The Annapolis Summit

We are on the eve of the Annapolis Summit. It is due to take place on 26^th November in Annapolis, Maryland, US. It seems that before this summit begins, there will be much hype as to its impending failure. The Israelis and Palestinians, under US arm twisting, must come out with a common declaration of principles. This in itself will involve phrasing, paraphrasing and rephrasing verbiage that will be lost in heavy polemics, the bottom line of which says nothing. If the verbiage is full of riddles then Israel will not see the declaration of principles as binding nor will the Palestinians. The leadership of both Palestine and Israel show skepticism as to the success of this US attempt to bring the parties to the conflict together.

Both Palestinians and Israelis have a weak leadership. President Mahmoud Abbas is the president of a divided Palestine which does not include Gaza (ruled by Hamas). His position in the West Bank is also shaky with Hamas cells breathing down his neck and waiting in the shadows to take over by a coup de etat as occurred in Gaza. PM Ehud Olmert also is weak and is under police investigation for possible criminal activity. He has lost his credibility and does not have much support. According to a report in Haaretz 21^st October 2007, the right wing members of his coalition (Yisrael Beitenu under Avigdor Lieberman and Shas under Eli Yishai) have threatened to leave the government if core issues are discussed at the summit. What is the point of holding a summit when core issues that are the root of the conflict are not discussed? Surely this is another indication of Israel’s hands being tied resulting in the summit being doomed before it even starts.

Apart from that, the Israeli and Palestinian positions are poles apart about bridging the gap between the two sides with a common declaration of principles. Neither side trusts the other. Trust is a very important ingredient in formulating a common declaration of principles. Those attending, apart from the Israeli and the PLO negotiation teams, are expected to include representatives from Egypt, Jordan and possibly neighboring Arab countries as well as from the G-8 countries and permanent members of the UN Security Council. The success of such a conference is dependent more on the moderate Arab States than on the Palestinians. The possibility that Hamas will try to derail the conference by sending suicide bombers into Israel cannot be ruled out either.

According to a report in the Editorial of Al Ahram Weekly, 18 - 24 October 2007,

The US-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland, is not something to which Arabs should be looking forward. Judging by the recent discourse of the parties concerned the conference -- should it finally be held -- will achieve no progress. So much was made clear in several revealing statements issued during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's visit to the region this week.

Rice made her statements following talks with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on 14 October. The next day she met with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, after which she told a press conference that US president George W Bush is "committed" to "ending" what she called the "Palestinian problem". She then headed to Cairo where her Egyptian counterpart expressed concern over the vagueness and purpose of the Annapolis conference and suggested it be delayed. Rice replied there was no set date to be delayed.

So what exactly is Rice telling us? She's saying the conference will be held, even though it has no agenda and despite the fact she thinks the Palestinian and Israeli governments are incapable of moving forward towards resolving the decades-old conflict. Indeed, she describes 59 years of Israeli occupation, apartheid, and violation of international law, the demolition of Palestinian homes and five million Palestinian refugees as "the Palestinian problem". Rice is not alone in cautioning against any expectations that the conference will have positive results. Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who will head Israel's negotiating team in Annapolis, has already warned the Arabs not to go to the conference with too many hopes.

There is no feeling of optimism, in neither the Israeli camp nor the Palestinian camp. The US under President Bush is not the ideal example of a peace broker. We only have to look at the tragic mess that the US has made in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US got rid of Saddam Hussein, replacing his regime with total anarchy and bloodshed. In Afghanistan the US tried to capture Osama bin Laden, the arch terrorist, and failed. They tried to destroy the Taliban – an extremist Islamist movement and they did not succeed entirely. They propped up a puppet regime under President Hamid Kazai. His grassroots support is very shaky. The Taliban are showing signs of rebirth. Is the US able to be an honest broker, organizing peace summits between Israelis and Palestinians with a “peace record” like that?

Both Palestinians and Israelis are fully aware that the chances of this summit succeeding remains very slim indeed. President Mahmoud Abbas favours

a Palestinian State comprising 6205 sq. k. in the West Bank and Gaza and he wishes to discuss key issues of the Permanent Status Agreement such as Jerusalem, refugees, borders, settlements, water and security.

Mahmoud Abbas is trying to maneuver Israel back into the sequence of the Oslo negotiations through an 'all-or-nothing' approach - in other words, combining all the separate issues into one package. However, in light of the visible gaps between the parties on the Outstanding Issues, this approach narrows the chances of reaching any achievement in the political process. Israel will find this unacceptable. Israel is adopting a policy of maneuver. Israel does not intend to even negotiate seriously but rather mark time and come out with further statements that will not be helpful in getting the peace process on track. This emphasizes the fact that the agenda of the Palestinians is clearer than the Israeli agenda which remains hazy.

It is difficult to find any basis for a common declaration of principles between the two sides when both sides have priorities that are so diametrically opposed one from the other. Apart from that, Abbas also has a problem with Gaza which is ruled by Hamas. Both Olmert and Abbas cannot overlook that. This problem of Hamas ruling Gaza will have to be solved. Now, there are two states - Hamas-ruled Gaza and Fatah-ruled West Bank. How this will be incorporated into one state remains to be seen. How will the Annapolis Summit relate to this? Hamas is opposed to the summit which they view as a sell-out to the US and Israel. They will do all they can to destroy Mahmoud Abbas if he signs an agreement with Israel. They have hinted that.

The Israelis wish to come out with a general document that is not binding because of the inability to draw up a common declaration of principles.

The idea of coming to the summit with the lowest common denominator between Israelis and Palestinians is an exercise in futility. Even Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, with her American baggage of failures in peace making, is not going to succeed in bringing the sides together.

All this hype about the upcoming summit proves that it will be another impotent attempt at peace making between Israel and the Palestinians. The most that can be expected is another photo opportunity of handshakes all round.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Israel and Anti-Semitism

Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town, has incurred the wroth of many uninformed members of the Jewish Community in Minnesota. The attacks on this great humanitarian and patron of the Holocaust Centre in Cape Town is unjustified. He was one of the great leaders in the war against apartheid and racism of all forms in South Africa. He was active in establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission – whose purpose was to bring all the races of South Africa together by admitting their crimes towards each other and asking for forgiveness. He described the people of South Africa as the “Rainbow Nation” because of their diversity. He had played an incredible role for uniting this diversity of peoples into a united South African patriotism.

He won the Noble Peace Prize for his activities in 1984 and justly so. What is it that causes many Zionists in the US to oppose Archbishop Tutu’s visit to the Minnesota University of St Thomas to give a lecture? Tutu had been slated to visit the University of St. Thomas next spring as part of a program that brings Nobel laureates to teach youth about peace and justice. But university administrators, after consulting with Minnesota Jewish leaders, concluded that Tutu has made hurtful comments about Israel and the Jewish people that rendered him inappropriate as a speaker. "Desmond Tutu is an anti-Semite who hates Jews and is obsessed with demeaning and smearing the Jewish state," said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America.

The time has come for many Zionists to realize that Israel is no “paragon of virtue” and is not beyond criticism for human rights violations of Palestinians in the occupied territories. Apart from that, Morton Klein has made a statement about Desmond Tutu that is a total lie and proves that he (Morton Klein) belongs to a group of paranoiac Zionists who views criticism of Israel as being anti-Semitic. How pathetic! Has Morton Klein ever lived in Israel? Those who live in Israel and experience Israel’s policies not only towards the Palestinians, but also to its own citizens, are in a better position to judge Israel’s behaviour than a Diaspora Zionist whose naïve sentiments are a fool’s paradise and totally devoid of reality.

This ridiculous storm in a tea cup arose when Julie Swiler, the public affairs director for the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, discovered a speech he delivered in Boston in 2002 in which he compared the power of the "Jewish lobby" to Hitler, and Israeli policies to those of the South African apartheid regime. This is inaccurate. She was quoting an article that appeared in The Guardian on Monday, April 29^th 2002 called “Apartheid in the Holy Land”, where Tutu said, “People are scared in this country [the US], to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? For goodness sake, this is God's world! We live in a moral universe. The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.”

Only in the wildest stretch of the paranoiac imagination, could one view this statement as being anti-Semitic. If one were to read this article in its entirety rather than quoting out of context then the conclusion that this article is anti-Semitic would be seen to be untrue. How could Archbishop Desmond Tutu be viewed as an anti-Semite when he is the patron of the Cape Town Holocaust Centre? It is not even a paradox! The idea of this humanitarian being anti-Semitic is ridiculous just because he criticized Israel’s occupation policies.

In the same article he stated the following: “In our struggle against apartheid, the great supporters were Jewish people. They almost instinctively had to be on the side of the disenfranchised, of the voiceless ones, fighting injustice, oppression and evil. I have continued to feel strongly with the Jews. I am patron of a Holocaust centre in South Africa. I believe Israel has a right to secure borders.

What is not so understandable, not justified, is what it did to another people to guarantee its existence. I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about”.

Are these words the words of an anti-Semite? Of course the situation between Israel and the Palestinians is different to that in apartheid South Africa; there are some parallels because of the security situation. This has resulted in the suffering of many innocent Palestinians. It may be argued that Desmond Tutu may not be aware of the extent of the suicide bombings and Palestinian violence directed against Israelis which has resulted in Israel taking such drastic measures to protect its citizens. Every country has the right to protect its citizens from terrorist organizations, including Israel. It is an unfortunate fact that the innocent suffer with the guilty.

One must remember that Israel’s greatest mistake after the Six Day War of June 1967 was colonizing the occupied territories. Do I sense raised eyebrows at this statement? Israel had encouraged Jewish settlement beyond the 1967 borders after the Six Day War. This very act in itself is indicative of colonization despite Israel’s claim to the contrary. Israel was not prepared to keep the territories on hold as a bargaining chip for an agreement with the Palestinians to end hostilities and sign a peace agreement. Perhaps the famous Khartoum Resolution of 1^st September 1967 gave Israel “the green light” in its own eyes to proceed with colonization of the occupied territories and all that it entailed. This was because there was no desire for the Arab states to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel. It was not Israel’s intention to remove settlements from the occupied territories once established. No country settles people if it intends to uproot them again in an agreement. This would be self-defeating. Settlements are established permanently. What has been achieved today in peace negotiations with the Palestinians? Delaying tactics and beating about the bush is Israel’s method of negotiating. It is unlikely that there would be a unilateral disengagement of the West Bank as was the case in Gaza. This tactic will result in failure of the Peace Conference due to be held in Annapolis in November 2007.

When Israel colonized the occupied territories, many Palestinians were displaced from their homes. The land for Jewish settlement comes from Palestinian lands. These settlers are very often religious zealots who have come to colonize with the Torah as their guide. Their desire for “ethnic cleansing” of the land they occupied by displacing the Palestinians cannot be denied. The weak has to pay the price for the strong. These religious zealots are not angels.

This is what Archbishop Desmond Tutu meant in his article. For this he was accused of being an anti-Semite!

Fortunately, reason won the day for Archbishop Desmond Tutu. On Tuesday, 9^th October 2007, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, sent the university's president, the Rev. Dennis Dease, a letter urging the school to reissue its invitation to Tutu. The next day, Dease announced he was reversing himself after he decided to cancel the invitation because of pressure from Zionist Jewish groups who felt that Tutu made anti-Semitic statements.

"I have wrestled with what is the right thing to do in this situation, and I have concluded that I made the wrong decision earlier this year not to invite the archbishop," Dease said in a statement. "Although well-intentioned, I did not have all of the facts and points of view, but now I do."

News of the university's initial decision to drop Tutu prompted uproar and revived claims that some Jewish groups seek to quash public criticism of Israel.

University officials did not say whether Foxman's letter affected Dease's decision, but they said he had received a steady stream of phone calls and e-mails when the story broke last week.

In an interview with JTA on Tuesday 9^th October 2007, Foxman explained his thinking.

"Tutu has certainly been an outspoken, sometimes very harsh critic of Israel and Israeli policies, and has sometimes also used examples which may cross the line," the ADL leader said. But, he added, Tutu "certainly is not an anti-Semite and should not be so characterized and therefore refused a platform."

Coming just weeks after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was invited to Columbia University, the controversy over Tutu, an icon of the peaceful struggle against apartheid, has become the latest point of contention in what is shaping up to be a fierce season of Middle East controversy on campus.

Tutu has condemned suicide terrorism against Israel and recognized the Jewish state's right to secure boundaries. He has spoken admiringly about the Jewish role in fighting apartheid, though he has also noted Israel's alliance with the apartheid South African government. He was even honored in 2003 by Yeshiva University's law school with an award for promoting world peace.

Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League deserves praise for his balanced approach and returned reason to this ridiculous accusation of Archbishop Desmond Tutu as an anti-Semite.

Is a Binational State for Two Peoples a Solution to the Conflict?

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to be a smoldering problem in the Middle East and remains a threat to the stability of the region. The world today has become a smaller place – a global village. The ramifications of what happens in this region affect the stability of the world. There are still no signs that a solution to this conflict is at hand. The US has decided to hold a peace conference in November with the participation of Israel and Palestine as well as invitations to the moderate Arab states in the region. There does not seem to be any enthusiasm or any hint of a breakthrough. There are attempts between Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and Palestine’s President Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a working paper to turn the conference into a success in deeds rather than rhetoric.

There has been much discussion over the years on the issue of a binational state for Israelis and Palestinians as well as a two state solution for both peoples. The trend today, (this has overwhelming support by the US, EU, UN and Russia) is support for the latter.

Despite this, it would be worthwhile discussing both possibilities openly and objectively considering the pros and cons of both the binational state and two state solutions.

While there is frustration on both sides of the great divide because of lack of progress and the cycle of terror between the two sides resulting in lack of trust between them. However, the situation between Israelis and Palestinians, if it does not improve, will slide into further violence which could inflame the whole Middle East and further beyond. Another important factor which has been mentioned many times and remains the crux of the conflict is the failure of many Arab states including elements in the Palestinian camp such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and their allies to recognize Israel’s right to exist. The conflict, unfortunately is not only about Israeli occupation, but also about the legitimacy of a non-Moslem state (Israel) existing in the Middle East amongst its Arab neighbours.

It is well known that the establishment of Israel in 1948 resulted in rejoicing for the Jewish people after centuries of suffering heartless anti-Semitism in the Diaspora culminating in the Holocaust of the Nazi Period under Hitler. For the indigenous inhabitants of the area – the Palestinians – this was Al Naqba – the “catastrophe” or “great tragedy”. Because of the War of Independence an Arab refugee problem was created as many Palestinians fled their homes and has remained a problem until this day. These people have been housed in refugee camps under conditions of extreme poverty beyond Israel’s borders and no solution has been found. Three generations of refugees have grown up in this squalor and their hatred for Israel has increased as a result. There had been no attempt to solve this problem and it has remained a political football since Israel’s establishment.

Today there are signs of pragmatism amongst moderate Arab states towards recognizing Israel’s right to exist, but this is dependent on solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the refugee problem, including the right of return of refugees to their original homes prior to Israel’s establishment. Failure to achieve this could result in Islamist extremism to take further hold of the poverty stricken people in the region and would result in Iran gaining more influence by financing extremist Islamist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Al Qaeda could also become more dangerous by establishing terror cells in the area as well as in many countries of the world.

These frustrations could spur the warring parties to find a solution or it could result in further conflagrations and continuing spirals of violence.

There are three possible solutions:

1. A binational state for both Israelis and Palestinians

2. A binational confederation concerning a three-state network.

3. A two state solution - each people living in its own state.

Let us examine the binational state solution. This is the establishment of a common state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This would comprise one democratic state whereby the Palestinian Arabs will be given citizenship and an equal status with the Jewish and Arab citizens of present-day Israel. This state should be secular being neither Jewish nor Moslem. There would be no ruling by Sharia (Moslem law) or Halacha (Jewish law) in this state. In order to achieve this, both Palestinians and Israelis will have to change their basic ideas and be prepared to have total separation of religion and state. This does not mean that there will be no religion at all. Each religious group will be responsible for running its own religious affairs and will be given government support in this. However, safeguards must be introduced for preventing the domination of one religious group by another. All religions will have equal status and have their interest represented under one cabinet minister – the Minister of Religion, who will attend to the necessities of the various religious groups. The Minister of Religion could serve on a rotation basis between Jews, Moslems and Christians.

The idea of a binational state has been discussed as early as the 1920’s.

In 1925, Martin Buber in Germany and Judah Magnes in Palestine established Brit Shalom (Covenant of Peace) to promote Jewish-Arab understanding in Palestine. Brit Shalom, which functioned until 1933, stood on a platform of creating "a binational state in which the two peoples will enjoy equal rights as befits the two elements shaping the country's destiny, irrespective of which of the two is numerically superior at any given time" (from their first publication Our Aspirations, 1927). It had a few hundred members, mostly European-born intellectuals like Buber and the journalist Robert Weltsch. Albert Einstein was sympathetic to its vision. The general concept of binationalism was to be adopted by other minority Zionist groups, like Hashomer Hatzair and Mapam, Kedmah Mizracha, the Ichud and the League for Jewish-Arab Rapprochement. (From Wikipedia)

The binational state theory in today’s context could solve many problems between Israel and the Palestinians. The refugee problem would be easier to solve as the refugees would have the right of return to the binational democratic state.

The nature of the binational state could be a federation called “The Federation of Israel and Palestine”.

Professor Lama Abu-Odeh of Georgetown University, in her article “The Case for Binationalism”,states that “the two-state solution has already lost a great deal of its historic appeal. The political events and institutions subsequent to the Oslo Accords of 1993—all the painful renegotiation and implementation leading to the second intifada—are to my mind responsible for the shifting enthusiasm.¹ The period since Oslo has revealed the "unrepresentativeness" of the Palestinian Authority; it has not generated meaningful territorial gains; and it has not resulted in any progress on the crucial question of the return of refugees. Moreover, developments since Oslo have raised serious questions about the attractions of a separate state as a vehicle for expressing Palestinian aspirations and advancing Palestinian interests. Thus we have seen the development of social and economic "structural dependency" between Israel and the Palestinian regions; the emergence of "overlapping domains of national consciousness" due to factors such as daily labor movement to and from Israel; and the emergence of a new Palestinian national elite that shares economic interests with the Israeli state apparatus”.

She also states that the failure of the Oslo Accords makes it worthwhile to reconsider the idea of binationalism. .

Professor Abu-Odeh continues: “Binationalism in this context expresses the idea that the land of Mandate Palestine should be transformed into a secular state—a constitutional-liberal state, with Arabs and Jews as its national citizens. Its famous maxim is "One Land for Two Peoples" and its most famous proponents are the Palestinian American writer Edward Said and Azmi Bishara, (a Palestinian-Israeli member of the Israeli Knesset at the time this article was written). The advocates of binationalism typically distinguish it from the more familiar two-state solution, according to which two states, one Israeli and the other Palestinian, are imagined to coexist next to each other. It is also, of course, sharply distinguished from the current situation, in which a recognizable Israeli state coexists with disparate, partially autonomous, Palestinian areas within the West Bank and Gaza strip, while the remainder of the latter areas remains under the control of the Israeli army, whether its inhabitants are Palestinians, or Jews living in the largely isolated colonies commonly known as settlements”.

The decision to move towards a binational state depends on the desire of both parties to the conflict to achieve that goal. It is highly unlikely that it would be acceptable to the Israelis because mainstream Israel sees it as a threat to Jewish aspirations for a homeland for the Jewish People where the Jews are in the majority. Also there is no trust between Jewish Israelis and Palestinians when one considers the bitter history between the two peoples which is full of violence, terror and hate.

Mainstream Palestinians would not accept this either as it would be a threat to Moslem hegemony and their identity as Palestinians. For binationalism to survive or gain support there must be trust between the two peoples so that there could be a lower common denominator of desire to make it work. Both sides would have to work towards a single nation status that is secular in character with both sides striving for the same aspirations of a common statehood. At present there is no such desire from either side each having their own reasons not to support this binational concept.

Jerome M. Segal (a senior research scholar at the University of Maryland's Center for International and Security Studies, and the president of The Jewish Peace Lobby), suggests a binational confederation as opposed to a binational state as proposed by Professor Abu-Odeh. He talks about a three-state framework which at the same time preserves the Jewish character of the State of Israel. It seeks to use the idea of a binational state and a confederation to give Israelis and Palestinians who wish to be citizens of a binational state an opportunity to do so. It offers a way for some refugees to return to lands within current Israel without threatening the demographic balance among Israeli citizens. It further offers a way of circumventing the problem of Israelis' and Palestinians' sovereign claims to the Old City and its religious sites. And it may provide a way of dealing with the long-term demographic challenges facing a Jewish state that aspires to the values of democracy. This idea has the same problems as Abu-Odeh’s idea. For any of these ideas to be accepted there must be total trust between the two sides as well as a desire to recognize each others right to exist and all that it entails.

While the basis for this kind of arrangement is non-existent between both sides, the alternative of a two state solution remains the only viable alternative. Even this alternative does not have the total support of both Israelis and Palestinians. The former talks about giving op territory but does not give any concrete ideas of how to achieve this because there is no leadership in Israel or in the Palestinian camp who are serious about true negotiations. Both sides are beating about the bush and getting nowhere fast. Abu Mazen, the Palestinian leader, has Hamas breathing down his neck preventing any progress in peace negotiations while Ehud Olmert has his right wing coalition partners breathing down his neck preventing Olmert from making any real concessions to the Palestinians apart from a few cosmetic gestures such as limited prisoner releases of prisoners “without blood on their hands”. Both parties are in a “Catch 22” situation with both the Palestinians and Israelis being impotent bystanders.

Uri Avnery, a veteran left wing peacenik and a great supporter of peace, coexistence, and a Palestinian State alongside Israel in a thought-provoking article The Bi-national State: The Wolf Shall Dwell With The Lamb , disagrees with the binational idea. He sees the dismemberment of the communist bloc into sovereign nationalistic states where the indigenous peoples are rediscovering their national heritage and their religion that goes with it. This he views as a world-wide trend. The molding of nationalist groups seeking their identity into a binational state with a common heritage is doomed to failure.

He states: “The immediate roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are more than a hundred years. A fifth generation has been born into it and its mental world has been shaped by it. It is a clash between the Zionist movement and the Arab-Palestinian national movement. After a hundred years, the force of Zionism is far from exhausted. Its main thrust – expansion, occupation and settlement – is in full, offensive swing. On the Palestinian side, nationalism (including the Islamic version) is deepening and growing from martyr to martyr. It takes real faith to believe that these two nationalistic peoples will give up the essence of their hopes and turn from total enmity to total peace, giving up their national narratives and being ready to live together as supra-national citizens”.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have national aspirations. These aspirations of identity cannot be viewed as a common identity. The Palestinians wish to have a viable state where they can realize their aims of patriotism no less than the Israelis. Both sides do not have anything in common or desire that would move the two peoples together towards a binational state.

Mahmoud Ahmadinajad’s Columbia University Speech

Much has been written and discussed about Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, the President of Iran. The speech that he gave at Columbia University adds further grist to the mill of the credibility of this notorious, self-righteous dictator. He has made no bones about his desire for Israel’s destruction at almost every opportunity granted to him. He started his speech with a “soft-serve” technique, trying to win the hearts of his audience. He is an expert at rhetoric and camouflage of his true intentions. His evasion of loaded questions was so blatant that the intelligent listener could be left in no doubt as to the half-truths that were part of his speech.

Perhaps it was a good idea of the university president, Lee Bollinger, contrary to what many think, to have invited this undesirable, notorious, Iranian dictator to address an audience at Columbia University. By giving Ahmadinajad a platform for his speech, the American people can judge this unsavory character for what he really is and treat him with the contempt that he deserves.

He started his speech by quoting from the Koran, which was out of context. A lot of the speech was a sort of preamble about research – pointed remarks leading up to his views to further research the irrefutable facts concerning the Holocaust. He was trying to tell his audience almost apologetically that he does not deny the Holocaust but it needs to be further researched. The bottom line of that is obvious. He wishes to deny the Holocaust in a rather obtuse way to make the denial acceptable.

Assuming (in Ahmadinajad’s view) that the Holocaust did occur, Israel has no right to be established on the backs of the Palestinians. This point is odd and contradictory in Ahmadinajad’s “logic”. In other words, Ahmadinajad believes that the Holocaust resulted in Israel’s unjustified existence and this resulted in Palestinian suffering. He never referred to Israel but rather to the Zionist enemy. The point is that Ahmadinajad is not a Holocaust denier in the true sense of the word. He even stated that. He is using the Holocaust cynically to justify Israel’s destruction thereby negating his ambiguous approach to classical Holocaust denial.

Those people who admire Ahmadinajad for standing up against the US must understand that this despot is no democrat, liberal or even a leftist. He is not a humanist that cares about human rights. His views are closer to classical fascism. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing that does not care about the Palestinian people at all. According to Ahmadinajad:

“After all, it happened in Europe. The Palestinian people had no role to play in it. So why is it that the Palestinian people are paying the price of an event they had nothing to do with?

The Palestinian people didn't commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II. They were living with the Jewish communities and the Christian communities in peace at the time. They didn't have any problems.

And today, too, Jews, Christians and Muslims live in brotherhood all over the world in many parts of the world. They don't have any serious problems.

But why is it that the Palestinians should pay a price, innocent Palestinians, for 5 million people to remain displaced or refugees abroad for 60 years. Is this not a crime? Is asking about these crimes a crime by itself?

Why should an academic myself face insults when asking questions like this? Is this what you call freedom and upholding the freedom of thought?

And as for the second topic, Iran's nuclear issue, I know there is time limits, but I need time. I mean, a lot of time was taken from me.

We are a country, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency. For over 33 years we are a member state of the agency. The bylaw of the agency explicitly states that all member states have the right to the peaceful nuclear fuel technology. This is an explicit statement made in the bylaw, and the bylaw says that there is no pretext or excuse, even the inspections carried by the IAEA itself that can prevent member states' right to have that right.

Of course, the IAEA is responsible to carry out inspections. We are one of the countries that carried out the most amount of level of cooperation with the IAEA. They have had hours, weeks, and days of inspections in our country, and repeatedly the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran -- they have received positive cooperation from Iran.

But regretfully, two or three monopolistic powers, selfish powers want to force their word on the Iranian people and deny them their right. “

He uses Palestinian hardships cynically in order to justify his hate for Israel and the US. As regards the Palestinians, the following post puts it concisely:

“Neither Bollinger, Nor Ahmadinajad. I watched some of Ahmadinajad show at Columbia University. It was carried live on MSNBC. I don't know where to start and I don't have the time. But let me first say something about the university president Lee Bollinger. The same Zionist hoodlums, who just yesterday were attacking Bollinger, will be praising him tomorrow morning. They will express their pride in one of the most demagogic college presidents in the US. As one commentator on MSNBC (and FOX News) said: he succeeding in making Ahmadinajad look good on US TV. He allowed Ahmadinajad to score points, among the international audience in particular. Bollinger always came across, not as president of a university, but like a typical sleazy politician who is willing to say anything, to pander to any crowd, provided it kept him in his job, or propelled him to a better job. He came across as small and presumptuous: especially when he claimed to speak on behalf of the civilized world. Bollinger has proven at Columbia to be the enemy of free speech: and when a professor at his university (Joseph Massad), was coming under attack from Zionist hoodlums around the country, he in fact spoke in favor of restricting freedom of speech, and said that freedom of speech applies in public institutions. And this Bollinger tries to grandstand: would he also have the courage to call King Abdullah (of Jordan or of Saudi Arabia--take your pick) a dictator? I can see him personally bestowing honors and awarding honorary doctorates to dictators provided they contribute to Columbia's endowment, and provided they follow US foreign policy orientations. As for Ahmadinajad: I don't understand why students (presumably leftists? or pro-Palestinian activists?) were applauding him. For what? Ahmadinajad is not a leftist and he does not even deserve the support of advocates for Palestine. If those who were applauding were just pleased to hear praise for the Palestinians and criticisms of Israel--rare indeed in the US--they should know that fascists and Nazis are often critical of Israel--but from their own anti-Semitic perspective. There is nothing worthy of leftist support in Ahmadinajad: the economic policies of his administration have squeezed the poor further, and his economic policies are not popular with the Iranian masses. More importantly, those who may sympathize with Ahmadinajad should note that his stupid and ignorant statements on the holocaust have hurt the Palestinian cause and not helped it. Ahmadinajad is the greatest gift to Zionist propaganda since Ahmad Shuqayri in the 1960s.”

Ahmadinajad made a rather surprising statement that defies all logic. He stated that there are no homosexuals in Iran and therefore there is no problem with homosexuality. Strange! According to Ahmadinajad, the Iranians must be some sort of a super human race if homosexuality does not exist in Iran! If a president of a country can make such an over-generalization surely this should be a red light as to his credibility even when he talks about the “marvelous democracy and rule of law” existing in Iran under his leadership.

The tragedy in Iran is its president – a total megalomaniac – who is dangerous and untruthful. His lies are so transparent that anybody can see through them. Like Hitler, he has the gift of rabblerousing the unfortunate and disguising his evil intentions. This is especially true when he talks about the Palestinian’s plight for which he does not really care.

This tyrant has been talking about human rights abuses, but not a word about human rights abuses in his own country against Iranians who do not think like him. He is a master of deception and lies. According to Amnesty International:

“Violations of human rights continue unabated in Iran. Amnesty International “again” called on the Iranian authorities to uphold their obligations under international law and ensure that no one is detained for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression or association.

Paris, 15 Jul. (IPS) Amnesty International and other human rights organizations expressed concern at the increasing violations and disregards of the Iranian Islamic regime for human rights, freedom of the press and the civil society, as seen by the recent closure of two pro reform newspapers and one news agency, the arrest of several women activists, 16 students and a popular union leader, described by the authorities as “hooligans”.

In a statement, the London based Amnesty International said it “is greatly concerned by continuing human rights violations in Iran, including new arrests of human rights defenders and the high rate of executions, including the first execution by stoning confirmed by the authorities since a moratorium on stonings was announced in 2002”.

For its part, the Paris-based Reporters Sans Frontieres (Reporters Without Borders) “deplored the arbitrary and repressive methods of a regime whose Culture Minister recently accused the media of promoting a “creeping coup” against the government”.

In its statement, Amnesty International “again” called on the Iranian authorities to uphold their obligations under international law and ensure that no one is detained for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom of expression or association, and to impose an immediate moratorium on all executions and take steps to remove the death penalty from Iranian law.

Human rights defenders arrested

Two Iranian Kurdish journalists and human rights defenders were arrested earlier this month. Mohammad Sadiq Kabudvand, Chair of the Kurdistan Human Rights Organization (RMMK), was taken from his workplace in Tehran by plain-clothed security officers on 1 July. He was facing a one-year prison sentence because of articles he had published in the now banned Payam-e Mardom-e Kurdestan (Message of the People of Kurdistan), but it is not clear if this is the reason for his current detention.
Ajlal Qavami, a member of the RMMK board and former journalist of Payam-e Mardom-e Kurdestan and member of the editorial board of the bilingual weekly Didgah (Viewpoint), was arrested on or around 9 July after being summoned to the Revolutionary Court in Sanandaj. He had previously been sentenced to three years' imprisonment by Branch 1 of the Revolutionary Court in Sanadaj for organizing a demonstration in July 2005 in protest at the killing of Showan Qaderi, a member of the Kurdish minority, by security forces. He had appealed against this sentence but his appeal is reported to have been rejected, although this outcome had not been communicated to either Ajlal Qavami or his lawyer before Ajlal Qavami's arrest.
Sa'id Sa'edi, another Kurdish journalist who was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment in the same case, may also now be at risk of arrest.”

Is this despot worthy of Palestinian support?

The Direction of Judaism in Israel

For many of us in Israel, the approach of the High Holydays leaves us with a certain sense of frustration. This is very true of those immigrants who have arrived from Western Countries, more so than immigrant Jews from Middle Eastern countries has. Speaking as one, who arrived from South Africa more than 30 years ago, and who was brought up in a liberal home that fought apartheid and racism in all its forms. We prided ourselves on ethics that Judaism had taught us, even though our life-style was secular. We were always aware of our history as Jews, the racism that Jews suffered over the centuries and culminating in the Nazi holocaust. Somehow, arriving in Israel, I realized that the practice of Judaism is under the realm of orthodox rabbinical, religious party bigots of all forms and sizes. The lack of tolerance for pluralism in Judaism had made a deep dent in religious freedom.

Now with Rosh Hashanah (New Year) upon us, this has become evident more and more. All that remains of religious freedom is the right not to go to synagogue. The official Orthodox Jewish status quo is one of intolerance towards the more liberal streams of Judaism. I think of the Conservative and the Progressive (Reform) streams of Judaism that are viewed as illegitimate. Their rabbis have no rights in marrying couples who do not wish to marry in the Orthodox Jewish tradition and all it entails. Pluralism in Judaism is unrecognized in the official Orthodox Jewish camp which has tremendous powers and decides on the eternal “Who is a Jew” and does not recognize reform or conservative conversions.

The intolerant Orthodox Judaism camp is what decides the Jewish character of the state of Israel. Those who do not agree are pushed into the margins. These attitudes have resulted in many liberal-minded Jews being pushed out of the Jewish observance fold. Orthodox Jewish congregations do receive subsidies from the government. Conservative and Reform Judaism are much maligned, relying on donations from their sympathizers.

The rigid orthodox practices have become the monopoly of self-styled rabbis - graduates of yeshivas, which are narrow in their scope of learning in contrast to the rabbinical schools and universities in the Diaspora where rabbis receive a broad based education and attain university degrees in Judaism. Some rabbis who wield the power are very often associated with narrow Orthodox religious parties such as the Sephardic Shas Party, headed by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, whose Halacha (Jewish Law) rulings, many of which are narrow, have a great influence amongst the economically deprived Sephardic Jews, whose origins are from North Africa and other Arab countries. He often makes comments that are cruel and out of place against his opponents including curses of hell and brimstone towards political opponents such as the well-known ex-Knesset Member, Yossi Sarid. After that he needs “expert commentators” (of which there are many in his camp of bigots) to give a “learned” explanation as to what he really meant after he had made libelous statements against his opponents to avoid court cases of slander.

Apart from that, there are many “cults” in orthodoxy, many of which have attracted the newly religious to their fold and who have become fanatic in their beliefs. These orthodox streams have all kinds of rabbis from yeshivas of dubious origins, whose influence amongst the newly-religious are great. Many of these newly-religious come from broken homes, involved in petty crime or were drug addicts; their emphasis is on reading tehillim (psalms) all day and praying at every opportunity. Almost every moment of their lives is involved in some kind of religious personal ceremony of some kind and quoting from some oft-quoted biblical source or Talmud, as stipulated by their rabbis whom they hero-worship, in order to gain further candidates to their newly found belief in God. There are a number of orthodox streams, who engage in this form of returning the wayward to the fold. A case in point is the various Hasidic (pious) groups. Many of these self-styled “rabbis” are materialistic. They take advantage of the poor, and economically disadvantaged, who seek help and a promise of a better life. Naturally, they expect a financial donation for their dubious services. Their activities are noticeable at the so-called tombs of Tzadikim (righteous people or martyrs) where they sell their folklore cures laced with blessings.

However, the message portrayed by these groups as well as many state orthodox institutions is very similar. Many view non-Jews as anti-Semites who must be treated with a wide berth. They have an insatiable hate for Arabs and have a strong belief in holding onto territory captured in the Six Day War of June 1967. This is true of religious orthodox right wing Zionists who see these captured territories as Greater Israel that belongs to the Jews as a right. Elements of these people are found in the settler movements living in the heart of Hebron and elsewhere in the occupied territories.

Conservative and Progressive Judaism are considered unacceptable and they do not recognize these movements as legitimate. They see these movements as a threat to their hegemony and the future of the Jewish People. The orthodox establishment has enormous powers in Israel. They are not known for tolerance towards those who do not follow their line.

They have estranged many Jews who left the fold for a secular way of life. The Jewish ethic of “Love they Neighbour as thyself” has received a very narrow interpretation in Orthodox Judaism Israeli style. This ethos has been changed to “Love thy Jewish Neighbour as thyself” and in practice one is not left in any doubt of that. The Conservative and Reform Movements in Judaism are more in keeping with the true spirit of Judaism rather than the Orthodox which has become clerical, intolerant and even racist. They wish to maintain their power by influencing the government in a sort of blackmail in order to gain their support.

Wishing all Moslem readers Ramadan Kareem and a Successful Fast.

Wishing all Jewish readers a Happy New Year and Well Over the Fast.

The New Year Is Upon Us

At this time of the year many Jews, secular as well as religious, review the previous year. Many ask themselves what went wrong in their personal lives as well as the collective lives of all. It is a period of soul searching. Apart from the shopping rush for the annual New Year family feast with apples dipped in honey, resolutions and wishes are made. Many resolutions are personal and involve some desire for a better life and self improvement in one’s relationship with one’s family, friends and neighbours.

This year, the Muslim Fast of Ramadan also begins on the eve of Rosh Hashanah (New Year). This fast will last for a month from sunrise to sunset and the motive is not different from the Jewish motive of repentance. Here both great monotheistic faiths are calling for the same human desires of self-improvement.

Surely we should add more substance in our common goals, Jewish as well as Muslim, of trying to make a greater effort for peace and understanding between our two peoples and this of course includes Israelis and Palestinians. Both peoples, Israelis as well as Palestinians have not been behaving humanely towards each other.

The threat of Palestinian terror over the last year has been on Israel’s doorstep. This includes the constant Qassam rocket fire into Sderot in southern Israel. Many families living in Sderot are in fear of their lives. Their lives are disrupted because of warning sirens of Qassams falling. Kindergartens have been hit and it was just a matter of luck that there were no children there at the time. The logic behind the Hamas and Islamic Jihad support of this form of terror is difficult to fathom. These two Islamist extremist terrorist groups are uncompromising in their hate for Israel and the Jewish people. Their desire is total destruction of the Jewish state and its people. The firing of Qassam rockets is just one of the symptoms of their desire to achieve this. Negotiations for peace and coexistence are not in their lexicon.

Nevertheless, the silent majority in both the Israeli and Palestinian camps wish to achieve peace. It is up to both our peoples to make our voices heard in this direction.

We, the ordinary people, Palestinian and Israeli, have not done enough to improve the atmosphere for peace. Peace is good for everybody. Peace is also security for everybody. Peace will also provide job opportunities for everybody as outside world business entrepreneurs would show more readiness to invest in both Israel and Palestine. Israelis and Palestinians could set an example to the world about conflict solving. It is a matter of good will and building trust. Perhaps here the South African example of reconciliation could be emulated.

Despite the severe differences in apartheid South Africa and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, similarities in conflict solving could be adopted. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, as initiated by Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, could be used as a role model. Naturally modifications to suit the situation in this conflict would be necessary. The Palestinian leadership, whether under Hamas or Fatah, should show a basic desire to come to terms with Israel’s existence and cease terror operations. The former has not come to terms with Israel’s existence and their manifesto states that very clearly. The latter has come to terms with Israel’s existence, but they are weak.

Israel, on the other hand, has also increased Palestinian suffering by the inhuman security check posts and humiliating body searches. Many innocent Palestinians are suffering because they have tremendous difficulties in traveling to work in their own lands because of the check posts.

However, there is slight cause for optimism in the Israeli legal system. According to a report in Haaretz, 5^th September 2007, the High Court of Justice ordered the state to redraw, partially dismantle and rebuild the route of a 1.7 kilometer section of the West Bank separation fence, which was built on land belonging to Bil'in, a Palestinian village which has become a focus of opposition to the barrier. This illustrates that the High Court of Justice was not oblivious to legitimate Palestinian claims of a travesty of justice in the route of the security fence surrounding Bil’in. If the judges ruled in favor of the Palestinians on this issue, there is room for optimism in the Israeli legal system. They cannot be accused of being pro-Palestinian even by the right wing elements in Israel.

The internal situation in Israel has been marred by corruption and even sexual scandals in government. The year started with so many unpleasant examples of corruption that it has become impossible to record all the examples in chronological order as many incidents occurred simultaneously. Is this the new modern Zionism? In a previous article, I wrote about the incidents of corruption. The accountant-general, Dr. Yaron Zelekha, has made some embarrassing discoveries about the running of state and PM Olmert’s personal affairs. He has been carrying on a personal vendetta against state corruption. This has cost him his job because of his whistle blowing activities. He has exposed the prime minister’s questionable activities as well as the activities of many other Members of the Knesset. The cover up has started and there will be more of the same in the coming year.

Those who seem to have the power and influence in this country are the new “moneybags of Israel”. An example of such is the multimillionaire Arcady Gaidemak. He is buying influence with his money in all kinds of projects. He is a major influence. He has managed to get into high places hobnobbing with the rulers of Israel by influencing decision-making with his money. Surely his influence is a threat to democracy in Israel and the rule of law. He is also under investigation for financial irregularities and money laundering. It would not be surprising if he will be elected Israel’s “Man of the Year”. He has won the hearts of many people who have benefited from his charitable donations.

Israel’s leadership today is poor and the alternatives offered are no better. There are no signs of new leadership potential in the next year. There will be competition between two “has beens” Benjamin Netanyahu, an ex-Prime Minister and Finance Minister, who attempted to bring the Israeli economy out of the doldrums on the backs of economically weak Israelis while leaving the rich unaffected by cuts in salary and budgetary cuts. He was also responsible for pushing up the retirement age from 65 years to 67 years in men and from 60 years to 62 years in the case of women. By doing this he saved the country money in paying out pensions, which created delays for young people entering the employment market. Does he deserve to be the next prime minister for the increased suffering he caused to the economically deprived? The alternative is Ehud Barak, the current Defense Minister and ex-Prime Minister. Both men left Israel for a couple of years to make money overseas before returning to politics for another bash at being given a second chance of re-election to the prime ministership despite their poor performance in that role. PM Olmert’s popularity is rock bottom and he has been tainted by suspected scandals of corruption. What we have is Hobson’s choice in leadership as both politicians have not achieved much during their tenure as prime minister. PM Olmert is also surrounded by a cartel of strange bedfellows such as Arcadi Gaydemak (the hidden persuader with unlimited finances), Abraham Hirschson (an ex finance minister who is about to stand trial for bribery, corruption and money laundering), Chaim Ramon (who French kissed a young girl soldier) and was rewarded by being appointed Vice Prime Minister (perhaps a new ministerial portfolio of Minister of Vice in his honour is more appropriate!). See what a French kiss can achieve in high places! High ranking government officials, such as Dr Yaron Zelehka, the accountant-general, who uncover scandals and corruption in high places, are fired.

Another “Israeli star” of the year is ex-President Moshe Katzav, who has had his rape charges shelved in a court settlement orchestrated by the attorney-general, Meni Mazuz. Where is this country heading in the New Year? Is it any wonder that peace with our Palestinian neighbours remains remote? Our biggest enemy is corruption and lack of direction. This does not bode well for the future of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the New Year.