The 90's, episode 301: MONEY, MONEY, MONEY
9:09 Joel Kovner by Nancy Cain and Judy Procter. At the First Professional Bank in Santa Monica, California, bank president Joel Kovner gives a brief tour of the vault. Before the bank opened we played monopoly with real money. 12:09 Prof. Paul Nadler commentary by Skip Blumberg. Nadler explains how bank loans have changed with the existence of fixed interest rates. Savings and loans started as a family financial center. You brought in your deposits and they'd make mortgage loans. It used to be what you'd call a 3-6-3 business. They'd take your money at 3, they'd lend it back to you at 6, they'd be on the golf course by 3. It didn't take much talent to run a savings and loan. Basically where the money went - they were paying it out, paying it out and not earning it. They refused to admit they were dead, making it the biggest scandal in American financial history. 16:59 Ed Sadlowski by Tony Judge. Ed Sadlowski, of the Steelworkers union in South Chicago talks about the economic disparities in the United States. The real question at hand is the distribution of wealth. Look at the situation of health care in this country. It's criminal. Yet who's opposing it the most? The insurance companies. A few years ago if I said we needed a national health insurance program the Lee Laccocas call me communist, socialist, everything else in the world. He's not championing the cause. He's on my side for a change. To share that wealth is to share power. When you start talking that way, pal, they put you up against the wall. 18:24 Andrew Jones in Iraq. Jones talks to us from a peace camp in Iraq where an international group of protesters have formed a human shield between armies to attempt to prevent the beginning of the Iraq War. I'm a black American and Bush had astutely put the deadline [for Iraq to pull out of Kuwait] on Martin Luther King's birthday, January 15. Bush was assaulting an idea - an idea of could have been January 18, January 20, it could have been any day. I was pissed off at him for desecrating Martin Luther King's birthday. 25:32 More from Prof. Paul Nadler. One of the problems with America is we live in a world where everything has to be solved - instant journalism, instant success. A guy makes a speech and within one minute a reporter has to analyze it...What have we done to this country? 27:22 Susan Cohn by Skip Blumberg. On Broadway in New York, Susan Cohn, a career counselor, talks about American cultural domination and the people's differing definitions of what it means to be rich. 32:40 Andrea Carmen speech by Robble Leppzer. At the heart of the struggle is a conflict of world view. We could talk about the indigenous world view and the corporate world view. The indigenous world view looks at this world as something that is alive. The corporate world view sees the world as something dead, something to be used and to be used as profit. The corporate executives of the world are holding us all hostage. If somebody came into your home and pointed a gun at your children, you would act. Don't you feel that desperation that we feel? 34:55 Eco Rage by Robbie Leppzer. A look at a demonstration on Wall Street the day following Earth Day, 1990. We got the power to save the earth, chant the protesters. They clog up traffic with trash cans and bike racks and encourage Wall Street workers to take the day off. One protester is mercilessly beaten by the New York police after feigning to stop traffic in the street. 37:12 Todd Alcott by Skip Blumberg. 90's regular Todd Alcott rants. It used to be if you needed furniture you made furniture. Everybody had the skills they needed to survive. No one makes things anymore, they have jobs. They work at an office...not to produce a thing, but to make money to buy things. We're disassociated from our own possessions. Can you make a shirt? I can't. We have no connection to things and how they're made. Consequently we have no connection to each other. Money has become the fifth element. It can cancel out the other four because it can take their place at any moment. You don't need to tame fire anymore. You just need to pay your gas bill. The Indians used to think the earth was sacred. It was holy. Anyone will tell you today that it 's just capital waiting to be exploited. The whole planet is a business, Earth Inc. Assets 48 kazillion dollars. What is that?!! Is that a reason for opening your eyes in the morning?... 40:11 Bowery Forger by Dee Dee Halleck. Blacksmith Tovey Halleck at work in the Bowery. 43:27 Harry Magdoff commentary by Esti Galili Marpet. Magdoff, an economist, talks about the problem of homelessness in the United States. There's no reason that with the resources this country has that there can't be homes for the homeless. When it came to the Second World War we had to build very quickly. It was achieved relatively simply and in record time, but it was for war, it was for destruction. In times of peace, the possibilities are all here. 46:39 Ruth Handler by Judith Binder and Jody Procter. Handler, co-founder of Barbie dolls, now produces prosthetic breasts for masectomy patients with a company called Nearly Me. She explains her history of how difficult it was for her after she lost her breasts while giving us a tour of the factory. Handler shows us her prosthetic breasts, literally unbuttoning her dress and taking them out of her bra. 52:38 More from Ed Sadlowski. There has never been a man who has worked for another man who was paid his due. People bitch about a ballplayer getting a million dollars a year playing second base for the White Sox. When I take my grandkid to the ballpark I don?t take him to see Jerry Reinsdorf and Eddie Einhorn. I go there to see the ballplayer play. Why shouldn't the ballplayer get the dough rather than two guys sitting in a skybox somewhere? 54:00 The Money Man Monument by Doug Michels. A satirical piece featuring a mock meeting of fundraisers for the Money Man Monument, a skeleton in a suit placed in a tube of money on Washington DC's Mall - a permanent tribute to green power and the American Way. 54:58 More from Prof. Paul Nadler. Nadler talks about the change in tax laws and how 90% of Americans pay more social security tax than they do income tax. 56:03 Wally Nelson by Robbie Leppzer. Wally Nelson has not paid his income tax for 42 years. He refused to fight in WWII and was jailed. If I refused to let my body be drafted for killing, I should not let my money get drafted to pay for killing. We do not have to feel we are powerless.
AFP-60C 16mm; VTM-60C Beta SP; NET-103 DigiBeta (at 01:58:35:00); Beta SP
OFF /// Manif Place Guichard + ITW Licra
Centre Est
A civil rights leader condemns rioting following Martin King's killing in the U.S.
A civil rights leader condemns as "wrong and deplorable" the rioting in the wake of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the United States. He states that the nation "cannot digest" these actions. Location: United States USA. Date: 1968.
Assassination Lawsuit (07/02/1997)
A former Green Beret is suing over a book that says he was part of a government plot to assassinate the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. The book-- published two years ago-- is by a London lawyer who's trying to win a new trial for James Earl Ray. In the book, William Pepper claims that Billy Ray Eidson and seven other special forces troops were sent to Memphis in April 1968 to kill the civil rights leader. Eidson filed the libel suit in South Carolina. He's seeking 15 (M) million dollars. Pepper's book also claims that Eidson was killed after King's death to keep him silent. But Eidson is alive... living in Costa Rica.
The anti war protests against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.
Anti-war protests in the United States during the Vietnam War. Protesters march and demonstrate against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War from Central Park to the UN headquarters in New York City. Demonstrators in crowd holding protest signs. A number of African American marchers hold signs that read, "Black men should fight white racism, not Vietnamese freedom fighters." Another sign reads, "They are our brothers whom we kill." Masses of people including doctors, teachers, and businessmen on streets. People dressed in different costumes and 1960s hippie fashion as they protest. Young men participate in burning their draft cards while a crowd gathers around to watch the draft card burning. Pro-war counter protestors (sometimes called "Hawks") also demonstrating and arguing with anti-war activists. Pro-war banner reads, "End Hanoi Sanctuary. Let's bomb Hanoi to win the war and destroy the Communist conspiracy." Another Hawk sign reads, "Anarchy Cannot be Permitted in the USA. Fight Communism and Red Termites." African American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. walks toward the United Nations building with other officials advocating peace. Policemen drag a protester. Scene changes to San Francisco: 50000 people carry banners as they protest the war in Vietnam and march to the Kezar Stadium (670 Kezar Dr, San Francisco, CA 94118, United States) for a mass assembly. People push each other during the protest as pro-war demonstrators clash with anti-war demonstrators and pacifists. A huge crowd gathered at a stadium. Location: United States USA. Date: April 15, 1967.
00:00:00:00 IN-STUDIO INTV w Martin Luther King III, Atlanta politician, son of MLK Jr; talks ab his father; problems facing US, black Americans, poverty, violence, drugs, racism; guns killed over ...
Kneeling: the symbol of a protest
TF1 News (Private - August 1982 ->)
DN-234 1 inch; NET-551 Beta SP (at 01:00:00:00); DigiBeta
Your FBI
Interview with Bibi Netanhayu
Interview with Bibi Netanhayu who discusses the Palestinian and Israel situation, the suicide bombers and attempts to settle the issues., INTERVIEWER:,In the United States, and elsewhere in the world, suicide bombings are often depicted as acts of desperation. Acts that people are doing because they have no choice. Do you think these are acts of desperation or do they have a larger significance? Are they part of a larger struggle to impress the world, and obtain sympathy for them, but that they really mask a larger purpose and a larger goal?,03:01:03>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well, they're not acts of desperation, they're acts of inculcation. They're systemic methods of inculcating the cult of suicide, and the cult of death, the cult of mass murder in these children - in these youngsters - from Kindergarten, on. It's a school system, a totalitarian police state, that has marked the technique of suicide for the purpose of polycide. Polycide being the liquidation of a state. In this case, the State of Israel. I think that this whole notion that suicide bombings, or that terror as a whole comes from the frustrations of a lack of freedoms, national and individual, and that this is what is causing terrorism is ridiculous. Because in the last two hundred years, in the modern period, we've had thousands of struggles, hundreds of struggles for national liberation, for Civil Rights. ,Martin Luther King did not use terror bombings. Mahatma Gandhi didn't use terror bombings. The French Résistance didn't use terror bombings. The Pol's and the Czech's, and others didn't use terror bombing. Not in the 20th Century, not in the 19th Century. , INTERVIEWER:,Why are these people so different? ,03:02:14>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Because they're not democrats. All of these people who fought for Civil Rights, or national liberation, believed in democracy. They believed in the fundamental ideals, the government of a democratic society. Namely that every person, including your enemy or opponent, has certain rights. And the most important right that you're endowed with is the right to live. So, a baby, whether he belongs to you or belongs to your opponent, has a right to live. You can't just blow him up. The terrorists don't believe that because they're not democrats, they're totalitarians. Their whole mentality is that you're - you don't have to believe or respect the human rights of others. In fact, you can obliterate them, and obliterate a busload of children. Because you have some total goal in mind that is so total, so commanding that it allows you - indeed it calls you to obliterate conventional morality. And the name for this is totalitarianism. This is what Nazism is all about. This is what Talibanism is all about. This is what Arafatism is all about. You inculcate these children, these youngsters, with this larger goal which supposedly allows you to forsake all conventional morality. That is the root cause of terrorism - totalitarianism. , INTERVIEWER:,Are these people, these people portray themselves as freedom fighters, and they portray Israeli's as occupiers. How do we explain that to people? ,03:03:37>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,No, there's a mix up here of two things; first of all, terrorism is illegitimate, regardless of what your purpose is. That is, some acts of waging conflict are illegitimate in and of themselves. If you're fighting for the allied cause, in World War II, and you line up a bunch of German women and children against the wall, and you shoot them, you've just committed a war crime. You're not allowed to do that. It doesn't make any difference if your cause is right or not right. If your cause is just or unjust. Some methods of waging conflict, like terrorism, the deliberate and systematic assault on the innocent, are illegitimate, it doesn't make any difference, they're criminal. So, it doesn't make any difference if they claim that we're occupiers or not, they're not allowed to engage in terrorism, anyway. And the second thing, of course, is they're lying. This is contested, disputed territories. We have a historical plan for them, only 3500 years old - thousands of years before any Arab set foot here. And they have a claim, we'll negotiate those claims around a peace table, but not using these bombs. , INTERVIEWER:,Isn't it important to make clear that the settlement, a). are not illegal, b). do not interrupt or prevent contiguity, and c). occupy only a percent or two of the land? Shouldn't we be - ,03:04:55>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well, the whole settlement issue is just a convenient smokescreen for what the real issue of the conflict is. We didn't have a single settlement in 1964, when Arafat established the organizations to liberate Palestine. In fact The West Bank, Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, they were in Arab hands. They were supposedly liberated. So what was the Palestine that Arafat set out to liberate, three years before Israel even set foot, in recent times at least, in the West Bank? And the answer is, it was all of Israel, it was Tel Aviv, it was Haifa, Jerusalem. The very existence of the State of Israel is abhorrent. And similarly, when it was offered - all of that territory by previous Israeli government, or virtually all of it - that he discarded it. Because, he said, well that's not what I want. I want all of Israel and any boundary. ,03:05:48>>>,So our being in the settlements, the territories, are a result of the Arab attacks against Israel, the attack in 1967, and not its cause. Just as the refugees, the presence of Palestinian refugees in the world, is not the cause of the Arab attack against Israel, in 1948. It was the result of it. What the Arab propaganda is doing, especially Palestinian propaganda, is to reverse the cause and effect. It is to turn the consequences of Arab aggression, lots of territories, presence of refugees, into their cause - into the cause of the conflict. The real persistent, and unfortunately unchanging root cause of this conflict, is the persistent Arab refusal, the Palestinian refusal, to recognize Israel in any way. , INTERVIEWER:,Do we want to - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] You have said, and I have read your books, and I've enjoyed you tremendously - you have said, that you want the Palestinians to have some form of self rules, if I'm not mistaken. You said that, that it's not that we want to rule over them, it's that we want to help them rule themselves. But, in some limited form, I wonder if you might, perhaps amplify if there's any way in which the Palestinians could have self rule, and - or maybe you would say that, in fact, they had it. ,03:07:14>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,I don't want to govern a single Palestinian. They should govern themselves. They should enjoy feeling self-confident, they should enjoy self-determination. We want that to happen. The reason it's not happening is not because we won't give it to them, it's because they're not satisfied with that. What they want is not a state, or political - an independent, political entity, next to Israel. They want a state instead of Israel. And that's what Arafat is truly teaching his people. That's what he says in Arabic. That's what his state controlled media are inculcating the minds of the children; we will obliterate Israel, we'll liberate (as they say) all of Palestine (wink, wink, everybody understand that means Tel Aviv), and any Jewish presence here. And we'll do it through the technique of suicide and terror bombing. ,03:07:58>>>,So this is the reason this thing is not getting solved. Whereas with Arab leaders, like the late Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, or the late King Hussein of Jordan, we could make peace because they told their people it's over. Peace is not a technique of war, it's not an interim stage in which we get territory in order to drive the Jews to the sea, it's over. NO more war. Our great disappointment is that we thought that Arafat would turn out to be a Palestine King Hussein. He turned out to be a Palestinian Saddam Hussein. And with Saddam Hussein, as with Hitler, you can't make peace because they're not out to make peace, they're out to obliterate you. , INTERVIEWER:,The leaders we spoke with, the Palestinian leaders we spoke with here, indicated that. Some of the Hamas leaders, that we spoke with, indicated that this is a war that not only - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] The Hamas leaders indicated, in their discussions with us, that this is not a war against Israel. Israel is only the first step. That it is a war against western values, and they feel that they will ultimately prevail because western values are corrupt. ,03:08:58>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well, I think there's a worldwide movement that - unmitigated fanaticism that its core has a wild Islamic fundamentalism. Of that tree there are a lot of poison branches in the Palestinian radical movements, both secular and Islamist, are part of that. Hamas, perhaps, wants to obliterate Western presence and the West period and the United States, just like Al Qaeda does. Arafat is more modest. He just wants to obliterate Israel. ,But the main difference between Arafat and Hamas, when it comes to Israel, is that Arafat is merely Hamas with good PR. We've got people who speak the language of peace of the West. But effectively, in the Middle East, where it really comes to is only people who speak the language of war and destruction - the obliteration of the Jewish State, and the glorification of the Shahedeen[PH] of suicide bombers. For god sakes, he names public streets, squares, and football teams, schools, after these killers. Contrast this to King Hussein, who came to a family of six little Israel school girls killed by a Palestinian - by a Jordanian soldier, and just wept before the families and said, please forgive us. Here's the difference. The reason we can't solve it with Arafat, whereas we could solve it with Hussein, we could solve it with Anwar Sadat, is because they wanted peace and Arafat just wants the progressive pieces of Israel, until our final liquidation. You can't make peace with somebody like that. He's got to go, for the sake of - not only for the sake of peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors, but also for the possibility for a more responsible, more moderate leadership to emerge, with whom we can make, finally, peace - and restore security for all of us. , INTERVIEWER:,There are many people who - , BIBI NETANYAHU:,This is the last question. , INTERVIEWER:,This is it. , BIBI NETANYAHU:,Yeah. , INTERVIEWER:,Many people in this country are - seem to be despairing, at this point. I mean there - they think their approach is right, security, but there's this very long-term solution. And some of them are saying, the answer may be that there is no answer. The answer may be that we have to continue living almost as though you're living with a sick person who doesn't get any better, but who doesn't die. ,03:11:20>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well I disagree with that. I think there is hope. But you have to understand the nature of the problem. The source of the terror, and the source of the enduring conflict is the presence of these tyrannical regimes that inculcate suicide, and the cult of blood, and the hatred of the existence of Israel in their midst. That this is not merely here, this is a worldwide problem. ,03:11:44>>>, And I think the solution to that is first remove the tyranny, just like you did with Nazism. The first thing that has to go is the regime. But you don't stop there. I mean, the Allies, when we moved Hitlerism and Hitler, they then proceeded to embark on a Marshal Plan, a plan to democratize and deNazify Germany. And I think this is what has to be done with a regime like Arafat's. You not only have to change the leadership, change the regime, you need a regime change of the most fundamental sense of the world. That is, not to replace a dictator with another dictator. But replace dictatorship with democracy, or, if you will, with democratization. ,With a controlled movement, an allusion towards a more ventilated, open, more pluralistic society and economy, by the way, and certainly with a totally different school system, that will enable these people to have a future and to have a choice. Today they have no choice. They're taught self immolation. ,END OF INTERVIEW
Interview with Mitchell Bard pt 3
Interview with Mitchell Bard about the history of the Israeli Palestinian situation and negotiations.,INTERVIEWER:,What conditions have to be in place before you feel there can be hope for peace? ,02:52:02>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,Before there can be serious negotiations between Israel and Palestinians, there are going to have to be reforms in Palestinian authority. I think President Bush has got it exactly right. There has to be an end to the violence, you have to have a change in leadership, you have to have Democratic elections, transparent institutions, and a way that the moderate voices can come forward and have some real power in decision making. Whether the problem is that the moderate voices that you see and hear on American TV all the time, are not the people who have any authority in the Palestinian authority, itself. So, until there is that kind of reform, which the president has called for in his June speech, it's really unlikely that Israel will have anybody to negotiate, in terms of getting peace in - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,02:53:09>>>,The President of The United States has it exactly right in his proposals for moving the peace process forward, and calling for the reform of the Palestinian authority, a change in leadership. Until that happens, until you have transparent institutions, until you have democratic elections, the opportunity for moderate voices to be heard and to have positions of power, it's really unlikely that there will be a negotiating partner for the Israelis. To have a broader peace in the Middle East, is a much more difficult undertaking, because you are going to need a reform of Islam; a change in the views of the radical members of the fundamentalist community who believe in this motion of a Jihad, the end of the Jewish State, and the reconstitution of an Islamic Empire. Unless the most authentic versions of Islam, where this isn't viewed as the end goal are the more common place, are the ones that are supported in the Arab communities, it's going to be very difficult to have a comprehensive peace in the region. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,02:55:35>>>,Frequently you hear the charge that Israel is an expansionist power. Well it's remarkable that it's probably the only expansionist power in history that's consistently withdrawing from territory, and tried to reduce the size of its borders, which we saw with the 56' war, when Israel withdrew from territory captured from Egypt. We saw it again in 1967, after the war when Israel withdrew from the Sinai exchange for peace with Egypt. We saw it after the peace with Jordan, when Israel gave up some of the territory in Jordan. And, in fact, if you look at the territories were captured after the 67 war, roughly 92% of that territory has already been returned to Arab Partners For Peace. So that really, even if Israel were to withdraw from 100% territory, we're talking about only a small percentage, about 8% that's still in dispute. So, there really is a lot of territory involved in the negotiating process. , ,INTERVIEWER:,The Palestinians claim, hey, nine years after Oslo and still no state, and there's settlements abound. So maybe war is the only hope.,02:56:56>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,The Palestinians had a great opportunity through Oslo, to create an independent Palestinian state. They had certain obligations which they agreed to in a treat that they signed. And the problem is they failed to live up to them. That they didn't renounce terror, they didn't stop the violence, they didn't collect the illegal weapons, they didn't take a number of steps that were required, that they agreed to. They promised, themselves, in the Oslo Report, to make it possible to create an independent Palestinian state. And even half of that, they were given other opportunities in subsequent agreements, and in particular in negotiations with President Clinton, and Israeli Prime Minister Barak, to have a Palestinian state which would have been on at least 95% of the West Bank, 100% of The Gaza Strip. It would have given them a capitol in East Jerusalem. It would have lead to the dismantling of more than a hundred settlements in the West Bank. All of the things that most Israelis thought that the Palestinians were fighting for. But they rejected those proposals. So, there are other options. ,02:58:11>>>,You hear frequently, people saying, they are turning to terror because of poverty, or because they have no other option. Well, the fact is they have other options. Here's one, negotiations. Go back to the negotiating table, end the violence. Another option is, nonviolence. It worked for Martin Luther King, it worked for Gandhi. Why haven't the Palestinians chosen that option? They simply made the strategic decision that terror would be their best opportunity for advancing their agenda to - at the very minimum, creating the Palestinian state in the West Bank. But ultimately, many of them hope to create one that replaces Israel. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , , INTERVIEWER:,Let's talk about the Intifada. Was - what was the catalyst for that? Was there a catalyst? ,02:59:47>>> ,MITCHELL BARD:,There was no particular catalyst for the latest uprising in the Palestinians, in terms of a single incident. It was a strategic decision that the Palestinians made over the course of many months. And really crystallized after the negotiations failed between Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak, and Bill Clinton, to use violence in a more extreme and prolific manner to try to move their agenda forward. The Palestinians have blamed the visit of Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount, for the violence. But, in fact, the violence had started before this. ,And there really was no reason why a visit by an Israeli, during normal visiting hours, should have lead to an uprising which now has lasted more than two years. In fact, an independent commission led by an American, George Mitchell, found that Sharon's visit was not the cause of the uprising. It's really been a prolonged campaign, by the Palestinian authority, to try to force Israel to make concessions that they couldn't win at the bargaining table. , INTERVIEWER:,Why has this Intifada become so much more violent than the previous one in the 80's? They were, by and large - they were just throwing rocks. Now they're blowing, blowing people up. It's much become snipers and drive-by shootings, and all sorts of ways it escalated. ,03:01:32>>>, MITCHELL BARD:,The uprising, in the last two years, has been more violent than the earlier uprising in the 80's, for a number of reasons. First of all, the original uprising was pretty violent and there were suicide bombings back - as far back as that original uprising. But what's changed is the growing influence of the Islamic fundamentalists and their terror groups, which have placed a premium on martyrdom and the belief that by committing terrorist attacks, suicide bombings, you can go to paradise; a wonderful place in the hereafter. That, that wasn't as much the case in the earlier uprising. Also, the Palestinians believe that a precedent had been set when the - his ball of terrorists in Lebanon had mounted sufficient terrorist attacks on the Israeli military forces in Southern Lebanon to, in their view, force Israel to unilaterally withdraw. And that was seen as a precedent, and, by most of the Arab world, as a sign of Israeli weakness. That if you simply inflicted high enough casualties on Israel, that it would withdraw. ,03:02:40>>>,And there has been a belief, up till now, that if the Palestinian terrorist could inflict sufficient casualties on the Israeli civilian population, that the Israeli government would also unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank, and give the Palestinians everything that they wanted. They miscalculated because the West Bank isn't the same as Southern Lebanon. The Israeli citizens aren't willing to, simply, unilaterally withdraw with nothing to gain by it. And that they are willing to fight the terror wherever it is, and from whomever it comes, and despite the belief of the Palestinians that they're weak. , ,INTERVIEWER:,In some people, some of the peace - the peace mix in Israel, feel that, that's what should happen. Israelis should just pull out unilaterally. What do you think would happen? ,03:03:59>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,One option for Israel, to unilaterally withdraw, has become increasingly popular among the public. Not only with the left in Israel, but increasingly with the right. As the recognition has set in that there is no Palestinian partners to negotiate with, the unilateral withdraw is risky. Because it would involve sending a message to the Arab world that Israel may be driven back by violence, and it also would give the Palestinians a state on their side of the border, which would now be closer to the population of the industrial centers of Israel to threaten them. Israel wouldn't have its forces, in the territories, in place in order to perform counter intelligence, counter terrorism operations. ,03:04:54>>>,On the other hand, Israel isn't weak. Israel currently controls much of the West Bank, in an effort to protect the population. And if it chose to withdraw in the future, it wouldn't be doing so because it was driven out by terror, it would be doing so because it chose to do so, because it was in its own best interest. And it may be that once a fence is built along the new border, that Israel will be able to defend it, to use whatever measures are necessary to fight whatever terror might remain. But the hope would be that once Israel withdrew, to some new line, that a Palestinian state would emerge, and then it would be in their interest to keep the peace, then, rather than provoke Israel to return to the West Bank. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:05:56>>>,If the opportunity presented itself to, simply, place peace on their referendum, and ask Palestinians what they would like to do, if they would be prepared to live in peace next to Israel, I think, in all likelihood, you would see a majority vote to do just that; to have a Palestinian state living in peace beside Israel. But I think you would find the same on the Israeli side. In fact, that's been the case in Public Opinion Polls for years, in Israel. That there's a willingness to accept a Palestinian state that would live in peace beside Israel. The divisions come when you start getting into more of the details of what the state would look like, where it would be, what would happen to Jews living on one side of the border. But, Palestinian people, I believe, as is the case with the Israeli people, would really like to have peaceful lives. The problem on the Palestinian side has been a leadership that hasn't had the courage to make compromises and to be willing to accept a Palestinian state that would be in a part of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, living next to Israel instead of replacing Israel. , , INTERVIEWER:, Speculate, for a moment, if you will, if there was some analogous situation in a Western country, the United States, or England, or France, or Italy, or Spain - if there was the kind of civil unrest and disobedience that was going on, and the scale of what was going on in the Middle East, what would happen? ,03:07:34>>> ,MITCHELL BARD:,If the United States or another western power was faced with a kind of terrorism and unrest that Israel has been faced with over the last two years, I think you would expect a very harsh response. Much more serious, probably, than even Israel has been forced to use to protect its population. You've seen it already in the United States, since September 11th, when we were attacked just once on a single day. Albeit it was a very horrible day. The United States went to war against a country thousands of miles away. And we launched repeated attacks against terrorist targets as far away as Yamen, when we thought that we had the opportunity to kill, either people prepared to commit terrorist attacks against us, or who were in the past involved in terrorist attacks. ,So, for Israel, which is suffering, at least on a casualty basis, the equivalent of September 11th, almost every few weeks, the pressure is enormous to take very harsh measures to try to protect the civilian population. You sometimes hear people try to compare Israel's counter terrorist attacks with the Palestinian's acts of terror. And it's a really obscene kind of analogy, as though you were comparing an arsonist with a firefighter. When the arsonist, like a terrorist, sets the fire and then the firefighter comes in to put out the fire, you wouldn't say that the firefighter was morally equivalent to the arsonist. And yet, people have tried to suggest that when Israel fights against terror, it somehow is doing a similar kind of act as the terrorist themselves. It's simply not the case. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,You often have this game played, of numbers, where people say that more Palestinians have been killed, than Israelis, and therefore the Palestinian side is suffering more. Or that Israel is doing the same types of things as the Palestinians. And it's really not a question of numbers. It's a question of acts and intentions. That Israel doesn't set out to intentionally kill any civilians. In fact, it goes out of its way to try to prevent civilian casualties. There are numerous examples of how Israel has taken extreme measures, in some cases, to put its own soldiers at risk, rather than put more civilians in danger. And it's a tragedy when civilians are killed in any kind of counter terrorist attack. And Israel does everything possible to avoid it. ,On the other side, Palestinians are intentionally targeting civilians. That's the whole purpose of the terrorist, to try to kill as many civilians as possible. So it's a very difficult situation for Israel to defend itself against, because the terrorist, themselves, purposely hide among civilian populations. The civilians, themselves, are willing to shield terrorists, often. And the United States, and other countries have faced similar problems. The United States went after terrorists in Afghanistan, and inadvertently bombed a wedding, and killed dozens of civilians. It wasn't their intent, but no one is trying to compare the U.S. action, in going after the Al Qaeda, with the Al Qaeda terrorist, themselves. , INTERVIEWER:, Why is Israel, or the Israelis being held for such a double standard, when (Inaudible)? ,03:11:33>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,Israel sometimes seem to be held to a double standard. And Israelis, themselves, hold themselves to a higher standard. They do not want to kill any civilians. They believe in what they call the purity of arms, to have an army that operates in as moral a way as possible. And, unfortunately, especially in the media, there's a tendency to find fault with every Israeli action, not to make the kinds of distinctions between the act of terror and the counter terrorist. And you see, over and over again, a reference to Israel killing people when they are not setting out to kill anyone, whereas, the Palestinians, the terrorists, are deliberately targeting civilians. That's their whole purpose of their attacks. But it's very difficult for a liberal democracy, an open democracy like Israeli, to use the kinds of methods that might be more effective in a totalitarian state. ,For example, in Syria, when the president, then of Syria in 1982, had a problem with Moslem Fundamentalist Terrorists, he didn't arrest anybody, he didn't just kill the terrorists, he destroyed an entire city. He killed 20,000 people to put an end to his problems. Yasser Arafat has his own way of dealing with terrorism, or at least his opponent. And that is to arrest them, try them, and kill them. Sometimes he skips the first two steps and just strings them up on lamp posts. Israel doesn't do that. Israel seeks to arrest people and to try them. And there's a very big difference between that approach and that pursued by the Palestinians. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , , INTERVIEWER:,The notion of a suicide bomber is unfathomable and unheard of in history. You know, the kamikazes, and suicide bombers (Inaudible). Kamikazes, you know, they go after military targets and so forth. How does this kind of thing happen? ,03:13:20>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,I wish there was a good explanation for suicide bombing. I don't think there is. It's an immoral and inexcusable act. We want to try to come to some analysis, understanding of why this might happen becomes, in part, from the belief of fundamentalist Moslems. And if they commit these acts in the name of Allah, that this will bring them some reward in the hereafter. That there are some people who, simply, are doing it because they believe it will advance their political cause. And by killing as many Israelis as possible, and especially civilians, it will inflict such a high cost on Israeli public. That they will demand their - that their leaders make some political concessions. And (Inaudible) seriously miscalculated, because Israeli people had just the opposite reaction that they, they hardened by these, these atrocities, and have supported their leader's efforts to take very tough measures to prevent these kinds of terrorist attacks. , , INTERVIEWER:,It's been said that Yasser Arafat is not a partner for peace. Is Ariel Sharon a partner for peace? Is he capable of making peace in Palestine? ,03:14:37>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,You often hear people criticize Ariel Sharon, and suggest that he is an obstacle, that he's unwilling and uninterested in peace. I think the basic answer is to test it. Test it. If you believe he is the butcher, the bake, the candlestick make who has done all of these terrible things, you have to put him to the test and say, we're going to stop the violence on the Palestinian side, we're going to sit at the negotiating table, we're going to talk about ways for us to live side by side in peace. ,And if Sharon does not respond to that, if Sharon does not present a peace proposal in response, everybody in the world will agree that he's an obstacle of peace. He will be criticized by everyone. And the people who will be most critical will be the Israeli public, themselves. And they'd throw him out of office in a second. Because the Israeli public is desperately seeking peace. And they're looking for a sign, on the Palestinian side, that they are committed to peace. So that if there is a genuine effort to live in peace, to end the violence, you're going to see, I believe, Ariel Sharon, respond with a positive response as he has already in presenting peace proposals in advance of the end of violence. Simply saying that, we can't negotiate those proposals until the terror stops. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:16:35>>>,The United States has a key role to play. The United States has a key role to play in the Middle East, in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians, in particular. And it is the only country that is respected by both sides. Other nations like the Europeans and the UN, really have little to contribute, because they've historically been so one-sided in their support of the Palestinians, and in opposition to Israel, that it's very difficult for them to play kind of a positive role in Israel. The United States is always seen, by both sides, as an honest broker. And its main role is to support the negotiations between the two parties, so that they can directly negotiate between themselves. The United States can't come up with a peace plan that will be acceptable to all. In fact, the history is that whenever the United States proposes its own plan, it's rejected usually by both sides. So, the United States has to support the direct negotiation between the parties. It has to provide the diplomatic and financial, economic support, to allow Israel to feel that it can take risks for peace. That involves economic aide, it involves military aide, in terms of political support, so that Israelis will feel that when they sit down at the bargaining table, they can afford to make tough choices like withdrawing to parts of a territory, and not put their society at risk. , INTERVIEWER:,Why aren't the Arab governments, in their vast (Inaudible) resources to approve the, the plight of the Palestinians - ,03:19:38>>>, MITCHELL BARD:,The Arab states have long paid lip service to the Palestinian cause, but if you look, historically, at what they've actually done, it's been very little. They've confined Palestinian refugees to camps, they've often deported them from their borders, as in the case of Kuwait, after the Gulf War - deported hundred's of thousands of Palestinians, and hardly a word was said by anyone. The fact is that a Palestinian cannot become a citizen of any Arab state, except for Jordan. And even Jordan doesn't allow it anymore. There is very little sympathy for the Palestinians, beyond the politic rhetoric. There is support, however, for terrorist attacks. Saudi Arabia held a telethon to support the Palestinian terrorists, earlier in 2002. And Saddam Hussein, we know, supports the Palestinian terrorists by providing up to $25,000 for their families. So, in terms of providing financial incentives to terrorists, in terms of political statements, they've been very supportive. But in terms of doing anything to actually help their plight, they've done very little. , , INTERVIEWER:,The Palestinians say that the media is run by the Jewish ____ Establishment, and the - a lot of Jews, or some Jews say that the media is biased, pro-Palestinian. ,03:21:06>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,If there's one subject on which, probably, Palestinians and Israelis, and American Jews, and Arab Americans all agree, it's that the media is biased. Although each side thinks it's more biased against them. I think that if you look, objectively, at it, there's certainly a bias. And it would be, most likely, toward the Palestinian and Arab side, and for some good reasons. The main reason is that Israel is an open, liberal democracy. ,And if you want to read criticism of Israel, all you have to do is open any Israeli newspaper, any day of the week, and you'll read criticism galore of Israeli policies. But you won't read similar kinds of criticism of the Arab countries, because those are all totalitarian dictatorship's, that mostly control their own press. Or you won't see a Peter Jennings, or a Dan Rather, or a Tom Brokaw reporting Live from Riydah, Saudi Arabia, or Damascus, Syria, or Cairo, Egypt. Those societies aren't talking to them. So that, you're not going to see the negative side of most of the Arab states in the media. Whereas, in Israel it's very easy for a reporter to get negative information, or to give a negative report. So, to that degree, there is a built in kind of biased that makes it very difficult for Israel to get even handed coverage. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:23:21>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,The United States has a unique relationship with Israel, that goes back many decades, even before the State of Israel existed, to relationship between the American people and political leaders, and early Zionists. Because of the belief in the return of the Jewish people to their homeland, because of values that the two nations share, democracy, openness, freedom of speech, freedom of press, and other freedoms, a shared Judeo, Christian heritage, also a shared interest. That the United States and Israel share a view of the importance of Middle East stability, and a fight against those forces that are opposing western democracy, such as communism, during the days of the Cold War, and radical fundamentalism, today. Also, threats like Saddam Hussein, who pose a danger, not just to Israel but to the region and to the United States, by extension, because of its weapons of mass destruction. So that there is a longstanding and important alliance that cements the peoples of the United States and Israel, and helps guide the relationships between them, through good times and in bad. , , INTERVIEWER:,Please go through your myths and facts, your top ten, as it relates to this (Inaudible). [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,03:25:33>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,We often hear people say that the Jews suddenly showed up one day in Palestinian and stole the land from the native population. There's a misunderstanding about the long history of the Jewish people, with the land of Israel, dating back to the view of observant Jews, and promised by God to Abraham, and simply historical, political terms, the presence of the Jewish people for a ____ the land of Israeli. And in political terms, in the existence of a Jewish state, that existed for hundred's of years, before foreign conquerors drove the Jews out of the territory. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] , , INTERVIEWER:,The notion of refugee, I mean the term refugee, to my understanding, was redefined solely for the Palestinians, and for their status which doesn't apply to any other refugees before, you know, 1948 and since. Is that true? ,03:27:32>>>,MITCHELL BARD:,I don't know the answer. I know what you're talking about, but I can't answer it. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] One of the key issues in the negotiations is the status of Jerusalem. And it's important to look at Jerusalem from a variety of perspectives. If you think about it, this really demonstrates how the Arab/Israeli conflict is not about politics, alone, it's really geography, it's politics, it's history, it's religion. It's all of those things wrapped up into one. And it really is a microcosm of the entire Arab/Israeli conflict, because in Jerusalem, if it was just a political issue, you would simply say, most of the Jews live on one side, and most of the Arabs live in East Jerusalem, we draw a line in between, that's it, we're done, we settle it. But you can't do that. Why? , Well, because the Pope in Rome says, I want to sit in Jerusalem because of the trip to the Holy Sepulchre, and Christian holy sites. And you have the Mullahs in Iran, saying, no we want to stay in Jerusalem because of the Al AksaMosque (Inaudible). You have Jews in Chevy Chase, Maryland, say, no we want to stay in Jerusalem because of the western wall, the holiest spot in Judaism. All of those places are literally on top of each other. The Temple Mounts literally on top of them, the Western Wall, and the Church of The Holy Sepulchre around the corner. How do you divide those up? You can't really do it. There's also the history involved. Israel saw what happened when foreign powers controlled Jerusalem. From 48', to 1967, Jordan controlled Jerusalem. They desecrated the Jewish holy places, Jews weren't allowed to visit the Western Wall, or the other holy places. Even Israeli Christians weren't allowed to visit. The Jordanians desecrated the Mount Olive Cemetery, and other holy spots, and Israelis aren't going to allow that to happen again. You hear all the time, people say, well Jerusalem has to be free and accessible to people of all faiths. Well, that's only been true once in history, since Israel captured the city in 1967. Now it is free and accessible to all. ,03:29:47>>>,So, the question is, can you reach a solution in which Jerusalem is shared? Where Palestinians can have their demand for Jerusalem as a capitol, and Israel can have its demand ____ its own unified capitol. Perhaps, Ehud Barak offered one solution, that is to give Arab East Jerusalem to the Palestinian state. But most Israelis, as well as the Palestinians themselves, rejected that idea. Most Israelis thought that was going too far, and Palestinians thought it didn't go far enough. Another proposal was to give a suburb of Jerusalem, called Abu Dis, to the Palestinians and make that their capitol. They could say, our capitol is in Jerusalem. They wouldn't have to say Abu Dis. And the Israelis would keep the rest of Jerusalem for themselves. It's not perfect but it's a compromise; that the Israelis would keep what they really care about, the old city and the new city, the Palestinians would still have a capitol in Jerusalem. It's risky though, because even though Abu Dis is a suburb and it's not far from Jerusalem, it's literally a stone throw away, and would be threatening. , From the Palestinian perspective, it's not perfect either, because they prefer to see the flag of Palestinian flying over the Temple Mount in the Old City. But it's a conceivable compromise. So, Jerusalem is one issue of which all of the various aspects of the conflict all come together as one, and show how difficult it is to resolve peacefully.[OFF CAMERA COMMENTS RE: WATER] [END OF INTERVIEW
/n00:00:00:00 /nTOPICS: Jurors and the death penalty sentence; Who really killed Dr Martin Luther King; GUESTS: Penny Dale, Tony Clark, Dexter King, Dr Joseph Lowery; BEEPER: Jonathan Vankin. /n ( ...
DN-B-013 Beta SP
LE 20H: [1st part]: [show of 01 June 2020]
TF1 News (Private - August 1982 ->)
Saturday will mark the 30th anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. And today, his widow and son are calling for a national commission to investigate the murder. Coretta Scott King says she'd like to meet with President Clinton to talk about what may be new evidence in the case. James Earl Ray confessed to the killing but later recanted. The King's say it's painful to reopen deep wounds but says its the only way to bring closure.
Laurence Haïm and Grégory Philipps
Radio France: filmed programmes
AFP-60J 16mm; VTM-60J Beta SP; NET-61 DigiBeta (at 01:26:35:00); Beta SP
--SUPERS--\nWednesday\nMemphis, TN\n\n --VIDEO SHOWS--\nThe ceremonial changing of the wreath on the balcony of Room 306, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot and killed on April 4, 1968.\n -- ...