Israel Affairs

  go back

JCRC Middle East Briefings

Syrian Officials Comment on Israel during Pope's Visit Pope John Paul II visited the Umayyad Mosque during a visit to Syria this week. During his visit, Syrian officials have made efforts to press the Roman Catholic Church to join their cause against Jews and Israel. The following comments have been made during the Pope's visit. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: In his address welcoming the Pope, President Assad said, "There are always those who seek to re-create the journey of suffering and pain among people. They try to kill the principle of all religions with the same mentality with which they betrayed Jesus Christ." In response, Israeli President Moshe Katsav said that even President Assad's father, Hafez al-Assad "didn't express himself in such a careless, racist, illogical and anti-Semitic manner." U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher condemned Assad's remarks, saying "Our view is that these comments are as regrettable as they are unacceptable. There's no place from anyone or from any side for statements that inflame religious passions and hatred." Assad's remarks follow comments he made in March about the election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister of Israel: "We say that the head of the government is racist - it's a racist government, a racist army and security force. It is a racist society, and it is even more racist than the Nazis."

Syrian Minister of Religious Affairs Muhammad Ziyadah: "We must be fully aware of what the enemies of God and malicious Zionism conspire to commit against Christianity and Islam."

Syria's ranking Muslim cleric Sheik Ahmad Kuftaro lamented the "invasion by Jews and Zionists and the creation of the state of Israel" in addition to "Zionist and Jewish oppression and atrocities."

The Pope: The Pope did not address the anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments directly. He said, "It is crucial for the young to be taught the ways of respect and understanding, so that they will not be led to misuse religion to promote or justify hatred and violence." He also stated that "in this holy land Christians, Muslims and Jews are called to work together [for] the day when the legitimate rights of all people are respected." Asked by Israeli officials to challenge President Assad's remarks, an aide to the Pope stated that the pontiff "will absolutely not intervene. The position of the Holy See regarding anti-Semitism is very clear and been repeated thousands of times by the Pope himself."

President Assad's response to Israeli and U.S. criticism. The Syrian Arab News Agency reported that Syria "found odd" the U.S. response to Assad's remarks. A Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman said that Assad's speech "made no mention of the Jews at all because his objective was not to stir infamy or urge against the followers of any particular religion; rather it was, in essence,...his request to put an end to the bloody practices committed on a daily basis by Israeli occupational forces against the unarmed Palestinian people..." Further, the spokesman expressed bewilderment at the idea of "accusing the Arabs that they are anti-Semitic...because it ignores the fact that the Arabs themselves are Semites and therefore this accusation is negated by history and rejected by healthy logic."

Every year on May 15, the Palestinians mark Nakba, or "day of catastrophe," corresponding to the day Israel declared its independence (May 15, 1948). While the date is noted every year, this year it took on added significance, considering the current situation between the Israelis and Palestinians.

In June 2000, Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat attempted to place the blame on Israel for the failure of Camp David and ultimately the Oslo peace process. To the contrary, it was Israel that offered an independent Palestinian state in most of the West Bank and Gaza (with possible compensation for land not returned), control over part of Jerusalem, and the return of some refugees and compensation for others.

Arafat maintains that it is Israel, not the Palestinian Authority, that presents the obstacle to a comprehensive lasting peace. However, his words, and those of other Palestinian leaders, do not instill confidence among those who believed that peace with Arafat is possible. Since the outbreak of violence in late September, the international community has urged calm. The incendiary rhetoric used by Arafat and others flies in the face of calls from the international community urging an end to the violence and a return to the negotiating table - a call which the Israeli government has repeatedly reiterated.

Following are excerpts from speeches and statements made in commemoration of Nakba. The inflammatory language illustrates venomous hostility towards Israel, the Jewish people, and the United States government. Translations were provided by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center, an organization established in 1988 by Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. JMCC's mission is to provide organizations and individuals (including journalists, researchers, and international agencies) with reliable information on the Palestinian territory. The full texts can be accessed at http://www.jmcc.org in the "What's New" section.

Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat: ...on this day of anniversary of Nakba which inflicted on our people in 1948...an unprecedented injustice. Our great people, who have been displaced by the biggest conspiracy...will not accept this black fate which was designed by this big conspiracy against their existence...The blind military power directed by the Israeli occupation government against our people and homes will never achieve peace and security and will not impose surrender on our people who will remain the torch that lights up the difficult path in front of the Palestinian generations...until the flag of Palestine is raised on al-Quds al-Shareef [the Temple Mount] and on the walls of al-Quds [Jerusalem] and on the minarets and churches of al-Quds. ...I say to every Palestinian: faith faith. Patience and patience; ...victory is close, stay steadfast in front of this escalation and aggression for the sake of freedom and to liberate our holy land and sites. The land of the prophets and fathers.

National and Islamic Forces (including , Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Arafat's Fateh, and others): ...The waves of Zionist aggression that keep escalating...under the supervision of the slaughterer Sharon and...the deceiver Peres with a racist government that seeks towards ethnic cleansing...Aswan [Egypt] to Tehran [Iran]....Launching and releasing the potentials of the Arab masses to assume their role and express their will against the Zionist aggression constitute a critical part of the battle of our nation with the Zionist aggression....The National and Islamic Forces affirm the need to see the Arab and Islamic countries and masses exercise all means to isolate Sharon-Peres government....The U.S. Pentagon, which is ruled by the Likudians, is giving the green light to the attempts of breaking the Palestinian will. This requires more readiness to confront these attempts. It is not acceptable to see at this phase...that some return to the wrong practices,...especially opening fire and wasting it during marches and during popular confrontations at the checkpoints.

Ahmed Jibril, leader of the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command: I can promise a steady supply of arms and armament to the Palestinians, even through the Mafia, if Kuwait will fund the purchase. According to the Israeli newspaper, Ha'aretz, Jibril made this comment last week calling for Kuwait to fund Palestinian weapons.

Ha'aretz interview with Shimon Peres

In an interview with Ha'aretz published Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres said that Israel is locked in a "battle for its existence" and that he has never experienced problems like those Israel faces now. "Then it was to survive, and now it is to prevent the danger of war and attain peace," said Peres. Regarding the issue of Israeli settlements, Peres said, "They must not tell us 'there is terror because of your settlements' ... It is very important there should be no justification or excuses [for terrorism] and I am running from place to place like a madman in order to explain this point."

Peres remains optimistic that there is a chance to regain control of the situation, despite the growing hatred in the region. "Verbal and political bridges" are necessary, but more complicated because of the violence, he stated, but he continues to try and build them.

The report of the Sharm el-Sheikh Fact-Finding Committee, headed by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, was released on Monday, May 22. The report places the blame for the violence on both the Israelis and the Palestinians and calls for a return to negotiation as "the only path to peace, justice, and security." Following are brief highlights of its findings:

How the Violence Began
The report begins by discussing then-Knesset member Ariel Sharon's September 28, 2000 visit to the Temple Mount. Then-Prime Minister Barak saw the visit as an internal political matter, the Palestinians saw it as a provocation. The Palestinians reject the Israeli claim that the violence had been planned by the Palestinian Authority after the breakdown of Camp David. The report states that "the Sharon visit did not cause the 'Al-Aqsa Intifada.' But it was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen." The report further concludes that the events following the visit were more significant: "the decision of the Israeli police on September 29 to use lethal means against the Palestinian demonstrators; and the subsequent failure ... of either party to exercise restraint."

Why Did it Happen?
Divergent Expectations: The government of Israel has continued to press for a Permanent Status Agreement to be reached in a "nonviolent atmosphere, consistent with commitments contained in the agreements between the parties." The report states that the PLO views delays in the process as an attempt by Israel to "prolong and solidify the occupation." Each side believed the other had not fully complied with previous agreements, resulting in "an erosion of trust even before the permanent status negotiations began."

Divergent Perspectives: The Palestinians believed that the eventual outcome of Madrid and Oslo would be a Palestinian State and the end of Israeli occupation. Continued growth of Israeli settlements is a source of anger among Palestinians, who see the settlers and settlements as a violation of the spirit of the Oslo process. Israel believes that the expansion of settlements and measures to protect the settlers does not "prejudice outcome of permanent status negotiations." The Israeli government believes that the PLO has "breached its solemn commitments by continuing the use of violence in the pursuit of political objectives." The Palestinian failure, according to Israel, comes in the form of "institutionalized anti-Israel, anti-Jewish incitement; the release from detention of terrorists; the failure to control illegal weapons; and the actual conduct of violent operations." Israel sees this as a violation of the PLO's renunciation of terrorism, adding to the erosion of trust between the parties.

Ending the Violence.
The report states simply that the Palestinian Authority and the government of Israel "should take immediate steps to end the violence, reaffirm their mutual commitments, and resume negotiations." The Committee calls for the "unconditional cessation of violence."

Resumption of Security Cooperation: Palestinian security officials told the Mitchell Committee that it would take time for the Palestinian Authority to gain control of armed groups "nominally" under its control; Israeli security officials did not dispute this claim. The report calls for the Palestinian Authority to "make an all-out effort to enforce a complete cessation of violence," and that effort must be seen by the Israeli government. The government of Israel must also work to ensure that "potential friction points, where Palestinians come into contact with armed Israelis, do not become stages for renewed hostilities." The report calls for the immediate resumption of security cooperation.

Rebuilding Confidence.
The Mitchell Committee recognized the importance of restoring trust between the Israelis and Palestinians. The report makes several recommendations for confidence building, including a "cooling off period," efforts to "discourage incitement," the renunciation of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority, the freezing of settlement activity, the lifting of economic sanctions on the territories, and the prevention by the PA of gunmen firing on IDF positions from civilian areas.

Terrorism: One of the major obstacles to rebuilding confidence is the Israeli view that the leadership of the Palestinian Authority has not made any real effort to prevent anti-Israeli terrorism. The report calls on the Palestinian Authority to make it "clear to both communities that terrorism is reprehensible and unacceptable" and to take "all measures to prevent terrorist operations and to punish perpetrators. Specifically, this includes the apprehension and incarceration of terrorists operating with Palestinian-controlled territory.

Settlements: Israel's responsibility for rebuilding confidence lies in the freezing of settlement construction. If such activity is not stopped, the Mitchell Committee states that it will be "particularly hard to sustain" the cessation of violence. Further, while Israel describes its policy as "prohibiting new settlements but permitting expansion of existing settlements to accommodate 'natural growth,'" the Palestinians sees no distinction between "new" and "expanded."

Resuming Negotiations.
The report acknowledges the political realities, under which Israeli leaders do not want to be perceived as "rewarding violence," while the Palestinians do not want to be seen as "rewarding occupation." Regardless, the report calls for "a new bilateral relationship incorporating both security cooperation and negotiations."

Additional Notes on the Settlements
The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza has received increased attention of late. Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N., Dr. Dore Gold, now head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, stated that "the employment of violence in any manner as a negotiating tool for settling Israeli-Palestinian differences is a violation of the Oslo Agreements. In contrast, settlement activity is specifically defined as an issue with which the parties are to deal in permanent status negotiations; in the interim, the Oslo Agreements do not prohibit the growth of settlements which remain under Israeli jurisdiction any more than they prohibit the growth of Palestinian towns and villages under PLO jurisdiction."

Earlier this week the leader of the International Committee of the Red Cross's delegation to Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza, called the settlements a "war crime." While the Mitchell Committee calls for a freezing of Israeli settlement activity, it does not say, or even imply, that the settlements are anything more than an obstacle to the rebuilding of trust between the Israelis and Palestinians. The American Red Cross has issued a statement calling on the ICRC to "retract these words immediately," because "the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement is obliged to remain politically neutral or they will jeopardize our ability to serve those in need anywhere in the world."

On Monday, May 28, citizens of the United States marked Memorial Day. Many spent the day at picnics and barbecues with family and friends. Some families paid visits to cemeteries to remember loved ones lost in battle. Israel marked its memorial day one month ago. Following are the thoughts of one Israeli woman.

A Jewish Lesson
Naomi Ragen - April 29, 2001

In the book of Genesis, G-d tells Abraham: "And through you will all the nations of the earth be blessed."

I've often wondered about that blessing we Jews are supposed to bring the world, and how it will come about. If it were up to me, right now, I don't think I'd be very eager to fulfill such a role. After six months of having the world heap the vilest slander on my people and my country; after going through Holocaust Memorial Day, and now the Memorial Day for Israel's fallen soldiers, I don't think, if it was up to me, that heaping of blessings on the world, particularly my Semitic neighbors, would be high on my list of "must do's."

However, since I know the Jewish people's particular fate isn't something you get to vote on, I recognize that I, and my fellow Jews will have very little to say about this blessing thing either. And so, willy-nilly, we are going to bring blessing to the world. And I've finally figured out how.

It was last night, watching the official memorial service for Israel's fallen soldiers at the Western Wall. And in that holy place, Israel's top general, its chief of staff, got up to speak.

What do you think he spoke about, the general and army man? If he were any other nationality or religion, and this were any country but Israel, we wouldn't have to ask: The glory of our fallen heroes. Their bravery on the battlefield, their sacrifice. The greatness of our victories.

But not Israel's Chief of Staff, Shaul Mofaz. He spoke about remembering the birth of a child. The first picture taken in kindergarten. The first baby tooth that falls. The Bar Mitzvah pictures. The graduation from high school. The mother's kiss on the cheek of the new recruit. He spoke about the incalculable loss that each human being who dies in war is to his family, his parents, his grandparents, his brothers, sisters, girlfriend, wife, children. About the preciousness of life, and the horror of death.

Long before I became an Israeli and a resident of Jerusalem, I lived in America where I experienced numerous memorial days. There were the red, white and blue flags. But mostly, there were the sales. I don't think I ever saw the face of a single fallen American soldier on any television show, let alone a day's worth of shows devoted exclusively to soldiers killed in action, or in traffic accidents, or in terrorist attacks.

Memorial Day in Israel is like nothing else, I dare say, anywhere in the world. The country simply shuts down all distractions. Restaurants, bars, discos close down. Radio and television channels spend the day showing old pictures and new videos of soldiers who died five months, or thirty years ago. And the programs all emphasize the same thing: The man's childhood, his home, his parents, his wife or girlfriend. The silly pictures from his high school parties. The smiling face of the little boy dressed up for Purim. The words of the friends, who never stop mourning, who never forget. And for one day, every single person in Israel who identifies with the Jewish state, and the lives of the people who live there, feel these men and women are part of their own past, their own family. We weep because we've lost them, weep as we would for the death of a beloved family member, who left this earth too young, too full of life. Weep for the loving family and friends he left behind.

I am always surprised that I have any tears left on Memorial Day here in Israel, following as it does so closely on the heels of Holocaust Remembrance Day. And that my tears flow looser, hotter and with more despair, and my heart aches in the way it does. I figured out why, though, through the years, thereby learning the true secret of the State of Israel. (Come closer, bend your ear, sssssh.) Here it is: The State of Israel has no army.

No, my friend. No army at all. All it has is my husband and son, and your brother, and his son, and their sister's boy or girl and the neighbor's kid, and the electrician's daughter, and survivor's grandson - the tall handsome one, who looks like the great-uncle who died in Auschwitz. They all live in the next room, or the next house, or at the very most, an hour's bus ride away from the central bus station...There is not a man, woman or child in Israel who has more than one or two degrees of separation between themselves and every, single, solitary, precious boy or girl in uniform who falls defending our lives from real bombs, real bullets, real slaughter.

The Jewish people have a blessing to bring to the world, especially to our Semitic cousins. If only they would stop shouting and crying and threatening long enough to listen, how different their lives would be! And we would give it to them freely, generously, this, our hard-earned knowledge, the knowledge of the Jews. And it is simply this: that death has no glory. And that a life can never be replaced. There is no honor, no joy, no holiness in bombs and guns and knives and mortars, in wounded flesh, and blood-soaked streets. In dead children, and broken-hearted mothers. And that peace is a value to be cherished above glorious victories.

If only the BBC, and CNN, and SKY news would stop interviewing the mothers and uncles of suicide bombers, who speak of holy martyrdom, and sacred deaths, and holy wars; if only their confused reporters would simply sit and listen to Israel's keening on its Memorial Day, and broadcast that to the world instead, what blessing they would bring mankind. What a lesson. And I could cross one more thing off my "to do" list.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, President of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, spoke to a gathering of the UAHC Board of Directors and the Reform Jewish congregations of Cleveland on Friday, June 1, 2001. The Shabbat service was held at The Temple-Tifereth Israel, the historic pulpit of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. Following are excerpts from his remarks (as prepared; emphasis added). The entire text can be found at http://www.uahc.org/yoffie/israelpeace.htm.

... For half a century, the message of [Rabbi Abba Hillel] Silver's rabbinate was that Judaism and Zionism constitute a natural and harmonious blend. He put it this way: "The upbuilding of a Jewish national home in Palestine is one great, urgent, and historically inescapable task of Jewry..."

As the bloodshed continues, and as we sit heartbroken before the killing and the terror, this is an appropriate time for cheshbon ha-nefesh - for an accounting of the soul. ...

I share with you my feeling that we have been wrong about some very important things. We have been wrong not so much in what we have said but rather in what we have not said. We have been wrong in not understanding the full complexity of the threat that Israel faces.

First and foremost, we have been wrong about Palestinian intentions.

We have believed, along with our allies in the peace camp, that if an Israeli prime minister would be brave enough to say that Israel must choose peace over territories, the Palestinian Authority would also choose peace. ... Then, last summer, Ehud Barak bravely offered a Palestinian state on 96 percent of the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem. Had that offer been accepted, the Palestinians would live today in their own independent state, free of Israeli occupation, masters of their own destiny.

Last week CIA Director George Tenet brokered a cease-fire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Following are excerpts from the agreement as reported by the Israeli daily, Ha'aretz. The security organizations of the Government of Israel and of the Palestinian Authority reaffirm their commitment to the security agreements forged at Sharm al-Sheikh in October, 2000, embedded in the Mitchell Report of April, 2001.

The security organizations of the GOI and PA agree to initiate the following specific, concrete, and realistic security steps immediately to re-establish security cooperation and the situation on the ground as they existed prior to September 28, 2000.

1. The GOI and the PA will immediately resume security cooperation.

• A senior-level meeting of Israeli, Palestinian, and US security officials will be held immediately and will reconvene at least once a week, with mandatory participation by designated senior officials.

• Israeli-Palestinian DCOs will be reinvigorated. They will carry out their daily activities, to the maximum extent possible, according to the standards established prior to September 28, 2000. As soon as the security situation permits, barriers to effective cooperation - which include the erection of walls between the Israeli and Palestinian sides - will be eliminated and joint Israeli-Palestinian patrols will be reinitiated.

• US-supplied video conferencing systems will be provided to senior-level Israeli and Palestinian officials to facilitate frequent dialogue and security cooperation.

2. Both sides will take immediate measures to enforce strict adherence to the declared cease-fire and to stabilize the security environment.

• Specific procedures will be developed by the senior-level security committee to ensure the secure movement of GOI and PA security personnel traveling in areas outside their respective control.

• Israel will not conduct attacks of any kind against the Palestinian Authority Ra'is facilities: the headquarters of Palestinian security, intelligence, and police organization; or prisons in the West Bank and Gaza.

• The PA will move immediately to apprehend, question, and incarcerate terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza and will provide the security committee the names of those arrested as soon as they are apprehended, as well as a readout of actions taken.

• Israel will release all Palestinians arrested in security sweeps who have no association with terrorist activities.

• In keeping with its unilateral cease-fire declaration, the PA will stop any Palestinian security officials from inciting, aiding, abetting, or conducting attacks against Israeli targets, including settlers.

• In keeping with Israel's unilateral cease-fire declaration, Israeli forces will not conduct "proactive" security operations in areas under the control of the PA or attack against innocent civilian targets.

• The GOI will re-institute military police investigations into Palestinian deaths resulting from IDF actions in the West Bank and Gaza in incidents not involving terrorism.

3. Palestinian and Israeli security officials will use the security committee to provide each other, as well as designated US officials, terrorist threat information, including information on known or suspected terrorist operation in - or moving to - areas under the other's control.

• Legitimate terrorist and threat information will be acted upon immediately, with follow-up actions and results reported to the security committee.

• The PA will undertake preemptive operations against terrorists, terrorist safehouses, arms depots, and mortar factories. The PA will provide regular progress reports of these actions to the security committee.

• Israeli authorities will take action against Israeli citizens inciting, carrying out, or planning to carry out violence against Palestinians, with progress reports on these activities provided to the security committee.

4. The PA and GOI will move aggressively to prevent individuals and groups from using areas under their respective control to carry out acts of violence. Both sides will take steps to ensure that areas under their control will not be used to launch attacks against the other side nor be used as refuge after attacks are staged.

• The security committee will identify key flash points, and each side will inform the other of the names of senior security personnel responsible for each flash point.

• Joint Standard Operating Procedures will be developed for each flash point. These SOPs will address how the two sides handle and respond to security incidents, the mechanisms for emergency contact, and the procedures to de-escalate security crises.

• Palestinian and Israeli security officials will identify and agree to the practical measures needed to enforce "no demonstration zones" and "buffer zones" around flash points to reduce opportunities for confrontation, including all necessary measures to prevent riots and to control demonstration.

• Palestinian and Israeli security officials will make a concerted effort to locate and confiscate illegal weapons, including mortars, rockets, and explosives, in areas under their respective control. Intensive efforts will be made to prevent smuggling and illegal production of weapons. Each side will inform the security committee of the status and success of these efforts.

• The Israeli Defense Forces will adopt additional non-lethal measures to deal with Palestinian crowds and demonstrators, and more generally, seek to minimize the danger to lives and property of Palestinian civilians in responding to violence.

5. GOI and the PA, through the auspices of the senior-level security committee, will forge, within one week of the commencement of security committee meetings and resumption of security cooperation, an agreed-upon schedule to implement the complete redeployment of IDF forces to positions held before September 28, 2000.

• Demonstrable on-the-ground redeployment will be initiated within the first 48 hours of this one-week period and will continue while the schedule is being forged.

6. Within one week of the commencement of security committee meetings and resumption of security cooperation, a specific timeline will be developed for the lifting of internal closures as well as for the reopening of internal roads, the Allenby Bridge, Gaza Airport, Port of Gaza, and border crossings. Security checkpoints will be minimized according to legitimate security requirements and following consultation between the two sides.

• Demonstrable on-the-ground actions on the lifting of the closures will be initiated within the first 48 hours of this one-week period and will continue while the timeline is being developed.

THE PARTIES PLEDGE THAT EVEN IF UNTOWARD EVENTS OCCUR, SECURITY COOPERATION WILL CONTINUE THROUGH THE JOINT SECURITY COMMITTEE.

Following are results from a random sample survey of 1,201 Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communication Center June 14-17. According to the web site, "JMCC was established in 1988 by a group of Palestinian journalists and researchers to provide information on events in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. JMCC's Jerusalem and Gaza offices provide a wide range of services to journalists, researchers, international agencies, individuals and organizations interested in obtaining reliable information on the Palestinian territory." The complete survey, including its methodology, can be found at http://www.jmcc.org/polls/2001/no41.htm.

• 79% support the intifada, up from 70.1% last December, but slightly down from 80.2% last April.

• 54.4% continue to support military and popular forms of the intifada. This is down from 62.3% last April.

• 40.7% support continued Palestinian armed operations within the occupied Palestinian territory and Israel at the same time. Only 17.2% said they do not support the continuation of any military operations.

• 67.1% do NOT approve ending the intifada in return for ending Jewish settlement.

• 68.6% support suicide bombings as a response to current circumstances, up from 66.2% in April and only 26.1% in March 1999.

• 11.5% support negotiations as the exclusive means for furthering Palestinian interests. 55.6% support continuation of the intifada concurrently with negotiations.

• 41.2% say the aim of the intifada is the total liberation of all of Palestine. 45.6% say the intifada's aim is to end the Israeli occupation based on U.N. Res. 242 and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

• 52.3% strongly or somewhat support the cease-fire called for by Yasser Arafat. 44.2% strongly opposed the decision.

• 71.6% see Arafat in total or somewhat control of the situation.

• 84.7% are dissatisfied with Arab solidarity with the intifada, compared to 60.5% in December 2000.

• 47.7% strongly or somewhat oppose the peace process between the Palestinians and Israelis.

• 53.9% oppose or strongly oppose the Oslo agreement.

• 56% are very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with Yasser Arafat.

• 17.9% believe the peace process is still alive and negotiations can be resumed.

• 69% believe that current conditions call for the formation of a Palestinian national unity government. 18.6% believe the political situation should remain as it is.

• Of those who read the Mitchell Committee report, 53.1% strongly or somewhat oppose the Palestinian Authority's acceptance of the report.

• Asked which political or religious faction they trust most, 34.9% stated they trust Arafat's Fateh movement, while 24.6% said they trust no faction. 18.6% indicated they trust Hamas the most.

• Asked which political or religious individual they trust most, 27.8% indicated they trust Arafat the most, but 26.6% stated they trust no one.

• 96.4% consider the United States to be an ally of Israel. Only 1.7% consider the U.S. to be neutral, and 0.2% consider the U.S. to be an ally to the Palestinians.

• 47.2% believe that a two-state formula (one Israeli, one Palestinian) is the best solution to the conflict.

The issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip has received much attention lately. The Mitchell Report called for a freeze on settlements as a "confidence building measure" (after the cessation of violence and a cooling off period). An official of the International Committee of the Red Cross recently called settlements a "war crime."

Following are highlights of an analysis of the settlement issue prepared by the Israel Foreign Ministry's legal advisor. You can find the full text on the Foreign Ministry's website.

The Historical Context

• Jewish settlement in West Bank and Gaza Strip territory has existed from time immemorial and was expressly recognized in Article 6 as legitimate in the Mandate for Palestine adopted by the League of Nations.

• Some Jewish settlements, such as in Hebron, existed throughout the centuries of Ottomon rule, while settlements such as Neve Ya'acov, north of Jerusalem, the Gush Etzion block in Judean and Samaria, the communities north of the Dead Sea and Kfar Darom in the Gaza region, were established under British Mandatory administration prior to the establishment of the State of Israel.

• For more than a thousand years, the only administration which has prohibited Jewish settlement was the Jordanian occupation administration, which during the nineteen years of its rule (1948-1967) declared the sale of land to Jews a capital offense.

• International Humanitarian Law in the West Bank and Gaza Strip

• International humanitarian law prohibits the forcible transfer of segments of the population of a state to the territory of another state, which it has occupied as a result of the resort to armed force. This principle, reflected in Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, was drafted immediately following the Second World War. Authoritative commentary of the International Red Cross confirms that the principle was intended to protect the local population from displacement, as occurred with respect to the forced population transfers in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary before and during the war. This is clearly not the case with regard to the West Bank and Gaza.

• The provisions of the Geneva Convention do not prohibit the movement of individuals to land which was not under the legitimate sovereignty of any state and which is not subject to private ownership. In this regard, Israeli settlements have been established only after an exhaustive investigation process, under the supervision of the Supreme Court of Israel, designed to ensure that no communities are established on private Arab land.

• The movement of individuals to the territory is entirely voluntary, while the settlements themselves are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice.

• Repeated charges regarding the illegality of Israeli settlements has no foundation in international law. Similarly, as Israeli settlements cannot be considered illegal, they cannot constitute a "grave violation" of the Geneva Convention, and hence any claim that they constitute a "war crime" is without legal basis. Such political charges cannot justify in any way Palestinian acts of terrorism and violence against innocent Israelis.

• Politically, the West Bank and Gaza Strip is best regarded as territory over which there are competing claims which should be resolved in peace process negotiations. The territory was not under the sovereignty of any state and came under Israeli control in a war of self-defense, imposed upon Israel. At the same time, Israel recognizes that the Palestinians also entertain legitimate claims to the area. Indeed, the very fact that the parties have agreed to conduct negotiations on settlements indicated that they envisage a compromise on this issue.

Israeli-Palestinian Agreements

• The existing agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians contain no prohibition whatsoever on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, it is specifically provided that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks.

• It has been charged that the prohibition on unilateral steps which alter the "status" of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which is contained in the Interim Agreement and in subsequent agreements between the parties, implies a ban on settlement activity. The building of homes has no effect on the status of the area. The prohibition on unilateral measures was agreed upon in order to ensure that neither side take steps to change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations.

• It is important to note, that in the spirit of compromise and in an attempt to take constructive confidence building measures in the peace process, successive Israeli governments have expressly recognized the need for territorial compromise in West Bank and Gaza Strip territory and have voluntarily adopted a freeze on the building of new settlements. The present National Unity Government, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, has officially declared that it will not build any new settlements, while remaining committed to the basic needs of the existing settlement communities (Government of Israel, Policy Guidelines, March 2001).

Between July 11 and July 24, 2000, under the auspices of President Clinton, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat met at Camp David in an effort to reach a permanent status agreement. During the summit, Mr. Barak presented the most far-reaching offer an Israeli government had ever - and likely will ever - make to Mr. Arafat. The offer included over 95% of the West Bank and Gaza (with the possibility of a land swap in compensation for the remainder); the return of some Palestinian refugees to Israel, with financial compensation for others; and Palestinian sovereignty over a portion of Jerusalem.

After two weeks of negotiations, Mr. Arafat refused the offer. Two months later, in an effort to achieve through violence what he could not secure at the negotiating table, Mr. Arafat launched a campaign of violence that has claimed the lives of 134 Israelis and injured 1360 others (as of July 21, 2001).

Israeli Casualties of the Violence (September 29, 2000 - July 22, 2001): 134 Israelis Killed; 1,360 Israelis Injured

Since the Israelis and Palestinians accepted a cease-fire agreement on June 13, 2001, the Palestinians have launched 561 terrorist attacks (shootings, bombings, grenades, and mortar bombs).

Terrorist Organizations - Tanzim and Force 17

The Tanzim is the military arm of Chairman Arafat's Fatah party, and is responsible for dozens of attacks against innocent Israeli civilians, including drive-by shootings that killed a Greek monk and an American woman who had recently moved to Israel, and the sniper attack that killed 10-month old Shalhevet Pass. Force 17, Arafat's personal bodyguards, are responsible for the deaths of at least eight Israelis and for introducing illegal mortars as a weapon of choice among the Palestinians.

The State Department maintains a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, created by the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. Foreign groups are placed on the list if they are engaged in terrorist activity that threatens the security of U.S. nationals or U.S. national security. Tanzim and Force 17 have targeted innocent American and Israeli citizens, making them no different than "traditional" terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which are on the terrorist list.

Designation on the list would make it illegal for Americans to fund the activities of these two groups. More importantly, it would isolate the terrorists and criminalizes their behavior. Nearly 300 lawmakers wrote to President Bush earlier this year urging him to consider designating these groups as terrorist organizations. The State Department concluded in April that the Tanzim and Force 17 were directly involved in the violence.

After a June 2001 meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that "monitors and observers" will be necessary in a confidence-building phase to "make an independent observation of what has happened." Hours later, Powell ruled out any mechanism opposed by Israel. Less than one month later, the G-8 foreign ministers unanimously called for "third-party monitors" in the region, as long as they were acceptable to both sides.

Following are excerpts from a report by Saul Singer, head of the Project on U.S.-Israel Relations at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. The entire report can be found at http://www.jcpa.org.

Why Not Outside Observers?
Since it is Israel that does not trust the Palestinians to keep the cease-fire, Israel might be expected to be the first to demand international whistle-blowers to help prevent violations...As Arafat asked...'why does the government of Israel reject the dispatching of international observers to consolidate and protect the cease-fire?'...a cursory glance at history will show that there is no mystery here. The reason for Israel's objection is the same as for Arafat's enthusiasm. Experience shows that international observers will protect not the cease-fire but Arafat's ability to violate it. The long record of international observers in the Arab-Israeli conflict is unblemished by a single example of basic fairness toward Israel, let alone protection from Arab aggression.

The British Observe the Hadassah Convoy Massacre
On April 13, 1948, a convoy of ambulances and armored buses headed for Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus. Two hundred meters from the British military post that was supposed to secure the route, the convoy came under Arab attack from both sides of the road....British military cars passed three times during the seven hours that the convoy was under attack...but they did not stop to intervene or assist. Seventy-seven Jewish doctors, nurses, academics, and students were massacred that day, after top British officials had 'personally guaranteed' that medical and civilian transports would be protected by the British army and police.

UN Observers Before the Six-Day War
Under the 1949 Armistice Agreement, United Nations Military Observers (UNMOs) were deployed along the cease-fire lines with Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. Each of the UNMOs reported to a Mutual Armistice Commission composed of representatives from Israel, the relevant Arab country, and the UN. In the eighteen years before the Six-Day War [1967]...there were hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks against Israel....The UN observers would report on the terrorist attacks against Israel and on Israel's responses. Any attempt to condemn Syria, for example, for allowing terrorist attacks would be blocked by a Soviet veto, while Israel would be subject to complaints in response to its retaliations....Abba Eban, Israel's first Ambassador to the United Nations, summarized Israel's situation at the UN in the 1950s when UN military observers monitored the armistice lines and reported back to the UN Security Council:...'Thus the doctrine of the United Nations came to imply that Arab governments could conduct warfare and maintain belligerency against Israel while Israel could offer no response.'

The One-Sided Response of UNIFIL
In more recent times, Israel's experience with UNIFIL has shown that the powers of observation of such forces had become no less selective. UNIFIL (United Nations Force in southern Lebanon) was established in March 1978 pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 425 [that] called on Israel to "immediately" withdraw its forces from Lebanon, and established UNIFIL 'for the purpose of confirming the withdrawal of Israeli forces, restoring international peace and security and assisting the Government of Lebanon in ensuring the return of its effective authority in the area.' ....UNIFIL has been a classic example of how UN forces act as a sieve - letting through attacks against Israel but subjecting Israel to scrutiny for responding to those attacks. Former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations Dore Gold recalls the standard pattern: 'Hezbullah would launch artillery attacks 50 meters away from a UNIFIL outpost, Israel would shoot back, and UNIFIL would protest against the Israeli response.'

....UNIFIL's neutrality and usefulness was most dramatically brought into question by the scandal surrounding a videotape made by UNIFIL soldiers shortly after the October 7, 2000 kidnapping by Hezbullah of three Israeli soldiers. On June 27, 2001, senior Israeli officers reportedly asked UN Mideast Envoy Terje Larsen and UN South Lebanon representative Stephen de Mistora to see a videotape the Israelis knew existed of the cars - disguised as UN vehicles - that Hezbullah had used in the kidnapping. The UN denied the existence of the tape.

Larson...found that the Israelis were right. He later reportedly told Israeli Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer that he was 'ashamed' at having unwittingly lied to Israel.

What About American Observers?
....some voices suggest that Israel rely on observers from its principal ally, the United States. But even in the case of American observers, conflicts of interest can arise.

On August 8, 1970, Israel detected that Egypt had violated an American-brokered cease-fire agreement [at the end of the War of Attrition]....It took three weeks before the U.S. Department of State admitted that violations had occurred.

....the deployment of U.S. monitors does not eliminate the tendency of policies from the home capital affecting the objectivity of observers in the field. U.S. observers could actually be even more problematic from Israel's perspective, because what Israel needs from the United States is support, not neutrality. Even now, the U.S. has been refusing to clearly distinguish between Palestinian terrorist attacks and targeted Israeli actions taken in self-defense. The introduction of American observers into this picture would likely push the U.S. further toward a neutral stance.

The Mitchell Committee report, by stipulating that a cease-fire be unconditional and precede all "confidence building measures" and negotiations, implicitly accepted the principle that the Palestinian resort to violence was not legitimate and should not be rewarded. The reverse is also true: any diplomatic benefit accrued through violence legitimates that violence and encourages the resort to violence in the future.

The July 19 G-8 Rome Foreign Ministers' statement, while endorsing the Mitchell Report, blatantly violates the sequencing of that report by supporting the key Palestinian demand for international intervention ("third-party monitoring"), despite the Palestinian refusal to implement the Tenet cease-fire plan. The record indicates that international observers have failed at their most basic task of being a stabilizing influence in conflict situations. If the international observers are introduced as a diplomatic reward for aggression, than the counterproductive nature of their role would be greatly increased.