Thursday, June 25, 2009
Michael Jackson passes
Singer, songwriter. Jackson was born August 29, 1958, in Gary, Indiana, to an African-American working-class family. His father, Joseph Jackson, had been a guitarist but had put aside his musical aspirations to provide for his family as a crane operator. Believing his sons had talent, he molded them into a musical group in the early 1960s. At first, the Jackson Family performers consisted of Michael’s older brothers Tito, Jermaine, and Jackie. Michael joined his siblings when he was five, and emerged as the group’s lead vocalist. He showed remarkable range and depth for such a young performer, impressing audiences with his ability to convey complex emotions. Older brother Marlon also became a member of the group, which evolved into the Jackson 5.
Michael died today, 25 June 2009 of a heart attack, he was aged 50. May his gentle soul rest in perfect bliss.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Africom for who?
STUTTGART, Germany — A social science research center is under development at U.S. Africa Command headquarters, where researchers from the academic world are being recruited to help map the complicated human terrain on the African continent.
The research center, which falls under AFRICOM’s knowledge development division, will be designed to focus on the long-term with an eye toward forecasting potential flashpoints and preventing them from developing into conflicts.
But mixing military and social science has long been a source of controversy, going all the way back to the Vietnam era when information collected by researchers was used for targeting people.
More recently, the Army’s Human Terrain System, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, has been met with resistance from groups such as the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, made up of social scientists opposed to the mingling of academia and the military.
Though defenders of the Human Terrain System argue that social scientists are providing information to commanders that potentially can reduce levels of violence, opponents say human terrain mapping benefits the U.S. military, not local populations.
As AFRICOM sets out to recruit and build its staff of social scientists, word is beginning to spread about the latest effort, and some professors are already expressing similar concerns.
"There is a contradiction between anthropology and AFRICOM or the U.S. military," said David Hughes, an environmental anthropologist from Rutgers University’s Center for African Studies.
Hughes, who participated in an interview for a position on the AFRICOM team — a position Hughes said he was never interested in but wanted to learn more about — contends that academic researchers shouldn’t accept employment with the Defense Department.
While pursuing national security interests is the military’s objective, "Our concern is to take the concerns of the subject first and foremost. It would be difficult to negotiate that conflict," he said.
For example, researching the degree of pro or anti-American sentiment in a given area and turning over those findings to the military could open to door to selective targeting of individuals, according to Hughes.
"Then I might immediately endanger my subjects. This is the sort of thing we don’t want to be involved in and facilitate," said Hughes, whose department has issued a statement vowing that it would not collaborate with the military’s efforts in Africa.
AFRICOM officials, however, say fears about militarizing social science are misplaced. So are comparisons between AFRICOM’s research center and the Human Terrain System, which embeds academics on the battlefield to provide cultural advice to commanders in support of their missions, officials said.
"We have no combat mission in Africa," said Col. Dean Bland, who is heading up AFRICOM’s research center effort and insists the social scientists would have no role in targeting people.
Rather, the academics will fill in gaps in knowledge and help commanders craft more effective programs, he said. For example, as military training initiatives are developed, having an awareness of the ethnic mixes and traditions in a given area would be valuable information, he said. Knowing when there’s a disenfranchised minority sub-group in a region also would be valuable as the military tries to anticipate flashpoints and prevent conflict, he said.
"You have to understand how societies tick to make better decisions," Bland said.
Examining the relationship between geography and environment, culture and politics, and how these factors can come together to create instability is a new approach to intelligence-gathering, Bland said.
The research center will deal largely in the unclassified realm. The intent is to work together with other think tanks, non-governmental organizations and release reports into the public domain, Bland said. Papers will be peer-reviewed and the work will be available for others working on the continent, he said.
Despite some early criticism in academia, recruiting hasn’t been a problem, Bland said.
Currently, about a dozen staffers are on board. Within six months, the knowledge development team is expected to be fully manned with 25 to 30 members. The majority will be based in Stuttgart. A team of about six people will be stationed at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where they will work closely with AFRICOM’s Combined Joined Task Force-Horn of Africa.
At times, the Germany-based members could deploy to the continent for short research missions.
The need for a research center, Bland said, boils down to the fact that there’s a lot the military doesn’t know regarding Africa — a continent of 53 countries, hundreds of languages, tribes and cultures.
Indeed, Africa is a place Americans generally know little about and tend to regard as one big country instead of a diverse continent of nearly one billion people, AFRICOM officials say.
Could AFRICOM’s social scientists help leaders anticipate events, such as the violence that followed last year’s elections in Kenya? Could they advise commanders on the potential destabilizing effects of global warming and desertification in certain regions? Could the next genocide be prevented?
That’s the goal, though measuring effectiveness will be difficult, Bland said.
"We’ll never know if we are successful, because if we do our job right, flashpoints will go away," Bland said.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Nigeria to go nuclear
DATELINE: Abuja. The Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s administration in Nigeria might have finally decided to take the bulls by the horn by deciding to acquire nuclear capabilities for various peaceful purposes, especially for the nation’s intractable power sector.
Zumarockreports.com has been reliably informed by inside sources at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that President Yar’Adua and President Dimitri Medvedev of Russia will in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital, on June 24, initial an agreement for the provision of nuclear technology to Nigeria.
President Medvedev who will be in Nigeria as part of an African business trip is expected to arrive here with about 300 prospective investors on his entourage will also initial other agreements with Nigerian officials.
A formal hint to Nigeria’s decision to acquire nuclear technology was dropped by the Minister of National Planning, Shamsudeen Usman, last week when he announced that Nigeria and 16 other African countries may soon start power generation from nuclear plants, under a power base diversification program being backed by the Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), adding that already IAEA has organized a regional training program for personnel from countries participating in the project.
President Medvedev’s historic visit to Nigeria will be the first time a Russian head of state would be visiting Africa. The trip will also take him to Angola, Namibia and Egypt.
Informed sources have told our correspondent that apart from the nuclear deal, another important reason for the Russian leader’s visit would be to seal agreements for the Russian involvement in Nigeria’s gas and petroleum sector through its giant Gazprom, which, as is being speculated may replace Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria.
Nigeria may have decided to terminate its contract with the Anglo-Dutch company for the development of an oil and gas deposit in the Ogoniland region of the Niger Delta, even after the company has made a huge pay-out to the Ogoni people for years of environmental degradation suffered by the communities.
Zumarockreports.com also learnt that Shell abandoned the fields, which hold proven reserves of over 10 trillion cubic meters (353 trillion cubic feet) of gas, 15 years ago after its relations with the Ogoni people reached its nadir, to the extent that Ogonis vowed to ensure that Shell never sets its feet on Ogoniland.
A hint to the possible involvement of the Russian energy giant, Gazprom in Nigeria’s booming energy sector was dropped about one year ago in South Africa by President Yar’Adua himself when he announced that, "by the end of the year another oil operator will take over Shell Petroleum interests in Ogoniland."
Earlier this year, Gazprom had confirmed negotiating a seven-billion dollar contract for offshore gas exploration with the Nigerian government. Earlier this month, Gazprom chief executive Alexei Miller, who will be on Medvedev’s delegation to Africa had met with the group managing director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation and Tanimu Yakubu, the chief economic adviser to the president, to discuss the details of the cooperation.
Look what they are doing to our world, that we may become zombies!
With the discovery of vaccines to eradicate polio, smallpox, diptheria, and other killers, and, the discovery of potent antibiotics, the last 50 years of the 20th Century heralded a hope for conquering disease by the 21st Century.
In the 1980's it was obvious that we would not conquer disease when we were challenged with the discovery of HIV and HCV.
The 1990's brought us the realization that our antibiotics would not be a panacea. Diseases formerly controlled by antibiotics were becoming resistant to the drugs. Diseases like TB were making a comeback and with a vengence.
Our climate is changing rapidly, and with this change, we are seeing emerging and re-emergiing diseases not endemic to the particular areas of outbreak.
Fall 1999, New York area experienced just such an event. A non endemic disease broke out in a "hot zone" in Northern Queens.
Was this altered strain a result of climate change or did it emerge from a Lab, Plum Island, Yale, or some other lab?
Plum Island is located less then 2 miles from the Eastern shore of Long Island, Orient Pt. It is less then 13 miles across Long Island Sound from our Submarine base at Groton, Ct. (Pathogens deemed too dangerous to enter via JFK, are brought via submarine and transferred to a Govt. Ferry to Plum Island.
Plum Island is a biolevel 5 facility. In 1996 SUNY Stoney Brook had been considering joint experiments with Plum Island, using the biolevel 4 lab at Plum Island.
Why then do we hear in the press, that Plum Island is seeking funds to upgrade from level 3 to a level 4 facility?
This request to "upgrade" to "bogus" level 4 came on the heels of the West Nile like outbreak. March 1999 and also. during the summer there were a sequence of power outages.
Some background on Plum is needed.
March 1999, Plum island installed an undersea fiberoptic cable. During the finalization of the cable, by STV Inc. all power to Plum Island was lost. Plum Island needs power to maintain biocontainment.
Plum Island has had a horrific safety violation record and has been cited by the EPA as late as Spring 1999.
In March 1999, the (now previous) Director, Alfonso Torres, gave his resignation. A new Director, Dr. LeeAnn Thomas, took over in July of 1999.
Some of the attached links prove that Plum is not a biolevel 3, but it is a biolevel 5 faciliity, one of only a few worldwide. According to Dr. Alfonso Torres and also Dr. Kiley of Plum Island, Plum Island is the only biolevel 5 facility in the US.
Why would Plum Island seek the bogus level 4 upgrade after the outbreak of the WNV? I do not have that answer.
It is theorized that Plum island needs funds just to maintain its present biocontainment. (according to Dr. Kiley 1998 meeting USAHA Committee on Government Relations.)
Plum Island had been working with Japanese Encephalitis since the early 1990's. Plum Island/Yale Scientists had even tested JE vaccine on HUMAN VOLUNTEERS.
Background: 1978 bioaccident. FMD microbes escaped. Workers were evacuated in paper coveralls, lab animals were incinerated and the island was sprayed with toxic chemicals. I have corresponded with a person who lived near Plum Island at that time, and claims to have contracted Foot and Mouth Disease, as was the case with other children at that time.
Was this same toxic spraying done March 1999 and other times when the power was out?
Yes, Plum Island has been working with JE as the above link proves. Why would an animal facility test JE vaccine on HUMAN VOLUNTEERS?
There has been a loss of the lobster population in Long Island Sound, Fall 1999.
Did installation of the STV Inc. Cable cause the hazardous waste that Plum Island was cited for illegally dumping in 1998 to be drudged up? Did this or toxic chemical spraying of the island cause the algal bloom to become toxic and thereby cause the killoff?
Why did the Mayor of the City of New York, OVER REACT, and spray deadly Malathion when he learned of 3 deaths of elderly people. He did not follow legal steps to obtain a permit for the spraying.
History of Plum Island:
In 1954 Ft. Terry, a biowar research facility closed its doors on that scruffy island. It handed over to the new lab, 134 strains of 13 viruses collected from every Continent of the World.
At that time, the prime directive of Plum Island, was to find an efficient manner to infect Soviet Livestock.
In 1969, President Nixon OFFICIALLY ended the biowar research program. Plum Island, officially, became an Animal Foreign Disease diagnostic facility.
The advent of the 21st Century has the world in fear of bioterrorism. Bioweapons are cheaply fabricated, easy to carry and undetectable.
Countries unable to fund expensive defense programs are able to put together an arsenol of bioweapons.
Individual terrorists are able to strike fear into the hearts and souls of Nations at just the mention of a bioweapon threat.
In 1993, after a 10 year hiatus, Dugway Proving Ground began bioresearch. In 1983, after a bioaccident which resulted in the anthrax death of sheep in neighboring pastures, Dugway had ended its biowar research. Now, 10 years later, in the name of biowar DEFENSE, Dugway opened for business without any opposition.
Dugway is testing BIDS (BioIntegrated Defense System). At first the tests were conducted in liquid with "designer" simulants anthrax, bottulism, plague and smallpox etal. Now, testing of the defensive weapon is aerosol.
The pathogens are (synthetic, a type of "designer" pathogen) deemed no more harmful then bacteria found in dirt.
Only time will tell, I guess.
Now, for a PLUM ISLAND UPDATE I now know why Plum Island is a biolevel 5 facility. In 1970, just one year after President Nixon officially ended our offensive biowar research, Plum Island was granted 10 million dollars by the Federal Govt. The purpose of the grant was to research the use of mycoplasma for use in germ warfare.
The original 10 million dollar grant was for a 5 year period. In 1975, the funding was continued as the mycoplasma research was deemed very successful.
In the 1980's a young scientist had just completed his graduate research at Cornell. He was hired by Plum Island to head up the mycoplasma research project.
This scientist was Dr. Jawad Al Aubaidi. When it was obvious that hostilities would break out in the Persian Gulf, he went back home to his native Iraq, where he headed up the mycoplasma research at the Univ. of Bagdad.
I have recently received a letter from Dr. Aubaidi's professor at Cornell, Dr. Carmichael. Dr. Carmichael pointed out that Dr. Aubaidi was a brilliant young researcher and a very nice person. He also sent me a medline reference sheet for me to look up Dr. Aubaidi's research prior to and while at Cornell.
I am still trying to figure out how Dr. Carmichael was able to locate my mailing address.
I had applied to the National Archives, under FOIA, for information on Ft. Terry, Plum Island, and information about Dr. Aubaidi and the circumstances of his untimely death.
I received a letter from the NSA dated June 5, 2000 regarding my FOIA request. They informed me that the circumstances of the death of Dr. Jawad Al-Aubaidi, and information on his research is classified in accordance with Executive Order 12958. My request for information was therefore denied. They further went on to state that such information would involve breaching National Security and Foreign Relations.
According to Prof. Garth Nicolson, Dr. Aubaidi was murdered by the Israelis. Yet, according to Dr. Carmichael, Dr. Aubaidi was hit by a truck when fixing a flat tire. Dr. Carmichael said that according to Dr. Aubaidi's wife, the flat tire and subsequent "Accident" was arranged by agents of Sadam. Were the Iraqis responsible for his death?
According to Cornell Univ. Dr. L. E. Carmichael, Dr. Aubaidi and his family were planning to move back to the US. At the time of Dr. Aubaidi's death, Dr. Carmichael states that Dr. Aubaidi's planned move back to the US was to take place a week after Dr. Aubaidi's accident.
According to Dr. Carmichael, Dr. Aubaidi deserves better. I therefore, am very interested in finding out exactly why Dr. Jawad Al Aubaidi was murdered in such a manner.
I could never understand how the US and the Pentegon could insist that biological agents were not used in the Persian Gulf. There was NO MONITORING FOR BIOLOGICALS in place during the Gulf War. There was only LIMITED Chemical weapon monitoring.
The BIDS moniitoring technology was not in place at that time. It only commenced in 1993.
According to accurate and verified accounts, Sadam Hussein purchased mycoplasma as well as other biologicals, which included West Nile Virus, from the US right up to 2 weeks before Desert Storm.
I have further discovered that Plum Island had projects in which "clean" ticks were infected with brucella. They also had a project infecting ticks with African Swine Fever.
Plum Island Scientists, Dr. Fred Brown and former Plum Island Director, Alfonso Torres have been working with BSE and other Prion diseases.
It is my contention that the disease we now call Lyme Disease, originated in a lab at Plum Island. The funding for research would be covered in the Mycoplasma grant.
The very first case of Lyme Disease was isolated in a youth, in 1975, within a few miles of the dock where the Plum Island Government Ferry boat lands on the Connecticut side of Long Island Sound.
I have heard that a young Connecticut girl who had received yet, not responded to all known treatments for Lyme Disease, and who was dying, was sent to the inhouse isolation ward at Plum Island and "emerged" from that Animal Facility, totally CURED OF LYME DISEASE.
When I first began the investigation into Plum Island and its connection to the New York outbreak of Kunjin/West Nile-like disease, I never imagined that Plum island would be so immersed in biowar projects.
In any event, I now know why it was designated a biolevel 5 facility. At the time, 1970, it was illegal to work with mycoplasma in the Continental US. As Plum island was and is a top secret biowar facility, and it is an island, it was designated biolevel 5 and given the funding to proceed with mycoplasma research.
So, indeed, Plum Island is a biolevel 5 facility.
August 30,2001 Plum Island Update
The Plum Island upgrade to biolevel 4 has not occurred as of this writing. There is now a citizen watchdog group overseeing the upgrade and the activities at Plum Island. It was my hope that the committee would monitor Plum Island and there would be safeguards in place.
I have recently learned that Plum Island IS doing research on Nipah virus. Nipah virus, in the paramyxovirus group along with Hendra virus is a biolevel 4 pathogen. In other words, labs working with this virus mandate a biolevel 4 designation. This designation is required because Nipah is zoonotic, jumping species barrier from animal to man, and, has no cure or preventive vaccine. So, why is a lab who claims to be only a biolevel 3 and not a level 5, working on a biolevel 4 pathogen? Is the fact that they are an island status and a biolevel 5 a factor in their working on Nipah? How many other biolevel 4 pathogens are being studied at Plum Island? Remember, Plum Island is less then 2 miles from Long Island's coast. Birds and probably bats fly to and from the island. Nipah is a virus that is vectored by bats. It joins Hendra, another paramyxovirus and Tioman, also paramyxovirus, as a bat vectored virus.
Although it is in the paramyxovirus family, Nipah and Hendra, and Tioman are in a separate group.
I wrote to Dr. Daniel Rock who heads the Nipah research unit and, as of this writing, have not had a response to my mail.
I am wondering where the watch dog group is and why are they not monitoring the Nipah research. I hope that we can get a response from Plum Island regarding their Nipah research in a biolevel 3 lab. According to APHIS/ARS, Plum Island needs funds to upgrade the facility JUST TO MAINTAIN ITS BIOLEVEL 3 DESIGNATION. This is the same facility that is working on a biolevel 4 pathogen?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The clog in Peace's wheel called Netanyahu
AJV states that it “recognizes the powerful role of U.S. policy in the region and believes that the United States’ unconditional support of Israeli government policy is profoundly harmful to the cause of peace with justice. We will work to promote a U.S. policy that is consistent with international law and human rights. We will work to combat the myth of American Jewish consensus in support of Israeli government policy.”~~Another Jewish Voice
"You must be celebrating,” the interviewer from a popular radio station told me after Netanyahu’s speech. “After all, he is accepting the plan which you proposed 42 years ago!” (Actually it was 60 years ago, but who is counting?)
The front page of Haaretz carried an article by Gideon Levy, in which he wrote that “the courageous call of Uri Avnery and his friends four decades ago is now being echoed, though feebly, from end to end (of the Israeli political spectrum).”
I would be lying if I denied feeling a brief glow of satisfaction, but it faded quickly. This was no “historic” speech, not even a “great” speech. It was a clever speech.
It contained some sanctimonious verbiage to appease Barack Obama, followed right away by the opposite, to pacify the Israeli extreme right. Not much more.
* * *
NETANYAHU DECLARED that “our hand is extended for peace.”
In my ears, that rang a bell: in the 1956 Sinai war, a member of my editorial staff was attached to the brigade that conquered Sharm-al-Sheikh. Since he had grown up in Egypt, he interviewed the senior captured Egyptian officer, a colonel. “Every time David Ben-Gurion announced that his hand was stretched out for peace,” the Egyptian told him, “we were put on high alert.”
And indeed, that was Ben-Gurion’s method. Before every provocation he would declare that “our hands are extended for peace”, adding conditions that he knew were totally unacceptable to the other side. Thus an ideal situation (for him) was created: The world saw Israel as a peace-loving country, while the Arabs looked like serial peace-killers. Our secret weapon is the Arab refusal, it used to be joked in Jerusalem at the time.
This week, Netanyahu wheeled out the same old trick.
* * *
I DO NOT underrate, of course, the significance of the chief of the Likud uttering the two words: “Palestinian state”.
Words carry political weight. Once released into the world, they have a life of their own. Unlike dogs, they cannot be called back.
In a popular Israeli love song, the boy asks the girl: “When you say no, what do you mean?” One could well ask: When Netanyahu says yes, what does he mean?
But even if the words “Palestinian state” passed his lips only under duress, and when Netanyahu has no intention at all of turning them into reality, it is still important that the head of the government and the chief of the Likud was compelled to utter them. The idea of the Palestinian state has now become a part of the national consensus, and only a handful of ultra-rightists reject it directly. But this is only the beginning. The main struggle will be about turning the idea into reality.
* * *
THE ENTIRE speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Israel. Except in some tired old clichés, Netanyahu spoke about them, not to them.
He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions, every one of which is designed to make certain that no Palestinian, no Arab and indeed no Muslim will agree to enter negotiations.
Condition 1: The Arabs have to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” (and not just “a Jewish state”, as many in the media erroneously reported.) As Hosny Mubarak has already answered: No Arab will accept this, because it would mean that 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel are cut off from the state, and because it would deny in advance the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees - the main bargaining chip of the Arab side.
It should be remembered that when the United Nations resolved in 1947 to partition Palestine between a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”, they did not mean to define the character of the states. They were just stating facts: there are two mutually hostile populations in the country, and therefore the country has to be divided between them. (Anyhow, 40% of the population of the “Jewish” state was to consist of Arabs.)
Condition 2: The Palestinian Authority must first of all establish its rule over the Gaza Strip. How? After all, the Israeli government prevents travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and no Palestinian force can pass from one to the other. And the solution of the problem by establishing a Palestinian unity government is also ruled out: Netanyahu flatly declared that there would be no negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that includes “terrorists who want to annihilate us” – his way of referring to Hamas.
Condition 3: The Palestinian state will be demilitarized. This is not a new idea. All peace plans that have been put forward up to now speak about security arrangements that would protect Israel from Palestinian attacks and Palestine from Israeli attacks. But that is not what Netanyahu has in mind: he did not speak about mutuality, but about domination. Israel would control the air space and the border crossings of the Palestinian state, turning it into a kind of giant Gaza Strip. Also, Netanyahu’s style was deliberately overbearing and humiliating: he obviously hopes that the word ‘demilitarized” would be enough to get the Palestinians to say “no”.
Condition 4: Undivided Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule. This was not proposed as an opening gambit for negotiations but presented as a final decision. That by itself ensures that no Palestinian, nor any Arab or even any Muslim, could accept the proposal.
In the Oslo Agreement, Israel undertook to negotiate about the future of Jerusalem. It is an accepted legal rule that if one undertakes to negotiate, one accepts to do so bona fide, on the basis of give and take. Therefore, all peace plans provide that East Jerusalem - wholly or partly – will be returned to Arab rule.
Condition 5: Between Israel and the Palestinian state there will be “defensible borders”. These are code-words for extensive annexations by Israel. Their meaning: no return to the 1967 borders, not even with a swap of territory that would allow for some of the large settlements to be joined to Israel. In order to create “defensible borders”, a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories (which altogether make up just 22% of pre-1948 Palestine) will be absorbed into Israel.
Condition 6: The refugee problem will be solved “outside the territory of Israel”. Meaning: not a single refugee will be allowed to return. True, all realistic people agree that there can be no return of millions of refugees. According to the Arab peace initiative, the solution must be “mutually agreed” – which means that Israel has to agree to any solution. The assumption is that the two parties will agree on the return of a symbolic number. This is a highly charged and sensitive matter, which must be treated with prudence and the utmost sensitivity. Netanyahu does the opposite: his provocative statement, devoid of all empathy, is clearly designed to bring about an automatic refusal.
Condition 7: No settlement freeze. The “normal life” of the settlers will continue. Meaning: the building activity for the “natural increase” will go on. This illustrates the saying of Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO: “We are negotiating about sharing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it.”
All this was in the speech. No less interesting is what was not in it. For example, the words: Road Map. Annapolis. Palestine. The Arab peace plan. Occupation. Palestinian Sovereignty. Opening of the Gaza Strip border crossings. Golan Heights. And, even more important: there was not a hint of respect for the enemy who must be turned into a friend, in the words of the ancient Jewish saying.
By Uri Avnery
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.