Rabbi Abba Silver, a Cleveland Zionist with Republican contacts, and Zionist official Emmanuel Neumann, initiated "Democratic and Republican competition for the Jewish vote." In 1944 they "wrung support from the conventions of both parties for the Taft-Wagner [Senate] resolution" supporting abrogation of the Palestine immigration limits in the 1939 British white paper, and the establishment of Palestine as a Jewish commonwealth. Ensuring the traditional loyalty of Jewish voters was a paramount concern of Democratic politicians, up to the president himself, in the New York mayoral election of 1945, the 1946 congressional elections, and the 1948 presidential election.

Gentile opinion was also courted in non-electoral ways, through the American Palestine Committee of notables, constituted in 1941 by Emmanuel Neumann of the American Zionist Emergency Committee. By 1946 it included "sixty-eight senators, two hundred congressmen and several state governors" with "seventy-five local chapters." It became "'the preeminent symbol of pro-Zionist sentiment among the non-Jewish American public.'" It was entirely a Zionist front.

Zionist control was discreet but tight. The Committee's correspondence was drafted in the AZEC headquarters and sent to [chairman New York Senator Robert] Wagner for his signature. Mail addressed to Wagner as head of the American Palestine Committee, even if it came from the White House or the State Department, was opened and kept in Zionist headquarters; Wagner received a copy. The AZEC placed ads in the press under the committee's name without bothering to consult or advise it in advance, until one of its members meekly requested advance notice.

Dewey Stone, a Zionist businessman, had financed Truman's vice-presidential campaign in 1944, and businessman Abraham Feinberg, with jewelry magnate Edmund Kauffman, led fundraising for the otherwise penniless 1948 presidential campaign. "If not for my friend Abe, I couldn't have made the [whistle-stop train] trip and I wouldn't have been elected," Truman stated. "Feinberg's activities began a process that made the Jews into 'the most conspicuous fundraisers and contributors to the Democratic Party.'"

Key White House advisors ensured the domination of Zionist viewpoints in the highest circles of the Truman Administration. Jewish aides David Niles, administrative assistant to Truman, and Max Lowenthal, special assistant on Palestine to Clark Clifford, himself "Truman's key advisor on Palestine at the White House," were especially crucial. Niles was one of two presidential aides retained from the Roosevelt Administration, the other being Samuel Rosenman. Niles was Truman's chief political liaison with the Jewish community. Lowenthal was the Harvard-trained former counsel to the Senate Interstate Commerce Committee on which Truman had served, who specialized in drafting Zionist memoranda. In 1952 Truman stated in a letter to Lowenthal, "I don't know who has done more for Israel than you have." Clifford, an ambitious Missouri lawyer, like so many non-Jewish Democrats saw the manifest political advantages of Zionism; Truman's 1948 victory launched Clifford's career as consummate Washington insider. The "White House through its busy and assorted 'aides' never wanted for advice on the Palestine question. All together the quantity of well-argued advice coming in through various unofficial channels was enormous and would provide an efficient counter to that coming from the president's official foreign policy-making body, the State Department."

This formidable apparatus was deployed at every twist and turn on the sinous path of events that culminated in Israel's creation. In 1945 the Zionist lobby linked concern for the Jewish displaced persons languishing in European camps to the Palestine question, and pressured Truman to endorse a Jewish Agency proposal for the British to admit 100,000 Jewish immigrants to Palestine. In April, 1946, a joint Anglo-American commission, with US Zionist members, duly endorsed the immigration proposal, among others, and talks about a comprehensive political settlement continued, resulting in the Morrison-Grady plan for a federal state with autonomy for Arab and Jewish provinces. Truman thought this then and later "the best of all solutions proposed for Palestine." The plan fell short of Zionist aspirations toward partition, and under intense pressure, with the fall elections looming, Truman reluctantly declined to endorse it.

The Jewish Agency Executive, the governing body of the Zionist settlement in Palestine, proposed partition in early August. On October 4, 1946, the eve of Yom Kippur, Truman delivered his famous statement noting the Morrison-Grady plan, and the Jewish Agency partition proposal, calling the latter a solution which "would command the support of public opinion in the United States." Despite Truman's further observations that "the gap between the proposals" could be bridged, and that the US government could support such a compromise, the statement was intepreted as support for partition and a Jewish state, as Niles predicted to the author, the Jewish Agency representative in Washington, whose original draft had been modified by the State Department.

The Yom Kippur statement marked a watershed in the political and diplomatic struggle for the Jewish state. The British saw in the statement a demonstration of Jewish political power and gave up their quest for an Anglo-American consensus on Palestine. [British Foreign Secretary] Bevin began issuing threats that the British would evacuate Palestine, and in February 1947 they did indeed refer the question with no recommendation to the United Nations.

The United Nations Special Commission on Palestine was formed after the British announcement. Truman, "undoubtedly embarrassed by accusationsthat he had exploited the Palestine question for domestic political gain" with his Yom Kippur statement, thereafter remained silent. Before the UNSCOP decision, Truman still retained hope for the 1946 Morrison-Grady plan. When on August 31, 1947, UNSCOP announced its majority decision recommending partition, the administration came under overwhelming pressure to endorse it.

The State Department, like the War Department and most of the government, and elite opinion generally, viewed good relations with the Arab states and people as the basis of US interests in the region's oil, in trade and investment, military basing rights, and excluding the rising bogey of Soviet influence. But the Zionist machine was at full throttle, Democratic politicians from Congress to the Cabinet protested vehemently to Truman about the political consequences, and a statement endorsing partition was made at the UN on October 11. Truman did fear that if partition became a US plan, it would require US military forces to implement. Neither the US nor the USSR, which endorsed partiton two days after the US, lobbied for votes among member states, and on Wednesday, November 26, the General Assembly approved the final draft partition resolution by one vote less than the required two-thirds majority. The partition forces postponed the final vote, and over the Thanksgiving holiday the president, his aides and US diplomats went to work. That Saturday, November 29, partition passed by 33 to 13, with ten abstentions. Truman took personal credit for changing several votes.

The Zionists had been waging war against the British to drive them out of Palestine, and after the UN partition vote, civil war broke out with the Palestinian Arabs, who rejected partition. In February the State Department prepared plans for a UN trusteeship, with White House knowledge and approval. On March 18, a UN commission to monitor events in Palestine, which had predicted further chaos and bloodshed after the British withdrawal on May 14, reported its failure to arrange any agreement between Jews and Arabs. The following day the US ambassador to the UN announced the trusteeship proposal, which brought a political firestorm down on Truman, and on March 25, at a press conference he explained that trusteeship was only a means of eventually implementing the UN resolution for partition. The Arabs rejected it, as did the Zionists.

Yet Truman's political fortunes continued to plummet; the Democratic Party revolted against his presidential candidacy. As Zionist forces achieved partition (and more) in battle, pressure built for recognition of the Jewish state, expected to be proclaimed on the final day of British withdrawal, May 14. The State Department was opposed; Secretary Marshall feared Jewish military successes would be temporary, that the Zionists would partition Palestine with King Abdullah of Transjordan without reaching a settlement with the Palestinian Arabs (which did happen), and that recognition would prejudice efforts to arrange a truce under UN auspices after May 14. Zionist pressure was ferocious; the White House "aides" were very busy; Clifford essentially commissioned the request for recognition from the Jewish Agency representative in Washington, which was duly delivered to the White House, and at 6:11 PM on May 14 Truman announced de facto recognition of the State of Israel, flummoxing the US delegation at the UN, and US allies. Marshall stated that, during a May 17 discussion, Truman "treated it somewhat as a joke as I had done but I think we both thought privately it was a hell of a mess," and felt that the US "had hit its all-time low before the U.N."

US diplomacy in the ensuing Arab-Israeli war was conducted along similar lines. For all his accommodation of Zionism, Truman received only 75% of the Jewish vote, compared to Roosevelt's typical 90%. Truman lost New York, Dewey's home state, where there was also a large vote for Wallace. Truman did narrowly win Ohio, Illinois and California, helped by Jewish voters. After describing this tour de force of domestic power politics, Michael Cohen, whose work is mainly quoted here, argues that Israel's military prowess changed the views of the British and US diplomatic and military establishments. "[T]he White House and State Department, if only ephemerally, came to a consensus on Israel's vital importance to the West as a 'strategic asset."' The qualification "ephemerally" acknowledges the Eisenhower presidency, during which Israel was largely not regarded as a strategic asset.

Cohen attributes Truman's susceptibility to Zionist influence to a "unique set of circumstances that converged to determine the fate of Palestine," including Jewish friends, White House advisors, key Jewish Democratic Party fundraisers, and Zionist military prowess, which "should not be expected ever to repeat themselves." The circumstances were not at all unique, but have been practically a recipe for quasi-sovereign Jewish influence on foreign policy in Democratic administrations. By institutionalization throughout the political culture, this influence extends to Republican administrations as well; Eisenhower was an exception. Such influence is not sinister or conspiratorial, but the overt working of US-style capitalist democracy, albeit on behalf of racism, war and genocide, and with a paralyzing effect, in this case, on the liberal circles which usually oppose such matters.

The chauvinism of US organized Jewry is a distinctive feature of US society and history, comparable in importance to classic US singularities like slavery, and the absence of a socialist left, and their crippling legacies. Jewish influence in the Democratic Party, and its impact on foreign policy, notably on the inability of Democrats to mount a critique of the Iraq war and Middle East policy, is comparable to the influence of the Dixiecrats, the segregationist Southern Democrats, on civil rights, labor law and other issues. The moral antipode to organized Jewish power is not an orthodoxy which misattributes Jewish influence to "strategic interest," but anti-Zionism. Left internationalism, in which Jews were prominent, and classical Reform Judaism, once the dominant Jewish creed, emphatically rejected Zionism as a reactionary ideology, rejected modern Jewish nationality, and affirmed the Jewish place as a minority in liberal or revolutionary society. Anti-Zionism need not mean, immediately, a secular democratic state in Palestine, but the moral and intellectual framework which rejects Zionist claims on Jewish identity and gentile conscience, and asserts liberal and revolutionary values against radical nationalism.

Harry Clark grew up in the Illinois congressional district represented for twenty-two years by Paul Findley, a centrist Republican. Findley's support for the Palestinians aroused the ire of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, which eventually drove him from office. Studying Zionism is an avocation.

A pdf of this article with footnotes can be found on Clark's website.

Farber's fulmination is perverse since Noble is Jewish, and the smear campaign against Noble came about because he came to the aid of a Jewish political science student who was being persecuted by York President Lorna Marsden.

The student, Daniel Freeman-Maloy, committed the heinous act of speaking his mind. On March 16, he used a megaphone in the Vari Hall rotunda during a demonstration on the anniversary of the murder of peace activist Rachel Corrie. For his efforts, Freeman-Maloy was denied the right to re-register for three years and banned from campus under penalty of trespass. He has filed a $850,000 lawsuit against York for abuse of power, defamation and breach of academic freedom. (See sidebar below.)

Acting on Noble's behalf, the York University Faculty Association (YUFA) has been demanding that the university administration hand over all documents pertaining to the production and dissemination of defamatory press releases in November 2004, but it met with utter non-compliance-until recently.

On Dec. 14, 2005, arbitrator Russell Goodfellow scheduled a hearing with YUFA and York administration ordered all sides to disclose their documents, but York refused. Before rescheduling the hearing, he ordered all sides to disclose all documentation,

On Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006, the university administration finally released a copy of the fax informing it of Noble's flyer. The date of the fax and the signatories prove that off-campus activists for The Lobby engineered the defamation of Noble and that York's administration was complicit.

FAX SIGNATORIES
Neither Talia Klein nor Tilly Shames is a student, faculty member or employee of York University. They are, however, employees of The Lobby. Shames is director of Israel Affairs for Hillel of Greater Toronto, and Klein is director of Hillel@York, an agency of the United Jewish Appeal Federation, which is a subsidiary of United Israel Appeal Federation (UIAF).

FAX RECIPIENTS
Here is where the pernicious propinquity among York, the University Foundation and The Lobby is most obvious:

Paul Marcus, Director of York University Foundation, is the former director of communications for United Jewish Appeal.

Richard Fisher, York's director of communications, would have been responsible for issuing the press releases.

National Jewish Campus Life, of which Lance Davis is a director, is part of UIAF.

Center for Jewish Life, of which Marty Lockshin is a director, is a Zionist educational organization funded by Julia Koschitzky, director of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA) and board member of York University Foundation.

DEFAMATION
In the fax, Klein and Shames wrote: "As I am sure you can imagine, we find this very troubling because individuals are named under the rubric of Jews controlling the University." The conflation of "Zionist" with "Jew" is a fundamental lie that allows The Lobby to attack anyone-Jew or non-Jew-as "anti-Semitic" for criticizing Israel or The Lobby's activities.

As Noble told the university's newspaper Excalibur: "Their letter describes my flyer as 'under the rubric of Jews controlling York.' There's a distortion right there. Where in my letter is there a rubric saying, 'Jews controlling York' and why didn't the York administration call me if they were so concerned about this?"*

COLLUSION
Proof of York's collaboration with The Lobby comes in the last sentence: "Please be in touch tomorrow morning so that we may conference on the best way to handle this situation." Clearly, the impetus to attack Noble came from The Lobby, not York.

A joint attack on Noble came in the form of a York press release (Nov. 19). Again, the signatories are important.

Nancy White, director of media relations, is self-explanatory. Zac Kaye is disingenuously identified as merely representing Hillel@York to give the illusion that he has some affiliation with the university. However, in a joint press release that same day issued by the Canadian Jewish Congress Ontario Region and United Jewish Appeal Federation of Greater Toronto he is identified properly as the executive director of Hillel of Greater Toronto. Of course, as we saw above, Hillel@York is merely a arm of The Lobby.

The signature of Rabia Siddiqui, media relations representative for Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights is also problematic. She was stampeded into endorsing the release without having read it. When she realized that a smear campaign against Noble was taking place, she withdrew her name, but by then the damage had been done. On Nov. 20 and Nov. 21, the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star respectively ran a story based on the press release but never reported that Siddiqui rescinded her support.

"This is the smoking gun that [proves] this was all engineered by the Israel lobby," said Noble. "York university officials responded immediately to them... This means that the third largest university in Canada is captive to these people. They [The Lobby] got York University to defame one of its own professors. It is quite remarkable."

Since the release of the fax, White has left her position, and York is claiming "privilege" to avoid handing over any other documents. Noble said York is desperate to avoid arbitration because it doesn't want to hand over the documents. "York has run out of excuses," he said. "It's an institution of corrupt people trying to hide what they're doing."

The next arbitration hearing is set for September.

Sources:

* Cited in François Villeneuve, "Professor Noble points finger at Israeli lobby," Excalibur, March 29, 2006.

SIDEBAR

Student Wins Right to Sue

Daniel Freeman-Maloy has won a major victory in his $850,000 suit against York University.

On March 31, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a 2005 lower court ruling, which determined that university president Lorna Marsden could not be sued for malfeasance and breach of public office because her position was did not meet the criteria for a public office. As such she could not be charged for abusing her authority.

Freeman-Maloy argues that the president's statutory power to regulate student behaviour proves that Marsden ia a public figure. The Court will decide the matter later this year and determine if Freeman-Maloy has an adequate case to sue. From Michael Sitayeb "Appeal Court ruling reverses earlier court decision," Excalibur, April 5, 2006.

McCollum had announced that she was refusing to meet with Aipac representatives until she received an apology from the lobbying powerhouse. She said that, in a recent phone conversation with her chief of staff, an Aipac representative accused her of supporting terrorists because she voted against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 in committee. Aipac - a leading backer of the bill, which was passed overwhelmingly last week by the full House of Representatives - had denied McCollum's accusation and had not issued an apology to her.

McCollum was said to have agreed to work at resolving her conflict with Aipac in light of the good relationship she had with the pro-Israel lobby in the past. It is not clear whether she still insists on a formal, written apology, but according to sources familiar with her conversation with Kohr, she is willing to seek a way to "move forward."

The Senate delayed consideration of the bill, which would cut off assistance to the Palestinian Authority, after a security scare stemming from an erroneous report of gunfire in the Rayburn Senate Office Building delayed business until after Memorial Day, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. With 89 co-sponsors, the act is guaranteed passage. It differs from a version passed last week in the House of Representatives by allowing the president greater leeway in delivering emergency assistance to the Palestinians.

Bush has made unprecedented use of the "signing statement" -- the presidential declaration accompanying signed legislation -- to declare his constitutional prerogative to ignore legislation banning torture and requiring oversight for domestic surveillance.

Less significant legislation such as PATA, as the proposed measure is known, will surely get the same treatment, said congressional staffers involved in its drafting.

Four senior congressional staffers who talked about the legislation. All spoke without authorization and asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The fight over the act is more important for revealing rifts in Congress and in the Jewish community over how to treat the Palestinians.

The divisions stem from the vacuum created by the unresolved power struggle between the Palestinian Authority Cabinet, led by the Hamas terrorist group, and P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas, a relative moderate. They also stem from the effort by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to come up with a policy that will satisfy his diverse and difficult government.

Bush favors keeping lines to Abbas open, and his allies in the U.S. Senate have taken longer to consider the legislation to make sure those provisions are enacted into the law. The Senate was to have voted on the measure last week but a security scare in the Rayburn House Office Building helped postpone its consideration until after Congress returns from the Memorial Day holiday break.

One key difference between the version passed last week in the U.S. House of Representatives and the version under consideration in the Senate is that the Senate would grant Bush a waiver to fund troops loyal to Abbas. The Senate version also removes oversight restrictions on emergency aid to the Palestinians through non-governmental organizations.

Skepticism about Abbas, who failed to control Hamas even before its election in January, runs much deeper in the House, where Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) spearheaded the lopsided 361-37 vote in favor of the bill. There, the sense is that the refusal to renounce terrorism and recognize Israel permeates not just Hamas, but the Palestinian polity.

The House bill imposes a blanket ban on assistance to the Palestinian Authority, whereas the Senate version is careful to designate the "Hamas-led Palestinian Authority," suggesting that its provisions would lapse if and when Hamas were ousted from power.
The sweep of the House version is what prodded three dovish pro-Israel groups to marshal unusually forceful lobbying against it.

In a statement, Americans for Peace Now said the bill was "irresponsible" for "failing to include a sunset clause for draconian performance requirements that will stay on the books regardless of who is running the Palestinian Authority, and by failing to distinguish between Hamas and Palestinians who support a two-state solution."

Brit Tzedek v'Shalom flooded offices with calls and letters, the first time in memory a dovish group went toe-to-toe with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which supported the bill, on the grass-roots level. Some lawmakers were reporting a 3-1 ratio of calls against the bill.

Also for the first time, Peace Now directly challenged AIPAC in its releases to Congress members. "APN Corrects the Record on the AIPAC 'FAQs' Regarding HR 4681," was the headline of one memo.

"We were compelled to explicitly confront AIPAC over H.R. 4681 because they were the main driving force behind the legislation and because they put out misleading information about the content of the bill and its implications," said Lewis Roth, Peace Now's assistant executive director. "APN isn't looking for a fight with AIPAC, but we won't shy away from one either."

APN singled out AIPAC's claim in its materials that the bill targets a "Hamas-led PA." The bill is "a laundry list of mandatory reforms and benchmarks that are totally unrelated to Hamas or stopping terror," the APN release said. That "undermines the very moderates the U.S. should be supporting," it said.

AIPAC officials would not speak on the record but sources close to the group dismiss the APN claims as nonsense. "APN is virtually irrelevant on Capitol Hill, and its effort to oppose the PATA in the House proved an embarrassing failure, with the bill passing 361-37," said a pro-Israel lobbyist sympathetic with AIPAC's case. AIPAC has been open about supporting both the House and Senate versions of the bill, these sources say, because it is important to get a message out as soon as possible that the United States will not fund terrorist groups. Ultimately, the AIPAC sources say, the House and Senate versions will be resolved in conference, and the message will be out.

But it will come after a nasty fight that burst into public when Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) published a letter she had sent to AIPAC's executive director, Howard Kohr, banning AIPAC lobbyists from her office until he apologized for an AIPAC volunteer who allegedly accused her of supporting terrorism because she opposed the bill. The Minnesota-based volunteer, Amy Rotenberg, denied making the accusation in a conversation with McCollum's chief of staff Bill Harper. Harper stood by his notes from the conversation with Rotenberg.

Ultimately, Rep. Gary Ackerman, (D-N.Y.) who is close to both Kohr and McCollum, brokered a meeting between the two which ended with an agreement to disagree -- and to reinstate AIPAC in McCollum's good graces.

Israel's friends in Congress breathed a sigh of relief: McCollum is a good friend of the Jewish state and "we didn't want to turn her into a Moran,'' said one, a reference to Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), one of Israel's most consistent critics.

The appointment as special envoy was spurred by two key objectives, and Rickman will return to them over and over, as though memorizing the Talmud: monitoring and combating. More than six decades after the Holocaust, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during Rickman's swearing-in ceremony last Monday, anti-Semitism is not just a historical fact, but a current event.

"Anti-Semitic hate crimes are on the rise still at home and abroad," she said. Then she used the words typical of such events: decisive action, deep commitment. Rickman stood with his family, a little excited. After all, there has never been a special envoy like him.

Rickman is not quite sure what he plans to do, saying in an interview that he wasn't trying to hide the fact that there are a lot of things he still doesn't know. He noted the difficulties of being first: There's no one he can go to in an effort to find out what his predecessor did in the job, or what ought to be changed, or how his predecessor dealt with this or that issue. It's Rickman who will be the one to chart the path, for as long as he and the three or four assistants he will hire shortly remain part of the administration.

More bureaucracy

Rickman said he has full support from Rice and hopes that backing will help him make the position a substantive one. Nonetheless, Rice did not initiate the position, and many State Department officials think there was no reason for the job to be created in the first place. It's superfluous and artificial, they say - and even worse, "political."

It was Congress that created the position of anti-Semitism special envoy about two years ago, through the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act. Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos from California and Republican Senator George Voinovich from Ohio were instrumental in passing the legislation, despite the resolute opposition of the State Department.

State Department officials cited many explanations for their opposition to the creation of the envoy position. Who needs more bureaucracy, they asked - and anyway, the officials responsible for the various departments are already dealing with anti-Semitism and taking a stance on it without a problem. And of course, they wanted to know why this specific issue and not any other. The firm response was, in effect, "because that's what Congress wants" - meaning that's what the public wants. After two years of foot- dragging, the post was finally created.

Voinovich, who attended the swearing-in ceremony, won special mention from Rice for the role he played. Rickman is wary of the bureaucratic minefield and knows that not everyone agrees with his appointment. Nonetheless, as he said with a smile, here he is, the anti-Semitism envoy. And of course, he does have support, and is sure he will be able to win cooperation.

Rickman is 42, and has spent his career on Capitol Hill, where he worked on a commission on Holocaust assets and Swiss banks, and another commission investigating the "oil for food" affair involving the United Nations. He has also headed the small but increasingly influential Republican Jewish Coalition lobby.

Rickman knows how the administration works, how legislators work and how to navigate the corridors of power in Washington. He will now attempt to use this knowledge for the very important goal of fighting anti-Semitism. Within the State Department he will try to convince some and remind others that the war on anti-Semitism is on the agenda in relation to ties with other countries, that it's an issue the United States is interested in and bothered by. That it's an issue worthy of being included on the pro and con list in comprehensive deals with key nations. Outside the State Department, in contacts with foreign officials, Rickman will be able to have an influence only if his message is backed by action, by systemic decisiveness.

Although Rickman has only just taken office, notices of anti-Semitic incidents are already piling up on his desk: baton-wielding mischief-makers in Paris, more outrageous comments from Iran, an assault on a rabbi in Poland. Rickman said no one can argue that anti-Semitism has been on the rise; the numbers prove it.

Nonetheless, questions remain about the severity of the problem. Has it reached a critical stage? It's a tough question. History has taught us that "anti-Semitism left unchecked results in disaster," as Rickman said in his speech at the swearing-in ceremony. On the other hand, anti-Semitism is an amorphous concept whose precise definition is up for dispute, he said, adding that despite the ambiguity, people know it when they see it.

A few months ago the State Department, for the first time, published a report on anti-Semitic incidents around the world. Rickman sees this as an accomplishment in its own right, proof that things are happening. But for all that, the practical test is tough and confusing. Are the comments coming from Iran anti-Semitic? Yes, said Rickman; Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic, and so are claims of an international Jewish conspiracy.

And what about the British academic boycott of Israel: Is that anti-Semitic, or anti-Zionist? Rickman knows that distinguishing between the two, if at all possible, is one of the most complicated problems he will have to face. Rickman wouldn't pick sides, saying he has not yet studied the issue in depth. But there's no doubt he will have to study the issue so he can figure out whether such incidents fall under his purview.

The 2005 State Department report noted anti-Semitic incidents in many countries, but critics found several difficulties, such as unlimited understanding for anti-Semitism from the Saudi rulers. Saudi Arabia was mentioned in a much shorter section than the ones about other countries, in which anti-Semitism is a marginal phenomenon. Rickman thinks it doesn't matter how many words were written about each country, and said there's a need to keep pushing, not to give up. His first objective is education, in which he said the Saudis have expressed an interest. Of course, it will be easier in countries in which the government cooperates, and more complicated when the government is the source of the problem. Iran comes up yet again. I don't have all the answers, Rickman said.

Careful scrutiny

Israel is clearly the biggest obstacle. Where does the line fall between hatred of Jews and political opposition to, or even hatred of, Israel? Rickman knows that in Israeli eyes, the difference is minimal. Everyone is particularly sensitive when they are the ones being criticized, Rickman said, adding that some people consider anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism to be the same thing. He will need to come up with criteria to determine what is permissible and what is forbidden, what is anti-Semitic and what is just political when it comes to Israel.

Rickman is himself a Jewish supporter of Israel, and he realizes he will be scrutinized carefully. People will think all sorts of things, he said, but he doesn't know yet where the line will be drawn. Then he smiles and adds that a hypothetical debate is a wonderful thing.

But Rickman has a mission to accomplish. Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who has spent a long time fighting anti-Semitism, said determining the line between anti-Semitic incidents and anti-Israel ones is one of the practical tests facing the new State Department envoy. It remains to be seen how much Rickman will be able to expand the definition of his task, how much the State Department will let him spread his wings and get involved in sensitive topics, express an opinion, take a seat among the decision-makers and policymakers.

Rickman has already passed his first test - on Tuesday - with a smile. Here a serious issue like Iran is on the agenda and he was called on to contribute. They're not ignoring him. Nonetheless, it hasn't been 100 days yet - it's barely been 100 hours; he doesn't have an office yet, or a team of workers and he certainly doesn't have work guidelines. It's a position in the making, and with that comes excitement, worry and open questions. Rickman suggested Haaretz return in two or three years to see what he has accomplished. Altogether, he is an entertaining paradox: an official who combats anti-Semitism, yet radiates optimism.

Internally, it has faced security challenges from the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, the president.

Despite mediation, clashes between the two factions, which have killed 10 Palestinians and left many more wounded, have continued.

The following are excerpts of an interview Aljazeera.net had with the Palestinian prime minister recently.

Aljazeera.net: Is a Palestinian civil war inevitable?

Ismail Haniya: Inter-Palestinian fighting is a red line we must not breach, and civil war among the brothers has no place in our dictionary. We are not experts in civil war and are unlikely to allow ourselves to be dragged into such an ugly prospect. Besides, for a civil war to take place, there have to be two competing camps with fundamentally different interests. And we don't have this in our society.

Yes, but Palestinian blood has been shed by Palestinian hands here in Gaza. Doesn't this alarm you and your government?

Indeed, it does and we are pained by every drop of Palestinian blood shed in these regrettable clashes, and I assure you that we are taking extraordinary efforts to see that things like this don't happen again.

But Fatah's and Hamas's armed men are in the streets and any misunderstanding here or there could trigger an open confrontation.

There are certain differences and factional competition between Fatah and Hamas. However, these differences don't warrant shedding our blood by our hands. We will see to it that the voice of reason prevails. And I assure you that those who are betting on civil war among our people will be disappointed.

Do you think the latest acts of killing and lawlessness in Gaza were spontaneous or organised?


There are indications that certain organised entities are behind recent efforts to destabilise the security situation in Gaza, apparently in order to portray the government as powerless and unable to establish the rule of law.

Some of these people are symbols of the erstwhile reign of corruption who are worried that stability will be detrimental to their interests. These elements exist in various government departments and are constantly trying to create confusion and conflict. But we will get them sooner or later.

Who are those people?

They are America's agents, since they are carrying out the American-Israeli plan of corroding and weakening the government until it collapses. However, the vigilance of our people has repulsed these elements.

What is your government's position regarding the public referendum President Abbas said he would hold if the factions failed to reach a common strategy with regard to Israel?

Well, first of all, we must give priority to the national dialogue in order to ensure its success. However, if we find ourselves facing a dead-end, we can then examine other possible alternatives.

Having said that, we are disquieted by the timing of the referendum proposal which we feel is used as a pressure card that could eviscerate the national dialogue of substance.

There is a widespread feeling that the PA has two heads, you and Abbas?

Yes, there are manifestations that would give such an impression. However, it is also true that the powers of both the president and the prime minister are governed by the Basic Law.

The problem we face is that we inherited a polity in which Fatah held all the reins, causing a lot of overlap. Today, there are two forces navigating the Palestinian boat, each relying on its democratic and patriotic legitimacy.

I know for sure that there are those who are trying to portray the PA with two heads. But I am convinced that this issue will disappear gradually as we achieve more understanding and harmony between the PA leadership and the government.

The US administration estimated that your government would collapse in three months.

The Americans are saying a lot of things. Just look how they are behaving in Iraq. I want to remind the Americans that my government came through the ballot boxes and enjoys overwhelming public backing, irrespective of the morbid whims we keep hearing from this or that capital.

They are punishing our people for exercising their democratic rights. By behaving with such vindictiveness against helpless people languishing under foreign military occupation, the US is creating more and more enemies in this part of the world.

Muslims and non-Muslims alike no longer believe that the US is serious about democracy.

Is Hamas losing public support?

Go to the streets and ask the people yourself. Haven't you seen the huge rallies throughout the Gaza Strip?

Yes, but people are starving and they want to feed their children, and they can't feed them with slogans and rhetoric.

We are not selling people words and empty rhetoric. However, we just can't allow ourselves to give up our legitimate and inalienable rights for the sake of American money. Will you give up the al-Aqsa mosque for foreign aid?

What will you say to those Palestinians who say that Hamas spells poverty?

Poverty and unemployment were rampant long before Hamas's election victory. Besides, if Hamas spells poverty as you say, then why did a majority of the people elect Hamas and why are most Palestinians backing Hamas?

How much aid have you succeeded in procuring from Arab, Islamic and friendly countries?

Despite the severity of the American blockade, we have succeeded in raising more than $400 million which would have solved the bulk of our problems had it not been for US bullying of local and regional banks to refrain from transferring the money to the occupied territories.

We realise that there is a huge conspiracy to besiege the elected Palestinian government and push it to the brink of collapse. But our people's steadfastness and vigilance will not allow this to happen.

What is the US policy regarding Hamas?

Well, the Bush administration is under strong influence of three main camps that are inherently hostile to everything Islamic: The American right, Christian Zionism and the so-called neocons.

These forces combined are more or less controlled or highly influenced by Israel. In fact, everybody knows that the Jewish lobby has effectively come to control America's foreign policy.

This explains the fact that the Bush administration is more hostile to us than even some Israeli leaders. Isn't this strange?

As to the American people, we are convinced that ordinary Americans don't hate us. And we don't hate them. But they are not getting the truth about what is going here.

Would there be peace between Israel and a prospective Palestinian state on the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem?

Yes, there can be peace, but let me ask you a question: Is Israel ready to give up all the territories occupied in 1967 even in return for full peace with the Palestinians?
Aljazeera

Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the leader of the governing Law and Justice party, shored up the coalition government last month by inviting the League and the populist Self-Defence party to join the cabinet. Members of the League of Polish Families' youth wing regularly carry Nazi placards on demonstrations.

Concern about anti-semitism in Poland was underlined during Pope Benedict's visit last month, when Michael Schudrich, Poland's chief rabbi, was attacked in Warsaw. President Lech Kaczynski, Jaroslaw's twin brother, apologised to Mr Schudrich after he was punched in the chest and doused with pepper spray by a man who shouted the old anti-semitic slogan "Poland for Poles".

The chief rabbi warned that the presence of the League of Polish Families in the government encouraged such incidents. "When you let an extreme rightist, xenophobic party into the coalition it empowers the ultranationalists," he told Reuters.

Israel formally registered its unease when it instructed its ambassador to Warsaw "to express Israel's concern to Polish president Lech Kaczynski following the inclusion of a party that has an anti-semitic ideology in Poland's governing coalition", according to a statement.

Victor Ashe, the American ambassador in Warsaw, made clear his concerns when he visited the chief rabbi after he was attacked. "There is no place for bigotry and all who abhor such intolerance must join together to condemn it," he said.

Members of the European parliament last week expressed unease about anti-semitism and homophobia after a leading member of the League called for "deviants" to be "beaten with batons" at a gay rights march in Warsaw next week.

Martin Schulz, the Socialist leader in the parliament, said: "We are extremely concerned about the fact that the leadership of the League of Polish Families, a government party, has called openly for violence of a homophobic nature."

Diplomats and MEPs are demanding that Poland stands by its EU commitments to tolerate diversity. A group of MEPs will travel to Warsaw on Saturday to monitor the march and a counter-demonstration by the League's youth wing.

Jewish groups in Poland are equally concerned about anti-semitism against the small number of Jewish people in Poland. Piotr Kadlcik, the head of Jewish religious communities in Poland, told Radio Zet: "In the last few weeks we have seen a clear rise in various types of incidents, which we did not see earlier. We receive threatening phone calls and text messages."

Many Jewish groups are blaming Radio Maryja, an influential Catholic radio station, for encouraging anti-semitism. Marek Edelman, the last surviving commander of the 1943 Warsaw ghetto uprising, wrote to the government accusing the station of "xenophobia, chauvinism and anti-semitism".

"Radio Maryja broadcasts propaganda, hate and a misconceived patriotism, saying Poles are superior, and Poland for the Poles," Mr Edelman told the Guardian. Jaroslaw and Lech Kaczynski regularly appear on the station, which has audiences of up to 3 million. "They [the government] lend credence to this station. Government figures do not go to Radio Maryja to pray. They go there to make propaganda," he said.

Behind the cracking voice and occasional gasps for air, Jefal Ayesh knows he is a dead man as he describes how his betrayal began. His eyes dart about constantly; his face flinches. At times he is close to breaking down.

Blackmailed into a web of treason woven from their own deceit and sexual transgressions, Jefal and his lover faced the justice of the street this week when the 25-year-old Palestinian father was dragged blindfolded into the heart of Balata refugee camp in the West Bank and shot as the worst kind of traitor - a collaborator with Israel. At the execution the mother of one of those he betrayed handed out sweets.

An hour or so later Jefal's mistress, Wedad Mustafa, a 27-year-old mother of four young children, was hauled from her home by her brothers and killed before a crowd in an act designed to restore the family's honour.

Public killings of collaborators are not uncommon in the occupied territories. But behind the deaths of Jefal and Wedad lies a tale of both Israeli blackmail, in an operation to stalk one of the most wanted men in Balata, and of two lovers seeking to get rid of an unwanted husband.

Confession

Jefal, a member of a respected family in Balata, left an account - coerced but persuasive - of turning traitor. A "confession" video was recorded following interrogation by members of al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, the armed Palestinian group responsible for hundreds of deaths in suicide bombings and other attacks and which dominates the refugee camp next to Nablus.

It began, he said, two years ago when his sister asked to meet him for lunch.

"There was a man there - a Palestinian. This guy said he was intimate with my sister. It was a shock. I asked my sister and she said it was true. Then he showed me a photograph of her in a sexual way," said Jefal, his voice breaking. "He said either I worked with him or he would show this picture around and it would create a scandal and bring dishonour to our family."

Many Palestinian women have been killed by relatives to restore family "honour" stained by extramarital affairs or relationships with men of a different religion.

Jefal agreed to work as an informer for the Israeli army and fell under the control of a captain he knew only as Azer who told him to "watch the big men" of the Aqsa brigades. The Israelis recruit many Palestinians as informers in a general sweep for information, but Jefal seems to have been chosen with a particular target in mind.

Through Jefal's sister, the military learned of his affair with Wedad. Her husband, Muhammad Khamis Ammar, was often with one of the army's most wanted men in Balata: Hammoudeh Ishtaiwi. The military accused him of involvement in suicide bombings, but it particularly wanted him for the killing of soldiers, including the shooting of a paratroop commander during a raid on Balata two years ago.

Through Jefal the Israeli army tracked Ishtaiwi's movements. The key was Wedad. She, too, was blackmailed over the affair. But the lovers apparently also saw an opportunity. If the army got Ishtaiwi, it was likely that Wedad's husband would also be arrested or killed.

Earlier this year the army raided Balata several times, looking for Ishtaiwi. The Aqsa brigades had a safe house in Balata, fitted with false walls and ceilings. Few people knew the house was a hideout, but Wedad came and went with food for her husband. One afternoon she called Jefal to tell him that Ishtaiwi, her husband and a third man, Hassan Hajaj, were in the safe house. Jefal called Capt Azer.

Secrets

"The captain called back in the night and said go to the area where those guys were hiding. There I was, describing to the army how to get to the house, where the hiding place was, the secret wall.

"The army went in and then the commander called and shouted at me, 'Are you making fun of me? We were there and we didn't find them.' I said, 'No, they are there. There's a really secret hiding place. You need to look harder.'"

The Israelis called Wedad. "It was the woman who pointed the finger to exactly where they were," Jefal said on his video. Wedad does not admit to that final betrayal in her own video confession, but the pair admit to working together to lead the Israelis to the hideout, and only she had been inside the house.

The army blasted through the false wall, and before long the Palestinian militants were dead. A few hours later Capt Azer called Jefal and told him to go to the morgue to check on who the army had killed. "I called the captain and told him, 'You have your three martyrs,'" he said at the end of the recording.

After Ishtaiwi and his colleagues were killed the Aqsa brigades' leaders began hunting for an informer. The men who interrogated Jefal, and then killed him, do not wish to be identified by name. "We found out that Muhammad's wife was in a relationship with a man," said one of the brigades' commanders. "When we asked about Jefal we found out that he left his house at 3am. We discovered he had a special pass to get through the Israeli checkpoint. We decided to question him."

There was a final test. The interrogators made Jefal call Capt Azer.

The Aqsa brigades refuse to show Wedad's confession. Her four children, aged three to 11, are orphaned and living with their grandparents.

"Her husband was a martyr. She was a traitor. It is better for the children that everyone remembers the honour of their father - not the dishonour of their mother," said one of the interrogators. "She denied being a collaborator the first time we questioned her, but then we put her with Jefal and there was a confrontation.

"He told her, 'We are going to die, so cleanse yourself and tell the truth.' She confessed to pinpointing their location and she knew her husband was inside. She and her lover tried to get rid of her husband because they wanted to get married."

On Tuesday Jefal was dragged blindfolded into Balata's main street and thrown to the ground while his captors told the crowd of his confession. When Jefal tried to get away several men fired shots into him. Some in the crowd ran to kick his body.

Attention turned to Wedad. The Aqsa brigades' leaders say they did not kill her, and that it was a matter of family honour. Within an hour of Jefal's death armed men had told the family of her involvement.

Wedad was dragged into the street by her family and was about to be shot when a man pleaded that she not be killed in front of children. Witnesses said she remained silent - seemingly resigned to her fate after being told of the death of her lover - as she was hauled into the grounds of one of the West Bank's largest hospitals. There, an armed man called for Wedad's brothers to come forward.

"You know what you need to do," he said.

· Who's who

Jefal Ayesh Blackmailed into informing for Israel, he led the army to kill his mistress's husband. Shot dead in Balata refugee camp this week.

Wedad Mustafa Betrayed her husband, an al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade fighter, to be with Ayesh. Killed by her brothers for tainting family honour.

Muhammad Khamis Ammar Wedad's husband, killed by Israeli soldiers searching for his commander after his wife betrayed their hiding place.

Hammoudeh Ishtaiwi Al-Aqsa commander. Israel's primary target.

Capt Azer Jefal's Israeli handler.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades An offshoot of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement responsible for suicide bombings and other attacks against Israelis in the past five years. The major Palestinian force in Balata refugee camp.

The Palestinians and Israel's settlement watchdog group Peace Now say the Maskiot construction amounts to a new attempt to push Israel's future border deeper into the West Bank. "It's about grabbing land," said Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now.

Otniel Schneller, an Olmert adviser, confirmed Israel is building in additional West Bank areas to ensure they are not included in the lands given to the Palestinians. He said Israel needs to keep the Jordan Valley, where Maskiot is located, as a security buffer against Islamic militants based in Iraq, Iran and elsewhere.

Olmert has said that if efforts to resume peace talks fail, as expected, he would annex large Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank and draw Israel's final borders by 2008. A separation barrier Israel is building in the West Bank is to serve as the basis for the future border.

In order to ensure a Jewish majority in lands it controls, Israel plans to evacuate as many as 70,000 West Bank settlers, relocating them to the western side of the separation barrier. Israel depicts the move as a major concession, but Palestinians fear Jewish footholds like Maskiot will prevent them from being able to build a contiguous state on the evacuated lands.

Maskiot would initially house 20 families, all former Gaza settlers forced out of their homes when Israel withdrew from the coastal strip last year. Israel has promised Washington it would not build new settlements in the West Bank.

The future residents of Maskiot say their homes are being financed by right-leaning Jewish donors and the Israeli government, and that they will be renting homes built by others.

Asked about Maskiot, Stewart Tuttle, the U.S. Embassy spokesman in Tel Aviv, said such settlement activity violates U.S. policy. "As a general principle, the U.S. government is opposed to settlement expansion," Tuttle said. "Ceasing settlement expansion is one of Israel's commitments under the road map."

At Maskiot, bulldozers have cleared the top of a hill and work crews have laid foundations for four houses. New trees have been planted on the edges of the settlement.

The first 20 families, all from the former Gaza settlement outpost of Shirat Hayam, are expected to move there in coming weeks, said regional settler leader Dubi Tal.

The Kinarti family from Shirat Hayam has moved into a temporary concrete block home in Maskiot. A knock on the door produced a man with a large skullcap who refused to comment on the construction of his new home but said he's originally from Shirat Hayam.

Another future Maskiot resident, Yossi Hazut, said he was settling in the Jordan Valley to help determine the borders of the state of Israel.

"I don't think there is even one Israeli who thinks that the Jordan Valley is not important," said Hazut, who is living in a nearby community until his house is ready. "God willing, many of us from Shirat Hayam will live in Maskiot."

Schneller, an architect of Olmert's West Bank plan, said Israel could move the separation barrier deeper into the West Bank to include Maskiot on the Israeli side.

Israel's Defense Ministry, which oversees settlement activity, confirmed it decided before Israel's March election to approve the construction of Maskiot.

The defense minister, Amir Peretz, has not tried to derail these plans, defense officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk to the press. Peretz, leader of the Labor Party, is seen as a leading opponent of settlement expansion, but apparently wants to avoid stirring up too many conflicts in Olmert's coalition government.

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Israel will eventually have to decide whether it wants to build more settlements or reach a peace agreement. "Every settlement is meant to take Palestinian land and meant to undermine a two-state solution," he said.

Yesterday the prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, attacked the referendum itself. "The local law does not permit holding referendums on the Palestinian law," he said.

Aides to Mr Abbas said that as the referendum is non-binding and about seeking public approval for a policy, there is no legal obstacle to the president ordering it.

Mr Abbas wants to break the political impasse that has led to a severe economic crisis after the freezing of international aid to the Palestinian territories. He is seeking to project himself, rather than Hamas, as representative of the Palestinian people's views on peace with Israel.

Aides say a referendum that showed substantial backing among Palestinians for a negotiated agreement would also undercut the Israeli government's contention that there is no partner for peace. Recent polls show that more than 75% of Palestinian voters support his policy of negotiations with Israel for a final settlement based on the 1967 borders.

But Walid Awad, an aide to Mr Abbas, warned that the outcome was not a foregone conclusion. "Such polls may be misleading, as no one should in any way underestimate the degree of rage the Palestinian public feels against the Israeli occupation," he wrote. "Irrationality may overcome sanity, and desire for revenge will override good judgment."

"If the document fails to carry the Palestinian public vote (and there are many reasons why it may not), this will almost certainly signal the end of President Mahmoud Abbas's tenure in office. This should not be an option for anyone."

One reason for Hamas's paralysis is that it is divided over the document. Many Hamas prisoners, who are influential in deciding policies, favour negotiation, as do some political leaders in the occupied territories. But its exiled leaders in Syria and Lebanon and members of Hamas's armed wing in Gaza argue formal recognition of Israel is a concession too far.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, is not enthusiastic about the prisoners' document either. He was quoted as saying yesterday that the document is "unacceptable and not the basis for anything". Israel has said the document does not call for a complete end to violence but says unspecified "resistance" should be focused on the occupied territories.

Mr Olmert told the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, at a Sinai summit yesterday that he is ready to meet Mr Abbas but that there can be no talks until groups such as Hamas are disarmed. Mr Mubarak welcomed Mr Olmert's proposals for a partial withdrawal from the West Bank but said the final drawing of Israel's borders should be carried out through negotiations with the Palestinians.

The motive for the shooting was not known, but local Hamas militia blamed rival Fatah gunmen and deployed in the streets as tensions rose.

Ghalban and his brother, who was critically wounded, were being treated at a Gaza hospital, medics said.

In a separate incident in Gaza City, three bystanders were killed in the crossfire as Hamas militants returned fire at unknown gunmen, local witnesses said. The three victims, all male, were pronounced dead at a Gaza hospital, medics said.

The incident took place not far from the home of Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh.

The deaths are the first since a Palestinian security officer was killed and seven were wounded in clashes between rival Fatah and Hamas factions in Gaza last Thursday, underscoring growing tension in the coastal strip.

The clashes have disrupted a tenuous peace in place since President Mahmoud Abbas, Fatah's leader, and Haniyeh's Hamas-led government began talks last month to try to end violence in Gaza.