Newsweek International previews talks on installing a new EU president but questions how much clout the official will have once in office.
“In the past, there was just a president of the Commission to choose. But now the EU has greater ambitions. Its new treaty, currently going through its last ratification hurdles after interminable wrangling, calls for the selection of a president of the European Council. The post mixes the mundane, like chairing the meetings of the 27 heads of government, with the task of representing Europe globally. EU leaders have yet to define which is more important-making sure the agenda is ready, the pencils sharpened and the chairs in place for the council meeting, or being a bully-pulpit president of Europe who walks through the door at the White House, the Kremlin and the Forbidden City in Beijing and makes clear that the voice of Europe is important and heard around the world.”
Only a few hours after being inaugurated as Russia’s president, Dmitri Medvedev nominated Vladimir Putin to be prime minister. News reports suggest that the number of deputy prime ministers will be increased, a move that would surely strengthen Putin’s already powerful hand.
In a keynote lecture at the “Russia at the Crossroads” conference at the University of Illinois on March 27, 2008, Leon Aron argues that the ideology, priorities, and policies of the Putin Kremlin “are almost certain to inform and guide the Medvedev administration.” His chilling portrait describes the distinctive elements of “Russia, Inc.”
Moscow and Washington signed a long-awaited nuclear cooperation agreement. The U.S. State Department said the deal will increase international joint venture opportunities in the civilian nuclear sector between Russia and the United States.
Outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin has defended plans to roll tanks and missiles through Moscow at the end of the week, declaring that the display is not intended to “threaten anyone.” It is the first time in many years Moscow’s Victory Day parade will include armaments.
The Wall Street Journal reports on how rising nationalism has provoked a trade backlash and may hinder global environmental negotiations.
“Some of the world’s biggest new investors are government-run investment funds. In the Middle East and Russia, sovereign wealth funds are powered by oil revenue; in Asia, they’re fed by other export earnings. In all, the funds have a total of $3 trillion in revenue and have used the money to buy stakes in Citigroup Inc., Merrill Lynch & Co. and other battered Wall Street firms. While the infusions have been lauded by the U.S. Treasury and capital-short Wall Street firms, they also aroused suspicions here and internationally that the investors could have political agendas.
Now, many national governments are raising barriers against such foreign investment. The U.S., Canada, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Hungary and Greece are proposing or enacting restrictions on investment by state-owned firms from other countries, according to a forthcoming study by the Council of Foreign Relations. China and Russia, which have sovereign wealth funds, are staking out ’strategic sectors’ where foreign investment would be restricted, say the study’s authors, investment-law specialist David Marchick and Dartmouth economist Matthew Slaughter.”
A report from the Nixon Center, a research organization focused on U.S. foreign policy, examines Europe’s energy dependence on Russia and its ramifications for the future of EU energy security.
Sollte Silvio Berlusconi bei den kommenden Parlamentswahlen gewinnen, prophezeit der italienische Philosoph Paolo Flores d’Arcais im Gespräch mit der Süddeutschen Zeitung, “wird er Regierungschef für fünf Jahre, und dann wird er sich am Ende der Legislaturperiode zum Staatspräsidenten mit weiteren sieben Jahren Amtszeit wählen lassen. Zwölf Jahre Berlusconi-Kur - danach dürfte die italienische Demokratie ungefähr so aussehen wie die russische.”
by John R. Bolton, former Permanent US Representative to the United Nations & Senior Vice President for Public Policy Research at the American Enterprise Institute
Washington DC, Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence creates an extraordinary risk of instability in the Balkans. It has immediately exacerbated ethnic tensions, invited further border alterations along ethnic or religious lines, provided a potentially inviting base of operations for radical Islamists from outside Europe and has expanded the growing range of issues once again threatening to divide Russia from the West.
However, one issue that has received only peripheral attention is the hypocrisy of those European Union members that have recognized Kosovo’s declaration despite the lack of authorization by the United Nations Security Council.
Indeed, the declaration is not only unauthorized, but flatly contrary to the controlling U.N. authority on the subject, Security Council Resolution 1244 of 1999. That resolution states explicitly that the United Nations is “Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act. . . .”
While Resolution 1244 undoubtedly contemplates that Kosovo’s status could change, its sponsors intended for that to occur under Security Council auspices, which it did not. Given the near-certainty of a Russian (and perhaps a Chinese) veto if anyone proposed a draft resolution to do so, it will not happen, now or well into the future. Effectively, therefore, the Security Council, having once defined Kosovo’s status, now lacks the ability to change it.
Serbia, Russia and some European governments have complained, but their protests have been swept aside. Serbia and Russia argue that splitting apart a U.N. member government without its consent will set a precedent for future such actions under “international law,” which neither they nor many other governments would like to see. At a minimum, they argue, by acting outside the Security Council, and in fact in violation of a valid council resolution, those states recognizing Kosovo’s independence and sovereignty are weakening the council and the U.N. generally.
For the United States, acting outside the Security Council is nothing new. Indeed, NATO conducted its 1999 military campaign against Serbia, and that led ultimately to Resolution 1244, without Security Council authorization. At that time, Europe’s NATO members fully approved the decision to bomb Serbia into submission, conveniently ignoring the absence of Security Council action. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, however, roundly criticized the decision, saying, “Unless the Security Council is restored to its pre-eminent position as the sole source of legitimacy on the use of force, we are on a dangerous path to anarchy.” Annan later said actions such as NATO’s constituted threats to the “very core of the international security system. . . . Only the Charter provides a universally legal basis for the use of force.”
The real issue, however, is the contrast between what has just been done regarding Kosovo’s declaration, and the extensive criticism in Europe for the United States decision to overthrow the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Although many European governments, including the Italian government of then-Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, supported the international coalition that eliminated Saddam’s threat to international peace and security, many others, notably Russia, France and Germany, vigorously opposed the operation. They argued vociferously that the absence of an express Security Council resolution authorizing the use of force to overthrow the Iraqi regime meant that the U.S.-led military action was illegitimate.
The United States, by contrast, contended that the coalition’s military campaign was fully legitimate for many reasons, at a minimum because Saddam’s repeated violations of the 1991 cease-fire provisions embodied in Resolution 687 authorized the resumption of military hostilities. Faced with the likelihood of a French veto (and possibly also Russian and Chinese vetoes) over Iraq, the United States relied on the implicit authority of Resolution 687, and on its inherent right to individual and collective self-defense, guaranteed by Article 51 of the U.N. Charter.
However one views the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam, or NATO’s 1999 air campaign against Serbia, or the current recognition of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration (including by the current government of Italy), one theme ties all three of these decisions together. All were taken without express Security Council authorization. Indeed, as explained above, recognition of Kosovo’s declaration is “worse” from that perspective, since recognition effectively violates Resolution 1244’s reaffirmation of Serbian sovereignty over the territory.
This commonality is significant not, as Serbia and Russia assert, namely that recognizing Kosovo violates “international law.” Instead, what is really significant is the unwillingness of many in Europe to appreciate that what they are doing in Kosovo today (and did in the 1999 air war) is precisely what they roundly criticized the United States for doing in Iraq in 2003.
Criticizing American policy in Iraq may reflect a legitimate difference in policy. What is not legitimate is to criticize the lack of Security Council authorization for overthrowing Saddam, unless those Europeans are willing to concede that in Kosovo, Europe is simply following in America’s footsteps.
In short, the question of Kosovo, today as in 1999, cannot be resolved satisfactorily to major European powers by Security Council decisions. While I personally disagree with recognizing Kosovo at the present time because of its risks for stability in the Balkans, I do not question the propriety of EU members so acting. It is neither surprising nor illegitimate that, in light of the existing political reality, European countries did what they needed to do outside of the Security Council.
All that I and many other Americans ask is that, in the future, Europeans not criticize the United States when we do exactly the same thing.
This essay was originally published in the San Diego Union Tribune, Sunday, March 2, 2008. Reprinted with kindly permission of The American Enterprise Institute.
The Christian Science Monitor reports on Russian efforts to use a new sovereign wealth fund to expand Moscow’s role in global capital markets.
“Russian companies are increasingly investing abroad - a trend encouraged by Medvedev, who has pledged to make Russia ‘one of the world’s biggest financial centers’ once he takes over from his mentor, President Vladimir Putin.
Barely a decade ago, Russia’s economy was in tatters, best known for its astronomical rates of capital flight - up to $25 billion annually. But since Mr. Putin came to power eight years ago, a quiet turnaround has occurred that saw Russia take in a record $28 billion in direct foreign investment last year, according to state statistics.”
The Regime and Opposition after the Presidential “Election”
On March 2, 2008, Russians voted for their next president. Although there were four candidates, no one doubted the victory of Vladimir Putin’s designated successor, Dmitri Medvedev.
The remaining contenders represented political parties best known for rubberstamping the Kremlin’s agenda (Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s Liberal Democratic Party and Gennady Zyuganov’s Communist Party) or are, like Andrei Bogdanov’s Democratic Party of Russia, unabashed puppet creations of the Kremlin.
At the same time, the Central Election Commission, entirely subservient to the Kremlin, has employed bureaucratic dirty tricks to “disqualify” the genuine liberal opposition candidates and to harass pro-democracy activists. Often denied the freedom to rent spaces for meetings, to advertise, and to collect nominating signatures, and subjected to blatantly biased court rulings, opposition campaigns have been barred from the election.
In the aftermath of this electoral manipulation, what is the future of political opposition in Russia? Is the Kremlin’s ownership of Russian politics absolute, or is the regime’s fear of public opposition a sign of inherent weakness? Can liberal opposition be sustained through existing political structures, or will the movement turn to street protests and Soviet-style underground dissidence?
On March 10, 2008, The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) hosted those who are best qualified to answer these questions: the leading members of Russia’s liberal pro-democracy opposition.
9 mars 1941: Le Congrès des États-Unis vote le Lend-Lease Bill.
Discours prononcé par le Général de Gaulle à la radio de Londres le 12 mars 1941
Au nom de la nation française, je remercie les États-Unis d’Amérique de la décision qu’ils viennent de prendre, sur l’initiative du Président Roosevelt, en ce qui concerne l’armement des peuples qui combattent pour la liberté.
Cette décision a une portée morale immense.
Elle aura, dans l’ordre matériel, des conséquences colossales.
Du point de vue moral, cette décision signifie que l’Amérique a pris ouvertement parti. Elle a jugé, une fois pour toutes, que la tyrannie des dictateurs constitue le plus grand danger et la plus grande infamie qui aient jamais menacé le monde.
L’Amérique a résolu d’assurer la défaite de l’ennemi par le plus vaste effort d’armement que l’univers ait jamais vu. Mais, en outre, les États-Unis, témoins très bien renseignés, manifestent avec éclat leur confiance dans la victoire des Alliés. Car un peuple aussi avisé, quelles que puissent être ses sympathies, ne prêterait pas à fonds perdus d’aussi gigantesques ressources à des gens qu’il croirait condamnés.
Du point de vue matériel, le concours illimité de l’Amérique apporte à nos alliés et aux Français Libres la certitude d’une supériorité croissante et implacable des moyens. Cette guerre est une guerre mécanique. La puissance militaire s’y mesure presque exclusivement au nombre et à la qualité des machines de combat. Il n’y a pas eu, depuis le premier jour du conflit, il n’y aura pas, jusqu’au dernier, de résultats tactiques, ni stratégiques, importants, sinon par l’action des engins mécaniques. Or, l’industrie américaine est en mesure de produire, et va produire effectivement, pour les donner aux Alliés, tant de navires, tant d’avions, tant de chars, que l’ennemi, martyrisé plus durement chaque jour, n’échappera pas à l’écrasement final.
Aucun homme sensé ne niera qu’il doive se produire jusque-là de multiples péripéties. L’ennemi auquel nous avons affaire est tout à fait capable de remporter encore des succès. Mais la décision prise par les États-Unis le place dans une situation sans issue. Le filet est jeté sur le fauve.
La France continue la guerre.
Elle la continue par sa résistance nationale à la soumission et à la collaboration. Elle la continue par l’effort guerrier d’une partie de ses territoires, de son armée, de sa marine, de son aviation. Des hommes sans conscience ou sans réflexion ont pu croire que le rôle de la France dans la guerre était terminé. Or, depuis l’effondrement momentané qui suivit le soi-disant arrmstice, ce rôle n’a cessé de s’étendre. La volonté nationale est maintenant redressée, là même et là surtout où la présence de l’ennemi se fait le plus lourdement sentir. La France a des marins belligérants sur toutes les mers. Elle a des aviateurs combattant dans tous les ciels. Ses drapeaux flottent sur tous les champs de bataille. A mesure que passeront les jours, j’affirme que ce poids pèsera plus lourd dans la balance. La France, elle aussi, gagnera la guerre.
Quant aux traîtres ou aux malheureux qui, abusant de la confiance et de la détresse du peuple et faisant le jeu de l’ennemi, ont saisi le pouvoir pour souscrire à la servitude, pour interdire le chemin du devoir à tant de bons Français dans l’Empire et dans la flotte et pour s’enfoncer, heure par heure, plus avant dans le déshonneur de la collaboration, leur provisoire fortune s’écroulera à mesure que reparaîtra la fortune éternelle de la France. Malheur à ceux qui ont joué la défaite de la patrie! Il vaudrait mieux, pour eux, qu’ils ne fussent jamais nés.
“Das Kosovo anzuerkennen, birgt eine ganze Reihe geopolitischer Probleme. So ist etwa die territoriale Einheit diverser Staaten von Spanien bis zum Irak bedroht, deren ethnische Minderheiten sich in ihrem Unabhängigkeitsstreben bestätigt sehen. Vor allem aber droht eine weitere Spaltung der EU.”
Foreign policy experts Charles Ferguson and Bruce MacDonald write that the Bush administration risked U.S. security interests in shooting down a satellite this week, in the Los Angeles Times.
“Washington should not be surprised when Beijing exploits this launch to justify its own burgeoning anti-satellite program. The U.S. action will give China, Russia and others an excuse to develop and test comparable capabilities, claiming that they too need to keep their populations safe from falling satellites. China may well feel freed from the pledge it made last year not to test its anti-satellite weapons again.”
Kosovo’s declaration of independence on February 17, 2008, presents a significant diplomatic challenge for Europe and the United States. Some within the European Union worry that recognizing Kosovo’s independence will undermine Serbian progress toward deepening democratic rule, destabilize the historically volatile Balkans, and empower separatist groups elsewhere.
Other EU powers, however, appear to agree with the Bush administration that recognizing Kosovo as an independent state is necessary if the region is to make progress toward integration with the rest of Europe, and that it is justified given past Serbian misrule and aggression toward Kosovo.
On February 15, 2008, John R. Bolton, former U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, discussed at The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) the issues surrounding Kosovo’s declaration with Bruce P. Jackson, the president of the Project on Transitional Democracies and a former member of the International Commission on the Balkans.
The yearning for the land of Israel never left the Jewish people.
· We see it in Psalms that Jews constantly recited: “If I forget you, O Jerusalem …” or “When the Lord brings about our return to Zion, we will be like dreamers…”
· In the statements of the rabbis, such as his one by Rabbi Nachman of Breslav: “Wherever I go I’m always going to Israel.”
· We see it in Jewish poetry, such as that of Yehuda HaLevi: “My heart is in the East but I am in the most far West.”
· And, of course, in countless blessings recited daily: “Have mercy, Lord our God, on Israel your people, on Jerusalem, your city, on Zion… Rebuild Jerusalem, your holy city, speedily in our days, and bring us there to rejoice in its rebuilding…”
In other words, the land of Israel was always a place in the minds of the Jews where the Jewish national potential could someday be fulfilled. But, as a practical reality, this did not begin to happen in a significant way until the birth of modern Zionism, not as a religious, but as a political movement.
The re-birth of Israel is an unprecedented phenomenon in human history.
That a people should go into exile, be dispersed, and yet survive for 2,000 years, that they should be a nation without a national homeland and come back again, that they should re-establish that homeland is a miraculous, singular event. No one ever did such a thing.
Brief Overview
Before we discuss the Jews’ return to their homeland, let us then look back at history and review briefly what had been happening in the Land of Israel from the time that the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. Subsequently, Jerusalem was levelled, rebuilt on the Roman model, and re-named Aeolia Capitolina. The land of Israel was re-named Palestine (after the extinct Philistines, some of the worst enemies of the Jews in ancient times).
From that time, Jews were barred from Jerusalem. The Byzantine Empire (the Constantinople-based Christian version of the Roman Empire) continued the earlier policy, and Jews were not allowed into Jerusalem until the Muslims conquered the Byzantines in 638 CE.
Once the Muslims took over the Land of Israel, they held onto it with the brief exception of the period of the Crusades.
The Turkish Ottoman Empire held onto power here the longest: from 1518 to 1917. Yet, during all this time, the Muslims generally treated the Holy Land as a backwater province. There was no attempt to make Jerusalem, which was quite run-down, an important capital city and only a few Muslim dynasties attempted to improve its infrastructure (save for Umayyads in the 7th century, the Mameluks in the 13th century the re-building of the walls of the city in 16th century during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent.) Similarly, only limited building went on in the rest of the land, which was barren and not populated by many Arabs. The only major new city built was Ramle, which served as the Ottoman administrative centre.
Mark Twain who visited Israel in 1867 described it like this in The Innocents Abroad: “We traversed some miles of desolate country whose soil is rich enough but is given wholly to weeds - a silent, mournful expanse… A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action. We reached Tabor safely… We never saw a human being on the whole route. We pressed on toward the goal of our crusade, renowned Jerusalem. The further we went the hotter the sun got and the more rocky and bare, repulsive and dreary the landscape became… There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country. No landscape exists that is more tiresome to the eye than that which bounds the approaches to Jerusalem… Jerusalem is mournful, dreary and lifeless. I would not desire to live here. It is a hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land… Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes.”
Early Migrations
During the time of the Muslims, life for the Jews here was for the most part easier than under the Christians.
In 1210, following the demise of the Crusaders, several hundred rabbis, known as the Ba’alei Tosefot, re-settled in Israel. This marked the emergence of the first Ashkenazi European community in Israel.
In 1263, the great Rabbi and scholar Nachmanides also known as the Ramban, established a small Sephardim community on Mount Zion which was outside the walls. Later, in the 1400s, that community moved inside the walls and they established the Ramban Synagogue which still exists today.
When Nachmanides came to Jerusalem there was already a vibrant Jewish community in Hebron, though the Muslims did not permit them entry into the Cave of the Machpela (where the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs are buried). Indeed, this ban continued until the 20th century.
More Jews started to migrate to Israel following their expulsion from Spain in 1492. In the 16th century, large numbers of Jews migrated to the northern city of Tzfat (also known as Safed) and it became the largest Jewish population in Israel and the centre of Jewish mysticism — the Kabbalah.
In mid-1700s a student of the Ba’al Shem Tov by the name of Gershon Kitover started the first Hassidic community in Israel. This community was part of what was called Old Yishuv. (Today, when in the Old City of Jerusalem, you can visit the “Old Yishuv Court Museum” and learn some fascinating facts about it.)
Another very significant event in the growth of the Jewish community of Israel took place in the early 19th century.
Between 1808 and 1812 three groups of disciples of the great rabbi Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer, the Vilna Gaon, numbering about 500 people, came to the land of Israel. Initially they settled in Tzfat in the Galilee, but after several disaster including a devastating earthquake, they settled in Jerusalem.
Their impact was tremendous. They founded several new neighborhoods (including Mea Shearim) and set up numerous Kollels (Yeshivot where married men are paid a monthly stipend to study Torah). Their arrival revived the presence of Ashkenazi Jewry in Jerusalem, which for over 100 years had been mainly Sephardim and had a huge impact on the customs and religious practices of the religious community in Israel.
By 1880, there were about 40,000 Jews, living in the land of Israel among some 400,000 Muslims.
One of the major figures of this time period was Moses Montefiore (1784 to 1887) — the first Jew to be knighted in Britain. Montefiore had made his fortune with the Rothschild family, who struck it rich in the Napoleonic Wars. They used carrier pigeons and they knew about the victory at Waterloo before anyone else; this is how they made a killing on the English stock market.
With his fortune made by age 40, Montefiore embarked on a career in philanthropy, becoming a tireless worker for the Jewish community of Israel.
At that time, most of the Jews then lived in what is now called the Old City of Jerusalem, specifically in what is now called the “Moslem Quarter.” The main entrance to the city for the Jews was through Damascus Gate and of the many synagogues in Jerusalem, many f them were in the “Moslem Quarter” close to the site where the Temple stood on Mount Moriah.
The city was hugely overcrowded and sanitary conditions were terrible, but due to the lawlessness of that time, people were afraid to built homes and live outside.
Montefiore built the first settlement outside the walls of the Old City, called “Yemin Moshe” in 1858. He opened the door and more neighbourhoods were built in the New City. One of the earliest ones, built in 1875, was Mea Shearim (which, contrary to popular opinion does not mean “Hundred Gates” but “Hundredfold” as in Genesis 26:12.).
Besides Montefiore, another extremely important personality in this period of time was Baron Edmond de Rothschild (1845 to 1934).
Rothschild was a man who more than anyone else, financially made the re-settlement of Jews in the land of Israel possible. During his lifetime he spent 70 million francs of his own money on various agricultural settlements (Rosh Pina, Zichron Yacov, Pardes Hannah to name but a few) and business enterprises such as the Carmel Winery for example. So important and generous was Rothschild that he was nicknamed HaNadiv HaYaduah, “The Famous Contributor.”
Although Rothschild was quite assimilated and disconnected from the Jewish yearning for the land, he was greatly influenced by Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, who was one of the first religious Zionists from Poland.
Mohilever converted Rothschild to his ideology and from that point on the rich banker began to look at Israel as an “investment.” He made it possible for thousands of Jews to return to the land and survive here in those days.
The early political Zionists, being largely secular (many had in fact been born into observant homes and then later dropped their observance), did not feel a special yearning for Israel rooted in tradition or religion, rather they felt that the Land of Israel was the only place where Jews could create a national identity, regain their pride and productivity, and hopefully escape the horrible anti-Semitism of Czarist Russia and other places.
One of the main organizations involved in early political Zionism was called Hibbat Zion “the love of Zion” founded in 1870. (Its members were called Hovevei Zion, “lovers of Zion.”)
A major personality among the Hovevi Zion was Judah Leob Pinsker (1821-1891). A Polish doctor, Pinsker started out as one of the Maskilim, a group which wanted their fellow Jews to drop Judaism and merge with Russian culture in the hope that if Jews were socially accepted, then Russian anti-Semitism would disappear.
But after the pogroms following the assassination of Czar Alexander in 1881, he and many other of the Maskilim came to the conclusion that their efforts were futile and anti-Semitism was never going to disappear. Like Theodor Herzl later, Pinsker was shocked at the depth of European anti-Semitism. The only solution, he came to believe, was for Jews to live in their own national homeland.
Pinsker published his ideas in a pamphlet called “Auto-Emancipation.” In it he penned these memorable words:
“We must reconcile ourselves to the idea that the other nations, by reason of their inherent natural antagonism, will forever reject us.”
In 1882, another important organization was formed in Russia. It was called Bilu, an acronym of the opening words from verse in Isaiah (2:5): Beit Yaacov lechu Venelech meaning, “House of Jacob, come, let us go”.
Bilu was very active in the early settlement movement, what came to be called the “First Aliyah” — the first large migration of Jews from Russia and Romania to the Land of Israel.
Aliyah means “ascent.”
To migrate to Israel — to make aliyah — means to come from a low place and to “go up.” (In antiquity the term Aliyah referred to a trip to Jerusalem to visit the Temple, usually during one of the pilgrim festivals: Passover, Shavuot or Succoth, and implied more than a trip up to the mountains surrounding Jerusalem but more importantly to go up to the holiest place on earth - The Temple.)
The year 1882 marked the first such aliyah, when Jews began to arrive in the land of Israel in droves — some 30,000 Jews came in two waves between 1882-1891 and founded 28 new settlements. (Among these new settlements was Hadera, which has been so much in the news lately as the repeated target of vicious terrorist attacks.)
Hundreds of thousands of acres were purchased by these early Zionists from absentee Arab landowners who usually lived elsewhere in the Middle East. The majority of the lands purchased were in areas that were neglected and considered un-developable — such as the sandy coastal plain or the swampy; malaria infested Hula Valley in the north. Amazingly, and with much effort, these early settlers made the barren land bloom again and drained the swamps.
What drove many of these early immigrants was an idealism that was captured by Zev Dugnov, a member of Bilu:
“My final purpose is to take possession of Palestine and to restore to the Jews the political independence for which they have now been denied for two thousand years. Don’t laugh. It is not a mirage. It does not matter if that splendid day will come in 50-years’ time or more. A period of 50 years is no more than a moment of time for such an undertaking.”
In fact, it would take 66 years. Meanwhile, Jews would continue to come, reclaim the land and build a strong political movement demanding back their ancient homeland.
About the author: Rabbi Ken Spiro is originally from New Rochelle, NY. He graduated from Vassar College with a BA in Russian Language and Literature and did graduate studies at the Pushkin Institute in Moscow. He has Rabbinical ordination from Yeshiva Aish HaTorah in Jerusalem and a Masters Degree in History from The Vermont College of Norwich University.
Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.
What it would take to constitute a perfect world? Rabbi Ken Spiro questioned more than 1,500 people of various backgrounds, revealing six core elements: respect for human life; peace and harmony; justice and equality; education; family; and, social responsibility. A highly readable and well-documented book about the origins of values and virtues in Western civilization as influenced by the Greeks, Romans, Christians, Muslims and, most significantly, the Jews.
“This is a book that everyone in the world should read.” (Kirk Douglas)
- The “New Left” who want a gentler form of capitalism with a social safety net that could reduce inequality and protect the environment;
- The “New Right” who think that freedom will only come when the public sector is dismantled and sold off, and a new, politically active “propertied class” emerges;
- The “Neo-Comms”, cousins of American neo-cons, want to use military modernisation, cultural diplomacy and international law to assert China’s power in the world.
EU leaders said they are confident that the Serbian province of Kosovo will remain calm following a widely anticipated declaration of independence this coming weekend.
Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated threats made earlier this week in Ukraine that he would aim Russian missiles at neighboring countries if they allow the United States to use their territory to install a missile defense system.
A new report from the U.S.-funded Congressional Research Service examines U.S. relations with Serbia and questions the possible political fallout of Kosovo’s secession.
TheAssociated Press (AP) reports that just days after the election of Serbian President Boris Tadic, Serbia’s coalition government is on the verge of collapse over a European Union plan to send a mission to the province of Kosovo, which is poised to declare independence.
Boris Tadic won Serbia’s presidential election yesterday, scraping by with just over 50 percent of the vote over a nationalist candidate.
The BBC says questions loom about what Serbia will do if its province of Kosovo declares independence. Further, while Tadic will make joining the European Union a priority, internal political dynamics will complicate the bid.
No Comments » | 
Africa, Americas, Asia, China, English, Europe, History, International Affairs, Newspapers, Politics, Russia, Strategic Affairs, Transatlantic Relations, UK, USA | 
Permalink
Posted by HIRAM7 REVIEW
