Today, I was thinking of Anwar Sadat

As I watched in amazement at the sight of Gerry Adams and Rev. Ian Paisley sitting at the same table, I couldn't help but remember back to that amazing day in November, 1977, when Anwar Sadat came to Jerusalem.

I never thought I would see the day when Gerry Adams and Rev. Ian Paisley sat down at the same table.  I am old enough to remember Rev. Paisley shouting "NEVER...NEVER...NEVER" at the top of his lungs regarding peace with the IRA.  But it happened, and I couldn't help but think of Anwar Sadat.

Now, I may be one of the most right-wing of all the Israel supporters on DKos, at least regarding Israeli politics, but I think all Israelis agree that Anwar Sadat was one of the most courageous people in world history.

When everyone in the Arab League still maintained the "three noes", Anwar Sadat first told his own government and then the world that he would go to Jerusalem and make peace.  When his closest advisors, who assumed he was bluffing, asked him what he would do if Israel actually invited him, he responded, paraphrasing, "I would go immediately."  When Menachem Begin was elected Prime Minister, and invited Sadat, he made good on the promise.

I was living in America at the time, and I can still remember the day well.  Hebrew School (our equivalent of Sunday School) was spontaneously cancelled.  First of all, the kids old enough to know what was going on wanted to watch, and more importantly, no parent was going to leave the TV to drive the kids to shul.

I remember the crowds cheering him as he arrived on the streets of Jerusalem.  To this day, it is a sight that has never been equalled, and literally gives me goosebumps thinking about it.

Just three months later, a peace treaty had been signed.  And to this day, although it is widely referred to as a cold peace, it is a peace nonetheless.  

Unfortunately, Sadat was killed just three years later, by extremists in his own country, for the very reason that he made peace with Israel.  Just as unfortunately, the same fate befell Yitzchak Rabin a decade and a half later, for the same reason.

I don't know if such a man still exists.  It's definitely not Olmert.  Not because he is a war-mongerer, as many of you think, but because he is miserably incompetent, and doesn't belong in the same sentence as Sadat.  A courageous man doesn't blow in the political winds, like most of today's politicians, on all sides, both here and in America.

I know most people here don't agree with me on this, but I think if such a person exists on the Israeli side, it will come from the right not the left.  The left in Israel lately has only shown that they will give up anything in exchange for promises.  I believe the right will make real concessions for real peace. Remember, Begin was the most right-wing of all Israeli politicians.  I don't know if it's Netanyahu.  Like I said, I don't know if such a person still exists, on either side.  I would like to think that if Haniyeh wanted to speak in the Knesset, he would be invited just like Sadat, but I don't know.

Maybe with Rev. Paisley and Gerry Adams sitting together, someone else here, higher up the chain of command than me, will also be spending today thinking of Anwar Sadat.

It can't hurt.

Note: For those wanting to read the full transcript of Sadat's speech to the Knesset, here is a link.

•  tips or flames

  hopefully tips.

  by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:24:24 AM PDT

  •  Are you channeling Tom Friedman?

    In Abdullah’s Chance, Friedman urges the Saudi king "to fly from the Riyadh summit to Jerusalem and deliver the [Arab] offer personally to the Israeli people. That is what Egypt’s Anwar Sadat did when he forged his breakthrough. If King Abdullah did the same, he could end this conflict once and for all.

    Unfortunately, just as Israel has agreed to biweekly talks between Olmert and Abbas that could include discussions about the formation of a Palestinian state," the Palestinians may be turning their backs on negotiations. Ha'aretz reports:

    Erekat says there is no room to negotiate over the peace initiative, which was accepted by the Arab League at the Beirut summit in 2002.

    "There will be no negotiations with Israel over the initiative. There is also no demand to alter it by any of the parties," he added.

    by another American on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:51:06 AM PDT

    •  Except

      that I have a history about being correct regarding the Middle East (I unfortunately predicted the debacle in Iraq), and Friedman doesn't.  Maybe he would do better channelling me.

      by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:54:32 AM PDT

    •  I personally think

      that, although I trust Haniyeh as much as Paisley trusted Adams, if Haniyeh wanted to come to Jerusalem, that would be a better symbolic step.

      by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:56:56 AM PDT

•  And a point about the Knesset speech

  It actually did not go over very well with the Knesset.  That wasn't the point.  The point was he came to Jerusalem to say it.

  by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:25:17 AM PDT

•  No one on the Israeli Right . . .

  has given any indication of a willingness to make an historic compromise with the Palestinians.

  On the Left, however, Ehud Barak already has demonstrated a willingness to limit the scope of his compromises to reasonable red lines (as in the Clinton Peace Parameters). Ami Ayalon also gives evidence of being such a person.

  And in the center or center-right, there's Tzipi Livni.

  But there's another interesting aspect to the Paisley-Adams deal. Writing in today's Boston Globe, Padraig O'Malley writes:

  Although many Catholics would say that his actions over the years were incitement to violence by Protestant paramilitaries, Paisley fulfilled his historical role. His unequivocal, non-negotiatiable demand that he would not do business with Sinn Fein until the IRA had for all practical purposes put itself out of business is an articulation of what most nationalist politicians in the North and most people in the South felt but were constrained from expressing because of their history. For all his braggadocio, he spoke relentlessly to one essential truth: In a democracy you cannot have a political party that is attached to a paramilitary organization.

  by another American on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:40:44 AM PDT

•  The political climate of

  Israel, Egypt and some surrounding countries like Lebanon, as well as Palestine--as different as they all are--have been collectively sickening and weakening.

  Not a single one of those nations has a decent leadership, one that is either helpful to its own citizens or peace-seeking with the others.  Not one is libertine, or genuinely republican (small r) or forward-thinking.  And authoritarianism is generally increasing in all too, more police action, more war-spending.

  The question is to what degree (not if) is Iraq and Afghanistan and Irangate influencing/scaring people into more drastic, nasty action?

  by Nulwee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:42:26 AM PDT

  •  Boy, do I agree

    with everything you've said.  Ironically, it may be the blubbery of Iran that finally gets the Saudis and the Gulf States to wake up.  It may be the opportunity instead of the armageddon.

    by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:44:18 AM PDT

    •  Not hopeful for Dubai/UAE and the micronations

      either.  Seeing as the permanent slave class in places like Dubai and Doha has no ability to represent themselves or vote or negotiate.  I wonder if I was a celebrity, would I have thought about something like that before buying a multi-million dollar villa in one of those places.

      by Nulwee on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:50:29 AM PDT

      •  Although to Qatar's credit

        At least as far as Israel is concerned, they opened the "Business Office", and even during last summer's war, they kept it open.  It's a small, symbolic step, but a step nonetheless.

        by dfb1968 on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 10:52:27 AM PDT

    •  wake up to what?

      Saudi regime is the worst.

      by sunshineonthebay on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:18:40 AM PDT

•  Anwar Sadat - still missed as is Yitzhak Rabin

  I was just a little girl when all of this happened.
  I so vividly remember Mr. Sadat going to Jeruselem and the palpable excitement of that time.

  I rember the day he was killed like it was yesterday, and I wept for him and the world.  It seemed like he was stolen from us too soon - who knows what he could have accomplished if he had bee allowed to finish his work. I think of him often.

  Yitzhak Rabin was another person that I wept openly for an miss terribly.  This man could have accomplised peace for the middle east in our lifetime if he hadn't been assinated by yet another nut. I think of him often too.

  Seems like the good, honest, real people, are always the target of assassination.

  Sigh.............. I also think about John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, what could they have accomplished if some nut (or our government) hadn't killed them too.  It is funny how I think of these people so often and wonder ......WHAT IF

  Peace, love and God Speed to all.

  by Statusquomustgo on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 11:21:26 AM PDT

  •  I remember the day he died well also

    That was when CNN was actually a news station.

    by whitewidow on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 12:18:10 PM PDT

    •  Yeah, but that was when....

      the mainstream media actually showed you the truth.

      by Statusquomustgo on Tue Mar 27, 2007 at 02:57:31 PM PDT