Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Politics - June 2008

The young fighter against corruption turns out to be a champion in the field, and he does not know it (so he claims). - Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Another interesting month in Israel. Never a dull moment. This month we learned another lesson in the relationship between governance and finance.

In philosophy, when we discuss egalitarianism and Marxism, one of the questions raised is whether the state should cater to expensive tastes that people may cultivate; for if it is each according to her needs, and we would like to cater to all, what do we do with people who develop a particular craving for Champagne and caviar? From now on, thanks to our dear (as expensive) prime minister, philosophy classes may be enriched. In addition to the much quoted example, we now can speak about luxury vacations, expensive pens and Cuban cigars. Our prime minister may also serve as an example for public policy and ethics classes on public responsibility and corruption.

This month we heard testimonials of Morris Talansky, an affluent American, who grew to like, respect and admire Olmert, the “Likud Prince”. As tokens of appreciation, he wanted to donate to Olmert’s election campaigns. Olmert was happy to receive but asked that the money be delivered, in cash, in sealed envelopes, to his trusted assistants. Later he no longer waited for Talansky to approach him. He initiated specific requests, and the money always transferred hands, in cash, left to his discretion as to how to use it. On occasion, when he stayed in luxurious hotels, he would call Talansky, crying in despair that his credit card reached its limit. The kind Talansky picked up the tab. Recently I visited the Ritz-Carleton in Washington, where Olmert stayed and could not pay the bill. A nice hotel. I can appreciate the difficulty.

And so it went for a mere fifteen years. The exact sum is yet unclear. Anything between $150,000 and $500,000 transferred hands in cash. Olmert believes he had done nothing wrong. He has cravings and needs, which he cannot afford. The State of Israel is too socialist to cater to luxury vacations, expensive pens and Cuban cigars. Talansky can.

Cynical Israelis wonder how come no Uncle Sam (or Morris) gives them envelopes full of American dollars. Why him? Why not them? We have an exceptional prime minister. He reminds me of the story of the golden calf in the Sinai desert.

What did Olmert give Talansky in return? Well, he gave him some of his precious time. He also wrote a very nice card for Talansky’s 70th birthday. Olmert also had tried to aid a Talansky business venture by introducing him to several Israeli and American billionaires, including Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.

On November 17, 2005, Olmert connected Talansky with hotel moguls Itzhak Tshuva and Adelson in the hope that they would buy Talansky’s minibars. Six days later, Olmert received from Talansky a loan of $50,000 that was never repaid.

Talansky, 75, said there were no records of how the money he transferred was spent. "I only know that he loved expensive cigars. I know he loved pens, watches. I found it strange," Talansky told the court, then shrugged.
Olmert had asked Talansky for donations for his 1993 Jerusalem mayoral campaign and throughout his tenure as industry and trade minister. He said the cash-filled envelopes were transferred through Olmert's former bureau chief, Shula Zaken, each one containing between $3,000 and $8,000, and that the transfers were "legitimate." The unpaid loans, Talansky told Jerusalem District Court, included a $25,000-$30,000 loan used for a 2004 family vacation in bella Italia. Olmert never paid him back. Talansky said the last payment he made to Olmert was for some $72,500 for the Likud primary campaign in 2003. He said there had been no contact since Olmert became prime minister, except for a single meeting at a social function.
State Prosecutor Moshe Lador said that Olmert is suspected of money laundering, fraud, breach of trust, tax violations and violations of the Gifts Law. Olmert is also suspected of not reporting his receipts of cash while he was minister of industry and trade, as required by law. Lador was careful not to say that Olmert was suspected of receiving bribes.

Israel at 60 - AIPAC Annual Conference - Incitement - Syria - Human Rights Violations: Israel and PA - Max Kampelman - Dan David Prize - Hate in the USA - John Ivan Demjanjuk - UCL Dismissed a Research Fellow for Holocaust Denial - UK Endorses Hybrid Embryo Research - TURKISH PUBLISHER WINS IPA'S FREEDOM TO PUBLISH PRIZE - New Books - Thank You - Music - Avi Nimni - Hull Football Club - Film recommendation - Gem of the Month: AIPAC Annual Conference


Israel at 60

On June 1, 2008 the Washington National Mall was filled with tents, decorated with Israeli flags, in tribute to Israel sixtieth year of independence. Thousands of people came to listen to music (Mashina), to watch folk dancing, to learn about Israel’s history and achievements, to play games, eat and show their solidarity. In the heart of the American capital, between the Washington Monument and Capitol Hill, this was a moving and festive experience. One of its kind, as I do not know of any other country that celebrated its independence in such fashion.


AIPAC Annual Conference

The most sought after, quoted, visible, in the public eye and attention nowadays in the United States are John McCain, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton. Within three days I had the opportunity to hear all three of them, this thanks to AIPAC. On June 2-4 AIPAC held its annual conference with an impressive gathering of 7,500 people from all over the US.

The keynote speaker of the first day was John McCain who showed understanding of the intricate issues and challenges that Israel is facing, and genuine sympathy and concern for the future of Israel, giving his unqualified pledge to support Israel. AIPAC has been focusing its attention for some time now on the Iranian issue. Unsurprisingly, this was the focus of all plenary speeches, McCain’s included. McCain criticized Obama for saying in a debate last year that he would meet leaders of Iran and other U.S. foes without preconditions. McCain argued Obama is naive and inexperienced to think that such a meeting would yield progress. He criticized Obama for seeming to suggest that Iran is trying to develop a nuclear program because the U.S. refuses to engage in presidential-level talks. McCain said the Clinton administration in particular tried to engage Iran for two years, even lifting some sanctions, to no avail. In his speech, McCain called for measures aimed at increasing pressure on Iran, such as severely limiting Iranian imports of gasoline, targeted sanctions such as denying visas and freezing assets and a worldwide campaign to divest from companies doing business with Iran. McCain called for financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which he said aids in terrorism and weapons proliferation, and he criticized Obama for opposing a measure to impose those sanctions.

Dennis Ross made a similar proposal, suggesting that the sanctions until now did not harm the Iranian economy, thus Iran’s citizens do not really feel the international pressure.
Showing sympathy with the citizens of Sderot, McCain said that no sovereign country should tolerate such attacks on civilians, and that Israel is justified to take military actions in order to stop the Kassams from terrorizing the lives of Israeli civilians.

The following day, June 3, 2008 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the Honorable Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Republican Leader of the US Senate, gave keynote addresses. Both expressed their steadfast support of Israel. Both voiced alarm regarding Iran’s nuclear initiatives. Both called to increase the economic sanctions on Iran, first and foremost on Iranian banks. Rice reiterated that there is not much point in talking to the Hamas, as there is nothing to speak about, as long as it remains loyal to terrorism, to the destruction of Israel, and does not accept any compromise in Palestine.

Conference participants were told to show respect to all speakers as they represent their respective institutions. Ehud Olmert was the keynote speaker of the evening banquet held on June 3. He was well received.

Olmert would love to have such a crowd every day, anywhere. He emphasized the acute danger of Iranian nuclear power, saying that Israel will not tolerate an Iranian bomb. Olmert maintained that peace with Syria is a clear Israeli interest. He spoke of “historical negotiations” with the Palestinians and highlighted the suffering of the people of Sderot.

On that same day Obama won the Democratic presidential primaries. The following morning Obama and Clinton were scheduled to speak at AIPAC. As you can imagine, the audience was eager to hear the newly elected candidate for the presidency. Obama spoke of a two state solution. He reiterated that there will be no negotiations with Hamas as long as it resorts to terror, does not recognize Israel, and does not respect previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Obama reminded us that he opposed the inclusion of Hamas in the 2006 elections because of Hamas involvement in terrorism. He urged Arab countries to forge relationships with Israel. Obama emphasized time and again, in various phrases and strong words that Israel’s security is “sacrosanct.”

Obama said that as president he will be happy to help Israel in its negotiations with Syria. He then moved to address the focal issue of the conference: Iran, describing its nuclear plans as dangerous and grave to world security. Obama declared that the Bush policies vis-à-vis Iran, and Iraq, had failed. They did not bring calm and peace to the Middle East; quite the opposite. Thus he intends to engage in strong diplomacy with Iran, and redeploy the American troops in Iraq in phases, bringing home the American soldiers. Obama spoke of pressuring Iran to withdraw from its nuclear plans, doing “everything” to put a stop to those plans. He emphasized the word “everything”, and later in his address explained the meaning: When he becomes president, the United States will lead the world in the struggle against nuclear Iran, engage in tough diplomacy with the Iranians, target Iranian banks and assets, hurt the Iranian economy. After exhausting all diplomatic efforts, the military option is on the table.

Obama spoke on furthering the cooperation between the United States and Israel, signing and energy pact with Israel, further scientific cooperation between the two countries, accentuating America's unshakable commitment to Israel.
Whatever you may think of Obama, there is no denying his charisma. This past month I heard him twice. There is no sign of tiredness, although his schedule is insane, flying in a frenzy across the country. He is a brilliant speaker and inspiring leader. And he is sharp as a razor. Two issues, however, are troubling: the discrepancy between his stand on Hamas, and his stand on Iran; and his plans for Iraq.

As for the first, Obama objects to any negotiations with Hamas as long as this “terrorist organization” continues to engage in terror. He depicted the Iranian regime as “terrorist”, still spoke of negotiating the Iranian leaders. Is it because it is a state, whereas Hamas rules only in Gaza? Unclear why Hamas is out, and Iran is in. One would assume that the stand is principled: never engage with terrorism. It's unclear why Iran is an exception.
As for the second, it is unrealistic to leave Iraq at this stage, as the militia forces are stronger, better trained and better equipped than the Iraqi army. Were the US to leave now, even in phases, anarchy will dominate Iraq, which would quickly become a haven for al-Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias. This will not advance American interests, nor will it contribute to Middle East security. Surely, Obama knows that, but his statements on this issue are generally vague, sweeping, and not very thoughtful.


Incitement

On this blog as well as in other forms I reiterated the importance of “clearing the air” of incitement and hate. It is impossible to build trust, let alone peace, when you educate your children to hate.

On May 28, 2008 Haaretz reported that within the framework of the current negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) on a final-status agreement, the sides are examining the possibility of reviewing the textbooks used in the schools, with a view to removing from them content that incites to violence or to a lack of tolerance on national or religious grounds.The talks between Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni and her counterpart, Ahmed Qureia (Abu Alla), deal mainly with the core issues of the conflict Jerusalem, the refugees, the borders and the security arrangements. Nevertheless, a number of joint teams have been set up to deal with civilian subjects such as economics and law. One of the committees established deals with "the culture of peace," its work focusing mainly on issues of incitement. The committee is headed by the deputy to the legal adviser of the foreign ministry, Daniel Taub, and the former minister and senior Fatah official, Sufian Abu Zaida. Taub and Abu Zaida reported that they had reached understandings about the need to deal with incitement in the school books, and pointed out that they are examining various mechanisms whose duty it will be to carry this out.
One proposal under discussion is that experts from each side will examine the school books of the other side independently, and will prepare a list of comments and requests for changing content. Another proposal is to set up a joint team of experts that will define together what the criteria are for examining the text books, and will carry out a parallel examination with a mixed team.
The two also reported that they have started discussing the motives for incitement in the media, with emphasis on the electronic media. The aim is to focus on content that incites to violence, content that harms the right to self determination of the other side or content that encourages a lack of recognition of the other side's right to exist.


Syria

I was asked what I think about the peace talks with Syria. Let’s see what we have:

- An Israeli prime minister who is constantly under investigation for taking bribes. Clouds of suspicion around him are so thick that they become fog.
- Continuous mess in Lebanon. A major player who has a vested interest in the mess, and diverting attention from it is Syria.
- The Bush administration conceives Syria, quite rightly, as part of the axis of terror, and therefore attempts to isolate Syria.
- An Israeli public that, generally speaking, is content with the status quo in the north of the country and would not trust the Syrians to the extent of evacuating the Golan.
- War in the south, where rockets hit deeper targets inside Israel, and Israel carries out targeted killings in Gaza.

All this is very abnormal. It suggests that two players, Olmert and Assad, have a vested interested in pursuing a façade of peace talks. Time will tell whether something concrete will arise from it. All of you who are skeptics reading the promising news about “peace” with our northern neighbor have valid and good reasons.

Yossi Klein Halevi, in a recent article published by the Los Angeles Times (May 28, 2008) explained why by an overwhelming majority, Israelis oppose ceding the Golan to Syria, even in exchange for a promise of peace from Damascus. One reason is that few here believe that the regime of Bashar Assad will honor an agreement. No Arab state has consistently shown greater hostility to Israel than Syria. The Palestinian terrorist movement Hamas is headquartered in Damascus; Syria is Iran's leading Arab ally. Without a Syrian attempt to convince the Israeli public of its benign intentions, domestic opposition will stymie any attempt by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to cede the Golan to Assad. And the prospects for a convincing Syrian overture are almost nonexistent.
Israelis are hardly in a rush to part with one of the most beloved areas of their country. For Israelis, the Golan Heights, with its empty hills and vineyards, is more Provence than Gaza. Unlike the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, the Golan poses no moral or demographic dilemmas. Here there is no occupation of another people; barely 20,000 Druze, and an equal number of Jews, share the nearly 700-square-mile area.
Under Syrian control before the 1967 war, the Golan was Israel's most volatile border. Many here still recall the years when Syrian soldiers on the Golan routinely shot at Israeli civilians in the Galilee below. After 1967, though, the Golan became Israel's most placid border. Israelis sense that, for the sake of quiet if not formal peace, it is far better to have their soldiers overlooking Syria than for Syrian soldiers to be once again looking down on the Galilee.
Israeli advocates of a Golan withdrawal argue that Syria may be enticed to sever its ties with Iran as part of a peace agreement. Neutralizing a potential Syrian front in a future Middle East war -- with Iran, say -- would be a major gain for Israel, which is why much of the Israeli strategic community supports negotiations. Syria, though, continues to affirm the primacy of its alliance with Iran. And, during a recent visit to Tehran, Syrian Defense Minister Hassan Turkmany reinforced that message by signing a security agreement with Iran.


Human Rights Violations: Israel and PA




On May 28, 2008 Amnesty International's released its annual report "The State of the World's Human Rights". http://report2007.amnesty.org/eng/Homepage
The report documented human rights abuses in 150 countries and territories around the world during 2007. Israel and the Palestinian Authority received their share of criticism. The PA section of the 380-page report highlighted the interfactional violence between Fatah and Hamas forces, accusing both factions of "grave human rights violations including arbitrary detention and torture."
However, it said the deteriorating economic conditions for Palestinians were exacerbated by Israel's "further tightening of their blockade on the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)." Frequent IDF attacks on Palestinian civil infrastructure is cited as another cause of the deterioration.
Israel continued to expand illegal Israeli settlements and stepped up construction of a 700-km fence/wall, 80 per cent of which runs inside the occupied West Bank, including in and around East Jerusalem. Large areas of Palestinian land were seized and utilized for this purpose. The fence/wall and more than 500 Israeli army checkpoints and blockades throughout the West Bank increasingly confined Palestinians to restricted areas and denied them freedom of movement between towns and villages within the Occupied Territories. Many Palestinians were cut off from their farmland, their main source of livelihood, or could not freely access their workplaces, education, health facilities and other services.

Israeli settlers in the West Bank repeatedly attacked Palestinians and their property, as well as international peace activists and human rights defenders who sought to document their attacks on Palestinians. Some of the attacks occurred during the olive harvest season, in October and November, when Palestinian farmers attempted to go to their fields close to Israeli settlements and which Israeli settlers sought to prevent them accessing.

According to the report, more than 330 Palestinians - half of them civilians and including young children - were killed in Israeli attacks, mostly in the Gaza Strip, in the first four months of 2008.

Kassam rockets were described as "homemade" in the report. It said the rocket attacks had killed two Israeli civilians and wounded several others. It also mentioned that indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians, in which 13 Israelis were killed, had resulted in the "lowest annual fatality figure since the outbreak of the intifada in 2000."

The latest Amnesty report also blamed Israel for the deaths of 40 Gaza residents, who it said died as a result of Israel refusing to allow medical supplies into Gaza or to let patients in urgent need of medical attention leave.

Following last year's Annapolis peace summit, Israel has not lifted movement restrictions in the territories, the report continued. "Despite US-led efforts to achieve a resolution of the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict following talks at Annapolis in 2007, the Israeli authorities continued to build the 700-km. wall/fence, to expand illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, to demolish Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and elsewhere, and more than 500 military roadblocks continued to restrict or impede the movement of Palestinians between towns and villages throughout the West Bank," it claimed.

The Jerusalem Post reported on May 28 that in response to the condemnation of checkpoints, the army said it had been conducting regular security assessments on crossings and checkpoints, and that an extensive plan to ease restrictions had been implemented by the IDF and the Civil Administration.

Both Israel and the PA were accused of unlawful detentions and unfair trials. "Thousands of Palestinians, including scores of children, were detained by Israeli forces in the OPT. Among those detained were dozens of former ministers in the Hamas-led PA government and Hamas parliamentarians and mayors who were seemingly held to exert pressure on Hamas to release [kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl.] Gilad Schalit," the report said.

After Hamas seized Gaza, the report added, some 1,500 people were detained. Most were released after 48 hours but were required to sign pledges promising to not participate in protests or other forms of opposition. Both Israel and the Palestinians were also accused of using torture. Many of those detained by Palestinian authorities alleged they had been tortured by being beaten, tied in painful positions and threatened. Some were told they would be shot in the legs.

Max Kampelman

On May 22, 2008 the National Endowment for Democracy awarded Max Kampelman the Democracy Service Medal in a special ceremony at the State Department.

Max Kampelman described himself as a Jew, family man, pacifist, lawyer, public servant, and bipartisan diplomat who served several presidents, Democrat and Republican. He was a Cold War-era arms control negotiator who has supported the work of several neoconservative-led advocacy groups that have been instrumental in pushing militarist U.S. policies as part of the “war on terror.” Such groups include the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Highly regarded for his past work in trying to forge arms control agreements (despite his support for several hard line anticommunist groups in the 1970s and 1980s), he participated in a study that promoted the idea of new U.S. nuclear weapons. At present he devotes his time to convince leaders of the world to pursue global nuclear disarmament. He said: It can be done, and it can be done safely.

Kampelman’s career spanned the Cold War, during which time he shifted between his private law practice at the firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson (now Fried Frank), and various government jobs, including serving as a legislative aide for several years to Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) and in various diplomatic posts under presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Kampelman is best known for his work as Reagan’s chief arms control negotiator, serving from 1985 to 1989 as head of U.S. negotiating teams that worked with the Soviet Union on nuclear and space weapons issues. He also served as ambassador to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe from 1980 to 1983 and as counselor to the State Department from 1987 to 1989.

Kampelman also supported the work of some advocacy groups that emerged in the 1970s to push for hardline, anti-Soviet policies and that served as building blocks for the then-burgeoning neoconservative political faction. Among these were Social Democrats USA, a group that splintered from the Socialist Party USA in 1972 ; the Coalition for a Democratic Majority (CDM), which was created in the early 1970s by disgruntled Democrats who were angered by the emergence of antiwar elements in the party, and the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), a group that helped push for an end to détente with the Soviet Union and many of whose members joined the Reagan administration.

When the Cold War ended, Kampelman’s advocacy work continued. He collaborated with PNAC, the influential neoconservative letterhead group, and signed its 2002 letter to President George W. Bush criticizing Chinese rule in Hong Kong. In 2001, he collaborated with the hardline National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP) in producing an influential policy document aimed at promoting aggressive new nuclear weapons policies, including the creation of less powerful, “usable” bombs. According to a 2002 World Policy Institute report, “In general, the NIPP report calls future security threats to the U.S. unknown and unpredictable. Therefore, the report concludes that the U.S. must maintain its nuclear arsenal, and the ability to design, build and test new nuclear weapons. The report asserts that conventional weapons are inadequate replacements for nuclear weapons because they do not have the same ‘destructive power.’ As a solution the report recommends the development of ‘low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons.’ In other words, a nuclear weapon the U.S. can actually use.”

Kampelman also supports the work of a number of other organizations known for their militarist “war on terror” agendas and support of policies in line with Israel’s Likud Party, which is largely supportive of the settler movement and has opposed peace efforts aimed at creating a Palestinian state. He is a “Distinguished Advisor” to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a member of the Board of Advisors of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, and a member of a new version of the Committee on the Present Danger created after the 9/11 attacks to promote a hardline agenda for the “war on terror.” Kampelman is also chairman emeritus of the Board of Trustees of Freedom House, a U.S.-government-funded group that has been criticized for being an instrument of propaganda.

Despite his support of hard line policies, Kampelman has become a proponent of not just nuclear disarmament, but of total global nuclear elimination. In an April 2006 New York Times op-ed, Kampelman wrote that despite having witnessed “two successful titanic struggles by civilized society against totalitarian movements, those against Nazi fascism and Soviet communism,” he has “never been more worried about the future for my children and grandchildren. … The number of countries possessing nuclear arms is increasing, and terrorists are poised to master nuclear technology with the objective of using those deadly arms against us.” To confront this challenge, he argued that President George W. Bush must take the lead promoting disarmament. He wrote, “To this end, President Bush should consult with our allies, appear before the United Nations General Assembly and call for a resolution embracing the objective of eliminating all weapons of mass destruction. He should make clear that we are prepared to eliminate our nuclear weapons if the Security Council develops an effective regime to guarantee total conformity with a universal commitment to eliminate all nuclear arms and reaffirm the existing conventions covering chemical and biological weapons.” Shortly after penning this op-ed, Kampelman helped lead a Hoover Institution forum on nuclear disarmament. Other participants included an elite group of former policy makers: Henry Kissinger, William Perry, Sam Nunn, and George Shultz. At the October 2007 conference, Kampelman repeated many of the same points he mentioned his New York Times op-ed. According to a Hoover Institution press release, “The theme of former U.S. ambassador Max Kampelman’s remarks was the importance of moving from ought to is. He compared the goals of the Reykjavik II conference to those of the U. S. Constitution. Kampelman said that the principles of the Constitution may have seemed idealistic when they were introduced, but the founders had a vision that what ought to be would eventually become reality. Kampelman believes that pursuing zero tolerance of nuclear weapons is a goal the U.S. government should energetically pursue to prepare for the future. ‘What ought calls for is to get rid of nuclear weapons,’ he declared.”

President Bill Clinton awarded Kampelman the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1999, and President Ronald Reagan awarded him the Presidential Citizens Medal in 1989. And now he received the Democracy Service Medal.

Among the speakers in the ceremony, all were full of praise of Kampelman’s service to the US, were: Under Secretary, Democracy and Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky (who received the Democracy Service Medal in 2002), Chairperson of NED Vin Weber, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, Librarian of Congress James Billington (formerly Director of the Wilson Center), Senator Joseph Lieberman and NED President Carl Gershman. George W. Bush sent a letter of congratulation. I thank Carl for inviting me to attend this ceremony.

Kampelman's books include Entering New Worlds: The Memoirs of a Private Man in Public Life (1991), and The Communist Party vs. The C.I.O: A Study in Power Politics (1957).
Source: http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1243.html


Dan David Prize

The Dan David Prize is the most distinguished private prize in Israel. Its laureates receive one million dollar in prize money. It is divided into three: past, present and future. Sometimes there is more than one winner in each category who then split the prize money between them.

This year, in the “Past” category, the 2008 Dan David Prize honors Amos Oz in the field of Creative Rendering of the Past: Literature, Theater, Film for portraying historical events while emphasizing the individual, and for exploring the tragic conflict between two nations from a very human point of view. Amos Oz, one of the most widely read Israeli writers in the world, has published numerous novels, novellas, short stories, essays, and occasionally even poetry. His writing spans five decades, and has earned him many outstanding Israeli and international prizes.
Several of his works deal with the pre-state period in Israel, when Palestine was governed by the British mandate. They represent the atmosphere and mood of that uncertain era as a backdrop for his psychological insights and his thoughtful in-depth characterizations, for which he is most well known. This is most evident in "The Hill of Evil Counsel" (1976) and "Panther in the Basement" (1995), and is somewhat the case in "My Michael" (1968). In his 1971 novella "Unto Death", Oz uses medieval Europe and Jerusalem as a background for a fictional crusader narrative, again, based on a psychological drama, fraught with struggles for revelation and redemption.
His noteworthy achievement in rendering the past in an artistic fashion is represented in his part fiction / part autobiographical 2002 novel, "A Tale of Love and Darkness". In this massive volume, Oz narrates the saga of his own family, reaching deeply into mythological, magical, historical, and real past, as remembered or handed down the family line by word of mouth or material remnants - and bringing it to its closure with his own maturation and becoming an artist. The brilliance of the novel is in the composition of this grand narrative, in which the personal represents - and becomes - the collective, and in which historical documentation may serve as notes to family affairs. Thus a sense of genealogy is created, with its domestic ruptures and psychological eruptions, in parallel to the unfolding of national history (from http://www.dandavidprize.org/laureates/past2008-oz.html ).

In the “Present” section, the 2008 Dan David Prize honors Al Gore in the field of Social Responsibility with Particular Emphasis on the Environment for his multiple contributions in raising the conscience of the world to the challenge posed to the continuing sustainable function of the global environment and life support system. Al Gore is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide awareness of the detrimental effects that man's energy consumption has had on the environment, and the imperative for individuals and governments to take drastic action to avert climatic disaster.
Gore has been a tireless advocate for the environment throughout his career; as United States Senator, as Vice President of the United States and more recently as a private citizen. He has eloquently sounded the alarm on the importance of the threat to the global ecosystem posed by the world's current and increasing reliance on carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels as its primary energy source. His book, "Earth in the Balance", first published in 1992, translated since into many languages, remains a classic, not only a call to action but also an important educational resource. The Oscar winning movie he produced more recently and in which he starred, "An Inconvenient Truth", has carried the message to an even larger audience.
His interest in climate change dates back to his time as an undergraduate at Harvard University when he took a course from the late Roger Revelle. Revelle first introduced him to the now famous Keeling curve, the steadily rising record of atmospheric CO2. This experience sparked a lifelong interest in environmental science.
Although Gore had little formal education in science, he has devoted his life to learning and understanding the complex science that underlies the function of the global life support system, and specifically the climate system. He is dedicated to communicating the nature of this science to the general public (from http://www.dandavidprize.org/laureates/present2008-gore.html).

Gore said 10 percent of the prize would go to young researchers and the rest to the Alliance for Climate Protection. For further information about the Dan David Prize and its winners, see http://www.dandavidprize.org/about.html


Hate in the USA

The end of 2007 brought to a close another year marked by staggering levels of racist hate in America. Even as several major hate groups struggled to survive, other new groups appeared, and the radical right as a whole appeared to grow. The latest annual count by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) found that the number of hate groups operating in America rose to 888 last year, up 5% from 844 groups in 2006. That capped an increase of 48% since 2000 — a hike from 602 groups attributable to the exploitation by hate groups of the continuing debate about immigration. And it comes on top of some 300 other anti-immigration groups, about half listed by SPLC as “nativist extremist,” formed in the last three years.

At the same time, FBI statistics suggested that there was a 35% rise in hate crimes against Latinos between 2003 and 2006. Experts believe that such crimes are typically carried out by people who think they are attacking immigrants.
See http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=886

John Ivan Demjanjuk

During the mid-1980s, when I served as the Chairperson of The Second Generation to Holocaust Remembrance Organization, I invested some efforts in bringing Ivan Demjanjuk to justice in Israel. I met with the relevant people in the Israeli and American Ministry of Justice who were convinced that Ivan Demjanjuk was the notorious "Ivan the Terrible" from the Treblinka death camp. Ivan took special joy and pleasure in murdering Jews, far beyond the call of duty.

My organization served as a lobby group pushing to bring Demjanjuk to justice. When he was finally extradited from the US to Israel and stood trial, some doubt emerged that this man was not Ivan the Terrible, but Ivan the less terrible. It was argued that he probably served as a guard in Nazi death camps, but he was not the man we sought. This was a major blow in the efforts to bring further Nazi criminals to justice. I certainly did not wish to involve myself in further efforts, and it is safe to say that the State of Israel will not go out of its way at this point to put on trial other known or suspected Nazi criminals.

On Monday, May 19, 2008 John Demjanjuk lost a US Supreme Court appeal that sought to overturn an order by the nation's chief immigration judge that he be deported to his native Ukraine. Without comment, the high court refused to hear an appeal by the 88-year old retired Ohio auto worker that argued the immigration judge lacked the authority to order his deportation. The rejection of the appeal marked the latest development in a legal battle between Demjanjuk and the US Justice Department that began in 1977. Demjanjuk was stripped of his US Citizenship again in 2002, when a federal judge ruled he had been a guard at three other Nazi death camps in Poland and Germany. Demjanjuk immigrated to the United States in 1952 and became a naturalized citizen in 1958 (from YNET http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3545325,00.html ).

UCL Dismissed a Research Fellow for Holocaust Denial

On April 22, 2008 University College London published the following statement about Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom:

UCL has been made aware of views expressed by Dr Nicholas Kollerstrom, an Honorary Research Fellow in UCL Science & Technology Studies.
The position of Honorary Research Fellow is a privilege bestowed by departments within UCL on researchers with whom it wishes to have an association. It is not an employed position.
The views expressed by Dr Kollerstrom are diametrically opposed to the aims, objectives and ethos of UCL, such that we wish to have absolutely no association with them or with their originator.
We therefore have no choice but to terminate Dr Kollerstrom’s Honorary Research Fellowship with immediate effect. Source: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0804/08042202


UK Endorses Hybrid Embryo Research

On May 19, 2008 British lawmakers voted to allow the use of animal-human embryos for research after a national debate that pitted religious leaders who called it unethical against the prime minister and scientists who said it would help cure disease. The Washington Post reported on May 20 that last month, scientists at Newcastle created part-human, part-animal embryos for the first time in Britain. An attempt to ban the process, during consideration in the House of Commons of the first major revisions to embryo research laws in a generation, failed overwhelmingly on a vote of 336 to 176.

The overall bill, argued Prime Minister Brown, would enable lifesaving research that could help people with Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other diseases. He said, "I believe that we owe it to ourselves and future generations to introduce these measures."

The bill would allow scientists to continue injecting human DNA into cows' eggs that have had virtually all their genetic material removed, as well as other hybrid embryo processes for stem cell research. Scientists say the embryos would not be allowed to develop for more than 14 days.

The same day, lawmakers also voted to support the government's plans to allow "savior siblings." This authorizes the screening of embryos for genetic characteristics in cases in which a parent is seeking a child in order to help a diseased older child in need of tissue donation.

The idea of blending human and animal DNA to make "chimeric" embryos for research has long been contentious in the United States, where such experiments are legal if conducted without public funding.

In April 2005, the National Academies -- chartered by Congress to advise the nation on matters of science -- released a report affirming that scientists should be allowed to create such entities if the experiments are approved by special review boards. The advisers came down against the creation of human-monkey or human-ape embryos, as well as experiments in which a human-like brain might develop in a non-human animal.

Legislation introduced in the Senate and House would ban the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos even with private monies -- a move that has raised concerns from scientists and patient support groups in part because it would criminalize an entire branch of biomedical research.

Source: Mary Jordan, “Hybrid Embryo Research Endorsed”, Washington Post (May 20, 2008), p. A7.

TURKISH PUBLISHER WINS IPA'S FREEDOM TO PUBLISH PRIZE

A Turkish publisher who refused to abandon his campaign for freedom of thought - despite being given a three-year jail sentence - is this year's winner of the International Publishers' Association (IPA) Freedom to Publish Prize.

Since starting his publishing house Belge with his wife Ayse Nur in 1977, Ragip Zarakolu has been constantly at the receiving end of the wrath of the Turkish authorities. The charges they brought against him and Nur resulted in jail time for the couple, confiscation and destruction of books, and the imposition of heavy fines, endangering the survival of Belge. But Zarakolu refused to give up his campaign for free expression, saying he fought "for an attitude of respect for different thoughts and cultures to become widespread in Turkey."
The Freedom to Publish Prize honours a person or an organisation that has made an important contribution to the defence and promotion of freedom to publish anywhere in the world. This year, the prize, worth 5,000 Swiss Francs (US$4,800), will be presented to Zarakolu at the International Seminar on Neo-Censorship in Amsterdam, the Netherlands in September.

From The "IFEX Communiqué". For more details, see http://tinyurl.com/5lell6

New Books

IFLA/FAIFE World Report Series 2007 - now available online
Volume 7 of the IFLA/FAIFE World Report Series - Access to libraries and information: Towards a fairer world - provides a world perspective on several issues regarding freedom of expression and freedom of access to information.
The IFLA/FAIFE World Report Series is unique. It is the only source that provides an overview of how libraries around the world are tackling barriers to freedom of access to information and freedom of expression. Its systematic data collection process expands upon previous reports and enables comparison over time. The 2007 edition contains 116 country reports, based on questionnaires and additional research carried out by the Department of Information Science at the University of Pretoria, which provide current details on library statistics; Internet access in libraries and the digital divide; filtering and blocking of online information; user privacy and anti-terror legislation; violations of intellectual freedom; access to HIV/AIDS information; women and freedom of access to information; library codes of ethics, the IFLA Internet Manifesto and the Glasgow Declaration.

The 2007 World Report shows that the digital divide is still a serious reality that needs to be tackled by library communities worldwide in the years to come. Significant inequalities in Internet access exist across the international library community which are often exacerbated by the increasing use of filtering software to protect children and safeguard public morality and religious values. The 2007 World Report shows that in many of IFLA’s member countries, intellectual freedom is still very much under pressure, leaving library users unable to fully express their rights to freedom of access to information.

In addition to the global survey, the report contains the following articles:
Archie L. Dick, From censorship to freedom of access to information and freedom of expression in South Africa
Irina Trushina, Corruption and transparency in Russia: the anticorruption role of libraries
Barbara M. Jones, The USA patriot act: an example of the impact of national security legislation on libraries
Kamel Labidi, Censorship in Arab countries
Jane Duncan, On libraries and intellectual self-defense
Ethel Kriger, The interrelated roles of archival and right of access to information legislation to promote democratic government in South Africa
The IFLA/FAIFE World Report 2007 is an extensive 480-page document that updates previous World Reports from 2001, 2003 and 2005. Taken together with summary reports in 2002, 2004 and 2006, it is the seventh volume in the IFLA/FAIFE World Report Series.

Volume 7 of the IFLA/FAIFE World Report Series, Access to libraries and information: Towards a fairer world, is now available in PDF format for free on the IFLA website at: http://www.ifla.org/faife/report/world_report_2007.htm
ISBN: 978-0-620-41005-2

Handbook of Communication in the Public Sphere
Ed. by Wodak, Ruth / Koller, Veronika

http://www.degruyter.de/cont/fb/sp/detail.cfm?id=IS-9783110188325-1

ISBN 978-3-11-018832-5 Reihe: Handbooks of Applied Linguistics [HAL] / Communication Competence. Language and Communication Problems. Practical Solutions 4
MOUTON DE GRUYTER
This volume addresses the acute dilemma of the public sphere, which is by definition open to everyone but in practice often excludes particular groups of people in particular societies at particular points in time. Thus, the theoretical and conceptual issues of participation and democratisation are at the core of this volume. The guiding questions for this collection of articles are therefore: Who has access to the public sphere? How is this access enabled or disabled? Under what conditions is it granted or withheld, and by whom?

Due to the salient changes of the notions of time and space, communication and language(s) nowadays cover many more domains and use different channels: Communication has become ubiquitous, fast and global. These changes have enormous impact on both institutional, public and every day lives.

We regard the public sphere as the nodal point for the discourses of business, politics and media, and this basic assumption is also s reflected in the structure of the volume. Each of these three macro-topics comprises chapters by international renowned scholars from a variety of disciplines and research traditions who each combine up-to-date overviews of the relevant literature with their own cutting-edge research into aspects of different public spheres such as corporate promotional communication, political rhetoric or genre features of electronic mass media.

The broad scope of the volume is also reflected in a comprehensive discussion of communication technologies ranging from conventional spoken and written genres such as company brochures, political speeches and TV shows to emerging ones like customer chat forums, political blogs and text messaging.

Due to the books' wide scope, its interdisciplinary approach and its clear structure, it addresses researchers, scholars and post-graduate students in communication and media studies, linguistics, political science, sociology or marketing.

Peter and Richard Leitner, in association with Crossbow Books, are pleased to announce the publication of the first book in their five volume series entitled:
Unheeded Warnings: The Lost Reports of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare Volume 1: Islamic Terrorism and the West

This book series contains some 18 years of warning and analysis published within the U.S. Congress by an organization known as the Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. During its remarkably long life, the Task Force issued hundreds of reports comprising thousands of pages of warnings and analyses of the growing specter of the Islamist movement, its increasingly violent nature, and its selection of the Western world as its ultimate target. The depth and breadth of the Task Force's analytical efforts were unparalleled, as were its productive capacity and broad product distribution efforts. The Task Force's astonishing knowledge of the gathering storm that finally broke over New York City and Washington on that fateful September morning is represented in these pages.
See http://www.lulu.com/content/2293351

Dario, Milo, Freedom of Speech and Defamation (Oxford: OUP, 2008).

Thank You

I thank Peter Leitner for inviting me to the Maxwell inaugural conference; Marvin Feuer and Rafi Danziger for their kind invitation to participate in the AIPAC conference, and Daniel Solove for inviting me to participate in the GW-Berkeley Privacy Conference.

Music

Watch this Hava Nagila. It warms the heart.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFtv5qe5o3c&mode=related&search


Avi Nimni

On May 17, 2008 the greatest player in the history of Maccabi Tel Aviv officially retired from football.

Avi Nimni was born on April 26, 1972. He grew up in the Maccabi youth club. At 17 he played his first game in the national league and a year later he became a regular starter for Maccabi. He played for Maccabi most of his career, and became the most identified player with the club.

Although he was a midfielder, Nimni is Maccabi's all-time top goal scorer, having scored 174 goals. He has scored 194 goals overall in the league, and upon his retirement he is ranked number three all time top goal scorer in Israeli football after Alon Mizrahi with 207 goals and Oded Machnes with 196 goals. Both strikers, Mizrachi and Machnes, played at some point of their careers for Maccabi. This is all impressive considering Nimni was a midfielder.

Nimni had a magnificent understanding of the game, a clinical touch, body maneuvers that could trick anybody, nerves of steel, determination, commitment, leadership and charisma in tons. He was first and foremost a leader and a sportsman. As a fan of Maccabi I used to read the sports columns before the games in order to check whether Nimni is not injured and is scheduled to play. Like most Maccabi fans, I always knew I could count on him. For years, Maccabi was an inferior team without him. Nimni became an icon, the most beloved players among Maccabi’s fans. Nimni personifies Maccabi on and off field. He tried to answer every request from the fans, appearing in their private celebrations and functions, showing sympathy in their sorrows, paying respect when this was requested as he knows how important it is for the fans to see him with them. This caring human touch made him the most influential person in Maccabi, possibly the most influential player in the history of Israeli football.
Nimni was the captain of Maccabi for many years. He had 80 appearances in the national team, many times as the captain, and scored 17 goals for Israel.

Here is a summary of his sports achievements which is only the tip of the iceberg as his achievements go far beyond this list.
1991/1992 - League Champion
1992/1993 - Toto Cup Winner and Championship Runner Up
1993/1994 - Israeli Cup
1994/1995 - League Champion
1995/1996 - League and Israeli Cup Double
1998/1999 - Toto Cup Winner and Championship Runner Up
2000/2001 - Israeli Cup and Top Goal scorer (25)
2001/2002 - Israeli Cup
2002/2003 - League Champion
To see some of Nimni’s brilliant goals, go to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3Lx4teriY0

Hull Football Club

On Saturday, May 24, 2008 the small club from Hull made history. Hull City won promotion to the Premier League for the first time in its history of 104 years. Hull beat Bristol City 1-0 in the Championship playoff final at Wembley Stadium.

The hero of the day was the 39 year-old Hull-born Dean Windass who struck a truly magnificent volley from the edge of the penalty area late in the first half to give Phil Brown’s side a narrow yet sufficient win and a promotion to the Premier League which will be worth millions of dollars to the Tigers in desperate need for a boost and which will give Hull football fans, old and new, opportunity to watch quality football at home. This is certainly a welcome addition to the city of Hull, known in sports mostly because of its rugby team.


Film of the Month

The Color of Freedom (2007) - Based on the controversial memoirs of James Gregory, the white South African who guarded Nelson Mandela during more than 20 years of imprisonment under apartheid, this remarkable drama stars the wonderful Joseph Fiennes and the charismatic Dennis Haysbert who mimics Mandela’s pronunciation. As Mandela seeks freedom for himself and his people, Gregory (Fiennes) gradually begins to renounce his militant racism, thanks to his unlikely but powerful relationship with the political prisoner.

See http://www.goodbyebafana.com/interviews/bille_august.php


Gem of the Month – AIPAC Annual Conference

Thousand of people. Leaders of their respective communities. Public activists. Thoughtful. Caring. All with one shared drive: helping Israel, bolstering its security, acting on its behalf. The air was filled with love for the country and its people. What a heart-warming feeling. What a wonderful occasion of solidarity, of support for the small State of Israel. AIPAC is a great organization. It is good to know we have such an impressive lobby on our side. I am full of appreciation and respect for those who organized this great gathering, for the leaders who came to speak, and to listen. This conference was a celebration of love, of power, demonstrating the unbreakable ties between the United States and Israel.


With my very best wishes,

Yours as ever,






My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.com/
Earlier posts at my home page: http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/ <http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/>

People wishing to subscribe to this Monthly Newsletter are welcome to e-mail me at rafi.almagor@wilsoncenter.org

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Politics – May 2008

"There is no one in Israel to whom the price of war is alien",
Ehud Olmert, at the official ceremony at the national military cemetery on Mount Herzl in Jerusalem, May 6, 2008.

“A man may build himself a throne of bayonets, but he cannot sit on it", William Ralph Inge

“A man may build himself a throne of spins and political deals, but he cannot rely on them for long, not when there is no real substance or meaning to his survival and empty words”, Raphael Cohen-Almagor

This month Israel celebrates 60 years of independence. At the age of 60, Israel is mature enough to address the challenges ahead of us.

Independence Day has always been a special day for me. I love the celebrations on the streets, the happy masses, the fireworks, the food, even the plastic hammers that land on your head unexpectedly. I love the jubilation, the sense of achievement, the pride (we have a lot to be proud of), the feeling of togetherness. I love blue and white, the young crowds running down the streets, the BBQ smell all over, the picnics, the nostalgia. I love to hear the Gashash, the Israel Prize ceremony, the lovely weather. In short, with the exception of the nasty chemicals that the youth spray on one another and occasionally at innocent bystanders, an innovation that emerged in the 1990s that we can do without, Independence Day is a truly lovely Israeli holiday.

We had a collective BBQ at the Rockville kibbutz, followed by public signing (Shira Be’zibur) led by a guitarist. We stayed late despite the wind. We also attended the annual Independence Day reception, held by Ambassador Meridor. The main speakers were Barack Obama, Dick Cheney and Joseph I. Lieberman. They all said what was expected from them to say on such a festive party. While Obama and Cheney spoke from pages, Lieberman spoke from the heart. It is good to have him on Capitol Hill.
All speakers emphasized that the US was the first state to recognize the newly born Israel, mere eleven minutes after Ben-Gurion declaration of statehood. I welcome observations whether this is correct as there are others who claim that the USSR was first, nine minutes after Ben-Gurion's historic speech. Not that it matters much, but historical facts should be put in order. Israel would like to keep good and solid relationships with both great nations.

Israel at 60 - New Article - US-Israel Relationships - Prime Minister under Police Interrogation, Yet Again - Hamas’ Interpretation of the Holocaust - Radio Interview - New Prospects in Lebanon - Clifford Christians - IDP Camps in Uganda - Freedom of the Press 2008 Survey Release - EUROPIX Top Talent Awards - Index on Censorship honours free expression champions -
Poetry Reading - Thank You - Peace Index - New Books - Gem of the Month –

Independence Day Celebrations - Light Notes

Israel at 60
Israel's population totaled 7.282 million on the eve of its 60th anniversary, including 156,400 babies who were born over the last year, the Central Bureau of Statistics reported Tuesday, according to Haaretz (May 6, 2008). That is more than nine times the 806,000 people who lived here when the state was established in 1948. Since last Independence Day, the population has grown by 1.8 percent, including both births and some 18,000 new immigrants.
Just over three quarters of all Israelis ­- 5.5 million people ­- are Jews, while 20 percent (1.5 million) are Arabs. Of the Jews, 69 percent were born here, compared to only 35 percent in 1948.
Though Tel Aviv and the surrounding region still contain 53 percent of Israel's population, that is down sharply from 71 percent in 1948. The north and south, home to only 19 percent of Israelis in 1948, now account for 31 percent of the country's residents.
Over the years, Israel's population has become steadily more educated: The proportion of those with no schooling has fallen from 16 percent in 1948 to 3 percent last year, while the proportion with 13 or more years of schooling has risen from 9 percent to 42 percent. In 1948, 208 people received degrees from the country's two universities; two years ago, 53,000 people received degrees from 62 local colleges and universities.
Home ownership has also soared: Some 71 percent of Israelis currently own their own homes, compared to 54 percent at the end of the 1950s. And in another sign of increased prosperity, food currently accounts for only about 16 percent of the average household's expenditures, down from 40 percent in the 1950s.


New Article

Just published my new article: “Israel at 60 – Challenges on the Road to Tranquility”, Viewpoints, Special Edition Israel: Growing Pains at 60 (May 2008), pp. 74-76.
Here is what I said:

We cannot expect Israel to be normal, as the country is constantly under threat and stress. But we can expect Israeli leaders to have some knowledge and expertise in dealing with the main challenges that lie ahead. These challenges include resolving the conflict with the Palestinians; integrating Israeli-Arabs into society; and changing the relationship between the state and religion.

In order to address these challenges effectively, Israeli leaders will have to summon the courage and apply their skills to the pursuit of several objectives: 1) dividing the land and ending the occupation, thereby facilitating a two-state solution; 2) accommodating the interests of the Israeli- Arabs — striving to safeguard equal rights and liberties for all citizens notwithstanding nationality, religion, race, or color, while insisting that citizens fulfill their duties as such; and 3) ensuring the separation between state and religion.

Resolving the Israeli -Palestinian Conflict
Between the Jordan River and the sea there are now about 7.2 million Israelis (among them 1.3 million Israeli-Arabs) and 4 million Palestinians. The annual growth rate of the Palestinians is among the highest in the world. Israel faces the danger of becoming another Bosnia, or another white South Africa, or a combination thereof. Therefore there is an existential need to realize a two (hopefully not three) state solution. In the Camp David talks of 2000, Israel proposed giving up 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip. Yasir ‘Arafat insisted on the Right of Return, which meant suicide for Israel. In the following Taba talks, Israel was willing to acknowledge family unification on humanitarian grounds, arguing that it cannot accept a full-scale right of return for all Palestinian refugees. By insisting on this, ‘Arafat insinuated that he wished the demise of Israel as a Jewish-Zionist state.

The occupation should be minimized if not terminated, and the sooner the better. Every person aspires to be free. As the historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) stated so eloquently: “Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end ... liberty is the only object which benefits all alike, and provokes no sincere opposition.” Generally, I favor bridges rather than fences. However, when during the March of 2002 Passover terrorists attacked Hotel Park in Netanya, where people convened to hold their traditional meal, Israel’s understandable response was to erect the fence in order to defend its population.

The effects of the partial construction of the fence have been stunning and conclusive. Whereas there had been an average number of 26 terrorist attacks per year, the number of attacks has dropped to three per year. Meanwhile, the death toll has fallen by over 70% (from 103 to 28), and the number of injured has dropped by more than 80% (from an annual average of 628 to 83). Terrorist penetration into Israel from the northern West Bank, where the initial portion of the fence was completed, has dropped from 600 per year to zero — as Israel was able to foil every suicide bombing originating from the northern West Bank and specifically from the cities of Nablus and Jenin, areas that had previously been infamous for exporting suicide bombers.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that the route of the fence is discriminatory. Large parts of the fence pass outside the Green Line. 16.6% of the West Bank land is expected to serve as a buffer between Israel and the fence. These are the most fertile lands of the Bank. Upon the fence’s completion, 160,000 Palestinians are likely to be locked in buffer zones. Forty-seven gates are supposed to enable the movement of farmers to their lands. However, these gates are opened at the discretion of Israeli guards; Palestinian freedom of movement is extremely limited.

The fence should have been built along the 1967 Green Line, with some accommodations necessary to include large cluster settlements in the Jerusalem area and Ariel, with compensation for the Palestinians in other areas. The idea of using the fence to create geographic-political facts through the de facto creation of a “greater” Israel and a “lesser” Palestine is unwise and unjust. The fence should be moved, and it will be. The questions revolve only around time, money, and blood involved. In the Bible, there is one word for both money and blood: “Damim.” Israeli politics eloquently and forcefully explains why.

Integrating the Israeli -Arabs into Society
After the Holocaust, the goal was to found a safe haven for Jews from all over the world so as to avoid the possibility of another horrific experience of that nature. Indeed, the United Nations acknowledged the need to establish a Jewish state. Yet, by its nature a Jewish state discriminates against Israeli Arabs. To assure an equal status for the Arab minority, which constitutes some 19% of the Israeli population, the Declaration of Independence holds that Israel will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; that it will be based on the foundations of liberty, justice, and peace; that it will uphold complete equality of social and political rights to all of its citizens irrespective of religion, race, or sex; and that it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience; language, education, and culture.

There is a lot to do in order to realize these ends. Israel needs to strive for equality in housing, in municipal budgets, in allocation of resources; fight against racism, bigotry, and discrimination; introduce changes to accommodate the interests of Israeli-Arabs so that they would “feel at home” in their own country. Delegates of the Arab minority should be represented, in accordance with their size in society, in the Knesset and in the government. Studies of all religions that exist in Israel should be made available.

Separating the State and Religion
Democracy is supposed to allow each and every individual the opportunity to follow their conception of what is good without coercion. Israel today gives precedence to Judaism over liberalism. I submit that on issues such as this one, the reverse should be the case. Israel, being the only Jewish state in the world, should strive to retain its Jewish character. The symbols should remain Jewish, with some accommodations, in order to make the state a home for its Palestinian citizens as well. Shabbat should remain the official day of rest. Palestinian villages and towns may make Friday their day of rest. Hopefully, one day, Friday and Shabbat will become the two official days of rest. However, the preservation of the Jewish character of the state should not entail coercion of the predominant secular circles of Israel. We need to differentiate between the symbolic and the modus operandi aspects. Regarding the latter, there must be a separation between state and religion. People are born free and wish to continue their lives as free citizens in their homeland. Coercion is alien to our natural sentiments and desires to lead our lives freely. Hence, while Shabbat should be observed, malls and shopping places outside the cities should be available for the many people who work during the week and do their shopping during weekends. Public transportation should be made available for all people. Kosher shops and restaurants should be available, as should non-Kosher shops and restaurants for the secular, agnostic population. Most importantly, the significant events in one’s life — birth, wedding, divorce, and death — should be handled in accordance with the people’s own choices. If they so desire, people may involve the rabbinate and other religious institutions in their private lives. If people wish to have secular ceremonies, then they should have the ability to conduct them and not be forced to undergo practices that mean very little, if anything, to them. The state should have as little say as possible in intimate, family affairs.

Conclusion
Israelis yearn for tranquility — for normalcy. In the short term, at least, this will surely be difficult. Nonetheless, the surest path to ensuring that the country survives and thrives as a democracy is for Israeli leaders to maintain a zero tolerance posture toward all forms of terror while seeking to build trust and good will with Israel’s neighbors, and between Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. It will further require them to ensure that liberalism prevails over Judaism.


US-Israel Relationships

Israel and the USA have warm relationships since 1973. We need to recall that things were very different. Richard Holbrooke published an article in the Washington Post on May 7, 2008, telling the story of the relationship in 1948, when there was an epic struggle in Washington over how to respond to Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. I cite almost the entire article in full. This story should be remembered by all who care about Israel, especially by those who go to the polls in a few months to decide who will be in the Oval office for the next four years. Those who care about Israel should elect a president whose commitment to and friendship with Israel is undisputed.

1948 witnessed “the most serious disagreement President Harry Truman ever had with his revered secretary of state, George C. Marshall -- and with most of the foreign policy establishment. Twenty years ago, when I was helping Clark Clifford write his memoirs, I reviewed the historical record and interviewed all the living participants in that drama. The battle lines drawn then resonate still.
The British planned to leave Palestine at midnight on May 14. At that moment, the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion, would proclaim the new (and still unnamed) Jewish state. The neighboring Arab states warned that fighting, which had already begun, would erupt into full-scale war at that moment.

The Jewish Agency proposed partitioning Palestine into two parts -- one Jewish, one Arab. But the State and Defense departments backed the British plan to turn Palestine over to the United Nations. In March, Truman privately promised Chaim Weizmann, the future president of Israel, that he would support partition -- only to learn the next day that the American ambassador to the United Nations had voted for U.N. trusteeship. Enraged, Truman wrote a private note on his calendar: "The State Dept. pulled the rug from under me today. The first I know about it is what I read in the newspapers! Isn't that hell? I'm now in the position of a liar and double-crosser. I've never felt so low in my life. . . ."

Truman blamed "third and fourth level" State Department officials -- especially the director of U.N. affairs, Dean Rusk, and the agency's counselor, Charles Bohlen. But opposition really came from an even more formidable group: the "wise men" who were simultaneously creating the great Truman foreign policy of the late 1940s -- among them Marshall, James V. Forrestal, George F. Kennan, Robert Lovett, John J. McCloy, Paul Nitze and Dean Acheson. To overrule State would mean Truman taking on Marshall, whom he regarded as "the greatest living American," a daunting task for a very unpopular president.

Beneath the surface lay unspoken but real anti-Semitism on the part of some (but not all) policymakers. The position of those opposing recognition was simple -- oil, numbers and history. "There are thirty million Arabs on one side and about 600,000 Jews on the other," Defense Secretary Forrestal told Clifford. "Why don't you face up to the realities?"

On May 12, Truman held a meeting in the Oval Office to decide the issue. Marshall and his universally respected deputy, Robert Lovett, made the case for delaying recognition -- and "delay" really meant "deny." Truman asked his young aide, Clark Clifford, to present the case for immediate recognition. When Clifford finished, Marshall, uncharacteristically, exploded. "I don't even know why Clifford is here. He is a domestic adviser, and this is a foreign policy matter. The only reason Clifford is here is that he is pressing a political consideration."

Marshall then uttered what Clifford would later call "the most remarkable threat I ever heard anyone make directly to a President." In an unusual top-secret memorandum Marshall wrote for the historical files after the meeting, the great general recorded his own words: "I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford's advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President."

After this stunning moment, the meeting adjourned in disarray. In the next two days, Clifford looked for ways to get Marshall to accept recognition. Lovett, although still opposed to recognition, finally talked a reluctant Marshall into remaining silent if Truman acted. With only a few hours left until midnight in Tel Aviv, Clifford told the Jewish Agency to request immediate recognition of the new state, which still lacked a name. Truman announced recognition at 6:11 p.m. on May 14 -- 11 minutes after Ben-Gurion's declaration of independence in Tel Aviv. So rapidly was this done that in the official announcement, the typed words "Jewish State" are crossed out, replaced in Clifford's handwriting with "State of Israel." Thus the United States became the first nation to recognize Israel, as Truman and Clifford wanted. The secret of the Oval Office confrontation held for years, and a crisis in both domestic politics and foreign policy was narrowly averted.

Clifford insisted to me and others in countless discussions over the next 40 years that politics was not at the root of his position -- moral conviction was. Noting sharp divisions within the American Jewish community -- the substantial anti-Zionist faction among leading Jews included the publishers of both The Post and the New York Times -- Clifford had told Truman in his famous 1947 blueprint for Truman's presidential campaign that "a continued commitment to liberal political and economic policies" was the key to Jewish support.

But to this day, many think that Marshall and Lovett were right on the merits and that domestic politics was the real reason for Truman's decision. Israel, they argue, has been nothing but trouble for the United States.”

During my time in Washington I am often puzzled how short people's memory is, thinking that the US was always Israel’s best friend. They are absolutely certain that the friendship between Israel and the US will last forever. I hope they are all right. After all, they know their country, the US, far better than I do.


PM under Police Interrogation, Yet Again

On May 1, 2008 the Israeli media announced that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will be questioned yet again about dubious financial affairs that raise heavy suspicions for corruption.

The New York Post brought more to light on May 6, reporting that millionaire financier Morris Talansky - a CEO of the Global Resources Group, a self-described financial-investment firm and a philanthropist and political contributor to everyone from Rudy Giuliani to Bill Clinton - allegedly passed money to Olmert while the politician was mayor of Jerusalem in the '90s. In a highly unusual move, Israeli authorities have barred the country's media from publishing Talansky's name - revealed now in The Post - saying it could hamper their investigation. Israeli media has referred only to the involvement of an "American businessman." It was unclear what the alleged payments to Olmert were for, but sources said they involved hefty amounts of cash.

Ynet (May 1, 2008) reminded readers that Olmert is facing three different investigations related to the time he served as the minister of trade, labour, and commerce. One investigation, over political appointments at the Israel Small and Medium Enterprises Authority, was launched after the state comptroller cited suspicions that criminal activity was involved in the appointments. The report slammed Olmert as well as the ministry's director general at the time, Raanan Dinur. Another investigation against the prime minister is related to the sale of controlling interest in Bank Leumi. In this affair, Olmert is suspected of violating the law in order to assist two of his friends, who were competing in the tender for acquiring the bank. Olmert is also facing an investigation over suspicions that he was given a large discount when he purchased one of his apartments in exchange for using his clout to speed up the housing venture.

On May 6, 2008 Haaretz published a report on Olmert’s financial dealings. See
http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=980851 (Hebrew)


Hamas’ Interpretation of the Holocaust

Around the same time the absolute delusional optimist Jimmy Carter was meeting with Hamas, the following video aired on Hamas’ Al-Aqsa TV. According to the Hamas interpretation, David Ben-Gurion was the architect of the Holocaust, which was exaggerated and used as Zionist propaganda. I have heard many a twisted and far-fetched story, but this one sets a standard of its own. You need to see this to believe it, and to appreciate the impossible situation Israel is facing when dealing with the Palestinians. Hope becomes a rare and scarce commodity when you hear and see such impossible fabrications.

https://exfs.adir.hull.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WG02QqRYf0


Comment on Radio Interview

Dr. Yoav Tenenbaum, who I know since my primary school days (this is more than twenty years ago…) commented on my radio interview about the occupation and Israeli society. I wrote:

Possibly in order to calm their conscience, many Israelis deny the occupation. Israel does not occupy the territories. Israel “maintains” or “administers” them until a solution can be reached (people on the right claim Israel “liberated” the territories belonging to Greater Israel, Biblical Israel). Shachar made such a remark (“some people will disagree with your use of the term ‘occupation’”) to counter me when I denounced the occupation. This is not the first time I hear Israelis speaking in denial terms. This is also most troubling. As long as the conscience of many Israelis is calm and complacent about this, the occupation will continue. We need to wake up and recognize the misery and suffering we inflict on other people.

Yoav wrote:

Dear Rafi,
I am not sure I would agree with your comments about Israelis being in denial of what has been going on in the territories of the West Bank and Gaza; certainly not since the so called first intifada erupted.

I think the concept of occupation ought to be assessed in a more nuanced manner. Many Israelis believe that Oslo, Camp David II and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, as well as the oft-repeated terror attacks and statements issued by Palestinian leaders, have demonstrated that the Palestinians have no interest in ending the occupation as such.

The so called second intifada has demonstrated that terror attacks are not necessarily the result of occupation but rather its cause. Even Saeb Erakat has repeatedly said that Israel has "re-occupied" the West Bank. That means that there was a period in which Israel was not occupying the West Bank. The reality was, of course, complex. Israel re-occupied the West Bank cities following the terror attacks that culminated in the Passover Massacre of mostly elderly Jews in Netanya.

Israelis are not in denial. They are simply afraid.
In contrast to examples of colonial occupation, the enemy, in this case, is seen as having unlimited goals, that can hardly be reconciled.

The French knew that withdrawing from Algeria would end the conflict with the FLN. The British knew that withdrawing from Kenya would end the conflict with the Mau Mau. Israelis are hardly sure that withdrawing from the West Bank would end the conflict with the Palestinians.

Occupation does not seem to be the principal problem, but rather the belief among many, if not most Palestinians, that Israel should not exist a Jewish state. Thus, the constant, indeed sincere, demand by the Palestinians that Israel accept "the right of return," which is a euphemism for eliminating Israel by peaceful means. That is, at least, how most Israelis, in my view, see the situation. It's not denial, but rather a cautious attitude borne out of experience.

Best wishes.
Mo'adim le Simha.
Yoav


New Prospects in Lebanon

On May 7, 2008 Ahmad El Assaad, Founder and Chairman, the Lebanese Option Gathering (LOG), talked at the Woodrow Wilson Center. He spoke briefly, less than 15 minutes (this is a first here at the Wilson Center, at least among all the meetings I attended, that a person is granted 30-40 minutes and opts for brevity), and then answered questions for 40 minutes. Again, he was very laconical and economical. I presume in his part of the world one speaks briefly in the hope that he will live longer.

Assaad, chairman of the LOG and leader of the Lebanese Kafa’at Party, a new Shiite party that cooperates with the 14 March movement, argued that the only road in Lebanon is through a strong coalition of independent Shia who can articulate an alternative to Hezbollah, offering a non-violent vision (refreshing view in this part of the world). Assaad explained how this new path to freedom and democracy will be achieved and the role the United States and other countries need to play to achieve stability in Lebanon and the region.

Assaad argued that Lebanese democratization must be achieved by a strong and independent coalition of Shiites who can articulate viable alternatives to Hezbollah’s divisive policies and violent tactics. He explained that Hezbollah enjoys the massive popular support in Lebanon because of its vast resources. He estimated that Iran transfers each and every month 60-70 million dollars to the Hezbollah to enable sustaining its infrastructure and operations.

Assaad likened the situation in the greater Middle East to a “cold-war” between moderate Arabs, who favor pluralism and welcome different interpretations of the Quran, and “so-called Islamic movements” like Hezbollah and the present regime in Iran who distort the message of Islam for political purposes. Assaad pointed out that the foundation of Shiite Islam was the concept of “Ijtihad,” and the necessity of entertaining and respecting different concepts of Islam at the same time. Hezbollah and Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini distort this vision of “Ijthad” by monopolizing the interpretation of Islam, and branding all potential dissenters as traitors. While Iran and the Hezbollah wish to bring us back to the Middle Ages, his new party offers a new Islamic modern vision suitable for the 21st Century. Assaad said that the Shiite did not have any problems with the West until Khomeini came to power in Iran in 1979. Assaad said he represents “the true Shiite”.

If Hezbollah can be weakened, democracy will spread; if not, then democracy will stagnate and retract. Assaad views the LOG as a crucial political outlet for the Shi’as who are dissatisfied with Hezbollah. While Hezbollah gains popularity by funneling Iranian patronage into social networks of schools and healthcare systems, it does not have the funds to provide benefits to all of the Shi’a population. Assaad said, Hezbollah has monopolized the political discourse, squandered economic opportunities, instigated war with Israel, and ultimately put the interests of Iran over the interests of Lebanon itself. Thus, Assaad predicts that Hezbollah’s power can be significantly weakened by the emergence of an alternative Shiite party. After all, many people are angry at the Hezbollah after the 2006 that was very destructive for the Lebanese economy.

The main goal of the LOG, presently led by a small group of committed people who sponsor the activities themselves, was to achieve a proportional system of representation within the Shi’a bloc in the Lebanese government. While leaving most of the provisions of Lebanon’s “confessional” system of representation in tact, Assaad’s proposed multiple Shiite parties. Under this system, LOG could obtain as much as 30% of the Shiite vote, thereby breaking Hezbollah’s monopoly on Shiite politics. Assaad argues that this vision can only be realized with strong support from the international community. He explained that LOG needs financial support to build social networks which can compete with Hezbollah, and support from the US and EU in order to pressure Hezbollah to refrain from violent activities and weaken its hold on power. Such action, although difficult, will not only put Lebanon back on the track towards democracy, but have a ripple effect on Iran and other fundamentalist regimes in the region, he said. He concluded that by breaking Hezbollah’s hold on Lebanon, they can demonstrate the strength of democracy, expose the dishonesty of fundamentalism, and ultimately begin the long journey to victory.

I asked him about the stand of his party vis-a-vis Israel. His answer was that they want peace with Israel. Lebanon needs to move fast forward into the 21st Century and for this peace with Israel should be secured.

Assaad was also asked about the fate of the 300,000-400,000 Palestinians in Lebanon. He answered that no one wishes to grant them Lebanese citizenship. The Palestinians present a problem that needs to be solved by a unified effort of all Arab nations. Lebanon is unable to address this problem on its own.


Clifford Christians

I was invited to participate in a conference honouring the retirement of Cliff Christians, a leading figure in the field of media ethics. The conference was organized by two of Cliff’s students, Robert Fortner and Mark Fackler, who assembled a group of scholars from all over the world, all benefited and enriched by Cliff’s scholarship. These were five days of meetings, of love, of respect and of appreciation to this humble leader, an exceptional experience that I will cherish and remember for many years to come. It was the first time for me to participate in such a gathering, in honour of a person and in his presence. Cliff’s family and friends were their too, adding to the festivities. There were many moving special moments, and there was much to learn from leading experts. I wish many people from all walks of life will follow this example, set by Bob and Mark, to celebrate the life and achievements of fellow scholars.


IDP Camps in Uganda

In the conference, Bob Fortner discussed the tragedy of the displaced refugees in Uganda. For the past twenty years, millions of people reside in those tragic camps without any prospects to leave the camps and settle in decent housing. The war in northern Uganda is hardly discussed in the west, and is Africa's longest running war. For decades the Acholi people of northern Uganda have not known peace but have seen the security, economy and moral integrity of their homelands erode year after year. At the end of 2003, Jan Egeland, the United Nations undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs, told the BBC: "I cannot find any other part of the world that is having an emergency on the scale of Uganda that is getting so little international attention."

http://www.david-kilgour.com/mp/Ugandan%20IDP%20Camps%20&%20Children.htm

The war began largely as one of a series of uprisings against President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni's National Resistance Movement (NRM) and followed in a long series of attempts to seize power by force in Uganda. Since the late 1980's the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), professing a spiritual war against the Ugandan government, seem to have lost any real political aspirations and has preyed upon civilians.

The LRA's principal means of recruiting its forces has been the abduction of children; about 90% of the recruits are children. The LRA is composed of about 3,000 abducted children controlled by a core group of 150-200 officers led by Joseph Kony, about whom little is known with certainty, although he apparently guides the LRA with a kind of apocalyptic mysticism grounded in the Bible. Under Kony's command, LRA forces have been responsible for tens of thousands of rapes, assaults and killings of unarmed civilians. An estimated 25,000 to 30,000 children have been abducted over the years and forced to witness and commit atrocities during the conflict. Fortner spoke with residents of the camps who regard Kony as the manifestation of evil spirit in human.

More than 1.7 million northerners have been displaced by the war and live in harsh and often desperate conditions in camps for the internally displaced (IDP). Many of those living in camps were forcibly moved into these camps by the Ugandan army (Ugandan People's Defense Force, UPDF), on the grounds that the displacement was militarily necessary to combat the LRA and to help distinguish civilians from fighters. In certain districts, up to 95% of the population is internally displaced.

Camp conditions have led to acute malnutrition in children and the near-total destruction of social networks, culture and norms. More than 300,000 children under the age of five suffer from malaria, pneumonia, diarrhea and preventable diseases. 1,000 people are dying every week because of this war. Many women and girls are forced to trade sex for basic necessities, obviously contributing to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, the camps are far from secure, in spite of the odd UPDF soldier on guard and the presence of local militias organized for protection.


Freedom of the Press 2008 Survey Release

The Freedom House has published its 2008 survey of the legal, political, and economic environments in which journalists operate in 195 countries and territories.

This year’s report found that global press freedom underwent a clear decline in 2007 (a continuation of a six-year negative trend), with journalists struggling to work in increasingly hostile environments in almost every region in the world.

Out of 195 countries and territories, 72 (37 percent) were rated Free, 59 (30 percent) Partly Free, and 64 (33 percent) were Not Free, a decline from 2006. However, the study found that declines in individual countries and territories were often larger than in years past.

Key regional findings include:
· Central and Eastern Europe/ Former Soviet Union: This region showed the largest region-wide setback, with Russia, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan, and several Central European countries, among others, showing declines. Only 18 percent of the region’s citizens live in environments with Free media.
· Middle East and North Africa: More unrestricted access to new media such as satellite television and the internet boosted press freedom regionally. Egyptian journalists showed an increased willingness to cross press freedom 'red lines,' moving the country into the Partly Free category.
· Asia-Pacific: Restrictions on media coverage were imposed in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, and Vietnam’s government cracked down on dissident writers.
· Americas: Guyana's status shifted from Free to Partly Free, while Mexico's score deteriorated by a further three points because of increased violence against journalists and impunity surrounding attacks on media.
· Sub-Saharan Africa: The region accounted for three of the year's five status changes: Benin declined from Free to Partly Free, while the Central African Republic and Niger moved into the Not Free category. Political conflict and misuse of libel laws were key factors behind a number of country declines.
· Western Europe: The region continued to have the highest level of press freedom worldwide, despite declines in Portugal, Malta and Turkey, the only country in the region ranked Partly Free.
Individual country reports, charts, graphs, historical data, and overview essays are all available online. For full report, see http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=362

I thank Diego Abente of the International Forum for Democratic Studies in the National Endowment for Democracy for bringing the report to my attention.


EUROPIX Top Talent Awards

I am writing to you to thank you for your activities as EUROPIX Top Talent Awards associated partner.
Motivated by last year's success for the Awards and the Top Talent Festival which took place in the Austrian city of Graz for the first time last November, we relaunched the Awards in 2008 as the EUROPRIX Multimedia Awards.
Your efforts to communicate the EUROPIX Multimedia Awards to as many young producers and designers, and especially those who are leaving their professional transition and development.
Please inform your national networks and press of the opportunities nominees and winners of EUROPRIX can gain, post information on your websites and help to spread the word.
Young multimedia creators can travel the road to success by registering their projects until June 30, 2008 for the EUROPIX Multimeia Awards - and you might be glad to hear that we have already received some really interesting projects.
Please note: the deadline for entries is June 30, 2008!
If you need any further information, please contact the project manager Rainer Steindler (steindler@icnm.net)
EUROPRIX Multimedia Awards
www.europrix.orgICNM - International Center for New Media Moosstrasse 43a, 5020 Salzburg, AustriaTel: +43 662 630408-31
Fax: +43 662 630408-22
https://exfs.adir.hull.ac.uk/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.icnm.net
Thank you for your effort and dedication to European multimedia!
Prof. Peter A. Bruck
Head of EUROPIX


INDEX ON CENSORSHIP HONOURS FREE EXPRESSION CHAMPIONS

Journalist Arat Dink and imprisoned Burmese monk U Gambira are among the winners of Index on Censorship's 2008 Freedom of Expression Awards, which pay tribute to people around the world who have made outstanding contributions to free expression.

Dink was awarded Index's Guardian Journalism Award, which recognises determined and brave journalism that often represents a different point of view in the media.

As the editor of the Armenian paper "Agos", Dink has suffered immensely for the "crime" of speaking out in Turkey about the Armenian genocide. His father Hrant, who was editor of the paper before him, was gunned down for giving an interview about the genocide. Arat himself was given a one-year suspended sentence for daring to reprint his late father's words.

Index on Censorship commented, "The bravery of Arat Dink, and the rest of the staff of 'Agos' in the face of draconian laws restricting their freedom of expression, provides inspiration for journalists throughout the world. In honouring Arat, we also commemorate the work of his late father."

U Gambira is the pseudonym of a leader of the All-Burma Monks Alliance, which spearheaded the nationwide protests in September last year, won the Bindmans Law and Campaigning Award. He was allegedly charged with treason following the protests and is currently being held in Insein prison in Rangoon.

WikiLeaks, a resource for anonymous whistleblowers and investigative journalists, won the Economist New Media Award for facing down an attempt by an investment bank to close it down.

Francisco Goldman took home the TR Fyvel Book Award for "The Art of Political Murder: Who killed Bishop Gerardi?", an account of the search for the killers of Guatemalan bishop Juan Gerardi.

And the Index Film Award went to "Ahlaam" ("Dreams"), a story of three broken souls in Baghdad, Iraq in the aftermath of Saddam Hussein.

For more details, visit: http://www.indexoncensorship.org/?p=350

Source: IFEX Communiqué" published weekly by the International Freedom of Expression eXchange (IFEX).


Poetry Reading


The Woodrow Wilson Center organized a panel of poetry reading, inviting Ambassador Bill Miller and yours truly to present their very own poetry. It was a special event in this academic, policy-making setting. I thank Mike Van Dusen, Kent Hughes and Maria-Stella Gatzoulis for organizing the event. Here is one of my poems:

Single / Raphael Cohen-Almagor

Immersed in troubling thought
Heavily climbing onto the crowded bus.
“Single?” asked the skinny driver
His voice finds way in between the squeezed sardines.



What single? How does he know I am single?
What? Who?
Why does he ask for my condition?
Why? He squealed.

Gave him an angry look
Then bluntly
“None of your business, mister
I have a wife and kids, you old fagot
If you care to know”.

The driver responds with a light smile
“Hard day, haa?
Do my lord wish one way to Hatishbi Street
Or return before night falls?”


Thank You

I thank Guy Billauer for the opportunity to present my political views about Israel. Sharing a panel with Shlomo Ben-Ami I discovered that while Shlomo and I share many views in common, he still speaks in terms of pursuit of peace, while I think that at the moment this is merely wishful thinking; we should confine ourselves to promoting security, and while I believe there is little sense to speak with the Hamas, Shlomo believes that this avenue should be explored. Unclear what about we should discuss with the Hamas, as this movement is very much committed to the destruction of Israel.

I presume the discussion will revolve about postponing their aims for some time, until a better moment arises for the plan to materialize.


Peace Index

The April 2008 “War and Peace Index” (formerly Peace Index) conducted by Eppie Yaar and Tamar Hermann shows that in the Israeli Jewish public as a whole, opinions are more or less evenly divided between those who see a possibility in the next five years that Israel will sign a peace agreement with at least one additional Arab state and those who see no such possibility (interestingly, the younger age groups are more pessimistic on this issue than the older ones, and also show less support for negotiating with the Palestinian Authority). But as for achieving a settlement with Syria and the Palestinians, the two most relevant regional actors, assessments of the chances are much lower: 66% of the entire Jewish public does not believe in the chances of an agreement with Syria and 70% think the same regarding the Palestinians. At present the Jewish public’s willingness to “pay” for a peace agreement is particularly low. Only 19% support an Israeli withdrawal from all of the Golan Heights for a full peace treaty with Syria while the overwhelming majority—75%— oppose it (6% did not know). As for the Palestinians, a majority—57%—favor holding negotiations with the PA but 34% are against (among these there is, as noted above, a higher representation of the younger age groups, and also of those with less education and of those defining themselves as religious or haredi). An even larger majority of 70% support the formula of “two states for two peoples” (25% oppose this solution; again, among the opponents there is a larger representation of the younger age group and of second-generation Israeli natives, and also of those defining themselves as religious or haredi).

What, in the view of the Jewish public, is the gravest security danger facing Israel
today? Thirty-eight percent put the Iranian nuclear threat in first place (fear of the Iranian threat is higher in the older age group, among the less religious groups—the traditional and the secular, and among men). For twenty percent the graves