The Philadelphia Bulletin: Senior Palestinian Official Complains: Current Israeli Army Deployment Makes It “Impossible” To Attack

by David Bedein

This week, Jerusalem Post Palestinian Affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh, provided a telling and important statement from a senior Palestinian official. Nabil Shaath, one of the founders and most influential leaders of the Palestinian Authority and the Fatah, said to Abu Toameh, on the record, on April 5, that Palestinian Authority security forces have every right to launch an attack against Israel (using their American weapons) but that they can’t because the deployment of IDF in Palestinian areas makes this unworkable. In the words of Mr. Shaath, “The option of an armed intifada under the current circumstances, where Israel fully occupies the West Bank and is besieging the Gaza Strip, is impossible.” For example, the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo has not been shelled in more than six years from the nearby Palestinian village of Beit Jalla, since the Israeli army has quietly returned its patrols and surveillance of Beit Jalla, to prevent these very attacks.

See this report in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: Palestinian Authority Promotes Officer who Killed Americans

by David Bedein

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has promoted Mahmoud Damra to the rank of major general. Damra was identified as the commander of Fatah's praetorian guard Force 17 and responsible for the security of Abbas's predecessor, Yasser Arafat. In other words, Abbas promoted a man who commands a Palestinian terror unit to the rank of major general.

"President Mahmoud Abbas decided to promote the prisoner Mahmoud Damra, Abu Awad, commander of the President's Security Force 17, to the rank of major general," the Palestinian daily Al Quds reported.

Damra was imprisoned by Israel in 2006. He was convicted of killing several people in attacks on civilians, including Americans Esh-Kodesh Gilmore as well as Binyamin and Talia Kahane in 2000.

The United States government has been funding the training and equipping of PA security forces, including the Presidential Guard, and plans to contribute about $100 million over the next year. (See:
http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/Assessment_of_US_Military_Aid_to_Fatah_US.pdf)

Meanwhile, the ruling Fatah movement of the Palestinian Authority has pledged to intensify Palestinian unrest in the West Bank. Senior Fatah officials said this would include mass demonstrations against the Israeli security wall.

"All options are on the table," Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub said on March 30.


Another Fatah Central Committee member, Mahmoud Al Alul, said the movement would also lead protests against Jewish communities in the West Bank and in the Jerusalem area. Al Alul cited the arrest of his colleague on the committee, Abbas Zaki, during a violent demonstration on March 28.

"We are aware of the fact that Israel has decided to employ cruel force to repress the popular demonstrations," Al Alul said. "They see that the
Palestinian leadership is taking an active role and that the popular struggle is heading towards major escalation. Our struggle has a price, and
we are willing to pay it."

See this report in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this report at Israel Behind the News

The Philadelphia Bulletin: TaxPayers’ Alliance Report: Taxes For Hatred

by David Bedein

Jerusalem - On Monday, Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon participated in a press conference with the TaxPayers’ Alliance, a London-based advocacy group, to highlight how international donor funds provided to the Palestinian Authority are being directly used for incitement and hate education. The TaxPayers’ Alliance report that was submitted to the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority provided detailed documentation which showed how the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), which operates on Israeli communications frequencies, has provided consistent Palestinian television programming which promotes hatred and murder of Israelis, Jews and western regimes. The report also shows that the PBC programs consistently call for the continuation of the Palestinian armed struggle to liberate Palestine.

Israel Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon responded to the report by saying that hate education and incitement is one of the major problems in the Palestinian Authority. “Everyone talks about Hamas, which is obvious, but the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas also engage in incitement and have created a ‘culture of hate,’” Mr. Ayalon said. “The recent Fatah Conference, which we helped facilitate, came out with very negative messages which emphasized education to the armed struggle.”

“The Fatah Constitution still calls for the eradication of the State of Israel, and this was reaffirmed during the recent conference. This is a major problem. As long as Israel is not accepted as a legitimate and natural part of this region then we will not see a desire for peace,” Mr. Ayalon continued.

He stressed that stopping incitement was important for the political process to proceed. “If they do not stop incitement then we can’t move forward. If the Palestinians want to create a new state in the Middle East, then we cannot allow it to become another failed or terrorist state. Incitement should be stopped before a Palestinian state comes into existence and not after,” Mr. Ayalon said.

Matthew Sinclair, Research Director of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, gave some examples of incitement in the Palestinian Authority, including a Palestinian Imam calling Jews “the enemy of humanity,” calling for a fight against Jews, and “to kill them” during a sermon last Friday on the official government Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation television station.

Mr. Sinclair stated that it is an issue for British and European taxpayers because the British government and European Union fund the Palestinian Authority with tens of millions every year. “This is an issue that starts from Western taxpayers interests,” Mr. Sinclair said.

A sermon broadcast Friday, January 29, on PBC stated:

“Oh Muslims! The Jews are the Jews. The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite, the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims. The Prophet said that if two Jews would be alone with a Muslim, they would think only of killing him. Oh Muslims! This land will be liberated, these holy places and these mosques will be liberated, only by means of a return to the Koran and when all Muslims will be willing to be Jihad Fighters for the sake of Allah and for the sake of supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, and the holy places in Palestine. The Prophet says: ‘You shall fight the Jews and kill them...’”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that, “It is not only missiles and rockets that endanger security and push peace further off. Words can also be dangerous.” Prime minister Netanyahu asked President Obama to demand that the Palestinian Authority Leadership cease and desist from further endorsement of murder and violence against Jews.

Read this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Read this story at Israel Behind the News

Palestine's 'economic miracle' : Immense amount of international donations inflate Palestinians' disposable income

by Avi Trengo, Economics Correspondent

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has been crowned as "the Palestinian Ben-Gurion at the recent Herzliya Conference. However, there is a great gap between the achievements attributed to him and his abilities in practice.

Fayyad is credited with changing the corrupt PA apparatus, but even in the financial realm where his expertise lies, his abilities are mostly manifested through the drafting of impressive documents as well as fundraising.

Meanwhile, the absurdity inherent in his statements regarding "Palestinian independence within two years" is clear to anyone familiar with the Palestinian economy. Fayyad is a former World Bank official, but even on the financial front his deeds are far from the image he has nurtured.

The Palestinian economy is the only place in the world where the per capita GDP is less than half the disposable income per capita. This is the result of three factors:

1. The Palestinians barely produce anything. Most of their GDP comes from government expenditures by the PA itself.

2. The Palestinians receive immense sums donated by the world.

3. Tax collection is almost unheard of, aside from the taxes collected (for Fayyad) by the Israeli government, which provides the PA with NIS 450 million (roughly $120 million) monthly; this comprises about 40% of the PA's budget.

The result is clear: Low GDP, but high disposable income. Indeed, it's an economic miracle.

Meanwhile, the situation is even more extreme in the Gaza Strip, where the PA spends 57% of its budget. Fayyad hands over salaries and allowances to 150,000 people, yet tens of thousands of them don't work, while others receive two salaries: One from Fayyad and another from Hamas. This is why the only industries active in Gaza are imports through smuggling tunnels and real estate - the surplus of cash in Gaza's banks prompts them to offer mortgages, and this results in a rise in real estate prices.

The former finance minister in Fayyad's government expressed it vividly in an interview with Le Monde: He said the Europeans are unaware that their money funds Hamas. Hamas doesn't know what to do with all the money in its pockets so it buys real estate. As result, the price of upscale beachfront real estate in Gaza increased by 300%. The money from the EU and from the taxes collected by Israel ultimately reaches Hamas, he said.

When Hamas took power, Fayyad was supposed to ensure (in line with the international community's demand) that the salaries he hands over do not reach Hamas hands. He indeed proceeded to remove 20,000 people form the list of salary earners, but two months later added more than 10,000 of them to the list of recipients of government allowances.

By doing so, Fayyad showed that he too is familiar with the Palestinian concept of the "revolving door." However, this is not his only economic failure.

Palestinian PM’s dubious schemes show he’s nothing like Israel’s founding father
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3845482,00.html

On the security front, Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad counts on the IDF and Shin Bet. Despite his claims that the IDF should not be operating "in the Palestinian state's territory," he knows that he has no control on the ground, neither in the Gaza Strip which he dreams of reuniting with the West Bank, nor in his own backyard in Judea and Samaria.

If Fayyad is indeed interested and capable of reuniting Gaza and the West Bank, when and how does he intend to do so? Will he be leading a Palestinian army that will deploy in Rafah and move north until it retakes Gaza City from the hands of Hamas? Obviously not. He is in fact creating the conditions for boosting Hamas, so that the IDF will ultimately have to enter Gaza, retake it while paying a heavy diplomatic price, and then end the "occupation" and hand it over to Fayyad, without him having to do a thing.

And back to the economic front: About two years ago, the World Bank demanded that Fayyad not only cut down PA salaries (no results thus far) but also that he minimize the second-highest PA budget clause: Payments aimed at covering electricity and water bills which PA residents refuse to pay (the accumulated electricity debt of Gaza residents stands at $2.7 billion.) This clause, which constitutes about 8% of the PA's budget, is hidden by Fayyad under the heading “Net Lending.”

Fayyad seemingly charges local authorities for the electricity provided to their residents by Israel, yet immediately “loans” them the money. As such, they appear as a local authority debt to the Palestinian Treasury. Two years ago, he attempted to force PA residents to present proof of payment on their electricity bills before receiving government allowances. The PA’s “public service sector” immediately embarked on a warning strike, and Fayyad got the hint and has refrained from demanding that the bills be paid.

A few months ago, Fayyad came up with an original solution: As he hands over immense sums for the salaries of tens of thousands of security officials in Gaza, who no longer work since Hamas took power there, he raised their salaries by 4% and even got EU funding for this. However, at the same time he deducted a similar sum from these salaries for “electricity bills.”

Everyone was pleased until Hamas authorities found out about it. They viewed it as financially detrimental to their government, and in response stopped handing over to the Palestinian fuel authority the sums of money collected from Gaza residents who do pay for electricity. This was the reason for the latest fuel crisis in the PA.

In conclusion: Ben-Gurion, who was a man of real work and pioneering spirit would be turning in his grave had he heard that Fayyad - a man who excels in dubious schemes and in drafting impressive donation requests that include words like “transparency,” “responsibility,” and “economic stability” - has been crowned as his successor in the 21st Century.

View the original article at Yediot Ahronot

The Fatah Charter: Intentions Vs. Words

by Arlene Kushner

On January 27, 2010, the Jewish Telegraph Agency put out a news story which indicated that a new Fatah charter, which had emerged from the Fatah Conference held in Bethlehem in August 2009, omitted a previous call for Israel’s destruction.

Wrote JTA: “US Jewish groups...have long called for Fatah...to renounce the negationist language of earlier charters. The calls have been repeated in a number of congressional resolutions...”

Omission of certain phraseology does not, however, necessarily signify the renuncia tion that Jewish groups have sought. The question is whether the omission in this instance has import: Does the fact that Fatah’s new charter no longer explicitly calls for the elimination of Israel represent a genuine moderating of its previous stance? The answer, succinctly, is no.

Not one of the Arabic-speaking experts on Fatah contacted for this article - including a journalist, head of a research institute and an academic - were aware of any evidence of Fatah moderation. Their positions provide not unim por tant back ground.

JTA did no direct research for its report. Instead, it drew directly upon material put out by Secrecy News, a well-respected, little-known agency of the Federation of American Scientists, dedicated to providing public access to documentary resources that are not classified. Secrecy News, in turn, drew upon information from the Open Source Center (OSC) of the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI).

OCS acquired the original Arabic charter via a link posted on the Fatah Forum web site. OCS then arranged for it to be translated into English and placed the transla tion on its website. It was not, however, accessible to the general public: OSC general policy is to restrict access to its material to government employ ees and contrac tors.

Steve Aftergood, who runs Secrecy News, obtained the document from a contact with access to the OSC. Thus, Aftergood was able to vouch for the source of the document. But he knew “nothing about the authenticity or validity of the Arabic original... or the quality of the OSC translation.”

The JTA release states forthrightly that “the new Fatah charter maintains a militant tone,” and indeed, when the charter is examined, that is found to be the case. “You must know that our enemy is strong and the battle is ferocious and long,” it declares in its introduction. It speaks, as well, of “revolution” and “liberation.”

But what is meant to be liberated by revolution?

The document’s true intention is found in the final statement of its introduction: “Long live Palestine, free and Arab.” This theme was echoed in a closing statement for the Fatah Conference made on August 13, 2009 by Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas. “Egypt is for Egyptians,” he declared, “Syria is for Syrians, Lebanon is for Lebanese, and Jordan is for Jordanians. Yet, Palestine is for the Palestinian people...”

Indeed? “Palestine,” in this context, refers to the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It most clearly does not mean that Gaza and the West Bank is for Arabs, while what is inside the Green Line is for Jews. If all of Palestine is for Arabs, then the obvious intent is that, when the “revolution” was completed and “liberation” had been achieved, Israel would exist no more.

This take is confirmed by a closer look at the document itself. This charter, it says, drafted to attend to such organizational matters as defining the tasks of leaders and regulating the relationship between members, has “been adopted within the frame work of adherence to the provisions of the Basic Charter,” ratified in Tunis in 1989.

This is not a full revision, then, but an adjunct providing for certain bureaucratic and organizational matters. No need to be explicit about the elimination of Israel; all that is necessary is to acknowledge the primacy of the Basic Charter, which did call for Israel’s elimination.

This essential point seems to have been passed over by the JTA report. Bewilder ingly, it notes the terminology regarding adherence to the Basic Charter, and then goes on to say, “Nonetheless, missing entirely from the charter is the...language...in the 1989 version that implied Israel’s replacement...”

Nonetheless? But within the broader context, what is missing is not really of consequence. It certainly does not seem to merit the JTA headline: “New Fatah charter omits language on Israel’s demise.”

The Palestinians are particularly adept at presenting their positions so that they seem to be what we would wish them to be. Sometimes we allow ourselves to be taken in by this, so eager are we to find evidence of increasing Palestinian Arab moderation.

Yet the task that falls to us it to be certain that we are not deceived. In examining the new Fatah charter, we cannot legitimately find cause for optimism. This document provides no evidence of increasing Fatah moderation.

Arlene Kushner is the senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research in Jerusalem, and author of a daily blog, Arlene from Israel.

View the original article in the Arlene

FAYYAD TO ISRAELI AUDIENCE; YOU MAKE CONCESSIONS - WE WON'T

by Barry Rubin

Imagine this. You're prime minister of a regime that isn't yet a state. You are praised in the Western media as a great moderate man of peace. You represent a people who the U.S. president says is in an intolerable situation. You supposedly want a country of your own. Indeed you've announced you will get a state in two years, something conceivable only if your negotiating partner agrees. You're dependent on contributions from Western democratic countries that want you to make a deal. Your rivals have seized almost half the land you want to rule and work tirelessly to overthrow your regime and very possibly to kill you personally.

But here comes a big opportunity.

You are invited by your negotiating partner to its most important meeting of the year. All the other side's top leaders and opinionmakers are listening to you.

And that country's second most powerful leader has just made a very conciliatory speech praising you personally, urging peace, offering concessions, and telling his own people they must be ready to give you a lot.

What do you do?

Make a warm conciliatory, confidence-building speech, showing by substantial offers that you, too, are willing to compromise; stretching out your hand in order to build friendship and ensure you get a country?

Hey, we're talking about the Palestinians here! And as I say over and over again: anyone who thinks the Palestinian Authority (PA) is going to make peace hasn't been paying attention to what they say and do.

So here is what PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the audience at the Herzliya Conference, held at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), following Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak's conciliatory speech:

--Israel must immediately start pulling out of the rest of the West Bank, without getting anything in return.

--It must immediately stop all construction on settlements, including apartments now being completed.

--Israel's army should never enter PA-ruled areas. Even if the PA refuses to arrest those who have murdered Israelis or won't stop planned attacks, Israel's army must do nothing, despite the 1993 agreement between the two sides permitting this. Fayyad said this isn't necessary because the PA is taking care of these matters. But this makes no sense: when Israel sees that to be true it never orders incursions in the first place.

--Israel should end its blockade of the Gaza Strip, even though the Hamas movement ruling there refuses to make a deal with the PA, openly announces its goal of destroying Israel, and smuggles in as many weapons as possible. Moreover, as soon as it feels secure again, Hamas will launch new attacks on Israel. Fayyad claimed, however, that if Israel did so, the PA could then build government institutions in the Gaza Strip, though it has no control whatsoever there.

--He openly stated that his goal was to mobilize international support and create such a strong state apparatus that the world would pressure Israel to end any presence in the West Bank or east Jerusalem, apparently without the Palestinian side giving anything.

--While Barak said that the "roughness" of the region made it harder to give the Palestinians everything they wanted (for example, the PA could be overthrown by Hamas; subverted by Iran and Syria; unwilling or unable to stop cross-border attacks), Fayyad responded that once Israel left all of the West Bank the region would become more stable and peaceful. That's a rather questionable assertion.

It is true that he ended by saying:

"The Israeli people have a long history, they have pain, they have ambition, and like you, we Palestinians have our own history. Right now we are going through lots of pain and suffering. And we have one key aspiration, and that is once again to be able to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security."

Yet he addressed none of the points in Israel's own peace plan: an official end to the conflict if there is an agreement; resettlement of Palestinian refugees in Palestine; an end to incitement (which would be easy to do) to kill Israelis; limits on the militarization of a Palestinian state; or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian Arab Muslim state (the PA constitution says that Islam is the country's official religion).

This was not an extremist speech or one seeking conflict. Fayyad is probably the most moderate guy in the PA leadership. He was doing about the best he could. But that's the point. He has no base of support, isn't a member of Fatah, and doesn't really represent Palestinian thinking. He is in office for one reason only: the Western donors demand it. Fayyad, and arguably the PA leadership as a whole, don't want a new war with Israel. But Fatah will sponsor one if it thinks such a step is advantageous or needed to out-militant Hamas.

Equally, Fayyad couldn't go any further than he did because he knows that his Fatah bosses, Palestinian constituents, and Hamas enemies would throw him out if he offered the slightest concession to Israel and demanded any less than everything they want.

We will see how much progress Fayyad makes over the next two years in building strong and stable institutions. Yet it should be understood that what he is doing is not a way to convince Israel that both sides can reach a compromise peace but to persuade the world to force Israel to make compromises without the PA having to do so.

The irony is that it doesn't matter what Barak says, except to show the world that Israel wants real peace and to encourage Israeli voters to back Labor as a party that balances a strong desire for peace with a smart sense of security for the country.

Barak warned the right-wing in Israel that it would be a mistake to oppose a genuine two-state solution, an outcome that Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu-like Barak--has accepted. But the defense minister also urged the left-wing not to be naïve.

Here's a fascinating example of how the world generally interprets the situation. Read this paragraph from the Washington Post coverage carefully:

"But there was a common thread, too, with each acknowledging an international consensus on the idea of two nations. Barak said that Israel risks becoming 'an apartheid state par excellence' if it does not negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood soon, and Fayyad said the work being done in the West Bank on governance needs to be matched by political progress."

The two statements are supposed to be parallel. Barak says: Israel must get rid of the West Bank for its own good. Fayyad says: progress must be made in negotiations, in the context of a speech in which he asked for a long list of Israeli concessions and offered nothing in exchange. These statemens are not parallel. A parallel statement would be if Fayyad had said something like:

The Palestinians risk becoming permanently mired in violence and backwardness unless they negotiate terms for Israel feeling secure in giving up the territory.

Since 1993 not a single Palestinian leader has ever made a speech to his own people like Barak's, never said that they should have to give up something to get a state, never urged the media and public debate to become more moderate.

Four days before Fayyad's speech, here is the Friday prayer sermon given in Nablus by the imam appointed there by Fayyad and broadcast on the television Fayyad controls:

"The Jews are the enemies of Allah and [Muhammad], the enemies of humanity in general, and of the Palestinians in particular.... Jews will always be Jews. Even if donkeys cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl, and snakes cease to bite, the Jews will not cease to be hostile to the Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad said: 'Whenever two Jews find themselves alone with a Muslim, they think of killing him.' Oh Muslims, this land, these holy places, and these mosques will only be liberated when we return to the Book of Allah, and when all Muslims are prepared to become mujahideen for the sake of Allah, in support of Palestine, its people, its land, and its holy places."

How can this be reconciled with Fayyad's claim that the sole aspiration is "to live alongside you in peace, harmony and security"?

Note that this is a Palestinian Authority, not a Hamas, cleric speaking. Note, too, that while Fayyad's speech is covered around the world, sermons like these are never quoted in the Western media. This is not to say that the sermon is real and Fayyad's views are fake, it is to say that the sermon is meant to shape Palestinian politics and public opinion and what Fayyad says is meant to shape Israeli and Western politics and public opinion. Fayyad, a figurehead, is not going to make anything change and he isn't even going to try. Nor does Fayyad have any control over the ruling party, Fatah, whose leadership is still hardline on goals and negotiations, though not on more immediate issues.

The Israeli audience applauded Fayyad because it does want peace and prefers him to all the worse alternatives, especially Hamas but also those in Fatah. Yet few have any illusions that peace is at hand or that Fayyad is going to deliver it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to GLORIA Center.

See the original article at the GLORIA Center.

Special Report: THE INCITEMENT REPORT, Volume 1, Issue 1: Incitement by the Palestinian Authority

THE INCITEMENT REPORT
VOL. I, ISSUE I

Incitement by the Palestinian Authority
November 2009 - January 2010

PUBLISHED BY:
THE CENTER FOR NEAR EAST POLICY RESEARCH
BEIT AGRON INTERNATIONAL PRESS CENTER
37 HILLEL STREET
JERUSALEM 94581 ISRAEL
TEL. 02 6236368
CtrForNearEastPolicyResearch@gmail.com
www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com
_____________________________________________

q Al-Ayyam (PA), November 12, 2009, reported:#

“Mahmoud Abbas…spoke in favor of armed resistance at a rally marking the fifth anniversary of Yasser Arafat's death: ‘We will continue [Arafat's] long and exhausting struggle [that was] fraught with blood, sweat, and tears. The road [we are traveling] today is anchored in a noble heritage of struggle that we built with brave hands, an enlightened mind, and a national thinking [rooted in] long experience. We combined armed struggle with political activity. Our guns were not the guns of highway robbers. They were political guns [promoting] a noble goal.’


q According to El-Shourouq (Tunisia), November 15, 2009:#

Fatah Central Committee member Nabil Sha'ath said in an interview: "Today we have the right to return to the armed struggle in order to restore our rights. For 18 years we tried to negotiate, but Israel has continued its aggression, destruction, massacres and [construction of] settlements. Today we have the right to turn back to the alternative [routes]... If negotiations fail, we will turn to armed struggle. This is our right, as I have said... International law stipulates that, when an occupying [force] takes one's land and harms one's honor, one has the right to resort to armed struggle."


q Hafez Al-Barghouthi, editor of the PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, wrote on November 15, 2009:#

"[We] must bring things to the point of no return: either [we obtain] a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the June 4, 1967 borders, or the flood will descend...

"The Palestinian people will not allow its tragedy to repeat itself without a reaction. If it must choose between a quick death and a slow one, it will choose the short road and set the land on fire everywhere...

"We owe nothing to anyone. On the contrary, it is others who owe us a huge debt. If the roads to peace are blocked by settlements and international conspiracies, we will turn ourselves into paragons of sacrifice... When we no longer have anything to lose, it will be [the Israelis] who will lose..."


q On December 24, 2009, three members of Al-Aksa Brigades killed Rabbi Meir Avshalom Chai in a drive-by shooting in Samaria and fled. Two days later, the IDF had tracked them to their homes, in the Nablus area . Two refused to come out of their homes and surrender; a third came out using his wife as a shield and was thought to be armed. They were all shot dead.
By December 27, the Palestinian Authority leadership and PA-controlled media had begun to refer to the three as shahids – holy martyrs:#

PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent a personal emissary – Secretary General of the President’s Bureau, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim – to the homes of their families. He carried letters from Abbas that conveyed condolences and informed the families of his decision to name them “Shahids of the Palestinian Revolution” (PA TV)

Said Al-Rahim: "Without doubt, what the occupation authorities have carried out is a wild and barbaric act and a deliberate, malicious assassination in cold blood."

PA TV featured a poster of the three terrorists, expressing condolences from Abbas. The text on the poster read:

"With honor and admiration to those who are more honored than all of us.

"The Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, accompanies to their wedding [of martyrs with virgins in Paradise]:

“The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Rassan Abu Serah
”The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Ra'ed Al Aschregi
”The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Anan Sobh

The Director General of the Presidency expresses condolences to the Nablus Martyrs - in the name of the President [Abbas].”

Additionally, PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad personally visited the homes of the families of these men and conveyed condolences.

It should be noted that there was denial of what the three men had done. There was no claim that “innocent” men had been mistakenly killed by the IDF.

Maan News Agency on December 26 referred to the activity of these men, “which led to the death of the settler in a shooting operation."



q Dalal Mughrabi was a young female terrorist who led a party of 11other terrorists down from Lebanon into northern Israel, via the Mediterranean, in 1978. They first killed wildlife photographer Gail Rubin on the beach and then hijacked a bus. When the bus was stopped at a roadblock, and a gun battle ensued, she blew it up. In all 37 civilians, including 10 children, were killed and 71 wounded. This attack, which became known as the Coastal Road Massacre, is one of the worst in Israel’s history. Mughrabi herself was killed in the gun battle.

On December 29, 2009, PA President Mahmoud Abbas honored Mughabri’s memory on the occasion of her 50th birthday. PA dignitaries and a children’s marching band were present for the ceremony.#

A very large banner was displayed at the ceremony. It had Mughrabi’s picture on it. The text read:

"Under the auspices of President Mahmoud Abbas
The Political and National Education Authority Ceremony on the anniversary of the birth of the bride of the cosmos The Shahida (Holy Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi."

Two PA TV broadcasts noted the ceremony.

Additionally, the governor of Ramallah announced the naming of Dalal Mughrabi Square.

While on December 30, 2009, PA spokesman Jamal Nazal, writing in Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, referred to her as “the heroine of Palestine’s heroines.”


q Wafa Idris, the first female Palestinian suicide bomber, detonated a bomb in the center of Jerusalem in January 2002 that killed one and injured over 100.

During the first week of January 2010, she was honored as a Shahida (Holy Martyr) in a Fatah promotional video broadcast on PA TV.#


q On January 11, 2010, the following appeared in the PA paper Al-Ayyam:#

Headline: "The occupation accuses the Palestinian leadership of incitement because of Dalal Mughrabi Square -Minister of Culture: Honoring the Shahids is the least we can do, and resistance to the occupation is a legitimate right"

"The occupation government [the Israeli government] has reiterated its familiar tune of accusing the [Palestinian] National Authority of incitement within Palestinian culture. The Israeli Prime Minister... claims that the Palestinian leadership is encouraging terror in its culture.

”Netanyahu claims that the proof, which he presented to the members of his government, is the naming of a square in the region of Ramallah and El-Bireh after the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi. ...

”Netanyahu is reported as saying: 'Anyone who supports naming [the square] after Dalal Mughrabi, who was responsible for the murder of dozens of Israelis, is encouraging terror and pushing peace further off...'

”Netanyahu was referring to the operation of self-sacrifice led by Mughrabi in 1978, the ‘Coast Operation’ within Israel, which led to the deaths of 36 Israelis. Netanyahu accused the [Palestinian] National Authority of incitement in schools and in cultural activities in general.

”Minister of Culture Siham Barghouti said, in response to the Israeli claims, that 'It is our right to preserve and maintain [the memory] of our fighters who sacrificed their lives for our sake and for the sake of the Palestinian cause.'

”She added: 'Honoring them in this way [by naming public places after them] is the least we can give them, and this is our right, especially since we believe that resistance, in the shadow of the ongoing occupation, is a legitimate right, and we are proud and we pride ourselves on our heritage of struggle, which has been realized by our Shahids and fighters throughout history.'

q Al-Quds, Jerusalem, January 21, 2010, reported:#

“The concluding statement of Fatah's Revolutionary Council meeting said that there was a need to step up the popular resistance and to expand it to all Palestinian areas harmed by the settlements and by the separation fence.”

q On Friday, January 29, 2010, a sermon was broadcast on PA-controlled TV that said in part:

“The Jews, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger, the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger! Enemies of humanity in general, and of Palestinians in particular - they wage war against us using all kinds of crimes, and as you see - even the mosques are not spared their racism...

"Oh Muslims! The Jews are the Jews. The Jews are the Jews. Even if donkeys would cease to bray, dogs cease to bark, wolves cease to howl and snakes to bite, the Jews would not cease to harbor hatred towards Muslims. The Prophet said that if two Jews would be alone with a Muslim, they would think only of killing him. Oh Muslims! This land will be liberated, these holy places and these mosques will be liberated, only by means of a return to the Koran and when all Muslims will be willing to be Jihad Fighters for the sake of Allah and for the sake of supporting Palestine, the Palestinian people, the Palestinian land, and the holy places in Palestine. The Prophet says: 'You shall fight the Jews and kill them…’”#

Incitement by UNRWA
January 2010

Karen AbuZayd has retired as Commissioner-General of UNRWA and has been succeeded by Filippo Grandi, who had been AbuZayd’s lieutenant.

Providing insight into the issue of UNRWA incitement we have Mr. Grandi’s inaugural letter to the UNRWA staff, dated January 26, 2010. It appeared on the UNRWA website.#

Mr. Grandi’s letter includes the following:

“I need not tell you how difficult this period is for the Palestinian people. We are all painfully aware of the counterproductive policies collectively punishing the people of the Gaza Strip; conscious decisions that have caused untold suffering and a dramatic deterioration in the lives of the population, in contravention of international law. One of my key priorities will be to continue to advocate strongly on behalf of the 1.5 million Gazans, and to do so not only until the end of the blockade and the occupation, but also until a just and lasting solution to the plight of the refugees is achieved.

“Despite some recent economic improvements for some, the lives of most Palestinians in the West Bank continue to be made almost impossible by obstacles, walls, movement limitations and other restrictions, and by the expanding threat of settler violence. For those residing in East Jerusalem, as I do, it is cause for daily anguish to watch the situation deteriorate rapidly under our very eyes, especially the ruthless evictions of Palestinians from their homes. UNRWA will continue to stand with the affected families and all of those in need of our protection and will tirelessly lend our voice to their calls for justice.”

There are several seriously tendentious statements – and, in fact, outright misrep resenta tions – included here. But this material is problematic for reasons beyond this: UNRWA’S mandate is purely humanitarian. Grandi is assuming a political stance that is absolutely beyond his purview. How does UNRWA come to “stand with affected families” who have been evicted in eastern Jerusalem?

View the full document at Israel Behind the News

The Palestinians' Unilateral "Kosovo Strategy": Implications for the PA and Israel

The Palestinians' Unilateral "Kosovo Strategy": Implications for the PA and Israel

Published January 2010

The Jerusalem Viewpoints series is published by the Institute for Contemporary Affairs, founded jointly with the Wechsler Family Foundation.

No. 575 January-February 2010

Mahmoud Abbas' new precondition that the international community recognize the 1967 lines in the West Bank as the new Palestinian border bolsters the assessment that the Palestinians have largely abandoned a negotiated settlement and instead are actively pursuing a unilateral approach to statehood.

Senior Palestinian officials note that Palestinian unilateralism is modeled after Kosovo's February 2008 unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia. European and U.S. support for Kosovo's unilateral declaration has led the Palestinian leadership to determine that geopolitical conditions are ripe to seek international endorsement of its unilateral statehood bid, despite the fact that leading international jurists have suggested that the cases of Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority are historically and legally different.

The Palestinians are legally bound to negotiate a bilateral solution with Israel. Unilateral Palestinian threats to declare statehood have been rebuffed thus far by the European powers and the United States.

The Palestinian "Kosovo strategy" includes a campaign of delegitimization of Israel, seeking to isolate Israel as a pariah state, while driving a wedge between Israel and the United States. The unilateral Palestinian bid for sovereignty will also likely turn the Palestinians into the leading petitioner against the State of Israel at the International Criminal Court. Although the PA is not a state and therefore should have no legal standing before the court, the petition it submitted to the court after the Gaza war was not rejected by the ICC.

Finally, a unilateral Palestinian quest for the 1947 lines may well continue even if the 1967 lines are endorsed by the United Nations. The PLO's 1988 declaration of independence was based on UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which recognizes the 1947 partition plan for Palestine, not the 1967 lines, as the basis for the borders of Israel and an Arab state.

Have the Palestinians Abandoned a Negotiated Settlement?

Washington's intensive shuttle diplomacy as well as Arab pressure may convince Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to return to the negotiating table with Israel. However, Abbas' new precondition that the international community recognize the 1967 lines in the West Bank as the new Palestinian border bolsters the assessment that the Palestinians have largely abandoned a negotiated settlement and instead are actively pursuing a unilateral approach to statehood.1

Senior Palestinian officials have also noted that Palestinian unilateralism is modeled after Kosovo's February 2008 unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia.2 European and U.S. support for Kosovo's unilateral declaration, plus Palestinian confidence in its own international case, appear to have led the Palestinian leadership to determine that geopolitical conditions are ripe to seek international endorsement of its unilateral statehood bid, with the 1967 lines as its future borders.3

This assertive Palestinian shift to unilateralism has also been bolstered by a changing balance of power between the Palestinian Authority that was established at Oslo, and its "parent," the Palestine Liberation Organization, which has embraced a unilateral approach to statehood since its 1988 unilateral declaration of independence but has not operationalized it. On December 15-16, 2009, the PLO Central Council convened in Ramallah where it unilaterally assumed the PA's legislative authority, resolved to extend Abbas' term indefinitely, and even voted to replace the PA Legislative Council that had been established as part of the internationally-sanctioned Oslo peace accords.4

The PLO Central Council meeting and its far-reaching resolutions provide another illustration of unilateral intentions that are rooted in former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's 1988 PLO statehood declaration. However, despite Palestinian determination and a largely sympathetic international community, it's unlikely that the Palestinian "Kosovo strategy" will end the decades-old conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead, it may signal the final unraveling of the Middle East peace process.

Palestinians Invoke Kosovo's Unilateral Statehood Model

Since February 2008, when the Albanian Muslim majority government in Kosovo unilaterally declared independence and secession from Christian Serbia, winning U.S. and European support, the Palestinian leadership has publicly invoked Kosovo as a model for a prospective Palestinian state. Yasser Abed Rabbo, senior advisor to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, told Agence France Presse immediately following the Kosovo declaration, "Our people have the right to proclaim independence even before Kosovo. And we ask for the backing of the United States and the European Union for our independence."5

In late 2008, the collapse of the Annapolis peace negotiations between Abbas and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who, as Abbas acknowledged publicly, had made unprecedented concessions,6further motivated the Palestinians to embrace a unilateral approach to statehood as a default option. Abed Rabo confirmed at the time that, "we have another option. Kosovo is not better than Palestine."7

The Palestinians strengthened their bid for unilaterally-declared statehood in late 2009 and into 2010 while lobbying Europe, South America, and the UN for support, and simultaneously setting unprecedented preconditions for restarting negotiations with Israel.8 In November 2009, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat threatened to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines, arguing that "the EU recognized the state" of Kosovo before other official channels supported its claim for independence. However, U.S. and European opposition to the move would force Erekat to deny his intentions. Instead, he insisted that the Palestinian Authority merely sought UN Security Council endorsement of a Palestinian state, which also mirrors Kosovo's quest for a UN Security Council resolution proposing independence.9

Two leading international jurists have suggested that the cases of Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority are historically and legally different.10 However, from a Palestinian point of view, it seems that legal and historical context are less important than the sympathetic political perceptions that can be created in the international community by promoting what appear to be some external similarities.11 The Palestinians liken themselves to Kosovo's profile in the West as a besieged, indigenous population seeking freedom and independence from its brutal Serbian sovereign overlord, which in the Palestinian analogy is the State of Israel's "occupation" of the disputed West Bank.12

True, both Palestinians and Muslim Kosovars enjoy international support for their respective bids for independence.13 Both have established internationally-sanctioned, self-governing authorities, receive European security backing and UN financial support, and work with UN-appointed special envoys, while each has penned a constitution. However, Kosovo enjoys a NATO security presence, which Palestinian negotiators have failed to introduce into the West Bank despite several attempts to do so in past peace negotiations with Israel.14

Another point of similarity between Kosovars and the Palestinians involves territory. The Kosovo model did not require a territorial compromise on the part of the Albanian Muslim Kosavar government to take into account areas where concentrations of Serbian Christian population remained.15 Similarly, the Palestinian leadership has been reluctant to compromise with Israel over Israeli population centers and vital security requirements in the West Bank.

Politically, many in the Palestinian leadership assess that adopting a unilateral "Kosovo strategy" and seeking international legitimacy to impose the 1967 borders on Israel is their best option, which, in their view, would automatically solve the issues of Jewish settlements and the status of Jerusalem without having to negotiate with Israel, while leaving the refugee issue to be decided according to the "agreed-upon solution" specified in the Arab peace initiative.16

Israel as the Palestinians' "Serbian" War Criminal

Palestinian efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international community play a key role in their unilateral quest for independence. Mindful of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, who was indicted by the Hague-based International War Crimes Tribunal for the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica, the Palestinian leadership has aggressively pursued a diplomatic intifada against Israel as a tool of "resistance" to criminalize and isolate the Jewish state in international circles, while simultaneously "leveraging up" the PA's case for statehood.17 For example, Palestinian leaders have for years charged Israel with being an "illegal occupier" of Palestinian lands, and of building an "apartheid wall" - Israel's security fence - in the West Bank. The Palestinian leadership has also promoted internationally its denial of any historical Jewish connection to Jerusalem.18

In January 2009, following the Gaza war with Hamas, Palestinian Justice Minster Ali Khashan petitioned the International Criminal Court to charge Israel with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.19Israel's Foreign Ministry noted that the PA was also a driving force behind the establishment of the Goldstone mission by the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), and led the campaign in the HRC and the UN General Assembly to implement its conclusions.20 Pro-Palestinian groups have filed scores of war crimes petitions in London and in other European courts, using the Rome Statute and laws of universal jurisdiction to seek the arrest of senior Israeli leaders.21

Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has also advanced the notion of a "popular intifada" and has overseen the organization of committees for non-violent popular resistance against Israel that are expressed in the weekly, high-profile, Palestinian-led protests at Bil'in, Maasara, Ni'ilin, and more recently in Sheikh Jarah in Jerusalem.22 In December 2009, Fayyad characterized PA diplomacy as launching an "international intifada against Israel."23

The Influence of Fayyad's Unilateral Statehood Plan

The Palestinian leadership's numerous references to Kosovo's unilateral statehood quest, in the context of public threats by Abbas and Erekat in November 2009 to unilaterally declare Palestinian statehood, must be seen against the backdrop of the August 2009 publication of Prime Minister Fayyad's unilateral two-year statehood plan.

Western policymakers and observers have embraced the Fayyad plan as a positive development - a unilateral, "bottom up," state-building plan whose main goal is to build the infrastructure for eventual Palestinian independence.24 Some Israeli officials and legal experts have also praised aspects of the plan. However, its firm two-year deadline, and its massive state-building projects slated for Area C of the West Bank - which is under full Israeli control and includes the strategically vital Jordan Valley and its protective 3,000-foot hilltops overlooking Israel's main airport and cities - renders the plan more of a pretext to unilaterally declare statehood.25 In fact, Fayyad has provided clear indications that after two years, the establishment of a de facto Palestinian state will occur with or without Israel's agreement.26

In January 2010, Fayyad said, "Our people are determined to expunge all the distorted definitions described as Areas A, B, and C," and that "Palestinian markets should burn products coming out of Jewish settlements."27 This would seem to suggest that Fayyad advocates sidelining the principle of a negotiated agreement that was enshrined and agreed upon in the Oslo accords, even to the point of resisting such previous agreements on the ground.

Favorable Geopolitical Conditions for the Palestinians

The Palestinian leadership did not adopt the unilateral "Kosovo strategy" ex nihilo. Leading members of the European Union encouraged the Palestinians to move in this direction. PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat credited former EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana with engineering the idea.28 In July 2009, Solana told a British forum that after a fixed deadline, the UN Security Council should unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state along the 1967 lines.29 Palestinian unilateralism also received a boost in early December 2009 when Sweden, in the final thirty days of its rotating EU presidency, proposed that EU foreign ministers back its draft proposal recognizing east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, thus implying EU acceptance of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood.30

The EU Foreign Policy Council partly softened its final statement days later. However, as former UN ambassador Dore Gold notes, the final EU statement still retained the proposal that envisioned Jerusalem as the future capital of two states. Additionally, the statement said that the EU "would not recognize any changes to the pre-1967 borders including with regard to Jerusalem," thereby enshrining the 1967 lines - a key Palestinian demand - as a previous political border.31 Palestinian unilateralism has also drawn encouragement from the United Nations itself. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has reportedly issued expressions of support for such moves, according to former PA security chief Mohammed Dahlan and Saeb Erekat in a November 14, 2009, interview with the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam.32

U.S. Policy

The Palestinians' roller-coaster relationship with the United States over the past two years has ended up giving the Palestinians' "Kosovo strategy" a push forward. In 2008 the Bush administration had rejected the Palestinian comparison between Kosovo and the Palestinian Authority, encouraging the PA to continue to pursue the Annapolis process.33 However, the Palestinian Authority rejected Washington's opposition, despite Palestinian participation at Annapolis. Abbas' spokesman, Yasser Abed Rabo, noted, "Our people have the right to proclaim independence as the people of Kosovo did. We were occupied long before the Kosovo problem emerged."34

Since then, Palestinian disappointment with the Obama administration's policy reversal on an Israeli settlement freeze as a precondition to negotiations has fueled the unilateral Palestinian statehood bid. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's praise of Israel's settlement moratorium and her calls for an unconditional resumption of peace talks convinced Palestinians that the United States would not "deliver" Israel.35 Abbas was also worried about Secretary Clinton's statement noted in the Arabic press during her visit to Qatar that negotiations are about "give and take." He inferred that Clinton meant removing the principle of the 1967 borders from the table - which the Palestinians took as a hint that the Obama administration may have been reviving President Bush's 2004 presidential letter to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that provided U.S. presidential backing for Israeli settlement blocs and denied the right of return to Palestinian refugees. Abbas contrasted Clinton's latest statements with her much tougher statements on Israeli settlements in May 2009, when she said, "Not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions."36

Former PA Minister Ziad Abu Ziad assessed that "the Palestinian leadership had thought that Obama had become more Palestinian than the Palestinians, that he would stop settlements, remove them, and establish a Palestinian state."37 Rather, U.S. pressure on Abbas to return to negotiations with Israel without preconditions has appeared to weaken Abbas both among the political echelons of Fatah and on the Palestinian street,38 and has severely compromised his ability to negotiate with Israel. Additionally, the terms of reference which Clinton had used in January 2010, to try to reconcile Israeli demands for secure and recognized boundaries with Palestinian demands for a state on the 1967 lines, seem to justify Abbas' concerns.

Despite Palestinian disenchantment with Washington, there are signs that the Obama administration position supports the Palestinian demand for a state along the 1967 lines and a Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem,39 which are central objectives of the Palestinian "Kosovo strategy." According to one assessment, Obama may have even supplied the Palestinians with a letter of guarantee to that effect.40While the U.S. is publicly committed to the principle of a negotiated solution between the sides, it has grown impatient with the bilateral process. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly expressed deep frustration with both the PA and Israel, which supports the Palestinian sense that they are on the right track in pursuing a unilateral "Kosovo" option.

Internal Palestinian Considerations

The Palestinians' "Kosovo strategy" has also been bolstered by a shift in the balance of power from the internationally-sanctioned Palestinian Authority to its parent organization, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Abbas' refusal to stand for re-election and the PA's failure to hold new parliamentary elections has led to a governmental deadlock. Hamas' nominal control of the PLC since its 2006 electoral victory, as well as its rule in Gaza and its refusal to reconcile with Fatah or to cooperate in holding elections for the PA in January 2010, is another major source of the PA's paralysis. Abbas also fears a Hamas takeover of the West Bank.41

At the PLO Council's mid-December meeting, it unilaterally assumed the PA parliament's legislative authority and extended Abbas' leadership indefinitely, recognizing Abbas as Chairman of the PLO, as opposed to Chairman of the PA. By definition, the PLO move sidelined Hamas' majority control in the PA parliament.42 Despite the PLO Council's decision to delay the official replacement of the PA parliament, the meeting unilaterally restored the PLO's power in Palestinian parliamentary politics that had characterized the period under Arafat's rule.43

Should the PLO implement its recent resolution, collapse the PA, and rule the West Bank, it will create a vacuum of international legal legitimacy, as the PA was recognized by the Oslo agreements as an interim governing body. Therefore, this latest internal move will likely accelerate PLO decision-making regarding a unilateral declaration of statehood. The case has a precedent: in 1999, it was precisely this consideration that caused the Palestinian leadership to consider unilaterally declaring a Palestinian state as Oslo's five-year interim period was about to expire.

Re-energizing International Support for the PLO's 1988 Statehood Declaration

The PLO Council meeting also illustrated a strategic shift from the bilateral negotiations with Israel of the past 17 years. The PLO Council reenergized the Palestinian National Council's 1988 declaration of independence in Algiers, which had been endorsed by 104 countries and resulted in UN recognition of the PLO's proclamation.44 Beginning in 1989, this brought the UN to refer to the PLO as "Palestine," but without formal statehood status in view of firm U.S. and European opposition to the PLO declaration, since the PLO did not satisfy the basic criteria for statehood under international law.45

The PLO's unilateral statehood declaration was never shelved even during the Oslo years, despite the signed agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel affirming a negotiated solution based on UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which also governed all subsequent peace initiatives including the Quartet-sanctioned Roadmap and the Annapolis process.46 In fact, Arafat and other senior PLO and PA representatives had repeatedly asserted their right to declare statehood unilaterally during the Oslo period without prior coordination or agreement with Israel, and even threatened to make such a declaration on several occasions, including at the United Nations in 2000.47

That explains the far-reaching significance of the PLO Central Council's sudden reemergence as the Palestinian legislative authority. It established a new pretext to cancel previously signed agreements, both with respect to the exchange of letters with the PLO in September 1993 at the White House and to the 1995 interim agreement with the Palestinian Authority. A reinvigorated PLO strategy now seeks UN Security Council endorsement of the 1988 PLO declaration of statehood in an effort to impose the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 borders) on Israel - which Abbas and other senior Palestinian leaders publicly sought in November 2009.48 On January 8, 2010, Abbas reiterated this threat if the United States failed to impose Palestinian preconditions on Israel as part of Washington's efforts to jump-start peace talks.49 Waleed al-Awad of the former communist Peoples Party noted that the goal of the PLO Central Council meeting was to "place an international siege on Israel."50

Prospects for Palestinian Success

The Palestinian gambit for pursuing a "Kosovo strategy" is anything but certain. The Palestinians are legally bound to negotiate a bilateral solution with Israel. Unilateral Palestinian threats to declare statehood have been rebuffed thus far by the European powers and the United States. However, the Palestinians believe that under fluid political conditions and growing U.S. impatience over getting the parties to return to the negotiating table, support for Palestinian unilateralism is possible and necessary for success. Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Malki told the London-based Asharq Alawsatthat the main goal of Palestinian diplomacy is winning U.S. support, so that when the Arab countries jointly appeal to the UN Security Council, the Obama administration will not veto a resolution that will finally affirm the pre-1967 lines as the borders of a Palestinian state.51

There is also a wide gap between Palestinian aspirations for unilateral statehood and their poor performance on the ground. Palestinian governance has been marked by several failures. The PA has not delivered reforms to its constituency. Government corruption and unemployment are still major issues. The PA failed to hold the promised 2010 elections, which resulted in the PLO Central Council resolution to replace the PA Legislative Council. But that decision has also been tabled for the interim. Meanwhile, the split between Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in the West Bank may prove to be irreconcilable.

The Palestinian leadership's rush to act already as a de facto state has not succeeded, even in the basic administrative tasks of issuing passports and currency.52 In December 2009, Maan, a leading Palestinian news organization, raised doubts as to the effectiveness of the PLO's "Kosovo strategy" and questioned the wisdom of turning the international arena into a confrontation line between the Palestinians and Israelis. It emphasized that unilateral "success will benefit the Palestinians, while failure will inflict political catastrophe."53

Implications for Israel

The Palestinian "Kosovo strategy" contains several major implications for Israel. First, the Palestinian delegitimization of Israel in the interim poses a strategic threat. The Palestinian state-building process has succeeded in painting Israel as a pariah state, while the hidden foreign policy agenda of the PA and PLO leaderships is to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States. Although unlikely, if the Palestinians win international endorsement of sovereignty along the 1967 lines, Israel will become persona non grata anywhere east of the "green line," including in many central neighborhoods within its own capital city, Jerusalem, that have been developed since the 1967 war.

The unilateral Palestinian bid for sovereignty will also likely turn the Palestinians into the leading petitioner against the State of Israel at the International Criminal Court. An early indication of what can be expected if the PA's "Kosovo strategy" comes to fruition may be seen in the petition submitted to the court by the PA after the Gaza war. Although the PA is not a state and therefore should have no legal standing before the court, its petition was not rejected by the ICC.

Finally, the unilateral Palestinian quest for the 1947 lines may well continue even if the 1967 lines are endorsed by the United Nations. The PLO's 1988 declaration of independence was based on UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which recognizes the 1947 partition plan for Palestine, not the 1967 lines, as the basis for the borders of Israel and an Arab state.

This threat is not theoretical. In 1999, former Palestinian UN Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa, today a senior Palestinian official and a major proponent of UN endorsement of a unilaterally-declared Palestinian state, submitted a letter on behalf of the PLO asserting that Resolution 181 and its corresponding 1947 partition plan are accepted by the PLO and cannot be annulled, as they provide the legal basis for the existence of both Jewish and Arab states in Mandatory Palestine.54 Since then, Resolution 181 has been invoked by other Palestinian leaders. In view of the PLO's intention to replace the PA as the legitimate legal authority to carry out the Palestinians' Kosovo model, the implications of unilateral Palestinian action are far-reaching.

Dan Diker is Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, where he is also a senior foreign policy analyst. He is also an Adjunct Fellow of the Hudson Institute in Washington.

* * *

Notes

1. Khaled Abu Toameh and Herb Keinon, "Recognition of ‘67 Border Before Talks," Jerusalem Post, December 15, 2009. Abbas announced at the PLO Central Council meeting on December 15, 2009, that the Palestinians will not resume peace talks with Israel unless the international community recognized the "1967 borders" as the boundaries of a Palestinian state. Abbas' latest precondition, as well as the complete Palestinian rejection of all Israeli concessions and gestures since the failed Annapolis peace process - including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state, a virtually complete settlement moratorium in the West Bank, and the granting of amnesty to hundreds of members of Palestinian terror groups - illustrates a Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel. See "The Palestinian Refusal to Negotiate Peace," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 4, 2010, http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/Behind+the+Headlines/Palestinian_refusal_negotiate_peace-Jan_2009.

2. "Erekat: It's Time to Recognize a Palestinian State," Ma'an News, November 17, 2009. See also, "Palestinians Should Follow Kosovo Example: Negotiator," Agence France Press, February 20, 2008, http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS_5y-7raxAQIhNgJDtMOIhadGrg.

3. "Palestinians Unveil Two-Year Development Plan for Statehood," Ha'aretz, November 15, 2009.

4. http://www.mofa-gov.ps/ar/index.php?p=main&id=22. The PLO Central Council also voted to delay implementing the replacement of the Oslo-sanctioned Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC), extending the PLC's role in the interim until elections can be called "at the earliest possible date."

5. Yaakov Katz, "Taking a Cue from Kosovo," Jerusalem Post, September, 3, 2009.

6. Abbas acknowledged to the Washington Post 's Jackson Diehl after the failure of Annapolis that Olmert's offer of 97 percent of the West Bank and the recognition of the right of return (that included the return of 100,000 refugees - DD) was more generous to the Palestinians than the offers of either George Bush or Bill Clinton, and yet Abbas said: "The gaps were wide." See Jackson Diehl, "Abbas' Waiting Game,"Washington Post, May 29, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html.

7. Ali Abunimah, "Kosovo and the Question of Palestine," Electronic Intifada, February 25, 2008.

8. "Erekat Unimpressed with New U.S. Attitude," January 9, 2009, Jerusalem Post,http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1262339435514 & pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull.

9. Tova Lazeroff and Herb Keinon, "Erekat Denies PA Unilateralism Plans," Jerusalem Post, November 18, 2009, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258489190816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter. In the Kosovo case, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, passed in 1999, established Kosovo as a UN Protectorate. However, similar to the Palestinian case, Kosovo has not yet won a UNSC resolution for independence, since the Security Council has been unable to agree on a resolution backing supervised independence. See International Crisis Group Analysis, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=3225&l=1.

10. Separate conversations with international law experts Professor Ruth Lapidot and Professor Irwin Cotler, former Justice Minister of Canada, in Jerusalem, December 21, 2009.

11. Kosovo - a province of Serbia - has been under international trusteeship since NATO's armed intervention in 1999. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 provided international sanction for UN trusteeship. For Serbs, Kosovo is an ancestral homeland and the site of many important Serbian Orthodox churches and monasteries. They insist that the area remain under Serbian sovereignty. The current state of limbo, tension, and sporadic violence between Kosovo's Albanian majority, which is mostly Muslim, and the Serbian minority, which is mostly Orthodox Christian, has mobilized international support away from the notion of a multi-ethnic society there and ratcheted up support for Kosovo's break from Serbia.

12. Clearly, the legal analogy does not work. Kosovar independence, currently being considered by the International Court of Justice, requires the consent of Serbia, the sovereign power, notwithstanding exceptional cases of brutality that would obviate agreement of the sovereign. Ironically perhaps, legally, the Palestinians must also receive Israel's agreement in any final status arrangement over final borders, as enshrined in UN Security Council Resolution 242, and as agreed upon at Oslo and in the 2002 Roadmap.

13. The Kosovo case was referred by the UN General Assembly to the International Court of Justice on October 8, 2008, for an advisory opinion as to the legality of Kosovo's unilateral declaration. The ICJ opinion is still pending. See http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/14797.pdf.

14. http://reut-institute.org/en/Publication.aspx?PublicationId=3679.

15. A map of Kosovo reveals that its ethnic composition leaves the minority Serb population contained in the provinces in Kosovo's north, leaving the majority of the land to the Muslim Kosovar majority without the risk of geographical interlocking or overlapping communities.

16. The 2002 Arab Peace Initiative referred to the issue of refugees thus: "Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with UN General Assembly Resolution 194." http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/28/israel7.

17. Dan Diker, "Why Israel Must Now Move from Concession-Based Diplomacy to Rights-Based Diplomacy," Jerusalem Viewpoints #554, June-July 2007,http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp ? DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=253&PID=0&IID=1607&TTL= Why_Israel_Must_Now_Move_from_Concessions-Based_Diplomacy_to_Rights-Based_Diplomacy. See also "Palestinian Refusal to Negotiate Peace."

18. See examples of Palestinian leadership denials of the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem (Washington: Regnery Publishing, 2007), pp. 10-11.

19. John Quigly, "The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court: The Statehood Issue,"Rutgers Law Record, vol. 35, (Spring 2009), http://www.lawrecord.com/files/35-rutgers-l-rec-1.pdf.

20. "Palestinian Refusal to Negotiate Peace." Daniel Reisner, former head of the Israel Defense Forces' International Law Department, pointed out in interviews on January 6, 2010, on Army Radio and Channel 10 that Fayyad's government successfully appealed to the International Criminal Court without having the status of a sovereign state. Surprisingly, Reisner noted, the court did not dismiss the appeal, which underscores the vigorous efforts of PA Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Malki to upgrade the status of the PA to a sovereign state, which would in turn leverage up the number and effectiveness of Palestinian petitions to the ICC against the Israeli government and military officials.

21. In late 2009, Defense Minister Ehud Barak narrowly escaped arrest while on an official visit to London, while Israeli opposition leader and former foreign minister Tzippi Livni cancelled a planned visit to London, fearing arrest. http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/international/Israeli_Military_Delegation_Cancels _Britain_Trip_Fearing_Possible_War_Crime_Charges_25944716.

22. On March 22, 2009, Fayyad convened in his bureau the committees of the "popular intifada," as opposed to the military one. These committees were charged with organizing public activities against the security barrier and the settlements. Fayyad told them: "This example of resistance received respect, appreciation and support worldwide." Al-Hayat al-Jadeeda, March 22 2009. See also Dan Diker and Pinhas Inbari, "Is the Palestinian Authority Stable Enough for Peace Talks? Assessing the Resignation and Return of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad," Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 9, no. 3, June 16, 2009,http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp ? DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3007. For a typical anti-Israel protest website, see http://www.awalls.org/.

23. http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=4&article=548758&issueno=11341.

24. U.S. Senator Joe Lieberman, visiting Ramallah in November 2009, said, "I know some people concerned that this is unilateral, but it seems to me that it is unilateral in the healthy sense of self-development." See "Fayyad, PA Getting Ready for Statehood," Jerusalem Post, November 15, 2009. See also Dan Diker and Pinhas Inbari, "Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's Two-Year Path to Palestinian Statehood: Implications for the Palestinian Authority and Israel," Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 9, no. 11, October 2, 2009,http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID =442&PID=0&IID=3096.

25. Alan Baker, "A Paradox of Peacemaking: How Fayyad's Unilateral Statehood Plan Undermines the Legal Foundations of Israeli-Palestinian Diplomacy," Jerusalem Viewpoints, no. 574, November-December, 2009,http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID =1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=3185.

26. Diker and Inbari, "Fayyad's Two-Year Path."

27. http://www.maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=252188.

28. "Erekat: PA May Declare State via UN," Ynet News, November 14, 2009, http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3804948,00.html.

29. Assaf Uni, Jack Khoury, and Yanir Yagna, "EU Chief Urges UN to Set Unilateral Timetable for Palestinian Statehood," Ha'aretz, July 13, 2009.

30. Barak Ravid, "EU Draft Document on Division of Jerusalem," Ha'aretz, December 2, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1131988.html.

31. Dore Gold, "Europe Seeks to Divide Jerusalem," Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 9, no. 14, December 10, 2009.

32. Baker, "A Paradox of Peace Making."

33. "Washington Rejects Palestinian Kosovo Comparison," AFP, February, 20, 2008.

34. Ibid.

35. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1124825.html.

36. Isabel Kershner, "Israeli Settlement Growth Must Stop, Clinton Says," New York Times, May 28, 2009.

37. Khaled Abu Toameh, "Palestinians and Obama, End of a Honeymoon," Hudson Institute New York, November 24, 2009.

38. Khaled Abu Toameh, "Why Is Abbas Stonewalling?" Jerusalem Post, December 24, 2009.

39. "Obama Tells Abbas Committed to PA State," Ynet News, October 23, 2009. Following Obama's phone call to Abbas, his spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeinah, said, "It was a very important conversation for the future of the peace process and the region." As the Palestinians' sole priority has been to win U.S. and international endorsement for the 1967 lines, the PA's uncharacteristically positive reaction to Obama after Washington's reversal of its former precondition of a total Israeli settlement freeze strongly suggests an Obama commitment on the central Palestinian demand.

40. Amidst the growing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over Israeli construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar wrote, "The Obama administration has recently begun discussing how to appease Abbas. For example, by giving him letters spelling out U.S. support for a final status arrangement based on the 1967 borders and reaffirming Washington's position that Jerusalem is divided into eastern and western parts." See Akiva, Eldar, "Will Netanyahu's Behavior Push Obama into Abbas' Arms?" Ha'aretz, November 19, 2009.

41. Abbas reportedly revealed to a Kuwaiti newspaper that he had "verified information that Hamas was planning to take over the West Bank. Khaled Abu Toameh, "Can Hamas Be Stopped from Seizing the West Bank," Hudson Institute New York, January 5, 2010, http://www.hudsonny.org/2010/01/can-hamas-be-stopped-from-seizing-west-bank.php.

42. While many Hamas PLC lawmakers remain in Israeli custody, the Palestinian leadership wanted to remove Hamas from even formal majority control of the Palestinian Authority's Legislative Council.

43. Salim Zanoun, Chairman of the PLO's National Council, noted that the Palestinian Authority was the legal child of the PLO and the Central Council which the PNC established in 1994. The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs further explained the proposed but yet to be implemented PLO takeover of the PA Parliament, saying: "The PA's duty is only to provide services to the Palestinians." Hence, the PLO and not the PA is the only legal body empowered to declare a state, http://www.mofa-gov.ps/ar/index.php?p=main&id=22. Ironically, perhaps, the PLO Council did not uproot the PA and endorsed the continued functioning of the Palestinian Authority's legislative council, in order to enjoy the ongoing receipt of billions of dollars in international donor contributions. The PA received $3 billion in 2008, according to French estimates, while the December 2007 Paris donors' conference pledged over $7 billion in aid to the PA over the years 2008-2010. See Dan Diker and Khaled Abu Toameh, "Can the Palestinian Authority's Fatah Forces Retake Gaza?" Jerusalem Viewpoints, no. 569, January-February 2009, http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=2842.

44. While not recognizing Palestine as a state, 104 countries recognized the 1988 Palestine Liberation Organization's Declaration of Independence. See John Quigly, "The Palestine Declaration to the International Criminal Court." See also Palestinian National Council, Declaration of Independence, November 15, 1988, UN Doc. A/43/827, S/20278, Annex III, November 18, 1988, reprinted in 27 I.L.M. 1668 (1988). The August 2009 publication of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's "Two-Year Plan to Palestinian Statehood" is seen by most Western and many Israeli observers as a unilateral state-building plan in its initial phases, but not necessarily one in which Fayyad or the PA will unilaterally declare a Palestinian state in 2011, thereby maintaining the framework of a negotiated solution.

45. Tal Becker, "International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State, Legal and Policy Dilemmas," Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, http://www.jcpa.org/art/becker1.htm.

46. Baker, "A Paradox of Peacemaking."

47. Becker, "International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State."

48. "Erekat: It's Time to Recognize a Palestinian State," Ma'an News. See also "Abbas: Only Solution Is to Declare Palestinian State," Ha'aretz, November 25, 2009, http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1128786.html.

49. Hilary Leila Krieger, "Jerusalem Rejects 2-Year Peace Deadline," Jerusalem Post, January 8, 2010.

50. Maan News (Arabic), December 12, 2009, http://www.maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=245977.

51. http://www.aawsat.com/details.asp?section=4&article=548758&issueno=11341.

52. For example, Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyadh al-Malki signed a state-to-state agreement with Francewhich is an upgrade of the PA's political status on the declarative level, but the Palestinians had to backtrack from practical decisions expressing unilateral statehood, such as issuing a Palestinian currency or issuing Palestinian passports. The Lebanese daily al-Akhbar reported that one of the main purposes of Abbas' visit to Beirut was to deal with the rejection of issuing passports to the Palestinian refugees inLebanon, as they believed passports would cost them the right of return. Abbas, according to the report, accepted the claim and rescinded the issuing of passports.

53. http://www.maannews.net/arb/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=245885.

54. See the letter submitted by PLO Ambassador Nasser al-Kidwa to the General Assembly, http://www.jcpa.org/art/jid-apx.htm#plo181.

Israel Wants End To Incitement As Part Of Peace Process

Israel Wants End To Incitement As Part Of Peace Process

by David Bedein

For the first time since the genesis of Middle East peace negotiations, more than 30 years ago, the government of Israel has placed the cessation of official Arab incitement to murder Jews as a condition for the continuation of Middle East peace negotiations.

As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared after last week’s government weekly cabinet meeting, “It is not only missiles and rockets that endanger security and push peace further off. Words can also be dangerous.”

Referring to recent ceremonies held by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in honor of Palestinian terrorists who had murdered Jews. Mr. Netanyahu observed that “Sadly, there has been a retreat in this area in recent months, both within the Palestinian Authority and by its leaders. Whoever sponsors and supports naming a square in Ramallah after a terrorist who murdered dozens of Israelis on the coastal road - encourages terrorism. Whoever declares those responsible for the murder of the late Rabbi Meir Hai, father to seven children, as holy martyrs - pushes peace further away.”

Mr. Netanyahu also made reference to the new Palestinian curriculum, which represents the first official curriculum since the Third Reich to inculcate war against the Jews.

In Mr. Netanyahu’s words,

“incitement continues in the Palestinian media and education system; in its official media outlets and in the schools under its supervision. These serious actions represent a harsh violation of the Palestinians’ international obligation to prevent incitement. I say to the chairman of the Palestinian Authority: Stop the incitement. This is not how peace is made. Peace is made by educating towards reconciliation, by encouraging good neighborly relations and by developing mutual respect. Therefore, the cessation of Palestinian incitement is a necessary condition, not for entering into discussions, but so that we may complete them in a way that will bring about genuine peace between our two peoples.”

While Israeli concern over incitement is not new, the fact that Israel has conditioned the cessation of incitement as a condition for continuing Middle East negotiations is unprecedented.

The Philadelphia Bulletin: The Shots the Murdered the Children's Rabbi

Jerusalem - Residents of The Jewish community of Shavei Shomron in the Samarian district of Northern Israel, were profoundly shocked when they learned of the murder of Rabbi Meir Hai, known as the “Rabbi for the kindergartens” in the area, who was shot at approximately 4:30 PM on the day before Christmas as he was driving between the Jewish communities of Einav and Shavei Shomron.

A vehicle transporting armed Fatah terrorists passed the Rabbi on the road, closed in on him and then fired at him with an automatic weapon.

Eleven bullets hit the car, and one penetrated his skull, causing his death.

An Israeli army check point had been operating until very recently only 100 feet from the site of the attack, but was lifted due to efforts to “ease the lives of the Palestinians”, according to a press release sent to the media by the Israeli army spokesman.

Mr. Gershon Mesika, chairman of the Samaria Regional Council, responded to the attack saying: “After a prolonged period of calm, the central roadblock between Tulkarm and Shavei Shomron was removed- despite our warnings.”

Rabbi Hai is survived by his wife, a teacher in a local religious girls’ high school, and seven children, the youngest of whom, Nahman, is two months old. Rabbi Hai was a well-known figure in the Samaria region, and had even established a Torah study network for kindergartens, which he also directed.

According to Menuha Hazani, a family friend, “Rabbi Meir was someone who loved everyone; he had a cheerful disposition and loved children. He was a lively spirit for children in the settlement - he always went around with candy in his pocket, pampered the children and sang songs with them. There are not many such people, who devote their entire life to giving to others. It’s quite rare. Another resident, Dina Yeshurun, adds: “You would always see Rabbi Hai with a big smile on his face, surrounded by dozens of children.”

SWIFT RESPONSE

Less than 48 hours after the terror attack, the score was settled with the murderers of Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai. IDF crack troops killed yesterday morning three members of the from Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s military wing, the unit that is now undergoing military training by the American government.

One of the killers had been released from Israeli prison just four months ago. Another one of the terrorists had signed a “wanted men’s agreement”, in he had undertaken not to engage in terrorism.

On Saturday morning large numbers of IDF troops surrounded Nablus and imposed a curfew on numerous parts of the city. Surkaji and Abu Sharah were killed after they hunkered down in their houses and refused to turn themselves in to the security forces. Abu Sharah sent out his wife, but he continued to hide out inside the house. The activity in Subuh’s house lasted a number of hours, in the course of which anti-tank rockets were fired at the house in an attempt to force the wanted man to emerge.

In the wake of the operation, the White House asked Israel for clarifications in the wake of the slaying of the three men in Nablus. Top US administration officials took the matter up with Director of the National Security Staff in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office Uzi Arad and demanded clarifications. Arad clarified the matter with security establishment officials and then presented the Americans with a full, factual account, including details about the terror attack and the fact that the wanted men had refused to surrender and to come out of their houses.

The Israeli army also provided ballistics tests to show that the weapons seized from the terrorists matched the bullets which murdered Rabbi Chai.

The White House’s request for clarifications was made in the aftermath of Palestinian protests about the Israeli operation, which they cast as an act of Israeli provocation.

Profiles of the Arab terrorists who murdered Rabbi Meir Hai

* Nader Surkarji: Aged 40, Surkarji was high on Israel’s most wanted list from El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades. He took part in numerous terror attacks and established explosives laboratories in Nablus. Sukarji served seven years in the Israeli Hadarim Prison. He was released from prison and returned to Nablus in early 2009.

* Ghassan Abu Sharah: Aged 39, was party to the planning and execution of numerous terror attacks. His brother, Naif Abu Sharah, was formerly a Tanzim leader and was one of the founders and top commanders of El-Aksa Martyrs Brigades. Naif Abu Sharah was killed by IDF troops six years ago.

* Anan Subuh: Aged 40, Subuh engaged in the sale and supply of arms for terror attacks. He signed the wanted men’s agreement that was reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, in the framework of which the IDF granted immunity from arrest to all Tanzim operatives who undertook not to engage further in terrorism.

Palestinian Media Watch, which provides reports of the official Palestinian Authority media to the press, reported that.the PA-controlled media “have continuously portrayed the killers of Rabbi Meir Chai as “Palestinian heroes and Shahids” - holy Martyrs -- while describing Israel's killing of the three terrorists as "murder in cold blood" and "assassination."

The leader of the PA, Machmud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, often described in the media as a “moderate” declared the killers of Rabbi Chai to be "Shahids" (holy Martyrs) and sent his personal emissary to visit the families, as described in the following account on Palestinian Authority TV News on Sunday, December 27, as Rabbi Cjai was being buried:

"Secretary General of the Presidents Bureau, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, conveyed condolences on behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas to the residents of Nablus and to the families of the three Shahids [Martyrs] for the Martyrdom of their sons, who were assassinated by Israeli occupation forces yesterday morning. He conveyed to the fighting families letters of condolences from the President [Abbas] and updated them as to [Abbas's] decision to declare them as Shahids [Martyrs] of the Palestinian revolution..."

At the same time, PA TV featured am official Fatah poster, signed with condolences of PA Chairman Abbas, honoring the three terrorists. The following is the text on the poster with pictures of the terrorists:

"With honor and admiration to those who are more honored than all of us."
[Reference to supreme honor of Shahids - Martyrs in Islam]
Palestinian Media Watch

After the terrorists were killed by Israeli troops, the Fatah threatened more "quality operations" and warned that it would avenge the killing of the "Jihad Fighters:

"The occupation murders three residents of Nablus in cold blood... the President's [Abbas's] Bureau denounces the Israeli crime...

"The [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Brigades announced: 'By the act of murdering an elite group of our Jihad Fighters in Nablus and in Gaza, the occupation is opening for itself the gates of Hell.' They threatened that 'our activists will not stand idly by while the blood of Jihad Fighters is spilled... The enemy will hear nothing from us but the language of blood and fire, and our Shahada [Martyrdom] Seekers will go out to [the enemy] from every place in order to turn his days into nights, and he will come to regret his crime. We shall not sleep over the blood of our Jihad Fighters, and our response will be swift... We affirm the continuation of our choice of blood and Martyrdom.

The only choice, in the face of the repeated attacks against our people in the towns and villages and refugee camps of the occupied homeland. We shall turn the spilled blood of the Martyrs and the commanders into a torch of fury that will burn the forces of evil and aggression."

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009]

The news of the attack has reverberated in the United States.

Rabbi Steven Weil, executive vice president of the American based Orthodox Union, representing more than one thousand Orthodox Jewish organizations throughout the United States, issued the following statement with regard to the murder of Rabbi Meir Chai by Palestinian terrorists:

”The murder of Rabbi Meir Chai, an innocent person and beloved father of seven children, is tragic and heinous.

If preliminary reports are correct, and the perpetrators of this crime are found to be affiliated with the Palestinian Authority, then that group's leadership - from President Abbas on down, must be held responsible and account for their failures to rein in such terrorists within their midst.

We would also call upon the United States, which works closely with and supports the Palestinian Authority's security services, to undertake an inquiry and take appropriate actions in response.

The United States Consulate in Jerusalem would not answer queries about the responsibility of Mr. Abbas and the PA for the murder of Rabbi Chai and would not issue any condemnation of the PA in this context. The only thing that the United States did condemn this week was the Israeli government announcement of further housing opportunities for Israelis to live in areas of Jerusalem that were acquired by Israel in the wake of the 1967 war.

Recent Official Incitement of the Palestinian Authority Media

With Renewed Talks in the Offing, This Report is Most Salient

Abbas sponsors birthday celebrations honoring "Martyr" Dalal Mughrabi, killer of 37 (Palestinian Media Watch)

Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
p: +972 2 625 4140 +972 2 625 4140 e: pmw@palwatch.org
f: +972 2 624 2803 w: www.palwatch.org

This week Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas once again honored the memory of the terrorist Dalal Mughrabi - this time by sponsoring a
ceremony celebrating the 50th anniversary of her birth. Mughrabi led the
worst terror attack in Israel's history in 1978, when she and other
terrorists hijacked a bus and killed 37 civilians. Present at the ceremony
were Palestinian dignitaries and a children's marching band. Earlier this
year, Abbas sponsored a computer center named after Mughrabi.

The PA further glorified Mughrabi on the date of her birth when the Governor
of Ramallah announced the naming of the "Dalal Mughrabi Square".

An article by Fatah spokesman Jamal Nazal in the official PA daily [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 30, 2009] defined the terrorist Mughrabi as "the heroine of Palestine's heroines."

The text on the giant banner carrying Mughrabi's portrait at the birthday
ceremony read:

"Under the auspices of President Mahmoud Abbas
The Political and National Education Authority
Ceremony on the anniversary of the birth of the bride of the cosmos
The Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi."

Two PA TV news broadcasts focused on the celebration:
"Under the auspices of President Mahmoud Abbas, the Political and National
Education Authority held a ceremony marking the 50th anniversary of the
Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi, commander of the Coastal Operation (i.e.
hijacking of bus and killing of 37 civilians)."

[PA TV (Fatah), Dec. 29, 2009]
==========================================

Abbas and PA turn latest terrorist murderers into Palestinian national heroes
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
p: +972 2 625 4140 +972 2 625 4140 e: pmw@palwatch.org
f: +972 2 624 2803 w: www.palwatch.org

Rabbi Meir Avshalom Hai -- a 45-year old Israeli and father of seven
children - was killed in a drive-by shooting last Thursday. The Al-Aqsa
Martyrs' Brigades, part of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's
Fatah movement, took responsibility for the killing. On Friday night,
Israeli forces located and killed three of the terrorists involved in the
attack. The fourth surrendered to the PA police.

The response of the PA has been unequivocal support and backing for the
terrorists. Since Friday, the leadership of the PA, the heads of Fatah, the
heads of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the PA-controlled media have
continuously portrayed the killers as Palestinian heroes and Shahids -- holy
Martyrs -- while describing Israel's killing of the three terrorists as
"murder in cold blood" and "assassination."

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas declared the killers "Shahids" (holy Martyrs) and
sent his personal emissary to visit the families:

"Secretary General of the Presidents Bureau, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, conveyed condolences on behalf of President Mahmoud Abbas to the residents of Nablus
and to the families of the three Shahids [Martyrs] for the Martyrdom of
their sons, who were assassinated by Israeli occupation forces yesterday
morning. He conveyed to the fighting families letters of condolences from
the President [Abbas] and updated them as to [Abbas's] decision to declare
them as Shahids [Martyrs] of the Palestinian revolution..."

Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim:

"Without doubt, what the [Israeli] occupation
authorities have carried out is a wild and barbaric act and a deliberate,
malicious assassination in cold blood."

[PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 27, 2009]

PA Prime Minster Salam Fayyad went even further, personally visiting the
families of the terrorists along with other senior PA officials.

"Prime Minister visits Nablus and conveys condolences to the families of the Shahids (Martyrs). Prime Minister Dr. Salam Fayyad today visited the city of
Nablus in the wake of the Israeli military operation, and presented
condolences to the families of the three Martyrs who were murdered by the
occupation forces.

Dr. Fayyad was accompanied by Internal Affairs Minister Dr. Said Abu Ali,
leaders of the security agencies, and Police Director-General Major General
Hazem Atallah, and they visited the house of mourning, which was held in the
Trade Unions compound in the city... The Prime Minister condemned the
Israeli military operation in the city."

[WAFA news agency, Dec. 26, 2009]

The Fatah movement is glorifying the terrorists:

"Mahmoud Al-Aloul, member of the Fatah Central Committee, said that the occupation murdered these three young men as well as another three in Gaza,
in cold blood. He described them as '[military] commanders, brave heroes,
and fighters.'"

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009]



PA TV focused on the Fatah poster (above), signed with condolences of PA
Chairman Abbas, honoring the three terrorists. The following is the text on
the poster with pictures of the terrorists:

"With honor and admiration to those who are more honored than all of us." [Reference to supreme honor of Shahids - Martyrs in Islam] (http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=110)

"The Palestine Liberation Organization, Fatah, accompanies to their wedding:"
[Reference to Islamic belief that Martyrs marry virgins in Paradise]

The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Rassan Abu Serah
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Ra'ed Al Aschregi
The Martyr, Commander, Hero: Anan Sobh

The Director General of the Presidency expresses condolences to the Nablus
Martyrs - in the name of the President [Abbas]

It's important to note that in condemning Israel's killing of the
terrorists, the PA is not denying that those killed were responsible for the
murder of Rabbi Hai:

"The Shahid Imad Mughniyeh group [named after Hezbollah terrorist] of the [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades has denounced the [Israeli] crime of the
assassination in Nablus, killing three Fatah activists, including Anan Sobh,
who, according to the [Fatah's Al-Aqsa] Brigades, planned the Tulkarem
operation which led to the death of the settler in a shooting operation."
[Ma'an News Agency, Dec. 26, 2009]

In the official announcement right after the terror attack, Fatah took
responsibility, while calling the killers "Jihad Fighters" and warning of
more "quality operations:"

"A group announcing that it belonged to the Fatah's Al-Aqsa Martyrs'
Brigades claimed responsibility for the shooting... 'The Jihad Fighters
confirmed that the person who was in the car had taken a direct hit, and
praise to Allah - the Jihad Fighters escaped unharmed...' The announcement
said that 'this action is part of a series of operations; you can expect
more quality operations [terror attacks] from us.'"

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 25, 2009]

After the terrorists were killed the Fatah changed from threatening more
"quality operations" to warning that it would avenge the killing of the
"Jihad Fighters:"

Headline: "The occupation murders three residents of Nablus in cold blood...
the President's [Abbas's] Bureau denounces the Israeli crime..."

"The [Fatah's] Al-Aqsa Brigades announced: 'By the act of murdering an
elite group of our Jihad Fighters in Nablus and in Gaza, the occupation is
opening for itself the gates of Hell.' They threatened that 'our activists
will not stand idly by while the blood of Jihad Fighters is spilled... The
enemy will hear nothing from us but the language of blood and fire, and our
Shahada [Martyrdom] Seekers will go out to [the enemy] from every place in
order to turn his days into nights, and he will come to regret his crime. We
shall not sleep over the blood of our Jihad Fighters, and our response will
be swift... We affirm the continuation of our choice of blood and Martyrdom.
The only choice, in the face of the repeated attacks against our people in
the towns and villages and refugee camps of the occupied homeland. We shall
turn the spilled blood of the Martyrs and the commanders into a torch of
fury that will burn the forces of evil and aggression."

[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Dec. 27, 2009]

=============================================

Fatah vows to escalate struggle against occupation
Thu Dec 31, 2009:44 am ET

RAMALLAH (West Bank) (AFP) - The secular Fatah movement led by Palestinian
president Mahmud Abbas on Thursday vowed to step up its struggle against the
Israeli occupation with demonstrations and diplomacy.

"Our program emphasizes the importance of a two-track approach, with the first being the escalation of the popular struggle to resist occupation,"
the movement said in a statement.

The group said it would model the struggle on the weekly demonstrations in
two West Bank towns, Bilin and Nilin, where residents hurl rocks and protest
against the expansion of Israel's controversial separation barrier.

Fatah, which marks the 45th anniversary of the start of its armed struggle
on Friday, also vowed to "increase movement on the international level to
pursue Israel, to isolate it and to force it to answer to international
law."

"We renew our vow to continue the struggle until the end of the occupation
and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, with east
Jerusalem as its capital, and a solution to the refugee issue," it said.

Fatah went on to say that it "would not spare any effort in restoring
Palestinian national unity and returning the Gaza Strip from the hands of
those who have taken it hostage," referring to its Hamas rivals.

The two main Palestinian movements have been divided into geographically
separated hostile camps since the Islamist Hamas seized power in Gaza in
2007.

The secular Fatah was founded by the late iconic leader Yasser Arafat in the
1950s and formally launched its armed struggle against Israel on January 1,
1965.

Arafat entered into peace negotiations with Israel when he signed the 1993
Oslo autonomy accords, but during the 2000 Palestinian uprising Fatah's
armed wing, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, carried out scores of deadly
attacks.

When Abbas became president following Arafat's death in 2004 he brought the
armed struggle to a halt, but the movement has never given up its "right to
resistance" against the Israeli occupation of lands seized in 1967.