Ellul is Here...and Jonathan Pollard Remains in the Pit

Ellul is Here...and Jonathan Pollard Remains in the Pit
by HaRav Shlomo Aviner
Makor Rishon - August 17, 2007
[Originally published in Hebrew and English August 7, 2002]
[provided by J4JP]

JONATHAN POLLARD MOURNS IN THE PIT. He mourns silently, without tears. He mourns not for himself, but for Joseph Ha'Tzaddik who was thrown into the pit, and for all the subsequent "Josephs" who were thrown into all kinds of pits. Jonathan is the current "Joseph" through which our nation is being tested. He is mourning for his brothers' still-unrectified sin of selling
the original Joseph.

JONATHAN REFLECTS IN THE PIT. He has been there for almost twenty-two years.That is a long time for reflection. He still asks the same questions that remain unanswered. Why is his sentence so much more severe than anyone else who committed a similar offense in the U.S.? Why is he the only one in the history of the U.S. to get a life sentence for passing classified
information to an ally? And why is his life sentence more severe than even those who spied for enemy nations?

Jonathan was never accused, indicted or convicted of treason. The only charge against him was one count of passing classified information to an ally, with no intent to harm the U.S. So why did he receive a life sentence, a punishment that the U.S. reserves for traitors? He passed information to Israel which the United States was obligated to share with Israel according to a 1983 letter of understanding signed by the two nations. Why did the
U.S. blindside Israel?

Why is Jonathan being singled out for such severe treatment? Why are his cleared attorneys not permitted to see the classified portions of his own court docket? Why is such a terrible injustice being perpetrated against him? Why?

JONATHAN ACHES IN THE PIT. He is aching for his brothers who threw him into it. He remembers that they promised him: "You are our brother. We will protect you. If you ever need us, just go straight to the Israeli Embassy in Washington and let us handle everything. Yet when he sought refuge at the Embassy, as he recalls all too well, they threw him out - right into the waiting arms of the law. Not only did his brothers deliver Jonathan up, they
also provided the documents that were used to incriminate him.

JONATHAN TREMBLES IN THE PIT. In the course of his 22 years of incarceration he remembers every one of the numerous episodes of physical privation and pain. He still recalls his first days at Springfield, a prison facility for the criminally insane - he was not a patient. They stripped him of his clothes and his glasses and threw him into a cold, empty cell with nothing
in it but a hard metal slab for a bed. He was held in freezing cold temperatures, completely naked, for the entire year of his stay there. Once a month, federal agents would come to the facility to interrogate Jonathan.

They would throw a blanket over him so that they would not have to see his nakedness during the interrogation. They would show him a list of prominent Jewish American names and tell him that if he wanted to get out of Springfield to put an "X" beside any of the names as his co-conspirators.

Jonathan would not cooperate. He would not sell out his brothers. Not even to save himself.

Even now, Jonathan is still in a pit - the pit of life a life sentence. Other prisoners come and go. The murderers, the rapists, the thieves, the con-men, the drug dealers and baby-rapers, they all go home. Only Jonathan remains. Unlike long-term prisoners in Israel, Jonathan has never had a furlough; he is never permitted to be alone with his wife; he is completely bereft of the opportunity to have children; he does not receive kosher food and is not even allowed to learn in Hebrew. His only ray of light is his beloved wife, Esther, who visits him regularly with great devotion.

JONATHAN IS ABANDONED IN THE PIT. In 1985 when he was arrested by the U.S., Israel promptly abandoned him by lying and denying his official connection to the Jewish State. It took 10 years and a series of lawsuits before Israel officially acknowledged him in 1995, granting him citizenship. It took another lawsuit and 3 more years before Israel admitted in 1998 that Jonathan was an official agent of the State -- as if this were some sort of gesture! It was no gesture. These were hard-won victories for truth which Jonathan fought for, both in and out of court, for over a decade! All of Jonathan's tasking orders as an agent were approved by the head of Israel Military Intelligence. Why hasn't the State of Israel moved Earth and high Heaven to free him? Why has it missed so many opportunities? Could there be
any greater injustice?

JONATHAN IS DEFAMED IN THE PIT. Over the years, self-serving Israeli officials have leaked cruel lies to the media which undermine Jonathan's fight for freedom. American Jewish leaders do the same in attempt to distance themselves from the case. The Jewish leaders all seem to conveniently "forget" that Jonathan is an Israeli agent in peril. In 1998 the government of Israel admitted that Jonathan was a bona fide agent. But when it suits their purposes, Jewish officials still exploit the old lies that Jonathan was a rogue agent and a mercenary! They lie about his personality and his mental state; they lie about his wife; they lie about his worth. They even make a deal to "trade" Jonathan for 750 Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands. The terrorists are released, but no one in Israel remembers to collect Jonathan! Why was that deal ever made? Is that what Jonathan is worth in their eyes? Does he have blood on his hands? Him??

JONATHAN POLLARD IS EXPLOITED IN THE PIT. In Pollard's 16th year of incarceration, the Israeli Government and the American Jewish leadership expended all its political energy to secure a pardon for an American billionaire criminal fugitive from the law, who gave generously to their causes. They used Pollard as the "throw-away" to get the pardon and left
Israel's agent to rot in prison. When the deep involvement of the Israel Government and the American Jewish leadership in this scheme was revealed, it caused sufficient embarrassment so that press statements were made pledging to "now redouble efforts for Pollard." No such efforts have ever occurred.

JONATHAN AGONIZES IN THE PIT. He agonizes over his brothers who used him and then turned their backs on him. He tried every way he could think of to get vital information to Israel legally, but failed. In fear for the Jewish lives that might be lost, Jonathan broke the law by giving the information to Israel. He deserved to be punished, but surely the punishment ought to fit the crime. Thanks to Jonathan , Israel learned about terror attacks being planned against its citizens and thanks to Jonathan Israel learned that Syria, Iraq, Libya and Iran were preparing atomic, chemical and biological weapons for use against it. Today there are gas masks and sealed rooms in every home in Israel, thanks to Jonathan.

For this, Jonathan was singled out for the harshest treatment that the American Justice System could dish out, and Israel never said a word. Israel never protested even when the Americans broke every promise they made, including the promise not to use the documents Israel returned against Pollard; and the promise to free Jonathan as an integral part of the Wye Accords. Even when Michael Schwartz, the non-Jewish American Navy officer who spied for Saudi Arabia, got not a day in prison for the same offense that landed Jonathan a life sentence, Israel never protested.

Once a year in the Knesset, they make grand speeches about Jonathan, give wonderful press statements, and hold photo-ops ... but 22 years later Jonathan is still in the pit. Sometimes government officials even make promises. But they have yet to keep a single one. When Pollard's name appears in the Israeli press, it is not for his benefit, but so that they can exploit his plight for unrelated and unholy purposes. Jonathan is suffering in the pit; but what hurts him most of all is the way his own brothers have betrayed him.

JONATHAN REMEMBERS IN THE PIT. His brothers forgot him, but he did not forget them. He still cares deeply about Israel. He loves Israel. He worries about Israel. He is a very bright man, a man of rare genius. He is constantly thinking about the future of Israel, searching for solutions to resolve the country's energy crisis, her economic situation and security dilemmas. From his scant resources - neither he nor his wife receive a cent from the Government of Israel and they are in dire financial straits - he contributes to charitable organizations in Israel; he prays for those wounded in terrorist attacks; and sends his wife to comfort the mourners of terror victims. Dear brothers! Jonathan does not forget us! How can we
forget him!

JONATHAN WEEPS IN THE PIT. He weeps tears of blood. For almost twenty-two years Jonathan has been in the pit. He touches the cold walls, touches the darkness, touches his aching head and his diseased sinuses. He thinks when will I get out of here? He no longer believes in salvation coming from the Chief Butler or the Chief Baker, from this Minister from America or that one from Israel -- but only from the Master of the Universe.

Yet he is not alone in the pit. G-d is with him. G-d is his Rock and Fortress, shining His countenance upon him and sustaining him through it all. Even in the pit, Jonathan remains righteous like Joseph Ha'tzaddik.

There are negative influences all around him seeking to corrupt his soul, but he holds fast to his faith and to the truth. G-d is always with him in the pit.

MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE! PLEASE HEAR AND ANSWER OUR PRAYERS! "As for our brethren of the whole House of Israel, who are in distress and in captivity, on land or on sea, may G-d have mercy on them and deliver them from dire straits to relief, from darkness to light, and from servitude to redemption, speedily and very soon!" Amain! (Excerpt from Shacharit prayers).

MAY HE WHO BROUGHT JOSEPH OUT OF THE PIT, BRING JONATHAN OUT AS WELL! And may there soon be fulfilled through the brave and courageous Jonathan, the words: "O L-rd, You have raised my soul from She'ol [Hell]. You have kept me alive, that I should not descend to the Pit." (Psalms 30:4) Amain! Ken yihi ratzon!

======

Biographical Note
Rabbi Shlomo Aviner is the author of over thirty books on Jewish Law,
Philosophy and Biblical commentary. He is regularly featured in many
newspapers and magazines, commenting on current events and topics of Jewish
interest. Rabbi Aviner is currently Rosh Yeshiva of Ateret Kohanim in the
Old City of Jerusalem and Rabbi of Bet-El.

See Also:
Original English publication of the above article (Aug. 7, 2002)
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2002/080702.htm
Original Hebrew publication of the above article (Aug. 7, 2002)
http://www.freepollard.net/inside/NewsInside.asp?itemId=328
Makor Rishon Ad (Aug. 17, 2007): Ellul is Here and Jonathan Remains in the
Pit Click here for pdf ; Click here for jpeg
Where is Jonathan? - Rabbi Shlomo Aviner
The Facts Page
The Court Case Page
Terror in The U.S. and the Jonathan Pollard Case - Larry Dub Esq.

UK blocks Israel arms deals

UK blocks Israel arms deals
By GEORGE CONGER
JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
LONDON
Aug. 14, 2007 0:14 | Updated Aug. 14, 2007 15:07

The British government has blocked almost one third of British military exports to Israel this year, citing possible threats to regional stability and fears the equipment might facilitate human rights violations.

According to official figures, the value of UK military sales arms to Israel declined by one third last year, and has fallen by a drastic 75 percent since 2005.

"There is evidence that the British government's export control policy to Israel may have been tightened up," said Parliament's new 2007 Strategic Export Controls report, issued by the Quadrapartite Commission, which comprises representatives from four ministries.

The change in policy, said the report, reflects a convergence of government attitudes with its own official guidelines.

The report comes amid a period of uncertainty in Anglo-Israeli relations.

While the new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has voiced public support for Israel and has appointed several pro-Israel MPs to cabinet positions, he has alsopromoted a leading critic of US and Israeli policy, former UN deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch Brown, to a key Foreign Office post.

Outside of government, the opposition Liberal Democrat party has called for a rethinking of arms sales to Israel, while in May the UK's Legal Services Commission, the state agency that provides funding for attorney's fees for indigent defendants, agreed to underwrite the costs of litigation brought by a Palestinian man in a British court seeking a ban on arms sales to Israel.

The August 7 Quadripartite Committee report largely praised the government's overall handling of strategic exports but warned that the rapid pace of technological change and rising threat of terrorism required increased state vigilance.

"Any gaps in the legislation could have serious consequences for the UK," it concluded.

However, it criticized as "unclear" the British government's policies on arms sales to Israel.

While the "case-by-case" approach gave the government a "flexibility" that allowed a "latitude to adjust policy without the need for public explanation," its arms sales policies towards Israel were "neither transparent nor accountable," the panel found.

The committee asked that "the government explain its policy on licensing exports to Israel, Jordan or other countries in the Middle East and that it explain whether it has adjusted its policy since 1997 as events in the Occupied Territories and Middle East have unfolded."

"We further recommend that the government explain how it assesses whether there is a clear risk‚ that a proposed export to Israel might be used for internal repression," it said.

Statistics published by the committee showed that arms exports to Israel totaled 14.5 million pounds last year (about $29 million), compared to GBP 22.5 million in 2005. Between 1997 and 2006 Britain granted Israel 1561 Standard Individual Export Licenses (SIELs) valued at GBP 113 million. During the same period it authorized 626 SIELs valued at GBP 136.5 million for shipment to Jordan.

However, over the last 10 years, 190 application for military sales to Israel have been prohibited, comprising 11 percent of all applications for sales of military equipment. During the same period, only two such applications were rejected for military and restricted goods bound for Jordan.

The British government reported it had approved 37 military SIELs to Israel in the first quarter of 2007 valued at GBP 1.5 million, a rate that if held constant throughout the year would cut British sales to Israel by three quarters since 2005.

The UK also blocked 11 SIELs to Israel in the first three months of 2007: three for airborne guidance systems, four for information security systems and equipment, one for munitions, one for fire control equipment, one for electronic components, and one for specialty aluminum alloys.

Three SIELs for the sale of radar and avionics guidance systems to a third country for use in aircraft destined for the IAF were blocked this year also.

The 14 rejected SIELs violated various "Consolidated EU and National Arms Licensing Criteria," the Foreign Office stated, citing concerns the shipments would not respect "human rights and the fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination," would worsen the "the internal situation in the country of final destination;" and would harm "regional peace, security and stability."

One SIEL was denied due to the "behavior of the buyer country with regard to the international community; in particular its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances and respect for international law," while concerns the equipment would be "diverted" for non-approved uses or "re-exported under undesirable conditions" were cited in rejecting three SIELs.

The Foreign Office said in its annual human rights report to Parliament that "progress on improving the human rights situation" in Israel and the territories had been "limited."

Testifying before the committee on March 15, foreign secretary Margaret Beckett stated that the Foreign Office kept a "close eye" on the uses made by the IDF of British military equipment.

The then-foreign secretary said: "If we discovered that equipment had been sold to Israel and was being used contrary to agreed terms, we would regard that with grave concern and we would make sure we did not issue licenses for such equipment in the future."

Beckett said at the time that Britain's total arms sales to Israel were slight. "I believe something like 0.1% of Israel's total arms imports comes from the United Kingdom, and we have not sold main equipment like tanks or artillery or warships to Israel since 1997," she said, noting the Blair government had "visibly conformed" to EU guidelines not to sell equipment that might harm regional peace, security and stability in the Middle East.

During last year's Second Lebanon War, the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat party urged the government to review its arms sales to Israel.

Sir Menzies Campbell said the government "must now comply with its own arms export rules and institute an immediate suspension of all UK arms exports to Israel."

Pressure is also being exerted through the courts to end arms sales to Israel.

Last November, Public Interest Lawyers, in cooperation with the Palestinian rights group, al-Haq, filed suit against the British government on behalf of Saleh Hasan of Bethlehem. Hasan claimed the sale of military goods to Israel violated British export guidelines and contributed to his "oppression" as a Palestinian by Israel.

Phil Shiner, head of Public Interest Lawyers, stated the crux of their case was whether the British government had met its own criteria about what it can and cannot do in terms of arms exports where there is a risk of internal repression in another country.

In May, a spokesman for the Legal Services Commission said Hasan's lawsuit was receiving legal aid as a test case.

"The fact that applicants may live abroad is not a factor under the legal aid scheme," he told The Times. "The key is whether the case involves issues of English law and will be tried in this jurisdiction."

The case is scheduled for a court hearing in October.

In 2006 Lebanon War, Most Crimes Were Israeli

In 2006 Lebanon War, Most Crimes Were Israeli
August 17, 2007
by Jonathan Cook

This week marks a year since the end of hostilities now officially called the Second Lebanon war by Israelis. A month of fighting – mostly Israeli aerial bombardment of Lebanon, and rocket attacks from the Shi'ite militia Hezbollah on northern Israel in response – ended with more than 1,000 Lebanese civilians and a small but unknown number of Hezbollah fighters dead, as well as 119 Israeli soldiers and 43 civilians.

When Israel and the United States realized that Hezbollah could not be bombed into submission, they pushed a resolution, 1701, through the United Nations. It placed an expanded international peacekeeping force, UNIFIL, in south Lebanon to keep Hezbollah in check and try to disarm its few thousand fighters.

But many significant developments since the war have gone unnoticed, including several that seriously put in question Israel's account of what happened last summer. This is old ground worth revisiting for that reason alone.

The war began on 12 July, when Israel launched waves of air strikes on Lebanon after Hezbollah killed three soldiers and captured two more on the northern border. (A further five troops were killed by a land mine when their tank crossed into Lebanon in hot pursuit.) Hezbollah had long been warning that it would seize soldiers if it had the chance, in an effort to push Israel into a prisoner exchange. Israel has been holding a handful of Lebanese prisoners since it withdrew from its two-decade occupation of south Lebanon in 2000.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who has been widely blamed for the army's failure to subdue Hezbollah, appointed the Winograd Committee to investigate what went wrong. So far Winograd has been long on pointing out the country's military and political failures and short on explaining how the mistakes were made or who made them. Olmert is still in power, even if hugely unpopular.

In the meantime, there is every indication that Israel is planning another round of fighting against Hezbollah after it has "learned the lessons" from the last war. The new defense minister, Ehud Barak, who was responsible for the 2000 withdrawal, has made it a priority to develop anti-missile systems such as "Iron Dome" to neutralize the rocket threat from Hezbollah, using some of the recently announced $30 billion of American military aid.

It has been left to the Israeli media to begin rewriting the history of last summer. Last weekend, an editorial in the liberal Haaretz newspaper went so far as to admit that this was

"a war initiated by Israel against a relatively small guerrilla group."

Israel's supporters, including high-profile defenders like Alan Dershowitz in the US who claimed that Israel had no choice but to bomb Lebanon, must have been squirming in their seats.

There are several reasons why Haaretz may have reached this new assessment.

• Recent reports have revealed that one of the main justifications for Hezbollah's continuing resistance – that Israel failed to withdraw fully from Lebanese territory in 2000 – is now supported by the UN.
  
• Last month its cartographers quietly admitted that Lebanon is right in claiming sovereignty over a small fertile area known as the Shebaa Farms, still occupied by Israel.
  
• Israel argues that the territory is Syrian and will be returned in future peace talks with Damascus, even though Syria backs Lebanon's position.
  
• The UN's admission has been mostly ignored by the international media.

• One of Israel's main claims during the war was that it made every effort to protect Lebanese civilians from its aerial bombardments.
  
• The casualty figures suggested otherwise, and increasingly so too does other evidence.

• A shocking aspect of the war was Israel's firing of at least a million cluster bombs, old munitions supplied by the US with a failure rate as high as 50 per cent, in the last days of fighting.
  
• The tiny bomblets, effectively small land mines, were left littering south Lebanon after the UN-brokered ceasefire, and are reported so far to have killed 30 civilians and wounded at least another 180.
  
• Israeli commanders have admitted firing 1.2 million such bomblets, while the UN puts the figure closer to 3 million.

At the time, it looked suspiciously as if Israel had taken the brief opportunity before the war's end to make south Lebanon – the heartland of both the country's Shi'ite population and its militia, Hezbollah – uninhabitable, and to prevent the return of hundreds of thousands of Shi'ites who had fled Israel's earlier bombing campaigns.

Israel's use of cluster bombs has been described as a war crime by human rights organizations. According to the rules set by Israel's then-chief of staff, Dan Halutz, the bombs should have been used only in open and unpopulated areas – although with such a high failure rate, this would have done little to prevent later civilian casualties.

After the war, the army ordered an investigation, mainly to placate Washington, which was concerned at the widely reported fact that it had supplied the munitions. The findings, which should have been published months ago, have yet to be made public.

The delay is not surprising. An initial report by the army, leaked to the Israeli media, discovered that the cluster bombs had been fired into Lebanese population centers in gross violation of international law. The order was apparently given by the head of the Northern Command at the time, Udi Adam. A US State Department investigation reached a similar conclusion.

Another claim, one that Israel hoped might justify the large number of Lebanese civilians it killed during the war, was that Hezbollah fighters had been regularly hiding and firing rockets from among south Lebanon's civilian population. Human rights groups found scant evidence of this, but a senior UN official, Jan Egeland, offered succor by accusing Hezbollah of "cowardly blending."

There were always strong reasons for suspecting the Israeli claim to be untrue. Hezbollah had invested much effort in developing an elaborate system of tunnels and underground bunkers in the countryside, which Israel knew little about, in which it hid its rockets and from which fighters attacked Israeli soldiers as they tried to launch a ground invasion. Also, common sense suggests that Hezbollah fighters would have been unwilling to put their families, who live in south Lebanon's villages, in danger by launching rockets from among them.

Now Israeli front pages are carrying reports from Israeli military sources that put in serious doubt Israel's claims.

Since the war's end Hezbollah has apparently relocated most of its rockets to conceal them from the UN peacekeepers, who have been carrying out extensive searches of south Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah under the terms of Resolution 1701. According to the UNIFIL, some 33 of these underground bunkers – or more than 90 percent – have been located and Hezbollah weapons discovered there, including rockets and launchers, destroyed.

The Israeli media has noted that the Israeli army calls these sites "nature reserves"; similarly, the UN has made no mention of finding urban-based Hezbollah bunkers. Relying on military sources, Haaretz reported last month: "Most of the rockets fired against Israel during the war last year were launched from the 'nature reserves.'" In short, even Israel is no longer claiming that Hezbollah was firing its rockets from among civilians.

According to the UN report, Hezbollah has moved the rockets out of the underground bunkers and abandoned its rural launch pads. Most rockets, it is believed, have gone north of the Litani River, beyond the range of the UN monitors. But some, according to the Israeli army, may have been moved into nearby Shi'ite villages to hide them from the UN.

As a result, Haaretz noted that Israeli commanders had issued a warning to Lebanon that in future hostilities the army "will not hesitate to bomb – and even totally destroy – urban areas after it gives Lebanese civilians the chance to flee." How this would diverge from Israel's policy during the war, when Hezbollah was based in its "nature reserves" but Lebanese civilians were still bombed in their towns and villages, was not made clear.

If the Israeli army's new claims are true (unlike the old ones), Hezbollah's movement of some of its rockets into villages should be condemned. But not by Israel, whose army is breaking international law by concealing its weapons in civilian areas on a far grander scale.

As a first-hand observer of the fighting from Israel's side of the border last year, I noted on several occasions that Israel had built many of its permanent military installations, including weapons factories and army camps, and set up temporary artillery positions next to – and in some cases inside – civilian communities in the north of Israel.

Many of those communities are Arab: Arab citizens constitute about half of the Galilee's population. Locating military bases next to these communities was a particularly reckless act by the army as Arab towns and villages lack the public shelters and air raid warning systems available in Jewish communities. Eighteen of the 43 Israeli civilians killed were Arab – a proportion that surprised many Israeli Jews, who assumed that Hezbollah would not want to target Arab communities.

In many cases it is still not possible to specify where Hezbollah rockets landed because Israel's military censor prevents any discussion that might identify the location of a military site. During the war Israel used this to advantageous effect: for example, it was widely reported that a Hezbollah rocket fell close to a hospital but reporters failed to mention that a large army camp was next to it. An actual strike against the camp could have been described in the very same terms.

It seems likely that Hezbollah, which had flown pilotless spy drones over Israel earlier in the year, similar to Israel's own aerial spying missions, knew where many of these military bases were. The question is, was Hezbollah trying to hit them or – as most observers claimed, following Israel's lead – was it actually more interested in killing civilians?

A full answer may never be possible, as we cannot know Hezbollah's intentions – as opposed to the consequences of its actions – any more than we can discern Israel's during the war.

Human Rights Watch, however, has argued that, because Hezbollah's basic rockets were not precise, every time they were fired into Israel they were effectively targeted at civilians. Hezbollah was therefore guilty of war crimes in using its rockets, whatever the intention of the launch teams. In other words, according to this reading of international law, only Israel had the right to fire missiles and drop bombs because its military hardware is more sophisticated – and, of course, more deadly.

Nonetheless, new evidence suggests strongly that, whether or not Hezbollah had the right to use its rockets, it may often have been trying to hit military targets, even if it rarely succeeded. The Arab Association for Human Rights, based in Nazareth, has been compiling a report on the Hezbollah rocket strikes against Arab communities in the north since last summer. It is not sure whether it will ever be able to publish its findings because of the military censorship laws.

But the information currently available makes for interesting reading. The Association has looked at northern Arab communities hit by Hezbollah rockets, often repeatedly, and found that in every case there was at least one military base or artillery battery placed next to, or in a few cases inside, the community. In some communities there were several such sites.

This does not prove that Hezbollah wanted only to hit military bases, of course. But it does indicate that in some cases it was clearly trying to, even if it lacked the technical resources to be sure of doing so. It also suggests that, in terms of international law, Hezbollah behaved no worse, and probably far better, than Israel during the war.

The evidence so far indicates that Israel:

* established legitimate grounds for Hezbollah's attack on the border post by refusing to withdraw from the Lebanese territory of the Shebaa Farms in 2000;
* initiated a war of aggression by refusing to engage in talks about a prisoner swap offered by Hezbollah;
* committed a grave war crime by intentionally using cluster bombs against south Lebanon's civilians;
* repeatedly hit Lebanese communities, killing many civilians, even though the evidence is that no Hezbollah fighters were to be found there;
* and put its own civilians, especially Arab civilians, in great danger by making their communities targets for Hezbollah attacks and failing to protect them.

It is clear that during the Second Lebanon war, Israel committed the most serious war crimes.

Backlash Over Book on Policy for Israel

Backlash Over Book on Policy for Israel

By PATRICIA COHEN

Published: August 16, 2007

“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” is not even in bookstores, but already anxieties have surfaced about the backlash it is stirring, with several institutions backing away from holding events with the authors.

John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, were not totally surprised by the reaction to their work. An article last spring in the London Review of Books outlining their argument — that a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy — set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. In the book, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and embargoed until Sept. 4, they elaborate on and update their case.

“Now that the cold war is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States,” they write. “Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility”

because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful. They credit the lobby with shutting down talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, preventing the United States from condemning Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon and with not pushing the Israelis hard enough to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. They also discuss Christian Zionists and the issue of dual loyalty.

Opponents are prepared. Also being released on Sept. 4 is

“The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control”

(Palgrave Macmillan) by Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. The notion that pro-Israel groups

“have anything like a uniform agenda, and that U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East is the result of their influence, is simply wrong,”

George P. Shultz, a former secretary of state, says in the foreword.

“This is a conspiracy theory pure and simple, and scholars at great universities should be ashamed to promulgate it.”

The subject will certainly prompt furious debate, though not at the Center for the Humanities at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a Jewish cultural center in Washington and three organizations in Chicago. They have all turned down or cancelled events with the authors, mentioning unease with the controversy or the format.

The authors were particularly disturbed by the Chicago council’s decision, since plans for that event were complete and both authors have frequently spoken there before. The two sent a four-page letter to 94 members of the council’s board detailing what happened.

“On July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us (Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was canceling the event,” and that his decision “was based on the need ‘to protect the institution.’ He said that he had a serious ‘political problem,’ because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative consequences for the council. ‘This one is so hot,’ Marshall maintained.”

Mr. Mearsheimer later said of Mr. Bouton,

“I had the sense that this phone call pained him deeply.”

Mr. Bouton was out of town, but Rachel Bronson, vice president for programs and studies at the council, said,

“Whenever we have topics that are particularly controversial or sensitive, we try to make sure someone from another point of view is there.”

In this case, she said, there was not sufficient time to set up that sort of panel before the council calendar went out. There are no plans to have the authors speak at a later date, however.

“One of the points we make in the book is that this is a subject that’s very hard to talk about,” Mr. Walt said in an interview from his office in Cambridge. “Organizations, no matter how strong their commitment to free speech, don’t want to schedule something that’s likely to cause controversy.”

After the cancellation Roberta Rubin, owner of the Book Stall, a store in Winnetka, Ill., offered to help find a site for the authors. She said she tried a Jewish community center and two large downtown clubs but they all told her

“they can’t afford to bring in somebody ‘too controversial.’ ”

She added that even she was concerned about inviting authors who might offend customers.

Some of the planned sites, like the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue, a cultural center in Washington, would have been host of an event if Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt appeared with opponents, said Esther Foer, the executive director.

Mr. Walt said,

“Part of the game is to portray us as so extreme that we have to be balanced by someone from the ‘other side.’ ”

Besides, he added, when you’re promoting a book, you want to present your ideas without appearing with someone who is trying to discredit you.

As for City University, Aoibheann Sweeney, director of the Center for the Humanities, said,

“I looked at the introduction, and I didn’t feel that the book was saying things differently enough”

from the original article. Ms. Sweeney, who said she had consulted with others at City University, acknowledged that they had begun planning for an event in September moderated by J. J. Goldberg, the editor of The Forward, a leading American Jewish weekly, but once he chose not to participate, she decided to pass. Mr. Goldberg, who was traveling in Israel, said in a telephone interview that

“there should be more of an open debate.”

But appearing alone with the authors would have given the impression that The Forward was presenting the event and thereby endorsing the book, he said, and he did not want to do that. A discussion with other speakers of differing views would have been different, he added.

“I don’t think the book is very good,” said Mr. Goldberg, who said he read a copy of the manuscript about six weeks ago. “They haven’t really done original research. They haven’t talked to the people who are being lobbied or those doing the lobbying.”

Overall Mr. Mearsheimer said he thinks the response to their views will be

“less ferocious than last time, because it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make the argument in a convincing way that anyone who criticizes the lobby or Israel is an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew.”

Both Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt pointed to the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, criticism of Israel’s war in Lebanon and the publication of former President Jimmy Carter’s book

“Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid”

as making it somewhat easier to criticize Israel openly.

“This isn’t a cabal; this isn’t anything secretive,”

Mr. Walt said.

American Jews who lobby on Israel’s behalf are not all that different from the National Rifle Association, the anti-tax movement, AARP or the American Petroleum Institute, he said,

“They just happen to be really good at it.”

“It’s the way American politics work,” he continued. “Sometimes powerful interest groups get what they want, and it’s not good for the country as a whole. I would say that about the farm lobby and about the Cuba lobby.”

To the authors, dual loyalty is as American as Presidents’ Day sales and “Law & Order” reruns. As Mr. Mearsheimer explained:

“People are allowed to have multiple loyalties. They have religious loyalties, loyalty to family, to an organization and you can have loyalty to other countries. Someone who is Irish can have a loyalty to Ireland.”

“The problem,” he said “is when you raise the subject of dual loyalty, many people tend to think of it in the context of the old anti-Semitic canard and making the argument that Jews are disloyal to the U.S.”

In print and in interviews both authors have stressed that they hold no animus towards Israel or Jews.

“We think Israeli policy is fundamentally flawed,” Mr. Mearsheimer said, “just as we think American policy is fundamentally flawed.”

Authors of a new book: Stephen Walt, left, of Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago.

The Murder of Abir Aramin, Nine Years Old

The Murder of Abir Aramin, Nine Years Old
IDF Soldiers Never Go to Jail for Killing Palestinian. Never.
By NURIT PELED-ELHANAN
August 8, 2007

How sad it is to come to the realization that the number of those who evade service in the army of occupation is so low that there is virtually no effect on the motivation of Israel’s children to put on the uniform of brutality.

Professor Stewart Cohen of Bar Ilan University consoles us by declaring that the “blame” lies in the increase in the number of Haredis who do not serve and he informs us that the army of the United States would have been happy with such a low percentage of evaders during the Vietnam war. Maybe we would do well to learn something from the Americans of the 1960s, or even from the Haredi Jews who fear for the safety of their children.

When the extent of evasion became known, I was invited onto the program of Oded Shahar, “Politika”, as a mother who will not permit her son (now 15 years old) to join the army. Apart from me, I was informed over the course of a protracted campaign of persuasion, only men were invited, most of them warmongering generals like Effie Eitam and Yossi Peled.

After I was convinced that my participation in the program would be important, I agreed. The researcher asked me why I would not allow my son to enlist. I explained to her that an army that has been involved for forty years now in systematic and growing abuse of a civilian population, (abuse that even a courageous journalist like Gideon Levy calls by the gentle name of “policing”), an army that teaches its soldiers that killing Palestinian children and those who protect them, like Rachel Corrie and James Miller, is not a crime, an army whose commanders are immune to punishment though they commit daily crimes against humanity, is not a suitable place for my son, who was brought up to love people, who has Palestinian friends, whose brothers and parents have Palestinian friends who are subjected to that same reign of terror and daily torment. After half an hour I was told that despite my contribution there were not enough seats on the stage.

A few days later we were told in an isolated solitary news broadcast that the file on the murder of Abir Aramin, the daughter of Salwa and Bassam Aramin, has been closed. Bassam is one of the founders of the Palestinian-Israeli movement Combatants for Peace, where my sons Elik and Guy are members. Bassam Aramin spent 9 years in an Israeli jail for being a member of the Fatah in the Hebron area and for trying to throw a grenade on an Israeli army Jeep which was patrolling in Occupied Hebron.

On a Tuesday afternoon, the 16th of January, an Israeli soldier shot his nine year old daughter, Abir, in the head as she was leaving school to go home. The soldier will not spend an hour in jail. In Israel, soldiers are not imprisoned for killing Arabs. Never. It does not matter whether the Arabs are young or old, real or potential terrorists, peaceful demonstrators or stone throwers. The army has not conducted an inquiry in Abir Aramin's death. The police and the courts have questioned no one except for Abir's sister, who was holding her hand while she was falling. The young sister was asked time and again how many meters were they from the school gate, from the kiosk, from the jeep.

There was hardly any investigation except for a private one by Bassam and his friends who know exactly who the killer is. But as far as the Israeli Defense Forces are concerned, the shooting did not happen. The army's official account of her death is that she might have been hit by a stone that one of her classmates was throwing "at our forces." That in the face of the finding of a senior pathologist, who worked for many years in an institute of forensic medicine.

One of the allegations against the evaders is that they have stopped believing in “values” such as sacrifice. Whose sacrifice, exactly? On what altar? To what god?

The soldiers of Israel are called upon to sacrifice children, parents, volunteers, and sometimes themselves on the altar of the megalomania of the insolent and corrupt leaders of the state of Israel, who have succeeded in converting this whole country into an altar on which they sacrifice other people’s children to the god of death. And no one is guilty of their deaths; no one is ever punished for the murder of a Palestinian child. The state takes care of those who serve it, sometimes. Other times it sacrifices even them, with the same cold-bloodedness and for the same reasons.

And the murderers? What about them? Do they know that they committed crimes? Do they toss and turn in their beds at night? Are they tormented by images of the small bodies that convulse and fall under their rifles, bombs and shells? Probably not. We know of no case in which any soldier turned himself in and expressed remorse for his actions. That is the biggest success of Israeli education: the distinction between blood and blood, between dead child and dead child, and the inculcation of the firm belief that the murder of Palestinians and their friends is not a crime.

Everyone who enlists in the army knows this and is prepared for it. Half the nation! How many millions are there in half the nation? How many millions of young men and women who are simply unmoved by the crying of a child, the agonies of a woman in labor, the pleas of an old man and the deaths of innocent people? How many millions of people who never learned to refuse orders that are manifestly inhumane even if they are legal according to the racist laws of their state, and to say no to corrupt leaders and bloodthirsty generals?

Well done, IDF! Well done, Israeli Jewish education, that has succeeded nearly perfectly in bestowing the values of racism, nearly without opposition.

And if my son Yigal really does want to participate in the military programs that they impose on high school students starting in grade 10, or God forbid, to enlist in the army of occupation and torment, I will see it as a dreadful educational failure. A terrible maternal failure. And if I do not do everything I can to prevent him from becoming a murderer or a corpse at the age of 18 I will know that I betrayed him and my vocation as a mother.

Translated from Hebrew by Mark Marshall

Nurit Peled-Elhanan can be reached at nuritpeled@gmail.com

Nasrallah: Hezbollah doesn't want another war with Israel

Nasrallah: Hezbollah doesn't want another war with Israel

last update - 07:31 15/08/2007

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent and Agencies

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Tuesday that his organization is not interested in another war in the region, and expressed hope that such a scenario would be avoided.

Addressing a rally that marked the end of the Second Lebanon War, Nasrallah said Hezbollah was nonetheless continuing to prepare for the possibility of a war, and added his organization would not "rest on its laurels."

"If you the Zionists are thinking of attacking Lebanon ... I promise great surprises that could alter the fate of the war and the region, G-d willing," he said.

Nasrallah said he is interested in achieving a balance of power with Israel, and therefore decided to declare that Hezbollah has the capability to strike anywhere in Israel.

"I said that in order to prevent a war," he said, adding that Israel must "understand that any war on Lebanon will have a very high price."

The Hezbollah chief also claimed that Israel and the U.S. made false accusations about Hezbollah and tried to divide the Lebanese people to justify last summer's war.

Nasrallah said the United States and Israel tried to split the Lebanese along sectarian lines and to describe the Shiite Muslim Hezbollah as a terrorist group in order to weaken it during the 34-day war.

"They [America and Israel] wanted to tear us apart. They wanted to use war to isolate us one country after the other, one people after the other, one sect after the other and one party after the other, Nasrallah told a mass rally in Beirut's southern suburbs, a Hezbollah stronghold that was heavily bombed by Israeli forces during last year's war.

"When we are divided, they will win and we will be defeated," he said. The rally was organized by the Shiite Muslim group to mark the first anniversary of the war's end, which Hezbollah says it won and calls a divine victory.

The cease-fire that brought the 33-day conflict to an end took effect exactly one year ago, on August 14, 2007.

Nasrallah did not personally attend the rally. His speech was relayed to the crowd on giant screens set up in a stadium and on top of buildings in the southern suburbs.

"They told [the Lebanese] that Hezbollah is an Iranian and Syrian tool," Nasrallah said.

"The most serious accusation was the sectarian issue. They told the Christians that the fighting was with a Muslim group and that it has nothing to do with you. They told Sunni Muslims that the fighting was with a Shiite group and was targeting the Shiite project [in the region]," Nasrallah said.

Tens of thousands of people attended the rally, carrying pictures of Nasrallah and placards that read "August 14 - the day of victory over the Zionist regime."

"For us he [Nasrallah] is the hero and with his wisdom and military tactics he made this victory," a man carrying Hezbollah's yellow flag said.

Hezbollah chief Nasrallah addressing supporters on a video screen Tuesday, during a Beirut rally marking the end of the Second Lebanon War.

UK 'damaged' by Lebanon war delay

UK 'damaged' by Lebanon war delay
Monday, 13 August 2007, 10:41 GMT 11:41 UK

The UK's reputation was damaged when the government hesitated in calling for an immediate end to the Lebanon war last year, MPs have said.

At the time, then-PM Tony Blair was criticised for waiting a few weeks before eventually calling for a ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon.

The foreign affairs committee also said it was "counterproductive" not to talk to Palestinian militant group Hamas.

The Foreign Office said it had not ruled out contact with Hamas.

The committee said the government should "urgently" engage with moderate elements, but the Foreign Office said it was ready to respond if there was any "significant movement" from Hamas.

Despite criticism of Mr Blair's policies, the committee welcomed his appointment as a Middle East envoy.

'Indiscriminate'

He took up the post of envoy for the Quartet, comprising the EU, UN, Russia and US, when he resigned as British prime minister in June.

However, the committee, in its report entitled Global Security: The Middle East, said a quicker response from the government in July last year "could have led to reduced casualties amongst both Israeli and Lebanese civilians whilst still working towards a long-term solution to the crisis".

It called some of Israel's military actions in Lebanon during the war "indiscriminate and disproportionate".

It particularly highlighted the attacks on United Nations observers and the dropping of more than 3.5 million cluster bombs (90% of the total) in the 72 hours after the UN Security Council passed the resolution which effectively ended the war.

The MPs criticised the government's decision "not to speak to Hamas" as "counterproductive".

The stance, also taken by the Quartet, followed the creation of a unity government between Palestinian factions Fatah and Hamas in February.

"A national unity government could and should have been established much earlier than the spring of 2007," the MPs said.

"Given the failure of the boycott to deliver results, the government should urgently consider ways of engaging politically with moderate elements within Hamas as a way of encouraging it to meet the three Quartet principles."

These are non-violence, recognition of Israel and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations.

Israel, the US and EU consider Hamas a terrorist organisation and say they will not deal with it directly until it renounces violence and recognises Israel.

A Foreign Office spokesman said the UK had worked "strenuously" to secure a ceasefire in Lebanon and had made clear its concerns to Israel about the civilian impact of its military action.

'Essential basis'

He added: "We have not said that we will never talk to Hamas but there have to be some ground rules.

"That's what the Quartet principles aim to provide and they are no more than was demanded of the PLO in the 1990s as the essential basis for progress," a Foreign Office spokesman said.

The committee called on the government to engage with moderate Hezbollah parliamentarians.

This should happen, it added, even though the influence of Hezbollah's military wing, "along with Iran's and Syria's, continues to be a malign one".

The committee also described the Middle East "roadmap" as "largely...an irrelevance in the dynamic of the Arab-Israeli conflict".

In its report, it said: "The unwillingness of the Quartet to challenge robustly the failure by both sides to meet their obligations has undermined its usefulness as a vehicle for peace."

But it did endorse the "failed" road map's objectives of "an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state peacefully co-existing with a secure Israel and an end to the occupation that began in 1967".

Mike Gapes, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said: "We think this is a very dangerous situation.

"Progress needs to be made rapidly towards a solution in this conflict and, of course, Israel has to be secure and with internationally recognised borders."

He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that he hoped Mr Blair's record on the Middle East could see the former prime minister become

"like Richard Nixon going to China".

"He is in a position where he could actually take some initiative to begin a process.

"But that requires the Quartet to give him a stronger mandate than he has currently got."

Britain urged to talk to 'moderate elements' in Hamas

Britain urged to talk to 'moderate elements' in Hamas
Tuesday, August 14, 2007 30 Av, 5767

A parliamentary report, published on Monday, recommends that the British government should talk to "moderate elements within Hamas" and push for the restoration of a Palestinian national unity government, the UK media reported.

The report by the Commons foreign affairs select committee, a cross-party panel of MPs, argues that western sanctions against Hamas, for its refusal to renounce violence and recognise Israel, have been "counterproductive" and that the EU’s unwillingness to provide direct aid for the Palestinian Authority "very damaging.”

Referring to the events of June, which led to the break up of the national unity government, the report says that while the actions of both sides in Gaza were "deplorable", the refusal of the international community to lift its boycott of Hamas "meant that the national unity government established by the Mecca agreement was highly likely to collapse".

The report said that that any attempt by the international community to ignore Gaza, which Hamas is controlling since June, and pursue a "West Bank first policy" would "risk further jeopardising the peace process".

Hamas won a majority in the parliament election in January 2006, but the Internattional Quartet refused to deal with the Hamas-led government until it accepted three principles: the renunciation of violence, the recognition of Israel and the endorsement of existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

Opportunity

The MPs believe that Tony Blair’s appointment as the special representative for the international Quartet (the US, the UN, the EU and Russia) provides an opportunity to open up contacts with Islamic group. "

We recommend that he engage with Hamas in order to facilitate reconciliation amongst Palestinians," the report says.

In a statement, a Foreign Office spokesman declared:

"We have made clear that we will respond to significant movement by Hamas. We have not said that we will never talk to Hamas. But there have to be some ground rules. That’s what the Quartet principles aim to provide and are no more than was demanded of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in the 1990s as the essential basis for progress."

Last month, a group of 22 British parliamentarians called for international engagement with Hamas after it helped free BBC reporter Alan Johnston in Gaza.

Oslo Revisited

Oslo Revisited

by Uri Avnery

(Saturday, August 11, 2007)

---

"It is still too early to judge Oslo, for better or for worse. Oslo does not belong to the past. It belongs to the present. What future it may have, depends on us."

On these hot, sticky days of the Israeli summer, it is pleasant to feel the coolness of Oslo, even if the visit is only virtual.

Fourteen years after the signing of the Oslo agreement, it is again the subject of debate: was it a historical mistake?

In the past, only the Right said so. They talked about "Oslo criminals", as the Nazis used to rail against "November criminals" (those who signed the November 1918 armistice between the defeated Germany and the victorious Allies.)

Now, the debate is also agitating the Left. With the wisdom of hindsight, some leftists argue that the Oslo agreement is to blame for the dismal political situation of the Palestinians, the near collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the split between Gaza and the West Bank. The slogan "Oslo is dead" can be heard on all sides.

What truth is there in this?

On the morrow of the agreement, Gush Shalom held a public debate in a large Tel-Aviv hall. Opinions were divided. Some said that it was a bad agreement and should not be supported in any way. Others saw it as a historic breakthrough.

I supported the agreement. I told the audience: True, it is a bad agreement. No one looking only at the written paragraphs could stand up for it. But for me, it is not the written paragraphs that are important. What is important is the spirit of the agreement. After decades of mutual denial, Israel and the Palestinian people have recognized each other. That is a historic step, from which there is no going back. It is happening now in the minds of millions on both sides. It creates a dynamism for peace that will overcome, in the end, all the obstacles embedded in the agreement.

This view was accepted by most of those present and has since determined the direction of the peace camp. Now I am asking myself: Was I right?

Yasser Arafat said about Oslo:

"This is the best agreement that could be achieved in the worst situation."

He meant the balance of power, with Israel's huge advantage over the Palestinians.

For the sake of fair disclosure: I may have contributed in a small way to the shaping of his attitude. At my meetings with him in Tunis, I advocated again and again a pragmatic approach. Learn from the Zionists, I told him. They never said No. At every stage they agreed to accept what was offered to them, and immediately went on to strive for more. The Palestinians, on the contrary, always said No and lost.

Some time before the agreement was signed, I had an especially interesting meeting in Tunis. I did not yet know what was happening in Oslo, but ideas for a possible agreement were in the air. The meeting took place in Arafat's office, with Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Abed-Rabbo and two or three others.

It was a kind of brain storming session. We covered all the subjects under discussion - a Palestinian state, borders, Jerusalem, the settlements, security and so on. Ideas were bandied about and considered. I was asked: What can Rabin offer? I asked in return: What can you accept? In the end we reached a kind of consensus that came very close to the Oslo agreement which was signed a few weeks later.

I remember, for example, what was said about Jerusalem. Some of those present insisted that they should not agree to any postponement. I said: If we postpone the solution to the end of the negotiations, will you be in a better or worse situation then than now? Surely you will then be better situated to achieve what you want?

The Oslo Agreement (officially the Declaration of Principles) was based, from the Palestinian point of view, on this assumption. It was supposed to give the Palestinians a minimal state-like basis, which would evolve gradually until the sovereign State of Palestine would be established.

The trouble was that this final aim was not spelled out in the agreement. That was its fatal defect.

The long term Palestinian aim was perfectly clear. It had been fixed by Arafat long before: the State of Palestine in all the occupied territories, a return to the borders existing before the 1967 war (with the possibility of minor swaps of territory here and there), East Jerusalem (including the Islamic and Christian shrines) becoming the capital of Palestine, dismantling of the settlements on Palestinian territory, a solution of the refugee problem in agreement with Israel. This aim has not been and will not be changed. Any Palestinian leader who accepted less would be branded by his people as a traitor.

But the Israeli aim was not fixed at all, and has remained open to this day. That is why the implementation of practically every part of the agreement has aroused such controversy, always resolved by the immense Israeli superiority of power. Gradually, the agreement gave up its soul, leaving behind only dead letters.

The main hope - that the dynamism of peace would dominate the process - was not realized.

Immediately, after the signing of the agreement, we implored Yitzhak Rabin to rush ahead, create facts, realize its explicit and implicit meaning. For example: release all the prisoners at once, stop all settlement activity, open wide the passage between Gaza and the West Bank, start serious negotiations immediately in order to achieve the final agreement even before the date set for its completion (1999). And, more than anything else, infuse all contacts between Israel and the Palestinians with a new spirit, to conduct them "on the eye-to-eye level", with mutual respect.

Rabin did not follow this path. He was, by nature, a slow, cautious person, devoid of dramatic flair (unlike Menachem Begin, for example.)

I compared him, at the time, to a victorious general who has succeeded in breaking through the enemy's front, and then, instead of throwing all his forces into the breach, remains fixed to the spot, allowing his opponents to regroup their forces and form a new front. After gaining victory over the "Greater Israel" camp and routing the settlers, he allowed them to start a counter-offensive, which reached its climax in his murder.

Oslo was meant to be a historic turning point. It should have put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is a clash between an irresistible force (Zionism) and an immovable object (the Palestinians). This did not happen. The Zionist attack goes on, and the Palestinian resistance becomes more extreme.

It is impossible to know what would have happened if Yigal Amir had not pulled the trigger. In Rabin's days, too, settlements were being built at a hectic pace and there was no serious attempt at starting serious negotiations. But relations between Rabin and Arafat were gradually getting closer, mutual trust was being established and the process might have gathered momentum. So Rabin was murdered, and a decade later Arafat was murdered, too.

But the problem of the Oslo agreement goes far beyond the personal fate of its creators.

Lacking a clear and agreed-upon aim, the Oslo agreement gave rise to a situation that has almost no precedent. That was not understood at the time, nor is it clearly understood today.

Usually, when a national liberation movement reaches its goal, the change takes place in one move. A day before, the French ruled Algeria, on the morrow it was taken over by the freedom fighters. The governance of South Africa was transferred from the white minority to the black majority in one sweep.

In Palestine, an entirely different situation was created: a Palestinian authority with state-like trappings was indeed set up, but the occupation did not end. This situation was much more dangerous than perceived initially.

There was a sharp contradiction between the "state in the making" and the continuation of the liberation struggle. One of its expressions was the new class of authority-owners, who enjoyed the fruits of government and began to smell of corruption, while the mass of ordinary people continued to suffer from the miseries of the occupation. The need to go on with the struggle clashed with the need to strengthen the Authority as a quasi-state.

Arafat succeeded with great difficulty in balancing the two contrary needs. For example: it was demanded that the financial dealings of the Authority be transparent, while the financing of the continued resistance had necessarily to remain opaque. It was necessary to reconcile the Old Guard, which ruled the Authority, with the Young Turks, who were leading the armed struggle organizations. With the death of Arafat, the unifying authority disappeared, and all the internal contradictions burst into the open.

The Palestinians might conclude from this that the very creation of the Palestinian Authority was a mistake. That it was wrong to stop, or even to limit, the armed struggle against the occupation. There are those who say that the Palestinians should not have signed any agreement with Israel (still less giving up in advance 78% of Mandatory Palestine), or, at least, that they should have restricted it to an interim agreement signed by minor officials, instead of encouraging the illusion that a historic peace agreement had been achieved.

On both sides there are voices asserting that not only the Oslo agreement, but the whole concept of the "two-state solution" has died. Hamas predicts that the Palestinian Authority is about to turn into an agency of collaborators, some sort of subcontractor for safeguarding the security of Israel and fighting the Palestinian resistance organizations. According to a current Palestinian joke, the 'two-state solution" means the Hamas state in Gaza and the Fatah state in the West Bank.

There are, of course, weighty counter-arguments. "Palestine" is now recognized by the United Nations and most international organizations. There exists an official world-wide consensus in favor of the establishment of the Palestinian state, and even those who really oppose it are compelled to render it lip-service in public.

More importantly: Israeli public opinion is moving slowly but consistently towards this solution. The concept of "the Whole of Eretz-Israel" is finally dead. There exists a national consensus about an exchange of territories that would make possible the annexation of the "settlement blocs" to Israel and the dismantling of all the other settlements. The real debate is no longer between the annexation of the entire West Bank and its partial annexation, but between partial annexation (the areas west of the wall as well as the Jordan valley) and the return of almost all the occupied territories.

That is still far from the national consensus that is necessary for making peace - but it is even further from the consensus that existed before Oslo, when a large part of the public denied the very existence of the Palestinian people, not to mention the need for a Palestinian state. This public opinion, together with international pressures, is what now compels Ehud Olmert at least to pretend that he is going to negotiate about the establishment of the Palestinian state.

It is still too early to judge Oslo, for better or for worse. Oslo does not belong to the past. It belongs to the present. What future it may have, depends on us.