3%.
The findings show widespread support, reaching 75%, for the suicide attack at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, where 20 Israelis were killed. More than two thirds believe that the Roadmap is dead and 78% believe that current Israeli measures, including the building of the separation wall, reduces that chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the future. Nonetheless, almost two thirds support a return to the Hunda, 85% support mutual cessation of violence, and, for the first time since the establishment of the PA, 59% support taking measures to prevent attacks on Israelis after reaching an agreement on mutual cessation of violence. Furthermore, about two thirds still support a solution based on two states: Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Main Results:
(1) Arafat and Palestinian Domestic Conditions:
• Arafat’s popularity increases from 35% last June to 50% in this poll. This is his highest level of support in five years.
• About 80% of Palestinians believe that Arafat has become stronger and more popular due to Israeli threat to expel or assassinate him.
• Two thirds support Arafat’s declaration of state of emergency while 26% oppose it
• 61% support the appointment of Ahmad Qurai (Abu Ala’) as prime minister and 27% oppose it, but only 48% are willing, and 37% unwilling, to give confidence to his government.
• 60% support placing all Palestinian security services under the command of a national security council headed by Arafat.
• 46% believe that Abu Ala’ and his government will be more capable than Abu Mazen and his government in dealing with Arafat and the presidency; only 12% believe in the opposite.
• But only 22% believe that Abu Ala’ and his government will be more capable than Abu Mazen and his government in reaching an agreement with Israel; 23% believe in the opposite.
• While 62% believe that Abu Ala’ and his government will be able to return to negotiations with Israel, only 33% believe they will be able to control the security situation and enforce a ceasefire. 44% believe they will be able to carry out political reforms.
• Fall of Abu Mazen and his government is the equal responsibility of Arafat and Israel (27% each). Only 17% put the blame on Abu Mazen himself.
• 32% are satisfied with the reform steps taken by Abu Mazen and 54% are not satisfied
• 90% support internal and external calls for extensive political reforms.
• 82% believe there is corruption in the PA and 71% believe that corruption will increase or remain the same in the future.
• Popularity of Fatah increases slightly from 26% last June to 28% in this poll. Hamas’ popularity remains almost unchanged (21%). Total support for Islamists reaches 29% compared to 31% last June.
• Marwan Barghouti (who is jailed in Israel) remains the most popular Palestinian figure for the position of vice president 17%, followed by Abdul Aziz Rantisi (14% compared to 3% in an open-ended question last June), Sa’eb Erikat (9%), Ahmad Yasin and Haidar Abdul Shafi (7% each), Farouq Qaddoumi and Hanan Ashrawi (5% each), Ahmad Quarie’ (4%), Mohammad Dahlan (2%), and Mahmoud Abbas (1%).
The most dramatic development has been the increase in the popularity of Abdul Aziz Rantisi, one of the main Hamas leaders, rising to 14% compared to 3% in an open-ended question last June. The increase in the popularity of Rantisi may reflect the public response to repeated Israeli attempt to assassinate him.
(2) Peace and Security:
• 75% support the suicide attack at Maxim Restaurant in Haifa leading to the death of 20 Israelis.
• 78% believe that current Israeli measures, including the building of the separation wall, reduce the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the future.
• But 64% still support a two-state solution (Israel and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip), while only 12% support a one-state solution (for Palestinians and Israelis). 21% want all Palestine back to the Palestinians.
• Percentage of those believing that armed confrontations will not stop and negotiations will not resume soon increases from 24% last June to 39% in this poll. 46% (compared to 56% last June) believe that the two sides will return to negotiations while some violence will continue.
• 68% believe that the roadmap is dead, but 28% believe that it can still be implemented
• 64% want a return to the Hudna that prevailed few weeks ago while 34% oppose it; but 85% (compared to 80% last June) support a mutual cessation of violence while only 14% oppose it.
• If an agreement is reached on a mutual cessation of violence, 59% (compared to 50% last June) would support taking measures by the PA to prevent attacks on Israelis.
• Despite the widespread support for the Hudna and the mutual cessation of violence, 58% would still support Hamas’ decision to oppose the ceasefire.
• 59% believe that current armed confrontations have helped the Palestinians achieve national rights in ways that negotiations could not. In June, 65% shared that belief.
•
(3) Perceptions of the US:
• 96% believe that the US is not sincere when it says it works toward the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
• 92% believe that the US is not sincere when it says it wants political reforms and clean government in the PA.
• 78% believe the US is not serious in its declared opposition to the Israeli decision to expel or assassinate President Yasir Arafat.
• 97% believe the current US policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is biased in favor of Israel.
• But Palestinian evaluation of the current US conditions and policies varies on case by case basis. For example, positive evaluation reaches 85% when evaluating American medicine, science, and technology, and reaches 74% when evaluating the status of gender equality, and 63% when evaluating the status of US economic conditions. Positive evaluation drops to 53% with regards to arts and entertainment, 53% with regard to freedom of press and expression, and 44% to democracy and respect for human rights. Positive evaluation drops further when it comes to treatment of minorities (17%), respect for religious freedom (27%), or foreign policy (23%).
The US response to 11 September has affected Palestinian evaluation of internal American conditions regarding human rights, religious freedom and treatment of minorities especially Arabs and Muslims. The Bush Administration’s support for Israeli assassination and incursion policy contributed to the clear distrust in the US intentions in the peace process. While half of the Palestinians were convinced last June the belief that President Bush was determined to implement the Roadmap and move the peace process forward, this conviction has completely disappeared in this poll.
For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki or Ayoub Mustafa at Tel 02-2964933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org
Patch Adams
My very first cultural event at Hopkins was Patch Adams’s lecture at Hopkins. This guy excels in one liners. Concise ones.
What do you think about abortion?
I am in favour. I grew up in the 1960s (an impressive argument indeed).
What do you think about euthanasia? I am in favour (I guess the assertion is also the argument).
What do you think about the war in Iraq? Negative. Violence is never the way. We should have strove to teach Saddam Hussein how to love (brilliant).
What do you think of the Israel-Palestinian conflict?
Two state solution and evacuation of all settlements. No doubt about it (also no mentioning of the 2000 Camp David talks.).
Adams received a round of applause which prompted him to add one more sentence: And the US government should support the Palestinians to the same extent it supports Israel. More applause.
If everything would be so easy. We just learn how to love, cease violence and all will be fine. Mr. Adams has very good ideas and policies as to how to treat sick people (some depicted in Robin Williams' noteworthy film). His ability to analyze situations is impressive to the extent that the above answers are impressive. He does not even realize that he serves the interests of some more complex people with more complex agendas.
Hopkins news
Hopkins Professor Peter Agre was named co-winner of the 2003 Nobel Prize for Chemistry.
Dr. Agre, professor of biological chemistry and medicine in the School of Medicine, is the 30th person associated with Johns Hopkins to win a Nobel Prize. Not bad for such a small university.
Personal
I have problems with my e-mail. Some people told me that they wrote me but for some reason I did not receive their messages. My apology. In any event, it is advisable to write to both my Haifa and Hopkins addresses:
ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il and rcohena1@jhu.edu
With my very best wishes,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com
Earlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Thursday, October 09, 2003
October 2003
Mark Biano
Dear friends and colleagues,
The last weekend was a long one for me. CNN brought the news about the suicide bombing at Maxim immediately after it happened on Saturday 4 October 2003, but without names of casualties. I logged to Haaretz newspaper website first thing Tuesday morning and was shocked to see that Mark Biano, age 29, and his wife were the first names on the list of casualties. I was literally shivering.
Mark was one of the best research students I've ever had in eighteen years of teaching. He submitted a seminar paper that, in my opinion, could have been developed into a very good MA thesis. His final grade was the highest in the class. As a matter of fact, his seminar paper was so good that I proposed to invest some more work in it and to submit the paper for scholarly publication. May I note that I rarely suggested this to an undergraduate student. Mark’s case was one of those exceptional occasions that a teacher feels he or she was truly enlightened by the impressive academic scholarship of a seminar student.
The article is still under consideration. I encouraged Mark to pursue MA in our department of communication and was happy when he decided to rejoin our department as a graduate student. I will miss him.
Mark was a highly motivated, serious person, with a somewhat shy smile on his face. He was a person that always thought at least two steps ahead. In everything that he did, he tried to do it in the best possible way. He was a dedicated student, a dedicated journalist, and I am sure a dedicated family man. When he spoke about his wife, his smile always became larger, and he seemed taller than he was. He was a delightful man to have around.
I called upon the University of Haifa authorities to seek a way to honour his name. One way that comes to mind is to call an excellence research scholarship upon his name. I hope the university will give this a serious consideration. If my Center for Democratic Studies will succeed in raising the necessary money for its operations, I pledge to establish a scholarship fund in Mark's memory.
The loss is a national loss. Mark had a promising career in front of him in the field of journalism. He was making his first steps in the local media in Haifa and I was certain that his talent would lead him to prominent positions.
Mark's photos are available on a website established by the Haifa Department of Communication: http://www.hevra.haifa.ac.il/com/mark/index.htm
Hoping for better days,
Rafi
Mark Biano
Dear friends and colleagues,
The last weekend was a long one for me. CNN brought the news about the suicide bombing at Maxim immediately after it happened on Saturday 4 October 2003, but without names of casualties. I logged to Haaretz newspaper website first thing Tuesday morning and was shocked to see that Mark Biano, age 29, and his wife were the first names on the list of casualties. I was literally shivering.
Mark was one of the best research students I've ever had in eighteen years of teaching. He submitted a seminar paper that, in my opinion, could have been developed into a very good MA thesis. His final grade was the highest in the class. As a matter of fact, his seminar paper was so good that I proposed to invest some more work in it and to submit the paper for scholarly publication. May I note that I rarely suggested this to an undergraduate student. Mark’s case was one of those exceptional occasions that a teacher feels he or she was truly enlightened by the impressive academic scholarship of a seminar student.
The article is still under consideration. I encouraged Mark to pursue MA in our department of communication and was happy when he decided to rejoin our department as a graduate student. I will miss him.
Mark was a highly motivated, serious person, with a somewhat shy smile on his face. He was a person that always thought at least two steps ahead. In everything that he did, he tried to do it in the best possible way. He was a dedicated student, a dedicated journalist, and I am sure a dedicated family man. When he spoke about his wife, his smile always became larger, and he seemed taller than he was. He was a delightful man to have around.
I called upon the University of Haifa authorities to seek a way to honour his name. One way that comes to mind is to call an excellence research scholarship upon his name. I hope the university will give this a serious consideration. If my Center for Democratic Studies will succeed in raising the necessary money for its operations, I pledge to establish a scholarship fund in Mark's memory.
The loss is a national loss. Mark had a promising career in front of him in the field of journalism. He was making his first steps in the local media in Haifa and I was certain that his talent would lead him to prominent positions.
Mark's photos are available on a website established by the Haifa Department of Communication: http://www.hevra.haifa.ac.il/com/mark/index.htm
Hoping for better days,
Rafi