04 March 2007

Watch out!!! We're Back!!!


We're back, and this time for good. Full of energy and ready to rock planet earth. We come to take the power back. Back to sane people, away from xenophobes and ignorants. Do you know George's IQ? No? Well its 82, right in the middle between a dead salad leaf and a cup of tea! Enough, enough crazy fucks dominate our daily lifes. Neo-nazis all across the european continent are on the rise, and other extremists all over the globe. Leave us alone. Get the f**k going. Cause we are here, and the ain't nobody to stop us. Sky's the limit and we will prove it, by demonstrating solidarity and collective action for a more egalitarian world. No Passaran!!! Exactly, you'll have to kill us in order to get by us, and as you know you can kill a revolutionaire but you cannot kill the revolution. So comrades, don't let your heads hang. We need you, and we need to know that we are many. Many more than what they think! Get up and fight for your right to fight! Enough of Xenophobia in Europe! Or do you want history to repeat itself? So I ask you all, to act, do not tolerate the intolerants. Stay active, crush fascism!!

Your damned of the earth....

Marry Ramadan by Mr. Leon Feldmann, Tel Aviv

07 September 2006

Lyrics - People Lead by Ben Harper

When the people lead
the leaders they will have to follow
and all their lies and their alibies
they will have to swallow
and it's you that has the authority
for the one who is right
is the majority

when the people lead
people take the lead
children you've got to take your lead
or you shall be led astray

so as long as someone else
controls your history
the truth shall remain just a mystery
for you can lead a horse to the water
but you cannot make him drink
you can put a man through school
but you cannot make him think

when the people lead
people take the lead
children you've got to take your lead
or you shall be led astray

watch them try to hide
this world's imposition
but like disease that has come round from remission
when it seems
as if it has left your person
all the while it has only worsened

when the people lead
people take the lead
children you've got to take your lead
or you shall be led astray

02 September 2006

The role of Religion in the Palestine-Israel conflict since 1967

by OpenWire

What role has religion played in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict especially since the Six Day War in 1967. First, it is important to clarify how the terms of Palestine/ Israel vary through different times. Palestine refers to the period before 1948, from the Roman Empire to the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate. Israel refers to the period after 1948 with Jerusalem as its capital city, as of 1967, but without the temporarily occupied West bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinian Authority refers to Gaza and the West bank, the territories annexed by Israel during 1967 that were subject to the negotiations of Oslo II and led to the creation of the Palestinian Authority and mutual recognition between Rabin and Arafat, but even more important led to the recognition of the mutual right of the two people to coexist in peace, security and self-determination in two sovereign states. How is religion used? Intentionally and symbolically. How does religion influence the achievement of political goals? Which segments of both societies have experienced an increase in the importance of religion since 1967 and has it had direct influence on the conflict. I will concentrate more deeply on interactions between Islam and Judaism since 1967. One issue may be brought up right at the beginning. Using and emphasizing history as the foundation for claims over Palestine/ Israel provides endless possible nationalist claims, as Palestine was ruled by various empires and people across different eras in history. Or as a Jewish lawyer al-Kabir from Baghdad commented in the Iraqi times in 1936; “If one goes reconstituting history two thousand years back there is no reason why one should not go further back,… and presently have the world ruled by militant archaeology”. Of course, most Sephardic Jews, as al-Kabir, had neither experienced the brutal Pogroms in Eastern Europe nor would most of the Sephardic Jews have to experience the Holocaust to come.

It is important to remember that in Judaism there is no single, highest authority. This fact provides ground to very diverse groups and attitudes within the Jewish religious tradition. However, in the early 20th century Zionists were predominantly secular Jews. Orthodox Jews appeared to resist to the idea of a Jewish homeland without the installment of Jewish law, the "halakha". Influenced by the spirit of colonial period secular Zionist groups even discussed the possibility of other locations for the Jewish homeland, such as the British Uganda Proposal first proposed by Chamberlain, who sought to give territory in British East Africa, more precisely the Mau Plateau in what is today modern Kenya. Besides the fact that Jews had no historical nor religious connection to the Mau Plateau in British East Africa, looking back on the disastrous outcomes of the colonial era it is more than questionable if such a decision would have led to peaceful coexistence. However, after the Balfour declaration, no Zionist could anymore think of another homeland for the Jewish people than Palestine. Not only secular Jews called for resettlement in Palestine. For example, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, was among the first religious thinkers to advocate political activism for Palestine in the form of resettlement. Jerusalem seems to have had a very special place in the hearts and minds of Jews throughout the two thousand years of Jewish Diaspora. However, during the first half of the twentieth century the symbolic importance of Jerusalem even increased and saw efforts being made by Zionist organizations to buy holy Jewish pilgrimage sites, such as the Wailing Wall from the Muslim trust that owned it.

According to scholars the nationalist claims of the Muslim majority of Palestine are based on a religio-legal concept called waqf, translated into trusteeship. It is understood that God has permanently entrusted Palestine to the Muslim people. This is maybe best exemplified in the words of Sultan Abd al-Hamid of the Ottoman Empire in his response to Theodore Herzl’s offer to buy Palestine for twenty million lire. “Please advise him never to mention this ever. … It does not belong to me. It belongs to my people. My people acquired this Ottoman Empire by their blood”. However, the Palestinian nationalist movements were initially also mostly secular. In fact, the radical Islamic organizations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad were “a reaction to both; the spread of Islamic political activism and the increasing role of religious mobilization in Jewish nationalism” of the 1980s. We can see that prior to 1967 religious identification and symbolism was not as central to the main nationalist movements on both sides.

While I do not want to explore the reasons why, where, when and how the conflicts between Jews and Muslims began in general, since there is an endless number of reasons, but their impact on the conflict is most of the time contested from one side or the other; beginning with the Balfour, respectively McMahon declaration over to the UN proposition in 1947 to the displacement of Palestinian civilians in the early years of the state of Israel. Nevertheless, it seems that there wasn’t a political and diplomatic will neither on the side of the Palestinian leadership nor on the side of the surrounding Arab countries to tolerate the creation of a Jewish national-state, alongside the proposed Palestinian state. This is crucial because failure to accept the UN proposal has made return to normal terms very complicated since. With the Israeli declaration of independence and the following war, the civilian Palestinian population was the main victim of aggressions and confrontations between the new state of Israel and its surrounding Arab neighbours.

So what changed in 1967? The crucial event of this year in the Middle East was the Six Day War. The end of the Six Day War seems to have been the beginning of a new sort of conflict. The Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights, Gaza and the West Bank were conquered and occupied by the Israeli army, but at the centre of these dramatic days was the liberation or occupation, depending on the standpoint, of East Jerusalem and the control over its religious sites sacred to all three monotheistic traditions. This had several far reaching consequences. First, with the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank more than a million Palestinians came under Israeli control. Second, for the Muslim the loss of the sovereignty over the holy sites through the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel seems to have turned a regional, political conflict over territory into a religious war. Religious identity and symbolic became increasingly important. Not surprising then, that the Yom Kippur War in 1973 was launched on the most distinct Jewish holy day. The implementation of Jewish settlement in these years around the Palestinian cities is another example of how religion was used to legitimate occupation. It was promoted in form of the strongly ideological notion of expanding the boundaries according to the biblical Israel. The longer the occupation of Palestinian land continued the more the paradox between a Jewish and democratic state became apparent. If Palestinians were granted full citizenship, within a few years the state would have an Arab majority and would cease to be Jewish in its traits, character, ethos and legislation. If, on the other hand, Palestinians were denied citizenship an civil rights in order to preserve the Jewish character of the state, Israel would find itself in the uncomfortable situation of being a democracy only for Jews, and an apartheid regime for the rest of its inhabitants. Unfortunately, it seems that Israel has chosen to remain an essentially Jewish state, and although I wouldn’t go that far and call the Israeli government an apartheid regime, remembering the fact that all Israeli citizens may vote and be elected, it seems that institutionally Jews are being favored. The 1990’s saw at the same time an Israeli government under Rabin reaching out and recognizing the Palestinian cause and Baruch Goldstein “opening fire on worshipers gathered in a Muslim holy site… killing 29 people and injuring a further 150”. For many radical, militant Jews Rabin betrayed the biblical Israel. This culminated on the 4th of November, when Yitzhak Rabin was shot by a Jewish fanatic named Yigal Amir after a Peace rally in Tel Aviv. The phenomenon of militant Judaism as the Gush Emunim combines both “Orthodoxy and Zionism”. Striving for an expanded Jewish state, this right wing religious group has pushed for the extension of Jewish settlement into Palestinian territory and does not recognize the rights of non-Jews (Palestinians) to exist in a sovereign state.

On the Palestinian side there has been a radicalization since the first Intifada in 1987. Since then religion has become increasingly important. Islamic movements such as the Islamic Jihad or the Hamas have promoted the “notion of Palestine as an Islamic state, within which Jews would be a tolerated minority”. This reveals an interesting point; the difference between anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist. If the Jews would have renounced to political sovereignty they would have been tolerated by the Muslim population. We will never know whether under such circumstances Jews and Muslims would effectively have lived peacefully alongside each other. Since Hamas is using distinct anti-Jewish rhetoric, as described in a leaflet published in 1988 the Jews are “brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, warmongers [and] only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream”. But the maybe most fundamental characteristic of the ideology of Hamas is the concept of “shahid” or “martyr” used to justify suicidal bomb attacks on Jewish civilians. This also involves the notion of “jihad”. We all saw the images of mothers sending their son into death of a “shahid”. Suicide bombings as an act of martyrdom seem to be so deeply embedded that the prohibition of Islamic law to both suicide and the killing of non-combatants is simply not respected.

In conclusion, to me it seems as both radical religious groups represented for a long period a small but influential minority in their societies. While the ongoing conflict has reduced the wide Israeli public support for settlements, the ongoing violence has further radicalized Palestinian society. In general it seems that during the 1990’s an opportunity to achieve
peace was missed. The efforts of politicians in the name of the majority of the populations were torpedoed by small radical groups such as Hamas or the Gush Emunim. The usage of religious symbols and reinterpretation of texts contain the potential to fool some segments of the population and to use them accordingly to achieve political goals. For example, to secure settlements on the Israeli side or to frighten and terrorize on the Palestinian side. Recent events have shown that the region is deeper then ever splitted across religious boundaries. The overwhelming victory of Hamas at the Palestinian elections, has cast a shadow over a possible return to the negotiation table. Further the recent incursion of Israel into Gaza has not helped to stabilize the region. The renewed warfare with the Shiite Hezbollah (Party of God) in Lebanon is promising further bloodshed and retaliation. In order to end on a more positive note I would like to cite in my opinion a great visionary man, who understood the need of both people to achieve long-lasting peace. “We say to you today in a loud and a clear voice: enough of blood and tears. Enough” because the “pain of peace is preferable to the agony of war” .

21 August 2006

Who started?

By Gideon Levy
July 09, 2006

"We left Gaza and they are firing Qassams" - there is no more precise a formulation of the prevailing view about the current round of the conflict. "They started," will be the routine response to anyone who tries to argue, for example, that a few hours before the first Qassam fell on the school in Ashkelon, causing no damage, Israel sowed destruction at the Islamic University in Gaza.

Israel is causing electricity blackouts, laying sieges, bombing and shelling, assassinating and imprisoning, killing and wounding civilians, including children and babies, in horrifying numbers, but "they started."

They are also "breaking the rules" laid down by Israel: We are allowed to bomb anything we want and they are not allowed to launch Qassams. When they fire a Qassam at Ashkelon, that's an "escalation of the conflict," and when we bomb a university and a school, it's perfectly alright. Why? Because they started. That's why the majority thinks that all the justice is on our side. Like in a schoolyard fight, the argument about who started is Israel's winning moral argument to justify every injustice.

So, who really did start? And have we "left Gaza?"

Israel left Gaza only partially, and in a distorted manner. The disengagement plan, which was labeled with fancy titles like "partition" and "an end to the occupation," did result in the dismantling of settlements and the Israel Defense Forces' departure from Gaza, but it did almost nothing to change the living conditions for the residents of the Strip. Gaza is still a prison and its inhabitants are still doomed to live in poverty and oppression. Israel closes them off from the sea, the air and land, except for a limited safety valve at the Rafah crossing. They cannot visit their relatives in the West Bank or look for work in Israel, upon which the Gazan economy has been dependent for some 40 years. Sometimes goods can be transported, sometimes not. Gaza has no chance of escaping its poverty under these conditions. Nobody will invest in it, nobody can develop it, nobody can feel free in it. Israel left the cage, threw away the keys and left the residents to their bitter fate. Now, less than a year after the disengagement, it is going back, with violence and force.

What could otherwise have been expected? That Israel would unilaterally withdraw, brutally and outrageously ignoring the Palestinians and their needs, and that they would silently bear their bitter fate and would not continue to fight for their liberty, livelihood and dignity? We promised a safe passage to the West Bank and didn't keep the promise. We promised to free prisoners and didn't keep the promise. We supported democratic elections and then boycotted the legally elected leadership, confiscating funds that belong to it, and declaring war on it. We could have withdrawn from Gaza through negotiations and coordination, while strengthening the existing Palestinian leadership, but we refused to do so. And now, we complain about "a lack of leadership?" We did everything we could to undermine their society and leadership, making sure as much as possible that the disengagement would not be a new chapter in our relationship with the neighboring nation, and now we are amazed by the violence and hatred that we sowed with our own hands.

What would have happened if the Palestinians had not fired Qassams? Would Israel have lifted the economic siege that it imposed on Gaza? Would it open the border to Palestinian laborers? Free prisoners? Meet with the elected leadership and conduct negotiations? Encourage investment in Gaza? Nonsense. If the Gazans were sitting quietly, as Israel expects them to do, their case would disappear from the agenda - here and around the world. Israel would continue with the convergence, which is solely meant to serve its goals, ignoring their needs. Nobody would have given any thought to the fate of the people of Gaza if they did not behave violently. That is a very bitter truth, but the first 20 years of the occupation passed quietly and we did not lift a finger to end it.

Instead, under cover of the quiet, we built the enormous, criminal settlement enterprise. With our own hands, we are now once again pushing the Palestinians into using the petty arms they have; and in response, we employ nearly the entire enormous arsenal at our disposal, and continue to complain that "they started." We started. We started with the occupation, and we are duty-bound to end it, a real and complete ending. We started with the violence. There is no violence worse than the violence of the occupier, using force on an entire nation, so the question about who fired first is therefore an evasion meant to distort the picture. After Oslo, too, there were those who claimed that "we left the territories," in a similar mixture of blindness and lies.

Gaza is in serious trouble, ruled by death, horror and daily difficulties, far from the eyes and hearts of Israelis. We are only shown the Qassams. We only see the Qassams. The West Bank is still under the boot of occupation, the settlements are flourishing, and every limply extended hand for an agreement, including that of Ismail Haniyeh, is immediately rejected. And after all this, if someone still has second thoughts, the winning answer is promptly delivered: "They started." They started and justice is on our side, while the fact is that they did not start and justice is not with us.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=736009

Is Peace an Illusion?

Remember PM Rabin...

Remarks by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace Oslo
December 10, 1994

Your Majesties, Esteemed Chairman and Members of the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, The Honorable Prime Minister of Norway, My Fellow Laureates, Chairman Arafat and the Foreign Minister of Israel Shimon Peres, Distinguished Guests, Since I don't believe that there was any precedent that one person got the Nobel Prize twice, allow me on this opportunity to attach to this prestigious award, a personal touch.

At an age when most youngsters are struggling to unravel the secrets of mathematics and the mysteries of the Bible; at an age when first love blooms; at the tender age of sixteen, I was handed a rifle so that I could defend myself.

That was not my dream. I wanted to be a water engineer. I studied in an agricultural school and I thought being a water engineer was an important profession in the parched Middle East. I still think so today. However, I was compelled to resort to the gun.

I served in the military for decades. Under my responsibility, young men and women who wanted to live, wanted to love, went to their deaths instead. They fell in the defense of our lives.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

In my current position, I have ample opportunity to fly over the State of Israel, and lately over other parts of the Middle East as well. The view from the plane is breathtaking; deep-blue seas and lakes, dark-green fields, dune-colored deserts, stone-gray mountains, and the entire countryside peppered with white-washed, red-roofed houses.

And also cemeteries. Graves as far as the eye can see.

Hundreds of cemeteries in our part of the world, in the Middle East -- in our home in Israel, but also in Egypt, in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon. From the plane's window, from the thousands of feet above them, the countless tombstones are silent. But the sound of their outcry has carried from the Middle East throughout the world for decades.

Standing here today, I wish to salute our loved ones -- and past foes. I wish to salute all of them -- the fallen of all the countries in all the wars; the members of their families who bear the enduring burden of bereavement; the disabled whose scars will never heal. Tonight, I wish to pay tribute to each and every one of them, for this important prize is theirs.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I was a young man who has now grown fully in years. In Hebrew, we say, 'Na'ar hayiti, ve-gam zakanti' [I was a young man, who has grown fully in years]. And of all the memories I have stored up in my seventy-two years, what I shall remember most, to my last day, are the silences: The heavy silence of the moment after, and the terrifying silence of the moment before.

As a military man, as a commander, as a minister of defense, I ordered to carry out many military operations. And together with the joy of victory and the grief of bereavement, I shall always remember the moment just after taking such decisions: the hush as senior officers or cabinet ministers slowly rise from their seats; the sight of their receding backs; the sound of the closing door; and then the silence in which I remain alone.

That is the moment you grasp that as a result of the decision just made, people might go to their deaths. People from my nation, people from other nations. And they still don't know it.

At that hour, they are still laughing and weeping; still weaving plans and dreaming about love; still musing about planting a garden or building a house -- and they have no idea these are their last hours on earth. Which of them is fated to die? Whose picture will appear in the black frame in tomorrow's newspaper? Whose mother will soon be in mourning? Whose world will crumble under the weight of the loss?

As a former military man, I will also forever remember the silence of the moment before: the hush when the hands of the clock seem to be spinning forward, when time is running out and in another hour, another minute, the inferno will erupt.

In that moment of great tension just before the finger pulls the trigger, just before the fuse begins to burn; in the terrible quiet of the moment, there is still time to wonder, to wonder alone: Is it really imperative to act? Is there no other choice? No other way?

'God takes pity on kindergartners,' wrote the poet Yehudah Amichai, who is here with us this evening -- and I quote his:

'God takes pity on kindergartners,
Less so on the schoolchildren,
And will no longer pity their elders,
Leaving them to their own,
And sometimes they will have to crawl on all fours,
Through the burning sand,
To reach the casualty station,
Bleeding.'

For decades, God has not taken pity on the kindergartners in the Middle East, or the schoolchildren, or their elders. There has been no pity in the Middle East for generations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I was a young man who has now grown fully in years. And of all the memories I have stored up in my seventy-two years, I now recall the hopes.

Our people have chosen us to give them life. Terrible as it is to say, their lives are in our hands. Tonight, their eyes are upon us and their hearts are asking: How is the power vested in these men and women being used? What will they decide? Into what kind of morning will we rise tomorrow? A day of peace? Of war? Of laughter? Of tears?

A child is born in an utterly undemocratic way. He cannot choose his father and mother. He cannot pick his sex or color, his religion, nationality or homeland. Whether he is born in a manor or a manger, whether he lives under a despotic or democratic regime is not his choice. From the moment he comes, close-fisted, into the world, his fate -- to a large extent -- is decided by his nation's leaders. It is they who will decide whether he lives in comfort or in despair, in security or in fear. His fate is given to us to resolve -- to the governments of countries, democratic or otherwise.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Just as no two fingerprints are identical, so no two people are alike, and every country has its own laws and culture, traditions and leaders. But there is one universal message which can embrace the entire world, one precept which can be common to different regimes, to races which bear no resemblance, to cultures that are alien to each other.

It is a message which the Jewish people has carried for thousands of years, the message found in the Book of Books: 'Ve'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoteichem' -- 'Therefore take good heed of yourselves' -- or, in contemporary terms, the message of the sanctity of life.

The leaders of nations must provide their peoples with the conditions -- the infrastructure, if you will -- which enables them to enjoy life: freedom of speech and movement; food and shelter; and most important of all: life itself. A man cannot enjoy his rights if he is not alive. And so every country must protect and preserve the key element in its national ethos: the lives of its citizens.

Only to defend those lives, we can call upon our citizens to enlist in the army. And to defend the lives of our citizens serving in the army, we invest huge sums in planes and tanks, and other means. Yet despite it all, we fail to protect the lives of our citizens and soldiers. Military cemeteries in every corner of the world are silent testimony to the failure of national leaders to sanctify human life.

There is only one radical means for sanctifying human life. The one radical solution is a real peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The profession of soldiering embraces a certain paradox. We take the best and the bravest of our young men into the army. We supply them with equipment which costs a virtual fortune. We rigorously train them for the day when they must do their duty -- and we expect them to do it well. Yet we fervently pray that that day will never come -- that the planes will never take off, the tanks will never move forward, the soldiers will never mount the attacks for which they have been trained so well.

We pray that it will never happen, because of the sanctity of life.

History as a whole, and modern history in particular, has known harrowing times when national leaders turned their citizens into cannon fodder in the name of wicked doctrines: vicious Fascism, terrible Nazism. Pictures of children marching to slaughter, photos of terrified women at the gates of the crematoria must loom before the eyes of every leader in our generation, and the generations to come. They must serve as a warning to all who wield power.

Almost all regimes which did not place the sanctity of life at the heart of their worldview, all those regimes have collapsed and are no more. You can see it for yourselves in our own time.

Yet this is not the whole picture. To preserve the sanctity of life, we must sometimes risk it. Sometimes there is no other way to defend our citizens than to fight for their lives, for their safety and freedom. This is the creed of every democratic state.

In the State of Israel, from which I come today; in the Israel Defense Forces, which I have had the privilege to serve, we have always viewed the sanctity of life as a supreme value. We have never gone to war unless a war was forced on us.

The history of the State of Israel, the annals of the Israel Defense Forces, are filled with thousands of stories of soldiers who sacrificed themselves -- who died while trying to save wounded comrades; who gave their lives to avoid causing harm to innocent people on their enemy's side.

In the coming days, a special commission of the Israel Defense Forces will finish drafting a Code of Conduct for our soldiers. The formulation regarding human life will read as follows, and I quote:

'In recognition of its supreme importance, the soldier will preserve human life in every way possible and endanger himself, or others, only to the extent deemed necessary to fulfill this mission. 'The sanctity of life, in the point of view of the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, will find expression in all their actions.'

For many years ahead -- even if wars come to an end, after peace comes to our land -- these words will remain a pillar of fire which goes before our camp, a guiding light for our people. And we take pride in that.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We are in the midst of building the peace. The architects and the engineers of this enterprise are engaged in their work even as we gather here tonight, building the peace, layer by layer, brick by brick. The job is difficult, complex, trying. Mistakes could topple the whole structure and bring disaster down upon us.

And so we are determined to do the job well -- despite the toll of murderous terrorism, despite the fanatic and cruel enemies of peace.

We will pursue the course of peace with determination and fortitude. We will not let up. We will not give in. Peace will triumph over all its enemies, because the alternative is grimmer for us all. And we will prevail.

We will prevail because we regard the building of peace as a great blessing for us, for our children after us. We regard it as a blessing for our neighbors on all sides, and for our partners in this enterprise -- the United States, Russia, Norway -- which did so much to bring the agreement that was signed here, later on in Washington, later on in Cairo, that wrote a beginning of the solution to the longest and most difficult part of the Arab-Israeli conflict: the Palestinian-Israeli one. We thank others who have contributed to it, too.

We wake up every morning, now, as different people. Peace is possible. We see the hope in our children's eyes. We see the light in our soldiers' faces, in the streets, in the buses, in the fields. We must not let them down. We will not let them down.

I stand here not alone today, on this small rostrum in Oslo. I am here to speak in the name of generations of Israelis and Jews, of the shepherds of Israel -- and you know that King David was a shepherd; he started to build Jerusalem about 3,000 years ago -- the herdsmen and dressers of sycamore trees, and as the Prophet Amos was; of the rebels against the establishment, as the Prophet Jeremiah was; and of men who went down to the sea, like the Prophet Jonah.

I am here to speak in the name of the poets and of those who dreamed of an end to war, like the Prophet Isaiah.

I am also here to speak in the names of sons of the Jewish people like Albert Einstein and Baruch Spinoza, like Maimonides, Sigmund Freud and Franz Kafka.

And I am the emissary of millions who perished in the Holocaust, among whom were surely many Einsteins and Freuds who were lost to us, and to humanity, in the flames of the crematoria.

I am here as the emissary of Jerusalem, at whose gates I fought in the days of siege; Jerusalem which has always been, and is today, the people, who pray toward Jerusalem three times a day.

And I am also the emissary of the children who drew their visions of peace; and of the immigrants from St. Petersburg and Addis Ababa.

I stand here mainly for the generations to come, so that we may all be deemed worthy of the medal which you have bestowed on me and my colleagues today.

I stand here as the emissary today -- if they will allow me -- of our neighbors who were our enemies. I stand here as the emissary of the soaring hopes of a people which has endured the worst that history has to offer and nevertheless made its mark -- not just on the chronicles of the Jewish people but on all mankind.

With me here are five million citizens of Israel -- Jews, Arabs, Druze and Circassians -- five million hearts beating for peace, and five million pairs of eyes which look at us with such great expectations for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I wish to thank, first and foremost, those citizens of the State of Israel, of all the generations, of all the political persuasions, whose sacrifices and relentless struggle for peace bring us steadier closer to our goal.

I wish to thank our partners -- the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Palestinians, that are led by the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Mr. Yasser Arafat, with whom we share this Nobel Prize -- who have chosen the path of peace and are writing a new page in the annals of the Middle East.

I wish to thank the members of the Israeli government, but above all my partner the Foreign Minister, Mr. Shimon Peres, whose energy and devotion to the cause of peace are an example to us all.

I wish to thank my family that supported me all the long way that I have passed.

And, of course, I wish to thank the Chairman, the members of the Nobel Prize Committee and the courageous Norwegian people for bestowing this illustrious honor on my colleagues and myself.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Allow me to close by sharing with you a traditional Jewish blessing which has been recited by my people, in good times and bad ones, as a token of their deepest longing:

'The Lord will give strength to his people; the Lord will bless his people -- and all of us -- in peace.'

Thank you very much.