The PA’s textbook incitement policy has been recognized by Israel

Op-ed by Ben-Dror Yemini

“Does the Palestinian Authority bear any responsibility for terror attacks against Israelis? Is there incitement in the PA textbooks? Is there incitement in the media? Does the PA have any influence over this incitement? These questions stood at the forefront of a lawsuit that was adjudicated during the last few years before Judge Dalia Ganot in the Tel Aviv District Court.

…

The judge ruled that not only was incitement in [PA] textbooks proven, but that ‘regarding this incitement there is no doubt that it is the result of a deliberate policy.’ In addition she ruled that no causal relationship was proven between this intentional incitement and the terror attack in question.

The lawsuit that led to the verdict was submitted by the estate of a victim of Palestinian terror, raising the claim that the PA bears responsibility for terrorism. The judge ruled that it was proven that incitement exists, but as opposed to textbooks, the judge ruled that when it comes to [PA] media ‘there is no doubt as to the obvious existence of incitement against Israel and against Jews in the Palestinian media, however a policy of incitement has not been proven.’

Judicial rulings in these areas need to be made carefully… In the verdict the judge criticized the expert witness, Itamar Marcus, head of Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). According to the judge, the 76 articles and TV clips presented by Marcus, although blunt and hard to watch, do not serve as statistical evidence of PA incitement…

Essentially – the judge is right. 76 items, out of thousands, are not statistical evidence…

… The problem is that we are not talking about 76 items out of thousands or tens of thousands, but about many thousands [of items]. The incitement is statistically significant, even if these statistics were not submitted to the court.

…Absolving the PA from responsibility is somewhat problematic. Many times, to [PA Chairman] Mahmoud Abbas’ credit, he himself has expressed opposition to violence. Arafat also occasionally let out a peep against violence, but according to evidence presented in court he encouraged [violence]. This is already known. But that is not all: Mahmoud Abbas claimed responsibility for the terror attacks. When asked about the release of prisoners, he compared Israeli soldiers to the Palestinian prisoners whose release he demanded: ‘With what are the Israeli soldier’s hands stained, with talc powder? They are stained with blood. This is war. And war means that you [Israel} ordered a soldier to kill, and I ordered my son, my brother, or another to carry out the duty of resistance (i.e., euphemism for terror). This person killed and that person killed... What am I worth in the eyes of the ordinary [Palestinian] citizen? The ordinary citizen will ask me: “While you commanded me, you are responsible.”’

We’ll put aside the ludicrous comparison between an Israeli soldier and a Palestinian killer who intentionally commits a terrorist murder against innocent people. Mahmoud Abbas’ statement was presented to the judge. It is her right to claim that it does not constitute taking responsibility, despite the fact that Mahmoud Abbas took responsibility. But in the verdict, for somewhat puzzling reasons, she chose to ignore this clear statement. What could she say? That this statement also requires statistical significance?

Statistical significance

Does promoting terror also have statistical significance? Well, a team was set up six or seven years ago in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs to monitor [the PA] systematically. This monitoring includes both positive statements and negative ones within a series of parameters such as “explicit incitement to terror,’ encouraging an atmosphere of violence’ not preparing hearts for peace,’ and more. The results are dismal. An index of 0 would have found a balance between negative and positive. The PA never achieved this. In the beginning of October 2009 the index was -30.77, and in September 2012 it reached -40.27.

Does incitement have an influence? A public opinion poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion… found that 40.8% of Palestinians believe that the media ‘to a large extent’ played an active role in escalating the Intifada, while 34.1% felt the media played an active role ‘to some extent’ … In other words 75% of Palestinians think the media had an influence on the Intifada.

The wonders of the arch-murderers

The incitement picture is even more complex. We should welcome any statement against violence made by Mahmoud Abbas. However, this same Mahmoud Abbas, in his own voice, publicizes words of praise and glorification for terrorists. Worse yet, time and time again, the Palestinian Authority lends support to terror.

When the PA holds a football tournament named after the suicide bomber at the Park Hotel, and for Samir Kuntar and for other arch-terrorists – there is no statistical question here. This is official support of terror.

When the PA gives [financial] allowances to all those sitting in prison, including those who murdered the Fogel family, then the PA’s very weak condemnation [of terror] is meaningless, and there is no statistic here. There is official support of terror…

No one disputes the fact that there was incitement and no one disputes the fact that – despite some insignificant denunciations – the PA leaders too, at all levels, encouraged terror and took responsibility for terror attacks. It is therefore unclear how, based on this, the judge granted the PA an exemption.

Experts in distorting reality

Members of the camp of illusions pounced on the new verdict as if they had found a treasure. Here is their proof that the Palestinian Authority does not incite. They celebrated the judge’s claim that Marcus did not present statistical evidence. They were happy to shut PMW’s mouth. It is really wrong for any organization to show what the PA is doing. When one out of a hundred soldiers deviates, they know how to accuse Israel of war crimes. When the PA systematically deals in incitement, they sink their teeth into the messenger [who exposes it]. They even had difficulty reading what is in the verdict. The judge did not say the Palestinian Authority was not involved in incitement. Just the opposite. She determined that there is a Palestinian policy of incitement in the school system and that there is of course incitement in the media, however, there is no statistical evidence of organized incitement by the PA. But have no fear; they are experts at distorting reality. They do it to Israel. They also did it to the verdict.”

[Maariv, Sep. 20, 2013]