B&W newsreel film. The Berlin Crisis refers to the blockade of West Berlin by Soviet forces between 6/24/1948 through 5/12/1949. Western Countries, led by the US and Britain, created an airlift to bring food and other supplies to the besieged people living in West Berlin. We have a series of newsreel reports on this period of time This report titled “Berlin Crisis: Blockaded Capitol World’s Power Keg”
Berlin Wall Comes Down
28 years after its construction, the Berlin Wall falls, paving the way for the reunification of Germany. Co-production with the BBC.
Border crossing between Berlin's American sector and East German side of the divided city, 1952
Nikita Khrushchev on television and radio after the division of Berlin, Germany; life in the city being divided by Berlin Wall
The divided city of Berlin, Germany soon after World War II. People listening to television and radio. Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev seated at desk and speaking into microphone. Refugees arriving into West Berlin. Stockpile of coal. Warehouse full of butter. The warehouse loaded with bags of cement. East German soldiers with armored vehicles on guard by the Brandenburg Gate. East German armored water tank trucks in front of Brandenburg Gate spraying water at the West German photographers and onlookers. East Germans constructing concrete Berlin Wall. People in West Germany waving to people looking out of window of an apartment house in East Berlin; as they are separated from each other at time of a family Wedding. A child and a woman cry as they wave. Two British armored cars escorting a boy on a bike as he passes from one sector to another to get to and from school. Crowds of West Berliners yelling at guards on East Berlin side in protest. Soldiers at border. Location: Berlin Germany. Date: 1961.
DN-LB-585 Beta SP
News In Brief - Berlin [Wall on 6th Anniversary]
Interview with RISKIN with B-ROLL
Rifkin in Efrat, shots of surrounding villages 11:33:46 to 11:34:54>>>Riskin in his office 11:34:55 to 11:36:00>>>Various shots looking down into valley from Riskin's in Efrat. 11:36:01 to 11:36:45>>>Shots looking into valley, over Efrat homes in foreground 11:36:46 to 11:37:32>>>Close on neighboring villages showing very close proximity to Efrat. INTERVIEWER: Could you please tell us your full name, spell it for us, and your title, and what you do here? 11:01:58>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: My name is Shlomo Riskin. S-h-l-o-m-o, R-I-s-k-I-n. I'm the Chief Rabbi of the City of Efrat . We have, now, some twenty-two synagogues here. And I'm the chancellor and dean of Ohr Torah Stone colleges and graduate schools. We have junior high schools, high schools, a network of such schools throughout the country, as well as colleges for men and women. We give BA, MA, and PhD., in conjunction with Bar Ilan University. Probably the largest Orthodox Rabbinical Seminary in the world. We place some thirty rabbi's every year. And we have special graduate programs for women lawyers, for the rabbinical courts, and women who are given an opportunity for advance study in Talmud and Jewish sources. INTERVIEWER: What brought you here? 11:02:03>>>, SHLOMO RISKIN: What brought me to Israel -was the fact that I understood, that in the Diaspora, we would only be a footnote to Jewish history. Whereas, in Israel, we would be a chapter heading. And Israel was the country in which we had the most daring adventure of Judaism, for the past 2000 years - the confirmation of god's covenant. God promises, in the bible, written 4,000 years ago, that even if we were to be scattered to the ends of the heavens, from there would he take us up and bring us back to the land of our fathers. The confirmation of that covenant was taking place before my very eyes. And in Israel we had the chance to take our own destiny in our hands, especially post holocaust. And hopefully begin to lead the world towards peace. INTERVIEWER: What kind of challenges did you face here? [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] What are some of the challenges you face, coming here as a founder of a community and as a rabbi, and as a human being; a father, and a husband, and so forth - coming to a very, potentially dangerous, and controversial area - a frontier settlement? 11:03:45>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: The challenge is that the frontier settlement, such as Efrat, which has become, thank god, a major city, are very great. More than the challenges, are the real opportunities. I've had the opportunity to see a city grow. I've had the opportunity to establish very special relationships, especially with our Palestinian neighbors. And to see the Palestinian-Israeli situation up close, as up close as possible. The challenge of seeing educational institutions grow and develop up to the middle school, as well as the challenge of seeing members of my city murdered in drive-by shootings, and a number of suicide bomber attacks, and having to comfort those who mourned. And always, inspire those who remain to keep up what I continue to think is the most important struggle of our time. Because we are waging a battle, here, in Efrat, which is only five miles south of Jerusalem, and overlooking Jerusalem, for our future in Israel. Because this is our continuation of the War of Independence-for Jews all over the world, because anti-Semitism in Europe has not been so rife since the holocaust days. And I believe for world freedom, because our battle against terrorism, and we're in the front lines of that battle, is a battle that the entire free world is beginning to realize it is involved in as well. INTERVIEWER: Tell me about, like, on a first hand eye witness level, about the suicide, the terrorism, the - what it's like for you, as a Rabbi, to have to deal with it, in a little more depth. 11:06:16>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: Suicide bombings- intrude in our lives -like a kind of black cloud. It's almost unbelievable. What do you say, on the Sunday of Passover? You get an emergency call. We have here a trauma center. It was established in Efrat, only a few years ago, because we were cut off from Jerusalem by the enemy, by the Palestinian Authority. But our Trauma Center ministers to Palestinians, as well as to the Israelis, and the Efratis. Because the Palestinian villagers have no medical insurance, and our doctors, and our hospitals provide for them. A suicide bomber came and tried to destroy the trauma center. He only succeeded in blowing himself up, and hurting the medic who was on duty at that time. And I saw him, Asaf Perlman, who grew up in this community, with his intestines out of his body. I didn't think he would make it. Thank god he did. How do you explain the kind of feeling when a young woman, Devorah, is riding with her husband, her children, in a car, a drive by shooting takes her life, and I have to make a rabbinical decision; do we enable the husband to come to the funeral, and therefore wait for his very serious operation to be over? Or, do we first have the funeral? 11:08:19>>> You know, -her father is a survivor of the holocaust. I had to tell him, we survived the holocaust, come to Israel, to have his daughter murdered in a drive-by shooting. Then, her children who were the friends of Devorah Friedman's children, I have to go to the schools, speak to the children, to try to comfort them. Try to tell them why it won't necessarily happen to them, to have their parents snatched from them. It's very challenging to be a rabbi. But what helps is the tremendous motivation and resoluteness of the people here. Arafat thought, that just as we left Lebanon, we would leave Efrat, and then Jerusalem, and then Tel Aviv. He said it, in Arabic, to all of his people. We have proven that's not the case. Not one homeowner has sold his home in Efrat, since this last war began. Two hundred and fifty people that purchased homes, and began to build homes. The father of Devorah Friedman insisted that she be buried here in Gush Etzion, because she loved this area so much. And he said, you know rabbi, the place comforts me. Because, after all, my daughter was killed. After I lost the whole family in the holocaust, I couldn't explain it. It was totally inexplicable. I've lost my daughter now, and I'm so sad that I can't even speak. But I am comforted. Because Efrat is between Hebron and Jerusalem. Hebron is where Jewish history began. Jerusalem is where hopefully it will culminate with world peace; the place, the area, the return.- They comfort me, even in my moments of deepest grief. It's this kind of attitude, it's this kind of resoluteness, and it's this kind of faith that keeps me going. And I hope that I continue to be worthy to be the rabbi in this community. INTERVIEWER: Did you, in your wildest dreams - did you ever expect to have to be dealing with this kind of thing, on this level? 11:11:18>>> SHLOMO RISKIN:,Did I ever expect, when I made Aliyah, to be in this kind of situation? You know, when I first came, I invited all of the Mukhtar's of all of the neighboring Palestinian villages. They all came to my home. With one of them especially, the Mukhtar Ali, a very deep relationship has developed. I did it because I was certain that there would be peace in short order. Just a few months ago when my wife, and mother-in-law, and daughter and I were getting into our car, we first put on our safety vests and our helmets against drive-by shootings. And I said to my wife, did we ever imagined when we made Aliyah, that this is how we would be traveling to Jerusalem? And my wife answered me, no we never did. But did we ever imagine, twenty years ago, that Efrat would develop into such a beautiful, burgeoning city? Did we ever imagine, twenty years ago, that there would be an educational complex like our Ohr Torah Stone, with three thousand students; men, women, studying Torah and secular wisdom with such depth, and establishing leadership all over the world? Did we ever dream that Israel, with all of the difficulties, would have the kind of universities, the kind of scientific and humanistic opportunities that it has now? We didn't dream of that. We didn't dream of that. But somehow I think you've got to take both together. And that's what we do. And all and all, I believe with all my heart that the best decision I ever made in my life, after the decision to marry my wife, was the decision to move to Israel. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER: How did you feel about the Oslo Peace Agreement? Did you hope, or did it instill fear in you? How did you feel, with this area on the front lines? (Inaudible) Your future was at stake. 11:14:14>>> SHLOMO RISKIN:,When the Oslo Agreements were first established in 1993. I was one of the very strong settlement voices in favor. I was on national television in favor. I believe now, too, in a Palestinian state. I don't want for the Palestinians, any less than I have for myself. But then quickly, I realized, that although the Palestinians were talking about land for peace. As we made concession after concession, it became land for terror. And every one of our concessions was seen by the Palestinian Authority, by Arafat, especially, as an act of weakness. And the more we gave, the more horrific were the terrorist attacks against us - culminating in the suicide attacks, now. The former Prime Minister Barak, was ready to give up 98% of the area of the West Bank, in which Arabs live. I want you to understand that if history means anything at all, at the end of the First World War, 1918, the Treaty of Versailles, eighteen Arab states were supposed to be formed, and one Jewish State, on the West Bank and the East Bank of the Jordan River. From 1918, to 1947, twenty-two Arab states were formed, but not one Jewish state. And when in a conscience prick the United Nations, November 29th, 1947, decided to take the West Bank, that was all that was left, and divide it; 20% for Israel, and 80% for the Palestinians. We went along because we never insisted on exclusive rights, here. We were always willing to share this land. The Arabs opposed. That was the War of Independence. We won that war miraculously. That began the refugee problem. 11:16:28>>> We wanted to resettle refugees. The Arab World refused. They wanted to keep them in squalor, so that they would become the future suicide bombers. 1967, there was no green line. We had what we had, as a result of the War of Independence. Judea and Samaria was in Arab hands, Jordanian hands - a war against us, to push us into the sea. We fought back again, and we won. And again, the refugee problem was exacerbated. And again, we wanted to resettle the refugees. And again, the Arab world refused to allow us to do so. ,Despite all of that, we said we were still willing to give up 98% for the sacred delusion, which is peace. And I call it the sacred delusion; sacred, because there's nothing as sacred as peace. But a delusion, because, although it's true that you can only make peace with your enemy, you can only make peace with your enemy in the final analysis, if he wants to make peace with you. If he wants to smash you into pieces and utilizes your peace as a sign of weakness to get even more from you, or until he destroys you entirely, you can't make peace with such an enemy. 11:17:49>>> What was fascinating was, I read the Arab Press, and I saw the textbooks that they were writing in the heyday of Oslo. And, as I said, we have wonderful relations with the Arab villages, and I saw how Arafat was treating them. And I saw how they had no freedoms. I saw how, although we had soccer games with them every Friday, Arafat stopped it. I had $200,000 worth of medical equipment to give them, because I wanted them to have their own medical doctors, to take care of their own people firsthand, and then for the difficult cases to come Efrat doctors. And Arafat refused to allow them to take the medical equipment from us. And this was in the heyday of Oslo. When I asked the individual who was responsible for the Arab villages, _____, how could this be, I thought we were talking peace? His response was, this is war. You're the ugly Israeli. There can be no coexistence. And Arafat's response to former Prime Minister Barak, when former Prime Minister Barak was ready to give up 98% of the land in which Arabs lived, or claimed-gunshots. This present war, which is called War of Oslo, and he explained himself very well. Arafat said, in Arabic, I don't want to go back to the 67' lines, I want to go back to the 47' lines. I want Haifa, Kfar Saba, Netanya, Acco, West Jerusalem - literally, the end of the Jewish State. Then it all became clear. Because when Arafat put out textbooks, new textbooks, during Oslo, there was no map of Israel, there was only a wrath of Palestine. There was no Israeli right to any part of this region. And so this war is our continuation of the War of Independence, our right to be. INTERVIEWER: To say that peace is a delusion, is a sobering thought. It's not very hopeful about the future. 11:20:30>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: When I think about the future, strangely enough I am optimistic. I am optimistic, first and foremost, because I don't think that god returned us to Israel in order for Israel to be destroyed again. I am optimistic because we still have very, very close friendships with the Arab villagers, and I believe they, too, want peace. They've gotten this raw deal from Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, as we Israelis have. And I still believe that mutual coexistence is more than possible. Not for the Palestinian Authority, however. We're fighting a war against Islamic fundamentalism. That war is against Israel, that war is against America, which destroyed the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War. That war is against any non-Muslim. We're part of a very large picture. I believe that, within our reach, we can and must mutually coexist. And I think that we are ready to make difficult and hard concessions towards that coexistence, towards a Palestinian state. But only within non-terrorist, democratic government, which the Palestinians deserved and we require, if there is to be a lasting peace. That is the nature of the Helsinki Agreement, after the Second World War. When Japan and Germany became democratic, non-terrorist governments. Then a treaty, a peace pact meant something with them. That's the only way to peace in our region. Unfortunately, Islamic fundamentalism seems to only understand force. But first and foremost, the Palestinian Authority must understand that they cannot win a battle against us by power. That we are much stronger than they are. Once that happens, and Arafat is out of the picture, I truly believe a leadership, non-terrorist, democratic leadership will arise. I know so many Palestinians and work with them, and we work together, and I respect them, and I truly believe that we are cousins. And that which unites us, is far more important than anything that divides us. Because, we have a common tradition as descendents of Abraham. INTERVIEWER: Was it America or Britain [BACKGROUND NOISE] (Inaudible). SHLOMO RISKIN: Conquered? INTERVIEWER: The Ottoman Empire, earlier? SHLOMO RISKIN: Well, the First World War. Wilson is, I think the major personality. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] Their anger is against, against America. INTERVIEWER: You may want to address this, Jews have been persecuted and murdered, and been discriminated against throughout the ages, and now we're making it in the west. But, you know, you know, it will happen in this century, it will happen in the next century, and it will always be something. But it will always involve the Jews. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] 11:24:00>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: You know, often it's been said that Jews have always been persecuted. So they're persecuted again. But Greeks have a cyclical view of history; that everything that was will be, and that life, history, world, has to be seen in circles. Judaism has a lineal view; we're moving towards an end game. We believe that there is a purpose to history. And ultimately there will be redemption, and there will be peace, in a very pluralistic way, because our view of the City of Jerusalem, which literally means, the city of peace, is that everyone will call upon his god, and we will call upon our god. What we have to agree upon, are seven fundamental laws of morality - the most important one being, though shalt not murder. That's our mission to the world. Maybe that's why we're always at the forefront of world issues. We were at the Second World War. The Nazis began against the Jews, and then went against the free world. The communists also began against the Jews, and then went against the free world. And Islamic fundamentalism began against the Jews, and is now going against the free world. But I'm optimistic, that at the end of the day, from Jerusalem, the message of pluralism, the message of sharing, because I think we can share this country, it is large enough to be shared. As long as the fundamental principal is peace, and as long as the fundamental principal states, though shalt not murder. INTERVIEWER: The Arabs - the Palestinians say that, and most of them can probably say this, is that - you know, ____ cycle of violence, is that their terrorist attacks are in response to the Israelis murdering, you know, a lot of people are allegedly terrorists, who they say are father, and brothers, and sons and so forth. And they also say, most of them say, that the settlements are an obstacle for peace. Your presence here, even though you're within the two percent, was not going to be, was not offered at Camp David, as I understand. Is that correct? SHLOMO RISKIN: That's correct. INTERVIEWER: You know, the settlement issue has been one of the biggest obstacles for peace. And that the Jews are - the Israelis are murdering people. And so, you know, where does it start and where does it end? 11:26:53>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: The most important point that I can make is, that the settlements have absolutely nothing to do with this present conflict. The truth is, it has nothing to do with the conflict of 1948. We fought our war of independence because we were willing to share the West Bank, and the Arabs were not. It had nothing to do with the Conflict of 1967, when there was no so-called West Bank, and the Arabs still initiated a war against us, to drive us, not beyond any mythical green line, but into the blue line of the Mediterranean Sea. And it has nothing to do with this conflict, because former Prime Minister Barak, was willing to give it all up, 98% of it. And what Arafat said, clearly and unequivocally, was, I don't want to go back to '67, I want to go back to '47. If you look at the Arab press, there was an attack against Haifa, they call Haifa an illegal settlement. There was an attack on Kfar Saba, then they called Kfar Saba an illegal settlement. It's all an illegal settlement, as far as they're concerned. That's what they're saying in Arabic. That's what the residents of the refugee camps are saying. So that it's a pure myth, not looking at the facts on the line, and saying that the settlement activity, has anything to do with Israel. It's our right to be here period. I also object to what is called the cycle of violence. There is no cycle of violence. There is one fundamental position in Oslo that everybody had to agree to. That if there are any differences of opinion, they will be settled by negotiation and not by guns. On that basis, we gave the Palestinian Authority, weapons, ______. They said they needed it, in order to stop their extremists from Hamas. when Arafat said no to Barak's all too generous work. That no was accompanied with his firing the _____ that we gave him against us. Our shooting has only been in self-defense. We were never occupiers. We didn't overrun anyone's land. We were always willing to share this land. It was the enemy who tried to overrun us, and we fought back in self-defense. And got that, that, which was given to us, promised to us, by a treaty, in the Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, we still don't want to take over anyone's land, we only want them to stop murdering us. And whatever we're doing now, is only in order to try, as best as we can, to stop the murder from the other side. INTERVIEWER: [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] What are your parameters for peace? 11:30:26>>> SHLOMO RISKIN:,My parameters for peace are very simple; a democratic, non-terrorist, Palestinian Authority government. Once that happens, I think the Palestinians should have a state, which has clearly defined borders, which has contiguity from place to place, and which the Palestinians would control the Palestinians. I don't want to control Palestinians who do not wish to be controlled by me. And I think that's possible, doable, but only in a different kind of government, and a different kind of government that, at least for three years, as a provisional state, proves that there will be no more incitement. No more incitement against Israel and against Jews. Not in their media, not in their textbooks, not in any form or fashion. And I believe Israel is willing to make the most generous of concessions. INTERVIEWER: What do you see in a hundred years? 11:31:44>>> SHLOMO RISKIN: Ask me not what I see in a hundred years, what do I see in five years. There will either be peace, or there will be no world left. We're living in very important and almost apocalyptic times. Islamic fundamentalism will either be stopped, and in its place will come peaceful interpretations; Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Secularism, living together in peace. Or, there will be no free society as we understand it today. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] INTERVIEWER: Any thoughts, any last minute things that we didn't cover, that you want to address? [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS],[END OF INTERVIEW]
WS low angle of a graffiti-covered section of the Berlin Wall. The Wall was erected in 1961 to stop people fleeing the communist regime of East Germany. It divided the city of Berlin itself and became a symbol of oppression and the Cold War. On November 9, 1989 the borders between East and West Berlin were opened and the Wall came down.
00:00:00:00 it is not a secret that the question about war in iraq, where divided, opinion we take the view it is now time to solve the new pr ...
Le journal 22h00: [issue of December 06, 2022]
Ukraine Germany
Yatsenyuk welcomes EU agreement, Steinmeier says Crimea vote attempt to 'divide Europe'
Pinnularia diatom dividing
12:53:28:00,Two mechanics talk about secret Nazi weapon, Various Nazi and U.S. generals look through binoculars, Japs raise flag in victory, Beached submarine, Recreation of the invention of the submarine, armored battleships fight, WWI divebombers, Submarines, Air Force biplanes, Schoolboys look at jalopy on car lot, Jeeps fly through terrain, Various tanks and other mechanized vehicles on front, Tanks, Bomber in flight (various), Man spreads propaganda to bartender, Rumor being spread, Two men at bar ("Heil"), Hitler heils, Hitler enters room, Munich Pact, Montage of Hitler, German riots, Flying Tiger plane with nose art of Shark, Soldiers share a cigarette, POWs in German camp, starving refugees, Jap soldiers with flag in hand, U.S. soldiers on move, wave from battleship, Flying Tigers into planes Signing Russia/Germany pact, Map shows dividing of United States between Germany and Italy, Hirohito and Hitler on balcony
Germany Merkel Brexit
Merkel: Brexit will not divide Europe
Activity at border between American sector and East German side of divided Berlin in 1952
00:00:00:00 INT student in art studio sculpting bust/ VS woman sculpting bust/ CU clay bust divided in sections/ CU woman scraping neck of sculpture/ (0:00) /
AFP-94K 16mm VTM-94K Beta SP
Interview with Dr. Bernard Lewis pt 2
00:00:38>>> DR. LEWIS:,Yes, I think one has to try and remember the context of 1948. The Partition of Palestine followed not very long after the Partition of India, in the previous year; a similar operation, but on a vastly greater scale. And two years earlier, there was the reshaping of Central and Eastern Europe. You may recall, when Poland was, so to speak, forcibly moved westwards, Eastern Poland was annexed by the Soviets, and Eastern German was annexed by Poland, which sent many millions of Pols and Germans fleeing their homes, or driven from their homes. As in the other cases, one is never quite sure when they fled and when they were driven. But many millions of Germans abandoned or were driven from Eastern - the Eastern German territories, next to Poland, and many millions of Pols, from the eastern territories, and next to the Soviet Union, they were more resettled. ,00:01:38>>>,And the same thing happened in 1947, with the Partition of India. And again, the usual uncertainty; who fled, who was driven, and a combination of the two. Again, they were all resettled. A remarkable thing about the Partition of Palestine, in 1948, is that when I asked the Jews who fled over, or were driven from Arab countries, and went to Israel, they were all resettled. And the Palestinians were the exception. And those who were given Jordanian citizenship were not resettled, they were kept in camps. And the really extraordinary thing is that they remained stateless aliens from the fourth generation. A Palestine refugee, in 48', he went to England, or France, or America, was eligible for naturalization in five years. And his children born there, were citizens by birth. And he went to Syria, or Lebanon, or Egypt, his children, his great grandchildren, remained stateless aliens. And it was a rather remarkable paradox. 00:02:40>>> Why did they go? Well, as I said, the usual mixture, in some areas, they were undoubtedly driven in the -_____ area, for example, a strategic highway from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On the other hand, we do have the testimony of ______, who was the Syrian Prime Minister, at the time. In his memoirs, he lists the mistakes which the Arab states made, in 48', which led to their failure. And one of them, he lists is our foolishness in calling upon the Palestinian Arabs to leave and go elsewhere, and thus making it easy for the enemy. INTERVIEWER: If the existence of these refugees is not so much an actual grievance, but a deliberately constructed one, what, on the basis of - DR. LEWIS: [OVERLAP] Well, they're not mutually exclusive. I mean it can be a deliberately constructed grievance, but nevertheless genuine. INTERVIEWER: Well, having become both genuine, nevertheless, what other grievance, what other grievance in this nation State of Israel, would encourage countries to want to not resettle in such a grievance ____. What's the real issue? 00:03:51>>> DR. LEWIS: The basic issue is in the point of view of the, of those who hold this news, is that Israel has no right to exist. You see, it should have equality between states, over territory, over frontiers. That is comparatively simple, like Alsace Lorraine and ______, after a long period of struggle, eventually, they reached some sort of compromise. You can compromise over frontiers. You can compromise over populations. You can't compromise over existence. I mean, if the basic issue is whether Israel has the right to exist, then obviously there can be nothing but a struggle to the death. There's no intermediate status between existing and not existing. And obviously it isn't even a subject which can be discussed. No government of any complexion is going to discuss its own existence, as a topic for negotiations. If one looks at the, at the discourse on the Arab's side, one finds both. Among some we find an acceptance, however willing, on Israel's existence, and a concentration on such practical issues as frontiers and populations. On the other hand, there is also, very clearly, particularly among the religious radicals, a total rejection of Israel's right to exist. Now, if you believe that Israel has no right to exist, that its very existence is an aggression, then obviously, any Israeli action is aggressive. INTERVIEWER: The British were in a unique position, going back now to (Inaudible) hostile things, and were allowed immigration, (Inaudible). Perhaps they could have done something better, differently. Perhaps they made some failures? 00:05:43>>> DR. LEWIS: Certainly, but normally the British government made a number of offers. And, going back to 1936, there was the Peele [PH] Plan, which would have offered a Palestinian state in a significant part of Palestine, and this was rejected by the Palestinian leadership. Then came another offer, during the war, which was again rejected. Then the United Nations Partition Plan, of 1947, which was again rejected. I mean, time and time again, there have been compromises proposed which would have required the Palestinian Arabs to accept the existence of Israel, of a Jewish State. It wasn't yet called Israel, at that stage, to accept the existence of a Jewish State in part of Palestine. But they steadfastly refused. 00:06:42>>> And instead, [COUGHS], instead sought - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] Time and again they refused, and suggested compromises, and instead carried on the fight against the British, as long as they were there, against the Jews, and against anyone seen as their patrons or protectors. And in order to do this, of course, they sought support, elsewhere, of a general principal who would be the enemy of my enemy, as my friend. The Mufti [PH] - the famous Mufti Haj Amin [PH] got in touch with a general council - general - in Jerusalem, within weeks of them coming to power, suggesting an alliance. The Germans hesitated for several years before they agreed to go along with this, and because they were still hoping to do a deal with Britain. But eventually they agreed, and the Mufti and his men were loyal supporters of the Nazis, right through to the end. Then there was a hiatus, when there was no enemy of my enemy. And then the Soviets emerged and gradually took over that role. So there was a long period of reliance on Soviet support. And then came a third collapse. Now only two reactions, since then; one of them was a frantic attempt to find a substitute. An attempt to find someone to play the role that was played, first, by the Nazis, and then by the Soviets, to find an anti-western power. The only candidate that they've been able to find, so far, is the European union. There are forces in the European Union, who seem to be willing to accept this role. But fortunately, even if they have the will, they lack the power. And the - other reaction is to say, we don't need any support, we destroyed the Soviet Union, we will destroy the United States. We took over, we will take over, and we will establish the power of Islam, once again, as it was in the ancient and glorious days. INTERVIEWER: As an American hearing all this, after September 11th, (Inaudible) now that you're concerned _____. If the problem, the very existence of the United States as a chief world power, is there anything short of just not being that, for it to possibly (Inaudible)? 00:09:04>>> DR. LEWIS: Well, again, it must come - a question of what - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] Well, the question is what does one do about it? Now, immediately, after 9/11, there was a very American reaction, what did we do wrong? What did we do to offend them? And that is endearing, but unrealistic. What really offended them was wealth and strength. It is very difficult to be rich, strong, and successful, and be loved by people who are none of those things. And I don't think there is any solution to be found along those lines. What I think is much more practical, it is to bear in mind that we are dealing with a whole world of Islam - an entire civilization - a billion and a third people, more than fifty sovereign states, and an enormously wide range of different traditions. We happened to be confronting a particularly nasty one, at the present time, the Wajabi version of Islam. Which is, as I suggested before, is about as typical of Islam as Ku Klux Klan is typical of Christianity. (Inaudible) give them a holy, spurious importance and relevance, because of the combination of Saudi power, and oil money. And with them, obviously, there can be no compromise, there can be no understanding, and therefore no peace. And the only thing one can do with terrorists, and those who inspire them, is fight against them, to the best of our ability. But it would be a grave error to assume that is what Islam is about, and that is Islam. No, one has to avoid going into either of the opposite arrows. 00:10:40>>> Since 9/11, a great deal has been read - a great deal has been written and broadcast about Islam, an awful lot of nonsense, not all of it by Muslims. And we get two extreme formulations. According to one, Islam is a religion of blood thirsty barbarians, who dream of nothing but slaughter and rapine. According to the other, Islam is a religion of love and peace, rather like the Quakers, but without their aggressiveness. The truth is in its usual place, somewhere between the two. And I think we need to be more realistic in our encounters of Islam. INTERVIEWER: A similar question then, what can, for example, Israel do, in its own recent confrontation, with a more radical ____, this _____ Martyrs Brigade, or Hamas? 00:11:34>>> DR. LEWIS: Obviously, in dealing with those, whose aim it is to destroy Israel, there is nothing that Israel can do but defend itself, as effectively as it can. But I think Israel can, and should do more. Do an open dialogue with Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims, who are not committed to that particular interpretation of history. They do exist, it is possible to talk to them. And - here I may mention a point which may seem trivial, but I don't think it is. That is a, how shall I put it, well let's be frank, normal Israeli pattern of discourtesy. Not just to them, but to everybody, to each other. After the peace treaty was signed with Jordan, the Jordanians had high expectations; flow of tourists, business, dealings and so on. When I went there a couple of times, I found people very disappointed and very angry. And they said, the Israelis came here, and they behaved with the arrogance of conquerors. And I asked, specifically, what they meant, and they gave me some examples. And I said, you're quite mistaken, it is not the arrogance of conquerors, that's just normal Israeli behavior. That's how they behave to each other, all the time. I had difficulty convincing them. And this may seem a trivial thing, but I don't think it is. If you have to stop someone at a checkpoint, for _____ security reasons, there is no need to humiliate him. INTERVIEWER: Is there, is there an example of a kind of moderate leader? A leader within the Arab world who exemplifies the other option you're talking about, and how would you contrast him? DR. LEWIS: Yes, they do exist. I have spoken to them - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] But I'm not gonna - sorry - Moderate leaders do exist, moderate leaders who are willing to talk peace and compromise. I have met some of them. I am not going to endanger their lives by naming them. INTERVIEWER: Are any of the ones that we deal with, and see in the news every day, do they fit that description? People like Yasser Arafat or, I don't know 00:13:37>>> DR. LEWIS: I don't think Arafat fits that description. If one looks at the processes of the last ten years, one feels that - what happened, why did the peace process break down from time to time? It broke down when there was a real danger that peace might break out. And, in asking Arafat to give up terrorism, is like asking Tiger Woods to give up golf. I mean, this is what brought him fame and fortune. This is what made him a world figure. And just consider it, in his perspective, as things are, he's a world statesmen, a world figure - a figure on the world stage. People come to visit him from Europe, from elsewhere, and he commands the headlines and the television screens any time he wants them. If there is peace, he becomes the tin pot dictator of a mini state, a battler of a corrupt mini state in which he has to answer to his people, for all the many things that go wrong. I don't think choice is very difficult for him. INTERVIEWER: Can you imagine a rise of - a different kind of - I asked you this before, but just to clarify, a different strain within the Islamic world, that goes back to the time where Jihad didn't mean violent holy war, and (Inaudible)? 00:14:59>>> DR. LEWIS: There are many traditions with an Islam name. And, as I said, Islam shows great diversity. Indeed, Islam explicitly savors diversity. There is a saying attributed to the prophet, which says that 'diversity is god's blessing'. There are many different traditions. It is not for us that is to say for the outside world, to pick and choose traditions of Muslims. That is a charge they have to make themselves. But I think we should recognize them and be ready to talk to them when the time comes. INTERVIEWER: A little clarification-is the September 11th attack a unique instance of radical Wajabi terrorism, or is it really just a larger example of what happens with Hamas, or with _____, in certain situations? DR. LEWIS: Well it's, it's unique, only in the scale, not in other respects. INTERVIEWER: [OVERLAP] (Inaudible) DR. LEWIS: What? What happened on September -. INTERVIEWER: 11th. DR. LEWIS: What? INTERVIEWER: Sorry. 00:16:00>>> DR. LEWIS: What happened on September 11th was not new and not unique. There have been a number of other attacks in various places, in which we see the same total indifference. Take, for example, the attacks on the Embassy's in East Africa. In order to kill a dozen American diplomats, they were willing to slaughter a couple of hundred Africans who just happened to be there, who had absolutely nothing to do with it, but many of whom were Muslims. I mean, this kind of total indifference to human life, is characteristic of that distinctive approach which is characteristic of that approach, but not of Islam, as such. On the contrary, if you look at the, the literature on the holy law, which is very extensive, it does devote a lot of attention to holy war. But it is a law of war, it deals with such things as treatment of prisoners, treatment of non-competence, and so on and so forth. It gives no countenance at all to indiscriminate slaughter. INTERVIEWER: Describe the role of democracy, as a system and how that might interact with society, to effect the tone of its - even of its religious ____? 00:17:12>>> DR. LEWIS: Well, people talk a lot now about democracy, and about exporting democracy, and so on. And in the western world, particularly in the United States, there is a common belief that democracy is the natural and normal condition of humanity. If there's any deviation from it, it is either a disease to be cured or a crime to be punished. I don't share that belief. What we call democracy, is the parochial habits of the English speaking peoples, or the combat with their public affairs. It has a very short and checkered history, even on the continent of Europe. [BACKGROUND NOISE] And the expectation, that Westminster style, or Jefferson style democracy, could be transplanted elsewhere, and set up, and function, is a delusion. 00:18:02>>> That doesn't mean to say that they cannot set up civilized, responsible, representative government. It can be done. We have - it's difficult to be introduced from outside, but we have two examples where just this happened. You know, take, for example, the cases of Germany and Japan, where democracy was introduced by victorious enemies, and it has worked pretty well. Or take the case in India, where democracy was bequeathed by departing imperialists. And more than half a century later, in spite of its innumerable problems, India is still a vibrant, functioning democracy. And democracy has never been interrupted in India. So these things are possible. They are difficult, but they are possible. ,And I think that there are Arab traditions of government, which could, could end the development of democratic institutions. And here, I think the one with the best prospect is Iraq, oddly enough. For one thing, the Iraqis have had the ultimate experience, on non-democratic government. A thug-like dictatorship, this apparently, is also an importation from Europe. This kind of party - the party dictatorship, and has its roots in Rome, Berlin, and Moscow. And the Bath party, is modeled under fascist, Nazi and communist parties, in its role in the state and society, and it's a matter of functioning. 00:19:36>>> So, don't imagine that, that represents the true Arab, or true Islamic form of government. They know that very well, and they reject it, utterly. I think Iraqi is also promising, in that - of all the oil countries, Iraqis probably made the best use of their oil revenues. They used it to set up an infrastructure, and a pretty good educational system. And primary, secondary and university. Now, it's being devastated by Saddam Hussein. But when you have an educated middle class, they were somehow- could try to educate their children, even if the public schools had gone to pot. INTERVIEWER: You have a new book coming out, (Inaudible). DR. LEWIS: Yes, I have a new book coming out in April. INTERVIEWER: It will have come out when this is aired. DR. LEWIS: My new book, appearing in April - oh no, let's - how shall we put that. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] My new book is, is called Holy War - sorry - My new book is called - I forget, what is it called? [LAUGHTER] My new book is called is The Crisis in Islam, and its content is, I think indicated by the subtitle, Holy War & Unholy Terror. Which I try to discuss and explain these issues. And to put current events within a cultural and historical context. [END OF INTERVIEW] INTERVIEWER: Yesterday we interviewed a cleric, who said that - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] I spoke to you about Mustafabu Sway, earlier. DR. LEWIS: Mmm. INTERVIEWER: He said that, there cannot be - according to Islam, Islam, there cannot be a Jewish State on Islamic land. There can be Jews who enjoy the holiness of the land, and share (Inaudible) Jewish sovereignty (Inaudible). [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] 00:22:49>>> DR. LEWIS: Yes, that is so. But it's not only that, it applies to any land. And, according to Islamic teachings, any land which has once been part of Islam, must remain so. And if, for any reason, he falls into infidel hands, it must be recovered for Islam. So this doesn't only apply to the Jewish State, in Palestine, it applies to Spain and Portugal, and Sicily, and any other country which once spawned part of the House of Islam. At one time, I had occasion to work on some Moroccan Embassy reports to Spain. And as late as the 18th Century, perhaps later, but I didn't look later, as late as the 18th Century, whenever they referred to a place in Spain, they had, May God speedily restore to Islam. INTERVIEWER: As you mentioned before, there are diverse viewpoints. DR. LEWIS: Yes, for the general viewers, that if a place has once been Islamic, it must become so again. INTERVIEWER: How will events - how will the aftermath of an Iraqi war, the next Gulf War, or perhaps the past Gulf War, affect regional developments, larger regional developments? Will it only - will it bring peace to the Middle East? Will (Inaudible)? 00:24:00>>> DR. LEWIS: Well obviously there are several possibilities. Let me take the best case. The best case is that they will succeed in setting up, I won't say a democratic government, but a civilized, tolerant, humane, open form of government in Iraq, which could develop into a democratic government. You can't create democracies overnight, it just doesn't work that way. If that happens, and I think that is a real possibility, I think the same would happen fairly soon, afterwards, in Iran. [CLEARS THROAT] Where, again, the people are more than fed up with the sort of clerical tyranny under which they live, and would be very happy to have an open, democratic society. And if those two examples work well, and I think there is every reason why they should work well, one might well see the spread of democratic ideas. 00:24:52>>> And you know, when people talk about setting up a democratic regime in Iraq, there are two fears that are expressed. One is the fear that it wouldn't work. That it would result in chaos, tyranny, break up, and so on. The other, which is much more relevant, is the fear that it would work. And that would be a serious threat to all the other regimes in the regions. I mean, a functioning democracy in Iraq, would be a mortal danger to that collection of dictators and autocrats that we call our allies. INTERVIEWER: In terms of - there is a certain view exemplified by people at think tanks, former policy makers, (Inaudible) and _____, who felt that Israel and Palestine has a symbol. If we can just solve the issues there, that, that are symbolic of what the grievance is. For example, divide Jerusalem equitably, and free Israeli settlement activities, that could show the kind of good will that would calm anger, Islamic anger. 00:25:58>>> DR. LEWIS: The very problem about this is making concessions that are obviously necessary in any peace process. But it has to be done in a context of peace process. Otherwise, making concessions is a sign of weakness, and will trigger a demand for more. And the context has to be right. And personally, I don't think that there can be, be seen on the Palestine issue, ahead of the others. People say, we must make peace in Palestine before we do anything about Iraq. Well that sends a clear signal to Saddam Hussein, make sure they don't make peace in Palestine. And he's been doing very well on that proposition. INTERVIEWER: Anything, any policy mistakes over the past ten years, to the Arab-Israeli peace process, for example, (Inaudible). DR. LEWIS: Do we have another hour? [CHUCKLES] INTERVIEWER: Have any of them been - could any of them been avoided or done differently, might have, might have made things better for this region of people. 00:27:28>>> DR. LEWIS: Yes. I think that Oslo, although it seemed a wonderful idea at the time, was, I think, looking back, a mistake. [CLEARS THROAT] I think there was a real possibility, then. Because, the PLO, the authorized leadership of the Palestinians, was isolated, and enfeebled, and abandoned. And they - the Palestinian leadership, had made a series of wrong guesses. In the world war - in, in the World War they chose the Nazis. In the Cold War they chose the Soviets. In the Gulf War they chose Saddam Hussein. And after three eras of such magnitude, there was a price to pay. The result is that, at that particular moment, immediately after the Gulf War, they were isolated, enfeebled, impoverished, friendless, even penniless because they had antagonized their Arab pay masters, by choosing the wrong side in the Gulf War. And that was seen by the United States government, and the Israeli government, at the time, as an opportunity for peacemaking. And in effect, they threw Yasser Arafat a life belt, brought him onboard, to start, and build, continued negotiations. 00:28:48>>> I think, as it turned out, I must say, I made the same mistake, at the time, I agreed entirely with what was being done. I think we were all wrong. We were all wrong. And whether it could have been done differently, in that situation, I don't know. But my guess is that there we are dealing with a leadership, for whom any kind of concession is a basis for demanding more. Take, for example, the breakdown after the offer from Ehud Barak. Now, there's been a great deal of argument, as to what precisely Barak offered. Some people say it was an offer of extraordinary generosity. Others dispute this and say that it was hedged around, and so on. Now, I don't think that's the point - whether it was a generous offer or not. Even if it was a generous offer. In a good faith negotiation, Arafat was entitled to reject it. If you're doing well in negotiation, and you get a generous offer, the natural thing to do is to try and get something still more generous. I have no quarrel with that. But in, in that case you would have to make a counter proposal. Well, he never did make a counter proposal. Instead he launched an armed insurrection. And when he had driven to the conclusion, that what he saw was a real danger, that peace might break out, in which case what becomes of him? INTERVIEWER: You sound, this is a final point, you sound optimistic when you describe the possible rise of democracy in Iraq, and given that, at times, he (Inaudible) in Iran. DR. LEWIS: Well, I don't have much faith in Khatami , INTERVIEWER: Okay, but - 00:30:24>>> DR. LEWIS: No, I'm, I'm cautiously optimistic. Let me put it this way, in, in the middle, if every - classified countries, in terms of their attitudes to the United States, we can divide the Middle East into three zones: zone one is countries with governments which we are pleased to call friendly, pro-American governments, and therefore, venomously, anti-American populations, because they regard America, with some justification, as being responsible for the corrupt tyrants that rule and oppress them. And, as they used to say in Moscow, it's no accident comrades, that of the hijackers and terrorists, from September 11th, the overwhelming majority came from quote, friendly, unquote, countries. 00:31:12>>> Now, the second zone, are countries with violently hostile governments, namely Iraq and Iran. And all the evidence is that the populations there are friendly, and wish to be friendlier. This is more so in Iran, than in Iraq. Most of the Iranians do not have the Iraqi experience of having been led on and led down, that the Iraqis have when, in 91', President Bush Sr. called on the Iraqi people to rise and revolt against the tyrant, they did, and then we made a cease fire and just sat and watched while the tyrant destroyed them, group by group and region by region. So, [CLEARS THROAT] the Iraqis are understandably wary. But even though all the indications are that they would welcome being liberated. 00:32:02>>> The third zones are the countries that both the government and the people are pro-American. And those, of course, are the only two countries, Turkey and Israel, where the government represents the people. In those two countries elections change governments, in all the other countries in the region, governments change elections. [COUGHS] [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] In those two countries, in Turkey and Israel, elections change governments. In all the other countries in the region, those that have elections, governments change elections. INTERVIEWER: Is there anything that you might have left off, (Inaudible) a hundred years from now in the Middle East? 00:33:15>>> DR. LEWIS: [CHUCKLES] There is one other point, which may be worth mentioning, and that is oil. A time will come when oil will no longer matter. Either because Middle Eastern supplies are exhausted. Or much more probably, because a clean, renewable substitute for oil is developed, and we no longer need Middle Eastern oil. That, I think, would be the moment of truth. [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] ,END OF INTERVIEW
JAPANESE CHICKEN "SEXER" IN GERMANY <br/> <br/>VS. In North German chicken farm we see a Japanese chicken sexer, Mr Shigeyuku Suzuki. He has studied at the "Sexer" Academy for four years. In 1956 he was world champion of chick sexers. His job is to sort out the cocks and hens immediately after hatching. He is able to gender check 12,000 day-old-chicks during one working day. He divides the male and female chicks between two boxes. <br/> <br/>(Comb.F.G.)
Le journal 19h30: [issue of November 14, 2022]
The Berlin Wall divides families on opposite sides of the wall. East Berliners flee, successfully crossing the barricade despite police attempts to stop them.
Mediopyxis diatoms, light microscopy
Mediopyxis diatoms. Light microscopy footage of specimens of the planktonic diatom Mediopyxis helysia, one of the dominant diatom species in the Wadden Sea. This is a chain of three cells, the middle one being in the late stages of cell division. Diatoms are single-celled algae that form an important part of the plankton at the base of the marine and freshwater food chains. Each diatom's siliceous cell wall is divided into two halves, one of which fits within the edges of the other like a box with a lid. Filmed in a sea water sample from the North Sea island of Amrum, Germany.