Senate Internal Security Subcommittee holds hearing on the possibility that Truman's appointee to the IMF was a Communist
00:00:00:00 - (0:00) /
Title reads: "Camera snaps bank thief". <br/> <br/>New York City, United States of America (USA). <br/> <br/>G/V interior New York bank. C/U automatic movie cameras fitted on the wall. C/U another of the cameras. Angle shot third of the cameras. High angled L/S bank counter from the automatic cameras: on left of second pillar cashier, Miss Kilkenny, is handing over a thousand dollars to a man who has handed her a threatening note. The robber starts to run out of the bank dropping some of the money, two bank clerks start to give chase. C/U one of the cameras. L/S bank counter with Miss Kilkenny being helped by another worker away from the counter. C/U Miss Kilkenny at the counter. <br/> <br/>Note: cameras perform similar crime preventing function to modern Closed Circuit Television Cameras (CCTV).
Weekend Investigation: Big Crime: drones at the service of organized crime
A2 / France 2
1990s NEWS
News Clip: Serial robberies
Video footage from the KXAS-TV/NBC station in Fort Worth, Texas, to accompany a news story.
Security Camera
Crime caught on tape. Security surveillance camera in an underground parking garage photographs young black crime suspect.
Crime Cams; 10/25/00
Security camera footage of armed robbery taking place in store; Secuity camera stills of crimes; Cars drive away past camera on busy four lane county road; CU sign ofr keeping car safe from auto theft or robbery "LOCK IT UP" (with picture of car); MCU Security camera moving on telephone pole; Two women walk dogs near park; CU empty picnic table; Security guard seated infront of security camera monitors; Shot of another security camera on city street;
Interview with Mitchell Bard pt 2
INTERVIEWER: ,Mothers sending their kids out to be blown up and glorifying their martyrdom- 02:18:06>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,One of the problems with the terrorists in the Palestinian Authority is there seems to be an acceptance by many of the families that rather than saying to their children that you should be at home-and in school studying they allow them to go out not only to participate in demonstrations against Israeli soldiers but now to be actively involved in terrorism-strapping bombs onto their chests and blowing up women and children in shopping malls and in bus stations and it's quite remarkable that this would be acceptable behavior to a parent. And one of the things I often say to people is that you'll know that a change is taking place in the Palestinian Authority, a movement toward peace when you start to see mothers protesting against the Palestinian Authority government the way women have protested against governments in many other countries like Argentina and even Israel. If you think about one of the reasons Israel withdrew from Lebanon it was because of women, mothers, who campaigned and protested and demonstrated in front of the Israeli Prime-Minister's house day after day for months and years. And someday perhaps Palestinian mothers will also begin to circle and demonstrate Yasser Arafat's headquarters and say, Enough! Stop sending our children out to be human bombs! We want our children to grow up as doctors and lawyers and to go to school and to live normal lives. I think until that happens, as long they're willing to accept their children becoming terrorists it's hard to see how this violence will end. INTERVIEWER: ,But it seems like they're desensitized- 02:20:02>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,Palestinian children, families aren't being taught or given the option of a peaceful future by their leaders. And on the contrary they are given incentives by countries like Saudi Arabia and Saddam Hussein in Iraq because they have very low incomes in the Palestinian Authority and are being offered huge sums of money from Saddam Hussein, for example 25,000 dollars to be a suicide bomber. ,So there's a financial incentive for many people to adopt terror as a tactic-These incentives in terms of financial rewards for being a terrorist are giving the parents and families reason to allow their children to go out and blow up bus stations and pizzerias and dance halls, and the children themselves see this as a way of providing for their families. There's also the religious aspect that these children are being taught by some of the religious leaders in the Palestinian Authority in sermons that they hear every week at the Mosque that if they commit some terrorist atrocity, as long as it's against the Jews or the Zionists, that they will have a place in Paradise, and all sorts wonderful descriptions of Paradise are given to them with all the things they will get: virgins and other rewards if they commit these kinds of crimes in the name of Allah. Most Muslims I think believe that this is a misrepresentation of authentic Islam, but there are enough Muslim preachers and people like Osama Bin Laden filling kids heads with these notions of some kind of reward in the hereafter for committing terrorist atrocities that many are choosing this as their path. INTERVIEWER: ,What is the relationship between the Arab/Israeli conflict-and September 11th? 02:22:58>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,I'm not sure if there is a direct connection between terrorism in the Middle East toward Israel and terrorism on a global scale or in the United States. There is a terrorist movement directed at anyone who does not support the goals and aims of those terrorists. In specific, the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated September 11th and who are behind many of the atrocities against Israel, have a world view in which Islam is the authentic religion of the world and all those who are not Muslim must either subjugate themselves to Islam or be destroyed. And they are willing to wage a Jihad, a Holy War, in order to bring about a reconstitution of the glorious Muslim empire of centuries ago or in the more idealistic sense, to conquer the entire world for Islam. Now Jihad means struggle in Arabic and it can be pursued in different ways but the terrorists themselves make clear that it means just what it's often referred to as, Holy War. Islamic Jihad, one of the terrorist organizations in the Palestinian Authority, says that it is determined to bring about an Islamic republic. And one of the problems in the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is that even if Israel were to accept tomorrow the Arab peace plan to withdraw to the 1967 borders, it wouldn't bring about an end to the terrorism because the groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have said quite specifically that they will not cease their terrorist attacks until Israel withdraws to the border of the Mediterranean Sea, and as long as a Jewish state exists, that is a reason for them to continue their terror. INTERVIEWER: ,Lets say that Israel was a Christian state, would things be any different? 02:25:11>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,The terrorist threat is not one directed specifically and solely against Jews, Jews are one of the targets of the Islamic fundamentalists because they are part of that world of the infidel. But that applies as well to other faiths, Christian in particular. There's a long history of how Christians have been mistreated in Lebanon for example. In most of the Arab world the Christian population is either non-existent or very small and persecuted as it is in the Palestinian Authority for example or in Egypt. The only place where Christians are free to practice as they wish in the Middle East, is in Israel. And this is why there is also a threat to Western interests. They have a fight to pick with the West and its values not just in terms of religious values but in terms of secular, non-religious values, so, Israel aside, even if Israel didn't exist or if Israel were a country with no Jews whatsoever there would still be a reason for the Islamic fundamentalist terrorist to exist and to perpetrate the kinds of atrocities it did on September 11th. INTERVIEWER: ,Clarify- 02:26:54>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,In addition to not believing in the same faith as Muslims, another threat that some of the Islamic world see to their way of life is the modernization, Westernization, free-market capitalism and other non-spiritual aspects of society that are promoted by Western, liberal democracies like the United States. In Islam, everything is encompassed, it's a worldview, it includes politics, it includes economics, that's why you can't have a separation of Church and State. So that the kinds of values that are being brought to the Middle East, to Islamic societies by the United States in particular because of our economic prominence in the world are threats to what they view as a kind of pure society governed by the Koran. So that is something that is found to be very threatening, they don't like this McDonald's franchisement of the Middle East. INTERVIEWER: ,Israel- 02:28:09>>>,MITCHELL BARD: ,Israel becomes a particular target of the fundamentalists because it is seen by many of the Muslims as a kind of Western outpost in the middle of this Islamic heartland which is pursuing similar liberal, democratic values of free-market society, an open society that is not strictly based on a religious worldview, and it is exporting those values to other places in the world. And it is also seen as a kind of Western, American outpost that is bringing American values which Israel shares and seen as a threat to their values. INTERVIEWER: ,Going back to the issue of missed opportunities-There have been numerous offers by Israel to trade land for peace, can you talk about that? 02:30:02>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,Israel has had the idea of trading land for peace from the very beginning of Zionist settlement almost because of the recognition that Jews had to live and share this land with another people who also were living there and that's why the Zionists accepted the idea of partition, dividing Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state and it was the Arabs who rejected that idea of compromise. It was after the '67 war, after Israel recaptured the West Bank and unified Jerusalem after being attacked by Jordan, that Israel said to the Arabs, we're willing to give you back most of that territory in exchange for secure and defensible borders, and that's in fact what Resolution 242 from the UN says: that Israel should trade territory, some territory, not all of the territory, for secure and defensible borders and it's been prepared to do that ever since. And when it engaged in the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians, it did so on the basis of a model that worked. That is, the trade of land for peace with Egypt. And what happened was, Israel didn't immediately give back all of the Egyptian territory to Anwar Sadat, they tested him. They said, We'll give you back a little bit of land, and see if you keep the peace. And Sadat did. They gave back a little bit more land and Sadat continued to keep the peace. 02:31:33>>>,Sadat wasn't a Zionist, he didn't love the Israelis, he didn't like everything they did, they didn't withdraw far enough or fast enough or do everything he wanted, but he kept the peace. And Israel saw from that that it could afford to take the risk of returning territory to Egypt in exchange for peace. That's what Israel thought it was getting at Oslo, that Arafat had become Sadat. That he was going to keep the peace and Israel could give him back some territory in exchange. But what happened was rather than follow the Sadat model and keep the peace Yasser Arafat did the exact opposite. That almost immediately he engaged in violence, and every time Israel didn't do what he wanted or didn't withdraw far enough or fast enough to suit his interests he engaged in terrorism or fomented an Intifada, and from that the Israelis concluded the exact opposite of what they did with Sadat, which is that the Palestinians didn't seem willing to make peace, and that compromising territory would not bring about an end to the conflict with them. INTERVIEWER: ,Lets talk about the settlements- 02:33:03>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,The settlements are a difficult issue. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, if I said to someone that Jews shouldn't be allowed to live in Washington, D.C., they'd say it's outrageous, it's discrimination, it's Antisemitism, it shouldn't be allowed. And yet almost every day you can hear Palestinian spokespeople say, Jews shouldn't be allowed to live in Judea and Samaria, where they've lived for centuries, longer than Palestinians have really lived there. It's outrageous, it's Antisemitism, it's discrimination, it shouldn't be allowed. Secondly, you hear people say all the time that, the settlements are an obstacle to peace. Well I'm a political scientist, and as a political scientist I am interested in empirical evidence, and what's the empirical evidence for the case against settlements? 02:33:50,Well, prior to 1967, there were no settlements. And yet, the Arab states refused to make peace. From '67 to '77 there were only a handful of settlements, and yet the Arab states refused to make peace. In 1977 Menachem Begin comes to power and begins to build a whole bunch of settlements, and what happens? Anwar Sadat makes peace. But Begin agreed to freeze settlement building in the hope that other Arab states would join the peace process, none of them did. So Israel began to build settlements, built more in the '80s into the '90s then Yasser Arafat signs the Oslo agreement. Israel doesn't make any change in it's settlement policy. Then King Hussein makes peace. Again, Israel makes no change in its settlement policy. Israel continues to build settlements. In 2000, Ehud Barak offers to give the Palestinians a state, 95 percent of the West Bank and to withdraw from more than one hundred settlements, and yet the Palestinians rejected the proposal. ,So if you look at the history, first a number of agreements were signed, even though the settlements were being built, and even when Israel agreed not to build settlements, the Arab states weren't willing to make peace. So there's really no evidence that the settlements are an obstacle to peace. Now those two things having been said, there's still a question of whether it's a good idea for Jews to live in parts of the West Bank, just as there may be places in Washington, D.C. that Jews don't want to live for a variety of reasons, it may be that there will be places in Judea and Samaria that Jews may not want to live or shouldn't live for political or practical reasons. And that's really what the negotiations have to be about and why settlements were made a part of the final-status agreement, or final-status settlement. INTERVIEWER: ,Why are so many people willing to die over that little bit of land? Has Israel ever engaged in an offensive war? 02:36:21>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,People sometimes wonder why so much blood is spilled over this tiny plot of land in the Middle East. Historically it's been a crossroads between Asia and Africa, a key trade route, and important place throughout history. It's also a place that's holy to three religions. It's the birthplace of Judaism, the birthplace of Christianity, an important place where some of Mohammed's miracles were performed. So from a religious point of view it's a very important area of the world. You have a Jewish historical connection that dates back centuries- [INTERRUPTION] 02:37:26>>>,The area known as Palestine for part of history, and the land of Israel for most of history was a birthplace to Judaism and to Christianity and an important place in some of the events of Mohammad's life. Many Jews believe that it was promised to them by God. They have lived uninterruptedly there for roughly two thousand years, and even before that lived for many centuries and had an independent state, and had longed for a return to that state throughout all of the years when Israel didn't exist. Religious services, on a daily basis Jews would pray for the return to Jerusalem and regaining their independence. So it's always been an important place, especially in the Jewish faith, but also to other people in the region for political, practical, historical reasons. So it's no surprise that the Middle East continues to be a source of conflict today. INTERVIEWER: What right did Israelis have to build settlements in the first place? MITCHELL BARD: Jews began to live in what people call settlements, really just Jewish towns and villages, after 1967 because there was uncertainty about what the future of the territories were going to be, and the belief that in fact that area was part of the historic land of Israel, that Jews had at least as much claim, if not more claim to than any other people. So initially the idea was to build Jewish outposts for security reasons. The first handful of settlements were mainly designed to protect Israel from a security perspective. Later more Jews began to move into parts of the West Bank for religious and ideological reasons because many of the spots in Judea and Samaria had great Biblical and historical significance. A place like Hebron where in fact Jews did live for centuries until an Arab massacre drove all of them out in 1929, is the home of the cave of the Patriarchs of the Jewish faith. 02:40:17>>>,So it's a very important place for religious reasons. There are also many Jews who live in areas close to what used to be the border of 1967 who simply moved a few kilometers from where they once lived because it was a good place to live, because they had received certain economic incentives that made it possible for them to get nice houses at lower interest rates in an area that was very close to where they worked or went to school. , So, gradually Israel began to build up these areas as they waited to see if any Arab partner would ever emerge to discuss how they might be divided up. Building settlements in and of themselves does not prevent a negotiation or even an eventual withdrawal from certain parts of the territories. This was the case in Egypt for example. Israel did build settlements in the Sinai. And it was a very painful process for Israel to withdraw from the settlements. And also airbases and oil fields and to give up quite a lot for the intangible of peace. And Israelis have repeatedly said that they're willing to make similar kinds of sacrifices in the West Bank if they are assured of having peace at the end of it. INTERVIEWER: Strategic reasons- 02:42:20>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,Geography is one of the most important factors in the Arab/Israeli conflict and very difficult to appreciate, from the United States especially. Israel is a very small country, roughly the size of New Jersey, and when we talk about making territorial concessions on the West Bank for example we're talking about Israel giving up a part of their territory which provides a certain amount of buffer against a military threat. For example: if Israel were to give up all the territory back to the '67 lines, the Joint Chief of Staffs of the United States said this would be an indefensible border and that it would be unreasonable to withdraw to there. Prior to 1967, at it's narrowest point Israel was only nine miles wide. You can think of something in your own experience that's only nine miles long. George Bush jokes about having driveways in Crawford, Texas that are longer than nine miles. So we're talking about a very small area that Israel is being asked to compromise over which has very profound potential impact on its security. INTERVIEWER: ,What drives the Palestinian struggle today? 02:44:30>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,The Palestinians today seem to be committed to what many of them have been committed to since beginning their terrorist organizations back in the late fifties and early sixties, and that is to replace the state of Israel with the state of Palestine, rather than create a state of Palestine that would live in peace beside Israel. And you can see it by going to the Palestinian Authority website where they have a map of Palestine that doesn't show a Palestinian state in the West Bank beside Israel, it shows just, Palestine instead of Israel. You see the same thing on the patch that Yasser Arafat wears on his uniform arm, he's the head Fatah movement, their symbol is all of Palestine. Even the way he wears his Kaffiyeh, he wears it in a very unusual way. His headdress is unlike anybody else in the Arab world. He wears it specifically draped over his shoulder in the shape of Palestine, that is, all of Israel. And so one of the problems for Israel is finding a way to negotiate with people who are openly saying their objective is to destroy Israel. INTERVIEWER: ,Use a Hollywood metaphor- 02:46:11>>> MITCHELL BARD: ,When you ask Jews what Hollywood movie best exemplifies the Israeli experience or that they learned about Israel through, it would be: Exodus. And if you think about it, there's really no comparable movie to explain the Palestinian connection to their cause. The one that comes to mind though is: The Godfather. [ROBIN STARTS TYPING HERE] Because Yasser Arafat is really the godfather. He runs a mob office, where if you cross Yasser Arafat, if you try to suggest that peace and coexistence with Israel are a better option than terror, you're going to get whacked. Just as the Godfather's opponents are. ,So, in order to really understand Palestinian authority, and Palestinian society, I think it's, in a way of getting an insight into their behavior towards defectors. Because, there is no room for deception. That's why if you hose Yasser Arafat, you typically are arrested, tried and shot. Usually in the same day. And it's very difficult for some so-called leader to emerge when that is the reality that they live in. INTERVIEWER:, How does his impact on the hopes of peace? Why don't you see any hope? 02:47:50>>> MITCHELL BARD:,There is always hope for peace. There are Palestinians, I believe, who honestly would like to lead normal lives, go to school, have jobs, live in peace, have to deal with Israelis, one way or the other. Or they do, only in trade and commerce, and peaceful ways. And Israelis are committed to peace and desperately want peace. No Israeli mother or father wants to have to send their child to the army. To have to send them to places like Ramala and Jeanine, in the Gaza Strip, where they sometimes have to do unpleasant things to protect the safety of the civilian population of Israel. That no Israeli family wants to have to worry about going to a public bus, or a movie theater, a pizzeria. They desperately want peace. And I think there is hope that someday there can be some level of coexistence. But it's not going to be perfect peace. Israel is in the Middle East, not the Middle West. Israel will never have the relationship with its neighbors, that the United States has with our neighbors, Canada and New Mexico. Largely because of this radical, Islamic, fundamentalist presences. Those fundamentalists who will never accept the idea of a Jewish state in any boundaries of the Middle East. 02:49:07>>>,So, for Israel, the best hope is to try to maximize the amount of peace that you get, and minimize the risk. And this may be done through negotiations with the Palestinians. And hopefully it will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state that will be satisfactory to the majority of Palestinian people, and to provide a secure state for Israel. Or, alternatively, many Israelis believe that there is no point negotiating with the Palestinians because they've shown that they can't compromise, they're unwilling to compromise, and that the best solution may be to unilaterally withdraw; to build a fence along the 67' border, with some modifications for security, and then to simply withdraw all of the troops and all the civilians behind that boundary, and to say that's it, we're finished. This is the new boundary of the State of Israel. Palestinians, we hope you live a long, prosperous life with a Democratic State on your side. If you threaten us, we will defend ourselves. If you want to negotiate sometime in the future, we are prepared to do that, and maybe we can move that fence. But for now this is how we will proceed. So, this is basically the only two options that Israel has. And each of them offer, at least, some hope of a degree of peace and security. But there is no perfect peace in the Middle East, as long as you have radical fundamentalists committed to Jihad. INTERVIEWER:,What has to happen - what has to be in place before you believe that a meaningful negotiation can take place? MITCHELL BARD:,In order there - for there to be - before there can be meaningful negotiations - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] [CHANGING TAPES]
1990s NEWS
AFP-143BE 16mm VTM-143BE Beta SP
airport security hearing / 1500 - 1515 / witness camera
house judiciary subcommittee on crime to feature gao testimony on security at federal buildings - gao with fake nypd badges , movie props and counterfeit identification using commercial software and internet websites "successfully" penetrated" the cia , pentagon , fbi doj, ins , faa, and other locations.
Generic security camera video of "smash and grab" in a clothing store.
Interview with Bibi Netanhayu
Interview with Bibi Netanhayu who discusses the Palestinian and Israel situation, the suicide bombers and attempts to settle the issues., INTERVIEWER:,In the United States, and elsewhere in the world, suicide bombings are often depicted as acts of desperation. Acts that people are doing because they have no choice. Do you think these are acts of desperation or do they have a larger significance? Are they part of a larger struggle to impress the world, and obtain sympathy for them, but that they really mask a larger purpose and a larger goal?,03:01:03>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well, they're not acts of desperation, they're acts of inculcation. They're systemic methods of inculcating the cult of suicide, and the cult of death, the cult of mass murder in these children - in these youngsters - from Kindergarten, on. It's a school system, a totalitarian police state, that has marked the technique of suicide for the purpose of polycide. Polycide being the liquidation of a state. In this case, the State of Israel. I think that this whole notion that suicide bombings, or that terror as a whole comes from the frustrations of a lack of freedoms, national and individual, and that this is what is causing terrorism is ridiculous. Because in the last two hundred years, in the modern period, we've had thousands of struggles, hundreds of struggles for national liberation, for Civil Rights. ,Martin Luther King did not use terror bombings. Mahatma Gandhi didn't use terror bombings. The French Résistance didn't use terror bombings. The Pol's and the Czech's, and others didn't use terror bombing. Not in the 20th Century, not in the 19th Century. , INTERVIEWER:,Why are these people so different? ,03:02:14>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Because they're not democrats. All of these people who fought for Civil Rights, or national liberation, believed in democracy. They believed in the fundamental ideals, the government of a democratic society. Namely that every person, including your enemy or opponent, has certain rights. And the most important right that you're endowed with is the right to live. So, a baby, whether he belongs to you or belongs to your opponent, has a right to live. You can't just blow him up. The terrorists don't believe that because they're not democrats, they're totalitarians. Their whole mentality is that you're - you don't have to believe or respect the human rights of others. In fact, you can obliterate them, and obliterate a busload of children. Because you have some total goal in mind that is so total, so commanding that it allows you - indeed it calls you to obliterate conventional morality. And the name for this is totalitarianism. This is what Nazism is all about. This is what Talibanism is all about. This is what Arafatism is all about. You inculcate these children, these youngsters, with this larger goal which supposedly allows you to forsake all conventional morality. That is the root cause of terrorism - totalitarianism. , INTERVIEWER:,Are these people, these people portray themselves as freedom fighters, and they portray Israeli's as occupiers. How do we explain that to people? ,03:03:37>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,No, there's a mix up here of two things; first of all, terrorism is illegitimate, regardless of what your purpose is. That is, some acts of waging conflict are illegitimate in and of themselves. If you're fighting for the allied cause, in World War II, and you line up a bunch of German women and children against the wall, and you shoot them, you've just committed a war crime. You're not allowed to do that. It doesn't make any difference if your cause is right or not right. If your cause is just or unjust. Some methods of waging conflict, like terrorism, the deliberate and systematic assault on the innocent, are illegitimate, it doesn't make any difference, they're criminal. So, it doesn't make any difference if they claim that we're occupiers or not, they're not allowed to engage in terrorism, anyway. And the second thing, of course, is they're lying. This is contested, disputed territories. We have a historical plan for them, only 3500 years old - thousands of years before any Arab set foot here. And they have a claim, we'll negotiate those claims around a peace table, but not using these bombs. , INTERVIEWER:,Isn't it important to make clear that the settlement, a). are not illegal, b). do not interrupt or prevent contiguity, and c). occupy only a percent or two of the land? Shouldn't we be - ,03:04:55>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well, the whole settlement issue is just a convenient smokescreen for what the real issue of the conflict is. We didn't have a single settlement in 1964, when Arafat established the organizations to liberate Palestine. In fact The West Bank, Gaza, Judea, and Samaria, they were in Arab hands. They were supposedly liberated. So what was the Palestine that Arafat set out to liberate, three years before Israel even set foot, in recent times at least, in the West Bank? And the answer is, it was all of Israel, it was Tel Aviv, it was Haifa, Jerusalem. The very existence of the State of Israel is abhorrent. And similarly, when it was offered - all of that territory by previous Israeli government, or virtually all of it - that he discarded it. Because, he said, well that's not what I want. I want all of Israel and any boundary. ,03:05:48>>>,So our being in the settlements, the territories, are a result of the Arab attacks against Israel, the attack in 1967, and not its cause. Just as the refugees, the presence of Palestinian refugees in the world, is not the cause of the Arab attack against Israel, in 1948. It was the result of it. What the Arab propaganda is doing, especially Palestinian propaganda, is to reverse the cause and effect. It is to turn the consequences of Arab aggression, lots of territories, presence of refugees, into their cause - into the cause of the conflict. The real persistent, and unfortunately unchanging root cause of this conflict, is the persistent Arab refusal, the Palestinian refusal, to recognize Israel in any way. , INTERVIEWER:,Do we want to - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] You have said, and I have read your books, and I've enjoyed you tremendously - you have said, that you want the Palestinians to have some form of self rules, if I'm not mistaken. You said that, that it's not that we want to rule over them, it's that we want to help them rule themselves. But, in some limited form, I wonder if you might, perhaps amplify if there's any way in which the Palestinians could have self rule, and - or maybe you would say that, in fact, they had it. ,03:07:14>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,I don't want to govern a single Palestinian. They should govern themselves. They should enjoy feeling self-confident, they should enjoy self-determination. We want that to happen. The reason it's not happening is not because we won't give it to them, it's because they're not satisfied with that. What they want is not a state, or political - an independent, political entity, next to Israel. They want a state instead of Israel. And that's what Arafat is truly teaching his people. That's what he says in Arabic. That's what his state controlled media are inculcating the minds of the children; we will obliterate Israel, we'll liberate (as they say) all of Palestine (wink, wink, everybody understand that means Tel Aviv), and any Jewish presence here. And we'll do it through the technique of suicide and terror bombing. ,03:07:58>>>,So this is the reason this thing is not getting solved. Whereas with Arab leaders, like the late Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, or the late King Hussein of Jordan, we could make peace because they told their people it's over. Peace is not a technique of war, it's not an interim stage in which we get territory in order to drive the Jews to the sea, it's over. NO more war. Our great disappointment is that we thought that Arafat would turn out to be a Palestine King Hussein. He turned out to be a Palestinian Saddam Hussein. And with Saddam Hussein, as with Hitler, you can't make peace because they're not out to make peace, they're out to obliterate you. , INTERVIEWER:,The leaders we spoke with, the Palestinian leaders we spoke with here, indicated that. Some of the Hamas leaders, that we spoke with, indicated that this is a war that not only - [OFF CAMERA COMMENTS] The Hamas leaders indicated, in their discussions with us, that this is not a war against Israel. Israel is only the first step. That it is a war against western values, and they feel that they will ultimately prevail because western values are corrupt. ,03:08:58>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well, I think there's a worldwide movement that - unmitigated fanaticism that its core has a wild Islamic fundamentalism. Of that tree there are a lot of poison branches in the Palestinian radical movements, both secular and Islamist, are part of that. Hamas, perhaps, wants to obliterate Western presence and the West period and the United States, just like Al Qaeda does. Arafat is more modest. He just wants to obliterate Israel. ,But the main difference between Arafat and Hamas, when it comes to Israel, is that Arafat is merely Hamas with good PR. We've got people who speak the language of peace of the West. But effectively, in the Middle East, where it really comes to is only people who speak the language of war and destruction - the obliteration of the Jewish State, and the glorification of the Shahedeen[PH] of suicide bombers. For god sakes, he names public streets, squares, and football teams, schools, after these killers. Contrast this to King Hussein, who came to a family of six little Israel school girls killed by a Palestinian - by a Jordanian soldier, and just wept before the families and said, please forgive us. Here's the difference. The reason we can't solve it with Arafat, whereas we could solve it with Hussein, we could solve it with Anwar Sadat, is because they wanted peace and Arafat just wants the progressive pieces of Israel, until our final liquidation. You can't make peace with somebody like that. He's got to go, for the sake of - not only for the sake of peace between us and our Palestinian neighbors, but also for the possibility for a more responsible, more moderate leadership to emerge, with whom we can make, finally, peace - and restore security for all of us. , INTERVIEWER:,There are many people who - , BIBI NETANYAHU:,This is the last question. , INTERVIEWER:,This is it. , BIBI NETANYAHU:,Yeah. , INTERVIEWER:,Many people in this country are - seem to be despairing, at this point. I mean there - they think their approach is right, security, but there's this very long-term solution. And some of them are saying, the answer may be that there is no answer. The answer may be that we have to continue living almost as though you're living with a sick person who doesn't get any better, but who doesn't die. ,03:11:20>>>, BIBI NETANYAHU:,Well I disagree with that. I think there is hope. But you have to understand the nature of the problem. The source of the terror, and the source of the enduring conflict is the presence of these tyrannical regimes that inculcate suicide, and the cult of blood, and the hatred of the existence of Israel in their midst. That this is not merely here, this is a worldwide problem. ,03:11:44>>>, And I think the solution to that is first remove the tyranny, just like you did with Nazism. The first thing that has to go is the regime. But you don't stop there. I mean, the Allies, when we moved Hitlerism and Hitler, they then proceeded to embark on a Marshal Plan, a plan to democratize and deNazify Germany. And I think this is what has to be done with a regime like Arafat's. You not only have to change the leadership, change the regime, you need a regime change of the most fundamental sense of the world. That is, not to replace a dictator with another dictator. But replace dictatorship with democracy, or, if you will, with democratization. ,With a controlled movement, an allusion towards a more ventilated, open, more pluralistic society and economy, by the way, and certainly with a totally different school system, that will enable these people to have a future and to have a choice. Today they have no choice. They're taught self immolation. ,END OF INTERVIEW
News Clip: Bank robbery films
Video footage from the WBAP-TV station in Fort Worth, Texas to accompany a story about the Mosler Safe Company of Dallas which sells motion picture surveillance cameras to banks. The story includes actual bank robbery footage recorded on these cameras.
Thought to be Selected Originals from late 1940s material. <br/> <br/>Nuremberg, Germany. <br/> <br/>The Nuremberg security check tightens as the trial nears its completion. Various shots of white helmeted American Military Policemen checking passes of German civilians at the gates of the courthouse. M/S Sir Norman Birkett, British criminal lawyer and one of the presiding judges, arriving at the courthouse. Birkett poses for the camera at the entrance of the courthouse. M/S Lord Justice Lawrence, the chief judge at the trial, arriving at the courthouse. He shows his pass to an American Military Policeman at the gates. C/U Lord Justice Lawrence posing for the camera at the entrance to the courthouse. <br/> <br/>Possibly connected with 46/77 - MD.
8 p.m.: [November 21, 2022 program]
A2 / France 2
Caught on Camera
Convenience store security / surveillance camera catches a crime on camera. Convenience store robbery. Robber cleans out a cash register.
Rudolf Hess leaves courtroom during testimony at Nuremberg war crimes trial