On Sharon's Gaza Plan, Comment on Sharon's Government, Sharon Rejects Settlers' Plea for Referendum, the Terror Attack on Hilton Taba, Terror Campaign on Israel in Numbers, American Involvement in Iraq, Bush v. Kerry, Ethical Presuppositions and Implications of Warfare in the Twenty-First Century, Dim Prospects for Palestinian Reform, The Role of WMD in Iranian Security Calculations, Discussion on Iran, Oxford Workshop, Comment on Guidelines for Media Coverage of Terrorism, Brit Tzedek v'Shalom Appeal, Useful Website, The Report That Nails Saddam, The Gollnisch Affair in France, Democracy Fellowships, Christopher Reeve, Two Israelis Won Noble Prize, London Theatre, Film Warning, New Books


Dear friends and colleagues,

Sharon's Gaza Plan

On 26 October Prime Minister Ariel Sharon won a resounding Knesset victory for his historic disengagement plan. As you can imagine, it was a moment of personal satisfaction. I yearned to see it coming for years, worked hard to promote awareness of Gaza First since 2000, thinking it was the best alternative to break the deadlock. Back on 29 May 2003, when I wrote to Sharon and explained why it is the most viable plan I received no response from my prime minister. I did receive responses from political leaders of the Labour Party and Meretz. If my tireless efforts to make the Plan visible on the Israeli and international public agenda were only a scratch in history then I am satisfied. I believe many leaps in history are the result of many scratches combined together. In this forum I voiced my wish time and again that Sharon will surprise me and justify his reputation as a pragmatic leader. Kudos to him for his vision and bravery. I am most appreciative of his courage, to face his old friends, to renounce his old deeds, to admit his mistakes, to lead Israel to a new, brighter future. I raise my hat and say: Kol Hakavod.

Some interesting facts about this important vote in the Knesset: Traditional Knesset's party lines shattered as Labor, Meretz-Yachad and two Arab MKs joined about half of the Likud faction and all of Shinui to deliver Sharon a victory vote of 67 for, 45 against, and seven abstentions. Seventeen Likud MKS voiced against Sharon. Twenty three Likud members voted for, including the incapable chess players Bibi Netanyahu, Limor Livnat, Danny Naveh and Israel Katz. These four ministers who wished to stab Sharon in the back crawled to the Knesset in the last moment to join Sharon. Sharon celebrated his victory in a stoic mood, enjoying himself as the Labour MKs, with Yossi Sarid, mocked the four Brutus-like gang. Interestingly, Michael Nudelman of the extreme right wing party National Union vote for Sharon's plan. All religious parties represented in the Knesset voted against the plan. The rabbis, who know best what is good for Israel, showed yet again that they care more about land than about life. What a sad Jewish tale.

Shimon Peres can expect an invitation for talks to join the coalition. However, Sharon can expect further challenges from Bibi Netanyahu, Silvan Shalom and Limor Livnat who like to present themselves as better defenders of Eretz Israel, to Sharon's right. We all can expect many twists and turns in this saga: Sharon will fight hard to retain his position in government and party. He should not be too optimistic. The SHABAC should work hard to protect his security. The settlers will stage further fights. The Likud "rebels" will give all of us hard time. As ever, it will be interesting. I hope not TOO interesting.

Comment on Sharon's Government

Professor Sam Lehman-Wilzig commented on my critique of the Sharon government by saying:

Hi Rafi:
A quick comment on your latest newsletter. You can't think of one major accomplishment of this Sharon Government. I can! Bibi Netanyahu's economic reforms -- with Sharon's strong support -- are a MAJOR accomplishment that will be felt (and appreciated) for years to come: privatizing Bezeq (phone co.), privatizing the 3 ports, changing the Municipal rules of the budgetary game, separating the pension funds from the banks, removing slough-offs from the welfare roles, etc. One can argue that the government has not done enough to help the truly poor and needy, but the MACRO-economic policy is a HUGE accomplishment, given Israeli history's unsuccessful attempts at real economic reform.
Kol tuv,
Sam


Sharon Rejects Settlers' Plea for Referendum

Meanwhile, Sharon finally announced his willingness to meet with the settlers. Better later than never. Common sense does prevail. Sometimes it takes time. The meeting took place on 17 October. The heads of settlers described the meeting as "charged and difficult," noting they were up against "a solid wall and a prime minister who could drag the nation into an internal war, a civil war." It was "a dialogue of the deaf," said settler leader Pinhas Wallerstein. The settler leaders said the prime minister was continuing to behave like "a destructive dictator." Spokesman Yehoshua Mor Yosef said that the movement would continue to apply pressure on politicians to bring the disengagement plan to the public, adding that "Sharon is disengaging from the nation."

Sharon explained his objection to a referendum by saying that it would lead to demands for more referendums on a variety of issues such as the status of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, matters of kashrut, Shabbat, marriage laws and more. I should say that I am not against the referendum. I think it is important to appeal to the people on crucial matters that divide the nation, that concern everyone, and that affect our future. Sharon's objection is derived from viewing it as a red herring, as an invention of the opposition to delay the execution of his disengagement plan. He should carefully reconsider the issue, especially in light of reiterated threats of violence and civil war. A leader should not ignore clear red lights that blink forcefully.

Some two weeks ago, Rabbi Avraham Shapira, a leading religious Zionist rabbi, urged soldiers to refuse to evacuate settlements; 60 other prominent religious Zionist rabbis joined his call. Shapira was the Israel Chief Rabbi and is a very important figure in the religious national circles. They listen to him carefully and respect his judgment. The National Religious Party, Mafdal, is squarely against the disengagement plan and its sitting in the government is only a matter of time. In their hearts, they are against.

The incitement campaign against Sharon and his government continues. In comparative terms, looking back to the 1990s vis-à-vis Rabin, it is still mild. But it does not relax. It is gathering momentum and it continues as long as Sharon is conceived as "a destructive dictator."

To my surprise, the newspapers in Israel announced that Sharon intends to destroy the settlements upon evacuating Gaza. This is a gross mistake. I still recall the photos of the destruction of Yamit. I thought that there will be a way to compensate Israel for the property we leave behind. Certainly the Palestinians should be interested in it. Certainly the USA and Europe have vested interest that the property will not be destroyed. I hope a compensation formula will be devised. In any event, I would not like to see the blowing up of the settlements when we leave Gaza.


The Terror Attack on Hilton Taba

On 7 October 2004, Blasts hit three Sinai resorts populated by Israelis. Thirty two people were killed, including thirteen Israelis. The most devastating attack occurred around 10 P.M. when a blast ripped through the Hilton Hotel in the resort town of Taba, close to the border with Israel. Hilton Taba is a very popular hotel for Israelis as its prices are far cheaper than similar five-star hotels in the nearby city of Eilat. About two hours after the Taba blast, three other explosions occurred in the area of the nearby resort towns of Ras Satan, a camping area full of Israeli tourists, and Nueiba. In previous weeks, security officials issued a serious travel warning to Israelis planning to vacation in the Sinai peninsula. Intelligence warned that there are concrete details about possible attacks on Israeli targets in Sinai. But the warning of a possible terror attack fell largely on deaf ears, with up to 15,000 Israelis crossing the border at Eilat over Sukkot and heading for the resorts that pepper the Sinai coastline.

The previously unknown Jama'a Al-Islamiya Al-Alamiya (World Islamist Group) claimed responsibility for the terror attack on Hilton Taba. Palestinian Authority security adviser Jibril Rajoub, told Al-Jazeera television that no Palestinian factions were responsible for the explosions. The pattern of the terror attack resembles Al-Qaeda's methods.


The Terror Campaign on Israel in Numbers

On 28 September 2004 the SHABAC published a summary of four years of terror. In Israel there are less than 7 million people. Translate the numbers, proportion-wise, to your own society and receive a glimpse of the magnitude of the horror Israel has been suffering since 2000.

Since September 2004 1,017 Israelis were killed (703 civilians and 314 soldiers and policemen);

5,598 Israelis were injured (4,566 civilians; 1,032 soldiers and policemen);

The bloodiest year was 2002: 452 Israelis killed and 2,309 injured.

There were 138 incidents of suicide bombings (in 2002 alone there were 60 such incidents);

Among them there were 8 women suicide murderers; all educated, single, in their twenties;

45 potential female ticking bombs were arrested;

292 teens were involved in terror attacks, including suicide bombings;

There were 13,370 incidents of shooting;

460 Qassam rockets were launched.

The IDF was successful to uncover 98 tunnels between the Rafah refugee camp and Egypt. The tunnels are used to smuggle weapons and explosives.

959 Palestinians involved in terror operations were killed (according to Palestinian resources, 3,268 people were killed. This number includes people involved in terrorism and bystanders. 23,930 Palestinians were injured);

6000 Palestinians were arrested;

In the first 34 months of terror there were 73 successful (from the Palestinian perspective) terror attacks. Since the building of the fence till now there were 5 such incidents.

In 2004 there were 14 suicide bombings.

190 km of the fence are completed. The suicide murderers who were able to infiltrate Israel came from places where the fence is not built yet.

The soft spot in the security system is East Jerusalem, this for geo-strategic reasons and also because residents of East Jerusalem are citizens of Israel and carry Israeli IDs. Since September 2000, 150 East Jerusalem Palestinians were arrested. They were involved in more than 20 terror attacks.

The Hezbollah is investing lots of resources in building a terror infrastructure inside Israel. More than 100 organizations in which Israeli-Palestinians were involved were uncovered by the Israeli security police.

Since my return to Israel I heard many people speaking, most of them in harsh terms: Israel needs to invest more in retaliation. Israel had turned right and never looked back. More killing is not the solution. The only solution is ending the occupation, evacuating most of the settlements and the IDF, and establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel. The sooner the better.


American Involvement in Iraq

Post September 11, United States had understood that the oceans cannot serve as protection against world terrorism. The administration was forced to change the concept, the thinking. It has taken time, with noticeable rigidity. Those applying for visas, or just flying in and from the USA felt this. It is huge bureaucratic machinery with the usual notorious inflexibility. While the Israeli culture is largely based on improvisations, the very concept itself is alien to the American thinking. Americans are accustomed to work in rubrics and when something falls outside the known rubric, the solution is usually to say "No". Sorry. This is not allowed. Those of us who understand this mentality will sure appreciate the strategic change that the US was forced to take. September 11 compelled the US to look differently at the world.

Iraq is the first stone, not the last. The planning of the military campaign was careful. The idea was to capture Baghdad as quickly as possible while trying to stop Saddam from launching missiles that might involve unwanted parties, like Israel, in the campaign as well as preventing Saddam from setting fire in the oil wells. This idea was put into practice with notable success. The USA army penetrated swiftly deep into Iraqi territory without a stop. However, little thinking was paid regarding the aftermath: How to build and maintain the post-Saddam Iraq? Moreover, the result of this rapid progress to Baghdad was that the Iraqi army dispersed with its ammunition and with the support of hostile elements is now conducting brutal guerrilla warfare against the American army. The US and its allies are now facing harsh reality in Iraq.

The American army, unlike the Israeli, is a professional army. There is no strong link between the military and the people as is the case in Israel. In Israel it is the people's army, a nation in uniform. In the US only people who wish to serve take part in the fighting. There is no forced conscription. Thus the soldiers understand that this is their role and they feel committed to the task assigned to them by the American government. The USA is now committed to democratize Iraq and to bring the voice of liberty and justice to the Middle East. Lots of money is now tunneled to carry out this mission.

One of the consequences of the US involvement in the region is its understanding of the reality in which Israel operates. In Israel the US has found today as before a strategic ally that is fully committed to fighting terror. Now the US appreciates more Israel's security needs and interests. I would say that September 11 constitutes a watershed in this respect. I do not think that ever before Israel enjoyed such latitude and understanding from any American regime as it enjoys now from the Bush administration. Israel and the US are united in their determination to fight down terrorism, understanding that there is a zero sum game between democracy and terror: any win for the one is a loss for the other.


Bush v. Kerry

I wish to draw your attention to the Washington Post article which compares the stances of the two candidates on various issues. For your consideration.

Comparing the Candidates http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/issues/bushkerry/CompareTheCandidates.htm?referrer=emaillink

Attached please find one reflection on the elections in Florida.


Ethical Presuppositions and Implications of Warfare in the Twenty-First Century

In the new issue of Ethical Perspectives, philosophers, political scientists, lawyers and U.S. military scholars debate the ethics of warfare for the twenty-first century. They assess the use of just-war arguments, address different aspects of the war on terror and the doctrine of pre-emptive intervention and discuss issues related to the ius in bello such as biological enhancements of soldiers and the combatant/non-combatant distinction.

More info at www.ethical-perspectives.be

ETHICAL PERSPECTIVES
Journal of the European Ethics Network

Volume 11, Issue 2-3

CONTENTS

Editorial
Ethical Presuppositions and Implications of Warfare in the Twenty-First Century
Johan Verstraeten

From Just War to Ethics of Conflict Resolution: A Critique of Just-War
Thinking in the Light of the War in Iraq
Johan Verstraeten

Regrounding the Just War's 'Presumption Against Violence' in Light of George Weigel
John Hymers

The Terrorist Threat. A Post-Modern Kind of Threat
Herman De Dijn

The Preventive and Preemptive Use of Force. To be Legitimised or to be De-Legitimised?
Tom Sauer

The Impact of the Fight Against Terrorism on the ius ad bellum
Frederik Naert

Can War Be a Moral Action? Towards a Normative Theory of Humanitarian Intervention Reinold Schmücker

Combatant, Non-Combatant, Criminal. The Importance of Distinctions
Michael Brough

Mediums and Messages. An Argument against Biotechnical Enhancements of Soldiers in the Armies of Liberal Democracies
Jeffrey Wilson

Multatuli Lecture 2003: Imprisoned by Categories. Fuelling Cultural Conflicts with Emotions and Stereotypes
David Grosmann

Dim Prospects for Palestinian Reform
Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat's Fatah will emerge as the leading political bloc after forthcoming municipal elections in the areas of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but Islamist candidates will gain ground, according to a recent poll by Bir Zeit university. Some 34 percent of the 1200 voters sampled in the survey intend to vote for Fatah and 32 percent for Hamas or Islamic Jihad, according to the survey funded by the International Republican Institute (http://www.iri.org/).
Apathy is minimal in highly politicized Palestinian society, so the results suggest a high degree of alienation, if not hostility towards the available options, on the part of about a third of the electorate. Some 39 percent of respondents do not support any of the political factions, suggesting that many will hold their noses as they cast their ballots.
Palestinian President Yassir Arafat announced last month that he intends to hold presidential, parliamentary and municipal elections soon. But no schedule for presidential or parliamentary elections has been announced. The local elections will give Palestinians the first chance to vote since the 1996 general election, which was boycotted by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
While the elections are limited to municipal levels, some 73 percent of poll respondents support holding presidential elections, and 82 percent want fresh legislative elections. Less than half - only 46 percent -- would support Arafat in a presidential election. Arafat has come under pressure from internal and external sources to yield more power.
Asked why Arafat has been unwilling to grant more authority to current Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmad Qurei, former PA PM Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) told the Jordanian daily Al-Rai newspaper "He [Arafat] probably believes that if they were to take these powers away from him, then they would get rid of him." Abbas has also conceded that "the Intifada in its entirety was a mistake and it should not have continued." Jordanian Prime Minister Faisal al-Fayez recently suggested that the overbearing PLO leader Arafat should devolve greater responsibility to Prime Minister Qurei in an effort to enhance the strategic position of the Palestinians in the run-up to the US presidential election.
But would-be reformers who recently challenged the Fatah hierarchy do not fare well in the Bir Zeit poll. The second most popular Palestinian figure after Arafat, with 12 percent support, is former West Bank Fatah leader Marwan Barguthi, founder of the self-styled Al-Aqsa Brigades, who is currently serving five life sentences in Israel for terrorist activity. There is little support for Fatah-linked reformists such as Gaza-based strongman Muhammed Dahlan (1.6 percent), Sa'eb Erekat (1.2 percent) and Ahmad Qurei (1 percent) or for relatively liberal and democratic Palestinian politicians like Haydar Abdul Shafi (6 percent), Mustafa Bargouthi (1.7 percent) or Hanan Ashrawi (1.4 percent). These are sad news for the Palestinian people as well as for Israel.
Meanwhile, we all hold our breath to see whether Arafat will be able to overcome his illness and rise, yet again, like a wounded cat, from the depth of fever to run the show.


The Role of WMD in Iranian Security Calculations

I wish to share with you an article by Amin Tarzi, an analyst at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Previously, Tarzi worked as a senior researcher on Iran at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at Monterey Institute for International Studies in California. This issue is of major consideration for the future of the Middle East and the world at large. Miscalculation on the American side, the Iranian side or both might draw the ME into yet another cycle of blood. I hope Iran will have more common sense than Saddam and will cooperate with the UN monitors.

Tarzi's article is attached in WORD.


Discussion on Iran

During my visit to Oxford I was invited to dinner at the home of an International Relations professor who invited a visitor from Japan, lecturer in the same field. W began to talk about Iran and I said that Israel will not tolerate Iranian nuclear capacity. I said that Israel reserves itself the right to attack Iranian installations as an act of self-defence, and that both Defence Minister Mofas and Chief of Staff Yaalon said that Israel monitors closely the situation in Iran and will not hesitate to attack in case of need. The combination of unconventional weapons, missiles and radical regime that supports terror constitutes a lethal threat that the free world cannot afford to understate. The Japanese professor looked surprised. I presume she had never heard such a blunt statement before. She wanted to hear some qualifications or reservations on my part. I said that after the 1981 attack on the Iraqi Tamuz installation I criticized the Begin government for this decision, intervening into the sovereignty of another country in such a brutal way. In 1991, during the Gulf War, I changed my mind. Just imagine that Saddam would have had nuclear capacity. Trusting his sense of judgment upon witnessing his misguided calculations vis-à-vis the American campaign against his country would not be prudent. By implication, judging the good sense of judgment of any dictatorship is a tricky and dangerous thing. Israel cannot afford tolerating an Iranian atomic bomb.

I wish to thank Alan Budd, Anthony Smith, Idit and Mike Goodisman, Alan Roth, Prinky and Adam Roberts, Jerry Cohen and Avi Shlaim for their kind hospitality. You made my trip to England memorable.


Oxford Workshop

On my panel there was an American journalist who, like quite a few of her colleagues, does not like the idea of guidelines or code of ethics. "We are to tell the story as we see fit in the given circumstances". She also claimed that the First Amendment negates the idea of adopting a Code of Ethics, as free speech rules supreme and should have no constraints. A very convenient excuse to have journalism stripped of any responsibility. I cannot think of any other profession that tries to relieve itself of any sense of responsibility with notable success as journalism does.


Comment on Guidelines for Media Coverage of Terrorism

Commenting on my Guidelines for media coverage of terrorism, and specifically on the use of the T-Word, Professor Menachem Kellner had sent me the following article:

Daniel Pipes in NY Sun on "They're Terrorists Not Activists"
September 7, 2004
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2066
http://www.nysun.com/article/1339
"I know it when I see it" was the famous response by a U.S. Supreme Court justice to the vexed problem of defining pornography. Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition. The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists: Assailants - National Public Radio. Attackers – the Economist. Bombers – the Guardian. Captors – the Associated
>Press. Commandos – Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando." Criminals - the Times (London). Extremists – United Press International. Fighters – the Washington Post. Group – the Australian. Guerrillas: in a New York Post editorial. Gunmen – Reuters. Hostage-takers – the Los Angeles Times. Insurgents – in a New York Times headline.
>Kidnappers – the Observer (London). Militants – the Chicago
>Tribune. Perpetrators – the New York Times. Radicals – the
>BBC. Rebels – in a Sydney Morning Herald headline. Separatists
>– the Christian Science Monitor. And my favorite: Activists – the
>Pakistan Times. The origins of this unwillingness to name terrorists
>seems to lie in the Arab-Israeli conflict, prompted by an odd
>combination of sympathy in the press for the Palestinian Arabs and
>intimidation by them. The sympathy is well known; the intimidation
>less so. Reuters' Nidal al-Mughrabi made the latter explicit in advice
>for fellow reporters in Gaza to avoid trouble on the Web site
>www.newssafety.com, where one tip reads: "Never use the word terrorist or terrorism in describing Palestinian gunmen and militants; people consider them heroes of the conflict." The reluctance to call terrorists by their rightful name can reach absurd lengths of inaccuracy and apologetics. For example, National Public Radio's Morning Edition announced on April 1, 2004, that "Israeli troops have arrested 12 men they say were wanted militants." But CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, pointed out the inaccuracy here and NPR issued an on-air correction on April 26: "Israeli military officials were quoted as saying they had arrested 12 men who were ‘wanted militants.' But the actual phrase used by the Israeli military was ‘wanted terrorists.'" (At least NPR corrected itself. When the Los Angeles Times made the same error, writing that "Israel staged a series of raids in the West Bank that the army described as hunts for wanted Palestinian militants," its editors refused CAMERA's request for a correction on the grounds that its change in terminology did not occur in a direct quotation.) Metro, a Dutch paper, ran a picture on May 3, 2004, of two gloved hands belonging to a person taking fingerprints off a dead terrorist. The caption read: "An Israeli police officer takes fingerprints of a dead Palestinian. He is one of the victims (slachtoffers) who fell in the Gaza strip yesterday." One of the victims! Euphemistic usage then spread from the Arab-Israeli conflict to other theaters. As terrorism picked up in Saudi Arabia such press outlets as The Times (London) and the Associated Press began routinely using militants in reference to Saudi terrorists. Reuters uses it with reference to Kashmir and Algeria. Thus "militants" become the press's default term for terrorists. These self-imposed language limitations sometimes cause journalists to tie themselves into knots. In reporting the murder of one of its own cameraman, the BBC, which normally avoids the word terrorist, found itself using that term. In another instance, the search engine on the BBC website includes the word terrorist but the page linked to has had that word expurgated. Politically-correct news organizations undermine their credibility with such subterfuges. How can one trust what one reads, hears, or sees when the self-evident fact of terrorism is being semi-denied? Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world. It is bad enough that only one of five articles discussing the Beslan atrocity mentions its Islamist origins; worse is the miasma of words that insulates the public from the evil of terrorism.

To comment on this article, please go to http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2066#comment

To see the Daniel Pipes archive, go to http://www.DanielPipes.org To
>subscribe to or unsubscribe from this list, go to
>http://www.DanielPipes.org/subscribe.php
> (Daniel Pipes sends out a mailing of his writings 2-3 times a week.)
>Sign up for related (but non-duplicating) e-mail services:
> Middle East Forum (media alerts, event reports, MEQ articles):
>http://www.meforum.org/subscribe.php
> Campus Watch (research, news items, press releases):
>http://www.campus-watch.org/subscribe.php
> Middle East Intelligence Bulletin (monthly publication):
>http://meib.org/maillist_survey.htm You may freely forward this
>information, but on condition that you send the text as an integral whole
>along with complete information about its author, date, and source.



Brit Tzedek v'Shalom Appeal
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom [info@btvshalom.org] is organizing an appeal and ask American Jewry to join. Their call says: Regardless of personal political aspirations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not remain on the back burner for long. We have been recently reminded of this by the surge of violence in the Gaza Strip. We must seize this opportunity to mobilize our community behind a message that is at once pro-Israel and pro-peace, so that the new presidential administration must take notice. Together, we must build an American Jewish voice for peace. Please sign the Open Letter at http://openletter.btvshalom.org.

Useful Website
I would like to call your attention to a new information page on the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the Situation in the Gaza Strip, (http://www.ihlresearch.org/opt).

The page provides concise legal analysis concerning demolition of houses, urban warfare and the Government of Israel's Disengagement Plan in the Gaza Strip.

Other recent additions to the "IHL and the Occupied Palestinian Territory" portal include a topic page on General Movement Restrictions and Humanitarian Access. This section contains selected resources on the IHL implications of checkpoints, closures and curfews in the occupied territories. The resources include a selected listing of reports on the topic, as well as a catalog of relevant UN documents, including General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions. Also featured are links to statements made by Palestinian and Israeli authorities concerning the IHL implications of the general movement restrictions. Additionally, this page offers links to relevant Israeli Supreme Court decisions.

The Report That Nails Saddam
I wish to share with you the following article by DAVID BROOKS, published in the NY Times, October 9, 2004.
Saddam Hussein saw his life as an unfolding epic narrative, with retreats and advances, but always the same ending. He would go down in history as the glorious Arab leader, as the Saladin of his day. One thousand years from now, schoolchildren would look back and marvel at the life of The Struggler, the great leader whose life was one of incessant strife, but who restored the greatness of the Arab nation.
They would look back and see the man who lived by his saying: "We will never lower our heads as long as we live, even if we have to destroy everybody." Charles Duelfer opened his report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction with those words. For a humiliated people, Saddam would restore pride by any means.
Saddam knew the tools he would need to reshape history and establish his glory: weapons of mass destruction. These weapons had what Duelfer and his team called a "totemic" importance to him. With these weapons, Saddam had defeated the evil Persians. With these weapons he had crushed his internal opponents. With these weapons he would deter what he called the "Zionist octopus" in both Israel and America.
But in the 1990's, the world was arrayed against him to deprive him of these weapons. So Saddam, the clever one, The Struggler, undertook a tactical retreat. He would destroy the weapons while preserving his capacities to make them later. He would foil the inspectors and divide the international community. He would induce it to end the sanctions it had imposed to pen him in. Then, when the sanctions were lifted, he would reconstitute his weapons and emerge greater and mightier than before.
The world lacked what Saddam had: the long perspective. Saddam understood that what others see as a defeat or a setback can really be a glorious victory if it is seen in the context of the longer epic.
Saddam worked patiently to undermine the sanctions. He stored the corpses of babies in great piles, and then unveiled them all at once in great processions to illustrate the great humanitarian horrors of the sanctions.
Saddam personally made up a list of officials at the U.N., in France, in Russia and elsewhere who would be bribed. He sent out his oil ministers to curry favor with China, France, Turkey and Russia. He established illicit trading relations with Ukraine, Syria, North Korea and other nations to rebuild his arsenal.
It was all working. He acquired about $11 billion through illicit trading. He used the oil-for-food billions to build palaces. His oil minister was treated as a "rock star," as the report put it, at international events, so thick was the lust to trade with Iraq.
France, Russia, China and other nations lobbied to lift sanctions. Saddam was, as the Duelfer report noted, "palpably close" to ending sanctions.
With sanctions weakening and money flowing, he rebuilt his strength. He contacted W.M.D. scientists in Russia, Belarus, Bulgaria and elsewhere to enhance his technical knowledge base. He increased the funds for his nuclear scientists. He increased his military-industrial-complex's budget 40-fold between 1996 and 2002. He increased the number of technical research projects to 3,200 from 40. As Duelfer reports, "Prohibited goods and weapons were being shipped into Iraq with virtually no problem."
And that is where Duelfer's story ends. Duelfer makes clear on the very first page of his report that it is a story. It is a mistake and a distortion, he writes, to pick out a single frame of the movie and isolate it from the rest of the tale.
But that is exactly what has happened. I have never in my life seen a government report so distorted by partisan passions. The fact that Saddam had no W.M.D. in 2001 has been amply reported, but it's been isolated from the more important and complicated fact of Saddam's nature and intent.
But we know where things were headed. Sanctions would have been lifted. Saddam, rich, triumphant and unbalanced, would have reconstituted his W.M.D. Perhaps he would have joined a nuclear arms race with Iran. Perhaps he would have left it all to his pathological heir Qusay.
We can argue about what would have been the best way to depose Saddam, but this report makes it crystal clear that this insatiable tyrant needed to be deposed. He was the menace, and, as the world dithered, he was winning his struggle. He was on the verge of greatness. We would all now be living in his nightmare.

The Gollnisch Affair in France

Professor Christian Pihet had sent his reflections on the most recent case of Holocaust denial in France:

Dear Rafi,

I am well aware that presently in your country there is an important parliamentary debate about the Gaza strip and that the Gollnisch case is small talk compared to it. But I think that however it can highlight some of the worst aspects of the relationship between media and democracy.

In fact the Gollnisch case is a deliberate maneuver from some factions of the "National Front" to wipe out some of their opponents within the party. As you probably know, Le Pen is aging - now 76 - and the question of who will be the next leader in this party ( between 10 and 15 % of the vote) is not resolved. He favors his daughter, Marine, a young and bright attorney, which tries to get a modernist look and also tries to build bridges with the ruling Right-wing coalition.

But this apparent heir is deeply contested by the Gollnisch faction. Gollnisch , a somber intellectual, professor of Japanese studies at Lyon University has been for a long time the number 2. He is favored by die-hard extremists, very traditional Catholics and the Lyonese branch of the party - the second of importance in the country -

But he was not known as an antisemitic man...

He created deliberately the scandal. With the help of the media who are always looking for something new and spectacular. The TV amplified considerably the whole stuff.

But on a political point of view it looks as if behaving like an antisemitic is the key to get the party leadership in the future. In fact, he passed an exam in antisemitism.... and got it through. Marine Le Pen condemned at first these shocking assertions but after a while was obliged by his father to approve them... In fact the party activists, rank and file, are deeply antisemitic and only an approved antisemitic man can lead this party. This is my personal opinion about the whole thing. The Holocaust and its denial were used as a test to qualify for the party leadership...

To me the question is - why this denial work in this part of the French society?
I must tell you that 85 % of the French condemned the Gollnisch declaration -And more French are anti-Arab than antisemitic. But some components of our society are still mared by antisemitism. Historical tradition? Influence of Catholicism? Small farmers, shopkeepers, elderly people but also some intellectuals...

Anyway it works in the extreme fringe of the political right. And of course how to do to wipe these feelings from our national conscience?

I think it is a long way to go. In my opinion it could be wiped with two possible evolutions
- a deep consideration in Catholic circles about the historical impact of antijudaism (not antisemitism) and a reappraisal of the Jewish heritage in Catholicism, not only by learned clerics but by the mass of Catholics.
- a peace settlement in the Near East which will figure Israel as an ordinary state.

You know, the impact of the Middle East conflict is widely felt here in a country which is home to a significant Jewish community in the world ( roundly 700,000 ) and to an important Arabic population.

Christian


Democracy Fellowships
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) invites applications to its Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program. Established in 2001 to enable activists, scholars, and journalists from around the world to deepen their understanding of democracy and enhance their ability to promote democratic change, the fellowship program is based at NED’s International Forum for Democratic Studies, in Washington, D.C.
Program: The program offers two tracks: a practitioner track (typically three to five months) to improve strategies and techniques for building democracy abroad and to exchange ideas and experiences with counterparts in the United States; and a scholarly track (typically five to ten months) to conduct original research for publication. Projects may focus on the political, social, economic, legal, and cultural aspects of democratic development and include a range of methodologies and approaches.
Eligibility: The Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellows Program is intended primarily to support practitioners and scholars from new and aspiring democracies. Distinguished scholars from the United States and other established democracies are also eligible to apply. Practitioners are expected to have substantial experience working to promote democracy. Scholars are expected to have a doctorate, or academic equivalent, at the time of application. The program is not designed to support students working toward a degree. A working knowledge of English is an important prerequisite for participation in the program.
Support: The fellowship year begins October 1 and runs through July 31, with major entry dates in October and March. All fellows receive a monthly stipend, health insurance, travel assistance, and research support through the Forum’s Democracy Resource Center and Internship Program.
Application: For further details and instructions on how to apply, please download the “Information and Application Forms” booklet available online at www.ned.org/forum/R-FApplication.pdf or visit www.ned.org and follow the link to Fellowship Programs. Please note that all application materials must be type-written and in English.
Deadline: Applications for fellowships in 2005–2006 must be received no later than November 1, 2004. Notification of the competition outcome is in April 2005.
For questions, please contact:

Program Assistant, Fellowship Programs
National Endowment for Democracy
1101 15th Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, DC 20005
Tel.: (202) 293-0300
Fax: (202) 293-0258
E-mail: fellowships@ned.org
Internet: www.ned.org


Christopher Reeve

Christopher Reeve, age 52, a symbol of courage and determination, the cinematic Superman who became a real-life inspiration through his painstaking efforts to overcome total paralysis, while speaking out for stem-cell research and uncovering scientific potentials, died on 10 October.
Reeve acquired many fans throughout his life. In the first phase as The Superman; in the second phase as a victim of a riding accident that took place in 1995, accident that had left him paralyzed from the neck down. After briefly pondering suicide, Reeve had become a powerful proponent of causes ranging from insurance reform for catastrophic injuries to unleashing the possibilities many scientists believe lie in using embryonic stem cells for research. I became his fan in the second stage of his life.
Reeve was the major public proponent for stem-cell research, understanding the potential for people like him and in other tragic circumstances who lead their lives, day in, day out, in a constant struggle. Those of you who are still debating whom to elect, Bush or Kerry, should ponder also this issue in mind. Stem-cell research is the future of medicine. While Kerry is an advocate of expanding this research, of mobilizing more funds to accomplish science's potential, Bush has restricted funding for stem-cell research. Without adequate funding, his field will remain obscure and undeveloped.

Two Israelis Won Nobel Prize
Two Israeli professors at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa have won the Nobel prize in chemistry for 2004, along with a colleague from the University of California at Irvine.
Professors Avraham Hershko, 66, and Aharon Ciechanover, 56, won the prize with their American colleague, Irwin Rose, 78, for their work in the 1980s that discovered one of the cell's most important cyclical processes, regulated protein degradation, a central method in which cells destroy unwanted proteins.
In a statement they made in Haifa the two said that they believed their discoveries will assist in developing drugs for treating cancer. The three scientists uncovered a process that governs such key processes as cell division, DNA repair, maintaining quality control of newly produced proteins and functioning of the body's immune defenses.
The two scientists expressed their pride in being the first two Israelis to win Nobel prizes for science, and their satisfaction that their colleague at UC Irvine was also honored. The president of the Technion, Professor Yitzhak Apeloig, called their achievement a "diploma of pride and great satisfaction for Israeli science in general and the Technion in particular.

In a press conference, the two scientists cautioned against the state of Israel's education system. Since Sharon took power, the education system suffered from major cuts. The major victim were the universities whose budges were cut in the previous four years by some eighteen (18!) percent. The Education Minister, Limor Livnat, seems at times eager to destroy the achievements of higher education.
"Israel will always have limited resources so we have to focus on the important, innovative and ground breaking things," said Hershko, adding that "we couldn't do such things while the education system is collapsing." Ciechanover was sterner in his criticism: "Israel's academia is in a bad state. The Technion suffers badly from financial difficulties," adding that he envied the American universities' budgets. The winning of a Noble prize by Israelis was a rare event he said. "We don't have oil, uranium or diamonds. Israel depends on its academia. All we have - the Israel Defense Forces, Rafael [the Armament Development Authority] and the high-tech industry - depends on what we have in our heads," Ciechanover said. "Cutting off this head is an act of suicide". I hope Limor Livnat is listening. Although she detests the Israeli elite and made a point to fight against it, sometimes the elite has good things to offer.

Israel is not blessed with many Nobel laureates. Previously, S.Y. Agnon won the Nobel Prize in literature; Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres won the Peace Nobel Prize. A former Israeli, Daniel Kahneman, won the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002. Kahneman left Israel in 1978 and is presently Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology, Princeton University. He has been teaching at Princeton since 1993.


London Theatre
I recommend "Democracy" about politics in West Germany, 1969. Willy Brandt begins his brief but remarkable career as the first left-of-centre Chancellor for nearly forty years. Always present in his inner chamber but rarely noticed is Günter Guillaume, Brandt's devoted personal assistant - and no less devoted in his other role, spying on Brandt for the Stasi.
Another good play is "Journey's End" about the horror of war, this one is about WWI.
Both are recommended despite the lack of women on stage. In "Democracy" you hear about them constantly, ten pages of women; in the WWI trenches it's about men fragility and bravery.

Film Warning

Stay away from a film called, quite appropriately, "Trauma", unless you wish to sleep or to suffer. Question begs: How much did Collin Firth receive for participating in such inconceivable crap?


New Books

I recommend the following and urge you to order the books to your respective libraries:

Barry Rubin, Tragedy of the Middle East (Cambridge University Press, 2004).

Gregory Tardi, Law of Democratic Governing (Toronto: Carswell, 2004).

Stefan Braun, Democracy Off Balance: Freedom Of Expression And Hate Propaganda Law In Canada (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004).

Neil L. Whitehead, Dark Shamans: Kanaima and the Poetics of Violent Death (Duke University Press, 2002).

With my very best wishes, as ever,

Rafi

My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor

Dear friends and colleagues,

I thank former MK Naomi Chazan for her quick comment re the poll's results published by Maariv. I stand corrected. Please accept my sincere apology for my misreading.

Shana tova,

Rafi


Dear Rafi,

I just glanced at your latest politics review, and want to draw your attention to the fact that you misread the Maariv poll. It seems that you put in as the projection what the parties have today, and listed in what they have today as the projection.

Thus, instead of what you wrote, it should read as follows: Likud has 40 today, the projection is for 38.
Shinui has 15 today, the projection is for 13.
Meretz (Yahad) has 6, the projection is for 7 (the comment about Yossi Beilin is therefore somewhat misleading).
Shas is now 11, it will go down to 9.
The only party to significantly gain according to this poll is the National Union.

I thought you might want to correct this, as your pieces as widely read and useful.

Shana tova,

Naomi

On the Likud, Threats of Civil War, Maariv Poll, Terror Attack on Beer Sheva, Guidelines for Media Coverage of Terrorism, Jewish Congress' Petition, Syria and the Question of WMD, First Gold Medal for Israel, Departing the USA, My New Contact Details, Photos of 2003, Shana Tova


Dear friends and colleagues,


The Likud

The wheels of history keep turning and repeating themselves. For many years, it was Ariel Sharon who blocked all attempts to introduce political changes in the region. With his colleagues, David Levy and Yitzhak Modai, the trio known as "The Hoopers", they excelled themselves in recruiting the Likud Center to push for hard-line politics. Now Sharon feels what his predecessors felt due to his endless sabotaging efforts. Suddenly his associates declare that "we need to move the focal point of influence away from the Likud Center". Well, let him try. I will be the first to congratulate his success.

So all is stuck: no policy making; no disengagement; no unified government; still collapsing government. The resourceful Sharon is looking for further solutions, but these are becoming scarcer and harder to find. I'd be surprised if he will be able to sustain his government for another year. In any event, he declares his determination to start evacuating settlements soon, prior 1 March 2005. Good luck.

What I find a bit surprising is that many people, including people from the Left in Israel, express appreciation for Sharon, emphasize his constraints and things beyond his reach (terror, shaky economy) and think that all in all, considering the circumstances, he is doing a good job. I can think of worse prime ministers in Israel’s history (inter alia, the person who has claims to replace him, Bibi Netanyahu) but I don’t think that terror and economy are like the weather. I cannot think of even one achievement Sharon can claim to his credit. Hopefully, Gaza First will be the first. For this, more than words are required.


Threats of Civil War

Wheels of history keep turning in a sad reminder of the events leading to Rabin’s assassination (1993-1995). The settlers and people of Greater Eretz Israel object to Sharon’s disengagement plan. Like Rabin, Sharon -- the great patron of the settlers -- turns his back to them and refuses to meet with them. This is a gross mistake on his part as it was on Rabin’s part. Such a refusal makes people more desperate. When the head of settlers met with the Minister of Defence, Shaul Mofas, they threatened that civil war is pending, that they will resist with force and weapons, turning their guns against soldiers. “Blood will be shed”, they warned. Like the dark period of 1993-1995, we hear calls for murder, especially against Sharon. Like then, on 12 September 2004, a demonstration of tens of thousands of people was organized at Zion Square in Jerusalem. You may recall a similar demonstration in October 1995 against Rabin the traitor who “split the people”. Sharon was then against the Oslo Accords. Now he is on the other side of the fence. Sharon then denied that there was incitement against Rabin. I recall an article he published in Yedioth Ahronoth claiming that the incitement is of the left, trying to blemish the “National Camp”. Now he is alarmed by the incitement of the same people against him.

In Purim (the most joyful Jewish holiday) 2003 some 100 people of the extreme right, headed by Kach (a radical right-wing movement established by the quasi-fascist Meir Kahane in the early 1970s) activists, held a memorial for the death of Baruch Goldstein, noting nine years to his "brave act" in the Cave of Machpella. During the ceremony, some people called to murder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Those people masqueraded as soldiers and staged a show in which they killed Sharon by guns and knives. People shouted: "Sharon, your day will come”. As Sharon continues to plan the Gaza First Plan, the calls for murder are growing. I am certain there is another Yigal Amir in our midst. I hope the SHABAC has learned some lessons from the fiasco of the 4th of November 1995.

More drama to come next month, in October.


Maariv Poll

A national poll published by Maariv on 15 September 2004 reveals that 58 percent support Sharon's disengagement plan; 29% object to it. A staggering percent, 34, think it is legitimate for the settlers to resist their evacuation with force. 58 percent conceive such action is illegitimate. 33 percent think that the most troubling issue is the social-economic situation. Settling the conflict with the Palestinian is second: 26 percent see this as the most important issue.

The poll shows also that if elections were held now, the Likud would have increased its power from 38 to 40 seats. Labour would remain the same with 22 seats. The liberal party, Shinuy (Change) would increase its power from 13 to 15 seats and similarly would Shas (Sephardi religious party), from 9 to 11. The civil rights party would lose one seat, from 7 to 6. That's a shame. The change of leadership (Yossi Beilin instead of Yossi Sarid) and of the name (from Meretz to Yachad, meaning together) did not have any positive effect. Hopefully they will have such effect in the future.


Terror Attack on Beer Sheva

On 31 August, two suicide murderers launched an attack on the prominent city of the south. Two buses were blasted one after the other, 100 meters and 30 seconds apart. Sixteen people died in the attack, and more than 100 people were injured. After 190 days of relative quiet we witness yet again the horrifying scenes and stories. This was our own sad welcome party to Israel.

The attack was to avenge the targeted assassinations of Yassin and Rantisi. Hamas promised more to come. Jubilation in Gaza. Two more heroes are added to the long list of Shaids (martyrs).

The following day I returned, for the first time, to my university. When I left home, I looked at my family who were still sleeping, thinking that it might be the last time I see them. Using public transportation in Israel is a risky business.


Guidelines for Media Coverage of Terrorism

Recently I have completed a five-year study on media coverage of terrorism. On 19-25 September I am invited to present the main conclusions of this research in a workshop at Oxford. The study is about 100 pages long, and is included in my forthcoming book, The Scope of Tolerance. Here I wish to present you with the conclusions: A set of guidelines for the media when covering terrorism:
· The media need to be accountable for the consequences of their coverage.
· The media should not jeopardize human life.
· The media are advised to cooperate with the government when human lives are at stake in order to bring a peaceful end to the terrorist episode.
· The media should not glorify acts of terror.
· The media should refrain from sensational and panic-inducing headlines, from inflammatory catchwords, and from needless repletion of photos from bloody scenes.
· Terrorism should be explicitly condemned for its brutality and violent, indiscriminate nature.
· The media must not pay or be paid for covering terrorist incidents.
· The media are advised not to take upon themselves to mediate between the terrorists and the government. Special qualifications are required before one assumes such a responsibility upon oneself. Journalists are there to cover the event, not to become part of it.
· The media are expected to refrain from making dangerous speculations about the terrorists' plans, government response, hostages' messages and other matters. Speculations might hinder crisis management.
· Media professionals should have background information about the terrorists they cover. They should prepare homework prior coverage.
· The media should not broadcast live terrorist incidents. This is not to say that the media should not cover such incidents. Rather, there should be a delay of a few minutes during which an experienced editor inspects the coverage and authorizes what should be on air and what should not.
· The media should not interview terrorists while the incident is still in motion. Lines of communications between the authorities and the terrorists should be left open. The media should not impede the negotiations process.
· The media should not cooperate with terrorists who stage events.
· The media are required to show sensitivity to the victims and to their loved ones. This critical guideline should be observed during terrorist incidents and, no less importantly, also after their conclusion.
· The media are expected not to report details that might harm victims’ families.
· The area in which the terrorist incident takes place better not be open for anybody who testifies that he or she is a journalist. Only senior and experienced reporters should be allowed in. Junior and inexperienced reporters should undergo a learning process during which they fathom the complexities involved. Adequate training is a necessary precondition.


Jewish Congress' Petition

I am reluctant to forward petitions but cannot refuse this one. Presumably like some of you, I also received a message from Edgar Bronfman, urging me to sign and circulate a petition condemning anti-Semitism. I read and signed and kindly ask you to consider doing the same. Here is the information:

On April 26, the World Jewish Congress launched an historic campaign to collect 1,000,000 signatures for an important petition (http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/petition/) urging the UN to pass a standalone resolution condemning anti-Semitism.

This resolution will be presented to the UN General Assembly in September, and on that day World Jewry must speak with one voice on this issue. With news coming every day of violent anti-Semitic attacks in Europe and around the globe, it is critical that we act now to stop the rising tide of anti-Semitism.

So please, read the resolution (http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/petition/resolution1.cfm), sign the petition and urge your family and friends to do the same. "All Jews are responsible for one another" and it is only with the steadfast support and dedication of people like you that we can ensure this resolution passes.


Syria and the Question of WMD

Please find an article by Eyal Zisser* on this issue.

Abstract: Syria is one of the most advanced Arab countries as far as development of WMD is concerned. It has a large arsenal of hundreds of advanced surface-to-surface missiles that can cover most parts of Israel. With Iranian and North Korean aid, Syria has developed chemical warheads for these missiles, posing a strategic threat to Israel. Syria's impressive arsenal of WMD created, as the Syrians hoped, an effective balance of terror between Syria and Israel. Against the background of total Syrian conventional military inferiority in any future war with Israel, one can understand the strategic importance for the Syrian regime of possessing an arsenal of WMD. The piece concludes that it is unlikely Syria will follow Libya's example and easily give up its WMD capabilities. (This article was originally written for a project and conference on "Countering Threats in the Era of Mass Destruction: Accounts from the Middle East and Europe," co-sponsored by the GLORIA Center and The Military Centre for Strategic Studies (CeMiSS) of Italy.)

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003 and Libya's decision to cooperate in dismantling its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) capacity both put the spotlight on Syria. Damascus's policy throughout the Iraqi crises aroused U.S. anger and even prompted President George W. Bush to adopt an unprecedented tone against Syria, emphasizing demands that it stop developing banned chemical weapons.(1)
The Syrians denied having banned weapons and just as quickly kicked the ball into the American court by proposing that the entire Middle East be declared a zone free of non-conventional weapons. They were also quick to deny reports that Syria let Saddam Hussein's regime hide weapons of mass destruction in their territory.(2) Washington, however, was not satisfied with Damascus's denials and the U.S. government made clear that it would be closely watching Syria's behavior.(3)
Only time will tell how much substance there is in these accusations and American threats to do something if they proved true. But Syria does have a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons along with the means to deliver them using its impressive arsenal of advanced surface-to-surface missiles which can reach most of Israel's populated areas.
For Syria, more than any other Arab country in recent years, acquiring weapons of mass destruction, especially chemical weapons and advanced missile capability, was a central pillar of its national security concept. This was made clear by Syrian Information Minister Ahmad al-Hasan who, when asked about his reaction to the Libyan decision to give up plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, stated, "Syria is not Libya. The Libyans are far away from the front and from the enemy [Israel], and this is why Syria will never follow the Libyan course."(4)

WMD AS A WAY OF ACHIEVING STRATEGIC PARITY WITH ISRAEL
Already by the 1980s, Syria was working toward obtaining non-conventional weapons. These efforts were a main component in its nascent national security concept to achieve strategic parity with Israel. In keeping with this concept, the Syrians strove to establish not only military parity but full strategic parity--in the economic, social, technological and other spheres, as well.
This concept was developed against the background of Syria's regional and international weakness at that time, when that country found itself alone in its struggle against Israel after Egypt abandoned the confrontation and signed a peace treaty in 1979. Iraq, which the Syrians considered their strategic depth and who even helped it in the 1973 war, abandoned Syria. Baghdad separated itself from the Arab Rejection Front, which Syria had established after the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords, and later even went to war with Iran, leading to a break in relations with Damascus, which chose to back the Iranians. Syria experienced the taste of isolation during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 when it found itself alone in battle against Israel and suffered a bitter defeat.(5)
It was at this point that the Soviet Union came to Syria's aid and opened the Soviet arsenal to it, including items the USSR had previously refrained from selling to Syria. The ambitious concept of establishing strategic parity with Israel was thus born from a combination of no Arab, but apparent total Soviet backing in the conflict. Indeed, in the years following the 1982 war, the Syrian armed forces underwent an impressive qualitative and quantitative increase. It doubled in size from about a quarter of a million to half a million men and was equipped with advanced Soviet weapons, including SA-5 surface-to-air missiles and SS-21 surface-to-surface missiles.(6)
However, the Syrians quickly realized that their economy could not support the burden of the intended build-up of military strength. Their economy quickly came to the brink of bankruptcy. This prompted President Hafiz al-Asad to beat a substantial retreat, albeit not publicly, from his ambitious aim of achieving parity with Israel. However, Syria's troubles did not end there. Toward the end of the 1980s, the Soviet Union's economy also ran into significant difficulties. When the USSR collapsed in 1991, Syria was left alone in a threatening environment.(7)
In Syria's view the possibility that Israel would exploit these new realities and attack Syria was neither imaginary nor theoretical. Damascus's apprehension was rooted in its fear of Jerusalem and its image of the latter as a satanic foe bent on expansion whose ultimate aim was the defeat of Syria. The image of the United States since President Ronald Reagan in the eyes of the Syrians was not much better than that of Israel.
Syria is plagued by too many constraints to build up an army large and technologically sophisticated enough to match that of Israel. The two main checks on Syria's military development are the country's poor economy and that most of the world suppliers are closed to it either for political or financial reasons. This has led Syria, since the early 1990s, to base its national security increasingly on WMD as a kind of miracle cure that will, in the blink of an eye, narrow the ever-widening technological gap between Syria and Israel, most importantly between the air forces.
The fact that Israel itself has nuclear capability was an additional (but not the sole) reason Syria adopted this strategy. Already in the 1970s, it was argued that the Arabs could not ultimately defeat Israel because of its nuclear weapons. For example, it has been claimed that during the 1973 October War, Israel's nuclear capability was the reason Syrian forces did not cross into Israeli territory beyond the June 4, 1967 line. Thus, Syria's desire to eliminate the advantage Israel derives from its possession of nuclear weapons is part of an overall strategy to find a way to obtain a future conventional military victory. At a minimum, Syria looks to chemical weapons as a way to achieve deterrence vis-?-vis Israel, given the latter's current conventional military superiority.(8)
Two specific events contributed to Syria's increased awareness of the importance of obtaining non-conventional weapons. The first was the 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War in the course of which Saddam Hussein made considerable, and effective, use of chemical weapons and missiles (albeit
conventional) against the Iranians. The use of these weapons proved to be Saddam's winning card, stopping the Iranian forces at the gates of Baghdad, and forcing Tehran to agree to a cease-fire advantageous to Iraq. One must assume the Syrians took note that Saddam's use of surface-to-surface missiles against Iranian civilian targets aroused almost no reaction, certainly not an effective one, on the part of the international community.
The second event was the Gulf War of 1991, during which the Iraqis fired Scud missiles on Israel. Using these weapons was effective since they paralyzed life in Israel for a considerable time and let Iraq portray itself in heroic terms to the Arab world. At the same time, the Syrians were also impressed by the way the United States launched its war against Iraq. The Americans began the war with an air strike against Iraq's military and economic infrastructure, critically damaging them without Iraq being able to respond effectively. The Syrians saw how in one fell swoop the entire Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed. In Damascus, quite naturally, the fear was that a scenario such as this could repeat itself on their soil, particularly in the event of an Israeli-Syrian confrontation in which Israel might want to utilize its military might and its technological superiority, mainly its superior air force, to demolish Syria.(9)
It is no wonder, therefore, that since the early 1990s the Syrians have devoted considerable resources to WMD development, basing their national security concept on achieving the capability to create a balance of fear between Syria and Israel. One can assume that Syria's decision to move in this direction was also largely because Iran, and even more so North Korea, remained the only friendly countries prepared to open their pocketbooks and armories to the Syrians. By allying accordingly, Syria has adopted the patterns of behavior of Iran and North Korea.
In Syrian thinking, this Doomsday Weapon is designed to deter Israel from attacking Syria's infrastructure as the Americans did against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf War. In the past, during the 1973 war, for example, Israel reacted to Syria's success in breaking through Israeli defenses in the Golan Heights, with an air strike aimed at infrastructure sites all over Syria. The Syrians believe that the establishment of a balance of fear could deter Israel from reacting in the same manner, allowing the Syrians to exploit fully tactical military advantages if gained in a surprise attack, for example.(10) Toward the end of the 1990s, when the Syrian army grew weaker because of the decline in its weaponry's capability and quality, Syria's non-conventional disposition remained the deterrent means designed to allow it freedom of action against Israel through the use of the weapon of terrorism, mainly Hizballah. Apparently, these capabilities contributed to President Bashar al-Asad's indifference when requested by Israel in late 2000 to restrain Hizballah. Reportedly, Bashar replied that Syria was not afraid of Israel, which it could deal with by means of the missiles in its possession.(11)
Interviewed by the Lebanese newspaper al-Safir in February 2002, Bashar
elaborated:

Israel has elements of power that might tempt it, under the leadership of Ariel Sharon, who is in the grip of war mania, to embark on a vast military adventure. . . . Israel might indeed enjoy an advantage at the start of the war, but it will not be able to sustain this advantage over time until the end of the war, or control its results and win such a war. The Arab side, with ourselves in the lead, will be the side that determines the end of the war, that is, when and how it will end. We know that Israel has superiority in several military areas, but we have the capacity for firm resistance and determined decision-making. We do not intend to absorb blows in silence, and added to all this accept Israel's conditions for peace. . . As far as we are concerned, our decision is clear: we will stand fast and will react to aggression even if the enemy destroys many of our infrastructure installations. Although we are a poor state, we can stand fast against him better than he imagines, and we can rebuild what he manages to destroy. But he should know that the damage that we can cause the enemy is greater than the damage he can cause us.(12)

Indeed, a broad debate has been going on in Israel for years on the issue of Syria's determination to acquire non-conventional weapons. There are those in Israel who think that these missiles and this weaponry are designed to allow Damascus to launch a pre-emptive strike against Israel already at the beginning of a possible Syrian surprise attack against it with the objective of neutralizing a considerable part of Israel's military capabilities. However, most of the experts believe that this is a Doomsday Weapon to be used if and when Syria is attacked. In any event, the very existence of this weaponry in the hands of a regime like the Syrian Ba'th regime and certainly under the control of a young and inexperienced leader like Bashar al-Asad is enough to cause concern in Israel.(13)
Worthy of mention in this context is the success of Hizballah in creating a balance of terror with Israel, which ultimately forced Israel to retreat from South Lebanon, was also a factor in the formulation of the concept of a Syrian balance of terror based on non-conventional warfare. As shall be discussed below, this has chiefly meant developing biological and chemical weapons, as well as the missiles to deliver them.(14)

NON-CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA: MISSILE CAPABILITY
Already at the beginning of the 1970s, even before the Yom Kippur War, the Syrians equipped themselves with Frog surface-to-surface missiles with a 70km range. The Syrians fired these missiles, designed for tactical use on the battlefield, during the war at targets deep in Israeli territory. In one case they missed the mark (an Israeli airfield) and hit a civilian settlement in northern Israel, and Israel retaliated by striking targets inside Damascus.(15)
Following the war, the Syrians procured from the Soviet Union around 200 Scud-B surface-to-surface missiles whose range was 280km. These missiles provided Syria for the first time with the ability to strike civilian targets in Israel's heartland. After the 1982 war in Lebanon, and as part of the effort to achieve strategic parity with Israel, the Syrians procured SS-21 surface-to-surface missiles. This is an advanced tactical missile with a range of about 80km.(16)
However, it was the 1991 Gulf War which harbingered the accelerated Syrian effort to equip itself with missiles. This was assisted by the improved economic situation realized by the generous grants that Syria received from Gulf Arab states in order to buy its support against Iraq as well as the discovery and initial production of oil in Syria itself. Both factors filled Syria's heretofore-empty coffers with billions of dollars. In the early 1990s, Syria procured from North Korea Scud-C missiles, whose range is 500km, in addition to initiating the development, with the assistance of North Korea and Iran, of an advanced version of Scud (referred to as Scud-D) with a range of up to 700km.
The cost of developing these missiles was estimated to be up to $1 billion dollars, paid for with Syria's oil revenues earned in the 1990s and by financial aid from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. On at least one occasion, in early 1992, the Americans tried, as part of their efforts to keep the Middle East clean of WMD, to block the passage of North Korean ships carrying the missiles to Syria. However, the Syrians and the North Koreans outwitted them by means of a Russian airlift from North Korea and Iran directly to Syria. Estimates put the number of Scud-C and -D missiles in Syria's possession at about 60.(17)
The Syrians have a number of brigades equipped with surface-to-surface missiles. Over the past several years, there have been increasing reports of Syrian efforts to hide and camouflage the missiles they procured in a broad network of caves and underground tunnels dug in northern Syria. Since some of these missiles have a range of about 700km, there is no need to deploy them near the border with Israel in order to reach their targets. The more advanced Scud C and Scud D are believed to be launched from mobile launchers as was the case with the Iraqi Scud missiles during the first Gulf War.(18)

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
Alongside the build-up of their missile capabilities, the Syrians have invested efforts in developing a chemical weapons capability. It is generally accepted that already in the 1973 October War the Syrians had an arsenal of chemical weapons, possibly supplied to them by the Egyptians. However, since then the Syrians have invested considerable efforts in the development of chemical weapons, which reached their peak in the 1990s. The Syrians concentrated mainly on the development of the nerve gas Sarin and, since the early 1990s, the much more lethal VX gas.(19)
In addition, the Syrians have developed chemical warheads which could be delivered by their long-range missiles. The Soviets did not supply the Syrians with warheads of this kind and thus they are of local manufacture with North Korean and Iranian assistance. The Syrians are also able to deliver chemical weapons via aircraft as well, but given their knowledge of the Israeli air force's superiority over their own, the Syrians have apparently abandoned the idea of trying to use planes for this purpose--though in principle the option still exists.(20)
The result is that since the mid-1990s, and perhaps much earlier, the Syrians have had a chemical weapons capability beyond any regional country other than Iran.
There is very little information available on the development of biological weapons in Syria, but the Syrians are apparently investing efforts in developing biological weapons, including Anthrax and Cholera bacteria. These efforts are being carried out at the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Center (SSCR) in Damascus. The center is also responsible for the development of Syria's chemical weapons. An indication of the Syrian awareness in the effectiveness of such weapons can be found in an article in an Iranian newspaper published in April 2000 by former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlas. The article was entitled "Biological (Germ) Warfare: A New and Effective Method in Modern Warfare."(21)

HIZBALLAH: SYRIA AND IRAN'S LONG ARM
In recent years, Hizballah has become part of Syria's strategic layout against Israel. This organization works closely with the Syrians, although not under total Syrian control, and also with Iranian support. Iran has reportedly supplied a few dozen al-Fajr 5 and 7 missiles to Hizballah, which can reach all of northern Israel with their 75km and 125km ranges (respectively), capable of reaching all of northern Israel, including as far south as Hadera. In mid-2004, it was also reported in Israel that the Iranians supplied Hizballah with even more advanced al-Fajr missiles with ranges of 225km--capable of reaching the outskirts of Tel Aviv.(22) According to other credible reports, from the Syrian standpoint--though not necessarily from that of Hizballah itself--Syrian military planners include the organization in its operational plans as if it were an integral part of the Syrian armed forces. Alongside the fact that such missiles are available to Hizballah, there have been increasing reports, albeit unconfirmed, that the organization has chemical weapons. It is difficult to assume that the Iranians or even the Syrians have provided Hizballah with weapons of that kind, but there can be no doubt that the organization's agenda includes the procurement of chemical weapons which would greatly improve its standing vis-?-vis Israel.(23)
What makes this threat so dangerous for Israel is the fact that the Syrians seem to have lost much of the control they had on Hizballah. This is a clear result of the fact that in the top of the political pyramid in Damascus sits today a weak and inexperienced leader, Bashar al-Asad. Bashar's weakened position was most evident in his relationship with the leader of Hizballah, Shaykh Hasan Nasrallah. Nasrallah himself admitted at one time that he had never had a personal, face-to-face meeting with Hafiz
al-Asad.(24) Asad senior probably saw no reason for such a meeting; he would have regarded Nasrallah as one more pawn.
Bashar, on the other hand, met with Nasrallah frequently, as if to bask in Nasrallah's victorious glow. Nasrallah was quick to cast his cloak of patronage over the young leader in Damascus: as if he would show the new boy the ropes. Nasrallah said on more than one occasion that Hizballah would support Bashar in securing his standing at home and protecting Syrian interests abroad--as though Bashar were incapable of doing so himself. Bashar's leadership looked especially uncertain when the Israeli-Lebanese border deteriorated in March and April 2002, against the background of the Israeli operation in the West Bank "Defensive Shield."
Bashar, faced with the deteriorating situation along the Israeli-Syrian border, appeared at a loss to comprehend its gravity or to cope with Hizballah, and did nothing to halt or moderate the organization's acts. This behavior was seen in Israel and in the West as stemming from Bashar's basic unwillingness to concede what he perceived to be a strategic card against Israel. Hizballah's belligerence, the young president seemed to believe in his inexperience, would enable the Arabs to weaken and possibly defeat Israel, as had happened in south Lebanon. According to Israeli reports, the Syrians delivered in early 2002 advanced tactical rockets to Hizballah for use against Israel, thereby encouraging the organization to maintain its anti-Israel belligerency. Bashar, these reports indicated, acknowledged to Western dialogue partners that the Syrians had integrated Hizballah into its defense system to compensate for the Syrian army's strategic weakness vis-?-vis Israel.(25)

SYRIA'S POLICY OF KEEPING THESE WEAPONS HIDDEN
The Syrians have taken care to maintain a low profile in everything having to do with the non-conventional weapons at their disposal. They have refrained from making any unnecessary declarations, which in their view might have attracted unwanted attention, and denied all reports of their having such weapons at all.
In the shadow of the Israeli-Syrian peace negotiations, the Americans and Israelis refrained from bringing up the matter of Syria's efforts to equip itself with WMD. The assumption was that a peace agreement, believed to be only a matter of time, would also solve the problem of WMD in the Syrians' arsenal.
A certain change took place in Syria with the death of Hafiz al-Asad and the rise of his son Bashar to rule. As was the case in other areas of his rule, in the matter of Syria's non-conventional weapons capability, Bashar was revealed as rash with a tendency to make mistakes. For example, Syria's policy on the question of the war in Iraq made some wonder about his ability to take well-considered decisions in crisis situations. Indeed, the accepted opinion among analysts is that while Hafiz al-Asad was a prudent leader who shied away from anything adventurous, Bashar lacks these qualities. Second, this was expressed in a series of declarations Bashar made in which he threatened that in the event Syria is attacked by Israel it would exploit its capabilities to an extent that would cause severe damage to Israel.(26)
For years, the Syrian WMD program aroused little attention in the world. However, the change in U.S. policy since September 11, 2001, and even more strongly since the 2003 war in Iraq, means that the Syrians may no longer be able to pursue this policy. It indeed would appear that U.S. policy regarding Syria is no longer determined by the Israeli-Syrian conflict as it was in the past but rather in a belief that American national security interests requires action against any regime involved in terrorism and developing non-conventional weapons. Syria fits these categories from Washington's viewpoint, thus ensuring continued strong American pressure on Syria.
The pressure put on Damascus increased significantly following the dramatic decision made by Muammar Qadhafi to give up his plans to develop WMD in Libya. Furthermore, for the first time the European Union started to put pressure on Syria to change its policy on this issue and to give up its plans to develop weapons of mass destruction. Following the occupation of Iraq, the Syrians were met with new European demands that the association agreement they were eager to sign with the EU would include an article calling for the disarmament of all countries, including Syria, of weapons of mass destruction. The Syrians rejected this demand.(27)
How the United States will act toward Syria depends on many factors, including who is elected president of the United States in November 2004, the situation in Iraq, and the reading of the experience in Iraq for future strategy. The Syrian policy, aiming at preserving its strength by equipping the army with advanced WMD capabilities, might thus become a threat in itself to Syrian security. Bashar's behavior, which sometimes seemed as if he was seeking a confrontation with the United States--taking steps his father would never have risked--heightens the possibility that its emphasis on WMD might become a major problem for the regime.
The presence of such a young and inexperienced leader who seems to lack the same degree of legitimacy, public support, and respect which his late father enjoyed, may be inconsequential in a country that benefits from political stability and long-standing democratic traditions. But Syria is a country suffering from severe social and economic problems that require immediate and unequivocal solutions. More important, Syria plays a crucial regional role, and may even decide the fate of the region--for better or worse, for peace or war. The vacuum created at the top of the ruling pyramid in Damascus presents problems, not just for Syria, but the region as a whole.

*Prof. Eyal Zisser is the head of the Department of Middle Eastern and African History and a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, both at Tel Aviv University. Prof. Zisser wrote extensively on the history and the modern politics of Syria and Lebanon and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Among his books are: In the Name of the Father, Bashsar al-Asad's First years in Power (Tel Aviv, 2004); Faces of Syria (Tel Aviv, 2003); Lebanon: the Challenge of Independence (London, 2000); Assad's Syria at a Crossroads (Tel Aviv, 1999); and Asad's Legacy--Syria in Transition (New York, 2000).

NOTES
1. For Bush's statements see CNN, April 14, 2003; See also Eyal Zisser, "Syria and the War in Iraq," Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2 (June 2003), pp. 5-18; "Syria and the United States: Bad Habits Die Hard," Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 3 (Summer 2003), pp. 29-38. 2. See, for example, Bashar's interviews to the Daily Telegraph, January 6, 2004; and to al-Jazira TV Channel, May 1, 2004. See also Yediot Ahronot (Tel Aviv), December 28, 2002; Israeli TV, Channel 1, September 19, 2003. 3. See AFP (Agence France Presse) (Paris), February 13, 2003; see also al-Safir (Beirut), February 12, 2003. 4. LNA (Lebanese News Agency), May 14, 2004. 5. For more see Patrick Seale, Asad of Syria: the Struggle for the Middle East (London: I. B. Tauris, 1988), pp. 250-393; Eyal Zisser, Asad's Legacy: Syria in Transition (New York: New York University Press, 2000), pp. 8-13. 6. See Amos Gilboa, "The National Security Doctrine," in Avner Yaniv, Moshe Ma'oz and Avi Kover (eds.) Syria and Israeli Security (Hebrew) (Tel Aviv: Ma'arachot, 1990), pp. 143-154; Ze'ev Eytan, "The Syrian Army," in Avner Yaniv, Moshe Ma'oz and Avi Kover (eds.) Syria and Israel Security (Hebrew), pp. 155-170. See also Zisser, Asad's Legacy, pp. 38-39. 7. See Zisser, Asad's Legacy, pp. 39-51. 8. For more see Shimon Aronson, Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East (Jerusalem: Akadamon, 1995) (in Hebrew), pp. 171-173.
9. See Zisser, Asad's Legacy, pp. 62-65.
10. See Dany Shoham, "Poisoned Missiles," Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 13-22. 11. See Yediot Ahronot, September 15, 2002. 12. Al-Safir (Beirut), February 17, 2002; al-Watan (Kuwait), July 23, 2002. 13. See Eyal Zisser, "Does Bashar al-Assad Rule Syria" Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Winter 2003), pp. 3-15; Fasces of Syria (Tel Aviv: Hakibutz Hameuchad, 2003) (in Hebrew), pp. 231-232.
14. See Daniel Sobelman, New Rules of the Game: Israel and Hizballah after the Withdrawal from Lebanon (Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, 2003). 15. See Ze'ev Eytan, "The Syrian Army;" Shoham, "Poisoned Missiles." 16. Ibid. 17. See Shai Feldman and Yiftah Shapir (eds.) The Middle East Military Balance, 2000-2001 (Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, 2003), pp. 289-301. 18. Ibid., p. 291; see also Eyal Zisser, In the Name of the Father: Bashar's First Years in Power (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 2004), pp. 232-234. 19. Shoham, "Poisoned Missiles." 20. See Shai Feldman and Yiftah Shapir (eds.) The Middle East Military Balance, 2000-2001, pp. 289-301; Zisser, Faces of Syria, pp. 231-232. 21. See Mustafa Talas, "Biological Warfare, a New and Effective Method in Modern Warefare," Tehran SAFF, FBIS (Foreign Broadcast Information Service), April 20, 2000; pp. 38-42; see also Anthony H. Cordesman, "Syria and Weapons of Mass Destruction," Washington D. C.: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2000), pp. 22-28; Shoham, "Poisoned Missiles: Syria's Doomsday Deterrent," p. 18. 22. Eyal Zisser, "The Return of Hizbulla," Middle East Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Fall 2002), pp. 3-13. 23. Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv, September 14, 2003; Sobelman, New Rules of the Game, pp. 70-71; see also Eyal Zisser, In the Name of the Father, pp. 231-232, 271-273. 24. See al-Manar TV, June 10, 2001. 25. Zisser, In the Name of the Father, pp. 271-277. 26. See al-Safir (Beirut), February 27, 2002. 27. See al-Hayat (London), March 3, 2004; al-Watan (Kuwait), April 5, 2004; Reuters, May 7, 14, 2004.


First Gold Medal for Israel

On 29 August the Athens Olympic Games came to a close. Israel had two moments of fame: Arik Zeevi won the bronze in Judo; Gal Fridman won gold in surfing. It was the first gold in Israel's history. Kudos to both men. Up until the 1980s Israel believed and adopted Pierre de Coubertin's saying: "The important thing in life is not triumph but to compete". Israel is still sending many athletes just to fill the roles. To win a medal, some other people need to be losers. But human nature cannot avoid developing expectations for medals. In its entire history, Israel won six medals: 1 gold; 1 silver (Yael Arad in Judo), and four bronze in only three fields: Judo, surfing and kayaking. All six in the last three Olympics: Atlanta, Sydney and Athens. We sure need what Baltimore has: Michael Phelps.

A pathetic moment was when our Minister of Education, Limor Livnat, jumped on the podium to hug Gal Fridman. Ms. Livnat flew twice to Athens: to hug Zeevi, and then to embrace Fridman. In Hebrew we say: Shulman Yeshalem (meaning, you and I pay). Both men were tolerant and cooperative, letting her have a share of their fame. After all, Livnat needs all help to glorify herself.


Departing the USA

Many companies were eager to open accounts for us when we arrived to the USA. These same companies were much less enthusiastic to close these accounts. All representatives said when they heard my request to close the account: I am really sorry to hear this. They sounded authentic. There is the common cliché: never believe a salesman. Well, I believed them, more so when there sorrow was manifested in unwillingness and sloppy service. This is both understandable and irritating. We needed to make a few phone calls for each service to have it stopped. For the first time, I was transferred to senior officials without asking. Of course, I appreciated the great honour. They were hardly ever answerable before. My advice to those who need to leave the USA at some point: Start making the necessary arrangements a week before you move. Don't leave things to the last moment. If you do, you might need to leave while your accounts are still open. This is, at least, my limited experience in the State of Maryland.


My New Contact Details

Please note my new contact details:

Raphael Cohen-Almagor (D.Phil. Oxon)
Director, Center for Democratic Studies
Information Studies and Department of Communication
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905
ISRAEL.
Phone: 972-4-8249-785.
Fax: 972-4-8249-836; 972-4-8249120.
E-mail: rcohen@univ.haifa.ac.il ; ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il
Web page: http://soc.haifa.ac.il/~ralmagor



Please do not write to my old JHU E-mail and snail addresses.


Photos of 2003

You may view the year that was from Israeli perspective, in photos, thanks to Haaretz:

http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/specials/PicGalleryPage.jhtml?groupId=58&ol=15_09


Shana Tova

We are now celebrating our New Year. I wish all of you Shana Tova, year of good health, love, tranquility, prosperity and success in all your endeavors. May we find ways to promote peace and understanding in our troubled world.

Click here: http://shalomdch.org/flash_shofar.swf


With my very best wishes, as ever,
RafiMy last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor

August 2004

On The Fence, Gaza, NY Times Editorial, B'tselem Report, Civil Marriage in Israel, American Society, Reform Jewish Movement's Resolution on Israeli Unilateral Withdrawal, 9/11 Commission, American Society, Living Wills, Farewell Baltimore, New Book

Dear friends and colleagues,


The Fence
I wish to draw your attention to the following article:

Editorial
By Mortimer B. Zuckerman
Comparative advantages
US News and World Report
2 August 2004
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/040802/opinion/2edit.htm
Compare scenes. In The Hague, 15 justices of the International Court of Justice solemnly order Israel to dismantle the security fence it is building to separate Israelis from Palestinians. In the Gaza Strip, meanwhile, the Palestinians, prevented from killing Israelis by a barrier that exists now, are busy murdering one another in factional warfare of gunfire, arson, and kidnappings. And in Ramallah on the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority is in turmoil yet again over the corrupt and incompetent leadership of the terrorist Yasser Arafat, one of whose chief critics emerged from a television interview to be shot twice in the leg.

Violence is the syntax of debate among Palestinians, as it has been the syntax of negotiation with Israel. It escalated in the first place not as the result of Israeli aggression but because of Israeli willingness four years ago at Camp David to yield control of 95 percent of the occupied lands as Israel had previously yielded all of the Sinai to Egypt. Even the United Nations Mideast envoy, Terje Roed-Larsen, a longtime supporter of Arafat, publicly attacked the PA recently for its failure to end violence, combat terrorism, and institute reforms that ordinary Palestinians have been demanding for years.

The flat-Earth assumption of the justices in The Hague, reinforced by a U.N. General Assembly vote on July 20--instigated in part by France--is that all Palestinians are ready to live in peace with the State of Israel and are thwarted only by Israel's intransigence. The General Assembly vote, under European pressure, did add a couple of ambiguous paragraphs about the duty of restraint on all sides, but in The Hague's judgment there was little mention of terrorism. It was a ruling taken in a practical and moral vacuum. The court washed its hands of the sure consequence: If Israel complied, scores more Israelis would be blown up by suicide bombings. Ultimately, the court placed the victims of terrorism on trial instead of the terrorists--a move emblematic of the hypocrisy of international diplomacy, remorseless in the face of the murder of Israelis yet highly agitated over a fence aimed at saving lives--just because it ostensibly impinges a little on land in the disputed West Bank.

In truth, the decision was preordained by politics--handed down, it should be noted, by a court composed in part of justices with only a nodding acquaintance with the rule of law and democracy. The head of the court, a Chinese justice, represents a country that invaded Tibet and has a questionable human-rights record. Some of the court's members come from foreign enemies of Israel, e.g., Egypt. The one dissenting American judge on the court nailed the key legal point: "To reach that conclusion with regard to the wall as a whole without . . . seeking to ascertain all relevant facts bearing directly on issues of Israel's legitimate right to self-defense, military necessity, and security needs, given the repeated deadly terrorist attacks in and upon Israel . . . cannot be justified as a matter of law."

Compare that blind justice with the careful ruling against the Israeli government on the routing of the fence by Israel's High Court of Justice, which the government has said it will accept. The court found the fence was not expressing a political border or any other border but was simply a barrier against the reality of Palestinian terrorism. But it still ordered the Army to alter a section to make it less oppressive to the Palestinians. This court had its eyes open--as The Hague's justices did not--both to the Palestinians most immediately affected and to the Israeli victims of the Palestinian campaign of terror, 900 dead and more than 6,000 wounded. It insisted that there must be a balancing of military necessity and humanitarian considerations: "Both international law and fundamental principles of Israeli administrative law recognize proportionality as a standard for balancing the authority of the military commander in the area with the needs of the local population."

Expertise over magic. In a memorable passage, the Israeli court affirms: " 'The security of the state' is not a 'magic word' which makes judicial review disappear. . . . The military commander is the expert on the military aspects of the fence's route. We are the experts on the humanitarian aspects of the route . . . whether the military commander's route inflicts disproportionate injury upon the local inhabitants. This is our expertise."

The court's ruling is a remarkable demonstration of the role of an honorable judiciary in a democratic state under mortal challenge. "Our task is difficult. We are members of Israeli society. Although we are sometimes in an ivory tower, that tower is in the heart of Jerusalem, which is not infrequently struck by ruthless terror. . . . As any other Israelis, we, too, recognize the need to defend the country and its citizens against the wounds inflicted by terror. . . . But we are judges. When we sit in judgment, we are subject to judgment. We act according to our best conscience and understanding."

With that perspective, the court decided to make the fence, in certain areas, more responsive to the needs of the local population while recognizing that its decision did not make it easier for military security. In effect, the court acknowledged that the delay in its completion might well come at the cost of terrorist attacks. "This is the destiny of a democracy: She does not see all means as acceptable, and the ways of her enemies are not always open before her. A democracy must sometimes fight with one arm tied behind her back. Even so, a democracy has the upper hand. The rule of law and individual liberties constitute an important aspect of her security stance. At the end of the day, they strengthen her spirit and this strength allows her to overcome her difficulties."

Indeed, building a fence is one of the most civilized ways in which nations can defend themselves, in Shakespeare's words, "against the envy of less happy lands," when they share a border with armed attackers who lack an effective government to constrain them. The Roman Emperor Hadrian ordered a wall to be constructed across the width of England to keep barbarians out. The Chin emperor ordered several walls to be linked to the Great Wall of China to repel barbarians. Well, we don't have barbarians today, but we have their modern equivalent in terrorists--with the Palestinian Authority a known safe haven and favorite breeding ground for them, especially the suicide bomber.

The U.N. itself built a fence around its headquarters in New York for protection. Likewise, India, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Turkey have built barriers to contain their neighbors. India just completed a 460-mile barrier in contested Kashmir to contain terrorist infiltration from Pakistan and is building a security fence similar to that being built by Israel to protect itself from Muslim terrorists coming in from Bangladesh. Saudi Arabia built a 60-mile barrier along an undefined border zone with Yemen to stop the smuggling of weapons.
Success. The bottom line is that the fence has worked. Secretary of State Colin Powell emphasized this in saying the fence issue should not even have been brought to The Hague. The American people recognize this full well. In a poll this year, 68 percent say the Israelis have a right to a security fence "even if many other countries disagree." The House of Representatives voted 361 to 45 deploring the misuse of the International Court of Justice and its advisory opinion that Israel's security fence should be dismantled.

The facts are conclusive: Before the fence was erected, the average number of terrorist attacks was 26 per year. Since its partial construction, the number has dropped to three per year, while the death toll has dropped by over 70 percent from 103 to 28, and the number of injured has dropped by more than 80 percent, from an annual average of 628 to 83. Terrorist penetration into Israel from the northern West Bank, where the initial portion of the fence was completed, has dropped from 600 a year to zero--as Israel was able to foil every suicide bombing originating from the northern West Bank and specifically from the cities of Nablus and Jenin, areas that had previously been infamous for exporting suicide bombers.

Only 5 percent of the fence is a wall to prevent fire from adjacent Palestinian communities onto Israeli areas. The height of this portion has in some places been raised, for example, as in Jerusalem--from 2 yards to 8 yards--because the terrorists jumped over the shorter wall. But in any event, it is a temporary, nonviolent way to reduce terrorism that has already saved many lives.

The fence brings benefits to the Palestinians as well: It will reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians through the withdrawal of Israel from many settlements. The fence will also facilitate the removal of Israeli checkpoints and thus encourage greater freedom of movement within Palestinian areas. It will create an incentive for the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Palestinian side of the barrier, making the removal not a question of if but when. Fewer successful terrorist attacks mean fewer Israeli retaliatory defensive operations; finally, the route of the fence under this Israeli court decision will be much closer to the territorial proposals agreed to by the left-wing Israeli government in the Camp David talks and to the territorial settlements previously imposed.

Under the new court ruling, about 75 percent of Israeli settlers would be incorporated into roughly 8 percent of the West Bank on the Israeli side of the barrier. Fewer than 1 percent (13,000) of West Bank Palestinians would be stranded in these Israeli areas, while over 99 percent (1,970,000) would be left in the approximately 92 percent of the West Bank on the other side of the fence, which would be a contiguous area.

The Palestinians cannot have it both ways. They cannot avoid their security responsibilities while denying the Israelis the right to defend themselves, and they must pay a territorial price for the four years of terror they unleashed, for terrorism cannot be seen to succeed.
It has been said that if Israel is 10 percent more moral, it will be a light unto the nations; if it is 25 percent more moral, it will bring the Messiah; if it is 50 percent more moral, it will be dead. The Israeli High Court of Justice's decision brings a light unto the nations of the world. The International Court of Justice's advisory opinion would produce nothing but more dead innocents.

Gaza
Israel did not withdraw from Gaza yet and the mess continues. Palestinian militants want to show they are alive and kicking, and what can happen after Israel's pulling out. Last month the IDF moved into Beit Hanun in response to the persistent Palestinian rocket attacks, many of them coming from militants hiding in orange and olive groves. The Palestinian rockets have a range of about five miles, contain a limited explosive charge and are extremely inaccurate, but an attack last month killed two Israelis.

The attacks have continued, and on August 4 Israeli forces shot and killed four Palestinians during clashes as the military expanded operations in the northern Gaza Strip to try to prevent rocket attacks being mounted from the area.

Israel's Chief of Staff, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, said that the military might continue pushing into northern Gaza if the rocket attacks did not stop. If the effort does not provide security for the Israeli village of Sederot, he said, "we will be forced to widen and deepen" the operation.

NY Times Editorial
August 4 was the 75th birthday of the Palestinian leader, Yassir Arafat, who has been confined to his damaged compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah for about two years. Arafat did not make any public appearances, and there were no reports of celebrations for him. It is not a time for celebrations. Maybe Arafat should start thinking of retirement and dedicate more time to himself and his family. After all, for long decades he worked diligently for his people at the expense of doing for himself, and he needs a lot of time to write his rich autobiography, and this is an important task that requires thinking and research. I sincerely wish him tranquil and productive retirement as a prolific author.

Indeed, on July 22 the NY Times called upon Arafat to resign and to go home, saying that he inflicted enough damage upon his people and completed his role in history. The Editorial says that Arafat has never transformed from revolutionary leader to statesman. He should clear the road to someone who is more suitable for this stage in Palestinian history.

Sometimes I wish newspapers have more power. If the Palestinians had someone of Nelson Mandela's stature, the conflict was resolved and sealed long time ago.


B'tselem Report
B'tselem is an Israeli organization that monitors human rights in the territories. In previous research I conducted on human rights violations, no. of Palestinians casualties, house demolitions, administrative detentions etc. I always tried to gather information from the IDF and to match the data with B'tselem's. Usually, the IDF numbers are lower in comparison to B'tselem's.

In a report published on August 9 B'tselem called the transportation policies imposed on Palestinians in the West Bank "the reign of forbidden roads." The report holds that Israel's policies on roads and highways are reminiscent of the apartheid regime in South Africa. The report's authors noted that, as opposed to South African policies, the Israel Defense Forces dared not document such practices in writing.

One of the differences between the Israel's policies in the territories and South Africa's former policies is that Israel cites security concerns while executing its policies. Israel's security services say that closing roads to Palestinian traffic prevents terror attacks on those roads and in Israel. B'tselem claims the policy is illegal and should be avoided.

In addition, say B'tselem officials, closing roads to all Palestinians is "a racist directive which constitutes a policy that indiscriminately harms all Palestinians, and therefore infringes on human rights and is a violation of international human rights and laws" (published in Haaretz, 9 August 2004).


Civil Marriage in Israel
A new survey determined that 70% of Israelis support recognition of civil marriage and 58% do not agree that civil marriage will cause a split in the Jewish People.

The survey, commissioned by the Forum for Freedom of Choice in Marriage, determined that 59% of the public support recognition of Reform and Conservative marriage ceremonies, in addition to Orthodox ceremonies.

On the contrary, 40% are convinced that only the Rabbinate should perform religious marriage ceremonies. The survey was conducted by Dahaf, headed by Mina Zemach. 500 individuals participated in the survey, constituting a representative sample of the Jewish population in Israel.

According to the survey, 75% of the secular population supports the proposal to allow civil marriage, versus 13% among the religious and ultra-orthodox public. 40% prefer to be married in a ceremony that is not an Orthodox one, yet 85% of these would incorporate Jewish characteristics in such a ceremony.

Only 6% of the Israelis responded that they would prefer to be married in a complete secular ceremony, without any Jewish characteristics. The survey also points out that the majority of Israelis today (77%) prefer an Orthodox marriage ceremony over a marriage abroad or signing a marriage agreement with an attorney.

The survey reveals surprising statistics concerning the “brit zugi’ut” (couples registration) that would enable registration in the Ministry of Justice: apparently 70% of the secular population do not support “brit zugi’ut” assuming it did not grant all the rights of a married couple. 53% of the secular population sees “brit zugi’ut as a good or reasonable answer for civil marriage. 45% of the secular population thinks “brit zugi’ut” is not a good solution or that it does not supply an answer at all.

Reform Jewish Movement's Resolution on Israeli Unilateral Withdrawal
On August 3, 2004 Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, sent a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell informing him of a new resolution passed by the Union for Reform Judaism's Board of Trustees, entitled "Unilateral Withdrawals, Security Barriers, and Home Demolitions: Striving for Security and Peace in Israel and the Middle East." The resolution was included with the letter along with a copy of the new issue of Reform Judaism, which features several articles on the security barrier, including one by Rabbi Saperstein.

The Union's new resolution addresses Palestinian terrorism, Israeli security, unilateral withdrawal, the security barrier, and administrative home demolitions. The letter to Secretary Powell explains these new positions, expresses support and concern for recent Congressional actions regarding Israel, and urges the Secretary to support increased U.S. involvement in the peace process. The letter concludes, "For peace to emerge, unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and parts of the West Bank must be matched by the United States' vigorous pursuit of a return to the peace process."

The Union resolution on Israel is available at www.rac.org/isres.pdf, and Reform Judaism's articles on the security barrier, including Rabbi Saperstein's article "High-Stakes Gamble," can be found at www.urj.org/rjmag.

On the 9/11 Commission
I wish to bring to your attention the following article, published by the Washington Post.

Stansfield Turner
Sunday, August 1, 2004; Page B01
The 9/11 commission's recommendations won't create a new intelligence structure. Mostly, they repackage what we have now. For instance, the recommended position of national intelligence director (NDI) already exists. It is the director of Central Intelligence (DCI) created by the National Security Act of 1947, with responsibility for coordinating the nation's 15 intelligence agencies. The DCI today has a staff just for this coordinating function. We don't need a new layer of bureaucracy. What we do need is a review of what authority a coordinator of intelligence should have, whether we call him or her an NID or a DCI.

The commission recommendation of separating the NID/DCI from the job of heading the CIA is a fine idea. The two jobs are more than one person should try to handle. And there is a conflict of interest in running one of the agencies that's being coordinated.

A serious problem today, which the commission addresses nicely, is that the 1947 law did not give the DCI sufficient authority to ensure adequate exchange of data among the agencies. It would take only an executive order from the president to give the DCI, or a new NID, the authority to set the standards for classifying secret intelligence materials. Today, each of the heads of the 15 agencies can create classification categories so as to exclude other agencies from their data. Some intelligence does deserve special treatment. But that should be decided by the NID/DCI, who has the national interest in view, not someone with an agency's perspective.
The same presidential executive order could give the NID the authority to set the budgets for all 15 agencies, to reallocate funds and people among them, and to set priorities for both collecting and analyzing intelligence, thus implementing the intent of the 1947 law. President Jimmy Carter gave me, as his DCI, that authority. This enabled a far greater degree of coordination than we have today.

Should a new NID be given a fixed term -- not to coincide with the president's -- to help insulate him or her from political pressures to twist the intelligence? Absolutely not. Why? First, because one responsibility of the chief of intelligence is to be intelligence adviser to the president. A harmonious working relationship between the two is essential. In the past, a number of DCIs have resigned and a number of others have been fired just because of a lack of rapport with the president. Second, because the NID/DCI's authority derives in good measure from the support he or she receives from the president, especially vis-à-vis the more powerful secretaries of defense and state. A close relationship with the president is a NID/DCI's lifeblood.

Finally and most importantly, a fixed term is a bad idea because we shouldn't overreact to the accusation of the day -- that is, the assertion that the Bush administration may have pressured DCI George Tenet and his people to slant the intelligence on Iraq. The idea behind a fixed term is to make the NID more independent, rather than serving at the pleasure of the current president. Thirty years ago, we reacted in exactly the opposite direction, establishing congressional and executive controls to rein in powerful DCIs and prevent them from overstepping legal and ethical bounds, as they were accused of doing in the 1950s and 1960s.
Let's not now re-invite this problem of the past in dealing with a problem of today. All that is needed is to select as NIDs people who will stand up to improper pressures. We also have two congressional committees on intelligence whose job it should be to blow whistles at the slightest sign that the intelligence process is being politicized.

Stansfield Turner, director of central intelligence from 1977 to 1981, is on the faculty of the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland.

On the American Society
A few months ago I had an exchange with a friend who wishes to remain anonymous about the American society. Here it is.

Hi Rafi,

It is amazing to see the escalation in the divisive nature of American politics since 2000, and just as bad has been the increase in disparity between rich and poor. There has been a rape of the poor and middle class by the rich, and the amazing thing is that so many people seem to be unaware of what is happening. The accompanying loss of civil rights must be something that will cause a severe back-lash very soon.

M.


Hi M.,

I disagree with your last statement. It is a great nation. The more I know it, the more I appreciate it. I am talking about grassroots. The people have a very good sense of democracy, of civil rights and liberties, of the values that underpin their nation. That there is corruption is not new. Corruption is everywhere. Wherever there is power, there is corruption.

Hence, I do not see the downfall of the American empire in the near future. Such processes take centuries. The US suffers from severe problems: crime, drugs, political extremism, homelessness, poverty, terrorism, and corruption. Their health system is the worse in the western world. Public education is bad in many places. Public transportation is appalling. Many things in the infrastructure of society are not working properly. Still, it is an amazing place, with many good things to offer: cultural diversity, belief in freedom, belief that if you work hard you will find your place, belief that you are living in the best country in the world, strong pride and patriotism. People are proud to live here. They feel they are part of THE world empire. For me, it is the best place in the world to conduct research. If you are rich, you have the best that life can offer (this is true for every society, more so here). Unfortunately, the leaders did not find the way to decrease the gap between rich and poor. I agree that the gap, so it seems, is growing.

The US is a vast country with much to see and absorb. Life here is far more relaxed and comfortable than in other countries I know. One has less worries and stress, and has the ability to enjoy life far more, and this is true in a comparative level for all classes. The American empire will not last forever, but I do not think it will fall during this century. Eventually, internal problems mentioned supra will bring it down, as was the case with all empires in history.

The very best,

Rafi


Hi Rafi,

I agree with most of what you say. However, I will stick with my prediction that there will be a back-lash, not just on civil rights, but possibly on many other grounds as well. If the current administration is re-elected, and even if it is not, there will be a severe economic adjustment, if not melt down, after the election. At present interest rates are being held artificially low, and it is a fundamental contradiction that at times of record and increasing public sector deficits interest rates can be low. Even if a Democrat is elected to the White House he will not be able to do much to ameliorate the economic fall-out from the present misguided policies.

And in fields like civil rights, there are many people in the US who are already deeply concerned over legislation such as the Patriot Act. There was a time when if such legislation was enacted elsewhere the US Administration would have condemned it as an affront to democracy and individual rights and freedoms. Now we see even the courts are becoming less able or willing to stand up for individual freedoms and democratic protections. The electoral gerrymandering you mentioned in Texas is a case in point. Anywhere else in the democratic world the courts would have ruled that as an unconstitutional abuse of power. And now we are told that even after the debacle of the 2000 presidential election there is a high probability that systems will not be able to guarantee the accuracy of the vote count in 2004!

It is obviously true that many Americans still hold to the dream and believe in the visions you mention of freedom, the virtues of hard work, etc. But believing something does not necessarily make it so and the sense of disillusionment that comes from seeing the corporate greed and corruption and the deliberate results of policies aimed at transferring wealth from the lower to the higher socio economic groups, will ultimately have an adverse effect on the society.

I did not predict that the downfall of the American empire would happen in the near future. But it might happen much sooner than you think. I remember that the collapse of the Soviet Union happened much faster than most pundits thought. We cannot compare the empires of the past with what happens in modern times. These days events move much quicker, it is the nature of modern society.

The very weakened and distorted infrastructure that you mention will soon reach a critical mass point on the downward spiral. Until then things might look OK on the surface, especially from your vantage point, but once the slide develops into an avalanche it will cause almost instantaneous collapse of the society.

I don't predict a specific time for this but I reckon it will certainly be before the end of this century. You and I can compare notes from another place!

Cheers Rafi.

M.


On Living Wills
For all those interested in the subject I recommend the insightful article of Angela Fagerlin and Carl E. Schneider, "Enough: The Failure of the Living Will", Hastings Center Report Vol. 34, No. 2 (March-April 2004): 30-42.

The authors lucidly indicate the problems involved in writing, and abiding by living wills. Those who have, or think of having living wills, are advised to read it.


Farewell Baltimore
As the year at Hopkins comes to a close, I wish to thank people here who opened their hearts, bestowed their kindness and made the time in Baltimore memorable: Mary Jo and Steve, Louise and Boris, Hadassah and Levi, Carole and John, Marina and Bill, Efrat and Guy, Frances and Tim, Mati, Yardena and Ori, Ayelet and Dan, Aviva, Max, Mark, Agnes, Amy and Christian. It has been a privilege to know you all. I hope we will keep in touch.


New Book
It is always nice to see that one of your former students is publishing. Daphna was my student at the Hebrew University Law School and she now spends time in Oxford. Although I did not read her book yet, I am sure it is intriguing and interesting: Daphna Baram, Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel (Guardian Books, 2004).

I hope to see you in Israel.

With my very best wishes, as ever,
RafiMy last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor