A right to self determination?... no thanks

"No greater monument to human stupidity and ignorance can be conceived than the frequent and blithe espousal of ethnic nationalism today."

Michael Neumann, in The Case Against Israel. Counterpunch, California, USA. 2005, p. 17.

It is not the notion of Palestinian (or any kind) of national identity that I object to. Nor do I suggest that those behind the 'self determination' rhetoric have, for the most part, have noble and decent anti-imperial intentions - for which I certainly have sympathy for (although the question of what Wilson's true intentions were remains a moot point that we do not go into now).

I simply think that the idea of a communal right to self determination makes logical nonsense, and the way it is banded about in the ill defined way that it is does an active disservice to the Palestinian national cause.

This conclusion is base on three main criticisms of 'self determination' and it must be credited to Prof. Michael Neumann. First, and foremost, that the right to self determination is a term that is easily applicable to no only the best but also the very worst reasons for engaging in conflict. Second, that the right is not universally applicable (and considering the first point a jolly good thing too!). Third, that experience tells us that the 'right' is simply impractical.

First "the 'self determination of peoples' has a sinister undertone. It amounts to advocating the assignment of territory and political power according to ethnicity." If I were to advocate the right to self determination to the nation of English people, would you really believe for a second that I wasn't talking about white, Christian Daily Mail readers? Ethnic-nationalism has an uncomfortably close relationship to racial nationalism... and even we can pick the odd example of a genuinely pluralist Ethno-nationalist movement, it is not hard to find ten, or a hundred of examples of a racial exclusivist agenda is pursued. Don't I get a right to self determination for my kin - just because they are white and comparatively rich? how about Afrikaanas? or Tutsis? - and come to think of it, wasn't Zionism framed as a legitimate pursuit of 'self determination' as Jews escaped the various phases of horrific instigations of ethno-nationalist agendas in this continent's bloody history?

Second, the right is clearly not universally applicable, because - unlike individual human rights, a group's 'right to self determination' depends on the capacity,and willingness, of external parities to recognises the group as one worthy of a right. In essence, it depends on others to both recognise the right, but also the right to a right! I am sure you can see the problems here. If I argue for a 'right to self determination' for all people named Phil, or all people who prefer cricket to football - then my arguments are plainly silly. We need therefore a body to discern between 'real' rights and 'silly' ones. Wilson had such a body in mind when he came up with the fourteen points... I don't think we need to go intothe details of The League of Nation's particularly chequered history on this matter or even to it's successor's, we can simply summise that even in the rare cases that the UN has regonised a people's claim to such a right (not that it has done even this for say... the Tamils, or effectively for the Kurds) - it is frequently held to ransom by the countries in the UN where the majority of money and equipment come from (UNSCR 198 and 242 spring to mind). One might suggest this is only because of injustice in the global system, well, yes - I'd agree with that, but thats basically how the global system is, and how its always been - and frankly, if we had a 'just' global system, would we even be having a discussion about 'self determination' in the first place? The long and short of it is that 'self determination' not only gets it wrong in this respect, but it does way worse - it gives the authority to decide where it is applicable to those who are most powerful in the global system in other words - those who are naturally most inclined to reject change!

Third, the impracticality of the 'right'. I've already mentioned some examples above and the particularly unpleasant or even absurd consequences in several cases, and also the myriad of cases where it simply hasn't gotten off the ground. However, it is Neumann's example that really encapsulates the silliness of the idea. "The state of Yogosalvia was proclaimed by the Yoguslav national council. The Western powers recognized this product of self determination and for many years it seemed that there was a Yoguslav people. Today the use of such a phrase would be a good but rather bitter joke."

My final, parting silo, is that basically, even if one existed, Palestine DOESN'T NEED a right to self determination. The case is only more muddied by the use of such language that is so easily adapted for its own purposes by the other side! How many times have I read that Zionism is the manifestation of self determination, getting into that old basket case argument of a biblical right to a particular piece of land. Or even the arguments (that you cite yourself) attacking the Palestinian 'right to self determination' because there was no cogent notion of Palestinian nationalism before X or Y year. Who cares? These are tactics that are used to make the issue appear far more complicated than it is!

The Palestinian case should be based on individual human rights that are unquestionably the basis of international law and are based on such widely acknowledged experiancial basis that even Prof. Dershowitz would struggle to find fault with.

Palestinians have a right to life, liberty and security of person... because everybody does according to Article 3 of the UN Declaration of 1948.

Palestinians have a right to due process of law and protection from involuntary servitude and cruel and inhuman treatment... because everybody does (articles 4,5 and 6)

Palestinians have a right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country... because I do, and you do and everybody does (article 13).

Palestinians have a right to nationality (!) and education (my personal favorite) freedom of peaceful assembly and association (articles 15, 20 and 26) because we all do... and the list goes on... and on... and on... (and long may it continue!)

I highly recommend Neumann's book, and also his website: http://members.tripod.com/mneumann/mnisrael.htm

Three quarters of the people who talk on television about the Islamic world, couldn’t find their way out of a bag in the Islamic world!

This is a short extract from a lecture given at Stanford University entitled: “Democracy and the Middle East: Prospects and Problems”. The lecture took place on Thursday, April 20, 2006 at 7:30-9:00 pm, and was part of Stanford’s “Aurora Forum” and open to the general public.

The extract covers a question regarding the relationship between Islam and Democracy and the answer given by Abbas Milani.

Abbas Milani is a research fellow and co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at the Hoover Institution with an appointment in Stanford’s Department of Political Science, Abbas Milani is the author of Tales of Two Cities: A Persian Memoir (1996), Modernity and Its Foes in Iran (1998); and Lost Wisdom: Rethinking Modernity in Iran (2004).

Questioner:

“To what extent does Islam play a role in this? Much of the popular discourse focuses on the inherent inconsistency between Islam and democracy. Arab countries are always cited as ‘exhibit A’ [wherein the inconsistency is deemed to be most apparent]. Arab counties constitute 15% of the world’s Muslim population, and by my ‘back or the envelope calculation’ the countries of Turkey, India, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Malaysia, make up nearly half of the world’s Muslim population. So I’d like you to reflect a little bit on: to what extent is Islam a causal factor in the anti-democratic nature of governance in Arab countries. And I’d like to turn Bernard Lewis’* question on its head ‘What’s wrong with Islam?’ and I’d like to ask you: what’s wrong with the way we may be thinking about Islam and its role in democratic development?”

*Bernard Lewis is the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor Emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University and specializes in the history of Islam and the interaction between Islam and the West. He is also an advisor to the Bush Administration and to often also to other members of the Republican Party.

Abbas Milani:

“First of all, I think one of the great misperceptions that exist in the west about Islam, is that there is a monolith out there called ‘Islam’. We have as many varieties of Islam as there are varieties of Judaism, Christianity and Buddhism. There are stridently fundamentalist, pseudo-fascist, Islamists, and there are democratic Islamists who want to live as much in a democracy as anyone, anywhere. That Islam has a unified-anti-democratic history is also, I think, a great miss-conception. When the West had never heard of ‘multiculturalism’, Islam had a multicultural empire. And Jews, according to the same Bernard Lewis, when they were being thrown out of Spain, and they were being thrown out of England* … the safest place for Jews, was the Muslim world, and this according to Bernard Lewis … and we had, a thousand years ago in Baghdad, a set up where Muslims, Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians would have open philosophical discussions about the different merits of religion. Yet at the same time, during that same period, there were clerics who ordered the death of anyone who didn’t think like them. So, we don’t have ‘one Islam’, we have varieties of Islam, some of them very open to change, some of them very open to democracy, some of them completely opposed to democracy.

“Part of the problem, I think, in the way the West approaches it – and this is particularly true in America, I am sorry to say – America has an attitude that the Islamic world is ‘easy to understand’ and that anybody can be an ‘expert’ on the Islamic world. Three quarters of the people who talk on television about the Islamic world, couldn’t find their way out of a bag in the Islamic world! They don’t speak a word of Arabic, or Turkish, or Persian. They’ve never lived in that area! I know people who have written books about Iran, a whole book, describing 25,000 years of history, and the lady who wrote it wouldn’t know Persian from Turkish! She wouldn’t know the Turkish alphabet from the Persian alphabet.

“Think about this: in the last 25 year when the United States knew that the ‘Muslim phenomenon’ was going to be a problem the number of study centres in America had diminished (!) except for after September 11^th. The State Department did not teach Persian until after September 11^th – they had a handful of people speaking Arabic! When Ronald Regan was looking for the moderates in Iran, and brought a group of Iranians to the White House, they had to bring an Iranian business man to translate the discussion. The CIA didn’t have one person who could understand Persian.”

* These pogroms occurred in England at roughly the time of the signing of the Magna Carter in 1215, which is considered to be the foundation of ‘Civil liberties’ and habeas corpus, for all common law nations and states, including the United States, Australia and Canada, and for all international Human Rights legislation

MA results and thanks!

The original purpose of my to the West Bank was to learn about Palestine in order to write my dissertation for my Masters degree in Peace Studies at Lancaster University's Department of Politics and International Relations. The marks for the masters degrees are being sent to us next weekend and then I'll find out how I've done. Regardless of whatever result I get I think its appropriate to use this opportunity to thank everyone who made my time in Palestine possible and for everyone who helped me by providing information and hospitality. What I've gotten out of this process has been worth more than any qualification ever could be. The strongest of friendships have been forged and I am grateful for every single one of them.

What I have learned, in some small way, is the perspective of a landless nation and an occupied people in perhaps the world's most infamous conflict. Some of what I saw was frightening, some of it filled me anger and some, like the constant non-violent resistance at Bili'n is simple awe inspiring. I will continue to do what ever I can to rouse people's attention in my own country and hopefully, where ever else I end up.

Obviously it would be unwise for me to copy any of the actual content of my dissertation up on the Internet, however I think it would be nice just to show the Abstact and Acknowledgments from the preamble, and to say again no matter how it turns out... THANK YOU!

Youth and the Palestinian
Resistance in the West Bank

by Philip Leech
(candidate for MA in Peace Studies, Lancaster University,UK, 2007.)

Abstract

This dissertation presents the argument that youth involvement in resistance in the West Bank is complex and multi-faceted yet is predominantly non-violent. It has been based predominantly on primary research in the form of interviews and other data I gathered during a two month research trip in the West Bank in 2007. From the structuralist school of conflict theory we discuss the way in which the material and ideational conditions affect not only how young Palestinians resist the occupation by also why. The concepts of ‘rational choice’ (Simon: 1955) and structural conflict theory (Galtung: 1996) are applied a detailed empirical discussion
on the nature of the occupation, its affects on young Palestinians and the most prevalent forms of resistance. The analysis of youth participation in resistance is then presented through the frameworks of different conceptual narratives (Khalili: 2007) and with reference to the various ways in which the affects of the occupation are opposed or overcome by young Palestinians. The dissertation concludes by confirming the validity of the structuralist argument and accounting for the predominance of non-violence as resistance in the West Bank.

Acknowledgements

My greatest debt of gratitude for this dissertation is to the every Palestinian, young and old, who were kind enough to assist me in my research by sitting for interviews, guiding me round cities, translating discussions, offering me advice, introducing me to the rich culture of the West Bank and most of all, for being so friendly and making me feel extraordinarily welcome.

I would also like to express enormous thanks to Ms. Sophie Richter-Devroe (Exeter University) for her suggestion of visiting the West Bank, her Arabic lessons and her exceptional guidance, and to Mr. and Mrs. Oliver Leech who have been wonderfully supportive in all kinds of different ways (not least, by worrying about me while I was in the West Bank and not telling me too often!).

My Thanks Also to:

Ms. Emily McNeill (Ithaca University)
Prof. Gerd Nonneman (Exeter University)
Ms. Laura Ribeiro (Right to Education Campaign, Birzeit University, Palestine)
Ms. Anita Sivakumaran (Lancaster University)
Ms. Catherine Leech
Dr. Amaledu Misra (Lancaster University)
Prof. Chris May (Lancaster University)
Mr. Aidin Fathalizadeh (University of California, Berkeley)
Ms. Aya Lowe (University of Edinburgh)
Dr. Muna Giacaman (Birzeit University, PAS Programme)
Ms. Hanadi Abu-Taha (Birzeit University, PAS Programme)
Mr. Kareem Rabie (The City University of New York, Graduate Center)
Ms. Nadine Kreitmeyr (Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Instiute)
Mr. Christopher Ferris Zabaneh (University of Queens, Canada)
Mr. Thomas Marring
Ms. Angelique Thomas (Reed University)
Ms. Stephanie Nolen (The Globe and Mail, Canada)
Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi (Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs)
Ms. Joanna Beituni (Saint Xavier University)
Ms. Rima Manasra (Exeter University)

In accordance with my general policy of anatomy for Palestinian sources, I would like to
acknowledge the generous help given to me by the following people, without listing their
names:

Particular thanks to the head of volunteers for the PAS Programme at Birzeit University and to my guides in Hebron,
The Department for Education, Tulkarem District,
The Teachers Union, Tulkarem,

The Staff of:
The Olive Cooperative (Manchester, UK),
The PAS Programme (Birzeit University),
Palestinian Academic Society for the Study of International Affairs, (East Jerusalem),
Right to Education Campaign (Birzeit University),
Department for Politics and International Relations (Lancaster University),
Al-Haq Centre for Human Rights (East Jerusalem),
The Health Works Committee (West Bank),
Ibda Cultural Centre (Dheisheh Camp),
The Freedom Theatre (Jenin Camp),
The Community Centre (Jalazone Camp).

Second Open Letter to Paul Farrelly MP

Dear Paul Farrelly MP,

Thank you for your prompt reply. I was very pleased to learn of your support for the Prime Minister’s initiative. Indeed I am also encouraged by the European Union’s call for the Government of Israel to reconsider the designation of Gaza as an “enemy entity”. It is apparent
from the lessons of Northern Ireland, and from James Wolfensohn’s recommendations for an effective long term strategy that economic growth is likely to be central to achieving a lasting peace. At a conference I attended in Jerusalem recently, former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami explained that such a strategy simply cannot be effective while Palestine is divided and while the international community ostensibly supports free elections and then objects to their
result.
I wonder, therefore, whether you consider that the European support for the international blockade that still victimises the innocent Palestinians in Gaza (and gives those with militant leanings another reason to see no distinction between Israel and its western allies), and the attempted isolation of Hamas (presumably including, but not limited to the Izz al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades) is one of the ‘short-term reactions’ or ‘over-reactions’ that, as you say, puts the
peace process at risk.
In my view the presentation of the Palestinian question has become set in a narrative which is more representative of a particular political agenda than actual fact. An important example ins ‘terrorism’ which according to international law and Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus at Princeton University and formerly a member of the UN Human Rights Inquiry Commission for the Palestinian Territories) is considered to be: violence “directed at civilians with a calculated
intention of producing fear as well as physical harm”. It is therefore distinguished from other forms of armed operations by its victims not by its perpetrators. As Falk explains in his paper Azmi Bishara, the Right of Resistance, and the Palestinian Ordeal: “Collective punishment
of a people subject to the exigencies of a military occupation with territorial ambitions is clearly as much a form of terrorism as reliance on suicide bombers.”
According to Falk the armed resistance that targets military assets of a hostile occupying power is not clearly permissible nor non-permissible. However, similar actions are applauded as a kind of national mythology in the United States (as the resistance to British rule), in Europe (the Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur and/or Maquis) and in Israel itself as armed resistance to British occupation in the late 1940s.
I believe that it would be extremely important, and supportive to the peace process, for the British Government to take the step of explicitly defining what it considers to be terrorism and ‘short-term reactions, and over-reactions’ in this context. The government of Israel currently undertakes routine torture, extra-judicial executions, house demolitions, pervasive methods of restricting movement, and illegal annexation of territory. (If you require, I can present you
with an in-depth academic report I have researched and written supplying a great deal of evidence supported by predominantly Israeli and international sources, such as B’tselem, ICAHD and my own interviews). Surely, if we are to be consistence under the law we must
demand the same of Israelis as we do of Palestinians.
Attacks which target civilians in Tel Aviv, the Negev or West Jerusalem are certainly morally wrong and the UK is right to demand their end. But there should be no special status for terrorism that is enacted by states. Therefore the British government must identify and
pursue the goal of ending terrorism against Palestinians with the same vigour it seeks to end terrorism by Palestinians.
I hope that with the opportunity of the Labour Party Conference and the commencement of a new parliament in the coming weeks you will actively encourage the government to take two actions. First, publicly state a clear position that distinguishes between what actions it
considers to be legitimate and illegitimate in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and applicable to both nations. Second, accept either the ending of the economic blockade against the Gaza Strip or its extension to the State of Israel until such time as the Israeli Government commits to the cessation of terrorism against the Palestinian people.
Finally, I would also like to ask if you would mind me quoting or summarizing your correspondence to me on my online blog (C.f. http://peechyinpalestine.blogspot.com).

Thank you for your continued correspondence,
Yours sincerely,

Phil Leech

Response from Mr. Paul Farrelly MP (Constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme, Labour)

You have to love getting letters back from Parliament... They come in a nice pale yellow envelope, on nice pale yellow paper emblazoned with "On Her Majesties Service" and in green the crest of the Palace of Westminster and "House of Commons" inside.

Paul Farrelly, by all accounts a very decent man, is my MP, and although we cirtainly differ in view on a wide range of issues (primarily on what he deems necessary for National Security and his support of certain recent foreign adventures by the British Expeditionary Force), I am pleased to report that he wrote back promptly and offered an interesting retort to my argument.

Dear Mr. Leech

Thank you for you thoughtful and passionate e-mail regarding the Palestinian Crisis and I appreciate and share your concerns.

Solving the Palestinian issue must be one of the international community's primary concerns.

To this end, I was present at an event recently where Gordon Brown was making a speech to leading figures in the Jewish commuinty in Britain. In his address he stressed that economic development was crucial for the Palestinians and that peace and prosperity went hand in hand. It was good to the Prime Minister taking such a balanced and thoughtful approach.

Unfortunately, however, such long-term strategies for peace in the Middle East are thwarted by short-term reactions, and over-reactions, and only by creating a stable environment can economic development occur.

Clearly, I will continue to support any campaign that attempts to solve the crisis and encorage further dialogue between all sides and I firmly believe that only through concerted international pressure will there be any resolution.

Best Wishes and Kind regards

Open letter to my MP

I am writing to you to express concern regarding Britain's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Today's decision by the Israeli government to designate the Gaza Strip as a 'hostile entity' and the support for this designation from the US Secretary of State, is a step very much in the wrong direction. I hope that as my representative to Parliament you will step up and do what is right.

In Palestine as a whole the Israeli occupation attacks/prevents/undermines normal life for everyone, all the time (I have seen this in the West Bank with my own eyes). I Gaza the situation is worse than the West Bank. According to Jeff Halper (Israeli Citizen and founder of the Israeli Campaign Against House Demolition: ICAHD) "The very legal framework invoked by Israel to carry out this illegal and immoral act – declaring Gaza a “hostile entity” within a “conflict short of war” – has absolutely no standing in international law. The collective punishment of an entire civilian population, by contrast, is explicitly prohibited."

The UK has for to long now fallen into line behind the US and Israel on this topic. It is surely time to learn from actually research of what is going on, on the ground in the West Bank and Gaza and coming to our own conclusion promoting a peaceful and just resolution to this conflict which is in everyone's best interest. Please use your position of authority to speak out against this absurd policy, and in support of international law.

Yours sincerely,

Phil Leech

A letter on Gabriel Schoenfeld's "The Return of Anti-Sematism"

The book is available online at Amazon

Schoenfeld, G. (2004). The Return of Anti-semitism, Encounter Books. (http://www.politicospublishing.co.uk/titles.php/itemcode/125)

Thank you very much for the book! I read it over the past couple of days. It seems to be an interesting argument. Unfortunately its quite clear to me that the author is far more interested in promoting his own political agenda than presenting an extremely important issue in its true light.

Please excuse my pomposity in saying that: authors, and books, like this are guilty of many sins against the academy but the most important one is that they have a tenancy to paint over with a roller that which requires the finest brush and the most delicate touch (Fukuyama, Huntington and Kaplan are also famous names who similarly inclined to do this).

Schoenfel fails to define the term 'Anti-Semitism' anywhere in his book, although he implies throughout that any and all criticisms of Israel, Jews and Jewish society (particularly pro-Israel lobby groups in the US) are anti-Semitic. This raises two significant problems.

First it means that proper and accurate analysis of this phenomenon is hindered by the lack of clarity in discussion. Just as there is an obvious and fair distinction to be made between legitimate criticism of British or American culture and policy and racism, there must also be a distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli policy and the actions of AIPAC (and the like) and Anti-Semitism. It is not Mr. Schoenfel's (or anyone else's for that matter) right to deny that Israel, AIPAC or any other organization or individual should be accountable for their actions just because they happen to be Jewish (or from any other cultural background for that matter).

The Second problem is that Schoenfel's analysis of the Israeli-Palestine conflict is obviously confused and very vague. He talks about 'Muslim anti-Semitism' starting in Malaysia and ending in Palestine without even stopping to draw breath. He argues that the manner of killing etc. that are performed by armed organizations in Palestine are reminiscent of the Nazis killing of European Jews. He also refers to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as 'Governance'. All three of these claims are obviously absurd.

Not once in my time in the OPTs did anyone compare Palestine to Malaysia. in fact I have never heard of such a comparison before reading Schoenfel's book. This is probably for a good reason. Malaysia and Palestine have hardly anything in common. Indeed, none of the comparisons nor conflations that Schoenfel seeks to make i.e. that all Arabs are the same or that all Muslims are the same, should really be taken very seriously. The reasons for this are obvious: for Palestinians Islam and Arab nationalism might well be important underlying concerns. But the overriding concern that affects people every single day of their lives is that their land is under military occupation by a foreign army. Anti-Semitism in Malaysia may well be rife, and it might be an important underlying factor in the 'Arab world' and it might be linked to Islam. I can't tell you, because I am not an expert in either Malaysian politics or Islamic doctrine. But even if it is (and even if they are...) to confuse these trends which are a world apart from life in the OPTs, and Palestinian resistance is frankly just silly and Schoenfel should know better.

The idea that there is a comparison between the armed resistance and the Holocaust is also a problem in the author's account. It is worthy of note that the author's claim is based on the way in which murderers laughed after killing an IDF trooper is apparently similar to the way in which Nazi's laughed while killing Jews. There is no comparison that is possible between these two. Nazi's sought to slaughter Jews purely on racial grounds. They wanted to kill as many as possible; they were a superior military force fighting an internal minority civilian population and they did so across Europe. Palestinian armed resistance is one element of a wide ranging resistance movement by a stateless people against an occupying military force (the 4^th largest in the world), where this armed resistance takes the form of terrorism (the attack on civilians) then it deserves to be condemned of course. Attacking military units, however, is something else.

The 4^th of July celebrates the military defeat of British forces bases in what was to become the United Stated of America. Many of us in Europe celebrate the resistance of French resistance in Germany and Israeli's themselves celebrate that armed resistance in mid 1940s that eventually lead the withdrawal of British troops, … Palestinian military resistance against the armed forces of a foreign power occupying their land is no less legitimate than these examples from history.

With reference to the occupation as 'governance', well this is frankly the most obvious method of manipulating the facts of all. The occupation (as you will see from my dissertation) is an all-pervasive very obvious military infrastructure that attacks/prevents/undermines Palestinian life on every level. It is this which is the very of the basis for legitimate criticisms of Israel. Beyond Israeli intervention and occupation of Syria, Lebanon and Palestine everything else may well be anti-Semitism. Of reactions to this, and hatred because of these specific acts of military oppression and ignorance of basic human rights, this is not anti-Semitism this is basic reaction that you and I (or anyone) would be likely to feel if they were put into the position that Palestinians face every day.

Attached is the dissertation (with all the stupid beaurocratic bits removed). Please let me know what you think. If you get a chance you might want to watch this: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-1476609219299277245&q=paddy+ashdown&total=19&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I have an enormous amount of respect for Paddy Ashdown and I definitely identify with his position. Also Shlomo Ben Ami (former Israeli foreign minister) is excellent in this interview on the Canadian show 'Democracy now': http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

Thanks again for the book. I'm obviously keen to learn more!

Best Wishes,

Phil