From the Desk of Ambassador Reda Mansour

Is Atlanta an international city? What makes a city international?

I have worked in Atlanta for three years and it seems like this question keeps coming up. Is it a first rate international school like AIS or leading research institutions like Emory, Georgia Tech, or the CDC that have thousands of international students and faculty? Or perhaps it’s hosting the Centennial Olympic Games, as the city did in 1996.

Maybe it is Hartsfield-Jackson, the biggest airport in the world, which operates only 20 minutes away from the city and serves hundreds of thousands of flights a year with hundreds of millions of passengers from some 70 countries.

It could be the city’s two red giants, CNN and Coca-Cola, both household names around the world. Even in Africa’s Sahara Desert one can find satellite dishes attached to nomadic tents and cans of Coke in camel saddlebags.

In the relatively short time that I have lived here I have met some of the most well known world leaders.

People like Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations, and the Dalai Lama who stood in as a guest professor at Emory University.

Others like the Aga Kan who came here to promote International Baccalaureate programs in public schools and the author Salman Rushdie, call Atlanta home for part of the year.

There is also an internationally renowned music scene in Atlanta. In this city I’ve accidently run into stars like Elton John in the elevator and been in the InterContinental Hotel when Usher stepped into the Lobby and started dancing with my beautiful four year old daughter.

What make a city international are not its celebrities, its universities, its airports, or its companies.

But rather, it’s the attitude of its people. Atlantans are endowed with a desire to connect their city to the rest of the world, a curiosity about other places and ways of life.

Becoming internationalized as Atlantans have is a decision that can be made regardless of a place’s history, size, or, even, financial means.

I know this to be true from my hometown and country.

Isfiya, my town, has this same Atlantan attitude and it has managed to turn my once small village into an international tourist destination. Undoubtedly our breathtaking views of the Mediterranean from the top of Mount Carmel and the fact the Elijah walked our trails helped, but that was not the point.

It was the attitude of the residents that should be credited for the fact that at the beginning of the third millennium our town had three Israeli Ambassadors serving on three different continents.

The story of Atlanta and Isfiya is also the story of my country, Israel, a place only as large as the 28 counties in Atlanta’s metropolitan area.

Yet despite its size, Israel has over 100 embassies and diplomatic missions. It has made itself one of the world’s most globalized nations with free trade agreements with the European Union, North America, and with countries and regions around the world.

Atlanta too is building diplomatic missions and trade offices as the city fast becomes the preferred center for foreign missions seeking to work in the unofficial capital of Southeast.

My colleagues in the Atlanta Consular Corps and I work year round to connect the city and the Southeast to our counties and to build the international community from the bottom up.

We work with the city’s smorgasbord of local grass roots movements, civic associations, investors, and companies. We enjoy watching companies from home create jobs right here in the Atlanta area and seeing local investors help develop the communities we represent.

Atlanta, of course, has another example for someone who came from modest means to become a household name in four corners of the world.

If anyone made this city international, it was that man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Looking at his story, and the story of this city, leads me to say yes.

Atlanta is an international city and that’s thanks to its residents and leaders who work tirelessly to be global citizens and active in the international community.

Article original appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Consitution on September 27, 2009

The Consulate General of Israel in Atlanta and Morehouse College recently unveiled a new project, The Rabin-King Initiative, in an effort to bring the Jewish community and Israel closer to the African-American community. The venture’s launch was preceded by two years of dialogue and study of the history of relations between Jews in America and Israel to the African-American community.

Over the two years preceding the Initiative we began a dialogue and historical study of the relationship between the Jewish community in America, Israel and the African-American community. We met with many black leaders, including Congressman John Lewis who took part in the Dr. King’s famous march from Selma to Montgomery, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young, who stood next to Dr. King at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis when the assassin shot the civil rights leader down.  We also contacted the acclaimed poet Maya Angelo, NBA and Maccabi Tel Aviv player Levan Mercer, who lives in Atlanta, and of course the children and extended family of the late Dr. King.

During my educational journey, I was surprised to discover the great role played by Jews in the movement for civil equality led by King and his comrades. From the movement’s inception, Jewish volunteers from across America enlisted themselves in the cause. Jewish students traveled to the South to assist with the voter registration of Afro-Americans, unflinching even as some of their own were kidnapped and murdered.  They rode together on integrated buses to break the laws demanding the racial separation of public facilities.  Jewish accounts assisted the civil rights movement by managing its funds and Jewish lawyers were there to promote it in court.

Another surprising lesson I learned had to do with King’s love for America. In almost every speech, he stressed the importance of loving others and the need to co-exist upon the struggle’s end, and for this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  In all his speeches King would laud America’s achievements and emphasize that the black struggle was not just for equality, but also for the right to enjoy the benefits of the world’s most democratic, wealthiest, and most advanced society.

These are two important lessons to be applied in the context of Jewish-Arab relations in Israel. The Jews in Israel need to be active partners in the Arab struggle for full equality. At this time we don’t see enough Jewish involvement in Arab struggles for education, employment, and development. And while in the absence of Israeli Jews, American Jews are again filling the vacuum, there this is no substitute for the Jewish-Israeli civil society’s enlistment to this important cause.

Joint action for the sake of social objectives is important in and of itself, but it also serves as an important means to advance co-existence. Once Jews and Arabs join forces, they will get to know each other better and they will learn that there is no difference between a woman’s shelter for Jews and one for Arabs, or to how Arabs and Jews are affected by sickness, tragedy, and loss.

Israeli Arabs must also learn to emphases their desire to integrate into Israeli society.  They must tone done their criticism of Israel during times of struggle.  The almost automatic identification of some Israeli Arabs with any rival confronting Israel, be it Hamas or Hezbollah, is their right, yet it does not serve the equality we aspire for.  As long as this message is not clear, the Jews are right to be concerned that Arab Israelis are fighting for separation rather than integration.

The shared future of all of us in Israel will depend on the extent of mutual consideration given by Arabs and Jews to the sensitivities and difficulties of each side.

For many outside of Israel, their perception of the country has been framed by the international media. They have allowed their opinions to be shaped by a constant stream of pictures and articles with one main idea: between Arabs and Jews there can be only hatred and violence. With this mindset, the delegates traveled to Haifa, Israel, one of the most beautiful cities on Earth, a place where beauty is about more than geography.

In Haifa, the Muslim delegations visited a major university with an Arab Muslim vice president and many Arab students. They went to markets and offices and observed Arabs and Jews peacefully going about their simple daily lives. The delegations heard the call to prayer of the muezzin. They visited the mosque of the Ahmadi Islamic sect, Muslims persecuted in many parts of the world who have flourished in Israel, and traveled near the world Baha’i religious center, a faith persecuted in Iran. They met some of the more than one hundred Islamic family court judges and talked with the Imams who provide religious services; both groups are paid by the Israeli government.

In a regular Israeli parliament session, there are an average of 15 Arab members, some of whom are part of self-proclaimed Zionist parties. Israel has Arab members of parliament and in the cabinet; it has Arab ambassadors and high-ranking Arab officers in the military.

Yet, despite examples of diversity like those shown above, some critics persist in trying to apply the terrible adjective of apartheid to the State of Israel. The facts on the ground, however, show nothing even remotely close to a racist system. For while one can claim that Arabs in Israel do not receive enough government attention or investment in their community or one can argue that the Israeli Arab’s situation is sensitive as a minority in a country that has gone to war with its Arab neighbors, all of these issues are political and have nothing to do with race. There is no apartheid in Israel.

Nor is there apartheid in Gaza and the West Bank. The territories came under Israeli control in 1967 following the Six Day War and over the next 20 years Israel controlled them with nearly no security measures: almost no checkpoints, no fences and no controlled roads. However, during the first Palestinian uprising in 1987 and again during the 1990s, Israel was forced to toughen its security measures. The country had to protect its citizens because the terrorists of Hamas made suicide bombing their tactic of choice and shopping malls, night clubs, schools, and hotels their primary targets.

Before their uprising began, more then 120,000 Palestinians worked in Israel. In every Palestinian household there was at least one person who worked in Israel. These workers entered the country freely and their standard of living was among the highest in the Middle East.

Only after 25 years of controlling the territories and having its citizens targeted by terror, did Israel begin to institute the security measures that some are trying to call “apartheid.” That is why it has been so hard to make the charges stick. Israel, like any other country, is not perfect. The country and its diverse population still admittedly face political and security issues. But apartheid? You must be joking. Israel and the international community are ready for Palestinian freedom and independence. The question is, however, are the Palestinians?

The greatest problem facing the Palestinians today is not Israel or illusionary “apartheid,” but a lack of unified and visionary leadership. Palestinians need to understand that violent action will never yield the results they want and that serving as a useful distraction for the regime in Tehran will never bring prosperity. The Palestinians need to produce their own Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, or Mahatma Gandhi.. A leader who will demonstrate to them that nonviolence is a much more successful tool for freedom and co-existence.

Article was picked up by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency on April 3, 2009.

Some of the Arab and Muslim demonstrators who recently came to our offices were holding signs that said “Free Gaza.” Many Israelis would raise that same sign, me included, but for different reasons. People tend to forget that as of August 2005, Israel has not been in Gaza, and that the Gazans have been under Hamas control since June 2007.  Indeed, Gaza needs to be freed from many different extremist forces.

Gaza should be freed from Hamas, a terrorist organization that seized the strip by force. Since the take-over, Hamas has run Gaza’s economy into the ground and now nearly half of the work force is unemployed. Hamas has built a Taliban-style state in Gaza and introduced many of the Islamic Shari’a laws, institutionalizing the persecution of women and minorities.

Hamas has transformed Gaza from a free territory to a large bunker, a place where rockets are stored under families, schools, and places of prayer. Unfortunately, Gazans not only live among this militarization but are now a tool in Hamas’ aggression.  The terrorist organization has developed a strategy of using innocent civilians as human shields. When Israel warns that the houses of Hamas operatives and commanders will be targeted, the terrorists bring in innocent citizens, often by force, in an effort to increase the likelihood of civilian casualties. Hamas’ leaders rely on the strict Israeli moral code, hoping to avoid being attacked or that a strike will allow them to score points in the media by sacrificing there own people, creating what looks like acts of Israeli military aggression.

Gaza should be freed from the intervention of Iran, a state that openly admits to financing Hamas. Iran is also helping Palestinian terror organizations with training, intelligence and equipment.  Some of this “aid” is channeled through Hezbollah in Lebanon– yet another Iranian proxy organization.  Hezbollah and Iran use the Gazans to maintain regional political relevance in their empty agenda against Israel.

Gaza should be freed from some of the Arab Satellite channels like Al-Jazeera. These television stations engage in the direct incitement of the Arab and Muslim world. Everything is acceptable in their eyes to raise their ratings: including long shots of bodies and injuries. Some of these channels do not dismiss any editing trick and consider propaganda as a normal part of their news reporting.

As far as Israel is concerned, Gaza is free and it is the decision of its inhabitants to what the area’s destiny will be. They can continue to buy into the self-defeating promises of terrorist organizations and extremist ideologies. Even worse, they can continue to let these organizations use them as human shields and demolish their hopes and futures.

Gazans can only truly be free by declaring Gaza a terror-free zone.  The people of Gaza have many resources in their hands to achieve success.  Gaza could use its beautiful Mediterranean coast to attract Israeli and Egyptian tourists. It can renew the flower and fruit exports to Europe that Israel left behind.  The airport that was built there can be reopened.  The seaport that is planned and even the natural gas fields in its waters could be built.  The people of this region need to make the decision that Gaza will become a model of peace and stability and hopefully, the beginning of the two-state solution: Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace.

Article appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on January 7, 2009 and in the Nashville’s Tennessean on January 6, 2009

We in Israel continue to mourn the attacks in Mumbai. The terrorists of “India’s 9/11″ obliterated the relative peace in one of the world’s greatest cities, murdering hundreds of mothers and fathers, husbands and wives and sons and daughters. The attacks are tragic examples of the new age of global terror in which we live. The shadow of terrorism looms over the four corners of the Earth, from New York and Washington to Bali and Mumbai, from Madrid and London to Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

The globalization of terror is visible not only by geography, but by the diverse backgrounds of those who are killed. The terrorists of Mumbai sought out not only Indians, but also Americans and English, Jews and Israelis, and anyone else who could be mistaken for a Westerner. The terrorists targeted Mumbai’s Chabad center, the local branch of the Jewish outreach organization, and killed nine of its occupants. In the end, the citizens of 26 countries could be counted among the dead and wounded.

Terrorists do not care who they kill. During the 1990s, we in Israel were besieged by the homicide bombers of Hamas, Hezbollah and their fellow travelers. The bombers struck shopping malls, schools and buses in an attempt to target Jewish civilians. Many of the attacks took place in mixed Arab-Jewish cities. The terrorists were undeterred by demographics. They blew up restaurants filled with Jews and Muslims alike. Bombs exploded aboard buses filled with veiled Muslim women. In one case a Hezbollah missile landed off target, killing two young Arab brothers in the city of Nazareth. Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, congratulated the boys’ mother and father for their sacrifice.

The present and brutal reality of globalized terrorism was first apparent 20 years ago when terrorists bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The victims were not just American, British or Israeli but were Jamaican, Filipino, Bolivian, Argentine and Trinidadian. The attacks over Lockerbie and in Mumbai, along with all those the world has sustained in between, prove that 21st-century terrorism isn’t localized in some remote hot spot or in countries militarily involved in Iraq. Today’s terrorism threatens everyone, regardless of faith, nationality or political beliefs.

Given the universality of the global terrorist threat and the extended reach of its murderous hand, the old semantic debate about the difference between “terrorists” and “freedom fighters” should be put to rest. Violence and evil should be called out for what they are, and 2008, the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, should be the time for the international community to assert its right to live free from terror and fight back.

Terrorists justify their violence by claiming its necessity in their struggle for political rights. This validation is a lie. Three great leaders of the 20th century prove the hollowness of the terrorists’ claim. The first was Mahatma Gandhi, the Indian who lead the subcontinent to independence and inspired countless true freedom fighters.  Gandhi wrote in his autobiography that “he who would be friends with God must be alone or make all humanity his friend.” In his quest for India’s freedom, Gandhi shunned violence and engaged Hindus and Muslims and Christians and Jews alike.

Gandhi lived a portion of his life in South Africa, where he came to inspire Nelson Mandela. Despite the hardships of abuse and imprisonment, Mandela embraced nonviolence and destroyed the racist system of apartheid. The future president of his country showed that the choices of forgiveness and moderation are far better tools for achieving equality than vengeance and extremism.

A portrait of Gandhi also hung in the office of a young Atlanta preacher working for racial equality, someone who believed that “God is not interested merely in the freedom of black men and brown men and yellow men. God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race.” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. understood that violence can contaminate a society for generations and that, in opposition, groups must struggle to build one common nation.

Gandhi and his disciples do not show an alternative path to equality and freedom from the one espoused by terrorism. They show the only path. The cold-blooded murder of innocents will never lead to more freedom. Terrorism’s blind rage inevitably turns others against murderers’ cause and only escalates the cycle of violence.

Over the next few decades, the competition between the false and heinous justifications of terrorism and the message of Gandhi, King and Mandela will be in full force. The hearts and minds of the world’s oppressed and marginalized are at stake. The truth must prevail, as countless lives hang in the balance. Terrorism is the challenge of our generation and entire international community must unite against the common threat.

Article appeared in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution on December 29, 2008 and in Charleston’s Post & Courier on December 18, 2008.