January 2005
Comment on Paris, on PA Elections, Kassam Missiles, Civil Disobedience, Center for Democratic Studies, Using the T-Word, Syrian Wins Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders, Peace One Day, Prince Harry in Nazi Uniform, British Theatre, Photos from Israel
Dear friends and colleagues,
Comment on Paris,
Agnes Lefranc from Paris commented on what I had written on Paris and Parisians:
Dear Rafi,
I have to say, even if it hurts, that I agree with what you write about people living in Paris in your last newsletter: a large proportion of them can be totally awful with everyone they consider as a "foreigner" (their definition of a foreigner sometimes including "someone living on the other side of the city's limits"). As another example of that, there is now a lot of buzz around the application of Paris for the 2012 Olympic Games, and Paris authorities try to give the best "image" of the city... Anyway, some Parisians are already complaining about the "invasion" (visitors, tourists) that is going to happen during summer 2012 if the Olympic Games take place in Paris. It was the same for the 1998 soccer world cup, and finally, people were totally ecstatic during the event (the fact that France won the world cup certainly had something to do with it !!). I think that for most of the people living in Paris, the ungracious, grumbling appearance is more an attitude than their real "nature". And I really can understand that this is not an excuse and that this attitude can be totally offending for people visiting Paris.
Anyway, I hope that this will not prevent you from visiting Paris in the future, and I would be very glad to see you then (and perhaps have you meet some "nice" Parisians, if I can find them !!).
Agnes
PA Elections
The first post-Arafat elections took place on January 9, 2005. As was expected, Mahmoud Abbas won 62.3 percent of the vote for Palestinian Authority chairman. This margin of victory would give Abbas a clear mandate to renew peace talks with Israel, rein in militants and reform the corruption-riddled Palestinian Authority. Abbas' main challenger, independent candidate Mustafa Barghouti, won about 20 percent, and five other chairmanship candidates - ranging from a Marxist ex-guerrilla to an academic under U.S. house arrest on suspicion of funneling funds to Hamas militants - scored in low single digits. Hamas, the largest Palestinian militant opposition group, announced it will work with Abbas. Don't be too impressed with verbal declarations. Abu Mazen's test will be his ability to fight down terrorism and to put a stop to the launching of Kassam missiles. At least, unlike Arafat it seems that Abu Mazen does not lack the will to stop violence. He declared openly that violence did not serve the interest of the Palestinian people, and that there are other, more fruitful ways, to achieve independence and freedom. Israel will evaluate the new leader according to his actions, not necessarily according to his success. We first want to see a genuine attempt to stop violence and terror. I hope the Hamas and Islamic Jihad will also revise their policies and strategy. If not we may expect to see bitter internal clashes, with the IDF doing its share to assassinate militants. Those targeted killings proved useful from Israel's view but at the same time did not relax the atmosphere. Quite the opposite. Targeted killings served as a unified mechanism. Palestinian rivals forget all differences when facing Israel's military retaliation.
Senior Palestinian security official and West Bank strongman Jibril al-Rajoub resigned on January 11, saying he wanted to encourage President-elect Mahmoud Abbas to enact reforms. The resignation of Rajoub, a leading security official and West Bank strongman rival to Gaza's Mohamed Dahlan, suggests that Abbas is at least moving quickly to restructure the PA's notoriously corrupt and fractious security forces. Their reform is essential if Abbas is to have any hope of curbing the likes of Hamas and Fatah's own Al-Aqsa Brigades both of which have dismissed his calls to halt the terrorism of their "armed struggle". Rajoub, one of several security advisers, had been at odds with late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat over calls to slim down the range of separate competing Palestinian security forces. Rajoub has called for the merging of some dozen competing security forces to help end chaos that gripped Palestinian streets in the months before Arafat died in a Paris hospital on Nov 11. "I recommend speeding up the combining of the security forces into three, and making radical, immediate changes in the organisational structure and leaderships," Rajoub said. Abbas is expected to carry out such changes, also wanted by Israel and Western countries.
Indeed, security reform is a key issue for Abbas, who may also need more effective forces to bring militant groups under control. Stirring Israeli concerns, Abbas has said he would rather co-opt militants than use force to rein them in. Don't be too amazed if Abbas would reappoint Rajoub in the near future. He needs him and co-optation is a proved mechanism to bring potential rivals to back your own camp.
Kassam Missiles
Ella Abuksis, age 17, was walking in the street in Sderot together with her little brother Tamir when she heard the frightening noise. She embraced her brother and fell with him on the ground. The missile fell five meters behind her. Tamir came out with small injuries. Ella, on the other hand, is now declared brain-dead.
Every country has the right to defend its sovereignty. It is impossible to continue this way. The people of Sderot cannot continue living in this way. The town is becoming a ghost city. Just imagine missiles on York, Ann Arbor and Windsor. Would the UK, the USA and Canada allow this to continue? There are only two possibilities: either the PA will put a stop to it, and this is certainly the preferable option; or Israel will enter the Gaza Strip yet again. To remind, the last time the IDF went the Gaza the result was dozens of casualties on both sides, especially the Palestinian. There is no third option, i.e. letting the missiles continue falling.
On January 18, Abu Mazen declared that he intends to locate one thousand policemen hoping that their presence will serve as deterrence. He says he needs "time and patience", precious commodities in our region. The people of Sderot have lost their patience and now exert pressure on Sharon to retaliate. Retaliation is not the issue. It is simply not enough. The missiles have to stop.
Civil Disobedience
The past few weeks I had several public appearances in which I was invited to express my views on different topics:
Incitement in Israel, calling upon the Attorney General to be alert and to fight down concrete calls for murder: Incitement is not protected under the Free Speech Principle.
Euthanasia and mercy killings: I was invited to present my new book in various forms, and to speak on the legislation process that is now taking place to settle the issue of medical treatment at the end-of-life. I was a member of a public committee, known as the Steinberg Committee, assigned by the Ministry of Health, to draft a law. After a long process this law is now considered by the Knesset Constitutional, Law and Justice Committee for final shape-up before moving on to legislation.
Payment for interviews: Concerning the case of Azam Azam, recently released from Egyptian jail after eight years of prison. Interesting story this one because Egyptian officials, from Mubarak down claimed that he was an Israeli spy, in service of the MOSSAD, while Israeli officials, from Sharon down, claimed that he was an innocent business man. Someone is not telling the truth. Anyway, Azam decided to take advantage of his release and do for his home, demanding a fee for his exclusive first interview. After a short and extensive race TV Channel 10 won the race by paying him some dozens of thousands of dollars. I was asked to comment on this issue.
Civil disobedience and conscientious objection: tricky and complicated question that has been occupying my mind for many years. Israel is a fascinating country in many respects, including demography. In the 1970s, we were about 3.5 million people. In a period of thirty years we doubled our size. Don't know if any other country in the world has such a record. Anyway, in the 1970s and 1980s I used to think that conscientious objection is a luxury we cannot afford. Morally speaking I felt that we should recognize refusal on such grounds, but practically I felt that as a state we are unable to afford it. Things have changed. The army grew beyond its needs. There are less external threats to wage war on us by one of our neighbours. There is peace (cold, but still peace) with the strongest potential rival, Egypt. The army does not recruit all eligible citizens, young men and women, age 18, for various reasons: religion, marriage (for girls), criminal record, poor health (physical or mental). And Israel had a problematic presence in Lebanon, and still has such presence in the occupied territories.
Thus, in the 1990s I expressed my views that it is a democratic right to declare conscientious objection; that Israel should recognize this right, and as people have the right not to serve due to religious reasons, so people should have the right not to serve on conscientious grounds. I backed the "Four Mothers" Movement which called Israel to pull out from Lebanon. The movement grew and made an impact on our society, more so when Yossi Beilin and others became vocal supporters of this motion, and even more so when Prime Minister Ehud Barak became a supporter and in 2000 had the foresight and courage to take our troops out of Lebanon.
It should be noted that in 1995, in order to determine who is a genuine CO and who is just trying to avoid the military service for reasons of personal comfort, the Minister of Defence set up, within the Israeli Armed Forces (IDF), a Conscientious Objection Committee. This move was considered necessary after the State of Israel adhered to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1991.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights do not explicitly mention the right to conscientious objection to military service. However, in 1993, the Human Rights Committee, the body of experts monitoring the implementation of the Covenant, adopted General Comment N. 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and affirmed that the right to conscientious objection to military service can be derived from article 18. Paragraph 11 states that :
"Many individuals have claimed the right to refuse to perform
military service (conscientious objection) on the basis that
such right derives from their freedoms under article 18. In
response to such claims, a growing number of States have in
their laws exempted from compulsory military service citizens
who genuinely hold religious or other beliefs that forbid the
performance of military service and replaced it with
alternative national service. The Covenant does not explicitly
refer to a right to conscientious objection, but the Committee
believes that such a right can be derived from article 18,
inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force may seriously
conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to
manifest one's religion or belief. When this right is recognized
by law or practice, there shall be no differentiation among
conscientious objectors on the basis of the nature of their
particular beliefs; likewise, there shall be no discrimination
against conscientious objectors because they have failed to
perform military service. The Committee invites States parties
to report on the conditions under which persons can be
exempted from military service on the basis of their rights
under article 18 and on the nature and length of alternative
national service."
As you well know, I oppose occupation and think Israel is mistaken by lasting our presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza Strip. There should be a two-state solution, and I hope this will materialize in my life time. I said time and again that I hope many soldiers declare conscientious objection and go to jail rather than serve in the occupied territories. In my last Newsletter I praised the four parents of soldiers who sign parents to oppose sending their children to serve in the occupied territories. A few days have passed and I was invited to express my views on TV. There the issue was civil disobedience and conscientious objection in general, including the right of soldiers to refuse evacuating settlers, and the right of settlers to refuse their evacuation. I said that I see conscientious objection as a democratic right; that I hope soldiers will have the decency to tell their commanders, before going on assignment, that they are not willing to abide the order of evacuation, and not to sabotage the activity on the spot; that I respect conscientious objection as long as people are willing to pay the price for their acts, meaning to serve in jail. Regarding the settlers I support their right to object to what they conceive as illegal and immoral order, to leave their homes, but said that the border line is violence: they should not resort to violence. There is a difference between passive resistance, not cooperating with the army and leave the soldiers with no option but grabbing them by their hands and legs out of their homes to the vehicles, and fighting the soldiers with force, feasts and guns. While I condone passive resistance, I condemn any form of force that might lead to bloodshed and civil war.
Within four days I became the darling of YESHA, the Judea, Samaria and Gaza Council. Suddenly, in the first time in my life, I had something in common with the settlers' camp. Strange feeling, I must admit. I don't wish to play into their hands, but at the same time I need to be loyal to my conscience. I believe conscientious objection is not one-sided, serving the interests of one camp only. When it is from the left, it is fine; when it comes from the right it is condemnable. My conscience is not that flexible. The YESHA Council invited me to debate the issue and after consultation with the Dean of our Law Faculty I agreed upon the condition that the debate will reflect all (or most) streams of thoughts in Israel, that it will be balanced and not one sided, and that it will be of academic nature.
In a previous Newsletter I already mentioned a pertinent Supre Court case. On December 20, 2002, the Court passed an important judgment on the Zonschein case reaffirming the possibility of granting exemptions from military service for reasons of conscientious objection. It noted that "all agree that exemptions for conscientious reasons are included in those 'other reasons', which allow exemption from regular or reserve service." It refers to total conscientious objection only. In fact, it ruled out the possibility of selective objection (that is the exemption from service deriving from an objection to a specific war or military operation) for reasons of national security. The Court held that "the phenomenon of selective conscientious objection would be broader than 'full' objection, and would evoke an intense feeling of discrimination 'between blood and blood'. Moreover, it affects security considerations themselves, since a group of selective objectors would tend to increase in size. Additionally, in a pluralistic society such as ours, recognising selective conscientious objection may loosen the ties, which hold us together as a nation. Yesterday, the objection was against serving in South Lebanon. Today, the objection is against serving in Judea and Samaria. Tomorrow, the objection will be against vacating this or that settlement. The army of the nation may turn into an army of different groups comprised of various units, to each of which it would be conscientiously acceptable to act in certain areas, whereas it would be conscientiously unacceptable to act in others. In a polarised society such as ours, this consideration weighs heavily. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to distinguish between one who claims conscientious objection in good faith and one who, in actuality, objects to the policy of the government or the Knesset, as it is a fine distinction - occasionally an exceedingly fine distinction – between objecting to a state policy and between conscientious objection to carry out that policy."
Center for Democratic Studies
The Center is taking its formative shape. First on the agenda was to establish a reputable Governing Board that will involve capable people whose activities showed their commitment to the values and ideas that underlie the Center. The Board includes at this stage the following dignitaries:
Former Justice of the Supreme Court Dalia Dorner, a leading liberal voice in Israel whose imprint on our legal history is noticeable and admirable
Recipient of Israel Prize in Philosophy, Professor Asa Kasher of Tel Aviv University, a leading expert on ethics, with a sharp mind and careful eye
Rabbi Uri Regev, one of the leaders of the Reform Movement in Israel and in the world. He exemplifies humane Judaism in its best
Former Deputy Speaker of the Knesset (Meretz – the Civil Rights Party), Professor Naomi Chazan of the Hebrew University Dept. of Political Science, a most capable scholar who is spending her sabbatical now at MIT
Professor Eppie Yaar of Tel Aviv University, a leading sociologist who is known also for the Peace Index that he monitors for some years
Former Cabinet Minister (Labour) and Ambassador to the UN Gad Yaakobi, one of the brightest politicians I've ever known, a true intellectual with a passion for poetry
Professor Ben-Zion Zilberfarb of Bar Ilan University Department of Economics. He was the head of the Economic Planning Authority of the Israeli government (1982 –1985) and the Director General of the Ministry of Finance (1988 – 1999).
Head of the Van Leer Jerusalem Institute Dr. Shimshon Zelniker. Van Leer is a leading research center in Israel that has been working for many years to promote peace and understanding within Israel and with its neighbours
Professor Bernard Susser of Department of Political Science, Bar Ilan University. Barney is a leading political theorist in Israel. He supervised my MA thesis on Marx, Engels and Lenin some years ago (who counts…)
Professor Aharon Kellerman, former Vice President of my university, a man of many qualities and capabilities with lots of administrative experience
Professor Yedidya Stern of Bar Ilan University Faculty of Law, a leading activist in promoting understanding between secular and religious Jews, on constitutional issues, and a Senior Fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute
Mr. Gil Weiser, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the University of Haifa. He comes from the high-tech, a successful businessman who cares deeply about the future of Israeli democracy and who knows the inside out of my university
Professor Moshe Zeidner, Dean of Research whose responsibilities include overseeing the work of all centers within the university
I have also invited Professor Majid Al-Haj to be affiliated to my Center and he agreed. Majid heads the Center for Multiculturalism at my university and for this reason cannot be an official member of the Governing Board. He is a respected sociologist who works on the relationships between Arabs and Jews in Israel, and the absorption of the Russian immigrants in Israeli society.
The list is not conclusive as other members who have passion to better the future of Israeli democracy might join. I would like to have on board more business people, with contacts and access to people who care about Israel, and have the resources to invest in various projects and activities. I am also contemplating the establishment of an International Steering Committee. The Governing Board is scheduled to convene in early March and upon their approval I would like to invite people from four corners of the world to officially join the Center. Some already expressed interest, including Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel.
Some of you took the initiative and sent checks in support of the Center. You touched my heart. I am most thankful for your care and concern.
There are some 400 people on this listserve, and more than 1500 people have visited the blog since its inception. If each will donate $100 the Center could kick-off to a good start. People who wish to donate money are welcome to send a check to:
Ms. Michal Zach
(for the Center for Democratic Studies)
The Research Authority
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel
Haifa 31905
Israel.
Those of you who wish to donate larger sums of money and want to receive charitable donation tax receipts are welcome to contact:
Ms. Estie Becker
Resource Development Department
University of Haifa
Mount Carmel
Haifa 31905
Israel.
besty@univ.haifa.ac.il
Using the T-Word
Together with a former student, Amit Rahat, I am conducting research on ombudsmen in the United Kingdom, Canada and Isssrael. For this purpose I recently visited the UK and met with some people in the BBC. I will not elaborate on my findings in this forum but would like to mention only one issue: The BBC cautious refrain from using the word "terrorism". Even those involved in the horrific seizure of a school in the town of Beslan on September 3, 2004 were not described as terrorists. I asked why. Senior people at the BBC explained that the BBC broadcasts worldwide to people with different point of views, and it does not wish to alienate anyone. They continued the explanation by the well-known cliché that one's terrorist is another's freedom fighter and therefore opt to the simple solution of not using the T-Word in principle. Then one of them maintained that a certain horrific act may be described as terrorist, but "we don't call the people who conduct the act as terrorist". Do you understand this?
Bear in mind that when the UK was subjected to IRA attacks the BBC had no problem calling the people involved "terrorist". After the Good Friday agreement terrorism no more exists. September 11 was tricky, though. Interesting.
Journalists are morally required to be conscious of the terminology they employ in their reports. An ephemeral terrorist organisation is not "an army." People who kidnap and murder randomly are not "students" or "saints" or "soldiers" or "freedom fighters." The killing of innocent civilians traveling on a bus or a train should not be described in terms of a "military operation." A difference exists between covering news and providing terrorists an equal platform to declare their agenda. To remain objective in the sense of moral neutrality with regard to terrorism is to betray ethics and morality. Terrorists deserve no prize for their brutality. Here I take issue with the BBC and also with the CBC Ombudsman, David Bazay, who in comments about the use of the word "terrorist" wrote that "There is nothing in the CBC's journalism policy that prevents the public broadcaster's journalists from calling a spade a spade or a terror attack a terror attack." But, at the same time, he instructed the CBC to be careful with the use of language. While quoting his colleague Jeffrey Dvorkin, Ombudsman for the American National Public Radio, Bazay explained that while the use of "the 't' word" may be accurate it also has a political and "extra-journalistic role of de-legitimizing one side and enthroning the views of the other." In his view, this is not the role of responsible journalism, "which is and should be to describe with accuracy and fairness events that listeners may choose to endorse or deplore." Indeed, this is the role of responsible journalism and therefore journalists should resort to the term "terrorism" when such acts are conducted. Bazay took pain to explain that sides to a given conflict use and abuse the word "terrorist" to frame the issues to advance their political agenda, but it does not matter how one side or another characterizes the acts of violence it carries. What does matter is whether the acts fall within the definition of terrorism. However, because the description of a given event as terrorist might be difficult and controversial, both the BBC and the CBC are opting, in general, for the simple solution of refraining from using the term.
I am most grateful to Wilfrid Knapp, Prinky and Adam Roberts, Eric Barendt, Jack Pole and Alan Budd for their kind hospitality.
Syrian Wins Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders
Aksam Noaisse, the Chairman of the Committees for the Defense of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria has won the prestigious Martin Ennals Award. Noaisse was one of the founding members of the Committees, created in 1989, and of the publication "Sawt al-Dimokratiyyah" (voice of democracy). Naisse has courageously spoken out in national, regional and international forums. He has been arrested six times, held incommunicado and tortured. He is currently not allowed to travel abroad. A trial against him will resume on 16 January 2005 and he risks 15 years prison.
The Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders (MEA) is a unique collaboration among eleven of the world's leading non-governmental human rights organizations to give protection to human rights defenders worldwide. The jury comprises Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, International Federation for Human Rights, the International Commission of Jurists, World Organization Against Torture, German Diakonie, International Service for Human Rights, International Alert, Huridocs and DCI.
Peace One Day
The British Council organized an evening to show the documentary film "Peace One Day" and have a Q&A session with the film maker Jeremy Gilley. The film documents the truly amazing journey of a visionary man, who is also a doer, who wanted to better this world by declaring one day of universal peace. To reach 365 days of global peace is somewhat more difficult, but let us start with one day during which all rivals will put down their guns, allow food and medicine to pass securely to people who need them. On this day there will be no firing, no bombings, no launching of missiles, no terrorism, no guerrilla warfare, no assassinations, no military operations. A global armistice and break of violence.
Just imagine a planning meeting of the heads of the Hamas in which the intelligence officer points out that tomorrow there is a golden opportunity to launch a massive suicide attack in the heart of Tel Aviv, but then a Hamas leader rise and say: We cannot. Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace.
Or that the heads of the security forces in Israel convene and the intelligence officer says that tomorrow there will be a golden opportunity to "eliminate" the head of operations of the Islamic Jihad, but then Sharon will respond: Not tomorrow. Tomorrow is the International Day of Peace.
To achieve this end, Gilley started by contacting Nobel Peace Laureates, received the support of some leading figures and then of Costa Rica and the United Kingdom, and in September 2001 the United Nations had passed GA Resolution 55/282 that accepted the idea and initiative. The motion was passed unanimously. 21 September has become the International Day of Peace.
Gilley is continuing his efforts to spread the news about peace-one-day and is now filming his second film in which he documents his efforts. Indeed, we all yearn for peace one day. 21 September can be a good start. Please mark the day in your calendars. (Inter alia, I suggested Gilley to contact all manufactures of diaries to note the day in their products).
If you can, arrange that your respective universities buy the DVD.
For further information, see http://www.peaceoneday.org/
Prince Harry in Nazi Uniform
The photo of the young Prince dressed up as a Nazi was, in one word, revolting. I presume this is the result of sheer ignorance. The guy does not know what he is doing, and not for the first time. Young people are prone to make mistakes more than older guys, but this one shows he lacks good education. God knows what he did at Eton. Apparently not much. Or maybe Eton does not teach WWII, the Blitz, and the horrors of the Nazi regime? I wonder. Young Harry thought that that custom would be most appropriate for the party he attended, that it will be "fun", "cool", and attract attention. Well, it certainly attracted attention, probably more than he wished in the first place. I hope he will now learn something about the people he wished to represent in his fun party.
Here in Israel young people in general don't use the swastika and other Nazi motifs. They understand it is beyond the acceptable. Only political opponents resort to Nazi symbols, dressing the leaders they oppose in Nazi uniform. You may recall the notorious photo of Prime Minister Rabin dressed in Himler's uniform. I read that soldiers in the occupied territories pride themselves with the symbol of the skull with two crossed bones. I assume they don't know much of their predecessors who used this symbol of death. What they want to say, mostly to their comrades as they paint this symbol on their own private closets and put up posters with the symbol in their own private rooms: Be Aware!! I am here to inflict death and mayhem. I am cool. I am not afraid. I am here to gun down Palestinians and to show them who is the boss. In a sense, the skull symbol serves the same purpose of the Nazi symbol in other parts of the world. But, of course, not in Harry's case.
Harry just wanted to be cool per se. Nothing beyond that. What troubles me is that this shallow man serves as an idol for many young people around the world. If he is wearing this so-called ghastly swastika, why won't we? The old generation is too rigid, they might say. It is actually cool to rebel against them and wear Nazi uniform. Who were the Nazis anyway? Germans. We have nothing against Germany. A beautiful country, actually, and a prospering one too. Germany has a long history, with one terribly dark chapter of which Harry and others know very little. Oswiecim is a mere foreign word of no significance and meaning.
British Theatre
Festen – a solid drama that shows British theatre at its best. Patriarch Helge Klingelfeldt is celebrating his 60th birthday at a magnificent old house in the Danish countryside. Surrounded by his loyal wife Else, his daughter Helene, sons Christian and Michael and a host of family and friends this promises to be a very special occasion. And then Christian proposed a toast that transforms the celebration into a painful journey to the dark side of the family. Paul Nicholls, who plays Christian, gives an electrifying memorable performance and holds the play together. You are in for a thrill.
Any idea what festen means? Ideas are welcomed.
Photos from Israel
I wanted to share with you some photos from Israel. Enjoy. These are just few gems to appreciate.
With my very best wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Thursday, December 30, 2004
December 2004
Comments on Bush; on Iran, Syria, "Stray Weeds", Polarization in Israel, Poll on Democratic Values in Israel, Internal Politics, Ami Ayalon, Palestinian Elections, France, Nieman Fellowships at Harvard, Conference in Memory of Mark Biano, Democracy for a Safer World Summit, Israeli Theatre, New Book, Happy New Year
Dear friends and colleagues,
This is my end-of-the-year Newsletter. It highlights some of the main issues that will occupy Israel in 2005, delineating new trends and discussing crucial developments. Please read carefully and circulate among friends and interested parties.
Comments on Bush
Jason Rosenberg, from Washington DC, related to my last posting on Bush's win:
Rafi,
It's great to hear from you. I hope you are doing very well in Israel. Let me say I enjoy so much reading your point of view and hold your views in the highest of regards.
However, your analysis of the election is a little off. This election was not decisive, it was terribly close. As the 2000 election hinged on Florida, the 2004 election was again determined by one state. This time it was Ohio. In 2000, had Al Gore won just two votes per voting precinct, he would have won Ohio and been president. Of course he didn't and of course neither did John Kerry. Over 250,000 Ohioans (Buckeyes) who had jobs in 2000 didn't have work in 2004. But Bush still won the state. Why? One reason, there were up to 4 hour long waits to vote and of course it was cold and rainy after a beautiful weekend and Monday.
The other reason people are scared of war and terror, etc. I can't believe that there were 9 million people in the US who didn't vote for Bush in 2000, looked at his record as president, saw record unemployment, an unjustified war, out of control deficit spending, record number of Americans without health care and voted for him in 2004.
I was in Ohio for election day I started work at 5:30 am and left the state at 9pm. At that time there were still voters waiting in line to vote and I assumed that the election was won for Kerry. The election was close and the Kerry campaign should have looked into voter fraud including the precinct where 6000 votes were cast for Bush, out of a possible 600 or so voters.
Having spent time with John Kerry, I've heard him make very pro Israel comments. I've read comments he said about his time when he flew with Israeli pilots and when he called Israel a friend. Israel had a friend with both candidates. And now that Arafat is dead, Israel, the PA, the US and the world missed out on a true leader to bring a true and lasting peace to the
region.
I wish you the best and I hope you have a great new year!
Best,
Jason
My brief answer:
Hi Jason,
Well, I think Bush's win was quite decisive, esp. in light of the forecasts prior elections, and also given that he won by a margin of more than 3 million people, and he coloured most states in red.
You need not convince me that Kerry is a friend of Israel. As you well know, I supported him and wanted him to win. I wouldn't if he was not a friend of Israel.
The very best,
Rafi
In turn, Valerie Alia from Leeds, the UK, commented:
Dear Rafi
I find your 'reading' of the US election both distressing and in contradiction to much of the other information about the true nature of the exit polls vis-a-vis the actual vote (numerical/popular and electoral). You fail to mention the harassment and the array of illegal, semi-legal and otherwise questionable activities used (e.g., in Ohio) by Republicans and/or their supporters to intimidate potential Democratic voters and obliterate existing votes.
I am distressed as well to see your echo of assumptions of some (and only some) Israelis that Bush is the 'better friend' to Israel. I agree that Kerry missed some opportunities and campaigned rather weakly. But I do not share your apparent conviction that (a) Bush actually won and (b) Bush should have won. I am surprised to see no mention of the growing influence and involvement of the radical 'Christian' right.
With all best wishes for a happy Hanukkah and a peaceful 2005,
Valerie
Dear Valerie,
Thanks for your comment. I don't think there is any point to argue with facts, and the facts are that Bush won quite convincingly, especially bearing in mind the last elections, and the predictions prior this elections. Bush won in the great majority of states, and by a margin of more than 3 million votes. There are many reasons to explain his win, and I did not attempt to provide an exhaustive explanation. I concentrated on the main reason, which is Kerry's mistakes.
I believe people should be congratulated for their achievements. It does not mean that I turned to be a Bush supporter. If you read my previous political Newsletters closely then you know I wanted Kerry to win. I thought Kerry will be good for Israel. However, also on this issue my views are not similar to the wide Israeli public. Polls conducted here showed that the wide majority of Israelis wanted Bush to win, believing that he is a true supporter of Israel, whereas Kerry did not say enough to convince people here that he is an ardent supporter of Israel as Bush was, and is believed to be. I gave the Maariv newspaper headline to show the extent of support Bush enjoys in Israel. This does not mean that I share this view.
With my best wishes,
Rafi
Dear Rafi,
The problem with our 'discussion' is that I do not think you have stated 'the facts'. As we all know (and as I have written, over the years) 'facts' are variable, malleable, and subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. There has been quite a bit of reporting, in the US and internationally and by reputable journalists and others, questioning the 'win' and linking it to Bush's previous, also questionable 'win'. I am not arguing with 'facts', I am questioning which 'facts' you are using and your understanding of the conditions of the election and voting process. If you follow the daily papers, you surely are aware there are legal discussions and actions, particularly around the events in Ohio.
I agree there was a large (and to many of us, frightening) show of support for Bush. I do not agree that he clearly and unequivocally won the election. I am in quite a large company of people who are asking these questions.
I didn't mean to imply I thought you had gone over to Bush. I also agree that Kerry made mistakes, and never did consider him the best of candidates, though I wanted him to win. I do not consider his mistakes 'the main reason' Bush 'won'. I'm not alone in this.
Forgive the cliche, but I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Shalom,
Valerie
Dr Valerie Alia
Professor of Ethics and Identity
School of Applied Global Ethics
Leslie Silver International Faculty
Leeds Metropolitan University
Steve Newman, Toronto, Canada, added:
Perhaps the most decisive factor in the election was the Republican's superior ground organization, which built on church groups and other pre-existing civil society organizations initially mobilized to oppose abortion rights, gay rights, women's rights, and other conservative shiboleths. The Republicans also showed that they had a superior game plan when it came to getting out the vote. The Democrats had invested heavily in improving their ability to get out the vote, but their tactics proved less effective. The religious right did not win the election for Bush, but its leadership is now making that claim. It is something to watch, for if taken seriously by the administration it bodes ill for the cause of religious tolerance in the US. Another point: Bush did in fact win the popular vote this time around, but he hardly won the popular mandate he claims. His fifty-one percent of the vote to Kerry's forty-eight percent is no landslide. And the Electoral College vote was fairly close, too. Had Ohio gone for Kerry instead of Bush --and it wouldn't have taken more than 170,000 votes (not much when you consider the size of the American electorate) --Kerry would be the president-elect. Finally, Jewish supporters of Bush may yet rue the day they gave their support to the president. The war in Iraq is a disaster. Bush has stoked the fires of terrorism rather than extinguishing the threat. And the flames may yet engulf more of the region.
As always,
Steve
Iran
In talks in Paris with Britain, Germany and France, Iran agreed on November 15 to freeze all its nuclear activities. But on November 27, Iran said it wanted to retain 20 centrifuges for research purposes. Iran's foreign minister said that Iran had every right to keep, for research purposes, some centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, an indication that a standoff on the country's nuclear program may not be easily resolved. "Iran's demand to keep 20 centrifuges is not against its commitments," said the minister, Kamal Kharrazi, the IRNA news agency reported.
On November 28 Iran backed off a demand to operate uranium enrichment equipment that could be used either for energy purposes or in a nuclear bomb-making project. The retreat came in the form of a letter from Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the letter, Iran withdrew its demand to operate 20 centrifuges - uranium enrichment machines - for research and development purposes.
"Iran will permit the I.A.E.A. to place these centrifuges under agency surveillance," said Hossein Mousavian, the chief Iranian negotiator, in a telephone interview from Vienna. "Iran will not conduct any testing."
Asked specifically whether the machines would be turned off, as the Europeans have demanded, Mr. Mousavian said, "We say Iran will not conduct any testing," adding that the matter of Iran's desire to continue research will be discussed when Iran and the European countries begin talks in the coming weeks on possible economic, technological and political incentives for Iran under the European agreement.
Note that the 20 centrifuge machines would not be sealed but placed under camera surveillance. Also note that Iran said in their letter that there would be no "testing," rather than no "research and development." One may assume that the sage will continue.
Syria
On December 1, 2004 Maariv reported that Syrian President Bashar Assad was willing to come to Jerusalem and address the Knesset in 2003, as a first gesture before resuming peace talks with Jerusalem, senior defense and political sources reveal. However, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected the offer.
“Israel missed a golden opportunity to return to the negotiating table in ideal conditions as first as it was concerned”, the sources said.
Assad’s proposal was brought up during the secret contacts held between Israel and Syria at the beginning of 2003. All those involved believed Assad was serious about peace: The Syrians themselves, who kept on stressing that Assad himself was in the loop, Israeli military officials who identified Damascus’s positive approach, the international bodies involved and even Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom who was of the opinion that Jerusalem should try and resume the dialogue course. However, the only person who objected Ariel Sharon.
The 2003 talks, which were held in Jordan, were headed by the Director General of the Foreign Ministry at the time, Eitan Bentzur, while the Syrians sent the president’s brother, Maher Assad. Bentzur confirmed the information but refused to elaborate. “The contacts were very serious. I am sorry that there were those in Israel who dismissed them”, he said.
The defense establishment estimated that while contacts were held, Assad was under heavy pressure due to the planned US invasion of Iraq and rumors that American Marines would continue on to Damascus after conquering Iraq.
The official excuses aired by officials and Likud MKs was that Assad wanted to use this as a valve to release the pressure mounting on him due to his support of terror. Further, they argued that he should first withdraw his forces from Lebanon and dismantle the Hizbullah. The unofficial reason, I suspect, is that Sharon is unwilling, possibly also feels unable, to make concessions also in the Golan. To recall, Prime Minister Rabin offered the Syrians a complete withdrawal till Sea of Galilee in exchange for true peace. It is difficult for me to see Sharon committing himself in this same way.
In 1971, Anwar Sadat delivered a message to Prime Minister Golda Meir that he was willing to negotiate peace. Meir ignored the signs and offers. Two years later the Yom Kippur War broke. And we say about the Arabs that "they" learn only in the hard way. Here we had, maybe still have, a genuine offer to negotiate from the highest official in Syria and Sharon is rejecting the offer. Maybe Sharon has very good reasons to decline the offer, but not in the way he did. At least he should do some research, conduct some polls about public wishes to see whether the Israeli public is willing to make concessions in both fronts, Gaza and the Golan, simultaneously.
"Stray Weeds"
The Israeli media has been occupied this month, more than any month I can recall in the past few years, with the evils of occupation. The incident that sparked the debate was the killing of one Palestinian girl, Ayman al-Hams, age 13, who was in her way to school, carrying books and notebooks in her bag. For some reason, on that faithful morning she did not go on the usual route and entered a no passing zone, safeguarded by IDF troops. The soldiers, always on high alert and fearful of potential suicide bombers, fired. The girl collapsed, wounded. Captain R., the commander of the troops, verified that the "enemy" was dead by jumping out of his post, getting close to the wounded girl, and shooting her several times from a close range. Later on it was revealed that the poor girl was shot twenty times.
The tragic story of the girl touched everyone who has a heart. Following this incident, reports came flooding about atrocities conducted by IDF troops in the occupied territories: confiscation of land; uprooting olive trees by soldiers and settlers; harassing and humiliating people; torturing suspects; killing peaceful civilians; mutilating dead bodies. People who have the unfortunate job of "explaining" the occupation acknowledged every once in a while the evil of occupation, but always emphasizing that the IDF is a moral army and that "stray weeds" always exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The flood of information brings one to suspect that there are far too many "stray weeds". Occupation corrupt; power corrupt; absolute power corrupt absolutely (Lord Acton), especially when you give it to frighten young soldiers in too-many road posts that make the lives of civilians miserable.
The occupation should be finished the sooner the better. Every person aspires to be free. People are born free and we wish to live as free human beings. Historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) said: "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."
Polarization in Israel
On December 18-20 two very different initiatives were put in motion: Binyamin Regional Council head Pinhas Wallerstein declared that the settlers should oppose with force any attempt to evacuate them. Subsequently settlers began to collect signatures of those supported the rebellion against the "anti-democratic" decision to evacuate Jews from their land and homes. The rabbis' council officially endorsed the statement calling for settlers to fight the disengagement plan, even if it means breaking the law. This follows a ruling by the rabbinical council calling on all soldiers not to "uproot Jews from their homes."
Almost the same day four parents of soldiers: Racheli Merhav, Dubi Avigur, Rachel Hayuth and Nili Oshorov announced that sign parents to oppose sending their children to serve in the occupied territories. They explained that they hear and see on television terrible things that soldiers do to Palestinians and cannot sit in silence any longer. Zahal (IDF) no more represents the people of Israel. Soldiers are acting in inhuman, immoral and illegal ways. These parents called their own children as well as of others to oppose serving the occupation. They further rightly noted that the values of occupation infiltrate into our society and destroy our democracy from within. Young soldiers who feel like kings in the road blocks will continue to behave like masters-treating-human-dust in their daily life, looking down at people. They will not treat each other with respect and dignity.
The distinguishing factor between what is democratically permissible and what is not democratically permissible is the resort to violence. People have the right to disobey. It is a democratic right, the result of vital conscious. Thus settlers have all the right to disobey the IDF soldiers who will come to evacuate them, as was the case with the last settlers of Yamit. They need not cooperate with the army. However, they should not resort to violence; they should not open fire at soldiers as Wallerstein implied.
I congratulate the courage and initiative of the parents to say loud and clear: No More! Enough with the occupation that is eating us and is destroying the fabric of society. This is a significant step in the right direction. Like old Cato I will reiterate time and again: Occupation is bad. Occupation negates human rights. Occupation is undemocratic. Israel should better work for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Both entities should fight down the zealots. We should not let a minority of fanatics on both sides of the fence to destroy our lives.
On December 22 Yedioth Ahronoth published a poll it conducted among settlers. The main findings: 52% will object to evacuation "with our bodies"; 10% will resist with violence; 42% will blockade themselves in their homes; 47% support illegal activities. On the other hand, 38% said they will evacuate peacefully.
The pool also provides analysis of the answers of the settlers in the Gaza Strip only. Here the figures are more worrying: 23% are willing to evacuate; 44% will object and apply "passive violence"; 11% will object with force. 22% did not decide what to do. It seems that the settlers' campaign against Gaza First is working, and many settlers in the Strip who were willing to take compensation and leave are now reluctant to do so.
Poll on Democratic Values in Israel
A new study conducted by Professor Eppie Yaar and Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University examined political and personal stands of 1,750 youth ages 15-18 and 21-24 in both the Jewish and Arab sectors. Here are some of the main, highly disturbing, findings:
In the Jewish sector
67% agreed with the statement that "a few powerful leaders could amend the situation in our country better than all laws and talks".
30% agreed with the statement that it is possible to enforce a significant limitation on democracy when its security is threatened, even mildly.
20% prefer anti-democratic government that conforms to their world-view over a democratic government whose world-view negates theirs.
51% of the Jews in the sample said that Israeli-Arabs should be prohibited from being elected to the Knesset, i.e., only Jews should sit in the house of representative.
24% support violent actions of civil disobedience to oppose the disengagement plan.
71% estimated that there is "high likelihood" for another political assassination.
In the Arab sector
59% agreed with the statement that "a few powerful leaders could amend the situation in our country better than all laws and talks".
Only 9.8% thought that democracy is the most important value to achieve.
44% agreed with the statement that it is possible to enforce a significant limitation on democracy when its security is threatened, even mildly.
30% prefer anti-democratic government that conforms to their world-view over a democratic government whose world-view negates theirs.
15% support violent actions of civil disobedience to oppose the disengagement plan.
These findings put into perspective my urging the Israeli government to institute a new field of studies in primary and high schools: democracy and peace studies. This is as important as mathematics, biblical studies and literature.
Because of all issues discussed above, among others (I did not discuss this time the secular-religious schism that is very much alive and kicking) I established the Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. It is designed to fill an important lacuna and to promote liberty, tolerance, equality, pluralism and peace. However, my university is in the business of survival after suffering a major cut of 40 (forty!) per cent in its budget during the past 4 years. Without money the Center could not do much. I plead each and every one of you: If you have the ability to help in any meaningful way, please do.
I spoke with many leaders of Israeli society about the Center: President of State Moshe Katzav; President of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak; present and former Justices of the Supreme Court Yaakov Tirkel, Dalia Dorner and Yitzhak Zamir; MKs Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin and Amram Mitzna, and many leaders of the Israeli academia. All of them support the idea of the center and endorse the ends it aims to achieve. Good will of these people is very nice and their support is much appreciated. Alas, what the Center needs is significant budget.
Internal Politics
Sharon went down quickly from the tree of insisting not to invite Peres to serve in his government. His last month's decision, discussed in my November Newsletter, was not very prudent, to use an understatement.
Peres is heading back to government. Good for him. He lives for this. The only reason why the establishment of the new coalition is delayed is that Peres insists on the title "Deputy Prime Minister". However, existing law permits only one deputy. So now the Knesset amends the law for Mr. Peres so he will be satisfied with the title. He thinks that with such title he could make more impact in his meetings with politicians and diplomats around the world. I should explain it is a mere title as Ehud Ulmert, the present deputy, insisted to continue having all responsibilities emanating from the title, and the Likud will not allow Peres to replace Sharon even for one moment. Meaning that when Sharon is out of the country, Ulmert will continue to carry all responsibilities. It is amazing to see how much effort Peres is investing for an empty title, perhaps his last, just to satisfy his sense of dignity and pride. I should note that the Attorney General refused to take responsibility for amending the law just for Peres.
Recently Ehud Barak made a fool of himself by jumping on stage and taking possession of the microphone by force during a Labour convention. I think this is the result of stress and frustration. Almost all leaders of the party are united to halt his way back to politics. He does not have many supporters among the present leadership. I had lunch with the former leader of Labour, Amram Mitzna, and he still believes in him, not as a first choice but as a default. He does not see anyone else that is electable and could lead Labour to successful elections. On this issue, see Ami Ayalon infra.
As ever I remain adamant to the idea of unification government in times other than times of war. I think this is a bad idea for democracy. Democracy is about adhering and promoting certain rights and values through mechanisms of checks and balances, government and opposition. Referring to American politics, Lord Acton once said (third and last quote for today): “The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people". Unified governments are a recipe for corruption, as no adequate guards are left to monitor the government. Members of Labour can speak endlessly that they join the government only to help Sharon to push forward the Gaza First Plan. I remain unconvinced. They could supply him the security net Sharon needs also from the opposition. Their rushing into coalition cannot be explained only in terms of pure greed. True, it is hard to refuse an offer to become a minister. Politicians live for this as Peres epitomizes. I am afraid the more substantial reason is that Labour feels it has nothing to sell. Sharon killed the remains of the Israeli center-left with his Plan. Most of the center-to-left in Israel disappeared thanks to Arafat who lost all credibility after Camp David 2000, and the terrorist campaign that followed the failed Camp David talks. The grains that remain do not justify replacing Sharon. After all, he wishes to execute an old Labour plan, and he has the better ability to do it, so why electing something else? Thus Labour feels that it might gain some points by joining the government, maybe they will be affected by the Sharon-Midas touch. This is perfectly understandable in terms of internal politics, when you put the party before the nation. It is completely unjustified in terms of national responsibility and democracy.
The insulting thing is that unlike unification governments that we knew from the 1980s and 1990s, this one is not built on parity and some equilibrium. The major ministries: Security, Foreign Affairs and Finance remain in the hands of Likud, and were not open for bargaining. Even ministries of lesser importance, but still very significant like Education, Justice and Internal Security were beyond negotiation. Labour was "compensated" by having eight ministries (two without portfolios, one new tailored especially for Peres that would duplicate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and when the coalition will come true you should expect some bitter arguments between Shimon Peres and Silvan Shalom), two deputy ministers, and two chairpersons committees in the Knesset. The only significant ministry that was given to Labour is Ministry of Internal Affairs. The others are Communication, Environment, Infrastructure, and Building. The last two should have been unified a long time ago, possibly also with the Ministry of Industry.
While Sharon apparently would have found it difficult to remove Silvan Shalom (Foreign Affairs), Benjamin Netanyahu (Finance), Shaul Mofaz (Security/Defence) and Limor Livnat (Education) from their seats, given their influence and powerful position inside the Likud (all of them see themselves as contenders to succeed Sharon in the near or more remote future), it is somewhat surprising that Labour did not fight hard to receive the Ministries of Internal Affairs (with the newly nominated Gideon Ezra) and Justice (vacant after the dismissal of Shinui). I say somewhat surprising because one has to bear in mind that police investigations regarding Sharon and his family in fishy financial affairs, just on the border of legality, are still in motion. Sharon preferred these ministries to remain with people from Likud, and Labour apparently understood and did not stage a fight.
I met Beilin a few weeks ago. We had a pleasant discussion. He seems a nice guy. Don't know if anything concrete will develop but we said we'll keep in touch. Meretz-Yachad tries at this point to retain its small power.
Ami Ayalon
After many hesitations and much studying, Ami Ayalon decided to join establishment, main-stream politics and became a member of the Labour Party. General Ayalon was the commander of the navy. Upon his retirement he was nominated head of the SHABAC and after reported successful service he decided to work for peace. He was one of the leading figures behind the Geneva initiative, which was reported here quite critically as I believed in that time it could not lead anywhere because both Arafat and Sharon did not endorse it. However, Ayalon has many talents and he has the potential to emerge as the leader the Labour Party was seeking for quite a while now. Ayalon is aiming very high, and already declared his destination: to become the leader of his party and then prime minister. This is why he joined politics, understanding that there is no way to bypass main-stream politics. You need to work within the system. Ayalon was courted after also by Likud, and he had the chance to compete for leadership there as well. But Labour better suits his ideology and beliefs, hence decided to put his cards on a declining party, believing that he is able to salvage it and make it a viable competitor for national leadership. Time will tell whether he will succeed. Ayalon is quite naïve politically, but he is eager and able to learn, and unlike Barak will not attempt to import military norms into the political arena. He understands that politics is all about compromises, listening, finding common ground and securing enough allies to resolve solutions. We can see some light at the end of the tunnel: Labour now has a figure that is of prime-ministerial material. I wish him lots of luck and success.
Palestinian Elections
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas seems assured of victory in the January 9 presidential election after the withdrawal of chief rival Marwan Barghouti. Barghouti succumbed to pressure from the dominant Fatah faction of the PLO which threatened to expel its former West Bank leader, currently serving five life prison terms for his role in terrorist attacks.
His candidacy had threatened to split the PLO vote, with opinion polls showing Barghouti and Abbas running neck and neck. The prospect of an electoral victory for the founder of the Al Aqsa Brigades, who still refuses to renounce violence, also worried US and European officials. "Such a development would not only mean a setback to peace efforts," said a State Department official, "but an egg on the face of our policy to democratize the Middle East.
The European Union will deploy over 260 election observers for the poll, including a delegation of 30 European Parliament members. The mission is headed by Euro-parliamentarian and former prime minister of France, Michel Rocard. The EU has allocated €14 million euros (about US $18.6m) since 2003 to prepare the elections, and €2.5 million euros ($3.33m) has been designated for the election observation.
The withdrawal of Barghouti is not an unmitigated blessing for the PLO leadership or for prospects for peace. A seriously contested race--had he won it-- would have given Mahmoud Abbas the legitimacy and political capital he needs to constrain violence and to sell a peace agreement with Israel, said Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research. Other commentators are skeptical of both the pacifying and democratizing potential of the elections. Although the election will still be contested by candidates of less stature than Barghouti, they do not offer the same potential for generating democratic ferment, and Abbas seems assured of at least 80 percent of the vote.
France
The French ambassador to Israel made an undiplomatic statement, saying that Israelis are suffering from anti-French mental disorder, that Israelis hate the French people, and cab drivers in Israel throw French people out of their cars when they hear they speak French. This controversial statement evoked quite a discussion in Israel, where people stated what they love about the French, and what they dislike. The undercurrent of all this debate is the hostile political attitude to Israel, as manifested by Chirac, and the anti-Semitic sentiments that are noticeable in France.
What was striking is what many people said about Paris. Of course, Paris symbolizes France to the extent that London symbolizes England, Ottawa symbolizes Canada, Jerusalem symbolizes Israel, etc. Citizens of all countries know that their respective capitals do not really reflect the national character and culture of their countries. Having said that, many Israelis -- including myself -- of all walks of life express exact same feelings regarding Paris: We all appreciate its beauty, culture, food, style, fashion; we all were offended, if not hurt, by the Parisians when we visited this lovely city, one of most beautiful cities in the world. Once upon a time I thought this attitude is because I am an Israeli. Until a few French people told me not to take this too personally: it is not that Parisians do not like Israelis; they simply don't like everybody, without exception, so I should not feel privileged. They don't even like French people who live outside of Paris. There is a certain sense of pride in them: "We live in this human treasure, and you should keep out of our treasure".
Nieman Fellowships at Harvard
The Nieman Foundation for Journalism is accepting applications for the 2005-2006 Nieman Fellowships, which allow accomplished mid-career journalists to spend an academic year of study at Harvard University.
Established in 1938, the programme awards 12 fellowships each year to working journalists outside the United States who have at least five years of full-time, professional experience in the news media. The fellowships are open to reporters, editors, photographers, producers, editorial writers and cartoonists, and Internet specialists.
While at Harvard, fellows can design their own course of study in any of the university's schools or departments. They will also be able to network and share experiences with other fellows through Nieman seminars and other events.
For more information and to apply, visit: http://nieman.harvard.edu/
Conference in Memory of Mark Biano
On December 11 I participated in a conference at my university in memory of my former student, Mark Biano, who was murdered by a suicide bomber last year, age 29. He was having Shabbat meal with his wife at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa when that murderer entered the restaurant and blew herself to pieces. He was killed instantly, with his newly married wife. The department of communication decided to honour his memory by holding an annual conference in which graduate students present papers based on their MA and doctoral dissertations. Four professors served as chairpersons and discussants of the sessions. The keynote lecture was given by Joseph Turow of University of Pennsylvania.
For the first time I met Mark's mother. We spoke over the phone a few times but never met before. She and her husband who could not find the energies to attend the conference are grieving and looking for further ways to remember Mark publicly. It was an emotional event for me.
Democracy for a Safer World Summit
On March 8-11, 2005, Club de Madrid and the Varsavsky Foundation, in Barcelona, Spain will host an International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security. The conference, sponsored by the Club de Madrid and the Varsavsky Foundation, is supported by the Government of Spain, the Regional Government of Madrid and the City of Madrid. More than 50 former and current Heads of State and Government, decision and policy makers, world experts, and citizens will participate in this forum.
Further information at http://www.clubmadrid.org/cmadrid/index.php?id=1
Israeli Theatre
I saw "Eye Witness" in Hakameri theatre. It tells the story of Franz Yegershtatdter, the Austrian young man who refused to serve in the Warmacht, was locked up in a Nazi jail and eventually executed for his refusal to wear Nazi uniforms. I saw the production in English, a task that was not easy for some of the Israeli actors. The script and plot are interesting and telling. Yegershtatdter tells the story of all those who saw, who smelled, who knew, and played the three monkey. Yegershtatdter did not want to be one of the three monkeys, and obviously did not want to take part in the Nazi atrocities. Yehoshua Sobol, who wrote the play, says that only 1300 people acted like Yegershtatdter and refused the Nazi draft.
New Book
You may like to consider a book that came to my attention: Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Edited by: Andrew Cohen and Christopher Hea Wellmanhttp://www.blackwellpublishing.com/1405115475
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/contents.asp?ref=1405115475&site=1
Happy New Year
May I wish all of you a joyful New Year and an excellent start of 2005. May it be a year of peace and tranquility, of positive achievements and sweet surprises.
With my very best wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Comments on Bush; on Iran, Syria, "Stray Weeds", Polarization in Israel, Poll on Democratic Values in Israel, Internal Politics, Ami Ayalon, Palestinian Elections, France, Nieman Fellowships at Harvard, Conference in Memory of Mark Biano, Democracy for a Safer World Summit, Israeli Theatre, New Book, Happy New Year
Dear friends and colleagues,
This is my end-of-the-year Newsletter. It highlights some of the main issues that will occupy Israel in 2005, delineating new trends and discussing crucial developments. Please read carefully and circulate among friends and interested parties.
Comments on Bush
Jason Rosenberg, from Washington DC, related to my last posting on Bush's win:
Rafi,
It's great to hear from you. I hope you are doing very well in Israel. Let me say I enjoy so much reading your point of view and hold your views in the highest of regards.
However, your analysis of the election is a little off. This election was not decisive, it was terribly close. As the 2000 election hinged on Florida, the 2004 election was again determined by one state. This time it was Ohio. In 2000, had Al Gore won just two votes per voting precinct, he would have won Ohio and been president. Of course he didn't and of course neither did John Kerry. Over 250,000 Ohioans (Buckeyes) who had jobs in 2000 didn't have work in 2004. But Bush still won the state. Why? One reason, there were up to 4 hour long waits to vote and of course it was cold and rainy after a beautiful weekend and Monday.
The other reason people are scared of war and terror, etc. I can't believe that there were 9 million people in the US who didn't vote for Bush in 2000, looked at his record as president, saw record unemployment, an unjustified war, out of control deficit spending, record number of Americans without health care and voted for him in 2004.
I was in Ohio for election day I started work at 5:30 am and left the state at 9pm. At that time there were still voters waiting in line to vote and I assumed that the election was won for Kerry. The election was close and the Kerry campaign should have looked into voter fraud including the precinct where 6000 votes were cast for Bush, out of a possible 600 or so voters.
Having spent time with John Kerry, I've heard him make very pro Israel comments. I've read comments he said about his time when he flew with Israeli pilots and when he called Israel a friend. Israel had a friend with both candidates. And now that Arafat is dead, Israel, the PA, the US and the world missed out on a true leader to bring a true and lasting peace to the
region.
I wish you the best and I hope you have a great new year!
Best,
Jason
My brief answer:
Hi Jason,
Well, I think Bush's win was quite decisive, esp. in light of the forecasts prior elections, and also given that he won by a margin of more than 3 million people, and he coloured most states in red.
You need not convince me that Kerry is a friend of Israel. As you well know, I supported him and wanted him to win. I wouldn't if he was not a friend of Israel.
The very best,
Rafi
In turn, Valerie Alia from Leeds, the UK, commented:
Dear Rafi
I find your 'reading' of the US election both distressing and in contradiction to much of the other information about the true nature of the exit polls vis-a-vis the actual vote (numerical/popular and electoral). You fail to mention the harassment and the array of illegal, semi-legal and otherwise questionable activities used (e.g., in Ohio) by Republicans and/or their supporters to intimidate potential Democratic voters and obliterate existing votes.
I am distressed as well to see your echo of assumptions of some (and only some) Israelis that Bush is the 'better friend' to Israel. I agree that Kerry missed some opportunities and campaigned rather weakly. But I do not share your apparent conviction that (a) Bush actually won and (b) Bush should have won. I am surprised to see no mention of the growing influence and involvement of the radical 'Christian' right.
With all best wishes for a happy Hanukkah and a peaceful 2005,
Valerie
Dear Valerie,
Thanks for your comment. I don't think there is any point to argue with facts, and the facts are that Bush won quite convincingly, especially bearing in mind the last elections, and the predictions prior this elections. Bush won in the great majority of states, and by a margin of more than 3 million votes. There are many reasons to explain his win, and I did not attempt to provide an exhaustive explanation. I concentrated on the main reason, which is Kerry's mistakes.
I believe people should be congratulated for their achievements. It does not mean that I turned to be a Bush supporter. If you read my previous political Newsletters closely then you know I wanted Kerry to win. I thought Kerry will be good for Israel. However, also on this issue my views are not similar to the wide Israeli public. Polls conducted here showed that the wide majority of Israelis wanted Bush to win, believing that he is a true supporter of Israel, whereas Kerry did not say enough to convince people here that he is an ardent supporter of Israel as Bush was, and is believed to be. I gave the Maariv newspaper headline to show the extent of support Bush enjoys in Israel. This does not mean that I share this view.
With my best wishes,
Rafi
Dear Rafi,
The problem with our 'discussion' is that I do not think you have stated 'the facts'. As we all know (and as I have written, over the years) 'facts' are variable, malleable, and subject to interpretation and misinterpretation. There has been quite a bit of reporting, in the US and internationally and by reputable journalists and others, questioning the 'win' and linking it to Bush's previous, also questionable 'win'. I am not arguing with 'facts', I am questioning which 'facts' you are using and your understanding of the conditions of the election and voting process. If you follow the daily papers, you surely are aware there are legal discussions and actions, particularly around the events in Ohio.
I agree there was a large (and to many of us, frightening) show of support for Bush. I do not agree that he clearly and unequivocally won the election. I am in quite a large company of people who are asking these questions.
I didn't mean to imply I thought you had gone over to Bush. I also agree that Kerry made mistakes, and never did consider him the best of candidates, though I wanted him to win. I do not consider his mistakes 'the main reason' Bush 'won'. I'm not alone in this.
Forgive the cliche, but I think we will have to agree to disagree.
Shalom,
Valerie
Dr Valerie Alia
Professor of Ethics and Identity
School of Applied Global Ethics
Leslie Silver International Faculty
Leeds Metropolitan University
Steve Newman, Toronto, Canada, added:
Perhaps the most decisive factor in the election was the Republican's superior ground organization, which built on church groups and other pre-existing civil society organizations initially mobilized to oppose abortion rights, gay rights, women's rights, and other conservative shiboleths. The Republicans also showed that they had a superior game plan when it came to getting out the vote. The Democrats had invested heavily in improving their ability to get out the vote, but their tactics proved less effective. The religious right did not win the election for Bush, but its leadership is now making that claim. It is something to watch, for if taken seriously by the administration it bodes ill for the cause of religious tolerance in the US. Another point: Bush did in fact win the popular vote this time around, but he hardly won the popular mandate he claims. His fifty-one percent of the vote to Kerry's forty-eight percent is no landslide. And the Electoral College vote was fairly close, too. Had Ohio gone for Kerry instead of Bush --and it wouldn't have taken more than 170,000 votes (not much when you consider the size of the American electorate) --Kerry would be the president-elect. Finally, Jewish supporters of Bush may yet rue the day they gave their support to the president. The war in Iraq is a disaster. Bush has stoked the fires of terrorism rather than extinguishing the threat. And the flames may yet engulf more of the region.
As always,
Steve
Iran
In talks in Paris with Britain, Germany and France, Iran agreed on November 15 to freeze all its nuclear activities. But on November 27, Iran said it wanted to retain 20 centrifuges for research purposes. Iran's foreign minister said that Iran had every right to keep, for research purposes, some centrifuges that could be used to enrich uranium, an indication that a standoff on the country's nuclear program may not be easily resolved. "Iran's demand to keep 20 centrifuges is not against its commitments," said the minister, Kamal Kharrazi, the IRNA news agency reported.
On November 28 Iran backed off a demand to operate uranium enrichment equipment that could be used either for energy purposes or in a nuclear bomb-making project. The retreat came in the form of a letter from Iran to the International Atomic Energy Agency. In the letter, Iran withdrew its demand to operate 20 centrifuges - uranium enrichment machines - for research and development purposes.
"Iran will permit the I.A.E.A. to place these centrifuges under agency surveillance," said Hossein Mousavian, the chief Iranian negotiator, in a telephone interview from Vienna. "Iran will not conduct any testing."
Asked specifically whether the machines would be turned off, as the Europeans have demanded, Mr. Mousavian said, "We say Iran will not conduct any testing," adding that the matter of Iran's desire to continue research will be discussed when Iran and the European countries begin talks in the coming weeks on possible economic, technological and political incentives for Iran under the European agreement.
Note that the 20 centrifuge machines would not be sealed but placed under camera surveillance. Also note that Iran said in their letter that there would be no "testing," rather than no "research and development." One may assume that the sage will continue.
Syria
On December 1, 2004 Maariv reported that Syrian President Bashar Assad was willing to come to Jerusalem and address the Knesset in 2003, as a first gesture before resuming peace talks with Jerusalem, senior defense and political sources reveal. However, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon rejected the offer.
“Israel missed a golden opportunity to return to the negotiating table in ideal conditions as first as it was concerned”, the sources said.
Assad’s proposal was brought up during the secret contacts held between Israel and Syria at the beginning of 2003. All those involved believed Assad was serious about peace: The Syrians themselves, who kept on stressing that Assad himself was in the loop, Israeli military officials who identified Damascus’s positive approach, the international bodies involved and even Foreign Minister Sylvan Shalom who was of the opinion that Jerusalem should try and resume the dialogue course. However, the only person who objected Ariel Sharon.
The 2003 talks, which were held in Jordan, were headed by the Director General of the Foreign Ministry at the time, Eitan Bentzur, while the Syrians sent the president’s brother, Maher Assad. Bentzur confirmed the information but refused to elaborate. “The contacts were very serious. I am sorry that there were those in Israel who dismissed them”, he said.
The defense establishment estimated that while contacts were held, Assad was under heavy pressure due to the planned US invasion of Iraq and rumors that American Marines would continue on to Damascus after conquering Iraq.
The official excuses aired by officials and Likud MKs was that Assad wanted to use this as a valve to release the pressure mounting on him due to his support of terror. Further, they argued that he should first withdraw his forces from Lebanon and dismantle the Hizbullah. The unofficial reason, I suspect, is that Sharon is unwilling, possibly also feels unable, to make concessions also in the Golan. To recall, Prime Minister Rabin offered the Syrians a complete withdrawal till Sea of Galilee in exchange for true peace. It is difficult for me to see Sharon committing himself in this same way.
In 1971, Anwar Sadat delivered a message to Prime Minister Golda Meir that he was willing to negotiate peace. Meir ignored the signs and offers. Two years later the Yom Kippur War broke. And we say about the Arabs that "they" learn only in the hard way. Here we had, maybe still have, a genuine offer to negotiate from the highest official in Syria and Sharon is rejecting the offer. Maybe Sharon has very good reasons to decline the offer, but not in the way he did. At least he should do some research, conduct some polls about public wishes to see whether the Israeli public is willing to make concessions in both fronts, Gaza and the Golan, simultaneously.
"Stray Weeds"
The Israeli media has been occupied this month, more than any month I can recall in the past few years, with the evils of occupation. The incident that sparked the debate was the killing of one Palestinian girl, Ayman al-Hams, age 13, who was in her way to school, carrying books and notebooks in her bag. For some reason, on that faithful morning she did not go on the usual route and entered a no passing zone, safeguarded by IDF troops. The soldiers, always on high alert and fearful of potential suicide bombers, fired. The girl collapsed, wounded. Captain R., the commander of the troops, verified that the "enemy" was dead by jumping out of his post, getting close to the wounded girl, and shooting her several times from a close range. Later on it was revealed that the poor girl was shot twenty times.
The tragic story of the girl touched everyone who has a heart. Following this incident, reports came flooding about atrocities conducted by IDF troops in the occupied territories: confiscation of land; uprooting olive trees by soldiers and settlers; harassing and humiliating people; torturing suspects; killing peaceful civilians; mutilating dead bodies. People who have the unfortunate job of "explaining" the occupation acknowledged every once in a while the evil of occupation, but always emphasizing that the IDF is a moral army and that "stray weeds" always exist, but they are the exception rather than the rule. The flood of information brings one to suspect that there are far too many "stray weeds". Occupation corrupt; power corrupt; absolute power corrupt absolutely (Lord Acton), especially when you give it to frighten young soldiers in too-many road posts that make the lives of civilians miserable.
The occupation should be finished the sooner the better. Every person aspires to be free. People are born free and we wish to live as free human beings. Historian Lord Acton (1834-1902) said: "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."
Polarization in Israel
On December 18-20 two very different initiatives were put in motion: Binyamin Regional Council head Pinhas Wallerstein declared that the settlers should oppose with force any attempt to evacuate them. Subsequently settlers began to collect signatures of those supported the rebellion against the "anti-democratic" decision to evacuate Jews from their land and homes. The rabbis' council officially endorsed the statement calling for settlers to fight the disengagement plan, even if it means breaking the law. This follows a ruling by the rabbinical council calling on all soldiers not to "uproot Jews from their homes."
Almost the same day four parents of soldiers: Racheli Merhav, Dubi Avigur, Rachel Hayuth and Nili Oshorov announced that sign parents to oppose sending their children to serve in the occupied territories. They explained that they hear and see on television terrible things that soldiers do to Palestinians and cannot sit in silence any longer. Zahal (IDF) no more represents the people of Israel. Soldiers are acting in inhuman, immoral and illegal ways. These parents called their own children as well as of others to oppose serving the occupation. They further rightly noted that the values of occupation infiltrate into our society and destroy our democracy from within. Young soldiers who feel like kings in the road blocks will continue to behave like masters-treating-human-dust in their daily life, looking down at people. They will not treat each other with respect and dignity.
The distinguishing factor between what is democratically permissible and what is not democratically permissible is the resort to violence. People have the right to disobey. It is a democratic right, the result of vital conscious. Thus settlers have all the right to disobey the IDF soldiers who will come to evacuate them, as was the case with the last settlers of Yamit. They need not cooperate with the army. However, they should not resort to violence; they should not open fire at soldiers as Wallerstein implied.
I congratulate the courage and initiative of the parents to say loud and clear: No More! Enough with the occupation that is eating us and is destroying the fabric of society. This is a significant step in the right direction. Like old Cato I will reiterate time and again: Occupation is bad. Occupation negates human rights. Occupation is undemocratic. Israel should better work for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Both entities should fight down the zealots. We should not let a minority of fanatics on both sides of the fence to destroy our lives.
On December 22 Yedioth Ahronoth published a poll it conducted among settlers. The main findings: 52% will object to evacuation "with our bodies"; 10% will resist with violence; 42% will blockade themselves in their homes; 47% support illegal activities. On the other hand, 38% said they will evacuate peacefully.
The pool also provides analysis of the answers of the settlers in the Gaza Strip only. Here the figures are more worrying: 23% are willing to evacuate; 44% will object and apply "passive violence"; 11% will object with force. 22% did not decide what to do. It seems that the settlers' campaign against Gaza First is working, and many settlers in the Strip who were willing to take compensation and leave are now reluctant to do so.
Poll on Democratic Values in Israel
A new study conducted by Professor Eppie Yaar and Daniel Bar-Tal of Tel Aviv University examined political and personal stands of 1,750 youth ages 15-18 and 21-24 in both the Jewish and Arab sectors. Here are some of the main, highly disturbing, findings:
In the Jewish sector
67% agreed with the statement that "a few powerful leaders could amend the situation in our country better than all laws and talks".
30% agreed with the statement that it is possible to enforce a significant limitation on democracy when its security is threatened, even mildly.
20% prefer anti-democratic government that conforms to their world-view over a democratic government whose world-view negates theirs.
51% of the Jews in the sample said that Israeli-Arabs should be prohibited from being elected to the Knesset, i.e., only Jews should sit in the house of representative.
24% support violent actions of civil disobedience to oppose the disengagement plan.
71% estimated that there is "high likelihood" for another political assassination.
In the Arab sector
59% agreed with the statement that "a few powerful leaders could amend the situation in our country better than all laws and talks".
Only 9.8% thought that democracy is the most important value to achieve.
44% agreed with the statement that it is possible to enforce a significant limitation on democracy when its security is threatened, even mildly.
30% prefer anti-democratic government that conforms to their world-view over a democratic government whose world-view negates theirs.
15% support violent actions of civil disobedience to oppose the disengagement plan.
These findings put into perspective my urging the Israeli government to institute a new field of studies in primary and high schools: democracy and peace studies. This is as important as mathematics, biblical studies and literature.
Because of all issues discussed above, among others (I did not discuss this time the secular-religious schism that is very much alive and kicking) I established the Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. It is designed to fill an important lacuna and to promote liberty, tolerance, equality, pluralism and peace. However, my university is in the business of survival after suffering a major cut of 40 (forty!) per cent in its budget during the past 4 years. Without money the Center could not do much. I plead each and every one of you: If you have the ability to help in any meaningful way, please do.
I spoke with many leaders of Israeli society about the Center: President of State Moshe Katzav; President of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak; present and former Justices of the Supreme Court Yaakov Tirkel, Dalia Dorner and Yitzhak Zamir; MKs Shimon Peres, Yossi Sarid, Yossi Beilin and Amram Mitzna, and many leaders of the Israeli academia. All of them support the idea of the center and endorse the ends it aims to achieve. Good will of these people is very nice and their support is much appreciated. Alas, what the Center needs is significant budget.
Internal Politics
Sharon went down quickly from the tree of insisting not to invite Peres to serve in his government. His last month's decision, discussed in my November Newsletter, was not very prudent, to use an understatement.
Peres is heading back to government. Good for him. He lives for this. The only reason why the establishment of the new coalition is delayed is that Peres insists on the title "Deputy Prime Minister". However, existing law permits only one deputy. So now the Knesset amends the law for Mr. Peres so he will be satisfied with the title. He thinks that with such title he could make more impact in his meetings with politicians and diplomats around the world. I should explain it is a mere title as Ehud Ulmert, the present deputy, insisted to continue having all responsibilities emanating from the title, and the Likud will not allow Peres to replace Sharon even for one moment. Meaning that when Sharon is out of the country, Ulmert will continue to carry all responsibilities. It is amazing to see how much effort Peres is investing for an empty title, perhaps his last, just to satisfy his sense of dignity and pride. I should note that the Attorney General refused to take responsibility for amending the law just for Peres.
Recently Ehud Barak made a fool of himself by jumping on stage and taking possession of the microphone by force during a Labour convention. I think this is the result of stress and frustration. Almost all leaders of the party are united to halt his way back to politics. He does not have many supporters among the present leadership. I had lunch with the former leader of Labour, Amram Mitzna, and he still believes in him, not as a first choice but as a default. He does not see anyone else that is electable and could lead Labour to successful elections. On this issue, see Ami Ayalon infra.
As ever I remain adamant to the idea of unification government in times other than times of war. I think this is a bad idea for democracy. Democracy is about adhering and promoting certain rights and values through mechanisms of checks and balances, government and opposition. Referring to American politics, Lord Acton once said (third and last quote for today): “The great novelty of the American Constitution was that it imposed checks on the representatives of the people". Unified governments are a recipe for corruption, as no adequate guards are left to monitor the government. Members of Labour can speak endlessly that they join the government only to help Sharon to push forward the Gaza First Plan. I remain unconvinced. They could supply him the security net Sharon needs also from the opposition. Their rushing into coalition cannot be explained only in terms of pure greed. True, it is hard to refuse an offer to become a minister. Politicians live for this as Peres epitomizes. I am afraid the more substantial reason is that Labour feels it has nothing to sell. Sharon killed the remains of the Israeli center-left with his Plan. Most of the center-to-left in Israel disappeared thanks to Arafat who lost all credibility after Camp David 2000, and the terrorist campaign that followed the failed Camp David talks. The grains that remain do not justify replacing Sharon. After all, he wishes to execute an old Labour plan, and he has the better ability to do it, so why electing something else? Thus Labour feels that it might gain some points by joining the government, maybe they will be affected by the Sharon-Midas touch. This is perfectly understandable in terms of internal politics, when you put the party before the nation. It is completely unjustified in terms of national responsibility and democracy.
The insulting thing is that unlike unification governments that we knew from the 1980s and 1990s, this one is not built on parity and some equilibrium. The major ministries: Security, Foreign Affairs and Finance remain in the hands of Likud, and were not open for bargaining. Even ministries of lesser importance, but still very significant like Education, Justice and Internal Security were beyond negotiation. Labour was "compensated" by having eight ministries (two without portfolios, one new tailored especially for Peres that would duplicate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and when the coalition will come true you should expect some bitter arguments between Shimon Peres and Silvan Shalom), two deputy ministers, and two chairpersons committees in the Knesset. The only significant ministry that was given to Labour is Ministry of Internal Affairs. The others are Communication, Environment, Infrastructure, and Building. The last two should have been unified a long time ago, possibly also with the Ministry of Industry.
While Sharon apparently would have found it difficult to remove Silvan Shalom (Foreign Affairs), Benjamin Netanyahu (Finance), Shaul Mofaz (Security/Defence) and Limor Livnat (Education) from their seats, given their influence and powerful position inside the Likud (all of them see themselves as contenders to succeed Sharon in the near or more remote future), it is somewhat surprising that Labour did not fight hard to receive the Ministries of Internal Affairs (with the newly nominated Gideon Ezra) and Justice (vacant after the dismissal of Shinui). I say somewhat surprising because one has to bear in mind that police investigations regarding Sharon and his family in fishy financial affairs, just on the border of legality, are still in motion. Sharon preferred these ministries to remain with people from Likud, and Labour apparently understood and did not stage a fight.
I met Beilin a few weeks ago. We had a pleasant discussion. He seems a nice guy. Don't know if anything concrete will develop but we said we'll keep in touch. Meretz-Yachad tries at this point to retain its small power.
Ami Ayalon
After many hesitations and much studying, Ami Ayalon decided to join establishment, main-stream politics and became a member of the Labour Party. General Ayalon was the commander of the navy. Upon his retirement he was nominated head of the SHABAC and after reported successful service he decided to work for peace. He was one of the leading figures behind the Geneva initiative, which was reported here quite critically as I believed in that time it could not lead anywhere because both Arafat and Sharon did not endorse it. However, Ayalon has many talents and he has the potential to emerge as the leader the Labour Party was seeking for quite a while now. Ayalon is aiming very high, and already declared his destination: to become the leader of his party and then prime minister. This is why he joined politics, understanding that there is no way to bypass main-stream politics. You need to work within the system. Ayalon was courted after also by Likud, and he had the chance to compete for leadership there as well. But Labour better suits his ideology and beliefs, hence decided to put his cards on a declining party, believing that he is able to salvage it and make it a viable competitor for national leadership. Time will tell whether he will succeed. Ayalon is quite naïve politically, but he is eager and able to learn, and unlike Barak will not attempt to import military norms into the political arena. He understands that politics is all about compromises, listening, finding common ground and securing enough allies to resolve solutions. We can see some light at the end of the tunnel: Labour now has a figure that is of prime-ministerial material. I wish him lots of luck and success.
Palestinian Elections
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas seems assured of victory in the January 9 presidential election after the withdrawal of chief rival Marwan Barghouti. Barghouti succumbed to pressure from the dominant Fatah faction of the PLO which threatened to expel its former West Bank leader, currently serving five life prison terms for his role in terrorist attacks.
His candidacy had threatened to split the PLO vote, with opinion polls showing Barghouti and Abbas running neck and neck. The prospect of an electoral victory for the founder of the Al Aqsa Brigades, who still refuses to renounce violence, also worried US and European officials. "Such a development would not only mean a setback to peace efforts," said a State Department official, "but an egg on the face of our policy to democratize the Middle East.
The European Union will deploy over 260 election observers for the poll, including a delegation of 30 European Parliament members. The mission is headed by Euro-parliamentarian and former prime minister of France, Michel Rocard. The EU has allocated €14 million euros (about US $18.6m) since 2003 to prepare the elections, and €2.5 million euros ($3.33m) has been designated for the election observation.
The withdrawal of Barghouti is not an unmitigated blessing for the PLO leadership or for prospects for peace. A seriously contested race--had he won it-- would have given Mahmoud Abbas the legitimacy and political capital he needs to constrain violence and to sell a peace agreement with Israel, said Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research. Other commentators are skeptical of both the pacifying and democratizing potential of the elections. Although the election will still be contested by candidates of less stature than Barghouti, they do not offer the same potential for generating democratic ferment, and Abbas seems assured of at least 80 percent of the vote.
France
The French ambassador to Israel made an undiplomatic statement, saying that Israelis are suffering from anti-French mental disorder, that Israelis hate the French people, and cab drivers in Israel throw French people out of their cars when they hear they speak French. This controversial statement evoked quite a discussion in Israel, where people stated what they love about the French, and what they dislike. The undercurrent of all this debate is the hostile political attitude to Israel, as manifested by Chirac, and the anti-Semitic sentiments that are noticeable in France.
What was striking is what many people said about Paris. Of course, Paris symbolizes France to the extent that London symbolizes England, Ottawa symbolizes Canada, Jerusalem symbolizes Israel, etc. Citizens of all countries know that their respective capitals do not really reflect the national character and culture of their countries. Having said that, many Israelis -- including myself -- of all walks of life express exact same feelings regarding Paris: We all appreciate its beauty, culture, food, style, fashion; we all were offended, if not hurt, by the Parisians when we visited this lovely city, one of most beautiful cities in the world. Once upon a time I thought this attitude is because I am an Israeli. Until a few French people told me not to take this too personally: it is not that Parisians do not like Israelis; they simply don't like everybody, without exception, so I should not feel privileged. They don't even like French people who live outside of Paris. There is a certain sense of pride in them: "We live in this human treasure, and you should keep out of our treasure".
Nieman Fellowships at Harvard
The Nieman Foundation for Journalism is accepting applications for the 2005-2006 Nieman Fellowships, which allow accomplished mid-career journalists to spend an academic year of study at Harvard University.
Established in 1938, the programme awards 12 fellowships each year to working journalists outside the United States who have at least five years of full-time, professional experience in the news media. The fellowships are open to reporters, editors, photographers, producers, editorial writers and cartoonists, and Internet specialists.
While at Harvard, fellows can design their own course of study in any of the university's schools or departments. They will also be able to network and share experiences with other fellows through Nieman seminars and other events.
For more information and to apply, visit: http://nieman.harvard.edu/
Conference in Memory of Mark Biano
On December 11 I participated in a conference at my university in memory of my former student, Mark Biano, who was murdered by a suicide bomber last year, age 29. He was having Shabbat meal with his wife at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa when that murderer entered the restaurant and blew herself to pieces. He was killed instantly, with his newly married wife. The department of communication decided to honour his memory by holding an annual conference in which graduate students present papers based on their MA and doctoral dissertations. Four professors served as chairpersons and discussants of the sessions. The keynote lecture was given by Joseph Turow of University of Pennsylvania.
For the first time I met Mark's mother. We spoke over the phone a few times but never met before. She and her husband who could not find the energies to attend the conference are grieving and looking for further ways to remember Mark publicly. It was an emotional event for me.
Democracy for a Safer World Summit
On March 8-11, 2005, Club de Madrid and the Varsavsky Foundation, in Barcelona, Spain will host an International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security. The conference, sponsored by the Club de Madrid and the Varsavsky Foundation, is supported by the Government of Spain, the Regional Government of Madrid and the City of Madrid. More than 50 former and current Heads of State and Government, decision and policy makers, world experts, and citizens will participate in this forum.
Further information at http://www.clubmadrid.org/cmadrid/index.php?id=1
Israeli Theatre
I saw "Eye Witness" in Hakameri theatre. It tells the story of Franz Yegershtatdter, the Austrian young man who refused to serve in the Warmacht, was locked up in a Nazi jail and eventually executed for his refusal to wear Nazi uniforms. I saw the production in English, a task that was not easy for some of the Israeli actors. The script and plot are interesting and telling. Yegershtatdter tells the story of all those who saw, who smelled, who knew, and played the three monkey. Yegershtatdter did not want to be one of the three monkeys, and obviously did not want to take part in the Nazi atrocities. Yehoshua Sobol, who wrote the play, says that only 1300 people acted like Yegershtatdter and refused the Nazi draft.
New Book
You may like to consider a book that came to my attention: Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Edited by: Andrew Cohen and Christopher Hea Wellmanhttp://www.blackwellpublishing.com/1405115475
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/contents.asp?ref=1405115475&site=1
Happy New Year
May I wish all of you a joyful New Year and an excellent start of 2005. May it be a year of peace and tranquility, of positive achievements and sweet surprises.
With my very best wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Thursday, November 25, 2004
On Bush, Yassir Arafat: 1929-2004, Gaza, New European Initiative, Two Peoples One State, Iran, Two World Views, Peres' Disappointment, Protest against call for European boycott of academic and cultural ties with Israel, Building Business Bridges MBA Program, Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace
Dear friends and colleagues,
Some of you still use my JHU e-mail address. This e-mail ceased to be active. Please use either ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il or rcohen@univ.haifa.ac.il.
Bush
Congratulations to George W. Bush for a great win. Against all odds, he had a smooth and sweet triumph. He has all reasons to be pleased.
Many people had to swallow their heats. Against predictions, some of which were wishful thinking, Bush had a decisive win. All those who said that a large turnout will work for Kerry were wrong. People came to vote in huge numbers, and they voted Bush. Only a minority of states voted for Kerry. Kerry paid the price for his unsophisticated politics. For a long time he refrained to say something, trying to appeal to the wide common denominator, not to aggravate anybody. When he realized that this policy actually worked against him, because he did not offer an alternative and remained ambiguous, only then he became vocal in promoting certain policies. He concentrated his attention on Iraq, but then the question begs why he initially voted for the war.
I must say that I have many question marks regarding the polls that were published before the elections. Some of them were so way out wrong, beyond acceptable margin of error, that it seems that the people conducting them were not completely honest. They tried to influence the results by publishing untrue numbers. Statistics has become a matter of ideology. Prostitution substituted professionalism.
The Israeli newspapers welcomed the result. Maariv headlines on 4 November 2004 was: "The Friend Remains." Israel yearns that Bush will continue to be its friend. It is said that the government had a sigh of relief when the results became known. Kerry seemed to be less friendly to Israel.
I wish Bush all the success in the world to tackle some of the most difficult issues. I wish him success in improving the healthcare system, the most inefficient healthcare system in the western world. I wish him success in improving public education. I hope Bush will see fit to improve the country's infrastructure: the state of the roads; public transportation; cleaning and improving the well-being of many poor neighbourhoods. It is time that the United States put these priorities high on its agenda. This super country has the resources to tackle these issues successfully. It just needs the will and the foresight.
Internationally, the future of Iraq is still a mystery. But I am more concerned with the US policy towards Iran. Here we need caution and prudence. The US is advised to consult European countries, such as France, Germany and Russia in conducting its affairs vis-Ã -vis Iran. The US is advised to coordinate its steps with the UN. If not, Iraq will be a kindergarten compared to Iran. Even Clint Eastwood needed some help from friends, sometimes. Hasty steps against Iran may lead the United States to a risky position: risky to itself and risky to the world at large. Iran is the big cloud that hovers above all of us. We need sunshine to fight against it. Only international cooperation will assure that the sunshine will not turn into an inferno.
Yassir Arafat: 1929-2004
On November 11, 2004, the last saga of Arafat's life came to an end. Arafat led a life of a terrorist until his last days. He never wanted peace. He worked on the genuine yearning of Israeli officials to achieve peace in their life time to gain substantial political achievements. Oslo was a bluff. The man remained an obstacle to peace and now he is no longer with us to ruin, to destroy, to maim and to kill. I hope his successors will choose to pursue other channels and work for the true benefit of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people deserve a far more competent Rais to lead them to independent statehood, ending of the occupation, and creating a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. A lot is to be done: security, a unified army, eradication of all factions to achieve a cohesive unity, an independent economy, fighting down the corruption, decreasing poverty, tunneling human resources to productivity, to creating rather than destroying. I wish the new Palestinian government a lot of success.
Arafat's death entails the reborn of Bush's Road Map. Now there is a new partner. Whether he's viable we don't know. Time will tell, and we won't need to wait for long. The Road Map, which was dead and buried, is back to life. It was ridiculous to insist on it during the past few years. Frankly, I was surprised to hear the extent people I met last year at the State Department insisted on it. Now Bush needs to insist to make it part of this place.
Two days ago Abu Mazen made a pledge to the man in the grave, and to all listeners that he is committed to the right of return, to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. It is going to be a long and winding road.
Gershon Baskin passed me an article written by Daoud Kuttab. He is a Palestinian journalist from Jerusalem who was jailed by Yassir Arafat. Now he is the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah. To join his mailing list, please write to daoudkuttab-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. His Web site is www.daoudkuttab.com.
A blessing and a curse
By Daoud Kuttab
Nov. 11, 2004
I had mixed feelings as I looked over the Muqata building in Ramallah. While everyone was there to see the place where Yasser Arafat made his last stand in his long struggle for his people's independence, I remembered this compound as the location where I was imprisoned for seven days in 1997. At the time Arafat ordered my incarceration because the television station I was in charge of, Al Quds Educational Television, dared to broadcast sessions of the Palestinian Legislative Council dealing with corruption. But I didn't feel bitterness as I looked at the compound. I felt that in his own way Arafat was true to himself and his principles. He did everything he could to fulfill the hopes of millions of Palestinians. In the process he no doubt broke many rules and betrayed the trust of many people. The world wanted him to shed his military uniform, throw away his gun, and follow Israeli orders to pacify his own people while they were still under occupation. He refused; he insisted that the revolution was not over until the occupation ended. In life and in death Arafat would not allow anyone to put him in any predictable classification. He was so dedicated to the Palestinian cause, so obsessed with it, that he was both a blessing and a curse for Palestine. He was a blessing in that his dedication to the cause brought him the love of his own people and their willingness to forgive any mistakes he committed. He was able to unify Palestinians behind one national cause that became a worldwide cry for freedom and independence. This obsessive dedication, however, sometimes stood in the way of good judgment. Arafat's mistakes cost Palestinians dearly. His failure to stand up to the popular and emotional Palestinian support for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was a glaring example: As a result nearly 400,000 Palestinians were evicted from Kuwait, and Palestinians lost much Arab and international support. In the Oslo years, Arafat failed to delegate the power the accords granted to the Palestinians. His insistence on control rendered the Palestinian Authority inefficient and corrupt. He also failed to understand the possibilities that Clinton's last year in office offered: He threw away a potentially honorable agreement reached in Taba without being able to offer an alternative strategy to end the occupation and to establish a Palestinian state. Perhaps Arafat's death was also a blessing.
Having withstood tremendous physical and psychological pressures for almost three years, Arafat's last stand at the Muqata will become an integral part of his political legacy. Leaders that follow him will have difficulty in yielding any more concessions than he did. During his career Yasser Arafat took on many titles. And to understand what the Palestinian cause will look like without Arafat, we must consider the various titles that he last held. Arafat was chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, president of the Palestinian National Authority, commander in chief of the Palestinian forces, and head of the Fatah movement. The PLO embodies Palestinian national aspirations for independence and statehood. It is the highest political body for all Palestinians, both those living in Palestine and the refugees and other Palestinians in the diaspora. Arafat's successor will need to juggle between negotiations with Israel, which will require concession on refugees' "right of return" to Palestine, and the aspirations of more than 3 million Palestinians who wish to come back to the homes from which they were expelled in the wars of 1948 and 1967. And he must do this while dealing with the daily needs of Palestinians living under occupation. As the commander of the Palestinian forces Arafat was able to keep the various Palestinian military, security and intelligence units under his own control. The successor will not only have to deal with these forces, which have been torn apart by the Israelis, but he will also have to deal with local paramilitary units. These units, most of which are not controlled by the PNA's central leadership, are more loyal to grassroots figures than to uniformed PNA officers. Local Fatah leaders like Marwan Barghouti have tremendous power over the nationalist armed units that are loosely organized under the name Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Barghouti advocated internal Fatah elections and was trying to implement them when the Israelis arrested him and charged him with conspiring with terror bombers. As a street leader who had been elected the head of the Bir Zeit University student council, he gained legitimacy by being chosen by his peers. When the Oslo process began, he refused to accept any official position within the Palestinian Authority, choosing instead to remain close to the local Fatah cadres.
Whoever fills Arafat's shoes will need to make sure that these brigades are satisfied that their status, demands and leaders are respected. Indeed, the power struggle that will ensue in the post-Arafat era will ultimately center on Al Fatah, the backbone of the PLO. A worldwide assembly chooses Fatah's 100-member revolutionary council, which in turn elects a 20-member central committee, where most of the power struggle will take place. Many young street leaders will insist on an emergency meeting of the revolutionary council, or even that a sixth general assembly be convened (it would be the first since 1988). Events in recent months have shown that the Al Aqsa Brigades forced even Arafat to take their demands into consideration. Marwan Barghouti has the credibility that the official Palestinian leaders, Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmad Qurei, lack. As a result, many Palestinians are searching hard for a way to achieve his release from Israeli prison. Some hope that the Egyptians will trade Israeli spy Azzam Azzam for Barghouti; others predict that he will be released as part of a trade with the Lebanese militant group/political party Hezbollah, which has the bodies of a number of Israeli soldiers. But Barghouti and others of his generation will most probably have to wait. A transition period will no doubt take place in which people like Abbas and Qurei will be a bridge to the next wave of Palestinian leaders. Of course, the succession problem in Palestine, as in many other Arab countries, is greatly complicated by the absence of an accepted, regular structure by which authority is passed on. In the absence of such a structure, leaders are reluctant to handpick a deputy, let alone allow one to gain experience and competence.
Elections, whether at the presidential, parliamentary or municipal level, could do a lot in helping to nurture and develop a representative leadership. The absence of these democratic mechanisms is even worse inside the various liberation movements. Internal elections are not happening in the Islamic and left-wing groups generally, and in the nationalist movement that Arafat headed there have not been internal elections since the late 1980s. While much of the power struggle will take place within the nationalist camp, one must not overlook the Islamist camp led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Although the Islamists are unlikely to interfere in the post-Arafat power struggle, they will not sit idly by if the new leadership moves in what they consider the wrong direction. Of course, the new leadership will have to reach some agreement with the Islamists regarding the rules of the game, both domestically and vis-Ã -vis Israel. If no such agreement is reached and the new leadership cracks down hard on the Islamists, a violent civil war could erupt. Most important, to consolidate his leadership the next Palestinian leader must make some hard decisions and show some tangible results quickly. The experience of the first Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), who resigned largely because of his inability to deliver any improvements to his people -- whether strengthening personal and collective security, restoring the rule of law, or bringing an end to chaos in Palestinian areas -- remains fresh in the public's memory. Which is why an Israeli freeze on settlement activities, the release of Palestinian political prisoners, and the removal of the hundreds of checkpoints between Palestinian cities would revive a feeling of hope, without which no Palestinian leader can negotiate what the world wants: a peace settlement. The problem is that no Palestinian leader, no matter who he is, can deliver these changes without help from other players. The Israeli occupiers, the neighboring Arab countries, and the international community, led by the United States, face a challenge. They all must help out if they expect the new leadership of Palestinians to be able to withstand the pressures they will be under to raise the bar higher than Yasser Arafat did during a lifetime dedicated to the cause of Palestinian freedom.
Gaza
Gaza has been the burial place of many people: citizens, soldiers and politicians of all sides. I hope it won't be Sharon's.
New European Initiative
The European Union will shortly unveil a plan to ensure the viability of a Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders. Frustrated with what they see as US diplomatic inertia resulting from domestic political imperatives, EU politicians are pushing to accelerate the EU's engagement in the region. A detailed plan is expected shortly from external affairs commissioner Javier Solana for advancing the Road Map drawn up by the Quartet of the EU, US, UN and Russia. Solana's paper is expected to focus on security, economic development and reform, and to emphasize the need for free and fair elections.
A recent article by Michael Tarazi, the PLO's legal adviser, which explicitly rejects a two-states solution, suggests that the EU initiative is running against the grain of current Palestinian strategy. Tarazi argues that "the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship" within a single Palestinian and Israeli state.
The Middle East expert Barry Rubin suggests that the Road Map and similar initiatives have rested on a fundamental misconception. "The key to understanding the history of the last half-century's Arab-Israeli conflict is that the PLO was never a true nationalist movement," he argues. "For the PLO destroying Israel is more important than building an independent Palestinian state or relieving the Palestinian people's suffering." The demand for a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees confirms this. "If the goal was to build a strong, stable Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel, everything would be done to discourage refugees from going to Israel," Rubin suggests. "For why should a Palestinian state make a gift of these people, their money and talents to someone else?"
Tarazi's article, infra, suggests that any chance for progress in the peace process, based on mutual understanding and agreement, is an illusion as long as Arafat conducts the affair. While road maps, declarations, delegations, and other efforts may contribute to peace in the long-term, in the immediate context they are useless exercises in wishful thinking.
Two Peoples, One State
by Michael Tarazi*
New York Times, 4th October 2004
__________________
Israel's untenable policy in the Middle East was more obvious than usual last week, as the Israeli Army made repeated incursions into Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinians in the deadliest attacks in more than two years, even as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reiterated his plans to withdraw from the territory. Israel's overall strategy toward the Palestinians is ultimately self-defeating: it wants Palestinian land but not the Palestinians who live on that land.
As Christians and Muslims, the millions of Palestinians under occupation are not welcome in the Jewish state. Many Palestinians are now convinced that Israeli support for a Palestinian state is motivated not by a hope for reconciliation, but by a desire to segregate non-Jews while taking as much of their land and resources as possible. They are increasingly questioning the most commonly accepted solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - "two states living side by side in peace and security," in the words of President Bush - and are being forced to consider a one-state solution.
To Palestinians, the strategy behind Israel's two-state solution is clear. More than 400,000 Israelis live illegally in more than 150 colonies, many of which are atop Palestinian water sources. Mr. Sharon is prepared to evacuate settlers from Gaza - but only in exchange for expanding settlements in the West Bank. And Israel is building a barrier wall not on its land but rather inside occupied Palestinian territory. The wall's route maximizes the amount of Palestinian farmland and water on one side and the number of Palestinians on the other.
Yet while Israelis try to allay a demographic threat, they are creating a democratic threat. After years of negotiations, coupled with incessant building of settlements and now the construction of the wall, Palestinians finally understand that Israel is offering "independence" on a reservation stripped of water and arable soil, economically dependent on Israel and even lacking the right to self-defense.
As a result, many Palestinians are contemplating whether the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship. In other words, a one-state solution in which citizens of all faiths and ethnicities live together as equals. Recent polls indicate that a quarter of Palestinians favor the secular one-state solution - a surprisingly high number given that it is not officially advocated by any senior Palestinian leader.
Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders. There are no road signs reading "Welcome to Occupied Territory" when one drives into East Jerusalem. Some government maps of Israel do not delineate Israel's 1967 pre-occupation border. Settlers in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are interspersed among Palestinian towns and now constitute nearly a fifth of the population. In the words of one Palestinian farmer, you can't unscramble an egg.
But in this de facto state, 3.5 million Palestinian Christians and Muslims are denied the same political and civil rights as Jews. These Palestinians must drive on separate roads, in cars bearing distinctive license plates, and only to and from designated Palestinian areas. It is illegal for a Palestinian to drive a car with an Israeli license plate. These Palestinians, as non-Jews, neither qualify for Israeli citizenship nor have the right to vote in Israeli elections.
In South Africa, such an allocation of rights and privileges based on ethnic or religious affiliation was called apartheid. In Israel, it is called the Middle East's only democracy.
Most Israelis recoil at the thought of giving Palestinians equal rights, understandably fearing that a possible Palestinian majority will treat Jews the way Jews have treated Palestinians. They fear the destruction of the never-defined "Jewish state." The one-state solution, however, neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character.
For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land.
The struggle for Palestinian equality will not be easy. Power is never voluntarily shared by those who wield it. Palestinians will have to capture the world's imagination, organize the international community and refuse to be seduced into negotiating for their rights.
But the struggle against South African apartheid proves the battle can be won. The only question is how long it will take, and how much all sides will have to suffer, before Israeli Jews can view Palestinian Christians and Muslims not as demographic threats but as fellow citizens.
__________________
*Michael Tarazi is a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency's confidential report, made available to The Associated Press on November 15, said all nuclear material Iran had declared to the agency in the past year has been accounted for, "and therefore we can say that such material is not diverted to prohibited (weapons) activities." But the report also said its author, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, was "not yet in the position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials" that could have been used for a weapons program.
Iran said it was suspending uranium enrichment and related activities briefly, voluntarily and in hopes of building confidence in the world that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters the deal was "the best decision under the current circumstances." Iran faces the possibility of being slapped with UN Security Council sanctions for a program the United States and others says is aimed at building nuclear weapons.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian said the suspension will last until the completion of negotiations with Europe over Iran's nuclear program. "We accept suspension as a voluntary measure on the basis of agreement with the European Union," Mousavian said, emphasizing that his country viewed the decision as a "confidence building" move and not a "legal obligation on Iran's part… Europe will support Iran's joining the international group of states possessing the ability to manufacture nuclear fuel" once the suspension ends. The decision is expected to anger extremists within the hard-line camp who have called on the government to ignore international demands and even expand, not limit, nuclear activities.
The key dispute that prolonged negotiations between Iran and the Europeans was over the conversion of uranium into gas, which when spun in centrifuges can be enriched to lower levels for producing electricity or processed into high-level, weapons grade uranium, and the length of any suspension.
Washington believes Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful nuclear program. Iran denies this and has offered to provide guarantees that its program is strictly confined to producing electricity.
Two World Views
A youth educational talk at Yachad, the liberal civil rights party:
"A man is born free and would like to remain free. Stop the occupation".
A youth educational talk at National Unity, the extreme right-wing party:
"What is this nonsense of a man is born free? A man is not born free. A man is born with placenta that provides the newborn with its lifeline. We provide the Palestinians their lifeline. And how do they show gratitude? By terror".
Peres' Disappointment
Shimon Peres had all the right to expect an invitation to join the government after providing Sharon the security net and support he needed to pass the resolution affirming his disengagement plan. However, Sharon explained that he cannot join Labour into the coalition because of the delicate situation within the Likud Party. The days of Sharon's government are numbered, unless he will teach us yet another lesson in politics and pull a trick that will bring another party to reinforce his collapsing coalition. It is difficult to see how exactly Sharon can do that. I repeat my prediction that you can start counting the days to early elections.
Protest against call for European boycott of academic and cultural ties with Israel
European scholars and scientists who unequivocally condemn the call for a moratorium on research and cultural links with Israel are welcome to join the petition at http://euroisrael.huji.ac.il/list-european.html
Please sign.
Building Business Bridges MBA Program
I was asked to post the following:
The Center for Jewish Arab Economic Development, in cooperation with The University of Haifa and the Palestinian Media & Development Institute
is launching a 6th cycle of the Building Business Bridges MBA program, a unique program that includes:
Academic Studies (MBA program) at the University of Haifa’s Graduate School of Business
An enrichment program that includes studies of: Middle East economics, management in a multicultural setting, mediation and more.
Study tours: in the region and abroad
The program accepts 30 students: 20 Israeli (Jewish and Arabs) and 10 Palestinians.
The Center for Jewish Arab Economic Development is now accepting candidates for the new cycle beginning in May 2005. We are asking your assistance in promoting this program by sending this letter to persons who you know who might be interested in participating in the program.
The prerequisites to be accepted are:
Demonstrated initiative and business ability
Three years experience in business or management
Accredited Bachelor’s degree with a minimum of 80
A minimum of a 500 score on the GMAT
Excellent Command of the English Language (studies are in English)
Other relevant information:
Studies Begin in May 2005
Program length is 18 months
The studies are on Thursday and Friday at the University of Haifa (including sleeping at a hotel in Haifa on Thursday night)
For more information please contact Ronit Sassoon at telephone 09-957-1379 ext.105 or email municipal@cjaed.org.il
Thank you for assisting us in promoting this program.
Sincerely,
Ronit Sassoon
****************************************************
Ms. Ronit Sassoon
Director of the Municipal Unit and
Building Business Bridges, Applications Coordinator
Center for Jewish Arab Economic Development
16 Galgalei Haplada, POB 12017, Herzlyia Pituach 46733
Tel: 09-954-1379 ext 105
Fax: 09-954-0136
www.cjaed.org.il
Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace
I wish to bring to your attention the mission and objectives of Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
FFIPP, the Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace, is a network of faculty endeavoring to achieve just peace and end the occupation in Israel/Palestine and the region.
FFIPP is organized by the Executive Committee with the invaluable advice of the Advisory Board. Our Campus Contacts help coordinate activities at their local universities. A large number of faculty supports the network and makes their support known on the list of Endorsers.
About FFIPP International
What Do We Stand For?
Peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is the resolution to their conflict supported by virtually all interested parties. Future cooperation between the two states and the enormous resulting regional benefits expected, make the pursuit of such a goal imperative.
We have no doubt that it is possible to reach such a brighter future[1], and we strongly believe that actions and policies moving in that direction are not only crucially needed, but that they can and must be pursued NOW[2].
We strongly believe that no peace and no justice can be achieved without Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories[3], and that anybody truly and honestly favoring peaceful coexistence must support such withdrawal.
Furthermore, we are certain that any delay in beginning this process will result in increasing suffering and loss of human life. We, therefore, urge all faculty, and others, who care about the two peoples and the Middle East to support such efforts.
The bias of a large part of the U.S. media[4] reinforces the call for faculty to take part in educating the public about the unfolding situation.
The sharp escalation of violence since late March 2002, makes all the above even more urgent, and it appears that without international, including faculty, involvement, stabilization is unlikely.
Our Goal
Our goal is to achieve just peace and end the occupation in Israel/Palestine and the region.
Our Objectives
The objectives of FFIPP are these:
To build an effective faculty network that will influence U.S. policy in the region, and, indirectly, Israel’s policy, towards making those policies more conducive to reaching a just peace;
To influence policy and opinion makers and others to implement policies to stop the violence;
To cooperate with those who work for a just peace and assist Palestinian and Israeli faculty.
Our Activities
We believe that the sector we represent can have impact in Washington; experience strongly suggests that the potential for impact exists.
In addition to building and strengthening the network, planned activities will include,
Organizing symposia throughout US universities in which experts discuss perspectives to the situation in the Middle East
Sponsoring Israeli and Palestinian faculty to speak on US campuses, educating/updating the academic community on the situation
Arranging faculty delegations to Israel and Palestine
Sponsoring delegations for faculty and students to members of the United States Congress
Sponsoring campus campaigns to promote human rights and just peace in Israel and Palestine
Creating media awareness
Sponsoring ad campaigns in the media (e.g., in the New York Times)
Writing Op-Ed articles
Efforts to help Palestinian universities with some immediate needs that they might have
Further information at http://www.ffipp.org/
With my very best wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info
Dear friends and colleagues,
Some of you still use my JHU e-mail address. This e-mail ceased to be active. Please use either ralmagor@soc.haifa.ac.il or rcohen@univ.haifa.ac.il.
Bush
Congratulations to George W. Bush for a great win. Against all odds, he had a smooth and sweet triumph. He has all reasons to be pleased.
Many people had to swallow their heats. Against predictions, some of which were wishful thinking, Bush had a decisive win. All those who said that a large turnout will work for Kerry were wrong. People came to vote in huge numbers, and they voted Bush. Only a minority of states voted for Kerry. Kerry paid the price for his unsophisticated politics. For a long time he refrained to say something, trying to appeal to the wide common denominator, not to aggravate anybody. When he realized that this policy actually worked against him, because he did not offer an alternative and remained ambiguous, only then he became vocal in promoting certain policies. He concentrated his attention on Iraq, but then the question begs why he initially voted for the war.
I must say that I have many question marks regarding the polls that were published before the elections. Some of them were so way out wrong, beyond acceptable margin of error, that it seems that the people conducting them were not completely honest. They tried to influence the results by publishing untrue numbers. Statistics has become a matter of ideology. Prostitution substituted professionalism.
The Israeli newspapers welcomed the result. Maariv headlines on 4 November 2004 was: "The Friend Remains." Israel yearns that Bush will continue to be its friend. It is said that the government had a sigh of relief when the results became known. Kerry seemed to be less friendly to Israel.
I wish Bush all the success in the world to tackle some of the most difficult issues. I wish him success in improving the healthcare system, the most inefficient healthcare system in the western world. I wish him success in improving public education. I hope Bush will see fit to improve the country's infrastructure: the state of the roads; public transportation; cleaning and improving the well-being of many poor neighbourhoods. It is time that the United States put these priorities high on its agenda. This super country has the resources to tackle these issues successfully. It just needs the will and the foresight.
Internationally, the future of Iraq is still a mystery. But I am more concerned with the US policy towards Iran. Here we need caution and prudence. The US is advised to consult European countries, such as France, Germany and Russia in conducting its affairs vis-Ã -vis Iran. The US is advised to coordinate its steps with the UN. If not, Iraq will be a kindergarten compared to Iran. Even Clint Eastwood needed some help from friends, sometimes. Hasty steps against Iran may lead the United States to a risky position: risky to itself and risky to the world at large. Iran is the big cloud that hovers above all of us. We need sunshine to fight against it. Only international cooperation will assure that the sunshine will not turn into an inferno.
Yassir Arafat: 1929-2004
On November 11, 2004, the last saga of Arafat's life came to an end. Arafat led a life of a terrorist until his last days. He never wanted peace. He worked on the genuine yearning of Israeli officials to achieve peace in their life time to gain substantial political achievements. Oslo was a bluff. The man remained an obstacle to peace and now he is no longer with us to ruin, to destroy, to maim and to kill. I hope his successors will choose to pursue other channels and work for the true benefit of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian people deserve a far more competent Rais to lead them to independent statehood, ending of the occupation, and creating a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. A lot is to be done: security, a unified army, eradication of all factions to achieve a cohesive unity, an independent economy, fighting down the corruption, decreasing poverty, tunneling human resources to productivity, to creating rather than destroying. I wish the new Palestinian government a lot of success.
Arafat's death entails the reborn of Bush's Road Map. Now there is a new partner. Whether he's viable we don't know. Time will tell, and we won't need to wait for long. The Road Map, which was dead and buried, is back to life. It was ridiculous to insist on it during the past few years. Frankly, I was surprised to hear the extent people I met last year at the State Department insisted on it. Now Bush needs to insist to make it part of this place.
Two days ago Abu Mazen made a pledge to the man in the grave, and to all listeners that he is committed to the right of return, to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. It is going to be a long and winding road.
Gershon Baskin passed me an article written by Daoud Kuttab. He is a Palestinian journalist from Jerusalem who was jailed by Yassir Arafat. Now he is the director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah. To join his mailing list, please write to daoudkuttab-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. His Web site is www.daoudkuttab.com.
A blessing and a curse
By Daoud Kuttab
Nov. 11, 2004
I had mixed feelings as I looked over the Muqata building in Ramallah. While everyone was there to see the place where Yasser Arafat made his last stand in his long struggle for his people's independence, I remembered this compound as the location where I was imprisoned for seven days in 1997. At the time Arafat ordered my incarceration because the television station I was in charge of, Al Quds Educational Television, dared to broadcast sessions of the Palestinian Legislative Council dealing with corruption. But I didn't feel bitterness as I looked at the compound. I felt that in his own way Arafat was true to himself and his principles. He did everything he could to fulfill the hopes of millions of Palestinians. In the process he no doubt broke many rules and betrayed the trust of many people. The world wanted him to shed his military uniform, throw away his gun, and follow Israeli orders to pacify his own people while they were still under occupation. He refused; he insisted that the revolution was not over until the occupation ended. In life and in death Arafat would not allow anyone to put him in any predictable classification. He was so dedicated to the Palestinian cause, so obsessed with it, that he was both a blessing and a curse for Palestine. He was a blessing in that his dedication to the cause brought him the love of his own people and their willingness to forgive any mistakes he committed. He was able to unify Palestinians behind one national cause that became a worldwide cry for freedom and independence. This obsessive dedication, however, sometimes stood in the way of good judgment. Arafat's mistakes cost Palestinians dearly. His failure to stand up to the popular and emotional Palestinian support for Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait was a glaring example: As a result nearly 400,000 Palestinians were evicted from Kuwait, and Palestinians lost much Arab and international support. In the Oslo years, Arafat failed to delegate the power the accords granted to the Palestinians. His insistence on control rendered the Palestinian Authority inefficient and corrupt. He also failed to understand the possibilities that Clinton's last year in office offered: He threw away a potentially honorable agreement reached in Taba without being able to offer an alternative strategy to end the occupation and to establish a Palestinian state. Perhaps Arafat's death was also a blessing.
Having withstood tremendous physical and psychological pressures for almost three years, Arafat's last stand at the Muqata will become an integral part of his political legacy. Leaders that follow him will have difficulty in yielding any more concessions than he did. During his career Yasser Arafat took on many titles. And to understand what the Palestinian cause will look like without Arafat, we must consider the various titles that he last held. Arafat was chairman of the PLO Executive Committee, president of the Palestinian National Authority, commander in chief of the Palestinian forces, and head of the Fatah movement. The PLO embodies Palestinian national aspirations for independence and statehood. It is the highest political body for all Palestinians, both those living in Palestine and the refugees and other Palestinians in the diaspora. Arafat's successor will need to juggle between negotiations with Israel, which will require concession on refugees' "right of return" to Palestine, and the aspirations of more than 3 million Palestinians who wish to come back to the homes from which they were expelled in the wars of 1948 and 1967. And he must do this while dealing with the daily needs of Palestinians living under occupation. As the commander of the Palestinian forces Arafat was able to keep the various Palestinian military, security and intelligence units under his own control. The successor will not only have to deal with these forces, which have been torn apart by the Israelis, but he will also have to deal with local paramilitary units. These units, most of which are not controlled by the PNA's central leadership, are more loyal to grassroots figures than to uniformed PNA officers. Local Fatah leaders like Marwan Barghouti have tremendous power over the nationalist armed units that are loosely organized under the name Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Barghouti advocated internal Fatah elections and was trying to implement them when the Israelis arrested him and charged him with conspiring with terror bombers. As a street leader who had been elected the head of the Bir Zeit University student council, he gained legitimacy by being chosen by his peers. When the Oslo process began, he refused to accept any official position within the Palestinian Authority, choosing instead to remain close to the local Fatah cadres.
Whoever fills Arafat's shoes will need to make sure that these brigades are satisfied that their status, demands and leaders are respected. Indeed, the power struggle that will ensue in the post-Arafat era will ultimately center on Al Fatah, the backbone of the PLO. A worldwide assembly chooses Fatah's 100-member revolutionary council, which in turn elects a 20-member central committee, where most of the power struggle will take place. Many young street leaders will insist on an emergency meeting of the revolutionary council, or even that a sixth general assembly be convened (it would be the first since 1988). Events in recent months have shown that the Al Aqsa Brigades forced even Arafat to take their demands into consideration. Marwan Barghouti has the credibility that the official Palestinian leaders, Mahmoud Abbas and Ahmad Qurei, lack. As a result, many Palestinians are searching hard for a way to achieve his release from Israeli prison. Some hope that the Egyptians will trade Israeli spy Azzam Azzam for Barghouti; others predict that he will be released as part of a trade with the Lebanese militant group/political party Hezbollah, which has the bodies of a number of Israeli soldiers. But Barghouti and others of his generation will most probably have to wait. A transition period will no doubt take place in which people like Abbas and Qurei will be a bridge to the next wave of Palestinian leaders. Of course, the succession problem in Palestine, as in many other Arab countries, is greatly complicated by the absence of an accepted, regular structure by which authority is passed on. In the absence of such a structure, leaders are reluctant to handpick a deputy, let alone allow one to gain experience and competence.
Elections, whether at the presidential, parliamentary or municipal level, could do a lot in helping to nurture and develop a representative leadership. The absence of these democratic mechanisms is even worse inside the various liberation movements. Internal elections are not happening in the Islamic and left-wing groups generally, and in the nationalist movement that Arafat headed there have not been internal elections since the late 1980s. While much of the power struggle will take place within the nationalist camp, one must not overlook the Islamist camp led by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Although the Islamists are unlikely to interfere in the post-Arafat power struggle, they will not sit idly by if the new leadership moves in what they consider the wrong direction. Of course, the new leadership will have to reach some agreement with the Islamists regarding the rules of the game, both domestically and vis-Ã -vis Israel. If no such agreement is reached and the new leadership cracks down hard on the Islamists, a violent civil war could erupt. Most important, to consolidate his leadership the next Palestinian leader must make some hard decisions and show some tangible results quickly. The experience of the first Palestinian prime minister, Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), who resigned largely because of his inability to deliver any improvements to his people -- whether strengthening personal and collective security, restoring the rule of law, or bringing an end to chaos in Palestinian areas -- remains fresh in the public's memory. Which is why an Israeli freeze on settlement activities, the release of Palestinian political prisoners, and the removal of the hundreds of checkpoints between Palestinian cities would revive a feeling of hope, without which no Palestinian leader can negotiate what the world wants: a peace settlement. The problem is that no Palestinian leader, no matter who he is, can deliver these changes without help from other players. The Israeli occupiers, the neighboring Arab countries, and the international community, led by the United States, face a challenge. They all must help out if they expect the new leadership of Palestinians to be able to withstand the pressures they will be under to raise the bar higher than Yasser Arafat did during a lifetime dedicated to the cause of Palestinian freedom.
Gaza
Gaza has been the burial place of many people: citizens, soldiers and politicians of all sides. I hope it won't be Sharon's.
New European Initiative
The European Union will shortly unveil a plan to ensure the viability of a Palestinian state, based on the 1967 borders. Frustrated with what they see as US diplomatic inertia resulting from domestic political imperatives, EU politicians are pushing to accelerate the EU's engagement in the region. A detailed plan is expected shortly from external affairs commissioner Javier Solana for advancing the Road Map drawn up by the Quartet of the EU, US, UN and Russia. Solana's paper is expected to focus on security, economic development and reform, and to emphasize the need for free and fair elections.
A recent article by Michael Tarazi, the PLO's legal adviser, which explicitly rejects a two-states solution, suggests that the EU initiative is running against the grain of current Palestinian strategy. Tarazi argues that "the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship" within a single Palestinian and Israeli state.
The Middle East expert Barry Rubin suggests that the Road Map and similar initiatives have rested on a fundamental misconception. "The key to understanding the history of the last half-century's Arab-Israeli conflict is that the PLO was never a true nationalist movement," he argues. "For the PLO destroying Israel is more important than building an independent Palestinian state or relieving the Palestinian people's suffering." The demand for a "right of return" of Palestinian refugees confirms this. "If the goal was to build a strong, stable Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel, everything would be done to discourage refugees from going to Israel," Rubin suggests. "For why should a Palestinian state make a gift of these people, their money and talents to someone else?"
Tarazi's article, infra, suggests that any chance for progress in the peace process, based on mutual understanding and agreement, is an illusion as long as Arafat conducts the affair. While road maps, declarations, delegations, and other efforts may contribute to peace in the long-term, in the immediate context they are useless exercises in wishful thinking.
Two Peoples, One State
by Michael Tarazi*
New York Times, 4th October 2004
__________________
Israel's untenable policy in the Middle East was more obvious than usual last week, as the Israeli Army made repeated incursions into Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinians in the deadliest attacks in more than two years, even as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reiterated his plans to withdraw from the territory. Israel's overall strategy toward the Palestinians is ultimately self-defeating: it wants Palestinian land but not the Palestinians who live on that land.
As Christians and Muslims, the millions of Palestinians under occupation are not welcome in the Jewish state. Many Palestinians are now convinced that Israeli support for a Palestinian state is motivated not by a hope for reconciliation, but by a desire to segregate non-Jews while taking as much of their land and resources as possible. They are increasingly questioning the most commonly accepted solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - "two states living side by side in peace and security," in the words of President Bush - and are being forced to consider a one-state solution.
To Palestinians, the strategy behind Israel's two-state solution is clear. More than 400,000 Israelis live illegally in more than 150 colonies, many of which are atop Palestinian water sources. Mr. Sharon is prepared to evacuate settlers from Gaza - but only in exchange for expanding settlements in the West Bank. And Israel is building a barrier wall not on its land but rather inside occupied Palestinian territory. The wall's route maximizes the amount of Palestinian farmland and water on one side and the number of Palestinians on the other.
Yet while Israelis try to allay a demographic threat, they are creating a democratic threat. After years of negotiations, coupled with incessant building of settlements and now the construction of the wall, Palestinians finally understand that Israel is offering "independence" on a reservation stripped of water and arable soil, economically dependent on Israel and even lacking the right to self-defense.
As a result, many Palestinians are contemplating whether the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship. In other words, a one-state solution in which citizens of all faiths and ethnicities live together as equals. Recent polls indicate that a quarter of Palestinians favor the secular one-state solution - a surprisingly high number given that it is not officially advocated by any senior Palestinian leader.
Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders. There are no road signs reading "Welcome to Occupied Territory" when one drives into East Jerusalem. Some government maps of Israel do not delineate Israel's 1967 pre-occupation border. Settlers in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are interspersed among Palestinian towns and now constitute nearly a fifth of the population. In the words of one Palestinian farmer, you can't unscramble an egg.
But in this de facto state, 3.5 million Palestinian Christians and Muslims are denied the same political and civil rights as Jews. These Palestinians must drive on separate roads, in cars bearing distinctive license plates, and only to and from designated Palestinian areas. It is illegal for a Palestinian to drive a car with an Israeli license plate. These Palestinians, as non-Jews, neither qualify for Israeli citizenship nor have the right to vote in Israeli elections.
In South Africa, such an allocation of rights and privileges based on ethnic or religious affiliation was called apartheid. In Israel, it is called the Middle East's only democracy.
Most Israelis recoil at the thought of giving Palestinians equal rights, understandably fearing that a possible Palestinian majority will treat Jews the way Jews have treated Palestinians. They fear the destruction of the never-defined "Jewish state." The one-state solution, however, neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character.
For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land.
The struggle for Palestinian equality will not be easy. Power is never voluntarily shared by those who wield it. Palestinians will have to capture the world's imagination, organize the international community and refuse to be seduced into negotiating for their rights.
But the struggle against South African apartheid proves the battle can be won. The only question is how long it will take, and how much all sides will have to suffer, before Israeli Jews can view Palestinian Christians and Muslims not as demographic threats but as fellow citizens.
__________________
*Michael Tarazi is a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Iran
The International Atomic Energy Agency's confidential report, made available to The Associated Press on November 15, said all nuclear material Iran had declared to the agency in the past year has been accounted for, "and therefore we can say that such material is not diverted to prohibited (weapons) activities." But the report also said its author, IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, was "not yet in the position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials" that could have been used for a weapons program.
Iran said it was suspending uranium enrichment and related activities briefly, voluntarily and in hopes of building confidence in the world that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told reporters the deal was "the best decision under the current circumstances." Iran faces the possibility of being slapped with UN Security Council sanctions for a program the United States and others says is aimed at building nuclear weapons.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian said the suspension will last until the completion of negotiations with Europe over Iran's nuclear program. "We accept suspension as a voluntary measure on the basis of agreement with the European Union," Mousavian said, emphasizing that his country viewed the decision as a "confidence building" move and not a "legal obligation on Iran's part… Europe will support Iran's joining the international group of states possessing the ability to manufacture nuclear fuel" once the suspension ends. The decision is expected to anger extremists within the hard-line camp who have called on the government to ignore international demands and even expand, not limit, nuclear activities.
The key dispute that prolonged negotiations between Iran and the Europeans was over the conversion of uranium into gas, which when spun in centrifuges can be enriched to lower levels for producing electricity or processed into high-level, weapons grade uranium, and the length of any suspension.
Washington believes Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons under cover of a peaceful nuclear program. Iran denies this and has offered to provide guarantees that its program is strictly confined to producing electricity.
Two World Views
A youth educational talk at Yachad, the liberal civil rights party:
"A man is born free and would like to remain free. Stop the occupation".
A youth educational talk at National Unity, the extreme right-wing party:
"What is this nonsense of a man is born free? A man is not born free. A man is born with placenta that provides the newborn with its lifeline. We provide the Palestinians their lifeline. And how do they show gratitude? By terror".
Peres' Disappointment
Shimon Peres had all the right to expect an invitation to join the government after providing Sharon the security net and support he needed to pass the resolution affirming his disengagement plan. However, Sharon explained that he cannot join Labour into the coalition because of the delicate situation within the Likud Party. The days of Sharon's government are numbered, unless he will teach us yet another lesson in politics and pull a trick that will bring another party to reinforce his collapsing coalition. It is difficult to see how exactly Sharon can do that. I repeat my prediction that you can start counting the days to early elections.
Protest against call for European boycott of academic and cultural ties with Israel
European scholars and scientists who unequivocally condemn the call for a moratorium on research and cultural links with Israel are welcome to join the petition at http://euroisrael.huji.ac.il/list-european.html
Please sign.
Building Business Bridges MBA Program
I was asked to post the following:
The Center for Jewish Arab Economic Development, in cooperation with The University of Haifa and the Palestinian Media & Development Institute
is launching a 6th cycle of the Building Business Bridges MBA program, a unique program that includes:
Academic Studies (MBA program) at the University of Haifa’s Graduate School of Business
An enrichment program that includes studies of: Middle East economics, management in a multicultural setting, mediation and more.
Study tours: in the region and abroad
The program accepts 30 students: 20 Israeli (Jewish and Arabs) and 10 Palestinians.
The Center for Jewish Arab Economic Development is now accepting candidates for the new cycle beginning in May 2005. We are asking your assistance in promoting this program by sending this letter to persons who you know who might be interested in participating in the program.
The prerequisites to be accepted are:
Demonstrated initiative and business ability
Three years experience in business or management
Accredited Bachelor’s degree with a minimum of 80
A minimum of a 500 score on the GMAT
Excellent Command of the English Language (studies are in English)
Other relevant information:
Studies Begin in May 2005
Program length is 18 months
The studies are on Thursday and Friday at the University of Haifa (including sleeping at a hotel in Haifa on Thursday night)
For more information please contact Ronit Sassoon at telephone 09-957-1379 ext.105 or email municipal@cjaed.org.il
Thank you for assisting us in promoting this program.
Sincerely,
Ronit Sassoon
****************************************************
Ms. Ronit Sassoon
Director of the Municipal Unit and
Building Business Bridges, Applications Coordinator
Center for Jewish Arab Economic Development
16 Galgalei Haplada, POB 12017, Herzlyia Pituach 46733
Tel: 09-954-1379 ext 105
Fax: 09-954-0136
www.cjaed.org.il
Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace
I wish to bring to your attention the mission and objectives of Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace.
FFIPP, the Faculty For Israeli-Palestinian Peace, is a network of faculty endeavoring to achieve just peace and end the occupation in Israel/Palestine and the region.
FFIPP is organized by the Executive Committee with the invaluable advice of the Advisory Board. Our Campus Contacts help coordinate activities at their local universities. A large number of faculty supports the network and makes their support known on the list of Endorsers.
About FFIPP International
What Do We Stand For?
Peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine is the resolution to their conflict supported by virtually all interested parties. Future cooperation between the two states and the enormous resulting regional benefits expected, make the pursuit of such a goal imperative.
We have no doubt that it is possible to reach such a brighter future[1], and we strongly believe that actions and policies moving in that direction are not only crucially needed, but that they can and must be pursued NOW[2].
We strongly believe that no peace and no justice can be achieved without Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territories[3], and that anybody truly and honestly favoring peaceful coexistence must support such withdrawal.
Furthermore, we are certain that any delay in beginning this process will result in increasing suffering and loss of human life. We, therefore, urge all faculty, and others, who care about the two peoples and the Middle East to support such efforts.
The bias of a large part of the U.S. media[4] reinforces the call for faculty to take part in educating the public about the unfolding situation.
The sharp escalation of violence since late March 2002, makes all the above even more urgent, and it appears that without international, including faculty, involvement, stabilization is unlikely.
Our Goal
Our goal is to achieve just peace and end the occupation in Israel/Palestine and the region.
Our Objectives
The objectives of FFIPP are these:
To build an effective faculty network that will influence U.S. policy in the region, and, indirectly, Israel’s policy, towards making those policies more conducive to reaching a just peace;
To influence policy and opinion makers and others to implement policies to stop the violence;
To cooperate with those who work for a just peace and assist Palestinian and Israeli faculty.
Our Activities
We believe that the sector we represent can have impact in Washington; experience strongly suggests that the potential for impact exists.
In addition to building and strengthening the network, planned activities will include,
Organizing symposia throughout US universities in which experts discuss perspectives to the situation in the Middle East
Sponsoring Israeli and Palestinian faculty to speak on US campuses, educating/updating the academic community on the situation
Arranging faculty delegations to Israel and Palestine
Sponsoring delegations for faculty and students to members of the United States Congress
Sponsoring campus campaigns to promote human rights and just peace in Israel and Palestine
Creating media awareness
Sponsoring ad campaigns in the media (e.g., in the New York Times)
Writing Op-Ed articles
Efforts to help Palestinian universities with some immediate needs that they might have
Further information at http://www.ffipp.org/
With my very best wishes, as ever,
Rafi
My last communications are available on http://almagor.blogspot.comEarlier posts at my home page: http://lib-stu.haifa.ac.il/staff/rcohen-Almagor
Books archived at http://almagor.fetchauthor.info