Israel Lobby and Jew-Zionist conspiracy now aligned with left
Jewish power drove Sotomayor pick, racists say
http://jta.org/news/article/2009/06/17/1005942/jewish-control-drove-sotomayor-nomination-racists-say
zaterdag 20 juni 2009
Racisten zien Joodse lobby achter Latino nominatie Hooggerechtshof VS
Zionistisch imperialisme
Zionist Imperialism
eli kavon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Waarom is de Kfar Etzion 'nederzetting' illegaal?
Why is Kfar Etzion illegal?
<http://fresnozionisJune 16th, 2009
US President Barack Obama, while saying for a second time on Monday that there was "positive movement" in Netanyahu's speech, called once again at a press conference in the White House, alongside visiting Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, for a "cessation of settlements."
"And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means," Obama said, "but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress."
Leave aside for now the famously accomplished speaker Barack Obama's sudden inability to distinguish between nouns and verbs, first apparent in his Cairo speech where he said that "It is time for these settlements to stop" — stop doing what? — and yet again when he calls for a "cessation of settlements" and opposes a "continuation" of them.
Let's go from the abstract to the concrete and talk about settlements.
Kfar Etzion is a 'settlement': it is east of the 1949 armistice line which is also called the 'Green Line'. Here is an excerpt from something I wrote about it last December ("No room for Jews"):
One of the places that the Palestinians do not wish to compromise on is Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, south of Jerusalem. Part of the Palestine Mandate from 1917 to 1948, and the Ottoman empire before that, it was purchased from local Arabs and settled by Yemenite Jews in 1927. They lived there on and off (they were driven out several times by Arab riots) until 1948 when the invading Jordanian army overran it and executed all but four of its defenders. All of the West Bank and East Jerusalem were made Jew-free by the Jordanians, who illegally occupied the area until 1967, when the kibbutz was reestablished.
So what I am asking Obama to explain is exactly how is Kibbutz Kfar Etzion illegal?
And consider another 'settlement', the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. Jews had lived there from biblical times, but here is how it became free of Jews in 1948:
In 1948 during the Arab-Israeli War, its population of about 2,000 Jews was besieged, and forced to leave en masse. Colonel Abdullah el-Tal, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion, with whom Mordechai Weingarten negotiated the surrender terms, described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, in his Memoirs (Cairo, 1959):
"… The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion…. I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews who caused their fighters a good deal of interference and difficulty…. I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction…. Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it…. As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud - a cloud of death and agony."
How can it be that it is — in Obama's view — illegal for Jews to live in the ancient Jewish Quarter of the old city of Jerusalem?
In general, how is it that the 19-year Jordanian and Egyptian occupation managed to transform parts of Mandatory Palestine into places like Saudi Arabia, where Jews are forbidden to live?
Explain this, Mr. Obama. And while you're at it, explain the significance — since it is obviously not an accident — of your strange and ungrammatical way of talking about settlements.
-- Vic Rosenthal
<http://fresnozionis
vrijdag 19 juni 2009
Waarom Achmadinejad de verkiezingen in Iran niet won
[TEHRAN BUREAU] Much has been said about the outcome of the Iranian presidential election, which took place last Friday. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's supporters claim that the vote counting was honest. The reformists' supporters hotly dispute that. Extra ammunition has been provided to those who believe that the President was the true victor by the results of a poll taken by the Center for Public Opinion and the New American Foundation between from May 11-20, 2009, asking 1001 Iranians living in Iran for whom they would vote.
According to the poll, 34% of the respondents said that they would vote for the President, while 14% said that they would vote for the main reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister.
So, who is right?
There is much evidence to support those who believe that the vote counting was fraudulent.
Let us begin with the American poll. According to the poll, 77% of the respondents said that they want the Supreme Leader to be elected directly by the people; 74% favor full inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities to ensure that it will not be used for non-peaceful purposes; 77% favor normal trade with, and full recognition by the United States; 68% favor Iran's government to help the U.S. in Iraq, and 52% favor recognition of Israel in return for U.S. recognition and open trade. Who espouses such policies? The reformists, not President Ahmadinejad.
90% of the respondents thought that the economy should be the top priority of their government. How has Mr. Ahmadinejad's economic performance been (aside from distributing cash among the poor in the last month of the campaign)? Dismal! Unemployment, inflation, and the costs of housing, fuel, and food have all skyrocketed since 2005.
Then, why is it that, while agreeing overwhelmingly with what the reformists advocate, a plurality of the respondents said that they would vote for the President? The answer lies in the Iranian culture. Iranians are notoriously secretive about their political opinions when they talk to strangers, especially when they are called over the phone. In a country where social and political repression has increased dramatically under Mr. Ahmadinejad, the Iranian people are terrified by the possible consequences of honest answers, especially with respect to their preferred candidate.
Moreover, the poll was finished on May 20, and that was just before the campaigns were taking off. There was a dramatic increase in the support for Mr. Mousavi (as well as Mr. Mahdi Karroubi, the 2nd reformist candidate) only in the last three weeks of the election.
Let us now take a look at the historical trends. In the first round of the 2005 election there were four candidates who belonged to the reformist/pragmatic camp, namely, former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Messrs Karroubi, Mostafa Moeen and Mohsen Mehralizadeh. Together, they collected 57% of the votes cast. Internal polls by the reformists in the last days of the election had indicated that Mr. Mousavi would receive about the same percentage of the vote, plus another 17% for Mr. Karroubi, but the two supposedly received only 35% of the votes. This is against the historical trends in Iran. Let me explain.
In 2005 about 63% of the eligible voters cast their votes, which is typical turnout for Iranian presidential elections. In last Friday's elections, 82% of the eligible voters voted. Based on the historical trends we know that dramatic increases in voting participation benefit the reformists almost exclusively, because a surge in participation is usually due to the fact that liberal-minded Iranians who are not happy with the political system and, therefore, do not always vote, have decided to participate.
For example, in 1997, 80% of the voters cast their votes and elected Mohammad Khatami in a landslide; and in 2000 their votes reflected a reformist-dominated 6th Majles (parliament).
Another good piece of evidence for this claim is that, all the political groups that had boycotted the 2005 elections, but had declared that they would vote this time — that is, most, if not all, of the additional 19% — supported one of the two reformist candidates.
Let us take up another fact regarding elections trends in Iran. 45% of Iran's population is made of ethnic minorities. For example, the Azeri population makes up about 24% of the population. Ethnic minorities always vote overwhelmingly for one of their own, if a viable candidate of their own is running in the election. An example is the votes that Mr. Mehralizadeh, an Azeri, received in 2005 which were almost exclusively by the Azeri population. The votes that Dr. Ali Larijani, a conservative and the present Speaker of the Majles, received in the 2005 presidential election were mostly from the Mazandaran province, his birth place. Mr. Mousavi is an Azeri, and was greeted by huge rallies everywhere he went in the Azerbaijan province and spoke Turkish (the language of the Azeri people). Why should this election be any different? Was Mr. Mousavi unable to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad even in his home turf?
Likewise, Mr. Karroubi is a Lur, and he received the overwhelming votes of the Luri people, as well as a significant fraction of the Kurdish vote in the 2005 election (the Kurds constitute 7% of the population). At that time, he received a little over 17% of the votes. Many of the groups that had boycotted the 2005 election had declared their support for Mr. Karroubi. So, what is the explanation for the dramatic drop in his vote to only about 280,000 votes this time?
It is often said that Mr. Ahmadinejad is popular in the poor rural areas of Iran. Assuming that it is true, only 35% of the population lives in such areas. So, even if Mr. Ahmadinejad were able to attract an overwhelming 80% of these votes, that could still account for no more 1/3 of the votes that he supposedly received. In addition, even in smaller towns Messrs Mousavi was always greeted by huge crowds.
The day after the election some Iranian university students plotted the total numbers of votes that Messrs Ahmadinejad and Mousavi had supposedly received at every stage of the vote counting against each other. The graph charted an almost perfect straight line, implying that at every stage of vote counting, the President's votes were always about twice that of Mr. Mousavi's. In an article on Tehranbureau.com I pointed out that this was impossible to maintain at all stages of counting, due to all the social, cultural, and political factors that I point to above; I stand by it. The people who made up those numbers basically used a Ponzi scheme for vote counting, since they always maintained a big and constant "return" for those who voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad!
There are other indications that the election was rigged. How did the Fars News Agency, whose budget is provided by Iran's Revolutionary Guards, know only one hour after voting had ended that Mr. Ahmadinejad had been re-elected by 64% of the votes (which is also the final official number)? How did Mr. Ahmadinejad himself know that, when he also announced the same almost at the same time?
Mr. Abolfazl Fateh, an aid to Mr. Mousavi, has said that Mr. Mousavi wrote a letter to the Supreme Leader to complain about all the irregularities that had been reported to his campaign headquarters. Mr. Fateh took the letter to the Supreme Leader's office, and arrived there just one hour after the voting had ended. But, he has said that the people working in that office gave him the distinct impression that the "game" was over and Mr. Ahmadinejad had been re-elected. How did they know that?
The famed Iranian movie director, Mr. Mohsen Makhmalbaf, who has been a spokesman for Mr. Mousavi, also stated in an interview that in the early hours after the election, the Interior Ministry that supervises the elections had called Mr. Mousavi's campaign to inform them that they would be declared the victor and should therefor prepare their victory statement without boasting too much, in order not to upset Mr. Ahmadinejad's supporters. But, then, Mr. Mousavi's campaign center was ransacked by the security agents, and suddenly everyhting changed.
Based on overwhelming evidence, there is but one conclusion: The election was rigged, and the official results are bogus.
EU slaat mildere toon aan naar Hamas
EU document scraps Quartet demands
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
In what is perceived in Jerusalem as a mistaken effort to give Hamas room to maneuver, the EU's 27 foreign ministers, in a statement issued Monday, did not call, as in the past, for Hamas to forswear terrorism, recognize Israel or accept previous PLO agreements with Israel.
Government sources in Jerusalem said France led the efforts to keep what has become known as the Quartet's three conditions on Hamas from being included in the European Council's conclusions on the Middle East peace process.
Instead, the statement said the foreign ministers expressed "continued encouragement for inter-Palestinian reconciliation behind [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas and support for the mediation efforts by Egypt and the Arab League."
The foreign ministers called "on all Palestinians to find common ground, based on nonviolence, in order to facilitate reconstruction in Gaza and the organization of elections."
The move to keep the three conditions out of the resolutions comes amid mounting concern in Jerusalem that Europe is slowly moving away from the three conditions on Hamas, which have been adopted both by the Quartet and the UN Security Council.
According to diplomatic sources, the French were trying to give Hamas "a way out," and felt that if the conditions were not always mentioned every statement, it might give the Islamist organization a chance to soften its positions and perhaps give a boost to Egyptian-brokered talks between Fatah and Hamas.
The European foreign ministers issued another statement regarding Israel on Tuesday, this one following the EU Association meeting the day before with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in which they essentially said the decision from last year to upgrade ties with Israel would remain in place, but that no steps toward implementing it would be taken at this point.
In December, the EU's foreign ministers approved a significant upgrade in the union's relationship with Israel, including a political upgrade that would include ad hoc summit meetings between Israel's prime minister and all EU heads of government, something that has never taken place before. It also called for Israel's foreign minister to meet with all 27 EU foreign ministers three times a year, the inclusion of Israel in EU peacekeeping forces and for an EU commitment to help Israel better integrate into UN agencies. The upgrade would also enable Israeli participation in a wide variety of EU programs that are currently closed to it.
But, as one senior European diplomatic official said on Tuesday, the upgrade remained in the "in-box," and would not move forward until the EU was satisfied with Israeli progress on the peace process - something not currently the case.
The upgrade was essentially frozen during Operation Cast Lead, and has stayed in that state ever since.
Nevertheless, one senior Israeli diplomatic official noted that the EU foreign ministers did not decide to scrap the upgrade decision, as was being advocated by Belgium and Luxembourg, but rather to drag their feet in its implementation. The Arab countries have for months been lobbying against the upgrade.
"Despite efforts of some countries to cancel what was already agreed upon, their efforts did not succeed," the official said. "Europe repeated its commitment to the upgrade, and we will continue to work toward implementing it, hopefully in the near future."
Draconische straffen voor Palestijnen die met Israel collaboreren
Palestinian informers given draconian sentences Jun. 17, 2009
Associated Press , THE JERUSALEM POST
A 22-year-old Palestinian woman, who says she became an informer for Israel to earn money that would get her out of prostitution, is going to prison for life. Others convicted of collaboration with Israel by West Bank courts sit on death row.
Such draconian sentences reflect the loathing Palestinian society has for collaborators, even small-time informants or those blackmailed by Israeli intelligence agents into cooperating.
Yet the harsh treatment of collaborators also highlights the complex realities of life in the West Bank, where a US-backed Palestinian government works increasingly closely with Israeli security forces against a common enemy, Hamas. Israel has overall security control in the West Bank.
Such security coordination is unpopular among Palestinians. Some say collaborators have been made into scapegoats to deflect attention from the coordination between Israeli and Palestinian forces, which is aimed at preventing a Hamas takeover of the West Bank.
Palestinian officials say the information they share with Israel helps keep residents safe, while individuals selling information are betraying their country.
"There's no authority that should allow its people to collaborate," said Saleh Abdul Jawad, a Palestinian political scientist.
In the most recent case Monday, a military tribunal in a security compound in the West Bank town of Jenin sentenced 22-year-old Taghreed - her last name was not released - to a life term of hard labor.
The dark-skinned, portly woman, wearing a lace headscarf and blue jeans, remained calm while the sentence was announced. She refused to speak to reporters and none of her family attended the trial, indicating they had washed their hands of her.
The scene played out in a hastily assembled courtroom of plastic chairs, benches and a Palestinian flag.
Earlier, Taghreed had told the court that she turned informer after she left her husband, who had forced her to work as a prostitute and thus turned her into an outcast. The information the woman sold was low-level - nothing that led to arrests by the Israelis, according to military prosecutor Raed Dalbah.
Since 1994, when the Palestinian Authority was established after the Oslo Accords, at least 35 suspected informers were sentenced to death, according to the Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights. Two defendants were executed by firing squad in Gaza several years ago.
Seventeen alleged informers, both those on death row and those still awaiting trial, were killed in vigilante-style shootings by Palestinians during Israel's war on Hamas in Gaza in January.
It is mostly the vulnerable, like Taghreed, who ultimately become Israeli snoops, often providing information to Israeli intelligence in exchange for money and to access key services like medical care and permits to work in Israel, said Ran Yaron of Physicians for Human Rights, which studies the issue.
They are nonetheless widely despised for helping Israel.
"If I was the judge, I would shoot her on the spot," said a guard outside the courtroom, spitting on the ground to emphasize his disgust at Taghreed.
In the past two years alone, West Bank tribunals have convicted seven people of collaboration, including Taghreed. She was the only one not sentenced to death, though the executions were not carried out.
During the two Palestinian intifadas, vigilante gunmen often killed suspected collaborators, at times with crowds looking on. After Israel withdrew from parts of the West Bank in the 1990s, it relocated hundreds of collaborators to Israel to protect them from retribution.
Palestinian human rights activists say they oppose the death penalty on principle, but most have not rushed to the defense of collaborators.
"We do not think there should be a death sentence," said Hanan Ashrawi, a Palestinian legislator and human rights advocate. "The punishment has to fit the crime. The crime, in the popular imagination, is the most unconscionable crime. It is a betrayal of everything that people hold sacred."
Rode Kruis wil Shalit bezoeken in Gaza
ICRC to Hamas: Let us visit Schalit
Itamar Sharon , THE JERUSALEM POST
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) criticized Hamas on Thursday for its continued refusal to allow the organization's representatives to visit captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, as well as its refusal to allow him contact with his family throughout three years of captivity.
In a statement issued Thursday, the ICRC stated: "Since [Gilad Schalit's] capture in June 2006, the ICRC has repeatedly asked Hamas to allow the exchange of Red Cross messages between Gilad Schalit and his family. The most recent requests were made at the highest level, but these and all others have been refused."
"Repeated requests by the ICRC to visit Gilad Shalit to ascertain his conditions of detention and treatment have also been refused," the organization said.
"We welcome the fact that yesterday former US president Jimmy Carter handed Hamas a letter from Gilad Schalit's family to him," said Béatrice Mégevand-Roggo, the ICRC's head of operations for the Middle East and North Africa. "However, this cannot replace the regular and unconditional contacts with his family that Gilad Schalit is entitled to under international humanitarian law. The ICRC regrets that in his case political considerations are judged more important than the simple humanitarian gesture of allowing a captive to be in touch with his family after three years of separation."
Mégevand-Roggo added that the people holding Schalit were entirely responsible for ensuring that his treatment and living conditions are humane and dignified.
In its statement, the ICRC said that it has held several meetings with Schalit's parents, Noam and Aviva, to brief them on its efforts regarding their 22-year-old son.
"We share their concerns. Despite the lack of progress so far we will continue to press for family contacts for [Schalit] and for ICRC access to him," said Mégevand-Roggo.
donderdag 18 juni 2009
Netanjahoe's gedemilitariseerde Palestijnse staat
RP
-------------------
Analysis: Netanyahu's demilitarized state
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST
The idea of a demilitarized state that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke about on Sunday is not new vis-à-vis the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are also a number of countries that have decided not to maintain a standing military, such as Andorra, whose defense is the responsibility of Spain and France, as well as Costa Rica, which abolished its armed forces in 1948 - these could be used as a role model for such a state.
In his monumental speech, Netanyahu laid out some of the characteristics of the demilitarized Palestinian state he envisions. The state, he said, would not be allowed to import weapons, make pacts with Israel's enemies or close its airspace to Israel.
Some of these characteristics, though, stand in direct contradiction to precedents such as Andorra. A small, landlocked country in Western Europe, Andorra may not have a standing military, but it does have a military pact with Spain and France under which it will receive protection in the event of a conflict. In his speech, Netanyahu said Israel would not allow the Palestinian state to enter into military pacts.
Other possible models are Grenada and Barbados, which do not have militaries but are members of the Regional Security System, an international body established to provide security for the Eastern Caribbean. It is safe to assume Netanyahu would not want the Palestinian state to join an organization made up of Arab countries that would allow Arab military forces to enter the state if needed.
Rather, the understanding in the defense establishment and IDF is that when the prime minister speaks about a demilitarized state he is referring to one without a full-fledged military, but rather one with a police/paramilitary force, comprised of thousands of soldiers/policemen trained by the United States and European Union.
The reason the Palestinians will be allowed to have this force is so they can maintain law and order and at the same time crack down, if necessary, on Hamas and other terrorist groups in the West Bank.
Currently, there are two forces that are being trained in the West Bank. The first, called the "blue police," is being trained by the European Union. This is a regular police force being built from the ground up, with trainees learning forensic and criminal investigation techniques.
The second, more dominant, force is the "green police." Their name, however, is confusing since the force is made up more of soldiers than of policemen.
This unit also goes by the name "Dayton's force," for Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, the US security coordinator to Israel and the Palestinian Authority - and the man who is overseeing the training of forces in Jordan.
There are already three battalions in the West Bank and another three are scheduled to deploy there soon. IDF sources recently said Dayton plans to put total of 10 battalions in the West Bank by the end of the decade.
Israel, government officials said, supported Dayton's work since it was part of Netanyahu's "bottom-up" plan, which calls for Palestinian reforms on the ground before a diplomatic resolution to the conflict.
Israel is willing to take calculated risks when it comes to Dayton's force. The first risk was allowing a battalion to deploy in Jenin and to scale back IDF operations there. The second risk was to allow a deployment in Hebron, which is a known hotbed for Hamas and is also home to a small but relatively radical Jewish settler population.
In the meantime, the force is equipped with light body armor and light machine guns such as Kalashnikov rifles. As reported Tuesday in The Jerusalem Post, 50 Russian-made armored personnel carriers are currently in Jordan waiting to be transferred to the West Bank. They are being held up since Israel and the PA are arguing over whether they will be allowed to have heavy machine guns installed on their turrets.
If Palestinian forces continue to prove their effectiveness in the fight against Hamas - as they have in Hebron, Jenin and recently in Kalkilya - Israel will come under growing pressure to withdraw from additional West Bank cities and transfer them to Palestinian control.
This could expedite the establishment of Netanyahu's demilitarized state.
Haaretz enquete toont veel bijval voor toespraak Netanjahoe in Israel
Did you watch the Prime Minister's speech last night?
Yes 53% No 47%
If yes - do you agree with what he said?
Yes 71% No 20% Other replies 9%
Will his speech help to improve the State of Israel's diplomatic and international standing?
Yes 52% No 34% Other 14%
Netanyahu declared in his speech that he agrees to a demilitarized Palestinian state. Why do you think he did this?
55% Surrendered to American pressure
05% True ideological change
33% Thinks the speech serves the interests of the State of Israel
07% Other
Netanyahu declared his intention to go for peace with the Palestinians. Do you think that what he said was:
14% Did not go far enough towards the Palestinians
55% Exactly correct
19% Too much
12% Other
Do you think Netanyahu's speech will help advance the peace process with the Palestinians?
Yes 23% No 67% Other 10%
Do you think that a demilitarized Palestinian state will be established in the coming years?
Yes 20% No 70% Other 10%
Should the Kadima Party join the Netanyahu Government in the wake of the speech?
Yes 41% No 39% Other 20%
Kadima voters: Yes 49% No 37%
Haaretz poll: Netanyahu approval rating leaps after policy speech
By Yossi Verter - Haaretz
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093234.html
U.S. President Barack Obama has reservations, the Arabs are protesting and the Europeans are doubtful, but for the Israeli public, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on Sunday evening was a big success. Right and left, Kadima and Likud, new immigrants and old-timers all found something they liked in the address at Bar-Ilan University.
For example, in only a month, Netanyahu's approval rating has jumped 16 percentage points from a low of 28 percent the day after the cabinet debate over the budget on May 14. The 44 percent achieved yesterday comes a day after the speech.
Public support for Netanyahu's speech is sky-high, even though Israelis do not have illusions about the prime minister's motives, which they generally attribute to American pressure. But it turns out that Israelis prefer a prime minister who does the right thing even if he does it for the wrong reasons.
And most of the public thinks the right thing is the combination found in Netanyahu's address: right-wing rhetoric mixed with the desire for peace, an undivided Jerusalem, opposition to the return of Palestinian refugees, a demand for defensible borders, and the words that made the big headline - a demilitarized Palestinian state.
Netanyahu hit a bull's-eye in the Israeli public consensus with his speech. This is reflected in the results of a Haaretz-Dialog survey conducted yesterday under the auspices of Prof. Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University. The numbers show that when Netanyahu deals with leadership on defense and policy matters without scare tactics, the public supports him.
But when he is judged on his actions, such as after the budget debacle, the public is not supportive. The conclusion: Netanyahu needs to operate less and lead more. Another conclusion is that maybe he should speak to the public more often, on condition that he says what the public wants to hear.
The Israeli public overwhelmingly supports Netanyahu's speech - 71 percent. According to the poll, the prime minister said the right things and the television event Sunday night will help Israel in the international arena.
However, these positive views do not blind Israelis; they do not believe there will be any real change in the region as a result of the speech. A large majority of Israelis surveyed say the peace process will not see any breakthrough in the wake of the address, and an even larger majority says a demilitarized Palestinian state will not be established in the next few years, as Netanyahu himself now supports.
Netanyahu built a broad consensus in his speech, the survey shows. He will use this support to maneuver his policies with the Americans.
In terms of internal Israeli politics, Netanyahu put himself in the center of the political map. Most Kadima voters, 49 percent, say Tzipi Livni should join the coalition as a result of the speech, while 37 percent of Kadima voters disagreed.
Likud and Labor voters also now broadly support Kadima joining Netanyahu's government, even though his coalition seems more stable than ever.
Another political achievement is how Netanyahu managed to keep onside his own political base, Likud, even as he added supporters from other parties, mostly Labor and Kadima.
The survey shows that 90 percent of Likud voters, an incredible figure, agreed with what Netanyahu said in his speech. Maybe they are aware that a Palestinian state will not emerge as a result, so they are not worried. In addition, 73 percent of Likud voters say Netanyahu said the right things.
The public liked the speech not just because it was based on the Israeli consensus, but also because of its tone: moderate with a desire for peace and casting the blame for a lack of peace on the Arabs.
Checkpoint op Westoever tussen Jericho en Jordaanvallei opgeheven
Vered Jericho Crossing Removed Today; Free Passage of Vehicles and Pedestrians in Area
This action allows for additional free movement of the Palestinian population in the Jordan Valley and Judea and Samaria region. The removal of the Vered Jericho crossing is in addition to over 140 roadblocks and crossings that were removed in the past year.
The IDF will continue to operate in accordance with decisions made by the Israeli government and on the basis of ongoing security assessments. Such actions are meant to further ease the daily life of the Palestinian population in Judea and Samaria, while continuously fighting terror and maintaining the safety of the citizens of the State of Israel.
Moslim extremist Raed Salah geeft lezing op Haifa universiteit
Jun. 17, 2009
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
Islamic Movement leader Sheikh Raed Salah gave a talk to Arab students at Haifa University on Wednesday, while Jewish students were not allowed into the lecture hall.
The Jewish students expressed their outrage at how the hard-line sheikh was let into the campus, but the university said it couldn't prevent Salah's entrance, saying that they had their hands tied.
"We didn't invite him, but in the end, for legal reasons, we had to let him in," said the university in a statement.
The head of the extremist northern branch of the Islamic Movement, which denies Israel's legitimacy, holds Israeli citizenship.
During Wednesday's lecture, Salah - who has served a two-year sentence for a series of security offenses, including financing Hamas activities - said that Jerusalem was an "Arab, Muslim and Palestinian issue alone."
In March, Jerusalem police arrested the fiery leader for assaulting police officers at an illegal east Jerusalem gathering.
In January 2008, Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz filed an indictment against Salah, charging him with incitement to violence and racism in a speech he made protesting the archeological dig carried out at the Old City's Mughrabi Gate. During his sermon in Jerusalem's Wadi Joz neighborhood on February 16, 2007, Salah urged supporters to start a third intifada in order to "save al-Aksa Mosque, free Jerusalem and end the occupation."
Salah's speech also attacked Jews, saying, "They want to build their temple at a time when our blood is on their clothes, on their doorsteps, in their food and in their drinks. Our blood has passed from one 'general terrorist' to another 'general terrorist.'" He also said, "We are not those who ate bread dipped in children's blood."
Israel laat Hamas parlementsvoorzitter Aziz Dweik vrij
The Jerusalem Post
Jun 17, 2009 19:39 | Updated Jun 17, 2009 20:18
Hamas senior Aziz Dweik to be released
By JPOST.COM STAFF
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184858432&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
After three years in an Israeli prison, Palestinian Parliament Chairman Aziz Dweik, of Hamas, is set to be released. The decision was made Wednesday when a military court of appeals rejected a request to extend Dweik's remand by six months.
Dweik's wife told a Palestinian news agency that she was surprised by the decision to release her husband. "I hope the other Palestinian prisoners will be released along with him," she added.
Dweik, 43, was considered a key asset in negotiations to secure the release of IDF soldier Gilad Schalit, who was kidnapped in 2006. He was arrested as part of a group of senior Hamas officials who were detained following the kidnapping. Dweik is regarded as one of the most senior Palestinian officials ever to be detained by Israel.
Since 2006, Dweik served as chairman of the Palestinian parliament, a position which made him in effect Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's stand-in. He has authored a doctoral dissertation on urban planning from an American university and also served as a professor at A-Najah University in Nablus. When Abbas's term was extended several months ago without holding elections, some Hamas seniors threatened to unilaterally declare Dweik president.
Elie Wiesel over Obama, Israel en Hosni
Nobel laureate Wiesel: It'd be foolish to call Obama anti-Israel
By Shlomo Shamir, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093700.html
According to Wiesel, Israel "can and should [work] with Obama" on reaching a peace agreement with the Palestinians."
Hamas bestudeert of Shalit brief van zijn ouders mag lezen
17 June 2009
www. alqassam.ps/english/?action=showdetail&fid=1832
Abu Obaida said, in a special statement to Al-Qassam website on 16/6/2009 Tuesday: "We will study the possibility of delivering the message carried by Jimmy Carter to the captive soldier Gilad Shalit according to the benefit of the exchange deal".
According to former President Jimmy Carter yesterday, he had a letter from the parents of the captured Zionist soldier to be handed over to Hamas, which in turn would hand it over to the soldier.
Wa'ed assocaition for the Palestinian prisoners called Mr. Carter to look also to 12 thousands Palestinian prisones suffering in the Zionist jails for more than nine years under hard circumistances.
Hamas wijst Carters pleidooi voor erkenning Israel af
Hamas rejects Carter plea to recognize Israel
Carter visited Gaza on Tuesday and urged Hamas leaders to accept the demands to end an international boycott, which was imposed when the militant group overran Gaza two years ago.
Carter's meeting was itself unusual because of the boycott. The United States, European Union and Israel consider Hamas a terror group and refuse to deal with it directly.
Ahmed Youssef, the deputy Hamas foreign minister, said Gaza's Palestinians were pleased to receive Carter.
"The people think this is a historic visit," Youssef told The Associated Press on Wednesday, describing Carter as somebody very knowledgeable about the conflict and very sincere in the way he understands the conflict.
But Youssef said Hamas turned down Carter's policy requests.
"The visit has not led to a significant change. Hamas finds the conditions unacceptable, he said. Recognizing Israel is completely unacceptable."
According to Hamas ideology, there is no room for a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East. The militant group has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel, killing hundreds.
Even so, some Hamas officials have indicated they could support creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, implying a form of tacit acceptance of Israel.
Youssef said the other two international conditions - renouncing violence and accepting past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians - are irrelevant. He said Israel broke a cease-fire, killing many Palestinians, and the state outlined in the partial peace accords would have no substance, no borders and nothing that a real state is.
Carter has said that despite the world boycott, Mideast peacemaking efforts must include Hamas, which took control of the Gaza Strip in 2007, expelling forces loyal to Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, whose government now effectively rules only the West Bank.
Although then-president Carter brokered the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, the first between Israel and an Arab country, he is perceived by many Israelis as anti-Israel, siding with the Palestinians in their conflict.
He antagonized many Israelis with his 2007 book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in which he argued that Israel must choose between ceding the West Bank to the Palestinians or maintaining a system of ethnic inequality similar to that of the apartheid regime in South Africa. Most Israelis strongly reject the comparison.
woensdag 17 juni 2009
Waarom de PA de speech van Netanjahoe zo rigoreus afwees
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
The Palestinian Authority leadership's hysterical, hasty and clearly miscalculated response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University on Sunday night is likely to boomerang because it makes the Palestinians appear as "peace rejectionists."
The PA, perhaps, has every right to be angry with Netanyahu's statements. However, its leaders should have been more careful in choosing the right words to express their sentiments.
Even before he completed his speech, several PA officials and spokesmen used every available platform to declare their total rejection of Netanyahu's ideas, especially with regards to the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Some went as far as hurling personal insults at Netanyahu, branding him a liar, a fraud and a swindler. Others hinted at the possibility that, in the wake of his strategy, the Palestinians would now have to resort to another intifada.
PA representatives are now saying that Netanyahu "cannot even dream of finding one Palestinian to talk to."
One senior official in Ramallah announced shortly after the prime minister finished his address that the Palestinians won't resume peace talks with Israel for at least a thousand years.
The harsh response of the PA is the direct result of high hopes that its leaders have pinned on the administration of US President Barack Obama.
Reports about a looming crisis between the administration and Netanyahu over the future of the Middle East peace process, combined with Obama's conciliatory approach toward the Arab and Muslim worlds, created the impression in Ramallah that the Israeli government had no choice but to accept all the Palestinian demands.
Briefing reporters on the eve of Netanyahu's speech, some of PA President Mahmoud Abbas's top aides predicted that, in the wake of increased US pressure, Netanyahu would be forced to give in, freezing settlement construction and accepting the two-state solution.
That's why most of these aides expressed surprise when they heard the prime minister's uncompromising position on most of the sticking issues.
By completely rejecting Netanyahu's offer of a demilitarized state and his demand to recognize Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, the PA leadership has climbed a high tree from which it will find it difficult to climb down.
As in previous cases, this leadership has chosen to look at the empty half of the glass.
The fact that Netanyahu is even prepared to talk about a Palestinian state is in itself a major achievement. And so what if the future state of Palestine doesn't have an army and an air force? Why would Palestine need tanks and warplanes? Don't the Palestinians already have enough security forces and armed militias? Don't they already have enough ammunition and rockets?
The future state of Palestine will have to invest in government institutions and infrastructure instead of weapons. The Palestinians need jobs and good government more than they need an army and tanks.
True, Netanyahu's speech does not fulfill the entire aspirations of the Palestinians. But it would have been wiser for the PA leadership to also look at some of the positive elements in the speech, such as Netanyahu's acceptance of the idea of a Palestinian state.
Whether Palestine would be demilitarized or not is an issue that the two sides could always continue to discuss through negotiations. But the PA leadership has chosen to say no to this idea, thus playing into the hands of those who have long been arguing that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
When Yasser Arafat back accepted the "Gaza-Jericho First" formula, he knew that he would subsequently receive more territory in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip through negotiations.
Netanyahu has outsmarted the PA leaders in Ramallah by dragging them into the debate over Israel's Jewish character - a demand that the Palestinians have also totally and vehemently rejected.
If anyone has reason to be worried about Israel's desire to be a Jewish state, it's the 1.4 million Arab citizens of the state. But this is an issue that should be solved through dialogue between the Israeli establishment and the Arab citizens. The Palestinians, after all, are fighting for separation from Israel, while the Israeli Arabs are fighting for integration.
It's also unclear why PA representatives are surprised to hear about the demilitarized state and Israel's Jewish character. Former US president Bill Clinton also mentioned the idea of creating a demilitarized state for the Palestinians, as did all of Netanyahu's predecessors. And the demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is also not new.
Had the PA leadership responded positively to any of Netanyahu's offers, or at least used a less harsh tone in rejecting the entire speech, it's highly likely that they would have triggered a political crisis in Israel - one that would have even threatened the prime minister's coalition. PA leaders and officials should have taken into account the fact that a majority of Israelis - according to recent public opinion polls - favor the two-state solution, regardless of Netanyahu's stance on the issue.
President Obama over speech Netanyahu
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
June 15, 2009
REMARKS BY PRESIDENT OBAMA
AND PRIME MINISTER BERLUSCONI OF ITALY
IN PRESS AVAILABILITY
Oval Office
www.whitehouse.gov:80/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-Prime-Minister-Berlusconi-in-press-availability-6-15-09/
5:48 P.M. EDT
...Q Thank you, Mr. President. Of the conditions that Prime Minister Netanyahu laid out yesterday for a Palestinian state, the basis for negotiation, do you think they will likely prove a stumbling block, given the broadly negative reaction from the Arab states and the Palestinians?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, I think it's important not to immediately assess the situation based on commentary the day after a speech. I think any time an Israeli Prime Minister makes a statement, the immediate reaction tends to be negative on one side. If the other side is making a statement, oftentimes the reaction is negative in Israel.
Overall, I thought that there was positive movement in the Prime Minister's speech. He acknowledged the need for two states. There were a lot of conditions, and obviously working through the conditions on Israel's side for security, as well as the Palestinian side for sovereignty and territorial integrity and the capacity to have a functioning, prosperous state, that's exactly what negotiations are supposed to be about. But what we're seeing is at least the possibility that we can restart serious talks.
Now, I've been very clear that, from the United States' perspective, Israel's security is non-negotiable. We will stand behind their defense. I've also made very clear that both sides are going to have to move in some politically difficult ways in order to achieve what is going to be in the long-term interests of the Israelis and the Palestinians and the international community.
On the Israeli side, that means a cessation of settlements. And there is a tendency to try to parse exactly what this means, but I think the parties on the ground understand that if you have a continuation of settlements that, in past agreements, have been categorized as illegal, that's going to be an impediment to progress. On the Palestinian side, whether it's the Palestinian Authority or other groups like Hamas that claim to speak for the Palestinians, a recognition of the Quartet principles, ensuring that there's a recognition of Israel's right to exist, making sure that past agreements are abided to, that there's an end to incitement against Israel and an end to violence against Israel. Those are necessary pillars of any serious agreement that's to be reached.
And those pillars have to be supported by the Arab states, because Israel's security concerns extend beyond simply the Palestinian Territories; they extend to concerns that they have in a whole host of neighbors where there's perceived and often real hostility towards Israel's security. So I'm glad that Prime Minister Netanyahu made the speech. The United States will continue to try to be as honest as possible to all sides in this dispute to indicate the degree to which it's in everybody's interests to move in a new direction. And I think it can be accomplished, but it's going to require a lot of work and a partnership with key countries like Italy in order to help the parties come together and recognize their own interests.
...
END
6:29 P.M. EDT
Scepsis in VS over eis Netanjahoe gedemilitariseerde Palestijnse staat
By Paul Richter - LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-palestine16-2009jun16,0,3858683.story
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said for the first time Sunday that Israel would be prepared to live side by side with a Palestinian state, but only if world powers guaranteed that it would be "demilitarized." The proposal came in a major statement of his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that attracted attention worldwide.
"We take the security of Israel very seriously, but we need a solution that works, and this would be very difficult for the Palestinians to swallow," said an official, who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the diplomacy. American officials "are a long way away from the point where we'd be talking about this kind of arrangement."
He noted that Netanyahu provided no specifics about what would be a complex task. Netanyahu has said previously that Israel could not agree to the creation of a Palestinian state that possessed a military, had full control of its borders or wielded authority over electronic communications.
Despite the criticism, U.S. officials were generally positive about the speech, suggesting that it represented another step toward the high-level negotiations they want to see begin soon between Israelis and Palestinians.
They hailed Netanyahu's acceptance of the idea of a separate Palestinian state, despite the conditions. U.S. officials were willing to overlook the fact that Netanyahu did not agree to the Obama administration's insistence on a complete halt in the growth of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.
Palestinian officials bristled at Netanyahu's speech, but U.S. officials portrayed the speech as simply laying out the Israeli opening position in what was likely to be a protracted discussion.
"It's going to be a complicated negotiation," said Ian Kelly, the State Department spokesman.
Netanyahu said in his speech that the Palestinians would need to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state," a comment that was widely taken to mean there would be no right of return for Palestinian refugees.
But Kelly said U.S. officials took the view that it meant only that "the Palestinians need to recognize the right of Israel to exist."
Netanjahoe's antwoord aan Obama
RP
Netanyahu's response to Obama
Gerald Steinberg
June 14 2009
http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2009/06/netanyahus-response-to-obama.html
In his Bar Ilan University speech, Prime Minister Netanyahu accepted President Obama's challenge of frank talk between allies. Before Mr. Netanyahu said yes to the possibility of a Palestinian state at the end of a realistic peace process, he spoke about the roots of the conflict and the narrative, and on these issues, more than anything other, he differed from Obama's Cairo University speech. The conflict, he reminded Washington (and Europe), did not result from the 1967 war, but rather from the intense, consistent and often violent Arab refusal to acknowledge Israel as the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, and to the Jewish right to self-determination in this homeland.
On this fundamental requirement for mutual acceptance, Palestinian leaders continue to maintain the old rejectionist stance. Netanyahu reminded Obama as well as his Israeli critics that even the most moderate Palestinians have been unwilling to acknowledge the Jewish historical roots in this land. Unless this obstacle is overcome, Netanyahu emphasized repeatedly, there was no realistic possibility for a stable and lasting peace agreement.
Similarly, in contrast to Obama's emphasis on Jewish suffering and the Holocaust, both in Cairo and then in Buchenwald with Elie Wiesel, Netanyahu replied that Israel was founded on the basis of historic and political rights, and not in response to antisemitism and suffering. The history of 2000 years of political powerlessness and persecution served to highlight the need for restoration of Jewish self-determination. In the strongest line of the speech, Netanyahu declared that had Israel come into existence earlier, the tragedy of the Holocaust would have been averted. What went unsaid was the degree to which Obama's misplaced emphasis reinforced the Arab narrative in which the creation of Israel resulted from European guilt.
As part of this frank talk, Netanyahu told his audience – Israelis, Americans, and Arabs -- that in order to make progress towards a two state solution, the legitimacy of the Jewish state will have to explicitly recognized. In addition, everyone would need to recognize that the problem of Palestinian refugees created by the 1948 war would have to be solved outside of Israel's borders, in contrast to the continued effort to use them to change Israeli demography.
Just as Israel had absorbed mass of Jewish refugees from Arab lands –their numbers were roughly equal to the Palestinian refugees – and despite the economic difficulties of this process, the Arab states and the world would need to do the same. Without finding a solution to the refugee issue outside Israeli borders, there is no founding for a stable peace agreement.
Netanyahu also spoke frankly to his Israeli constituents – the voters for Likud and the other coalition partners that recently returned him to the position of Prime Minister. The taboo on a Palestinian state in any form was broken – the international (meaning primarily American) situation required recognition of this reality. The Palestinians ware entitled to their own flag, anthem, and country.
Thus, the issue which ostensibly led to the failure of post-election negotiations with Tzippi Livni and Kadima for a broad coalition government suddenly disappeared. And while Netanyahu called for American and international guarantees that a Palestinian state would be demilitarized, in practice, this will be difficult to ensure, as events in Gaza have demonstrated.
Overall, in this speech, the Prime Minister went somewhat further than both his critics and his supporters should have expected, including acceptance of a settlement freeze, at least with respect to additional territory. On Jerusalem, no new ground was broken, as Netanyahu declared that the city would not be divided, and that the members of all religions would continue to be able to pray at their holy sites. Obama's speech also treated Jerusalem carefully and without details, suggesting agreement (either tacit or explicit) that negotiations on this very complex issue should be left for later.
But this is only an opening position in what all sides recognize will be a difficult negotiation process, primarily between Obama and Netanyahu, and also between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. With the big speeches behind them, both leaders will now have to work on the much more difficult task of translating noble words into successful policies.
MidEastWeb commentaar op speech Netanyahu
Handing Netanyahu a victory
06/15/2009
by Ami Isseroff at MidEastWeb Log
Benjamin Netanyahu's speech (see Address by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the Begin-Sadat Center) should not be viewed in the context of a "peace process" or judged in terms of its relevance to peacemaking. None of the peace-related utterances of Israeli, Palestinian or the Arab or Muslim world are actually directed at making peace, because none of the parties believes in the possibility of peace at this point or has worked to develop, in its own constituency, a concept of peace that might be acceptable to the other side.
A speech like that of Mr Netanyahu, or the Arab Peace Initiative, or a statement by Palestinian leaders has several purposes:
To make the right peace noises in order to relieve American and European pressure and curry favor with moderates at home.
To fashion the peace offer in such a way, and with such conditions, that it looks reasonable to outsiders, but that there is no 'danger' whatever that the other side could ever accept it.
To curry favor and gather support in their own constituency, by reiterating unifying national rally cries such as "united Jerusalem" or conversely, "A Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem." "Right of Return" or denial of Right of Return for refugees, "Right of resistance" or "Security against terror."
To establish the justification for the next round of hostilities by showing that they have made a peace offer that was rebuffed.
To assert and reiterate national rights as they see it, until these hopefully, by dint of repetition, become accepted by the rest of the world.
To put the other side on the defensive and require them to come up with a "peace plan" of their own. :
This sort of speech has an ancient and honorable history, going back at least to the beginning of the Roman Republic, when peace offers were made to hapless Latin neighbors, so that the fetiales priests could later justify war on the grounds that the other side had refused speech. The Friedensrede of Bismarck and the Friedensreden of Adolf Hitler were notable contributions to this genre that laid the foundation for two world wars. .The Arab Peace Initiative and the letter of the Palestinian Prisoners as well as most of the pronouncements about "peace" of the served most of the above purposes. After all, nobody could seriously hope that Israel would accept obliteration of Jewish rights in the old city of Jerusalem, "right of return" for millions of Palestinian refugees, or the "right of resistance" affirmed by the Prisoners' letter. Similarly, it is really doubtful that Benjamin Netanyahu expects Palestinians to accept obliteration of their rights in Jerusalem.
Netanyahu made a single "concession" to Palestinians and to Barack Obama in agreeing to a demilitarized Palestinian state, precisely as several previous Israeli governments had done before him. This elicited a cautious welcome from the Obama administration. Mission number 1 accomplished!
Netanyahu refused to impose a settlement freeze, which would have caused an open revolt in his own party. Netanyahu's speech established a consensus of support among Israelis, accomplishing its first mission. It reiterated the Jewish right to self determination, independent of the Holocaust; it reminded the world that the Israeli Arab conflict preceded the Six Day War and the settlements. It reminded the world that, despite Palestinian claims, there were Jews in the land of Israel in ancient times. All this rhetoric was a chance to put the Israeli case and the Zionist narrative before the world. If the Palestinians and the Arab peace initiative could use UN General Assembly Resolution 194 as a rationale for justifying return of refugees, Netanyahu could balance this by citing UN General Assembly Resolution 181 in support of his demand that Arabs recognize a Jewish state. Mission number 2 accomplished. Netanyahu made a serious error however, when he gratuitously explained that the had already made this concession privately to President Obama in Washington. The same concession cannot be made twice by the same leader. That's not the way the game is played.
The European Union, unsurprisingly, views the Netanyahu speech as insufficient, since he did not declare a settlement freeze. This issue will not go away, and in the future Netanyahu will have to make some concession, as he has already intimated
But Netanyahu's greatest victory could not depend on himself alone. The Arab Peace Initiative, and similar Palestinian moves, failed to achieve an important goal for many years, since previous Israeli governments refused to reject them. The Olmert government even attended the humiliating Annapolis conference, at which Israeli delegates were forced to enter by the service entrance and Arab delegates would not even shake hands with the Israeli delegation.
>> Continued here: Handing Netanyahu a victory
Original text copyright by the author and MidEastWeb for Coexistence, RA. Posted at MidEastWeb Middle East Web Log at http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000766.htm where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Distributed by MEW Newslist. Subscribe by e-mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by email with this notice and link to and cite this article. Other uses by permission.
dinsdag 16 juni 2009
Moebarak, Hamas en PA afwijzend over speech Netanjahoe
Mubarak: Netanyahu speech 'scuttles chances for peace'
By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent, Haaretz Service and News Agencies
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1093063.html
Angela Merkel nodigt Benjamin Netanyahu uit naar Duitsland
Merkel invites Netanyahu to Germany
ap and jpost.com staff , THE JERUSALEM POST
German Chancellor Angela Merkel spoke at length with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in a telephone call in which she invited him to visit Germany in the near future.
Germany's government said in a statement the two leaders spoke Monday evening. Merkel welcomed Netanyahu's policy speech Sunday as a "first, important step in the right direction toward realizing a two-state solution."
Merkel expressed hope that both sides would return to negotiations in an effort to "resolve the remaining questions."
Earlier Monday, European Union foreign ministers welcomed on Netanyahu's endorsement of the goal of establishing a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but said it was not enough to raise EU-Israel ties to a higher level, Reuters reported.
The ministers, who were due to meet Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman later on Monday, questioned the preconditions cited by Netanyahu for establishing a Palestinian state, as well as his defense of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
"That's good but it's only a first step," Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said before the talks in Luxembourg.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also said that Netanyahu's speech was "not sufficient."
"Nothing was said on the settlements ... but this stopping of the settlements is essential," said Kouchner, who in an earlier statement rejected any preconditions to peace negotiations.
The EU and Israel have agreed in principle to upgrade an "association agreement" defining their ties, but the 27-nation bloc has put the upgrade on a hold, and says it wants a firm commitment from Israel to seek a so-called two-state peace accord with the Palestinians.
Other EU ministers joined US President Barack Obama in expressing support for Netanyahu's "endorsement."
Netanyahu's endorsement of a Palestinian state is a "step in the right direction," Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, whose country holds the EU presidency, said on Monday.
Kohout added that while the prime minister's comments on Sunday needed more analysis "the acceptance of a Palestinian state is there."
Kohout spoke to reporters upon arrival at a session of EU foreign ministers who were meeting with Lieberman.
Also on Monday, former US president Jimmy Carter, visiting in Israel, said that Binyamin Netanyahu has placed "several obstacles on the road to peace", in response to the prime minister's speech Sunday evening.
"In my opinion, Netanyahu brought up several obstacles to peace in his speech that others before him have not placed," Carter told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.
"He insists on settlement expansion, demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state even though 20% of Israel's citizens are not Jewish," the former president said.
Carter stressed that the differences between Obama and Netanyahu can be overcome. "I have to say that in spite of the differences between my president, Barack Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, greater differences existed between myself and then-prime minister Begin," he said.
Carter added that during his visit in Gaza on Tuesday, he would try to deliver a letter given to him by the parents of captured IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.
maandag 15 juni 2009
Zuinige reacties EU op speech Netanjahoe
EU: Netanyahu speech is step in right direction
Czech FM says PM's comments need more analysis, but 'acceptance of Palestinian state is there'; Swedish FM: Speech first small step
Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout, whose country holds the EU presidency, said Monday that while Netanyahu's comments on Sunday needed more analysis "the acceptance of a Palestinian state is there."
Foreign Minister Carl Bildt of Sweden, which will take over the EU presidency in July, called it "a small step forward".
"That's good but it's only a first step," he said ahead of a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Luxembourg. "A state can't be defined as anything...the fact that he uttered the word is a small first step."
Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, when asked if Netanyahu's move was sufficient for the EU to upgrade ties with Israel, said: "No".
The 27-nation European Union has linked an unfreezing of plans to upgrade links with Israel to Netanyahu committing to negotiate a two-state accord. Officials of the bloc were due to meet Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman in Luxembourg later on Monday.
In a statement, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner also called Netanyahu's speech a step forward. "But to secure peace means going well beyond that, without laying down any pre-conditions to negotiations," he said.
Kouchner said the two sides should define the outlines of a new state and tackle all the major issues, including the final status of Jerusalem and the question of refugees.
He said an atmosphere of trust needed to be restored between the two sides. "In this respect, France, along with its European partners, the United States and the whole international community, demands the immediate halt to colonisation and a reopening of the Gaza border," he said.
In his address, Netanyahu backed a Palestinian state beside Israel, reversing himself under US pressure but attaching conditions such as having no army. The Palestinians swiftly rejected that.
Netanyahu also said the Palestinian state would have to recognize Israel as the Jewish state - essentially saying Palestinian refugees must give up the goal of returning to Israel.
Obama called Netanyahu's shift on Palestinian statehood an "important step forward" but aides to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas denounced the speech as "sabotaging" negotiations by restating Israel's refusal to share the city of Jerusalem or accept Palestinian refugees.
Reuters contributed to this report
Jimmy Carter verbaast vriend en vijand met uitspraak over nederzettingen
Carter bekijkt het ook eens van een andere kant, en de kolonisten lijken er een onverwachte bondgenoot bij te hebben gekregen. Vanaf de jaren '20 hadden zich in Gush Etzion Joden gevestigd op gekochte grond, totdat het in 1948 etnisch werd gezuiverd door de Arabieren.
Carter Bombshell: 'West Bank Settlements Will Stay'
Written by Matthew Kalman
Published Sunday, June 14, 2009
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=25443
Jimmy Carter has surprised Israelis and shocked Palestinians by declaring that one of the largest blocs of Israeli West Bank settlements should remain under Israeli control.
Carter, who is on a week-long visit to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, made the comments during a visit to the settlement of Neve Daniel near Bethlehem. The settlement is part of the Etzion Bloc, one of the largest Israeli enclaves on road between Bethlehem and Hebron and home to more than 15,000 Israelis.
The enclave was under Jewish control prior to the founding of Israel in 1948 and was lost to Arab control during fierce fighting in Israel's war of independence. It was resettled after Israel regained control of the area in the 1967 war and is one of several areas that most Israelis would like to become absorbed into their country in any peace deal with the Palestinians.
"This particular settlement area is not one that I envision ever being abandoned or changed over into Palestinian territory," said Carter as he emerged from a meeting with Shaul Goldstein, head of the Etzion Bloc Regional Council.
"This is part of the Gush [block] settlement to the 1967 line that I think will be here for ever," Carter told reporters in the garden of Goldstein's home in the tiny hilltop settlement of Neve Daniel.
"I have been very fortunate this afternoon in learning a perspective that I didn't have," said Carter.
The former president caused uproar among Israel's supporters when he titled his last book "Israel: Peace or Apartheid." On Saturday he was honored by Palestinian leaders in Ramallah who applauded his longstanding commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
'Saib 'Ariqat, the Palestinian chief negotiator, said Carter's comments were unacceptable.
"I cannot accept anyone prejudging and preempting the issues that are reserved for permanent status negotiations," 'Ariqat told The Media Line.
"The negotiations are between Palestinians and Israelis and it's not for anyone to decide. Our position is that all settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem are illegal," he said.
"In accordance with international law settlements are illegal and they are obstructing peace," he added.
The Obama Administration has demanded a complete freeze in settlement construction by Israel on the West Bank, but Israel says it needs to expand its communities there in line with their "natural growth."
"I hope that in the future we'll see accommodation between Israel and the United States and between Israel and the people of Palestine in signing peace with a mutual respect for one another and mutual security on both sides," Carter said.
"The most important element in my life in the last 30 years has been to bring peace to the people of Israel – and security. With that obviously will have to come peace and security for Israel's neighbors. That's the purpose of my even coming here," he said.
As US president in 1978, Carter helped seal the Camp David peace accords that brought about the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. That treaty ended decades of wars between the two countries and has remained intact despite regional tensions and mutual differences over policy towards the Palestinians.
Carter also met with bereaved Israelis who had lost family members in terrorist attacks in the area.
"I came to learn," the former president said. "I've done more listening than I have talking this afternoon. The listening has been very valuable to me."
Shaul Goldstein described the meeting with Carter as "very important."
"He came here and saw things he never knew of before. He said that he wants to see more world leaders visit the settlements and hear what settlers have to say to truly understand what is going on here," said Goldstein.
Copyright © 2008 The Media Line. All Rights Reserved.
Listen to Carter's comments here: http://media.themedialine.org/media/090614_Carter_F.mp3
Woedende Palestijnen verwerpen toespraak Netanjahoe
Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah on Sunday expressed outrage and shock over Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's call for the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and his demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The officials said that the speech which Netanyahu delivered at Bar Ilan University was much worse than they had expected.
They also warned that Netanyahu's policies would trigger a new intifada.
Some of Abbas's top advisors accused Netanyahu of "burying the peace process" and said the ball was now in the court of US President Barack Obama.
"Netanyahu's speech is a blow to Obama before it's a blow to the Palestinians and Arabs," commented an aide. "It's obvious, in the aftermath of this speech, that we are headed toward another round of violence and bloodshed."
The office of PA President Mahmoud Abbas issued a terse statement in which it accused Netanyahu of destroying efforts to achieve peace in the region.
"The speech has destroyed all initiatives and expectations," the statement said. "It has also placed restrictions on all efforts to achieve peace and constitutes a clear challenge to the Palestinian, Arab and American positions."
Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for Abbas, also lambasted Netanyahu for refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state and his call for solving the issue of Palestinian refugees outside Israel.
"Netanyahu's remarks won't lead to a just and comprehensive peace based on United Nations resolutions," he added.
Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior PLO official closely associated with Abbas, launched a scathing attack on Netanyahu, calling him a "swindler and liar."
He said that Netanyahu wants the Palestinians to join the Zionist movement by offering them a state under the protectorate of Israel. He also rejected Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
The speech, Abed Rabbo said, is worthless and meaningless and hampers efforts to move forward toward a fair solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. "Netanyahu is creating tricks to sabotage the peace process," he said. "The response to Netanyahu must be firm."
Chief PA negotiator Saeb Erekat called on the Arab countries to suspend the Arab peace initiative in protest against Netanyahu's statements. "We were not surprised by this speech," he said. "It didn't come as a surprise to all those who are familiar with the Israeli mentality. It's time for the Arab world to announce a clear position toward Netanyahu's speech."
New York Times over toespraak Netanyahu: Palestijnse staat onder voorwaarden
Netanyahu Endorses Palestinian State, With Conditions
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 4:21 p.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/14/world/AP-ML-Israel-Palestinians.html?_r=1&hp
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsed the idea of establishing an independent Palestinian state beside Israel for the first time on Sunday, dramatically reversing himself in the face of U.S. pressure but attaching conditions the Palestinians swiftly rejected.
A week after President Barack Obama's address to the Muslim world, Netanyahu said the Palestinian state would have to be unarmed and recognize Israel as the Jewish state -- a condition amounting to Palestinian refugees giving up the goal of returning to Israel.
With those conditions, he said, he could accept ''a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.''
Netanyahu, in an address seen as his response to Obama, he refused to heed the U.S. call for an immediate freeze of construction on lands Palestinians claim for their future state. He also said the holy city of Jerusalem must remain under Israeli sovereignty.
Senior Palestinian official Saeb Erekat said the plan ''closed the door'' to negotiations.
In Washington, the White House said Obama welcomed the speech as an ''important step forward.''
Netanyahu's address had been eagerly anticipated in the wake of Obama's landmark speech to the Muslim world.
Many Israeli commentators speculated that after the re-election of Iran's hardline president, Netanyahu would focus the address on the threat of Iran's suspect nuclear program. While reiterating his belief that a nuclear-armed Iran is a grave threat, Netanyahu spent little time on the issue.
His speech was a dramatic transformation for a man who was raised on a fiercely nationalistic ideology and has spent a two-decade political career criticizing peace efforts.
''I call on you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority: Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without preconditions,'' he said, calling on the wider Arab world to work with him. ''Let's make peace. I am willing to meet with you any time any place -- in Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut and in Jerusalem.''
Since assuming office in March, Netanyahu has been caught between American demands to begin peace talks with the Palestinians and the constraints of a hardline coalition. With his speech, he appeared to favor Israel's all-important relationship with the U.S. at the risk of destabilizing his government.
Netanyahu laid out his vision in a half-hour speech broadcast nationwide during prime time. He spoke at Bar-Ilan University, known as a bastion of the Israeli right-wing establishment, and his call for establishing a Palestinian state was greeted with lukewarm applause.
As Netanyahu spoke, two small groups of protesters demonstrated at the entrance to the university.
Several dozen hard-liners held up posters showing Obama wearing an Arab headdress and shouted slogans against giving up West Bank territory. Across from them, a few dozen dovish Israelis and foreign backers chanted slogans including ''two states for two peoples'' and ''stop the occupation.''
Police kept the two groups apart.
The Palestinians demand all of the West Bank as part of a future state, with east Jerusalem as their capital. Israel captured both areas in the 1967 Mideast war.
Netanyahu, leader of the hardline Likud Party, has always resisted withdrawing from these lands, for both security and ideological reasons. In his speech, he repeatedly made references to Judaism's connection to the biblical Land of Israel.
''Our right to form our sovereign state here in the land of Israel stems from one simple fact. The Land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people,'' he said.
But Netanyahu also said that Israel must recognize that millions of Palestinians live in the West Bank, and continued control over these people is undesirable. ''In my vision, there are two free peoples living side by side each with each other, each with its own flag and national anthem,'' he said.
Netanyahu has said he fears the West Bank could follow the path of the Gaza Strip -- which the Palestinians also claim for their future state. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, and Hamas militants now control the area, often firing rockets into southern Israel.
''In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel,'' he said.
''If we get this guarantee for demilitarization and necessary security arrangements for Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be willing in a real peace agreement to reach a solution of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state,'' he said.
Netanyahu became the latest in a series of Israeli hard-liners to soften their positions after assuming office. Earlier this decade, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led Israel out of Gaza before suffering a debilitating stroke. His successor, Ehud Olmert, spoke eloquently of the need to withdraw from the West Bank, though a corruption scandal a disastrous war in Lebanon prevented him from carrying out that vision.
Netanyahu gave no indication as to how much captured land he would be willing to relinquish. However, he ruled out a division of Jerusalem, saying, ''Israel's capital will remain united.''
Netanyahu also made no mention of uprooting Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Nearly 300,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, in addition to 180,000 Israelis living in Jewish neighborhoods built in east Jerusalem. He also said that existing settlements should be allowed to grow -- a position opposed by the U.S.
''We have no intention to build new settlements or expropriate land for expanding existing settlements. But there is a need to allow residents to lead a normal life. Settlers are not the enemy of the nation and are not the enemy of peace -- they are our brothers and sisters,'' he said.
Netanyahu also said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians have refused to do so, fearing it would amount to giving up the rights of millions of refugees and their descendants and be discriminatory to Israel's own Arab minority.
Erekat said Netanyahu's plan was unacceptable since it effectively imposes a solution on the core issues of the conflict.
''Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,'' he said. ''We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain.''
Although the Palestinians have agreed to demilitarization under past peace proposals, Erekat rejected it, saying it would cement Israeli rule over them.
Nabil Abu Rdeneh, another Palestinian official, called on the U.S. to challenge Netanyahu ''to prevent more deterioration in the region.''
''What he has said today is not enough to start a serious peace process,'' he added.
In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri called the speech ''racist'' and called on Arab nations ''form stronger opposition'' toward Israel. Hamas ideology does not recognize a Jewish state in an Islamic Middle East and has sent dozens of suicide bombers into Israel.
Netanyahu also came under criticism from within his own government -- a coalition of religious and nationalistic parties that oppose Palestinian independence.
Zevulun Orlev, a member of the Jewish Home Party, which represents Jewish settlers and other hard-liners, said Netanyahu's speech violated agreements struck when the government was formed. ''I think the coalition needs to hold a serious discussion to see where this is headed,'' he told Israel Radio.
Israeli media speculated that Netanyahu might turn to the centrist Kadima Party, which heads the parliamentary opposition, to shore up his government if the coalition falls apart.
Kadima, the largest party in parliament, denied a report that there were secret talks with Netanyahu over the matter ahead of the speech.
Israel's ceremonial president, Nobel peace laureate Shimon Peres, called the speech ''real and brave.''
Toespraak Benjamin Netanyahu 14-6-2009 - volledige tekst
Het heeft wat moeite gekost, maar het P-woord is eruit: Netanjahoe erkent het recht van de Palestijnen op een staat. Nu is het wachten op het J-woord van de Palestijnen: de erkenning dat Israel de staat van het Joodse volk is. In de woorden van Netanjahoe:
We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People.
Zal Obama net zo hard aandringen op deze Palestijnse erkenning als hij aandrong op de Israelische erkenning van het recht van de Palesitjnen op een staat? Daar ziet het helaas niet naar uit.
Dit lijkt een directe reactie op de speech van Obama in Cairo, die het recht van de Joden op een staat alleen relateerde aan pogroms en de Holocaust:
The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years -- persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. The tragedies that arose from the Jewish People's helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.
The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People.
RP
-----------------
Last update - 23:41 14/06/2009
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092810.html
Full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech at Bar Ilan
Honored guests, citizens of Israel.
Peace was always the desire of our people. Our prophets had a vision of peace, we greet each other with peace, our prayers end with the word peace. This evening we are in the center named for two leaders who were groundbreakers for peace -Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat - and we share their vision.
Two and a half months ago, I was sworn in at the Knesset as the Prime Minister of Israel. I promised that I would establish a unity government, and did so. I believed, and still believe, that we need unity now more than ever before.
We are currently facing three tremendous challenges: The Iranian threat, the financial crisis, and the promotion of peace.
The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.
With the world financial crisis, we acted immediately to bring about stability to the Israeli economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government and will pass it through the Knesset very soon.
The second challenge, rather, the third, so very important challenge, facing us today, is promoting peace. I discussed this also with President Obama. I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A's desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.
I discussed this in my meetings with President Mubarak in Egypt and with King Abdullah in Jordan to obtain the assistance of these leaders in the effort to expand the circle of peace in our region.
I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. (Applause)
I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region. For example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines, pipelines to Africa and Europe.
Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world, and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world, to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs, and foster tourism that will draw millions, people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.
I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements, and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations.
I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to 'know war no more.'
We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind. We want us and our neighbors to devote our efforts to 'plowshares and pruning hooks' and not to 'swords and spears'? I know the terror of war, I participated in battles, I lost good friends who fell [in battle], I lost a brother. I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close -- very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war. (Applause)
Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples - in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education - but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that's good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.
Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace? Why has the conflict going on for over 60 years? To bring an end to it, there must be a sincere, genuine answer to the question: what is the root of the conflict? In his speech at the Zionist Congress in Basel, in speaking of his grand vision of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish People, Theodor Herzl, the visionary of the State of Israel, said: This is so big, we must talk about it only in the simplest words possible.
I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person to person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been -- and remains -- the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.
In 1947 when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.
Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedaayyin attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.
To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.
To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.
A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.
We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement, we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal, in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.
We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter, we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.
With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to 'liberate' Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias.
Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simplest things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. (Applause)
Friends, in order to achieve peace, we need courage and integrity on the part of the leaders of both sides. I am speaking today with courage and honesty. We need courage and sincerity not only on the Israeli side: we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say, simply "We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace." I am looking forward to this moment.
We want them to say the simplest things, to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. (Applause)
For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel, contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it. Because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem. Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.
Therefore, justice and logic dictates that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)
I believe that with good will and international investment of we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all.
Friends, up to now, I have been talking about the need for the Palestinians to ecognize our rights. Now I will talk about the need for us to recognize their rights.
The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah -- this is not a foreign land, this is the Land of our Forefathers. (Applause)
The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years -- persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders, which reached its climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established, but I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. (Applause) The tragedies that arose from the Jewish People's helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.
The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People. (Applause)
As the first PM David Ben Gurion in the declaration of the State, the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books, and gave it to the world.
But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence.
These two facts -- our link to the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population who live here, have created deep disagreements within Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more unity than disagreement.
I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle - recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva, or Grads on the Ben-Gurion international airport. We want peace. (Applause)
And, to ensure peace we don't want them to bring in missiles or rockets or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hizbullah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel -- we must provide for our security needs.
This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the USA, for what is necessary for our security, that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what's going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.
Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can't agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington, if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state. (Applause)
Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)
The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. (Applause)
Friends, unity among us is, to my view, vital, and unity will help with reconciliation with our neighbors. Reconciliation must begin now. A strong Palestinian government will strengthen peace. If they truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier and this will help bring peace.
But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at conference table with terrorists who seek to destroy it. (Applause)
Hamas are not willing to even let the Red Cross visit our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity three years, cut off from his family and his country. We want to bring him back whole and well.
With help of the international community, there is no reason why we can't have peace. With help of USA, we can do we can do the unbelievable. In 61 years, with constant threats to our existence we have achieved so much. Our microchips power the worlds computers unbelievable, we have found cures for incurable diseases. Israeli drip irrigation waters barren lands throughout the world. Israeli researchers are making worldwide breakthroughs. If our neighbors only work for peace, we can achieve peace. (Applause)
I call upon Arab leaders and Palestinian leaders: Let's go in the path of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let's go in the path of the Prophet Isaiah, who spoke thousands of years ago, they shall beat their swords into plowshares and know war no more.
Let us know war no more. Let us know peace.
zondag 14 juni 2009
Benjamin Netanjahoe zal waarschijnlijk tweestatenoplossing aannemen
James Hider in Jerusalem
From The Times
June 12, 2009
Binyamin Netanyahu is expected to endorse a "two-state solution" in a much-heralded speech this weekend, but he may stall on American demands to freeze Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Feeling the squeeze between the US Administration, which wants a moratorium on settlement growth and a commitment to a Palestinian state, and his national-religious coalition, which favours neither, the Israeli Prime Minister appears likely to try to steer a middle course.
Israeli newspapers were full of speculation about what Mr Netanyahu — who has so far refused openly to back a Palestinian state alongside Israel — might offer to deflect pressure from Washington. Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, urged him this week to recognise a Palestinian state, but members of Mr Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party have cautioned him against the move.
Haaretz, the centre-left newspaper, said that the Prime Minister was likely to mention a two-state solution and pledge to adhere to the "road map" — a US-brokered document that calls for an end to Israeli settlement building and a clampdown on militant groups by the Palestinian Authority. The road map was adopted in 2003 but both sides have accused each other of failing to meet their obligations.
The Israeli media have predicted that when he speaks at Bar Ilan University in Tel Aviv on Sunday night, Mr Netanyahu will recommend an immediate resumption of negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, but will also set out some demands, including that the Palestinians should recognise the state of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people.
While accepting the road map Mr Netanyahu is not thought to be planning to mention an explicit freeze on settlements, as demanded by President Obama in his keynote speech to the Muslim world in Cairo last week.
In conceding to a two-state solution, he may even try to ask the US to relax its demands that all settlement expansions should be stopped — a move that is vehemently opposed by Mr Netanyahu's national-religious constituency.
Such a compromise would in effect take the peace process back to where it was under the previous centre-left Government of Ehud Olmert, whose resignation amid repeated corruption allegations eventually brought the Israeli Right to power this year. Mr Olmert had pledged to take action against settlements but opponents said that the Jewish communities built on land conquered by Israel in the 1967 war still enjoyed an unprecedented growth spurt while he was in office.
The dilemma faced by Mr Netanyahu will raise uncomfortable memories of his first stint as Prime Minister in the late 1990s, when his fractious right-wing coalition toppled him after he yielded to American pressure to hand over tracts of the West Bank to the control of the Palestinian Authority as part of the now defunct Oslo peace accords.
Analysts noted that Mr Netanyahu appeared to have been taken by surprise by the strength of Mr Obama's resolve to thwart the growth of settlements.
Members of the ruling coalition, wary of their leader caving in, have cautioned the Prime Minister against giving too much away before negotiations have even resumed. "The US pressure is mainly psychological. One should not forget that the President is not the only one in the United States. There's the Congress and the Senate, which support Israel," Miri Regev, a Likud MP, said.
Another powerful member of Mr Netanyahu's party, Benny Begin, the son of Israel's first right-wing Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, said that "if the only solution is two states for two peoples, then there is no solution".
Mr Netanyahu has in the past opposed the creation of an independent Palestinian state, arguing that such an entity would soon fall under the control of the Iranian-backed Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules the Gaza Strip.
*** Balanced Middle East News ***
MidEastweb http://www.mideastweb.org
Subscribe - mail to mewnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
MewBkd - Background & analysis -
mail to Mewbkd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
News Letter - our commentary -
mail to mew-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Netanjahoe wil iets terug voor bouwstop nederzettingen Westoever
De frustraties van Israels eenzijdige concessies en toezeggingen, waarvoor het niets terugkreeg behalve bommen en raketten en internationale veroordelingen.
---------------
Civil fights: It's the reciprocity, stupid
By EVELYN GORDON
Many people are understandably puzzled by the refusal to freeze settlement construction. Binyamin Netanyahu has offered no explanation and, at first glance, it seems utterly illogical. Why would Israel court confrontation with its only ally merely to increase the almost 300,000 settlers by, at most, another few thousand?
The answer, of course, is that those few thousand people are not the point. What is at stake here is a principle - reciprocity, meaning no concessions without getting something concrete in exchange. And bitter past experience with forgoing cash on the barrel is precisely why it is refusing to do so now.
Israel accepted 242, believing that by agreeing to concede some land, it had gained international support for retaining other areas needed to create defensible borders. And in 1982, it in fact quit 90 percent of the territory captured in 1967. But the reciprocity quickly evaporated: Today, no country, including the US, acknowledges Israel's right to retain any territory. Only its obligations remain on the table.
Two months after Camp David, the intifada began. Over the next five years, Palestinians killed more Israelis than during the entire preceding 52 years, using land ceded to them as bases. Since Bill Clinton, the Camp David mediator, had blamed the talks' failure on the Palestinians, and since Palestinians began the violence, Israel naturally expected the world to finally demand that the Palestinians honor their commitments.
Instead, the world again demanded more Israeli concessions (which it received, at Washington and Taba in 2000-2001), while condemning every effort at self-defense, from checkpoints to arrests to targeted killings. Moreover, the country's international standing plummeted: In one 2003 poll, for instance, Europeans termed it the number one threat to world peace. Hence the promised recompense for the Camp David concessions, international support, again disappeared the moment it was needed. But the concessions remained, becoming the mandatory starting point for all subsequent talks.
Next came the disengagement. In 2005, 25 settlements in Gaza and the West Bank were uprooted and the IDF left Gaza. In exchange, Jerusalem was promised both international support and the reinstatement, via George W. Bush's letter of April 2004, of America's broken 1967 pledge to support adjustments to the 1949 lines.
But again, both "payments" soon evaporated. When the disengagement produced daily rocket barrages from Gaza, the world responded by condemning Israel for its efforts at self-defense. It is Israel, not Hamas, that the UN is investigating for war crimes, and IDF officers, not Hamas leaders, who risk arrest in Europe.
IN SHORT, whenever Israel has made concrete concessions in exchange for promises, those promises have proved kited checks when it tried to cash them - leaving it worse off, in terms of both security and international relations, than it was before making these concessions. This bitter experience is precisely why Netanyahu, whose motto was "if they give, they'll get; if not, they won't," was elected. And a settlement freeze is a real concession. First, precisely because the world opposes adjustments to the 1949 lines, the only hope of keeping areas deemed important is by moving enough people there that uprooting them becomes impractical. In that sense, those few thousand extra settlers do matter.
Second, a freeze sends the message that even Israel deems these areas negotiable, and defensible borders are not a red line.
Finally, a freeze would spark traumatic confrontations with settlers. As the disengagement proved, Israel does not fear such confrontations if it expects some compensatory benefit. But no society would court such trauma for no benefit at all.
And Obama has offered no benefit, aside from empty rhetoric about how a freeze would "facilitate" pressure on Iran and Arab progress toward normalization. No specifics on what kind of pressure or progress, nor any guarantee that they will actually materialize.
If Obama offered something concrete - say, a public Arab pledge of specific normalization measures within a specified time, or a public Security Council pledge of specific action on Iran by a specified date - along with an understanding that the settlement freeze would end if these promises were broken, Netanyahu would almost certainly agree. But Obama has made no such proposal, and Israel has had enough of making concessions in exchange for empty promises.
Unfortunately, Netanyahu has not yet even tried to explain this to the world. One can only hope that he uses his speech on Sunday to finally do so.
