Religion Report

1000 Conservative Anglican leaders in Jerusalam at the Global Anglican Futures Conference have avoided schism, but restated the depth of the crisis in the international Communion; Ehud Ya'ari on the Middle east- where Israel is entering into negotiations with its enemies on three fronts simultaneously

Transcript

This transcript was typed from a recording of the program. The ABC cannot guarantee its complete accuracy because of the possibility of mishearing and occasional difficulty in identifying speakers.

South Sydney Anglican Bishop Rob Forsyth in Jerusalem
Ehud Ya'ari on the Middle East

Stephen Crittenden: Welcome to the program.

Peter Jensen: What we're seeing I think is an evolution of the Anglican communion, similar to the evolution of the British Empire into the British Commonwealth of Nations. I don't see the end of the Anglican communion, but I see a renewed and different Anglican communion arising from this.

Stephen Crittenden: Archbishop Peter Jensen speaking on the BBC this week.

And this week in Jerusalem, a thousand conservative Anglican leaders including 280 bishops, many of them from the so-called global south, are meeting at the Global Anglican Futures Conference in Jerusalem. Journalist David Marr suggested the other day that what's afoot in Jerusalem is the destruction of the Anglican communion, but the conference began with Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria stating that they weren't intending to broker a schism: 'We have no other place to go, nor is it our intention to start another church', he said.

Well there is a certain ambiguity about the role that the Sydney Anglicans are playing at this Jerusalem conference, a certain disingenuousness even.

In his public pronouncements, Archbishop Jensen seems to alternate between playing the agent provocateur who declares that the communion is broken, and the reconciler who says he wants to find new ways for the Anglican communion to live together; as you just heard there, he talks about an extended rather than a nuclear family. But it shouldn't be forgotten that Peter Jensen is the Chairman of the organising committee for this GAFCON conference.

Well in the interview you're about to hear, the Bishop of South Sydney, Rob Forsyth, he says there are three types of people at the GAFCON conference: dynamic Asians and Africans, Americans who feel utterly persecuted and alienated, and groups like the Sydney Anglicans who come from a position of relative calm and are only really there to help.

I spoke late yesterday to Bishop Rob Forsyth who was out and about in the streets of Jerusalem with his mobile phone and I began by asking whether it was any clearer after these first few days at GAFCON, what the future Anglican communion would look like.

Rob Forsyth: No, Stephen, I think the question of what will GAFCON mean is still very much an open question. In fact only today have we entered effectively the third day, having been asked to start engaging in our small groups with that question. It's been a kind of getting to know each other, hearing some marvellous speeches, wandering up and down very hot scenery in Jerusalem so far.

Stephen Crittenden: I gather that some participants were planning to spend a few days together in Jordan before the beginning of the main conference, but Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria couldn't get a visa. Did that pre-conference conference end up taking place elsewhere? Because it had been reported, hadn't it, that Jordan is where the real talking was going to take place.

Rob Forsyth: Jordan was kind of a pre-conference of basically those running everything together - a get-together; a look at where we were going, just to clarify and also to talk to some bishops who it was thought would not be able to enter the state of Israel because of the countries where they were from. But Archbishop Akinola who's got a diplomatic passport of some kind, found himself stopped at the border, unable to go anywhere, eventually decided after a number of hours, to come back, and also I believe there was some difficulty for the bishops to have any kind of Christian meeting. I'm not sure of the details, but talking to one of them I said, 'You weren't allowed to sing or to gather together', so they came back to -

Stephen Crittenden: But you Sydney Anglicans wouldn't have been planning on doing any singing, would you?

Rob Forsyth: No, well I think we were supporting the band - no, that's not true. Well I wasn't there, but it's obviously there's some anxiety about a Christian gathering in the city. You can imagine the kind of situation in the Middle East.

Stephen Crittenden: The conference opens with a pretty direct attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury for failing to discipline the Episcopalians that came from some of the African bishops. Where does the office of Archbishop of Canterbury stand now, Bishop Forsyth? There are some suggestions that this conference is looking for some kind of alternative focus of power. In other words, by-passing Canterbury.

Rob Forsyth: I think at the moment there's a multitude of expectations. It was interesting because the one that gave the speech was Archbishop Peter Akinola and it was a strong call, and it reflected something which I hadn't realised coming from Australia, how the Africans, certainly the Central Africans, how they've felt marginalised and belittled right from the end of last Lambeth and comments made by the Episcopalians, and there's a way in which I think for them it's we Aussies are just used to playing our role but I think some of the African Christians have felt far more not listened to in a very much more personal way than others. What they'll be planning in its place I think there are three type of people at this conference Stephen, there are those like myself and us in Sydney who are keen to be part of it and to help, but from a position of relative calm. There are those like the Africans who I just mentioned, very large, very dynamic, and who although in great numbers, still I think feel very concerned about their place in the communion. But the key people are people from places like America and elsewhere who are feeling utterly persecuted and alienated and oppressed, and are looking for the conference tp provide real relief. And those recruits will have different kind of goals I suspect.

Stephen Crittenden: What's your response to those African bishops who are really saying that Western society and the Western church is apostate.

Rob Forsyth: It's not quite that big. They're saying parts of the Western church are apostate . Part of this process for me is learning to understand the different cultures. We have a great deal in common, and yet there are times when a 21st century Australian Christian does have a different experience of the world than a 21st century Nigerian bishop. And I think we are learning there are quite big differences. At the same time, I think they're seeing our world, or rather helping us as Westerners, to see our world in a sense slightly more critically than we're used to. And I think that we're seeing from Africa especially, a critique of the West and a critique of those who once brought them the Gospel that does sting. Some of them are speaking in very strong rhetoric but of course what would expect at a conference like this?

Stephen Crittenden: I'm interested in the role that the Sydney Anglicans are playing in GAFCON. The other day The Sun-Herald had Archbishop Jensen basically declaring a formal split in the Anglican church, saying 'If we're talking about schism and the break-up of the communion, it's the gay clergy who caused it, that's the start of it, that's where it ends.' Then on the BBC, just the other day, talking about the nuclear family having split and saying 'Perhaps we can now talk about an extended family.' You know, it does seem that the style the Sydney Anglicans are adopting is one of confrontation on one hand, and reconciliation, all at the same time.

Rob Forsyth: Yes, and you must realise that Peter Jensen is a key player here as you say, and Glen Davies is also involved in the group that will be producing the statement. I'm just wandering around doing what I'm doing now, enjoying myself, and talking to people like you Stephen, but at the press conference last night when one of Peter Jensen's comments was put to Bishop Orombi, from Uganda, he said, 'Well that's Peter's view, but we'll see what we think.' In other words, I don't think the Africans are waiting for even a Down Under Westerner to tell them what to do, as much as they value our partnership. So we may have views, we may be right, we be wrong, but I think it's not a case of Sydney calling the tune.

Stephen Crittenden: Some people might say that for the Sydney Anglicans, there's nothing ecclesiological or theological at stake if the Global Anglican Communion fractures, because you don't actually believe in the universal Episcopal communion to start with. Broughton Knox's brand of theology was all about the church is a gathered local community.

Rob Forsyth: Yes I've heard that many times and I can see there is even a bit of truth in that. However for us in Sydney, this experience, which started with Archbishop Goodhew by the way, not with Jensen, Harry Goodhew was the first to start forming significant links, and he did send some Sydney bishops over to America in his time, to do confirmations for rebel Episcopal churches. I think for Sydney, this is a rediscovery of the importance and the value of Christians, especially Christian Anglicans, and even if I may use the word of Archbishop Akinola: "Anglicans by conviction" who are biblical and orthodox around the world. The great fun here is that there are all kinds of Anglicans you see but there are us Low churches, but there are Charismatics, there are High Church, one man was wearing a purple biretta yesterday wandering around Jerusalem. It's all happening, and I think for us in Sydney it's a kind of reminder that we can't be complete unto ourselves.

Stephen Crittenden: The Bishop of South Sydney, Rob Forsyth, speaking on his mobile phone there from Jerusalem.

This is a strange moment for religion and politics in the Middle East. And much of that strangeness comes out of the apparent weakness of the Olmert government in Israel and the power shift in the direction of a newly emergent Shi'ite crescent, in the Middle East, led by Iran.

Last month in Lebanon the Shi'ite militia group Hezbollah took over the streets of West Beirut in the space of just 48 hours, and it now effectively controls the Lebanese government.

Meanwhile, Israel has suddenly entered negotiations with its enemies on three fronts simultaneously, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Hamas. In fact the day after I recorded the interview we're about to hear, a ceasefire agreement with Hamas, brokered by Egypt, was announced.

And my guest is Ehud Ya'ari, one of the best connected journalists in the Middle East. He works for Israeli Channel 2, he's co-editor of The Jerusalem Report, and he's an associate of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

We began with Israel's 3-way negotiations. We constantly hear that Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations and that Syria is a terrorist state. So is something new here? Are the terrorists being brought in from the cold?

Ehud Ya'ari: We are negotiating indirectly with Hamas over the possibility that Hamas will stop its terrorist activity from and out of the Gaza Strip. We are negotiating with Hezbollah in Lebanon only over the return of the bodies of two Israeli reserve soldiers who were abducted before the war in 2006 by Hezbollah. And the negotiations with Syria, under the auspices of the Turkish government are aimed at exploring the possibility of concluding a peace treaty which will remove Syria from its alliance with Iran and Hezbollah. Before that, I don't believe that they will see any chance for an Israeli concession under Golan.

Stephen Crittenden: Is it possible for organisations like Hamas and Hezbollah to change over time into legitimate political parties? I mean after all, Hamas already won a democratic election fair and square. Arguably Hezbollah now controls the government of Lebanon, or are these essentially jihadist organistations?

Ehud Ya'ari: Both are correct in my opinion. There is Hamas which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, nothing else; Hamas has decided to maintain itself at the same time as a political movement, political party, and an armed terrorist militia. That was their choice and they find it's very difficult to maintain themselves at the same time as the government in the Gaza Strip, and as what they call a "resistance movement". But I want to address an important question that you've raised and that is, can they change? I don't see a process of change yet in Hamas, but if you check the history of the other branches of the Muslim Brotherhood throughout the Arab world, you will quickly come to the conclusion that many of the Muslim Brotherhood movements had at one point been engaged in terrorism, with secret military wings etc., and under sufficient pressure, had to drop it. That's true for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, for the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, for the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, etc. I am one of those who believe that ultimately if Israel proves to Hamas that they cannot defeat Israel, that terrorism cannot win, that Hamas may go in the same way that other system movements of the Muslim Brotherhood were going.

Stephen Crittenden: Let's turn to Lebanon. I'm very interested in Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been called the most enigmatic and successful guerilla organisation in the Middle East. Robert Fisk talks about its 'iron discipline'. What was that strange drama in Lebanon about last month when Hezbollah virtually took over the streets of West Beirut in 48 hours with barely a shot fired?

Ehud Ya'ari: Well Robert Fisk, I have to say, is a long-time admirer of Hezbollah, so nothing that he writes about this organisation would surprise me, or any of his readers, I'm sure. Hezbollah maintained itself just like Hamas as was mentioned before, as both a political party which wages elections etc., and a military militia, totally sponsored and equipped by the Iranians and the Syrians. They had no opposition. When they decided to march into Sunni, Muslim Sunni, West Beirut, in order to demonstrate their military superiority, there was no other militia to confront them. They were simply alone in the game. But the question is, can Hezbollah force its will upon the puzzlework of Lebanese politics? And I think that Hezbollah realise that they are unable to take over.

Stephen Crittenden: Unable to, why is that?

Ehud Ya'ari: That is physically able. They could march into the Prime Minister's office, into the Presidency within 15 minutes. There was nothing to stop them. There was a decision by the leadership of Hezbollah (by the way against the advice given to them by the Iranians and the Syrians) to stop and seek some sort of a deal, a deal of course which greatly favours Hezbollah, gives it in fact a de facto veto power over any decision of the next Lebanese government.

Stephen Crittenden: Well let's perhaps investigate why that might be, but I want to ask you about the leader of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah . Many commentators see him as a very clever, analytical player. Is he perhaps the most formidable opponent Israel faces now, amongst all the Muslim leaders in the Middle East?

Ehud Ya'ari: Nasrallah himself admits publicly that he miscalculated on the eve of the 2006 war, that had he known that the abduction of the Israeli soldiers would lead to a war, he wouldn't have done that. And he's criticised in Lebanon by many other leaders and many factions. There is no consensus about this political skill or political wisdom. But there is one thing that overshadows everything: and that is the fact that Nasrallah cannot operate any more as a politician. He's down there in the bunker, he cannot come out of the bunker, he cannot speak to a rally in the street, he doesn't dare out of his hiding place. And that's a lesson that has been learned by many others in Lebanon, and I think by the Syrian President himself when he decided to opt for negotiations. After all the talk that we have heard about the great successes of Hezbollah during the 2006 Summer War with Israel, at the end of the day, Nazrullah cannot appear in public. Nazrullah cannot meet his own followers. You know, when he has to meet some foreign guests or other Lebanese politicians, it takes days to arrange for them to get to the hideout of this leader. In many ways he has been paralysed by his own endeavours against Israel, and he doesn't know which way to go now. You know it's an anecdote - when they were negotiating now the deal with the government in Lebanon over some sort of reconciliation, their negotiations were extended because his own representatives at the negotiating table were unable to contact their leader and get instructions.

Stephen Crittenden: Gebran Tueni who's the conservative, orthodox Christian editor of 'An Mahar', the newspaper in Lebanon, says, (and I see your face lighting up in a smile) -

Ehud Ya'ari: Because I know him well and I respect him a lot.

Stephen Crittenden: Well he says that Hezbollah's evolution towards being a mainstream political party, is cosmetic, and he says it conceals a sinister, long-term strategy which is the Islamisation of Lebanon, and ultimately war with Israel. Would you agree with that?

Ehud Ya'ari: Yes, I think it's true, because at the end of the day Hezbollah is nothing but a proxy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. It was created, established by the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranians. It is totally controlled, financed, equipped by the Iranians.

Stephen Crittenden: Is that true? We often hear that suggestion, but I'm also reading that Hezbollah these days is more independent of Iran.

Ehud Ya'ari: You see you're right in the sense that politically, Hezbollah may take sometimes independent decisions within the context of Lebanese domestic politics. But the main part of Hezbollah is the military wing, the militia, which is totally controlled by the Iranians. Even during the war in 2006 all the decisions whether to lob the long-range missiles into Israel or not, and where to hit, etc., were all taken by Iranian generals in Damascus, not by the leadership of Hezbollah. Hezbollah is the advance base of the Iranians on the Mediterranean, and this is the way I see not just Gebran Tueni sees it but most Arabs see it, not just Israelis.

Stephen Crittenden: Throughout the long history of the Islamic Middle East, Ehud, there have been shifts of power from time to time between the big players, Egypt, Baghdad, Turkey, Persia, Arabia; the American invasion of Iraq has helped bring about a big shift of power in favour of Iran and the Shi'ites. The Shi'ites are on top in Iraq, and you've also got this coalition between Iran and Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon. What does that mean for Israel, and what does it mean for the long-term prospect of peace in the Middle East, this Shi'ite crescent as some people call it?

Ehud Ya'ari: Yes, the Arabs call it the Shi'ite crescent, that was an expression that was coined by Prince Hassan who was at the time the Crown Prince of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. I believe that what we are witnessing is the emergence of Iran as a regional power.

Stephen Crittenden: A bit like Germany in the late 19th century, Ehud, wanting its place in the sun.

Ehud Ya'ari: Or they want to play what they call in Persian, they want to be the "baradari bozorg" they say in Persian, the "Big Brother" of everybody in the Middle East, and I think the re-emergence of Iran as original power is in a way a repetition of the policies which were pursued at the time by the Shah of Iran in the '60s and '70s. He was after the same objectives as the Islamic Revolution today. What is new now is that the Arab Sunnis in the region are unable to form a cohesive front vis-à-vis a Shi'ite power, especially to dealing Syria under the Allawites, who are according to some ruling Shi'ites too, to de-link Syria from Iran. And what we have now is that Iran is able to play a bigger role in Iraq because the Americans have accepted that, and what you have in southern Iraq today is pax Iranica, nothing else, not in south Iraq, it's not the achievement of the surge, it's the achievement of the Iranian position as arbiters. But the Sunnis are split between three ways, between the Salafi Jihadists, mostly represented by al-Qa'eda, who were defeated in Iraq and the Americans can claim victory there, the second camp is the Muslim Brotherhood, including Hamas etc., who have decided not to take public position against Iran. And the third is the moderate Arab regimes who are not sure that American predominance in the region is going to be maintained.

Stephen Crittenden: Al Maliki in Iraq, Jordan, Egypt -

Ehud Ya'ari: Saudi Arabia, and therefore everybody is seeking a way to explore the possibility of some accommodation with the Iranians and at the same time, get ready to equip themselves with nuclear bombs as well.

Stephen Crittenden: Now how important then is the religious aspect of this, the tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites, the fact that the Shi'ites seem to have the top hand. Are Shi'ites in fact easier partners in peace to deal with, because at least you know who you're talking to?

Ehud Ya'ari: I think that the main divide today in the region in the Middle East, is the Shia-Sunni divide. It's no longer the Arab-Israeli divide or different political divides that we had during the Arab Cold War, it's the Sunni-Shi'ite divide. It's all over the place.

Stephen Crittenden: Is the Middle East under Shi'ite hegemony more stable or less stable?

Ehud Ya'ari: Well we have no historical record of that.

Stephen Crittenden: This is unprecedented almost?

Ehud Ya'ari: Since the Fatimid Kingdom in Egypt, which was the last Shi'ite government in the Levant, and since the rise of the Safavi Dynasty which turned/converted Iran into Shi'ism, we haven't seen the Shi'ites as playing the predominant role in the region. Historically, by the way, the Iranians were not an extensionist power. The Persians, the Persian Empire, was not seeking territorial gains. This is why I want to emphasise I do not think that today's Iran is seeking territorial expansion, it's seeking influence, it's seeking control, it's seeking hegemony and in order to achieve that, they are able and they are doing it. They are able to try and seek all sorts of understandings with different Sunni groups.

Stephen Crittenden: Is it seeking to destroy Israel?

Ehud Ya'ari: Well I think the Iranians, certainly some factions of the current Iranian leadership, notably President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be very happy if they could knock Israel out of the map, and they make no bones about it. He's describing Israel as 'a stinking fish, a walking dead man' etc. etc. At this point, this is mainly a platform to mobilise support in the Arab-Sunni world. That is, if Iran is going to present itself to Sunni Arabs as Persia, there is no chance that Sunni Arabs will respond. If Iran is talking to them as an Islamic power, seeking some sort of an understanding between the different branches of Islam, talking about destruction of Israel, then you may have, and you do have, Sunnis who are willing to listen to this.

Stephen Crittenden: The whole shooting match presumably changes in the Middle East if Iran goes nuclear. To what extent are the present tactics of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah anchored around the prospect that Iran at some time may go nuclear?

Ehud Ya'ari: The prospect that Iran will become nuclear is the only game in town. There is no other game in town, that is- in the Middle East.

Stephen Crittenden: And how is that shaping the tactics of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah?

Ehud Ya'ari: I'll quote you as an anecdote, I'll quote to you the leader of Hamas in a private conversation in Teheran. He was told by one Iranian a top official of Iran, 'Just wait a minute', he said, 'give us some time and we will have the bomb, then the equation in the Middle East changes.' And Khaled Mashaal the leader of Hamas, responded, by saying to him, 'Don't forget, we, the Palestinians, we are there too. That is; 'don't even think about bombing Israel with a nuclear warhead or anything.'

Stephen Crittenden: 'We're living so close by'.

Ehud Ya'ari: 'We are living together, we are mixed with each other.' So Hamas is not sure that they are very happy about this scenario as it goes for others. But I was saying this is the only game in town. We have a window of probably two, maybe up to three years. I do not believe that the Iranians are capable technologically and otherwise, to get the bomb before that. They have different problems. The main issue is whether Iran can be deterred by a combination of sanctions, carrots that were offered to Iran, but mainly by the threat of the Sunni-Arab regimes who are telling the Iranians, 'If you get the bomb, we will get the bomb.' That is, if you will have a Shi'ite bomb, you will have a Sunni bomb. And the Saudis are very explicit about that, saying this to the Iranians. Everybody knows the corporation and the financing the Saudis provided for the Pakistani nuclear program, and I'm not sure the Iranians are so happy about the idea that they will have a bomb at the cost of having the rest of the Arabs having their own bombs, not just Israel. So there is still a chance of deterring Iran before it crosses the nuclear threshold.

Stephen Crittenden: A last question. This is a coda that has nothing really directly to do with anything we've been speaking about up until now. And that is, just in recent days, Barak Obama came out and basically said to a big audience of Jews in the United States that he was in favour of a policy of one, undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel into the future. What would a new Democratic President of the United States holding those views, mean for the peace negotiations?

Ehud Ya'ari: Every candidate to the American Presidency makes this statement, whereas every candidate, including Mr Obama I am sure (I know his advisors) knows very well that on the table at all rounds of negotiations that we have had and are having now with the Palestinians, is the division of Jerusalem. Having the city staying united, unified, but under split sovereignty. This is the formula, Obama knows it, everybody else knows it.

Stephen Crittenden: So in speaking that way, he was just going through the ritual that all American politicians have to go through to the Jewish community in the United States.

Ehud Ya'ari: Yes, but because by saying that he wants Jerusalem to remain undivided, he doesn't refer to what is on the table, which is split sovereignty. This is the issue. It's agreed between Israel and the Palestinians since the days of Mr Arafat, that Jerusalem will not be divided. The question is, how you split sovereignty or administrative control of the holy precinct etc. on which they did not have an agreement, and I think we are not going to have an agreement so far, merely because I'm afraid you have the Palestinians reaching silently a consensus that they are not that interested.

Stephen Crittenden: In their own separate state.

Ehud Ya'ari: In that statehood, and they would rather keep imploding, collapsing into Israel's unwilling arms.

Stephen Crittenden: That was going to be my last question, but I have to ask you: are you serious when you say the Palestinians are walking away from the idea of their own State? Or is that just a rhetorical flourish on your part?

Ehud Ya'ari: Palestinians are saying to Israel for many years now: either runaway statehood for them, which is a statehood for which they don't pay the full price in peace, burying the hatchet, or they are running away from statehood. What the Palestinians are doing today they are running away from statehood, and it's Israel's main challenge and main problem because we have a stake in a Palestinian state. We have a strategic interest in a civilized divorce. And if we are not going to have a civilized divorce we are going to keep fighting each other.

Stephen Crittenden: So what are they running towards if they are running away from state-hood?

Ehud Ya'ari: they are not sure, and I am not sure. But you have now for the first time in many years people talking about alternatives, mainly on Palestinian side. For example the possibility that you will have Jordan as a third partner to a peace deal. That is not a two state solution but a three state solution: Israel; a Palestinian state and the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan. You have some people talking of having some Israelis and some Palestinians remaining in a configuration of a sort of unified state; but with two strong autonomous governments and a very weak central government - an idea which is not acceptable to most Israelis. What you have now for the first is people talking about alternatives because people realize that 'Palestinian Statehood" will remain the battle-cry, but it is no longer the platform.
Stephen Crittenden: Ehud Ya'ari, it's been great having you on the program. Thank you very much.

Ehud Ya'ari: My pleasure, thank you.

Stephen Crittenden: A voice of pragmatism and realism in Israeli politics, and Middle Eastern politics, Israeli journalist Ehud Ya'ari.

Well that's all this week. Thanks to producers Noel Debien and John Diamond. I'm Stephen Crittenden.

Guests

Robert Forsyth +
Anglican Bishop of South Sydney

Ehud Ya'ari
Co-editor of The Jerusalem Report, associate of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy

Further Information

Global Anglican Futures website

What Is Anglicanism? by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi

Archbishop Peter Akinola in TIME

Anglican Communion official website

Fr Jake stops the world (blogspot)

Sydney Anglican media site

Sydney Anglicans on wiki

Ehud Ya'ari (bio)

Nasrallah's Malaise (article by Ehud Ya'ari)

Ehud Ya'ari : wise words article

Presenter

Stephen Crittenden

Producer

Noel Debien