Saturday, Aug. 9, 2008

Nissan orders Israeli ally to pull commercial.
JERUSALEM (Kyodo) - Nissan Motor Co. has ordered its Israeli business ally to immediately stop airing a television commercial depicting Arab oil barons angered at the high fuel efficiency of a Nissan car, officials of the automaker said Thursday.

“The commercial was produced by a local automobile distributor based on its own judgment, and Nissan Motor has nothing to do with the commercial,” a Nissan spokesman in Japan said.

The commercial depicts wealthy Arab oil barons becoming so enraged at a fuel-efficient Nissan Tiida that one of them kicks the car, bangs on the hood and windshield and heaps abuse on the vehicle.

The major Israeli paper Haaretz, in its online edition, showed video footage of a news program on Saudi Arabia’s MBC TV that quoted a Saudi representative as saying that Persian Gulf states may boycott Nissan unless it apologizes.

Another major Israeli paper, the Jerusalem Post, quoted a public relations official working for Nissan in Israel as saying the commercial was a humorous one and should be enjoyed by both Israelis and Arabs.

————

We, at www.SustainabiliTank.info are compelled to say - “This is elemental - Watson” - the UN runs its DPI exactly in this same fashion thanks to the Japanese USG, Mr. Kiyotaka Akasaka, and an Egyptian caretaker of Arab interests, Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, Director of the News and Media Division, at the UN since the days of the Egyptian UNSG, as his right hand.

We Hope the Saudis will forgive now Nissan for the Israelis’ Transgressions. At the UN bringing up questions that illuminate some Saudi, Oil Producers, or Arab propaganda will be met by anulling the correspondent’s accreditation.

That is how you get a UN that speaks a lot about climate change but has yet to come up with any policy what-so-ever. The Saudi’s and their men and women at the UN will not allow tires to be kicked.

When a Japanese Spokesperson for the UNSG was not outspoken enough against Israel, at the time of the last war in Lebanon, Mr. Fawzi took over by himself the press conferences, even though he is not an official spokesperson. The argument was that as he is from the region, he knows the region better.

Aha, we think it is clear now - the Saudis produce the oil, so they know better what the cars need.

MARBURG JOURNAL
German City Wonders How Green Is Too Green

By NICHOLAS KULISH
Published: August 6, 2008

MARBURG, Germany — This fairy-tale town is stuck in the middle of a utopian struggle over renewable energy. The town council’s decision to require solar-heating panels has thrown Marburg into a vehement debate over the boundaries of ecological good citizenship and led opponents to charge that their genteel town has turned into a “green dictatorship.”

Rolf Oeser for The New York Times
Old and new coexist in Marburg, where a hilltop castle overlooks a solar-powered building. The city seeks to expand solar use.

The New York Times
Officials in Marburg face opposition over a solar initiative.

The town council took the significant step in June of moving from merely encouraging citizens to install solar panels to making them an obligation. The ordinance, the first of its kind in Germany, will require solar panels not only on new buildings, which fewer people oppose, but also on existing homes that undergo renovations or get new heating systems or roof repairs.

To give the regulation teeth, a fine of 1,000 euros, about $1,500, awaits those who do not comply.

Critics howled that the rule, which is to go into effect on Oct. 1, constituted an attack on the rights of property owners. The regional government in Giessen stepped in and warned that it would overturn the rule.

City officials in Marburg said, in turn, that they would take their case either to administrative court or all the way to the Hessian state capital, where they would try to get the state building code changed to protect their ordinance from officials in Giessen.

In the middle of this political chess match sit homeowners like Götz Schönherr.

From his deck, Mr. Schönherr can see the town’s famous hilltop Gothic castle as well as two of its three power-generating windmills. On his roof, a solar panel glints in the sunlight. He already uses the solar energy to heat his water, which has allowed him to turn off his boiler for roughly six months a year, a boon for his pocketbook but a decision he said he made for the sake of the environment.

And yet Mr. Schönherr opposes the new ordinance.

Mr. Schönherr had hoped to reinsulate his home, but to do so, and to satisfy the solar regulation, he would have to install a larger solar panel. It would cost him close to $8,000.

“That leads, in my case, and I would think in other cases as well, that people say, ‘Well, let’s just not reinsulate the roof,’ ” Mr. Schönherr said. “So it’s absolutely counterproductive.”

Officials in Giessen agree. “We have no problem with the use of solar energy,” said Manfred Kersten, press spokesman for the regional government in Giessen, “but this was a poorly constructed ordinance.”

Germany is one of the world’s top champions of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy. Thanks to hefty federal subsidies, the country is by far the largest market for photovoltaic systems, which convert sunlight into electricity.

Marburg, a historic university town where the Brothers Grimm once studied, is a model of enlightened energy production and consumption. In addition to the windmills and solar installations, the town’s utility company buys hydroelectric power from Austria, is transitioning its fleet of buses and other vehicles to natural gas and even lights footpaths with solar-powered lamps.

As a result, the Marburg dispute sometimes feels like an argument between the enlightened environmentalists and the really enlightened environmentalists.

“Marburg is already a leader when it comes to the use of solar energy, but up until now they’ve always tried to convince people rather than forcing them,” said Hermann Uchtmann, the opposition politician behind the “green dictatorship” charge who leads a local citizens political group, the Marburger Bürgerliste.

Like Mr. Schönherr, who is a member of the group, Mr. Uchtmann hardly fits the predictable mold of the Luddite opponent of renewable energy. He is a chemist at the local university who once built a solar-powered desalinization station for the town’s sister city, Sfax, Tunisia.

“It’s unfortunate that they decided to compel people, because I think you breed opponents that way rather than friends of solar energy,” Mr. Uchtmann said. He said he found the demands too invasive for existing homes, especially in the case of older citizens who might not live long enough to justify the upfront costs of installing the solar systems.

“I’m right up against the border myself,” said Mr. Uchtmann, who is 64. But he said he could support a solar-heating requirement for new buildings.

Because the town of 80,000 has a level population and relatively few new homes are built here, restricting the measure to new construction would not go far enough for the politicians behind it.

“We have a serious energy problem with the older homes,” Marburg’s deputy mayor, Franz Kahle, said in an interview at the historic town hall on the city’s colorful market square. To make a real leap forward, he said, a dramatic step was necessary.

“Before, solar installations were the exception and their absence was the rule,” Mr. Kahle said. “We want to get to the point where the opposite is the case.”

He pointed out that building codes constantly dictated what property owners could and could not do with their homes and said that the solar regulation already offered exceptions for cases of hardship or alternatives for those living in the shadiest spots.

Marburg’s law has attracted attention nationwide as a model for environmentally active politicians.

“What they are doing in Marburg is good and progressive, and we, and other cities, need to move forward with similar initiatives as well,” said Birgit Simon, deputy mayor of Offenbach am Main and a member of the Green Party. She said she hoped a coalition of left-of-center parties in the state Parliament could change the building codes to make the Marburg ordinance sustainable and imitable.

Among Marburgers interviewed one sunny afternoon this week, there was near universal support for the ordinance’s goals but an almost equal level of confusion about its exact nature.

“In principle, it’s a really good idea,” said Cornelia Janus, 35, who works at the university. But she questioned whether the costs might be too high and whether historic buildings and monuments would be protected.

“For a city like Marburg,” she said, gazing toward the churches and the castle arrayed along the hillside, which draw tourists from around the world, “that’s pretty important too.”

Ambassador Gillerman’s final speech to the United Nations - after 5.5 years of sevice.

22 July 2008 - Israel joined the Security Council’s open debate on the “Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question”. The meeting was one of the tri-monthly open debates held by the Council.

Ambassador Dan Gillerman, Permanent Representative, began his statement explaining, “I have prepared a speech for this meeting, which I will submit to you because some very good people worked very hard on it, and I think it is a very good speech that should be read by everybody. But as this is most probably my last appearance before you, as Permanent Representative of the State of Israel, I would like to take this opportunity to speak to you from the heart, rather than the written word”. (Click the above links to read the circulated text and Amb. Gillerman’s extemporaneous remarks ).

During his final statement, Ambassador Gillerman highlighted the challenges that will face the Council, including the issue of extremism within the world of Islam. He urged the Council to deal with the world’s real problem — that there was no clash of civilizations, but only a “clash of civilization”.

In closing, Ambassador Gillerman made one final promise. “It has been a honour for me to serve with you and I want on this very special occasion to make one more pledge to you. For whatever happens, for whatever you discuss, whatever transpires, Israel will prevail”.

Prior to his depature from his post at the UN, Ambassador Dan Gillerman was interviewed in and on a variety of publications and television programmes including The New York Times, Newsweek, the Jerusalem Post, and the BBC’s Hard Talk.

Israel addresses one-sided Economic and Social Council resolutions
July 2008 - The Economic and Social Council concluded its work for the 2008 resumed session. During this session, two politically motivated resolutions concering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were tabled, one coming by the way of the Commission on Status of Women and the other to the general Council.

In an statement of explanation of position on the draft resolution “Situation of and assistance to Palestinian women”, Ms. Meirav Eilon-Shahar, Counsellor, noted that “this is the only resolution at the Commission on the Status of Women that addresses a specific political situation; there are no other geographically or politically specific resolutions“. Israel called for delegations to vote against its adoption.

In an statement of explanation of position on the draft resolution concerning economic and social conditions of the Palestinians, Mr. Ilan Fluss, Counsellor, called on delegations not to support the resolution as “this resolution and agenda item, which deal with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to a singular narrative and in a selective, biased, and one-sided manner, do not belong in ECOSOC“.

Israel joins debate on “Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”

17 July 2008 - Israel joined the Security Council’s semi-annual debate on “Children and Armed Conflict”, delivering a statement in the Council following an oral report by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict.

Ms. Meirav Eilon-Shahar, Counsellor, delivered a statement highlighting the importance of the issue, while emphasizing the outstanding challenges. “Children are primary victims in many cases of armed conflict. They are its targets and - increasingly - its instruments. While the United Nations has focused on the issue of children and armed conflict since the 1993 Machel report, and in the Security Council with the adoption of resolution 1261 (1999) and 1612 (2005) creating an effective monitoring and reporting mechanism, children are still involved in armed conflict as soldiers, with an alarming increase in cases of sexual violence and the culture of impunity“.

Israel addresses Economic and Social Council during high level debate

3 July 2008 - Israel delivered a statement during the high-level segment of the opening session of the 2008 session of the Economic and Social Council at UN headquarters in New York.

Addressing the ECOSOC high level, Ambassador Daniel Carmon, Charge d’Affaires of the Permanent Mission of Israel, highlighted the areas of interest for the Israeli delegation. “ECOSOC must demonstrate its commitment to holistically address the global food crisis. The special meeting convened on the issue, participation in the recent summit in Rome, and the task force established by the Secretary-General, are indeed positive steps forward. Yet maintaining an output that meets the global demand remains a challenge. Hence, my delegation suggests an increased focus on agriculture and the development of technology and know-how for the benefit of developed and developing countries, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa“, he said. .
Israel protests terrorist attack in Jerusalem

2 July 2008 - Israel wrote a letter of complaint to the President of the Security Council following the terrorist attack in Jerusalem earlier today.
“The timing of this brutal terrorist attack, amidst continued negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, underscores the extent that the extremists will go to murder and maim Israeli civilians and destroy all efforts to secure peace and stability in the region. Moreover, this attack reveals, yet again, the malignant hatred for Israelis and gross zeal to commit acts of violence and terrorism that has disturbingly taken root in some parts of Palestinian society, which greatly threaten the prospects for genuine peace, reconciliation, and mutual understanding. Indeed, Hamas and other terrorist groups have already justified this vicious act of terrorism, inciting others and laying the groundwork for more violence, hatred, and suffering”, wrote Ambassador Daniel Carmon, Charge d’Affaires, of the Permanent Mission of Israel.
He went on “to point out that today’s terrorist attack occurred only hundreds of meters away from the Mercaz Harav yeshiva, where on 6 March 2008, a terrorist infiltrated the seminary’s library and study hall and killed eight young men. If you recall, the Council could not reach consensus and condemn that unquestionable act of terrorism due to the political opposition of one Member State in particular. This was in spite of the Secretary-General’s own unqualified condemnation and the efforts of many Council members and the Council’s longstanding practice to condemn terrorism”.

Gabriela Shalev appointed next Permanent Representative

On 20 June 2008, the Israeli government  approved the appointment of Professor Gabriela Shalev - chosen in a joint decision by PM Olmert and FM Livni - as Israel’s  next permanent reprsentative to the UN.

At the Cabinet meeting, FM Livni said, “Ambassador Dan Gillerman is completing an excellent term as Israel’s ambassador at the UN. His talents enabled him to successfully confront the challenges of his term, complex and difficult situations that included the Second Lebanon War, the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, and the Iranian issue. His performance inspired the admiration of the other ambassadors as well as of the international media, in which he succeeded in conveying Israel’s message clearly and fluently, representing Israel with dignity.”

Regarding Professor Shalev, FM Livni said, “It was important to me to appoint a woman to represent Israel in such an important place. In addition, her extraordinary talents will enable her to deal with the challenges facing Israel. Professor Shalev is internationally respected; she has fulfilled many public positions in Israel, and the appointment committee determined that her impressive reputation and background, as well as her personality, make her a fitting candidate for the position of ambassador to the UN. I am confident of her ability to represent Israel faithfully, and I wish her success.”

Previously, Prof. Shalev served as President of the Academic Council and Rector of Ono Academic College in Israel. Until her early retirement in 2002, she was a full professor of contract law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and has taught contract law and comparative law in universities across the United States, Europe, and Canada. She is a leading expert in Israel in the fields of contract law and procurement contracts.

Prof. Shalev has provided legal advice and wrote legal opinions for public institutions, arbitrators, and lawyers, in Israel and around the world. She was the Chief Legal Editor of the Judgments of the Supreme Court of Israel and legal editor of the Hebrew Encyclopedia. She has been awarded numerous awards for academic legal research, including the Sussman Prize for Law (1989), the Zeltner Prize for Law (1991), and the Israel Bar Association prize (2003).

Prof. Shalev has written nine books and over one hundred articles in Hebrew and in English, mostly on contract law.  She recently published her latest book Contract Law - General Part, Towards Codification of the Civil Law, which is an updated version of her works on contract law in Israel. Prof. Shalev’s contract law textbook is the standard textbook used in law schools and law offices throughout Israel.

In addition to her academic achievements, Prof. Shalev has substantial experience in the public and private sector. Prior to her appointment, she served as chairperson of the audit committees of Bank Hapo’alim and the Israel Electric Company, as well as on the boards of Ma’ariv; the Hadassah Medical Organisation, Fibi Holdings Co.; Koor Industries; Osem Investments; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; and Delek Ltd. Group.

Let the diplomatic Beijing Games begin… but which leaders are taking part?
The Independent - Thursday, 7 August 2008.

(Photo) Torchbearer Yao Ming of the Houston Rockets basketball team holds the torch as he runs through the Tiananmen Gate during the 2008 Beijing Olympics torch relay.

WHO’S COMING!

*George Bush

A quiet confirmation from the White House on Independence Day helped turn the tide for China. Mr Bush is believed to have accepted a personal invitation from his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao, and Japan and Russia quickly followed suit. He said a snub would insult the people of China. Covering his bases, Mr Bush got his criticism of Beijing out of the way yesterday.

*Sonia Gandhi

When it came to its rival developing superpower, China did not send an invitation to either the Indian head of state Pratibha Patil or Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, inviting instead Sonia Gandhi, the Italian-born head of India’s Congress Party and widow of the assassinated prime minister Rajiv Gandhi. She wasted little time in accepting.

*Nicolas Sarkozy

Unsurprisingly he has been the one to generate the most controversy. First flirted publicly with a boycott before thinking harder about the true cost of such a snub. Later realised that selling the Airbus and nuclear technology were greater priorities – whatever his human rights critics said. And he’s curried favour by shying away from meeting the Dalai Lama during the Games.

*Kevin Rudd

The Australian Prime Minister has told the Chinese some awkward truths in their own language. The former diplomat and Mandarin speaker called on Beijing to engage with the Dalai Lama in March and followed it up with a candid visit in April. He stopped short of boycotting the opener in a move which might have threatened trade links.

———————

Who’s not going:

*Gordon Brown

He is a realist over relations with China, having agreed fresh trade deals with Beijing this year, but he was unable to resist the temptation to hint at dissent and opted to stay away from the opening ceremony after the crackdown in Tibet. Mr Brown insists the two are not connected. For a politician in his parlous situation, he might regret opting for the closing ceremony instead.

*Angela Merkel

The most straightforward of Europe’s leaders on issues that China finds uncomfortable, she risked the ire of Beijing by welcoming the Dalai Lama to Berlin last year – something her predecessor Gerhard Schröder hadn’t dared to do. She has been equally blunt in pointing out that the Olympic opener clashes with her holiday, so she will not be attending.

*Stephen Harper

Canada’s prime minister appeared to be swimming with the mainstream when he confirmed in April that he would not attend the Bird’s Nest show. Looking around the G8 he had the Italians, Germans, Brits and, he thought, the US with him. A few months later the snub looks more costly and Canada’s trade minister has been forced to assure the public that it won’t hit exports.

*Hans Gert-Pöttering

The president of the European Parliament is the only leading political figure to formally boycott the ceremony. Without a trade portfolio to defend – or at least with others to do that job, he felt free to take a stand over China’s treatment of the Dalai Lama. It remains a moot point whether the invitation list ever included the German politician.

———————–

And who wasn’t welcome !!!!

*Robert Mugabe

The embattled Zimbabwean leader got his refusal in first, saying that talks to resolve the political crisis prevented him from going. However, Beijing had already made it clear in private that he was not wanted. While Mr Mugabe does not usually do as he is told, he was not willing to embarrass his Chinese backers, at a time when he needs them more than ever.

*Omar Al-Bashir

While he has been indicted by the International Criminal Court, he has not been invited by Beijing. The Sudanese leader can count on Chinese support so long as he keeps the oil exports coming, but his is not a friendship Beijing wants to project. Darfur has been rivalled only by Tibet as a negative factor in China’s international image.

*Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The unpredictable Iranian leader was among the few leaders the rest regard as a pariah who was offered a seat at Beijing. He politely refused the invitation in May but said he might show up for the Paralympics. Despite Tehran’s insistence to the contrary, some sources insist that China had made an offer it wanted the man in Tehran to refuse.

*Kim Jong-Il

It’s hard to know whether the North Korean leader’s decision to stay at home has been greeted with greater relief in Beijing or Washington. A public encounter with Kim was not a prospect to thrill the White House – or his South Korean counterpart. Instead, his right-hand man Kim Yong Nam will be a “guest of honour”.

From:    munekata at iges.or.jp
Subject: IGES Call for Abstracts: Climate-Friendly Transportation Strategies in Asia: Overcoming Obstacles to Co-benefits
Date: August 6, 2008

Call for Abstracts: Climate-Friendly Transportation Strategies in Asia: Overcoming Obstacles to Co-benefits.

The Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) Climate Policy Project invites abstracts (two A4 pages) on co-benefits of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation in Asia’s transportation sector.

Selected authors will be invited to contribute full-length papers for a multi-chapter book project. Selected authors will also be sponsored to attend the Better Air Quality (BAQ) 2008 Workshop in Bangkok, Thailand and present their findings at a pre-event panel scheduled for 11 November 2008.

Due Date: 1 September 2008

Project Rationale:

Rising rates of motorization in developing Asia have become a source of concern outside and inside the region. Outside the region this concern stems from projections that carbon emissions from Asia’s transport sector could triple by 2025. Inside the region it stems from projections that urban air pollution levels, fuel costs, and commuting times could increase just as sharply over the same period. The key to altering these projections may lie in integrated transportation policies. Integrated transportation policies are so named because, rather than focusing on either developmental or climate goals, they pursue both objectives simultaneously. Integrated policies therefore have the potential to be more cost-effective than isolated climate or developmental policies.

A number of studies have demonstrated this potential by estimating the developmental benefits of integrated policies. These benefits are commonly referred to as co-benefits.  The values of co-benefits are often found to be significant in developing Asia, which would presumably draw interest from regional policymakers. But while the influence of this research seems likely to expand, thus far its impacts on policies have been limited. This book project seeks to determine why these potentially sizable impacts have yet to materialize in developing Asia’s transport sector. More concretely, the project’s main goal is to understand the opportunities for and obstacles to maximizing the co-benefits of transportation policies in developing Asia.  A second goal is to propose countermeasures based on that assessment.

Abstracts should focus on one of the following three themes.

Analytical Framework: Papers should identify categories of transportation policies with significant co-benefits and barriers to realizing those benefits. Papers may focus on technical, financial, political, and social barriers. Analytical frameworks offering explanations for why some categories of policies are more likely to succeed than others are encouraged.

Case Studies: Papers should examine specific projects/programmes/ policies where the co-benefits have or have not materialized in developing Asia.  Submissions should highlight the actors, interests and institutions that contributed to the case’s performance. Comparative case studies are encouraged.

Co-benefits in the Post-2012 Climate Regime: Papers should explore opportunities for recognizing and rewarding transportation co-benefits in the post-2012 climate regime. Insights into how the post-2012 climate regime could strengthen the design and implementation of integrated transportation policies are encouraged.
Abstracts should be submitted as a PDF file attachment by email to  cobenefits at iges.or.jp by 1 September 2008. Include “IGES CO-BENEFIT ABSTRACT” on the subject line of the email.  The abstract should include the following: the title of the paper, name and institutional affiliation of author(s) and their disciplines on the title page. Only English-language submissions will be considered.

The IGES Climate Policy Project will acknowledge receipt of all submissions by email. Notification of selected abstracts will be made by 15 September 2008. The authors of selected abstracts will be asked to submit the draft version of full paper by 5 November 2008. This call for abstracts is open to policy practitioners, scholars, and students from both developed and developing countries. The focus of study should be Asia; cases outside the region can be used for comparative purposes.

About the Climate Policy Project at IGES

The mission of the project is to recommend effective climate policies for sustainable development in Asia in this era of evolving global climate regime. In Phase 4 of its research (April 2007-March 2010), the project is conducting research on four sub-themes: market mechanisms, adaptation, climate regime beyond 2012, and co-benefits. This call for papers is specifically designed to assist the work of the sub-themes of climate regime beyond 2012 and co-benefits. For additional details of the project, please refer to http://www.iges.or.jp/en/cp.

For additional details regarding this call for abstracts, please contact:
Dr. Ancha Srinivasan, Principal Researcher and Manager at:        cobenefits at iges.or.jp

Q&A: ‘Israel In a Weak Parallel with Apartheid’ -
An IPS Interview with Judge Dennis Davis, High Court Judge in Cape Town.

JERUSALEM, Jul 31 (IPS) - In Israel’s control of Palestinian movement, Dennis Davis sees a “stark” parallel with the old, apartheid South Africa of which he was an outspoken critic. But Davis, a Justice of the High Court in Cape Town and a prominent member of the South African Jewish community, strongly rejects those who “run from that into an immediate conclusion” that Israel is an apartheid state.

Davis, who was also involved in drafting the constitution of post-apartheid South Africa, recently visited Israel and the Palestinian territories as part of a delegation of prominent South African civil rights activists. In its closing statement, the group said it had not come “to bring solutions, or to spend our time here debating solutions,” but that it wanted “to learn, and to witness first-hand the suffering, pain, anger and human rights abuses.”

Davis, who is a former chairman of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies and a former head of the Centre for the Abolition of the Death Penalty, spoke to Peter Hirschberg from IPS about the “apartheid” parallel and about the political impotency that he senses on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides.

IPS: Israel has been accused of adopting policies that are reminiscent of apartheid South Africa. Is this a fair comparison?

Dennis Davis: I think the only issue is with the movement of people. This is remarkably similar to certain forms of influx control (in the old South Africa). And it’s so much more sophisticated. We didn’t have computers. And the separate roads and separate number plates (for Palestinians and Jews in the West Bank) is unquestionably a more sophisticated form of restriction of movement of the kind that we had. The fact that you’ve got those definitions at some of those controls, of what constitutes an Israeli and what constitutes somebody else, is not entirely unreminiscent of what we had. I was deeply disturbed by that because I hadn’t realised how stark that parallel was.

IPS: So you feel the comparison is valid?

DD: It is unfortunate that people now run from that into an immediate conclusion that this is an apartheid state. We met Israel’s Chief Justice and what is clear is that there is a pretty relaxed form of (judicial) standing by which Palestinians can petition the High Court of Justice in Israel. That’s impressive. That obviously didn’t exist in South Africa. And within Israel itself, there aren’t zones the way we had group areas (for blacks and whites). Arabs who live here can also vote and have rights of citizenship.

This is not so much a discrimination based on ethnic identity in the broad sense of Arab versus Jew. It does seem to me to be a very intricate form of social control.

IPS: Apartheid was based on racial superiority.

DD: There’s no racial superiority here. There’s no pervading ideology that confirms the inferiority of Palestinians.

Both sides play the victim. There is tremendous competition over who the victim is. When you have a notion of victimhood what you tend to do is to dehumanise the other. I think there is a lot of dehumanising of the other on both sides. If I was a Palestinian I’d probably be very, very angry. If I was an Israeli who had suffered suicide bombings I’d be incredibly angry as well.

The one group that impressed me most of all was the Parents Circle (made up of bereaved parents on both sides). I was incredibly moved by them. That sort of group and others perhaps are the beginnings of what in South Africa became a much more non-racial movement. In South Africa, the prefiguring of the society in which whites and blacks could live together began a very long time ago. The Communist Party. The trade unions. There’s much less of that here. There is such an absence of integration here.

When you separate populations like this and lock them into an almost fatal embrace then there’s a dehumanising aspect to it. What’s good about the Parents Circle is that it does show there is at least some movement toward seeing the humanity in the other. I look at the soldiers. I look at these kids. It’s got to dehumanise them. You can’t be policemen at border posts like this, having to question people, and not have your humanity affected. I cry for them.

But I think it’s incredibly unhelpful to say you can simply take this to be apartheid and therefore the South African struggle is the same and the South African solution is the same. That’s a very lazy form of reasoning.

IPS: One of the problems for Israel with the apartheid analogy is that its own leaders use it, albeit with very different intentions to those who challenge the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has invoked the comparison, warning Israelis that if they don’t relinquish the territories they will find themselves in a South Africa-type situation in which a minority of Jews rules over a majority of Palestinians, and that will spell the end of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

DD: But the paradox of it for an outsider is this: that argument is very compelling but also bizarre, because at the same time that you’re making it, you then drive through the West Bank and you are struck by the permanency of settlements. So what worries one is that successive Israeli governments have made it more difficult to get to a two-state solution.

For somebody who really wants the state of Israel not only to exist but to flourish, which is me, I’ve got to say that I’m deeply disturbed by the fact that they’re trying to keep two contradictory balls in the air at the same time. It doesn’t work. If you continue to strengthen West Bank settlement for another five years, lord alone knows what will happen. You can’t do that and talk the demographic game at the same time.

IPS: When it comes to finding a way to unlock the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, can the South African paradigm be applied?

DD: If you are going to work within the paradigm that’s being argued at present in Israel, which is the two-state solution, then you are dealing with a divorce, whereas in the South African context you were dealing with a marriage. So in the South African context the entire struggle was about the terms of a marriage, whereas here it seems to be about the distribution of property after the divorce. That inherently puts you in an entirely different business.

But there is one parallel. I really do believe that if an Israeli prime minister had the courage tomorrow morning to say ‘Fine, we are going to talk about a comprehensive two-state solution and we’ll even deal with the refugee problem through compensation,’ then I think what you’d notice in the South African experience is that at some point the momentum is too great to claw it back.

When De Klerk unbanned the ANC in 1990, no way did he say there would be an ANC government. He hoped he could unban the ANC, normalise politics and cobble together a coalition that would enable him to retain power. At some point it became clear to him that he wasn’t going to be able to do it. It was too late to put the genie back in the bottle. I think that’s possible here as well. But where is this impetus going to come from?

IPS: With Olmert embroiled in a corruption scandal that seems to have ended his term in office, the current Israeli government doesn’t have the political will to take such a dramatic step?

DD: No, the government doesn’t have the political will. And the Americans (aren’t pushing). Unless there is going to be a dramatic change with Obama, if he gets in. And your economy isn’t suffering. So where is the impetus to do this? And given the divisions amongst the Palestinians at the moment, Israel could happily see them off for years to come.

This is not South Africa 1985. This is not a situation where you can say, ‘Sanctions are biting and the resistance is showing no sign of dying down.’

But it can’t work when you reach the point when you’re actually suppressing the majority of the population. How ironic it would be if all my (South African) friends who live here will then be living under something they sought genuinely to escape from.

IPS: Another difference between the two situations is that unlike the ANC, Palestinian leaders seem hopelessly ineffective when it comes to galvanising their people around a single vision and crafting a coherent political strategy.

There’s no broader vision. There’s no sense of political vision. Both Fatah and Hamas are pretending they’re totally in control and that the other one isn’t. What Hamas is able to show is that if you deal with the social question — not that they’ve done it very well — you can grab hold. But is there anything that cements and holds the Palestinian people together as the ANC did in South Africa? No.

LEBANON: Cracks Widen Under the Patchwork.
By Mona Alami, IPS from Beirut, August 5, 2008
The assassination of former prime minister Rafik Hariri Feb. 14 2005 generated a popular outcry in Lebanon, which led to the massive protest in Martyrs’ Square a month later on Mar. 14. The demonstration against Syrian occupation, which was accused in the killing, marked a turning point in Lebanese politics and the birth of the March 14 movement.

The essence of the movement was an alliance of rival warlords and political factions. Many Lebanese were amazed by the sight of Walid Joumblat (leader of the Druze Progressive Socialist Party), Amin Gemayel (Christian Kataeb party), Samir Geagea (Christian Lebanese Forces), and Saad Hariri (son of Rafik Hariri and head of the Sunni Future movement) standing side by side.

A few months after the demonstration, and leading up to the 2005 elections, Joumblat, Hariri and Geagea struck a deal with Syrian allies, the Shia Amal and Hezbollah parties, sidestepping General Michel Aoun, head of the Christian party the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM). Aoun had then recently returned from exile.  The alliance between March 14 and Hezbollah and Amal did not last long. A major political crisis erupted as soon as the March 14 demand for an international tribunal to investigate the assassination of Hariri was brought up.

The crisis, lasting nearly two years, began with a public sit-in protest in Beirut organised by the opposition March 8 movement — which included Hezbollah, Amal, the FPM and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). It ended with week-long fighting between the two groups in May that resulted in 67 deaths. On May 21, 2008 peace was brokered by Qatar between the March 14, 2005  and March 8, 2006 movements, leading to formation of a unity government.

“March 14 has certainly made the most concessions, as witnessed in the government composition, where the opposition has been able to secure as many key ministries for its allies as March 14, which has parliamentary majority,” says Carlos Edde, head of National Block party. Edde has left March 14 but says he still adheres to its underlining principles.

“March 14 is based on the principles of sovereignty, democracy and self-determination for Lebanon,” says Michael Karam, editor-in-chief of Now Lebanon, an online media close to March 14. “In light of what we have had to contend with in the last three years, whether the assassinations (mainly targeting March 14 members), the sit-in, sabotage of the presidential election (which was postponed for more than six months), the May 7 coup d’état (by Hezbollah that led to the fighting) and the current continuous obstruction process, the fact that March 14 is still able to operate is a miracle.”

Not everyone thinks it is operating very well. “The cohabitation between the state and Hezbollah’s armed organisation is rendering the March 14 mission of nation building impossible,” says Fares Soaid, head of the March 14 secretariat. Hezbollah is the only Lebanese faction allowed its own arsenal under the resistance banner.

“Hezbollah’s weapons are tied to a regional strategy, as witnessed in the recent speeches of Iranian officials stressing that stability in Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq can only be achieved through an international agreement on Iran’s nuclear dossier,” says Soaid.

Edde believes that the March 14 movement has been going downhill because it relied on a tactical approach without developing long-term policy.

Soaid says March 14’s first mistake was to believe that Hezbollah’s decision to start a war with Israel in 2006 was purely Lebanese. “We need to focus our slogans and approach on the problem of Hezbollah’s weapons,” he says.

“March 14’s diversity is reflective of the country’s,” says Karam. As with Lebanon itself, that may be its greatest weakness, and strength. For the latter to prevail, the movement must strengthen its cohesion, defend a clearly delineated programme and start campaigning, says Karam.