29 February 2004
On Gaza, Jerusalem, the Fence, Ambassador Francke, "Tabloid boom", Deliberate Intent, Conscientious Objection, and More
Dear friends and colleagues,
Thank you for your questions, queries and concerns regarding recent developments. I will address them one to one, and will also reflect on some other issues that came to my attention during the past month.
Gaza
People have contacted me to inquire about Prime Minister Sharon's recent statements and plans regarding Gaza, and whether they coincide with my repeated calls since 2001 to implement Gaza First. Well, hold your horses and celebrations. Sharon's version of the Plan is quite different from mine, and the timetable for its execution is unclear.
According to the Sharon version, 17 Gaza settlements will be evacuated, moving the 7,500 residents living there into the State of Israel. Sharon also intends to evacuate another three settlements in Samaria. Sharon made clear that the intent is "to move settlements from places where they cause us problems or places where we won't remain in a permanent arrangement," adding that he has already ordered evacuation plans to be drawn up that include the technical, financial and legal issues at stake in such a withdrawal (Haaretz, February 4, 2004).
The publication of the plan caused controversy across the political spectrum. On the right, there are threats to bring down the government as well as rhetoric about values being betrayed. On the left, there is little faith in the prime minister's statements, although Shimon Peres is obviously excited with the renewed prospects of returning to the government. The Palestinian Authority also has voiced skepticism, attributing Sharon's plans to a public relations campaign prior to his upcoming trip to Washington. After all, trusting Sharon is a tricky thing. The person is notorious for voicing contradictory opinions, even in the very same week, designed to please everybody and anybody. You don't know to whom you should believe, to Sharon of Monday, or to Sharon of Thursday. "Political pragmatism", Sharon would call it. This zigzag conduct undermines trust and credibility, this is at time when Sharon is investing time and energy to counter all sorts of allegations of corruption, and taking of bribes.
Sharon has made promising statements before and has done little to follow them up. Having pronounced all cautionary words, it does seem that Sharon is aware that Jews and Arabs are reaching parity in the combined populations of Israel and the occupied lands, and that only by withdrawing from Palestinian territory can Israel remain a Jewish and democratic state. However, his conduct and plans undermine most of the gains that I thought the Gaza First Plan could garner.
Noam Chomsky wrote in his NY Times article of February 23, 2004: "it… seems likely that Israel will transfer to the occupied West Bank the 7,500 settlers it said this month it would remove from the Gaza Strip. These Israelis now enjoy ample land and fresh water, while one million Palestinians barely survive, their meager water supplies virtually unusable. Gaza is a cage, and as the city of Rafah in the south is systematically demolished, residents may be blocked from any contact with Egypt and blockaded from the sea."
I hope Sharon will prove him wrong and will not make this stupid move of transferring people from one problematic place to another. All the gains that he could have achieved by evacuating Gaza will be lost if he will do this. All the credit he could have gained in the international arena would fade away. Is Sharon oblivious to the role of Israel among the nations?
Furthermore, I spoke of recognition of a Palestinian state, inviting Chairperson Arafat to establish an independent sovereign state in the Strip while Israel closely scrutinizes the region’s security. I explained that with sovereignty comes accountability. I also spoke of the need not to suffocate Gaza economically, and of coordinating the move with Dahlan so as to ensure that the Strip will not fall into the hands of the Hamas. Sharon shows little concern for the Palestinians, not realizing that it is an Israeli interest to behave in a decent manner to the Palestinians, not to ignore them, to assist them in achieving statehood viability. The gains in the international arena that I indicated as resulting from the Gaza First Plan as I was depicting it are evaporating when we witness Sharon's conduct, like an elephant in a china store. He definitely needs some good PR people around him. What poor communication. What a shame. For the first time he is willing to do something different from killing and retaliation, something positive and constructive to change the course of history for the better, but Israel receives very little appreciation. Sharon is doing too many mistakes. We can smell the end of his reign.
The next elections will be in either 2005 or 2006. Sharon will need to practice his survival skills to get there, and then I am not sure whether he will be the Likud leader. The number of his enemies is increasing steadily.
Jerusalem – city of misery
On January 29, 2004 there was yet another atrocious attack on Jerusalem. I usually start the day by listening to CNN. Jerusalem was the opening item. I could not understand how the anchors could smile and even laugh a minute after speaking of the incident, when showing an unflattering photo of James Brown the singer. Not all people are sensitive. Maybe they are accustomed. Maybe it is their defence mechanism. Possibly the geographic remoteness. I don't know. But I felt bad looking at their smiling faces. In Israel this could not happen. The faces are grim as the event.
On February 22, 2004 the city of tears and misery was shocked by a further attack. A Palestinian suicide bomber killed himself and at least eight other passengers aboard a crowded bus in the center of Jerusalem a day before the International Court of Justice was to start hearings about the West Bank barrier that Israel says it needs to block such attacks.
The rush-hour blast wounded more than 50 people. More agony and sorrow.
Voice from the past
I am preparing for the course that I am now teaching, The Theatre of Terror, and came across the following hypothesis, expressed in 1981: One of the major goals of Palestinian terror is to promote violent responses from Israeli authorities that will be violent enough to anger Israel’s allies, erode domestic support for the Israeli government, and demonstrate that the Israelis are not the “good guys” in this conflict (“The Unholy War,” ABC news, 20/20, April 2, 1981).
The goal has been achieved.
The Fence
People continue to ask me what I think about the fence. I reiterate what I said in the past: I am a man who believes in bridges, not in fences, who tries to focus on what unites people rather than on what separates them. Consequently I opposed the idea of the fence for quite some time. I changed my mind in March 2002, after the vicious attack on Hotel Park in Netanya on the eve of Passover, our Thanksgiving, and after hearing our generals' estimates that the fence could block some eighty percent of the attacks on Israel. After exhausting attempts for peace, a new phase had opened: divorce. The fence is needed to practice the divorce idea. We can't live like this, in constant anxiety and fear. However, the implementation of the fence is wrong. The fence should have been constructed along the Green Line so as to create a just two-state-solution. Prime Minister Sharon had and has a different idea in mind: greater Israel as possible, and tiny Palestine. The result is more bloodshed, children crying (as is the case in every nasty divorce), and the Hague Court of Justice.
Ambassador Rand Rahim Francke
Rand Rahim Francke, the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. came to address quite a full auditorium at Hopkins. She has been residing in the U.S. since 1980. Talking about U.S. foreign policy and Iraq, she began her lecture by detailing Saddam's atrocities against the Iraqi people, comparing him to Hitler and Stalin. Ms. Rahim Francke showed gruesome photos of mass graves and the results of Ali Chemical's campaign against the Kurds: men, women, children lying dead in the streets. Ambassador Rahim Francke estimated that the Saddam regime murdered some 2 million Iraqis since the 1970s.
Ambassador Rahim Francke described the shattered Iraqi economy since 1984, the result of Saddam military dictatorship and his excessive investment in security and war campaigns. But then she said that today, "under American freedom", every house has at least one TV dish, and that the Iraqi people buy computers and discover the Internet.
Ambassador Rahim Francke asserted she was reluctant to speak on security issues in Iraq but nevertheless said that those who are attacking American soldiers are terrorists because they primarily kill Iraqis in those attacks, claiming that those terrorists come from outside Iraq to kill Americans and Iraqis.
Ambassador Rahim Francke said that Iraqis debate on the American presence in Iraq, and that some describe this situation as occupation, using this word "occupation". But there is no doubt that "100 percent of Iraqis are happy with the American occupation".
Sometimes, more often during question time, when she did not read from her notes, Ambassador Rahim Francke was referring to the Iraqi people by using the word "they".
I stepped out of the auditorium somewhat confused. I wondered whether I heard the Iraqi Ambassador to the U.S. or the American Ambassador to Iraq.
"Tabloid boom"
In a country where broadsheet has always been associated with quality, The Independent and The Times have sparked a revolution in the United Kingdom by launching tabloid versions of their dailies. The editors of the two papers will face off at the World Editors Forum later this year on the implications for newsrooms of the "tabloid boom" that is occurring world-wide.
In the quest to attract commuters and other readers who favour a compact size, The Independent launched a tabloid-size newspaper with the same content as its broadsheet late last year. It kept the broadsheet in many markets because it didn't want to lose readers who were satisfied with it.
The Times quickly followed suit. And though putting out identical content in different formats means extra work for the newsroom and other departments, the results have been spectacular -- both newspapers have reported circulation gains in the tens of thousands with the new editions.
I hope that more broadsheet will follow. The innovation of the broadsheet newspaper was probably done by a person who had long arms, sharp eyes, quick hands to fold the paper, who never used public transportation, enjoyed sitting comfortably on the back seat of his car while his chauffeur takes him from one place to another, keeping silent. Well, most people are not that fortune. It is sometimes amusing to watch other people straggling to read a broadsheet on a bus or subway, covering their neighbour with the newspaper, and trying hard to fold the paper without making a complete mess of it. It is less amusing when you are the reader. Common sense does prevail. Sometimes it is hesitant, sometimes it takes time, but there is no point to keep this uncomfortable format just to distinguish oneself from the "yellows". Quality of content makes the difference, not the format. As we say in Hebrew: Don't look at the vase but in what there is in it.
Travels
I continue my travels in North America, this month to Galveston, Texas, where I delivered The Samuel G. Dunn Lectureship in Medicine and the Humanities, at the Institute for the Medical Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch. I also gave two talks at Case Western University: one at the Department of Bioethics on "Euthanasia in the Netherlands: The Policy and Practice of Mercy Killings", on my forthcoming book; the other at School of Law on "The Scope of Tolerance", presenting the book I am working on now.
On March 5, noon, I am invited to present my Euthanasia in the Netherlands at the Dept. of Clinical Bioethics, NIH. Colleagues and friends in the DC area are invited.
With my family we went to Philadelphia, a great and interesting city. We visited all the constitution/independence/liberty sites and museums and learnt a lot about the American history. Philly is a must for anyone interested in US history, a fascinating place.
While in Texas it was brought to my attention that the Republican Party is Gerrymandering the borders of Texas and other states, thereby increasing their power and bring the downfall of the Democratic Party. I understand they do their best to do this within the confines of the law. After the 2000 elections in Florida, the Democrats will need a very strong case to win an appeal against Gerrymandering in this Supreme Court.
I thanks Bill Winslade, Dena Davis and Jessica Berg for their kind invitations and hospitality.
Deliberate Intent
Since 1991 I have been teaching free speech issues. For years I have argued that no censorship should be introduced on books. I changed my mind in 1999, when I first heard of the Rice v. Paladin case (No. 96-2412, 128 F.3d 233 (November 10, 1997).
For those who are not familiar with the issue, it concerns a publication by Paladin Press how to become a successful hit-man. Essentially, it is a manual instructing how to kill people for money, and to get away without punishment.
I now completed Rod Smolla's account of the affair. His book, Deliberate Intent (NY: Crown, 1999), is written for lay people. It is not a masterpiece, and could have benefited from a thorough editorial that would leave some parts of the book on the floor. However, it is an interesting book written by a First Amendment scholar, who accommodated his views on free expression as he became involved in the case. Those interested in free speech issues and struggle with the issue of boundaries may consider reading it, as well as the court judgment.
Mazal Tov and Congratulations
Books
M.N.S. Sellers, Republican Legal Theory: The History, Constitution and Purposes of Law in a Free State (Houndmills: Palgrave, 2003).
Albert R. Jonsen, Mark Siegler and William J. Winslade, Clinical Ethics (NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002).
John Lantos, The Lazarus Case: Life and Death Issues in Neonatal Intensive Care (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001).
Please consider ordering these books to your respective libraries.
Conscientious Objection
Roberto Ricci, my tireless Italian friend who devotes all his immense energies to better this world, had sent me the following report. I know that some people on the listserve are interested in this topic.
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
II. Conscientious objection in Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
A. Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. In practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
III. International human rights norms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV. Ben Artzi trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. The long fight against enlistment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. 08.10.2003 hearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
D. The ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Report
ISRAEL
CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TACKLED BY MILITARY JUSTICE
Ben Artzi Trial
(7 - 10 October 2003)
MISSION OF OBSERVATION
n°376/2- December 2003
THE OBSERVATORY
for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
L’OBSERVATOIRE
pour la protection
des défenseurs des droits de l’Homme
EL OBSERVATORIO
para la Protección
de los Defensores de los Derechos Humanos
International Federation
for Human Rights
17, passage de la Main d’Or
75011 Paris - France
World Organisation
Against Torture
8, rue du Vieux-Billard
BP 21, 1211 Genève 8 - Suisse
FIDH / P A G E 2
The mission
Very much concerned about the situation of the conscientious
objectors arbitrarily detained in Israel for refusing to serve in
the Army and following up the tremendous debate that has
taken place over the right to conscientious objection deriving
from the right to freedom of conscience (universally
recognized as stated in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration
for Human Rights), the Observatory for the protection of
human rights defenders (FIDH and OMCT joint venture) gave
mandate, together with Avocats Sans Frontières/ Belgique, to
Mrs. Benedetta Odorisio, a political scientist, to observe and
report on the last hearing in the military trial of Jonathan Ben
Artzi on October 8, 2003.
The mission was carried out in Israel by Benedetta Odorisio
from 7 to 10 October 2003.
Executive summary
Jonathan (Yoni) Ben Artzi, a 20-year-old university student,
has been in detention since 8 August 2002, when he refused
to enlist for the military service. Yoni considers himself as a
pacifist and total conscientious objector and therefore objects
to serve in the army, in any capacity. He requested, however,
that he be given the possibility of performing a civil service.
After completing seven detention sentences, totaling 196
days, over 6 months, his case has been brought before the
court martial in Jaffa.
The trial has reached the final stage. On 8 October 2003,
defence counsel Adv. Michael Sfard argued that Yoni's had a
sincere belief in pacifism and had a right to disobey an illegal
military order. The last hearing took place after the Court had
heard the testimonies of Yoni's sister, a prison mate, and
Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) representatives who had been
responsible for his enlistment. At the end of the hearing, the
Court failed to set a date for announcing its verdict as it was
scheduled to. It is now expected by the end of November.
Yoni is not the only Conscientious Objector (CO) who is being
court martialled. The Military Court in Jaffa is also hearing the
cases of Noam Bahat, Adam Maor, Haggai Matar, Shinri
Tsameret and Matan Kaminer, who are among more than 300
"Shministim," or high school seniors, who refuse to serve in
military forces involved in the occupation of Palestinian
Territories. Unlike Yoni they are selective COs, a category of
COs that is peculiar to Israel. They are not against war per se,
but against the occupation war.
This is the first time since the 1970's that COs have been
brought before a court martial. Previously, the usual practice
was to avoid recognizing COs while exempting them from
military service on other grounds after brief prison terms. This
practice, however, seems to be changing. None of them has
been dismissed like many other COs (total or selective) on
other grounds; they have already spent from 11 to 18 months
in military prisons and their trials are not over yet. It is
believed that this new strategy may be the result of the sharp
increase in the number of young refuseniks (those refusing to
serve in the Occupied Palestinian Territories), which may
become a threat to the image of the Israeli army and policy.
Concern has been expressed about the violation of the right
to freedom of conscience, thought and religion enshrined in
article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR), to which Israel is party. In its General
Comment 22, the Human Rights Committee (the expert body
overseeing the implementation of the Covenant by member
States ) stated that "the Covenant does not explicitly refer to
a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee believes
that such a right can be derived from article 18, inasmuch as
the obligation to use lethal force may seriously conflict with
the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one's
religion or belief. When this right is recognized by law or
practice, there shall be no differentiation among
conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their
particular beliefs; likewise, there shall be no discrimination
against conscientious objectors because they have failed to
perform military service."
The use of military courts to try COs is also source of concern.
Recommendations by human rights experts of the Sub-
Commission for the Promotion and Protection of Human
Rights indicate that civil courts should deal with similar cases
to ensure impartiality and independence.
ISRAEL CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION TACKLED BY MILITARY JUSTICE
I. Introduction
A. Legislation
Military service and conscientious objection in Israel are
regulated by the Defence Service Law of 1986. It requires all
Israeli citizens and residents to perform military service, three
years for men and two years for women. Section 36(1) of the
Defence Service Law gives the Minister of Defence a general
discretion to exempt anyone from military service. The
Minister of Defence has used his powers to exempt general
categories of people as well as specific individuals. Israeli
citizens of Palestinian origin have been exempted from
compulsory military service since the establishment of the
State of Israel. This exemption was withdrawn from male
members of the small Druze and Circassian communities in
1956 and Druze and Circassian men have been subject to
conscription since then.1
The law also provides for various types of exemption from the
military service, discriminating between men and women.
Women are exempted:
a. on the ground of religious conviction, in which case no
inquiry is needed;
b. on reasons of conscience, in which case the woman
requesting the exemption will have to present her case to a
Committee composed of civilians.
While the 1986 law explicitly recognizes conscientious
objection for women, it does not contain a similar provision for
men. The law provides for the exemption from the military
service of anyone "for reasons connected with the
requirements of education, security, settlement or the
national economy, or for family or for other reasons". It is
under "other reasons" that the category of conscientious
objectors (CO) falls. Conscientious objection is therefore
admitted but is not recognized as a right.
On 20 December 2002, the Supreme Court passed an
important judgment on the Zonschein case reaffirming the
possibility of granting exemptions from military service for
reasons of conscientious objection. It noted that "all agree
that exemptions for conscientious reasons are included in
those 'other reasons', which allow exemption from regular or
reserve service." It refers to total conscientious objection only.
In fact, it ruled out the possibility of selective objection (that is
the exemption from service deriving from an objection to a
specific war or military operation) for reasons of national
security. The Court held that "the phenomenon of selective
conscientious objection would be broader than 'full' objection,
and would evoke an intense feeling of discrimination
'between blood and blood'. Moreover, it affects security
considerations themselves, since a group of selective
objectors would tend to increase in size. Additionally, in a
pluralistic society such as ours, recognising selective
conscientious objection may loosen the ties, which hold us
together as a nation. Yesterday, the objection was against
serving in South Lebanon. Today, the objection is against
serving in Judea and Samaria. Tomorrow, the objection will be
against vacating this or that settlement. The army of the
nation army may turn into an army of different groups
comprised of various units, to each of which it would be
conscientiously acceptable to act in certain areas, whereas it
would be conscientiously unacceptable to act in others. In a
polarised society such as ours, this consideration weighs
heavily. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to distinguish
between one who claims conscientious objection in good
faith and one who, in actuality, objects to the policy of the
government or the Knesset, as it is a fine distinction -
occasionally an exceedingly fine distinction - between
objecting to a state policy and between conscientious
objection to carry out that policy."
The Defence Service Law does not provide for an alternative
form of civil service for conscientious objectors. COs are
allowed to carry out functions in the army not requiring the
use of weapons or are completely exempted from performing
any service. But in no case are they given the possibility of
performing a civilian national service. Such an option is
reserved for religious Jewish women only.
In order to determine who is a genuine CO and who is just
trying to avoid the military service for reasons of personal
comfort, the Minister of Defence set up, within the Israeli
Armed Forces (IDF), a Conscientious Objection Committee
(hereafter "Committee" or "CC"), in 1995. This move was
considered necessary after the State of Israel adhered to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1991.
The discrimination existing between men and women is again
evident. While women are reviewed by an entirely civilian
Committee, the Conscience Committee for male COs was
composed solely of five army representatives. Recently it was
decided to include a civilian. Since its inception, the
Conscience Committee for male COs has been working
without any formal legal status, with no precise definition of
who is a CO. No official document of its methods of work has
ever been published.
Conscientious objection is not considered to be a civil issue,
and trials against COs are dealt with by military tribunals.
Under Israeli law, every Israeli citizen becomes an IDF
member as soon as he/she receives the draft. Anyone who
refuses to enlist is thus subject to court martial.
B. In practice
Although a number of Israeli youngsters drafted every year
declare themselves to be conscientious objectors (total or
selective), almost none of them is recognized to fall in that
category by the CC. A number of them are forced through
psychological threats to enlist in the army. According to
testimonies of COs, members of the IDF draft board and of
the CC try to scare them or accuse them of being traitors in
order to convince them to join the army. Those who decide not
to give in, usually receive short consecutive prison terms (14
to 28 days). If they endure some three or four consecutive
prison terms, they are usually brought before an
"Incompatibility Committee", which usually gets rid of the
stubborn COs by declaring them unfit for the military service.
Another option often used is to exempt applicants on grounds
of physical/mental health.
In fact, it seems that any pretext is preferred rather than
accepting that a growing part of the Israeli society opposes in
principle any war or the specific occupation of Palestinian
territories.
Not surprisingly, only on few occasions has the Committee
recognized applicants' conscientious objection. People who
have been questioned by the Committee have had the clear
impression that, rather than detecting elements of a genuine
conscientious objection, its members tried to find a possible
alternative way for the conscript to serve the army.
The scarce statistical data available indicates the anti-COs
policy practiced in Israel. In 8 years, from 1995 until 2003,
there have been 148 18 years old applicants for
conscientious objection, of which only 9 exempted (of those,
3 were exempted this year). If we do not include 2003,
between 1995 and 2002 (7 years), out of 137 applicants,
only 6 were exempted, i.e. 4,3% of the applicants.2
Officially, the number of COs in Israel is extremely low.
However, the number of draftees who are exempt from the
military service is rising, following an increasing opposition
among many young conscripts and soldiers to participate in a
war which they consider illegal.
In the 1980s members of the army who refused to serve in
the occupation of Lebanon formed a movement called "Yesh
Gvul" (There is a limit). It is the eldest "Israeli peace group,
campaigning against the occupation by backing soldiers who
refuse duties of a repressive or aggressive nature."3
In recent years a number of new movements have emerged.
In 2001, the Shministim (hebrew for "high-school") youth
refusal movement was founded by 62 groups of young
political activists who refused to serve the occupation and
war crimes committed by the Israeli Forces in the occupied
territories. In 2002, a second letter addressed to Prime
Minister Sharon was signed by over 300 students.
In January 2002, new reserve combat officers and soldiers of
the IDF complained openly against the occupation war and
refused to fight outside Israel's pre-1967 borders "in order to
dominate, expel starve and humiliate an entire people".
Called "Courage to refuse", they gathered over 500
signatories and their initiative was publicly supported by over
300 Israeli academics.4
The latest initiative was undertaken in September 2003 by a
group of 27 Air Force pilots. In an open letter submitted to
their Chief, but intended for the political authorities, they
declared their refusal to take part in Air Force attacks against
civilian population centers resulting from the ongoing
occupation which they said is corrupting all of Israeli society.
At present, for the first time since the 1970s, a number of
conscientious objectors are been tried by a court martial:
- Jonathan Ben Artzi, a pacifist or total conscientious objector,
- Noam Bahat, Adam Maor, Haggai Matar, Shinri Tsameret and
Matan Kaminer, who declared themselves against the war of
occupation and are therefore regarded as selective
conscientious objectors,
- Dror Boymel, another selective CO who is being tried
separately.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights do not
explicitly mention the right to conscientious objection to
military service. However, in 1993, the Human Rights
Committee, the body of experts monitoring the
implementation of the Covenant, adopted General Comment
N. 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, and affirmed that the right to conscientious objection
to military service can be derived from article 18. Paragraph
11 states that :
"Many individuals have claimed the right to refuse to perform
military service (conscientious objection) on the basis that
such right derives from their freedoms under article 18. In
response to such claims, a growing number of States have in
their laws exempted from compulsory military service citizens
who genuinely hold religious or other beliefs that forbid the
performance of military service and replaced it with
alternative national service. The Covenant does not explicitly
refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee
believes that such a right can be derived from article 18,
inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously
conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to
manifest one's religion or belief. When this right is recognized
by law or practice, there shall be no differentiation among
conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their
particular beliefs; likewise, there shall be no discrimination
against conscientious objectors because they have failed to
perform military service. The Committee invites States parties
to report on the conditions under which persons can be
exempted from military service on the basis of their rights
under article 18 and on the nature and length of alternative
national service."5
In its concluding observations published after reviewing the
second Israeli periodic report in August 2003, the Committee
expressed its concern about the law and criteria applied and
generally adverse determinations in practice by military
judicial officers in individual cases of conscientious objection
(art. 18). It recommended that "the State party should review
the law, criteria and practice governing the determination of
conscientious objection, in order to ensure compliance with
article 18 of the Covenant."6
The Commission on Human Rights has been considering the
issue of conscientious objection to military service since
1985, based on the work carried out in the Sub-Commission.
Resolution 1998/77 is particularly important, since it:
- Defined the right of everyone to have conscientious
objections to military service as a legitimate exercise of the
right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as laid
down in article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights;
- Recognized that persons performing military service may
develop conscientious objections;
- Called upon States that do not have such a system to
establish independent and impartial decision-making bodies
with the task of determining whether a conscientious
objection is genuinely held in a specific case, taking account
of the requirement not to discriminate between
conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their
particular beliefs;
- Reminded States with a system of compulsory military
service, where such provision has not already been made, of
its recommendation that they provide for conscientious
objectors various forms of alternative service which are
compatible with the reasons for conscientious objection, of a
non-combatant or civilian character, in the public interest and
not of a punitive nature;
The use of military tribunals has also been thoroughly
considered by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and
Protection of Human Rights. In his first report to the Sub-
Commission, Mr. Emmanuel Decaux examines the
administration of justice through military tribunals, analysing
the jurisdiction ratione persone, temporis and materie. His
recommendation N.11 focusing on conscientious objection to
military service reads as follows:
"Conscientious objector status should be determined under
the supervision of an independent and impartial civil court
when the 'conscientious objectors' are civilians. When an
application for conscientious objector status is made during
the course of military service, it should not be punished as an
act of insubordination or desertion but considered in
accordance with the same procedure."7
The reasoning behind it, is that military tribunals are both
judges and parties in a case of military conscientious
objection and cannot, therefore, uphold the principles of
independence and impartiality.
The detention of COs has also been considered by the
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) set up by the
Commission on Human Rights to monitor the issue worldwide.
In its 2001 report to the Commission, the WGAD noted that:
"....conscientious objection - which has its theoretical basis in
the freedom of conscience and thus of opinion - gives rise,
particularly in countries that have not yet recognized
conscientious objector status, to repeated criminal
prosecutions followed by sentences of deprivation of liberty
which are renewed again and again.
The question before the Working Group was whether, after an
initial conviction, each subsequent refusal to obey a
summons to perform military service does or does not
constitute a new offence capable of giving rise to a fresh
conviction. If it does, deprivation of liberty, when applied to a
conscientious objector, is not arbitrary, provided that the rules
governing the right to a fair trial are respected. If it does not,
detention must be considered arbitrary as being in breach of
the principle of non bis in idem, a fundamental principle in a
country where the rule of law prevails, as born out by article
14, paragraph 7, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, which states that no one shall be liable to be
tried or punished again for an offence for which he has
already been finally convicted or punished. This principle is
the corollary of the principle of res judicata.
Notwithstanding the above, repeated incarceration in
cases of conscientious objectors is directed towards
changing their conviction and opinion, under threat of
penalty. The Working Group considers that this is
incompatible with article 18, paragraph 2, of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under
which no one shall be subject to coercion, which would
impair his freedom to have or adopt a belief of his choice.
Accordingly, the Working Group recommends that all
States that have not yet done so adopt appropriate
legislative or other measures to ensure that conscientious
objector status is recognized and attributed, in accordance
with an established procedure, and that, pending the
adoption of such measures, when de facto objectors are
prosecuted, such prosecutions should not give rise to more
than one conviction, so as to prevent the judicial system
from being used to force conscientious objectors to change
their convictions."8
8. Report of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to the Commission on Human Rights, E/CN.4/2001/14, para. 91-94.
A. Background
Jonathan (Yoni) Ben Artzi, is a-20-year-old maths and physics
university student who has been in detention since 8 August
2002, after he refused to enlist for the military service. Yoni
considers himself a pacifist and therefore objects to serve in
the army in any capacity.
In an interview with the Guardian newspaper, he explained
that from the time he was old enough to be familiar with the
army, he has known he would never wear its uniform. But he
did not really know why until he went to Verdun, where more
than 700,000 men died in the First World War. "I always knew
I wouldn't go into the army but I came to realise why when I
was 14. We visited France and some of the battlefields and I
saw the rows and rows of graves," he says. "Then I realised the
stupidity of it. So many lives sacrificed and they didn't really
know what they were fighting for. They were never told the
truth."9
Yoni requested, however, that he be given the possibility of
performing a civil service for the three-year length of the
national service. The Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) countered
with a proposed alternative service in the army that would not
require the use of weapons and the obligation to wear the
uniform.
The IDF refused to recognize his pacifism and brought him
before a military court. According to the Israeli law, he may be
sentenced up to three years in prison for his conscientious
objection. Meanwhile, pending a decision by the court, Yoni
spent almost 200 days in harsh military detention, and since
February 2003 has been held in "open detention" in a military
camp, in nothern Israel.
B. The long fight against enlistment
The recruitment process for the army started in 1999 when,
still a school student, Yoni was requested to pass an army
test. Yoni had already stated his intention not to enlist. March
2001 should have been the initial date for his military service.
The Conscience Committee (CC) first reviewed his case in May
2000. No decision was taken on the veracity of Yoni's
objection to serve the army, and the Committee decided to
postpone his enlistment to July 2001.
In May 2001, the CC summoned Yoni again and rejected his
request after a brief conversation. Following an appeal, in July
2001 the Supreme Court, sitting as an administrative court,
decided that the Committee should review the case and that
the claimant be allowed to have a lawyer and witnesses.
In November 2001, for the third time, Yoni appeared in front
of the CC defended by a lawyer. His claim was rejected again
on the grounds that he is a conflictive person and therefore
not a true pacifist. It was also stated that Yoni could not
conform to the military system.
Yoni Ben Artzi appealed the Committee's decision to the
Supreme Court on the grounds that the CC lacked expertise
and had ignored written testimonies. In May 2002, the Court,
deciding on the form and not on the substance, ruled that the
Committee had acted according to the law.
On 8 August 2002, Yoni began the first of seven consecutive
prison sentences at military prison N. 4. As soon as he was
released, he would receive a new draft order, refuse to serve
the army, and be sent to prison again.
On 17 February 2003, IDF decided to bring Yoni before a court
martial for refusing to serve in the army. At the claimant's
request to have a lawyer, the hearing was postponed to 19
February. On that same day, after 196 days of detention, Yoni
is put in "open detention" in a military base in Northern Israel,
meaning that he is obliged to reside there, with the
authorization to leave it every third weekend.
On 11 March 2003 the first hearing took place at the Jaffa
Military tribunal, with military judge Colonel Avi Levi
presiding. The Court was supposed to hear the charges
against Yoni. However, the defence raised the objection of
"double jeopardy", claiming that the consecutive prison
sentences are contrary to the fundamental principle
according to which one cannot be prosecuted for the same
crime twice (non bis in idem principle). The trial was therefore
delayed until 13 April 2003, when the Court informed the
defence that the objection of "double jeopardy" was rejected
without giving any reasoning. The following day, 14 April, the
prosecutor, Captain Yaron Kostelitz, proceeded to read the
formal indictment of denial of obeying a military order issued
against Yoni. He held that Ben Artzi is not a true conscientious
objector, but rather an "ideological" one since he opposes to
serve in the army because of his political views. Thus, he
could not be considered a real pacifist but only a selective CO.
Meanwhile, on 8 April 2003, Ben Artzi's defence counsel, Adv.
Michael Sfard and Adv. Avigdor Feldmann, on behalf of other
conscientious objectors, appealed to the Supreme Court that
cases against COs should be heard in a civil court, because,
as people refusing to serve in the army, they could not be
charged with the crime of disobeying a military order. They
should rather be charged with violating the duty to enlist,
which is a civil duty, and their cases should therefore heard by
a civil court. On 15 April, the petition was rejected, the
reasoning being that there are no substantive differences
between procedures of civil and military courts, both are
professional and impartial, and military courts' decisions can
be appealed to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, a civilian court
would, therefore, rule over the case.
On 28 May 2003, the Jaffa Military Court heard evidence from
the Military Drafting Unit Commander, Colonel Dvora Hassid,
on the fact that Yoni Ben Artzi was given a military order to
respond to duty and that he refused to obey this order.
Colonel Hassid gave evidence that Yoni was given various
alternatives to serve within the military system in tasks
compatible with his beliefs, including serving in a military
hospital, or not serving in a combat unit within the military.
However, he refused all alternatives on the basis that they still
involved service for the army. He opposed any military service
that he believed would support the "militarisation of the
State", and that he would be prepared to serve alternative,
non-military civilian service during his necessary three years
compulsory State service. During her testimony, Colonel
Hassid made it clear that her only duty was to make sure by
any means available that the youth enlist and it was not her
duty comprehend their conscience.
The Prosecutor attempted to deny Ben Artzi the right to
present his oral evidence regarding his beliefs, arguing that
the military court should simply uphold the previous decision
of the Conscience Committee. However, Adv. Sfard
emphasised that the High Court did not reject outright Ben
Artzi's claim to be a pacifist and specifically said that: "we
perhaps would have ruled differently from the Conscience
Committee but we did not consider it our role to interfere." The
military judge allowed Ben Artzi to give direct evidence of how
his pacifist beliefs were formed from an extremely young age.
Ben Artzi gave detailed evidence of his beliefs, stating that his
objection to the military, military service and militarisation of
the State did largely derive from his political ideology and
beliefs as they developed from a young age as well as specific
incidents. However, he considered that his total conscientious
objection or pacifism were separate from his political ideolog.
Having a distinct political ideology should not mean that he
cannot be considered to also hold genuine beliefs of total
conscientious objection or pacifism, he said.10
On 23 June 2003, the Court heard the testimony of Yoni's
sister and of Yoni Yechezkel - a refuser who shared prison
terms with his namesake. Ruti Ben-Artzi, 12 years older
than her brother, reported on how closely she had followed
his development. She recalled that already in the high
school he objected to lectures by officers who came to the
school to prepare children for military service. Nor did he
want to take part in school outings to such places as the
Mount Herzl National Cemetery. She witnessed how deeply
he was moved when the family visited Verdun, France and
saw cemeteries with hundreds of thousands of mostly
anonymous tombstones. 'How futile, the Germans and
French killing each other, and now they use both the same
currency.' She saw that he came back from France a
determined pacifist.11
Yoni Yechezkel, a refusenik who declared to be close to
Buddhist beliefs and ready to make all kind of compromises
(even seeing a psychologist) rather than serving the army, and
that, surprisingly, was the first applicant ever to be recognized
as a CO. The defence questioned, once again, the objectivity
and professionalism of the CC's work.
On 29 July 2003, the Court heard the testimony of Colonel
Schlomi Simchi, Chairman of the Conscience Committee.
During a long cross examination, the witness replied often in
an embarrassing manner, showing and acknowledging his
complete lack of interest in and knowledge of the issue of
conscientious objection. He admitted that the had never read
any publication on this subject and he knew very little. Despite
that, he and the other Committee members felt confident
enough to make their own decision without taking into
consideration the opinions of two experts provided by the
defence.
Colonel Simchi started by saying the Committee had never
exempted any conscript from the military service for reasons
of conscience. With vague replies, the witness stated that in
the Committee's views: Yoni was not pacifist, since he was an
argumentative and conflictive person, and the Committee
believed that he was acting out of his comfort and interest,
rather than pacifism. He noted that Yoni could not explain
logically the reasons for his pacifism, which proved that he
was not a true pacifist. Rather obscurely, Colonel Simchi
argued that Yoni was sincere in declaring his pacifism, but the
real issue was that he thought he was a pacifist, but in reality
he did not know he was not.
The defence succeeded in pointing out that the Committee
had neither a clear definition of who a pacifist is nor defined
work procedures, which explains in part the low figure of
young conscripts who apply each year.
The defence then sought the witness's views on the huge
difference existing between Israeli men and women COs, and
between conscientious objection in Israel and other parts of
the world. The witness was not aware of any existing
statistical data on the matter and could not see their
relevance. To the argument that in Israel 95 % of the
applications were rejected, while in other countries an
average of over 90% were accepted, he replied that the
Committee has nothing to learn from other countries.
On 10August 2003, the trial went on with the summation of
the Prosecutor. Unexpectedly, after the defence had started
with its summation, the Court recommended that the
Conscience Committee review Ben Artzi's case, on the
grounds of the "new circumstances" that had arisen. In fact,
a few months earlier, a civilian had joined the CC.
On 31 August, the IDF draft board rejected the court's
recommendation, arguing that the convening of a new
hearing would set a negative precedent, making it possible for
other COs to appeal to the CC's decision.
C. 08.10.2003 hearing
On 8 October 2003 the last hearing before the final verdict of
Yoni's trial took place before the court martial in Jaffa. The
whole hearing was devoted to the reply by the defence to the
accusations brought up by the prosecution. During three
hours the defence articulated the following points to prove the
sincerity of Yoni's pacifism:
i. Lack of professionalism by the Conscience Committee (CC),
charged with determining whether Yoni is a real pacifist
deserving exemption from the military service, based on
reasons of conscience. The defence underlined that the CC's
members were not knowledgeable about the issue of
conscientious objection and had not any written, clear
policy/criteria guiding the CC's work;
ii. The parameter of sincerity was not taken into
consideration. Although the CC chairman recognized that Yoni
was not lying, he thought that Yoni was making a mistake in
believing he was a pacifist;
iii. If Yoni was accused of not being able to defend his position
in a systematic and logical way, it is not for his lack of
conviction, but more probably due to the fact that pacifism is
more an instinctive principle than a rational one, as stated by
pacifist Albert Einstein;
iv. The discriminatory practice between men and women
conscientious objectors. The defence submitted statistical
data on female and male conscientious objectors recognized
by the Israeli army, proving an indirect discrimination. 95% of
women COs applicants are accepted every year, compared to
5% of men COs applicants;
v. Different and unfair treatment that Yoni received compared
to other conscientious objectors. The defence cited the
example of a conscientious objector who had agreed to do his
military service in the army by carrying out civilian duties role
and was exempted. He then questioned the real criteria
behind the CC's decisions.
After providing to the court the elements to prove Yoni's
genuine conscientious objection qualifying for the exemption
from the military service, as provided for in the 1986 Defence
Service Law, Yoni's lawyer proceeded to analyze the legal
consequences of Yoni's refusal to enlist in the army. The
defence argued that the order to enlist given to a pacifist is
illegal since it violates a person's dignity and fundamental
rights. Therefore, disobeying such an order is legal. Adv.
Michael Sfard underlined how, out of necessity, one can
violate a value in order to preserve another one.
D. The ruling
On 12 November 2003, the military court in Jaffa read out its
verdict in Jonathan Ben Artzi's trial, recognizing him as being
a pacifist whilst convicting him for failing to follow his draft
orders by acting on his beliefs.
The Military court, voiced by presiding judge Colonel Avi Levi,
stated as follows:
"We have become convinced of the sincerity of Jonathan Ben
Artzi's pacifist convictions, and we are far from feeling that the
Conscience Committee acted by its best when it rejected his
request for exemption.
The assertion that he wanted to avoid military service for
personal convenience does not stand up to the proven record
of his spending more than a year behind bars...
...A pacifist can have political opinion too. Objecting to Israel's
rule behind the Green Line is exactly the opinion which we
would expect a pacifist to hold and we would have been
surprised to find him holding a different one.
...The Conscience Committee is the constituted authority
entrusted with determining whether or not a person liable for
military service would or would not get an exemption. This
court is not empowered to act as a court of appeal upon the
Conscience Committee...
Nevertheless, we strongly call upon the military authorities and the minister of defence to review the facts of the case and to reconvene the Conscience Committee to discuss once again the issue of whether or not Yoni Ben Artzi should get an exemption from military service." Therefore, Yoni Ben Artzi is now waiting to appear before the Conscience Committee once again (no date being set for the moment). Meanwhile, he is still standing in open detention.
For the first time after many years, the IDF has decided to
bring conscientious objectors before a court martial, rather
than finding an alternative way out. Despite the fact that Yoni
has a very strong case, there is a feeling that his case is being
used to set an example.
As a veteran CO noted in an article, "it appears, at this point,
that the army continues to pursue the Ben Artzi case mainly
for reasons of prestige, since the case, which has received so
much media attention cannot be dropped inconspicuously."12
So far, Yoni spent 16 months in detention for his pacifist
beliefs. As reported by a journalist of the Guardian, he has
spent more time in prison "than any soldier jailed in recent
times for the "illegal killing" of an innocent Palestinian.13
As he was found guilty by the military court in Jaffa, Jonathan
Ben Artzi is allowed to appeal before a higher military court
and then to the Supreme Court. Should it be necessary to
appeal to the Supreme Court, Yoni might have to stay in open
detention, possibly for another year. His lawyer is waiting for
the next potential examination by the Conscience Committee
before taking any further legal step.
By refusing him the right to conscientious objection, Israel is
violating the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion enshrined in article 18 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights to which Israel is party.
The Israeli system set up to determine who is a conscientious
objector has proved to be inefficient and unprofessional. In
accordance with the recent recommendation by the Human
Right Committee14, the authorities "should review the law,
criteria and practice governing the determination of
conscientious objection".
The fact that the case is being heard by a military court is also
reason for concern. Although no binding norm exists on the
issue, the doctrine developed in international human rights
fora has recommended that similar cases be dealt with by
civil courts in order to ensure that independence and
impartiality are truly respected.
The Observatory for the protection of Human Rights defenders and ASF/B support the recommendation by the
Human Rights Committee that the Israeli Government review the law governing conscientious objection. In line with the
Human Rights Commission resolutions, the new legislation should:
a. recognize the right to conscientious objection as a
legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion as contained in article 18 of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights;
b. eliminate the discriminatory procedures existing for men;
c. review the composition and methods of work of the
Conscience Committee so as to ensure that it acts impartially
and independently;
d. establish a true alternative civil service which is not of a
punitive nature;
e. inform all persons affected by military service about their
right and the procedures to follow to acquire conscientious
objector status.
Activities of the Observatory
The Observatory is an action programme, based on the conviction that
strengthened co-operation and solidarity among defenders and their
organisations, will contribute to break the isolation of the victims of
violations. It is also based on the necessity to establish a systematic
response from NGOs and the international community to the repression
against defenders.
With this aim, the priorities of the Observatory are:
a) a system of systematic alert on violations of rights and freedoms of
human rights defenders, particularly when they require an urgent
intervention;
b) the observation of judicial proceedings, and whenever necessary, direct
legal assistance;
c) personalised and direct assistance, including material support, with the
aim of ensuring the security of the defenders victims of serious violations;
d) the preparation, publication and diffusion at a world-wide level of reports
on violations of human rights and of individuals, or their organisations, that
work for human rights around the world;
e) sustained lobby with different regional and international
intergovernmental institutions, particularly the United Nations, the
Organisation of American States, the Organisation of African Unity, the
Council of Europe and the European Union.
The activities of the Observatory are based on the consultation and the cooperation with national, regional, and international non governmental organisations. With efficiency as its primary objective, the Observatory has adopted flexible criteria for the examination and admissibility of cases that are communicated to it. It also targets action based interpretations of the definition of “Human Rights Defenders” applied by OMCT and FIDH.
The competence of the Observatory embraces the cases which correspond to the following “operational definition” : “Each person victim or risking to be the victim of reprisals, harassment or violations, due to its compromise
exercised individually or in association with others, in conformity with international instruments of protection of human rights, in favour of the promotion and realisation of rights recognised by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and guaranteed by several international instruments”.
An FIDH and OMCT venture - Un programme de la FIDH et de l’OMCT - Un programa de la FIDH y de la OMCT
The Emergency Line
La Ligne d’Urgence
La Línea de Urgencia
e-mail
observatoire@iprolink.ch
tel / Fax
FIDH
Tel : + 33 (0) 1 43 55 20 11
Fax : + 33 (0) 1 43 55 18 80
OMCT
Tel : + 41 22 809 49 39
Fax : + 41 22 809 49 29
International Federation
for Human Rights
17, passage de la Main d’Or
75011 Paris - France
World Organisation
Against Torture
8, rue du Vieux-Billard
BP 21, 1211 Genève 8 - Suisse
THE OBSERVATORY
for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders
Director of the publication: Sidiki Kaba, Eric Sottas
Editor: Antoine Bernard
Authors of this report: Benedetta Odorisio
With my very best wishes, as ever,
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
Friday, January 23, 2004
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
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