[page 2]
"Yesh Gvul" (there is a border/there is a
limit) - A group of reserve soldiers who refuse to
serve in Lebanon.
"Parents Againts Silence" - an organisation
of parents whose Sons serve in Lebanon.
ICIPP '- The Israeli Council for Israeli •
Palestinian Peace - our own organisation, which
specialises in legitimising contacts with the PLO.
For a detailed description of these
organisations, see "The Other Israel" nO 1.
The following chronicle covers the period
from mid-June to the end of July, 1983.
3/5 - The permanent vigil in front of Mr.
Begin's residence, demanding the return of the
soldiers from Lebanon, began on May 3ed,
continued throughout the period covered here,
and is still going on. It is organised by an
informal group, some of whose members are
former voters of. right-wing parties, affected
deeply by their experiences .in the war. .
- By accounts in the press, this vigil has
disturbed Mr. Begin very much, to the point that
some Likud members started agitating for a
special law forbidding demonstrations near the
private homes of public officials. In fairness to
Mr. Begin, it should be noted that he opposed
the initiative of his overzealous followers.
18/6 - Students from Tel-Aviv University
visit Al-Najah University in Nablus, which was
closed by the military authorities, .
19/6 - 23/6 - Slum dwellers in Jerusalem
establish an "Anti-Settlement" on public land
near their neigborhood, to protest the allocation
of funds to settlements in the occupied
territories.
20/6 - A joint press conference is held in
Jerusalem, by Israeli peace activists and·
representatives of Al-Najah University, to protest
its closure.
22/6 - Activists of the permanent vigil in
front of Mr. Begin's residence apply to the
Supreme Court for an order to end police
harassment and intimidation.
- Dede Ben Shitrit, the leader of the slum
dwellers' "Anti-Settlement", is arrested and held
for several hours, on the charge of illegally
occupying public land.
23/6 - The Hebrew Writers' Association of
Israel comes out with a demand to bring the
soldiers back from Lebanon.
2516 . - In Prague, a delegation including
members of the Communist Party, the ICIPP, the
CAWL/CSBU, and other organisations, meets with
Yassir Arafat and other PLO leaders (see separate
article ).
- A CSBU delegation visits the Daheishe
refugee vcamp, which suffered collective
punishments for demonstrations by its
inhabitants.
- 50 reserve paratroopers, including four offficers,
whose unit is due to go to Lebanon the
following day; demonstrate in front of Mr. Begin's residence - an unprecedented event.
They declare: "We have no confidence in the
government that is sending us to Lebanon, but we do not refuse to go."
27/6 - A reserve corporal is jailed for 28
days, for refusing to serve in Lebanon.
28/6 - Army chief of staff, Moshe Levy,
receives a letter from 1'00 wives of army
reservists, complaining that their husbands are
being sent to Lebanon for the fourth time in a
year. In a meeting with seven of the group, Levy
expresses his regret, saying the situation can't be
helped and that their husbands would probably
have to go to Lebanon yet a fifth time.
28/6 - 3/7 - A "Week of Palestinian Art" is
held at Neve-Zedek Theatre in Tel-Aviv,
including plays by -the "Al-Hakwati" Theatre, of
East Jerusalem. Palestinian posters, forbidden in
the .occupied territories are on sale.
29/6 - A reserve sergeant is jailed, for 28
days, for refusing to serve in Lebanon.
30/6 - 10 soldiers discharged after a month's
service in Lebanon demonstrate in front of Mr.
Begin's residence and present a petition signed
by 36 of their comrades.
- The arts fair, opened in Tel-Aviv, includees
a large number of paintings and sculptures with
anti-war themes. One such work is attacked by
hooligans, and later police officers remove from
it some of the more significant parts, on the
grounds that it is "causing public disorder".
- A soldier is jailed for 35 days, for refussing
to serve in Lebanon.
1/7 - Kibbutzniks frorn Upper Galilee hold a
demonstration, protesting the fact that the
Lebanon War (officialy still called "Operation
Peace for Galilee") is being fought in their name,
and demanding that the soldiers be brought
home.
- the ICIPP sends a telegram of support to
the Hebron municipality, while settlers demand
its dissolution.
2/7 - 700 people take part in a meeting of
"Doves" belonging to the United Kibbutz
Movement (a movement known, until recently,
as a stronghold of "Hawks"). The meeting is held,
symbolicaly, at kibbutz Hanita on the Lebanese
border.
3/7 - A meeting between Jewish and Arab
artists is the final event of the Palestinian Art
Week at Neve-Zedek Theatre.
- In the southern town of Ashkelon,
anti-Apartheid demonstrators protest the
twin-city treaty signed between their town and
Port Elizabeth in South Africa.
4/7 - Members of the Knesset Defence and
Foreign Affairs Commitee tour Lebanon. In a
meeting with soldiers they hear' sharp criticism,
voiced,among others, by an infantry captain
who says: "You send us here to die, Iike King
David seht Uriah the Hittite!" The incident
sparks sharp argument among commitee members,
and in the press.
[page 3]
5/7 - Shlomo Shechter, who lost his son in
Lebanon, attacks government supporters in a
letter to a Jerusalem paper, declaring that protest
against the war is both his right and his duty.
- A Druse officer in the Israeli Army resignns
his commision in protest against the treatment of
Lebanese Druse by Israel.
- Three of the soldiers who demonstrated
on June 25th are kicked out of their unit for
refusing to serve in Lebanon.
6/7 - A hundred refugees from Bir'am, an
Arab village whose inhabitants were expelled in
1948, demonstrate in front of the Knesset and
demand to be allowed to return to their homes.
- To mark the passing of 13 months since
the start of the war, "Parents Against Silence"
hold a demonstration in Haifa and a large public
meeting in Tel-Aviv,
7/7 - Andre Dreznin, spokesman of the
"Yesh Gvul" movement, is jailed for 35 days for
refusing to serve in Lebanon,
- Kibbutz Kerem Shalom in the Negev
protests the exile and house arrest, without trial,
of Abdul Aziz Ali Shahin, a Palestinian activist
recently released from prison. Mr. Shahin was
exiled to a Gaza Strip village situated one mile
from Kib butz Kerern Shalom, which decided to
take up his case.
- Late at night, the Hebron municipality is
dissolved, after the killing of an armed Jewish
student. The ICIPP, "Peace Now", and several
Labor and Communist M.K.s. protest this action.
The CSBU decides to demonstrate in Hebron on
July 9th.
8/7 - Sholomo Argov, the former
ambassador to Britain, comes out in sharp
criticism of the Lebanon War. Since the attempt
on Argov's life was the pretext for the war, this is
a severe blow to the governments' case.
- "Parents Against Silence" put taables on
street corners in Tel-Aviv, collecting signatures
for a petition against the war.
9/7 -- A hundred CSBU demonstrators are
stopped by the army on- the Jerusalem-Hebron
road. They demonstrate at two army roadblocks,
one near Hebron and the other .near Daheishe
refugee camp. Later, they go to Jerusalem and
demonstrate in front of Mr. Begin's residence.
About 20 CSBU members manage to elude the
army roadblocks, and meet with Hebron's
deposed mayor, Mr. Natshe.
10/7 - 15 highschool students, who are due
to be drafted within a few months, demonstrate
in front of the Prime Minister's office, during the
cabinet meeting. They demand not to be sent to
Lebanon.
13/7 - At a soldier's funeral at Kibbutz
Shamir, in the Galilee, his father, Yosef Galili,
cries out: "How long will fathers bury their
sons?" This is Yosef Galili's second tragedy: his
wife was killed in 11 Palestinian attack on Kibbutz
Shamir, in 1974.
14/7 - In the wake of the Hebron events, a
sharp controversary arises within the Labor Party.
Labor "hawks" are upset to discover that Labor's
election platform does not mention Qiriat Arba,
the extremist settlement near Hebron, although
this settlement was founded, in 1970, by a Labor
government.
- Many peace activists sign a petition
against the arrest of members of the "Ibna
Al-Ballad" ("Sons of The Village") movement.
15/7 - At the instigation of a right-wing
professor, the Tel-Aviv University decides to stop
its financial support to the literary quarterly
"Siman Kriah" ("Exclamation Point") which
published a controversial song. In this song, poet
Itzhak Laor attacked the "Gush - Emunim"
settlers, using extreme terms of abuse.
- In a moving interview to Israel's most
popular T.V. news program, Yosef Calili speaks
out against the war. In the wake of this
interview, several right-wing politicians and
columnists demand to tighten government
control over television broadcasts.
16/7 - Shelli members demonstrate at
crossroads all over Israel, to mark the 400th day
of the Lebanon War.
17/7 - A military police sergeant is jailed for
21 days, for refusing to serve as a guard at
Al-Ansar detention camp in Lebanon.
- 22 Druse reserve soldiers, including a
lieutenant-colonel, sign a petition against Israeli
treatment of the Lebanese Druse.
- Several members of the CSBU are arrested
in Hebron, for demonstrating there. They are
released after several hours and told not to come
back.
18/7 - After the CSBU threatens to appeal
to the Supreme Court, the army allows it to
establish a permanent vigil in front of the
Hebron military government building, where
Qiriat Arba settlers have already been
demonstrating for .several weeks. (Of course, the
army didn't disturb the "Gush-Emunim"
demonstrators. On the contrary, army electricity
and telephone lines were extended into their
tents.)
In the evening, several hundred people
participate in a CSBU demonstration at the
center of Jerusalem. They demand the
dismantling of Qiriat Arba.
19/7 - Settlers attack the CSBU
demonstrators in Hebron and tear up some
placards.
- At a Jerusalem press conference, the
existence of an army cemetery for Palestinian
and Syrian POW's, some of whom died in
mysterious circumstances, is revealed.
20/7 - "Peace Now" establishes a vigil of its
own in Hebron, in addition to the CSBU one.
- 30 Knesset members, mostly of Labor,
and a 100 public figures, come out in a public
petition against settlements in the occupied
territories.
21/7 - Both vigils in Hebron continue.
"Peace Now" announces it will hold a big
demonstration in Hebron on July 23ed.
- Matti Peled meets the PLO representative
in Moscow.(see separate article)
- 200 Druse demonstrate near the Defence
Ministry in Tel-Aviv.
[page 4]
22/7 - The commander of the army central
command declares Hebron a "closed military
zone". "Peace Now" says it will hold its
demonstrarion anyway.
- Two soldiers are jailed for refusing to
serve in Lebanon.
23/7 - In the face of "Peace Now's"
determination to demonstrate in Hebron, the
army decides to allow the demonstrators to enter
the city. About 2.000 demonstrators are greeted
warmly by the Arab population. At a rally in the
town center, the speakers declare their
determination to oppose the settlers. Meanwhile,
the CSBU vigil continues.
23/7 - 6/8 - An international work camp
opens in Jaffa, to help the city's Arab
population, neglected by the municipality.
Participants include both Jews and Arabs from
Israel and volunteers from allover the world.
24/7 - In response to pressure by extreme
right-wing ministers, furious at the "Peace Now"
demonstration in Hebron, Minister of Defence
Arens declares he will not allow further
demonstrations by Israelis in the occupied
territories. (of couse, Arab demonstrations have
never been allowd there).
- A second meeting takes place between
Matti Peled and the PLO representative in
Moscow.
- After recieving dozens of protests by
literary figures, professors, M.K. 's and journalists,
the Tel-Aviv University decides to cancel its
decision of July 15th, and restore financial
support to "Siman Kriah".
25/7 - The Army demands that the CSBU
demonstrators leave Hebron. They refuse, and
again threaten to appeal to the Supreme Court.
After consulting its legal experts, the army tells
the demonstrators they can stay in Hebron.
26/7 - The murderous attack on the Islamic
University of Hebron sparks two demonstrations
by CSBU members, in Tel-Aviv and near Mr.
Begin's residence in Jerusalem. On the same day,
the Supreme Court forbids the army to destroy
Hebron's central bus station; the settlers' next
target.
27/7 - Uri Avnery visits students wounded
in the attack, in Hebron and Beth-Jallah
hospitals.
- two CSBU demonstrations take place,
one near the Knesset in Jerusalem and the other
in the center of Haifa. In another part of Haifa,
the Arab neighborhood of Wadi. Nisnas, a
demonstration by the Communist Party takes
place.
- Major General (Res.) Avigdor ("Yanushh")
Ben-Gal, previously known as a "hawk", declares
in a newspaper interview: "I am ready to talk
with PLO leaders... Israel should give up some
territory, to satisfy the aspirations of the
Palestinian National Movement". Gen. Ben-Gal
has been one of the three candidates for the
Supreme Command of the Israeli army. He
resigned after failing to get the post.
29/7 - The "Yesh Gvul" movement reports
that four soldiers, including a lieutenant, have
been jailed for refusing to serve in Lebanon,
bringing the total of those jailed to 76. One of
these four, jailed for the third consecutive rime,
is a member of "the Border Guards", a .unit
notorious for its brutality in dispersing
demonstrations.
30/7 - Members of "Yesh Gvul" demonstrate
in front of the military prision where their
comrades are held, demanding their release. Some
demonstrators climb a mountain overlooking the
prison, raising a giant banner reading "Free the
Prisoners of Concience! "
- About a hundred reserve soldiers who
finished a tour of duty in Lebanon demonstrate
in front of Mr. Begin's residence, saying "We have
had enough of Lebanon - we don't want to see
it again! "
- During the last week, a new documentary
film, showing some of the horrors of the
Lebanon War, was shown in several places in
Israel. This film was made by two reserve officers,
who took a film camera with them to Lebanon
and filmed what thay saw, immediatly after the
end of the fighting.
31/7 - There is a growing polarisation within
the United Kibbutz Movement (UKM). In
response to the growth of the "doves" (see July
2ed), UKM "hawks" declare they will cooperate
with ''Gush-Emunim''. The UKM leadership holds'
a cautious middle line. In a newspaper interview,
two UKM secretaries say they had met with
representatives of "Peace Now" and agreed in
principle to cooperate with them, but refused to
support officially the July 23ed demonstration in
Hebron. However, many UKM "doves" did
participate in that demonstration.
- Two more soldiers are jailed, for 21 and
28 days respectively, for refusing to serve in
Lebanon.
A note on Sartawi's funeral
In the article dealing with events following the
assassination of Dr. Sartawi, in the previous issue of
''The Other Israel", a significant event was
unintentionally omitted. This was the participation
in Sartawi's funeral, held in Amman, by the Israeli
journalist Maxim Ghilan, editor of the Paris - based
magazine "Israel and Palestine". Mr. Ghilan met, on
this occasion, with PLO leader Abu-Jihad. We are
sorry for this oversight, and hope we will be able to
keep a full record of all public meetings between the
PLO and Israelis - at least, until the time comes
when such meetings become too commonplace to
deserve individual mention.
[page 5]
The true story of the Fatah
"mutiny"
The following account is condensed from an
article by Uri Avneri, published in "Haolam Hazeh"
aune 7th). This article, the result of an independent
investigation using various sources, discloses many
facts not published before.
The Syrian president, Assad, had long since
sought to break the PLO's independence and turn
the organisation into his tool, much as it was an
Egyptian tool during the period of Ahmed Shukeiry.
In 1976 he attempted to do so by using the
Syrian army in Lebanon, but his attack was foiled by
the stiff resistance put up by the Fatah forces,
ironically commanded then by some of the officers
who are now Assad's allies in the "mutiny".
During the 1982 Lebanon War, Assad became
more and more displeased with the PLO's
increasingly independent line, which was made
possible by the growing prestige of Arafat, as the
leader of the resistance during the Israeli siege of
Beirut. Assad was particulary furious with Arafat 's
decision. to make Tunis, and not Damascus, the seat
of the PLO headquarters. Assad started laying plans,
slowly and carefully.
Since 1980, Assad already had an ally within
Fatah. This was Nimer Salah (Abu-Salah), member
of Fatah's central (''revolutionary'') committee.
Abu-Salah was an embittered man, estranged from
many of his Fatah comrades for personal and
ideological reasons. Most Fatah leaders, who are
intellectuals, looked down upon Abu-Salah, an
uneducated man, who was also known as an
uncompromising extremist, regarding anybody who
disagreed with him as a "traitor"and, in many cases, causing the Fatah public embarrassment by making extremist accusations. In a meeting with Abu-Salah, held in November 1980, Assad skillfully played on Abu-Salah's frustrations to secure his allegiance.
Through Abu-Salah, Assad also managed to
recruit his other allies, the group of Fatah officers
headed by Abu-Musa. Abu-Musa is known as a good,
hard-working officer. In 1976, the Palestinian forces
in Sidon, under his command, had ambushed and
destroyed a Syrian armoured regiment that invaded
the city. At the time, Assad had ordered the
assasination of Abu-Musa, who was severely
wounded by the assassin's bullets.
However, in 1982 Abu-Musa, as well as two
other officers, Abu-Khaled and Abu-Ra'ad, were
drawn, by frustration and resentment of their own,
towards Assad, their former enemy. All three are
former officers of the Jordanian army, who were
trained as professional career officers, and felt
contempt towards other Fatah leaders, regarding
them as "amateurs" without "proper" military
training (a similar controversy had split the Israeli
army at its beginning).
Also, the three officers,
lacking political sophistication, felt a growing
suspicion towards the various manoevers executed
by the Fatah's political establishment. In this, they
found common ground with Abu-Salah, and
together they formed an extremist opposition group within the Fatah. Their growing hatred of the
realistic political establishment, which gradually
turned into a personal hatred of Arafat, made them
receptive to Assad's overtures.
The cautious Assad bided his time, carefully
preparing himself before striking. He did not
attempt to sabotage the Algiers session of the
Palestinian National Council, and Arafat succeeded
there in maintaining the unity of the PLO.
However, after Algiers, Assad held a secret meeting
with Abu-Salah, who brought with him the two
officers, Abu-Musa and Abu-Khaled. At this
meeting, the final preparations were made.
Abu-Salah was very confident, promising Assad the
support of "75 per cent of the Fatah fighters", and
that of "at least 13 PLO representatives in different
countries".
This convinced Assad, but he was still very
careful. To disarm Arafat, Assad invited him to
Damascus, where he was received most cordially. A
meeting between Assad and the Fatah leadership
was agreed upon, in order to settle their differences.
This meeting never took place - instead, the
"mutiny" started in the Bekaa (Lebanon valley).
It should be emphasized that the "mutiny"
failed completely. Neither 75 per cent, nor even 5
per cent of the Fatah fighters joined the "rebels".
Out of 12,000 Farah fighters in Lebanon, only
between 140 and 160 joined. No Fatah unit outside
the Bekaa joined them, nor did any PLO
representative abroad do so. In the territories
occupied by Israel, not one single voice was raised to
support them. Moreover, Naif Hawatme and George
Habash, who may have been expected to support
the "rebels", did not do so. On the contrary, they
continued to uphold Arafat's leadership of the PLO,
for which Hawatme was called "a Zionist agent" by
Damascus propaganda.
Where did the "rebels" go wrong? They started
by voicing demands acceptable to many: internal
reforms, a return to revolutionary purity,
advancement for commanders who fought well and
the sacking of incompetent ones; all these are
popular demands in any fighting organisation. Many
Palestinians thought .these demands should be
democratically discussed in Fatah's leading' organs.
But, soon it became clear that behind these demands
was the intention to destroy the PLO as an
independent force, and overthrow Arafat, who had
become the symbol of Palestinian existence. The
"mutiny" became an excuse for Syrian and Lybian
units to start shooting at the Fatah fighters, while
the Palestinians' enemies in Israel couldn't conceal
their pleasure. In these circumstances, it is hardly
surprising that the Palestinian people closed ranks
behind their leardership.
Thus, the Fatah mutiny soon ceased to be such,
and became a regular war between the Syrian
dictatorship and 'the independent PLO. In this
conflict, Abu-Musa and his handful of men play the
inglorious role of collaborators.
While the media report great battles taking
place, supposedly between Fatah "rebels" and Fatah
loyalists, in reality Abu-Musa and his 160 men play
only a small part. Most of the fighting is being done
[page 6]
by regular Syrian army units, helped by the Lybian
brigade stationed in the Bekaa, as well as by
members of Al-Saika, an organisation of Syrian
agents, and by members of Ahmed Jibril's Lybian -
controlled organisation. In this fight, the Fatah's
12,000 men in Lebanon and the refugee population
support Arafat and oppose the "mutiny". Nowhere
in the Palestinian diaspora did the "mutiny" find
any support at all.
The battle for Hebron
It is not by chance that in July 1983 the
struggle for the future of the West Bank centered on
the ancient town of Hebron.. It was in Hebron that· the process of Israeli settlement in the occupied
territories began, back in 1968, when Rabbi
Levinger's band of fanatical settlers first invaded the
town. Skillfully manipulating the divisions existing
within the Labor government, the settlers remained
in Hebron despite the strenuous objections of the
military governor. Later on the government built
for them the settlement of Qiriat Arba, overlooking
Hebron, on lands confiscated from the Arabs. But
the settlers were not satisfied with that - they
wanted Hebron itself! The history of Qiriat Arba is
filled with violent attacks and provocations carried
out against the population of Hebron. In almost all
cases, the perpetrators were never punished; in most
cases, the authorities were "unable" to find them.
All this served as the prelude for the invasion of
Hebron proper, which started in 1979, when the
settlers took over the house known by them as "Beit
Hadassah", and continued from there, with house
after house being taken over by the army "for
security reasons" and then handed over to the
settlers.
The settlers claimed these. buildings on the
basis of their having been Jewish property before
the 1929 massacre, which put an end to Hebron's old
Jewish community - a claim devoid of all moral
validity, as the settlers are completely unwilling to
accept Arab claims on properties which had
belonged to Arabs before 1948.
By June 1983, the settlers had control of four
groups of buildings, scattered through the center of
Hebron. The next step in their plan was to link up all
these footholds into one' compact mass. To do this,
it was necessary to expel the Arabs from Hebron's
vegetable market and the city's central bus station,
as well as from dozens of private houses. In this, the
Hebron municipality proved an obstacle, since it
resisted the settlers' encroachments through all the
means at its disposal, such as appealing to Israel's
Supreme Court. The settlers, therefore, started a
campaign against the acting mayor, Mustafa Natshe,
the deputy of Fahd Kawasma (who was expelled in
1980~ also at the settIer.s' instigation). At the same
time, the settlers opened a new wave of,
provocations and attacks on the city's population.
Whoever killed an armed yeshiva student in the
market of Hebron played straight into the settlers'
hands. Within hours, hundreds of settlers entered the
market and set it on fire, in a well-coordinated
action, obviously planned well in advance of the
pretext; late at night, the government dissolved the
Hebron Municipality, appointing as "mayor" an
Israeli official [ominously, this official is an expert
on land-ownership questions); and the settlers were
able to use the murder in order to present
themselves to Israeli public opinion as innocent
victims.
However, their victory wasn't complete. The
Israeli Peace Movement rallied its forces and held a
series of demonstrations in Hebron, despite the
settlers' strong objections; the city's vegetable
market, though occupied several days by the army,
was returned to the Arab merchants, to the great
disappointment of the fanatics; and the central bus
station, their second immediate target, was held
beyond their grasp by a temporary order of the
Supreme Court, pending its final decision.
On the very day the Supreme Court delivered
this injunction, the murderous attack on the Islamic
University of Hebron took place. Three students
were killed and thirty wounded. In the aftermath of
this, discriminatory measures were imposed: a
curfew on the Arab population, the victims, while
the settlers went armed, "patrolling" the streets.
It is no accident that, in a radio interview the
day after, Rabbi Levinger voiced openly, for the
first time, his true objective: the complete expulsion
of the Arabs from Hebron. However, Levinger, and
the government supporting him, have not yet won.
The Battle For Hebron is on, and to win it, the
Israeli Peace Movement will have to muster a
determination as great as Levinger's.
Comment
Can the Americans save us
from ourselves?
This article was written several weeks before
the statements made by American officials, in favor
of letting existing Israeli settlements remain in the
occupied territories. Of course. these statements
reinforce the theme of the article.
I think it was the American diplomat George
Ball who first articulated' the idea that the U.S.should force Israel to change its policy vis-a-vis the
Arabs - stopping settlement of the West Bank and
returning all or most of the occupied territories -
thereby "saving Israel from itself." At one and the
same time such a policy would further the best
interest of the United States and, indeed, save Israel
from its own foolhardiness.
Many notable Israeli "doves" tend to accept
this concept. So much so, that the American press
was able to quote some of the most influential
doves - mainly from the Labour Party, among them
Abba Eban - as urging Washington to stop the
massive flow of money and arms to Israel. Such
action would not only bring about a halt to creeping
annexation but might even, presumably, bring down
the Begin government.
According to this scenario, the new
government (Labour, naturally) would willingly
acquiesce to the wishes of the Administration and
peace would reign forever and ever, Amen. Curtain.
[page 7]
(Needless to say that following the uproar in the Knesset and in the press and the sustained attack on the Labour Alignment, all these "sources of
information" denied ever having pronounced such
unpatriotic sentiments.)
This little incident describes, as well as most,
the basic malaise of the "official" or "loyal" peace
camp in Israel.
Many Israeli peaceniks subscribe to Ball's
underlying assumption, namely, that the U.S. is
opposed to the policy of the Begin government with
regard to annexation of the occupied territories,
settlement there, and the incorporation of Arab
Jerusalem and the Golan - not to mention the war
in Lebanon. They believe that this assumption
represents the bottom line in American foreign
policy and they too quote chapter and verse to
prove it: the Rogers Plan, pronouncements by
leading American spokesmen (who no doubt believe
in what they say), American commitment to
Resolution 242 and their general opposition to the
idea of acquiring territory by force.
Unfortunately, in real life one has to
distinguish between words and deeds, between good
intentions and politics, between fact and fiction.
The fact of the matter is that the U.S. talks from
both sides of its mouth and the reasons for this are
not hard to pinpoint.
The U.S. has many friends - Or clients, or
satellites (did I hear someone say vassals?) - on both
sides of the Israel-Arab conflict, and they are
certainly not adverse to making more. The
Americans are a friendly people. And as a
responsible international power they would never
dream of openly condoning agression, annexation of
Arab territory or the confiscation of the lands of
poor fellahin for the greater glory of some crackpot
fanatic settlers. (Although recently U.S. Ambassador
to the U.N., Mrs. Jean Kilpatrick, denied that the
settlements were "illegal"). In order to test
American intentions - or bottom line policy - one
has to examine not the pronouncements but the
hard facts: what they are actually doing and, even
more important, what they are not doing.
Since 1967 America has been. supporting Israel
with money - in the form of grants and loans - and
other kinds of assistance. The flow of weaponry has
turned into an. avalanche. There are lots of 'strictures
on the use of these weapons but happily the
semantics of "defence" is less' strict.
Since 1967, that is, ten years of Labour
Aligment and five years of Likud, Israel's grip on the
territories has tightened, America's support for
Israel's incursion into Lebanon is too obvious to be
denied, although in part it was sub-rosa, the
Haig-Sharon deal later to surface as the "strategic
understanding" - which enabled an ecstatic Arik
Sharon to pronounce the Soviet Union (and not the
Arabs! ) as Israel's foremost enemy.
So now, perhaps inadvertently, trying to win
points wi th the Americans, Sharon gives the game
away: behind American support for Israel is
American global policy. Nothing less. At the root of
U.S. policy in the Middle East is the threat of Russia
- as American sees it, and the aim of all thhe
American administrations has been to counteract
the influence of its adversary.
This "bottom line" determinant has become
more pronounced and more explicit under Reagan,
who sees any conflict - anywhere from the Middle
East to Central America - as part of the global
conflict.
Singling out Israel for the strongest support
makes a good deal of sense in light of the general
instability of the region and its various regimes,
especially after the fiasco in Iran, previously the
U.S.'s strongest ally in the area. Certainly Israel is
today America's most dependable ally. And who
would want to antagonize a really good friend with
such trifles as annexation and settlement?
Since 1967, when Israel proved its military
supremacy over all the Arab countries, not only has
it not antagonized Washington, it has again and
again proved its dependability as an ally.
In view of all this, the heartfelt hopes of large
parts of the Israel peace movement that America
will "save Israel from itself" are groundless and
reveal a basic misunderstanding, Of course, America
is in a position to force Israel to withdraw from the
occupied territories. (Remember Eisenhower's
telephone call to Ben Gurion in 1956?) But it does
not believe that it is in its interest to do so.
As long as Israel's overall policy suits American
global strategy, there is absolutely no reason on
earth for America to withhold money and arms. If
the Israeli 'peace movement wants to save Israel
from itself, it had first better find out if the tail is
really wagging the dog. In real life, he who pays the
piper calls the tune.
Shmuel Amir
THE OTHER ISRAEL
P.O.B. 956
TEL AVIV, ISRAEL
PLEASE SEND A SUBSCRIPTION TO:
Name .
Addres .
Subscription rate:
$30 for 6 months
$50 for 12 months
Note to our readers: Some of you have
written to us complaining that our subscription
rate is too high. We would like to assure you
that we are not out to make money out of this
newsletter. An we want is to spread a message
of peace. But in our world, that costs a lot!
However, interested subscribers who find it
difficult to raise this sum are invited to pay
according to their ability for 6 months.
[page 8]
Withdrawal - or partition of
Lebanon?
While these lines are being written, fourteen
months have already passed since the Israeli invasion
of Lebanon started. The intended "quick and
elegant war" which has killed thousands of Arabs
and more than 500 Israelis (not to mention the
many injured, homeless and displaced persons), now
enters the stage of preparations for the Israeli army's
second winter in Lebanon.
The recent decision by the Israeli government
to withdraw gradually, over the next three months,
to the Awaly river, is to be accompanied by
intensive fortification, road building, etc. Huge
sums are to be spent, from Israel's already very
meager budget, on digging in Lebanese soil, about
30 to 50 miles north of the Israeli border. A large
part of the money can be expected to go into the
pockets of civilian contractors, increasing social
inequality in Israel. No withdrawal at all is being
envisaged on the eastern sector, facing the Syrian
positions.
The reason officially given for the continued
Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon is the Syrian
presence in the northern and eastern parts of that
country. However, when the Syrian army entered
Lebanon in 1976, with the intention of crushing the
PLO and its Lebanese allies, it received not only an
express invitation 'from the Lebanese government
and a mandate from the Arab League, but also a
tacit go-alread from the Israeli government. Nor did
any Israeli government, either Labor or Likud, voice
any demand for Syrian withdrawal prior to 1982.
The Syrians, for their part, remained remarkably
quiet and never made any move threatening Israel.In June '82 they did everything possible to stay out
of the fighting, and signed, on June 11th, a separate
cease fire, leaving the Palestinians in Beirut to fight
alone. Moreover, very recently Ha'olam Hazeh
reported an Israeli naval blockade of PLO bases in
the north Lebanese port of Tripoli, in concert with
the land blockade by the Syrian army. All this
evidence of the true attitude, past and present, of
the Israeli government to Syrian presence in
Lebanon, removes all credibility from its official
position.
The government's refusal to put an end to
its presence in Lebanon raises the suspicion that it
has no intention whatsoever to end the Lebanon
adventure, despite the growing demand of Israeli
public opinion. Very possibly, the government may
prefer continued Syrian presence, leading to a
partition of Lebanon between Syria and Israel.
The ICIPP does not accept this logic, which is
squandering Israel's resources and the lives of her
soldiers. Perhaps, the Lebanese government and the
Arab League can achieve the withdrawal of Syrian
troops, once the Israeli withdrawal from all
Lebanon is complete; in any case, this is a matter to
be discussed solely between Lebanon and Syria, and
is no reason for a continued Israeli occupation. The
ICIPP demands an immediate and complete Israeli
withdrawal from Lebanon, as a first and necessary
step towards an overall solution of the Israeli-Arab
and Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel Loeff
Jerusalem
Supplement
As we had, in this issue, a lot of material
concerning the meetings and activities of
ICIPP members, it was decided to form the
material into this special supplement.
ICIPP Activities
In the period covered here, lCIPP members,
met publicly twice with PLO representatives.
Both meetings took place, by no previous design,
on East European soil - one in Prague and the
other in Moscow. They are described fully in the
following articles. In the same period, Uri Avnery
visited West Germany and other European
countries. During those visits he met with PLO
representatives, as well as with a wide range of
political figures.
ICIPP members closely followed
developments in the occupied territories, and
took an active part in various protests and
demonstrations. Uri Avnery visited Daheishe
refugee camp on June 8th, after it was subjected
to harsh collective punishments.
On July Ist, the
ICIPP sent a telegram of support to the Hebron
municipality, when the government's intention to
dissolve it became evident. A week later, on July
9th, Matti Peled was stopped' at an army
roadblock and prevented from meeting Hebron's
deposed Mayor. On July 18th, Uri Avnery
protested strongly, in a telegram to the Defence
Minister, a reported intention to depose
Bethlehem's mayor, Elias Freij, as well.
On July
27th, a day after the attack on Hebron's Islamic
University, Uri Avnery visited the wounded, met
with eye-witnesses of the attack, and publicly
denounced the authorities' deliberately
ineffectual investigation.
On July 31st, Uri
Avnery received an official invitation by the U.N.
secretariat for a delegation of the ICIPP to take
part in the preparatory conference on Palestine,
which was held in Geneva on July 4th. The
invitation was issued on May 31st and sent, so it
seems, through the Israeli Delegation at the UN. It was held up by the Israeli Foreign Office for
two months before reaching its destination.
On July 14th ICIPP members took a
leading part in organising a protest petition
against police harassment of the Ibna Al-Balad
("Sons of The Village") movement. Several
members of this movement, which is active in
Israel's Arab villages, were arrested after
participating in a public meeting in Italy,
together with Uri Avnery and an aide of Yassir
Arafat, Imad Shakur. On July 14th, dozens of
public figures from many political currents signed
a petition protesting those arrests. The petition
was published in Ha'aretz.
The ICIPP officially asked the
Attorney-General to rule on the question, if the
use of the ICIPP emblem is legal. The emblem
consists of the crossed flags of Israel and
Palestine. In the past, the police several times
arrested people wearing that emblem 'on their
lapels, and on May 31th, it confiscated the
emblem displayed at the memorial meeting for
Dr. Sartawi, in Tel-Aviv, The ICIPP legal experts
regard this as illegal harassernent, and they asked
the Attorney-General to instruct the police to
stop it.
ICIPP members also raised their voices on a
wide range of issues such as police infringement
of artistic freedom (see Chronicles, 30/6); the
intention of coalition Knesset members to limit a
new welfare law to Jews only, and exclude Arabs
from its benefits; the sale of Israeli arms to
U.S.A.-" backed mercenaries operating against the
Sandinist government of Nicaragua; and other
issues too numerous to list here.
The ICIPP calls upon its friends to make
financial contributions that will enable us to
extend our activities in Israel, in the occupied
territories and internationally.
Meetings in Prague
On June 25th, 1983, in the context of an
international conference that was held in Prague,
a meeting took place between PLO Chairman
Yassir Arafat, and members of the Israeli
delegation to the conference. Among the Israelis
who took part in the meeting were members of
the ICIPP, the CSBU/CAWL, the Israeli
Communist Party (Rakah) and various
organisations allied with it. The meeting received
wide publlcity in the Israeli media, and is
particulary significant since it took place at the
very time the Fatah "rebels" were demanding to
put an end to all such meetings. The following is
the personal account given 'by Dr. Yehuda
("Judd") Ne'eman, an Israeli film director,
physician and decorated war veteran, who is a
member of both the ICIPP and the CAWL.
"The thing which most impressed me, when I
met Arafat, was the contrast between his real
personality and his image in the media. While in
public he sometimes appears to be tough,
aggressive and uncompromising, a personal
meeting reveals him to be a polite, gentle,
somewhat delicate person.
In our discussions, he
emphasized a point that he had already made in
public: his support for the right of all the peoples
in the Middle East, including the Palestinian and
Israeli peoples, to peace and security. This is a
complete change from the position of "The
Palestinian Charter", which regarded the Jews as
a religious community without national rights.
Arafat also reiterated his support for the Fez
Summit resolutions, and for the Brezjniev Peace
Plan, which specifically mentions "the Security of
the State of Israel". The meeting was held in a
warm and friendly atmosphere. Afterwards some
Palestinians who had waited outside joked: "Not
only have you' taken our land, now you have
taken our leader as well".
"I hope this meeting has strenghened Arafat's
and the PLO's willingness to talk with Zionists whose positions on the conflict are cornpatiahle
with those of PLO moderates, I have stressed this
point, particularly because The Prague
Conference had adopted a strong anti-Zionist
resolution.
I have stated my position, that
Zionism is a national liberation movement which
bas degenerated, and whose past should not be
judged by its present. I also pointed out. to
Arafat and other Palestinians, that anti-Zionist
slogans are alienating a large part "of the Israeli
Peace .Camp, and that eventually the Palestinians
will have to negotiate with an Israeli government
composed of Zionists '- just as that government
will have to negotiate with the PLO.
"The most moving moment, for me, occured
at the conference's first day, when I saw in a
corridor a familiar face that I couldn't place at
first. I approached him and asked "Do you
remember me?". He looked at me for a moment
and then asked: "Nablus Prison or Tull-Karm
Prison?" Then I answered "Nablus Prison" and
we embraced.
The man's name is Tayasir Kuba,
and he is an important member of George
Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of
Palestine (PFLP). I first met him in 1968, when
he was serving a three year term at Nablus Prison,
while I, a young physician, did some medical
work in the prison.
That was just a year after the
1967 War. I was then quite confused, I suddenly
realized there were many things I didn't know. I
sought to make contact with the Palestinian
prisoners, and since Tayasir knew English, I was
able to talk with him. We had about ten private
conversations.
I now realize that these
conversations formed an important part of my
political education, They freed me from many
prejudices I previously held about the Arabs, like
"Arabs are towards", "Arab culture is backward
and primitive", etc. Then, after several months,
he was released and deported to Jordan, while I
ceased to work at the prison."
In our Prague meeting, T'ayasir told me he
had already been a member of the PFLF in 1968,
though at the time he didn't, of course, admit it.
This meeting had a great personal significance for
me, aside from its political importance. On the
political side, in talking with Tayasir and with his
PFLP colleague, Bassam Abu-Sharif, I was
impressed with their moderate positions, which
were in contrast to the PFLP's image as an
extremist 'rejection front' organisation. Once
again I realized the depth of the misconceptions
of the Palestinians and the PLO prevalent in
Israel".
An Israeli peace delegation
to the Soviet Union
On July 15, 1983, an Israeli peace delegation
arrived in Moscow, as guests of the Soviet Peace
Committee. The delegation included M.K.s
Shulamit Aloni and Aharon Har'el of the Labor
Alignment, Maj. Gen. [Res.] Mattityahu Peled of
the ICIPP, Leut.Col. (Res.) Benni Barabash of
"Peace Now", Nimer Murkus, Chairman of the
Municipal Council of Kfar Yassif, and Uzi Burstein
of Rakah (the Communist Party).
The delegation visited Moscow, Leningrad and
Kiev, and held discussions with members of the
Soviet Peace Committee, the Institute for Oriental
Studies, the Institute for American and Canadian
Studies, and various other organisations.
Yuri Prirnakov, a senior Soviet expert on the
Middle East, made clear that the Soviet Union
supports Yassir Arafat, and will not accept a retum
to the situation of Ahmed Shukeiri's time, when the
PLO was completly dependent on a foreign Arab
state (at that time Egypt). The Soviet experts
regard the Fatah "Rebels" as having little weight or
coherence. On the question of'diplomatic relations
between the Soviet Union and Israel, the Soviet
position makes such relations dependent on a
substantial change in Israeli policy.
In its letter to the Soviet Peace Committee,
aceepting the invitation to the U.S.S.R., the
delegation set itself three goals: to encourage the
search for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict, based on the right of both sides to
self-determination; to press for an immediate and
unconditional. withdrawal of the Israeli Forces from
Lebanon; and to express support for the proposal to
discuss ways and means to end the Israeli-Arab
conflict in an international peace conference, where
all the parties involved will participate, together
with the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union.
During the visit the delegation became
convinced that these three goals could be achieved,
and that the Soviet Union was willing, to contribute
towards their achievement. The delegation was also
impressed with the wide-spread desire for peace in
the Soviet Union - a desire which stems from the
very vivid memory of the horrors of WorId War II.
While in Moscow, the delegation requested a
meeting with the PLO charge d'affairs in Moscow,
Mr. Rami Ash-Shaer, to discuss with him the
problem of exchanging prisoners of war held by both
Israel and the PLO. Matti Peled had been.specifically
asked by the families of the Israeli POW's and those
of the missing soldiers to take up the matter with
the PLO office in Moscow.
The meeting was arranged and Mr. Ash-Shaer graciously invited the delegation to dinner at his
residence. Unfortunately, the two M.K.s decided at
the last moment to refuse the invitation. Benni
Barabash called the "Peace Now" leadership in
Jerusalem, and was instructed to turn down the
invitation as well. The three remaining members of
the delegation - Messrs Peled, Burstein and Murkus
- did, however, accept the invitation, and rraised the
question of the exchange of POW's and related
matters.
A second meeting was agreed upon, to be
held after Mr. Ash-Shaer had a chance to consult the
PLO leadership. At the second meeting, a detailed
proposal in writing was submitted by the Israeli
participants for consideration by the PLO
leardership. It is expected that that leadership's
response will be transmitted shortly.