View previous stories
	Israel provokes extreme passions by Mario Vargas Llosa OpenDemocracy   Oct 28. 2005   If the Palestinian-Israeli conflict did not exist, or had been resolved, the world would see Israel as one of the notable successes of modern history. Established as a state in 1948, Israel has moved in half a century from the third to the first world. It has become a developed and prosperous nation, integrated immigrants from several countries and cultures (though, in appearance at least, of a single religion), resuscitated a dead language, Hebrew, as its national tongue and equipped itself with atomic weapons and one of the world"s most advanced armies, capable of mobilising about a fifth of the population at short notice.   This success appears even more significant if we note that when the first Zionist immigrants arrived from Europe a century ago, Palestine was a poor province of the Ottoman empire, largely composed of stony deserts. It is true that Israel has enjoyed generous aid from abroad, mainly from the United States, from which it receives about $3bn annually, and from the Jewish diaspora. But this in itself hardly explains its impressive transformation into a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world. Few countries have succeeded in exploiting their resources, and the opportunities created by globalisation, in the way that Israel has.   Yet it is also true that in recent years, following industrial expansion, especially in the field of new technologies, the egalitarian society dreamed of by the early Zionists and epitomised internationally by the kibbutz movement has been replaced by one that is much more divided and antagonistic. The gulf between rich and poor has grown dramatically, and the idealism of the pioneer founders of Israel has given way to the egoism and materialism common to all modern societies.   Israel is proud of its adherence to legality and liberty, and its respect for the values and principles of democratic culture - something that is conspicuous by its absence in the rest of the Middle East. But these are relative truths, calling for qualification. Israel is a democracy in the full sense of the word for its Jewish citizens. It respects their human rights, guarantees freedom of expression and criticism, and anyone who feels his rights have been infringed can go to courts that are independent and effective.   These bright democratic colours fade considerably, and indeed at times disappear, when we turn to the 1.4 million Israeli Arabs - Muslims and a minority of Christians - who make up 20 per cent of the population. In theory they are full citizens, with the same rights and duties as the Jews. But in practice they are not. They are subject to many dis-advantages and do not enjoy the same opportunities as Jewish citizens. Their access to public services, and even their physical movement, is often limited or prevented, with the argument that these measures are indispensable to the security of Israel.   But Palestinian Israeli citizens live in enviable conditions compared to the millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and, until recently, in the Gaza Strip, the territories occupied by Israel in 1967 after the six-day war in which it defeated the forces of Syria, Jordan and Egypt. This victory, of which most Israelis feel proud - defeating an Arab military coalition, recovering for the Jews the whole of their biblical ambit - turned Israel into a colonial country. This has been its nightmare ever since, and has done more than anything else to alienate world public opinion.   From civic and moral points of view, nothing corrupts a nation more than becoming a colonial power. At the time of the 1967 war, General Charles de Gaulle described the Israelis in terms that caused great controversy. He called them an "elite people, self-confident and dominating". I am not sure whether that was true then; but I am sure that Israel has since come much closer to what, when it was uttered, seemed an exaggerated description.   Israel"s relationship with the Palestinians is a shadow that morally darkens its material and social progress. In 38 years of occupation, the Palestinians have seen their lands invaded by hundreds of thousands of settlers who took their land and fenced it - followed by the arrival of the army to ensure their security and keep the victims at bay. In spite of the rivalries between left and right in Israel, they coincide in their support for settlement proliferation and enlargement. This abuse has been the greatest obstacle to any peace agreement. While Israeli governments have paid lip service to peace, in practice they have belied it with a policy that manifestly supports occupation.   There is no doubt that the Palestinians, through political division, terrorism and the inefficiency of their leaders, have been poor defenders of their cause, wasting the opportunities that, in my view, were offered by the Camp David and Taba negotiations in 2000 and 2001. Suicide bomb attacks on buses, restaurants, cafes and discotheques have provoked rage in Israel. But the outrages committed by the Israeli government against the general Palestinian population - collective punishments, demolition of houses, murder of terrorist leaders with inevitable collateral deaths, torture, show trials in which judges sentence the accused to long prison terms - are unjustifiable and indecent in a civilised country.   With the rise to power of Ariel Sharon, all hope of peace seemed buried for a long time. No one had promoted the policy of settlements in the occupied territories or sabotaged attempts at a negotiated solution to the conflict more vigorously than the Likud leader. And here is the puzzle. How is it that the same person who directed the military invasion of Lebanon, and who with his provocative stroll through holy Muslim places helped to unleash the second intifada, has now unilaterally closed the 21 colonial settlements in the Gaza Strip and returned the seized land to the Palestinian people? What lies behind this audacious initiative? Is it a serious attempt to show the world Israel"s desire to put a reasonable end to the conflict - or a tactical concession, to distract international attention while Israel continues its policy of land appropriation in the West Bank?   Copyright: Mario Vargas Llosa 2005
	UK: First Black Bishop: "I am being sent Racist Hate Mail" by The Independent United Kingdom   Oct. 2005   The Church of England"s first black archbishop has revealed that he has received racist and abusive letters, including some covered in human excrement.   Dr John Sentamu, who will be enthroned in York next month, said that although he was angered by the abuse, he prayed for those who had written the letters. He said: "I do not know where they are from. They don"t tell you. They simply tell you, I am Mr White X and nigger go back and this is what you are like, this is what you are worth." Dr Sentamu, 56, said it did not mean Britain was a racist country, and he believed the letter-writers represented a "tiny minority". The archbishop said: "It has been terrible. Some of it has been awful." Asked if he felt angry, he said: "Yes, particularly when they had human excrement in them. I don"t want to have those sorts of things, and I say, "Why do people do this?" But he told BBC Radio 4"s Today : "In the end, when I get those letters, I actually pray for the person who"s written them." The new Archbishop of York, the second highest position in the Church of England, was educated in Uganda, where he practised as a barrister and was an outspoken critic of Idi Amin"s regime, before coming to the UK in 1974. He was ordained in 1979 and, after serving in a succession of London parishes, he was appointed Bishop of Stepney in 1996, and Bishop of Birmingham in 2002. All his life he has campaigned against racism and other forms of discrimination.   Dr Sentamu worked on inquiries into the 1993 racist killing of Stephen Lawrence and the stabbing in 2000 of the Nigerian schoolboy Damilola Taylor, and has said the Church of England contains institutional racism, just as a room full of smokers contains smoke. During his six years as Bishop of Stepney, east London, he was stopped and searched eight times by the police. What upset him most was the sudden change in the officers" behaviour when they realised his identity. He said at the time: "When they discovered who I was, the way I was treated was very different. They should treat everybody with respect, with dignity." He has also been the victim of verbal and physical abuse. He recalled how four young white men spat at him and said: "Nigger, go back." He replied: "You have wasted your saliva." In his interview yesterday he said: "This country, of all the places I have been to, is the most tolerant and welcoming of all places. Therefore, this tiny minority is not going to stop me from telling people that if we become a society of friends and a society that will discover the wonderful love of God and Christ, we have a chance of leading the nation in prayer."   When Mr Sentamu was born, the sixth of 13 children, near Kampala in Uganda in 1949, he was so small the local bishop was called in to baptise him immediately. He survived his birth, a sickly childhood and a famine to become, 25 years later, a judge in the Uganda High Court. A spokeswoman for the Archbishop said yesterday that Dr Sentamu had been "deluged" with e-mails offering support and urging him to ignore the racist abuse. She said: "It has been rather heartening." Dr Sentamu said on his appointment that he hoped that he would not be known as the "black Archbishop" but as "a leader who would show the world the way to God"s love, grace and mercy". He also acknowledged the Church"s declining membership, its "ups and downs", and said it was too easy for a Christian tradition to become complacent. Visit the related web page
	View more stories