venerdì 28 dicembre 2007

Buone nuove per il generale e il fanatico



Sono bastati due tentativi soli. Nelle polverose strade del Pakistan, colei che portava un messaggio diverso dai tantra militaristici del generale o da quello dei fanatici musulmani non ha potuto contro la forza della violenza. Come puo' una donna battersi contro la lotta armata votata a portare un paese nel caos o contro un esercito impegnato a tenerlo imbavagliato. Come possono parole semplici come pace, come unita', democrazia, partecipazione, liberta' sconfiggere odio, sciovinismo e terrore. Giá nn puó. E Benazir é saltata in aria come altre decine di persone, dilaniate dalle viti sparate in ogni direzione dall'esplosione di un maledetto ignorante terrorista. Forse c'e' ancora chi si rovina la testa con le cazzate della guerra tra oriente e occidente, si forse ancora qualche ignorante o ipocrita accusa l'america per le ondate di terrorismo tra shiiti e sunniti o ancora per gli attentati dell'11 settembre. Forse ancora qualcuno si veste delle balle anti imperialiste e della formula pace in Palestina = pace in medio oriente. Forse qualcuno ancora non vede che é l'ignoranza razzista fanatico religiosa, quella che purtroppo, in questi decenni, abita il mondo islamico che uccide e va fermata. La Bhutto era l'esempio di come lo stesso Islam possa essere piú sensibile e civile di qualsiasi altra religione, ma anche il suo contrario: Benazir muore. Una donna che amava il suo paese tanto da tornare in un momento difficile, affrontando senza nascondersi il suo popolo, parlando di futuro, di speranza. Ecco qui. Il pakistan torna nel limbo. Dondolandosi tra colpi di stato ed attentati. L' occidente guarda questo nuovo aborto di un embrione di democrazia. L'Italia rimane a guardare, con qualche stupida frase di questo o quel politico dal tono impotente. Politici incapaci e malvolenti di prendere posizione e difendere i valori di cui andiamo fieri, politici senza palle. Il Dalai Lama (umiliato proprio di recente dal nostro governo) ha ragione: meglio rinascere donna... meglio ancora se in tempo di pace.
AA

giovedì 27 dicembre 2007

È Natale

La giornata uggiosa, umida, bagnata di un natale che si disfa. Operai smantellano Il mercatino, le luci, le tende. Sembrava come un' allucinazione la distesa di piccole tende bianche di fronte al castello, i fari rossi e viola aggiungevano un che di marziano: un accampamento di puffi appena atterrati sulla terra per portare il loro messaggio a tinte blu. Due giorni di famiglie, gluewein caldo, zuccherato e appiccicoso riempie tazze con icone natalizie. Piccoli e alti tavolini sorreggono chi e' venuto per scaldarsi dentro e rendere la giornata meno fredda, meno morta. Il maledetto freddo, il sole che si rifiuta di chiedere un metro quadro a squadroni di nuvole impegnate a far cadere il tedesco comune in una leggera depressiome da carenza di vitamina D. Un solarium, c'e' bisogno di uno, cento, mille solarium piu' che di vino caldiccio come piscio. Sopra le teste di chi beve una coppia di ebrei duri dal freddo come legno su di un piedistallo, vegliano il loro bimbo, lo scaldano nella miseria di una stalla di Israele. Quanto povera possa essere la loro condizione ad occhio sembra di qualche grado piu' fortunata di quella dei "chiusi" qui sotto, impegnati a bere per dimenticare. Due genitori nella felecita' del loro bimbo che presto verra' circonciso come da usanza, ma mai rappresentato tale ai posteri. Forse per vergogna di un glande scoperto ma forse piú per non confondere. Per non instillare dubbi e curiosita' sulla natura del giovane che parla umile ai poveri ed e' un "perfido giudio" come mamma. Non e' bene incuriosire la gente, puo' far tremare i forconi, i fucili e le torce, vacillare la fede; puo' far venire i rimorsi ai guardiani, agli aguzzini, ai boia improvvisamente di fronte alla nudita' del popolo odiato di cui per ironia della sorte o ad opera di un cinico marketing della fede il bimbo fa parte. Due genitori e il frutto del loro amore si stringono, girando su di una piattaforma in legno al suono di un carillon stonato e i loro visi sbiancati dalla censura ecclesiastica ricordano quelli di Sara e Abramo alla vista del loro dolce Isacco, quel figlio oramai non piu' sperato, tanto da chiamarlo Itzchak (egli rise). Un verbo proiettato al futuro "Itzchak", ma nella grammatica toraica il futuro e' usato per raccontare al presente eventi passati. Il passato e il futuro si confondono e non esiste il tempo nella Torah. Il futuro toraico rende tutto eterno, immagini ricorrenti e immutabili attraverso la storia. Isacco e Jeshu nati in modo curioso e legati anche da uno stesso destino, il sacrificio per volere Divino o per poca originalitá... Lascio la piazza, la confusione e i pensieri, mi avvolgo di alberi, della nebbia che sale dal fiume, del silenzio dei miei passi e delle corse del mio cane.

AA

venerdì 21 dicembre 2007

Primi attimi di una nuova vita

Fin da piccolo custodivo un sogno, nato e coltivato tra i libri di James Herriot, il veterinario della campagna Inglese. Sono stato a Bologna a visitare la facoltà di veterinaria e l'aula era angusta, piccola, quasi non riuscivo a sentire il professore che spiegava l'anatomia di questo e quell'animale. Sono stato a Milano e nella confusione tra spintoni e lunghe code, nonchè slogan anti-Israele, sono riuscito a entrare in possesso del piano di studi della facoltà di biologia-veterinaria. Le sensaszioni confuse e una punta di delusione di fronte ad un sistema che aveva poco di organizzato mi fece prendere in considerazione per la prima volta un viaggio in Israele. Lasciai Bolzano e la mia adolescenza a 19 anni. Lasciavo un sogno condiviso con un caro amico e due chitarre. Il Kibbutz fu la prima scheggia di Israele che si infiló sotto la pelle. Le prime immagini che ho colto sono di confusione, di grida, di traffico, di luci arancioni, di stazioni affollate e odori speziati che ti assalgono le narici prima e lo stomaco poi, di molteplici fisionomie: visi conosciuti quelli europei si mescolano a nord-africani, etiopi, russi e le gradazioni intermedie. Ho un bambino etiope stampato nella mente sull'autobus che mi porta a Nord di Tel Aviv. Mi guarda incuriosito attraverso la fessura tra i sedili. Lo fotografai, ora avrà 20 anni. Questo primo impatto è stato come una freccia di cupido affondata in profondità. Mi sono innamorato del multiculturalismo che caratterizza la terra del latte e del miele (una definizione piú sbagliata la Torah non poteva trovare). Le numerose culture che si affollano ad una stazione e discutono in accenti diversi e a volte in lingue diverse la stessa vita, spesso con il comune caratteristico cinismo Israeliano.
Questa realtà culturale mi ha lasciato completamente spiazzato. Venivo da Bolzano, da un paese che è tra Austria e Italia, una regione dove culture diverse si sono incontrate ma hanno preferito rimanere sterilmente separate.
A scuola, alle elementari avevamo i momenti di ricreazione separati noi e i nostri vicini di classe tedeschi. Lo stesso edificio, la stessa scuola ma classi diverse e svaghi diversi. Non c'è possibilità di incontro in una realtà simile. Ho vissuto la convivenza come un sapere che l'altro esiste ma di lui non ho coscienza, mi passa accanto la sua vita e non mi si dá la possibilità di incontrarlo, nessun momento per discutere il patrimonio di un possibile incontro. Nessun dibattito per consocere l'altro per scontrarmi con il suo modo di pensare e di essere. Non ho seminato nulla a Bolzano, nulla che possa essere culturalmente fertile, nulla che possa favorire la creatività. Quando due culture si ignorano vivendo insieme creano il nulla, magari pacifico, ma sempre impotente nulla, culturalmente sterile. Fu uno shock culturale Israele, di sicuro. Uno shock da cui non riuscii più a riprendermi. Venne ovviamente modificato, rimodellato, magari non più il vecchio sionismo assorbito in casa, magari una visione meno utopica di Israele, più realista. Una realtà per essere interessante non può non avere problemi. Ma è la fertilità culturale che entra nel profondo e prende lo stomaco. Il dibattito continuo, il mettere ogni cosa in dubbio, il voler trovare i motivi per poi capire meglio il senso delle cose, tutto questo letto attraverso il prisma delle comunità che rappresentano Israele. Gli ebrei da ogni parte del mondo, ogni parte e la sua visione della vita dal Polacco all'Iracheno con un filo sottile che gli unisce e che per me è simboleggiato dai fillatteri che legano le braccia degli ebrei durante la preghiera del mattino. La stessa fascia di pelle nera, le stesse parole in bocca; il resto è un arcobaleno di suoni e colori e odori. Insieme agli ebrei, gli Arabi cristiani e musulmani (un quinto della popolazione Israeliana), i Beduini, i Drusi e i Cerchessi. La convivenza è stile Israele, chiassosa come ogni modo di vita Mediterraneo, speziata come ogni Suk arabo. No non è piazza delle Erbe, non può esserlo e personalmente sono felice che non lo sia, altrimente perderebbe non solo il fascino ma anche il fuoco che lo alimenta. Questo è Israele e molto di più. Sono giovani, una moltitudine di ragazzi e ragazze, giovani costretti a dare una fetta della propria giovinezza per difendere la propria patria. Giovani che vogliono le stesse cose che vogliono i giovani di tutto il mondo, vivere e divertirsi. Sono giovani belli a cui gli scarponi di cuoio neri fanno venire le vesciche e il poco sonno le occhiaie. Sono giovani che dopo l'esercito partono per consocere il mondo e riprendere fiato da ciò che hanno vissuto e poter piangere la notte, sotto le stelle della Tailandia o del Sud America, l'amico che hanno perso in Libano o in un attentato. Sono tutti i miei compagni di studio e tutti possono raccontare la stessa storia. Tutti odiano la guerra, nessuno ama il fucile, ma è lui che ti può salvare la vita, a volte. Sono i giovani che hanno pianto a migliaia un capo di governo, e a migliaia si stringevano intorno a candele e canzoni. Sono i giovani che vedranno venire la pace (come canta una canzone) e se non loro, i loro figli o i figli dei loro figli.

La speranza è viva come tangene è la morte, di cui conoscono sapore e fattezze.

Israele è anche questo. La realtà che descrivo si diluisce tra un attentato e l'altro, un missile e un altro, un assassinio e un altro. Ed è questa l'ennesima diversa faccia del prisma Israeliano. La guerra. Non è un problema di convivenza, ne di culture diverse. E' uno scontro tra due civiltà e presi in mezzo sono i Palestinesi comuni, gli Israeliani comuni. Uno scontro che vede il fanatismo religioso da una parte e il mondo moderato dall'altra. A questo scontro si aggiungono interessi economici, politici e nazionali degli stati della regione, alcuni dei quali (il più influente oggi l'Iran) non hanno alcun interesse in un armistizio, in uno stato palestinese e nella normalizzazione delle relazioni. Questa realtà così sfaccettata è a volte dura, pesante, pungente ed è anche questo che fa dei momenti di pace momenti speciali, commoventi.
L'insieme porta a vivere in modo intenso quasi sentendo il sapore della vita tra i denti in ogni istante.
AA

giovedì 20 dicembre 2007

Coppa del Mondo 2018 (click and watch)


The 2018 World Cup will be held in Israel&Palestine!
Or so we wish to believe...
(http://goal2018.org/)
In fact, this site is dedicated to making this wish come true. Only a positive, long term vision for this troubled region can make a fundamental change! “We have a dream”, and we're urging you to support us and show the world that we are not the only ones.... Sign up now, and get a seat for the final in our Jerusalem stadium!

lunedì 10 dicembre 2007

Dialoghi

A casa.
Ionatan (7.5 anni): se entra qui lo zio Yariv è talmente alto che tocca il soffitto e lo rompe. Lui è il piu' grande del mondo.

Rachel (3.5 anni): se zio Yariv viene a casa mia e rompe il soffitto, io iniziero' ad avere tanto freddo e mi verrà il raffreddore.

In autobus (otto e trenta del mattino), verso teatrino "i musicanti di Brema", tragitto: 30minuti.
Ionatan: Rachel, quanno riviagno? (quando arriviamo?)
Rachel (guardando avanti e senza scomporsi): Chamesh veChetzi (dall'ebraico "alle 17 e 30")
Ionatan: Ma seeee, harbeeee. (cosa? cosí tanto??)

domenica 18 novembre 2007

Israel, Jewish? A stupid demand

A stupid demand
By Yoel Marcus (source HaAretz.com)

Forty years ago, Yaakov Herzog (brother of Israel's sixth president, Chaim Herzog) was invited by the BBC to take part in a symposium. The subject: What Are Israel's Chances of Survival? Herzog, shocked by the choice of topic, declined to participate but said if they ever held a symposium on Britain's chances of survival, he would be glad to attend.

Who would believe that 32 years after Herzog's death, and 60 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, which is still here despite all those who sought its downfall, the leaders of this country are demanding to be recognized as a Jewish state? And by whom? By the Palestinians, who flatly turned down the Partition Plan approved by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, and have done everything they possibly can to remain stateless to this day.

After the Oslo Accords that Yasser Arafat fumbled, and after two intifadas that left a trail of bodies on both sides, they are still without a state of their own. It seemed as if Ariel Sharon's nod to the Palestinians in evacuating Gush Katif would convince them that Israel was sobering up from its dream of a Greater Israel, that it was open to a peace agreement, including concessions that would make it possible for the Palestinians to finally adopt the UN resolution giving them a state of their own.
Advertisement
I won't repeat here all the preparations being made in advance of the Annapolis summit, the details of which appear daily in the media. We know that we are facing a weak leadership, but neither do they have a sense of Israel's leadership being all-powerful. The infighting between Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert, and the doubts about the ability of the present government to move tens of thousands of settlers into the blocs set out in a future agreement, are not exactly projecting a message to the other side that its expectations can be met.

Olmert believes that both sides, no matter how weak, realize that the chances of reaching an agreement outweigh the obstacles. Let's say we don't make peace, says Olmert, and two years from now, Hamas becomes the ruling power in the West Bank. So what are people going to say? That we didn't see the danger? That we sat on the sidelines and did nothing to prevent it?

Olmert and Barak, who are more in sync than one would think, based on the media leaks and the flying insults, do not delude themselves that Israel will be sitting at the table with a strong Palestinian leadership. But they know that right now, that's all there is. The talks will be conducted the way porcupines make love: v-e-r-y carefully. Neither side wants to get President Bush hot under the collar. Neither side wants to be blamed for the failure of the summit, which is shaping up as a kind of multi-delegation, global conference orchestrated by the president of the United States.

And then we wake up one morning to the announcement by the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, who says the PA is planning to recognize Israel's right to exist (well, thank you, Mr. Erekat), but "will not recognize Israel as a Jewish state." You read that statement over and over, and try not to explode. Especially at our stupidity at even making the demand that they recognize for us our Jewishness. Who are they? The Chief Rabbinate? The Council of Torah Sages?

Israel's Declaration of Independence reads: "By virtue of our natural and historic right, and on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, [we] hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel." Eight hours after this declaration, two Egged buses were attacked, an attack snuffing out the lives of the first seven victims of the War of Independence.

The ever-present threat against the very fact of Israel's existence is what has caused, or at least encouraged, the expansion into the territories by tens of thousands of settlers. It is this threat that eggs on the Jewish extremists and has turned this country, which has longed so much to live in peace, into a country of occupiers.

We exist, and we are a Jewish state. The whole world has recognized us as a Jewish state. The Arab countries that attacked after Israel's Declaration of Independence did so because it was a Jewish state. We made peace with Egypt and Jordan in spite of being a Jewish state. If there is anyone who needs recognition, it's the Palestinians. Their leaders over the generations have goaded them into hating Jews and killing Jews, which has gone on without stopping, but left them without a state of their own.

This demand that they "recognize" us as a Jewish state, even if the cabinet votes in favor of it at the insistence of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, is like denying the legitimacy of our own national existence - as if we need them to reinforce the identity of the state.

How does such a smart country come up with such a stupid demand?

giovedì 15 novembre 2007

OGM, liberi di essere correttamente informati

Firma il documento

SAgRi: salute, agricoltura, ricerca

Il 5 novembre 2007 era il settimo anniversario dalla pubblicazione di un manifesto-denuncia degli scienziati italiani contro il divieto di ricerca sugli OGM. Quel testo (leggi qui) fu sottoscritto da alcuni tra i più prestigiosi ricercatori italiani (Garattini, Boncinelli, Regge, Redi, Ballabio, Amati, Cortese, Sala, Bellone, idealmente anche dall’allora Ministro della Sanità Veronesi) e tra gli altri dai premi Nobel Levi-Montalcini e Dulbecco oltre che da moltissimi membri dell’Accademia dei Lincei e delle Scienze, i quali hanno prodotto poco dopo il primo completo documento (scarica) a sostegno degli OGM...
http://www.salmone.org/documento

Israel, Jewish and democratic?

Still a democracy?
By Shulamit Aloni (source www.haaretz.com)


The government of Israel, with all due respect, does not represent the Jewish people but rather the citizens of the State of Israel who elected it. Israel is a sovereign state, which is still considered to be a democracy. In other words, it is a state for all of its citizens. Therefore it must not demand of the Palestinians to recognize it as a Jewish state, because in that way it would be declaring that any citizen whose mother is not Jewish or who did not convert with our strict Orthodox rabbis is a second-rate citizen, and his rights as a human being and a citizen are not ensured.

The Jews are a people but not a nation, they are a religious ethnic group or as respected a tribe as may be. The Jewish citizens of Britain, including the Orthodox among them, are British, and that is what is written in their passports and in the British population registry.

The same is true of France; the Jews there are French. In Canada, they are Canadians, and in Holland they are Dutch. They uphold their Jewish lives in their communities, since in democratic nations there is freedom of religion and freedom from religion. If they were to register the Jewish citizens in these countries as "Jewish" in the nationality category, we would accuse them of being anti-Semitic.
Advertisement
There is a difference between a people and a religion and a nationality, since nationality is decided by citizenship - a people as opposed to a nation - and therefore citizenship is nationality. The affinity of a citizen to the state is based on citizenship and not on religion; it is not based on the tribe nor on the heritage of the genes of the mother.

If among the cabinet ministers there are those who feel that they are more Jewish than Israeli, that is their right, and they can uphold all the religious precepts and pray all the prayers. But that is not relevant to the ties between the State of Israel and its neighbors.

There are people among us who like to repeat that this is a Jewish state and not a state of all its citizens. It is strange that the demand has been raised of the Palestinians, as a condition for ending the occupation, to recognize a state where some 20 percent of its citizens have inferior status.

In the past it was a great joy to be an Israeli. Israel was father to the nations. The word "Jewish" does not exist in any of the prayers. There is: "And I will restore the captivity of my people Israel." And there is the people of Israel, the land of Israel, the Torah of Israel, the God of Israel and the daughter of Israel, who with the Jews is also a second-rate person.

The state of Israel was established as a civilian state, as a state of law, and not as a state of Halakha (Jewish religious law), by the "representatives of the Jewish yishuv and the Zionist movement." Not by the ultra-Orthodox to whom the cabinet ministers enslave themselves, and whose masses they release from military service, from working, and from tuition fees, and even pay them a monthly wage.

In the document establishing the state, it was promised that there would be "complete equality of rights for all its citizens regardless of origin, race or gender." And another reminder: On the Day of Independence, we light 12 beacons, the number of the tribes of Israel.

Let the cabinet ministers feel at home as Jews as much as they want, let them raise their voices in prayer and let them lay tefillin (phylacteries) - but they must remember that they serve the government of Israel, which still represents itself as being democratic. In other words, they are the representatives of all its citizens and are responsible for them.

Therefore it would be better to demand of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, and not to coerce them with what the citizens coerce us - religion and its rabbis.

The existing arrangement was suitable for the Catholic Spain of Isabella and Ferdinand at the end of the 15th century. That is when the expulsion from Spain took place, since Spanish nationality was granted only to the Catholics or to those who converted to Catholicism.

If it is more important to be a Jew than it is to be an Israeli, why do we demand of the Jews of the world to come here at a time when they are having it good in the democratic countries in which they live as Jews?

martedì 13 novembre 2007

Israel, democracy at stake?

Quanto segue é una lettera che ho mandato a Economist in risposta ad un articolo-analisi apparso nel secondo numero di Novembre sulla salute della democrazia in Israele. Alla fine del mio intervento riporto l'articolo originale e alcuni dati utili.

Aa

Sir,

In your present issue (November 10-16th), you query the status of Israel democracy, its robustness and future. Whilst these are sensed unknowns the analysis to which arguments hang is weak and misses the point. True, Israel occupation policy has a negative impact on the democratic values of its society. Nonetheless Israeli democracy is a ray of light and inspiration in the cloudy skies of Middle Eastern societies. It has been under fire for 60 years struggling to survive. It is made of a Jewish majority with a rather important Muslim Israeli-Palestinian minority, which accounts for more than 1/6 of Israelis citizens and it is represented by, although it does only partially support, different Arab and mixed parties at the Knesset (Israeli Parliament). This has been the case in decades in spite of serious regional and internal crises.

You describe the behavior of Israeli soccer fan (of one specific team) to hint for a corruption of democratic values. If that would have been a parameter, I suppose that a racist anarchy could be declared in Italy today and in England two decades ago. Your comment on Rabin legacy is also not precise. True, the legion of the so called "candle" youth are not there anymore, they are grown into realistic adults. Their grief has transformed into scepticism. True, Yigal Amir, one of the rare examples of post-independence Jewish terrorism, does receive love letters from freak teens and he was indeed allowed to marry in jail (haven’t you recently had a special issue on human rights and detention policy in western democracies?), although he could not celebrate his son circumcision. In spite of these, Rabins legacy did won Israeli society and policy; as Peres says and Sharon taught, there is no other road on the map than the one leading to Palestinians freedom from occupation and to Israel security. Test for democracy not mentioned in the article have indeed occurred. Among them the soul corrupting daily missile attacks on Sderot and its citizens. Among them Sharon's pullout from Gaza, when roughly ten thousand of Israeli citizens were redeployed within the green line borders following a 30 years of life on conquered Egypt territory in a defensive war. Despite their political affiliation might have something in common with that of two Jewish terrorists (Amir and Goldstein), the settlers taught a lesson of civil resistance to the world. Within Israel those days were characterized by reserved silence and common grief for the suffering of Israeli fellows. Israel democracy must deal with its weaknesses as it did for the past 60 years, through a disenchanted critic eye on the Middle Eastern reality.

-------------------------
Aaron Fait, Berlin, Germany



Israel and the Palestinians
Remembering Yitzhak Rabin

Nov 8th 2007
From The Economist print edition (www.economist.com)
The inner price Israel pays for its continuing occupation of the West Bank

AFP

“YOU were the pillar of fire before the camp and now we are left only as the camp, alone and in the dark”. So said his weeping grand-daughter, eulogising Yitzhak Rabin after he was shot in the back by a Jewish religious zealot 12 years ago. The murder of a strong and popular prime minister appeared briefly to unite the Jewish state. But the Israel of that time was in fact a camp divided. This year's anniversary has brought grim new evidence of how bitter the divisions have grown.

Millions of Israelis continue to mourn the war hero who shook the hand of Yasser Arafat and had seemed poised like a Moses to save the Jewish state by leading it out of the West Bank and Gaza, the lands he had himself conquered as army chief in 1967. But to a large minority of Israelis, Yigal Amir, his unrepentant murderer, has also become a hero. Though he remains in prison, Mr Amir has been allowed to marry and produce a son. A quarter of Israelis say they would not object to his sentence being commuted. At a recent football match, fans of one Jerusalem team horrified respectable Israel by greeting a call to remember the anniversary with chants in praise not of the fallen leader but of the fanatic who killed him.

The resurgence now of Israel's divisions over Rabin is no coincidence. He was murdered by one of those Israelis who say that the Jews have been granted a divine right to the whole of biblical Israel, and that this overrides both the Palestinian right of self-determination and the decisions arrived at by the secular institutions of Israeli democracy. The Oslo peace process of the 1990s convinced Israel's national-religious right that Rabin intended to surrender the God-given land. And now comes a new peace process, stirring new fears of betrayal. Later this month Arabs and Israelis are due to meet at Annapolis in Maryland. To make this more than a photo-opportunity, Israel's present prime minister, Ehud Olmert, will have to endorse the principle of sharing Jerusalem with a Palestinian state and giving up the bulk at least of the West Bank.

Whether some new Yigal Amir is plotting right now to destroy this plan by murder it is impossible to say. But one moral of the Rabin story is clear. Although history let some lucky countries (such as Britain, but not—remember Algeria—France) colonise the lands of others for a while without corroding unity and democracy at home, Israel is not one of those. Its own definition of itself, encompassing not only the location of its borders but also its internal cohesion and its political and moral values, is hostage to the fate of the Palestinian-inhabited territories Israel still occupies by military force.

As the stronger party, Israelis sometimes behave as though they can afford better than the weak and divided Palestinians to postpone the day when historic Palestine must be divided into separate Jewish and Arab states. They are wrong. As the fight over the legacy of Rabin shows, the longer the occupation of the West Bank continues, the coarser, more fractious and more potentially violent Israel's inner life becomes. It is too much to say, as some do, that the survival of Israel depends on finding a safe way to leave. But the survival of Israeli democracy may well depend on it.


26 June 2007
PRESS RELEASE
(Truman Institute for the advancement of peace, http://truman.huji.ac.il/)

Joint Palestinian-Israeli Public Opinion Poll*

IN THE BACKDROP OF THE GAZA TAKEOVER BY HAMAS, ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS SHARE GRIM EXPECTATIONS OF THE OTHER SIDE’S LEADERSHIP AND THE CHANCES FOR THE RESUMPTION OF NEGOTIATIONS

These are the results of the most recent poll conducted jointly by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, between June 12 and 20, 2007. The data for these surveys were collected while the Hamas’ violent takeover of the Gaza Strip took place. The evaluation of the reported figures must take into consideration this context.

The joint poll examined the two publics’ support of a renewed cease fire agreement between Israel and the Palestinian factions and several ideas to promote it including the deployment of international forces on the borders of the Gaza strip, and the security plan proposed by US Secretary of State Rice. In addition we examined assessments of the Arab League (Saudi) plan, the Israeli leadership's degrees of freedom to negotiate with various configurations of a Palestinian government, and an Israeli-Syrian settlement.

• 89% of Israelis and 76% of Palestinians believed at the time of the survey that armed confrontations between the two sides will continue. 47% of Israelis and 51% of Palestinians believed that negotiations will resume. However only 31% of Palestinians believed it is possible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership. Among Israelis, 42% believed that it is possible to reach such a settlement with Abu Mazin, and 25% - with a Palestinian national unity government.

• 63% of the Palestinians support the security plan proposed by the American Secretary of State last month, compared to 45% among Israelis who support it. The plan requests from the Palestinians the enforcement of law and order, fighting terrorism, preventing rocket attacks on Israel, and preventing smuggling through tunnels. It requests the Israelis to open the crossings of Rafah, Kerem Shalom, and Karni on a regular and permanent basis, to allow passage of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and remove checkpoints in the West Bank. Presumably Israelis’ lukewarm support of the plan has been driven by fears of renewed violent attacks by Hamas following its takeover of Gaza if checkpoints are removed and Gaza crossings are open, echoing Israeli security authorities’ concerns.



• Regarding another closely related issue, the deployment of international forces along the borders of Gaza, Egypt and Israel, in order to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel, a considerable majority among Israelis (65%) support this step, while 35% of the Palestinians support it. Three years ago in June 2004, 53% of the Israelis and 60% among Palestinians supported the deployment of such an armed force.

Given the blowing of war winds in the region and speculations about a new war in the summer we attempted to asses the impact of these speculations on Israelis’ expectations and attitudes toward the use of force versus peaceful means to cope with threats that Israel faces.

• 46% of the Israelis believe that another war can be expected this summer while 42% do not expect such a war.
• 15% of the Israelis also believe that a ground operation in the Gaza strip can prevent a coming war in the summer while 49% believe that such an operation will rather promote war.

And Given the difficulties the Palestinians confront in their domestic scene, we attempted to assess how the Palestinian public views its options regarding the future of the PA, possible confederation with Jordan, and the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the next five years.
• 41% of the Palestinians want to dissolve the PA and replace it with an international trusteeship (26%) or return to full Israeli occupation (16%). 49% oppose the dissolution of the PA.
• 42% support the establishment of a confederation with Jordan and 52% oppose that.
• 70% believe the chances for the establishment of a Palestinian state in the next five years are low or nonexistent and 26% believe the chances are medium or high.

The joint poll further examined Israeli and Palestinian assessments of the capability of both leaderships to reach a political settlement these days.

Total Palestinian sample size is 1270 adults interviewed face-to-face in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 127 randomly selected locations between June 14 and 20, 2007. The margin of error is 3%. The Israeli sample includes 598 adult Israelis interviewed by phone in Hebrew, Arabic, or Russian between June 12 and 19, 2007. The margin of error is 4%. The poll was planned and supervised by Dr. Yaacov Shamir, the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace and the Department of Communication and Journalism at the Hebrew University and Dr. Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR).
For further details on the Palestinian survey contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki or Walid Ladadweh, at tel. 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org. On the Israeli survey, contact Dr. Yaacov Shamir at tel. 03-6419429 or email jshamir@mscc.huji.ac.il.


*This joint survey was conducted with the support of the Ford Foundation Cairo office and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ramallah.
MAIN FINDINGS

(A) Cease Fire Agreement and the renewal of the political process

• At the time of the joint poll, Israelis and Palestinians do not hold high hopes regarding the resumption of negotiations. Only 17% of Palestinians and 9% of the Israelis believe that negotiations will resume soon enough and armed confrontations will stop. 34% of the Palestinians and 38% of the Israelis think that negotiations will resume but some armed attacks will continue. 41% of the Palestinians and 51% of the Israelis believe that armed confrontations will not stop and the two sides will not return to negotiations
• 70% of the Israelis believe that neither side came out a winner in the current round of the conflict, 12% believe that the Palestinians won, 10% believe that Israel won and 5% believe that both won.
• 9% of the Israelis also believe that Israel will gain more from the recent cease fire while 33% believe Palestinians will gain more, 40% believe both will gain and 16% think neither side will gain.
• As to steps which can help to sustain a cease fire, 35% of the Palestinians and 65% of the Israelis support a proposal to deploy international armed forces in the Gaza Strip, especially on the border with Israel and Egypt to prevent arm smuggling and rocket launching on Israel. 61% and 29% oppose this proposal respectively.
• Similarly, 63% of the Palestinians and 45% of the Israelis support the American security plan, which was presented to the Palestinians and Israelis last month. The plan requests from the Palestinians the enforcement of law and order, fighting terrorism, preventing rocket attacks on Israel, and preventing smuggling through tunnels. It requests from the Israelis to open the Rafah, Kerem Shalom, and Karni crossings on a regular and permanent basis, allow passage of people and goods between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, and remove checkpoints in the West Bank. 36% of the Palestinians and 52% of the Israelis oppose this plan.
• 40% of the Israelis support and 57% oppose the release of Marwan Barghouti from prison and negotiations with him in order to reach a compromise agreement with the Palestinians.
• 60% of the Israelis support negotiations between Israel and Abu Mazin over a final status settlement.
• Despite these levels of support only 42% of the Israelis believe that it is possible to reach nowadays a compromise settlement between Olmert and Abu Mazin. In December 2006, 46% believed so.
• Similarly, 50% of the Israelis support and 46% oppose negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government which includes Hamas if needed to reach a compromise agreement. However only 25% of Israelis believe that it is possible, and 70% think it is impossible to reach a compromise settlement with the Palestinian national unity government. In March 2007, 33% believed this is possible. This drop in Israelis’ optimism regarding the chances to reach an agreement between the two leaderships is likely a reaction of Israelis to the leadership crisis in the PA, following the recent events in Gaza.
• As to Palestinians, 31% believe it is possible and 65% think it is impossible to reach a compromise settlement with the current Israeli leadership.
• A majority of 60% among Palestinians and 64% of the Israelis agrees with the proposal that after reaching a permanent agreement to all issues of the conflict, there would be mutual recognition of Israel as the state for the Jewish people and Palestine as the state for the Palestinian people. 38% and 30% respectively disagree. 51% of the Palestinians and 48% of the Israelis believe that a majority in their public supports such a proposal, and 37% and 36% respectively think the majority opposes it. However both publics are only partly aware of the majority support for such a step in the other side. Only 43% of the Palestinians and 35% of the Israelis think the other side public supports this step.
• Despite the ongoing internal strife in the PA, these levels of support in a mutual recognition of identity did not change much. In December 2006, 63% of the Israelis and 58% of the Palestinians supported such a step.
• Given the ongoing events, both publics are quite pessimistic regarding the chances for such a mutual recognition (marking support in a two state solution) to materialize. Only 26% of the Palestinians and 39% of the Israelis believe that there are medium or high chances that a Palestinian State will be established in the next 5 years. 70% of the Palestinians and 59% among Israelis believe that these chances are nil or low.
• 66% of the Palestinians and 43% among Israelis believe that a political settlement will never be reached or only in many generations to come, 13% and 33% respectively think it will come in the next generation or next decade, and only 13% Palestinians and 18% Israelis think it will come in the next few years.


(B) The Arab league plan and negotiations with Syria

• In addition to the Palestinian arena, we examined in the poll both publics’ attitudes regarding the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and Israelis’ attitudes toward a settlement with Syria over the Golan Heights.
• As to the Arab League (Saudi) plan, and after briefing our respondents on its essential elements, 36% of the Israelis and 66% of the Palestinians support the plan compared to 59% and 31% respectively who oppose it.
• When we framed the reference to the refugees issue in terms of President Clinton’s approach to the issue, support for the Saudi plan decreased among Palestinians and slightly increased among Israelis. Under this framing 46% of the Palestinians and 39% of the Israelis support the Saudi plan while 49% and 52% respectively oppose it.
• 47% among Israelis believe that Israel should and 50% think that Israel should not enter negotiations with Syria's President Assad on full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement
• 25% of the Israelis support and 60% oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement with Syria.
• Israelis’ support for the return of the Golan Heights increases noticeably when presented with the proposal to demilitarize the Golan Heights and to turn it into a recreational park under Syria's sovereignty, but administered jointly with Israel. Israeli citizens would be allowed to enter the park freely for vacation and recreational purposes. Under these terms, 31% support and 56% oppose full evacuation of the Golan Heights in return for a complete peace agreement.


(C) Other Conflict Related and Conflict Resolution Issues

Given the current difficulties confronting the Palestinians, we examined Palestinian public perceptions of various threats and options:
• A majority of Palestinians (56%) believe that the most serious threat confronting the Palestinians today is infighting and lawlessness, followed by poverty (21%), Israeli occupation and settlements (12%) and finally international boycott and sanctions (10%).
• A large percentage (41%) of the Palestinians wants the dissolution of the Palestinian Authority but a larger percentage (49%) opposes that. The percentage of those in favor of dissolving the PA is divided among those who want it replaced with international trusteeship (26%) and those who want it replaced with a return to full Israeli occupation (16%).
• Similarly, 42% of the Palestinians support the establishment of a confederation with Jordan while 52% oppose that. The percentage of those in favor the confederation solution is divided among those who want it now (25%) and those who want it only later after the establishment of a Palestinian state (17%).
• Overwhelming majority of 82% of the Palestinians view acts such as the kidnapping of foreigners, the burning of internet cafe’s, and the bombing of foreign schools as criminal deserving condemnation while only 3% view them as nationalistic and deserving support. In the Gaza Strip, 85% view these acts as criminal and 2% as nationalistic.
• Given the blowing of war winds in the region and speculations about a new war in the summer 46% of the Israelis believe that another war can be expected this summer while 42% do not expect such a war. We attempted to asses Israelis’ attitudes toward the use of force versus peaceful means to cope with threats that Israel faces. Israelis were presented with a list of possible steps Israel could take and were asked to assess the potential of each step to promote or rather prevent a war in the summer. The table below presents Israelis’ assessments of the possible outcomes of these steps.


Percent believing it
can prevent war Percent believing it can neither prevent nor promote Percent believing it can promote war
Negotiations with Syria 46% 41% 10%

Negotiations with Abu Mazin 26% 61% 10%

Negotiations with a Palestinian national unity government 24% 47% 14%

Negotiations on the Saudi plan 35% 49% 10%

Preventative attack on Hizballa 16% 24% 55%

A ground operation in the Gaza Strip 15% 31% 49%

Bombing Iran's nuclear reactor 15% 15% 65%

Threatening Syria with harsh measures if it will start a war 22% 27% 44%


• Of all the negotiation options facing Israel these days, the most preferred one is negotiations over the Saudi plan, with 31% of the Israelis chose preferring it most. Second stands negotiations with the Palestinians on a compromise agreement, with 25% preferring it most. Only 17% prefer most negotiations with Assad and Syria over the Golan Heights in return for full peace.17% do not prefer any of these options.


(D) Palestinian Domestic Balance of Power

• If new parliamentary elections are held today, Fateh would receive 43% of the vote, the same percentage it received three months ago in our March survey. But support for Change and Reform (Hamas) drops from 37% three months ago to 33% in this survey. Support for all other third parties combined stands at 12% and 13% remain undecided.
• If new presidential elections are held today and the only two candidates were Mahmud Abbas and Ismail Haniyeh, 40% would not participate in these elections. Among those who would participate, 49% would vote for Abbas and 42% for Haniyeh. If the competition was between Marwan Barghouti and Ismail Haniyeh, non participation would drop to 31%. Among those who would participate, 59% would vote for Marwan Barghouti and 35% for Haniyeh. In the Gaza Strip, Barghouti wins against Haniyeh by 55% to 41%.


(E) General mood and attitudes toward democracy

• 90% of the Palestinians describe current Palestinian conditions as very bad or bad while only 6% describe them as good or very good. 28% of the Palestinians say they want to immigrate to other countries and 23% say they are not proud of being Palestinians. As to Israelis, 44% think Israel’s general condition these days is bad or very bad, 38% believe it to be so-so and 17% describe Israel’s condition these days as good or very good.
• In the backdrop of the internal strife in the Gaza strip 54% of the Palestinians and 85% of the Israelis see democracy in the Palestinian Authority as a failed system that cannot be implemented in Palestine. 41% of the Palestinians and 10% of the Israelis see democracy rather as a successful system that is suited for Palestine.
• Nonetheless, 42% of the Palestinians who believe that democracy is a failed system believe that the Palestinian Authority should maintain that democratic system despite its problems, while 45% think that it should abandon it and adopt a non democratic system. 2% of the Israelis think that the current status of democracy and human rights in the Palestinian Authority is very good or good, 12% believe it is so-so, and 84% think it is bad or very bad.

lunedì 12 novembre 2007

Momenti

"Enzo Biagi: lo ha fatto per interesse o credo?"

Riporto qui sotto un pezzo apparso di recente sul passato di E. Biagi. Lo pubblico perché credo nel diritto a conoscere. Ció nonostante sono convinto che il dibattito sul passato di una persona cosí influente nel giornalismo italiano si sia dovuto svolgere ancora quando questa in vita. Non conosco abbastanza gli scritti di Biagi per sapere se abbia mai fatto i conti con il suo passato, con l'immondizia a cui ha partecipato e né sapró mai se in cuor suo Biagi abbia taciuto questo servilismo bacato (se ideologico) e vergognoso (se ipocrita) per interesse o per vergogna.
Aa

Il passato antisemita di Enzo Biagi

"La memoria selettiva di Enzo Biagi"
di Gaspare De Caro e Roberto De Caro


Nell'intervista concessa a Luciano Nigro in occasione dei festeggiamenti per il suo ottantasettesimo compleanno nella natia Pianaccio di Lizzano in Belvedere e pubblicata il 9 agosto scorso sull'edizione bolognese di Repubblica, Enzo Biagi racconta che «Giorgio Pini, cognato di un mio zio che si chiamava come me, incontrò Mussolini alla vigilia del gran consiglio che lo destituì», cioè poco prima del 24 luglio 1943. Nigro chiosa: «Lei in quei giorni scelse i partigiani». Biagi non fa una piega: «E mi trovai con gente di ogni classe...». Non è certo la prima volta che l'illustre giornalista glissa sui particolari, e crediamo sia giusto informare i lettori che non fu affatto «in quei giorni» che «scelse i partigiani», poiché qui le date contano e l'omissione non è innocente.

In virtù della parentela con il cugino Bruno Biagi - potente ras fascista, deputato dal '34, presidente della Commissione industria della Camera dei fasci e dell'Istituto nazionale fascista della previdenza sociale, poi sottosegretario alle Corporazioni -, Enzo Marco (così firmava all'inizio i suoi articoli) scriveva già diciassettenne sull'Avvenire d'Italia e su L'Assalto, «organo della federazione dei fasci di combattimento di Bologna», e in seguito su Il Resto del Carlino, dove divenne professionista nel giugno del '42, quotidiano che per razzismo e fanatismo non era da meno e che fu diretto a partire dal 16 settembre del '43 proprio da Giorgio Pini.

Partecipò anche a Primato, la rivista di Giuseppe Bottai, il ministro delle leggi razziali, che «ha sempre stimato» e nei confronti del quale ha pubblicamente confessato il proprio «dovere di gratitudine» (Enzo Biagi, Ma che tempi, Rizzoli, Milano 1998, p. 43), una di quelle «camicie nere ma teste libere» di cui serba affascinato ricordo (Id., Scusate, dimenticavo, BUR, Milano 1997, p. 12). L'Assalto - «giornale della federazione fascista, dove poi ognuno scriveva quello che voleva» (Id., Ero partito da Bologna piangendo, in Bologna incontri, XIII, 5, maggio 1982, p. 6) - si distinse sin dal luglio del '38 per la violenza della campagna antisemita, condotta settimanalmente sulla pelle degli ebrei bolognesi e non solo - per esempio invocò con urgenza profetica un'
«opera di purificazione indispensabile specialmente nelle maggiori città dell'Italia settentrionale e centrale (Roma, dove ci sono ancora troppi ebrei, compresa)» (23 agosto 1941) - e dal giugno del '40 per il «tono forsennatamente fascista e bellicoso» (Nazario Sauro Onofri, I giornali bolognesi nel ventennio fascista, Moderna, Bologna 1972, p. 159).

Sul periodico Biagi si occupava di critica cinematografica e quando venne il suo turno di fornire un diretto contributo al razzismo nazifascista elogiò Süss, l'ebreo, film la cui visione Himmler impose alla Wehrmacht e alle SS in partenza per le campagne di sterminio in Europa Orientale:
«un cinema di propaganda. Ma una propaganda che non esclude l'arte - che è posta al servizio dell'idea», scriveva in implicita polemica con il cinema italiano, che non trovava altrettanto valido. E continuava: Süss, l'ebreo «ricorda certe vecchie efficaci e morali produzioni imperniate sul contrasto tra il buono e il cattivo [...], trascina il pubblico all'entusiasmo», l'«ebreo Süss è posto a indicare una mentalità, un sistema e una morale: va oltre il limite del particolare, per assumere il valore di simbolo, per esprimere le caratteristiche inconfutabili di una totalità. Poiché l'opera è umana e razionale incontra l'approvazione: e raggiunge lo scopo: molta gente apprende che cosa è l'ebraismo, e ne capisce i moventi della battaglia che lo combatte» (4 ottobre 1941). Dopo l'8 settembre, i giornali bolognesi passarono sotto il controllo nazista e proseguirono la lotta, compresa quella di sterminio contro le «caratteristiche inconfutabili di una totalità».

Furono, quelli, giorni e mesi decisivi, come sanno gli storici. Biagi rimase al servizio della causa repubblichina fino alla tarda primavera del '44, continuando a svolgere compiti redazionali e a compilare le sue scialbe schedine cinematografiche, cellule staminali delle opere a venire. L'ultimo articolo apparve il 17 giugno su Settimana: Illustrato del «Resto del Carlino», insieme all'intervento, assai più autorevole, di un suo giovane collega, Giovanni Spadolini, che sfoderava una devastante critica del liberalismo, prima di inabissarsi nel refettorio di qualche convento in attesa di risorgere après le déluge liberaldemocratico in altra Repubblica. La caduta di Roma e lo sbarco in Normandia avevano illuminato definitivamente il futuro, e quando giunse, non più aggirabile, la chiamata alle armi nell'esercito di Salò Enzo Marco preferì la montagna, come altri giornalisti, «la categoria che, più di ogni altra, era stata curata, selezionata, vezzeggiata dal regime, oltre che strapagata».

Tornò a Bologna dieci mesi dopo, con indosso una divisa dell'esercito statunitense: sempre à la page, il Biagi. Se riscattò con la sua tardiva conversione quegli «anni di servilismo e di abiezione professionale e morale» (Onofri, op. cit., p. 264), non è dato sapere con certezza. Forse. Ciò che invece è sicuro è che fu complice attivo e non accidentale delle nefandezze del fascismo: poteva scegliere e lo fece. Non era il solo? non è un alibi, come ammonisce Hannah Arendt. Era giovane? Non abbastanza: aveva l'età di Piero Gobetti quando fu bastonato a morte e delle decine di migliaia di connazionali che il regime mandò a uccidere e morire mentre lui si assicurava i dividendi di spettanza. E se l'Asse avesse vinto la guerra, che gli sarebbe successo? Be', questo è facile: Auschwitz o no, avrebbe percorso la sua brillante carriera, come poi ha fatto. All'ombra del potere in fiore.

Pubblicato Settembre 5, 2007 10:52 PM
http://www.carmillaonline.com/archives/2007/09/002364.html


Ringraziamo per la segnalazione l'anonimo post sul Forum di Ghetton:
http://www.ghetton.com/it/forum2/forum.php?action=view&topic=1194607126
=============================================================
Kolòt-Voci - Newsletter di Morasha.it a cura di David Piazza
=============================================================

Storia di una donna di frontiera 01-09-03

Sono una donna di frontiera. Nata a Trieste, vissuta per trent'anni a Bolzano, attualmente risiedo in Israele dove spero di vivere la mia vita lasciando una traccia delle mie esperienze.
Bambina, ero a Trieste quando la citta' ritorno' all'Italia e ricordo tutto.
Ricordo le manifestazioni, tutti vestiti di bianco-rosso-verde; ricordo il mio foulard-bandiera che sventolavo per le strade.
Ricordo mio fratello maggiore che andava a manifestare contro gli inglesi.
Ricordo Pierino Addobbati colpito a morte, quasi bambino, dai titini mentre manifestava per l'italianita' di Trieste.
Per anni il suo banco al Liceo Dante Alighieri e' rimasto vuoto, coperto da un mazzo di fiori.
Ricordo gli slavi che urlavano "Trst je' nas", Trieste e' nostra!
La guerriglia per le strade e infine l'arrivo dei Bersaglieri che correvano al suono della loro canzone accolti dalla popolazione in delirio: "W Trieste Italiana! W Trieste italiana".
Che tempi!
Ricordo infine i profughi italiani di Istria e Dalmazia, poveri e senza niente, accolti come fratelli e subito integrati al resto della popolazione.
A Bolzano ho vissuto gli anni della "guerra dei tralicci" e dei Carabinieri uccisi dal tritolo. Una guerra civile tra cittadini dello stesso Stato ma non della stessa Patria.
Ho vissuto la difficile convivenza fra i gruppi linguistici, la discriminazione del gruppo italiano rispetto a quello di lingua tedesca.
Ho visto i bambini delle scuole divisi da reti di protezione (era un muro invisibile ma insormontabile) perche' non giocassero insieme, piccoli italiani e piccoli tedeschi. Dovevano essere solo bambini invece gli uni erano "walsche" e gli altri erano "crucchi".
Conoscere entrambe le lingue e' sempre stato fondamentale in Alto Adige sia per la convivenza che per la vita sociale visto che, tuttora, chiunque cerchi lavoro deve superare un severo esame di bilinguismo.
Pero' per imparare le lingue e il rispetto dell'altro bisogna lasciare che i bambini vivano insieme e giochino insieme e tutto questo era severamente vietato, vietato per legge!
Convinta dell'importanza della convivenza e dell'educazione che, in tal senso, doveva essere data ai bambini, quando mio figlio compi' tre anni lo presi per mano e andai con lui in un bel asilo tedesco vicino a casa con l'intenzione di iscriverlo, fummo ricevuti dalla direttrice che mi chiese subito, sorridendo gentilmente:
"Di che madrelingua siete?"
Risposi: "Io sono italiana, mia madre e' greca, mio padre e' istriano, mia nonna e' mezza greca, mezza polacca e anche un po' spagnola, a casa mia ho sentito parlare molte lingue. Faccia lei".
Naturalmente, per preservare la salute mentale della direttrice, non aggiunsi che oltre a tutti quei difetti eravamo anche ebrei.
Conclusione: Aaron non fu accettato e fu una fortuna perche' non so che vita avrebbe avuto in quel asilo un bambino di dubbia madrelingua e di origini cosi' poco pure.
Lo iscrissi in un comunissimo asilo italiano e diedi subito vita a una protesta perche' la lingua tedesca fosse insegnata a partire dai tre anni.
Insieme ad altri genitori iniziai l'occupazione dell'asilo e assumemmo a nostre spese le maestre di tedesco per i nostri figli. Scandalo cittadino, finimmo sui giornali ma fecemmo scuola e altri seguirono il nostro esempio col risultato che l'anno seguente il tedesco, pur se facoltativo, fu introdotto nella scuola materna. Grande vittoria anche se ormai ero conosciuta un po' dovunque col titolo di "strarompi".
Il disagio degli italiani di Bolzano era palpabile, la discriminazione era molto sentita e rifiutata, a volte con odio e rabbia e altre con la tentata assimilazione di coloro che fingevano di sentirsi tedeschi nella speranza di ottenere lavoro e magari, se andava bene, il diritto di frequentare l'universita' a Innsbruck.
Alla fine delle loro fatiche sbattevano comunque il muso perche' scoprivano che, nonostante i loro giuramenti di fedelta' al popolo tirolese, e, in alcuni casi, le dichiarazioni fasulle al censimento (Sei di madrelingua italiana? NO
sei di madrelingua tedesca? SI), vivere a Innsbruck era semplice e gratuito solo per gli studenti la cui madrelingua tedesca fosse assolutamente certa e il loro sangue puro.
Queste cose in Italia non si sapevano, forse ancora oggi sono sconosciute ai piu' e in Alto Adige-Suedtirol si ricordano ancora i terroristi come eroi combattenti per la liberta', con tanto di parate paramilitari e bandiere biancorosse con l'aquila a due teste.
Tanto per gradire alcuni Shuetzen portano orgogliosamente sul petto medaglie naziste.
Ed ora eccomi qui, in Israele.
Dai Paesi di frontiera al Paese da eliminare.
Israele ha avuto anche i suoi profughi, ebrei arrivati dai paesi arabi, e li ha accolti come fratelli e integrati al resto della popolazione.
Gli arabi hanno avuto anche i loro profughi, arabi-palestinesi usciti da Israele in guerra. Li hanno chiusi in campi recintati e li hanno lasciati marcire nella miseria e nell'odio, scelta rivelatasi lungimirante per mantenere nella regione confusione, guerra e violenza.
I profughi palestinesi sono gli unici al mondo che possono usare il diritto di profugo per ereditarieta': profughi i nonni, i genitori, i nipoti, i bisnipoti fino a chissa' quale generazione. Chi lo decidera'? L'eliminazione di Israele?
Dei 135 milioni di profughi delle guerre degli ultimi 60 anni solo i palestinesi pretendono il diritto assurdo di ritornare alle case d'origine di nonni e bisnonni e ormai scomparse.
Per ottenere quello che vogliono si dedicano al terrorismo. Negli ultimi anni si sono molto raffinati, non avendo niente di meglio da fare perche' mantenuti dall'URNWA, e hanno inventato il terrorismo suicida per coinvolgere nella loro morte vigliacca e crudele il maggior numero di bambini, donne e civili israeliani.
Chissa', se i profughi italiani dell'Istria fossero andati a far saltare autobus a Belgrado forse avrei potuto riavere la casa di Capodistria...sporca di sangue innocente.
I profughi istriani hanno ricevuto dopo 30 anni un po' di soldi. Zitti e mosca.
E zitti sono rimasti e hanno lavorato e si sono creati una vita in Italia o altrove, gente laboriosa e pacifica che oggi va a passare le vacanze al mare, il piu' vicino possibile alla casa perduta.
I profughi palestinesi continuano la loro vita di odio e miseria, continuano a seminare morte e terrore, continuano a urlare che torneranno e ci butteranno a mare.
Quando la Palestina fu divisa in due, una parte, Israele, per gli ebrei e l'altra, la Giordania, per gli arabi, il discorso era chiaro qui come lo era stato in altre parti del mondo dove era avvenuta una divisione e un passaggio di territori e popolazioni da una nazione ad un'altra.
Si, il discorso era chiaro ma nessuno aveva fatto i conti con l'intransigenza araba che non poteva accettare in Medio Oriente una nazione democratica e non islamica e non aveva fatto i conti nemmeno con le simpatie naziste delle nazioni arabe che rifiutavano la creazione di un stato ebraico.
Oggi, dopo 60 anni, i giornalisti buonisti vengono a raccontarci le storielle patetiche delle chiavi delle case che i vecchi palestinesi conservano.
Bene, le conservino, esattamente come io conservo per ricordo le chiavi della casa avita di Capodistria, oggi Slovenia, tanti anni fa Italia.
Cosi' va il mondo, poi e' solo questione di civilta'.
C'e' chi ce l'ha e c'e' chi non ce l'ha.

Deborah Fait

venerdì 2 novembre 2007

Rav Luzzato, la riforma e l'ebraismo oggi

La critica di Rav Luzzato riportata sotto é credibile. È comprensibile la sua preoccupazione per una nuova ondata di lassismo che rischia di mietere vittime e ha orgine dal cuore del mondo ebraico, dalla intellighenzia ebraica in europea. D'altronde il motivo della distruzione del tempio non é stata proprio per odio intra comunitario e abbandono della tradizione? Cosa puó verificarsi di piú terribile se non l'auto-distruzione del popolo ebraico, la lenta agonia dovuta al suo allontanarsi dalla Legge.
Mettendo da parte le origini della "riforma ebraica" che hanno dipeso dal contesto storico-sociale europeo e quello culturale della regione in cui é nata (la Germania protestante), la critica di Rav Luzzato non puó divenire la foglia di fico del mondo ebraico Italiano. Rav Luzzato infatti é chiaro :"
Il vostro esempio formerà a religione ed a virtù le vostre famiglie e i figli vostri, i quali renderanno beata la vostra vita e la canizie vostra, e voi con lieto cuore benedirete il Dio, che vi elesse e che ci diede la sua legge." Rav Luzzato chiede di dare esempio. Il popolo ebraico ricevette la legge per dare esempio e servire D-O, queste circostanze lo fecero goy qadosh. La Qedushá del popolo risiede nel servire D-O e l'unico modo che l'ebreo ha per servire D-O é tramite le Mitzvot. Quella lunga lista di obblighi e proibizioni che scandiscono la nostra giornata. Ed ecco che la foglia di fico si libra al soffio del vento che spira dalle viscere della societá occidentale odierna con le sue comoditá e le sue tentazioni. Ed ecco che la vergogna di buona parte di coloro che usano le grandi parole del Rabbino si fa evidente e grossolana quanto la loro ipocrisia. L'ebraismo é in crisi, é in crisi perché l'ebreo dimentica le sue radici e le implicazioni della sua qedushá. L'ebreo dimentica lo shabat, l'ebreo dimentica i suoi obblighi e le sue responsabilitá. Ci si scandalizza perché un ramo del nostro popolo ha cambiato le regole del gioco e con questo ha mantenuto molti ebrei legati, anche se non saldamente, alla tradizione. Ci si scandalizza e si urla "vergogna" e lo si fa con il piede schiacciato sull'accelleratore, mentre di Shabat prendiamo la macchina per una scampagnata fuori cittá. Ci si scandalizza mentre l'ebraismo italiano é stato riposto nelle mani di Chabad con la sua visione messianica che in certi ambienti rasenta l'idolatria. Ci si scandalizza mentre abbiamo fatto della nostra religione qualcosa che sa di cristiano. Le sinagoghe si riempiono di Kippur e sono vuote di Shabat; la responsabilitá individuale della tradizione é stata consegnata ai nostri rabbini. Per questi motivi non possiamo usare le parole del grande rabbino Luzzato, per questi motivi l'ebraismo nella Golá rischia di dissolversi come un'aspirina in un bicchier d'acqua. Si, come Rav Di Segni ha notato, se si toglie al popolo ebraico la Quedushá delle mitzvot, rimane solo la parola Goy.

Il famoso rabbino italiano sul fenomeno che iniziava a prendere piede anche in Italia


La Riforma? Una "sconcissima" cosa

Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal) - 1800-1865


Cosa nuova non è abusare delle parole e colorare con bei nomi sconcissime cose (...).

Eccocene un funesto esempio. Alcuni Israeliti, bramosi di esonerarsi dalle pratiche religiose annesse al Giudaismo, e volendo fare con una specie di legalità, in guida da non avere ad essere riguardati quali empi trasgressori della Legge di Dio, mascherando il loro progetto, di totalmente abolire la Legge mosaica, sotto lo specioso nome di Riforma. Ma questo nome è egli adeguato al disegno di questi uomini?

Riformò Lutero la Chiesa, depurandola di varie credenze e di varie pratiche, che vi si erano nel corso de' secoli intruse, e restituendo il cristianesimo quale egli era, o quale egli credette che esso fosse, nei suoi primordi. Così tra noi i Caraiti hanno creduto riformare il Giudaismo, attenendosi scrupolosamente a ciò, che credettero essere il senso delle parole di Mosè. Ma con qual fronte osano chiamarsi Riformatori del Giudaismo uomini, i quali "rinunziano formalmente a tutti i riprovevoli esclusivi precetti e costumanze"? Il Giudaismo fu sin dalla sua origine una religione esclusiva. La famiglia d'Abramo si è sempre creduta un popolo eletto, una nazione di sacerdoti. l'Israeliti furono effettivamente i depositari di quelle sante dottrine, che, uscite dal loro grembo e propagatesi sulla faccia della terra, dissiparono le tenebre del mondo morale, e partorirono quel molto o poco di bene, di cui va superba la moderna civiltà, la quale è ancora ben lungi dalla sua perfezione, atteso l'elemento greco, che in essa è sempre in conflitto con l'elemento abramitico. In qualità di sacerdoti del genere umano, gl'Israeliti furono distinti con varie pratiche esclusive, le quali hanno potuto conservar loro un'esistenza, che conservare non seppero tante nazioni assai più forti e potenti. (...)

Il Giudaismo è quindi essenzialmente un sacerdozio, e per conseguenza una religione esclusiva, carica di pratiche esclusive. È bensì lo spirito del Giudaismo una religione, una moralità universale (...) Ma il giudaismo, come Sacerdozio, come depositario e come propagatore di questa Dottrina, è inseparabile da molte pratiche esclusive; e chi le abolisce non riforma, ma distrugge il Giudaismo. È libero ognuno di rinunziare a questo Sacerdozio, a questa religione esclusiva; chiunque vuole può dal ceto giudaico separarsi; ma volersi chiamare Israelita, e volersi esonerare da tutte le pratiche, che contraddistinguono l'Israelita, questa è una contraddizione. Né vale il fingere di limitare le leggi esclusive, che si vogliono abolire, coll'aggiunta dell'epiteto "riprovevoli", quando non si spiegano i caratteri, che render possono un atto riprovevole. E d'altra parte i fatti dimostrano che i partigiani di questa Società non hanno nulla di sacro, e rigettano la stessa circoncisione, che è già da 36 secoli precipua caratteristica degli Abramiti. (...)

Nel mentre che anche noi riconosciamo che l'attuale giudaismo contiene varie modificazioni ed aggiunte, dalla pietà e dalla profonda sapienza degli antichi Sinedrii portate nel Mosaismo, a seconda dei bisogni dei variati tempi e dietro le norme tradizionalmente tramandate dallo stesso Mosè; come pure varie dottrine intruse ne' bassi tempi sotto l'influenza d'una cultura straniera; crediamo ben diversa dalla nostra essere la "convinzione" di questi pretesi riformati, dopodiché essi dichiarano aver del tutto rinunziato all'odierno giudaismo (...).

Se il Giudaismo attuale comandasse azioni men che morali, o indirettamente conducesse ad una Morale rilasciata; o ispirasse sentimenti antisociali, ed antiumani, saremmo prontissimi anche noi a depurarlo o ad abiurarlo. Ma la santità della Morale giudaica è troppo nota; e noi (e chi no?) abbiamo conosciuto e conosciamo troppi esempi di uomini strettamente osservanti le leggi del giudaismo ed insieme modelli d'ogni più rara virtù sociale -- uomini, il cui numero va ogni giorno, col crescere dell'indifferentismo religioso, a grave danno della società, diminuendo?

Non esitiamo dunque di dare a quelli tra i nostri correligionarii, le cui convinzioni sono in discrepanza col giudaismo, il seguente consiglio:

Fratelli! abituate nuovamente le vostre mani all'esercizio delle avite costumanze; fatelo in onore dei vostri antenati, che per esse versarono il loro sangue; e, nel farlo, sperate di conseguirne quella contentezza, quell'interna soddisfazione, quella gioia, ch'essi ebbero in mezzo alle vessazioni, e di cui voi, in mezzo alla libertà, agli onori, ed ai piaceri, siete privi. Fatelo, e le vostre convinzioni a poco a poco si cangeranno, e voi comincerete a sentire i vantaggiosi frutti dei volontari sacrifizii; dai quali il vostro spirito acquisterà sempre crescente predominio sulla materia, e si alzerà dalla Morale mondana, basata sulla prudenza o sull'onore, guide ambedue spessissimo fallaci, alla celeste, basata sulla santa Provvidenza, la quale, tosto che comincerete a pensarvi, non mancherà di appalesarvisi, nei grandi avvenimenti e nei minimi, mostrandovi anzi come nulla cosa è piccola, ma le minime essere origine dalle massime.

Il vostro esempio formerà a religione ed a virtù le vostre famiglie e i figli vostri, i quali renderanno beata la vostra vita e la canizie vostra, e voi con lieto cuore benedirete il Dio, che vi elesse e che ci diede la sua legge. (source www.morasha.it)

mercoledì 17 ottobre 2007

Nostalgia di un... Che?

Il Chè, un'icona, lo trovi sulle borse, il suo viso, i capelli spettinati, il cappello... Il Chè lo trovi su magliette, adesivi, spille... gli fanno compagnia Mao, Titti, foglie di Maria... Il Chè manca, manca a una strana generazione che crea miti dalla spazzatura. Il Chè manca al nuovo dittatore della Venezuela, manca al vecchio dittatore di Cuba, manca il suo carisma, i suoi ideali... quali ideali? Il Chè ha ucciso coloro che si opposero al suo potere, ha castrato qualsiasi tipo di opposizione, ha limitato la libertà di espression, ha offeso i diritti umani della sua stessa nazione... il Chè manca, forse quanto manca ogni dittatore, come Hitler, come Stalin, come Lenin.... già dimenticavo Lenin il grande Lenin altra icona di borse e borselli, spille e cappelli... Lenin altro dittatore, altra ferocia verso il proprio popolo. E' strana la nostalgia per chi opprime, limita e uccide i tuoi figli, i tuoi fratelli e le tue sorelle. Hugo Chávez ha festeggiato il Chè. Ammiratore del grande uomo, Hugo veste rosso, ha chiuso la maggiore televisione d'opposizione, ha imposto un programma di educazione rinnovato, per formare nuovi piccoli venezuelani comunisti, ha minacciato di chiudere le scuole private nel caso in cui non adottino il nuovo programma. ... povero comunismo... possibile che quando messo in pratica è un fallimento totale? possibile che ogni brutale rivoluzionario si dice comunista prima di massacrare il proprio popolo? centinaia di milioni caduti sotto la bandiera rossa, in Russia, in Cina. Perchè un pensiero improntato sull'uguaglianza produce obrobri tanto grassi?
Dall'economist:
A modern saint and sinner
Oct 11th 2007From The Economist print edition
Why the Che myth is bad for the left
AP
THE bearded face—eyes staring defiantly to infinity, the long wavy hair beneath the beret stirred by the Caribbean breeze—has become one of the world's most familiar images. Alberto Korda's photograph of Ernesto “Che” Guevara may be waved aloft by anti-globalisation protesters but it has spawned a global brand. It has adorned cigarettes, ice cream and a bikini, and is tattooed on the bodies of footballers. ... A frail asthmatic, he took up arms with Fidel Castro's guerrillas in Cuba's Sierra Maestra. After their victory, Guevara would fight again in the Congo as well as Bolivia. He fought dictators who were backed by the United States in the name of anti-communism when the cold war was at its hottest, and when Guevara's cry to create “two, three...many Vietnams” resonated on university campuses across the world. His renewed popularity in recent years owes much to a revival of anti-Americanism....A fighter against freedom and democracy. The wider the cult spreads, the further it strays from the man. Rather than a Christian romantic, Guevara was a ruthless and dogmatic Marxist, who stood not for liberation but for a new tyranny. In the Sierra Maestra, he shot those suspected of treachery; in victory, Mr Castro placed him in charge of the firing squads that executed “counter-revolutionaries”; as minister of industries, Guevara advocated expropriation down to the last farm and shop. His exhortation to guerrilla warfare, irrespective of political circumstance, lured thousands of idealistic Latin Americans to their deaths, helped to create brutal dictatorships and delayed the achievement of democracy.
Sadly, Guevara's example is invoked not just by teenagers but by some Latin American governments. In Venezuela, Hugo Chávez wants to create the guevarista “new man” (see article), just when Cuba is having second thoughts. As Jorge Castañeda, one of Guevara's biographers, notes, Che's lingering influence has retarded the emergence of a modern, democratic left in parts of Latin America. Sadly, most of those who buy the T-shirt neither know nor care.

Scienziati e morale

La polemica scatenata dalla teoria illustrata da James Watson premio Nobel e scienziato di fama internazionale non mi ha impressionato. Da anni sono dell'opinione che non esista equazione alcuna tra sapere scientifico e intelligenza emotiva o morale o semplicemente buon senso.
L'ambiente scientifico è pieno di idioti e l'idiozia viene appesantita dal senso di superiorità che il titolo dr., prof., premio nobel shmobel può dare. Elementi maniacali li ha dimostrati di recente il ricercatore Sud Coreano che abusava fisicamente delle sue stesse dipendenti per la ricerca sulla clonazione umana. Il signor Hwang Woo-suk è riuscito a prendere in giro il mondo sulla sua capacità di clonare un uomo.... prima di rivelarsi un povero megalomane. Ora è sotto processo. La sua riabilitazione conferma l'idiozia dell'ambiente... qualcuno gli ha offerto il posto...
Watson, Mr. DNA, si è rivelato un povero razzista senile e ignorante come tanti. Perchè non toglierli il premio Nobel? ... già, Arafat ha aperto le porte dell'importante riconoscimento a cani e porci.
James Watson, ha sostenuto che la gente nera è meno intelligente della gente bianca e l'idea che "l'eguaglianza della ragione" sia condivisa da tutti i gruppi razziali si è rivelata una delusione.
Oggi il poverino (di origini inglesi) è alla guida di uno dei principali centri di ricerca scientifici degli Stati Uniti. Nel 1997, ricorda l'Independent, lo stesso Watson dichiarò alla stampa britannica che una donna doveva avere il diritto di abortire se un test avesse potuto determinare la natura omosessuale del nascituro. Il signore quindi è anche un omofobo, cosa che non aiuta la sua immagine. In seguito suggerì un legame fra colore della pelle e comportamento sessuale: i neri avrebbero una libido maggiore.. teoria ripresa da medici razzisti di inizio secolo per giustificare la sterilizzazione di donne e uomini di colore intrapresa negli stati uniti durante i primi decenni del 1900. Una libido animale secondo gli "ss-cienziati" spiegava anche il maggiore tasso di malattie veneree nella comunità di colore.
Watson è arrivato anche a sostenere che la bellezza può essere fabbricata geneticamente: "La gente dice che sarebbe terribile se rendessimo belle tutte le ragazze. Io penso che sarebbe grandioso". Cosa aggiungere? Forse che i nazisti condividevano uno stesso sogno; i serbi nei campi di concentramento per sole donne provavano a rielaborarlo. Senza troppa scienza nè conoscenza: semplici stupri. La scienza non è più pericolosa del pene che l'uomo porta fiero tra le gambe... il problema è lui, l'uomo, la sua ragione, il suo grado di umiltà, di intelligenza emotiva. Studiare il sistema immunitario non rende immuni dal virus della superbia, del bigottismo e del pregiudizio.

martedì 2 ottobre 2007

Appunti di bioetica ebraica: il pensiero ebraico e le nuove tecnologie.

Di Aaron Fait e Michael Beyo
Dal libro"In principio l'uomo creò il clone: uno scienziato e un rabbino discutono".(Il testo che segue é parte integrante del lavoro degli autori, che depositato é protetto dai diritti d'autore)
I disegni sono opera di Luigi Pacetti, é vietata la riproduzione senza il conseso esplicito dell'autore.


L'ebreo e il suo pensiero, e piú in generale la filosofia ebraica, fondano le proprie radici in quell'immensa libreria di discussioni, di studi, commenti e approfondimenti della Torah, che é la tradizione "orale". Da queste analisi scaturisce la Halachá, compendio di leggi di etica, di alimentazione, leggi che disciplinano il rapporto dell'ebreo, tra sé e sé, tra sé e il mondo, tra sé e D-O.

Le nuove tecnologie si sviluppano in un contesto storico e sociale che varia secondo il tempo e lo spazio. La nostra percezione (di individui) delle nuove tecnologie, perciò, è influenzata da concetti e opinioni valide in quel momento e in quel luogo, non solo, ma spesso riguarda più le istanze sollevate da una loro ipotetica applicazione, che l'importanza scientifica della scoperta stessa.Ció detto, non possiamo impedire che filosofi, intellettuali, uomini di religione, ampie frange della società, definiscano, in determinati tempi e luoghi, le istanze morali sollevate dalla ricerca scientifica. Possiamo solo sostenere che la scienza non è in grado di dare loro risposta; la scienza è estranea al concetto di bene e male, non possiede metodi per emettere giudizi su simili temi. Lo scienziato non può nulla, se non rendere limpida il più possibile la propria attività agli occhi dell'opinione pubblica, staccandola da interessi che non le competono. Lo scienziato puó combattere l'ignoranza, l'ipocrisia e la strumentalizzazione dei dati scientifici da parte di facili urlatori, cercatori d'oro, di scoop e falsi miti o di uno spazio sui giornali. L'ebraismo puó. Per la storia del suo pensiero, che pure saldamente impiantato in una massiccia struttura di base, appare singolare per due aspetti: il primo, la capacità di capire i cambiamenti e la propensione a un'interpretazione non massimalista dei fenomeni materiali; il secondo, il largo orizzonte culturale di cui può trarre profitto grazie alla diaspora. "Un frutto dal nocciolo duro, ma dalla polpa in continua fermentazione". Concetto base del pensiero filosofico-religioso ebraico, e di conseguenza della Halakhá é la sacralitá della vita: la vita ha valore assoluto, di fronte a cui nulla regge, nemmeno l'istituzione dello Shabat. Ció ha modellato la legge ebraica rispetto al nostro rapporto con il prossimo, con eventi quali la gravidanza, con l'embrione, il moribondo, il medico, con il vecchio e la natura.Il concetto di persona é al centro di una discussione ormai logora ed esaurita nella societá "occidentale", che vede posizioni opposte e tra cui la distanza é incommensurabile. Secondo la Halakhá la persona ha un inizio. La vita ha inizio alla fecondazione. Rimane ció nonostante incompleta, una vita in potenza fino al momento in cui il feto esce con la maggior parte del corpo dalle viscere della madre: il momento del primo respiro; é il primo respiro di una Persona. Da questa definizione si ramificano discussioni che esulano da questi brevi appunti e sono riassunte in una serie di decreti di importanza rilevante per il singolo ma anche per il mondo medico-scientifico. La Halakhá per esempio obbliga a salvare una donna in pericolo di vita a causa di una gravidanza problematica. Lei, la donna, la Persona precede il feto che porta in grembo. E' obbligatorio salvare la donna addirittura se a rischio non é il suo corpo ma la sua mente come puó avvenire se vittima di violenza sessuale (Pensiamo ai campi di violenza carnale nell' ex-Jugoslavia dove diecimila donne hanno trovato l'inferno). Similmente, in una gravidanza pluriembrionale viene consentita e consigliata la diluzione degli embrioni; un numero elevato di embrioni puo' compromettere la vita della madre oppure degli embrioni stessi o parte di essi. La Ghemará tratta estensivamente lo status dell'embrione e a riguardo parla in termini crudi, schietti e lucidi di aborto. Allo stesso modo viene contemplata l'investigazione della genetica embrionale per assicurare l'assenza di malattie a volte devastanti sia per il bimbo che per la famiglia e la selezione degli embrioni da trapiantare in un ciclo di FIV. La Halakhà è piuttosto chiara sull'inesistenza di un dovere a mettere in pericolo (effettivo) la propria vita per salvare quella di un altro. Non esiste costrizione morale al rischiare effettivamente la propria vita. Il pre-embrione (l'embrione ante-trapianto), vita ancora in potenza, rientra nelle derivate minori del concetto appena riportato: l'unico modo di salvarlo è di trapiantarlo nell'utero della madre ,la legge ebraica riconosce i pericoli per la salute della donna, se non per la sua stessa vita, causati dalla gravidanza e dal parto, tanto più se si tratta di un parto pluri-embrionale, non può, quindi, costringere una donna a incorporare e gestire uno, due o tre embrioni per assicurarne una possibile vita futuraAltro esempio inerente a questa breve discussione é la ricerca sulle cellule staminali e le sue infinite e promettenti applicazioni. La tecnica conosciuta anche sotto il nome di clonazione terapeutica, utilizza tra le varie fonti di cellule i blastocisti, agglomerati cellulari entro il 14gg dalla fecondazione come ineguagliabile fonte di cellule totipotenti o multipotenti, cellule che possono svilupparsi in qualsiasi tessuto: la retina, pelle, tessuto cardiaco, sangue. La cultura occidentale, per lo piú in Europa, sotto l'influenza del cristianesimo livella le differenze tra l'agglomerato di un esiguo numero di cellule e la persona e mette il veto sulla ricerca. La Halakhá giá nella figura di Rav Shach (1621-1662), una delle maggiori autoritá rabbiniche di tutti i tempi, commenta a riguardo: "Fino al quarantesimo giorno [l'embrione] non e' nulla!"; "acqua" riporta il Talmud. Lo status religioso temporaneo di una donna che abortisce entro il quarantesimo giorno rimane immutato. Il pensiero ebraico contemporaneo legge l'importanza tra le righe dei titoli delle riviste scientifiche odierne, e mantiene una posizione favorevole alla ricerca sulle cellule staminali.Di grande peso nel favoreggiare la ricerca sulle cellule staminali e le sue applicazioni, oltre alla cura di numerose malattie, é la prospettiva di una facilitazione dei trapianti di organi. Problematico, in ogni societa', è il trapianto di organi che dipende da risorse estremamente limitate (i.e. corpi da cui estrarre organi intatti e funzionanti) e costringe il sistema, la societá a scelte "moralmente" difficili. Alla base di queste scelte é il dilemma sul valore della vita, ma soprattutto quando questo valore venga a mancare o quando diventi di importanza relativa. Gli ultimi istanti di vita di una persona, del moribondo o gli attimi di una vita ai nostri occhi "inutile" come nel caso di un comatoso, hanno nel pensiero ebraico un posto di riguardo. "il moribondo é come un vivo sotto ogni aspetto" leggiamo nel Shulhan Aruch (il capolavoro halachiko di Rabbi Yosef Caro, 1488-1575). Questo stesso diritto inalienabile alla vita rende piú difficili, se non impossibili pratiche quali l'eutanasia nelle sue diverse forme. Una "fonte d’organi", come puh essere il comatoso, il moribondo, il malato terminale, rimane nel pensiero ebraico una Persona i cui ultimano istanti di vita valgono per l'ebraismo come tutta la vita del mondo avvenire. Le cellule staminali possono dare risposta a quello che nella nostra società rimane un dilemma irrisolvibile: quando terminare la vita di un uomo? Quando un uomo vale più di un altro uomo? quando preferire la vita di una persona a quella di un'altra? preferirla in base al relativo apporto alla societá? in base a interessi economici? o in base al "senso" della vita che la societá decide come lo Standard in un momento X della sua storia? La storia é colma di orrori che "scivolano" su queste stesse domande.Un gruppo di cellule ancora in stadio indifferenziato puó riportare la societá a un concetto assoluto di vita; puó riportare il medico al dovere unico di curare e non uccidere per "misericordia" verso il paziente o verso il suo vicino; puó dare il rimedio a malattie che appesantiscono la nostra vita fino a renderla insopportabile.Tra il pieno rispetto della vita e della sua fine, l'ebraismo dona al pensiero bio-etico occidentale spunti nuovi per una riflessione lucida sui dilemmi della scienza moderna.


Aaron Fait (Ph.D. in Biochemistry) - Michael Beyo (Rabbino, M.A. in scienze politiche)

martedì 25 settembre 2007

Achmedinna...che?

(Segue la trascrizione integrale dell'evento di ieri alla Columbia University. Follows the transcript of the event at Columbia University)
È stato un discorso da vero capo di stato quello del signor Achmed...
Dondolandosi tra antisemitismo, revisionismo storico e omofobia, ha fatto lo slalom su ogni domanda rivoltagli da un sempre piú stanco moderatore. Su Israele il dittatore (anche se fa sorridere chiamarlo cosí. Non ha la voce, né il portamento, né il carisma di un dittatore) ha glissato per ben due volte, scegliendo il termine Palestina per il territorio dal Giordano al mare e proponendo un referendum alla popolazione Palestinese (non si capisce se intendesse anche gli ebrei della "zona") e mettere la crocetta a fianco dello stato in cui vorrebbero vivere. È sempre commovente come questi dittatori abbiano idee tanto liberali da proporre per risolvere i problemi nel mondo. Cmq sia, la parola 'Israele' non é scappata dalla bocca del sorridente Achmed. Sulla Shoáh la solita solfa revisionista: Il presidente chiede ricerca e forse non é al corrente che ogni anno decine di libri affrontano il problema. Ma non é sui fattori che hanno portato alla Shoá che il nostro caro presidente vuole maggiore ricerca, né sull'antisemitismo in Europa, né sulle conseguenze della seconda guerra mondiale. Il presidente, pupillo della scuola dei revisionisti e organizzatore di conferenze mondiali di revisionismo storico concentrato sulla Shoáh, vuole infatti mettere un grasso punto di domanda sull'intera faccenda. Che i Palestinesi paghino le malefatte Europe é anche retorica stantia. Il movimento sionista nacque alla fine del 1800 e giá dopo la prima guerra mondiale, con il crollo dell'impero ottomano, l'Ishuv era in forte sviluppo. Fu il rifiuto arabo alla spartizione del protettorato Inglese in due stati, ebraico e arabo, che nel 1948 diede inizio alla crisi che continua tutt'oggi. Un rifiuto mosso da puri interessi politici e di espansione del territorio nazionale di Egitto, Siria e Giordania. Ma mi sto dilungando e questo pensiero non deve essere una lezione di storia. Ritorno al caro presidente e al suo discorso. Microbi, si microbi sono i criminali, malfattori, trafficanti etc di cui il caro presidente vuole liberare il proprio paese; e come farlo se non con dell'antibiotico? il cappio al collo. Cosí il caro presidente si pone la questione pena di morte per gli omosessuali, o quantomeno per i criminali in genere... . È sulle scelte sessuali che il moderatore tenta un'ultima volta di ricevere una risposta chiara e diretta da parte del c.p. e non discorsoni da parata militare. Ed ecco lo scoop, il c.p. sostiene che in Iran non esistono omosessuali, che questo problema "l'omosessualitá" che corrompe l' America, non ha messo radici in Iran. Gli Iraniani sono immuni dal virus. Gli Iraniani gli omosessuali li vedono solo alla TV (quella americana). Il male, che ha una storia antica quanto il mondo (si veda in Genesi), non esiste nella grande ex-Persia. Ha continuato il suo discorso il c.p. con spolverate di vittimismo, retorica di stato, antiamericanismo, antisionismo, 11 settembre, teorie di cospirazione etc etc... ha continuato, a volte sorridendo, a volte indispettito da questi occidentali e dal poco rispetto che portano a un dittatore del suo livello. E bravo c.p. Achmedin..etc.

Iran's president at Columbia University - a transcript


REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OF IRAN MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD
MODERATOR: JOHN COATSWORTH, ACTING DEAN, SCHOOL OF INTERNATIONAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COLUMBIA, UNIVERSITY INTRODUCTION BY LEE BOLLINGER, PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
1:50 P.M. EDT, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2007(Note: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments are through interpreter.)
MR. BOLLINGER: I would like to begin by thanking Dean John Coatsworth and Professor Richard Bulliet for their work in organizing this event and for their commitment to the School of International and Public Affairs and its role -- (interrupted by cheers, applause) -- and for its role in training future leaders in world affairs. If today proves anything, it will be that there is an enormous amount of work ahead of us. This is just one of many events on Iran that will run throughout the academic year, all to help us better understand this critical and complex nation in today's geopolitics.
Before speaking directly to the current president of Iran, I have a few critically important points to emphasize. First, in 2003 the World Leaders Forum has advanced Columbia's long-standing tradition of serving as a major forum for robust debate, especially on global issues. It should never be thought that merely to listen to ideas we deplore in any way implies our endorsement of those ideas or our weakness of our resolve to resist those ideas or our naivety about the very real dangers inherent in such ideas. It is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forum to their voices; to hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible.
Second, to those who believe that this event should never have happened, that it is inappropriate for the university to conduct such an event, I want to say that I understand your perspective and respect it as reasonable. The scope of free speech in academic freedom should itself always be open to further debate. As one of the more famous quotations about free speech goes, it is an experiment as all life is an experiment. I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can that this is the right thing to do, and indeed it is required by the existing norms of free speech, the American university and Columbia itself.
Third, to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us that we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it.
Fourth, to be clear on another matter, this event has nothing whatsoever to do with any rights of the speaker, but only with our rights to listen and speak. We do it for ourselves. We do it in the great tradition of openness that has defined this nation for many decades now. We need to understand the world we live in, neither neglecting its glories nor shrinking from its threats and dangers. It is inconsistent with the idea that one should know thine enemy -- I'm sorry -- it is consistent with the idea that one should know thine enemies, to have the intellectual and emotional courage to confront the mind of evil, and to prepare ourselves to act with the right temperament. In the moment, the arguments for free speech will never seem to match the power of the arguments against, but what we must remember is that this is precisely because free speech asks us to exercise extraordinary self-restraint against the very natural but often counterproductive impulses that lead us to retreat from engagement with ideas we dislike and fear. In this lies the genius of the American idea of free speech.
Lastly, in universities we have a deep and almost single-minded commitment to pursue the truth. We do not have access to the levers of power, we cannot make war or peace, we can only make minds, and to do this, we must have the most fulsome freedom of inquiry.
Let me now turn to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
First, on the brutal crackdown on scholars, journalists and human rights advocates. Over the past two weeks, your government has released Dr. Haleh Esfandiari and Parnaz Azima and just two days ago, Kian Tajbakhsh, a graduate of Columbia with a PhD in Urban Planning. While our community is relieved to learn of his release on bail, Dr. Tajbakhsh remains in Tehran under house arrest, and he still does not know whether he will be charged with a crime or allowed to leave the country.
Let me say this for the record, I call on the president today to ensure that Kian will be free to travel out of Iran as he wishes. (Applause.) Let me also report today that we are extending an offer to Kian to join our faculty as a visiting professor in Urban Planning here at his alma mater in our Graduate School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, and we hope he will be able to join us next semester. (Applause.)
The arrest and imprisonment of these Iranian Americans for no good reason is not only unjustified, it runs completely counter to the very values that allow today's speaker to even appear on this campus, but at least they are alive.
According to Amnesty International, 210 people have been executing In Iran so far this year, 21 of them on the morning of September 5th alone. This annual total includes at two children, further proof, as Human Rights Watch puts it, that Iran leads the world in executing minors.
There is more. Iran hanged up 30 people this past July and August during a widely reported suppression of efforts to establish a more democratic society. Many of these executions were carried out in public view, a violation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, to which Iran is a party. These executions and others have coincided with a wider crackdown on student activists and academics accused of trying to foment a so-called "soft revolution." This has included jailing and forced retirement of scholars. As Dr. Esfandiari said in a broadcast interview since her release, she was held in solitary confinement for 105 days because the government believes that the United States is planning a velvet revolution in Iran.
In this very room, last year we learned something about velvet revolutions from Vaclav Havel, and we will likely hear the same from our World Leaders Forum speaker this evening, President Michelle Bachelet of Chile. Both of their extraordinary stories remind us that there are not enough prisons to prevent an entire society that wants its freedom from achieving it.
We at this university have not been shy to protest the challenge -- and challenge the failures of our own government to live by our values, and we won't be shy about criticizing yours. Let's then be clear at the beginning. Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator. And so I ask you -- (applause) -- and so I ask you, why have women, members of the Baha'i faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country? Why, in a letter last week to the secretary-general of the U.N., did Akbar Ganji, Iran's leading political dissident, and over 300 public intellectuals, writers and Noble Laureates express such grave concern that your inflamed dispute with the West is distracting the world's attention from the intolerable conditions in your regime within Iran, in particular the use of the press law to ban writers for criticizing the ruling system? Why are you so afraid of Iranian citizens expressing their opinions for change?
In our country, you are interviewed by our press and asked to speak here today. And while my colleagues at the law school -- Michael Dorf, one of my colleagues, spoke to Radio Free Europe, viewers in Iran a short while ago on the tenants of freedom of speech in this country -- I propose further that you let me lead a delegation of students and faculty from Columbia to address your universities about free speech with the same freedom we afford you today. (Applause.)
Secondly, the denial of the Holocaust. In a December 2005 state television broadcast, you described the Holocaust as "a fabricated legend." One year later, you held a two-day conference of Holocaust deniers. For the illiterate and ignorant, this is dangerous propaganda.
When you have come to a place like this, this makes you, quite simply, ridiculous. You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated. You should know -- (applause) -- please -- you should know that Columbia is the world center of Jewish studies -- us a world center, and now in partnership with the -- Institute of Holocaust Studies.
Since the 1930s, we provided an intellectual home for countless Holocaust refugees and survivors and their children and grandchildren. The truth is that the Holocaust is the most documented event in human history. Because of this, and for many other reasons, your absurd comments about the debate over the Holocaust both defy historical truth and make all of us who continue to fear humanity's capacity for evil shudder at this closure of memory, which is always virtue's first line of defense. Will you cease this outrage?
The destruction of Israel. Twelve days ago you said that the state of Israel cannot continue its life. This echoed a number of inflammatory statements you have delivered in the past two years, including in October 2005, when you said that Israel "should be wiped off the map", quote-unquote. Columbia has over 800 alumni currently living in Israel. As an institution, we have deep ties with our colleagues there. I have personally spoken -- personally, I have spoken out in most forceful terms against proposals to boycott Israeli scholars (in/and ?) universities, saying that such boycotts might as well include Columbia. (Applause.)
More than 400 -- more than 400 -- more than 400 college and university presidents in this country have joined in that statement.
My question then is, do you plan on wiping us off the map too? (Applause.)
Funding terrorism: According to reports of the Council on Foreign Relations, it's well-documented that Iran is a state sponsor of terror that funds such violent groups as Lebanese Hezbollah, which Iran helped organize in the 1980s, Palestinian Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While your predecessor government was instrumental in providing the U.S. with intelligence and base support in the 2001 campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, your government is now undermining American troops in Iraq by funding, arming and providing safe transit to insurgent leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces. There are a number of reports that you also link your government with Syria's efforts to destabilize the fledgling Lebanese government through violence and political assassination.
My question is this: Why do you support well-documented terrorist organizations that continue to strike at peace and democracy in the Middle East, destroying lives and the civil society of the region?
The proxy war against the United States troops in Iraq -- in a briefing before the National Press Club earlier this month, General David Petraeus reported that arms supplies from Iran, including 240- millimeter rockets and explosively formed projectiles, are contributing to, quote, "a sophistication of attacks that would by no means be possible without Iranian support." A number of Columbia graduates and current students are among the brave members of our military who are serving or have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. They, like other Americans with sons, daughters, fathers, husbands and wives serving in combat, rightly see your government as the enemy.
Can you tell them and us why Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq by arming Shi'a militia targeting and killing U.S. troops?
And finally Iran's nuclear program and international sanctions: This week, the United Nations Security Council is contemplating expanding sanctions for a third time, because of your government's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program. You continue to defy this world body by claiming a right to develop a peaceful nuclear power, but this hardly withstands scrutiny when you continue to issue military threats to neighbors. Last week, French President Sarkozy made clear his lost patience with your stall tactics, and even Russia and China have shown concern.
Why does your country continue to refuse to adhere to international standards for nuclear weapons verification, in defiance of agreements that you have made with the U.N. nuclear agency? And why have you chosen to make the people of your country vulnerable to the effects of international economic sanctions, and threaten to engulf the world in nuclear annihilation? (Applause.)
Let me close with a comment. Frankly -- I close with this comment frankly and in all candor, Mr. President. I doubt that you will have the intellectual courage to answer these questions. But your avoiding them will in itself be meaningful to us. I do expect you to exhibit the fanatical mindset that characterizes so much of what you say and do. Fortunately I am told by experts on your country that this only further undermines your position in Iran, with all the many good-hearted, intelligent citizens there.
A year ago, I am reliably told, your preposterous and belligerent statements in this country, as at one of the meetings at the Council on Foreign Relations, so embarrassed sensible Iranian citizens that this led to your party's defeat in the December mayoral elections. May this do that and more. (Applause.)
I am only a professor, who is also a university president.
And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better. Thank you. (Cheers, extended applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: Thank you, Lee.
Our principal speaker today is His Excellency the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. President. (Applause.)
INTERPRETER: The president is reciting verses from the Holy Koran in Arabic. (Not translated.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Oh, God, hasten the arrival of Imam al- Mahdi and grant him good health and victory, and make us his followers and those who attest to his (rightfulness ?).
Distinguished Dean, dear professors and students, ladies and gentlemen. At the outset, I would like to extend my greetings to all of you. I am grateful to the Almighty God for providing me with the opportunity to be in an academic environment, those seeking truth and striving for the promotion of science and knowledge.
At the outset, I want to complain a bit on the person who read this political statement against me. In Iran, tradition requires that when we demand a person to invite us as a -- to be a speaker, we actually respect our students and the professors by allowing them to make their own judgment, and we don't think it's necessary before the speech is even given to come in -- (applause) -- with a series of claims and to attempt in a so-called manner to provide vaccination of some sort to our students and our faculty.
I think the text read by the (dear ?) gentleman here, more than addressing me, was an insult to information and the knowledge of the audience here, present here. In a university environment, we must allow people to speak their mind, to allow everyone to talk so that the truth is eventually revealed by all. Most certainly he took more than all the time I was allocated to speak. And that's fine with me. We'll just leave that to add up with the claims of respect for freedom and the freedom of speech that is given to us in this country.
In many parts of his speech, there were many insults and claims that were incorrect, regretfully. Of course, I think that he was affected by the press, the media and the political sort of mainstream line that you read here, that goes against the very grain of the need for peace and stability in the world around us.
Nonetheless, I should not begin by being affected by this unfriendly treatment.
I will tell you what I have to say, and then the questions he can raise and I'll be happy to provide answers. But for one of the issues that he did raise, I most certainly would need to elaborate further so that we for ourselves can see how things fundamentally work.
It was my decision in this valuable forum and meeting to speak with you about the importance of knowledge, of information, of education. Academics and religious scholars are shining torches who shed light in order to remove darkness and the ambiguities around us in guiding humanity out of ignorance and perplexity. The key to the understanding of the realities around us rests in the hands of the researchers, those who seek to undiscover (sic) areas that are hidden, the unknown sciences. The windows of realities that they can open is done only through efforts of the scholars and the learned people in this world. With every effort, there is a window that is opened and one reality is discovered.
Whenever the high stature of science and wisdom is preserved and the dignity of scholars and researchers are respected, humans have taken great strides towards their material and spiritual promotion. In contrast, whenever learned people and knowledge have been neglected, humans have become stranded in the darkness of ignorance and negligence. If it were not for human instinct, which tends towards continual discovery of the truth, humans would have always remained stranded in ignorance and no way would have discovered how to improve the lives that we are given. The nature of man is, in fact, a gift granted by the Almighty to all. The Almighty led mankind into this world and granted him wisdom and knowledge as his (kind ?) gift, enabling him to know his God.
In the story of Adam, a conversation occurs between the Almighty and his angels. The angels called human beings an ambitious and merciless creature and protested against his creation, but the Almighty responded, quote, "I have knowledge of what you are ignorant of," unquote. Then the Almighty told Adam the truth, and on the order of the Almighty, Adam revealed it to the angels.
The angels could not understand the truth as revealed by the human beings.
The Almighty said to them, quote, "Did not I say that I am aware of what is hidden in heaven and in the universe?" unquote. In this way, the angels prostrated themselves before Adam.
In the mission of all divine prophets, the first sermons were of the words of God, and those words "piety," "faith" and "wisdom" have been spread to all mankind. Guiding the holy prophet Moses -- may peace be upon him -- God says, quote, "And he was taught wisdom, the divine book, the Old Testament and the New Testament. He is the prophet appointed for the sake of the children of Israel, and I rightfully brought a sign from the Almighty. Holy Koran -- (inaudible word) -- sura," unquote.
The first words which were revealed to the holy prophet of Islam call the prophet to read, quote, "Read, read in the name of your God, who supersedes everything," unquote. The Almighty, quote again, "who taught the human being with the pen," unquote; quote, "the Almighty taught human beings what they were ignorant of," unquote.
You see in the first verses revealed to the holy prophet of Islam words of reading, teaching and the pen are mentioned. These verses in fact introduce the Almighty as the teacher of human beings, the teacher who taught humans what they were ignorant of. And another part of the -- (inaudible word) -- on the mission on the holy prophet of Islam -- it is mentioned that the Almighty appointed someone from amongst the common people as their prophet in order to, quote, "Read for them the divine verses," unquote; and, quote again, "and purify them from ideological and ethical contaminations," unquote; and, quote again, "to teach them the divine book and wisdom," unquote.
My dear friends, all the words and messages of the divine prophets, from Abraham and Isaac and Jacob to David and Soliman and Moses to Jesus and Mohammed, delivered humans from ignorance, negligence, superstitions, unethical behavior and corrupted ways of thinking with respect to knowledge and a path to knowledge, light and rightful ethics.
In our culture, the word "science" has been defined as "illumination." In fact, the "science" means "brightness" and the real science is a science which rescues the human being from ignorance to his own benefit. In one of the widely accepted definitions of science, it is stated that it is the light which sheds to the hearts of those who have been selected by the Almighty; therefore, according to this definition, science is a divine gift, and the heart is where it resides.
If we accept that "science" means "illumination," then its scope supersedes the experimental sciences, and it includes every hidden and disclosed reality. One of the main harms inflicted against science is to limit it to experimental and physical sciences; this harm occurs even though it extends far beyond this scope.
Realities of the world are not limited to physical realities. And the material is just a shadow of supreme realities, and physical creation is just one of the stories of the creation of the world. Human being is just an example of the creation that is a combination of the material and the spirit.
And another important point is the relationship of science and purity of spirit, life, behavior and ethics of the human being. In the teachings of the divine prophet, one reality shall always be attached to science. The reality of purity of spirit and good behavior, knowledge and wisdom is pure and clear reality. It is -- science is a light. It is a discovery of reality, and only a pure scholar and researcher, free from wrong ideologies, superstitions, selfishness and material trappings, can discover the reality.
My dear friends and scholars, distinguished participants, science and wisdom can also be misused, a misuse caused by selfishness, corruption, material desires and material interests, as well as individual and group interests. Material desires place humans against the realities of the world. Corrupted independent human beings resist acceptance of reality and even if they do accept it, they do not obey it.
There are many scholars who are aware of the realities but do not accept them. Their selfishness does not allow them to accept those realities. Did those who in the course of human history wage wars not understand the reality that lives, properties, dignity, territories and the rights of all human beings should be respected? Or did they understand it but neither have faith in nor abide by it?
My dear friends, as long as the human heart is not free from hatred, envy and selfishness, it does not abide by the truth, by the illumination of science and science itself. Science is the light and scientists must be pure and pious. If humanity achieves the highest level of physical and spiritual knowledge, but its scholars and scientists are not pure, then this knowledge cannot serve the interest of humanity, and several events can ensue.
First, the wrongdoers reveal only a part of the reality which is to their own benefit and conceal the rest, as we have witnessed with respect to the scholars of the divine religions in the past too. Unfortunately today we see that certain researchers and scientists are still hiding the truth from the people.
Second, scientists and scholars are misused for personal, group or party interests. So in today's world, ruling powers are misusing many scholars and scientists in different fields, with the purpose of stripping nations of their wealth.
And they use all opportunities only for their own benefit.
For example, they deceive people by using scientific methods and tools. They, in fact, wish to justify their own wrongdoings, though, by creating nonexistent enemies, for example, and have insecure atmosphere. They try to control all in the name of combatting insecurity and terrorism. They even violate individual and social freedoms in their own nations under that pretext. They do not respect the privacy of their own people. They tap telephone calls and try to control their people. They create an insecure psychological atmosphere in order to justify their warmongering acts in different parts of the world.
As another example, by using precise scientific methods and planning, they begin their onslaught on the domestic cultures of nations, the cultures which are the result of thousands of years of interaction, creativity and artistic activities. They try to eliminate these cultures in order to separate the people from their identity and cut their bonds with their own history and values. They prepare the ground for stripping people from their spiritual and material wealth by instilling in them feelings of intimidation, desire for imitation and mere consumption, submission to oppressive powers, and disability.
Making nuclear, chemical and biological bombs and weapons of mass destruction is yet another result of the misuse of science and research by the big powers. Without cooperation of certain scientists and scholars, we would not have witnessed production of different nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Are these weapons to protect global security? What can a perpetual nuclear umbrella threat achieve for the sake of humanity? If nuclear war wages between nuclear powers, what human catastrophe will take place? Today we can see the nuclear effects in even new generations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima residents which might be witness in even the next generations to come. Presently, effects of the depleted uranium used in weapons since the beginning of the war in Iraq can be examined and investigated accordingly. These catastrophes take place only when scientists and scholars are misused by oppressors.
Another point of sorrow, some big powers create a monopoly over science and prevent other nations in achieving scientific development as well.
This, too, is one of the surprises of our time. Some big powers do not want to see the progress of other societies and nations. They turn to thousands of reasons, make allegations, place economic sanctions to prevent other nations from developing and advancing, all resulting from their distance from human values, moral values and the teachings of the divine prophet. Regretfully, they have not been trained to serve mankind.
Dear academics, dear faculty and scholars, students, I believe that the biggest God-given gift to man is science and knowledge. Man's search for knowledge and the truth through science is what it guarantees to do in getting close to God, but science has to combine with the purity of the spirit and of the purity of man's spirit so that scholars can unveil the truth and then use that truth for advancing humanity's cause.
These scholars would be not only people who would guide humanity, but also guide humanity towards the future, better future. And it is necessary that big powers should not allow mankind to engage in monopolistic activities and to prevent other nations from achieving that science. Science is a divine gift by God to everyone, and therefore it must remain pure. God is aware of all reality. All researchers and scholars are loved by God.
So I hope there will be a day where these scholars and scientists will rule the world and God himself will arrive with Moses and Christ and Mohammed to rule the world and to take us towards justice.
I'd like to thank you now, but refer to two points made in the introduction given about me, and then I will be open for any questions.
Last year, I would say two years ago, I raised two questions. You know that my main job is a university instructor. Right now as president of Iran I still continue teaching graduate and Ph.D.-level courses on a weekly basis. My students are working with me in scientific fields. I believe that I am an academic myself, so I speak with you from an academic point of view.
And I raised two questions. But instead of a response, I got a wave of insults and allegations against me, and regretfully, they came mostly from groups who claimed most to believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom of information. You know quite well that Palestine is an old wound, as old as 60 years.
For 60 years, these people are displaced; for 60 years, these people are being killed; for 60 years, on a daily basis, there's conflict and terror; for 60 years, innocent women and children are destroyed and killed by helicopters and airplanes that break the house over their heads; for 60 years, children in kindergartens in schools, in high schools are in prison being tortured; for 60 years, security in the Middle East has been in danger; for 60 years, the slogan of expansionism from the Nile to the Euphrates has been chanted by certain groups in that part of the world.
And as an academic, I ask two questions, the same two questions that I will ask here again. And you judge for yourselves whether the response to these questions should be the insults, the allegations and all the words and the negative propaganda, or should we really try and face these two questions and respond to them? Like you, like any academic, I, too, will keep -- not get -- become silent until I get the answers, so I am awaiting logical answers instead of insults.
My first question was, if, given that the Holocaust is a present reality of our time, a history that occurred, why is there not sufficient research that can approach the topic from different perspectives? Our friends refer to 1930 as the point of the departure for this development; however, I believe the Holocaust, from what we read, happened during World War II after 1930 in the 1940s. So, you know, we have to really be able to trace the event.
My question was simple. There are researchers who want to push the topic from a different perspective. Why are they put into prison? Right now there are a number of European academics who have been sent to prison because they attempted to write about the Holocaust, so researchers from a different perspective, questioning certain aspects of it -- my question is, why isn't it open to all forms of research? I have been told that there's been enough research on the topic. And I ask, well, when it comes to topics such as freedom, topics such as democracy, concepts and norms such as God, religion, physics even or chemistry, there's been a lot of research, but we still continue more research on those topics. We encourage it. But then why don't we encourage more research on a historical event that has become the root, the cause of many heavy catastrophes in the region in this time and age? Why shouldn't there be more research about the root causes? That was my first question.
And my second question -- well, given this historical event, if it is a reality, we need to still question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it or not. 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 of war for 60 years are -- 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's 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 were 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's carried out the most amount of -- level of cooperation with the IAEA. They've had hours and weeks and days of inspections in our country. And over and over again, the agency's reports indicate that Iran's activities are peaceful, that they have not detected a deviation, and that Iran has -- they've 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. They keep saying -- one minute. (Laughter, applause.)
They tell us you don't let them -- they won't let them inspect. Why not? Of course we do. How come is it anyway that you have that right and we can't have it? We want to have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. They tell us, "Don't make it yourself. We'll give it to you."
Well, in the past, I tell you, we had contracts with the U.S. government, with the British government, the French government, the German government and the Canadian government on nuclear development for peaceful purposes. But unilaterally, each and every one of them canceled their contracts with us, as a result of which the Iranian people had to pay the heavy cost in billions of dollars.
Why do we need the fuel from you? You've not even given us spare aircraft parts that we need for civilian aircraft for 28 years, under the name of the embargo and sanctions, because we are against, for example, human rights or freedom? Under that pretext you deny us that technology?
We want to have the right to self-determination towards our future. We want to be independent. Don't interfere in us. If you don't give us spare parts for civilian aircraft, what is the expectation that you'd give us fuel for nuclear development for peaceful purposes?
For 30 years we've faced these problems; for over $5 billion to the Germans and then to the Russians, but we haven't gotten anything, and the worst have not been completed. It is our right, we want our right, and we don't want anything beyond the law, nothing less than what international law. We are a peaceful-loving nation. We love all nations. (Applause, cheers, booing.)
MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, your statements here today and in the past have provoked many questions which I would like to pose to you on behalf of the students and faculty who have submitted them to me.
Let me begin with the question to which you just --
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: (In English.) It is one by one, one by one.
MR. COATSWORTH: One by one, it is, yes. (Applause.)
The first question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people. There are many Jews in Iran living peacefully with security. You must understand that in our constitution, in our laws, in the parliamentary elections, for every 150,000 people we get one representative in the parliament. For the Jewish community, one-fifth of this number they still get one independent representative in the parliament. So our proposal to the Palestinian plight is a humanitarian and democratic proposal.
What we say is that to solve the 60-year problem we must allow the Palestinian people to decide about its future for itself. This is compatible with the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations and the fundamental principles enshrined in it. We must allow Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians to determine their own fate themselves through a free referendum. Whatever they choose as a nation everybody should accept and respect. Nobody should interfere in the affairs of the Palestinian nation. Nobody should sow the seeds of discord. Nobody should spend tens of billions of dollars equipping and arming one group there.
We say allow the Palestinian nation to decide its own future, to have the right to self-determination for itself. This is what we are saying as the Iranian nation. (Applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: Mr. President, I think many members of our audience would be -- would like to hear a clearer answer to that question, that is -- (interrupted by cheers, applause).
The question is: Do you or your government seek the destruction of the state of Israel as a Jewish state? And I think you could answer that question with a single word, either yes or no. (Cheers, applause.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: And then you want the answer the way you want to hear it. Well, this isn't really a free flow of information. I'm just telling you where I -- what my position is. (Applause.)
I'm asking you, is the Palestinian issue not an international issue of prominence or not? Please tell me, yes or no. (Laughter, applause.)
There's a plight of a people.
MR. COATSWORTH: The answer to your question is yes. (Laughter.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, thank you for your cooperation.
It is -- we recognize there is a problem there that's been going on for 60 years. Everybody provides a solution, and our solution is a free referendum. Let this referendum happen, and then you'll see what the results are. Let the people of Palestine freely choose what they want for their future. And then what you want in your mind to happen, it will happen and will be realized. (Applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: Which was posed by President Bollinger earlier and comes from a number of other students. Why is your government providing aid to terrorists? Will you stop doing so and permit international monitoring to certify that you have stopped?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, I want to pose a question here to you. If someone comes and explodes bombs around you, threatens your president, members of the administration, kills the members of the Senate or Congress, how would you treat them? Would you award them or would you name them a terrorist group? Well, it's clear. You would call them a terrorist.
My dear friends, the Iranian nation is a victim of terrorism. For -- 26 years ago, where I work, close to where I work, in a terrorist operation, the elected president of the Iranian nation and the elected prime minister of Iran lost their lives in a bomb explosion. They turned into ashes.
A month later, in another terrorist operation, 72 members of our parliament and highest ranking officials, including four ministers and eight deputy ministers, bodies were shattered into pieces as a result of terrorist attacks. Within six months, over 4,000 Iranians lost their lives, assassinated by terrorist groups, all this carried out by the hand of one single terrorist group. Regretfully that same terrorist group, now, today, in your country, is being -- operating under the support of the U.S. administration, working freely, distributing declarations freely. And their camps in Iraq are supported by the U.S. government. They're secured by the U.S. government.
Our nation has been harmed by terrorist activities. We were the first nation that objected to terrorism and the first to uphold the need to fight terrorism. (Applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: A number of questioners, sorry, a number of people have asked.
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: We need to address the root causes of terrorism and eradicate those root causes.
We live in the Middle East. For us, it's quite clear which powers sort of incite terrorists, support them, fund them. We know that. Our nation, the Iranian nation, through history has always extended a hand of friendship to other nations. We're a cultured nation. We don't need to resort to terrorism.
We've been victims of terrorism ourselves, and it's regrettable that people who argue they're fighting terrorism, instead of supporting the Iranian people and nation, instead of fighting the terrorists that are attacking them, they're supporting the terrorists and then turn the fingers to us. This is most regrettable.
MR. COATSWORTH: A further set of questions challenge your view of the Holocaust. Since the evidence that this occurred in Europe in the 1940s as a result of the actions of the German Nazi government, since that -- those facts are well-documented, why are you calling for additional research? There seems to be no purpose in doing so, other than to question whether the Holocaust actually occurred as an historical fact. Can you explain why you believe more research is needed into the facts of what are -- what is incontrovertible?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Thank you very much for your question. I am an academic, and you are as well. Can you argue that researching a phenomenon is finished forever, done? Can we close the books for good on a historical event? There are different perspectives that come to light after every research is done. Why should we stop research at all? Why should we stop the progress of science and knowledge? You shouldn't ask me why I'm asking questions. You should ask yourselves why you think that it's questionable.
Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research? Do you ever take what's known as absolute in physics? We had principles in mathematics that were granted to be absolute in mathematics for over 800 years, but new science has gotten rid of those absolutism, gotten -- forward other different logics of looking at mathematics, and sort of turned the way we look at it as a science altogether after 800 years. So we must allow researchers, scholars to investigate into everything, every phenomenon -- God, universe, human beings, history, and civilization. Why should we stop that?
I'm not saying that it didn't happen at all.
This is not (the ?) judgment that I'm passing here. I said in my second question, granted this happened, what does it have to do with the Palestinian people? This is a serious question. They're two dimension. In the first question, I --
MR. COATSWORTH: Let me just -- let me pursue this a bit further. It is difficult to have a scientific discussion if there isn't at least some basis -- some empirical basis, some agreement about what the facts are. So, calling for research into the facts when the facts are so well-established represents for many a challenging of the facts themselves and a denial that something terrible occurred in Europe in those years. (Applause.)
Let me move on to -- (pause).
Mr. President, another student asks, Iranian women are now denied basic human rights, and your government has imposed draconian punishments, including execution on Iranian citizens who are homosexuals. Why are you doing those things?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Those in Iran are genuine true freedoms. The Iranian people are free. Women in Iran enjoy the highest levels of freedoms. We have two deputy vice -- well, two vice presidents that are female at the highest levels of speciality; specialized (roles ?) in our parliament and our government and our universities, they are present in our biotechnological fields and our technological fields. There are hundreds of women scientists that are active in the political realm as well.
It's not -- it's wrong for some governments, when they disagree with another government, to sort of -- try to spread lies that distort the full truth. Our nation is free. It has the highest level of participation in elections. In Iran, 80 percent -- 90 percent of the people turn out for votes during the elections, half of which -- over half of which are women, so how can we say that women are not free? Is that the entire truth?
But as for the executions, I'd like to raise two questions. If someone comes and establishes a network for illicit drug trafficking that affects the (use ?) in Iran, Turkey, Europe, the United States by introducing these illicit drugs and destroys them, would you ever reward them? People who lead the lives -- cause the deterioration of the lives of hundreds of millions of youth around the world, including in Iran, can we have any sympathy to them? Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do, too. (Applause.)
In Iran, too, there's capital punishment for illicit drug traffickers, for people who violate the rights of people.
If somebody takes up a gun, goes into a house, kills a group of people there, and then tries to take ransom, how would you confront them in Iran with -- in the United States? Would you reward them? Can a physician allow microbes, symbolically speaking, to spread across a nation? We have laws. People who violate the public rights of the people by using guns, killing people, creating insecurity, sell drugs, distribute drugs at a high level are sentenced to execution in Iran, and some of these punishments -- very few are carried in the public eye, before the public eye. It's a law based on democratic principles. You use injections and microbes to kill these people, and they are executed or they're hung, but the end result is killing.
MR. COATSWORTH: (Off mike) -- and drug smugglers. The question was about sexual preference and women. (Applause.)
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. (Laughter.) We don't have that in our country. (Booing.) In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have it. (Laughter.)
But as for women, maybe you think that being a woman is a crime. It's not a crime to be a woman. Women are the best creatures created by God. They represent the kindness, the beauty that God instills in them. Women are respected in Iran. In Iran, every family who's given a girl is given -- in every Iranian family who has a girl, they're 10 times happier than having a son. Women are respected more than men are. They are exempt from many responsibilities. Many of the legal responsibilities rest on the shoulders of men in our society because of the respect culturally given to women, to the future mothers. In Iranian culture, men and sons and girls constantly kiss the hands of their mothers as a sign of respect, a respect for women, and we are proud of this culture.
MR. COATSWORTH: (Off mike) -- one is, what did you hope to accomplish by speaking at Columbia today?
And the second is, what would you have said if you were permitted to visit the site of the September 11th tragedy?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Well, here I'm your guest. I've been invited by Columbia, an official invitation given for me to come here, but I do want to say something here.
In Iran, when you invite a guest you respect them. This is our tradition required by our culture, and I know that American people have that culture as well.
Last year, I wanted to go to the site of the September 11th tragedy to show respect to the victims of the tragedy, show my sympathy with their families, but our plans got overextended. We were involved in negotiations and meetings `till midnight, and they said it would be very difficult to go visit the site at that late hour of the night. So I told my friends then that we need to plan this for the following year, so that I can go and visit the site and to show my respects. Regretfully, some groups had very strong reactions, very bad reactions. It's bad for someone -- to prevent someone to show sympathy to the families of the victims of the September 11 event -- tragic event.
This is a respect from my side. Somebody told me this is an insult. I said: What are you saying? This is my way of showing my respect. Why would you think that? Thinking like that, how do you expect to manage the world and world affairs? Don't you think that a lot of problems in the world come from the way you look at issues because of this kind of way of thinking, because of this sort of pessimistic approach towards a lot of people because of certain level of selfishness, self-absorption that needs to be put aside so that we can show respect to everyone, to allow an environment for friendship to grow, to allow all nations to talk with one another and move towards peace?
I wanted to speak with the press. There is 11 September -- September 11 tragic event was a huge event. It led to a lot of many other events afterwards. After 9/11, Afghanistan was occupied and then Iraq was occupied, and for six years in our region there is insecurity, terror and fear. If the root causes of 9/11 are examined properly -- why it happened, what caused it, what were the conditions that led to it, who truly was involved, who was really involved -- and put it all together to understand how to prevent the crisis in Iraq, fix the problem in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
MR. COATSWORTH: A number of questions have asked about your nuclear program. Why is your government seeking to acquire enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons? Will you stop doing so?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: Our nuclear program, first and foremost, operates within the framework of law, and second, under the inspections of the IAEA, and thirdly, they are completely peaceful. The technology we have is for enrichment below the level of 5 percent level, and any level below 5 percent is solely for providing fuel to power plants. Repeated reports by the IAEA explicitly say that there is no indication that Iran has deviated from the peaceful path of its nuclear program. We're all well aware that Iran's nuclear issue is a political issue; it's not a legal issue.
The International Atomic Energy Organization -- Agency has verified that our activities are for peaceful purposes. But there are two or three powers that think that they have the right to monopolize all science and knowledge. And they expect the Iranian people, the Iranian nation, to turn to others to get fuel, to get science, to get knowledge that's indigenous to itself -- to humble itself. And then they would of course refrain from giving it to us too.
So we're quite clear on what we need. If you have created the fifth generation of atomic bombs and are testing them already, what position are you in to question the peaceful purposes of other people who want nuclear power? (Applause.) We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity.
So let me just tell a joke here. I think the politicians who are after atomic bombs or are testing them, making them -- politically they are backward, retarded. (Applause.)
MR. COATSWORTH: I know your time is short and that you need to move on.
Is Iran prepared to open broad discussions with the government of the United States? What would Iran hope to achieve in such discussions? How do you see, in the future, a resolution of the points of conflict between the government of the United States and the government of Iran?
PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD: From the start, we announced that we are ready to negotiate with all countries. Since 28 years ago, when our revolution succeeded and we established -- we took freedom and democracy that was held at bay by a pro-Western dictatorship, we announced our readiness that besides two countries, we are ready to have friendly relations and talks with all countries of the world. One of those two was the apartheid regime of South Africa, which has been eliminated, and the second is the Zionist regime. For everybody else around the world, we announced that we want to have friendly, brotherly ties.
The Iranian nation is a cultured nation. It is a civilized nature. It seeks, it wants, new talks and negotiations. It's for it. We believe that in negotiations and talks, everything can be resolved very easily. We don't need threats; we don't need to point bombs or guns; we don't need to get into conflict if we talk. We have a clear logical about that.
We question the way the world is being run and managed today. We believe that it will not lead to viable peace and security for the world, the way it's run today. We have solutions based on humane values and for relations among states. With the U.S. government, too, we will negotiate. We don't have any issues about that, under fair, just circumstances with mutual respect on both sides.
You saw that in order to help the security of Iraq, we had three rounds of talks with the United States. And last year, before coming to New York, I announced that I am ready, in the United Nations, to engage in a debate with Mr. Bush, the president of the United States, about critical international issues. So that shows that we want to talk, having a debate before the world public -- before all the audience, so that truth is revealed, so that misunderstandings and misperceptions are removed, so that we can find a clear path for brotherly and friendly relations. I think that if the U.S. administration -- if the U.S. government puts aside some of its old behaviors, it can actually be a good friend for the Iranian people, for the Iranian nation.
For 28 years they've consistently threatened us, insulted us, prevented our scientific development, every day under one pretext or another. You all know Saddam the dictator was supported by the government of the United States and some Europeans countries in attacking Iran. And in -- he carried out an eight-year war, a criminal war. Over 200,000 Iranians were -- lost their lives. Over 600,000 Iranians were hurt as a result of a war. He used chemical weapons; thousands of Iranians were victims of chemical weapons that he used against us. Today, Mr. Nobal Vinh (ph), who is a reporter, an official reporter, international reporter, who was covering U.N. reports in U.N. for many years, he is one of the victims of the chemical weapons used by Iraq against us.
And since then, we've been under different propaganda sort of embargoes, economic sanctions, political sanctions. Why? Because we got rid of a dictator? Because we wanted the freedom and democracy that we got for ourselves? But we can't always tell. We think that if the U.S. government recognizes the rights of the Iranian people, respects all nations, and extends a hand of friendship with all Iranians, they too will see that Iranians will be one of its best friends.
Will you allow me to thank the audience a moment?
I -- well, there are many things that I would have liked to cover, but I don't want to take your time any further. I was asked, would I allow the faculty and Columbia students here to come to Iran? From this platform, I invite Columbia faculty members and students to come and visit Iran, to speak with our university students. You are officially invited. (Applause).
University faculty and the students that the university decides are the student association's chosen select are welcome to come. You're welcome to visit any university that you choose inside Iran. We'll provide you with a list of the universities. There are over 400 universities in our country, and you can choose whichever you want to go and visit.
We'll give you the true platform. You can -- we'll respect you 100 percent. We will have our students sit there and listen to you, speak with you, hear what you have to say.
Right now in our universities on a daily basis, there are hundreds of meetings like this. They hear, they talk, they ask questions, they welcome it.
In the end, I'd like to thank Columbia University. I had heard that many politicians in the United States are trained in Columbia University, and there are many people here who believe in the freedom of speech, in clear, frank conversations; I do like to extend my gratitude to the managers here in the United States -- at Columbia University -- I apologize -- the people who so well-organized this meeting today. I'd like to extend my deepest gratitude to the faculty members and the dear students here. I ask Almighty God to assist all of us to move hand in hand to establish peace and future filled with friendship and justice and brotherhood. Best of luck to all of you. (Applause.)
MR. BOLLINGER: I'm sorry that President Ahmadinejad's schedule makes it necessary for him to leave before he's been able to answer many of the questions that we have or even answer some of the ones that we posed to him. (Laughter, applause.) But I think we can all be pleased that his appearance here demonstrates Columbia's deep commitment to free expression and debate. I want to thank you all for coming to participate. (Applause.)
Thank you.