March 2004

On Gaza, the Fence, Visit to Montreal, Targeted Assassinations, Palestinian Poll, Attacks on Madrid and Ashdod, Indoctrination of Children, Sharon's problems, Broadsheet Press, Justice Dorner, and Good Morning Lenin


Dear friends and colleagues,


Gaza

Ben Kaspit of Maariv reported on March 12, 2004 that the National Security Council (NSC), headed by Maj. Gen. (Reserves) Giora Eiland, has presented Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a detailed relocation plan for Gaza Strip evacuees. The document also extensively addresses the "Philadelphi" route separating Gaza from Egypt.

According to the document drafted by the NSC, the Gaza region is home to 7,800 residents (1,500 families) who own 400 land plots. The document notes that "there is potential for resettlement, which mostly necessitates the building of housing units", and offers a list of potential solutions involving relocation of settlements to existing or new Negev communities.

The options provided include maintaining activity in the current route, expanding "Philadelphi" towards Rafah, creating an enlarged enclave near the "Girit" IDF post, or establishing an expanded enclave featuring an access corridor.

Government sources said Israel is planning to leave all evacuated settlements in the Gaza Strip intact. “Our intention is to leave the settlements intact in their entirety. We would rather they be transferred into the hands of international organizations while their fate is decided”, one government source said without elaborating. A senior Palestinian official said the Egyptian intermediary passed on a message from Israel to the PA requesting “not to touch” the evacuated settlements.


The Fence

Art Hobson wrote:

I agree with you that a fence is, unfortunately, needed. However, I recall that you recently agreed with me (in a telephone call) that the fence should be only along the old boundary line, and should not cross over into disputed Palestinian territory in order to include the settlements. This is a crucial point. I believe that Americans would agree with the fence if it followed only the old borders. But if it slips into disputed territory, most people's opinions, including mine, become negative.

My response:

The fence should pass, as much as possible, along the Green Line, i.e., Six Day War borders. However, whenever this is impossible (e.g. the town of Ariel, more than 18,000 people strong, is inside the occupied territories), accommodation then deem necessary. Whenever such necessity presents itself, compensation for this territory should be made in another area. This is what Ehud Barak tried to achieve in Camp David 2000. He, however, heard only NO from Arafat. No doubt that many settlements, some of which quite old, should be evacuated because constructing the fence around them would make it encroach far inside Palestinian territory and would unjustifiably impede their daily lives and well-being.

I said time and again that Sharon's route is unfair, and will not stand forces of history. I think it is foolish on his part to think that the Palestinians could be fooled in such a way, and that they rightly object. The farce is that the entire Israeli economy is subjected to this project, that will not remain in its present form for long. That is, more money will be invested to move it in due course.

Researchers at Tel Aviv University routinely conduct polls among the Israeli population on the conflict. They have started this project a few years ago, when there were still hopes for peace. Then they called it "The Peace Index" and inertia made them stick to this misleading title. Anyway, the results of the last poll conducted on March 1-3, 2004 were published by Haaretz on March 10, 2004.

The construction of the separation fence is overwhelmingly supported by the Israeli-Jewish public, despite the internal debate and the international pressure against it. 84 percent support the fence, 13 percent oppose it and 3 percent do not know. The support for the fence is based on the widespread assessment that it can significantly reduce terror attacks, though only a small minority believes it can prevent them completely.

However, the Israeli majority believes the route of the fence should be determined according to security considerations of the government and should not necessarily follow the Green Line, even if the route causes suffering to the Palestinian population. Here, the voters of my party, MERETZ, the civil rights party, strike out in opposition to the prevailing view: 70 percent of them favor the Green Line as the route of the fence, compared to 40 percent of Labor voters, 31 percent of Shinui (Change, secular-liberal) voters, 21 percent of Shas (Sephardi-religious) voters, 13 percent of NRP (religious) voters, and 11 percent of Likud voters, and 0 percent of National Union voters (right-wing).

The Jewish public's adamancy on the issue of the fence is manifested in a low level of consideration for the suffering caused to the Palestinian population, such as harm to its ability to cultivate lands and difficulties in moving from place to place within West Bank territory. Thus, only 31 percent believe this suffering should be taken into account in determining the route of the fence, compared to 64 percent who see it is a secondary if not negligible consideration. Not surprisingly, here too a large majority of MERETZ voters hold the minority view, 88 percent of them saying that Palestinian suffering should be taken into account in determining the route.

Labor voters are almost split on this question, with 52 percent saying the suffering should be taken into account while 42 percent regard it is a secondary consideration. Among Shinui voters the proportions are similar but in reverse: a small majority of 54.5 percent view the suffering as a secondary or negligible consideration compared to 43 percent who see it as significant or important in determining the route.

However, among NRP, Shas, and Likud voters an overwhelming majority - 80 percent, 79 percent, and 75 percent, respectively - believe Palestinian suffering should not be an important consideration in determining the route.

The widespread assumption is that in deliberating the case of the fence, the International Court of Justice at The Hague is biased in favor of the Arab side.

In the present situation in which the negotiations with the Palestinians are not being renewed, the unilateral-separation plan is widely supported and the majority views it as preferable - because of its immediacy - to the alternative of waiting to achieve a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

In the context of a unilateral separation, a majority (60%) supports the evacuation of all the settlements in Gaza and of the small, isolated settlements in the West Bank, but only a minority supports the evacuation of all the West Bank settlements. 32 percent oppose such steps, and the rest have no clear opinion.

In the Arab sector, in contrast to the Jewish population, there is wide opposition to the separation fence, the prevalent view being that it will not help reduce terror. Similarly, most believe that in determining the route, great weight should be given to the suffering caused to the Palestinian population and not to security considerations of the government.

The Arab public is divided on the question of a unilateral separation, and in contrast to the Jewish public clearly prefers the alternative of waiting to achieve a peace agreement with the Palestinians. As expected, most of the Arabs favor evacuating the West Bank and Gaza settlements in the context of a unilateral separation, and the vast majority believe the assassinations policy should be stopped.


Visit to Montreal

This month I traveled to the charming city of Montreal by the invitation of University de Montreal and Concordia University. I delivered two lectures: on compromise and coercion at the Montreal Political Theory Workshop, and on the failed peace process in the ME at the Dept. of Political Science, Concordia. Concordia is known for its Palestinian students who control the social life. A few years ago they managed to prevent Bibi Netanyahu from carrying his speaking obligation at the university. My lecture was attended by professors who asked candid and fair questions in a peaceful atmosphere.

Actually I had more trouble in my first lecture that revolved on probing the concepts of compromise and coercion. One professor asserted that there is nothing that binds together Israeli society, no common norms, no social agenda. When I responded that I think there are two binding norms that bind all democracies, including Israel, respect for others and not harming others, his response was: but surely this is not the norm vis-à-vis Arab citizens. One may recognize that the situation is not perfect in this regard, that there are instances of discrimination and racism. But to say that this is the norm is far reaching and misleading. Israeli society tries to fight such tendencies, as indeed it fought with notable success Meir Kahane and the Kach and Kahane Is Alive Movements. Palestinian citizens can voice their grievances, appeal to the Supreme Court, and strive for equality. Those who infringe equality try to disguise their discriminatory efforts. To present Israeli society as fundamentally racist, South-Africa style, is far from truth.

I thank Daniel Weinstock and Fred Lowy for their kind invitation.


On Targeted Assassination

I opened my Concordia lecture by relating to the assassination of Ahmed Yassin a day earlier (21 March 2004). I knew people would be interested in this issue anyway, and wanted to clear this issue and concentrate on the subject of my lecture, why the Oslo peace process collapsed. I am not a pacifist. Being a pacifist is a luxury that we Israelis cannot afford. Every government has the right, and obligation, to defend its citizens. Hence targeted killing cannot be ruled out tout court. When intelligence obtains verified information on ticking bombs, suicide murderers on their way to blow themselves up amidst citizens, Israel has the right and duty to kill those terrorists: Hakam lehargecha Hashkem Lehorgo (Hebrew slogan on the right to self-defence). Furthermore, it is justified to kill chiefs of terrorist operations who plan and orchestrate murderous attacks. Therefore I thought Prime Minister Shimon Peres was right when he ordered the assassination of Yichye Ayash, "The Engineer", who prepared many terrorists for their heinous attacks.

Yassin was in a different category. Hardly a saint, but he was not an architect of terrorist operations, nor a potential ticking bomb. In a calculus of harms, trying to estimate when more blood would be shed, when Yassin is alive and free to instigate to murder, as he did for many years, or now that he became a dead martyr, I am hasten to think more blood will be shed after the assassination. Recruitment to avenge his elimination is in progress. We can expect more suicide murderers who will attack bitterly when opportunities present themselves. The Hamas will not be satisfied by just another "regular" murder. They will try to make a point, preparing something "special" in the name of Yassin. They will plan a mega-attack with many people killed, and also targeting a political figure, or/and a top general. One should not rule out major operations not only in Israel but also against Jewish targets around the globe, especially in countries where the Hamas has the infrastructure. Expect the worse.

The majority of Israeli-Jews supported Yassin's assassination. The majority on the whole support targeted assassination, even when it involves harming innocent Palestinians. The reason is the widespread assumption that the assassinations reduce terror that kills innocent Israelis.

A substantial majority - 70 percent - supported the statement that the assassinations should continue even if this involves harming innocent Palestinians and only 20 percent thought the assassinations should stop.

Among the voters for the large parties, a majority only of MERETZ voters - 59 percent - oppose the assassinations (35 percent support them), while Labor voters are divided between 53 percent in favor and 42 percent opposed. An overwhelming majority of 93 percent of National Union and NRP voters, 86 percent of Shas voters, 78 percent of Likud voters, and 64 percent of Shinui voters also currently favor continuing the assassinations.


A Palestinian Poll

A poll conducted by Dr. Nabil Kokali of the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion (published too on the MEMRI website), shows that Palestinian support for terror is gradually receding, as a result of IDF pressure.

One of the questions was: Will your support for the Intifada increase or wane if Israel continues to cordon off Palestinian cities? Whereas in February 2003, 35.9% replied that they would increase their support, and 21.7% said their support would lapse, the latest survey pulled a 25.7% response of greater support and 24.8% of reduced enthusiasm.
Another question was: Even if the Intifada makes your economic situation worse, will you continue to support it, or demand its cessation? 22.9% claimed they would continue to support it, while 33.8% would want it to stop. The results in February 2003 were dramatically different. Only a year ago, 44.2% said they would continue to support the Intifada, while 30% wanted to see it end.

The Palestinian public’s trust in the Palestinian Authority has reached an all-time low. Only 30% believe the Abu Ala’s government is capable of doing anything to improve their economic situation, as opposed to 49% who were optimistic in November 2003.


Madrid Attack

On March 11, powerful bombs exploded in three crowded commuter trains in Madrid. One day later Maariv reported that Spanish authorities remain skeptical about Al-Qaeda's claim of responsibility for the bombings and estimate that the Basque separatist terror group ETA is behind the attacks. Spanish Foreign Minister, Ana Palacio said that the explosive materials used and modus operandi adopted by the terrorists point to ETA complicity in the terror strikes. He said that for internal political reasons but still lost the elections. To the best of my knowledge, ETA had never carried such mega attacks. ETA does not operate in this fashion, and this operation requires a lot of organization and infra-structure that Al Qaeda has.

Al Qaeda has claimed responsibility for the lethal terror attacks in Madrid, which killed some 200 people and wounded over 1,400 others. The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper received the announcement.


Attack on Ashdod

On Sunday, March 14, two Palestinian suicide murderers blew themselves up minutes apart at the Ashdod industrial port, killing 10 others and prompting Israel's prime minister to cancel a first meeting with his Palestinian counterpart.

The bombers, identified by Palestinian militants as young men, ages 17 and 18, from the Gaza Strip. This is very significant. If this information is correct, then it is the second time that suicide murderers were able to overcome the electronic fence that encloses the Gaza Strip to strike inside Israel. The first time the murderers were British tourists with foreign passports who blew themselves up on the Tel Aviv Beach Strip.


Hate-indoctrination of Palestinian children

A video showing that the hate-indoctrination of Palestinian children starts at the top, i.e., Yasir Arafat, and goes down via the mosques and the education system. See the following url:

www.isratv.com/video/filmpmwadsl.asx

In the past few weeks there were several incidents in which young youth were sent to carry out suicide attacks. One of them said: They promised me 100 shekels. The price of life is very cheap in some places. There is no limit.


Sharon's problems

Edna Arbel, Israel's state prosecutor, recommended that the attorney general indict Prime Minister Sharon on charges of taking bribes from Dudi Appel, a wealthy developer and a Likud prominent activist during the late 1990s, when Sharon was a member of the cabinet. Now it is up to Attorney General Meni Mazuz, nominated to office in early 2004, to decide whether to ensue with the legal proceedings. Keep your eyes open. Mazuz is likely to make a decision within the next six weeks or so. Never a dull moment.


On Broadsheet Press

Sam Lehman-Wilzig, enlightened:

As usual I enjoyed your monthly. Here's an interesting and enlightening tidbit on the broadsheet.

400 years ago, newspapers tended to be tabloid size. However, after the Glorious Revolution (1689) when almost all government restrictions were removed from the press in England, a clerk in the treasury came up with an original idea for increasing treasury revenue: newspapers would pay a "neutral" tax based on number of pages. This was legislated (1711, I believe) and soon thereafter, many papers moved over to broadsheet size in order to pay less tax!! (Same content on fewer pages.) Soon thereafter (I don't know exactly when), in the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, new automated printing press machinery was developed -- and of course these were designed to fit the broadsheet size (as almost all papers at that point in England were that size). As the Industrial world leader, England exported this printing press machinery to other lands as well. Thus, even when the tax was ultimately abolished in England -- and in countries where there was no tax to begin with! -- the broadsheet became the standard of the "serious" papers, and it wasn't until much later that the penny press papers (tabloid) began to appear in smaller size. Of course, by then customary usage demanded that the elite press keep its "traditional" size. So it is only now -- ALMOST 300 YEARS AFTER THAT IDIOTIC CLERK'S IDEA -- that the world's press is beginning to free itself from its continued blind use of a very uncomfortable size (as you colorfully note).

Musar haskel on the stupidities of tradition and the consequences of being the "prime (first) mover".

All the best,
Sam

Until now, the Independent experiment in London has paid off beyond the paper's most ambitious expectations, sending its circulation shooting up after years of decline. Sarah Lyall of the NY Times (March 29, 2004) quotes Terry Grote, the managing director of The Independent, saying: "Without sounding boastful - you've only got to read some of the other media - this has changed the market dynamics in the quality end of newspapers". He proudly referred to the latest circulation figures released by the Audit Bureau of Circulation, showing that The Independent sold an average of 256,378 copies a day in February, an increase of 15 percent from the previous year. "We turned around 10 years of declines in 10 weeks," Mr. Grote said. "I'm not exaggerating to say that we have publishing groups from around the world visiting us three of four times a week, to study what we've done."

The London papers are watching carefully. Soon after The Independent's move, The Times of London started a tabloid version, which is also selling handily across the country and seems to be favored equally by commuters and non-commuters. Meanwhile, the other main broadsheets are looking nervously around and wondering how they should respond to this sudden shift.

"The very word 'tabloid' here has a certain stigma associated with it, I think unfairly," Robert Thomson, editor of The Times of London, said. Mr. Thomson prefers to call his new edition a "compact" rather than a tabloid. "Because the market is so competitive," he said, "and your competitors will do you no favors, it's in their interest to pretend that the stigma means something. But in the end, the format is meaningless."

London is arguably the most competitive place in the world for newspapers. Eleven national daily newspapers are published here, from The Sun, a popular yellow (rotten banana) tabloid, to The Financial Times, a sober broadsheet. Sometimes it seems as if there are too many newspapers and not enough news or advertising to go around. As the market has grown more competitive, sales - and the percentage of sales from subscriptions - have been steadily decreasing for the last decade, forcing the papers to fight ever more aggressively at the newsstand, through special offers, contests, racy photographs and eye-grabbing headlines.

The Independent's new tabloid, which requires several staff members to reconfigure and lightly re-edit the broadsheet's articles, cost more than $10 million last fall in production, staff and marketing costs. It has been successful in part because the paper seems to have applied the lessons of the populist, right-leaning press - traditionally the most successful tabloid publishers here - and applied them to the left. For example, when an independent report cleared the British government of misleading the public about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the front page of The Independent was given over to a one-word, unabashedly editorializing headline: "Whitewash."

"Being rather opinionated and eye-catching are good tabloid techniques, and not good broadsheet techniques," said Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, a left-leaning newspaper.

Mr. Grote said The Independent would most likely become solely a tabloid at some point. "We will get to one day where we will say, 'Is there any point in producing the broadsheet?' ", he said.

Having The Times and The Independent go tabloid has sent a shock through the industry and immediately forced the papers' competitors to consider their futures. They have good reason to be concerned, at least in the short term.


Justice Dalia Dorner

Justice Dalia Dorner has retired from the Supreme Court. One might not agree with all her numerous judgments, still it is impossible not to appreciate her independent voice on the Court. Dorner was a sound and clear defender of human and civil rights, a liberal woman with human compassion, courage to express unpopular views, and sharp understanding of intricate issues. I wish we could have many people of her sort on the Court and in other places. She made a significant mark on Israeli legislation. I wish her success and good luck in all future endeavors.


Good Morning Lenin

Go and see. I am always in favour of original scripts and clever ideas. This is a small, charming film, with some bitter moments, a film that will make you think. In German with English subtitles.

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

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

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