AN INTERVIEW WITH NATAN SHARANSKY

Sharansky: "One-Sided Concessions to Terror Will Bring More Terror" - Russell Working (Chicago Tribune)

Former Soviet dissident and Israeli Cabinet member Natan Sharansky, who spent nine years in a gulag because of his human-rights activities, spoke to the Tribune on Wednesday:

• With the money of the free world, the Palestinian Authority is producing the most anti-Semitic types of propaganda in history....Saudi Arabia and Iran are competing to see who could put the classical anti-Semitic stories into more powerful ways.
• When the Iranian president proclaims that there should be a world without Zionism, he means that he will use nuclear weapons. It is so dangerous because there are too many people that it doesn't frighten....What kind of contribution can this Iranian regime bring to the dialogue for peace when they made it very clear that for them peace means no more Israel?
• Israel again and again and again showed that the moment there was some very small, illusory hope for peace, they were ready to go ahead for all kinds of concessions....But I believe that one-sided concessions to terror will bring more terror.
• It took time for the West to understand that the only way to really force the Soviet Union to cooperate was to make economic and political links to human rights. And that until now hasn't happened with Iran.
• Q. Are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
  Sharansky: I am optimistic....Israel is very strong, much stronger than people think. It has a very strong economy, it has a strong democracy and, as this war showed, it has a very strong spirit....The wildest part of my optimism is that I do believe that Palestinians want and can and should and would live in a free society.

BRITISH JOURNOS ANTI-SEMITIC, NOT ANTI-"ZIONIST"

Why Israel But Not Burma? - Stephen Glover (Independent-UK)
The motion by the National Union of Journalists to single out Israel as being uniquely evil, and worthy of measures that are not contemplated against anyone else, is intellectually disreputable. The NUJ has not passed any motion to boycott China, where there are hundreds of political prisoners. Nor has it picked on North Korea, a totalitarian state in which millions of people have been deprived of the bare necessities of life. The same could be said of Burma. I do not believe that the NUJ has puffed itself in indignation against Saudi Arabia, an autocratic state where women do not enjoy rights that are taken for granted in Israel.

Whatever criticisms can be justly made of Israel, it is a functioning democracy with a free press and a robust tradition of free speech. Why is Israel singled out? I hesitate to raise the charge of anti-Semitism, but though laying aside that explanation, I confess that I am unable to find another one.

I AGREE WITH NATAN SHARANSKY'S "THREE D'S" TEST TO DISTINGUISH LEGITIMATE CRITICISM OF ISRAEL FROM ANTI-SEMITISM:

The first "D" is the test of demonization. When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz - this is anti- Semitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel.

The second "D" is the test of double standards. When criticism of Israel is applied selectively; when Israel is singled out by the United Nations for human rights abuses while the behavior of known and major abusers, such as China, Iran, Cuba, and Syria, is ignored; when Israel's Magen David Adom, alone among the world's ambulance services, is denied admission to the International Red Cross - this is anti-Semitism.

The third "D" is the test of delegitimization: when Israel's fundamental right to exist is denied - alone among all peoples in the world - this too is anti-Semitism.