vrijdag 23 april 2010

VN Mensenrechtenraad veroordeelt Israël en SMC voor bouwen in West-Jeruzalem

De VN Mensenrechtenraad veroordeelt Israel niet alleen voor bouwen in Oost-Jeruzalem, maar nu ook in West-Jeruzalem. Het gaat om al langer bestaande plannen voor de bouw van een "Museum voor de Tolerantie" door het Simon Wiestenthal Centrum, op een plaats die voor de stichting van Israel in gebruik was als islamitische begraafplaats, maar waar al in 1945 een commercieel centrum werd gebouwd, met toestemming van de islamitische autoriteiten.
 
RP
-----------
 
20 april 2010

UNHRC veroordeelt Israël en SMC voor bouwen in West-Jeruzalem

http://www.israned.com/2010/04/unhrc-veroordeelt-israel-en-smc-voor.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
 
 
U leest het goed. West Jeruzalem deze keer. De UNHRC is het niet eens met de bouwplannen in West-Jeruzalem door het Simon Wiesenthal Centrum voor het bouwen van het Museum voor Tolerantie in West-Jeruzalem. Even voor de duidelijkheid de UNHRC heeft in haar bestaan nog nooit een terroristische organisatie veroordeeld.
Hieronder de volledige tekst in het engels:

Today, Yom Ha'atzmaut, Jews the world over celebrate the 62nd anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel.

But it seems that at the United Nations, everyday is Israel-bashing day.

One of the latest attacks, Resolution A/HRC/13/L.29, passed by the infamous UN Human Rights Council last month, accuses Israel of "grave human rights violations" in Gaza and "occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem". But this time, the Council, which has never once condemned terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, has now criticized the Simon Wiesenthal Center for building a Museum of Tolerance in the heart of West Jerusalem.

The UNHRC, contrary to a unanimous decision of Israel's Supreme Court, falsely claims that our project is being built "on part of the historic Mamila Cemetery ... excavat[ing] ancient tombs".

Nothing could be further from the truth. Our project is being built on the former municipal car park of Jerusalem, where for nearly 50 years, Jews, Christians and Muslims parked their cars. As the Supreme Court stated, "For almost 50 years the compound has not been a part of the cemetery, and it was used for various public purposes ... This area was not regarded as a cemetery by the general public or by the Muslim community ... No one denied this position." (Bones between 200 – 400 years old were found and re-interred in an nearby Muslim cemetery. No markers or tombstones were ever found on the site).

Recently an article, in the Palestine Post, dated November 22, 1945, exposes just how outrageous and cynical the current campaign is – for three years before there was a State of Israel, the Supreme Moslem Council authorized the building of a commercial center, including a bank and factory on the actual Mamila Cemetery itself.

But those seeking to demonize Israel and all supporters of Zion are not deterred by the facts. With the help of the well-oiled anti-Israel machinery at the UN, a new front in the war against the Jewish state has been launched.
Consider the list of regimes who voted for this travesty; they were led by Pakistan (on behalf of the 57-member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bangladesh, Cuba, Angola, Argentina, Bahrain, Russian Federation, China, Jordan, South Africa, Mauritius, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Qatar and others. We consider it a badge of honor to be condemned with Israel.

In the coming months we will tell you more about the historic project we are building in Jerusalem, for now we need to alert you to the mushrooming diplomatic and legal attacks on the Jewish State and her proud supporters like the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
 
 

Netanjahoe stemt in met diverse concessies aan Palestijnen

 
Volgens zowel Haaretz als de Jerusalem Post, heeft Netanjahoe de eis van de VS om voor minimaal vier maanden officieel alle bouwwerkzaamheden op te schorten, afgewezen, maar wel een aantal andere tegemoetkomingen aan de Palestijnen geaccepteerd:
 
According to the report in the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu rejected the demand on East Jerusalem, but did agree to other confidence-building measures, such as allowing the opening of PA institutions in the eastern part of the city, transferring additional West Bank territory to Palestinian security control and agreeing to discuss all the core issues of the conflict during proximity talks with the PA, instead of insisting that these issues only be discussed in direct talks.
 
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called the Netanyahu position very
unfortunate and said he hoped the U.S. would be able to convince the Israeli government to give peace a chance by halting settlement construction in East Jerusalem and elsewhere.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164583.html
 
De JPost meldt nog andere concessies:
 
US officials said that Netanyahu agreed to nearly a dozen other steps towards renewed negotiations, such as releasing some Palestinian prisoners from jail and removing more roadblocks in the West Bank, according to The Wall Street Journal. Israel would also expand the responsibilities of the Palestinian security forces, and discuss borders and the status of Jerusalem in detail.
Netanyahu also agreed to stop construction in Ramat Shlomo for two years.
 
Al met al geen slechte score, zou je zeggen, maar alles behalve totale onvoorwaardelijke overgave is in de ogen van de Palestijnen te weinig en 'very unfortunate'.
Wat heeft Erekat eigenlijk aangeboden om de vrede een kans te geven?
 
RP
------------
 
The Jerusalem Post
Report: Netanyahu rejects freeze
By LAHAV HARKOV
22/04/2010 08:54
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173641


Government rebuffs key US request, accepts others, says US Press.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu rejected White House requests for a freeze on Jewish construction in east Jerusalem, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.

Over the weekend, Netanyahu's government gave the Obama administration a response to the demands made in a March 23 meeting between the two heads of state. Although the exact details of the meeting were not made public, it has been widely reported that Obama's main request was to freeze all construction in the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, which Netanyahu has refused.

Netanyahu's reaction echoes a statement made in an interview with ABC News on Sunday, that the idea of a building freeze in east Jerusalem "is totally, totally a nonstarter."

US officials said that Netanyahu agreed to nearly a dozen other steps towards renewed negotiations, such as releasing some Palestinian prisoners from jail and removing more roadblocks in the West Bank, according to The Wall Street Journal. Israel would also expand the responsibilities of the Palestinian security forces, and discuss borders and the status of Jerusalem in detail.

Netanyahu also agreed to stop construction in Ramat Shlomo for two years. Israel controversially announced plans to build 1,600 housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood during Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel. However, US officials said the lack of a comprehensive freeze of construction in east Jerusalem may prevent the renewal of peace talks with the Palestinians, and expressed doubt that Israel will fulfill its promises.

Mark Regev, Israeli government spokesman, said to The Wall Street Journal, "we have said that in the framework of confidence-building measures, we are willing to consider these gestures. That was in the past, and not in the context of recent talks. I can't go into why that didn't happen."

Palestinian officials did not comment on Netanyahu's position, saying "we are still waiting for details."

Jordanië economisch beloond door VS voor samenwerking met Israel


Vrede heeft ook economische voordelen, al zijn die in dit voorbeeld min of meer geforceerd door de VS, dat geen invoerrechten heft op producten uit Jordanië waarvan een gedeelte uit Israel komt.
 
In the zones, factories manufacture products with 8 percent contribution from Israel, along with a 35-percent value added content from Jordan, giving them duty free status in the U.S. Egypt concluded its own QIZ deal with the United States in 2005.
 
Het idee is mooi, en het heeft de Jordaanse economie behoorlijk geholpen, maar er is ook kritiek omdat er vooral buitenlandse werknemers werkzaam zijn. Bovendien maakt een nieuwe overeenkomst, die Jordaanse producten geheel vrijstelt van invoerrechten, het idee van de samenwerking met Israel die wordt beloond, weer een beetje ongedaan.
 
RP
-------------
 
Business with Israel pays off in Jordan - Benefits of peace
 
These are the benefits of peace. They underline the cost of boycotts and "anti-normalization." Hate doesn't pay.
_____________
 
Business with Israel pays off in Jordan
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
13/04/2010 

 
Qualified Industrial Zones enable companies using Israeli inputs to export duty-free to the United States.
 
IRBID, Jordan — Manager Rami Kurdi snapped off a quick celebratory salute to his workers as the factory's bell rang, marking the completion of the day's 1,000th tracksuit in record time.
 
For Kurdi and the employees at the Century Standard Textile plant, one of several that manufacture clothing for top brands like Calvin Klein, Victoria's Secret, Nike and Reebok, the new record was a source of personal pride.
 
It's also the sign of the success of a key economic prize from Jordan's peace with Israel. The factory is one of dozens in Jordan's Qualified Industrial Zones, where companies that use a percentage of Israeli inputs can export duty-free to the United States. The QIZs, as they are known, have become the strongest engine for Jordan's economic growth.
 
"Peace with Israel has paid off," Kurdi said. "It made us so busy getting clothing to Americans that it's hard to keep up with the demand."
 
But more than 10 years after the QIZs' creation, Jordan is struggling to ensure that the general public feels the benefit.
 
The QIZs have generated 36,000 jobs, but 75 percent have gone to Asian workers, mainly from Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh and China, because Jordanians lack the necessary experience, said Abdalla Jahmani, the director of the QIZ in the northern city of Irbid. While 109 companies and subcontractors have opened in the 13 QIZs around the country, 80 percent of them are owned by non-Jordanians, mainly Arab and Asian investors using the QIZs to gain access to the U.S. market.
 
"We asked the government to shut them down because they're not providing bread and butter for Jordanian families," said Jamil Abu Bakr, a spokesman for the Muslim Brotherhood Movement, Jordan's largest opposition group.
 
Government officials, however, maintain that QIZ firms — mainly textile factories — provided jobs for 9,000 Jordanians so far, a significant number considering that many lacked the professional skills for the fledging industry. Thousands more are being trained and will take over from Asian workers this year, said Elias Farraj, an adviser at the Jordan Investment Board.
 
Farhan Ifram, chairman of Jordan's textile exporters' association, said the QIZs have also boosted Jordan's hard currency reserves through exports.
 
"Workers and factory owners are also spending their money in Jordan on utilities, rent, services, transportation and shipping, and customs, which is benefiting many economic sectors," he said.
 
Spreading the wealth from the QIZs is important, since the United States and other proponents of the program have touted such economic benefits as a potential enticement for other Arab states to follow Jordan's path in a Mideast peace. Egypt is the only other Arab country that has signed a peace agreement with Israel, in 1979.
 
The QIZs began to develop just two years after Jordan signed its historic treaty with Israel in 1994. The U.S. Congress backed the establishment of the zones in the country to boost Mideast stability through economic integration.
 
The agreement was aimed at alleviating Jordan's economic difficulties that in part stemmed, at the time, from $7.3 billion in foreign debts and rampant unemployment.
 
In the zones, factories manufacture products with 8 percent contribution from Israel, along with a 35-percent value added content from Jordan, giving them duty free status in the U.S. Egypt concluded its own QIZ deal with the United States in 2005.
 
Exports from the Jordanian QIZs to the U.S. have shot up 100-fold, from $15 million in 1997 to peak at $1.5 billion in 2006, or roughly 20 percent of the country's gross domestic product.
 
The zones have also brought Jordan and Israel closer economically, even if tensions remain stumbling blocks because of the faltering peace process.
 
Over the past decade, Israel — which previously was the main Mideast textile exporter to the U.S. — has helped its Arab neighbor develop greater skills and access in the textile industry. Ten Israeli factories opened shops in the QIZs. Exports from the QIZs go through Israel's Mediterranean port of Haifa to reduce shipping costs from Jordan, which has only one sea outlet via the Red Sea.
 
The Israeli training has helped Jordan's new garment industry take hold. Arab, Chinese and other Asian manufacturers, eager to export to the world's largest consumer market, have also entered the QIZs with millions of dollars in investments, helping it weather the global downturn.
 
"I have 20 percent more orders than in 2007, which means I'm fully booked until October," said Eric Tang, chief executive officer of a joint Hong Hong-Indian venture with a factory in Al Tajamouat Industrial City.
 
Now Jordanian industry is hoping for an even greater boost from new, wider free-trade deal with the United States which went into effect Jan. 1. The agreement lifts U.S. duties from all products manufactured in Jordan, even outside the QIZs, though the zones still offer an advantage in infrastructure and ease of working through bureaucracy.
 
Jordan has also struck similar trade deals with Canada and Turkey, said Ifram, the chairman of the textile exporters' association, adding that a planned 2011 accord with Turkey will push Jordanian products to Europe's lucrative and diverse market.
 
The QIZs were also advantageous to Israel, hiking its exports to Jordan 2.5 times from $66 million in 2001 to nearly $160 million last year — even during heightened political tension over the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
 
"It's a success story, which other Arabs should learn from," said Gabby Bar, an Israeli trade ministry official who c-chairs Jordan's QIZs.

Jordaans persbureau betwijfelt bestaan van Joodse Tempel in Jeruzalem

 
Petra, het officiële Jordaanse persagentschap, schreef gisteren:
 
Occupied Jerusalem, April 22 Petra - The Israeli occupation forces started a large scale judaization project to turn the area south of Al Aqsa Mosque into a biblical and Talmudic passages related to the alleged temple.
 
Dit is niet de Iraanse regeringskrant, maar het gematigde Jordanië dat in 1994 vrede sloot met Israel. Vooral de 'alleged' tempel, suggererende dat het een Israelische fabel is dat de Joden hier vroeger hun tempel hadden staan, is te gek voor woorden. Alsof de Jerusalem Post zou schrijven: de 'zogenaamde Al Aqsa Moskee'.
Kan men het daar nou niet over een paar basale feiten gewoon eens zijn? Aaron Lerner vroeg ze om opheldering en kreeg de volgende reactie:
 
Follow up with Petra - Jordan News Agency about questioning historical existence of Temples

Dr. Aaron Lerner
Date: 22 April  2010

IMRA contacted the official Jordan news agency, Petra, in Amman Jordan about the item below in which the term "alleged" was used to describe the Jewish Temples and was ultimately transferred to an English speaking gentlemen who declined to identify himself but explained that the item had been translated from Arabic and that all followers of Islam question the veracity of the historical existence of the Jewish First and Second Temples in Jerusalem. He said that if IMRA wanted to know if this was also the position of the Government of Jordan that IMRA should contact the Government of Jordan He also noted that to his understanding Petra has consistently used the term "alleged" in references to the Temple. .
 
=============

Judaization project for the area south of Al Aqsa
[22/04/2010 11:58]
http://petra.gov.jo/Artical.aspx?Lng=1&Section=1&Artical=187543

Occupied Jerusalem, April 22 (Petra - The Israeli occupation forces started a large scale judaization project to turn the area south of Al Aqsa Mosque into a biblical and Talmudic passages related to the alleged temple.

According to a report by Al-Aqsa Institute for Waqf and Heritage, the Israeli forces started Thursday construction work as part of Jeudaization tracks that include historical Islamic walls of the old town in Jerusalem.

The report affirmed that this project was preceded by large scale excavation work that continued for months.

The institute urged Islamic, Arab and Palestinian move to save Al Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem from the judaization plans.

//Petra//R Q// .

=============
Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS:
imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il
 

CIDI wil uitspraak hogere rechter in AEL-zaak


Zie hieronder een pittig commentaar van Israned. Ik ben het met zowel het CIDI als Israned eens dat het een slechte zaak is dat het argument van de 'dubbele moraal' van de AEL is geaccepteerd. Joden hebben niks met de Mohammed cartoons te maken en dus slaat het nergens op ze erbij te halen als het doel is om de Mohammed cartoons te bekritiseren. Het is smakeloos de Joden voor zo'n zaak te misbruiken, en op die manier kun je dus altijd wel een rechtvaardiging voor antisemitisme vinden.
 
Het is van het grootste belang dat antisemitisme serieus wordt genomen en bestreden. Daarvoor moeten we niet alleen bij de rechtbank zijn, maar als de rechtbank het goedkeurt gaat daar wel een verkeerd signaal vanuit.
 
RP
----------

CIDI wil uitspraak hogere rechter in AEL-zaak

do 22-04-2010

De AEL is door de meervoudige strafkamer in Utrecht vrijgesproken over het plaatsen van een antisemitische cartoon, die stelde dat Joden voor eigen gewin de Holocaust overdreven of verzonnen hebben. De rechters oordeelden dat de Auschwitzcartoon 'kwetsend is voor Joden en getuignd van wansmaak', maar dat de context het strafbare karakter eraan ontneemt. CIDI wil een uitspraak van een hogere rechtbank over deze kwestie. Lees het persbericht onder de vouw.

 Met teleurstelling heeft het CIDI kennis genomen van de vrijspraak voor de AEL over het plaatsen van een antisemitische cartoon.

De meervoudige strafkamer in Utrecht overwoog dat de Auschwitz cartoon op zichzelf getuigt van wansmaak en kwetsend is over Joden, maar dat de context het strafbare karakter aan de cartoon ontneemt.

Daarmee nam de rechtbank de bewering van de AEL over, dat de cartoon niet strafbaar is, omdat hij is gemaakt  'om de dubbele moraal inzake belediging in ons land bloot te leggen'.
 
CIDI vindt dit een kromme en gevaarlijke redenering. Dit impliceert dat iemand die zegt getroffen te zijn door verwerpelijk gedrag, straffeloos een misdrijf kan plegen tegen een derde. Althans, zolang hij beweert dat hij dit misdrijf pleegt 'om de dubbele moraal ter discussie te stellen'.
 
Het CIDI  wijst erop de AEL het 'dubbele-moraalargument' en de bewering dat zij de Holocaust niet ontkent, pas na de aangifte heeft aangevoerd. Anders dan de strafkamer stelt, heeft op één van de AEL-sites deze 'disclaimer', niet gestaan.
 
Op grond van het bovenstaande, en mede gezien de richtlijn van 28 November 2008 van de EU-ministers van Justitie om het trivialiseren van de Holocaust strafbaar te stellen, hoopt CIDI dat het Openbaar Ministerie in hoger beroep gaat. De afweging bescherming tegen discriminatie  versus vrijheid van meningsuiting is belangrijk genoeg om in hoogste instantie  te worden beoordeeld.
 
-------------------

Utrechtse strafkamer verklaart Joden vogelvrij

http://www.israned.com/2010/04/utrechtse-strafkamer-verklaart-joden.html
 

 
Een onbegrijpelijk vonnis van de meervoudige strafkamer in Utrecht veegt de vloer aan met het antidiscriminatie-artikel: de AEL is vrijgesproken van belediging van Joden na een zaak die vier jaar heeft gesleept. De Arabisch Europese Liga Nederland- hierboven de oprichter met Hamasvlag - had op verschillende websites een cartoon geplaatst die twee Joden afbeeldde bij een berg lijken in Auschwitz. Een zegt: 'Ik weet niet of ze wel Joods zijn.' De andere: 'We moeten de 6 miljoen toch halen.'
 
De rechtbank vond dat "de cartoon getuigt van wansmaak en bijzonder kwetsend is over Joden (een misdrijf, artikel 137c Wetboek van Strafrecht", maar dat de context het strafbare karakter ervan ontneemt: "De vrijheid van meningsuiting hoeft in dit geval niet te wijken voor het recht van anderen van discriminatie gevrijwaard te blijven"!!
 
De tekenaar beweerde dat hij de cartoons 'alleen maar had geplaatst om de dubbele moraal ter discussie te stellen', omdat het openbaar ministerie de zgn. 'Mohammed cartoons'  niet als strafbaar beoordeelde. Niet dat Joden ook maar iets te maken hadden met die cartoons, en niet dat die Mohammedcartoons strafbaar waren, maar meneer de tekenaar krijgt nu van de rechtbank een vrijbrief om Joden te kwetsen en de Holocaust te bagatelliseren.
De boodschap is duidelijk: wil je iemand discrimineren, zeg dan gewoon dat je 'de dubbele moraal van het Westen ter discussie wil stellen' en je komt er lekker mee weg.
 
De aanklager had een boete geeist van 2500 euro, waarvan 1500 voorwaardelijk. Daar heb je wat aan: het voorkomt dat ze het weer doen. 
Het CIDI, dat de aanklacht had ingediend, hoopt dat het Openbaar Ministerie in beroep gaat.
 
Maar tot die tijd is het jachtseizoen op Joden geopend. Iemand vergeten wc-papier te kopen? Neem gewoon het discriminatie-artikel uit het Wetboek van Strafrecht!
 
 

Israel en de PVV: Met zulke vrienden... (Bert de Bruin)

 
Lang niet alle Israeli's zijn blij met de steun van Wilders, en de associatie van de PVV met Israel. Beide kanten hebben moeite de nuance te bewaren, volgens Bert de Bruin uit Haifa. Het is inderdaad zoeken met een zaklantaarn naar mensen en organisaties die een midden-positie innemen in het conflict.
 
Wouter
_____________
 
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
http://yonathanbert.blogspot.com/2010/04/het-volgende-artikel-staat-vandaag-in.htmlIsrael en de PVV ( Artikel FD )


Het volgende artikel staat vandaag in het Friesch Dagblad.



Met zulke vrienden...


Ronny Naftaniel had volkomen gelijk toen hij onlangs stelde dat de beslissing van CIDI-medewerker Wim Kortenoeven, om zich namens de PVV kandidaat te stellen voor de kamerverkiezingen, diens eigen keuze is, een keuze die Naftaniel en het CIDI respecteren: "Want we leven in een vrij en democratisch land. En de PVV is geen verboden partij". Wel rijst de vraag of de directeur van het Centrum Informatie en Documentatie Israël een juiste inschatting maakt als hij zegt dat de kandidatuur van Kortenoeven het centrum geen imagoschade zal toebrengen. De bijna vanzelfsprekende band PVV-Israël doet volgens mij Israël noch het CIDI goed.
 
Meermaals heb ik mijn medelijden met de Palestijnen betuigd omdat ze zulke waardeloze 'vrienden' hebben. Beklagenswaardig is het volk dat het moet hebben van steun en solidariteit van types als Kadafi, Nasrallah, Ahmadinejad, en Bin Laden. Dergelijke vrienden hebben de Palestijnen niets te bieden behalve meer dood, verderf, en uitzichtloosheid. Westerse supporters van de Palestijnse zaak – à la Duisenberg en Van Agt – munten vooral uit in anti-Israëlische – meer dan pro-Palestijnse – acties en uitspraken. Zelden zul je dergelijke personen openlijk horen praten over wat er allemaal mis is aan de Palestijnse kant van het conflict.

Helaas geldt dat laatste omgekeerd ook meer dan tevoren voor zogenaamd pro-Israëlische activisten in het Westen. Pro-Israël lijkt synoniem te zijn voor anti-Palestijns, anti-Arabisch, anti-moslim. Ook in Israël zelf is polarisatie troef. Wat is er zionistischer dan het zoeken naar een vreedzame uitkomst uit het conflict? Toch voelen vredelievende krachten in Israël zich de laatste jaren steeds meer in een hoek gedrukt. Organisaties als The New Israel Fund en Betselem, die helaas meestal volkomen gelijk hebben met hun kritiek op wat er in Israël en de Palestijnse gebieden gebeurt, worden in Israël en door Israël-aanhangers vaak als verraders en zelfhaters gezien. Israëls leiders lopen achter elders bepaalde feiten aan en doen vooral hun best te benadrukken hoe slecht, immoreel, corrupt, oorlogszuchtig, etc. 'de andere kant' is, om zo de status quo te rechtvaardigen en te conserveren. Immers, de tijd werkt in ons voordeel. Niet dus. De allesbehalve linkse Haaretz-journalist Ari Shavit schreef – terecht – in een open brief aan premier Nethanyahu ter gelegenheid van Israëls 62 Onafhankelijkheidsdag: "...dat de Palestijnen zich niet als een volwassen volk gedragen geeft ons niet het recht om net als zij te handelen ".

Als je sommige Israëlische politici – en hun klapvee en nagapers op websites met namen als De Dagelijkse Standaard, Israelfacts, etc. – moet geloven heeft dit land momenteel geen betere bondgenoten dan Gidi Markuszower en Sarah Palin, en geen grotere vijanden dan alles wat naar links riekt, inclusief Job Cohen en Obama's Amerika. Afgelopen zaterdag waren er bij een mager bezochte pro-Wilders demonstratie in, welja, Berlijn ook weer Israëlische vlaggen te zien. Israël koopt weinig voor dergelijke uitingen van sympathie, en voor de automatische assocatie met Europa's (Extreem-)Rechts. De PVV is geen vriend van Israël. De vijand-van-mijn-vijand-is-mijn-vriend redenering werkt tegen ons. Het gaat in 'het' conflict echt niet (alleen) om 'de' Islam tegen 'de' Joden. Israëls voortbestaan hangt af van zijn eigen kracht en diplomatiek inzicht, van onderhandelingen en territoriale compromissen, niet van PVV-wijsheden als "De Palestijnse staat heet Jordanië". Juist het collectieve beschuldigen waar Wilders en de zijnen – net als overigens veel nationalistisch-religieuze Palestijnen en Israëliërs, en hun buitenlandse supporters – in uitblinken schrikt veel Joden af en staat hen tegen. Wie Wilders stemt omdat hij tegen halal slachten ijvert, is net zo goed uit op een verbod op kosher slachten. De PVV steunt niet Israël als zodanig, maar vooral het compromisloze deel van dat land. Toen Geert Wilders hier zijn filmpje mocht vertonen, gebeurde dat op uitnodiging van Knessetlid Aryeh Eldad, bij wie vergeleken Israëls huidige minister van buitenlandse zaken een symbool van vredelievendheid en coëxistentie is. Ik heb de indruk dat in de ogen van Wilders – net als in die van Bush jr. en veel andere fundamentalistische christenen – Israël en de Joden slechts een opofferbaar middel zijn in de strijd tussen de krachten van het licht en die van de duisternis. God behoede ons voor zulke vrienden.

Gelukkig zijn er nog wel degelijk echte vrienden en vriendinnen van Israël. Zij zijn daadwerkelijk met het lot van dit land begaan, snappen dat voor het voortbestaan van de staat Israël het religieus-nationalistische autisme dat momenteel hoogtij viert in Jeruzalem funest is, en deinzen er niet voor terug ons desnoods met onze neus op hun interpretatie van de feiten te drukken. Twee jaar geleden zei André Rouvoet mij hierover in een interview: "Juist als vriend moet je ook kritisch durven zijn". Ik ruil het soort blinde en blindmakende vriendschap dat de PVV mij te bieden heeft dan ook graag in voor de kritische en confronterende maar oprechte vriendschap van mensen als André Rouvoet, Maxime Verhagen, Barack Obama, en Angela Merkel.
 
 

donderdag 22 april 2010

Hezbollah kan haar gang gaan aan Syrisch-Libanese grens

 
Steeds meer wijst erop dat Syrië en Iran Hezbollah in een leger aan het transformeren zijn dat een serieuze bedreiging voor Israel kan vormen:
 
This did not begin with the reports of the Scuds. Evidence has emerged into the public sphere over the last months of weaponry suggesting a Syrian and Iranian desire to transform Hizbullah into a bona fide strategic threat to Israel.
The weaponry supplied to Hizbullah include M-600 surface-to-surface missiles, the man-portable Igla-S surface-to-air missile system, which would threaten Israeli fighter aircraft monitoring the skies of Lebanon, and now the Scud-D ballistic missile system.
If the reports regarding such weaponry are correct, they would make Hizbullah by far the best-armed non-state paramilitary group in the world.
 
Dit alles, even voor de duidelijkheid, is een flagrante schending van VN resolutie 1701, aangenomen na de Libanon Oorlog van 2006. Maar daar hoor je nooit iemand over, want een Arabische schending van VN resoluties is lang niet zo erg als wanneer het 'ons' Westerse Israel betreft.
 
The clearest lesson of the latest events is the fictional status of international guarantees and resolutions if these are not backed by a real willingness to enforce them.
The Western failure to underwrite the elected government of Lebanon has led to the effective Hizbullah takeover of that country. The failure to insist on the implementation of Resolution 1701 has allowed the apparent strategic transformation of Hizbullah over the last three and a half years.
 
Wanneer Israel straks besluit dat het niet wil wachten totdat Hezbollah helemaal onverslaanbaar wordt, zal iedereen het uiteraard van oorlogsmisdaden en erger beschuldigen.
 
RP
----------
Waiving the rules on the Syrian-Lebanese border
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=173569
By JONATHAN SPYER
21/04/2010  
 
The West should use resolution 1701 to roll back Hizbullah's effective take-over of the Lebanese gov't.
 
The summoning by the United States of Syrian Deputy Chief of Mission Zouheir Jabbour for a review of Syrian arms transfers to Hizbullah is the latest evidence of the serious basis to the recent tensions in the north.
 
Syria has continued to deny recent reports suggesting that it permitted the transfer of Scud-D ballistic missiles to Hizbullah.
 
But the issue of the Scuds is only a significant detail within a larger picture, which has been emerging into clear view since August 2006. This is the reality in which UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the war between Israel and Hizbullah in 2006, has been turned into a dead letter by the "resistance bloc" of Iran, Syria and Hizbullah.
 
It is worth recalling that Resolution 1701 was hailed as a significant achievement for diplomacy at the time. The resolution was supposed to strengthen the basis for the renewed Lebanese sovereignty that seemed possible after Syrian withdrawal in 2005.
 
Its provisions are quite clear. The resolution calls for the disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon, so that... there will be no weapons or authority in Lebanon other than that of the Lebanese state." It also explicitly prohibits "sales or supply of arms and related materiel to Lebanon except as authorized by its government."
 
Hizbullah and its backers calculated, correctly, that neither the government of Lebanon, nor the United Nations, nor the "international community" would be able or willing to enforce these clauses.
 
The UN has itself admitted the severe inadequacy of arrangements along the Syrian-Lebanese border. Two UN border assessments have been carried out since 2006 – in June 2007 and August 2008.
 
The second report found, in the dry language employed by such documents, that "even taking into account the difficult political situation in Lebanon during the past year," progress toward achieving the goals laid out in Resolution 1701 had been "insufficient."
 
The "difficult political situation" of 2008 is a reference to the fact that the elected Lebanese government's single attempt at enforcing its sovereignty over the allies of Syria and Iran in the country ended in May 2008 with the violent rout of the government.
 
Hizbullah and its allies simply made clear that any attempt to interfere with their military arrangements would be met with blunt force, and no further attempt was made.
 
The result has been that over the past three-and-a-half years, under the indifferent eyes of the world, the roads between Syria and Lebanon have hummed to the sound of arms trucks and suppliers bringing Syrian and Iranian weaponry to Lebanon.
 
The response of Israel has been to observe the situation, and to make clear that the crossing of certain red lines in terms of the type and caliber of the weaponry being made available to Hizbullah would constitute a casus belli.
 
The recent heightening of tensions has come because of emerging evidence that these red lines are being flouted with impunity.
 
This did not begin with the reports of the Scuds. Evidence has emerged into the public sphere over the last months of weaponry suggesting a Syrian and Iranian desire to transform Hizbullah into a bona fide strategic threat to Israel.
 
The weaponry supplied to Hizbullah include M-600 surface-to-surface missiles, the man-portable Igla-S surface-to-air missile system, which would threaten Israeli fighter aircraft monitoring the skies of Lebanon, and now the Scud-D ballistic missile system.
 
If the reports regarding such weaponry are correct, they would make Hizbullah by far the best-armed non-state paramilitary group in the world.
 
These reports do not mean that war is necessarily imminent.
 
Israel appears in no hurry to punish Hizbullah and Syria for the flouting of red lines. Unlike its enemies, the Israeli government is publicly accountable, and would find it difficult to justify a preemptive strike – which might well result in renewed war – to the Israeli public.
 
Hizbullah and Syria also seem in no rush to initiate hostilities. They have merely internalized the fact that nothing serious appears to stand in the way of their activities across the eastern border of Lebanon, and are hence proceeding apace.
 
The clearest lesson of the latest events is the fictional status of international guarantees and resolutions if these are not backed by a real willingness to enforce them.
 
The Western failure to underwrite the elected government of Lebanon has led to the effective Hizbullah takeover of that country. The failure to insist on the implementation of Resolution 1701 has allowed the apparent strategic transformation of Hizbullah over the last three and a half years.
 
While the "resistance bloc" does not necessarily seek imminent conflict, there is also no sign whatsoever that its appetite has been satiated by its recent gains. Laws, elections and agreements do not stand in its way. It operates, rather, according to the dictum of a certain 20th-century German leader, who said, "You stand there with your law, and I'll stand here with my bayonets, and we'll see which one prevails."
 
The real question, of course, being how long the intended victim of such an approach is prepared to allow it to continue.
 
The writer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
 
 

IDF maakt plan voor terugtrekking tot grenzen voor de tweede intifada


Men houdt er blijkbaar serieus rekening mee dat Israel zal besluiten - onder zware druk van de VS - om zich terug te trekken tot posities van voor het begin van de tweede intifada. Dat betekent dat het leger zich uit het gebied van area A in de Oslo akkoorden zal terugtrekken, waar bijna alle Palestijnen wonen. Volgens het leger zal dat behoorlijke veiligheidsrisico's met zich meebrengen:
 
The Post has learned that the IDF brass, particularly the Central Command, have recommended not carrying out such a withdrawal.
"The IDF's freedom to operate everywhere is extremely important in keeping terrorism down to a minimum," the senior defense official said.

As proof, the official referred to a recent IDF operation in Jenin, during which troops arrested two top Islamic Jihad operatives. Operations in Jenin are still carried out, the official said, despite the "Jenin Model" program that saw the deployment of US-trained PA forces in the city and Israel's decision to scale back its operations.
"We still operate there whenever we believe there is a threat," the official said.
 
Ik zou zeggen dat hier een stevige Palestijnse concessie tegenover zou moeten staan, bijvoorbeeld om de opruiing in de media en het verheerlijken van terroristen serieus aan te pakken. Het Dalal Mughrabi plein kan misschien hernoemd worden naar Ray Hanania of Sari Nusseibeh, beiden Palestijnen die hun nek durven uitsteken voor vrede. Er zijn vast ook dode voorbeelden te vinden, zoals een van de vele Nusseibeh's of Nashashibi's die door de Husseini clan zijn omgelegd in de jaren '30.
 
RP
----------

 
IDF drafts pre-intifada pullback plan
By YAAKOV KATZ AND TOVAH LAZAROFF
21/04/2010 03:50
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?ID=173568

Netanyahu to US: Stopping construction in J'lem a nonstarter. 
 
The army has drawn up plans to withdraw to pre-intifada lines in the West Bank, if ordered to do so by the government, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Such a withdrawal was one of the demands that US President Barack Obama made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during their meeting at the White House last month.

The demand refers to the positions the IDF held when the second intifada erupted in late 2000, before the army swept into all the Arab towns and cities in the West Bank. It maintains a presence on the outskirts of many of them today.

"The IDF has plans for this possibility and is prepared for a scenario that Israel will approve the American demand and decide to pull back to pre-intifada lines," a top defense official told the Post recently.

The Post has learned that the IDF brass, particularly the Central Command, have recommended not carrying out such a withdrawal.

"The IDF's freedom to operate everywhere is extremely important in keeping terrorism down to a minimum," the senior defense official said.

As proof, the official referred to a recent IDF operation in Jenin, during which troops arrested two top Islamic Jihad operatives. Operations in Jenin are still carried out, the official said, despite the "Jenin Model" program that saw the deployment of US-trained PA forces in the city and Israel's decision to scale back its operations.

"We still operate there whenever we believe there is a threat," the official said.

In addition to the IDF withdrawal, Obama has asked Netanyahu to extend the 10-month moratorium on new settlement construction which the cabinet approved and which is set to expire in late September.

He also asked Netanyahu to stop Jewish construction in east Jerusalem and to release Fatah prisoners in a goodwill gesture to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Netanyahu has yet to respond to the list, which is often reported in the media but has never been formally publicized by the White House or the Prime Minister's Office.

Last week, however, Netanyahu met several times with his inner cabinet of seven ministers.

Completion of the withdrawal plans comes in advance of a much-anticipated visit by US special envoy George Mitchell. As of press time, however, neither the State Department nor the Prime Minister's Office had a date for that visit.

On Monday, in a lengthy interview with ABC, Netanyahu set down his "red lines" when it came to US or Palestinian demands.

"To stop all construction – Jewish construction in Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem – is totally, totally a nonstarter," said Netanyahu.

In Jerusalem Tuesday, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rejected any attempt to divide the capital city by giving control of east Jerusalem to the Palestinians. He said Jerusalem must remain in Israel's hands.

"It cannot be divided directly or indirectly. It is our eternal city," Lieberman declared.

Still, Netanyahu told ABC that "the issue of Jerusalem... will be discussed in the final settlement and negotiations."

It would be a mistake, he said, to halt construction in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem prior to talks. Such a demand prevents peace, Netanyahu said.

"Suppose as a precondition to Palestinian negotiations Israel asked them to dismantle refugee camps to prove that they understood that there could be no right of return in a two-state solution," he said.

"You would rightly say, 'Ah, Israel is trying now to stack the deck. It's trying not to enter into negotiations.' And, in fact, that's exactly what the Palestinians are doing – to us" with their refusal to negotiate until Israel stops construction in West Bank settlements and in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, Netanyahu said.

He was careful during the ABC interview not to state that Obama had asked Israel to halt east Jerusalem construction, and instead mentioned it as a Palestinian demand.

During speeches he gave in the last two days, as well as during his ABC interview, Netanyahu called for direct negotiations with the Palestinians. It's a call he has repeatedly made since he entered office in March 2009.

"I want peace. I want to negotiate peace. I say, let's remove all preconditions, including those on Jerusalem. Let's get into the room and negotiate peace without preconditions. That's the simplest way to get to peace," said Netanyahu.

In the past, Netanyahu said, Israel and the Palestinians held direct talks in spite of construction in West Bank settlements and east Jerusalem. He added that previous peace plans had placed Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem under Israeli control.

"The real question is why are we arguing about something that's not a real argument? I don't think that makes any sense," he said.

During the interview, Netanyahu listed steps he had taken, including improvements on movement and access for the Palestinians as well as the 10-month moratorium on new housing starts in the settlements.

Netanyahu said that despite the impasse with the US, the relationship between the two countries was still very strong.

"I think with any family, with any relationship – the relationship of allies, even your relatives – you have ups and downs. You have disagreements. But I think this relationship between the United States of America and the people of Israel is rock-solid," the prime minister said.

Netanyahu rejected the idea that the US would try to impose a peace deal on both sides.

"I… don't believe anyone will seriously think that you can impose peace. Peace has to come from the parties sitting down with each other, resolving their differences. And this is what we want to achieve. This is what I want to achieve," he said.

On Monday, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said that the time was not ripe for a US-promoted Middle East peace plan.

"A number of people have advocated that," Emanuel said on The Charlie Rose Show on Bloomberg Television.

"That time is not now," Emanuel said. The "time now is to get back to the proximity talks, have those conversations that eventually will lead to direct negotiations, start to make the hard decisions to bring [about] a balance between the aspirations of the Israelis for security, and make that blend with the aspirations of the Palestinian people for their sovereignty."

A number of Obama administration officials have, in recent weeks, suggested via leaks to the media that the president is considering such a plan by the fall.

Obama himself, along with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Emanuel, have rebuffed those reports, saying it would be best to leave a plan to the parties concerned.
 
 

Kolonisten Yitzhar vechten met IDF soldaten op Onafhankelijkheidsdag


Zo vieren de kolonisten van Yitzar Onafhankelijkheidsdag. Op weg naar een Palestijns dorp om daar hun protest tegen de gedeeltelijke bouwstop hoorbaar (en voelbaar) te maken, werden ze door het Israelische leger tegen gehouden.
 
RP
----------
 
The Jerusalem Post
Yitzhar settlers clash with soldiers
By JPOST.COM STAFF
20/04/2010 20:56
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173549


1 soldier lightly hurt; boy detained for slashing tires of army car.

As celebrations died down on Israel's 62nd Independence Day, residents of the West Bank settlement of Yitzhar rioted on Tuesday evening and attacked IDF soldiers, lightly wounding one of them.

According to the IDF, the settlers left Yitzhar intending to make their way to the Palestinian village of Madama, south of Nablus, apparently intending to protest the government-imposed ten-month settlement building freeze. A clash ensued after security forces tried to prevent the settlers from going any further.  They refused to turn back and leave the village area even when they were told they were about to enter a closed military zone.

As tensions between the settlers and the soldiers - five troops from the Nahal Brigade - began to flare, about a hundred more settlers arrived at the scene and began to hurl rocks at the soldiers. The IDF reported that they also attacked the soldiers with their bare hands.

One soldier was lightly wounded in the face when a paint bottle was hurled at him.

The settlers were dispersed by Border Police and civilian policemen who were called to the scene to back the soldiers up. Police said a boy was taken in for questioning in connection with the skirmish after he was seen puncturing the tire of an army vehicle.

"This violence against soldiers constitutes an intolerable crossing of a red line on Israel's day of celebration, Yom Haatzmaut. This intolerable and irregular behavior will be dealt with with a firm hand," read a statement released by the IDF Spokesperson following the incident. The statement went on to deny that live ammunition had been employed against the settlers.

Palestina verraden - interview met Efraim Karsh

 
Dit boek zal wel niet in NRC Handelsblad, Trouw en de Volkskrant worden besproken en Efraim Karsh wordt vast niet uitgenodigd om op de UvA en andere universiteiten gastcolleges te komen geven naar aanleiding van zijn nieuwe boek.
Ik heb de indruk dat hij de zaken hier en daar wat bagatelliseert, maar zijn boek en bevindingen dienen zeker net zo serieus te worden genomen als al die boeken van 'nieuwe historici' als Pappe, Shlaim en Segev, waar in discussies en artikelen vaak naar wordt verwezen, en waar zeker het nodige op af te dingen valt.
 
RP
----------
 
 
Interview with Efraim Karsh.

1948: Palestine Betrayed

Zionist Jews were not interlopers in Palestine. The creation of the Jewish state was not an "original sin" foisted upon the Arab world. The tragic flight of the Palestinian refugees was overwhelmingly not the fault of the Zionists. To the contrary, at every momentous junction the Zionists opted for compromise and peace, the Arabs for intransigence and belligerency.

This, in summary, is how most people once understood the Arab-Israel conflict. Today, however, as Israel marks its Independence Day, an entire generation has come to maturity believing a diametrically opposite "narrative": namely, that the troubles persist because of West Bank settlements, because of Israeli building in east Jerusalem, because of the security barrier, because of heavy-handed Israeli militarism-in brief, because of a racist Zionist imperialism whose roots stretch back to 1948 and beyond.

The new view has been shaped by a confluence of factors: unsympathetic media coverage, an obsessive focus by the UN and others on Israel's alleged shortcomings, improved Arab suasion techniques, and the global Left's adoption of the Palestinian cause.  Added to the mix is the influence of Israel's own "New Historians," whose revisionist attacks on the older understanding have helped shape today's authorized academic canon.

Such attacks have themselves not gone altogether without challenge-and at least one prominent New Historian, Benny Morris, has since moderated his views. Outstanding among the challengers has been the scholar Efraim Karsh, head of the Middle East and Mediterranean Studies Program at King's College, University of London, and the author of a 1997 debunking of the New Historians entitled Fabricating Israeli History.

In his just-published book, Palestine Betrayed, Karsh zeroes in on the 1948-49 war, its background, and its consequences, in an analysis that re-establishes the essential accuracy of the once-classic account of the Arab-Israel conflict.  Basing itself on Arabic as well as Western, Soviet, UN, and Israeli sources, Karsh's is corrective history at its boldest and most thorough. Elliot Jager interviewed Efraim Karsh for Jewish Ideas Daily.

Who "betrayed" Palestine?

Palestine was betrayed by its corrupt and extremist Arab leadership, headed by Hajj Amin Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem. From the early 1920s onward, and very much against the wishes of their own constituents, these leaders launched a relentless campaign to obliterate the Jewish national revival, culminating in the violent attempt to abort the UN partition resolution of November 1947.

You dedicate this book to Elias Katz and Sami Taha. Who were they?

A native of Finland, Elias Katz won two Olympic medals in the 1924 Paris games before immigrating to Mandatory Palestine and becoming coach of the prospective Jewish state's athletic team for the 1948 games. A firm believer in peaceful coexistence, he was murdered in December 1947 by Arab co-workers in a British military base in Gaza. Sami Taha, scion of a distinguished Haifa family, was a prominent Palestinian Arab trade unionist and a foremost proponent of Arab-Jewish coexistence. He was gunned down by a mufti henchman in September 1947, at the height of the UN debate on partition.

What were the obligations of Great Britain under the Mandate for Palestine?

The League of Nations instructed the British to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine as envisaged by the 1917 Balfour Declaration.

How did Britain fulfill these obligations?

Almost from the beginning the British authorities repeatedly gave in to Arab efforts to avert the implementation of the Mandate. Finally, in July 1937, Arab violence reaped its greatest reward. The Peel Commission, appointed by London, concluded that Arabs and Jews couldn't peacefully coexist in a single state and recommended repudiating the terms of the Mandate altogether in favor of partitioning Palestine into two states: a large Arab state, united with what was then called Transjordan, and a truncated Jewish state.

But hadn't the British "twice promised" Palestine, first to the Arabs and then to the Jews?

Certainly not. In his correspondence with Sharif Hussein of Mecca, which led to the Great Arab Revolt during World War I, Sir Henry McMahon, the British high commissioner for Egypt, specifically excluded Palestine from the prospective Arab empire promised to Hussein. This was acknowledged by the sharif in their exchanges and also by his son Faisal, the future founding monarch of Iraq, shortly after the war.

You bring to light a World War II conversation about atomic weapons between Nazi-SS chief Heinrich Himmler and the mufti Hajj Amin Husseini.

Yes. Arriving in Berlin in November 1941, and promptly awarded an audience with Hitler, the mufti spent the rest of the war in the service of the Third Reich, broadcasting Nazi propaganda and recruiting Balkan Muslims for the German killing machine. Himmler and the mufti spent hours ruminating on the absolute evil of the Jews. It was during one of these conversations, sometime in the summer of 1943, that Himmler gleefully told Hajj Amin of the Nazi "final solution," which by that time had led to the extermination of some three million Jews. He also confided the great progress made in developing a nuclear weapon that in Himmler's opinion would win the war for Germany. The mufti would never forget this conversation, boasting decades later in his memoirs that "there were no more than ten officials in the German Reich who were privy to this secret."

Arab historians and others now say that Israel's victory in the 1948-49 War of Independence was preordained, given the weakness of the Arabs.

Hardly. By April 1948, after four months of fighting against the mufti's men as well as an irregular pan-Arab force-dubbed the Arab Liberation Army-that had penetrated Palestine from outside, the Jewish position had become precarious. It was only after the Jews launched their first large offensive in early April, aimed at breaching the siege of Jerusalem, that the Palestinian Arab war effort began to unravel rapidly, culminating in total collapse and mass exodus by mid-May.

Then Israel proclaimed its independence.

Yes-and immediately the country was invaded by the regular armies of the neighboring Arab states. The previous succession of Jewish victories was checked, the nascent state was thrown back on the defensive, and the fight became a struggle for its very survival.  Ultimately, the newly-established Israeli army managed to turn the tables, at the exorbitant human cost of one percent of the new state's population.

At the village of Deir Yasin in April 1948, the Irgun,  a pre-state paramilitary force, is said to have massacred hundreds upon hundreds of innocent and unarmed men, women, and children.

According to a reliable report a day after the event, some 100 Arabs, including women and children, were killed in the fighting for the village. This figure is confirmed by Arif al-Arif, the doyen of Palestinian Arab historians, in his seminal Arabic-language study of the nakba (disaster), as Palestinians refer to the events of 1948-49.  Al-Arif stipulates heavy fighting on both sides, claiming that the villagers killed more than 100 Jewish fighters (the actual figure was four dead and 32 wounded). Of the 110 Arab fatalities, he alleges that only seven were killed in action while the rest were peaceful civilians murdered in their homes. By contrast, an intelligence report issued three days after the event by the Haganah, the main Jewish fighting force, underscored the operational incompetence and disarray of the attacking Irgunists as well as their lack of discipline, manifested among other ways in acts of plunder, but makes no mention of a massacre.

In Palestine Betrayed you come to essentially the same conclusion as does Benny Morris in his recent book 1948: namely, that the only party systematically interested in "transfer" or "expulsion" in this period was the Arabs.

Morris does seem to have tacitly disowned his early writings, not least by acknowledging that the underlying cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict was and is the adamant Arab and Muslim refusal to accept the idea of Jewish statehood in any part of Palestine. Millions of Arabs, Jews, and foreign observers of the Middle East fully recognized these facts as early as 1948; at that time, the collapse and dispersion of Palestinian Arab society were nowhere described as a systematic dispossession of Arabs by Jews. Regrettably, this historical truth has been erased from public memory.

But in the case of the town of Lydda, the Haganah did drive out Arab residents.

The Lydda expulsion of July 1948 was the only instance where a substantial urban population was driven out during the course of the war.  It stemmed not from a pre-existing plan but from a string of unexpected developments. Only when Israeli forces encountered stiffer resistance than expected was the decision made to "encourage" the population's departure to Arab-controlled areas a few miles to the east. The aim was to avoid leaving a hostile armed base at the rear of the Israeli advance and, by clogging the main roads, to forestall a possible counterattack by the Arab Legion.

This is not to deny that Israeli forces did on occasion expel Palestinian Arabs.  But these were exceptions that occurred in the heat of battle and were uniformly dictated by ad-hoc military considerations-notably the need to deprive the enemy of strategic sites where no Jewish forces were available to hold them.

You write that, in any case, hundreds of thousands of Arabs had fled Palestine while the British were still in place-that is, prior to Israeli independence.

That is correct. And this tells us that even if the Zionists had instigated a plot to expel the Palestinian Arabs-which they most certainly did not-Britain's extensive military presence in the country would have precluded the slightest possibility of a systematic "ethnic cleansing."  

What then was the catalyst for their flight?

The fear, disorientation, and economic privation that accompany all armed hostilities.  But to these must be added, crucially, the local Palestinians' despair of their own leadership, the role taken by that leadership in actively forcing widespread evacuations, and perhaps above all the lack of communal cohesion or of the willingness, especially at the highest levels, to subordinate personal interest to the general good.

You cite documents by Jewish figures in Haifa actually pleading with the city's Arab leaders not to flee.

They did not listen to such pleas, no doubt because remaining would have amounted to a tacit acquiescence in Jewish statehood.

The UN says there are 4.7 million Palestine refugees today. How many Arabs actually fled Palestine?

By the time of Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948, some 300,000-340,000 Palestinian Arabs had fled their homes. By the end of the war several months later, the numbers had swollen to 583,000-609,000 refugees.

Why didn't Israel welcome them back afterward?

Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion told his cabinet on September 12, 1948 that if direct talks with the Arabs should culminate in a real peace, the  refugees would return. On the other hand, "Should [postwar arrangements] fall short of peace with the Arabs, we will not allow their return."

You contend that Palestinian Arabs, if left to their own devices, would have chosen coexistence.

Therein lay the great tragedy of the 1920-48 era.  Despite constant terror and intimidation, including the killing by Arab fanatics of moderates within their own community, peaceful coexistence with Jews was far more prevalent than were eruptions of violence, and the violence was the work of a small fraction of Palestinian Arabs.

It was the Arab leadership that rejected Jewish statehood even in a small part of Palestine-not from concern for the national rights of the Palestinian Arabs, but from the desire to fend off a perceived encroachment on the pan-Arab patrimony.

So the Arab war goal was not to create a Palestinian state?

It was common knowledge at the time that the pan-Arab invasion was more of a geopolitical scramble for Palestine than an attempt to secure the Palestinians' national rights. After 1948-49, neither Egypt nor Transjordan moved to establish an independent Palestinian entity in Gaza and the West Bank; this reflected the wider perception of the Palestine problem as a corollary of the pan-Arab agenda rather than as a distinct or urgent issue in its own right.

Abdel Rahman Azzam, the first head of the Arab League, once mused that it took centuries for the Arabs to reconcile themselves to having lost Spain; he wasn't sure they could ever adjust to losing any part of Palestine.

Unfortunately, the prospect of such an adjustment still seems far from auspicious. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, following in the footsteps of his recent predecessors, agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state provided the Palestinians recognized Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state. Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian Authority's negotiator, reacted to this by warning that Netanyahu "will have to wait 1,000 years before he finds one Palestinian who will go along with him."

And so, more than six decades after the mufti condemned his people to statelessness, his reckless policies live on and are continually reenacted. Only when today's Arab leaders end this legacy of intransigence can the Palestinians hope to put their self-inflicted nakba behind them.

 

Open brief aan Netanjahoe van Ari Shavit: "Act before it's too late"

 
Ari Shavit heeft wat veel woorden nodig, en is hier en daar wat erg melodramatisch, maar met de kern van zijn boodschap ben ik het wel eens. Netanjahoe is niet de duivel en de oorzaak van de stagnatie in de vredesbesprekingen, maar hij moet wel eens wat gaan doen en het initiatief naar zich toetrekken met een moedig plan.
 
Mr. Prime Minister, something very bad has happened since that evening. Perhaps the blame lies with U.S. President Barack Obama: His ceaseless, unbalanced and unfair pressure on you caused you to freeze in place. Perhaps the blame lies with the international community: Its outrageous attitude toward Israel caused you to feel besieged. Perhaps the blame lies with opposition leader Tzipi Livni: Her cynical behavior shackled you with iron chains to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who are hobbling you.
 
Yet even if others are to blame, the responsibility is yours. You are the one sitting at that wooden desk in that wood-paneled room where our fate is decided. Therefore, you are the one responsible for the fact that a year after your election, Israel is still mired in the toxic swamp of the occupation into which it sank 43 years ago. You are responsible for the fact that we are sinking even deeper into the mud.
(...)
 
Mr. Prime Minister, here are the basic facts: The grace period granted the Jewish state by Auschwitz and Treblinka is ending. The generation that knew the Holocaust has left the stage. The generation that remembers the Holocaust is disappearing. What shapes the world's perception of Israel today is not the crematoria, but the checkpoints. Not the trains, but the settlements. As a result, even when we are right, they do not listen to us. Even when we are persecuted, they pay us no heed. The wind is blowing against us.
 
The zeitgeist of the 21st century threatens to put an end to Zionism. No one knows better than you that even superpowers cannot resist the spirit of the times. And certainly not small, fragile states like Israel.

RP
----------

 
An open letter to Netanyahu: Act before it's too late
By Ari Shavit
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164021.html
 
 
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
 
It isn't every day a journalist writes an open letter to the prime minister. But today is no ordinary day. Nor is this an ordinary hour. This is the hour when the clock is about to strike midnight. A rare confluence of circumstances has created a situation in which on Israel's 62nd Independence Day, the state of the Jews is facing a challenge the likes of which it has not known since May 14, 1948. The year between this Independence Day and the next will be a crucial one.
 
Shortly after you became prime minister, exactly one year ago, I entered your office for a few minutes. Uncharacteristically, you rose to greet me and gave me a hug. Also uncharacteristically, I hugged you back. I told you that as a citizen, a Jew and an Israeli, I wished you success. I told you I thought I knew how heavy the burden laid on your shoulders was. You replied that I don't know. That even though I think I know, I don't. That there has never been a time like this one since Israel's resurrection.
 
Based on previous conversations, I knew what you were talking about: the nuclear challenge, the missile challenge, the delegitimization challenge. The hair-raising conjunction of an existential threat from the east, a strategic threat from the north and a threat of abandonment from the west. The danger of a war unlike any we have had before. The danger of Israel's allies not standing at its side as they did in the past. And the sense of isolation. The sense of siege. The sense that once again, we must meet our fate alone.
 
You are a hated individual, Mr. Prime Minister. The president of the United States hates you. The secretary of state hates you. Some Arab leaders hate you. Public opinion in the West hates you. The leader of the opposition hates you. My colleagues hate you, my friends hate you, my social milieu hates you.
 
But in the 14 years I have known you, I have never shared this hatred. Time after time, I have come out against this hatred. I thought that despite your shortcomings and flaws, you were not unworthy. I thought that despite the vast differences in our worldviews, there was virtue in you. I believed that in the end, when the moment of truth came, you would have the vision necessary to create the correct synthesis between the right's truth and the left's truth. Between the world of your father, from which you came, and the world of the reality in which you must maneuver. Between the feeling that Israel is a fortress, and the understanding that this generation's mission is to bring Israel out into the wider world.
 
On June 14, 2009, you proved that you indeed have this synthesis in you. You spoke approximately 2,000 words in Bar-Ilan University's auditorium. But of those 2,000, only seven or eight were of historic significance: a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside a Jewish Israel. It was obvious you had a hard time speaking those words. They were pulled from your mouth in agony. But on that evening at Bar-Ilan, the statesman in you overcame the politician. The sober Herzlian overcame the anachronistic nationalist.
 
About an hour after the speech ended, when I spoke with you on the phone, it was possible to hear relief in your voice. You knew that at long last, you had done the right thing. You knew that very belatedly, you had overcome yourself. You knew that henceforth, you were a Zionist, centrist leader who seeks a secure peace. Who aimed to divide the land in order to fortify the state. Who believed that in order to strengthen Israel and ensure its future, we must rectify the colossal historic mistake we made in the West Bank.
 
Mr. Prime Minister, something very bad has happened since that evening. Perhaps the blame lies with U.S. President Barack Obama: His ceaseless, unbalanced and unfair pressure on you caused you to freeze in place. Perhaps the blame lies with the international community: Its outrageous attitude toward Israel caused you to feel besieged. Perhaps the blame lies with opposition leader Tzipi Livni: Her cynical behavior shackled you with iron chains to Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Interior Minister Eli Yishai, who are hobbling you.
 
Yet even if others are to blame, the responsibility is yours. You are the one sitting at that wooden desk in that wood-paneled room where our fate is decided. Therefore, you are the one responsible for the fact that a year after your election, Israel is still mired in the toxic swamp of the occupation into which it sank 43 years ago. You are responsible for the fact that we are sinking even deeper into the mud.
 
Granted, you suspended construction in the settlements. Granted, you made every effort to persuade Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to enter negotiations. At a time when the Palestinians did not lift a finger, you made one concession after another. But the political game you played was lost from the outset. What is now clear to everyone was clear from the start: There is no Palestinian partner for true peace. There isn't even a reliable Palestinian partner for partitioning the land.
 
Yet the fact that the Palestinians are not acting like a mature nation does not give us the right to act like them. Since we are the ones sinking in the mud, we are the ones who must do something. It is Israel that must break through the noose tightening around its neck.
 
Mr. Prime Minister, here are the basic facts: The grace period granted the Jewish state by Auschwitz and Treblinka is ending. The generation that knew the Holocaust has left the stage. The generation that remembers the Holocaust is disappearing. What shapes the world's perception of Israel today is not the crematoria, but the checkpoints. Not the trains, but the settlements. As a result, even when we are right, they do not listen to us. Even when we are persecuted, they pay us no heed. The wind is blowing against us.
 
The zeitgeist of the 21st century threatens to put an end to Zionism. No one knows better than you that even superpowers cannot resist the spirit of the times. And certainly not small, fragile states like Israel.
 
Therefore, the question now is not who brought us to this pass - the right or the left. The question is not who brought the greater disaster down upon us - the right or the left. The question is what should be done to bring about an immediate change in Israel's position in the world. What should be done so that the storm of history does not topple the Zionist project.
 
The possibilities are known: Offer the Syrians the Golan Heights in exchange for ending its alliance with Iran. Offer Abbas a state in provisional borders. Initiate a second limited disengagement. Transfer territory into the hands of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, to enable him to build a sane Palestinian state. Reach an agreement with the international community on an outline for partitioning the land into two nation-states.
 
Each of these five options entails high risks. Each of these options will exact a high political price. You are liable to be booted out of office. But if you do not adopt at least one of these five proposals, there is no point to your tenure in office. Your government will be remembered as the government under which Israel became a leper state, poised on the brink of destruction.
 
The cards you received when you came into office were the worst possible: Iran on the brink of nuclear weapons, Hezbollah at unprecedented strength, Israel shunned by the world, an unfriendly administration in Washington and a dysfunctional government in Jerusalem. Indeed, earth scorched to ash.
 
But you did not get to where you are in order to bewail your bitter fate. Even with the bad hand of cards you were dealt, you must win. On the scorched earth you inherited, you must make hope blossom. This is what there is. And you have to make the best of it. You have to grow into the greatness you promised.
 
The challenge of 2010 is a monumental challenge. On one level, it resembles Chaim Weizmann's challenge in securing the Balfour declaration: As in 1917, today, too, Zionism must mobilize widespread, solid international support for the Jewish state's right to exist. On another level, it resembles David Ben-Gurion's challenge at the inception of the state: As in 1947, today, too, the leadership must prepare the nation for almost inconceivably difficult scenarios. On a third level, it resembles the Dimona challenge faced by Ben-Gurion, Levi Eshkol and Shimon Peres: As in 1966-1967, the national leadership must give Israel's existence a strong, unshakable envelope of protection.
 
But in order to meet this multidimensional challenge, Israel needs a courageous alliance with the Western powers. In order withstand what is to come, Israel must once again become an inalienable part of the West. And the West is not prepared to accept Israel as an occupying state. Therefore, in order to save our home, is necessary to act at once to end the occupation. It is essential to effect an immediate and sharp change in diplomatic direction.
 
Mr. Prime Minister, the relationship between us has never been personal. We are not friends. You have never been in my home; I have never been in yours for any purpose except professional. We never stole horses together. We never planned a maneuver together. You have always known you would not receive immunity from me. I have always known you would never bribe me with journalistic scoops.
 
But I did give you a chance. Time after time after time, I gave you a chance. I saw the patriot in you. I saw the abilities you had. I also saw the human being that you try to hide. But time has run out, Benjamin Netanyahu. The time is now. Therefore, I decided to take the unusual step of writing you this unusual letter.
 
I myself am of no importance, of course. But I do believe that what I wrote is what many Israelis would like to tell you on this 62nd Independence Day. Do not betray them. Do not betray yourself. You are the man of this historic hour. Be a man.
 

woensdag 21 april 2010

Palestijn wenst Israeli's een gelukkige onafhankelijkheidsdag

 
Zoals ik al schreef: Gelukkig zijn er ook nog velen die de Joodse staat een warm hart toedragen.
 
Wouter
______________

Happy Independence Day wishes from a Palestinian




Although Palestinian and Israeli narratives are different, our vision for the future can be one.

It might be hard to believe that a Palestinian would wish an Israeli Jew a happy Independence Day, but I am only following in the footsteps of another Palestinian I know, Ibrahim from Hebron.

Three years ago, I was cohosting a bilingual (Arabic and Hebrew) radio show at Radio All for Peace in Jerusalem with my Israeli cohost, Sharon Misheiker. Our weekly show happened to air on Israeli Independence Day, and on that day we invited Ibrahim, a peace activist, to talk about the land that had been confiscated from him for the building of the separation barrier.

I remember that Ibrahim spoke with compelling passion and heartbreaking emotions about the loss of his farmland, which had been a main source of income. Before ending the conversation, we asked him how he felt about Independence Day, and we received a surprising answer.

With his characteristic candor, Ibrahim told us that he had already called his Israeli friends and wished them a happy Independence Day.

Sharon and I were shocked.

Ibrahim told us that he received the same response from all his Israeli friends: silence, shock and disbelief. They didn't know what to say. They were caught by surprise. They had never heard a Palestinian wishing them a happy Independence Day.

Some of his left-wing friends asked how he could do so, when the holiday was celebrating the same event that was causing much of his suffering. He could have used that chance to recount history according to the Palestinian narrative: He could have said something about the Deir Yasin massacre, or the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees who were left homeless after 1948 war. But he didn't. Instead, Ibrahim simply said happy Independence Day, and in doing so took the first step toward building a different kind of relationship between Israelis and Palestinians.

WHY WAS this step important? Part of the Israeli narrative describes a long history of suffering which hit the highest point with the Holocaust and the fear that Arabs would drive the Jews into the sea.

For years, Israelis have heard that Palestinians would never accept Israel's existence and would always work to destroy it. Many Israelis don't believe that Palestinians accept the reality that we are stuck here together. They doubt that Palestinians also dream of a peaceful tomorrow, where freedom prevails and safety is realized. This narrative of pain and fear has captured the minds of Jews, even though Israel has developed one of the strongest militaries in the world.

When Ibrahim uttered the words "happy Independence Day," he challenged that narrative of fear and doubt, and assured his Israeli friends that he knows they are here to stay, and accepts that. He wanted to let them know that he is not waiting for a chance to strike back. In essence, Ibrahim was digging a grave for the narrative of fear and replacing it with a narrative of hope.

For all of us, the past is painful and our narratives are very real to us. For the Palestinians, our pain of the Nakba is still fresh. The lost olive groves, orange groves, vineyards and homes which are part of the Palestinian identity and heritage, the stories, poetry and songs of Palestinian life in what became Israel will always be there.

These are collective memories that will always be carved in the heart of every Palestinian. But memories, pain and longing do not have to lead to revenge and destruction: They can also be motivation for a new tomorrow.

When Ibrahim's friends asked him how they should respond to his wishes, Ibrahim had a simple answer. He asked them to wish that next year both Israelis and Palestinians can celebrate Independence Day together, with the creation of a Palestinian state next to the Israeli one.

Although Palestinian and Israeli narratives are different, our vision for the future can be one. We can all unite and work toward the overdue dream of a viable Palestinian state before it is too late. It is time for our people to not let the past rob us of our future, but rather let it motivate us toward actions of hope.

====
The writer is the director of Middle East projects at the Center for World Religions, Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution at George Mason University and a winner of the Eliav-Sartawi Award for Common Ground Journalism. His blog can be found at http://azizabusarah.wordpress.com