Updates from AIJAC

The Mossad's Analysis / Palestinian Democratisation

July 8, 2002
Number 07/02 #04

Today's Update features a speech given by Efraim Halevy, the head of the Mossad, Israel's international intelligence agency, given at a NATO Council meeting a few weeks ago, and republished in the Israeli daily, Yediot Ahronot. In it, the exceptionally well-informed Halevy examines in detail the threats to Israel and the West coming out of the Middle East, especially in the form of suicide terror, extremist ideologies and rogue states with weapons of mass destruction.

Following this is a good solid analysis of the requirements for successful Palestinian democratisation, in the context of a wider Arab world in which democracy is largely unknown. It comes from Meir Litvak, an expert in Palestinian politics from the Moshe Dayan Centre at Tel Aviv University.

YEDIOT AHRONOT June 28, 2002

DOCUMENT: The Complete Address Of Mossad Head Efraim Halevy, in a rare appearance at the NATO Council In Brussels

ON SEPTEMBER 11 WORLD WAR III STARTED

The other day, Efraim Halevy, the head of the Mossad, Israel's main international intelligence agency, gave an address in the framework of a closed meeting of the NATO Alliance Council in Brussels. Participants in the meeting included 19 Ambassadors of the member countries in the Alliance. Here is the full text of his address:

"Since the beginning of the Palestinian Intifada against Israel, more than sixty suicide attacks have been executed against us. It is no longer a marginal phenomenon, which characterises a small and extremist sector of the society. It is a phenomenon that is developing at a quick pace into a half legitimate form of warfare, which receives encouragement and aid from the leadership level in the Palestinian camp.

"I have chosen to direct the spotlight on this aspect of the continuing Palestinian/Israeli conflict because it is so characteristic of what the whole world has been experiencing since the start of the new millennium. Terror acts, as it were tactical and short range, are quickly becoming strategic threats with international significance.

"The 11th of September was, if you will, an official and biting declaration of World War III. Also in the Œ90s there were terror attacks – the explosions that were executed simultaneously at the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam: the attack on the American naval vessel Cole in Yemen. There were terror acts in New York that brought about arrests and convictions, but only on September 11, was the die cast, and the true character of the new war was revealed to the eyes of all. This is a war in which the sides are not only countries but also terrorist groups, that operate almost with impunity. It is a war which does not have clear fighting lines; it is a war that is being waged against free societies, with weapons and strategies we have not known until now. It is a war which does not adhere to the rules of war, or the international legal norms.

Reality And Realpolitik

"We in Israel followed developments in NATO in response to September 2001 with great interest: sending naval units to the Mediterranean Sea in October 2001, the cooperation of your AWACS in patrols over the air space of the US for 220 days, meetings of your defence ministers in your meeting of June 6, during which you discussed the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iran, Iraq, North Korea and Cuba, Libya and even Syria, in connection with the terror threat.

"We have taken note of your discussions regarding NATO1s new strategic concept, which is no longer limited to the European/Atlantic arena, but is intended for a confrontation with the enemy "anywhere he could be", to quote. Therefore it was very encouraging to read your address, Mr. Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson, on April 29 2002, entirely devoted to the Mediterranean dialogue, in which there was a clear statement that NATO1s reciprocal considerations create the need to include the Mediterranean dialogue in your standing up against your new challenges. You detailed six areas in which there is a tie between European security and the Mideast. Today I will deal only with two of the six, terror and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

"For many years terror is serving to achieve political objectives. History knows many cases in which terror was an extremely powerful and effective means for achieving national liberation. The result of this, in the last period, is the attempt to define and to differentiate between categories and various nuances of terror: so for example, the ten Palestinian groups that operate out of Damascus are defined as half legitimate movements, which work on behalf of the liberation of Palestine. We have identified an effort that has continued for a long time, to avoid a confrontation with the true reality of this phenomenon, and this is in the interest of "realpolitik".

So, it is possible for Syria, which gives protection to these groups, to receive a seat as a respected member of the security council, and its representative even serves this month as Chairman of the council, and this at the very time when the Palestinian Islamic Jihad sent a suicide attacker to blow up a bus in the north of Israel, and caused the killing of around twenty people. The leader of this organization, Ramadan Shalach, publicly took responsibility for this attack from where he sits in his Damascus headquarters, when he was interviewed by the Al Jazeera television network, which millions watch all over the Arab and Muslim world.

"My appeal to you, here today, is that the attempts to differentiate and distinguish between colours and targets of Islamic terror are quickly losing their relevancy. Why? First of all because of the extent and the intensity of these terror actions. They are no longer limited to specific areas in the world. Hamburg, Milan, Brussels, London, Miami, Koala Lampur – this is only a random list of large cities in which terrorists are living, and in which they are slowly making their plans and preparing their operations. Secondly, the operation of suicides in New York, Washington, or Jerusalem, is the manifestation of a "modus operandi" that is motivated not only by professional efficacy, but by its being perfectly fitted ideologically and religiously. Therefore the method has attained transcendental, supernatural meaning.

The Mothers of The Martyrs (Shahidim)

"In recent weeks we have seen mothers escorting their children on their final paths, waving goodbye to them as they go to a lofty and desirable death. The more that acts like this become more widespread, the more their success grows in spreading death and destruction, and even more, to the extent that they approach achieving political success, so also the chance grows that they will become an extremely powerful weapon and receive preference in future confrontations, in which there will be involvement of Muslim societies from around the world.

Violent Radical Islam has been until now a minority stream in the Islamic religion, and most Muslims were – and one hopes they will continue to be in the future – aspiring to peace and moderate in their approach to life. But if the violent minority groups are not restrained, and in many cases, completely eliminated – then the statement "nothing succeeds like success" is liable to symbolise the terrible threat to the basic fabric of the member countries of NATO in which Muslim communities are growing and developing, in numbers and in influence, while they preserve their unique identity and culture.

"In light of this complicated situation we need to give our strategic assessment tremendous weight in a "form of warfare" that we will employ in the coming months and years. We identify terror in its entirety, and suicide attacks in particular, as "a form of warfare" that must be outlawed and prohibited in international law. Any support for these actions, or any authority that is allowed to execute them, must be prohibited in the clearest way. Dispatchers, movements, countries and entities that are involved in actions of this kind, or which encourage them, whether specifically or through the power of suggestion, must be taken out of the area of law and justice. By our doing this we will serve not only a country like Israel, but also as I suggested above, preservation of the free societies in Europe, Asia, on the American continent and everywhere else. "I believe that good service will also be done thereby to the moderate regimes of the Mideast, which are also threatened by extremist Islamic groups whose purpose is to remove the existing leadership in these countries.

"Reforms" In A Display Window

"In defining the threat of terror, we must contend with terrorist movements, which are identified by us and by you, with reciprocal ties and mutual support that they supply to each other, and with countries that host these groups and make their actions possible from secure bases. Before I comment on the hosting countries, I would like to note the following:

· There is growing influence for the support for terror in the Mideast from the inspiration of the Iranian regime. The most prominent revelation of this phenomenon is the continuing supply of weapons and capability for the presence of Hezbollah in Lebanon, along Israel1s northern border, and the continuing support of the Iranian regime for international terror branch of Hezbollah. Let us not forget that three of the 19 most wanted terrorists on the FBI list are Lebanese Hezbollah activists. None of them have been captured yet. The Iranian influence has grown inside the Palestinian Authority, both because of the expansion of cooperation between Iran and Hamas and on account of the direct tie between the established Palestinian Authority and Iran. The famous case of the Karine A ship, which was transporting 50 tons of Iranian weapons and ammunition that were purchased with the direct authority of Chairman Arafat, as he was forced to confess, is only one example of this.

· Iraq is trying to involve itself more and more in the destiny of the Palestinian Authority by means of distributing funds to families of the suicides and other Palestinian fallen fighters. In the territories, at the population level, one feels support for Saddam Hussein, and from time to time he receives encouragement from the leadership. The traditional tie between Chairman Arafat and Saddam Hussein remains in place despite all the transformations that have taken place in the Mideast.

"Now I will move to a discussion of "the hosting countries", which, as mentioned, enable terror and suicide attacks. To our great regret, we must place the Palestinian Authority, together with Syria, Iran and Iraq at the head of this list. For many months Chairman Arafat has placed the matter of the suicide attacker, the tortured saint, the "shahid" at the top of his list of priorities. In his uninhibited speeches full of incitement he diverts his people to these acts: the climax was his resounding call to millions of "shahidim" to overcome Jerusalem. There are defining, revealing moments, in the history of a country or of a political movement. Placing the ideal of suicide – "the shahid status" at the peak, in my opinion, has become such a defining decision, and its results will soon be known.

Israel is forced to use aggressive counter-measures: Our Operation Defensive Shield was aimed to uproot the terror infrastructure, and as you know, it merited temporary success. Following this operation we had a short period of quiet, that was broken with time, and during which it became possible for all the parties to assess the situation and to decide on future policy. The almost unanimous call for "reforms in the Palestinian Authority" reflect the opinion that there must be a real change in the character and functioning of the Palestinian Authority. This demand is considered a condition for ensuring the success of the Palestinian national movement.

"One cannot hide from the unique phenomenon in which Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the European Union and strong voices in the Palestinian Authority are singing the same notes, along with Israel. And how does Arafat respond? "At first by means of "reforms" in the Authority that were nothing but changes without significance in a display window. "The reforms" in the justice system were executed within one hour – really a world1s record of all time. The government was diminished, and Nabil Amar, a former minister who resigned in disgust even before dispersal of the earlier government said, "this is a cosmetic change that will lead the Palestinians to a disaster". Or as Hamas leader Rantisi said, "this was a reorganisation of the same corrupt people". Arafat refused to appoint a prime minister, as he was asked – among other things – by the European Union; he appointed a minister of internal security, who the Arab countries define as a clown in Arafat1s hands.

"Even more significant was the message that Arafat relayed to his people, in a policy speech that was given to the Palestinian legislative body on May 15. After he paid lip service to his critics, in his carefully worded and ambivalent call for halting suicide attacks, he told his audience that they had to remember the "Hudeiba Treaty", which he defined as "a minor treaty". He reminded his supporters that this treaty was signed between the prophet Mohammed and the tribe of Kuraish. It was signed at a time when Mohammed was in an inferior position in the battle field, and the understanding prevailed that this was the only way to prevent a loss, until the conditions of war changed, and Mohammed would have the upper hand. When this happened, Mohammed had the obligation to break the treaty and attack his enemy. And so Mohammed acted. On May 15 this year Arafat announced to his people that this was his strategy – to sign an agreement with the purpose of breaking it, at the moment when circumstances allowed it.

An Urgent Time Table

"I believe that leaders of the region are well aware of this strategy. Some of them have suffered in the past at Arafat1s hand, and they carry with them a bitter experience of this strategy, in the past and also today. But the urgent time table of the war against terror doesn1t conform with the political time table. At the moment there is an immediate urgency to restrain terror, and to eliminate it with a coordinated campaign. It obligates full cooperation from all of us on a long term basis, to prevent and counter terror in all its forms. It requires constant pressure on the Palestinians, to act against terror before it brings more death and destruction, and before it destroys their national movement.

"The second element that you mentioned in your address, Lord Robertson, is the threat of the spread of weapons of mass destruction. In this connection we must mention Iran, Syria, Iraq and Libya. In recent years the threat of weapons of mass destruction from Israel1s confrontation states has grown immeasurably. Firstly sir, in Iran.

"In recent years, Iran has invested tremendous sums in developing launch systems, mainly ground to ground missiles, which are based originally on North Korean expertise. The missile, Shihab 3, with a range of 1,300 km, was tested successfully. The Iranian defence minister, Shamhani, declared openly that the Iranians are trying to increase its range, its payload capability and "its destructive capability". Iran is involved also in research and development of missiles with even longer ranges, which can reach Europe and in the future – even the US. The Iranian defence minister denied this publicly, but we have a different view. This effort is being made under the camouflage of launching civilian satellites. I must tell you that I see no reason for this entry into development of missiles with such long range. Who and what are the potential targets of these systems? I don1t know.

"Iran is also involved in an intensive way in developing a military nuclear capability. For clear reasons I will not detail our information regarding this sensitive issue. The combination of this activity and of the above mentioned investment in launching systems must be an issue for the constant attention of all of us in this room.

"Likewise, we believe that Iran1s signing the treaty against the use of chemical weapons is no more than camouflage for building an infrastructure for dual purposes – a civilian infrastructure, which can be turned very quickly into a system for producing large quantities of the poison gas VX. The Iranians are investing also in research and development in the area of biological warfare.

"As you know, on the eve of the Gulf War, Iraq was on the verge of attaining nuclear capability. The Iraqis were only months away from producing fissionable material. Starting from 1998, the year in which the UN monitoring was halted, we must assume that the Iraqis renewed their efforts in this area; we have clear indications that this is what has happened, and it is their great and unshakeable ambition. Together with these efforts, we have reason to believe that the Iraqis have succeeded in preserving parts of their capability in the fields of biological and chemical warfare. We have partial evidence that they have renewed production of VX and perhaps even anthrax germs.

"Regarding launching systems, we have sufficient evidence to determine that they are investing every possible effort to preserve the capability they still have, and to increase them through new means.

"For years we have been following the purchase – and later the production - of North Korean missiles of the SCUD B and SCUD C and SCUD D types by Syria. The warheads are mainly conventional, but the Syrians also have chemical and biological capability related to ground to ground missiles.

"They have produced large quantities of nerve gas of the Serin type (GB) and in recent years they are working hard on producing VX nerve gas. These materials are suitable for military targets not only by means of bombs carried in jets or SCUD missiles of all kinds, but also on rockets of 220 and 302 mm diameter whose range is 50 to 100 km.

To Overcome The Threats

"As I approach the end of my address, I suggest that we turn our eyes to Libya, which is developing long range missiles with the aid of North Korea. The range of these missiles – more than 1000 km – also brings up Europe and Israel as future focal points of Libya1s capability. And perhaps I will add that Libya has been declared more than once as a country that is interested in attaining nuclear capability. I will make only a few comments on this important issue.

"A. What is clear to us as the sun at noon is that responses need to be in conformity with the size of the threats, and they have to be planned so that they will overcome the threats through providing the greatest chance for their success. The war of today and tomorrow has to be organized with weapons and strategy that befit the challenge. This is what we are doing in our region: with all due respect to what you did in Afghanistan, and what you will be forced to do in every place and at all times when you cope with challenges, as you will definitely need to do.

"B. Israel cannot abandon any effort to counter, prevent or delay attainment of the capability of weapons of mass destruction. Cooperation with certain NATO members has led to results deserving all praise.

"C. Terror and suicide attacks cannot be executed unless there are secure refuges for training, planning and acquiring weapons. It must be understood that both countries and individual leaders bear direct responsibility for the actions being executed in the territories under their control. In the final analysis, the international community has no alternative but to force them to bear this responsibility, since if this isn1t done the international system of nation states that manifests its sovereignty over territory and populations will be placed in danger. The status of the state and the right of sovereignty must be conditioned on proper behaviour.

"D. To sum up, preservation of the free societies and the lives of their citizens must be recognized as a basic right of every man and woman on the earth. We must shorten the days of criminal countries and entities, that act not only as lords of their destinies, but as lords of your destinies and ours."

Translation by Jonathan Silverman.

Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies No. 43 July 3, 2002

PROSPECTS FOR PALESTINIAN DEMOCRATIZATION

Meir Litvak

The Arab world has generally been the exception to the wave of democratisation that has swept the rest of the world since the demise of the Soviet Union. Although governments in Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen did initiate limited reforms and held elections to municipalities and national assemblies, effective power in all Arab countries remains the monopoly of the rulers, who rely on their security apparatuses and the military. One reason for this "Arab exception" is the weakness of the middle class, the backbone of any democracy, due to the failure of industrialisation in the first part of the 20th Century and the nationalisation of the economy by military regimes since the 1950s. Ever since then, civil society that could impose limits on the arbitrary power of the state has remained weak.

But this is not the sole explanation. The traumatic encounter between traditional Arab society and the West since the early 19th Century produced a distorted modernisation that failed to adopt the liberal aspects of western culture. Instead, it preserved authoritarian socio-cultural structures, sustained by traditional Islamic political culture that cherished obedience to authority. Modern technologies of political control and authoritarian ideologies simply enhanced these structures. One outcome was that Arab intellectuals gave higher priority to national goals -- the restoration of Arab power, the attainment of Arab unity, and the struggle against Israel – than to democratisation. The ongoing conflict with Israel also served as a pretext for rulers to avoid democratisation.

The spread of Islamist ideology led to the growing identification of liberal democratic values with the hostile West, hence, as destructive to authentic Islamic culture. At the same time, Islamist terrorism, particularly in Algeria and Egypt, pushed large segments of the "silent majority" to prefer authoritarian rulers as the lesser evil.

President Bush’s call for new Palestinian political and economic institutions based on democracy appears to assume that there is a greater potential for democracy among Palestinians than in other Arab societies. Indeed, while the Palestinians share many societal traits with other Arabs, they have been regarded as the exception to the "Arab exception," due to their higher level of education and greater exposure to western cultural influences. These things were thought to produce a more politically sophisticated society. Perhaps paradoxically, the conflict with Israel was also thought to strengthen this potential, because under Israeli rule, Palestinian civil society, as a major engine of national mobilisation, experienced significant growth. For some Palestinians, the proximity of Israeli democracy also generated demands for democracy in their own future state.

The establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA) reversed these processes. The PA’s institutional structure ostensibly contained all the accepted components of democracy, including an elected executive and legislative council and an independent judiciary. In practice, however, PA Chairman Yasser Arafat maintained the system of personal control he had developed in Beirut during the 1970s. This system was based on the principle of divide-and-rule: overlapping responsibilities were assigned to competing institutions, whose heads he personally appointed and who remained dependent on him and vied for his favour. It was reinforced by PA’s rentier character. Since foreign aid constituted the bulk of its revenues, the PA did not depend on tax revenues from its citizens and was therefore unaccountable to them. The allocation of more than 30% of the PA budget to Arafat’s presidential office provided him with another instrument for dispensing favours and maintaining control. Consequently, Arafat could ignore the legislative council and turned it into an ineffective debating society. He also neutralised the judiciary by dismissing independent judges, by ignoring verdicts not to his liking, and by establishing national security courts subject to military procedures. The print and electronic media were brought under the PA’s control and used to promote Arafat’s personality cult.

Palestinian society itself has undergone a process of militarisation with the establishment of nine different security forces that functioned as a major employers as well as instruments to repress domestic opponents and prosecute the conflict with Israel. The strategic decision by Fatah, the dominant Palestinian movement and Arafat’s personal power base, not to transform itself into a political party signified the priority given to national-revolutionary ideology over democratisation. The educational curriculum, too, emphasised the importance of Palestinian national struggle over democratisation.

Most civil society institutions, except the Islamist ones, were brought under the PA’s control. In addition, the PA encouraged the revival of traditional clan loyalties that it could manipulate at the expense of more modern frameworks of political organization. The growing impoverishment of Palestinians during the current 21-month confrontation drove many of them to rely on their families and clans for survival, thereby further enhancing primordial loyalties.

The cause of democratisation is also undermined by the fact that the major opposition to the PA, Hamas, is also an anti-democratic movement and advocates an Islamist agenda that denies the political rights of secular forces and non-Muslims and relegates women to a marginal role in society. The PA’s excessive corruption and failure to provide basic social services, particularly during the past 21 months of violence, has increased the popularity of Hamas, perhaps enabling it eventually to challenge the PA’s very existence. In any case, Palestinians are left with a choice between two non-democratic options.

Any real shift towards democracy will therefore require a comprehensive overhaul of the PA system of government; a profound economic change that would enable the Palestinian middle class to function without the shackles of the security organs and would allow the growth of a free civil society; elimination of corruption as a political system; a comprehensive educational reform that would promote democratic values; and progress in the peace process with Israel. PA authoritarianism never reached the level of Iraq and Syria and more closely resembles the model of Egypt and Jordan, but it is highly unlikely that a genuine shift to democracy will take place as long as Arafat and his cohorts continue to dominate Palestinian politics.

MEIR LITVAK, PhD is Senior Research Fellow at the Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies, and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Middle Eastern and African History, Tel Aviv University