Palestijnse vluchtelingen in Libanon

 

Van alle Palestijnse vluchtelingen buiten Gaza, zijn die in Libanon er het slechtst aan toe. Ze leven voor een groot deel in aparte kampen, kunnen geen Libanees staatsburger worden, mogen allerlei beroepen niet uitoefenen en zijn daarom grotendeels afhankelijk van de hulp van UNRWA. Voor de duidelijkheid: dit stuk is niet vanuit een 'zionistisch perspectief', maar vanuit Libanees oogpunt geschreven.

Palestinians in Lebanon are also banned from seeking state healthcare, owning property and even bringing in building materials into the refugee camps.

Het is vreemd dat we hier zelden over horen, terwijl Israel continu door allerlei mensenrechtenactivisten en politici de maat wordt genomen omdat Palestijnen in Gaza bijvoorbeeld geen bouwmateriaal mogen invoeren. Beste Gretta, Van Agt, Von der Dunk & co, als je je zo druk maakt om de onderdrukking van de Palestijnen, waarom horen we jullie hier dan nooit over?

In 1976, Lebanese Christian militiamen overran the Tal al-Zaatar refugee camp in East Beirut and massacred or expelled all of its residents.

Wat men vergeet erbij te vermelden is dat dat gebeurde met Syrische goedkeuring en waarschijnlijk iets meer dan alleen goedkeuring....

RP
----------------


Lebanon's Palestinian refugees

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/05/2009527115531294628.html
By Omar al-Issawi, Al Jazeera

 

 

In 1948 hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled from or forced to flee their homeland in the wake of the creation of the state of Israel.

While some were forced out by armed Israeli militias - perhaps the most notorious being the Irgun and Stern gangs - others fled in the belief Arab armies would defeat those Jewish forces fighting for independence and that they would then be able to return home.

There are thousands of Palestinian refugees across the globe, many of whom settled in neighbouring Arab countries including Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. Not to mention those Palestinians classed as refugees within the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

 

However, of all the Palestinian refugees in the Arab world, it is those who have taken shelter in Lebanon who have suffered the most.
According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) the international body set up to ensure the welfare of Palestinian refugees, the highest percentage of Palestinian refugees who are living in abject poverty reside in Lebanon.

 

There are about 400,000 officially registered Palestinian refugees in Lebanon, or approximately 10 per cent of the population. Just under half of the refugees continue to live in camps.

 

The issue of "naturalisation" of Palestinian refugees has often been used as a political card in Lebanon, a small country built on a delicate confessional balance.
Due to the sensitivity of the issue, there has been no official census in Lebanon since 1932 that could determine the number of Christians and Muslims of various sects.
Mostly Sunni Muslims, the Palestinian refugees are seen as a potential boon to Lebanese Muslim political aspirations, especially Sunni ones.

 

Civil war

 

And indeed, when the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was based in Lebanon between 1972 and 1982, it threw its lot behind the Muslim-dominated leftist forces that were engaged in civil war against the Christian-led right.

 

However, the PLO, under the leadership of Yasser Arafat, resolutely rejected the idea of Lebanon becoming a state for the dispossessed Palestinians.

While those Palestinians resident in Syria and Jordan, for example, do not enjoy the benefits of full citizenship, they do have access to education, healthcare and employment.

 

Conversely, Lebanon stands accused of not being the gracious host to the Palestinians that Arab tradition dictates.

 

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, Palestinian refugee camps were under stringent Lebanese security control. For instance, travel from one camp to another was restricted and even reading newspapers in public was banned.

 

Today, Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from draconian measures which the Lebanese state claims are there to prevent them from becoming permanent guests.

 

As recently as 2005, Palestinian refugees were banned from taking up employment in 70 professions. Today, the number of restricted professions stands at 20 and includes senior medical, legal and engineering careers.

 

Massacres

 

While these restrictions were recently eased, applicants must have a valid work permit and membership of the appropriate professional representative body. Both are beyond the financial means of most Palestinian refugees.

 

A major bone of contention for Lebanese nationals has been the fact that armed Palestinian groups continue to thrive in the refugee camps.

 

Many Lebanese believe the presence of armed Palestinians on Lebanese soil is a potential flashpoint and point to the clashes at the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp in Northern Lebanon as a case in point.

 

Between May and September of 2007, Nahr al-Bared was the scene of a brutal conflict between the radical Fatah al-Islam group and the Lebanese army.
 
However, Nahr al-Bared was an exception to the rule, with the major refugee camps such as Ain al-Helweh falling under a shared sphere of influence among Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian groups with strong grassroots support.

 

Indeed, the Palestinians themselves point out that their own security fears and a history of violence - including wholesale massacres - perpetrated in the camps is a major reason why Palestinians continue to bear arms.

 

In 1976, Lebanese Christian militiamen overran the Tal al-Zaatar refugee camp in East Beirut and massacred or expelled all of its residents.

 

Six years later, Israeli forces facilitated the entry of Lebanese Christian militiamen into the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in West Beirut. That massacre claimed the lives of about 800 residents of the camps.

 

Camps War

 

Between 1985 and 1989, Lebanon was the scene of what became known as the Camps War, when Pro-Syrian militiamen from Amal, a Lebanese Shia movement, and anti-Arafat factions laid siege to Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut and the South.

 

Palestinian refugees suffered grim atrocities, and according to journalist Robert Fisk, the Camps War was worse than the Sabra and Shatila massacre.
 
Today, on the eve of parliamentary elections, Palestinians in Lebanon are conveniently forgotten.

 

The battle lines have been drawn and they are along strictly Lebanese lines, with each political faction hurling accusations at each other and bringing into play the regional and international influences of Washington, Tel Aviv, Tehran and Damascus.

But many analysts point out that Lebanon ignores the plight of the Palestinians on its territory at its own peril.

 

Walk into Lebanon's largest Palestinian refugee camp, Ain al-Helweh, at midday and you are struck by the number of school age children in the streets, many going to and from their UNRWA schools as they cannot attend state schools.

 

Palestinians in Lebanon are also banned from seeking state healthcare, owning property and even bringing in building materials into the refugee camps.
However, the future of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon will be among the first items on the agenda of Lebanon's new parliament.

 

The Sabra Shatila Foundation, after consultation with human rights organisations including International Lawyers Sans Frontieres and members of Lebanon's legislature, will table a draft law in parliament which promises, in the words of the foundation, to: "erase, in one vote, decades of illegal and immoral treatment of more than 10 per cent of Lebanon's population".

 

The draft text reads: "Be it enacted by the Chamber of Deputies ... that all Palestinian refugees in Lebanon shall immediately acquire, receive and enjoy the full faith and credit of all civil rights possessed by Lebanese citizens except citizenship or naturalisation."

 

The alternative can only mean that Lebanon's refugee camps will be a hotbed for further frustration and disappointment for their residents, and could well prove to be a fertile breeding ground for future extremism.

 

 

PA troepen treden bruter op dan IDF bij huiszoekingen

Soms is de haat tussen Hamas en Fatah groter dan die tegen Israel. Het is niet de eerste keer dat de Palestijnen klagen dat Hamas/Fatah ze nog barbaarser behandelt dan Israeli's. Ik kan mij overigens niet voorstellen dat Israelische soldaten eerst toestemming vragen voordat ze het huis van een gezochte terrorist binnengaan, zoals deze moeder van een onlangs door Israel gedode Hamas terrorist beweert, dus wellicht is dit vooral bedoeld als belediging aan het adres van Fatah.

 

RP

--------------

 

'IDF troops more polite than PA police'
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST

Jun. 6, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035010760&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

IDF soldiers who raid the homes of Palestinians are more polite than the Palestinian Authority security forces in the West Bank, the mother of a top Hamas terrorist who was killed by Israel said over the weekend.

The mother was speaking shortly after security forces loyal to PA President Mahmoud Abbas stormed her family's house in the village of Rafat in the West Bank.

Her son, Yihye Ayyash, nicknamed The Engineer, was responsible for a spate of suicide bombings in the 1990s that killed more than 100 Israelis and wounded hundreds others.

The mother said that about 30 Palestinian security officers participated in the raid early Friday.

"They behaved in a shameful way," she said. "When the Jews come, they ask for permission and cry out before they enter a house." She said that Abbas's security forces acted in a "barbaric" manner and did not take into account that women and children were sleeping inside the house.

The Palestinian policemen did not even knock on the door, she added. "They raided the house and started searching for weapons," she said. "They left behind a lot of damage. Even a copy of the Koran was not spared."

The raid on Ayyash's home came amid increased tensions between Hamas and Fatah in the West Bank. PA policemen killed four Hamas gunmen in Kalkilya in two separate incidents last week. Four policemen were also killed in the clashes.

Over the weekend, Abbas's forces arrested another six Hamas supporters in different parts of the West Bank, sources close to the Islamic movement said.

The sources said that the arrests bring to approximately 700 the number of Hamas-affiliated detainees who are currently being held in PA prisons in the West Bank.

The PA security forces have also banned the families of the four Hamas men who were killed in Kalkilya from mourning them in public, the sources said. They added that PA policemen prevented mourners from heading to the dead men's homes to offer their condolences to the families.

The wives of the owners of the houses where the Hamas men were hiding remain in custody.

Amal al-Basha, whose husband Abdel Nasser was killed in the first clash between the Hamas gunmen and PA policemen, is accused of hurling a hand grenade at the security forces, killing three policemen. She was seriously injured in the raid.

The second woman is the wife of Abdel Fattah Shraim. She and her husband are being interrogated on suspicion of providing shelter to the two Hamas terrorists who were shot and killed by PA policemen when they were discovered hiding in the family's basement.

Meanwhile, Hamas published photos and names of PA policemen and security commanders who allegedly took part in the elimination of the four Hamas men in Kalkilya.

Hamas called on its supporters in the West Bank to kill the policemen and their officers because of their role in the killings and for being "collaborators" with Israel and the US.

Hamas's list included Husam Sheikh Hamed, a senior officer with the PA's Preventive Security Service, who is said to have personally led the attacks on the two Hamas cells.

Egyptische psycholoog op Hamas TV: "De Joden verdienden hun vernietiging door Hitler"

 

Obama's woorden hebben blijkbaar niet op iedereen indruk gemaakt; hij heeft nog een hoop werk te verrichten in de Arabische landen. Vrijdag zei Gretta Duisenberg dat Hamas Israel helemaal niet wil vernietigen, en geen terrroristische organisatie is maar vrede wil sluiten. Hieronder wat vredelievende woorden die onlangs op Hamas TV waren te horen.

 

"I always ask myself: Why did Hitler annihilate the Zionists or the Jews? By character, they definitely deserve this. This is why they suffered this massacre or annihilation, and so, they adopt the [Nazi] character, and project it onto the Palestinian people."
 

RP

-----------

MEMRITV  No. 2128| June 5, 2009
Egyptian Psychologist Dr. Wafa Musa: The Jews Deserved Their Annihilation by Hitler


Following are excerpts from a Hamas TV women's show, which aired on May 14, 2009:

To view this clip, visit www.memritv.org/clip/en/2128.htm

Egyptian psychologist Dr. Wafa Musa: The terrorist psychology of the Jews derives only from their love of money. The only god or religion of the Jews is money - not the Jewish religion or the dream of the so-called Greater Israel. This is a lie they tell themselves.
[...]
I always ask myself: Why did Hitler annihilate the Zionists or the Jews? By character, they definitely deserve this. This is why they suffered this massacre or annihilation, and so, they adopt the [Nazi] character, and project it onto the Palestinian people.
[...]
Kifah Al-Ramali, Gaza Islamic University: The killing of Palestinian women, and women in general, by the Jews is not a random thing. Rather, it is their ideology, which is taught to their children in their curricula. It is mentioned in the books of the Torah. I will present some short samples, although their books are full of this. For instance, the greatest Jewish scholar, on whom they completely rely, Maimonides, wrote in his book that the Jews have the right to rape non-believing women. By non-believing, he meant non-Jewish.
[...]
Mother of quintuplets born in Gaza: The first I named Isma'il Haniya, and the second Khaled Mash'al. The third is Mahmoud Al-Zahar. And the girls are Fatima Al-Najjar and Maryam Farahat. God has given me this grace, which I consider a miracle. No matter how many martyrs we lose, we will continue to give birth to Palestinian heroes, who will grow to be fighters, Allah willing. I hope I will raise them well, Allah willing, that they will serve as a role model for the people, and that they will be well-educated. I hope that they will be... I present them as a gift to the country and to Islam. They are afraid that we will bear children, who will grow to be fighters. This is what they fear.

________________

 

For assistance, please contact MEMRI at memri@memri.org.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

MEMRI
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
www.memri.org

Palestijnse Autoriteit bijt Obama's hand

 

De onder controle van de Palestijnse Autoriteit staande krant Al-Hayad al-Jadida schreef over Obama:

 

"We do not expect the new American president to express hostility towards Israel or to demand that it dismantle settlements... He will remain hostage to the American imperialist interests, which are in tandem with [those of] the Israeli occupation...."

 

Dat is nogal vijandig na de verzoenende en zelfs nogal pro-Palestijnse speech van Obama in Cairo. Het heeft, aldus Barry Rubin, alles te maken met het radikalisme van veel leiders in de Palestijnse Autoriteit. Hij is dan ook erg pessimistisch:

 

"These are all factors that ensure there will be no comprehensive peace agreement and that Obama's policy will fail. He should only learn--and remember--that this outcome is going to be the PA's fault."

 

Los van wiens schuld dat zou zijn, laten we hopen dat Rubin geen gelijk krijgt, en Obama wel succes zal hebben. Daarvoor zal hij echter beide partijen onder druk moeten zetten en zijn ogen niet moeten sluiten voor het feit dat de Palestijnse Autoriteit vooralsnog Israel niet erkent en ieder compromis van de hand wijst.

 

RP

---------------

The Palestinian Authority Bites Obama's Hand

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/06/palestinian-authority-bites-obamas-hand.html

 

 

MEMRI is publishing a round-up of articles and cartoons in the Arabic-speaking world about President Barack Obama's Cairo speech. Roughly they fall into three categories: Obama is great and this marks a real change; we must await actions to accompany these fine words; and it is all a trick and conspiracy to fool Muslims.

A number of Saudi and Egyptian newspapers are positive, but those in a number of other countries fall into the second (suspicious) or third (rejectionist) categories.

What is most surprising--at least for U.S. policymakers--comes from the Palestinian Authority's (PA) official newspaper, Al-Hayad al-Jadida, written by its veteran editor, Hafez al-Barghouti. Presumably, he would not write something like this if the PA wanted a different response. According to the MEMRI translation he said:

"We do not expect the new American president to express hostility towards Israel or to demand that it dismantle settlements... He will remain hostage to the American imperialist interests, which are in tandem with [those of] the Israeli occupation...."

This is pretty hostile coming right after the most pro-Palestinian speech ever made by a U.S. president and the visit of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas to Washington, not to mention the fact that the PA is the largest beneficiary per capita of U.S. funds in history and faces no U.S. pressure to live up to its obligations.

Yet it is par for the PA's course. Gratitude is not in the PA's playbook. As shown in the Abbas visit to Washington, President Obama and his administration is likely to experience the PA's lack of cooperation with its effort to create quickly a Palestinian state. Already, for example, Abbas put two preconditions on any negotiations with Israel: stopping all construction on existing settlements and promising the PA a state in advance of any PA compromises or clear picture of what such a diplomatic solution would include.

In addition, violating U.S. law, the PA is still using aid from American taxpayer money to pay for institutions it names in honor of terrorists who murdered Israeli civilians.

This is because the PA is less eager for a state than Obama is, an element of the situation that many in the administration totally fail to comprehend. It is also due to the fact that Fatah, the PA's ruling party, is still quite radical. A large majority of its leaders still view as their goal Israel's complete destruction while the organization--including Abbas himself--are more eager for a deal with the radical Islamist Hamas than with Israel.

These are all factors that ensure there will be no comprehensive peace agreement and that Obama's policy will fail. He should only learn--and remember--that this outcome is going to be the PA's fault.

 

Diverse enquetes in Israel kritisch over Obama

 

Het ultieme bewijs dat het antwoord dat je krijgt in een enquete in hoge mate afhangt van hoe je de vraag stelt. Helaas staat bij de meeste enquetes niet vermeld hoeveel mensen zijn ondervraagd, en van #3 is niet duidelijk of ook Arabieren ondervraagd zijn.

 

RP

----------------

Roundup of Israeli polls published the week Obama spoke in Cairo show
Israelis see Obama as pro-Palestinian and reject freeze on "natural growth"
Dr. Aaron Lerner

Date 5 June 2009

 

The following is a roundup of polls this week:

Poll #1  Poll of representative sample of Jewish Israeli adults carried out by Geocartography Knowledge Group -  Dr. Rina Degani - this week for Israel's Public Television Program "Osim Seder" - "Making Order". Results broadcast on 3 June 2009.

Poll #2 Telephone poll of a representative sample of adult Israelis (including Arab Israelis) carried out by Shvakim Panorama for Israel Radio's Hakol Diburim (It's All Talk) the week of 4 June 2009 and broadcast on 4 June.

Poll #3 Telephone poll of a representative sample of adult Israelis conducted by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University the end of May 2009 for The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution "War and Peace Index"

Poll #4 Telephone poll of a representative sample of 501 adult Israelis (including Arab Israelis) carried out by Dahaf (Dr. Mina Tzemach) for Yediot Ahronot "last weekend" and published in Yediot Ahronot on 5 June 2009.

# before each question identifies the poll.
______

#1 Should the Government evacuate unauthorized outposts?
Yes 40% No 51% No opinion 9%

#2 Do you support or oppose the evacuation of unauthorized outposts?
For 40.1% Against 40.4% Don't know 19.5%

#4 Should the illegal outposts be evacuated
Yes 70% No 25%

#3 Should Israel agree to evacuate illegal outposts and isolated settlements located in the heart of the Palestinian population if a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians depended on it?
Yes 53% No 29%

#1 Should the Government meet the American request to freeze settlements?
Yes 40% No 51% No opinion 9%

#2 Do you support or oppose the American demand for a halt to construction in Judea and Samaria?
Support 29.5% Oppose 55.6% Don't know 17.9%

#4 Should there be a freeze on settlement construction?
Yes 52% No 43%

#4 Should construction for natural growth be permitted in the settlements?
Yes 54% No 42%

#3 Should  Israel should agree to evacuate all settlements if a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians depended on it?
Yes 41% No 53%

#2 Does President Obama give preference to the interests of the Arab states over Israel's interests?
Yes 47.1% No 28.9% Don't know 24.0%

#3 What side does Barack Obama support?
Palestinian 55% Israeli 5% Neutral 31%

#4 What is Obama more concerned for: Israelis security needs or the Palestinian desire to establish a state?
Palestinian desires 51% Israel's needs 22%

#1 How do you perceive the Obama Middle East initiative?
Favorable 30% Negative 30% Ambivalent 23% No opinion 17%

#4 Are Obama's policies good for Israel?
Good 26% Bad 53%

#4 Are you disappointed with the policies of Obama towards Israel?
Yes 51% No 41%

#4 Should Netanyahu accept Obama's demands or reject them even at the cost
of sanctions Yes 56% No 40%

#1 Will American pressure lead to the fall of the Netanyahu Government?
Yes 22% No 64% No opinion 13%

 

#3 Was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to Washington successful?
Yes 19% No 65%

#3 How would you term the stance Netanyahu presented to the US?
Too rigid 13% Just right 56% Too lenient 9%

#3 (Jews only) Is there a chance for an agreement with the Palestinians that doesn't include the two states for two people's formula?
Yes 18% No 67%

#3 (Jews only) Do settlements serve or weaken Israel's interests?
Weaken 48% Serve 43%

#4 Should Israel agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state within the framework of a peace agreement?
Yes 55% no 41%

#4 What grade do you give to Netanyahu for his performance as prime minister since his election?
Good 47% Bad 45%

#4 Are your satisfied with Netanyahu's performance in the crises with the US?
Yes 34% no 47%

#4 Will Netanyahu agree in the end to the establishment of a Palestinian state?
Yes 44% No 50%

#4 Who is responsible for the crises with the US?
Netanyahu 16% Obama 28% Both 50%

#4 If there is an agreement to a settlement freeze should Yisrael Beteinu remain in the government?
Total: Yes 41% No 36%
Yisrael Beiteinu voters: Yes 60% No 23%

#4 If there is an agreement on a settlement freeze should Kadima join the government?
Total: Yes 41% No 43%
Kadima voters: Yes 52% No 41%

#4 If it is decided to evacuate settlements would you join in action opposing it?
No 85% Yes 12%

_______________________

 

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

Oud-ambassadeur Israel bekritiseert Netanjahoe's afwijzing tweestatenoplossing

Zou Netanjahoe eindelijk eens een keer luisteren? Hij vervreemdt met zijn positie ook sympathisanten van Israel, en speelt antizionisten in de kaart.

 

-------------

Last update - 20:06 06/06/2009       
'Netanyahu failure to back two-state solution harming Israel'
By Haaretz Service
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090738.html

 

 

Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu's failure to declare support for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is causing "significant" damage to Israel, former ambassador to the United States Sallai Meridor said Saturday.

 

"There is, in my opinion, significant political and moral damage in [Netanyahu] not saying: At the end of the road, I'm ready for a Palestinian state," Merridor told Channel 2.

 

Merriror's comments came after U.S. President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to Palestinian national aspirations on Thursday during a speech to the Muslim world in Cairo.

 

The former envoy, who was recently replaced in the top diplomatic post by academic Michael Oren, explained that Israel's small size and relative lack of power meant that it could not afford to appear to alienate the international community by refusing to support the establishment of a Palestinian state, under certain conditions.

 

"Our strength is dependant upon, among other things, our moral position, upon how we are perceived in the world," he said.

 

 

Obama vraagt van Israel een nieuw vredesbeleid

 

Nog een artikel van afgelopen woensdag, toen Obama voor zijn Midden-Oosten reis een kort onderhoud met Barak had in Washington.

 

Een goed idee: Israel kan niet alleen maar blijven afwachten en zeggen dat eerst het Iraanse probleem opgelost moet worden. Door zelf met een fatsoenlijk vredesplan te komen kan Israel juist de Arabische vredeswil op de proef stellen: als men inderdaad geen vrede wil (zoals velen in Israel, niet geheel ten onrechte, beweren) kan Israel een redelijk voorstel doen, zoals Olmert vorig jaar aan Abbas deed, of Barak aan Arafat, zonder het risico te lopen dat het wordt aanvaard en men het moet uitvoeren.

 

RP

---------------

Last update - 14:48 03/06/2009       
Obama to tell Israel: Form new peace policy by July
By Barak Ravid, Natasha Mozgovaya and Tomer Zarchin, Haaretz Correspondents
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090067.html

 

 

United States President Barack Obama intends to give Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu four to six weeks to provide an "updated position" regarding construction in West Bank settlements and the two-state principle.

 

Obama made a surprise appearance on Tuesday at a meeting Defense Minister Ehud Barak was holding in Washington, shortly before the U.S. leader was set to leave on a five-day trip to the Middle East.

 

Obama spoke for about 15 minutes with Barak, who was meeting with National Security Adviser General Jim Jones at the time. While Obama's official schedule did not include a meeting with Barak, he has in the past dropped into other officials' meetings with international figures.

 

According to an official Israeli source, Obama wants to complete the formulation of a preliminary six-month plan for progress toward a Middle East peace agreement and to present it in July.

 

The U.S. special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, will arrive in Israel next Monday night. He will meet with Netanyahu the day after in a bid to obtain clarifications regarding the U.S. demand to stop construction in the settlements and on the principle of two states for two peoples.

 

According to the Jerusalem source, Mitchell is expected to seek answers to questions raised during his meeting with the prime minister's advisors last week in London as well as to issues raised by senior administration officials following their meeting with Barak on Monday.

 

Mitchell is to visit the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

 

Barak and Jones met for more than two hours privately and discussed the settlements controversy. Obama will arrive in Riyadh today, continuing on to Cairo to deliver a much-anticipated speech tomorrow Thursday aimed at repairing frayed relations with the Muslim world.

 

While in Riyadh, Obama is expected ask Saudi King Abdullah to give a green light to other moderate Arab countries, particularly the Gulf States, to take steps toward normalization with Israel, such as the opening of diplomatic missions or public meetings with senior Israeli officials, in exchange for a freeze on settlement construction. It is unclear whether the Saudis will cooperate.

 

Before Obama left for the Middle East he sent messages to both Israel and the Arab countries via interviews he to the BBC and National Public Radio.

 

Part of being a good friend is being honest," Obama told NPR regarding relations with Israel. "

 

"I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact that the current direction, the current trajectory, in the region is profoundly negative, not only for Israeli interests but also U.S. interests," he said.

 

Obama also said he did not rule out future talks with Hamas, but only if the organization met demands to recognize Israel, disavow violence and honor existing agreements.

 

Tensions between Israel and the U.S. are making pro-Israel Congress representatives uneasy. Last week 329 representatives sent a letter to Obama outlining the "right way" to peace in the Middle East, calling on Obama to be an honest broker and also a friend to Israel.

 

Despite tensions over the settlement issue, Israel and the U.S. are to begin high-level consultations next week on the Iranian nuclear program and the dialogue between Washington and Tehran. The Prime Minister's Bureau declined to comment on the consultation.

 

A government source said that the meeting would be the first of a joint working group on the Iranian issue, decided on during Netanyahu's visit to Washington. The aim of the working group is to coordinate moves on the Iranian nuclear issue and update Israel on U.S. intentions in its dialogue with Iran.

 

The Israeli delegation to the group is expected to be led by National Security Council head Uzi Arad and is to include officials from the Defense MInistry, the Mossad, Military Intelligence, the Foreign Ministry and the Atomic Energy Commission.

 

The U.S. team will probably be headed by Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon.

 

The first meeting is expected to deal with the upcoming elections in Iran and the possible opening of U.S. dialogue with Tehran after a victor is declared.

 

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman met yesterday in Moscow with Russian President Dimitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and stressed the need to stop the Iranian nuclear program.

Wat schortte aan Obama's toespraak over Israel en de Palestijnen

Where he, terribly, missed a vital opportunity from Israel's point of view, however, was in legitimizing our Jewish nation-state solely on the basis of our people's persecution through the centuries, which "culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust."

Yes, of course, denying the Holocaust is 'baseless, ignorant and hateful." And yes, "threatening Israel with destruction" does indeed serve "to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

But our rights in this land are not predicated solely, or even primarily, on the tragedies that have befallen us during our history in exile. Those rights relate, rather, to the fact that we were in exile - from this land, this historic Jewish homeland. This is the only place on earth where the Jews have ever been sovereign, the place we never willingly left, the place to which we always prayed to return.

 

Daarnaast had Obama uit moeten leggen dat de Joden een volk zijn en als zodanig recht hebben op zelfbeschikking. Dit wordt in de Arabische wereld meestal ontkend, en hij had iets duidelijker kunnen maken dat de Palestijnen zelf mede verantwoordelijk zijn voor hun lijden. Er is pas vrede mogelijk wanneer de Palestijnen en Arabieren erkennen dat de Joden net zo verbonden met het land zijn als zijzelf en er legitieme rechten hebben, ook in hun hoofdstad Jeruzalem. De Palestijnse Autoriteit maakte gisteren direct duidelijk zover nog lang niet te zijn.

 

RP

----------------

The Jerusalem Post
Analysis: Obama's admirable, vital new beginning... and unfortunate first misstep
By DAVID HOROVITZ
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035000729&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull


Astutely invoking his own personal Muslim background, and wrapping his challenge in words of appreciation for Islam as a potential force for tolerance, President Barack Obama nonetheless spoke harsh truths to the Muslim world in Cairo on Thursday. And he was applauded.

Offering, and demanding, a new beginning in relations between Islam and the West, he appealed to a respect for human life, which he said was common to all faiths but which he stressed Muslim radicals have come to disregard. "We will... relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women and children," he said. And he was applauded.

This was, of course, only a first step. "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust," he noted. But one way to measure the achievement even this single speech constituted is to ask whether his predecessor could have conceived it, delivered it and been cheered for it. The answer, three times, is no.

From the particular, partisan perspective of the Netanyahu government, the content was as problematic as would have been expected - no more so, but certainly no less.

There was the insistent reiteration of the two-state vision, the repeated outlawing of even natural growth in the settlements - albeit in a clause that was notable for its plainly deliberate semantic complexity - and the outlining of a future multi-faith Jerusalem. Here, Obama was setting out traditional American policy - positions that accord with president Bill Clinton's eleventh-hour effort to achieve a permanent agreement in 2000, positions that were anathema then, and are anathema now, to the Likud and the Right.

From the broader, non-partisan Israeli perspective, it was heartening to hear the president tell the Muslim world of America's "unbreakable bond" with our country, and to hear him highlight the "cultural and historical ties" at the heart of that relationship, rather than mere cold, potentially transient, American interests.

It was good to hear him make clear that the Arab League peace initiative was "an important beginning but not the end of [Arab states'] responsibilities," and to urge the Arab world "to recognize Israel's legitimacy" and stop using the Arab-Israeli conflict as a pretext "to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems."

Less encouraging was the strikingly brief portion of his speech devoted to Iran. "When it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point," he said, promisingly. But in choosing to continue by asserting Iran's right to "access peaceful nuclear power," he offered no reassurance to Arab regimes panicked by Teheran's drive to the bomb, and absolutely no reassurance to Israel.

Watching from here, his even-handed attribution of blame for the failure of peace efforts to date was jarring indeed. For more than 60 years," the president declared, the Palestinian people "have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead."

To which most Israelis, having now witnessed even Ehud Olmert's ultra-generous two-state terms being derisively brushed aside by Mahmoud Abbas, would retort: "And whose fault is that?"

But Obama used his platform, too, to insist that "Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed." And, seconds later, he repeated and elaborated: "It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered."

He said this without including a parallel criticism of Israel's military response to such killing. He said this to a Muslim audience in Cairo.

Where he, terribly, missed a vital opportunity from Israel's point of view, however, was in legitimizing our Jewish nation-state solely on the basis of our people's persecution through the centuries, which "culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust."

Yes, of course, denying the Holocaust is 'baseless, ignorant and hateful." And yes, "threatening Israel with destruction" does indeed serve "to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

But our rights in this land are not predicated solely, or even primarily, on the tragedies that have befallen us during our history in exile. Those rights relate, rather, to the fact that we were in exile - from this land, this historic Jewish homeland. This is the only place on earth where the Jews have ever been sovereign, the place we never willingly left, the place to which we always prayed to return.

The culminating tragedy of the Holocaust occurred only because we had been denied that rightful homeland. Six million Jewish lives were lost because that legitimacy was not internationally internalized in time. This president, in that place, should have emphasized the point - stressed the physical root of our legitimacy to a Muslim world, and especially a Palestinian populace, that overwhelmingly refuses to acknowledge it.

Instead, unfortunately, the president spoke of the "displacement" of Palestinians "brought by Israel's founding" (while making no mention of the Arab world's rejection of the Arab entity that would have been simultaneously created alongside us). In so doing, he reinforced the very portrayal of Israel as a modern colonial upstart that Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad so cynically and strategically asserts.

In so painstakingly calibrated an address, delivered in so vital and urgent a cause, this was a stark failure, and one Obama should himself recognize the need to rectify as he translates his talk into action. For Muslim recognition of our fundamental right to be here, precisely here, is central to the president's admirable quest to make a better world, a peaceful world, a new beginning.

Iran adviseert Hamas in Gazastrook

 

Iran heeft in de Gazastrook meer invloed dan doorgaans aan het licht komt.........

 

------------------

Teheran is closer than we think

http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/06/teheran-is-closer-than-we-think.html

 

 

According to Ha'aretz, Hamas dismissed two military commanders because of their performance during the recent  Israeli Operation Cast Lead. It shows us who really won in Gaza, and it also shows that Iran micromanages Hamas. For all intents and purposes, we have Teheran in Gaza, a few miles from Tel Aviv:

Hamas political leader Khaled Meshal recently relieved two brigade commanders in the Gaza Strip on Iranian recommendations, Palestinian sources said Wednesday. The two officers, Bassam Issa and Imat Aakel, were removed from their positions following the recommendation of Iranian Revolutionary Guard officials who participated in the investigation of the perceived Hamas military failure during Operation Cast Lead. The two officers have been known to lead military wing formations in two of the Strip's refugee camps, Nuseirat and Bureij, and became brigade commanders when the Hamas regular military force was established.

 

During Operation Cast Lead, Hamas forces avoided confrontation with the IDF and did not incur great casualties among the Israeli troops. Because of the perceived failure, the organization's leadership decided to initiate a thorough investigation of the conduct of its men during the operation.

 

Palestinian sources said Meshal consulted Hassan Mahdawi, commander of the "Jerusalem Column" in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a unit stationed in Lebanon. After the investigation was concluded, the Hamas leadership decided to change the organizational structure of the military wing and remove a number of field commanders.
 
Issa and Aakel have also recently been at odds with Hamas' new interior minister, Fathi Hammad, who had tried to extend his authority over the organization's military wing. The ongoing disagreements between the Hamas government and senior commanders in the military wing resulted in the unauthorized firing of a Grad-type rocket at Ashkelon about three months ago. The launch was carried out as a protest by the military wing against the constraints set by the government.

 

Palestinian sources said Hammad decided to prosecute any persons involved in criminal activity, including activists from the military wing. He also banned the use of dark windows in all Gaza vehicles - popular among Hamas activists. The sources said Hammad enjoyed the support of the commander of the military wing, Ahmed Al-Jabari, while some local commanders, like Aakel and Issa, disagreed. Fatah sources claim Hamas' internal crisis was further aggravated by other senior leadership figures, who blame their lack of recent promotion on Hammad.

 

 

Alternative Information Center demoniseert Israel met Europese subsidies

Het Alternative Information Center, dat tegen vrede en tegen Israel is, wordt door bijvoorbeeld Zembla als betrouwbare bron beschouwd.

-------------------


June 04, 2009
NGO Monitor - Promoting Accountability in the Arab-Israeli Conflict
AIC: Demonizing Israel and Opposing "Normalization"

 

 

The Alternative Information Center (AIC) is a radical political organization run by individuals with links to the Trotskyite anti-Zionist Revolutionary Communist League (Matzpen) and the PFLP terror group. Its funders include: Diakonia (from the Swedish government), Christian Aid (Irish government), and Sodepau (Catalan government in Spain).

Examples of AIC rhetoric:

 

 "…Israel's colonial strategies of ethnic cleansing, systematic segregation, the denial of basic civil and human rights and the erasing of Palestinians from history…"

 

"Shimon Peres is definitely an enemy of the Palestinian people, of human rights and of peace, and any kind of collaboration by a Palestinian organization with the Peres Center is scandalous..."

 

"Only the choice of resistance can put an end to the occupation. Fighting and negotiating together."

 

"Barak and the rest of them – to Nuremberg!"

 

"[Sanctions] can provide an excellent framework to fight normalization with Israel."

Israel has "put itself...outside the community of civilized countries."

 

 

Click here for the full report

_______________________

NGO Monitor
1 Ben Maimon Blvd.
Jerusalem, 92262 Israel
mail@ngo.monitor.org
www.ngo-monitor.org

Afspraken Israel met Bush over beperkte groei nederzettingen Westoever

Wat voor afspraken waren er tussen Israel en de VS wat betreft de bouw in nederzettingen? Israel beschuldigt de VS ervan met Bush overeengekomen afspraken nu te schenden. Naar blijkt, waren Israel en de VS overeengekomen dat Israel de Routekaart voor Vrede pas accepteerde als het, onder voorwaarden, in de nederzettingen mocht blijven bouwen. Het woord 'settlement freeze' uit de Routekaart heeft zo een wel heel rekkelijke definitie gekregen. Daarbij heeft Bush een brief geschreven waarin hij duidelijk maakte dat Israel zich niet geheel achter de Groene Lijn hoeft terug te trekken in een toekomstig vredesverdrag. Zoals elders uitgelegd, vind ik het de vraag in hoeverre Israel zich op dergelijke, deels mondelinge afspraken, kan blijven beroepen. Anderzijds is het wel belangrijk te weten, hoe je daar zelf ook over denkt, dat de bouw in de nederzettingen van de afgelopen jaren in overeenstemming was met afspraken en gebonden aan regels, al waren die niet tot in detail uitgewerkt.

 

Onderstaand artikel is van donderdag voor de speech van Obama.

 

RP

--------------

 

New York Times - June 4, 2009

Israelis Say Bush Agreed to West Bank Growth

By ETHAN BRONNER

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04israel.html

 

 

JERUSALEM — Senior Israeli officials accused President Obama on Wednesday of failing to acknowledge what they called clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement "freeze."

The complaint was the latest in a growing rift between the Obama administration and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over how to move forward to achieve peace in the Middle East. Mr. Obama was in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday and is scheduled to address the Muslim world from Cairo on Thursday.

The Israeli officials said that repeated discussions with Bush officials starting in late 2002 resulted in agreement that housing could be built within the boundaries of certain settlement blocks as long as no new land was expropriated, no special economic incentives were offered to move to settlements and no new settlements were built.

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity so that they could discuss an issue of such controversy between the two governments.

When Israel signed on to the so-called road map for a two-state solution in 2003, with a provision that says its government "freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)," the officials said, it did so after a detailed discussion with Bush administration officials that laid out those explicit exceptions.

"Not everything is written down," one of the officials said.

He and others said that Israel agreed to the road map and to move ahead with the removal of settlements and soldiers from Gaza in 2005 on the understanding that settlement growth could continue.

But a former senior official in the Bush administration disagreed, calling the Israeli characterization "an overstatement."

"There was never an agreement to accept natural growth," the official said Tuesday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. "There was an effort to explore what natural growth would mean, but we weren't able to reach agreement on that."

The former official said that Bush administration officials had been working with their Israeli counterparts to clarify several issues, including natural growth, government subsidies to settlers, and the cessation of appropriation of Palestinian land.

The United States and Israel never reached an agreement, though, either public or private, the official said.

A second senior Bush administration official, also speaking anonymously, said Wednesday: "We talked about a settlement freeze with four elements. One was no new settlements, a second was no new confiscation of Palestinian land, one was no new subsidies and finally, no construction outside the settlements."

He described that fourth condition, which applied to natural growth, as similar to taking a string and tying it around a settlement, and prohibiting any construction outside that string.

But, he added, "We had a tentative agreement, but that was contingent on drawing up lines, and this is a process that never got done, therefore the settlement freeze was never formalized and never done."

A third former Bush administration official, Elliott Abrams, who was on the National Security Council staff, wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post in April that seemed to endorse the Israeli argument.

The Israeli officials acknowledged that the new American administration had different ideas about the meaning of the term "settlement freeze." Mr. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton have said in the past week that the term means an end to all building, including natural growth.

But the Israeli officials complained that Mr. Obama had not accepted that the previous understandings existed. Instead, they lamented, Israel now stood accused of having cheated and dissembled in its settlement activity whereas, in fact, it had largely lived within the guidelines to which both governments had agreed.

On Monday, Mr. Netanyahu said Israel "cannot freeze life in the settlements," calling the American demand "unreasonable."

Dov Weissglas, who was a senior aide to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, wrote an opinion article that appeared Tuesday in Yediot Aharonot, a mass-selling newspaper, laying out the agreements that he said had been reached with officials in the Bush administration.

He said that in May 2003 he and Mr. Sharon met with Mr. Abrams and Stephen J. Hadley of the National Security Council and came up with the definition of settlement freeze: "no new communities were to be built; no Palestinian lands were to be appropriated for settlement purposes; building will not take place beyond the existing community outline; and no 'settlement encouraging' budgets were to be allocated."

He said that Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser at the time, signed off on that definition later that month and that the two governments also agreed to set up a joint committee to define more fully the meaning of "existing community outline" for established settlements.

In April 2004, President Bush presented Mr. Sharon with a letter stating, "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949."

That letter, Mr. Weissglas said, was a result of his earlier negotiations with Bush administration officials acknowledging that certain settlement blocks would remain Israeli and open to continued growth.

The Israeli officials said that no Bush administration official had ever publicly insisted that Israel was obliged to stop all building in the areas it captured in 1967. They said it was important to know that major oral understandings reached between an Israeli prime minister and an American president would not simply be tossed aside when a new administration came into the White House.

Of course, Mr. Netanyahu has yet to endorse the two-state solution or even the road map agreed to by previous Israeli governments, which were not oral commitments, but actual signed and public agreements.

In his opinion article in The Washington Post, Mr. Abrams, the former Bush official who was part of negotiations with Israel, wrote: "For the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians."

Mr. Abrams acknowledged that even within those guidelines, Israel had not fully complied. He wrote: "There has been physical expansion in some places, and the Palestinian Authority is right to object to it. Israeli settlement expansion beyond the security fence, in areas Israel will ultimately evacuate, is a mistake."

Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.

Regering Netanjahoe: 'Israel deelt Obama's hoop op vrede'

Gemengde reacties vanuit Israel op Obama's speech.

 

--------------

The Jerusalem Post
Jun 4, 2009 14:38 | Updated Jun 4, 2009 23:00
'Israel shares Obama's hope for peace'
By GIL HOFFMAN AND JPOST STAFF
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244034998681&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

 

The Prime Minister's Office responded to US President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world on Thursday by expressing hope that it would help lead to reconciliation between the Muslim world and Israel.

"The government of Israel expresses hope that President Obama's important speech will lead to a new period of reconciliation between the Arab and Muslim world, and Israel. We share Obama's hope that the American effort will bring about an end to the conflict and to pan-Arab recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

"Israel is obligated to peace and will do as much as possible to help expand the circle of peace, while taking into consideration our national interests, the foremost of which is security," the statement concluded.

President Shimon Peres praised Obama, saying that his "speech was a speech filled with a vision, [it was] a brave speech which promises hard work for all of the sides involved in advancing the peace process in the Middle East.

"The idea of peace was born in the Middle East and is a basic term [used] in the three monotheistic religions - Christianity, Judaism and Islam - and it is up to the children of Abraham to join hands in order to meet the challenge together - sustainable peace in the Middle East."

Meanwhile, politicians across the political spectrum reacted with both praise and condemnation to his words.

"This is a direct, significant and brave appeal, in which President Obama has formulated his vision and the important universal values he wishes to share with the Muslim world," Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a statement from Washington, where he was meeting with Henry Kissinger. "The speech contains reinforcement and encouragement for the moderate and peace-seeking elements, as well as an affront to terror and extremist elements threatening stability in our region and peace in the world.

"We praise the president's commitment to the existence and safety of Israel, as well as his clear call for Israel's integration in the region," Barak said.

"We hope the Arab world will heed President Obama's call to bring an end to terror and violence and establish peaceful ties with Israel. We will act in coordination with the US to promote peace, while emphasizing the safeguarding of Israel's essential security interests," the defense minister concluded.

Other cabinet members had none of Barak's enthusiasm. "Obama ignored the fact that the Palestinians have not abandoned terror," Habayit Hayehudi Chairman Daniel Herschkowitz said during a tour of settlements south of Hebron. "The government of Israel is not America's lackey. The relations with the Americans are based on friendship and not submission, and therefore Israel must tell Obama that stopping natural growth in the settlements is a red line."

Another member of the same party, Zevulun Orlev, also reacted with dismay to the president's comments.

"The speech raises fears and worries about the [fate] of America's balanced relationship towards Israel," he said. "I have a bad feeling ... traditional commitments of the United States towards the security needs which ensure the existence and independence of the state of Israel are being eroded.

"The answer to this is not capitulation or flattery," Orlev continued, "but rather the negotiation" to convince the US of the Israeli position."

In contrast, Kadima MK Ze'ev Boim used the opportunity to both laud the speech and criticize the government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

"Obama's speech is further proof that Netanyahu did not properly gauge the policies of the Untied States," he said. "The policies of the president on the Palestinian issue are identical to those of Kadima, and it is unfortunate that Netanyahu is unable to accept the idea of two states for two peoples for narrow political reasons."

Labor rebel MK Eitan Cabel also had words of praise for the president and condemnation for the prime minister.

"The president's words made it very clear that in Washington they are unwilling to turn a blind eye," he said. "Time is working against us, and the Israelis interest of not being a serial rejector means accepting two states for two peoples and stopping construction of settlements."

United Arab List MK Ahmed Tibi said that while he agreed with the speech, there was "no Israeli partner to implement" it.

"Obama presented a new and balanced approach and semantics in his speech, and reiterated that the settlements are not legitimate," he said. "This approach requires active steps that will be the test of his policy."

"His words of praise for Islam are a counterweight to Islamaphobia, and what he said about Palestinian suffering is an important basis for diplomatic progress," Tibi added.

Hadash MK Dov Henin joined Tibi, Cabel, and Boim in their praise of the speech.

"The whole world understands that a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is essential and urgent for security and peace in the entire world," he said. "The time has come for the Israeli public to make its voice heard in a clear way against the refusal of the Netanyahu government to make peace."

Outside of the Knesset, reactions were also mixed. Aliza Herbst, resident and spokeswoman for the Ofra settlement, said that modern history has shown that the Muslim world is at war with the West. She said that Obama's vision of peace sounded nice but was not realistic.

The citizen's committees of Judea and Samaria said the speech was an expression of Israel "paying the price for the defeatism of its leaders."

"Hussein Obama chose to adopt the lying versions of the Arabs, which were always stated persistently and brazenly, over the Jewish truth, which is stated in a weak and stuttering voice," the settlers said in a statement.

It was time for Netanyahu to join the ranks of Menahem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, "arise as a proud Jewish leader and declare that he rejects with repugnance the rewritten history that Obama attempted to dictate today," they said.

 

AP contributed to this report.

Onderhandelingsruimte over nederzettingen tussen Israel en VS

Israel kan de kans op Amerikaanse flexibiliteit verhogen door zichzelf ook flexibel op te stellen en niet steeds keihard te roepen dat het door gaat met het bouwen in de nederzettingen.

Over de vraag hoe Obama's woorden over de nederzettingen precies geinterpreteerd moeten worden zal menige Israelische politcus zijn hoofd nog breken, maar duidelijk is dat de nederzettingen nu ook door Amerika als een groot probleem worden gezien en daarmee dient terdege rekening te worden gehouden.

 

Het is jammer dat Obama in zijn speech de legitimiteit van Israel slechts verbond met antisemitisme en de Holocaust, en niet met het recht van het Joodse volk op zelfbeschikking, en de verbondenheid van de Joden met het land. Misschien iets voor een volgende speech?

 

RP

--------------

US official to 'Post': We can find deal on West Bank settlements
Jun. 5, 2009
HERB KEINON and Jerusalem Post staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

 

 

Washington feels "an arrangement that works" can be hammered out with Israel on the settlement issue, a senior administration official told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday, indicating the US recognizes some wiggle room in defining a "settlement freeze."

 

"There's a professional, constructive dialogue on this issue," the official said, shortly after US President Barack Obama delivered his speech in Cairo. "We have differences, but believe we can find an arrangement that works."

 

The official said that some of the comments reportedly made on the issue by anonymous officials both in Israel and the US had been "heated" and not always credible.

 

"We're working this through, consistent with the relationship between strong allies," he said.

 

Israeli officials, meanwhile, were struggling to understand what precisely Obama meant when he discussed the settlement issue in his speech.

 

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace," he said. "It is time for these settlements to stop."

 

One diplomatic official said the construction of this paragraph seemed intentionally vague, enabling further discussion on the matter with the US.

 

US Middle East envoy George Mitchell is scheduled to arrive in Israel on Tuesday, to continue discussing the matter.

 

The senior US official said Washington and Jerusalem were also continuing to have a conversation about a two-state solution, something Obama forcefully backed in Cairo but which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has still not endorsed.

 

The official stressed that Obama's speech was not a one-time effort at outreach to the Islamic world, and that the idea was now for continuous dialogue with Muslims. He added that this candid dialogue would help the US "get a fair hearing" in the Islamic world regarding its "unshakable" backing for Israel.

 

The official acknowledged that Obama may have missed an opportunity during his speech to speak about the Jews' historical connection to Israel, framing Israel's legitimacy instead only within the context of persecution and the Holocaust.

 

He stressed that Obama had spoken about the Jews' historic connection to the land in the past.

 

"It was certainly not a deliberate omission this time," he said.

 

This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1244035003319&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

_,_._,___

PA hoorde Obama zeggen dat Jeruzalem voor moslims en christenen is?

Ook Ami Isseroff wijst op de wel vreemde vertaling door Abu Rdeina van Obama's speech die gericht was op verzoening.

 

Abu Rdeina continued on: we believe that Israel must take Obama's Speech today seriously. He pointed that the US President's call for Israel to stop colonization and for establishing a Palestinian state, and that Jerusalem is for Muslims and Christians is a clear message to Israel that it should choose between peace and the continuation of tension.

 

Wat hij ook vergeet is dat Obama ook een boodschap had voor de Palestijnen:

 

Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.

 

It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

----------------

 

Abu Rdeina: Obama's Speech Contains Clear Message to Israel

Date : 4/6/2009
Time : 16:55
http://english. wafa.ps/?action=detail&id=12742

 

RAMALLAH, June 4, 2009 (WAFA - PLO news agency) - Palestinian Presidency Spokesman, Nabil Abu Rdeina, said that US President Barack Obama's speech is a new American beginning, and a clear message to the Israelis.

Abu Rdeina told WAFA that President Obama's preparedness for partnership, establishing confidence and facing tensions, and his words about the suffering of Palestinians and him saying that the time has come to establish a Palestinian state is the first essential step towards building a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East.

Abu Rdeina continued on: we believe that Israel must take Obama's Speech today seriously. He pointed that the US President's call for Israel to stop colonization and for establishing a Palestinian state, and that Jerusalem is for Muslims and Christians is a clear message to Israel that it should choose between peace and the continuation of tension.

War and Peace Index: 60% Israëli's vertrouwt Obama niet

 

Israëli's zijn bezorgd om het beleid van Obama en de kritische toon die hij aanslaat naar Israël.

 

__________________

60% of Israelis don't trust Obama
War and Peace Index reveals 55% of Israeli Jews believe US president leans in favor of Palestinians, while only 5% say he supports Israeli position.
Majority of respondents say Netanyahu's Washington visit was unsuccessful.

 

Ynet

Published: 06.04.09, 15:13
www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3726358,00.html

 

Even before Barack Obama's historic "reconciliation speech" in Cairo on Thursday, the majority of the Israeli public - 55% - felt the US president leans in favor of the Palestinians.

Only 5% said Obama supports the Israeli stance, while 31% said they feel he is neutral, a poll published on Thursday showed.

Sixty percent of Israelis don't trust the president to consider and protect Israel's interests during his efforts to improve relations between America and the Muslim world.

The War and Peace Index, published on Ynet once a month, showed that 65% of the respondents feel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's trip to Washington was unsuccessful, while 19% feel it was successful.

Nonetheless, the majority of the respondents - 56% feel the stance Netanyahu presented to the US was neither too rigid, nor too lenient, but just right. Thirteen percent said the prime minister's position was too rigid, while 9% said it was too lenient. The rest said they didn't know.

The sweeping majority (67%) of the Jewish public in Israel still believes there is not chance for an agreement with the Palestinians that doesn't include the two states for two people's formula, while only 18% think there is a chance for an agreement without this formula.

The Jewish Israeli population is spilt on the matter of settlements, with a small majority of 48% saying they weaken the Israeli interest, as opposed to 43% who said settlements actually contribute to the State's interests.

A majority of 53% said Israel should not agree to evacuate all settlements, even if a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians depended on it, while 41% said they support evacuation.

A breakdown to the types of settlements in question yields different results. With regards to illegal outposts and isolated settlements located in the heart of the Palestinian population, as opposed to the major settlement blocs, 53% of the respondents said Israel should agree to evacuate them. Only 29% disagreed.

The survey is funded by two academic bodies belonging to Tel Aviv University: The Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution. The surveys are conducted by the B. I. Cohen Institute of Tel Aviv University. The joint academic responsibility for the project, including formulation of the questionnaires and analysis of the findings, is held by Prof. Ephraim Yaar of Tel Aviv University and Prof. Tamar Hermann of the Open University.

Toespraak president Obama in Cairo over Midden-Oosten conflict

 

Barack Obama hield in Cairo een in diplomatiek opzicht vrij stevige maar redelijk evenwichtige speech, die al als 'historisch' wordt gekwalificeerd. De internationale reacties waren overwegend positief. Er zat dan ook, zo te zeggen, voor elk wat wils in, behalve voor de echte fanaten.

 

Hieronder het deel dat Israel en de Palestijnen en Iran betreft.

 

Zie ook over Obama en het Israelisch-Palestijnse conflict: Een frisse bries uit Amerika

 

Twee blogs met eerste reacties op de toespraak van Obama:

Palestinian Authority distorts Obama speech into racist apartheid harangue

Obama struggles to equate Israel with 'Palestine'

 

Wouter

_______________

Transcript: President Obama Addresses Muslim World in Cairo
CQ Transcriptwire
Thursday, June 4, 2009; 6:32 AM
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/04/AR2009060401117.html?hpid=artslot

 

 

[the part about Israel, the Palestinians and Iran:]

 

America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

 

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

 

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

 

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

 

That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them - and all of us - to live up to our responsibilities. Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed.

 

For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.

 

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

 

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

 

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

 

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true. Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

 

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.

 

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically- elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

 

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

 

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation - including Iran - should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.