Swans

[Ed. As a reminder to Letter writers: If you want your letters to be published, you must include your first and last names and your city and state of residence. Thank you.]

Enjoy our letters? Keep them coming and, please, support our work.

A worthy conversation? On Jacob Amir and Gilles d'Aymery's discussion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Gilles d'Aymery responds:

Thank you very much for your comments and appreciation of what I am doing, Mrs. Adams. I highly recommend that you read Michael Neumann's latest book, The Case Against Israel. It's a lucid and rational analysis of the situation put in historical context. It's worth noting that much too often discussions over the Israeli-Palestinian predicament are loaded with emotionalism. The recent exchange between Finkelstein and Dershowitz (that was produced for Democracy Now!, but has not been broadcast to my knowledge, and was on Finkelstein's Web site, before, apparently, being removed...I supposed as a matter of copyrights issues) was a clear testimony to the idiocy of emotionalism, and this great American exercise (though not limited just to Americans, I'm afraid) of wanting to score points by shouting louder and louder and attacking the perceived "enemy" of one's position. Finkelstein made a fool of himself, not through his argumentation, but by his disdaining arrogance. Dershowitz was...just plain Dershowitz, the whining self that he's been for so long... (Remember the debate with Chomsky?) In that sense, Neumann's work is a breath of fresh air. He understands the notion of irrelevancy.

My "patience" should be extended to Dr. Amir. He too has been quite patient with me. We present two differing narratives of this predicament. He accepted to have this open discussion, and we have managed to not get at each other's throat (a relative exception in the debate that has gone on for decades). I do hope readers will make their own opinion, though I am fully aware that people tend to search for a reaffirmation of their personal "beliefs," and that chances are this exchange will not sway many of them (and Swans is such a small entity, anyway...). Nevertheless, I find Amir's perspective quite instructive. Like everything, in this kind of correspondence, you need to read between the lines. Let's see:

I do not know whether Dr. Amir is a Sabra or an Olim. I don't know who he is and where he comes from -- I never ask people to send me their resumes, their frame of references in regard to politics, religions, belief systems, etc. I know, from our exchange, and from letters he has written to other publications, that he is an "ardent Zionist" who wanted very much Israel to exist from the sea to the Jordan River, but has been willing to compromise, were the Palestinians to reciprocate (in his own frame of references). From what he writes, he was in sync with Begin and thus, I presume, disagreed with Ben Gurion's views (as he states them). I further note that, according to his statements, he came to the conclusion that he had to abandon his dream and accept the two-state solution within the fought-over real estate; that his change of views occurred in the 1970s; that his desire for a democratic state and a Jewish state was deeper than a binational state extending all the way from the sea to the Jordan River.

Now, I may be naïve and the object of another "manipulation" by a Mossad agent (Jacob Amir and I have just gone through an instructive and sickening exchange with an individual who -- I won't characterize or name him in this space now -- advocated that Dr. Amir "departs with it" -- it being Israel) -- conspiracies worthy of an HBO sitcom -- but I find it instructive that this, I suppose elder man, beside being an MD and ordering me to stop smoking -- a man who, by training, wants to save lives -- has come to the realization that survival of his societal dream requires the ablation of a cancer that is destroying his own society. Amir does not acknowledge the repugnant Israeli policies in the OT -- he explains or defends them in the name of the "3,000" dead Israelis -- but he knows intimately (remember, he is an MD) that the policy does not square, is detrimental to Israeli society, and horrifying (dehumanizing, violent) toward the Palestinians. (Keep in mind that to this date most French have not acknowledged the brutality their military afflicted upon the Algerians during the Algerian War of Independence. Same could be said of Americans with Vietnam or Iraq, etc.)

I am gratified that both of us are patient people, for what purpose would it have served to haul insults or accusations at each other? I'm always bewildered by the attitude in which people strenuously object, for instance, to the demonization of Muslims or Arabs by say the neocons, but turn around and demonize their own "enemy" du jour relentlessly.

As to racism: I've had the opportunity, like you, to go back and forth over the Green Line. I worked in the OT. I traveled through the OT. I saw with my own eyes the dreadful racism that's taking place there time and again (and I strongly object, let it be known, that the situation is due to the "3,000" dead Israelis, whatever Dr. Amir wants readers to believe, or believes himself). I know all that. But racism is not an "Israeli specialty." Stating this evidence does not excuse the culprits, but is a recognition that war and occupation breed racism. The French did a good job at it in Algeria (and Vietnam, and Africa). Think of the Brits... Look at your own mirror: Americans are universally known for their genocide of the Indians that lived in what is now the USA, and have, ever since, demonized the "other" to promote and safeguard their own interests (cf. the latest adventure in Iraq). Israelis are no different, as illustrated by the results of a recent poll released by the Center for the Struggle Against Racism (see "Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab," Haaretz, March 22, 2006). Sad but true. There are Israelis who are fully aware of the dire situation, for instance Amira Hass or Gideon Levy (Levy just wrote a piece on that very issue: "One racist nation," Haaretz, March 26, 2006). However, I am convinced that once the occupation is reversed and the Palestinians are at long last granted sovereignty, this racism and hatred will abate.

I've always found the debate between Zionists and anti-Zionists intriguing but never felt the urge to participate in it; and I don't think that it makes much difference whether the IDF uses US helicopters and ordnances or French, Russian, British, etc. Accusations of anti-Semitism have no effect on me. I'm totally immune. (See The Politics Of Anti-Semitism, Part I: Smear, Slander, And Intimidation - 4/26/04.)

Thank you again for your comments. I will not hesitate to consult you the next time I need references checked.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Continuing Discussion between Dr. Jacob Amir and Gilles d'Aymery

Dear Jacob,

Thanks for confirming the authenticity of the citation. The page discrepancy may have to do with the various editions (Hebrew or French vs. English?). Anyway, it's not fundamental, but I'm glad you verified it with your own eyes. Trust and verify is a good adage. I'd hope trust would take over suspicion, eventually. So where did we leave the discussion, due to my persisting cold and more importantly the publication of the last Swans issue? I wish I could hear your good doctor's order. Smoking is a drug that's killing me and to which I've been addicted for some 40 years. I acknowledge my utter lack of self-control and will power. Our local veterinarian, a wonderful man who tries to alleviate our dog's ailments, is on my case every time he sees me (of course, I'd rather not see him too often, not because of his admonitions, but because it means that every time my dear Priam faces yet another physical problem -- and this close, beloved friend is only 6 and a half years old!).

Okay, let's get back to the discussion and your e-mail dated March 7, 2006, published in the Letters to the Editor on March 13. I'm not sure what's the best format to follow-up. Your e-mail is packed with explanation and statements about how you see the course of history in the past 100 years. Should I take each statement and respond accordingly, or should I remain more general? Should I cut each point you make and answer them individually or should I take a wider perspective? I'm going to elect the latter and avoid the tit-for-tat, "he said-I said," that I sense won't get us anywhere, if there is a place where we can meet.

First, let me clarify something about Philip Greenspan. I do not know whether he thinks or believes that Zionists want an Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. He's never said a word about this. So, let's avoid putting words in his mouth, or let's ask him what he believes. As a personal policy, I publish what regular contributors have to say, with extremely, and I do mean extremely, rare exceptions. It does not mean that I necessarily agree with, or espouse their opinions, the same way I expect them to let me present my own views even when they do not match theirs necessarily either -- this is one of the foundational tenants of Swans. We publish what is not found in the main media and we do have regular contributors who have quite different opinions, indeed. I do agree with Phil, however, that Israel has still not abandoned the dream of getting as much as possible of the land within the West Bank, and I'll get back to this point below; but, no, I do not think that Israelis as a whole want to see their country from the Nile to the Euphrates (though I'm sure there must be a few fanatics who advocate that historical chimera).

Second, I'm becoming wary of the use of citations used to support one's point of view when they are taken out of context. I just got reminded of this wariness through a letter I received from a Turkish gentleman who took exception with my latest piece on the passing of Slobodan Milosevic. He used a 25-word citation from a 1,900-word speech, out of literal and historical context, to make his point. You'll be able to read his letter and my response [see below]. It also clearly reminds me of a piece I wrote, "Context And Accuracy" (March 28, 2005) about the repeated use of George F. Kennan's famous "quotation." Don't take me wrong. I'm as guilty as everybody else. My point is that we can always find a citation that will serve the purpose of our argumentation. For instance, take what Benny Morris said regarding the 1948 transfer of Palestinians (what we now call "ethnic cleansing," an expression that came to vogue in the 1990s during the carving up of the former Socialist Federation of Yugoslavia) and that you quoted in your last e-mail: "The Palestinian refugee problem was born of war, not by design, Jewish or Arab. It was largely a by-product of Jewish and Arab fears and of the protracted, bitter fighting that characterized the first Arab-Israeli war; in smaller part, it was the deliberate creation of Jewish and Arab military commanders and politicians." That is an accurate reflection of what he thought at the time he became a "new historian." But travel in time to the future. In 2004, he clearly stated that Ben-Gurion was a "transferist;" that there was, in 1948, a deliberate policy, albeit an unwritten one (with some exceptions -- Moshe Carmel on the Northern Front, Yitzhak Rabin in Lod), to get rid of as many Palestinians as may be. And in a very symptomatic mental evolution, Morris advanced that in his own view Ben-Gurion had suffered "cold feet" syndrome. He was a "transferist," says Morris, but he should have gone all the way, meaning expulsing all Palestinians in 1948, not just from the portioned land ("the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River") so that Israel would not be stuck with the current situation. Had Ben-Gurion gone all the way, things would be more stable now. He even goes so far as positing that under the right circumstances (existential menace) a full transfer of the Palestinians from the OT, or Israel proper, could happen. (See "For the record," The Guardian, January 14, 2004 -- and "Survival of the Fittest?" An Interview with Benny Morris with Ari Shavit -- http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm, Winter 2004 -- Please note that the interview seems to have appeared first in Haaretz, but I do not know the date.)

So, here we are, using citations that serve our demonstrations, leaving aside the context, historical or otherwise, and the fact that people's thinking does evolve over time (at least for those of us whose brain is not firmly anchored in concrete posts). Let us endeavor to eschew the practice if ever possible, or at least place our citations in context (and provide a link to the text when it is on the Web). By the way, Benny Morris's remarks in the last part of the interview are frightening -- his apocalyptic vision, his views on Islam, the Palestinians, the Arab world...all so close to the narrative of the hard-core Christian fundamentalists in the USA. Do you share his pessimism and dooms-day scenario (Armageddon)?

I find your "what if" scenario revealing of your position. You may be, of course, correct. Had the Palestinians accepted the UN partition they would have had their own state for 58 years. Indeed, you may well be correct, but it's totally irrelevant. We have a saying in French: Avec des scies on mettrait la Tour Eiffel en bouteilles. In French, a scie means a "saw," but it is pronounced like the conjunction si, or "if." So, in English it reads, "With ifs one could bottle the Eiffel Tower" (one could put the Eiffel Tower in bottles...by sawing it in tiny pieces). Sure, by all means, let us use the convenient ifs. If the Brits had not been adjudicated Mandatory Palestine on the Ottoman dead corpse, and Mr. Balfour had been still-born, Israel might not have been created. If Israel had not settled the West Bank and Gaza and had withdrawn from the OT in the 1970s, as you wished, the situation would be entirely different today. (I could go further and submit to you that if we could stay away from the Huntingtonian clash of civilizations that Benny Morris appears to espouse and stop adding fuel to the fire we all could deal with other actualities, like for instance, soil erosion, water scarcity, abject poverty, global warming, death of the oceans, and the long list of curses that are befalling humanity.)

Evidently, the Palestinians did not buy the "deal." One need not be a shrink to fathom the psychology of the historical process. Their land was being taken away from them; their destiny subjugated by an alien culture. There was no rational reason for them to accept the truncation of their real estate. There were plenty of rational reasons for the newcomers to accept the truncation. One side was losing real estate. The other was gaining. Aside from perceiving the newcomers as European crusaders, there was a profound emotional dimension to their rejection.

No, I am not "'implying' that the Yishuv 'invited' the Arabs to attack so that they could be defeated and expelled." I am saying that the Yishuv knew that the Arab armies would attack and the Palestinians revolt; that the Yishuv was well prepared and knew it could defeat the Arab armies and the Palestinians (cf. Ben-Ami), notwithstanding the heavy cost in human lives, with the consequence of the transfer of some 700,000 Palestinians through both expulsion and flight.

This is where I find Michael Neumann's analysis quite compelling (have you read his book yet?). The Palestinians were in a bind. They could not accept to be governed by a state whose clear and stated purpose was to be in majority Jewish -- a state of, by, and for the Jews, if you will, with minority rights preserved as well or as poorly as it is most often the case with minorities in democratic nations. They could not accept a minority status because they were the majority. They could see that the Zionist project was an expansionist one, as it certainly was, and therefore had good reasons to distrust the offered "deal" that was essentially imposed by the European powers (and the U.S.). They were being dispossessed... So, from their perspective -- and that was a reasonable perspective -- they considered partition and the creation of Israel as a "mortal threat," to use Michael's expression. You may disagree.

However, it seems to me that your narrative, or view of the historical events, contains an inherent contradiction. To have a state with a Jewish majority in a real estate populated by a non-Jewish majority you either have to bring enough Jews to overcome the demographic deficit or you need to have the non-Jewish majority become a minority in one fashion or another. Do you know of any other alternative?

So, in a bizarre historical twist, the war of 1948, that was launched because of the inability of the Palestinians and the Arab countries to accept the imposed "deal," allowed the new state of Israel to expand its territory, all the while getting a Jewish majority within this expanded territory. These facts on the ground led to further resentment and beliefs that the now Jewish state would indeed try to keep expanding. It led to further resistance, and it also led within Israel to the belief that the "Arabs" would never, ever, accept Israel's right to exist.

Interestingly enough, these events created both the refugee problem AND Palestinian nationalism.

Then there was the little "escapade" in 1956 with the Brits and the Frogs that was reversed real fast when the U.S., slowly becoming the leader of the "Free World," decided to rein in that little colonial adventure to avoid a confrontation with the Soviet Union (and to tell the French and the Brits to shove it). Ben-Gurion was "glad" to oblige... Palestinians were not a party to this minuet.

But in 1967, they sure were -- the second "mortal threat." Israel took control of a wide swath of real estate and kept on to it. You submit with accuracy that Begin gave back the Sinai, of no interest to the Palestinians...though it took Saddat, the dismissal of the 1971 Jarring initiative (you did not comment on this point), the 1973 War that was not as much of a cakewalk as the Six-Day War, and the Carter Administration to convince Begin.

Nothing of the sort happened with the West Bank and the Gaza strip. There, the Palestinians were directly concerned, and the beginning of the settlements confirmed their long-held belief that Israel was bent to take over the whole piece of real estate. There's this figure of speech in the so-called pro Israel camp that says the Arabs/Palestinians want to "throw the Jews to the sea." On their side of the ledger, there's also a figure of speech that says that the Israelis (or the "Jews" when animosities flare) are up to "taking all the land from the sea to the Jordan River" (a tiny few add, "and beyond").

I say so-called pro Israel camp because from where I stand I do not consider Christian fundamentalists or "Christian Zionists" pro Israel. Fundamentalist Jews would certainly disagree with my stand. But then again I do not believe in rapture, Armageddon, and all these silly -- but wholly destructive -- tales. The predicament here is that you (Israeli society) screwed up magisterially. Instead of getting out of the West Bank and Gaza, Israel decided to settle them in spite of the Geneva fourth convention (See "Israel's Tragedy Foretold," by Gershom Gorenberg, NYT Op-Ed, March 10, 2006 -- if you don't have it, I'll e-mail it to you.) and all international laws that have been ignored for so long. This trend has produced a series of consequences. In very short:

- Alternate violent and peaceful reactions from the Palestinians.
- Subsequent justification for Israel to pursue the settlement policy.
- Intifada #1.
- Harsh repression of that revolt by Israel.
- Beginning of Israeli isolation in the world's public opinion.
- Subsequent Israeli alliances with the most reactionary elements of Western societies.
- Further Israeli isolation, even within Jewish opinion (see, Lenni Brenner's "Catch-up on the sociology of American Zionism,").
- Continued occupation and settlements.
- "Negotiations" with the "enemy" all the while pursuing the settlement policy.

I could go on and on. You'll probably disagree anyway. One thing that's evident to me (perhaps not you) is that you cannot negotiate with someone when all the while continuing the very policies that created the predicament in the first place.

Carrying on in that direction will eventually bring what the crazies so much dream of.

It seems to me that the Ben-Gurion approach that Arabs only understand force needs to be at long last retired. Try, for a change, a little understanding. I'd welcome the Prime Minister of the coming new Israeli government to state publicly and unequivocally to the Palestinians, the various countries in the region (try the Arab League), and the entire world:

We, Israel, want to withdraw from the West Bank, as we recently did from Gaza. We will abide by the 2000 Clinton precepts. We are ready to sit with Hamas or any political entity that represents Palestinians. If this is not possible, we are ready to sit with the International community, say the Quartet supplemented by the Arab League, to organize the logistics of our withdrawal. In exchange, we want a signed treaty among all belligerents that recognizes the right of Israel to exist. If we cannot get such agreement, if we cannot have partners to sit at the table, we will still withdraw unilaterally according to the 2000 Clinton precepts. Israel has no intention to expand its territory -- none whatsoever. We will get back within the 1967 Green Line with minor adjustment for the major settlements and we will give the same amount of land back elsewhere. We agree to see East Jerusalem be the capital of our Palestinian brothers but need special arrangement for the Temple Mount. We agree to compensate, with hopefully the help of the international community, the dispossessed Palestinians and we hope that our dispossessed Jewish brethrens will also be compensated for the losses they occurred over this long and tragic period, but we won't let the latter be a precondition. We want to get out of this vicious circle of violence and blame. Israel exists. Palestine will exist within the next 12 months. Jewish settlers who wish to remain in the new Palestinian state, according to Palestinian laws, should be welcome to stay. If not, we will repatriate them within Israel proper. Finally, the state of Israel will continue to defend its territorial integrity and its citizens. If we have to keep the separating fence, known as an apartheid wall by many observers, we will. When Palestinians and Israelis live in their respective states as good neighbors do we will remove that separation fence.

I am not a politician and my wording certainly reflects that deficiency. However, were the Israeli government willing to craft such a statement and implement its content, it would a) tell the world including people like Philip and myself, that indeed Israel is not about grabbing more territory, b) give the Palestinians a light at the end of a very long and dark and unjust tunnel, c) help abate the hatred and extinguish the fires that are spewing up all over the Middle East

And if Israel could go back to its socialist roots, it would really make this tiny Don Quixote happy. Talking about socialism and what ifs, you should know that when I was in my teens, in the mid 1960s, I very much wanted to go and live in an Israeli Kibbutz. It did not happen. Instead, fleeing emotional violence, I ended in a land that does not fit much of who I am...but, then, I would never have met Jan...and that is proof that within this imperfect world one can find some solace.

There is a lesson here for those of us who do not hate and keep the human spirit alive, whatever the mistakes we make along the journey.

Jacob, please, Israel needs to get out of the OT and accept final territorial borders. The older we get the more we understand the meaning of finality -- and the next generations take over... But at this stage of humanity's story, it's not the fate of one's people that's at stake. It's the well being of all.

Best,

Gilles
Boonville, March 17, 2006

Gilles d'Aymery responds:

Dear Jacob,

Thank you for your latest thoughts. I like your Monday morning quarterback analogy, though I wish to submit to you that some of us have been quarterbacking for at least 25 years -- that's just about 1,300 weeks of quarterbacking. Others have been at it much longer, but, in a nutshell, those of us, Monday morning quarterbacks, and in the huge majority not Israel or Jewish haters, have been asking and begging from you, from the Israeli society, and the state of Israel, that you please, please, please, rein in the lunatic minority (9%), stop the settlements, and get out of the OT.

This occupation has created mayhem and a human tragedy.

I don't think it would be useful at this point to keep repeating our respective narratives, which must be quite clear to the readers who have been following our exchanges since you first commented on my review of Michael Neumann's book two months ago. And you are correct: "What is important is what we do NOW."

You know what needs to be done. You (Israel) hold all the cards. You have the power, militarily, economically. The entire Arab world, the entire world, wants a two-state solution. You can make it happen at a snap of the fingers. Painful realization, painful abandonment of a long-held dream... There is this old German adage, "Es könnte auch anders sein" (it could have been different) that comes to mind. There could have been, perhaps, some kind of binational state within the entire Mandatory Palestine (Israel/Palestine plus Transjordan) had it not been for the European powers oil interests and the adamant will to have a Jewish majority in that new state. It certainly could have been different.

But too much blood has drenched the land. You cannot expel the Palestinians -- I mean, you have the military power to do so but I am convinced you know that it's morally unfeasible and would lead to unending violence, total isolation, and pariah status. You cannot practically have a binational state -- too much blood again and the demographic dilemma. So, what's left? To perpetuate the occupation is to prolong immense suffering and to delay the inevitable.

Please, Jacob, Israel must leave the OT.

"Muss es sein?" Le faut-il? Must it be done?
"Es muss sein." Il le faut. It must be done.
(And that's the full extent of my knowledge of German!)

You say that "it will be done," and I hope it will. But my optimism is much tempered by the continued "facts on the ground" that Amira Hass keeps detailing (see "Israeli restrictions create isolated enclaves in West Bank," Haaretz, March 24, 2006), and yesterday's comments by Ehud Olmert -- "We want to set the permanent borders of Israel, and to do so, we must separate from the Palestinians." . . . . "In order to separate from the Palestinians, we must define for ourselves our red lines." He talks about "an internal negotiation, first of all, so that we within the state of Israel will know what we want." . . . . followed by negotiations over "borderlines such that all of the international community would support, including the United States of America." (See http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/698657.html.) and that means more time wasted, more delays, more facts on the ground, more violence, more bloodshed... As former US President Jimmy Carter recently wrote, "The preeminent obstacle to peace is Israel's colonization of Palestine" (he means the OT) -- see http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/695187.html. Somehow, I don't think that the Israeli polity, in its majority, has fully internalized that central fact.

Finally, reading your comments on how the Palestinians only understand force reminded me of my childhood on the one hand, and on the other, of my dog. Treat a dog with decency, reason, and love and it will be a wonderful companion; beat him repetitively and it will bite. What works with dogs works as well with humans, which is what Palestinians are...human beings.

Many thanks for this discussion. One of these days, I would be glad to discuss with you the concept and reality of Jewish people -- its meaning, its need. Personally (I think I have already mentioned this), I endeavor to avoid referring to Israel as the Jewish state or Israeli as Jews, the same way that I do not refer to France as a Christian state or French as Christians, etc. But this should be the object of another discussion if you are willing to entertain it.

Note: I'd like to apologize for having involved you in the exchange I've had with that unpalatable individual, but thinking of it, the best way to silence these people would be to get out of the OT, would it not? And regarding the latest brouhaha about the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., there is an excellent article in Al-Ahram Weekly of 23-29 March 2006, "Blaming the lobby," by Joseph Massad, an associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University -- worth reading.

To stop smoking is easy, eh? I am feeling better, thanks.

Best,
Gilles
Boonville - March 26, 2006

Want change? Make it happen...and, please, help us help YOU make a difference.

Never Dull, Always Pertinent; stick to theatre, dear Charles: Charles Marowitz's The Love Extortionists

Where is the "Truth"? Gilles d'Aymery's Slobodan Milosevic, 1941-2006: A Cursed, Blasted Statesman

Yes, a few people get it... Gilles d'Aymery's Slobodan Milosevic, 1941-2006: A Cursed, Blasted Statesman

...And others do not. Gilles d'Aymery's Slobodan Milosevic, 1941-2006: A Cursed, Blasted Statesman

Gilles d'Aymery responds: I thank Dr. Erimtan for expressing his views, views that I do not share. I have discoursed at some length on the Yugoslav tragedy, and do not feel necessary to rebute Dr. Erimtan's analysis. Mine can be found on Swans, in the archives: The Balkans and Yugoslavia. However, Dr. Erimtan quotes a very short excerpt of Mr. Milosevic's speech delivered on June 28, 1989 to reach the conclusion that Mr. Milosevic was not a "multiculturalist," but an ardent nationalist bent on creating a "Greater Serbia" through ethnic cleansing (known in earlier times as population transfers). That speech has been, and remains, consistently used by Milosevic's detractors and Serb bashers. In that speech, Mr. Milosevic made some telling comments about unity among people and multinationalism within the Yugoslav federation. To wit:

Serbia has never had only Serbs living in it. Today, more than in the past, members of other peoples and nationalities also live in it. This is not a disadvantage for Serbia. I am truly convinced that it is its advantage. National composition of almost all countries in the world today, particularly developed ones, has also been changing in this direction. Citizens of different nationalities, religions, and races have been living together more and more frequently and more and more successfully.

Socialism in particular, being a progressive and just democratic society, should not allow people to be divided in the national and religious respect. The only differences one can and should allow in socialism are between hard working people and idlers and between honest people and dishonest people. Therefore, all people in Serbia who live from their own work, honestly, respecting other people and other nations, are in their own republic.

After all, our entire country should be set up on the basis of such principles. Yugoslavia is a multinational community and it can survive only under the conditions of full equality for all nations that live in it.

The crisis that hit Yugoslavia has brought about national divisions, but also social, cultural, religious and many other less important ones. Among all these divisions, nationalist ones have shown themselves to be the most dramatic. Resolving them will make it easier to remove other divisions and mitigate the consequences they have created.

For as long as multinational communities have existed, their weak point has always been the relations between different nations. The threat is that the question of one nation being endangered by the others can be posed one day -- and this can then start a wave of suspicions, accusations, and intolerance, a wave that invariably grows and is difficult to stop. This threat has been hanging like a sword over our heads all the time. Internal and external enemies of multi-national communities are aware of this and therefore they organize their activity against multinational societies mostly by fomenting national conflicts. At this moment, we in Yugoslavia are behaving as if we have never had such an experience and as if in our recent and distant past we have never experienced the worst tragedy of national conflicts that a society can experience and still survive.

Equal and harmonious relations among Yugoslav peoples are a necessary condition for the existence of Yugoslavia and for it to find its way out of the crisis and, in particular, they are a necessary condition for its economic and social prosperity. In this respect Yugoslavia does not stand out from the social milieu of the contemporary, particularly the developed, world. This world is more and more marked by national tolerance, national cooperation, and even national equality. The modern economic and technological, as well as political and cultural development, has guided various peoples toward each other, has made them interdependent and increasingly has made them equal as well [medjusobno ravnopravni]. Equal and united people can above all become a part of the civilization toward which mankind is moving. If we cannot be at the head of the column leading to such a civilization, there is certainly no need for us to be at is tail.

The particular citation Dr. Erimtan refers to has been brandished many a time by the anti-Serb crowds over the years. Always the same citation rehashed again and again -- 25 words out of some 1,900 utterly removed from the text and context in which they were pronounced. What's so remarkable about this speech is how much it has been used to demonize the Serbs but for some bizarre reason it never has been published in the corporate "mainstream" media in the U.S. (I'll be glad to stand corrected), so that people are ignorant of the actual content of what Mr. Milosevic actually said. Readers can judge for themselves. Here is the full text: Kosovo Polje Speech, June 28, 1989.

It should also be noted for the record that I have never taken a position in regard to the 600-year-old conflict between the Ottoman Empire and Serbia. Neither have I placed the responsibility of this tragedy on the Bosniaks (as Bosnians of Muslim background are now known) or the Croats or the inhabitants of Albanian background (Muslims and Christians) in Kosovo...or the Serbs. That responsibility, in the latest analysis, falls on the European powers (principally but not exclusively Germany) and the United States of America, those countries that most profited from the destruction of Yugoslavia. What I certainly did, and will continue to do, is to strenuously object to the demonization of an entire nation.

Survival of Democracy in the U.S.? Michael Doliner's Totalitarianism Then And Now

Excessive Accusation Against Poor James Petras regarding Flemming Rose and the Sayanim: Gilles d'Aymery's Blips #34

US elective "democracy" through rigged elections: Milo Clark's To Ignore Is To Participate

Bird Flu, Anyone?

So much "leftist" crap on Swans (reproduced as is -- i.e., unedited.)

[ed. Mr. Teats should enroll in any local or national spelling bee. On the merits of his argument: I suppose that, in Mr. Teats's mind, were we to spew rightwing crap it would drive the famed US middle class to the left.]

Remember, support Swans. It only will hurt your wallet, not your freedom to be heard.

We appreciate and welcome your comments. Please, enter in the subject line of your e-mail "letter to the editor," and specify the article or the subject you are commenting on at the beginning of your e-mail. Also, ***PLEASE,*** sign your e-mail with your name ***AND*** add your city, state, country, address, and phone number. If we publish your opinion we will only include your name, city, state, and country. Send your comments to the Editor. (Letters may be shortened and edited)