|
Israel Resource Review |
14th October, 2000 |
Contents:
Palestinian Security Forces: So Far So Bad Gal Luft Senior Research Associate Washington Institute of Near Eastern Studies
Four years ago, following the September 1996 opening of the Hasmonean Tunnel
in Jerusalem, Palestinians policemen and Israeli soldiers exchanged heavy
fire throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip leaving 69 Palestinians and 14
Israelis dead, and more than 1,200 people wounded. The "September riots," as
they were called, invited a reality check by the Palestinian security
services (PSS). While pursuing peace, the Palestinians have been planning and
preparing for possibility of a next round of violence. Their security forces
have improved their tactical sophistication, introduced new training methods
and obtained new weapons and equipment. But after two weeks in October this
year of intensive fighting against the Israel Defense Force (IDF) one may be
puzzled by how poorly Palestinian policemen, so far, fared in combat.
Progress since September 1996
Being more than a regular police force and short of being an army, the twelve
branches of the 40,000-strong PSS have been investing great efforts in order
to learn the lessons from the previous major clash with the IDF. New weapons
and tactics have been introduced, and training has improved considerably with
Palestinian company and battalion commanders receiving professional training
in Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, and Pakistan as commanders of combat units. Since
1999, the PSS have been training larger and larger formations, up to a
battalion, in different combat scenarios including mock attacks on IDF posts
and Jewish settlements. In the first half of 2000 alone, no fewer than six
battalions held full-scale exercises in the Gaza Strip. In the attempt to
increase the number of Israeli casualties in case of a war, the Palestinians
recruited a large number of snipers equipped with telescopic sights for their
M-16 and AK-47 rifles. In addition, it has been reported that some of the
Palestinian security apparatuses obtained weapons prohibited by the Oslo
agreements such as anti-tank missiles, shoulder launched anti-aircraft
missiles, light mortars, and hand grenades.
Assessment of current PSS performance
Despite claims that the violence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip was
pre-planned and tightly orchestrated by Yasser Arafat and his generals, the
response and performance of the PSS show otherwise. Due to either lack of
will or incompetence, Palestinian policemen failed to control the Palestinian
masses that demonstrated against Israel in the friction points such as
Nezarim Junction, Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and Hebron. Two incidents from
the past two weeks--the first being the destruction of the Jewish holy site
Joseph Tomb in Nablus and the attack on the Palestinian police station in
Ramallah where two Israeli soldiers were held by the police--showed lack of
resolve of the Palestinian police in dealing with a rioting mob. In some
other incidents Palestinian policemen took off their uniforms, joined the
demonstrates and opened fire at IDF troops. This conduct is not only a
result of lack of discipline and a fierce nationalism on the part of the
policemen. The PSS lacks necessary equipment such as, shields, helmets,
clubs, armored vehicles, tear gas and other non-lethal weapons to contain
massive demonstrations.
Despite the heavy volume of fire exchanged between Palestinian policemen and
the IDF and despite the long training they have undergone, Palestinian
policemen failed to reach high level of marksmanship and proficiency with
their weapons. Unlike the September riots in which PSS officers succeeded in
killing 14 Israeli soldiers including some senior officers, in October 2000
not one Israeli soldier has been killed in combat with Palestinian police
officers. By and large, Palestinian fire was sporadic and inaccurate. The
sniper units which concerned the IDF have, so far, been proven to lack the
necessary readiness.
Inherent Problems
The main problem in the operations of the PSS is lack of coordination. Since
the establishment of the PSS in 1994, Arafat has built his security forces in
such a way that only he can arbitrate among the different forces. This system
of command ensured in time of peace that none of the security forces becomes
powerful enough to pose a threat to his leadership. The competition and tense
relations that have developed between the security chiefs are hardly
conducive for the creation of general-staff-like body to oversee and
coordinate the operations of the security apparatuses. As a result,
coordination between the forces is poor, security chiefs do not feel
accountable to agreements made with their colleagues, and at times even use
the existing chaos to undermine each other. For example, prior to Ariel
Sharon's visit in Temple Mount the head of the Palestinian Preventive
Security in the West Bank Jibril Rajoub assured Israel that the visit would
not cause unrest. This guarantee was not upheld by the West Bank's head of
General intelligence Tawfic Tirawi who reportedly orchestrated the
anti-Israeli demonstrations which took place after the visit.
Further, as violence broke out, Arafat, the commander-in-chief of all
Palestinian forces, chose to travel abroad rather than manage the crisis from
his command post in Gaza. The system of command and control that is so
characterized by Arafat's centralist style of command was doomed to collapse
in his absence.
The Palestinians' weak command and control system may undermine their
capability to engage in a long, protracted war against Israel. the disunity
between the services and the absence of general-staff-like body prevents
effective control over the levels of supplies, manpower and ammunition, all
essential for the war effort.
Another problem the PSS face is the growing power of the Tanzim, the armed
wing of Fatah, headed by Marwan Barghouti (see Peace Watch # 284).
Armed Tanzim activists tend to brush off the uniformed policemen and
disobey their
instructions. Palestinian policemen are reluctant to confront the militia
which has grown to become the most visible and active armed body of the PA.
Arafat, on his side, prefers to yield leading role of his armed intifada to
the popular, plain clothed Tanzim activists. This enables him to present the
Palestinian struggle as an authentic popular uprising. As a result, the
units of the Palestinian police are prevented from exercising the power and
authority granted to them by the Oslo agreement and the PA.
Conclusion
As the crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip seems to be escalating and more
means of violence are gradually introduced, it is still unclear whether the
weakness of the Palestinian police is due to low military effectiveness or a
result of a calculated decision by Arafat to spare, at least for the moment,
his uniformed armed forces from the fray. If the answer is the former, Arafat
has surely noticed the weakness of his security services and is likely to
continue to rely heavily on the loyalty and enthusiasm of the Tanzim as his
main tool of war. Alternatively, Arafat could have chosen to keep the lion
share of his security forces disengaged from the fighting and put them into
action if and when an all-out-war with Israel is declared. This could
explain why the PA has not used so far any of the anti-tank and anti-aircraft
weapons it is reported to have despite the fact that Israel has employed
similar kinds of weapons against Palestinian targets. It could also explain
why the Palestinian police has not launched organized attacks against Israeli
targets despite their proven capability to do so.
Return to Contents
What Really Happened When Muchmud Al-dirah, the 12 Year-old Was Shot Dead
The Jerusalem weekly, Kol Ha'zman, published in its Oct. 6 issue
an interview with Talal Abu Rachmah, the TV photographer who filmed
the death of Muchmud Al-dirah, the 12 year-old child shot dead at
Netzarim Junction on the third day of Arab rioting.
|
This is what he said:-
"I was in my Gaza City office when we received notice that there was
shooting at Netzarim Junction...when I arrived there was already heavy
shooting...the shots came from all over, heavy shooting from every
direction, many
shots from automatic weapons. It was terrible and I was forced to take
cover inside
the van...the shooting intensified and then, for the first time, some 15
meters in
front of me, I saw the Reuters photojournalist hiding there and next to
him, a man and a child...after a few minutes, the photojournalist managed
to get out and the
father and son crouched and compressed themselves between the low block
wall and
a large metal barrel. I heard him shouting and waving his hands in the
direction of the shots...he continued shouting but wans't heard. Maybe he
was trying to attract attention that they would know that he was there with
the child...I
thought that if I would move [in the direction of Al-dirah & son] then I would
endanger the lives of the four other people with me.
Until that moment, it was clear to me that the [Israeli] soldiers did not
notice that someone was hiding there...afterwards, I saw that he took out a
mobile
phone and spoke to someone, but he wasn't successful in conversing and then
he took a
bullet in the hand...an ambulance pulled up...and the soldiers continued
shooting. The driver was hit and was killed. This lasted for a long time
and then
there was quiet for a few seconds and then, 'boom', I heard another sound,
different,
louder than what I heard previously. The area where they were taking cover
filled
with debris dust, we didn't see a thing and when it disspated, I saw that
the child
who was all the time close to his father, was lying on the ground, his face
in the earth".
Return to Contents
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Rita Cosby Fox TV News
WASHINGTON
Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member
of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to
help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace
Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Norwegian officials confirmed that President Clinton is one of the
finalists among the 150 people who were nominated this year. The Nobel
Peace Prize winner will be announced Friday morning.
Members of Norwegian Parliament, along with other leaders around the world,
can officially nominate candidates, but it is considered highly unethical
in Norway to
actively campaign for a peace-prize candidate, and especially so to contact
the five members of the peace-prize committee, four of whom are former
members of the Norwegian Parliament.
One current member of Parliament, who did not want his name disclosed, told
Fox News that he was contacted in May of this year by a White House
official asking for his help to get President Clinton this year's prize.
The member said he told the White
House official he was not able to do that, but he said he is certain
another member took on the task.
Executives at two Norwegian public-relations firms, who admitted they have
privately assisted peace-prize candidates with research and garnering
support in the past,
said they were contacted by a member of Parliament at the end of May
asking whether their firm was interested in conducting a discreet campaign
on President Clinton's behalf.
One of the executives said he received a second call about two weeks later
in which he was told that another firm would be handling the job for a
six-figure sum. The other executive would not say whether his company
handled the work, but only that he had received the initial call.
Officials in Norway say if it became public that a public-relations
executive was actively soliciting for a peace-prize candidate, it would
ruin the firm's reputation and that any extensive involvement by a member
of Parliament would cause that official to lose his job.
According to the statutes of the Nobel Foundation, nominees for the awards
are supposed to be kept secret so that candidates do not know they are in
contention. When asked about this information, White House spokesman Jake
Siewert said there is no truth to the rumor that the president or anyone
else at the White House has contacted any member of the Norwegian
Parliament, anyone on the actual peace prize
committee or any public-relations firm to campaign for the president for
the coveted prize.
Siewert further said that individuals may perhaps be pretending to act on
the president's behalf, but that if so, the White House and the president
aren't involved. Alfred Nobel, a scientist who >died in 1896, held more
than 350 patents developed in laboratories he founded in more than 20
countries around the world. He was best known in his lifetime for having
invented dynamite, which he considered a tool misused for destruction.
Supposedly motivated by guilt over his explosive
invention, Nobel stipulated in his will that the Norwegian Parliament
appoint a five-person independent committee to award five prizes each year
to people who in the preceding year "shall have conferred the greatest
benefit on mankind." The first prizes were awarded in 1901. Nobel deemed
one part of the prize money, which originated with his dynamite fortune,
be given to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for
fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing
armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." The Nobel
committee invites thousands of scientists, academics and university
professors in numerous countries to nominate candidates to receive prizes
in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace. In 1968, the Bank
of Sweden established an additional prize for economics in honor of Nobel
and to celebrate its 300th anniversary.
The winners of this year's six Nobel awards will share $9 million in award
money, up from $7.9 million shared by six individuals and one organization
last year. Past Nobel peace prize recipients include Mother Teresa, the
Rev. Martin Luther King,
Jr., Nelson Mandela, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat, Holocaust researcher
Elie Wiesel, the Dalai Lama, former U.S. secretary of state Henry
Kissinger, South African peace activist the Rev. Desmond Tutu, Polish
Solidarity leader Lech Walesa, former U.N. secretary-general Dag
Hammarskjold, medical researcher Albert Schweitzer, and U.S. presidents
Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt.
Return to Contents
A Journalist's Perspective: One
Sided Reporting From Israel: Why? Steven Rosenberg
As a newspaper editor, I am loathe to criticize other media outlets. While we
strive for objective reporting, I understand there is no such thing as
objectivity in journalism. When it comes to editorial policy, however, it’s
important to discern between news and opinion. News belongs in one part of
the paper or TV or radio program; editorials and opinions belong on the
editorial pages, or editorial section of the broadcast. In a fair-minded
operation, editorial policy should not interfere with getting the facts
straight.
Unfortunately, the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East has
brought out the worst in the American media. Overall, the reporting has been
shallow, lending no real insight into the reasons behind the conflict. This
has led to mistakes, bad
reporting and a blurring of editorial policy that has portrayed Israel as the
Goliath in this current mess.
The worst case so far of blatant anti-Israel sentiment was recorded in the
Los Angeles Times. It printed a viciously anti-Semitic cartoon portraying a
couple of religious Jews bowing before the Wailing Wall. The cartoonist had
rearranged the stones of the wall to create the word “HATE.” The caption
underneath reads: “Worshiping Their God ...”
Another serious case occurred in the Boston Globe on Rosh Hashanah. The Globe
ran a large Associated Press color photo at the top of their front page,
showing a menacing Israeli soldier wielding a club over a bleeding
“Palestinian.” The Globe knew that using such a powerful photo would elicit
strong emotions from its readers, and would shape public opinion.
But the Associated Press passed along the wrong caption to the Globe (along
with the New York Times). The wounded “Palestinian” was an American Jewish
student, Tuvia Grossman, who had been pulled from his car and stabbed by
Palestinians and left to die. The Israeli soldier had intervened to protect
Grossman.
The Globe ran a “make up” story by the AP on Grossman, and later did a small
story on the error itself. The Globe and Times also printed corrections. But
the damage was done.
On Tuesday night’s “Nightline,” Ted Koppel spent the first 15 minutes of his
program explaining why his “Jerusalem Town Meeting” almost didn’t occur. He
blamed it on Israeli government security which insisted on protecting
Israel’s deputy foreign minister and Jerusalem’s mayor with arms. Again,
“Nightline” was out of line in its request. Instead of reporting news, its
editorial policy became bigger than the story. Which begs the question: When
was the last time a foreign TV network walked into Washington and started
dictating the terms of security? How would the U.S. Secret Service tolerate
taking orders?
Print and broadcast news reporters have fallen into a general type of “pack”
reporting. No reporter has broken any real news, but many important stories
have fallen through their hands. Yes, they covered obvious stories, like the
death of the 12-year-old boy in Gaza. But one of the major stories, the
destruction of one of
Judaism’s holiest sites, Joseph’s Tomb, was written off as just Palestinian
exuberance. Would it have been the same if Israel had destroyed one of
Islam’s holiest mosques?
Other barely reported stories: PA Police Chief Rayoub Jabril giving Ariel
Sharon the green light to visit the Temple Mount; Arafat’s threat to declare
war on Israel in a Saudi interview; the PA offering $2,000 to families whose
children become martyrs; the Palestinians reconstructing Joseph’s Tomb as a
mosque.
A reporter’s job in Israel is a plum assignment, however, many reporters
simply don’t do their homework in preparing to cover the region. They arrive
in Jerusalem, get their press card at the Israel Government Press Office, and
are waved away by the Israelis. Minutes later, they invariably meet a
representative of the Jerusalem Media Communications Center. Run by former
PLO diplomat Ghassan Khatib, the JMCC is employed by 99 percent of the
foreign journalists in Israel. Called “fixers,” they provide background
material, briefings, translators, drivers, interviews and will arrange
virtually anything for a reporter. Need a photo taken, or a violent scene?
They’ll bring a reporter into the heart of the violence, and almost on cue,
the rioting will begin.
Israel should have a similar organization to at least make it a level playing
field. But, public relations has never been Israel’s strong suit, hence the
situation Israel often finds itself in with the press. When background
information, photos, interviews and briefings are readily abundant, it makes
a reporter’s life much easier. It’s a subjective viewpoint, but
unfortunately, that’s what the world receives most of the time from Israel.
Steven Rosenberg is the editor of The Jewish Advocate.
Return to Contents
Current CNN Middle East Coverage: When Skewed Language Distorts Reporting Daphne Burdman, M.D.
As a retired Research Associate at the "Harry S Truman, Institute for
Research into the Advancement of Peace", of The Hebrew University,
Jerusalem, I would like to provide the following short comment on the CNN
coverage of the current situation in the Middle East.
The pattern of repeated usage of certain key phrases by your
commentators invokes an immediate negative emotional and cognitive
response towards Israel and Israeli policy, particularly on international
listeners who may have few or no other news sources.
For example "Violence Erupted", or "Hostilities broke out ...when Israeli
troops started firing on Palestinians who had been throwing stones. " (as
reported by CNN on Oct 6 00). The first impact on the listener is that of
"Violence", or "Hostilities" followed a fraction of a second later by the
impact of "Israelis" so that the two are immediately linked in the
listeners' mind as Israelis shooting at Palestinians. Only after that
comes the information that the Palestinians initiated this by
stone-throwing. With listeners continuing to follow the commentary, the
mental backtracking necessary to place these events in the sequence of
their prior occurrence while listening to new material, is likely to be
absent or erroneous. Violence of itself does not simply ERUPT. A human
action CAUSES it to happen, and this terminology permits the linkage of
VIOLENCE/ISRAELIS, even though the initial violence in the given example
was of Palestinian stone-throwing, in this case on Jewish worshippers at
the Western Wall from the Temple Mount.
(This device has been used repeatedly by authors describing the outbreak
of those Arab-Israeli wars initiated by Arabs, to de-emphasize the fact
of Arab aggression.)
Another devise is the use of the word "Victims". For example, on October
9, 2000, after Mr Barak's demand for an end to violence or the threat of
strong measures to contain it if it continued beyond 48 hours, CNN
reported an exchange of fire which during this 48 hour lull was supposed
according to the conditions imposed on the I.D.F., to not involve the use
of live ammunition. CNN stated however that scraps of bullets and shrapnel
removed from the Palestinian "victims" appeared to have come from live
ammunition. Since this episode occurred in the context of stone-throwing,
why were the Palestinians labelled as victims?. Why were they not
labelled as INJURED or WOUNDED?. This has been a repeated misuse of the
word "victim", which is innately derogatory to the Israeli soldiers.
"Injured", or "Wounded", is neutral with no condemnatory significance and
no connotation of causality. It is inherently more accurate reporting. Yet
"victims" is always used synonymously with the Palestinians. Since on
many occasions we have clearly seen numerous Palestinians attacking
Israeli posts with numerous simultaneously hurled stones, followed by
shooting from the Israeli post, why is CNN not using a neutral
terminology?
In the name of not making a future settlement more difficult, there has
been on the part of the international bodies a concerted effort not to lay
blame, and not to encourage this on the part of the antagonists. In
general. This policy has been used, or has resulted in, staying away from
clear-cut reporting of events and has been obfuscating matters. This in
the long run is not conducive towards the encouragement of any honest
peace process.
Over these techniques, CNN clearly has control.
A more dubious situation arises regarding the responsibility of CNN when
Palestinians are being interviewed, as on Oct 5 or 6 00. At that time
Hannan Ashrawi talked about Israeli soldiers "shooting innocent
[Palestinian] civilians". What is she talking about? Repeatedly we have
seen rock-hurling mobs, mostly of young Palestinian boys, later followed by
Israeli countermeasures. So these are not simply innocent civilians. Such
statements should be publicly questioned and refuted; individual events
which do indeed fulfill Mrs Ashrawi's description should be specified as
to time and place instead of presented as a blanket description of Israeli
behavior.
I trust that you will seriously consider these remarks in terms of
setting future policy.
Return to Contents
Go to
the Israel Resource
Review homepage
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.
You can contact us on media@actcom.co.il.
|