A more perfect
union
Few months back, the name Barack Obama doesn't ring a bell to almost
all people around the globe. It was in few months time that his
name and personality appealed to billions as he started to dominate
the run for the White House, 2008 US elections. He currently leads
his Democratic Party rival Hillary Clinton, who once regarded as
inevitable democratic nominee and the next president of the United
States.
Because of the huge magnetism Obama's campaign has, the US Secret
Service has to offer a very early service when compared to other
candidates in the US elections history. Obama, whose Secret Service
codename is ``Renegade'', began receiving protection in May 2007,
18 months before the November 2008 election. That was the earliest
for any candidate since the practice was instituted following the
1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, shot by Sirhan
Sirhan at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles moments after claiming
victory in the California primary. Obama's wife, Michelle, codenamed
``Renaissance'', received protection at the request of the campaign
on Jan 29. Jen Psaki, a campaign spokesman, declined to comment
on the reasons.
Even if Obama leads Clinton in the delegates count with 1,620 to
1,471, which means that he has 80% of the 2,024 delegate's number,
he is facing accusations that he is leading racially charged campaigns.
Recently Clinton advisor quit after she was quoted saying that Obama
wouldn't be in his position if he weren't black. To add fuel in
the fire, Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former church minister, accused
whites for treating blacks unfairly and drawing 9/11 attack on America.
Taking on a race issue, Obama, flanked by eight American flags,
delivered a speech on March 19, 2008 at National Constitution Center
in Pennsylvania. One political analyst stated that the speech had
greater weight and specificity than his usual stump speech, and
made fewer promises as it wrestled with the legacy of his former
pastor and his inflammatory rhetoric. "For some voters, the
speech might serve to remove the glow of optimism surrounding Obama's
candidacy; but for many others, it could make him a more realistic
president," added the analyst.
" I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman
from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who
survived a Depression to serve in Patton's Army during World War
II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line
at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas, "said Obama explaining
his origin, "I've gone to some of the best schools in America
and lived in one of the world's poorest nations. I am married to
a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and
slave owners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters.
I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of
every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and
for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country
on earth is my story even possible."
Obama admitted that his story hasn't made him the most conventional
candidate. But he said it is a story that has seared into his genetic
makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts
- that out of many, they are truly one.
Lauding his wins in some of the whitest populations in the country,
Obama showed the failure of all the temptations which tried to view
his candidacy through a racial lens.
" This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the
campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have
deemed me either "too black" or "not black enough,"
stated the democrat presidential, hopeful “We saw racial tensions
bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina
primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence
of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but
black and brown as well. And yet, it has only been in the last couple
of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken
a particularly divisive turn. "
Obama concluded his speech with the following remarks.
"There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named
Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina.
She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community
since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable
discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why
they were there. And Ashley said that when she was nine years old,
her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work,
she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy,
and that's when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help
her mom.
She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so
Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really
wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches,
because that was the cheapest way to eat. She did this for a year
until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable
that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help
the millions of other children in the country who want and need
to help their parents too."
Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody
told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems
were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics
who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She
sought out allies in her fight against injustice. Anyway, Ashley
finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone
else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different
stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally
they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly
the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he's there. And he does
not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the
economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that
he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone
in the room, "I am here because of Ashley."
"I'm here because of Ashley." By itself, that single moment
of recognition between that young white girl and that old black
man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick,
or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.
But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger.
And as so many generations have come to realize over the course
of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots
signed that document in Philadelphia that is where the perfection
begins. "
(Compiled by Kirubel Tadesse)
Lifting tax on food; what is the real story behind the price hike?
By Tedla Yeneakal
Inflation on basic food commodities has affected the country at
large in the past months; however the impact was felt among urban
dwellers of low income. After Prime Minister Meles Zenawi announced
this week Tuesday, March 18, 2008, to parliament, his measure to
lift taxes on food grains (Value Added Tax and Turnover Tax), the
public’s response on the practical impact seems divided.
Right after the announcement was made, however, immediate reductions
in the price of some food items; particularly bread was noted clearly,
according to a random market survey carried out by a Capital team.
Wubete Tegene, a grain seller in the Merkato, area popularly known
as Ehilberenda, says prices of various food items have notably declined
from the farmers in the outskirts of Addis Ababa.
“I talked to farmers over the phone this morning and was surprised
to find out that today (Thursday, March 19), prices have declined
from 10 to 30 percent on the former price,” Wubete said. “For
instance, I bought 100kgs of Teff for 450 birr today as compared
to 500 birr previously.”
Traders like Wubete feel the measures taken by the government; police
raid on businesses, who deliberately inflate prices to amass personal
profits at large, has worked.
“The wholesale price I gave you as an example will not increase
much when I sell it on retail as I am aware of the harsh consequences,”
he said.
Prime Minister Meles has warned businesspersons, who deliberately
inflate prices, which he has blamed for the sharp price increases
that boosted Ethiopia’s inflation rate to over 18 percent.
A task force comprising of members from the Ministry of Trade and
Industry, the Federal Police and the National Security and Intelligence
Service has been set up to permanently monitor unlawful activities
and take legal measures as necessary.
The lifting of taxes on grains however, is seen differently by an
economist, who believes it is unlikely that it will reduce food
prices in the rural area, but admitted it will slightly ease the
price burden in urban towns.
“It will definitely take some time before we see any immediate
impact of prices of grains if the government does a proper follow
up, but will hardly help the majority of people in rural areas,”
the economist said.
The taxes that have been lifted have surprisingly had an impact
in prices of vegetables and the like, according to our market assessment
on Thursday this week. The vegetable market popularly known as Atkelt
Terra, the price of a kilo of tomatoes has declined from 4.90 birr
to 1.5 birr, potatoes are down to 3.5 birr from 4 birr, onions declined
from 3 birr to 1.5birr.
Yididiya Babega, who owns a small restaurant in Merkato, says she
has been relieved by the deflation in food prices, but feels it
will not enable her to reduce what she charges at her restaurant.
“I am thankful for the decrease in prices, but can not afford
to put down the prices that I have on the menu, “Enanu says.
“I was selling food for the last six months for a very small
profit.”
The government had devised temporary measures, including provision
of direct and indirect subsidies, and had spent 372 million birr
in the past few years to subsidize wheat and 3.52bln birr to subsidize
fuel.
“Direct subsidies have included government expenditure to
stabilize fuel prices and provide wheat for low-income populations,”
Meles told parliament.
A subsidised wheat supply of 25kg every month for low-income urban
dwellers was introduced in March 2007. “The current distribution
of wheat will be maintained and edible oil will also be offered
in a similar manner until the price of goods has been satisfactorily
stabilised. We will also attempt to distribute products such as
soap if deemed appropriate, depending on the circumstances.”
Critics say, apart from rising commodity prices in the international
market, a significant increase in money circulation and deficiencies
in the marketing system were two domestic reasons that had exacerbated
inflation.
According to a UN report, market-related factors, along with chronic
problems and decreased production, were expected to render an estimated
eight million Ethiopians food-insecure this year, while 2.4 million
acutely food-insecure people would require food and cash assistance.
“Despite some increases in income, high prices are affecting
the food security of the rural and urban poor, who rely heavily
on the market to purchase food,” the update noted.
Giving the example of white maize, Fews Net said the nominal retail
price in Addis Ababa was 36 percent higher in 2007 compared with
the 2002-2006 average.
According to the UN, 16 percent of Ethiopia’s more than 70
million people live in urban areas and the rest in rural areas.
Eighty-five percent of the populations are employed in agriculture.
“Overall, the increase in prices of cereals is expected to
have a serious negative impact on the food security of the poor,
both in urban and rural areas, who depend on the market to purchase
food, though increases in wage labour are expected to enable them
to cope, to some extent, with increasing prices.”
Amazing Africa and Incredible India
Part II
By Tesfu Telahoun
India is a vast nation that has begun to solve the riddle of perpetual
underdevelopment.Still though it is to overcome many challenges,
India is increasingly looking like a model that Africa can sustainably
emulate. India’s greatest asset is its time tested democracy
and its strong institutions, making it the most attractive development
cooperation partner for Africa.
Currently, India-Africa trade is worth about USD 20 bln annually
and growing at a rapid pace, Indian investment in Africa, including
Ethiopia is involved in diverse sectors and has been generating
hundreds of thousands of jobs on both sides of the Indian Ocean.
By far India’s largest trading partner on the continent is
South Africa. This is largely due to the presence of about 1 million
South Africans of Indian descent. This strong community is the largest
Indian population residing outside India and contributes to the
dynamism of the ‘Rainbow Nation.’
Development cooperation between India and Ethiopia has accelerated
in the last five years, a period in which both nations registered
near double digit growth in their respective economies.
Ethiopia is embarked on an intensive developmental path, which features
as a main component massive infrastructure development works. Power
generation and transmission, irrigation and the radical expansion
of the national road network are among the areas in which public
and private sector Indian companies are active in Ethiopia.
India –Africa Forum declared
India-Africa ties are poised for even greater heights, with India
having formally announced the convening of the India – Africa
Forum summit, scheduled to be held in New Delhi on April 8-9. The
historic summit is to finalize a wide ranging action plan the draft
of which has already been submitted to the participating countries.
Launching a dedicated website prepared by India’s Ministry
of External Affairs Foreign Minister Anand Sharma said, “The
summit will help in crystallising this partnership and open new
pathways of cooperation between the two sides.”
On this first ever India Africa Forum summit, various celebratory
and commemorative events are planned, including multicultural concerts
by troupes from 17 countries and a multi media show organized by
the Indian Council of Cultural Relations (ICCR).
The summit has wide participation and is organized as a three tier
gathering with senior officials scheduled to meet on April 4, foreign
ministers on April 7 and 17 heads of government set to meet on April
8-9.
The prospects of the India Africa Forum summit will be further strengthened
by the three- day, 4th CII-EXIM Bank Conclave on India Africa Project
Partnership 2008, which opened March 19, at New Delhi’s Taj
Palace Hotel. An Ethiopian delegation, headed by Tadesse Haile,
State Tesfaye, Minister of Trade and Industry is attending the conclave.
Democratic Evolution, Rules, Institutions and The Washington
...because democratisation requires a plural set of political
organisations, which promote and protect rules of peaceful political
participation and competition, CSOs could be a contributing force
for sanity during this critical period in the liberated African
spirit; for the alternative is too ghastly and terrifying to contemplate.
“Democracy and the Social Question III”: In this series
on Democratic Evolution, Rules, Institutions and The Washington
Consensus it was Dr Berhe T. Costantinos (PHD) who gave his lecture
on the issue, on March 18, 2008 at Gebre Kirstos Desta Centre.
According to the lecture there have been claims of discrepancies
between the Washington Consensus as propounded by Williamson, and
the policies actually implemented with the endorsement of the Washington
institutions themselves. For example, the Washington Consensus stated
a need for investment in education, but the policies of fiscal discipline
promoted by the International Monetary Fund have sometimes in practice
led countries to cut back public spending on social programs, including
such areas as basic education. Those familiar with the work of the
IMF respond that, at a certain stage, countries near bankruptcy
have to cut back ,their public spending one way or another to live
within their means. Washington may argue for enlightened choices
among different public spending priorities, but in the last analysis
it is domestically-elected political leaders who ultimately have
to make the tough political choices.’
The lectures of this series, held in English, with speakers from
both the Ethiopian and international community, provide a podium
for open dialogue on democracy issues. Capital is the media partner
of this series.
A combination of the Western prescription of the basic ingredients
of ‘democratic tradition’ – elections, rule of
law, economic, social and political governance and The Washington
Consensus have spun opportunities and threats to social stability
and political sustainability. The intent of this guest lecture is
to develop ideas for discourse, dialogue, and build consensus on
vital issues of democracy and development.
The Washington Consensus is a phrase initially coined to describe
a relatively specific set of ten economic policy prescriptions that
he considered to constitute a “standard” reform package
promoted for crisis-wracked countries by Washington, D.C. based
institutions such as the IMF, World Bank and US Treasury Department.
The Washington Consensus, which was meant to reinforce the above,
included ten broad sets of recommendations: fiscal policy discipline,
redirection of public spending from subsidies, pro-poor services,
tax reform, interest rates that are market determined and positive
in real terms; competitive exchange rates, trade liberalization,
liberalization of inward foreign direct investment; privatization
of state enterprises, deregulation, prudent oversight of financial
institutions, and legal security for property rights.
The term “Washington consensus” has since acquired a
secondary connotation, being used (usually in a pejorative sense)
to describe a less-precisely stipulated gamut of policies, broadly
associated with expanding the role of market forces and constraining
the role of the state, sometimes also described as neo-liberalism
or market fundamentalism as accepted by nations such as Argentina,
Brazil (Plano Real), Chile, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Morocco, South
Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, and Zambia. The Washington Consensus has
been the target of sharp criticism by some individuals and groups
who argue that it is a way to open up less developed countries to
investments from large multinational corporations and their wealthy
owners in advanced First World economies, which the critics would
view as a negative development. Critics frequently cite the Argentine
economic crisis of 1999-2002 as a case in point of why they believe
that Washington Consensus policies are flawed, as they argue that
Argentina had previously implemented most of the Consensus’s
policies as directed.
The Washington Consensus has been the target of sharp criticism
by some individuals and groups who argue that it is a way to open
up less developed countries to investments from large multinational
corporations and their wealthy owners in advanced First World economies,
which the critics would view as a negative development. As of 2007,
several Latin American countries are led by socialist or other left
wing governments, some of which have adopted approaches contrary
to the Washington Consensus set of policies. Critics frequently
cite the Argentine economic crisis of 1999-2002 as a case in point
of why they believe that Washington Consensus policies are flawed,
as they argue that Argentina had previously implemented most of
the Washington Consensus policies as directed. Some economists,
by contrast, question how closely Argentina had in fact followed
the Consensus policies.
There have been claims of discrepancies between the Washington Consensus
as propounded by Williamson, and the policies actually implemented
with the endorsement of the Washington institutions themselves.
For example, the Washington Consensus stated a need for investment
in education, but the policies of fiscal discipline promoted by
the International Monetary Fund have sometimes in practise led countries
to cut back public spending on social programmes, including such
areas as basic education. Those familiar with the work of the IMF
respond that, at a certain stage, countries near bankruptcy have
to cut back their public spending one way or another to live within
their means. Washington may argue for enlightened choices among
different public spending priorities, but in the last analysis it
is domestically-elected political leaders who ultimately have to
make the tough political choices.
In conclusion, we move on to rejoin important issues that the Washington
consensus has tried to address: one can ask, if the Washington Consensus
fosters private sector-driven national development and the attendant
pluralist systems that underlie such as a change? Since the modernisation
initiatives of the administrative and economic mechanisms, the private
sector in Africa, which the Consensus has tried to address profoundly,
has been confronted with various legal and regulatory problems.
On one hand, the dominating policy influences in the different historical
periods have had in large measure negative impacts on its development,
depending on the ideological and philosophical orientation of the
regimes in power. On the other hand, because democratisation requires
a plural set of political organisations, which promote and protect
rules of peaceful political participation and competition, CSOs
could be a contributing force for sanity during this critical period
in the liberated African spirit; for the alternative is too ghastly
and terrifying to contemplate.
The acceptance of Washington Consensus was a reaction to the macroeconomic
crisis and economic stagnation and loss of access to foreign credit,
that many governments could no longer sustain high levels of public
spending without igniting hyperinflation.
Some specific factual premises of the critique as phrased above
are not accepted by defenders, or indeed all critics, of the Washington
Consensus. To take a few examples, inflation in many developing
countries is now at its lowest levels for many decades. Workers
in FDI factories are found typically to receive higher wages and
better working conditions than are standard in their own countries’
domestically-owned workplaces. Economic growth in much of Latin
America in the last few years has been at historically high rates,
and debt levels, relative to the size of these economies, are on
average significantly lower than they were several years ago. Despite
these macroeconomic advances, though, poverty and inequality remain
at high levels. On the other hand, Neo-Keynesian and post-Keynesian
critics of the Consensus have argued that the underlying policies
were incorrectly laid down and are too rigid to be able to succeed.
For example, flexible labour laws were supposed to create new jobs,
but economic evidence is inconclusive on this point. In addition,
some argue that the package of policies does not take into account
economic and cultural differences between countries. Some critics
argued that this set of policies should be implemented, if at all,
during a period of rapid economic growth and not – as often
is the case – during crisis.
Did the Washington Consensus foster national development? A significant
body of economists and policy-makers argues that what was wrong
with the Washington Consensus as originally formulated by Williamson
had less to do with what was included than with what was missing.
This view asserts that countries such as Brazil, Chile, Peru and
Uruguay, now governed by parties of the left, have – whatever
their rhetoric – not in practice abandoned most of the substantive
elements of the Consensus. Nor have these countries in practice
reversed their more open orientation to global trade and international
investment in favour of a return to the policies of autarchy. These,
however, agree that the Consensus was incomplete, and that countries
need to move beyond “first generation” macroeconomic
and trade reforms to a stronger focus on productivity-boosting reforms
and programmes to support the poor. This includes improving the
investment climate, strengthening institutions, fighting poverty
directly via conditional cash transfer, improving the quality of
education, boosting technology, and addressing the special needs
of women and historically disadvantaged groups.
Did the Washington Consensus foster democracy? The central hypothesis
we have launched this discussion with is that the relative strength
of political organisations determines the rules of the political
game that are installed. Democratisation requires a plural set of
political organisations which promote and protect rules of peaceful
political participation and competition. Together, democratic institutions
(plural organisations plus rules of accountability) ensure control
of the state executive. In taking an institutional perspective,
we assume that actors in the political system express preferences
through organisations and that these organisations vary in strength
according to their resource base. The relevant organisations are
found both in society, where they represent and aggregate individual
interests, and in the state, where they check and balance executive
authority.
Has the Washington Consensus addressed this? The only outcome of
the consensus has been the election paradox: election observation
and monitoring are indeed legitimate instruments to ensure peaceful
political participation and contestation. They must be encouraged
at all costs. Notwithstanding the rights of Africans to question
their governance regimes, many now believe that the dialogue on
our democratic development has been usurped by foreigners, albeit
with little ground- zero information. The post-election violence
in Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egypt… has shown that without
functioning rules and institutions, election serve little or no
purpose to advance democracy.
The questions that have been a source of discussion for some time
now zero in
1. Does democracy enter Africa as an external ideology, constructing
and deploying its concepts in sterile abstraction from the immediacies
of indigenous traditions, beliefs and values? Does democratisation
come into play in total opposition to, or in co-operation with historic
national values and sentiments?
2. Has the application of the rules of the Washington consensus
weakened the state to an extent that it was unable to transform
its institutions into democratic ones? How could democratic projects
in Africa pursue their goals consistently and in varying contexts,
but do so without resorting to a self-defeating, overly scripted
and stage-managed political play? How could they combine immediately
programmed intentionality with a more open, process-based purposefulness?
3.Has the Washington consensus rather strengthened social movements
in favour of democracy (because it weakened the state and encouraged
the participation of civil society) or the opposite (because it
weakened the position of labour movements and the social cohesion,
for example)?
4. Has the Washington consensus ultimately succeeded in bringing
about economic development and therefore created a more conducive
environment for democratization? The effectiveness of political
conditionality by the Washington Consensus is a function of the
dependence of a recipient government on foreign aid. Government
compliance with donor conditions varies with the type of policy
reform. Compliance is high for measures that can be implemented
by a small number of central government officials and low for reforms
requiring extensive institutional change. The imposition by donors
of political conditions on aid disbursements is alone insufficient
to effect democratic political transitions, i.e. in the absence
of organised domestic constituencies for political change within
the state and within civil society. Intervention by international
organisations disrupts democratic transitions to the extent that
it is perceived as partisan; while international intervention contributes
most to democratic struggle when it provides neutral arbitration
services;
5. The effectiveness of organisations in civil society at promoting
democratic reforms depends on their autonomy, capacity, complexity
and coherence. The organisation which displays the greatest strength
on these dimensions is likely to become the lead organisation in
promoting democratic reform;
While it is not difficult to bash African ruling regimes these days,
many are beleaguered why the international community as represented
by the underwriters of ‘Western Democracy’ are so intent
in launching Africa into chaos in the aftermath of elections. Motives
aside, what is the outcome of jumping to conclusions on the product
of the election by resorting to a strikingly crude modus operandi,
besides de-legitimizing the results that were eventually to be released
by the electoral commissions? In doing so, did Africa’s democratisers
attempt to substitute themselves for local stakeholders; with varying
impacts that might hand nations over to a junta rule or religious
fundamentalists on a silver platter? True, elections cannot be expected
to be absolutely problem free, notwithstanding the boorish behaviour
of political parties. Nevertheless, many claim that the damage caused
is indeed far reaching; quickly adding that elections hold great
promises, but may have been aborted by such recklessness. In good
age-old international relations, how diplomats (who couple as donors),
manage to handle such sad interlude is bound to reverberate throughout
Africa.
The underdevelopment of civil society in Africa and the incapacity
of institutions within it are seen as major barriers to democratisation.
The activities of some social institutions may have the salutary
effect of bringing into transparency the work of government, and
of opening up state institutions and practices to public suiting.
But the overall weakness of African civil societies is often cited
as a fundamental structural constraint on democratic transformation
in Africa. Rather than offering agents and arenas of transitions
to democracy, African civil societies are generally seen as objects
and problems of reform. Indicators of their weakness include low
levels of economic, technological, professional and cultural development
and high levels of illiteracy. On account of this view, the state
assumes a large role in democratisation. It is assigned the task
of nothing less than “cultivating civil society” itself
through political education and mobilisation.
The reality is that the state has historically been too powerful
and too controlling in the face of an embryonic and weak civil society.
States have historically proved to be the main channel for personal
wealth accumulation and securing privileged position in society.
As the result of the socialisation of the means of production, state
power was appropriated to the political elite. Consequently, the
bureaucracy will no doubt fight democrats aggressively in order
to obtain its patron’s in positions of power by any means
possible. Since public sector corruption and inefficiencies undermine
political, economic, and social stability by undermining citizen’s
faith in the democratic process; the legitimacy of the democratic
process underway will depend in important ways on it being perceived
as reasonably honest, predictable, transparent and accountable in
the execution of the states responsibility. In situations where
public officials are seen to be using their positions to advance
parochial interest and self-aggrandisement, a general loss of respect
for the law occurs and despondency in the general population develops.
Because democratisation requires a plural set of political organisations
which promote and protect rules of peaceful political participation
and competition, donors and the initiators of the Washington Consensus
could be a contributing force for sanity and show ‘the quality
of mercy to the poor’ during this critical period in the liberated
African spirit; for the alternative is too ghastly and terrifying
to contemplate.
Israel at 60
Part III
By Tesfu Telahoun
The story of Israel is an epic written by a people strengthened
under a litany of the harshest miseries inflicted by humanity upon
humanity. It is a history of huge proportions yet belonging to a
relatively small population of people who believed even in the darkest
hours that they must maintain their identity amidst the sea of Gentiles
they were dispersed in, if their faith and ways of life were to
survive. Keeping tenaciously to their laws, the Jewish people endured
and kept alive the ancient ways – and assured not only the
survival of the faith but also the phoenix like awakening of a dynamic,
prosperous, powerful and democratic nation. On May 14, 2008, the
new Israel will be 60 years old. In this third edition of the fortnightly
series ‘Israel at 60’ we profile two heroes of the modern
State of Israel and through their lives, capture the essence of
the Israeli spirit.
The First ‘Iron Lady’
The life of Golda Meir, Israel’s first and so far only, woman
prime minister (1969 – 1974), is a microcosm of the history
of the Zionist movement as well as a symbol of the global solidarity
of the diverse community of the Jewish people.
Golda Meir was born in Russia in 1898 and educated in the United
States. She first joined public life in Milwaukee, Wisconsin when
she became a socialist Zionist. Golda’s formative years in
politics prepared her well for a prominent role in the mobilization
effort for the establishment of a Jewish homeland. She made ‘aliya’
(The mandatory return to the Promised Land) in 1921 and was embraced
by Ben Gurion-a man destined to be Israels first prime minister.
Golda Meir will be remembered in Israeli history more for her critical
work to raise funds desperately required to defend the about to
be born state, than for her successful term as decisive statesman.
In early 1948, the Haganah (forerunner of the Israel Defense Force
- IDF) and the Jewish Agency were ill- equipped and it was feared
that the 600,000 Jews of the ‘Yishuv’ (pre-state community
of Jews in Palestine) would be annihalated by the Arab armies poised
to overrun the new Israel.
Golda Meir was summoned to Ben Gurion’s office and ordered
to embark to America by ship where she was to move heaven and earth
to raise at least USD 5mln from the American Jewish community. Undaunted,
a determined Golda set out alone and arrived in the U.S. with just
10 dollars in her purse, with which she had to buy an overcoat to
keep out the American winter. By the end of her tour, a series of
eloquent and moving speeches, she left the United States with 50
million dollars! In recognition of her great achievement David Ben
Gurion, while welcoming her at Lydda Airport said,
“The day when history is written, it will be recorded that
it was thanks to a Jewish woman that the Jewish state was born.”
Warrior and Peacemaker
“If we have faith, we will succeed.
It we hold tight to our dreams,
our actions will be blessed,
If we can grit our teeth, bite
our lips, hold back the pain, overcome
obstacles – we will reach our destination.
Even if there are difficult moments,
they will never be as difficult as
others in the past.
we will continue to have faith, and
We will be victorious.
Yitzchak Rabin
(1922 – 2002)
Born in 1922, Israel’s late Prime Minister (1974 – 77
and 1992 – 95) is a hero of the War of Independence (1948)
and one of the key architects behind the glorious victory of 1967
– The Six Day War. Yitzchak Rabin is also remembered for taking
the decision, as P.M in 1976, to dispatch Ehud Barak, himself on
the path to future prime ministership, and Yoni Netanyahu –
brother of politician Benjamin, to lead an elite commando team and
rescue 100 hostages held in Entebb, Uganda.
Rabin was a crack commando fighting for the establishment of the
State of Israel and a member of the elite Palmach unit of the Haganah
– the underground Jewish military organization of the time.
Based in Kibbutz Kfar Gilad in Israel’s north and close to
the frontier with Lebanon, Rabin worked the land when not in rigorous
training with his men in the art of modern warfare.
Although Rabin was a ferocious soldier, he never glorified war.
Speaking soon after the astounding victory of the Six Day War, he
said, “I do not believe that hatred adds anything to fighting
capacity. We go forth to war when we are forced to, when there is
no other choice.”
Rabin’s second term as prime minister of Israel (1992- 95)
saw the old war horse determined to obtain a lasting peace in the
Middle East. Addressing a stunned Knesset (Israel’s’
parliament) on July 13, 1992, Rabin declared, ‘I am prepared
to travel to Amman, Damascus and Beirut today or tomorrow for there
is no greater victory than the victory of peace. His words echoed
in the Knesset chambers, filled with the soothing clarity of logic
and compromise.
“No longer is it true that the whole world is against us.
We must overcome the sense of isolation that has held us in its
thrall for almost half a century. We must join the international
movement toward peace, reconciliation and co-operation that is spreading
over the entire globe these days – lest we be the last to
remain, all alone, in the station.”
In a special message to the Palestinians, Rabin’s earnestness
was made even clearer:
“We have been fated to live together on the same patch of
land in the same country. We lead our lives with you and against
you. You have failed in the war against us. One hundred years of
bloodshed and terror against us have brought you only suffering,
humiliation bereavement and pain. You have lost thousands of your
sons and daughters and you are losing ground all the time.
For 44 years now you have been living under a delusion, your leaders
have led you through lies and deceit. They have missed every opportunity,
rejected all our proposals for a settlement and taken you from one
tragedy to another . You have never known a single day of freedom
and joy in your lives. Listen to us, if only this once.
We offer you the fairest and most viable proposal from our standpoint
today – autonomy, with all its advantages and limitations.
You will not get everything you want. Neither will we. So, once
and for all, take your destiny in your hands. Don’t lose this
opportunity that may never return, take our proposals seriously
– to avoid further suffering, humiliation and grief, to end
the shedding of tears and blood.”
And after the Peace Agreement was signed at the White House, Rabin
spoke the following words;-
“We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with
blood; we who have seen our relatives and friends killed before
our eyes; we who have attended their funerals and cannot look in
the eyes of their parents; we who have come from a land where parents
bury their children, we who have fought against you, the Palestinians
– we say to you today, in a loud and clear voice; enough of
blood and tears. Enough!
|
