By Rob Harris

The latest Middle Eastern PEW study focuses to a large extent on the perception of Barak Obama and his prospective role in the Israeli-Arab conflict.

The PEW study also revealed some notable findings about the opposing sides involved in the conflict. One of the more expected but still sobering findings was the confirmation that, unlike Israeli’s, a large majority of Arab-Palestinians do not favour peaceful methods to achieve independent statehood. From the report:

Israelis, on balance, believe a way can be found for an independent Palestinian state to coexist peacefully with their country. Palestinians, on the other hand, overwhelmingly do not think this is possible, and a plurality believes armed struggle rather than negotiations or nonviolent resistance is the best way to achieve statehood.

A question of “armed struggle” or terrorism

“Armed struggle” in this instance can be understood as a politically inoffensive terminology that in effect translates as terrorism, when confronted with the reality of the conflict to-date.

Arab-Palestinian violence, particularly the actions of disciplined paramilitary groups, traditionally assault the Jewish civilian populace rather than the Israeli military. Aiming at easy “soft targets”, particularly those that are civilian, is the principle defining characteristic of terrorism, in an effort to intimidate. Thus terrorism contrasts starkly with other forms of paramilitary activity and resistance.

For example, during the Second Intifada, which constitutes the last great united Palestinian “armed struggle”, 80% of those killed on the Israeli side by Arab-Palestinians were in fact civilian. Afghanistani/Iraqi insurgents killed civilians in similar proportions.

Palestinians are more likely to say armed struggle is the best way for their people to achieve statehood (45%) than they are to say negotiations or nonviolent resistance offer the best prospect for the creation of a Palestinian state (15% each). Another 22% volunteer that a combination of these three approaches would be most effective.

In effect 67% of all Palestinians support armed struggle because 45% support it completely, whilst another 22% support it combined with political actions.

Indeed PEW received similar percentage results in 2011 concerning supportive views of suicide attacks in defence of Islam:

Palestinian Muslims, however, remain an outlier on this question: 68% say suicide attacks in defense of Islam can often or sometimes be justified, a level of support essentially unchanged from 2007.

Earlier in May, poll results indicated that 40% of Arab-Palestinians believe suicidal attacks in defence of Islam are justified. In this instance the question of justification explicitly referred to the assault of civilian targets.

Whilst those of a pro-Palestinian persuasion may take the opinion that the survey indicates a lack of faith in the present Palestinian leaders, the survey results of the same PEW poll makes it clear that this is not the case (see section entitled “The popularity of Palestinian factions amongst the populace”).

The reality is that there is strong sentiment against even a resumption of peace talks, as indicated by the widespread riots in June-July 2012. It does not bode well for Palestinian Street giving any sort of peace process a chance.

Seeking pan-Arab military assistance?

The PEW study also found that a broadly similar percentage (three quarters) of Arab-Palestinians believe that the Arab world is not doing enough to assist them in achieving independent statehood:

When asked whether Arab countries are doing too much, too little or enough to help the Palestinian people achieve statehood, three-quarters in the Palestinian territories say they are doing too little; 16% say other Arab nations are doing enough and 5% believe they are doing too much to help Palestinians achieve statehood.

Assistance to achieve statehood can of course be given in various non-violent ways. However, when viewed with regard to a sizeable majority of Arab-Palestinians supporting violence to achieve the same goal of nationhood, it can clearly be inferred that a majority of Palestinians likely support some form of pan-Arab military aid. Iran and Syria’s assistance to Hizbullah and Hamas, which are both combative belligerents against Israel, has a principally military dimension.

Indeed Abbas advised Arab leaders that the PLO is ready to make war on Israel if the rest of the Arab world does the same:

If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don’t have the ability to do it.

The finding has a degree of ambiguity but it may even reflect some desire for outright pan-Arab inter-state war with Israel. This was a common populist expectation in the Middle East some decades ago. For example, Israel’s response to Fatah’s attacks, prior to the Six Day War, triggered violent mass protests throughout the Arab world.

The popularity of Palestinian factions amongst the populace

Perhaps surprisingly, Arab-Palestinians, both in the West Bank and Gaza, have a largely positive view of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. This popularity may have been bolstered by his successful move for “Palestine” to controversially gain observer status at the United Nations General Assembly last year, a unilateral move which breached the spirit of the Oslo Accords/Resolution 242.

Palestinians express mostly positive opinions of Abbas; 61% have a favorable view and 34% have an unfavorable view of the Palestinian president. Abbas is viewed favorably by majorities in both the West Bank (57%) and Gaza (68%). His party also receives positive ratings among Palestinians; 69% have a favorable view of Fatah, while 27% express unfavorable opinions.

PEW also found that leading terrorist groups Islamic Jihad and Hamas are less popular than Abbas’ Fatah/PLO faction. However, this finding may not be seen as a positive. 11% fewer Arab-Palestinians now hold negative opinions of Hamas since the last poll was taken by PEW. It is a sizeable change:

…a majority of Palestinians (56%) holds favorable opinions of Islamic Jihad, while about a third (35%) gives the militant organization negative ratings.

Opinions of Hamas are more mixed, with 48% of Palestinians viewing the extremist group favorably and 45% saying they have an unfavorable view of Hamas. In 2011, when Pew Research last asked Palestinians about Hamas, more held negative views (56%) than expressed positive opinions (42%)…

Despite changing views, such a show of support for Fatah may nonetheless encourage Abbas to hold long-delayed elections later this year.

Perceptions of Israeli’s and Arab-Palestinians in the West

The PEW survey also focused on the contrasting international support for Arab-Palestinians and Israel.

As has long been the case, the vast majority of Arab nations are extremely hostile to Israel, whilst the United States of America still holds a firm support for the state, despite the high-intensity campaigning by Western pro-Palestinian supporters to chip away at what is an essential block of support for Israel’s very existence.

Elsewhere in the Western World opinion of the two sides of the conflict varies quite considerably:

Views are more mixed in France, Germany and Russia. For example, 40% of French respondents sympathize more with Israel, while 44% say their sympathies lie with the Palestinians. Similarly, in Germany and Russia, about as many side with Israel as side with the Palestinians, but substantial numbers in these countries do not sympathize with either side in this conflict (31% and 42%, respectively).

The image PEW presents is one that may give a small ray of hope to those that support Israel because broad public stances on the conflict have not dramatically changed since 2007, despite the high-intensity campaigning by Western pro-Palestinian supporters:

For the most part, there has been little change in perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in recent years.

In mainland Europe, the image is varied. Germany has seen a notable increase in support for the Palestinian cause, whilst in France support for Israel has surprisingly increased in recent years. Russia has a sizeable pro-Israel support base despite decades of hostility from officialdom within the USSR.

The report finds that almost twice as many British people support the Palestinians over that of Israel. The finding reinforces the view that the British stand out as perhaps the most anti-Israel collective in the Western world, where many British academics, journalists and politicians have taken a leading and longstanding role in Israel’s delegitimisation.

Rob Harris contributes articles to several websites on contentious political issues (not to be confused with the popular English novelist (1957-) of the same name). He blogs at eirael.blogspot.com. He lives in Ireland. For all the exclusive blog entries by Rob Harris, go here.

By Rob Harris

(source: Scholars for Peace in the Middle East website, http://spme.net/)

In April 2013 the Teachers’ Union of Ireland (TUI) became the first European trade union involved with education and academia to adopt a resolution calling on its members to “cease all cultural and academic collaboration with Israel”. The boycott includes any co-operative research programs with Israeli institutions, and also proscribes the exchange of students between the nations.

The resolution also calls on the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU), an umbrella organisation representing some 55 Irish trade unions of which the TUI is affiliated, to “step up its campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions against the apartheid State of Israel boycotting Israeli academia until it ends the embargo of Gaza, withdraws from the West Bank, and abides by all anti-Israel UN resolutions.” The ICTU has officially boycotted Israel since 2009, and has already gone out of its way to demonise the Jewish State with extremely one-sided pro-boycott conferences.

The TUI motion also instructs the Union’s executive to institute an information programme to justify the boycott. To use their own Orwellian language, it will be “an awareness campaign amongst TUI members on the need for a full boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel”. It will likely invoke the dubious apartheid claims that led to the boycott in the first instance, in an attempt to reinforce the ideology behind the motion, and guarantee its continued support in the face of objections.

Assertions of the leading BDS advocates

According to the Jerusalem Post

The motion was raised by Jim Roche, a lecturer at the Dublin Institute of Technology and member of the fringe groups Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) and Gaza Action, and seconded by the vice-president of the TUI Gerry Quinn. […]

David Landy, a lecturer at Trinity College Dublin, member of the radical IPSC and founder of Academics for Palestine, called on other unions to follow suit. […]

He said it was “nonsense” that boycotts stifle academic principles.

“Undoubtedly apologists for Israeli apartheid will complain that such motions stifle academic freedom, but this is nonsense.”

So Mr. Landy haughtily deems it a “nonsense” that the boycott will discourage the free movement of academics and students, a valued principle within the academic world, and likewise it is a “nonsense” that it will discourage the free exchange of information and research? If his assertions are correct then why has he and his colleagues advocated a boycott that seeks to isolate Israeli academia and students?

“The Palestinian call for an academic boycott of Israel is an institutional boycott, not a boycott of individuals.”

Does Mr. Landy have no notion of the fact that academic institutions are composed of individuals both working and studying within them? When Israeli students attend schools from childhood, will they not almost inevitably be Israeli schools? What exactly does Mr. Landy and his IPSC colleagues foresee as happening when their motion proscribes the exchange of students with Israeli institutions? Clearly the real nonsense is the claim by boycott advocates that the process won’t harm individual Israeli students.

Israel and Arab-Palestinian education

Both Landy and Roche assert that Israel is somehow destroying the Palestinian education system, to the extent of even boycotting it:

“Ironically, those that will jump to complain about this motion will have no words of condemnation for the de facto boycott imposed on Palestinian education by Israel, nor for its continuing attacks on Palestinian education, students and educators,” Landy said.

Does such an assertion have any substantive basis in fact? Perhaps not, for literacy in the West Bank was at 88% before Israel administered the territory. It has now risen to 93%, comparing favourably with neighbouring Jordan.

Furthermore, university education was non-existent in the West Bank prior to Israel’s presence. Israel built six third level institutions to serve Arab-Palestinians. Several were temporarily closed during the Second Intifada as they were being used to advance the cause of conflict.

One example of third-level incitement is Al Najah University, which featured perhaps the most debased exhibit celebrating the death of Israeli civilians. It became a centre for Hamas’ al-Qassam brigade, and yielded numerous suicide bombers from amongst its student body.

Jim Roche and David Landy

Two chief advocates for the TUI boycott have become quite well known in Ireland for extremist views.

Jim Roche (right) with Dr. Ahmed Muhaisen, Head of the Department of Architecture (left) after Roche’s lecture at IUG. Jim Roche was invited to the Islamic University of Gaza (IUG) where he delivered a lecture on his work in architectural practice and his teaching at Dublin Institute of Technology. (source: www.dit.ie)

Jim Roche is a veteran of the flotillas that attempted to break the legal Israeli embargo on Gaza. He is a senior member of the jihadist-supporting Irish Anti-War Movement. His views echo that of the basest pro-Palestinian propaganda. He has openly perpetuated the long-disproven assertion that Arab-Palestinians in Gaza are starving, which was untrue even before Israel lifted all food import restrictions in June 2010.

Mr. Roche postulates fanciful notions, claiming Israel “has erased and continues to erase indigenous Palestinian architectural heritage from the physical landscape and collective consciousness….”, whilst ignoring the destruction to the holiest Jewish sites through the decades. He not only inverted the sequence of events leading to the Operation Pillar of Cloud conflict in 2012 but actually congratulated Hamas on showing ‘restraint’ while it was indiscriminately attacking Israeli civilians:

…what is remarkable about the current escalation, purely manufactured by Israel for internal electoral reasons, is the resilience and restraint shown by the Gazan people and its elected government.

Roche opposes all sanctions against Iran, and speaking after the successful TUI vote, he stated:

I am very pleased that this motion was passed with such support by TUI members, especially coming the day after Israeli occupation forces shot and killed two Palestinian teenagers in the West Bank.

Would this happen to be the same teenagers who threw petrol bombs at an armed Israeli checkpoint in the darkness of night? Haaretz reported that they were carrying seven incendiary devices, despite describing them as “unarmed”!

David Landy (source: www.tcd.ie/)

David Landy is a figurehead of the Irish pro-Palestinian movement. It has been suggested that he has a rather problematic stance toward his own Jewish identity. Indeed Landy wrote a book on the very issue, entitled “Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights”, which taps into the increasingly vocal negation of Jewish identity in the Jewish quarter of the anti-Zionist movement. A review by Professor Philip Mendes, also featuring a similarly themed book, states that:

Both authors rightly suggest that their samples are involved in creating alternative communities of Jews who reject Israel. These communities give them a sense of belonging and mutual support that was denied to them in the mainstream Jewish community. This then begs the question of what if anything distinguishes their anti-Zionist beliefs from the views of anti-Zionists who aren’t Jewish…

Double standards, Irish style

Whether or not one thinks Israel is violating the rights of Arab-Palestinians, the singling out of this small nation above all others must surely seem an oddity to all but those who obsessively hate Israel.

Numerous Irish academic institutions have strong links with regimes that possess dubious human rights records. Moreover, one would think this issue would be a source of even mild concern to those supposedly interested in human rights because these links have grown ever stronger, such as with Russia, and particularly China, the developments of which have been well publicised. Consequently, the obsession over a few rather tenuous academic links with Israel is outlandish, to say the least.

As musician and academic Ciarán Ó Raghallaigh noted, perhaps with a hint of sarcasm in a letter to the Irish Times

Cover of Landy’s book “Jewish Identity and Palestinian Rights – Diaspora Jewish Opposition to Israel” (Zed Books 2011, www.zedbooks.co.uk/)

There seems to have been no discussion of the extensive academic ties that Trinity College, Dublin Institute of Technology and University College, Dublin all have with Russia and China, despite the former country’s illegal occupation of parts of the sovereign state of Georgia… This is all the more surprising given that it was the Dublin Colleges Branch of the TUI that sponsored the anti-Israel motion.

Neither were any corresponding demands placed by members of the TUI onto the opposing Arab-Palestinian side. It should be recalled that the Arab-Palestinian education system & academia has been used to incite extreme hatred and violence throughout the Palestinian populace for decades, thereby dealing a death-blow to any chance of a peace process, thanks to a permanently radicalised populace. It would seem that even an education system using children in endeavours to exterminate another state, going as far as to institute militaristic camps is not worthy of censure!

On prejudice and discrimination

The notion that the TUI boycott is an assault on Israel, rather than an attempt to weaken any sense of a perceived occupation, is well founded. The boycott extends to all Israeli institutions, rather than merely those involved with the West Bank or Samaria and Judea. The organisation Trade Unions Linking Israel and Palestine, which unites both Israeli and Palestinian workers and attempts to foster dialogue, noted the indiscriminate nature of the TUI boycott resolution:

The resolution does not specifically call for a boycott of Israeli academics or students who are, for example, based in the occupied territories. The boycott covers all Israelis, even those students and academics who oppose the occupation and who support self-determination for the Palestinians.

Similarly, one wonders what is to be achieved by including a cultural aspect to the boycott. Proponents argue that any manifestation of Israeli culture “whitewashes the occupation”. However, it can easily be inferred that behind such senseless words an uglier truth lies. These individuals are afraid that we will see Israeli people as human beings rather than as bloodthirsty monsters so often portrayed on the news.

Interestingly, British academic unions considering a similar boycott received legal advice that it might be in breach of European Union anti-discrimination laws. BDS was found to be illegal by the French Supreme Court, and the European Court of Human Rights upheld this ruling. However, it is unclear whether the TUI will be challenged on their boycott.

Some implications for Ireland

It should not be thought that the arguments of BDS advocates were overwhelmingly superior simply because the TUI vote was unanimously in favour of a boycott. Rather it is a somewhat unexpected conclusion that there would be little if any dissent to the boycott motion because pro-Palestinianism is by far the pre-dominant paradigm in Ireland when it comes to any discussion on this Middle Eastern conflict. Moreover, there appears to have been no speakers voicing opposing anti-boycott views at the TUI conference. Sadly the voices of a fanatical well-funded terrorist-applauding element have undue influence on the debate in Ireland in the absence of any substantive defence of Israel by opposing sides.

The boycott could have profoundly divisive implications. It may lead to TUI members singling out Israeli exchange students, and refuse to assist them as has occurred in other boycott scenarios. In 2009 a lecturer at NUI Maynooth mounted an unofficial boycott of Israel which was discovered when his refusal to assist an Israeli student was reported in the media. It may even cause industrial unrest if an employee of the TUI is disciplined for refusing to work with Israeli students or institutions since no Irish colleges appear to endorse a boycott.

The boycott also comes at a time when recession-hit Ireland has been increasingly looking to Israel due to its economic model, which is weathering the economic downturn.

Israel’s record when it comes to academic achievement can be justifiably described as outstanding. It ranks as the second best educated nation in the world according to the OECD, and one of the more remarkable aspects of those going along with the agitators of such a boycott is the inability to conceive of the way in which Israel substantively contributes to world academia, and scientific innovation, where it is known for its strides in health care.

Education is a key element in any nation’s economic recovery, and whilst Ireland can no doubt exploit opportunities with other nations, Israel still stands out in a number of key respects. It has the largest per capita number of third level and PhD graduates in the world. It is a world leader in science and high technology as evidenced by its remarkable showing on the NASDAQ which is almost comparable in scale to that of the entire EU, whilst it also gained substantive inward investment from multinationals. These are the very areas of industry in which Ireland seeks to advance, and to position itself.

The BDS movement seeks to isolate Israel economically, academically and culturally, in a quest to bring a remarkable nation to its knees. Whether or not such an action is deemed offensive from a moral perspective, simply from a position of self-interest, boycotting Israel’s education and academia is likely to make Ireland the worse off if it takes hold and spreads to other Irish academic unions in the long run.

Rob Harris contributes articles to several websites on contentious political issues (not to be confused with the popular English novelist (1957-) of the same name). He blogs at eirael.blogspot.com. He lives in Ireland. For all the exclusive blog entries by Rob Harris, go here.

Sun, March 24, 2013 | RubinReports | By Barry Rubin

U.S. President Barack Obama, seen here toasting with Israel’s President Shimon Peres, ended his three-day visit to Israel by paying his respects at the graves of Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism who died in 1904, and former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was assassinated in 1995. Obama also visited the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial before touring the Biblical birthplace of Jesus Christ. (Photo: Reuters)

Given the shape of Jewish history, verbal expressions of friendship that others would take as the norm are treated as overwhelming acts of wonderfulness. This tradition goes back to the days of monarchies, when Jews saw themselves as powerless people who were passive recipients of the king’s generosity.

One reason that idea continued was because expressing the idea that Jews might have some power, some ability to shape events, was a major theme of antisemitism. Indeed, claiming that there is an all-powerful Jewish lobby or even of a Jewish-controlled media (which is laughable) remain to this day one of the main earmarks of antisemitic thinking.

What is the purpose of hasbara, that is, the effort to explain Israel’s situation, experiences, perceptions, and goals? It is not to make everyone love Israel or Jews, though that would be nice, but to create conditions so that Jews are not attacked or materially hurt by hostile neighbors and so Israel can have the environment in which it can operate with enough international support to do what it needs to do.

Let’s discuss these themes in the context of President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel.

From an Israeli, though not necessarily from an American, viewpoint it is absurd to be “pro-Obama” or “anti-Obama.” The issue is what Obama does in regard to Israeli interests. This is not necessarily the same criteria that American Jews would take, given their additional involvement and interest in many other issues that have nothing to do with international affairs.

In Israeli terms, for example, Richard Nixon was a good president. So was Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. Note the wide differences in their domestic policies, reputations, and worldviews in an American context..

If Obama is now going to be considered friendly toward Israel then, to use his own words in a different context, he didn’t build it on his own. Indeed, if Obama had his own way, if he could do anything he wanted to do, he would have been terribly unfriendly, the most unfriendly American president in history. (Jimmy Carter’s hostility came almost completely after leaving office.) And in many ways, that is how he began his presidency.

But Obama is neither a free agent nor a fanatic out to hurt Israel at any price. As president he interacts with reality, at least on this issue. There were three categories of factors that changed the strong hostility of Obama’s original position into something else.

First, internal American factors:

• A tradition seen as the norm of strong support for Israel by the United States;
• Pro-Israel public opinion;
• A largely pro-Israel Congress.

Second, regional factors:

• The lack of cooperation by the Palestinians who gave Obama zero assistance in his attempts to help them. Imagine if the Palestinian Authority had said in 2009:

“We want negotiations right away and peace as fast as possible. But we expect Obama to get us what we demand, including big Israeli concessions in exchange for very little. President Obama, you can have peace if you only bash Israel!”

But they did the opposite, turning down ever Obama initiative.

• Lack of cooperation by the Arab states generally, which did not take advantage of Obama’s offer to help them get major Israeli concessions through U.S. pressure;
• Iran’s intransigence;
• The fact that Islamists proved Obama wrong and became more radical.

In short, Obana discovered that distancing himself from Israel bought no gain.

Third, actions by Israel and American Jews:

• The Israeli government’s strategy of cooperating with Obama as much as possible to avoid giving him a — you can call it a reason or an excuse — for a quarrel;
• The tireless work of American Jews, both supporters and opponents of Obama, to explain the issues and mobilize support. This includes those whose strong criticism stung the administration.

It is not that Obama was nice toward Israel all along; it is that there is a new policy based on his realizing there wasn’t going to be a breakthrough to a comprehensive peace agreement.

There are, however, still two problem areas. First, the president expresses sympathy but not agreement with Israel. His view is:

I understand why you act as you do but you are wrong. You can obtain lasting peace fast if only you aren’t stubborn and suspicious.

This, however, doesn’t matter very much. The second problem is critical. How can you be so nice to a country when you help its enemies? How can you help populate Israel’s borders and neighborhood with those who openly proclaim their goal of committing genocide on its people?

If one asks: Has Obama helped or hurt Israel’s strategic situation the answer is that he has quite definitely hurt it overall. If one asks: Has Obama helped or hurt Israel’s ability to deal with that strategic situation the answer is that he has been about as good — but certainly not better — as several predecessors by merely continuing past U.S. aid and other policies.

Again, though, it is not a matter of liking or disliking Obama as a person but analyzing his behavior as a president.

The day after Obama’s election in 2008, I organized a program in Tel Aviv on the result. I and everyone on the panel spoke of what a great person Obama was and how he was going to be a great friend of Israel. It was proper not to start a conflict with him.

During 2009, however, I was faced with an important question: Should I be flat-out honest as to what I thought regarding Obama’s policies or would that jeopardize the bilateral relationship. Would supporters of Obama react against Israel because of criticism of their beloved chief executive?

I decided to speak up, partly because the dangers were so great and also since the whole point of criticism is to persuade someone to change course. By 2011 it was already becoming clear that U.S.-Israel relations as such were not the problem, U.S. Middle East policy was.

Let me summarize in this way:

• Arab behavior was the main force showing Obama that he was wrong. That parallels what happened during the Cold War when anti-American actions by radical Arab regimes and their alliance with the USSR persuaded previously unfriendly U.S. policymakers that they benefited from an alignment with Israel;
• The fact that the American people recognized the rightness of Israel’s narrative could not be ignored by leaders, especially if bashing Israel brought no strategic advantage;
• What’s significant is not whether or not Obama loves Israel but that he sees support as being in U.S. interests. Reality forced him to move from a policy of distancing himself from Israel to one of embracing Israel;
• But Obama must learn now about the dangers of Islamism or his administration will continue to be a net minus for Israel. It would be better if Obama learned to love the Arabs, Iranians, and Turks fighting for moderation and real democracy in their countries, not the totalitarians in those places;
• By truly protecting U.S. interests, Obama would do more for Israel than by making any number of friendly speeches.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, “Israel: An Introduction“, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include “The Israel-Arab Reader” (seventh edition), “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East” (Wiley), and “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Sat, March 23, 2013 | RubinReports | By Barry Rubin

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister, demanded an ­apology from Israel over the Mavi Marmara flotilla raid. (Photo: AP)

Israel apologizes to Turkey, reads every headline. That simply isn’t true in the sense it is taken to imply. To understand what happened one must examine the long negotiations on this issue.

The issue began when several ships were sent to break the Israeli sanctions on the Gaza Strip in May 2010. These sanctions were put on by Israel — Egypt, then under the government of President Husni Mubarak, had its own restrictions — against a radical Islamist regime in the Gaza Strip that openly rejected peace, used terrorism, and called for genocide against the Jews and the elimination of Israel.

This flotilla was not interested in helping the people of Gaza. It refused to land the cargoes in Israel and have them passed across the border after inspection. Rather, the goal was to help Hamas. A key role in the flotilla was played by the IHH, an Islamist group that has been involved in terrorism, backed by Turkey’s government.

These ships were intercepted by Israel’s navy and after warnings were seized. On all of the ships this happened without any injuries except on the Mavi Marmara, where radical jihadists with weapons had sworn to fight. They attacked the arriving soldiers, injured several, and took a couple of soldiers hostage. At that time the soldiers opened fire and several Turkish citizens were killed.

It is important to understand that the flotilla issue was not the cause of Israel-Turkish problems, which had begun long before. The real basis was the election of an Islamist government in Turkey. Discussions inside the Israeli government for years had known Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s hatred for Israel but did not want to be seen as responsible for any breakdown of relations.

During the talks, Erdogan made three demands:

1. Israel must apologize completely;
2. Such an apology implies a legal responsibility to pay reparations;
3. Erdogan insisted that Israel drop the embargo against the Gaza Strip.

Israel rejected these demands and instead offered:

1. To say it regretted the clash and the loss of life. This is like saying: If I offended anyone I’m sorry;
2. It offered to pay voluntarily, as a humanitarian gesture not as part of a guilty plea, the families of those killed;
3. Israel rejected any change on its policy toward the Gaza Strip.

Erdogan angrily rejected Israel’s offer.

Now, a compromise has been reached, apparently with some help from President Barack Obama. The agreement, which includes restoring normal bilateral relations, has been portrayed as some sort of Israeli surrender.

That is simply not true. The agreement is much closer to Israel’s position. There is no change on Israel’s strategic policy toward the Gaza Strip at all. While the word “apology” appears in Netanyahu’s statement, it is notably directed at the Turkish people, not the government and is of the sorry if your feelings were hurt variety.

Moreover, Israel denied that it killed the Turkish citizens intentionally, a situation quite different from what Erdogan wanted, and offered to pay humanitarian assistance to families.

Should Israel have expressed regret when it should instead receive an apology from the Turkish government for helping to send terrorists to create a confrontation? On purely moral grounds, no. Yet as I pointed out Israel did not abandon its long-standing position on the issue. It does not want an antagonism with the Turkish people nor one that will continue long after Erdogan and his regime are long out of office. Perhaps this was undertaken to make Obama happy and in exchange for U.S. benefits. But what has happened is far more complex than onlookers seem to be realizing.

Perhaps these seeming word games and niceties are beyond the interest or comprehension of many people, but everyone involved directly on this issue knows exactly what is happening. Erdogan knows very well that this was not a Turkish victory — except in public relations — though Israel won’t object to letting it be claimed as such.

Israel acted to try to reduce the tension with Turkey but without any illusions that the Erdogan regime would now be friendly. Indeed, there were implications that Erdogan was breaking his commitment on the deal. Immediately afterward, he said that a legal case against Israeli officers for alleged responsibility in the death of the Turks would continue and he was not yet sending back his ambassador to Israel. This might be posturing for a few hours or a real deal-breaker. We will see.

Obama’s role in this deal is not clear. (I have made clear to readers that I’m not just bashing Obama reflexively but I will also continue to analyze his actions as accurately as possible.) Did he put any pressure on Erdogan or Netanyahu? Did he promise either or both sides some benefits for making a deal? Not yet clear.

The danger is that this is the kind of arrangement that is all too common in the region. The media proclaim progress; the political leaders say what they want; but nothing changes in reality. One possibility is that Obama doesn’t understand (or doesn’t care) how deeply Erdogan’s anti-Israel feeling runs just as he doesn’t understand how deeply that is true for the Muslim Brotherhood.

Still, this deal is clearly in U.S. interests since it supposedly heals a rift between two countries that are close allies to itself in Washington’s eyes. As I said above, let’s see if this deal sticks or if there is any progress in fixing Israel-Turkey relations in the coming weeks.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, “Israel: An Introduction“, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include “The Israel-Arab Reader” (seventh edition), “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East” (Wiley), and “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Thu, March 21, 2013 | RubinReports | By Barry Rubin

U.S. President Barack Obama holds a joint press conference with his Palestinian counterpart Mahmoud Abbas beneath a banner showing Abbas and the late Palestinian later Yasir Arafat in Ramallah on March 21, 2013. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images)

As President Barack Obama continued his visit to Israel the themes remained the same as the ones I covered here. The two main public events were a speech by Obama to Israeli university students and a joint press conference with Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas.

In his speech, Obama spoke at great length about Israel’s history, concerns, and related matters to try to show that he “gets it” when it comes to Israel. The basic phrases were in many cases similar to those used by previous presidents. The intention was to show warm sympathy and support for Israel.

But there were three things strange about the point of the speech, showing that Obama was completely out of touch with contemporary sentiments and thus showing that in many ways he doesn’t get it. These points are:

First, Obama’s big theme is that, and I’m not being satirical here, peace is good. He tried to make the students understand that peace is better than continued conflict and has many advantages. Yet all the students in the audience probably knew everything he was saying. Of course they think peace is good. They are the ones who have to serve in the military and risk their lives, not to mention know that they and their loved ones are the targets of terrorism and war.

Can Obama possibly not comprehend all of this? No, I believe he doesn’t. He seriously thought that he was bringing new ideas to his audience that they had never thought about before nor heard about for years.

Second, he did not deal with a single one of what I call “the day after” issues. In other words, assume that there is a peace agreement between Israel and the PA. Well, how do we know Hamas won’t take over the PA or more radical forces will come to power that will not recognize the deal?

• What is a deal with the PA worth when it won’t include the Gaza Strip, where Hamas would redouble its efforts to attack Israel and work hard to undermine any such agreement?
• What reason is there to believe that there won’t be cross-border terrorism across the new international frontier and the government of Palestine doesn’t do anything about it?
• What about the likelihood of the Palestine government inviting in the armies of other countries or at least getting advanced weapons from them?
• How is Israel going to deal with the PA’s passionately held demand that millions of Palestinians be allowed to come and live in Israel?
• Why should Israel believe in any guarantees and assurances from the United States and Europe when such promises have been repeatedly broken, including ones made by Obama himself?

These are only some of the questions Israelis have about what a peace would look like and whether a formal agreement would really be better than the status quo. This is especially true with the 30-year-old peace Egypt-Israel peace treaty possibly under dire threat. For Obama, none of these problems exist. To his mind, you get a peace agreement on paper and that’s the end of the problem.

Third, Obama has not made one serious mention of the changed regional situation except to say that the United States wants democracy in the Arabic-speaking world and will try to work for that and Egypt’s continued adherence to its peace treaty with Israel. Yet he is still backing Islamists seeking or holding power.

To cite only one example, Obama has supported the new head of the Syrian opposition — apparently against real resistance in the opposition — despite the fact that this man, Ghassan Hitto, has close ties with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and support for terrorism against Israel.

Other than wishful thinking, how does Obama think that Israel can make new big concessions and take risks in the face of radical Islamist regimes in Egypt, Tunisia, the Gaza Strip, Turkey, Lebanon, Iran, and Syria? This is especially true when none of these regimes — except for Iran and to some extent the Hamas regime in Gaza — is strongly opposed by the current U.S. government?

So there is a disconnect between Obama’s new policy on the peace process which fits with Israeli interest despite is criticism, and a regional policy that is a big headache for Israel.

The other development was Obama’s visit to Ramallah. There he gave a message to the PA leadership that also preached the benefits of a two-state solution. He even referred to Israel as a Jewish state, which was a significant phrase.

In response, however, Abbas made it clear that he would only negotiate with Israel if certain preconditions were met, Including a new freeze on construction within existing Jewish settlements on the West Bank and also Israel providing its final proposal for where the border should be. Presumably, if Israel seeks to change the pre-1967 borders Abbas will not come to the negotiating table.

I wonder if Obama and his advisors noticed two things about Abbas’ statement and I think they did.

First, the last time Obama got Israel to do a freeze, Abbas did not negotiate seriously, leaving Obama looking foolish. Netanyahu cooperated; Abbas and the Arabic-speaking regimes didn’t. So why should Obama fall for the same trick twice?

Second, the situation is similar to what happened early in Obama’s first term when Abbas arrived in Washington and gave an interview to Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post making it clear that he was not interested in negotiating with Israel. Abbas has given several interviews recently in which he explicitly stated that now that the UN General Assembly has declared Palestine a “non-member state” he doesn’t need to negotiate with Israel.

In other words, Obama’s trip to Ramallah reinforced his view that the “peace process” is going nowhere and he cannot expect the PA to cooperate with any big effort by him to try to get talks going. So why should Obama bother to pressure Israel in trying to push ahead?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, “Israel: An Introduction“, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include “The Israel-Arab Reader” (seventh edition), “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East” (Wiley), and “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Thu, March 21, 2013 | RubinReports | By Barry Rubin

(source: foxnews)

The Obama visit to Israel has become an unlimited love fest with expressions of mutual admiration and total agreement. In his joint press conference with Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the foremost issue they were discussing was “Iran’s relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

Netanyahu put forward his position by praising Obama for saying he was determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons using “determined diplomacy and strong sanctions.”

But, Netanyahu continued, despite all the great things Obama had done Iran’s nuclear program continued and said,

“And as you know, my view is that in order to stop Iran’s nuclear programs peacefully, diplomacy and sanctions must be augmented by clear and credible threat of military action.”

Netanyahu thus tried to build on Obama’s previous statements to thank Obama “for always making clear that Israel must be able to defend itself by itself against any threat.” In other words, he suggested implicitly that supporting an Israeli preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was a logical outgrowth of Obama’s policies, an idea that Obama does not share.

Whether right or not, Netanyahu suggested that there was only about a year before Iran got to the verge of the ability to have weapons. Thus, he is putting a time limit on how long diplomacy and sanctions can be tried.

He also subtly asserted Israel’s need for independent action:

“I know that you appreciate that Israel can never cede the right to defend ourselves to others, even to the greatest of our friends, and Israel has no better friend than the United States of America.”

Regarding Syria, Netanyahu noted that this, too, was discussed and that both countries want to see a stable and peaceful Syria. In addition, the weapons in Syria should not fall into the hands of terrorists.

The problem, of course, is that Obama is supporting a Syrian regime that would be Islamist and under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood, a sworn enemy of Israel. Moreover, since the United States is practically handing out weapons to terrorists it is hard to imagine that these arms have not already fallen into the wrong hands.

Netanyahu concluded:

“And I have no doubt that the best way to do that is to work closely with the United States and other countries in the region to address this challenge, and that is what we intend to do.”

In other words, Israel will try to get U.S. policy to be careful and await the day it will come to its senses when it sees the size of the problem Washington has helped create.

The third point of discussion was the “peace process.” Netanyahu assured Obama that he was fully committed to peace and to a two-state solution. He is ready to negotiate without preconditions and work toward a historic compromise.

Here, Netanyahu knows that the Palestinian leadership is neither ready to negotiate unconditionally or make any historic compromises beyond accepting the pre-1967 boundaries, though even then on demand that hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs be settled inside Israel’s borders.

In his response, Obama praised Israel’s “thriving democracy,” Israel’s unique security needs, his appreciation about the threat from Hamas, and his commitment to Israel’s security. He noted such things as military and intelligence cooperation, joint exercises and training, and security assistance and advanced technology.

Almost openly making an appeal for domestic support, Obama stated:

“In short — and I don’t think is just my opinion; I think, Bibi, you would share this — America’s support for Israel’s security is unprecedented, and the alliance between our nations has never been stronger.”

In other words, so Mr. Prime Minister don’t you think that I’m the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House? Netanyahu wasn’t going to say “no.” His answer later in the press conference, though, was on his own terms:

“I appreciate the fact that the president has reaffirmed, more than any other president, Israel’s right and duty to defend itself, by itself, against any threat. We just heard those important words now. And I think that sums up our — I would say, our common view.”

In other words, yes, Obama has laid the basis for Israel saying that he is willing to support it in defending itself even if that requires an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. I don’t think Netanyahu believes that but he has to try that gambit.

Then Obama made an extraordinary statement:

“I think that what Bibi alluded to, which is absolutely correct, is each country has to make its own decisions when it comes to the awesome decision to engage in any kind of military action. And Israel is differently situated than the United States, and I would not expect that the prime minister would make a decision about his country’s security and defer that to any other country, any more than the United States would defer our decisions about what was important for our national security.”

What Obama just said publicly is that if Netanyahu decided that Israel’s defense required an attack on Iran, the president would not expect the prime minister to be deterred by U.S. opposition. Did Obama mean that? It is hard to believe that he did, yet what no Israeli leader is going to miss that seeming “green light.”

Obama announced continued military assistance to Israel, continued funding for the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, and other unspecified help.

Naturally, Obama continued, any two-state solution must leave Israel secure alongside a sovereign and independent Palestinian state.

One statement that probably left Israeli officials amused was when Obama said:

“I’d note that last year was a milestone, the first year in four decades when not a single Israeli citizen lost their life because of terrorism emanating from the West Bank. It’s a reminder that Israel has a profound interest in a strong and effective Palestinian Authority.”

They know how much the Palestinian Authority has done to promote violence, how weak and ineffective it is, and how much its survival is due to Israel’s protection.

Turning to regional issues, Obama said:

“As the United States supports the Egyptian people in their historic transition to democracy, we continue to underscore the necessity of Egypt contributing to regional security, preventing Hamas from rearming and upholding its peace treaty with Israel.”

It’s surprising that Obama didn’t mention getting Egypt to maintain its peace treaty with Israel though that might have been an oversight. Pushing Egypt to prevent Hamas from getting more weapons — a commitment under the last ceasefire between Israel and Hamas — has been an achievement for Obama. But much of the success is due to the recklessness of Hamas in going too far in supporting radical Egyptian Salafist groups that are attacking the Brotherhood regime.

He also mentioned support for Israel’s concern regarding Syria’s transfer of advanced weapons to Hizballah “that might be used against Israel” and efforts regarding Iran. Obama said what has been the standard U.S. position:

“We do not have a policy of containment when it comes to a nuclear Iran. Our policy is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” adding again that “all options are on the table. We will do what is necessary to prevent Iran from getting the world’s worst weapons.”

But what does this mean? If negotiations fail and sanctions do not intimidate Iran, that leaves either an attack or accepting that Iran gets nuclear weapons, that is, containment. There are no other options, unless Tehran decides to give up or just to have the ability to build nuclear weapons but don’t actually do so. That wishful thinking — it could happen but it is less likely — is the only thing that could get Obama out of his dilemma.

Obama spoke at length about how it isn’t yet clear what the Syrian regime has done regarding chemical weapons. He defended his administration as having been actively involved in trying to get rid of Assad.

He did not address the likelihood that U.S. policy is helping to produce a new Syrian regime that will be a radical Islamist government extremely hostile to Israel.

Another interesting point raised by Obama is his acknowledgement that “what was already a pretty tough neighborhood has gotten tougher” and Israel could expect U.S. support not only because of Israel but due to U.S. interests. Obviously, if the neighborhood has gotten tougher it is due to U.S. policies toward Islamists coming to power.

Yet, again, Obama does not link this situation to his own behavior. So does he really understand the implications of what he’s saying or does he still feel it is the time for Israel to make risky concessions toward the Arabs? Perhaps Obama now does understand that, another factor in making the “peace process” a mere rhetorical flourish rather than a serious policy option.

Obama then spoke at length about why the “peace process” wasn’t advancing. And Obama added accurately — obviously reflecting internal discussions that have been going on in the U.S. government:

“And I purposely did not want to come here and make some big announcement that might not match up with what the realities and possibilities on the ground are.”

Obama had thus gone to a point where an American reporter could ask, very politely, whether the president might not have worked very effectively on the issue in his first term. He then rewrote history to say that he merely promised to work on a solution during his first term. He even blamed the press for exaggerating his emphasis on the issue. It was that blatant.

Yet he added:

“But ultimately, this is a really hard problem. It’s been lingering for over six decades. And the parties involved have, you know, some profound interests that you can’t spin, you can’t smooth over. And it is a hard slog to work through all of these issues”

In other words, although he will never say so openly, he was wrong in thinking the problem could be solved easily and he now knows better. To listen to Obama you get the impression that he expects no progress in his second term either. In fact he reduced expectations pretty low:

“And — and — and my goal here is just to make sure that the United States is a positive force in trying to create those opportunities as frequently as possible….”

So this is Middle East policy in Obama’s second-term: downplaying Israel-Palestinian issues, pushing for a new regime in Syria while disregarding the real dangers of producing a monster there, and trying to convince Israel from not attacking Iran by insisting that all options are on the table although his bluff will be called at some point.

On bilateral relations, this represents a gain for Israel but it is still stuck in dealing with radical Arab regimes which U.S. policy is not going to confront and which it even sees as friendly. Moreover, for the next year Israel will enjoy firm American rhetoric on Iran but what if things come to a crunch? Obama’s hints and pledges could collapse like a house of cards once Tehran approaches a nuclear weapons’ arsenal.

Also, Obama now faces the situation of previous American presidents, a dilemma that he has long ridiculed. The Saudis and Jordanians, along with some other countries, don’t care but the Iranian, Turkish, and a number of Arab regimes (including the Palestinian Authority) are going to be outraged by what Obama did and said. The Islamists will see this as a declaration of war, though of course they already viewed themselves as in a state of war with America. The Cairo speech will be spit upon; all the efforts to distance himself from Israel and create a new orientation for U.S. policy have failed.

Obama is now — on matters directly regarding Israel — a typical American president. The idea that Obama made policy out of raw hatred against Israel should be put to rest.

Nevertheless, the incompetence and the deluded strategy toward Islamists still remain, as does the dangerous situation for U.S. interests that Obama has helped create. Fireworks will no doubt take place during Obama’s second term.

PS: Palestinian anti-Obama demonstrations showed the “gratitude” amassed for Obama’s previous support by branding him as a Zionist, imperialist running dog. But one detail drew my close attention. The demonstrators sang a song called “America is the head of the snake.” That’s the song that then PLO leader Yasir Arafat led in singing at the Palestine National Council meeting almost 45 years ago. In other words, after 45 years of effort and especially the last 23 years in which America tried to help create a Palestinian Arab state, it has made zero progress toward winning Palestinian support or recognition of America’s aid and efforts. The same story, of course, will be reproduced regarding Obama’s efforts to show his respect for Islam and his empathy for Islamism.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, “Israel: An Introduction“, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include “The Israel-Arab Reader” (seventh edition), “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East” (Wiley), and “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Mon, March 18, 2013 | RubinReports | By Barry Rubin

(source: haaretz.com)

On the issues about which the world is obsessed, Israel’s new government is basically a continuation of the old one. That is the key point to keep in mind regarding the new coalition which has a comfortable 68-seat majority, well over the 61 minimum parliamentarians required.

Basically, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in a strong position as these things go. It is notable that there is not a single other person seriously considered to be a serious candidate for prime minister. Of course, he will have the usual headaches of managing a disparate coalition in which parties will quarrel, threaten to walk out, and make special demands.

The coalition consists of Netanyahu’s Likud; Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid party, which might be called traditionally liberal in American terms; Naftali Bennett’s right-wing and dati religious (Modern Orthodox, in American terms) party, Habayit Hayahudi; and Tsipi Livni’s rather shapeless and personalistic Hatnuah party. A key element of this coalition is the alliance of Bennett and Lapid in opposition to the Haredi (mistakenly called “ultra-Orthodox” in the West) religious parties.

While this is certainly a conservative-dominated government, I have yet to see anyone in the mass media point out that it includes two of the three largest left of center parties!

Of the three key ministries, Netanyahu will be foreign minister, holding that post “in trust” for indicted former foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, whose old party ran on a joint list with the Likud. In practice, this means Netanyahu will have close control over implementing his policies internationally. The defense minister is the very able Moshe Yaalon, a Likud member and former head of military intelligence.

Lapid will run the Finance Ministry, dealing with issues on which he has no experience at all. This is not so unusual in parliamentary systems, where senior civil servants actually run the ministries. But Lapid holds this post because his signature issues are to urge reforms in the economy. His party will also get education, social services, health, and science and technology.

Here is something of a paradox. Israel has been one of the most successful countries in the developed world because it has refused to join the high-spending, high-debt, subsidy-oriented policies of Europe and now the United States. Unemployment and inflation have been low; growth has been relatively high. The problem, though, is that prices are also relatively high compared to incomes, causing problems especially for young people and consumers generally.

Lapid is expected to revise the management of the golden eggs without doing harm to the goose that laid them. Arguably, the number-one issue for this government is whether Lapid can perform well. His father, a popular journalist, followed the precise same course as the son a few years ago and failed completely. The junior Lapid has no actual political experience and does have characteristics of Tel Aviv beautiful people society. If he falters, his party will disintegrate in the next election.

As for Bennett, the amusing spin on much coverage is that his party has succeeded, that settlers even dominate the government, because he will have a couple of minor ministries which don’t have much power. Actually, he got less than I would have expected. While the settlements might benefit a little economically from these positions — and from the party’s holding the chairmanship over the Knesset finance committee — they will not have much authority and control little money directly.

If there is a big winner in the new government it is Lapid’s reformist liberals (in the old American sense, not the redefinition imposed on that word by the American far left). They are going to have a chance to show if they can improve social services, a fairer distribution of resources (the issue isn’t so much between rich and poor but across different sectors), and an economy that retains its growth while managing the problem of high prices, among other things.

Meanwhile, although the world is obsessed with non-existent issues regarding the long-dead “peace process” or fantasy options for Israel to make friends with neighboring Islamist regimes by giving even more concessions, Israel strategically is focused on defense.

Four of the six bordering entities — Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and soon Syria — are ruled by radical Islamist groups that openly declare their goal of wiping Israel off the map. And that list doesn’t even include extremely hostile Iran (whose drive toward nuclear weapons cannot be forgotten for a moment) and the virulently anti-Israel regime in Turkey.

The fifth neighbor, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is totally uninterested in negotiating toward peace. Its strategy revolves around trying to establish unilateral independence based on the UN General Assembly, which lightly bestowed on it the status of non-member state. Only Jordan, among the neighbors, can be deemed to be friendly when it counts, given the monarchy’s own interests.

This looks like a rather grim strategic situation and it is one generally disregarded by the West. Yet Israel has maneuvering room:

• Prospects for a third intifada (guerrilla-terrorist war) in the PA have dissipated for the moment.
• A quarrel between Hamas and the Cairo regime has cut off arms and reduced political support within Egypt for Hamas.
• In Lebanon, Hizballah has to cope with the loss of its patron, Syria.
• And the PA’s diplomatic strategy is fruitless, incapable of bringing about change.
• Finally, the Sunni-Shia clash among contending Islamists and the need for quiet by Islamist regimes trying to consolidate power at home are also factors making Israel’s situation easier.

The glib idea that the situation is “unsustainable” is no truer than it has been for most of the past 65 years. Aside from the momentous decision on whether to attack Iranian nuclear facilities — something that won’t be a serious prospect in the next year — the Netanyahu government doesn’t have many big decisions on foreign policy.

And if Bennett’s presence protects the Israel settlements on the West Bank, the absence of any serious “peace process” means that this will be an easy task, except for some potentially nasty skirmishes over funding. So desperate is the effort to portray Bennett as the winner that even the coalition agreement’s not talking about the peace process is claimed as evidence. Obviously, if anything had actually been written to limit Netanyahu’s autonomy on the issue, one could make the case far better. Bennett’s failure to get assurances on that point is hardly a sign of victory for him. Quite the opposite.

As this analysis indicates, the main battles will be over budget, economic, and social issues. In particular, Bennett and Lapid are committed to reduce Haredi benefits. Note that this isn’t an “anti-religious” issue because Bennett’s party is largely religious. While the most visible issue is army service, Haredi housing and child benefits might be more likely areas for change.

Indeed, perhaps the most interesting cabinet appointment is that of Rabbi Shay Piron, from Lapid’s party, as education minister. In the past, such a selection would have caused a firestorm of protest among secular Israelis. But Piron is a liberal rabbi and will likely spend more time trying to modernize religious education than to affect the secular aspects of teaching.

The problem of this government is more likely to be one of personalities, marginal issues that get blown up in importance, and jockeying for financial benefits for different constituencies. There will be a lot of fireworks but far fewer explosions. And if any coalition party wants to test Netanyahu’s power at the polls before the government’s four-year-long term ends, they know that he will win the prime ministership again.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, “Israel: An Introduction“, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include “The Israel-Arab Reader” (seventh edition), “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East” (Wiley), and “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Sun, February 17, 2013 | terrorism-info.org.il

Shawan Jabarin, human rights organization director and Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist activist, recently visited France to participate in the anti-Israeli campaign. His visit was another example of the integration of PFLP operatives in the campaign to delegitimize Israel.

Shawan Jabarin, director of a human rights organization and a terrorist activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (Photo from the cosmos.ucc.ie website)

Overview

On February 1, 2013, Shawan Jabarin, who heads the Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq,^[1] paid a visit to France. For several years the Israeli judicial authorities prevented him from leaving the country. The visit was part of the anti-Israeli campaign being waged by his organization in France, and was held under the aegis of several human rights and pro-Palestinian organizations, among them the Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (HDH), a French human rights NGO establish in 1898; ACAT-France (a French organization which opposes capital punishment); the France-Palestine Solidarity Association; Amnesty International; and La Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine, a French umbrella network of pro-Palestinian NGOs. During his stay in France Jabarin reportedly met with French diplomats and members of Parliament (whose identities are unknown to us).

Interviewed by the French Arabic-language TV channel France 24, Jabarin spoke about a variety of topics:

1. Palestine’s participation in the International Criminal Court (ICC) — Jabarin complained that while every European country that wanted to join the European Union was also required to join the ICC, Palestine was not allowed to join. That meant, he said, that despite the fact that the Palestinians suffered from a “violation of their rights” and “crimes,” the ICC could not provide them with a defense. He demanded that the French support Palestinian membership in the ICC, or at least not oppose it.
2. Boycotting Israeli goods — Jabarin claimed that according to international law, goods manufactured in the settlements could not be marketed because that encouraged what he called the “crime of the settlements.”
3. Stopping administrative detentions — Jabarin claimed that members of the French Parliament had promised him they would relay the matter of administrative detentions to the French foreign minister so that he could exert pressure on Israel to cancel the policy of administrative detentions and to release the imprisoned Hamas activists of the Palestinian Legislative Council.
4. Imposing sanctions on Israel — Any political process in which France was involved had to be based on international law and not on the principle of direct negotiations. Jabarin asked France to turn words into action and impose sanctions on Israel.

Shawan Jabarin

Shawan Jabarin

Shawan Rateb Abdallah Jabarin was born in the village of Sayeir, in the Hebron district, in 1960. He is a lawyer by training and began his activity in Al-Haq in 2006 as a field worker; since then has been its General Director. Jabarin was an operative in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the notorious terrorist organization founded by George Habash which has been involved in international terrorism, including plane hijackings and mass murder attacks. As a student at Beir Zeit University he belonged to a PFLP student cell. He was later involved in recruiting operatives for training outside Israel, for which he was imprisoned in Israel for nine months.

In February 2011 was chosen to join the Human Rights Watch’s advisory committee.^[2] He is also on the board of an NGO called the Union of Health Committees, which provides medical services in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip and establishes medical centers (according to unverified information, the Union of Health Committees is affiliated with the PFLP).

In 2009 Shawan Jabarin was not permitted by the Israeli authorities to go to Holland for an award given to individuals or institutions fighting for democracy and against discrimination, tyranny and racism. Jabarin appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court four times but his appeals were denied for reasons of security. At the time the Court’s decision resulted in a campaign of anti-Israeli propaganda from many human rights organizations. In February 2012 the order was temporarily lifted and he was permitted to go to Geneva to participate in a UN conference (HRW website, March 2, 2012).

The following are paragraphs from the Israeli Supreme Court decision (Case 1520/09, March 10, 2009), relating to the Shawan Jabarin’s double identity as a terrorist operative and an activist in an organization identifying itself as a human rights organization (ITIC translation from Hebrew to English):

1. “This is not the first time the appellant has appealed regarding his desire to leave the country. During previous appeals as well as during this one the Court examined classified material presented by the security authorities. All previous appeals were rejected. On June 6, 2007, the Court found that “[t]he appellant is apparently a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, some of his time spent in directing a human rights organization, and some as an activist in an organization which has no qualms regarding murder and attempted murder, which have no relation whatsoever to rights, quite the opposite, which reject the most basic right of all, without which there are no other rights, that is, the right to life…” On July 7, 2008, the Court found that “there is reliable information that the appellant is a senior activist in the Popular Front terrorist organization.
2. “Today the appellant again seeks to leave the country for the purpose of receiving an award from an organization in Holland. His representative requested that in making our decision we take into consideration the need to achieve a proper balance between the concerns voiced by the security authorities – and regarding which the appellant’s representative does not have sufficient information because of the privilege protecting the factual material on the one hand – and the basic right of the appellant to freedom of movement on the other. The overall position of the security authorities, in the appellant’s opinion, is a violation of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The appellant claims that what must be taken into consideration is the increased right to movement which those who defend human rights should be allowed to enjoy.
3. “…To that end we met in chambers twice, and at each meeting we held thorough, comprehensive deliberations, examining the possibility to provide an immediate answer for security constraints. We found that the material indicating the appellant’s involvement in the activities of terrorist groups is genuine and authoritative. Moreover, additional negative material regarding the appellant came to light after his previous appeal was rejected. This negative foundation confirms the position of the security authorities, according to which preventing the appellant from leaving the country was in punishment for his forbidden activity, but rather the result of relevant security considerations. Thus the Court has not found a way to intervene in the decision given not to permit the appellant to leave the country.”

PFLP Involvement in Political, Legal and Humanitarian Activities

The PFLP is a notorious terrorist organization which has been involved in hijacking planes and mass-murder terrorist attacks. The organization combined deadly terrorist attacks with ties with radical groups around the globe, adopting Marxist-Leninist ideology mixed with Palestinian nationalism. The PFLP is designated as a terrorist organization by both the United States and the European Union. In recent years its activists have become involved in Palestinian human rights organizations operating in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, and they also participate in the campaign to delegitimize Israel, including anti-Israeli lawfare.

In addition to Jabarin’s visit to France, another PFLP activist visited the country in December 2012, invited by EuroPalestine.^[3] It was reported that a senior PFLP activist nicknamed Abu Sami, who also edits the PFLP’s Ramallah-based organ Al-Hadaf visited France. An ITIC examination discovered that the operative Abu Sami is apparently Omar Shhadeh, who lives in Ramallah and is a member of the PFLP’s political bureau and edits its journal. The examination also revealed that on December 12, 2012, Omar Shhadeh participated a rally held in Paris to mark the 45^th anniversary of the PFLP’s founding. He gave a speech calling for extending the BDS campaign against of Israel and for trying senior Israelis in international courts (Dunia al-Watan, December 12, 2012).^[4]

On December 27, 2012, a delegation of about 100 activists organized by EuroPalestine entered the Gaza Strip through the Rafah crossing. According to the members of the delegation (who aimed their arrival to coincide with the fourth anniversary of Operation Cast Lead) they came to break the so-called “illegal siege of the Gaza Strip.” Before their departure for the Gaza Strip they campaigned in a number of cities in France, primarily to collect donations and contributions for the Gazans. As part of the campaign dozens of letters were sent to French President Hollande demanding the imposition of sanctions against Israel (EuroPalestine website, December 17, 2012).

The delegation, headed by Olivia Zemor, held a display near the border fence (keeping a low profile and without provocation), and promised to promote Hamas’ political agenda in French public opinion and in French and international legal forums. The delegation was accompanied by other networks involved in the campaign to delegitimize Israel, including nine members of an anti-Israeli network called Freedom Flotilla Italia, which is active in the project to send flotillas to the Gaza Strip.

The network’s activists were received in the Gaza Strip by officials of the de-facto Hamas administration. They also met with senior figures in the PFLP and with representatives of other terrorist organizations. In our assessment the meetings were not random but rather another manifestation of the relations between them.

Invitation to a meeting in Paris attended by Shawan Jabarin and held under the aegis of French human rights and pro-Palestinian organizations (Saphirnews.com website, January 24, 2013).

Appendix

Profile of Al-Haq

Banner Al-Haq website

Overview

Al-Haq is a Palestinian human rights organization based in Ramallah. It is headed by Shawan Jabarin, a senior PFLP terrorist operative. Al-Haq was founded in 1979 by a group of lawyers with the express purpose of providing legal defense for human rights issues in the Palestinian Authority (PA)-administered territories and to use legal measures to wage a campaign against Israel.

According to Al-Haq, its activities focus on providing legal help in dealing with what it calls “Israel’s violations of Palestinians’ rights.” The organization deals with, among other things, documenting “violations” of Palestinians’ rights and suing Israeli individuals and organizations in national and international courts. The organization particularly emphasizes issues such as killing, the settlements and property. It is all done through “instructing and coordinating with foreign lawyers” (according to Al-Haq’s “Action Plan”). In 1999 the organization was granted consultative status by the UN’s Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Al-Haq plays an important role in the lawfare against Israel as part of the overall campaign to delegitimize it,^[5] in a variety of ways: encouraging the PA to attempt to bring suit against Israel in the International Criminal Court (ICC); anti-Israeli activity in various countries and international forums, among them the UN Human Rights Council; asking for arrest warrants for Israelis and instituting legal suits against governments, companies and corporations because of their relations with Israel (the BDS campaign). In the past the organization supported the Goldstone Commission and has used the Goldstone Report against Israel.

Al-Haq’s Place in the Campaign to Delegitimize Israel

Like other such organizations, in principle Al-Haq rejects the two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Izzat Abd al-Hadi, a senior member of the organization, wrote that “If there cannot be two states, there will be one, and it will have a Palestinian majority.” Jonathan Kuttab, also a senior Al-Haq figure, supports a one-state solution. Lisa Taraki, another senior figure in the organization, is an enthusiastic supporter of the BDS campaign and was a cofounder of the BDS steering committee in Ramallah (Al-Haq Factsheet, NGO Monitor, April 4, 2011).

Al-Haq was one of the NGOs which participated in the first Durban Conference (2001) and called for a boycott of Israel (from which the BDS campaign evolved). The organization has been integrated into the campaign to delegitimize Israel since its inception and participates in all its aspects, propaganda, economic and legal. As part of its propaganda campaign it frequently accused Israel of “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” For example, In May 2009, Al-Haq, together with an organization called Adalah issued a document entitled “Occupation, colonialism, apartheid?: a reassessment of Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territories under international law.” The document refers to Israel as a colonial enterprise which employs a policy of apartheid. It also appeals to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue an opinion according to which Israel is a “racist apartheid colonial state” (Al-Haq Factsheet, NGO Monitor, April 4, 2011).

Al-Haq’s Involvement in Anti-Israeli Lawfare

Al-Haq has an important role in the lawfare the Palestinian NGOs are waging against Israel based on the false, distorted and biased information it disseminates around the world. The organization is active in various international forums, among them the UN’s Human Council (an agency known for its hostile anti-Israeli attitude). It also attempted to act through the ICC. In 2009 Al-Haq exerted pressure on the ICC prosecutor’s office to initiate criminal investigations of Israelis. Al-Haq activists also assisted the PA in its appeals to the ICC to promote bringing Israelis to trial (Al-Haq Factsheet, NGO Monitor, April 4, 2011).

In the past Al-Haq examined the idea of having the PA appeal to UN agencies and gave the PA its legal opinion on the matter. The organization also raised the suggestion to subvert the credibility of the Israeli judicial system. The proposal included a campaign to flood the Israeli judicial system with appeals which would represent it as ineffective and unreliable, and thus the international community would force Israel to accept international legal experts as observers during its legal deliberations.

Al-Haq is also involved in the campaign to boycott Israel and harm its political and economic relations with the British government. Al-Haq was behind petitions to the British government to stop issuing permits to British companies to export weapons to Israel. The petitions were filed by a legal firm called Public Interest Lawyers. Al-Haq was also involved in bringing suit against a company in Canada (2008) and a Dutch corporation (2010) for their commercial ties with Israel.^[6]

Al-Haq, along with other Palestinian NGOs, was involved in having arrest warrants issued in Britain for Israelis:

1. In 2002 Al-Haq and the PCHR had an arrest warrant issue for Israeli Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz.
2. In September 2009 Al-Haq and Al-Mizan lodged a criminal complaint in Britain against Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. The complaint was lodged by a British law firm.

Al-Haq’s Involvement in the Goldstone Report

Al-Haq claims to have made a great contribution to the Goldstone Report: “The majority of Al-Haq’s work at the UN level in 2009 can be summed up in one word — Goldstone” (NGO Monitor, September 15, 2011). The information Al-Haq provided the Goldstone Commission dealt particularly with the activities of the Israeli security forces and the PA in Judea and Samaria from a viewpoint hostile to both Israel and the PA. The information was used in writing the section of the Gaza Strip dealing with the “historical context” of Operation Cast Lead. The section reviewed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict beginning with the Six Day War in 1967.

Al-Haq activists met with members of the Goldstone Commission who were gathering data for the Report (July 2, 2009). The members of the Commission also conducted telephone conversations with Al-Haq representatives (July 15, 2009), and held a hearing in Geneva with its head, Shawan Jabarin (July 6, 2009). The organization’s name appears in the list of NGOs which supplied information used by the Commission members to write the Report.

Al-Haq describes its involvement in the writing of the Goldstone Report as follows (NGO Monitor, September 15, 2011):

“Upon the initiation of the mission led by Justice Richard Goldstone, Al-Haq was called upon numerous time [sic] to make submissions to the mission. As a testament to the scope of Al-Haq’s work, the mission met with Al-Haq’s fieldworkers in Gaza where affidavits were also submitted. Additionally, one of Al-Haq’s legal researchers attending a session in Amman, Jordan, addressing PA violations in the West Bank during the attacks on Gaza. Finally, Al-Haq’s General Director submitted an intervention via video conference to Geneva detailing the issue of movement restriction in the West Bank via the Israeli occupying forces.”

In an article in the Washington Post, Judge Goldstone retracted several severe accusations leveled against Israel appearing in the Report (Washington Post, April 1, 2011). In response Al-Haq and ten other Palestinian organizations published an open letter attacking the article. It said that “many civilian casualties and the extensive destruction of the civilian infrastructure during Operation Cast Lead cannot be attributed to human error alone…The failure of domestic investigation necessitates recourse to international justice mechanisms, including the referral by the UN security council to the international criminal court (NGO Monitor, September 15, 2011). Al-Haq continued its activities to use the Goldstone Report to defame and demonize Israel.

Sources of Funding

Al-Haq’s website (February 13, 2013) lists the organization’s core donors, among them the following:

1. The Ford Foundation
2. EED, Germany (Church Development Service)
3. Christian Aid (a Christian organization founded in the 1940s in Britain and Ireland)
4. Irish Aid (the Irish foreign ministry)
5. Representative Office of Norway
6. Arab Human Rights Fund (Lebanon)
7. Medico International (Germany)
8. The People Fund of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
9. The Royal Danish Representative Office of the PA
10. Swedish International Development Cooperation (SIDA)

The list of donors (Al-Haq website, February 13, 2013)

Notes:

[1] See the Appendix for further information about the organization.

[2] Shawan Jabarin’s appointment to the HRW’s advisory committee was criticized at the time, including by people within the organization. However, HRW stressed his “contributions to human-rights causes” (Thedailybeast.com website, February 17, 2011).

[3] EuroPalestine is an anti-Israeli French organization headed by Olivia Zemor, a French Jewish activist affiliated with the radical left. The organization has been behind two attempts to fly anti-Israeli activists to Israel’s Ben-Gurion international airport (July 2011, April 2012) and one attempt to send them into Israel overland through the Allenby Bridge (auf 2012).

[4] For further information see the December 31, 2012 bulletin “The French Anti-Israeli organization EuroPalestine sent a delegation to the Gaza Strip hosted by the Hamas administration.”

[5] The organization leading anti-Israeli lawfare is the Gaza Strip-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), headed by a lawyer named Raji Khader Mousa Surani. Two other organizations which play important roles in the anti-Israeli lawfare are Al-Haq and the Al-Mizan Center for Human Rights. The organizations, but especially the PCHR, were an important source of false information adopted and issued in the Goldstone Report.

[6] From the Al-Haq Factsheet, NGO Monitor, April 4, 2011.

Early in January 1948 Abd al-Qadir al-Husseini returned to Palestine and began organizing Palestinian resistance to the partition of Palestine. He is seen here (standing center) with aides and Palestinian irregulars, Jerusalem district, February 1948. (Walid Khalidi. “Before their Diaspora”. Institute for Palestine Studies. 1984. Palestine Liberation Organisation INformation Center archives / This work or image is now in the public domain.)

Memorandum on acts of Arab aggression submitted to the United Nations Palestine Commission (1948) by the Jewish Agency for Palestine: a report on the alleged aggressions by the Arab states in the period just before the Israeli War of Independence. Online source: Archive.org, retrieved on feb 16, 2013. Published without copyright, by a foreign entity in the US before March 1989.

MEMORANDUM

ON

ACTS OF ARAB AGGRESSION

submitted to the

UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION

by the

JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE

Lake Success, New York

February 2, 1948

—

MEMORANDUM

ON

ACTS OF ARAB AGGRESSION TO ALTER BY FORCE THE SETTLEMENT ON THE FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF PALESTINE APPROVED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

submitted to the

UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION

by the

JEWISH AGENCY FOR PALESTINE

Lake Success, New York

February 2, 1948

—

SUMMARY

The Jewish Agency for Palestine submits that a situation has arisen in Palestine whose continuance is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security. This situation is due to an attempt by the Arab League and by the Governments represented therein in concert with the Palestine Arab Higher Committee to alter by force the settlement envisaged by the General Assembly’s Resolution on the Future Government of Palestine (November 29, 1947, A/516)–an attempt which, according to Part A of the Resolution, should be determined “as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression.”

This aggression is taking three forms:

A. A campaign of threats, incitement and propaganda officially sponsored by the Arab League and the Governments represented therein, which is “designed to provoke and encourage a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace and acts of aggression,” in violation of the Resolution unanimously adopted by the General Assembly with reference to Propaganda and the Inciters of a New War (October 28, 1947, A/428) and of Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the Charter.

B. Direct acts of aggression recently organized and sponsored by the Governments of Syria and Lebanon against the Jewish population of Palestine in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations (as defined in Article 1 of the Charter) and in violation of Article 2.

C. Threats and preparations for aggression in Palestine now being made by all or several Governments represented in the Arab League in violation of Article 2 of the Charter, relating to the “threat or use of force in international relations” and in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.

INTRODUCTION

In April 1947 the United Kingdom Government as the Mandatory Power requested the General Assembly (under Article 10 of the Charter) to make a recommendation on the future Government of Palestine. The General Assembly, accepting the view repeatedly expressed by the United Kingdom Government that the United Nations had jurisdiction to define the form of government in the territory of the Palestine Mandate, took steps to study and investigate all matters bearing upon the situation in that country. A Special Session of the

page 2

General Assembly held in April and May, 1947, appointed a Special Committee of the United Nations to investigate all aspects of the Palestine question and present a Report to the General Assembly. On September 1, 1947, after a careful investigation conducted in Palestine and Europe, the Special Committee presented its Report^[1] which the General Assembly referred on September 23, 1947, to an Ad Hoc Committee. This Ad Hoc Committee appointed two sub-committees, of which one presented a Resolution for a settlement by Partition and Economic Union, and the other, composed of Arab and Moslem states, submitted a Resolution for a unitary Palestinian State. The former Resolution was adopted in the Ad Hoc Committee by 25 votes to 13. The latter was rejected by 29 votes to 12. Accordingly, on November 25, 1947, the Ad Hoc Committee presented a Resolution to the General Assembly involving a settlement of the Palestine question by Partition and Economic Union. This was adopted by the General Assembly with 33 votes in favor and 13 votes against.

2. The General Assembly appointed a 5-power Commission to implement its recommendation; allotted certain functions to the Trusteeship Council and the Economic and Social Council respectively, in carrying out parts of the plan; and requested the Security Council to take action under Articles 39 and 41 of the Charter if the situation in Palestine constituted a threat to the peace. The General Assembly further requested the Security Council to determine as “a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution.” The General Assembly finally appealed “to all Governments and all peoples to refrain from taking action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of these recommendations.”

3. The Resolution adopted on November 29, 1947, was thus the result of a prolonged attempt by the United Nations to seek a solution by inquiry and negotiation. The Arab States, as well as the Arabs of Palestine, were afforded ample opportunity to submit their views and proposals to all the organs established by the United Nations to discuss the future government of Palestine. Their representatives did in fact present proposals to the Ad Hoc Committee for a constitution establishing Palestine as a unitary Arab State.^[2] These proposals were examined, discussed and emphatically rejected.

—

[1] United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Report to the General Assembly, Volume I.

[2] Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestine Question. Report of Sub-Committee 2, A/AC, 14/32, November 11, 1947.

page 3

4. The following pages will show that the Arab States in concert with the Palestine Arab Higher Committee are attempting to overthrow by force the settlement which the General Assembly has approved and to impose by force the settlement which the General Assembly has rejected.

A. PROPAGANDA AND INCITEMENT DESIGNED TO PROVOKE A BREACH OF THE PEACE.

5. In submitting that there is a purposeful attempt by Arab Governments in conjunction with the Palestine Arab Higher Committee to alter by force the settlement envisaged by the General Assembly’s Resolution, the Jewish Agency is content to rest on the admissions of those Governments themselves. The Arab League never intended to accept the results of any mediation, arbitration or judicial settlement. When the Report of the United Nations Special Committee was published, the Political Committee of the Arab League meeting in Sofar, Lebanon, on September 16-19, 1947, passed resolutions which included the following threats:

“The Committee will regard the implementation of these recommendations (i.e., the UNSCOP recommendations of the majority and minority alike) as a certain danger menacing security in Palestine, and security and peace all over the Arab countries. Therefore it has determined by all practical and effective means to resist the implementation of these recommendations. They–the Palestine Arabs–will launch a relentless war to repel this attack on their country especially so as they know that all the Arab countries will back and assist them, supplying them with men, funds and ammunition….”^[3]

6. Subsequent events in Palestine, when the Arabs did indeed “launch a relentless war” and were “backed by men, funds and ammunition” from the Arab States, make it clear that the League’s statement must be regarded as a plan and not as an abstract prediction. The “practical and effective means” contrived and advocated by the Arab States were never envisaged as being limited by the provisions of the Charter; indeed, the Secretary-General of the Arab League was thinking in terms which are quite remote from the lofty sentiments of San Francisco. “This war,” he said, “will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongol massacres and the Crusades.”^[4] In his further observations Azzam Pasha outlined three characteristics of the future war–the belief in glorious death as a road to Paradise, the opportunities of loot, and the Bedouin love of slaughter for its own sake.

—

[3] Al-Ahram, Cairo, September 21, 1947.

[4] Akhbar al-Yom, October 11, 1947.

page 4

7. Azzam Pasha had made his statement to an Egyptian newspaper; Jamal Husseini, for the Palestine Arab Higher Committee, deemed the United Nations a better platform for a call to arms against the Assembly’s decision: “The partition line proposed,” he said, “shall be nothing but a line of fire and blood.”^[5]

8. At the Sessions of the General Assembly one Arab spokesman after another enunciated his conception of the Arab States’ attitude to the settlement of an international problem by international decision. The Assembly was repeatedly told that it must either ratify all Arab demands or be met with fierce and widespread violence in the Arab world.^[6]

9. When the General Assembly set its own impartial judgment above this menacing clamor and refused to subject the entire Jewish population of Palestine to the domination of a unitary Arab State, violent threat became the keynote of all Arab official utterances. It was not a propagandist campaign alone; the aim and effect of these declarations were to incite Palestine Arabs to active violence and the populations of the Arab States to active aggression in their support. On December 1, 1947, Azzam Pasha made a declaration in which he said:^[7]

“By no means shall we permit the implementation of the resolution of the United Nations to partition Palestine. We shall resist and fight off this resolution with all the means at our disposal. We have prepared an elaborate plan agreed upon by the Arab States in the meetings of the League Council. This plan is being put into effect for the last two months…. The way of operation has been entrusted to a technical Committee…. The time is not a time for talk but for action.”

It is clear that Azzam Pasha was here referring to the Arab League’s decision at Sofar in September 1947 “to make Palestine a unified independent Arab State.”^[8]

10. The heads of Arab Governments have been as active as the Arab League spokesmen in provoking and encouraging threats to the peace in Palestine. Their utterances in this sense are quite unaffected by their vote in the General Assembly condemning warlike propaganda.

—

[5] Proceedings of Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, November 24, 1947.

[6] Speeches bj Syrian Delegate, November 26, 1947, and by Iraqi delegate, November 28, 1947.

[7] Al Wahda, Jaffa, December 1, 1947.

[8] See above, Paragraph 5.

page 5

On September 22, the Iraqi Premier told the press, “I have requested you to prepare the Iraqi people, especially the youth, for the actions and sacrifices which may be necessitated by the situation. I now repeat this request.”^[9] On October 23, he declared that “the Iraqi army will march and enter Palestine if the United Nations adopt partition.”^[10] On December 2, the Lebanese Prime Minister stated that “Lebanon had started carrying out the Arab League’s decision to make Palestine a unitary Arab State.” He went on to say that “the Lebanese Army will play its part when that time comes.” On January 12, 194S, the Syrian Premier, Jamil Mardam Bey, declared to youths in Damascus clamoring for arms to fight the Jews that “President Shukri al-Quwatly approves of the movement of Arab youth and of their readiness for Jihad in defense of Arab Palestine.”^[11]

11. Efforts are sometimes made to portray the assistance given in Arab States to aggression in Palestine as the voluntary and spontaneous actions of excited citizens and not as formal acts of Governments. Some Arab representatives, however, are too candid for this subterfuge. Thus in the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies, the Prime Minister Riad al Solh said, “I am speaking under the dome of this chamber and in this official capacity proclaiming that we shall provide Palestine with all the arms, funds and men we possess.”^[12] On December 7 he said, “The Lebanese Army now on the Palestine borders will play its part with other Arab armies in saving Palestine when the proper time comes.”^[13]

12. The above-quoted statements by Iraqi, Syrian and Lebanese ministers, designed to provoke and assist aggression against the Jews of Palestine, are well matched by similar declarations on behalf of the Governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Transjordan. Indeed, all seven Arab States associated themselves through their Prime Ministers with a declaration in Cairo on December 17, 1947, in which they pledged themselves to oppose the United Nations’ decision by force. An announcement to the press after their consultations said: “Partition is illegal and the Arab Governments will take decisive measures which will guarantee the defeat of partition.”^[14] The same announcement contained a threat by the seven Prime Ministers to throw the full force of their armies into “the battle…until victory is achieved.” The communique added: “It now behooves the Arabs to

—

[9] Al-Ahram, September 24, 1947; Beirut, September 23, 1947.

[10] Reuter’s Baghdad, October 23, 1947.

[11] Associated Press Damascus, January 12, 1948.

[12] Al-Ahram, October 1, 1947.

[13] Associated Press Cairo, December 7, 1947.

[14] United Press Cairo, December 17; 1947.

page 6

prepare for the struggle.” The decisions taken at the Cairo meeting were subsequently interpreted in separate declarations by its participants wherein they reaffirmed the attitudes which they had already proclaimed. The Prime Minister of Lebanon then said that the Arab League “had definitely decided to arm Palestine Arabs, reinforce them with volunteers and collect a war fund to finance an all-out fight in Palestine.”^[15] He went on to say: “We will never sleep until we save Palestine as an independent Arab unified State. We promise you we will supply Palestine…with weapons, equipment and men. I hope you will have confidence in the leaders of the Arab League. You shall witness soon the results of their work.” The Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia, Emir Faisal al-Saud, declared: “We promise you to save Palestine by our souls, money and sons,…I am depending on God and you to maintain Palestine as an Arab independent State.”^[16] The Prime Minister of Syria, Jamil Mardam Bey, said that “the time for speeches is past and the stage for action is at hand. We should all be determined to liberate Palestine by our might and money.”^[17] On December 6, 1947, the Yemenite representative in Cairo, Sayyid Ali al Muayyed said: “The Yemenite people are all armed and all are anxious to fight for Palestine.”^[18] On the same day the Prime Minister of Transjordan, Samir al Rifai Pasha, said: “My country’s forces will be allied with the rest of the Arab world to fight for Palestine.”^[19]

13. It would be manifestly absurd to contend in the face of these declarations that Arab Governments bear no responsibility for the violence and bloodshed which have been provoked in Palestine by their propaganda and intensified by the participation of their nationals. A few weeks after the Cairo meeting the Arab League evidently deemed it prudent to discard all pretense that violent action was not officially sponsored. As’ad Dagher, Press Officer of the Arab League, convened a press conference at which he disclosed that the Arab League “had recommended that the Arab nations occupy all Palestine with their regular armies when British troops leave Palestine.”^[20]

14. The Arab leaders in Palestine who acknowledge the ex-Mufti’s leadership are themselves quite conscious that they may rely on the support of neighboring Governments in their efforts to submerge the peace of Palestine in a rising tide of bloodshed and aggression. The adoption of the General Assembly’s resolution was the signal for

—

[15] AP Cairo, December 15, 1947.

[16] AP Cairo, December 15, 1947.

[17] AP Cairo, December 15, 1947.

[18] AP Cairo, December 6, 1947.

[19] AP Cairo, December 6, 1947.

[20] AP Cairo, January 15, 1948.

page 7

attacks on Jewish life and property organized by the Arab Higher Committee through its local committees and groups in towns and village areas. A leading member of the Arab Higher Committee, Emil Ghoury, informed three American journalists on December 31, of the Higher Committee’s resolve to organise bloodshed in Palestine under the direction of the Arab League’s military committee at Damascus headed by General Taha al-Hashimi, former Iraq War Minister.^[21] Mr. Ghoury continued: “Arab forces will also include volunteers from other Arab countries…and the war will start at the convenient opportunity.”

On the basis of these and similar official declarations the Jewish Agency submits that the seven States represented in the Arab League are responsible–together with the Palestine Arab Higher Committee–for conducting propaganda which is designed to provoke and encourage a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, and acts of aggression within the terms of the General Assembly’s Resolution of November 29, 1947, in violation of the Resolution unanimously adopted by the General Assembly with reference to Propaganda and the Inciters of a New War (A/428 October 28, 1947) and in a manner inconsistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations as laid down in Article 1 of the Charter.

B. DIRECT ACTS OF AGGRESSION.

Attacks organized by Syria and Lebanon against Jewish villages in North Palestine on January 9, January 14 and January 21.

15. On the morning of Friday, January 9, 1948, Arab forces from Syria attacked two Jewish villages in northern Palestine, Kfar Szold and Dan, both located near the Syrian border some twenty-five miles north of Lake Tiberias.^[22]

A study of Arab statements in Syria, Lebanon and Palestine during the days preceding this attempted invasion reveals the concern of Arab leaders at the scanty results of the violence which they had organized in Palestine. On December 31, Mr. Emil Ghoury of the Palestine Arab Higher Committee had informed press correspondents that “his only criticism of attacks by the Arabs was that they are not enough.”^[23] Dr. Hussein Khalidi, General Secretary of the Committee, had stated that the world “would soon see evidence of Arab military skill.” Reliable observers had noticed an increase in the number of “Palestine Liberation Committees” in Syria and Lebanon. In the Qatana camp near Damascus, allotted by the Syrian army to volunteers for aggression in

—

[21] New York Herald Tribune, January 15, 1948.

[22] New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, January 10, 1948.

[23] New York Times, January 1, 1948.

page 8

Palestine, hundreds of Arabs from Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt and Palestine were receiving training for immediate operations.^[24]

16. The invaders on January 9 numbered about 400: they came across the frontiers in motor trucks and attacked the Jewish villages in two waves. They were equipped with modern automatic weapons and wore uniforms similar to those of the Syrian army. A battle between them and the Jewish settlers led by Haganah commanders, raged for three and a half hours before British troops supported by artillery and Royal Air Force Spitfires intervened to bring the situation under control. Three Jews were killed and eight were wounded; the Arabs left some 25 dead.

17. The objects of the attack were varied. According to reliable reports there was a desire to test the effects of this frontier violation on United Nations opinion; and it is significant that the aggression coincided with the first meeting of the United Nations Implementation Commission. Another object was to provide cover for the infiltration of Syrian volunteers into Palestine territory. According to a well authenticated report from Damascus,^[25] “nine hundred men commanded by Akram Kaurani moved by truck through Lebanon and crossed into Palestine near Beit Jebeil. Another six hundred commanded by Abed Shisbekli entered Palestine by the bridge known as Jisr Banat Yaqub.” The same source is probably correct in defining the main object of the attack as an effort to sustain Arab morale which “needed…some sensational victory, such as the capture of a town that would electrify the Arab world and stir the doubting into action.”^[26]

18. On January 12, the British Foreign Office announced that the British Minister in Damascus had “called for information from the Syrian Government and….had expressed the concern of the United Kingdom Government over the attack and asked that action be taken to prevent the situation from being aggravated.”^[27]

19. No secret was made of official Syrian and Lebanese complicity with these attacks. On January 10, a Palestinian Arab daily^[28] reported that the Syrian Defense Minister, Ahmed Sharabati had arrived in Lebanon on Thursday, January 8, with a convoy of thirty lorries carrying 700 Arab recruits from Syria on their way to Merj Ayun on the Palestine-Lebanese frontier. The British station broad-

—

[24] New York Times, January 19, 1948.

[25] New York Times, January 18, 1948.

[26] New York Times, January 18, 1948.

[27] New York Times, January 13, 1948.

[28] Al-Sha’ab, Jaffa.

page 9

casting in Arabic from Jaffa (Sharq al-Adna) stated that the Lebanese Defense Minister, Majid Bey Arslan, had similarly gone to Merj Ayun for “an important meeting of the Palestine Defense and Liberation Army.”

20. Following a request from the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies, the Prime Minister and Defense Minister reported to the Chamber on January 14, 1948, on the progress of current aid to the Palestine Arabs. All Lebanese newspapers carried accounts of these proceedings whose highlights are the following:

The Prime Minister stated that Arab Governments are determined to fight the partition of Palestine with all their force. He emphasized that the Arab States have not recognized and will never recognize the United Nations’ decision on Palestine.

The Defense Minister gave what he called “an eye-witness account” of Arab attacks on Jewish villages in Northern Palestine. “These attacks,” he said, “would be strengthened and would take the shape of a real war in the near future.” He added “that all activities, such as the collection of funds, registration and training of volunteers, assembling of arms, etc., are being supervised by himself and the Syrian Defense Minister in accordance with the resolutions adopted at the recent Premiers’ Conference in Cairo.”^[29]

Meanwhile in Damascus, the Syrian Defense Minister, Ahmed Sharabati, made a statement containing his impressions of the engagement at Dan and threatening “a direct frontal attack on Jewish forces in about a month.”^[30]

Attack on Dan and Lehavot

21. The attack of January 9 appears to have established a precedent for the free crossing of the Syrian-Palestine border by Arab “volunteers.” On January 14, Arabs from Syria again attacked the Jewish settlement of Dan and the younger settlement of Lehavot four miles south of Dan, blowing up the community’s water source and damaging its fish ponds. This attack originated at Shuta just across the Syrian border. A British official announcement said that British troops from Metullah drove the Arabs off in a battle which lasted an hour and a half. The Arabs left one dead and withdrew into Syria.^[31]

—

[29] Speeches in the Lebanese Chamber of Deputies, January 14, 1948.

[30] New York Times, January 10, 1948.

[31] AP, January 14, 1948.

page 10

Attack on Yehiam

22. On January 21, a force of about 400 Arabs crossed the Lebanon-Palestine border and attacked the Jewish village of Yehiam, 20 miles east of Nahariya in Western Galilee. Nine Jews, including five settlement policemen, were killed. The attack began at 7 a.m. and lasted five hours during which time Arabs cut all the bridges and culverts leading to the village. The battle raged for six hours before British troops arrived. There are 60 adult Jewish settlers at Yehiam.

23. On January 22, a smaller Arab force again crossed the frontier, renewed the attack on Yehiam and was driven off with heavy casualties. These attacks on January 21 and 22 were carried out by well-organized uniformed companies with covering support from mortars.^[32]

24. Men who infiltrated into Palestine under cover of these attacks have taken part in assaults on Jews in many parts of the country. Syrian and Iraqi units have been observed as snipers in Haifa, in attacks on Ramat Rahel (near Jerusalem), and Kfar Etzion (near Hebron), and elsewhere.^[33]

Aggression by units of the Transjordan Arab Legion

25. The acts of aggression described above have involved the violation of the Palestinian frontier at the instigation and behest of the Syrian and Lebanese Governments in order to commit wanton and murderous aggression against peaceful Jewish villages and to bring about a political settlement which the General Assembly has condemned, by methods which the Charter forbids. Murderous acts against the Jewish population have also been committed by the TransJordan Arab Legion, a foreign army maintained in Palestine under British command. These acts, for which the responsibility falls on the Mandatory Government, will be described in a separate submission by the Jewish Agency.

Summary of Direct Acts of Aggression Already Committed

26. The following Chapter, dealing with preparations for future onslaughts on the Jews in violation of the Charter and in defiance of the General Assembly’s decision, will make it clear that the main phase of Arab aggression is still to come. Yet it would be futile to ignore

—

[32] New York Times, January 22, 23, 1948.

[33] AP Jerusalem, January 4 1948, reported “Syrians, Lebanese and Transjordanians have filtered into Jerusalem to swell the ranks of Sheikh Bakhri” (leader of Arab group in the Old City of Jerusalem).

page 11

the fact that aggression has already begun, and that the atmosphere of impunity in which it has been committed must serve as an encouragement to more ambitious violence in the future. The Syrian and Lebanese Governments have already assembled, organized, equipped and despatched Arab forces to commit aggressive acts against peaceful Jewish communities in territory wherein Syria and Lebanon have no right of access or jurisdiction at all. Syria is a member of the Security Council on which the Charter (Article 24) confers “primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.” Yet it is on Syrian territory, with the active support of the Syrian Government that forces have been and are being armed and organized for frontier violation, aggression and attempts to overthrow a decision of the General Assembly by force. The Lebanon, with other Arab States, sponsored in the General Assembly a Resolution on “Illegal Immigration” amidst many eloquent protestations on the inviolability of frontiers. Yet the Lebanese and Syrian frontiers offer free passage for unauthorized entry of men and arms into Palestine under the personal supervision of the Defense Ministers concerned with the avowed object of disturbing international peace and security. In Beirut and Damascus respectively, in close touch and collusion with the Governments concerned, the two main instigators of the present disturbance and warfare in Palestine have their abode; Haj Amin al Husseini, ex-Mufti of Jerusalem, and Fawzi al Kawukji, his accomplice as leader of the Arab Rebellion in 1936. Since the Report of the British Royal Commission^[34] signalled these men out for primary guilt in the organization of bloodshed a decade ago, they have managed to perfect their aggressive techniques and ideologies through long residence during the war in Nazi Germany as allies of the Hitler regime. Through them, this attack on the very soul of the Charter is connected, in an invidious but appropriate lineage, with the “scourge of War” from which the United Nations aspires to “save succeeding generations of mankind.”^[35]

27. The Jewish Agency submits that the relatively limited scope of these acts of aggression within the past two months does not absolve the United Nations from the necessity of taking steps to suppress breaches of the peace and acts of aggression. It is submitted that only firm and timely international action can avert the full unfolding of the aggressive design which is now being prepared by certain Member States of the United Nations.

—

[34] Royal Commission Report, Chapter IV, Paragraph 14.

[35] Another such link is provided by the Arab commander in Jaffa and Lydda, Sheikh Hassan Salameh, who was described by Mr. Emil Ghoury on December 31, 1947, as one of the most active men in the field (New York Times, January 4, 1948). Sheikh Salameh was dropped in Palestine by parachute as a German Major for sabotage duties in 1944.

page 12

C. PREPARATIONS FOR AGGRESSION BY ARAB STATES AGAINST JEWS OF PALESTINE AND UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES.

28. The violent propaganda organized by Arab Governments in recent weeks, the three acts of aggression committed by Syria and Lebanon, and the current infiltration of officially sponsored “volunteers” are merely the prelude for the main phase of Arab aggression which is planned to take place in the near future. The Arab League spokesman, As’ad Dagher, in his statement on January 15 indicated that the end of the British Mandate would be the signal for the occupation of the whole of Palestine by armies of the Arab States.^[36] The Syrian Defense Minister, Ahmed Sharabati, however, declared on January 13, on his return from the operations based on Merj Ayun against Dan and Kfar Szold, that “a direct frontal attack against Jewish forces can be expected in about a month from the Arab People’s Army. Full-scale training and arming are progressing.”^[37]

Recruiting and Training in Syria.

29. According to the Cairo paper, Al-Zaman of December 17, the Arab League Council entrusted the Syrian Government with the task of organizing “the popular movement for the rescue of Palestine.” Damascus, by all accounts, is now the center of a well-organized movement under the direction of the Syrian Ministry of National Defence, Ahmed Sharabati, for the recruiting, training and equipment of Palestinian and non-Palestinian Arabs who are to form a “people’s army” for the invasion of Palestine. The Cairo newspaper, Al-Ahram, reported on December 15 that “about 700 Palestinian Arabs are already training in Qatana barracks near Damascus; their number is growing by about 100 a day.” Later the recruiting movement in Damascus began to embrace Syrian nationals as well. On December 4, Aref Nakadi, Governor of Jebel Druz, announced the beginning of recruitment in his area especially for Druses “who were made for war and war was made for them.”^[38] The military commander of Aleppo, Jamil al-Burhani, announced that recruiting in the northern provinces would begin on December 8.^[39] On December 7, the Damascus newspaper, Alif-Ba, reported that the Ministry of National Defence had announced that special recruiting offices would be opened to bedouins “who are inclined by nature to draw the sword.”

—

[36] New York Times, January 16.

[37] AP Damascus, January 13.

[38] Al-Jabal, Damascus, December 4.

[39] Al-Insha, Damascus, December 7.

page 13

30. On December 27 it was reliably reported that 38 senior officers of the Syrian army had “resigned” to help train a voluntary corps. On December 19 the Syrian Defence Ministry announced its “acceptance of the resignations…particularly of army officers who wish to volunteer for service in Palestine to fight against partition. The number of those resigning was not immediately discussed.”^[40] The leader of the recruiting movement is Fawzi al-Kawukji, who informed the press on December 9 that 15,000 volunteers were due to complete training at an early date.^[41]

Apart from Syrians, the trainees at the Qatana camp include Palestinians from Jenin, Nablus and Hebron; a group of Lebanese Moslems; a number of young Iraqis who took part in the pro-Nazi revolt under Rashid Ali and a group of young Egyptians headed by their leader, Ahmed Hussein.^[42]

According to information at the disposal of the Jewish Agency, the number of volunteers in Syria is presently as follows:

Damascus — 5,700

Aleppo — 5,000

Rest of Syria — 5,000

Of these, 950 volunteers from Damascus and 400 from Aleppo are now under training, in addition to the 420 fully-equipped Palestinian volunteers in Qatana camp.

Recruiting and Training in Lebanon

31. In Lebanon, recruiting preparations are also in full swing. On December 18, the British Near East Broadcasting Station in Jaffa reported that the first group of 500 volunteers who had enlisted for service in the defence of Palestine had been called up for training by the Beirut recruiting office. Earlier in December the Mufti of Lebanon, Muhammed Tawfiq Khalid, made a public “fatwa” (ruling) declaring a holy war in Palestine.^[43] The Egyptian newspaper, Ruz el-Yusuf, reported on December 10 that “Lebanese volunteers have held manoeuvres near Baalbek using a number of batteries which were put at their disposal by the High Command of the Lebanese Army.”

Recruiting and Training in Egypt

32. On December 14 the Damascus newspaper, Al-Insha, reported: “Ahmed Hussein, leader of the Young Egypt Party, has arrived in Damascus and entered the Qatana barracks for training.

—

[40] AFP—Damascus, December 19.

[41] AP—Damascus, December 9.

[42] Qabas, Damascus, December 12.

[43] Beirut (daily newspaper), December 4.

page 14

He began negotiations with Shukri Quwatli, the Syrian President, and Fawzi al-Kawukji about forming a detachment of Young Egyptians to be named after Mustafa al-Wakil, an Egyptian who collaborated with the Nazis during the war and died in Germany. On December 16 the Journal d’Egypte reported that the Egyptian cabinet had authorized the establishment of recruiting offices for volunteers. On December 23 the Cairo newspaper, Al-Ahram, published a letter from Ahmed Hussein giving full details of the progress of his work in the Qatana barracks. The Egyptian press reflects the impatience of militant elements with what they regard as a cautious attitude of their Government in this recruiting movement. Criticism has been directed against the Government at the party meetings of Young Egypt (Al-Ahram, December 19), the Wafd (Al Musawwar, December 21) and the Liberal Party (Al-Ahram, December 17). It would be a fair description of the position in Egypt to say that while the recruitment of volunteers for aggression in Palestine lacks something of the governmental drive which is freely given in Syria, voluntary activity for these purposes is sponsored by the Egyptian Government and is encouraged by the militant leaders of the Arab League secretariat which has its abode in Cairo. That this movement is gathering strength is clear from the New York Times, which reported on January 20: “Members of the Kawukji staff said they had been negotiating with Arab groups in Egypt. They said the Nationalist party and the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt were contributing most of the men for a force that would cross the Sinai Desert to attack Jewish settlements in the south while the Kawukji force operated from the Nablus area.”

Recruiting and Training in Iraq

33. Recruiting offices of the “Committee for the Rescue of Palestine” were opened in Baghdad on December 8.^[44] On December 12 a number of Iraqi young men who had participated in the pro-Nazi Rashid Ali rebellion in Iraq of 1941 arrived in Damascus and put themselves at Fawzi al-Kawukji’s disposal.^[45]

On January 17, 1948, the Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri, reported that Jamal Husseini had stated after visiting the Iraqi Vice-Premier that a well organized Arab Commando group was being formed in Iraq for special assignments in Palestine.

34. On December 27 Col. Taher Muhammed, a member of the “Palestine Defence Committee,” stated that “two regiments of volunteers will be sent to Palestine within a week to fight for the Arabs.

—

[44] Al Sa-a; December 9.

[45] Al Qabas, Damascus, December 12.

page 15

They consist of soldiers, non-commissioned officers and officers released from the Iraqi Army.” The Committee further stated that 100 retired Iraqi Army Officers would proceed to Syria within a week to train Syrian officers.^[46]

According to reliable reports, at least 1,400 Iraqi volunteers have passed into Syria. Some of the earlier contingents, who arrived in Syria fully armed, have departed for Palestine after brief training at the Qatana barracks.

35. Recruiting in other Arab countries has not at the moment assumed large proportions, although Government statements are on record which give full authority for any such activity that might be undertaken. It is evident that the Arab population as a whole is reluctant, despite official incitement, to embark on hazardous military operations. The masses need the encouragement of military success and the certainty that there will be no strong international reaction before embarking on a general campaign. The Arab News Agency, however, reported from Mecca on December 9 that recruiting offices had only just been opened at Riyad and other centres. The same News Agency had reported on December 21 that “hundreds of recruits are enlisting daily in Saudi Arabia.” On December 8 Azzam Pasha told the press that “Ibn Saud had placed his regular troops at the League’s service and had given his blessing to any desert tribe that wished to fight for Palestine.”^[47]

36. In describing these recruiting activities, the Jewish Agency has mainly relied on Arab reports. No such reliance appears to be reasonable in regard to the numbers involved. The tendency is to give exaggerated figures, but the fact remains that a widespread recruiting campaign for violence in Palestine is being encouraged and sponsored by Arab Governments. On December 18 the Ministry of the Interior in Damascus “warned correspondents against too detailed reporting on volunteer training and other military preparation in connection with Palestine.”^[48]

Arms Purchases

37. Arab Governments who possess State resources and the access to the open markets are in a good position to ensure that sufficient arms are available for creating a prolonged breach of the peace in

—

[46] AP, Baghdad; December 27.

[47] UP, Cairo, December 8.

[48] UP, Damascus, December 18.

page 16

Palestine. On December 18 it was reported from Cairo that “senior military officers of four Arab states have left the country on a mission to purchase arms and ammunition as part of the Arab League plan to prevent the inception of the Jewish State in Palestine….The mission officers…from Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon…plan to visit Pakistan, India, France, Switzerland, Spain and Czechoslovakia….The Arab armies, it seems, have no arms surplus and such a move on the League’s part is necessary to supplement the guerrilla arsenals.^[49]

38. The Egyptian newspaper, Al-Masri, reported on January 20 that the Mufti had asked the Egyptian Prime Minister for permission to transfer to Palestine all arms and ammunition acquired by his agents and envoys in Egypt, the Western Desert and Libya. On January 14 the same newspaper stated that all arms used by Iraqi volunteers in Palestine were modern weapons received from Britain and further that the Egyptian Government was preparing legislation which would enable Palestinian Arabs to acquire arms in Egypt and transfer them to Palestine.

39. On January 28 it was reported from Cairo: “Ahmed Hussein, leader of the Young Egyptian Party, stated that the Egyptian Government had supplied several thousand rifles to Palestine Arabs. He said that they were given to the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem.”^[50]

40. In this connection, the Jewish Agency has to draw special attention to the grave and singular feature of Arab arms purchases, which is the availability of British arms to Arab Governments and their potential use by those Governments for aggression in Palestine. This feature of the situation will be referred to in a further memorandum.

Infiltration into Palestine

41. Another stage in the assistance by Arab Governments to the projected plans of invasion and war in Palestine is the violation of frontiers between their own territories and Palestine by the infiltration of volunteers and armies. According to reliable reports and incontestable evidence, this process has been going on for several weeks. As already pointed out, attacks from Syria and Lebanon against Jewish villages in North Palestine served as cover and screen for the infiltration of hundreds of volunteers who are taking up their positions in Palestine in preparation for future aggression. On January 9, the

—

[49] New York Times from Cairo, December 18.

[50] AP, January 28.

page 17

New York Times contained the following report from the Associated Press in Baghdad:

“A convoy of Iraqi volunteers–ninety commandos and instructors released by Iraq’s Army–left today en route to Palestine. The contingent, which includes officers, is supplied with light arms, including machine guns and grenades. It will instruct and train volunteers. Other such groups are expected to leave Baghdad soon.”

On January 15 the Associated Press from Baghdad reported that Jamal Husseini, Vice-President of the Palestine Arab Higher Executive, had witnessed the departure of 200 trained Iraqi volunteers for Palestine. On January 25 reports were published of the arrival in Palestine of 750 armed men from Iraq via Transjordan and their concentration in Tubas in the Nablus area. According to the New York Times of January 26 Arab sources stated that these fighters “had been deployed through a wide area.” The Jewish Agency is able to confirm the accuracy of the following two reports published in the New York Times of January 26. The first report from the newspaper’s correspondent in Damascus reads:

“Fawzi el-Kawukji, Commander in Chief of the Arab People’s Army, was reported today to be preparing to leave for Palestine. The number of his men who have crossed the Lebanese and Syrian frontiers to gather in the mountain region around Nablus in Palestine was said to exceed 3,500.

“Mr, Kawukji has organized a ‘general staff,’ which will enter Palestine with him to direct operations. The volunteer army is under order not to become involved in major operations but to concentrate on organization.

“Asked when he would depart, Mr. Kawukji said: ‘Never mind the date, but when I go the whole world will know.’”

The second report comes from the United Press in Beirut on January 25, and reads as follows:

“One thousand well-trained Arab soldiers slipped into Palestine from Lebanon, Trans-Jordan and Syria during the past two nights, reliable sources said today. It was said to have been the third large wave of volunteers to infiltrate into Palestine since the United Nations decided to create Arab and Jewish States.”

42. On January 26, the Jerusalem correspondent of the New York Herald Tribune reported the following details of the arrival in Palestine of Syrian and Iraqi volunteers:

page 18

“The 750 Syrians and Iraqis formed the largest contingents of volunteers yet to reach Palestine in preparation for the coming Arab war on partition. Unlike Abdul Kadir’s men, who follow the Mufti and concern themselves with local fighting now, the foreigners arrived under the auspices of the Arab League. Reportedly, they were under instructions to confine themselves to training and familiarizing themselves with the country.

“The men traveled in column, accompanied by a mule train to ford the Jordan River and a dozen trucks with supplies. The trucks were allowed to cross the river at Jisr el-Majami, in northeastern Palestine, where troops of Abdullah’s Arab Legion guard a bridge.

“Their equipment included radio, Bren and Sten guns, rifles and mortars. British police believed they also had light armored cars and perhaps a few field pieces. They brought their own food and for two days camped in tents pitched in the Arab controlled valley around Tubas, a town half-way between Jerusalem and the Sea of Galilee.

“A Government spokesman said a full report had been sent to London.”

Financial Assistance

43. Direct assistance given by Arab States to aggression in Palestine also takes the form of financial contributions for the recruitment and equipment of armed forces preparing for active violence in Palestine. The Minister of the Interior of Syria announced on December 20 that “the sole body authorized to collect money for Palestine would be a committee to be appointed by him.”^[51] The Arab League Council had recommended at Sofar “that the League States allocate immediately the requisite funds for this purpose” (i.e. of raising funds for war in Palestine).^[52] It is reported that a subscription of over four million dollars has been made by Arab States for the purchase of arms in aid of the Palestinian campaign. On December 17 the New York Times reported from Beirut that “money for the Arab cause appears to be plentiful. The Syrian Parliament has allocated two million Syrian pounds and the Lebanese Government another million pounds. Another 1,500,000 pounds have been raised from individuals in the two countries.”

44. An unsavory feature of Arab attempts to increase the revenue available for arms purchases has been a campaign of extortion from

—

[51] Arab News Agency, December 20.

[52] Al-Ahram, October 10.

page 19

helpless Jewish minorities in Arab countries. On December 10 the Jews of Egypt were “called upon” to contribute generously to the Save Palestine Fund. The call was published in the organ of the “Moslem Brethren” by the Youth Section of the Al-Azhar University.^[53] In Syria (where seven synagogues were burnt in Aleppo by a rioting mob early in December) the Jewish Community Council was forced to collect funds and hand them over to the Arab Committee for the purchase of arms to kill their Jewish brethren in Palestine. The atmosphere existing in Lebanon can best be described through the following extract from a Beirut newspaper:^[54]

“It has been reported that Jews of Saida visited this office in order to complain about the attacks to which they have been subjected (i.e. by Arabs). They have now condemned the partition of Palestine and have declared their willingness to contribute money for Palestine (i.e. for the Arabs of Palestine). We have been informed that the Committee of the Office has reassured the Lebanese Jews that despite personal acts of hostility no future malevolence is intended against them. In the opinion of the Committee, Lebanese Jews can do nothing against the security of Arab peoples….

“Donations can be sent directly to the permanent office in the city.”

CONCLUSION

45. In its task of determining whether a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression exists, the Security Council may be guided by the view of the General Assembly that any or all of those three situations is created by “an attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this Resolution.” The Arab Governments have jointly and severally defined their objective in almost those very words. (See Paras. 5-13 above). Indeed it is axiomatic that a violent revolt against an international judgment cannot fail to threaten international peace and security since it constitutes a defiance of the very organization to whose care the preservation of peace has been entrusted.

46. The Jews of Palestine with the full support of the Jewish Agency will do their part in resisting this aggression against their lives, their future and their internationally sanctioned rights. They regard the General Assembly’s Resolution as a compromise reached

—

[53] Jewish Telegraphic Agency, December 11 reporting article in Al Ikhwan al Muslimun.

[54] Al-Ittihad al Lubnani, December 22.

page 20

by judgment between conflicting claims. This compromise makes heavy demands upon them in terms of sacrificing historic claims–and claims which had previously received international consent. The Palestine Mandate reserved an area of 45,000 square miles from the scope of Arab Independence for “the primary purpose of establishing a Jewish National Home.” Transjordan was later excluded from this purpose; and now half the area of Western Palestine is allotted to the Arabs as their eighth sovereign state. Thus on seven-eighths of the area of the original Palestine Mandate two Arab States are to be established for the independence of 1,500,000 Arabs who form 80% of the Arab population in the area of the original Palestine Mandate. The “primary purpose of the Mandate” is expressed, at a time of greatest Jewish need, by the constitution of a Jewish State in one eighth the area originally set aside for Jewish immigration and development. This restriction of Jewish claims was approved by the United Nations, in an effort to meet Arab interests and in deference to the cause of peace, after prolonged and minute investigation of the problem in the light of the Charter and with a view to seeking the maximum degree of self-determination attainable in present conditions. There is thus no justified sense of unredressed grievance to which the Arabs can have recourse. Indeed they frankly acknowledge that their aim is to deny all Jewish rights of national freedom and establish a monopoly of independence in their own behalf.

47. In their determination to resist any encroachment on the rights which the General Assembly has approved, the Jews are not fighting for themselves alone. What has been outlined in these pages is a total assault upon the principles of the Charter and the authority of the United Nations. The Arab States are taking effective collective measures for the creation of “threats to the peace,” and the encouragement of “acts of aggression” in direct violation of Article 1 of the Charter. In defiance of Article 2 they are employing “in their international relations the threat or use of force.” Regardless of Article 2 Paragraph 5 they decline to “give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter.” They turn a deaf ear to a specific appeal from the General Assembly (November 29) to abstain from “any action which might hamper or delay the carrying out of its Resolution.” They flout a unanimous Resolution of the General Assembly which “condemns propaganda, in whichever country conducted…which is designed to provoke and encourage a threat to the peace, breach of the peace and acts of aggression.” They carry their defiance of the United Nations to the point of conspiring against the lives of representatives and officers of the

page 21

United Nations carrying out their responsibilities under the Charter. They undermine the basic purpose of the United Nations “that armed force shall not be used except in the common interest” (of the United Nations). The world is thus faced with an attempt to hold up the Charter to mockery and violation in pursuit of ambitions which have been judged and found inadmissible by the highest tribunal of international opinion. The Jewish Agency is convinced that the success of this challenge would spell the everlasting discredit of the United Nations, and is confident that the Jews in defending their own national rights are also defending the most significant and universal of human ideals.

48. The Jewish Agency therefore appeals to the Security Council through the United Nations Palestine Commission to take the action prescribed in Chapter VII of the Charter against a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace and acts of aggression provoked, committed, threatened and prepared by the Arab States, members of the Arab League, in concert with the Palestine Arab Higher Committee.

Copies of this publication have been filed with the Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., where the registration of the Jewish Agency for Palestine as an agent of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, Jerusalem, is available for public inspection. The fact of registration should not be considered as approval by the United States Government of the contents of this publication.

Click here to download this document in PDF.

RubinReports | By Barry Rubin

True Belief, Cynical Manipulation, Peer Pressure: How Arab Governments Manage the Israel Issue

“They got them poor boys makin’ frontal assaults with fixed bayonets on that damned ridge and they can’t see the damned Nips that are shootin’ at ‘em….There just ain’t no sense in that….”

“Yeah, some goddamn glory-happy officer wants another medal, I guess, and the guys get shot up for it. The officer gets the medal and goes back to the States, and he’s a big hero. Hero, my ass; getting troops slaughtered ain’t being no hero.”

– Front-line Marines talking on Peleliu, 1943, in E.B. Sledge, With the Old Breed, p. 103

Eight Arab states: Sudan, Algeria, Egypt (UAR), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon threatening Israel with their cannons and pushing the Jew into the Mediterranean Sea. (Printed in the Lebanese daily Al-Jarida, May 31, 1967)

A reader has asked an excellent question. Is it that Arab leaders (and Iranian leaders today) have believed they’ll wipe Israel off the map? Did they want to do so? Or are they just using this issue cynically to mobilize support for themselves and distract their people’s attention from their domestic failings?

As a starting point, it should be emphasized that using the Israel issue is so attractive and useful because there is a lot of popular support for this attitude. Such a view is deeply rooted in the self-conception of Arabs and Muslims due to their ideology and goals. The “neo-conservative” concept — based on a view of Communist states in Europe — that the pro-democratic masses are being held back by authoritarian rulers who force them to mouth slogans they don’t believe–doesn’t apply so well with the Middle East.

Yet long-term indoctrination has also contributed to this view over the decades as well. Moreover, Muslim Kurds, Turks, and Iranians are far less obsessed with the issue, showing the relative importance of the Arab factor. Still, though, the same thing is now arguable with Islam, when wanting to destroy Israel becomes almost a requirement. On the contrary, however, the Israel card has ceased to protect dictators in Iraq after 2003 and in Syria today.

In other words, there is a long-term and popular basis for this passion but the temperature can be turned up or down by events and rulers.

So the answer, of course, depends on the leader, country, and time. Briefly, I’d say that virtually all Arab leaders have wanted to wipe out Israel but that some have decided that success was impossible and that trying to do so too costly and risky.

A clear way to put it is this: If they could have pressed a button and Israel would have disappeared, almost none of them would have hesitated. But if you have to spend huge amounts of money, fight full-scale wars, and face the possibility (and increasingly they knew the likelihood) of being defeated that was different.

And while the issue was the top priority of the Palestinian Arabs, the leaders of states also had other issues to consider.

Over time in the Arab nationalist era (1952 to 2012), more were convinced that it was just too hard and dangerous to fight Israel, at least directly. The problem is that the rise of Islamism starts over from the beginning. Oh sure, say the Islamists, the nationalists failed or didn’t even try because they were cowards, had the wrong ideology, and were too eager to be friendly with the West.

But with the Islamist approach, in which Allah’s word is followed and everyone is willing to sacrifice himself, things will be different. There is also an element of cynicism even among these folk.

In addition, another way to look at this issue is that some leaders at times believed their own propaganda. And often the nationalist intelligentsia, clerics, and activists believe total victory was not only possible but inevitable.

Remember, too, that these people have their own view of Israel (Yasir Arafat discussed this point in detail) as a failed nation that could not continue to exist — especially if faced with constant terrorism — because it was weak, decadent, divided, and Jews could never constitute a nation. Never underestimate the factor of profoundly believed disinformation in the Middle East. Just because it isn’t true doesn’t mean millions of people don’t fervently believe it.

So far we have True Belief in total victory and Israel’s extinction plus Cynical Manipulation of the Israel card. There is a third element, Peer Pressure. Every leader and politician with few exceptions has known that to be less stridently anti-Israel or to admit openly that victory wasn’t possible would be most dangerous to his career.

Although a few leaders have been assassinated, the main problem would be unpopularity and being discredited, thus having one’s career ruined. That would be true even if the rivals attacking you would be totally cynical themselves and thought the same way as you did.

This also applies to countries. Weaker states and groups had to keep their mouths shut and yell the slogans even louder. In this regard, Jordan comes particularly to mind as well as Lebanese Christians, among others. Of course, Iranian and Turkish leaders also rejected the destroy Israel notion, not being Arab nationalists. Now that they are governed by Islamists, however they have joined the chorus.

Here is a very brief history of this issue.

Pre-1949 period: The Palestine Arab leadership and the governments of Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia engaged in True Belief, assuming that Israel would never come into existence or be quickly wiped out. King Abdallah of Jordan correctly assessed that Israel would survive, did not use the issue demagogically, but could not resist the peer pressure to join the war. The Egyptian government did not want a military conflict but could not resist Peer Pressure and engaged in Cynical Manipulation but the Muslim Brotherhood took a True Belief stance as did lots of political forces in the country.

Arab Nationalist Era: In the shadow of the 1948 debacle, Arab nationalists argued that Israel only survived because of Western backing and the weakness/foolishness of the old regimes in their own countries. By creating strong central governments, modernizing, their own ideology, building up their own armies, getting Soviet assistance, and helping guerrilla/terrorist groups, the new regimes argued and believed that Israel would be wiped out.

For the Egyptian Nasserist regime and the Ba’th Party governments that ruled Syria and later Iraq, the Israel card was part of their hand for trying to seize hegemonic control in the Middle East. There was no contradiction between their True Belief and their Cynical Manipulation. In this atmosphere of hysteria, only the Jordanian monarchy resisted though the Persian Gulf Arabs were pressed into giving more money by Peer Pressure.

The defeat of 1967 showed that the Arab nationalists couldn’t do much better than the old regimes but did not really change attitudes. Only gradually, through the 1970s and 1980s did it become apparent that any destruction of Israel would have to be longer term. In the interim, True Belief continued to flourish but Arab states became more cautious. They also sought to use indirect means—Palestinian guerrilla/terrorist forces from the PLO and other groups—to bring about Israel’s downfall by sabotaging it socially and economically.

One could argue, however, that the proportion of Cynical Manipulation to True Belief increased. In the late 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat put Egyptian national interests to the fore, abandoned regional ambitions, and made peace with Israel. The regime largely, though not completely, abandoned True Belief and Cynical Manipulation while also defying Peer Pressure. The opposition rejected this stance but could do nothing about it.

With the collapse of the USSR and Iraq’s defeat by a Western coalition in Kuwait, the leadership in the Arabic-speaking world had largely abandoned True Belief or, more accurately, switched it to a long-term proposition. Israel would be made to fall but it was not clear precisely how. And Arab regimes were unwilling to take many risks or devote as many resources on the issue. They had their own problems, notably a rising threat from Islamism.

“Peace Process”: The Palestinian movement followed a different course and in doing so had some influence on the states. It advocated the creation of a Palestinian state that would not be bound or limited by any commitments to institute a second stage, using the territory and assets it possessed, to wipe out Israel. Until 1993 it was unable to make even the minimum steps necessary to bring this about. Yet while a handful of moderates and a larger group of cynics and those seeking economic benefit were ready for a deal with Israel, the overwhelming majority of the political leadership wasn’t.

Briefly, they wanted to follow a two-stage solution through a temporary two-state “solution” but were unwilling ultimately — as seen in the 2000 Camp David meeting — to take the compromises and commitments necessary to get a state. The creation of Hamas put Peer Pressure on them.

Islamist Era: Indeed, the rise of revolutionary Islamism put additional Peer Pressure on all Arab regimes. They needed the Israel issue more for Cynical Manipulation and, except for the always moderate Jordanian regime and the Sadat-altered Egyptian one, could not afford to think of peace. The non-Saudi Persian Gulf states were tempted, however, as were the main Lebanese Christian forces.

In 2013, support from the UN for the first time made the original two-stage theory seem possible in practice. If Palestine was now an independent state, it could win that status without making concessions or commitments. Using international backing, it could create an entity which — unlike the one existing under the Camp David accords — could eventually be used as a base for attaining total victory. Many Palestinian nationalist leaders were, literally, of two minds. Simultaneously, they understood better Israel’s strength yet they could not shake the need for True Belief, reinforced both by Cynical Manipulation and Peer Pressure from their own movement and from Hamas.

Islamist regimes and groups — notably Hamas and Hizballah as well as the Muslim Brotherhood and of course al-Qaida and other Salafists plus the Iranian Islamist regime — followed the pattern of the early Arab nationalists. Only the lack of Islam had prevented Israel’s extinction but they were going to do the task the proper way.

It is true that playing the anti-Israel card did not work for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, in ’1990-91 in mobilizing international Arab support during the Kuwait war or for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2012-13 to prevent a massive uprising against him. Yet these tactics had worked for both governments during decades. As in the case of the pre-1950s monarchies, it was not the antagonism to Israel that was being abandoned so much as the rejection of the old regimes for a variety of reasons, one of which was their ineptness in getting the job done. One result, however, is that opponents of the Islamists may be more cynical about being manipulated by this issue. Still, in Turkey, Iran, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and Tunisia, as well as Syria soon, they aren’t in power.

One might posit a long-term evolution of Islamism toward failure, cynicism, and a lower priority on the issue. But the emphasis there should be on the word long. Prematurely declaring that Islamists were moderate or helping them into power only increases their True Belief that they are the tidal wave of the future who will successfully commit genocide on the Jewish state.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest book, “Israel: An Introduction“, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include “The Israel-Arab Reader” (seventh edition), “The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East” (Wiley), and “The Truth About Syria” (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.