 |
Contents:
Israel's Dilemmas with the
EU . . . The Perception Gap
Kney-Tal, 58, who held senior diplomatic posts in the U.S. and elsewhere as an Israeli diplomat, completes his term in Brussels in a few weeks. Preparing to return home, he's worried and frustrated. The political and intellectual gap between Israel and Europe is widening he says. Without corrective steps, Israel is liable to end up boycotted as a pariah state, like South Africa in the days of apartheid. As he sees it, Israel has done little, if anything, to forestall this eventuality. European Union states, and Belgium in particular, have in recent years turned into trouble spots for Israeli diplomats. Anti-Semitic attacks against Jewish targets, coupled with vocal, strident support for the Palestinian Authority and vehement criticism of Israel's military activity - such trends, and others, appear to reflect a one-sided, hostile viewpoint. Tendentious, negative treatment of Israel in the media reinforces this impression. Commentators, particularly on Israel's right, often argued that Europeans criticize Israel in the name of lofty moral principles which veil what is little more than resurgent anti-Semitism. This view is backed by some U.S. officials. A few months ago, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell was quoted saying that anti-Semitic phenomena in Europe are "manifestations of repressed emotions, ones which were always present in Europe, but which were concealed in the aftermath of World War II." Such views are superficial and one-sided, Kney-Tal believes. They lead to a faulty understanding of European Union dynamics and goals. Kney-Tal adds that relations between Europe and Israel have also worsened because the EU leadership "recoils from information which contradicts its value systems and perceptions, some of which are based on stereotypes" regarding Israel, the dispute and the Middle East. Perceptual Gap A clear illustration of the perceptual gap between Israel and the EU involves the connection between Palestinian incitement and suicide attacks. "Both Israel and the Europeans denounce incitement," Kney-Tal explains. "But when it comes to the meaning of the phenomenon, the sides express differing interpretations. In Israel, a close link is made between the school texts, media reports, official statements, mosque sermons - and suicide attacks. In Europe, this interpretation is totally rejected. We recognize that there is terror, the Europeans tell us, but their reference is to terror attacks like those of the Catholic underground in Northern Ireland, or the Basque underground in Spain: these were aimed mostly at political figures or symbols of government, and were not designed to kill indiscriminately, as happens in our case." Often terrorists in Western Europe give advance warning about where explosives have been put, in order to limit casualties. "Up to September 11," Kney-Tal says, "the Europeans would use the term `cycle of violence' in the Israeli-Palestinian context. In their view, it wasn't clear which side initiated violence; nor was this issue of who started it very important. There is an attack and then a response, which inevitably leads to another attack and so on. They didn't attribute special import to suicide attacks; they viewed them as a local Israeli problem. "We, of course, saw things differently: there is a process of incitement, which causes terror attacks and, then, escalation of violence. There were also differences of opinion regarding incitement in Palestinian schoolbooks. We warned about the phenomenon; they promised to look into it. Their findings differed from ours. They wanted to show that incitement in Palestinian school texts was disappearing. We said: take a closer look, that's not the case. But they're not conscious of nuances which are very sensitive issues for us. That's not because they are anti-Israel; it's because they relate to the issue on an emotional plane which differs entirely from our own." The Europeans, says Kney-Tal, after having reached a rational decision in favor of reconciliation, and having lived for six decades under peace and economic prosperity, have a problem in grasping Israel's difficult plight. "After the Second World War, Europe decided to abandon the use of force as a means to resolve disputes, and to set up the European Union, which operates on the basis of shared interests . . . . What drives them [the Europeans] crazy is states in the world like the U.S. and Israel, which don't recognize purely rational-legal rules of the game, and which believe that there are situations which require them to exercise their right of self-defense by resorting to the use of massive military force. The Europeans don't believe in a zero-sum game; instead, they try to cultivate interests shared by all the sides, while trying to create the widest possible common denominator." After two devastating world wars, Kney-Tal says, Europe doesn't want to believe that there are situations in which arrangements can't be forged by negotiations. It has succumbed to cognitive dissonance: were the Europeans to indicate agreement with the claim that the Palestinian Authority uses incitement, and that such incitement leads to irrational actions such as suicide attacks, such agreement would contradict the manner in which the situation has been analyzed up to now, and the way they have wanted to view matters. "They simply cannot accept this turn of logic - incitement leads to suicide attacks. Such acceptance would entail rejection of the creature they've created, the Palestinian Authority, an entity established largely through European assistance and funding," Kney-Tal says. The European Union is proud that it enabled the Palestinian Authority to survive in recent years, in a period when Israel enforced severe economic sanctions against it. "Their claim is that they haven't done so because they are especially altruistic, but instead because they've understood - unlike Israel, and now unlike the U.S - that the legal Palestinian framework needs to be preserved in the long term, and that this system is headed by a leader, Arafat, who was elected legitimately, in order to guarantee negotiations, and progress in the diplomatic process," Kney-Tal says. "In other words, the Europeans are basically telling us we know better than you, because we're not so involved emotionally in this story, and we can look at the situation in a sober, detached, neutral way, relating to the two sides equally. Thus, they are extremely critical of the American position, which is so supportive of Sharon and Israel's government." "The dispute with Europe," explains Kney-Tal, "worsened in tandem with the degenerating crisis with the Palestinians . . . For us, it became clear that the rational negotiation framework, which was constructed in the Oslo process and which featured gradual progress for both sides toward the establishment of two states for two peoples, went awry, and collapsed. The Europeans have a different view." The EU has refused, and continues to refuse, to play any part in a process that might lead to a collapse of the Palestinian side. Such a process, the EU believes, would paralyze the diplomatic process, and create a situation of absolute terror and anarchy. "Such a state of chaos is the exact opposite of what Europe wants right now," says Kney-Tal. "Europe assumes that if the Palestinians will, in the end, have a state, then they would be involved in building their nation; and that is why the PA has to be preserved at all costs, if the Palestinians are to have such a role. For years, they [the Europeans] were apathetic both to our appeals calling for reforms in the PA, and to our claims that incitement leads to attacks and that EU assistance allows Arafat to divert money to terror. The challenge, as they see it, is to prove that these claims are unfounded, and that we are basically exploiting such charges manipulatively in order to force them to sever their assistance, and turn their backs on the PA." For the Europeans, "the rational negotiating process comes before everything else. It has to continue, come what may, because once we make it to the end of the process, and a solution is forged, then a new era of healing will arise, and the time will be ripe for really dealing with incitement. In other words, [Europe's view] is that fundamental, root problems must be dealt with first, and then their symptoms can be addressed. And, as they see it, the root cause of the dispute is the occupation. Take care of the occupation, they say, finish it, and then one of two things will happen: either there will be quiet, or we will understand that there's no quiet because the Palestinians have wider goals. We say the opposite: We can't deal with the root problems without first taking care of their symptoms. In this respect, the difference [in interpretations] is vast." Europe remained adamant, Kney-Tal explains, even when the Camp David and Taba talks broke down. "This was a rational process; the sides sat around a negotiating table. But then it became clear that this [the talks] doesn't work; but they refused to accept this could be so. In a way, they were in a state of denial. At first, they had to be satisfied with versions offered by Ehud Barak and Shlomo Ben-Ami. A year later, a counter version propounded by former Clinton adviser Robert Malley came out, refuting Israel's claims. The French loved it. His articles were translated instantly and circulated in the media. They accorded with the world view which held that there are two sides, and responsibility for the failure rests equally with both. Once again, this European view reflected a rationalist approach to conflict resolution." As Kney-Tal sees it, those in Israel who present themselves as belonging to the peace camp have helped the Europeans abide by their refusal to draw a logical connection between incitement, funding and suicide terror attacks. These Israelis say claims about incitement leading to terror belong to the right-wing, which wants to topple the PA. The European Union relates to the peace camp as a potential partner for the continuation of dialogue with the Palestinians, Kney-Tal says. Attitude change During the last year, after the September 11 attacks in the U.S. and the steep rise in the number of suicide attacks in Israel, the European Union's tone and approach have changed. "There has been some progress in the EU's position," Kney-Tal says. "They are talking now explicitly about taking action against Palestinian terror . . . They are more balanced, and even express solidarity with Israel. The list of terror organizations deemed illegal by the EU has grown, and now includes Hamas' military wing, and Islamic Jihad. Recently, they added eight Palestinian and Arab organizations, including the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. Of course, in order to maintain balance, they added the [Jewish] Kahane Hai and Kach groups. They also toughened up terms for the conferral of money to the Palestinians, and tightened supervision of this funding." Kney-Tal is worried about a new generation of Western European leaders who grew up on on the Palestinian-Arab narrative. "That narrative, which is reinforced by Israeli or former Israeli researchers, has nearly totally taken over the academic, polticial and media discussion of the issues," he says. "It is appropriate to the popular world view in Europe nowadays, which is pacifist and post-modernist, full of guilt toward the former colonies and full of sympathy for oppressed nations demanding self-determnation. It also serves electoral interests as well as the traditional interests of realpolitik, which takes up a large part of EU policy. At the same time, he fears, there is a an accelerating process of delegitimization of Israel, which is gradually being perceived - though at this stage only in intellectual circles, but the trend will grow - as a crude, brutal, and racist country that tramples on civil rights. "I'm worried about the fact that Israel and Europe have not been able to build a framework which enables and facilitates Jewish-Christian dialogue," says Kney-Tal. "The Europeans are building frameworks for deep and profound discussion only with those Israelis whose viewpoints are close to their own, with Israelis who justify the EU line and thereby provide moral validity to the European position. They [Europeans] understand neither Israel's reality, nor Israel's rich cultural diversity. "The second problem is the absence of an intellectual dialogue. Academics in Israel are keeping mum, and I'm worried that the intellectual elite [in Israel] still hasn't grasped that its in the same boat: should Israel be engulfed by the waves, it, too, will go down. I remain flabbergasted that some academics from Israel signed a European petition calling for the severance of scientific and cultural connections with Israel." As Kney-Tal sees it, Israel has no choice but to "draw Europe into a serious, genuine dialogue, one which will deal not only with ongoing events, but also with deeper levels. That's what is really lacking. Our relations with Europe are asymmetrical, due to our small size and their large one. This asymmetry has to be converted into a different sort of cooperation, one unlike what we have had up to now. We must initiate this; we need to sharpen the messages, and reach understandings based on shared interests in security and democracy." This article ran in Ha'aretz on August 22, 2002
Israel Chief of Staff Speaks
His Mind Yaalon: "The Palestinians are an existential threat: Iraq is not." Yedioth Ahronoth (p. 2) by Rami Hazut -- "If we don't win this war against the Palestinians,we will find ourselves facing a threat of cancer-like proportions," said Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon. A month after having been appointed chief of staff, Yaalon yesterday gave an exposition of his world view vis-a-vis the conflict with the Palestinians and the Arab countries. His speech, which he gave after having ordered his officers not to criticize the political echelon, was replete with criticism - some more explicit and some less so-of various political decisions. "War, Not Intifada" Yaalon, who spoke at the national conference of Israeli rabbis that is held annually in advance of the high holidays, focused principally on the implications of Palestinian terror, "which constitutes the most serious security threat to Israel." Yaalon rejected the commonly accepted name, Intifada, that was given to the current conflict, and said: "A war is being waged between us and the Palestinians. We are not talking here about popular action by the public that embarked on a struggle. The Palestinian Authority reached a decisive point at which it believed that it would succeed in defeating us by means of an initiated campaign of terror and violence. "It is the Palestinian leadership that is directing this war and it has determined its character, whether it is with shooting attacks, suicide attacks, terror attacks inside the Green Line, or terror attacks in the territories-everything is directed from above." The chief of staff said that the only solution is to achieve an unequivocal victory over the Palestinians that will not leave any doubt as to Israel's victory: "The current Palestinian leadership is not prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state. It is imperative that we win this conflict in such a way that the Palestinian side will burn into its consciousness that there is no chance of achieving goals by means of terror. If we don't do that we will find ourselves on a very slippery slope that will damage our deterrence and our relations with the Arab countries and the Israeli Arabs. The Palestinian threat harbors cancer-like attributes that have to be severed and fought to the bitter end." "Hizbullah Feels it was Victorious" Yaalon said that the Palestinians were encouraged by the IDF's withdrawal from Lebanon, which stemmed from the pressure of Israeli society that found it hard to bear the numerous victims. Yaalon: "Among the Palestinians were those who believed that the Israeli citizens' tolerance level would be far lower and that they would not be able to sustain 600 dead and a serious blow to the Israeli economy, but reality proved them wrong." The chief of staff criticized the withdrawal from Lebanon, which he believes bolstered the Arabs' tenacity. "Hizbullah believes that the withdrawal stemmed from guerrilla pressure on Israel, which led to strategic decision-making. All of the Arab elements opted for what they perceived as the Israeli weak spot: society's lack of endurance, the assumption is that strikes at the civilians of the State of Israel will propel processes similar to the withdrawal from Lebanon. A society that broadcasts an inability to stand casualties applies pressure from the bottom up that ultimately leads the political echelon to make decisions that suit the Arab party's interests." Yaalon said he was not particularly troubled by the American strike on Iraq-or the Iraqi response that is anticipated to include a missile attack on Israel. He said that Iraq belongs to the group of countries that have the destruction of Israel on their agenda. Yaalon said this list also included Iran and the Palestinian Authority. "Saddam Will Try to Fire Missiles" "Iraq, like Iran, openly calls and acts for the destruction of Israel. There is no doubt that in the event that Saddam Hussein should feel threatened by the Americans, he will try to fire missiles at Israel. I am also certain that if he were capable he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons, but the attack on the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981 and the Gulf War severely disrupted Iraq's ability to develop nuclear weaponry. At the same time I tell you that the Iraqi threat does not keep me awake at night. We are fully capable of defending ourselves from it and it does not constitute an existential threat to Israel." As to Iran, Yaalon said: "Iran openly calls for the destruction of Israel and acts by all means at its disposal, including attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, to achieve that goal. Iran stands behind the operation of terror organizations, either by means of Hizbullah in Lebanon or by means of support for the Palestinian terror organizations, such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas and even the Palestinian Authority itself, which is behind terrorist initiatives; the best example that demonstrates this issue is the Karine A ship." Chief of Staff: "We have to defeat the Palestinians." Ma'ariv (p. 2) by Shlomo Ceszana and Eitan Rabin. Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon believes that the "current Palestinian leadership does not recognize the State of Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state and it is trying to realize the doctrine of stages. It believes that by means of terror and similar processes it will succeed in establishing a state first in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and then in other parts of the Land of Israel as well." Yaalon continued, "One can hear all about the doctrine of stages in internal-Israeli voices that I cannot discuss . . . " [ . . . ] Yaalon: "The struggle against the Palestinians keeps me awake at nights. It is like a threat with cancerous dimensions and attributes. Namely, it is a threat that is not always visible, but it is devastating and very dangerous. Just like cancer, sometimes the patient is not clearly told he is sick. The current Palestinian leadership does not recognize Israel and does not want us to go on living in our country. I've been saying that for seven years, but in the past two years there are already people who are prepared to listen. In places where question marks used to be drawn, I was already drawing exclamation marks. "You need to understand that this isn't another Intifada here. There was one Intifada, in 1987. Today there is an initiated war, not a popular awakening that has gone out into the streets. The PA does not have a leadership that has lost control. We have here a clear decision that they prepared for and which they made two years ago. When the United States and Israel reached a decisive point titled 'end of conflict,' the PA perceived that as a threat and chose to dodge the decision by means of an initiated campaign of violence and terror. "The Palestinians hoped that Israel would withdraw unilaterally from large swathes of territory in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in capitulation to terror. They must not be given the sense that terror wins. As a military man I say: this conflict must be won in a way that the Palestinian side will burn into its consciousness that there is no chance of gaining achievements with terror and of forcing Israel to surrender. It needs to be made clear that there is no chance of getting anything on our side to move by means of terror and violence. Any understanding achieved in the wake of terror is tantamount to an Israeli surrender to terror. If this struggle ends with terror having produced achievements for the Palestinians we will find ourselves on a slippery slope in terms of our deterrence in our relations with the Arab countries and with the Israeli Arabs." [ . . . ] Chief of Staff: "We have to defeat the Palestinians". Ma'ariv (p. 2) by Shlomo Ceszana and Eitan Rabin. Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon believes that the "current Palestinian leadership does not recognize the State of Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish state and it is trying to realize the doctrine of stages. It believes that by means of terror and similar processes it will succeed in establishing a state first in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and then in other parts of the Land of Israel as well." Yaalon continued, "One can hear all about the doctrine of stages in internal-Israeli voices that I cannot discuss . . . " [ . . . ] Yaalon: "The struggle against the Palestinians keeps me awake at nights. It is like a threat with cancerous dimensions and attributes. Namely, it is a threat that is not always visible, but it is devastating and very dangerous. Just like cancer, sometimes the patient is not clearly told he is sick. The current Palestinian leadership does not recognize Israel and does not want us to go on living in our country. I've been saying that for seven years, but in the past two years there are already people who are prepared to listen. In places where question marks used to be drawn, I was already drawing exclamation marks. "You need to understand that this isn't another Intifada here. There was one Intifada, in 1987. Today there is an initiated war, not a popular awakening that has gone out into the streets. The PA does not have a leadership that has lost control. We have here a clear decision that they prepared for and which they made two years ago. When the United States and Israel reached a decisive point titled 'end of conflict,' the PA perceived that as a threat and chose to dodge the decision by means of an initiated campaign of violence and terror. "The Palestinians hoped that Israel would withdraw unilaterally from large swathes of territory in Judea, Samaria and Gaza in capitulation to terror. They must not be given the sense that terror wins. As a military man I say: this conflict must be won in a way that the Palestinian side will burn into its consciousness that there is no chance of gaining achievements with terror and of forcing Israel to surrender. It needs to be made clear that there is no chance of getting anything on our side to move by means of terror and violence. Any understanding achieved in the wake of terror is tantamount to an Israeli surrender to terror. If this struggle ends with terror having produced achievements for the Palestinians we will find ourselves on a slippery slope in terms of our deterrence in our relations with the Arab countries and with the Israeli Arabs." [ . . . ]
Serving in the IDF Reserves: There are special moments in a man's life that not only help define him but also leave him with memories of accomplishment and fulfillment. In my life of 46 years those moments have included: the day I made Aliyah and became an Israeli citizen, the birth of my "Sabra" (native born Israeli) children, the marriage of my daughter, winning the Israeli National Boxing Championship, being sworn into tzahal (the Israel Defense Forces) as an Israeli soldier, and serving as a Jewish Educator at the Alexander Muss High School in Israel (AMHSI). One of the most emotional moments in my life was an event that occurred just a few days ago at an Israeli Army base near the West Bank. It was there that I was honorably discharged from miluim, the Army Reserves of the Israel Defense Forces, after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 45. It was an evening full of emotions and memories, gratitude and pride. It was an evening I will never forget. First, some background: The miluim are the backbone of the Israeli Army and have played a crucial role in the defense of the Jewish State in all of the nation's wars. The system of miluim was adapted from the Swiss in 1950 by Israeli Gen. Yigal Yadin, commander in chief of tzahal in the War of Independence and later, the famous archaeologist who uncovered Masada. Yadin realized that our tiny country, surrounded by millions of blood thirsty enemies seeking our destruction, needed a larger combat force to stand on the field of battle in the time of need, and so he created the miluim. Israeli men, after completing their service in the compulsory army, are assigned to a reserve unit where they serve until the age of 45. Combat reserve units are called up for active duty usually twice a year for a total of approximately 42 days. This service is usually in 2 stints; 10 days for training and then, later in the year, for an entire month guarding one of the country's many volatile borders. At time of war, the miluim are called up for Special Service for unlimited lengths of time. The concept that developed was that in the event of an Arab attack, the 18-21 year olds in the compulsory army would hold the line for 48 hours while the Reserves were called up from civilian life. Once organized and armed, the miluim would then be at the forefront of the defense and counter- attack . They have proved themselves in all of Israel's wars, particularly in the 1973 Yom Kippor War, where they turned the tide of battle and saved the Jewish State. Reserve soldiers come from all walks of life in Israel. My buddies in my unit are a mosaic of Israeli society. They include secular and religious Jews, Likud and Labor supporters, SABRAS and new immigrants, lawyers & farmers, bankers & janitors, insurance agents & mechanics, Ashkenazim & Sepharadim, Yemenites & Druze, a Welshman and even a couple of us crazy Americans. These citizen-soldiers sacrifice so much when they are called up, leaving behind for long periods of time their families and friends, their jobs and businesses, and their studies in the university. Many reservists will serve in the same unit with the same guys for over 20 years, as i have been privileged to do, and thus the bonds of brotherhood in miluim are often thicker than blood. We have danced at each other's weddings and mourned at each other's funerals. In 1978 I graduated from Temple University in Philadelphia and made Aliyah to Israel. Like most Israeli citizens, I was drafted into tzahal and served my allotted time in the compulsory army. After my discharge, I was assigned to a reserve unit, the 602nd Reconnaissance Unit of the Israeli Tank Corps, where I have served for the past 22 years. As I recall my years in uniform, so many memories pass through my mind-memories of Gaza and Hebron, Lebanon and the Golan, the Jordan River Valley and the Arava. I can still feel the biting cold of the Hermon and the dust and sweat of the Negev. I will always remember the long nights of political arguments, dirty jokes, and soul-baring talks while trying to remain alert on the Watch at a lonely border outpost with my fellow reservists. These true friends have stood by me not only in battle, but also in my personal trials and tribulations. Four years ago, I began divorce proceedings, after suffering through 20 years of a bad marriage. I quickly came face to face with an unjust legal system and an ugly mixing of Church and State. When legal and financial difficulties seemed insurmountable, it was my miluim brothers who stepped forward to give me moral and practical support. Today I have my "Get"(divorce) and freedom, much due to the kindness and generosity of my fellow miluimniks. I owe them an eternal debt of gratitude.In my 22 years of reserve duty, there have been moments of fear and fatigue, moments of victory and pride but, most of all, there will always remain in my mind the memories of brave, committed brothers at arms who proved that "Zionism" is more than just a cliche, Jewish heroism is no lie and true friendship is forever. This past Tuesday I was ordered by my commander, Lt. Col. Leibela, to report to a training base near Bet Guvrin, with my good buddy Haderwho had also just reached the army retirement age of 46. When Hader and I entered the base dining room we were greeted with the cheers of a hundred soldiers from our unit who had gathered to honor us on the occasion of our "retirement" from tzahal. There, in the room, were old friends from the past and also young soldiers who were our replacements including a young American, named Brian Bebchick who made Aliyah after attending AMHSI. He was a former student of mine and destiny had brought us to serve in the same unit together. In him and the other young soldiers I could see the strength and future of Israel. Lt.Col. Leibela made a short speech, gave us a small gift and a certificate from the army and a plaque with our unit's symbol. On the plaque were inscribed the following words: "Thank you for the friendship for the rough and beautiful days . . . and remember-that there is life after miluim! I know in my heart that there is life beyond miluim but I will miss that life in uniform. I am grateful for the privilege of having served in the world's finest, bravest and most moral army. I am grateful for the honor of taking an active part in the renaissance and defense of the Jewish State and People and I am grateful for the true-friends I have gained along the way. Yossi Katz, 46, was born in Philadelphia and made Aliyah to Israel in 1978. He is a Jewish Educator at the Alexander Muss High School in Israel and resides in Hod Hasharon, Israel.
"PA To US:
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Palestinian Authority officials have told the Bush administration to mind its own business when it comes to Palestinian election law, a PA official said on Friday. PA Minister Saeb Erekat, who led a delegation of Palestinian ministers to Washington two weeks ago, said he refused to even listen to an American proposal regarding Palestinian elections. "We asked the Americans to be part of an international steering committee [on the elections]," Erekat said in a telephone interview. That meant the Americans - along with the European Union, Canada and Japan - would oversee such things as voter registration, campaigning, and the use of media in the campaign. The oversight committee would also prevent voter intimidation. But when the Americans wanted to discuss more substantial issues, the conversation ended abruptly. "I sensed in the States, that they wanted to touch on the election law," Erekat said. "I refused to discuss it. It is the Palestinians' business. It's none of their business." Erekat said he could not be sure what the American proposal was, but he believed it to be based on the Japanese model of 1945, where the citizens would elect a parliament, which would appoint a prime minister. The role of president would then become merely titular. President Bush angered the Palestinian people in June when he urged them to elect a new leadership "not compromised by terror." Although he did not mention PA Chairman Yasser Arafat by name, the reference to getting rid of the PA leader was clear enough. Israel has said it will no longer deal with Arafat. One of the suggestions for making the transition has been to "promote" Arafat to more of a figurehead position and appoint a prime minister who would actually rule. But most experts doubt that Arafat will never relinquish power. Palestinian elections are scheduled for the end of January. According to opinion polls, Arafat is a clear frontrunner. This piece ran on the CNS wire on August 25th, 2002
The Israel Resource Review is brought to you by
the Israel Resource, a media firm based at the Bet Agron Press Center in
Jerusalem, and the Gaza Media Center under the juristdiction of the Palestine
Authority. |
Printer
friendly version of this article