CIA Director George Tenet refuses to come here. Secretary of State Colin Powell has evaporated along with President George W. Bush, who only two months ago had the world waiting with baited breath for his speech. Even Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs William Burns, who is directly responsible for implementation of the Bush speech's vision, is staying away. The radio reporters insist on calling his deputy, David Sutterfield, "deputy secretary of state," and in one radio broadcast even gave the devoted diplomat the high rank of "under secretary of state.
According to Peter Mandelson, the former secretary for Northern Ireland in the British government, who is considered the "brains" behind "New Labor," the criticism of the American administrations's handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has even penetrated Bush's inner circle. Mandelson, considered one of the closest confidantes of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who is Bush's leading supporter in Europe, shared his impressions from his last trip to Washington with a conference on the Middle East last week in Britain. "I was surprised to hear from people very close to President Bush, who have unreserved support for the war against Iraq and oppose the corrupt terroristic regime of Yasser Arafat that they are greatly worried by the president's position on the Palestinian issue," said Mandelson. "They think that if he is not perceived as more balanced in the Middle East, the U.S. won't be able to pursue its interests in the region. They believe that balance need not be at the expense of Israel and its close ties with the U.S."
The Palestinians, for their part, have given up hope that Bush will force Sharon to do any of the items mentioned in Bush's June 24th speech. The Palestinian Authority may have agreed to cooperate with a group of American security experts due next month in the territories, along with Jordan and Egyptian counterparts, to begin implementing the security reforms. But the Palestinian policy that has taken hold in recent weeks is that Ramallah should behave as if Washington and Jerusalem don't exist. Or, in the words of Abu Mazen, back in the arena, "we have to do three things, and all can be done unilaterally: civil reforms, calming the violence, and investing in the rehabilitation of the Israeli peace camp."
Abu Mazen is aware that the success of that policy depends on cooperation from the Hamas. Unlike the last PA elections, which took place in the shadow of the Oslo Accords, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin is now tilting toward testing his political strength in the ballot box, and knows that elections depend on a successful cease-fire.
Fatah officials are recommending not to get hot and bothered about the combative declarations to the press from Yassin and Abdel Raziz Rantisi, the Hamas spokesman. The Fatah men are convinced that the Hamas will join the cease-fire (a unliteral one, not Sharon's "two jeeps" version). It might happen in the wake of a European Union delegation to Riyadh, where they will try to persuade the Hamas patrons to pressure the Islamic fundamentalist group through its pockets, or perhaps, heaven forbid, only after the Hamas settles their accounts for the assassination of Salah Shehadeh, which also killed 15 innocent civilians. The Hamas had vowed four terror attacks in revenge. So far, they've "only" managed three.
Slap for Olmert
The capture of a terror cell from East Jerusalem was a stinging slap in the face for Ehud Olmert, whose favorite mantra is that his reunified Arabs don't want anything other than peaceful lives under the rule of the Israeli mayor and the government of Israel. Olmert charges any leftist who dares raise the idea of forgoing a single isolated house in one of the neighborhoods where all the residents pray for the destruction of Israel. For years he has claimed that as far as he's concerned, there's no difference between Kafr Akeb, and its neighbor across the street with the proud name Pisgat Ze'ev.
But when it comes to security, Olmert explains through a spokesman, it is sadly okay to put a wall in the heart of unified Jerusalem. He says there are circumstances when "topographical reason" make it necessary for the "Jerusalem envelope" to run through land expropriated from residents of the city, dividing city neighborhoods. Just by chance, of course, all those cases are in neighborhoods with names like Kafr Akeb. City councillor Gilad Barnea sent Olmert a reminder yesterday that the mayor is supposed to be in charge of the welfare of all the city's residents, and that if he doesn't prevent the construction of a wall in the heart of the village of Akeb, there will be those who claim "Olmert is dividing Jerusalem."
Two senior members of the "nationalist camp" responsible for law enforcement are demanding that the Jerusalemite terrorists be treated just like their comrades over the fence. Public Security Minister Uzi Landau and Justice Minister Meir Sheetrit are demanding the demolitions of the homes of the terrorists and stripping them of their privileges as residents of Israel. I asked Landau yesterday if the principle of the unity of the city and of Israeli law over all Israel's citizens doesn't also require the demolition of the homes of Jews involved in terror, for example, the Adura settlement residents, if they are convicted of selling ammunition to terrorists, or the home of the next Jewish zealot who stabs an Arab passerby. Landau was clear: "There is one law for all who use terror. No distinction can be made between Jews and Arabs when it comes to crimes meant to undermine the existence of the state of Israel as Jewish, Zionist, and democratic."
Sheetrit squirmed a little. "If the matter comes up as punishment, no distinction can be made between house demolitions and other steps to be taken against terrorists, between Jews and Arabs. Law enforcement has to be equal for all."
You've been warned.
The High Court comes in handy
When Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon explained to the rabbis that "demonstrations and such bring the political echelon to make decisions according to the Arab side's interests," he probably was referring to organizations like B'Tselem, which protest, for example, against the demolition of Arab homes. According to Ya'alon, the High Court is also not pure of imposing pro-Arab decisions on the government - for example, the decision that prevented physical torture of security detainees, or the decision that rejects the use of Lebanese hostages as "bargaining chips." From what the chief of staff said, it is difficult to ascertain where he thinks the line is drawn between "Israeli society's resilience" and values like freedom of expression and civil rights.
Along with the supreme importance he ascribes to the steadfastness of Israeli society, for the purpose of defeating the Arab enemy, Ya'alon also often cites the tremendous value in "the world's perception," for Israeli victory. So, he'll certainly be surprised to hear that the government that appointed him has enlisted the High Court and organizations like B'Tselem and the Public Committee Against Torture in its campaign for world opinion.
Among other things, the state takes pride in several of the very same decisions that the IDF and Shin Bet complain about as harming the security interests of the state of Israel.
Hard to believe? It's all in an official document that Israel recently presented to the UN's Commission on Human Rights, as per the demands outlined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The document, prepared by the Justice Ministry with cooperation from the Foreign Ministry, takes into account comments made by Israeli NGOs like B'Tselem, was submitted in response to a long list of comments, some grave, which was prepared and published by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1998. The commission said that Israel's participation in the covenant requires it to cease immediately the use of all forms of torture, including those defined as "moderate physical pressure." It expressed special concern about the detention of several people - particularly some Lebanese - who are not security risks, but are "bargaining chips" for any future negotiation for the release of Israeli soldiers or the return of their bodies. The commission says that it a blatant violation of the covenant.
The document provided by the Israeli government in response praises the important contribution of the High Court of Justice to the fulfillment of civil and political rights in Israel. It notes that the court has faced several challenges in recent years, and stood up to the authorities on matters of great political and security sensitivity. In that context, the document mentions the High Court decision to approve a petition against the state by the Public Committee Against Torture, and the prohibition of the use of any form of torture against security prisoners. Next in the document comes the High Court decision to forbid the state from holding Lebanese citizens for bargaining purposes, and finally, the document proudly reports on how the government lost in the courts on the matter of the Katzir case, when the court ruled the Israel Lands Authority must cancel the allotment of state lands based on discriminatory criteria.
The government always wins this way. Since it lost in court on the torture issue and on the case of the Lebanese detainees case, it jumps on board the High Court bandwagon - until the right wing comes up with legislation explicitly to circumvent the court.
So, what would have happened if the court were to accept the state's position and reject the petitions? No problem. From the Israeli government's response to the UN questions, one can find the government's way out. In response to criticism about discrimination against residents of the territories when it comes to allocation of land, water, and building permits, Israel says that the covenant does not include territories not under its sovereignty or jurisdiction, and at the heart of a military dispute.
For those who forgot, the Sharon-Eitam government then goes on to remind the reader that the September 1995 Interim Agreement with the PLO says the PLO is responsible for all the civilian affairs in the territories, "including a variety of security issues." And that's all before the important breakthrough of the "two jeeps" the IDF moved out of Bethlehem.