---

Other News

Third meeting of the association council EU - Israel
(Luxembourg, 21 October 2002)

Declaration of the European Union

1- We welcome the holding of the third meeting of the Association Council between the EU and Israel. It comes only two weeks after the last meeting of the Association Committee in Jerusalem which provided an excellent opportunity to review the whole of our relationship and to take note of progress on many points in our common interest, be it cooperation in educational and cultural matters, transport and telecommunication or scientific and technological co-operation.

2- The Association Agreement has established a regular political dialogue on all issues of common interest. This dialogue between us is more important than ever. Accordingly, the Association Committee devoted time to discussing a number of political issues in addition to its other work. Among these were the fight against terrorism, non-proliferation, disarmament and arms control as well as the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership.

3- The Association Agreement provides the framework of the bilateral relations between us and sets the agenda of our cooperation. We have stressed, time and again, including during the last meeting of the Association Council on 20 November 2001, the great importance we attach to the correct application of the association agreement, in particular the territorial scope of the agreement. We regret that since our last Association Council meeting no progress has been made towards a solution to the issue of rules of origin in accordance with the Association Agreement, as acknowledged by the Association Committee at its 8 October meeting. However, the EU welcomes Israeli readiness stated at the meeting to identify concrete bases for a mutually acceptable technical solution and to resume technical talks. These talks should start without further delay. During its meeting the Association Council will take stock of the situation and assess the perspectives for a solution. However, if the Association Council cannot find a solution, the EU will review its position in accordance with the provisions of the Association Agreement.

4- Our bilateral association is based on shared respect for democratic principles and human rights, an essential element of our association agreement as set out in Article 2. The EU upholds the universality, interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. The promotion and protection of human rights including rights of persons belonging to minorities as well as fundamental freedoms constitute a major objective of the EU's foreign policy.

The EU firmly believes in Israel’s right to live in peace and security. It recognises the tragic impact of suicide attacks and the fear and anger they cause. The EU has clearly and publicly condemned suicide bombings and pressed the Palestinian Authority to take determined steps to stop them.

Israel’s security concerns are legitimate, but they must be addressed with full respect for human rights and within the framework of the rule of law. The EU urges Israel to put an immediate end to activities that are inconsistent with international humanitarian law and human rights, such as extra-judicial killings, to abstain from all acts of collective punishment such as demolition of Palestinian homes, to lift closures and curfews and to abstain from deportations of family members. The EU firmly believes that there can be no justification for military actions directed indiscriminately against civilian neighbourhoods. Such actions fuel mistrust and hatred and further hamper efforts to seek a political solution. They damage Israel’s reputation as a democracy based on the rule of law. All settlement activities, including those in and around East Jerusalem, must stop immediately. There is no connection between settlement activities and Israel's security needs.

5- The EU is seriously preoccupied with the worsening humanitarian situation and the fact that many projects, including humanitarian projects and projects aiming at enhancing the quality of life in the Palestinian territories, cannot be implemented as Israeli authorities impede access of personnel necessary for these projects. The EU noted the terrible consequences of the situation as set out in the Bertini report. We call on Israel to ensure full, safe and unfettered access for international and humanitarian personnel

6- The EU is gravely preoccupied with the deliberate destruction of Palestinian infrastructure, including those financed by the EU and other donors, which hampers the economic, social and humanitarian development of Palestinians. Such destruction hinders the reform for which Israel itself has called. The EU urges Israel to put an end to this practice. We refer in this context to the letter that Minister Piqué, in his capacity as Council President, sent to Minister Peres on 29 January 2002 in which the EU reserves the right of giving an appropriate follow-up to this question.

7- The EU expresses grave concern about the current situation in the Middle East. We unreservedly condemn violence and terrorism and those responsible. The EU welcomes the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1435 and urges both parties to comply fully with it. More than ever, Israelis and Palestinians must return to the negotiating table in order to offer a political perspective.

The Middle East Quartet meeting on 17 September in New York set out elements for a “road map”, including the holding of an international conference, leading towards a final, just and comprehensive settlement in accordance with international law including all relevant Security Council Resolution with two States living side by side in peace and security by 2005. We appeal to both sides to support the Quartet efforts and the outcome of the 17 September meeting. The road map should be based on parallel and reciprocal steps by the parties on political, security and economic issues and contain definite timelines.

Implementation by the parties should be monitored and assessed by the Quartet. The Palestinians must push ahead with the reform efforts and in particular cooperate in security matters with Israel, the US, the EU and regional partners with the aim of putting an end to terrorism in all its form. Steps must be taken by Israel as well as the Palestinians themselves to ensure a satisfactory holding of free and fair Palestinian elections early in 2003.

Israel must facilitate the reform efforts by lifting curfews and closures, withdrawing to its positions held prior to 28 September 2000, by resuming transfer of Palestinian VAT and customs revenues and stopping settlement activities in the occupied territories. It is in Israel's own interest to alleviate the deepening economic and humanitarian crises and to assure the functioning of the Palestinian economy. The EU considers it crucial that economic and institutional collapse in the Palestinian territories be avoided. The EU has engaged itself for budgetary support to the PA and has spearheaded an international donor effort to that end.

The EU reaffirms its conviction that the creation of a viable, democratic and peaceful sovereign Palestinian state would be the best guarantee of Israel's security and its acceptance as an equal partner in the region.

It is recalled that the 4th Geneva Convention is applicable to the occupied territories including East Jerusalem where the status quo must be respected until a permanent status is agreed by the parties.

8- The EU supports the reform process in Iran, and in this context it has decided to strengthen EU-Iran relations. The Council has given a mandate to the European Commission to negotiate a Trade and Cooperation Agreement with Iran and a mandate to the Presidency to lead negotiations with Iran on arrangements for EU-Iran political dialogue and on cooperation against terrorism. For the EU, all of this constitutes a single package. The different elements are indissociable when it comes to entry into force, application and denunciation, and parallelism will be applied between all these elements. Negotiations will start soon. The EU expects the deepening of economic and commercial relations to be matched by similar progress in all other aspects of the EU's relations with Iran.

The EU wishes to see an intensified political dialogue with Iran, leading to a better understanding, as well as to significant positive developments in the EU areas of concern: human rights, non-proliferation, terrorism and the Middle East. With regard to the Middle East, the EU has encouraged Iran to exercise its influence in order to hamper and prevent any action that might jeopardise the chances of returning to a political process. The EU has also encouraged Iran to join, without reservation, the international consensus on the necessary existence of two States, Palestine and Israel, living peacefully side by side with recognised borders.

On human rights, the EU and Iran have agreed on 10 September, at their "Comprehensive Political Dialogue" meeting in Teheran, to explore possibilities on the setting up of a human rights dialogue without any condition. Experts from Iran and the EU have met at the end of September to discuss modalities. The EU Council will examine this issue further at its 21 October meeting. The EU considers that the open invitation by the Iranian authorities to the UN thematic rapporteurs on human rights to visit their country is a positive gesture.

9- Iraq's failure to comply with UN Security Council Resolutions, in particular with regard to weapons of mass destruction, remains a source of major concern. We note Iraq’s announcement to allow the return of UN inspectors without conditions and welcome in this context the efforts of the executive chairman of UNMOVIC, Dr. Blix, and the General Director of IAEA, Dr. Elbaradei, concerning the practical arrangements for the early resumption of inspections. Iraq must fulfil its obligations under the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions without delay and must grant unconditional and unimpeded access for the weapons inspectors.

The EU is determined to support further efforts of the United Nations to that end. This matter should urgently be dealt with by the Security Council. The EU agrees with the UN Secretary General that if Iraq’s defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities.

As far as the humanitarian situation is concerned, the EU welcomed the Security Council's adoption of Resolution 1409 of 14 May 2002, which significantly eases the United Nations sanctions regime on Iraq. The EU has finished the necessary work to implement the Resolution in the EU. This will help improve the humanitarian situation and above all benefit the Iraqi people.

10- The EU notes that growth in the Israeli economy remains subdued after contracting by 0.6% in real terms in 2001, which may mainly be attributed to the continuation of political and security tensions and slower than expected global economic recovery. It also takes note of the recent deterioration of the exchange rate, inflation and fiscal position, and of the measures taken by the authorities to stabilise the economy again. A number of areas of vulnerability remain, including the budget, the large stock of public debt (over 100% of GDP), the deteriorating external position and increasing unemployment (10.3%).

The EU is confident that the authorities will continue to address these issues in order to maintain an appropriate macroeconomic framework. The EU also encourages Israel to enhance efforts in the area of structural reforms, particularly in the labour market.

In line with the economic chapter of the Association Agreement an informative Economic Dialogue took place in Brussels on October 17th 2002, where issues related to macroeconomic developments and policies, as well as structural reform and regional policies in both the EU and Israel were discussed.

11- Total trade between the EU and Israel has almost doubled in the last five years, and has reached € 24 billion in 2001. The EU is Israel’s major trading partner. It occupies rank number 1 in Israel's imports and rank number 2 in its exports. Israel is the EU’s 18th largest export market, and occupies rank number 25 in the EU's imports.

In 2001, there was however negative growth in bilateral trade, with Israel's exports to the EU going down 4.3 %, and EU exports to Israel decreasing by 8.8 %. This is in sharp contrast to earlier years, when trade flows increased considerably, in both directions. For Israel exports to the EU, those figures were +19.3 % in 1997; + 10.3 % in 1998; + 10.5 in 1999 and + 30.2 % in 2000. This is due in a large part to a restructuring in diamond trade which represents around 20% of EU-Israel Trade and to a dramatic reduction in trade in high tech products especially machinery for line telephony and automatic data processing. Without taking into account diamond trade, Israel exports to the EU have contracted by 1.4% and EU exports to Israel by 3.4% between 2000 and 2001. These downward trends have continued in the first semester of 2002.

12- EU FDI inflows from Israel in 2000 amounted to € 201 million (0.1% of EU total   inward investment) and the outflow amounted to € 787 million (0.2% of EU total). Inward stocks amounted to € 1394 million (0.2 % share of EU total) and outward stocks to € 1698 million (0.1 % share of EU total).

6.13- Agricultural products account for a significant proportion (8.6%) of the Community’s total imports from Israel, and 2.6% of its total exports there. In 2001, the Community imported agricultural products from Israel for a value of over € 770 million and exported € 342 million worth of agricultural goods.

Under the Euro-Mediterranean Agreement, which entered into force in 2000, the two sides granted each other significant trade concessions for certain agricultural products, consisting of tariff reductions or elimination, either within quotas (and/or subject to calendars), or for unlimited quantities.

Article 14 of the Agreement provides for ongoing discussions with a view to the further reciprocal liberalisation of agricultural trade. Negotiations for a package of new concessions have been hampered by certain technical problems, but these have now been resolved and the EU side is carrying out the necessary evaluation of the state of play before negotiations can resume and be concluded.

As regard the smooth operation of agricultural trade under the current arrangements, Community operators have encountered difficulties as a result of certain phytosanitary measures taken by Israel. We would welcome discussions under Protocol 3 of the Agreement aimed at resolving these problems.

10.14- As to the trade chapter of the Euro-Med Association Agreement a limited number of specific issues matters of interest both for the EU and for Israel such as market access questions raised by the respective industries are currently being dealt with, pragmatically and on a case by case basis, either directly between the respective officials or within the institutional framework foreseen by the Euro-Med Agreement. In this respect it has been agreed to set up an informal consultation mechanism between the Commission and Israeli relevant services which will allow, on an ad hoc basis, a more specific exchange of views on trade matters and to explore ways of developing trade between the parties. This will also allow to tackle trade irritants at an early stage, helping to prevent their escalation into disputes by seeking mutually acceptable solutions.

11.15- The EU's policy towards the Mediterranean region including Israel is governed by the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership launched at the 1995 Barcelona Conference. The EU welcomes Israel's attachment to this Partnership. The bilateral relations with each Mediterranean partner including Israel are indeed seen in the context of the objective, in the common interest, to foster mutual trade and the increasing network of Euro-Mediterranean Association Agreements, allowing for a free trade area across the Mediterranean.

16- In this regional context, the EU is convinced that co-operation and economic integration in the region will bring great benefit to all concerned. This was indeed a reason for the launch of the Barcelona process, the aim of which is to create, by 2010, a free trade area covering the entire region, thereby contributing to creating progress towards peace, stability and economic prosperity. Within the Euro-Mediterranean framework, the EU is indeed seeking to actively promote co-operation not only bilaterally between the EU and the partner countries concerned, but also amongst the partners in the region.

17- In May 2001, the first Euro-Med Trade Ministerial took place, which created working groups on rules of origin and on services. Especially as regards the rules of origin, the Euro-Med Trade Ministerial of March 2002 agreed to the principle of the participation of the Mediterranean countries to the system of pan-European cumulation of origin, linking the EU with Central and Eastern European Countries, the Baltic States, EFTA and Turkey Such system could be functional already in the short term for those partners having signed FTAs containing identical rules of origin. The EU notes Israel's support for this proposal. A report on the state of play of the implementation of the system of pan-Euro-Mediterranean cumulation will be presented to the next trade Ministers meeting. In the field of services, Euromed Trade Ministers have asked experts to exchange experiences in certain key sectors in order to prepare for the liberalisation foreseen in the various association agreements. They have also particularly insisted on the need to develop South South trade and adopted an action plan on trade an investment facilitation, with the improvement of customs procedure as a first priority.

18- In the field of Scientific Co-operation, Israeli research entities are fully associated to the 5th Framework Programme of EC, enjoying a status equivalent to that of Member State of the Community. 498 co-operative R&D projects have been registered by June 2002 covering the whole spectrum of FP5 Specific Programmes. 131 projects are co-ordinated by Israeli entities. More than 1.500 European Union entities collaborate with Israeli entities within FP5. Israeli partners in FP5 cover the whole spectrum of the Israeli society: 47% universities, 37% Industries, 16% other entities (hospitals, public regional bodies, etc.). Most successes in FP5 so far are in the Information Society Technologies (IST), Quality of Life and the Growth Specific Programmes.

Israel has officially requested to the Commission its association to the 6th Framework Programme for RTD activities (2002-2006) on March 2002. Following the adoption of the Sixth Framework Programme for RTD activities, it is important to ensure that the renewed Agreement enter into force on a provisional basis to enable early Israeli participation in the 6th Framework Programme. The Council is now examining the Commission’s recommendation for a Council decision authorising the Commission to negotiate the renewal of the agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Community and the State of Israel. The Association Committee encouraged the parties to accelerate the negotiations on the Israeli participation to the Programme as soon as a formal EU mandate is available, in order to ensure the participation of Israeli entities from the outset in the 6th Framework Programme.

---

CPJ urges Israel to free Palestinian photographer

New York, October 21-- The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) urges the Israeli government to release Agence France-Presse (AFP) photographer Hussam Abu Alan, who has been held without charge for nearly six months. According to AFP's Jerusalem bureau, Abu Alan's period of administrative detention is scheduled to expire October 22.

Abu Alan was detained on April 24 at the Beit Einun checkpoint north of the West Bank town of Hebron while attempting to reach a nearby village to cover the funeral of Palestinian militants killed by Israeli forces.

Administrative detentions, usually set for up to six-month periods, are renewable at the Israeli military's discretion. Abu Alan's release was originally scheduled for July, but his detention was extended.

Kamel Jbeil, with the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds, and Youssry al-Jamal, a soundman for Reuters, were released without charge on September 15 and October 9, respectively. The two journalists had also been held in administrative detention since April.

Like Jbeil and al-Jamal, Israeli authorities have accused Abu Alan of having contacts with militant groups but have provided no details or evidence to support their allegations.

"The release of Jbeil and al-Jamal indicates that these journalists never should have been jailed in the first place," said CPJ executive director, Ann Cooper. "It is time the Israeli government put an end to this unacceptable situation and release Hussam Abu Alan."

CPJ is a New York-based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide.

---

Editorial

Al-Quds: Why was police protection absent in Yanoun?

The village of Yanoun located in the northern area of the West Bank suffered for the past two years from attacks and daily provocations from settlers. The attacks reached to the point where settlers burnt the electric generator and cut off water so that the village became some kind of a detention and the homes became prison cells and the settlers became prison guards.

The residents of the village demand from the Israeli authorities to provide protection so that they can return to their village and this is a legitimate demand under the Geneva Fourth Convention. On the other hand, one can see how the Israeli police and security men deal with softness and flexibility regarding the settlers who were protesting against removing a settlement post.

---

Opinion

The Chain of Command;by: Uri Avnery*

There is little controversy about the facts: last Thursday, in an IDF action in Rafah, at least eight Palestinians were killed (the number will probably climb, since some of the wounded were severely hurt). Five of those killed were woman and children. Almost fifty people were wounded - many of them children who had just left their school after lessons.

The event took place on the "Philadelphi" axis, a narrow strip of land designed to separate the Gaza area from neighboring Egypt. The Palestinians dig tunnels under the strip in order to move people, weapons and goods. The IDF endeavors to prevent it.

Thursday, the IDF sent a bulldozer, guarded by tanks and armored troop-carriers, to block the tunnels.

According to the army version, fire was opened on the bulldozer and the force. The brigade commander gave a tank commander permission to fire shells at the "sources of fire". All in all, five shells were fired at the densely populated refugee camp, including "flanchette" shells, which spread thousands of deadly steel arrows, an especially inhuman weapon the use of which is forbidden by international law. The IDF suffered no casualties.

The army alleges that among the Palestinians killed were three "armed men" who had shot at the bulldozer. The Palestinians contend that none of them was a known member of a fighting organization. (This is not necessarily a contradiction: nowadays any Palestinian is liable to open fire on the occupation forces.)

The Palestinians speak about a "massacre". Israeli spokespersons say they regret the deaths of the children. The Americans asked Israel to exercise restraint. "The world" was silently reproachful.

This was not an exceptional occurrence. It has become almost routine.

Who is to blame? Let's try to compose a list.

First: the occupation.
The occupation creates resistance. In order to overcome the resistance, the occupation is forced to use more and more brutal methods. The occupied people, too, become more and more brutal. Human life becomes cheap, the borderline between fighters and non-fighters becomes blurred and disappears.

Second: The axis itself.
When the Gaza Strip was turned over to the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli generals demanded that there be no border between the Palestinian area and Egypt. The Rafah border crossing remained under Israeli control. The "Philadelphi" axis (I have no idea why it was so named) was designed to create the separation all along the border.

In order to guard the axis, a strip six kilometers long and one hundred meters wide, soldiers must pass only dozens of meters away from the Palestinian neighborhoods, which are among the most densely populated in the world.
In times of peace, that is a problematical situation. In times of conflict, this becomes a pressure cooker liable to explode at any moment.

Third: the Sharon-Ben-Eliezer government.
The "political leadership" consists of two generals, whose sole language is the language of force - the one is the leader of the Likud, the other is the leader of the Labor party.

The policy of this government is to break by force the resistance of the Palestinian people to the occupation. It acts according to the typically Israeli maxim: "If force doesn't work, use more force."

It may be that by now the Israeli occupation has become the most brutal of the modern era: millions of people are imprisoned in their homes for weeks and months on end, two thirds of the population have been pushed under the internationally-accepted poverty line, hundreds of thousands suffer from malnutrition, on the border of starvation - all this in addition to almost 2000 killed, among them some 400 children.
There is no sign that the Palestinian resistance is about to break. Quite to the contrary.

By orders and hints, the "political leadership" tells the army to use even more brutal methods, gradually abolishing all limits. To appease international opinion, some tiny restrictions are lifted, while at the same time much more severe ones are put into place. In this game, Shimon Peres, the Nobel hypocrisy prize laureate, plays a central role.

Fourth: the Chief-of-Staff.
Under the military hierarchical system, the Chief-of-Staff is the person solely responsible for all the acts and omissions of the IDF.
General Moshe Ya'alon has already made public his extreme right-wing orientation. He has announced that any concession to the Palestinians constitutes a "reward for terrorism". He has defined the Palestinian resistance as a "cancerous growth".

The Chief-of-Staff controls the actions of even the last man in the army. If he resolutely objects to certain actions, it will travel with lightning speed through the chain of command reaching every soldier, and if he encourages certain actions, or closes his eyes, this, too, will be felt instantly. There is no need for written orders. Every commander senses what his superior wants, every soldier senses was his commander desires. That's how the army works.

Fifth: the Area Command chief.
The Commanding Officer of the Southern area and his staff are well familiar with the topographical realities. They know that if you put tanks into the "Philadelphi" axis, there will be Palestinians who will open fire. There exists, therefore, a high probability that a fire-fight will develop near a densely populated area, and men, women and children will be killed. That's what happened this time, too.
(The same thing has happened in other incidents in the Gaza Strip, such as the one a week before at neighboring Khan Younis, when 17 Palestinians, including women and children, were killed. A different topography, similar circumstances, same command.)

Sixth: the brigade commander.
After the firefight started, the brigade commander ordered the firing of the shells. He knew that under the circumstances there was no possibility of separating the armed men from bystanders. He acted according to a principle, which seems to have been adopted by the IDF: in order to "liquidate" one-armed man, it is worthwhile killing ten unarmed people. He should not have ordered the firing of even one shell, much less five.

He acted with the approval of the division commander, who appeared again on television and boasted about the action. Like the commander of the air force, he seems to sleep very well at night. He has no qualms, no second thoughts, nothing.
Seventh: the tank commander.

A tank commander is supposed to be able to act under pressure and to make decisions under fire. He must have known that under the circumstances, one shell would cause havoc, and much more so several, including the murderous "flachette" variety.

The light finger on the trigger is another symptom of the deterioration of the situation and places a heavy burden of guilt on the whole chain of command, from the Prime Minister down to the last soldier. Shooting shells at curfew-breakers, and especially at children throwing stones at heavy tanks, has already become the bane of the West Bank.

The order to shoot shells may have been a "manifestly illegal order", over which flies "the black flag of illegality", which a soldier is obliged to disobey under Israeli law. No soldier can argue that he "only followed orders".

I cannot judge if the lives of the soldiers were in danger. Fortunately, no soldier even suffered a scratch. IDF soldiers are better protected than any soldier in the world. But if they were indeed in mortal danger - the responsibility lies with the commanders, who deliberately put them into this situation.

* An Israeli author and activist. He is the head of the Israeli peace movement, "Gush Shalom

---

News Flash (Radio, Voice of Palestine 7:30 - 8:30 am)

Jenin: Israeli occupation forces deployed more military reinforcements around the city of Jenin. Israeli troops prohibited the citizens from entering or leaving the city.

Bethlehem:  Israeli occupation forces tightened their blockade on Bethlehem district particularly near al-Khader, Tqou’ and Wadi al-Nar Road.

---

Interviews (Radio, Voice of Palestine 7:30 - 8:30 am)

Latest developments

Ahmad Abdel Rahman – Secretary of the Palestinian Cabinet

Q: Peres accused PNA of being a partner in yesterday’s attack. What is your comment?
A: in fact, Peres is the only other ugliest face of Sharon. Both are two faces of the same coin. Each of them is implementing the Zionist scheme against Palestinian people. Peres is only speaking poison by which he is trying to block the way before international position which is sympathizing at this time with the Palestinian strategy because of the comprehensive Israeli killing.
I did not expect Peres to say something other than that despite all the hopes around him that expose him as a man of peace. But he is so far from peace and he is only the other ugliest face of Sharon.

Q: Israeli government said it would not respond against PNA but against the perpetuators and those who send them. Can you elaborate?
A: In fact Israeli side adopts military solution with the Palestinian people. Sharon government does not want to hear that the Palestinian side is ready for peace. Whenever an operation takes place, Israel directs its condemnation to PNA and Palestinian leadership. This means that Israeli government does not want peace with the Palestinian or even to see a Palestinian state. It does not want to see a Palestinian leadership or hopes.
I quote Israeli opposition in saying that this operation is another evidence to the failure of the military solution, which is adopted by Sharon as a way of providing security to Israelis. This operation comes to say to Palestinians, you can never enjoy security while you are killing the Palestinian people, demolishing Palestinian houses, stealing olives and conduct all crimes while relying on your military power. But the military solution will never succeed. I anticipate that Sharon’s government will not remain in office in Israel for long.

Q: Do you think there is progress in the European position?
A: international community and Europe are demanded to adopt a strict position regarding Israeli settlement activities. Europe is demanded to boycott all products of Israeli settlements in order to reinforce efforts of peace.

Q: What about the efforts of forming the new Palestinian government?
A: I hope that President Abu Ammar will be able to form a convincing government to Palestinian people. I think our Palestinian people needs a government of national salvation that is comprised of known national figures.

Q: What do you say to residents of Yanoun village who were deported from their homes by Israeli settlers?
A: the aggressive incidents against Yanoun population give an example to brutality of Israeli settlers. Our people should support every isolated post like Yanoun. We will not allow any eviction of Palestinians to pass.

---

Demolitions in Yatta village

Nayef al-Mahanyeh -  Head of Regional Zoning Committee in Yatta

Q: What is really taking place in Yatta?
A: in the two villages of Derat and Irfa’yeh, which locates near the bypass road no. 60, there are several Palestinian homes (13 houses) threatened with demolitions. Israeli tanks under protection by many soldiers are now demolishing part of these homes. We do not know how many houses they are going to demolish. Also, the only clinic in the two villages is threatened with demolition.

Q: What is the Israeli excuse this time for demolishing the Palestinian homes?
A: they claim that Palestinian houses were established with licenses. For your information, the bypass road was opened even before 1967 during the Jordanian rule. Israelis do not give construction licenses; therefore, the people are forced to build without licenses.

---

Arab Press

Headlines

Egypt: Al-Ahram daily, Oct. 16

* Important decisions by the Cabinet to complete the privatization programs.
* 11 Israelis killed and 40 injured in an operation in the north of Israel, and two Palestinians killed by the Israelis. Confrontations broke out with the colonizers.

---

Jordan: Al-Rai daily, Oct. 22

* The King: If we demand Iraq to get rid of mass destruction weapons, we have to demand the same from other Arab countries and Israel.
* The King received the commander of the Yemeni special guard.
* Al-Adwan denies the allegations of deporting Iraqis from the Kingdome.
* 14 killed and 50 injured in an operation in Khedera.
* Washington may get a promise from Beijing not to use veto in the Security Council.

---

Al-Sharq al-Awsat daily; London,  Oct. 22

* 14 killed in a martyrdom operation adopted by Islamic Al-Jihad. Settlers threat of killing Ben Elazer.
* A Jewish family lives in Arafat’s office in protest against the Israeli bureaucracy.
* 100000 prisoners freed from the Iraqi jails.
* Bush endorses a law that threatens Sudan with penalties.

---

Opinion

Jordan: Al-Rai daily, Oct. 22 - Iraq the acceptance and rejection; by: Tarq Masarweh

Washington is rejecting the general amnesty issued for the Iraqi political and criminal prisoners and for all those who are in the country and outside, although this was a topic in Bush’s speech. Before that, Washington also rejected Baghdad’s agreement on the return of inspectors, although Iraq was not the party who ended their job but it was Washington just before the large air aggression known by “the desert fox” and although the directors of these inspectors confessed that there were spying for the US and Israel. A friend said to me, Washington will even reject the freedom of parties in Iraq and will reject elections, plurality, and even Saddam’s resignation if decided to do that.

It would have been possible for Washington to allege that its pressure against Iraq and threats of war was the reason for the general amnesty, and for opening the doors of Iraq before the opposition, and calling them to return to their country. But the American administration which is so charged with arrogance and hatred has lost its traditional political cleverness and stripped itself of all the war justifications. Washington is not interested in mass destruction weapons, nor with the inspectors committees, nor with stability in the region and defending it, and is not interested in the freedoms of the Iraqis, the Kurds, Shiite, Sunnis Turkmans, or Assyrians, Washington is interested only in one thing WAR.

---

Jordan: Jordan Times: across the Jordan - What is the probability of Israeli retaliation?; by: Hassan Barari

In what appears to be the run up to an American-led attack on Iraq, a lot of speculation is being spread worldwide, particularly among pundits, pertaining to a potential face-off between Iraq and Israel. These presumptions are given impetus by a conscious endeavour on the Israeli side to make Israel be taken into account while talking about the next military confrontation. Amid the massive volume of articles written in Israeli newspapers, a plethora of Israeli leader's statements, and the systematic Israeli incitement to eliminate the new menace to international security — allegedly posed by Iraq — one cannot but conclude that Israel will be playing an active role in the looming American war on Iraq.

If attacked, the Israelis would like us to believe, Iraq will have to deal with the Israeli “invincible” might. Against this backdrop, many in our region have already internalised this possibility and now talk about it as a given. This is also beefed up by the recent Bush-Sharon summit, in which Bush declared that Israel has the right to retaliate.

While it takes a prophet to foresee how the reckless Sharon would act if and when the attempt to dislodge Saddam Hussein gets off the ground, a careful appraisal of the strategic configuration of power leads me to rule out a prospective Israeli intervention. At the end of the day, an Israeli attack needs to be fully coordinated with the American administration which will be wary not to be seen as working with the Israelis in the next war lest this should upset the American strategic scheme in Iraq and the region.
For Israel to effectively take part in the war without suffering major military losses, it needs to obtain — to use the language of the military — the foe-friend code without which the Israeli combat aircraft are destined to be hit by the more superior American and British ones. Therefore, much hinges on the American strategic and political calculations. Nevertheless, it is self-evident that a visible Israeli role in the war would unquestionably ruin the already wicked image of America in the Middle East, leading to more anti-Americanism and, above all, confuse the American scheme — if it exists — for Iraq in the post-Saddam era. By the same token, much rests on whether or not Iraq would employ nonconventional weapons, thus cementing the burgeoning strategic partnership between Bush and Sharon.

Unsurprisingly, from a militarily standpoint, Israel cannot add noticeably to the qualitative efforts of the Americans. Despite the Israeli oft-repeated assertions that their army is capable of dealing with Iraq, the fact remains that their army is inferior to the gigantic American capabilities pooled with the British forces. Undoubtedly, Israel cannot project power beyond its immediate neighbours for a long period, as the Americans have proved to be capable of doing. Furthermore, if the Americans will be doing the dirty job in Iraq, why should Israel bother and involve its army or, more specifically, its air force in a battle in which the defeat of Israel's foe is a foregone conclusion?

Other factors would surely be considered in Israel before a decision on this matter is taken. An Israeli intervention would certainly ignite Arab outrage. An unprovoked Israeli attack would certainly damage its relations with the Arab countries, in particular with Egypt and Jordan. The latter might find itself in a confrontation stance with Israel that has the potential to destabilise Jordan. In Israel, the centrality of a stable Jordan is widely seen as being in the Jewish state's strategic interest. Seeking to alter the order within Jordan is definitely not a mainstream position in Israeli politics. The history of their relationship has proved, beyond doubt, the centrality of Jordan in Israeli strategic thinking. Apparently, it went unnoticed that the Israeli restraint during the Gulf War in 1991 had also to do with an Israeli interest not to harm Jordan. A week before that war, King Hussein wittingly managed to extract an Israeli pledge not to involve Jordan in a future war. I don't see a reason why Jordan cannot do the same again.

However, if the above analysis is accurate, why do Israelis, especially right wing, seem so passionate to take part in the war? I can only assume two reasons. First, it could be for domestic consumption: generating this tense mood helps Sharon keep the Labour Party in his government, thus enabling him to complete his tenure until the next election in November 2003. Second, his image as an unyielding statesman might help him neutralise Netanyahu's popularity within Likud.

Relations with the United States will be a key concern in Sharon's decision regarding Iraq. Sharon is the first Likud leader who has been able to forge a close strategic understanding with an American administration, an area that is often thought to be the monopoly of the Labour Party. The occasion of war may allow Sharon to cultivate his image as a strategic partner with Bush, something he considers will propel him into international prominence. Also, Sharon seeks to make a political capital out of this situation, by asking the Americans not to back peace efforts as a quid pro quo for his constraint. In a nutshell, the nitty-gritty of the matter is that the Israeli government cannot afford to become involved in Iraq without the blessing of the United States

---

Al-Sharq al-Awsat daily; London,  Oct. 22 - An Israeli journalist in Lebanon; by Ali Ibrahim

The writer comments on the presence of an Israeli journalist carrying a French passport in the French delegation which covered the activities of the Francophonian summit in Beirut, and the measures taken against him which included preventing him from entering the press center, isolating him in his room, and then deporting him to Amman.

The writer says that Lebanon and the media milieu in Beirut did not gain any thing out of the clamor they created around this journalist. The measures taken against him gave only a negative picture on the way the press is dealt with.

No doubt says the writer that those who organized the protest against the presence of the Israeli journalist, had a certain point of view which says that Lebanon legally is in a state of war with Israel, and does not deal with it. The other point of view however, says the writer, did not feel easy at such a behavior with a journalist, who was in the French delegation to cover an international event., as his entrance on a French passport was legal.

There should be no illusions that such a behavior will be understood by the international media, and therefore the losses of this stand far exceed the gains which those who initiated the campaign were hoping to get.

“It is our right to be angry at the Israeli practices against the Palestinians, but we should also behave wisely, in a way that makes the world stand by us not against us, and we should even try to gain the Israeli public opinion to our side rather than pushing it to become more extreme and more supportive to its government”, concludes the writer.

---

Lebanon: Daily Star Online - Rush to war turns into ingrained Bush policy; by Fahed Fanek is one of Jordan’s leading economics and media consultants. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
 

Those who say that they don’t hate America, only its foreign policy, have to think again. America no longer has a foreign policy; it has a defense policy, or, to be more precise, a military and war policy.
Time was when America saw war as a last resort. Now, war has become the first resort. The diplomats of the State Department have to make way for the hawkish warmongers of the Pentagon.

In 1990, when Iraq was occupying Kuwait and America was in the process of massing its troops in Saudi Arabia, President George Bush senior made Iraq offer after offer to leave Kuwait peacefully. Now, under George W. Bush, the US is trying its best to close all avenues that might avert war. Even Iraq’s offer to allow UN weapons inspectors back unconditionally was viewed in the White House as a provocation, because such a step would spoil the plans of trigger-happy hawks.

Even the agreement Iraq concluded in Vienna with UNMOVIC director Hans Blix (which would not have been possible in such a short time had Baghdad not given in to all the inspectors’ demands) was met with skepticism and derision in Washington. The Americans didn’t want an agreement that would make them appear like the obstinate party they are  not to mention forcing them to put off their plans for war.
These indications, together with rhetoric calculated to provoke Iraq, prove that under the present administration the US is against diplomatic solutions. Far from using its influence as the world’s superpower to further peace, today’s America is determined to go to war. Not only that, the Americans are determined to launch what they call pre-emptive wars based on perceived (and unproven) potential threats.

It might be true that the US is indeed threatened by international terrorism, but to say that Iraq poses a threat to America is nonsense.

But Iraq is not the only issue here. The US is preparing itself to settle scores with Saudi Arabia as a next step, since the Americans see the Saudis as the main source for Islamist terrorists targeting the West.

Saudi Arabia has long been recognized as a staunch US ally, both militarily and economically. That was why Washington’s sudden hostility to Riyadh was so surprising. Yet the hostility is genuine.

It all began with the now-infamous July 10 background briefing to the Defense Policy Board by a Rand Corp. “analyst” named Laurent Murawiec. It was a lecture full of accusations directed not only at Saudi Arabia, but also at the entire Arab world. Murawiec concluded that Saudi Arabia must be invaded and its oilfields occupied.

Murawiec said that the Arab world has been in crisis for the last 200 years, that it allowed the industrial revolution to pass it by, and that it is about to let the digital revolution pass it by. The Arabs, he said, lack the necessary qualities to integrate with the modern world. He says that Arabs have lost their self-respect, and so took refuge in violence and hatred of the West and modernity. Since they gained independence, Murawiec says, the Arabs have only produced wars; they failed to develop. Now, he says, tensions between them and the modern world have reached a climax, and they have started exporting their problems to the outside world (witness Sept. 11).

Murawiec alleges that in the Arab world, no public space for debating ideas, interests, and policies. The tribal group in power blocks all avenues of change, represses all advocates of change. Plot, riot, murder, coup are the only available means to bring about political change. In the Arab world, violence is not a continuation of politics by other means  violence is politics, politics is violence. This culture of violence is the prime enabler of terrorism. Terror as an accepted, legitimate means of carrying out politics has been incubated for 30 years.

Murawiec then targets Saudi Arabia. He says that once upon a time, there was a partnership between the US and Saudi Arabia. But partnerships, like alliances, are embodied in practices, ideas, policies, institutions and people  which persist after the alliance has died. He describes Saudis as an unstable group and says Wahhabism loathes modernity, capitalism, human rights, religious freedom, democracy, republics, and open societies.

As long as enmity had no or little consequences outside the kingdom, Murawiec says, the bargain between the House of Saud and the US held. In 1973, however, Saudi Arabia unleashes the “Oil Shock.” In 1978, Iran’s Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini challenges the Saudis’ Islamic credentials, provoking a radicalization and worldwide spread of Wahhabism in response. In 1979-1989, the anti-Soviet jihad gives life and strength to the Wahhabi putsch within Sunni Islam. The Taleban was the result.

Murawiec’s conclusion: There is an “Arabia,” but it needs not be “Saudi.” America, he says, must issue an ultimatum to the House of Saud. They must stop any funding and support for any fundamentalist school, mosque, or group anywhere in the world; stop all anti-US, anti-Israeli, anti-Western predication, writings, etc., within Arabia; dismantle all the kingdom’s “Islamic charities;” prosecute or isolate those involved in the terror chain. Or else, the Rand “expert” says, the US will occupy their oilfields.

When these assertions were leaked to the press, US spokespeople hurriedly denied that they represent official policy. Nevertheless, it seems that the US is acting according to Murawiec’s recommendations.
It would be wise to expect the US to target other Arab countries after finishing with Iraq, including Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon  in addition to Iran. Talk of redrawing the map of the Middle East, it seems, is justified.

---

Editorial

Egypt: Al-Ahram daily, Oct. 16 - A war and peace race in the Iraqi crisis

A feverish competition is taking place in the region between two trends one that is adopted by the US and Britain which is pressing for striking Iraq, and the second is adopted by the rest of countries in the international community and is pressing towards giving peace a chance and provide the best atmosphere for the inspectors to do their job.

While the international conditions are being prepared through deliberations in the UN for the return of inspectors, Washington is still beating the drums of war every minute and the American and British preparations are going on as if to tell the world that the strike against Iraqi is going to happen whether the inspectors returned or not. And while Iraq is announcing its welcome to the return of inspectors, it also started to prepare for the war, and is putting its people in the atmosphere of war. But between peace and war there is a then line.

---

The United Arab Emirates: Al-Khaleej daily, Oct. 22 - The natural response to massacres

Once again, the sons of the land prove that they are stronger and firmer than those who usurped their land, and that impoverishment, suppression, are only failure methods before their will and determination. The qualitative operation in the north of occupied Palestine, is yet another affirmation that there will be no solution and security without putting an end to the occupation. Ariel Sharon just like those who preceded him is maneuvering and trying to gain more time to commit more massacres, under the American Umbrella. Now after this heroic operation, condemnation will certainly be heard from the American maestro and all those who “sing” with him, who keep silent when the daily massacres are perpetrated against the Palestinians and only move when the Palestinians defend their blood and revenge their martyrs.

Sharon’s security falls down once again, just like his attempts to quell Al-Aqsa intifada.

---