No State says Arafat? EU says yes?

Doha's AL RAYAH 4/1/99: "Will the Palestinian state be declared on 4 May or not? This question has become crucial in the decisionmaking and research centers connected with the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But, Al-Rayah can confirm on the basis of exclusive information it has obtained that Palestinian President Yasir 'Arafat has completely abandoned the idea of declaring the state on 4 May.

There are basic reasons for that. The chief reason is the historic declaration issued by the European Union [EU] leaders in Berlin recently and the rather firm stand adopted by the US Administration during 'Arafat's recent visit to Washington on the idea of declaring the state.

Al-Rayah sources have disclosed that 'Arafat seems strongly convinced now that it is in the interest of the Palestinian state itself to postpone its declaration on the proposed date, especially since he has received firm guarantees from the EU states that they will recognize the state immediately upon its declaration after one year of negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel, irrespective of the result of these negotiations.

These well-informed sources point out that during his recent visit to Washington, 'Arafat requested a pledge from Congress that it will grant $400 million to the Palestinian National Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Wye River accord.

The reply he received, however, says that the Wye River accord provides for financial aid to Israel as well, and offering this aid awaits the results of the legislative elections in the Hebrew state. According to these sources, 'Arafat got the message which implies: You just have to wait a little.

These sources also disclose that France played a central role in drafting the recent Berlin Declaration and that it exerted mighty efforts to persuade the EU states to adopt the final draft.

They explain that two EU states, namely Britain and Germany, expressed strong reservations that almost prevented the issuance of the declaration.

The sources attribute this to historical considerations pertaining to these two states' viewpoint and handling of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

After some detailed discussions, however, the two states became convinced of the significance of the declaration, which was then approved by the presidents and prime ministers of 15 European states in Berlin on 25 March.

Although the European declaration fell short of the expectations of France--the European state most supportive of the Palestinian stand--it still recorded a major advance in the EU stand on the Palestine question, according to these sources.

For it contains three basic points that constitute a significant improvement in this stand. First, this statement is considered an unambiguous official support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state by 15 EU member states.

Second, the statement expresses an EU desire for this state to be declared as soon as possible, preferably through the negotiations that would be resumed by both sides, the PA and Israel.

But, the EU also set a time limit for the negotiations.

It did not leave them hanging loose. So, failure of the negotiations would not mean that the Palestinians would have to give up the declaration of their state, or that the EU states would recognize any right, especially by Israel, to veto the declaration of this state.

Third, and most important, the EU pledges to recognize the Palestinian state once it is declared.

The sources say they know that Yasir 'Arafat has abandoned the option of declaring the state on 4 May. They also indicate that the EU has expressed its appreciation for the decision taken by 'Arafat and considered it wise.

But, the EU also gave firm guarantees to 'Arafat that the day the Palestinian state is declared after the one year time limit it set for the negotiations between the PA and Israel, the 15 EU state will announce their official recognition of this state.

This means clearly that EU supports President 'Arafat's political stand. The sources point out that all these ideas were included in the European declaration through strong French pressure. They also explain that in light of these developments the European stand has preceded the US stand, which concentrates on technicalities.

For the US viewpoint says:

We do not like to express an official stand on the declaration of the Palestinian state as yet.

This is exactly what State Department spokesman James Rubin meant when he said a few days ago:

The Palestinian state must be declared through negotiations. If the negotiations succeeded, the United States would reserve the right to announce its stand at the appropriate time as to whether or not it would recognize the Palestinian state.

The EU agrees with the US view on the importance of the Palestinian state resulting from negotiations between the Palestinian and Israeli sides. In fact, it gave these negotiations one whole year.

But after this period, the EU believes that 'Arafat will have the right to declare the state, regardless of whether the negotiations have succeeded or not...

The sources affirm their conviction that without US and European assistance it would not be possible for 'Arafat to declare the Palestinian state and maintain it at the same time.

Therefore, it is important for the Palestinian national leadership to convince the US Administration that its position on the independent Palestinian state has changed."

Hamas argues over resuming attacks on Israeli targets

Paris' AL WATAN AL ARABI 4/2/99: "There is said to be real and behind-the-scenes "competition" between the political leadership of the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, and a number of the organization's military officers who are detained in Israeli prisons. The two sides appear to disagree over whether to resume military attacks against Israeli targets.

Well-informed Palestinian sources add that Hamas figures who are in custody suggested in a letter they sent to the leadership of the movement in Gaza that they not work out a deal with the Palestinian National Authority that would call for a cessation of acts of violence against Israel and the Israelis and would span the period between now and the end of the coming general elections in the Hebrew State set for 17 May 1999 and the polls to choose an Israeli prime minister scheduled for early June.

The rationale behind that proposal, say the sources, may, on the face of it, sound bizarre, but the reason that had prompted the incarcerated Hamas figures was that they had learned that discreet contacts had been going on between representatives of the government of Binyamin Netanyah and officials of the Palestinian National Authority.

The two sides are said to be exploring the conclusion of a deal under which Binyamin Netanyahu would order the release of tens of Hamas activists in exchange for stopping attacks against Israeli targets throughout the duration of the Israeli election campaign.

The sources indicated that the jailed Hamas figures pin great hopes on their contacts with Netanyahu representatives, but they refuse to agree to a truce within the framework of a pact between the political leadership of the group and the Palestinian National Authority.

They would prefer for such a truce to be the product of their own contacts with the Israeli Government because the price would be the release of tens of activists who are detained in Israeli prisons.

Meanwhile, Hamas would like to reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority regarding the proposed truce because, from the movement's point of view, a pact like this would lead to the release of Hamas activists detained in the prison facilities of the Palestinian Authority.

The move could also result in ending the house arrest of and lifting the restrictions the movement of the chief of the Movement Shaykh Ahmad Yasin, as well as in other measures that would see Hamas gain ground in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Binyamin Netanyahu, according to these sources, would end up being the one who had reaped the most gains from such a transaction. That would be the case whether the truce materialized through contacts held by his emissaries with detained members of the Islamic Resistance Movement or whether it was arrived at through an agreement between the leadership of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority."

Schoolbooks demonize Jews

HATZOFE 4/2/99: "A study of Palestinian schoolbooks published here and in Jordan shows that even the peace accords have not changed the Palestinian Authority's [PA] non-recognition of the State of Israel.

The books do not mention the State of Israel in their atlases, where Israel is called "occupied Palestine"; the attitude toward Israel and the Jews is anti-Semitic; and the children are told to carry out jihad (holy war) against Israel.

The author of the study, Itamar Marcus of Efrat, who is also a member of the anti-incitement committee set up in the wake of the Wye agreement, studied some 140 schoolbooks on issues like Islamic education, civics, history, literature, and geography from elementary school through high school.

The anti-incitement committee, which has managed to meet several times since the Wye accord, will hold another meeting in two weeks in Ramallah or Gaza, and the next stage of the study will be to investigate schoolbooks published in Jordan which are also used in Palestinian schools.

Israel censored the incitement in these books. The PA has recently been trying to remove any Jordanian impact on the Palestinian school system, and the new books it publishes and distributes in its schools include incitement and anti-Semitism.

The books say the following about the Jews, who are presented as the evil enemy:

"Humanity suffered a great deal from that evil, both in ancient and modern times, while Satan causes many people to view evil acts as fun.... That's how the Jews are," or "the clearest examples of racist nationalism and racist discrimination in the world are the Nazis and the Zionists."

The textbooks have changed historical facts, such as presenting the Balfour Declaration as illegal.

Marwan Kanafani, chairman of the Palestinian anti-incitement committee and former 'Arafat adviser, said in response to the study's findings, which show no sign of the process of acceptance and recognition of Israel expected after the signing of the peace agreements:

"This is a problem that cannot be solved in a day or two. Both sides have to be investigated.... There are maps on which Israel appears, but the Israelis themselves do not know what the proper borders are...."

Marcus said that the findings aroused strong reactions in Washington, where the report was sent to UNRWA [UN Relief and Works Agency], which was shocked by the signs of strong anti-Semitism in the Palestinian schoolbooks."

Deficit variations

GLOBES 4/4/99: "A large NIS [new Israeli shekels] 891 budget deficit was recorded in March in the government's overall activity at home and abroad, further to the large NIS 1.72 billion February deficit.

The government's domestic deficit amounted in March to NIS 633 million. This emerges from data published today by the Ministry of Finance's Accountant General Shay Talmon.

The figures show that in the first quarter of 1999 (January-March), the government posted an overall deficit of NIS 2.5 billion in its activity in Israel and overseas, compared to NIS 2.3 billion in the corresponding period last year, up 8.7%.

The domestic deficit since the beginning of the year amounts to NIS 1.62 billion, compared to NIS 1.3 billion in the corresponding period last year, a rise of 24.6%.

Talmon expects a considerable deviation this year, of NIS 2 billion as against the planned deficit. In terms of GDP, this is more than 0.5% higher than the 2% deficit target set by the government for the current year.

Talmon emphasised that the deviation from the deficit target was entirely due to loss of income compared to the original estimate, and not to overspending.

"These are preliminary estimates only, and I do not rule out the possibility that in the next few months, tax collection will post a recovery. We will continue to monitor the figures, with a view to meeting the deficit target set for the current year", Talmon said."

Did Barak encourage Arabs to vote for him?

HATZOFE 4/4/99: "Palestinian sources disclose that several weeks ago Ehud Baraq sent clear messages to the Palestinian Authority [PA] asking it to instruct the 20,000 Jerusalem Arabs eligible to vote in the Knesset elections to exercise their right and vote for him as prime minister.

The sources said that 'Arafat recently met with a well-known society woman close to Baraq who asked him to send the order to PLO activists in East Jerusalem as close as possible to election day.

According to the information, several months ago this woman left her husband -- a well-known media person -- and is now living with a retired senior army officer with wide-ranging connections with the PA.

The officer is apparently the one who arranged the meeting between the woman and 'Arafat in Gaza.

Baraq's office said in reply that the report is totally baseless. Palestinians told their Israeli colleagues that on several occasions recently 'Arafat said in conversations in his office that there is a need to assist Baraq in the elections.

They reported 'Arafat as saying that the PA must desist from any actions that could harm Baraq. He gave as an example 'Azmi Bisharah's decision to contest the prime ministerial elections and stressed that such a move could take votes away from Baraq and bring about Netanyahu's reelection.

"That move is not good, it will harm Baraq," 'Arafat said, according to Palestinian eyewitnesses. Other PA sources said recently that "the PA is hysterical about any move that could harm Baraq's chances."

However, 'Arafat's rivals said that the chairman is playing a double game. While he calls for aiding Baraq and is opposed to Bisharah's candidacy, he sends Ahmad al-Tibi to assist Bisharah. They said that al-Tibi's move is coordinated with 'Arafat."

Killers of Americans still loose

ZOA PRESS RELEASE 3/25/99:

"At Senate Hearing:

US SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER: U.S.SHOULD OFFER REWARDS FOR CAPTURE OF PALESTINIAN ARAB KILLERS OF AMERICANS

1. The inexplicable failure of the Clinton administration to offer rewards for the capture of Palestinian Arab killers of Americans --even though it offers such rewards for the capture of killers of Americans elsewhere around the world-- and the administration's failure to indict any of the killers, were the central issues raised at the March 25, 1999 U.S. Senate hearing on the sheltering of 20 Palestinian Arab terrorists involved in the murders of 12 Americans since 1993.

2. U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who chaired the hearing, which was held under the auspices of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Specter raised the rewards issue in his questioning of the Clinton administration's witnesses, Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk and Deputy Attorney General Mark Richard.

Specter said:

"You offer multimillion dollar rewards for information leading to the capture of terrorists around the world --why don't you offer such rewards for the capture of Palestinian terrorists who have killed Americans? You post information about terrorist victims on your web site, www.heroes.net --why don't you list the American victims of Palestinian terrorism there?"

Specter said:

"There is a real question as to whether the administration is doing what needs to be done to catch these killers."

3. Indyk replied with a general statement that ignored Specter's specific questions about the rewards. Indyk made no statements critical of Arafat's actions regarding Arab killers of Americans.

4. Constitutional expert and renowned US attorney, Nathan Lewin, also testified at the hearing. Lewin represents the family of David Boim, a 17 year-old American citizen murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel in 1996.

Lewin told the hearing that one of the killers of David Boim, Ibrahim Sharif, was detained by the PA but then released--and Sharif then took part in the September 1997 Jerusalem suicide bombing in which five people were killed and nearly 200 wounded.

Among the casualties were 14 year-old Yael Botwin of California, who was killed, and Diana Campuzano, who was permanently injured. Lewin said it is "inexplicable and immoral" that the U.S. has failed to indict the other killer in the Boim case, Imjad Hinawi, who confessed to his role in a PA court last year.

"Why does the Attorney General refuse to enforce U.S. law, by not indicting Hinawi?" Lewin asked.

5. Jean-Claude Niddam, the Israeli Justice Ministry's Director of Legal Affairs Concerning the Palestinian Authority, flew to Washington to testify at the hearing on behalf of the Israeli government.

He said the PA has refused to honor any of Israel's 38 requests for the extradition of terrorists --including eight requests involving killers of Americans-- and has refused to cooperate with Israel in any criminal investigations, although the Oslo accords require the PA to do so.

Niddam said that the PA has permitted most of the killers of Americans to remain free, and given some of them positions in the PA police. He said Israel supports efforts to bring the killers to the U.S. for prosecution.

6. The hearing also included moving testimony from the parents of two of the victims of terrorism, and a woman who was permanently injured in one of the attacks.

Stephen Flatow of New Jersey spoke about his 20 year-old daughter Alisa, who was a student at Brandeis University, who was murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel in 1995.

Flatow pointed out that some of the suspects in his daughter's murder have been publicly identified by Israel, yet the Clinton administration has not asked the Palestinian Authority to extradite them to the U.S. for prosecution.

Vicki Eisenfeld of Connecticut spoke about her son Matthew, a graduate of Yale University, who was murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists in Israel in 1995. Eisenfeld noted that some of the suspects in her son's murder have been given jobs in the Palestinian Authority police force, and she urged the administration to demand that Arafat fire them.

She said: "I will have no closure for us until these killers are brought to justice."

Another witness was Diana Campuzano of New York City, a 33 year-old businesswoman who was permanently injured in a Palestinian Arab terrorist attack in Israel in 1997.

Ms. Campuzano described her ordeal, including the loss of sight in one eye, loss of hearing in one ear, the loss of her senses of smell and taste, and many hundreds of hours of surgery and rehabilitation. She has had seven operations, with three more to come.

7. Morton A. Klein, National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), and Sarah Stern, the ZOA's National Policy Coordinator, attended the hearings.

Klein said: "Offering rewards and posting them on the State Department's web sites are the most basic initial steps in the process of capturing these Arab terrorists. The administration's failure to do so makes one wonder if the administration is more worried about a public confrontation with Yasir Arafat than about capturing the Palestinian Arab killers of Americans."

8. The Palestinian Authority's representative in Washington, Hassan Abdel Rahman, also testified at the hearing. He said nothing about the American victims of Palestinian Arab terrorism, and instead focused on the PA's demand for more American financial aid.

After the hearing, ZOA president Klein approached Rahman to ask him about the PA's refusal to arrest killers of Americans, and the PA's continuing incitement of hatred and violence against Jews. Rahman began shouting and stormed away.

PA law more ruthless than ever

London's THE INDEPENDENT 3/30/99 via IMRA: "A cook in a seafood restaurant overlooking the Mediterranean in Gaza might imagine he was not employed in a dangerous trade. But Rafiq Yusuf Abu Hasira, working in the popular Salaam restaurant in the centre of the city, found that even a life devoted to preparing fish and shrimp did not save him from the spreading tentacles of the 11 Palestinian security services.

A month ago he was kidnapped by Palestinian Military Intelligence, headed by Moussa Arafat, a cousin of the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat. Jocular stories circulated in Gaza about intelligence officers objecting to the quality of the food they were served in the Salaam. By another account Mr Abu Hasira's detention was connected to his late brother's alleged links to the drugs trade.

The kidnapping turned out to have a more prosaic explanation. Military Intelligence wanted $50,000 (£31,000) to let Mr Abu Hasira go. They never got it. The Salaam is the favourite eating place of foreign diplomats visiting Gaza and the story of the abduction became well known. On 8 March Mr Abu Hasira was released.

He was lucky. Foreign diplomats estimate that Military Intelligence has carried out 20 kidnappings of local businessmen and refused to release them except for cash. Not surprisingly, many potential targets now only move outside their houses accompanied by armed bodyguards.

"Power in Gaza is flowing to the security services," says one diplomat. "You only do business with their permission." Just at the moment when Mr Arafat is threatening to declare a Palestinian state on 4 May, the civil institutions of his Palestinian Authority are disintegrating. Ministries, courts and even Mr Arafat's political organisation, Fatah, are marginalised.

Mr Arafat has always ruled through multiple and competing security services. His methods in Gaza are little different from those in Beirut 20 years ago. The result is a luxuriant growth of security services, ranging from Preventive Security, the most powerful, to General Intelligence, Force 17, the presidential guard and the Special Security Services.

There is even a naval intelligence, though Mr Arafat has no navy. Small in size, even this organisation is to be feared. In 1996 it tortured to death a local businessman in Nablus, a town on the West Bank, using an electric water heater.

The security services ignore the court system. In 1995 Mr Arafat set up special state security courts which supersede the judicial system. Trial is by military officers, is held in secret and there is no appeal, though the Palestinian leader can confirm, increase or reduce prison terms.

The special courts also pass death sentences. Exactly how these special security courts operate is illustrated by the trial of Colonel Ahmad Abu Mustapha, a member of the Palestinian border guards, a video tape of which was seen by The Independent.

It is a nasty case. Colonel Abu Mustapha, 54, a Bedouin, was on trial accused of raping a six-year-old boy named Saed Abu Shamaleh in Gaza last month. The victim picked him out at an identity parade.

Proceedings are summary. A witness for the prosecution gives a rambling account of what he knows. There is no cross-questioning. Col Abu Mustapha vigorously denies the charges.

He says he was at home asleep when the rape took place. He adds: "I never saw this boy before in my life. I didn't do this. The court isn't acting justly."

Col Abu Mustapha, looking as if he is about to collapse, pleads with the three grim-faced Palestinian officers judging him. He asks them to re-open the investigation.

One of the officers says: "Don't give a speech." Col Abu Mustapha replies: "I am not giving a speech. I'm asking the court to reinvestigate. If I had done it I would have gone to the court myself."

He does not finish his plea. One of the blue-uniformed policemen standing behind him in the dock places his hands on Col Abu Mustapha's shoulders and forces him back into his seat.

Col Abu Mustapha is not kept long in suspense over his fate. After a brief adjournment the judges return. They give him 15 years' hard labour for the rape.

But for the peculiar offence of "motivating people against the Palestinian Authority" they sentence him to execution by firing squad. There is applause in the court room.