Various Subjects
Opera protest
Big-name politicians are expected to join Jewish protesters in a growing firestorm against the Metropolitan Opera's premiere of "The Death of Klinghoffer." Protesters say the opera glorifies Palestinian terrorists.(Oct. 20)
Achille Lauro Hijacked By Terrorists
The cruise ship Achille Lauro is hijacked in the Mediterranean Sea by 4 heavily armed Palestinian terrorists. One Passenger, American Leon Klinghoffer, is killed. The ship the Queen Elizabeth II was also a victim of piracy years before. PLEASE NOTE VIDEO & AUDIO OF NEWS ANCHORS & REPORTERS IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR LICENSING.
Achille Lauro Hijacking
Newsreel - sound - French narration - Leon Klinghoffer, the disabled man who was killed during the Achille Lauro hijacking by Palestinian guerrillas in 1985 - CNN reporter Jeremy Levin is freed after being held hostage in Lebanon
00:00:00:00 Klinghoffer's coffin removed from plane/ (0:00)/
1990s NEWS
[Abbou Abbas arrested]
A2 / France 2
Interview with Irwin Cotler
INTERVIEWER: Please tell me your full name, spell it and your title. 02:49:06>>> IRWIN COTLER: Irwin Cotler C-O-T-L-E-R INTERVIEWER: How do you spell Irwin? 02:53:11>>> IRWIN COTLER: I-R-W-I-N ah presently a member of parliament in Canada on leave as a professor of law at McGill University in Montreal. INTERVIEWER: What right do Jews have to set up a state where others were living? 03:11:04>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well first of all I think when one talks about ah the right to set up a state one has to appreciate ah (PAUSE) right to do so is anchored in the right ah people's right to self determination. The right to self determination is mentioned both in the international covalent and political rights and the international covalent on economic, social and cultural rights sometimes referred to as the essence of international bill or rights. It's the first article ah signifying the importance of this right. I mention this because sometimes Israel is commonly regarded as being nothing other than a CNN clip or what passes through the internet of the day. ah or if one wishes to elaborate further something grounded in 54 years of Israeli statehood or 100 years of Zionism. The point is that when one speaks of the Jewish people's right to state to establish a state one is talking here about what I would call a prototypical aboriginal people. A people that has had a right of self determination, if you will, almost from time and memorial. 04:19:12>>> IRWIN COTLER,If one could paraphrase the late Aba Ebon who put it well that the Jewish people are the only people in the world today who still inhabit the same land, worship the same god, study the same ah bible or Tar, Tarah, speak the same aboriginal language Hebrew. And bear the same name, Israel, as they didn't 3500 years ago. If the Jewish people do not have a right to establish a state ah in their aboriginal homeland, if I can use that human rights term, in their aboriginal homeland then no people has a right ah to establish their state anywhere. This is the most legitimate right almost in all of ah human history of the right of self determination. And perhaps that is the reason why ah the United Nations resolved itself to establish a Jewish state ah in mandatory Palestine by way of the partition revolution in 1947 which was consistent with ah and followed up upon both the Belford declaration, The League of Nations mandate all of this receiving expression through the United Nations while protecting at the same time the civil and, and religious and cultural rights of residents in that territory. INTERVIEWER:,What right do Jews have to set up state in the western half of Palestine in 1947 when Arabs were practically the majority there? 06:03:06>>> IRWIN COTLER:,Well the first thing is that by way of the United Nations partition resolution of 1947 which dealt with the western (PAUSE) right to set up a state there while others ah were living there. In fact the United Nations at the time partitioned the western half of Palestine into a Jewish state and a perspective Palestinian Arab state. It envisaged 2 states in the western half of Palestine. Regrettably the Arab countries at the time ah with the support of those Palestinian Arab residents resolved to by their own acknowledgment to assonate a war of extermination against the nascent ah Jewish Israeli state. It's quite interesting here because if one looks at the Israeli Arab Palestinian conflict and one hears a talk today about what is the root cause of the conflict cause sometimes I reference to the occupation as the root cause of the conflict one looks at the historical evidence the core of the conflict has been and for the most part still continues to be the refusal of the Arab and the Palestinian leadership to recognize the legitimacy from just existence of a Jewish state, as distinct from justice state called Israel anywhere in the middle east. The historical evidence with regard to the Israeli Palestinian Arab conflict and with regard to western Palestine has been what I would call a pattern of double rejectionism on the part of the Arab and Palestinian leadership. They were prepared to forgo the establishment of a Palestinian state if that meant countenancing the existence of a Jewish state. 07:51:10>>> IRWIN COTLER:,that was the pattern in the rejection of the partition resolution in November 1947. fast forward it up to the Camp David negotiations and at Taba in the year 2000 once again offered an independent Palestinian state shared sovereignty over Jerusalem the end of what would have been the residual part of the occupation once again Palestinian leadership choose not to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in any part of the release but to initiate a war of terror against that Jewish state. INTERVIEWER: The 1947 partition plan gave the Jewish state ah certain portion of land and it gave the Arab left Palestinian different the other portion of land and in the war called the War of Independence several army's attacked Israel in an attempt as you said to exterminate it and according to international law is there any doctrine that describe what happened? Territory is gained in a defensive war versus an offensive? 09:08:10>>> IRWIN COTLER: (PAUSE) refrain that you sometimes hear what has become part of the common emantra. Namely the inadmissibility of the acquisitions of territories through force. But the real interpretation of that is the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory through the illegal use of force. Otherwise we would have an absurd situation in international law. That if aggressor state A launches a war, let's forget about the Israeli Palestinians colonists let's talk about normative principals of international law, (PAUSE)launches an aggressive war against target state B. target state B (PAUSE) comes into some of the territories including those used as a base of aggression against it. If international law were to require that the target victim state return all of the territory to the aggressor state that would have the affect of not only licensing but rewarding acts of aggression. States would know that they could launch wars of aggression with impunity and get all their territory back. (PAUSE) of the indemnification of the victim state from the act of aggressor. And that in terms of customary international law and practice has resulted in cases where nations resorted to a legitimate act of self defense against an aggressor state territory was not returned to the aggressor state. 10:31:08>>> IRWIN COTLER: I'm not saying that the return of territory should not be part of a territorial compromise and peace agreement and alike. What I'm saying is to say that aboriginal from the beginning Israel should be required to give up all the territory as if it were the aggressor state when it acted in self defense against those who publicly proclaimed their desire to exterminate that state I think that would put interna, turn international law on its head. And the principal and precedent that would be established here would be prejudicial to any other conflict situation that one would address. INTERVIEWER: Bearing that in mind what is the legal status of the 1947 partition plan as it was then and where it stands today? 11:22:25>>> IRWIN COTLER:,Well I think the 1947 partition plan was one that was accepted by Israel rejected by the Palestinian states who not only engaged as I said in that ah policy of double rejectionism foregoing the establishment of a Palestinian state that meant countenancing a Jewish state but also launched a war of aggression against that state. having done that they not only rejected the UN partition resolution that partition resolution could no longer serve really as a framework for conflict resolution cause there is a principal of international law that no one can plead their own illegal act in defense of their claim. So for now to say ok let's go back to the way that things were supposed to be as if this war of aggression had never been launched is not only to turn international law you know on its head but international morality as well. 12:16:23>>> IRWIN COTLER:,None the less I do think that one can envisage at the end of an negotiated peace process you know a 2 state solution whereby the Israeli state would be living along aside a democratic you know Palestinian state resulting from the negotiating from the parties. But one can't go back now and say ok let's now implement UN partition resolution of 1947 as if the war of aggression had never been launched against Israel. As if ah consequences of that resolution had never taken place. INTERVIEWER:,With regards to Jerusalem what did the 1947 partition plan stipulate and what was its affect then and in the long term? 13:08:19>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well again this is another example when I said one can not address the resolution as if there were no consequences to that resolution being not only rejected by the Arab Palestinian leadership at the time but in fact militarily rejected. I think that the status of Jerusalem is one where it was envisaged by that partition resolution Jerusalem would have been a kind of corporate separatium. That it would have had a separated juridical definition at the time. as a result of the 1947, 48 war Israel ended up with what has come to be known as western Jerusalem and the Jordanian authorities illegally occupied, I say illegally occupied because that's ah what happened as a result of 47, 48 war, illegally occupied what has come to be known as eastern Jerusalem and expelled all the Jewish residents of eastern Jerusalem at the time. so we developed a day facto situation (PAUSE) 47, 48 1967 at that time. INTERVIEWER: Say that over. 14:28:20>>> IRWIN COTLER: Yeah. so you had a situation where in consequence of the 47, 48 war Israel was in control of western Jerusalem Jordan eastern Jerusalem. In 1967 as a result of a tripartite unprovoked active aggression against Israel launched by Egypt, Syria and Jordan were Jordan was in fact for warned by Israel not to engage in hostilities against her and put on notice that Israel had no reason to enter into hostilities Jordan none in the less participated in that war of aggression lost east Jerusalem to Israel which united the two parts of Jerusalem. And Jerusalem then became the capital of Israel in accordance with Israeli law and one might say you know in accordance with certain notions of international law and morality because Jordan had illegally occupied eastern Jerusalem. Had expelled its Jewish ah inhabitants. Had ravaged Jewish property. Had prohibited for some 19 years from 48 to 67 Jews even having the right to pray at the western wall. So fundamental rights of religion were prohibited to ah to Jews during that period. So one might say that even on grounds of justice and equity for Jerusalem to in effect become once again as it had been you know ah during periods of, of Jewish history the capital of, of the state of Israel was something that was consistent with ah the law and morality and the history of the matter. INTERVIEWER: Was Jordan's occupation of the west bank was that legal or illegal? 16:30:05>>> IRWIN COTLER:,Well in terms of Jordan's occupation of the west bank in 1967 INTERVIEWER: No in 47. start again. 16:39:15>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well in terms of Jordan's occupation in the west bank in, in ah as resulting from the 47, 48 war that is regarded by most historians in international war as having been an illegal annexation. Having been an illegal annexation the fact was recognized by only 2 countries namely Britain and Pakistan at the time. so it did not have the concurrence or reorganization of the international community. When Israel as a result of the war in self defense came into the control of the West Bank and Gaza the 2 territories that were previously in fact illegally invaded by Jordan and Egypt respectively then as a result of the 6 day war and those territories coming into Israel's hand they became the subject for a negotiated ah peace between the parties but right after the 6 day war when Israel announced its wiliness to in fact return the territories for peace you had in November 1967 the triple no's of the cartoon declaration by the Arab countries namely no reorganization, no negotiations, no peace with Israel. And so the situation really again from November 1967 fast forward till the 2003 remains the same. Israel having been willing it enter into direct negotiations with the Arab countries and the Palestinian people for a just disposition of the territorial issue but their being no response on the other side for that purpose. 18:29:22>>> IRWIN COTLER: And this gets us back, I think, to a core issue that is sometimes ignored and that is the Israeli Arab Palestinian is probably different than any other conflict than any other conflict in the history of international relations. And different from any other conflict on the international scene today. this is not a conflict about borders though certainly borders are in dispute. It's not a conflict about territories though territories are in dispute. It's not a conflict about resources though resources are in dispute. It's not a conflict even about Jerusalem though Jerusalem is metaphor and mess of that conflict. The core of the conflict remains and continues to be the unwillingness Arab and Palestinian leadership to accept the legitimacy (PAUSE) present day. I have to say that this is not something that I've heard you know from a Jewish leadership though Jewish leadership may, may be sometimes saying that. this I would say existential truth is something that I've heard in my discussions with Arab and Palestinian leaders over the years. Let me give you just one vignette from those discussions that took place in April 2000 just several months before the Camp David negotiations. 19:42:17>>> IRWIN COTLER: I was part of a Canadian parliamentary delegation that was visiting with Arab and Palestinian leaders in the Middle East. At each port of (CELL PHONE) I'd put the same question INTERVIEWER: Let's pick it up with your Middle East 20:10:06>>> IRWIN COTLER: In the spring of 2000 I was part (PAUSE) country of delegation to the Middle East. And every port of call I would put the same question to Arab and Palestinian leaders. And the question went as the following and its interesting cause it was just 3 months before the Camp David negotiations. My question was as follows if Israel were to withdrawal from all the occupied territories as they were called and a independent Palestinian state were to be created and there would be shared sovereignty over Jerusalem. In effect what Barak was offering the Palestinians several months later at Camp David, would you then be prepared to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East. I got a 3 fold answer back overlapping with somewhat distinguishable. First the first answer was well you know we Muslims, Christians and Jews have always been prepared and able to live in peace. And I said that wasn't my question. And then I got a a second answer which said well you know Israel is there it's a reality it's a fact one of them put it in French je suis j'y reste. said we're prepared to co exist with them . again I said that wasn't my question. And finally got back an answer which in effect was a kind of consensus response from all my talks in the Middle East which went as follows 21:32:28>>> IRWIN COTLER: For a just, a comprehensive and lasting peace in the Middle East would have to do 3 things. Again it was only Israel that in their eyes bore any responsibility for doing anything for purposes of a just and lasting peace. And I said and what are these three things. They said first Israel has to seize being a Jewish state. Has to seize being sorry. Israel has to seize being INTERVIEWER: Go back to 3 part answer 22:01:05>>> IRWIN COTLER: Yeah they came up with an answer that reflected a consensus almost all the Arab and Palestinian leaders during the trip. And it went as follows, first Israel would have to seize being a racist state. and I said what is a racist state. and they said Israel had to seize being a Jewish state. They said second Israel had to free all of Jewish immigration and had to permit all Palestinian and Arabs who wish to return to Israel to do so. And they went on to say we're not saying the right of return and ah as against compensation or compensation. We're saying the right of return and compensation for 52 years of Arab Palestinian and Arab disposition. And third that Israel had to become as Middle Eastern state like every other Middle Eastern state. and I said well what do you mean by that. they said ok for example Israel plays basketball in the European cup. Why doesn't it play basketball in the Asian cup. I said well maybe if you let Israel play basketball in the Asian cup they wouldn't have to play basketball in the European cup. In other words what we had here in terms of the Arab response was an unwillingness to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East and also, if I can use a term that is sometimes somewhat freely ascribed to Israel, what we saw here was a Middle East aparte. An unwillingness to accommodate anywhere the right of Jewish self determination and the right of a Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East. 23:37:22>>> IRWIN COTLER:,I have to tell you I take a dovish position on the Israeli Arab Palestinian conflict. I've been a supporter of the right of Palestinian self determination and the right to an independent Palestinian for over 30 years when now. before it became politically correct or politically mandatory to take that position. But what I found in the visit to Arab countries and in my talks with them over the years (PAUSE) issue is into the absence of a Palestinian which I and others have always been prepared to recognize and support but the issue in its root cause comes down to accepting the legitimacy in any borders of a Jewish state in the Middle East. And this pattern of double rejectionism of Arab and Palestinian leadership willing to forgo the establishment of a Palestinian and Arab state whether offered to them by the United Nations in 1947 or offered to them in peace negotiations with Israel throughout the years or offered to them Barak's offer and Clinton's offer in July 2000 and then again December 2000 that comes down to the root cause in terms of the Middle East conflict. INTERVIEWER: Why is there such a double standard when Jordan occupied there was only 2 countries that recognized but nearly every UN security resolution since 1967 has condemned Israel for their the disputed territories? 25:34:18>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well you know again I don't think anyone's put it that if there was a resolution in the United Nations that somehow belonged to the Israeli Arab conflict to the effect that the earth is flat there would be an automatic Arab majority in support of that resolution. Or as they put it at the time shortly after the 6 day war that in its present mood the United Nations would refuse to accept the 10 commandments on the ground that it came (PAUSE) Look at the whole approach of the United Nations to the Israeli Arab Palestinian conflict regrettably but this is just looking at it in terms of findings and facts, conclusions of law. What we see is the singling out of Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena and at the United Nations. In fact I would go further to say that we have today a kind of new anti-Jewishness that proceeds under the banner of human rights and cooperates somewhat under the protective cover of the United Nations. 26:36:23>>> IRWIN COTLER: Let me give you 3 quick examples. You had the world conference against racism in Durban. ah which was the first anti-racist of the 21st century and the first international human rights conference of the 21st century . those of us who are both anti-aparte advocates of long standing and human rights advocates look forward with a certain sense of anticipation if not excitement. This happens to be the first anti-racism under the auspice of the United Nations in the 21st century. We are going to commemorate the dismantling, because the conference is taking place in South Africa, the dismantling of South Africa as an aparte state and so on. But what happened, and I'll (PAUSE) kind of off the buse term today, but what happened in Durban was truly related. A world conference against racism turned into a conference of racists against Israel and the Jewish people (PAUSE) Israel's the mega human rights violator of our time in other words Israel is almost the new anti Christ of our time. a conference that would speak in the name of humanity ended up speaking in the name of inhumanity. And perhaps that's not surprising because if you look at the United Nations commission on human rights annual meetings and the United Nations here the commission on human rights held out as the repository (PAUSE) international human human rights law. of international law standard setting and alike. If you look at the jurisprudence of the United Nations commission on human rights and take just last years meeting in March, April of 2002 as an example. 28:34:11>>> IRWIN COTLER: 40%, 40% of all the resolutions or indictments passed by the UN human rights commission were passed against one member state of the international community namely Israel. Where as the real major human rights violators be it china or Syria, Libya received exculpatory immunity. So it's not only that Israel was prejudiced by being singled out for differential discriminatory treatment that would be enough. It's that the real human rights violators got exculpatory immunity. And this annual meeting of the UN commission on human rights which will be beginning again in a months time always begins with a country specific indictment of Israel on the agenda even before the meeting begins in a conference that is held under principals and procedures of the United Nations which for closes any country specific indictment. If you look at the agenda you'll see an item called Israeli human rights violations in the occupied territory. And then another agenda item human rights violations in the rest of the world. They have a country specific indictment in breach of the very procedures of the United Nations even before the beginning of the hearings by the UN human rights commission . a kind of Alice in Wonderland situation. We have the conviction and the sentence pronounced even before even before the hearings begin. 29:56:08>>> IRWIN COTLER: And then you have a set of hearings in which our fraud with incitement against Israel and the Jewish people and where terrorism is even impliedly justified by a resolution adopting the use of all available means as resistance against occupation. Clearly, impliedly and in fact explicitly inferred by Arab and Palestinian as justifying terrorism against what they call you know the Israeli occupation under the rubric of resistance. So in affect the United Nations becomes a cover here. Last example between Durban and between the UN commission on human rights there is the meeting of the contraction parties to the Geneva conventions of 1949. now these Geneva conventions of 1949 were adopted in the wake of the second world war rightly so to protect civilians in iron conflict. And of course (PAUSE) part of the second world war as examples. For 52 years after the adoption of that of those Geneva conventions of 1949 not one state, not one state was ever brought before the contracting parties of the Geneva convention. Not Cambodia with respect to the genesi in Cambodia or any of the Balkan countries with respect to ethnic cleansing and genesi there. Or Rwanda with respect to the unspeakable genesi that took place in Rwanda. Or the killing fields in Sudan and Sierra Leon. I can go on and on not one state ever brought before the contracting parties of the Geneva convention. 31:27:18>>> IRWIN COTLER: The first time that this took place took place in December 2001 where Israel became the only state in 52 years that ever was put to the docket of the contracting parties of the Geneva convention. Now let me just state one thing here because I wouldn't want any adverse inferences to be drawn from anything I've said about international law or Israel's responsibilities and the like. Israel like any other state is responsible for any violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. And the Jewish people do not deserve nor Israel any privileged or preferred standing in the international area because of the holocaust or the horrors of Jewish history. Not at all. But the problem I suggest is not that Israel or anyone on Israel's behalf should seek that Israel be above the law but the problem is that Israel's being systematically denied a equality before the law in the international area under the cover (PAUSE) nations. The problem is not that human rights standards are being applied to Israel they should be. The problem is that these standards are not being applied equally to anyone else. The problem is not that Israel must respect human rights which she must. The problem is that the human rights of Israel like any other state deserve equal respect in the international arena. 32:46:26>>> IRWIN COTLER: This assault on Israel and the Jewish people is frankly an assault on the universitality and the principals or equality before the law in the United Nations charter, in the universal declaration of human rights, in the regime of international human rights and humanitarian law and all under ah the auspice of the United Nations. So what concerns me as someone who frankly supports the United Nations and someone who takes international law seriously is that this all this is not just prejudicial to Israel though that would be bad enough if its something that's prejudicial to any member state under the auspice of the United Nations but it undermines the integrity of the United Nations under who's cover it takes place. It undermines the regime of international human rights and humanitarian law in who's name these things take place. It undermines the whole regime of what we speak about when we talk about equality before the law when this type of singling out of any member state of the international arena for differential and discriminatory treatment should take place. INTERVIEWER: Why is this happening? Why is the UN singling out Israel? Why is the world's wrath focused on Israel? 34:07:05>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think you know 34:10:02>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well when we look at why is the United Nations singling out Israel and why is the world's wrath in fact being focused on Israel and the Jewish people today I think you know in one sense one could say Aba even said that in the United Nations you can get an automatic majority for any anti Israel resolution because of the numerical configurations in the UN. You have simply put 54 you know Muslim states which will assure right away 54 nation states support for any anti Israel resolutions. But I, I think it goes deeper than that. I think what we've seeing is that Israel has emerged as the collective Jew among the nations. And what we're seeing today in the international arena what we're seeing being played out in the international area is what I would call the new anti Jewishness of our time. in other words traditional or classical you know anti Semitism concern the rights of Jews to live as equal members in any society that they inhabited. This new anti-jewishness concerns the right of Israel and the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intriguic to each form of anti-Jewishness and what is common to both is discrimination. All that has happened is that it moved from discrimination against the Jews as individuals or discrimination against Jews in whatever deasper community they lived in to discrimination against Israel as a Jewish state in the international arena. 35:45:15>>> IRWIN COTLER: Now we've developed indices to identity and measure and monitor classical anti-Jewishness discrimination against Jews in housing, education, employment and alike. If you looked at each of these indices you'd see that classical anti-Semitism is declining. What we have the to do is to develop indicators to identify and measure and monitor the new anti-Jewishness. One of those indicators is the singling out of Israel for discriminatory treatment in the international arena. And I regret to say that the evidence is replete here with this type of new anti-Jewishness. INTERVIEWER: The refugees their status is unique and different than any other that proceed them and followed them. 02:24:21>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well ah in terms of the status of the Palestinian refuges being different from status of refugees in elsewhere that is true because he have a peculiar situation where we have an international refugee law ah for refugees anywhere else in the world under the responsibility of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees. So we have one regime for the worlds refuges and we have one separate regime for Palestinian under the auspices of UNRA which is the distinguishable from United Nations high commissioner for refugees and this becomes United Nations you know refugees for Palestinian in the Middle East. Now this type of distinguishable regime as a result and the fact that the laws that would normally and definition of normally apply to refuges don't apply to Palestinian refuges. And so we have a situation where under general refugee law ah a refugee is defined as someone who has a well founded fear of persecution to his place or her place of origin. Um you'll have different definitions that have applied and where as refugees don't normally comport the descendants of refuges you do have it here with ah UNRA refuges because the UNRA refugees included their children and their grandchildren and the great grandchildren of Palestinian refugees as part of the definition and, and the category of those who are defined as Palestinian refuges. 04:10:14>>> IRWIN COTLER: Now the governing resolution with regard to Palestinian refuges have is the United Nations resolution 194 in the immediate aftermath again of the 47, 48 war. This is also relevant because people don't appreciate refuges Palestinian refuges were not the cause of the 47, 48 war they were the consequence of the 47, 48 war. And they were the consequence of a war launched by Arabs and Palestinian themselves. So in affect the refugee problem Palestinian refugee problem was created by an Arab launched war of aggression against Israel. This has become almost necessary to state an restate because as Voltaire said if you take something out of context you can hang anybody. And if you look at Palestinian refugees and you don't realize that they were the consequence of an Arab initiated war and not the cause of that war then or now then you have a total misunderstanding of the whole refugee situation in the Middle East. So that's the first thing to appreciate that they were consequence and not the cause of the war. The second thing is that a resolution was passed which said because we hear talk about the Palestinian right of return ah or let me just take it back for a moment. Second thing is that that's not always appreciated here is that the 47, 48 war resulted not only in Palestinian Arab refuges but in Jewish refugees from Arab lands who were effectively cleansed almost with their property from those Arab lands and were forced to flee and the likes. 06:02:28>>> IRWIN COTLER: So you had 2 categories of refugees. In most historical situations those refugee exchanges in a sense or population exchanges helped to resolve the refugee situation. Here the Jewish people absorbed Jewish refugees from Arab lands in the state of Israel. But Palestinian were maintained in situations of deprivation and on going incitement against Israel. So a problem that could have been resolved through exchange of population was perpetuated. The third thing is that the UN resolution stated back then in 19 in resolution 194 that those Palestinians who were prepared to ah return and live in peace should be permitted ah to do so um as soon as it's appropriate for that to happen. In no words this was not a declaration of an automatic Palestinian right of return. It was a recommendation by the United Nations general assembly that Palestinian who were prepared to live in peace ah should be ah permitted to return and we were talking at that time but refuges just from the 47, 48 war. as I say that could have been easily resolved at that time because there was also a UN resolution the option of resettlement and integration in other Arab countries and the like. 07:47:29>>> IRWIN COTLER: But again the issue is never the Palestinian refugees as the core of the conflict. The issue was ah dressed up in the notion of a right of return a formula not for the resolution of the Palestinian refugee question but for the other elimination of the Jewish state of Israel. As the Palestinian scholar Sari Masaba put it that the Palestinian right of return is nothing else but a formula for the establishment of a second Palestinian state in place of the existing state of Israel. So I think we should sort of pull the curtain open and understand what we are talking about when we are speaking about the Palestinian right of return. Dressing up in human rights language what is a seeming doctrine of international law which has no basis in terms of international law as it applies to Palestinian the middle east. INTERVIEWER: What were the potential motivations for the Arab states not to absorb the refugees? 09:15:29>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well if you were not prepared at the countenance a Jewish state anywhere in the Middle East what better way to go about it then to make it appear first that the problem ah are the Palestinian refugees and their lack of a homeland. And again I don't want for a moment to diminish the horrible suffering of the Palestinian refugees over the years but this was from a humanitarian point of view certainly something that could have been resolved in the immediate aftermath of the 47, 48 war. And since if the issue was the humanitarian issue of the Palestinian refuges and even if the issue was the right of the Palestinians to a homeland both could have been solved. They could have been solved initially with the acceptance of the partition resolution of 47, 48 in which case there would never had been any Palestinian Arab refugees. It could have been solved fast forward in the year of 2000 with the acceptance of the you know the Clinton Barak offer in which case there would have been established an independent Palestinian state and the right of the Palestinian to return to that state as part of their ah you know Palestinian homeland. 10:44:03>>> IRWIN COTLER: And so in other words the issue of the refugees on a humanitarian level on a political level, on a juridical level on every level imaginable could have been resolved if that's that what the issue was. However if the issue was that it could only be resolved in place of an existing Jewish state in any borders in the Middle East the we'd go back again and I don't like to have myself bring up something that becomes emantra but one goes back again to the root cause of the conflict. And when that root cause if the unwillingness to accept a legitimacy of a Jewish state then you perpetuate the Palestinian Arab question as a kind of bruiting omni presence. As a kind of you know humanitarian tragedy which it is but you ignore you know the root cause of that tragedy . and you figure you know the capacity for its resolutions. INTERVIEWER: Going back to the war of 1967 was Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza illegal given the situation or the circumstances? 12:19:25>>> IRWIN COTLER: Ok the question as to where Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in consequence to the 6 day war whether this was illegal. Um no it wasn't illegal for a number or reasons. Number one it's questionable whether one from the juridical point of view could characterize it as an occupation to begin with because an occupation presupposes that there were prior legitimate ah sovereign ah holders of those territories. But neither Jordan nor Egypt which controlled the West Bank and Gaza respectively were legitimate sovereignties in control of those territories. So one can't speck of them as as ah those territories therefore as being occupied. The second thing as international jurist said as between Israel's legitimate exercise of self defense which brought it into those territories and the illegal annexation of those territories by Jordan and ah ah Egypt, as professor Steven Shrubal later to become to president to international court of justice put it, Israel had a better title than did either Jordan or Egypt to those territories. And certainly it's presence in those territories was not that of an occupier let alone an illegal occupier. The third thing here and this is often ignored is the Jewish people have aboriginal rights and ah sometimes the term used it historic right but I'm trying to use contemporary human rights language aboriginal rights in the West Bank and Gaze in that sense that this was the heartland of the Jewish people. To say therefore that Israel has no right of presence or habitation in the West Bank and ah Gaza and principally here we talk about the West Bank is to say that somehow whatever ethnic cleansing took place over the years when Jews were driven out of ah ah Hevron or driven out of the Gutzetchon area or let alone driven out of east Jerusalem that that kind of ah (HORN) exclusion of Israel from territories where the Jewish people were aboriginal presence from time in memorial is to count---you know a form of ethnic cleansing and to go ahead and basically extinguish the Jewish right of habitation and presence. 15:02:28>>> IRWIN COTLER: I'm not saying that Israel should go ahead and exercise its right of habitation in the West Bank simply because it has aboriginal rights there. We have to appreciate that there is another if you will indigenous people living there mainly the Palestinian people and the resolution of the Israeli Palestinian Arab conflict will eventually have to be resolved by partition of an aboriginal land claimed by 2 indigenous people Israeli's and Palestinians. I'm prepared to recognize that the Palestinian Arabs are an indigenous people living in what was originally mandatory Palestine. All I'm saying is that the Jewish people deserve at least to be also recognized as being an indigenous people living in their aboriginal homeland. And if you look back the Ballfoler declaration, the league of nations the United Nations they all recognize what they called quote close settlement by the Jewish people in mandatory Palestine i.e. in the West Bank precisely because of the historical connection, this is their language not mine, of the Jewish people to mandatory Palestine in that sense to the West Bank which if you wanted to go to its aboriginal title is Judea and Samaria. And so to go ahead and say that there is no right of residence for the Jews in those territories only a right of residence you know for Arabs in those territories is as I say to not only develop a double standard but to extinguish Jewish rights and to only recognize which I'm prepared to do Palestinian rights but not at the expense of the Jewish rights. INTERVIEWER: What is the legal status of the settlements and does Israel have the right to build settlements there? 17:17:15>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well the question about Israel's right to establish settlements first the right to establish as I said close settlement in mandatory Palestine was something that was sanctioned and permitted from the Ballfoler declaration through the League of Nation mandate taken up by the United Nations. The best prove of that as well if you want to fast forward into the Olso accords there is no prohibition in the Oslo accords of Jewish settlement in the territories. On the contrary the issue of Jewish settlement in the territories is left to final status determinations. It's not something that is prohibited in and of itself or even in the course of the Oslo accords nor should it be one would say if one wants to accept the basic moral and legal position as professor Eugene Rosto, my former dean when I was a student at Yale law school put it, that the right of a Jew to live in the territories is no less than the right of a Palestinian Arab to do so. I would purveyed of course the that the Jewish settlement in no way displaces the ah Palestinians living in that territory and in no way alters the legal status of those territories. 18:45:26>>> IRWIN COTLER: But certainly the right of Jews to live in those territories even if eventually they live under Palestinian sovereignty in those territories is no less than the right of Palestinians to live there or Palestinian and Arabs to live in the state of Israel. We can't have a situation which is prepared to you know sort of countenance you know creating a situation where the West Bank is somehow to be rendered udenrine free of Jews. Ah when in fact Jews have an aboriginal right of relationship with and in habitation of these territories as part of its their aboriginal homeland. Certainly I would think that in the final status and negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians the settlements need not be neither an obstacle to peace nor certainly characterized as illegal and we ought to be able to come to a solution as envisioned in fact the Camp David and Taba agreements were you know some 75 to 80% of the Jews living in the ah settlements in the territories live in settlements that are contentious to the 6 day line border line and in fact within 10% of ah you know the Israeli pre 67 border. 20:18:01>>> IRWIN COTLER: So even from a territorial point of view that ought not to be an issue. And certainly just as we can have some Jews living beyond the green line ah we have Palestinian Arabs living in Israel there ought not to be a problem. INTERVIEWER: Who has a legitimate claim to Jerusalem? 20:37:12>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think that ah with respect to legitimate claim to Jerusalem you could agree that ah both um Israeli's Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs have you know legitimate claims. The question is which would be a preferred claim or which would be a more compelling claim you know in international law of terms. I think if you took a number of perspectives you know if you took the perspective of an aboriginal rights claim. If you took a perspective of the status of Jerusalem and the live and history of the Jewish people. If you took the perspective of Israel having gained control of both parts of Jerusalem as a result acts of self defense. If you took it from the perspective of what happened to Jewish rights in Jerusalem when it was under the control of another sovereign namely Jordan. Ah if you took into consider you know the Oslo accords and Jerusalem was being a matter for final status determination. I think you could look at all these variables maybe even just some of them, I think you would state that there's a compelling claim for Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish people. and one could in the course of a final status determination of Jerusalem arrive at a framework which would be what I call one organizer on the principal of least in justice. In other words neither side can secure absolute justice for its claim but I think one could arrive at a resolution that would be consistent with the principal of the least injustice being caused you know to the protagonists here. 22:41:04>>> IRWIN COTLER: And I might add parenthetically that the Palestinian Arabs with whom I've had you know protracted discussions living now in east Jerusalem have evinced to me a preference for living under Israeli sovereignty rather than a Palestinian sovereignty. And I would think that this is, if we speak of the principal of self determination, then we ought to say the Palestinian Arabs living in east Jerusalem some reorganization for their where they would like to live. And those as I say with whom I've spoken you know polls outside on Palestinian Arabs would themselves prefer to live under a democratic rights protecting Israel state than to live under a Palestinian state where Jerusalem might not just be the pal, the capital for that Palestinian state but where the inhabitants of that state might find that they have neither freedom nor democracy. INTERVIEWER: You listed many perspectives in which Israel would have a right to Jerusalem could you reverse the view and tell us how Palestinian would have a right to Jerusalem? 24:07:21>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think the Palestinians would have that right with respect to you know the eastern part of Jerusalem. Although here too I have to say that when I sometimes read in newspapers and they're like Arab east Jerusalem. As if west Jerusalem is Jewish and east Jerusalem is Arab when if one looks at Arab east Jerusalem a majority of those living in east Jerusalem today are Jewish and not Arab. But having said that I think that the residents of east Jerusalem or Palestinian Arab you know as part of a final status determination negotiated between Israel and the Palestinian leadership that Palestinian leadership could if it wishes lay claim to ah east Jerusalem as being the perspective capital of an independent Palestinian state. I don't think that claim should be foreclosed. And I don't think that that claim should be set aside. I'm saying that in the play of claims as between Israel and the Palestinians negotiating over Jerusalem I believe from every perspective as I have mentioned historical, moral you know juridical, demographic and the principal of self-determination Israel has a preferred claim. 25:41:24>>> IRWIN COTLER: But I would be prepared you know to listen and be responsive to the Palestinian Arab claim. and I don't believe that the resolution of Jerusalem is as great a problem as it is sometimes envisaged to be. It's a great problem if you don't accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East. It's a great problem if you don't accept as Arafat in the Camp David negotiations himself declared that there's any Jewish connection to Jerusalem. Because when you have a Palestinian leadership that chooses to deny that there's any Jewish connectedness you know to the temple mount. where you have a Palestinian leadership that is prepared to destroy Joseph's tomb which is one of the major historic, religious sights for Jews you know in Jerusalem and the West Bank. When you have that kind of attempted disconnectedness of the Jewish relationship to Jerusalem then the issue is far more profound than just a matter of resolving you know juridical and territorial claims. Then you have to go to what appears to be the real problem here the existential question do you accept a Jewish connectedness to Jerusalem as part of a Jewish connectedness and legitimacy in its self-determination to the state of Israel and to its capital of Jerusalem. INTERVIEWER: Do the Palestinians have a right to self determination and does that necessarily mean an independent Palestinian state? 27:29:10>>> IRWIN COTLER: I think number one that the Palestinians are a people that they have legitimate rights. That amongst those legitimate rights I would include the right to self determination. And with respect to the right to self determination I would also include the right to an independent Palestinian state. That has always been you know my position you know say for as I say over 30 years. Nothing has happened for me to change that position except for one thing. When I've advocated the right to self determination for Palestinians, you know it's been you know consistent, and their right in the course of that pursuit of self determination to an independent Palestinian state I've always added ah I wouldn't say the caveat but the referencing to an independent democratic Palestinian state. 28:28:11>>> IRWIN COTLER: I don't believe that there is a, a right let alone a responsibility for us to introduce another non democratic Palestinian state in the Middle East. On the contrary I think we have a responsibility not to introduce another non-democratic or anti democratic state in the Middle East even if it's a, a Palestinian state. And if we take seriously the Palestinian right to self determination, as I do, and if we take seriously you know the importance you know of a democratic Palestinian state then I think an independent democratic Palestinian state would be the only one which number one could satisfy Palestinians legitimate right to self determination. Otherwise such a state could become the source not the Palestinian self determination but the oppression of Palestinians as has happened under Arafat. Which I think has become a framework for the repression of Palestinian rights rather than the expression of Palestinian rights. 29:39:28>>> IRWIN COTLER: Two it would be the best guarantee for the security for the state of Israel because all empirical studies have shown that democracies don't make war on each other. And therefore the best guarantee for security of Israel is a democratic Palestinian state. And third and following from the first two that would also be the best guarantee for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. So I say yes I'm in support of the Palestinian people right to self determination but that right to self determination can only find expression in a democratic rights protecting Palestinian in the Middle East which would also be the best guarantee for the sedulity of Israel and the best guarantee for secure and lasting peace. INTERVIEWER: What are the similarities to Israel's reaction to terror and the US reaction to war on terror after 9/11? And Israel's level of response versus what would be commonly accepted by nations at large? 30:59:26>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think that there are certain foundational principals with respect to terrorism and the response to terrorism that should apply equally ah with respect to all acts of terror anywhere and with respect to all acts of self defense against terror. Now these principals are number one that terror from whatever source for whatever purpose regardless of the cause or grievance is always everywhere prohibited under international law. So whether we're talking about the attack on the World Trade Center 9/11 or whether we're talking about the series of almost ah mini 9/11's that have been endured by Israel I think that those acts of terrorism are prohibited whether it's 9/11 of whether it's um suicide bombings in Israel. I would have to say as well parenthetically that I think the term suicide bomber is a misnomer. Or even the term homicide bomber which was used to refine it is also a misnomer. 32:13:23>>> IRWIN COTLER: We're not talking about people how kill only themselves. We're talking about what I would call genocidal bombers. Where the conveyance or the charters of Hamas Islamic jihad and Hisballa publicly proclaim their call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews wherever they may be and the perpetration of terrorist acts in furtherance of those objectives. So when I call them genocidal bombers this is really the term that they have chosen for themselves by their own conveyance or charters as to how they definite their objectives. And when we're talking about genocidal bombers we are talking about the most obscene crimes against humanity. And those crimes against humanity can have no sanction anywhere under domestic or international law. Which brings me to the third principal. And the third principal is that any support, any financing of, any harboring of any provision of base or sanctuary for, any terrorist acts or any of these genocidal bombers is itself prohibited under international law. 33:32:25>>> IRWIN COTLER: And this brings me for the fourth maybe last foundational principals that states be it the United States or Israel have not only a right but a duty to protect their citizens from these terrorist acts. There is a related principal here that in the course of exercising the right of self defense states must act in accordance with norms of international humanitarian. That is to say principals of necessity and proportionality. There is no question that with respect to Israel which is faced with daily threats and assaults upon its citizenry that it has not only a right but a duty to respond to such crimes against humanity and such threats of mega terrorism which no other state in the international community including United States has been confronted by such a relentless and sustained you know acts of international terror. 34:42:19>>> IRWIN COTLER: I would also venture to say that Israelis has shown you know undue restraint almost in its exercise of self defense against the ah terrorism that it is confronting. There is no other case and situation in the world for example terrorist and their supporters have had the right in seeking direct relief from the supreme court of Israel for any alleged violations committed by Israel in its exercise of self defense against terrorist. Again Israel like any other state has to be responsible for any violations of international law but you have to understand the restraint under which Israel's been acting when the supreme court of that state has been open and accessible even to claims by terrorist themselves to violations by Israel of the rights of terrorists. INTERVIEWER: In light of September 11th is the conflict between a Palestinian state and a Jewish state or is it would you say much bigger broader international cultural conflict? 01:28:08>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think that there is a certain dimension to the Israeli Palestinian Arab conflict which is an existential dimension rooted in the denial of Arab and Palestinian leaderships historically to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state in the Middle East. But that's not a post 9/11 phenomenon that has been a historical pattern, as I referred to earlier, double rejectionism for going the establishing the Palestinian state if that meant countenancing a Jewish state. That position has been exacerbated in the post 9/11 universe by the launching of a war on terror against Israel. But that war on terror has really been the active implementation in a military sense of the political position of double rejectionism. So I, I see 9/11 as perhaps highlighting the phenomenon of and danger of international terrorism generally speaking but not as creating the existential problem as between Israel and, and it's Arab neighbors which the problem has been not to see Israel as a legitimate neighbor. Not in terms of Israel not referring to the Arabs as their neighbors. Just the discourse itself is quite revealing. The Israel lexicon always refers to the surrounding Arab countries and the Palestinians in terms of their neighbors. The Arab lexicon you know and Palestinians always refer to, to Israel in characterizations that do not recognize its legitimacy. Whether it's a Zionist entity or whatever a reluctance to, to, to recognize its legitimacy. 03:25:14>>> IRWIN COTLER: Now in terms of the larger issues whether we're talking here about a, a kind of conflict of civilizations and conflict of cultures I tend to see this not so much as a conflict between Islam and and the west. And I don't like to see it in those terms. I see this somewhat as a conflict within Islam itself. And the conflict within Islam between those who would in effect usurp Islam and convert it into an almost totalitarian ideology ah which seeks Islamic hegemony by their own acknowledgement ah globally (PHONE) speaking. INTERVIEWER: There are people some of the leaders of Islam characterize Israel as a puppet state of the United States and the embodiment of all that's bad about western culture in their midst. How do you respond to that? 05:05:13>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think one of the serious problems is where the double rejectoinism has been under pinned by a religious obligations. In other words where the rejection of Israel is something that is held out as being a religious obligation. And Jews and Judaism are characterized at the perfidious enemies of Islam. And then you have you know Muslim clerics issuing religious fatwas or execution rites against Israel and the Jewish. And so in this sense Israel emerges not only as the Jew among the nations but Israel emerges as the Solomon Rudgy among the nations. If we remember fatwa issued against the Muslim writer Solomon Rudgy for his alleged blasphemous writings against Islam. Ah well now you got a fatwa being issued against Israel and the Jewish people simply because they are a non Islamic state. But that is part of what I would call transnational ah Islamism terrorist ideology and networks who partake of a larger what might be called totalitarian Islamism ideology which seeks a form of global dominion and is prepared to engage in terrorist acts for that purpose and Israel is but the bridge head for them of, of the great Satan United States and Israel is nothing else but the sort of surrogate of United States in the Middle East. 06:46:15>>> IRWIN COTLER: That's also been true in some of you know Islamic thinking with regard to the non acceptance of Israel in the Middle East but that has taken on a certain you know sort of dangerous dimension in the past 9/11 universe as part of you know an Islamism totalitarian. That's why I think the real battle here is not between Islam and the west because Islam is really one of the really one of the great religions along with you know Judaism and Christianity, Buddhism and the like. What I think what we have here is a battle within Islam for the authentic soul of Islam which has been usurped by racial Islamism elements which purport to speak in the name of Islam but in, in fact subvert the teachings of Islam itself. And I must tell you that I've had you know law students who've written for you know papers on humanitarian law and Islam and Judaism and one would be you know very pleasantly surprised to see some of the parallels with regard to humanitarian doctrines in Islam and in Judaism and the like. The real danger today is the manner in which as I say authentic Islam has been usurped and modern Islam has been intimidated and silenced. 08:21:06>>> IRWIN COTLER: And I think the, the real battle in the years ahead will be a battle within Islam itself for the authentic voice of Islam to be heard and in that battle it's I think our responsibility to try to both encourage the expression of authentic Islam and not to identify it as a battle between civilizations because that then sets up an adversarial relationship between the west and Islam or between other religions and Islam. And I think that gives those who view usurped Islam a form of protective cover that they don't deserve. I think we have to unmask and expose those who usurp Islam and act contrary to any norms of international humanitarian law Islamic or otherwise there are certain universal principals here. And we have to hope that ah those within in ah intellectual, the moral, the religious leaders in Islam will asset their own authenticity and their own claims. INTERVIEWER: Would you say that Palestinian Israeli conflict has been hijacked by radical elements within Islam and being used to further their goals as we've been discussing? 09:55:25>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think that there's been a certain hijacking of the Israeli Palestinian conflict by radical Islamic elements such as you know Hamas and, and Islamic jihad. I have to say however part of the problem you know it goes back to the Oslo accords. Not the fact of the Oslo accords but with whom Israeli negotiating the Oslo accords. I think the problem is that the Oslo accords were not negotiated between Israeli and the authentic indigenous Palestinian leadership but rather they were negotiated with Arafat and those who did not seek to give expression to the authentic self determination of the Palestinian people but basically ah as part of the Oslo agreement ended up oppressing the Palestinian people while launching you know wars of terror against Israeli. So I think the, the regrettable part here has been those who were negotiating on behalf of the Palestinians who ended up ah negating both the rights of the Palestinians as well as the right of the Israelis. INTERVIEWER: In our recent interview with Bernard Lewis he characterized Arafat this way with regards to terrorism he said for Yassar Arafat to give up terrorism would be like Tiger Woods giving up golf. Is that something that you share that view of him? 11:37:12>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well I think he, he said it better in his own inimitable than, that I could. I have to tell you that my own experience, if I can put it this way, with Yassar Arafat outside the Israeli Palestinian conflict was to encounter him as one of the major human rights violators of our time. it's not that well known perhaps though it should be that it was Yassar Arafat that sent a congratulatory telegram to the Chinese authorities during the killings in Tenement Square. It's not perhaps still as well known as it once was that Yassar Arafat was a surrogate for soviet toatalarism and, and terrorism not only in the Middle East but elsewhere. It's not that well known that Yassar Arafat would cozy up to all the major human rights violators in Eastern Europe and else where. It's not all that well known that Yassar Arafat in his early acts of terror included not only you know Israelis but American ah ah nationals as targets of terror including the Akilla Laurel and the murder of Mr. Klinghoffer at the time. 12:47:12>>> IRWIN COTLER: In other words Yassar Arafat was not ah a legitimate interlockiter for peace purposes even leaving aside the Israeli Palestinian conflict because we had here one of the major human rights violators and consorters you know of our time. and therefore to in effect imposed him on the Palestinian people was really to deny to the Palestinians their right of self determination and determination of their own authentic leadership. To the extent that some of them connived in that I, I think it was a regrettable and denied themselves their own authentic expression. But Arafat is not and never was in my view a legitimate interlockiter you know for the Israeli Palestinian peace negotiations. INTERVIEWER: In the 1991 Gulf war Arafat sided with Saddam Hussein which brought him the condemnation of Arab states and the United States but now today we're dealing with Saddam Hussein and the follow up to the 1991 war? 14:09:21>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well you know I was talking about Yassar Arafat as a kind of mega human rights violator outside of even the Middle East. The identification of Arafat with Saddam Hussein in 1991 ah was such that one would have thought that this would have forever along with everything else that I mentioned and that could have been mentioned disqualified him as a legitimate peace negotiator. Regrettably it was Israel ah when Arafat was in free fall as a recognized terrorist the Israeli leadership at that the time rehabilitated him and as I said in a sense imposed him on the Palestinian people with one of the rather unhappy INAUDIBLE phrases of of ah prime minister Rabin whom I other wise you know admitted when we said well Arafat would not have a supreme court and a INAUDIBLE human rights group to concern himself with. In a way however inadvertently Israel subcontracted repression you know to ah Arafat and I think that that is regrettable and when the history of the Oslo accords will be you know completely written I think that that will not go well for the Israeli negotiating position. And we have you know 13 year 12 years later after the Iraq war both Saddam Hussein and Arafat are still in place and that I think speaks why we still have problems in the Middle East and with regard to Israelis and Palestinians. INTERVIEWER: If Saddam Hussein is removed from power do you think that will change the balance in the Middle East? 16:09:08>>> IRWIN COTLER: Well with regard to the looming war in Iraq and its impact on the Middle East let me say and make full disclosure here I not only hope that there will not be a war my own view is that this would be the wrong the war, the wrong time. I have to say this in order to ultimately answer the question. Number one I do believe that UN security counsel resolution 1441 is the appropriate judicial framework with respect to the situation
Italy and the Achille Lauro Crisis
In Rome, deputy secretary of state John Whitehead delivers a letter from President Reagan to recently resigned Italian prime minister Bettino Craxi regarding the Achille Lauro hijacking crisis. Italian politicians gather to establish a new government in the wake of Craxis resignation. The coffin carrying the body of Leon Klinghoffer, a ship passenger who was killed by the hijackers, is driven to the airport. The Genoa magistrate announces he will prosecute the ships hijackers. PLEASE NOTE News anchor and reporter image and audio, along with any commercial production excerpts, are for reference purposes only and are not clearable and cannot be used within your project.
[Abu Abbas arrest]
FR3 / France 3
Newsreel - sound - French narration - Political kidnappings in Lebanon, hostages - Kilburn, Jenco, Jacobsen, blown up car, hostages on hijacked TWA plane, pilots talk to press, hijacked ship Achille Lauro, man who was pushed off ship - Leon Klinghoffer, terrorists behind bars, hijacked plane on runway, night - plane on fire, day- inspection of burned plane - terrorism - Middle East - 1985
00:00:00:00 Scenes from opera Death of Klinghoffer. (0:00)/
00:00:00:00 Honor Guards wheeling Klinghoffer's coffin off the plane/ (0:00)/
State Department Briefing (1996)
Department of State deputy spokesperson Glyn Davies briefs reporters. Topics include China / Taiwan, Italy and the Middle East.
[Arrest of Mohamed Abbas, aka Abu Al Abbas]
FR3 / France 3
00:00:00:00 Klinghoffer coffin draped w/US flag at the airport, loaded into van/ van drives off. (0:00)/
Questions surrounding the shooting incident outside the White House topped today's White House briefing. White House Spokesman Ari Fleischer provided few details about the incident but confirmed that the President, who was exercising inside the residence at the time, was never in danger. Fleischer also confirmed the suspect was shot by Secret Service agents.
[Portrait of terrorist Abu Abbas]
A2 / France 2