vrijdag 4 december 2009

Verzet tegen de bezetting slaat toe in Rusland en Syrië

Aanslagen door Palestijnen zijn nooit gepleegd door 'terroristen' maar door Hamas of Hezbollah 'strijders' (het NOS journaal noemde Hezbollah niet lang geleden zelfs een 'verzetsbeweging'). Bij aanslagen op Westerse doelen buiten Israel wordt nog wel van terrorisme gesproken, hoewel men ook wat dat betreft steeds 'politiek correcter' wordt. De Arabische wereld steunt schaamteloos al het 'verzet' tegen Israel. Nu heeft Syrië zelf met islamitisch terrorisme te maken, want gisteren werd een bus met pelgrims uit Iran getroffen door een bomaanslag. Ook Rusland is altijd een groot voorstander geweest van 'verzetsgroepen' zoals de PLO. Rusland exporteert bovendien wapens naar Syrië, wetende dat die van daar naar Hezbollah worden gesmokkeld, in tegenspraak met VN veiligheidsraad resolutie 1701.
Resistance strikes blows against the occupation - in Russia and Syria
To our dear friends in Russia and Syria,
Today, the forces of liberation and enlightenment struck a blow against the occupation in a successful operation against a bus in Damascus, killing 12. Last Friday, the resistance forces conducted a successful operation on a train in Russia, striking a blow against the Chechnya occupation forces and the apartheid Russian regime.
We know that these operations have evoked fear and anger in ruling circles in the Tehran regime, the Damascus regime and the Moscow regime, who find themselves helpless to stem the forces of liberation.. As right thinking people, you will no doubt understand the need of all progressive and enlightened peoples to support resistance to occupation, a right guaranteed under international legitimacy and specifically vouchsafed in the Fourth Geneva convention, and in the appropriate United Nations resolutions,for which your countries voted enthusiastically, and as intenrnationally accepted in the right to blow up anyone someone else doesn't like for any reason. As you are backers of the Hezbollah liberation movement, there is no doubt that you appreciate the justice and logic of these arguments 
You must realize that the time is past when people could go about their business quietly and sleep soundly at night. Thanks in large part to your efforts, liberation movements are constantly at work all over the world, blowing people to bits for the benefit of humanity. The Syrian Army Intelligence, which played such a starring role in creation of the Palestinian resistance movement and its training, as well, apparently, as in material aid to the brave resistance fighters in Iraq, understands the value and importance of resistance. Nobody is more familiar with the noble mission of People's liberation movements than Mr Putin, a former official of the KGB, since the idea of such liberation movements was pioneered by the Soviet government in Algeria, among Palestinians, in Vietnam and  elsewhere.
Do not even think of trying to fight the resistance. As you know, it is impossible for a state to ever win an asymmetric war against liberation fighters. Do not even think of calling these operations "terror." There is no such thing as "terror." "Terror" is an invention of reactionary Zionist neo-conservatives.  
Do not even think of torturing these reistance fighters either. Torture is a big no-no under the Geneva conventions and it is NOT NICE.   You must find a nice comfortable accomodation for the resistance fighter, who is to be accorded all the honors of a soldier under the Geneva convention. There, he or she can wait until his group kidnaps one of your citizens and then he and 20,000 others will be released in an exchange deal. Meanwhile, you must, also launch a dialog with him, to understand the deep underlying reasons for resistance. This is the opinion of Eyad Sarraj, a psychiatrist and Gaza expert on  people blowing up other people (there are many such experts in Gaza). You must sit the resistance fighter down on an analyst's couch and probe their early childhood to find the deep underlying reasons why they need to blow people up. Did the nice resistance fighter have too strict toilet training, or did they have an aloof father? Were they deprived of essential warmth in childhood? You must try to walk in the shoes of the nice resistance fighter, and understand what it means to grow up under a brutal occupation, deprived of the right to blow people to bits, with no C4 or even gelignite. You must empathize with the resistance figher and explain to him or her that you feel their pain.
You must also launch a political dialogue, since there are only political solutions to asymmetric conflicts. The Chechnya resistance fighters will no doubt be satisfied with a Chenyan state with its capital in Grozny and will accept the Russian state, for now at least. The Fateh al Islam, which evidently blew up the Syrian bus, will settle for an Al Qaida state in Syria and Lebanon, and  will  also accept the Iranian state for now, though they will not recognize it. What a wonderful window of opportunity!
The UN and the EU can help you. The UN will send Judge Goldstone to prepare a nice report about the war crimes of the Russian imperialist war criminals in Chechnya, and another report about the war crimes of the Beirut puppet government of the Syrian imperialists in Nahr al Bared refugee camp, where so many innoocent civilians were killed. The nice Swedes will prepare a document recognizing Damascus as the capital of the Al Qaeda Islamic Republic, and another document recognizing Grozny as the capital of the Chechen Republic, all according to international legitimacy and applicable UN resolutions. The UN can also send a peace keeping force, to make sure that nobody harms the resistance forces.
Surely, all right thinking and progressive people understand that this is the right way to deal with resistance movements, and that the time for solution of conflicts by violence is past. Violence only breeds more violence - a vicious circle.
Perhaps, on second thought, not everyone agrees. But everyone must understand how exactly it came about that "resistance" in the form of murder of civilians came to be legitimized because it was supported by the USSR in its geopolitical strategy, and by the Muslim and Arab governments for use against Israel, and legitimized and given protection by the UN. Unlike people however, plastic explosive is not racist or political. It doesn't target only Jews or only people that Russians don't like. It will work for anyone, against anyone else. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, it is perhaps too late to put it back.
Ami Isseroff

Gaat EU Oost-Jeruzalem als Palestijnse hoofdstad erkennen?

Komende maandag wordt een Zweeds voorstel voor een EU verklaring besproken:
The draft refers directly to the situation in East Jerusalem, calling on "all parties to refrain from provocative actions" and stating the EU Council "has never recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem. If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as capital of two states. The Council calls for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem in accordance with the road map. It also calls on the Israeli government to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem."
The document deals only briefly with Israel's announcement of a 10-month moratorium on construction in settlements across the West Bank: "The Council takes note of the recent decision of the government of Israel on a partial and temporary permanent freeze and expresses the hope that it will become a step towards resuming meaningful negotiations." Israel's removal of checkpoints also receives only cursory mention: "Many checkpoints and roadblocks remain in place to protect settlements."
On the issue of borders, the document states that the EU will not accept any changes made by Israel to the 1967 borders unless they have PA approval. The EU, it says, welcomes PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's proposal of a unilateral declaration of statehood and would "be able, at the appropriate time, to recognize a Palestinian state."
Ik moet eerlijk zeggen dat ik mij schaam als Europeaan als dit voorstel namens de EU wordt aangenomen. Het is in feite niets minder dan een dictaat zoals men dat vroeger aan militair verslagen landen oplegde, en men weet dondersgoed dat Israel daar niet mee in kan stemmen. Er wordt blijkbaar niks gezegd over dat naast de creatie van een Palestijnse staat, doel van een en ander ook is dat Israel erkend en veilig is en veilige grenzen heeft. Het is absurd om de verwijdering van honderden roadblocks en checkpoints te negeren en in plaats daarvan te stellen dat 'Many checkpoints and roadblocks remain in place to protect settlements'. De checkpoints zijn er met name om Israel te beschermen, want juist tussen de nederzettingen zijn de meeste checkpoints opgeheven. De positie wat betreft Jeruzalem is natuurlijk ronduit belachelijk, want in delen van wat nu Oost-Jeruzalem of zelfs 'bezet' Oost-Jeruzalem heet, woonden eeuwenlang Joden en hier liggen sommige van de belangrijkste Joodse heilige plaatsen. En tot slot gaat het de EU ook niet aan wat de beide partijen over Jeruzalem overeen komen, en gaat het niet aan dat de EU zo schaamteloos één partij in het conflict steunt en voortrekt.

EU will recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine

Last update - 08:02 01/12/2009       
EU to recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
European Union foreign ministers are expected to officially call next week for the division of Jerusalem, to serve as the capitals of both Israel and Palestine. A draft document authored by the current holder of the rotating EU presidency, Sweden, and implying that the EU would recognize a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood, has been obtained by Haaretz.
Jerusalem is waging a diplomatic campaign to keep the EU from issuing such an endorsement, but diplomats close to the EU deliberations believe it is virtually inevitable.
EU foreign ministers are scheduled to meet on December 7 for a two-day meeting in Brussels on the peace process, after which a statement outlining the body's Mideast policy is expected.
The Swedish draft represents the first official EU articulation of a solution for one of the core issues of the final-status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians.
The document expressed the EU's concern over the stalemate in the peace process and calls for the immediate renewal of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in accordance with a prescribed timetable. The goal, it states, is "an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable state of Palestine, comprising the West Bank and Gaza and with East Jerusalem as its capital."
The draft refers directly to the situation in East Jerusalem, calling on "all parties to refrain from provocative actions" and stating the EU Council "has never recognized the annexation of East Jerusalem. If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as capital of two states. The Council calls for the reopening of Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem in accordance with the road map. It also calls on the Israeli government to cease all discriminatory treatment of Palestinians in East Jerusalem."
The document deals only briefly with Israel's announcement of a 10-month moratorium on construction in settlements across the West Bank: "The Council takes note of the recent decision of the government of Israel on a partial and temporary permanent freeze and expresses the hope that it will become a step towards resuming meaningful negotiations." Israel's removal of checkpoints also receives only cursory mention: "Many checkpoints and roadblocks remain in place to protect settlements."
On the issue of borders, the document states that the EU will not accept any changes made by Israel to the 1967 borders unless they have PA approval. The EU, it says, welcomes PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's proposal of a unilateral declaration of statehood and would "be able, at the appropriate time, to recognize a Palestinian state."
Israeli diplomats have been following the Swedish initiative for several weeks. Israel's Brussels-based ambassador to the EU, Ran Kuriel, sent several messages to Jerusalem last week accusing Sweden of leading the union on a "collision course" with Israel. Kuriel wrote that Britain and France support the Swedish position, while Germany, Spain and Italy are disinclined to side with Israel on the matter.
Senior Foreign Ministry officials said the belief is widespread across the foreign policy echelon that Sweden is advancing an explicitly "anti-Israel" line, rendering Europe "irrelevant" to the peace process.
European diplomats privy to the negotiations said that although changes favorable to Israel had been made to the draft, there is virtually no chance of preventing the EU from calling for the division of Jerusalem. They said they believe the EU statement will help Palestinians return to negotiations with Israel, as it gives them guarantees of a Palestinian capital in Jerusalem even though Israel has not frozen construction there.

Twee explosieven ontdekt bij Ramallah

Hoewel het een stuk beter gaat, is het probleem van het terrorisme nog niet geheel verholpen, en het Israelische leger verijdelt nog steeds aanslagen.

IDF Spokesperson
3.12.09; 16:23

On Thursday (Dec 3.), two I.E.D's, weighing five and three kilograms respectively, were uncovered by an IDF force a short while ago on a patrol route near Bet El, North of Ramallah. Both I.E.D's were detonated in a controlled manner by sappers. IDF soldiers were searching the area for more information.

During the night, IDF forces arrested 15 wanted Palestinians in the Judea and Samaria region. Additionally a force from the Kfir Brigade unveiled an improvised rifle in the belongings of a Palestinian in a checkpoint near the Gush Etzion junction. The rifle was confiscated and the man was taken by the Israeli Police for further investigations.

Het vergeten vredesaanbod van Olmert

In een lang interview in The Australian legt oud-premier Olmert van Israel nog eens precies uit wat hij Abbas vorig jaar heeft aangeboden, en zegt hij, ondanks Abbas' afwijzing van dit aanbod, nog steeds in zijn vredeswil te geloven. In tegenstelling tot Australië wordt Olmerts regeertermijn in Europa niet geassocieerd met dit vredesaanbod, maar met corruptieschandalen, de Libanon Oorlog en de Gaza Oorlog. Het negeren van dit serieuze bod door onze media is verbluffend en oorverdovend.
(Excerpt from The Australian)
But Olmert's term in office is best remembered for the extensive negotiations, and final peace offer that he undertook with Abbas.
Olmert explains this position to me in unprecedented detail. His offer to Abbas represents a historic watershed and poses a serious question. Can the Palestinian leadership ever accept any offer that an Israeli prime minister could ever reasonably make?
It is important to get Olmert's full account of this offer on the record: "From the end of 2006 until the end of 2008 I think I met with Abu Mazen more often than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader. I met him more than 35 times. They were intense, serious negotiations."
These negotiations took place on two tracks, Olmert says. One was the meetings with the two leaders and their senior colleagues and aides (among them Kadima leader Tzipi Livni on Olmert's side). But Olmert would also have private, one-on-one meetings with Abbas.
"On the 16th of September, 2008, I presented him (Abbas) with a comprehensive plan. It was based on the following principles.
One, there would be a territorial solution to the conflict on the basis of the 1967 borders with minor modifications on both sides. Israel will claim part of the West Bank where there have been demographic changes over the last 40 years."
This approach by Olmert would have allowed Israel to keep the biggest Jewish settlement blocks which are mainly now suburbs of Jerusalem, but would certainly have entailed other settlers having to leave Palestinian territory and relocate to Israel.
In total, Olmert says, this would have involved Israel claiming about 6.4 per cent of Palestinian territory in the West Bank: "It might be a fraction more, it might be a fraction less, but in total it would be about 6.4 per cent. Israel would claim all the Jewish areas of Jerusalem. All the lands that before 1967 were buffer zones between the two populations would have been split in half. In return there would be a swap of land (to the Palestinians) from Israel as it existed before 1967.
"I showed Abu Mazen how this would work to maintain the contiguity of the Palestinian state. I also proposed a safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza. It would have been a tunnel fully controlled by the Palestinians but not under Palestinian sovereignty, otherwise it would have cut the state of Israel in two.
"No 2 was the issue of Jerusalem. This was a very sensitive, very painful, soul-searching process. While I firmly believed that historically, and emotionally, Jerusalem was always the capital of the Jewish people, I was ready that the city should be shared. Jewish neighbourhoods would be under Jewish sovereignty, Arab neighbourhoods would be under Palestinian sovereignty, so it could be the capital of a Palestinian state.
"Then there was the question of the holy basin within Jerusalem, the sites that are holy to Jews and Muslims, but not only to them, to Christians as well. I would never agree to an exclusive Muslim sovereignty over areas that are religiously important to Jews and Christians. So there would be an area of no sovereignty, which would be jointly administered by five nations, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the Palestinian state, Israel and the United States.
"Third was the issue of Palestinian refugees." This issue has often been a seeming deal-breaker. The Palestinians insist that all Palestinians who left Israel - at or near the time of its founding - and all their spouses and descendants, should be able to return to live in Israel proper. This could be more than a million people. Olmert, like other Israeli prime ministers, could never agree to this: "I think Abu Mazen understood there was no chance Israel would become the homeland of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian state was to be the homeland of the Palestinian people. So the question was how the claimed attachment of the Palestinian refugees to their original places could be recognised without bringing them in. I told him I would never agree to a right of return. Instead, we would agree on a humanitarian basis to accept a certain number every year for five years, on the basis that this would be the end of conflict and the end of claims. I said to him 1000 per year. I think the Americans were entirely with me.
"In addition, we talked about creating an international fund that would compensate Palestinians for their suffering. I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say that we are not indifferent to that suffering.
"And four, there were security issues." Olmert says he showed Abbas a map, which embodied all these plans. Abbas wanted to take the map away. Olmert agreed, so long as they both signed the map. It was, from Olmert's point of view, a final offer, not a basis for future negotiation. But Abbas could not commit. Instead, he said he would come with experts the next day.
"He (Abbas) promised me the next day his adviser would come. But the next day Saeb Erekat rang my adviser and said we forgot we are going to Amman today, let's make it next week. I never saw him again."
Olmert believes that, like Camp David a decade earlier, this was an enormous opportunity lost: "I said `this is the offer. Sign it and we can immediately get support from America, from Europe, from all over the world'. I told him (Abbas) he'd never get anything like this again from an Israeli leader for 50 years. I said to him, `do you want to keep floating forever - like an astronaut in space - or do you want a state?'
"To this day we should ask Abu Mazen to respond to this plan. If they (the Palestinians) say no, there's no point negotiating."
Olmert is right to paint this offer as embodying the most extensive concessions, and the best deal, ever offered to the Palestinians by an Israeli leader. But his very experience with this offer raises several questions. Could he have delivered its terms if the Palestinians had accepted it? Perhaps international momentum would have enabled him to do so, and, in fact, Olmert's Kadima party did remarkably well in the election which followed his prime ministership. Could any Israeli government today realistically make such an offer? The answer would seem to be no.
And most important, if the Palestinian leadership cannot accept that offer, can they accept any realistic offer? Do they have the machinery to run a state? Is their society too dysfunctional and filled with anti-Semitic propaganda to live in peace next to the Jewish state? Could they ever deliver on any security guarantees?
I put these questions to Olmert and his response to them is perhaps the most lukewarm part of our interview: "It's certainly a legitimate concern, since I never received a positive response from them. I think it's up to them (the Palestinians) to prove the point. I hope they will rise to this."
Olmert still believes the Palestinians should respond to the deal he offered them. If they did so, this would open the way to peace, but only if Palestinian society is reconciled to living in peace next to Israel as it really exists.
Read the whole interview of Greg Sheridan from The Australian with Ehud Olmert here: Ehud Olmert still dreams of peace

donderdag 3 december 2009

Amerikaans-Palestijnse komiek Hanania wil PA-presidentschap en vrede met Israël

In 2006 vroeg Hanania zich af: "Is there a Palestinian leader who has the courage to do what needs to be done?"
Die heeft hij blijkbaar nog steeds niet kunnen vinden, dus heeft hij zich zelf maar kandidaat gesteld.
Amerikaans- Palestijnse komiek Hanania wil PA-presidentschap en vrede met Israel
maandag 30 november 2009

door Tuvit Shlomi

'Yalla Salam', 'vooruit, vrede', de wil tot praktische daden karakteriseert zowel de naam als het programma van Hanania's nieuwe partij. Hij spreekt over compromissen, verklaringen van co-existentie en het delen van Jeruzalem. Hanania is standup comediant, auteur en journalist. Hij schrijft voor Amerikaanse, Arabische en Israelische kranten - zijn columns op Ynetnews en de site van de Jerusalem Post werden zelfs bekroond . Zijn optimisme doet denken aan de sfeer in Israel omstreeks 1993. In de uitgangspunten resoneren voorstellen uit Annapolis, Camp David en Oslo – maar Hanania denkt buiten de gebaande paden.

Uitgangspunt van Hanania is een tweestatenoplossing waarbij een erkende Joodse staat en een seculiere Palestijnse staat naast elkaar bestaan. Volgens Hanania is een oplossing voor het conflict alleen mogelijk wanneer de partijen elkaar vertrouwen – dat klonk eerder door in de Routekaart voor Vrede die het Kwartet (Amerika, Rusland, de VN en de EU) in 2002 lanceerden. Werd dat plan echter van buitenaf opgelegd, ditmaal komt de direct betrokken Hanania met originele voorstellen. Hij wil eerst een principe-akkoord bereiken en pas later ingaan op heikele punten als Jeruzalem, vluchtelingen, en nederzettingen – hoewel hij daarvoor wel vast buitengewoon creatieve oplossingen voorstelt. Een uitruilplan bijvoorbeeld, waar voor elke kolonist die op toekomstig gebied van een Palestijnse staat wil blijven wonen, een Palestijnse vluchteling in Israel mag komen wonen.

Is Hanania de juiste man op de juiste plaats? Als christelijke Palestijn die zich naar eigen zeggen moslim voelt en getrouwd is met een Joodse vrouw, kan hij een unieke brugfunctie vervullen – de vraag die Hanania zelf ook stelt is of hij door de Palestijnen zal worden geaccepteerd. Als de Palestijnen geen secularisme willen doorvoeren en een Christen niet als vertegenwoordiger van een Palestijnse staat accepteren, zal die staat er nooit komen, stelt Hanania. Een interne Palestijnse kwestie waarover zeker geen overeenstemming is – steeds meer Christelijke Palestijnen ontvluchten de gebieden naar Israel of de Westerse wereld omdat hun situatie hoe langer hoe onleefbaarder wordt.

Daarnaast is Hanania geboren en getogen Amerikaan, werd hij door Amerika onderscheiden voor zijn militaire bijdrage aan de luchtmacht in de Vietnam oorlog en zegt hij expliciet een gematigde stem te willen zijn in het Arabisch-Israelische conflict. In de Westerse wereld en Israel wordt die opstelling gewaardeerd, in de islamitsiche wereld en dus in de Palestijnse gebieden zal zijn co-existentiedrift op veel afkeuring en wantrouwen kunnen rekenen.

Israel's eerste premier, Ben Gurion, zei ooit: "wie in Israel woont en niet in wonderen gelooft, is geen realist." Hanania woont dan niet in Israel, maar hij gelooft in zijn visie op vrede en zegt dat een meerderheid van de Palestijnen zijn visie deelt. "Ik besef me dat het moeilijk kan zijn omdat ik in Chicago woon, maar volgens mij is het niet moeilijk een vliegticket te kopen als ik eenmaal gewonnen heb, het is misschien wat gedoe om door de Israelische veiligheidschecks heen te komen", aldus de Palestijns-Amerikaanse komiek.


Barack Obama is niet de slechtse president voor Israel

Obama is de onpopulairste VS president in Israel sinds tijden. Dat is, gezien het feit dat hij wel in diverse Arabische en islamitische staten maar nog niet in Israel is geweest als president, dat hij wel erg eenzijdig op de nederzettingen hamert en Netanjahoe erg koel heeft ontvangen, wel begrijpelijk maar niet helemaal terecht, aldus Lenny Ben-David. Vergeleken met andere VS presidenten is hij zo slecht niet voor Israel. En, - anti-zionisten opgelet! - verschillende presidenten hebben zich bepaald kritisch, soms zelfs vijandig opgesteld naar Israel in het verleden. De Joodse lobby is dus niet almachtig en bepaalt niet het beleid van de VS met betrekking tot Israel, laat staan het gehele buitenlandse beleid van de VS.

In defense of Barack Obama
Nov. 30, 2009

This week a senior respected Israeli analyst asked me to look back and decide, "Are we seeing the worst crisis in US-Israel relations? Is this the worst ever administration from Israel's perspective?" Also this week an Israeli minister termed President Obama's administration "awful," and an Israeli political activist was quoted in Israel's largest circulation paper as saying, "The Obama regime is anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic."

To all, I respond with the strongest possible retorts: balderdash, tripe, silliness and stupidity! There are other serious ideological problems with this US administration which results in rock-bottom popularity for the US president in Israel but the labels of "anti-Semitic" or "the worst" are just bum raps.

Just look at the history.

IN 1957, the Eisenhower administration threatened to come down hard on the fledgling Israel, including removing UJA's tax-exempt status, as a way of pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.

In 1970, Richard Nixon threatened to cut the supply of 50 F-4 Phantoms to Israel because of insults hurled at French Premier Georges Pompidou by Jewish-American activists in New York. The demonstrations led the notoriously anti-Israel columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak to bray, "More than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Nixon has shown a tough realism in trying to stake out the correct US policy in the inflamed Middle East without kowtowing to the large and highly influential Jewish vote." [Note Evans and Novak beat by more than 35 years professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of the 2007 The Israel Lobby a distinctly unoriginal diatribe against Jewish influence on foreign policy. "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" (the more things change, the more they stay the same.)]

Observers feared the worst in US-Israel relations in 1975 when the Ford Administration weighed a "reassessment" of American policy in the Middle East, including cutting aid to Israel.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan earned a place in history as one of Israel's strongest friends, but his administration included strong critics of Israel such as vice president George H.W. Bush and defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. The sale of AWACS, just the tip of a massive arms sale and a realignment of US policy to embrace Saudi Arabia, took place under Reagan's watch, and the political war cry of "Reagan or Begin" was broadcast to suggest American Jews' dual loyalties. Arms to Israel were embargoed and delayed after the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing and the 1982 Lebanon War. And the Pollard affair pulled the US-Israel relationship to new lows.

Could relations have been worse than when George Bush Sr. went on national TV to challenge 1000 Jewish lobbyists to block $10 billion in housing loan guarantees over the issue of settlements at a time when hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews were flowing into Israel? Actually, yes, they worsened when his secretary of state, James Baker, was quoted as saying, "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."

YOU GET the point: Anti-Semitism and crises in the US-Israel relationship have existed in the past, and there is simply nothing like it in the current US administration. Arms embargos and aid cut-offs then truly endangered Israel's security and gave Arab states tangible proof that American support for Israel was assailable. There is no such talk of cuts today. In fact, the strong support given to Israel by Congress and the unprecedented joint anti-missile exercise carried out by US and Israeli armed forces last month should put to rest the canard of an anti-Israel America.

So why the pervasive malaise about the Obama administration - a distrust so deep that Obama's popularity in Israel is equal to the margin of error? Well, Obama's failure to visit Israel doesn't improve his popularity, nor does his repeated cold-shouldering of Israel's prime minister.

Even the appointments of prominent Jews, Rahm Emanuel (chief of staff), David Axelrod (senior advisor), Mara Rudman (NSC/Mitchell's team), Hannah Rosenthal (envoy to monitor anti-Semitism), etc. don't make a difference. They arranged the first ever Seder in the White House, and sent the president to visit a concentration camp. How can anyone accuse these individuals of being "self-hating Jews," when they are members of synagogues, observe Jewish holidays, have relatives in Israel and send their children to Jewish Day Schools?

Because they are "Newest Testament" Jews; Jews who have embraced the new American Jewish religion of tikkun olam [fix the world] liberalism. Tikkun olam is the new overarching mitzva that guides them, even though it was never one of the 613 precepts of the Torah. The founding of Israel and the creation of Palestinian refugees may not have been the Original Sin in their theology as it is to others on the Left, but the settling of the West Bank following Israel's victory in 1967 is definitely viewed by them as Israel's Golden Calf .

The translation of Newest Testament universalism into action can be seen in the words and policies of the modern day shaliach tzibbur [leader of the service], J Street.

The policies of J Street - the self-proclaimed "blocking back for Obama" - hold open the option of negotiations with Hamas, oppose Iran sanctions, and embrace the Saudi Plan, now called the Arab Peace Initiative, which demands a return to the 1967 lines, dividing Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

"There will be no peace if the settlements remain in place," wrote one of the Newest Testament prophets, MJ Rosenberg. "Pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact it was pretty wonderful," he also wrote. "The secular areas [of Jerusalem] are charming but much of the rest is Jewish Taliban country... No humor, no aesthetics, just lunatics in black."

The Obama administration certainly has committed its share of questionable activities, such as ignoring George W. Bush's assurances on Israeli population centers in the West Bank, being over-confident in the ability of Palestinian security forces, attempting to appointment Chas Freeman to a high intelligence post, and abysmally executing its campaign against Israeli settlements and building in Jerusalem.

Perhaps the biggest mistake of all, however, was the advice given by Obama advisors that the rules of tikkun olam have a place in the compassionless Middle East.

The diplomatic failures led the New York Times editorial board to conclude on November 28, "We don't know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers - specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel - than of his Mideast specialists."

Misguided, perhaps. But to declare the Obama administration to be anti-Semitic is just wrong. Let's keep the debate in the area of policy. Unfortunately, there'll be no shortage of topics to discuss.


The writer served as a senior diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington and a member of AIPAC's staff in Washington and Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997. Today he is a public affairs consultant. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com

Netanyahu's visie op de nederzettingen

In tegenstelling tot de suggestieve commentaren van Sander van Hoorn in het NOS journaal, hieronder een grondige, onbevooroordeelde analyse van Netanjahoe's visie op de nederzettingen en Israels toekomst. En in tegenstelling tot al degenen die hem als een rechtse havik en pro-kolonisten aanduiden, blijkt dat hij dat 'genuanceerd' ziet en de nederzettingen in zijn ogen niet bijdragen aan Israels veiligheid.

During his speech at the Eilat journalism conference on Sunday, Netanyahu said: "The people in Israel and the Palestinians are tired of long-lasting war and want to reach a peace agreement." Like Menachem Begin, who went from "not a single inch" to "no more war," and like Yitzhak Rabin, who was shocked by the pathetic show of resolve among Tel Aviv residents during the Gulf War and opted for a compromise with the Palestinians, Netanyahu, too, understands that the majority of the Israeli public wants quiet and considers the settlers a nuisance. And this means the decision to freeze settlement construction for 10 months is just the first taste of domestic confrontation.   


Last update - 13:43 02/12/2009 
What Netanyahu really thinks about settlements
Why did Benjamin Netanyahu alter his stance and agree to a Palestinian state and the freezing of settlement construction? Was he only giving in to pressure from Barack Obama, or were there domestic reasons? Did his assessment of the situation alter since he returned to power, or is this that "same old Bibi," who simply got hold of a new list of slogans?

More than previous premiers, Netanyahu considers himself a leader and an intellectual. It is important to him that his policy rely on an extensive worldview, and he has written books presenting his political and economic viewpoints. It is, therefore, worthwhile listening to what Netanyahu has been saying in recent weeks in a series of speeches revealing his strategic outlook; they express deep fear of the threats facing Israel and introduce preferences for countering them.

This is Netanyahu's fear scale: "First, Iran must be prevented from developing a military nuclear capability. Second, we need to find an appropriate solution to the missile and rocket threat. And third, we must reinforce the right of Israel to defend itself."

What to do? Netanyahu wants the international community to rally and impose strict sanctions on Iran and undertake actions to undermine the regime. He is proposing a peace agreement with the Palestinians, based on territorial compromise in the territories and the establishment of "secure and recognized borders" for Israel. Central to the agreement would be security arrangements and disarmament aimed at blocking the smuggling of rockets and missiles into the West Bank. This is the main problem, from the prime minister's point of view, and it will not be resolved by agreeing on a peaceful border. The defense solution must combine effective means for securing the border and intercepting arms shipments into the territories, as well as the development of missile defense systems. Israel will also request international guarantees that "bypass Goldstone" and will be based on Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism.

Netanyahu estimates the security requirements will cost tens of billions of dollars, and for Israel not to collapse economically, it will need to retain annual growth of 4-5 percent. He thinks the money can be found in bureaucratic efficiency, privatization of state lands and incentives for high-tech industries and entrepreneurs. But economic reforms will not be enough. Netanyahu's security model relies on broadening Israel's dependency on the United States. The prime minister wants America to neutralize Iran, back it up in its effort to curb the smuggling of rockets, assist in the development of missile defense and take action to shelve the Goldstone report.

It is worthwhile paying attention to what is missing here: Netanyahu does not consider the settlements a component in the security of Israel. It is important for him to block the border against rockets, and maybe this will require the presence of a military force in the Jordan Valley. But the fact that Jewish settlements exist on the hills offers nothing. In his view, Elon Moreh does not protect Tel Aviv. This does not mean that he has decided to remove Itamar or Yitzhar, only that Obama's support is more important to him.

Netanyahu was not nurtured by the Yesha Council, and it is hard to recall his tours of settlements beyond the separation fence. He stopped at Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel. The harsh criticism of him from the settler leaders, as a result of the building freeze, is not affecting his supporters the way it did Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu did not climb the hills with bulldozers like Sharon did, and did not sit with Zambish (Ze'ev Hever) to discuss maps and plans, but fought for the rights of Israel in television studios and at the United Nations and considers international support a lot more important than a few prefabricated houses. His support for settlers, in the argument with Obama over the freeze, centered on the call to allow them to have a normal life, not more growth.

During his speech at the Eilat journalism conference on Sunday, Netanyahu said: "The people in Israel and the Palestinians are tired of long-lasting war and want to reach a peace agreement." Like Menachem Begin, who went from "not a single inch" to "no more war," and like Yitzhak Rabin, who was shocked by the pathetic show of resolve among Tel Aviv residents during the Gulf War and opted for a compromise with the Palestinians, Netanyahu, too, understands that the majority of the Israeli public wants quiet and considers the settlers a nuisance. And this means the decision to freeze settlement construction for 10 months is just the first taste of domestic confrontation.

1 Israelische soldaat voor 1.000 Palestijnen

Dit soort stemmen hoor je zelden:

"Sadly, we must beg of those in Israel for over 1,000 of our brave brothers to return to Gaza," a Palestinian journalist told the Israel News Agency.
"It is humiliating to each and every Palestinian to see that one Jewish soldier from Israel is equivalent to 1,000 Islamic soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank. It is even more humiliating for us that the IDF and those of the government in Israel show the Palestinian people more care and compassion than our Arab brothers."
The Palestinian journalist was referring directly to Egypt which shares a border with Gaza.
"We receive tons of food, medicine and fuel daily from Israel while nothing comes from Egypt. The Egyptians allow us to dig a few tunnels to smuggle in cheap cigarettes, drugs, perfume and sex magazines, but nothing else."

Ik vind de ongelijke ruil zelf vooral vernederend voor Israel, dat immers zoveel meer moet 'betalen', maar dit is ook een manier om ernaar te kijken.
Dit argument voor de gevangenenruil had ik nog niet eerder gehoord:

"These 1,000 Islamic terrorists have been living in Israel like parasites. It has been a heavy financial cost to feed, cloth and house them in Israel. As we release them back to Hamas, many, if not all, will be working for our security forces, gathering essential information while others act as sleeper agents. Hamas will not know who to trust. For if these new agents do not follow their directives from the ISS, they will be eliminated. These terrorists were on a paid holiday while being kept prisoner in Israel under the strict and humane terms of the Geneva Convention. That will not be the case once they are back in Gaza."

Hoe betrouwbaar al deze informatie is weet ik niet, want ik ken Israel News Agency niet, en het is onduidelijk wie bovenstaande (een Israelische 'security analist') zei. 


Hamas: 1 Israel Soldier Equals 1,000 Soldiers From Palestine
By Herb Brandon
Israel News Agency
Jerusalem ---- December 1, 2009 ..... The Israel State Prosecutor's office confirmed today that Israel will free up to 980 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.
Though the news was excellent for the Shalit family, it did very little for the pride of the Islamic terror group Hamas and those seeking to live in a state called Palestine.
"Sadly, we must beg of those in Israel for over 1,000 of our brave brothers to return to Gaza," a Palestinian journalist told the Israel News Agency.
"It is humiliating to each and every Palestinian to see that one Jewish soldier from Israel is equivalent to 1,000 Islamic soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank. It is even more humiliating for us that the IDF and those of the government in Israel show the Palestinian people more care and compassion than our Arab brothers."
The Palestinian journalist was referring directly to Egypt which shares a border with Gaza.
"We receive tons of food, medicine and fuel daily from Israel while nothing comes from Egypt. The Egyptians allow us to dig a few tunnels to smuggle in cheap cigarettes, drugs, perfume and sex magazines, but nothing else."
As there is no democracy or freedom of speech in Gaza, many international newspapers, women's fashion and men's adult magazines are banned. Many of the tunnels are used to smuggle in weapons, heroin and hashish.
Over 450 Palestinian prisoners will be released before Gilad Shalit is allowed to come home. Another 530 Islamic terrorists will be freed following his release as a "gesture to the Palestinians," the Israel State Prosecutor's office announced today.
The Israel Supreme Court says it needs to censor the details of the prisoner swap in order to effectively carry out the negotiations with Hamas through a German mediator.
Shalit was captured on June 25, 2006 after Palestinian terrorists created a tunnel and attacked an IDF post in a cross border raid. He was abducted through the Kerem Shalom crossing in Israel and has been held as a prisoner by Hamas in Gaza. Shalit, a soldier of the IDF's Armor Corps, held the rank of corporal at the time of the kidnapping but has since been promoted to staff sergeant.
During the morning attack, two Palestinian terrorists and two IDF soldiers were killed and three others wounded. Shalit suffered a broken left hand and a light shoulder wound after his tank was hit with a Rocket propelled grenade.
Shalit was part of an Israel defensive force implemented to reduce terror attacks from Gaza.
Although Israel left Gaza in a unilateral peace move 4 years ago, Hamas has continued to attack Israel towns and cities with over 12,000 terror rockets. Iran backed Hamas has stated that it was not interested in land, but rather the killing of Jews and Christians in their Islamic Jihad or Holy War against democracy and the West. Hamas leaders have repeated what Iran has been saying for many years, that their mission was to "wipe Israel off the map."
Iran, which has now spit into the face of US President Barack Obama policy of "reaching out and not jumping to conclusions about Iran or Islamic terrorism", declared this week that it will ignore the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as it censured Iran for secretly building a second uranium enrichment plant near the holy city of Qom.
Iran said on Sunday it would build 10 more nuclear uranium enrichment sites in retaliation for the vote by the 35-nation board of the UN nuclear organization, which had rare support by Russia and China.
"If the enemy (Western democracies) should want to test its bad luck in Iran, ballistic missiles would land in the heart of Tel Aviv," said Iran cleric Mojtaba Zolnour.

Hamas has refused requests from the Red Cross (ICRC) to allow visits by the ICRC. Several human rights organizations have stated that the terms and conditions of Shalit's detention are illegal and contrary to international humanitarian law.
Shalit became the first Israel soldier captured by Palestinian terrorists since Nachshon Wachsman in 1994. Shalit holds French citizenship, a fact that encouraged both France and the European Union to be involved in efforts to gain his release.
The information of the prisoner exchange was released in response to a law suit filed in Israel's Supreme Court by the Almagor Terror Victims Association and three bereaved parents of IDF soldiers.
"It should be stressed that contrary to the release of prisoners as part of a gesture or diplomatic agreement, this is an incident of bargaining, which can be seen as an ongoing terror attack," said the Israel State Prosecutor's office.
Shalit's parents met Sunday with Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for an update on the negotiations.
"We are neither encouraged nor the opposite. We're still waiting," the soldier's father, Noam, said following the meeting. "We have nothing new."
The Voice of Palestine radio station said Saturday that Shalit would be transferred soon to Egypt in preparation for his release. Egypt and Germany have been mediating the prisoner swap between Israel and Hamas.
"This has turned out to be a win-win situation for Israel," an Israel security analyst commented.
"These 1,000 Islamic terrorists have been living in Israel like parasites. It has been a heavy financial cost to feed, cloth and house them in Israel. As we release them back to Hamas, many, if not all, will be working for our security forces, gathering essential information while others act as sleeper agents. Hamas will not know who to trust. For if these new agents do not follow their directives from the ISS, they will be eliminated. These terrorists were on a paid holiday while being kept prisoner in Israel under the strict and humane terms of the Geneva Convention. That will not be the case once they are back in Gaza."

Buitenlandse steun voor Israelische NGO's ter discussie

Nederland steunt mensenrechtenorganisaties en dissidenten in ondemocratische landen als Iran en Arabische staten en wellicht ook Rusland en China, hoewel die regeringen daar vaak een stokje voor (proberen te) steken. Het is naar mijn weten niet gebruikeijk dat de regering een veelheid aan pressiegroepen en zeer kritische NGO's steunt in een democratie en bondgenoot waarmee nauw wordt samengewerkt. Wij steunen geen tientallen groeperingen die zich bijzonder kritisch opstellen naar de regering en staat überhaupt in Frankrijk, Duitsland, de VS of Australië. In veel derde wereld landen steunen we vooral humanitaire organisaties. Waarom steunen we alleen in Israel organisaties die de staat willen ondermijnen? Dit geldt niet voor alle NGO's, maar er zitten er bij, zoals Al Awda, die niet alleen tegen de bezetting of bepaalde Israelische praktijken maar tegen Israels bestaansrecht zijn en strijden.


Dec 2, 2009 2:22 | Updated Dec 2, 2009 10:42
NGO report: B'Tselem tops European funding list
Human rights organization B'Tselem heads the list of Israeli NGOs receiving funding from European governments.
According to a new report published by NGO Monitor and the Institute for Zionist Strategies, 16 Israeli NGOs received a total of NIS 31.5 million in European funding between the years 2006 and 2009.
B'Tselem, HaMoked and Yesh Din each received at least NIS 8.5m. in European funding, lead by B'Tselem, which received over NIS 12m. during that period, the report found.
These details emerged from a conference on the impact and transparency of European governments held at the Knesset on Tuesday afternoon.
"For over a decade European governments have been manipulating Israeli politics and promoting demonization by funding a narrow group of favored non-governmental organizations," said NGO Monitor's president Gerald Steinberg.
Representatives from B'Tselem, HaMoked and Yesh Din were not present during the proceedings, and only Dr. Gershon Baskin of the Palestinian-Israeli Peace NGO Forum, an unlisted Israeli NGO, addressed the conference. Steinberg said of the 20 NGOs listed in the report, all chose to decline invitations.
"I'm a supporter of Israeli democracy," Dr. Baskin told The Jerusalem Post, " and I feel that the Knesset discussion today potentially had anti-democratic motifs. I felt I needed to be there regardless of the position of the other NGOs. I do not think that leaving the stage serves a positive purpose in this particular discussion.
"I'm not hiding my agenda. I have an NGO that has a political agenda, and I have nothing to hide. This transparency should be maintained because I was not elected to my position. I believe that the law in Israel is not sufficient in demanding full transparency at all NGOs… I believe that all NGOs and all sources of funding should be transparent, and Israeli law should demand that all NGOs disclose their funding," he said.
"I do not know who made them [NGO Monitor] judge and jury on the matter. NGO Monitor is clearly politically motivated, and I believe that there is no element of transparency in their political agenda," said Dr. Baskin.
NGO Monitor and the Institute for Zionist Strategies published their joint report Tuesday. Entitled "Trojan Horse - The Impact of European Government Funding for Israeli NGOs," the report provides a detailed analysis of the activities of more than 20 Israel-based NGOs that have received funding from European governments.
The report further examines the political agendas of these groups, and the way that they influence Israeli policy-making and public debate, including their extensive use of the legal system. As the "Trojan Horse" report claims, foreign-funded local NGOs are responsible for a significant portion of the petitions brought before the Israeli High Court of Justice.
"The NGOs discussed in this analysis are highly active and visible participants in both the international and national debates on issues, such as the status and future of Jerusalem, the disputed territories in the West Bank and the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces. These NGOs issue high-profile statements and reports, generate media publicity, organize demonstrations, speak to student groups and army units and use the courts to advance their political agendas," the reports states in its summary.
In addition to a discussion on the impact of the report, the "Trojan Horse" conference focused on the political, diplomatic and legal issues, as well as legislation being examined in response. The roundtable discussion and question-and-answer session included a wide spectrum of the current government's political opinions, with speeches by Likud members MK Michael Eitan and MK Yuli Edelstein, MK Avraham Michaeli of Shas, former ambassador to Canada Alan Baker, Gershon Baskin, Israel Harel of Haaretz and other professors and intellectuals in the field.
Improvement of Government Services Minister MK Michael Eitan (Likud) commented about continuing to shape Israeli democracy through issues such as exposing the foreign financing of Israeli NGOs.
"I'm always in favor of transparency, and the main point, especially here, is the critical importance of public opinion, which is very effective in government in all democratic states... Israel is threatened and has to fight, and I think we'll fight best by maintaining and strengthening our democratic values."
NGO Monitor suggested that the first step to ending the practice of foreign sponsorship in Israeli NGOs is to require full transparency. According to their recommendation, if the legislation is enacted, before any NGO could accept funding from a foreign government, the details would have to be made public.
Furthermore, NGO Monitor is calling for Israeli law to require full notification when foreign government money is used by NGOs for newspaper ads, political protests and conferences. Transparency would also allow European parliamentary oversight and expose the absence of professional evaluation of various NGO funding programs.

Egyptische artsen boycotten Israel vanwege vermeende orgaandiefstal

Een nieuwe bloodlibel die populair is in Arabische kringen, is de leugen dat Israeli's organen van Palestijnen stelen en gebruiken. Dit werd onder andere als motivatie gebruikt om Israeli's te weigeren om deel te nemen aan een internationale medische conferentie in Egypte.
Wat ik weleens zou willen weten is hoeveel procent van de gewone bevolking in Arabische staten dit soort onzin gelooft. Zou men weten dat dit het soort onzin is dat de Pravda over het Westen publiceerde, of zou men het allemaal echt geloven? Volgens enquetes geloofde een meerderheid indertijd dat de aanslagen op de Twin Towers het werk van de CIA of de Mossad waren, en uit andere enquetes blijkt dat een overgrote meerderheid negatieve gevoelens heeft over Joden. De kans dat velen dit soort onzin geloven is dus groot.
Palestinian Media Watch (PMW)
Bulletin, Dec. 1, 2009
Click here to view on PMW's new web site
Egyptian doctors join PA hate libel:
Israeli doctors accused of stealing
Palestinian body parts

by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik

The Palestinian Authority libel that Israel deliberately harvests organs from dead Palestinians has caught on in the Arab world. Last month Egyptian authorities temporarily denied Israeli doctors entry into Egypt to participate in a medical conference. The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate explained that this was because they "participated in torture" of Palestinians and because they "are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners."

The following are the remarks by the head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate as reported in the PA daily, Al-Ayyam:

"The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate, Dr. Hamdi Al-Sayed, said yesterday that the decisions of the [Egyptian] medical associations were based on a rejection of relations with Israeli doctors, since they took part in grave abuses against the Palestinian people. He stated, in press releases in Cairo, that the Egyptian Medical Syndicate views any type of normalization with the Israeli occupation as a crime.
In response to the Israeli doctors' protest over Egyptian authorities not issuing them permits to enter Egypt for a medical conference, he said: 'We have no regard or respect for the Israeli doctors because the medical community has condemned them due to their participation in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.' He added: 'The Israeli Medical Association has acknowledged having participated in torture, noting that it had done so with the aim of protecting Israeli citizens.' He stated that the Israeli doctors are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners, and that 'such people will not be permitted to take part in our medical activities."
[Al-Ayyam, Nov. 27, 2009]
The Egyptian doctors are the latest in a line of Arab officials to publicly accept as fact the PA libel that Israel steals Palestinian body parts. Several Arab foreign ministers have given support to this libel in recent months, demanding an international investigation of organ theft:
[Headline:] "The Arab League Council publishes resolutions supporting the Palestinian issue and demands an investigation into the theft of the organs of our Shahids (Martyrs)."
"At the conclusion of its assembly in Cairo a short time ago, the Council of Arab Foreign Ministers published a series of resolutions in support of the Palestinian people. In addition, they demanded an investigation of Israel's crimes of stealing organs of Palestinian Shahids (Martyrs).
They demanded the establishment of a UN Fact-Finding Mission in order to confirm that Israeli government gangs have stolen the organs of many Arab inhabitants, and to provide Arab and international aid to the [Palestinian] national committees that would be set up to investigate these crimes."
[WAFA official PA News Agency, Sept. 10, 2009]
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority continues to reinforce the libel. PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs Issa Karake described last week how Israel "punishes" the dead by "disfiguring" the "Martyrs" and stealing their organs:
"Would you believe that Israel punishes not only those who are alive, but also the dead, by holding their corpses in secret military cemeteries inside Israel for many years, and when it returns some of the Shahids (Martyrs) to their families, they come back disfigured after organs have been stolen from them."
[PA TV (Fatah), Nov. 24, 2009]
To see more examples of PA's organ theft libel from PMW's collection, click here.
p:+972 2 625 4140     e: pmw@palwatch.org
f: +972 2 624 2803       w:
PMW | King George 59 | Jerusalem | Israel

woensdag 2 december 2009

Egyptische geestelijke braakt antisemitisme op TV

I have a message for every Jew on the face of the earth. The army of Muhammad will return. Oh offspring of apes and pigs, the day of vengeance is nearing. Oh most accursed creatures created by Allah, those who swore before the Prophet Muhammad to die are returning. Wait for us and you will see, you most accursed creatures.
Aldus een Egyptische geestelijke. Het doet niet onder voor de tirades van Hitler tegen de Joden.
In onderstaand stuk wordt bovendien de geschiedenis extreem vervalst, en wordt een vreedzaam plaatsje als groot fort voorgesteld waar de Joden toen al tanks zouden hebben. Dit alles om Mohammeds agressie goed te praten.
Als deze man een extremist is, waar zijn dan de tegenstemmen en protesten? Dit soort geluiden zijn regelmatig te horen in de Arabische wereld; protesten slechts zelden.

Egyptian Cleric: Day of vengeance is nearing for every Jew on the face of the Earth

The remaking of history is as interesting as the rest of the hate rhetoric. So far as is known, Khaybar was a peaceful town of merchants, not a military power. It was attacked for the plunder it afforded. The inhabitants were murdered or enslaved. Such was the mercy of Muhammad... [A.I.]
Following are excerpts from an address by Egyptian cleric Hazem Shuman, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on October 31, 2009. 
Hazem Shuman: Tonight's lecture is one of the most important lectures of this series. Tonight, we will talk about the Battle of Khaybar, about the Prophet Muhammad's greatest battle [with the Jews], in which the Prophet eradicated the Jewish presence in Al-Madina. 
On June 5, 1967, when the Jews occupied Palestine and Jerusalem and were celebrating their victory, Moshe Dayan cried: "This is our revenge for Khaybar." How come Khaybar remained seared in their hearts for 1,400 years? After 1,400 years, their hearts are still burning because of Khaybar. The first thing that the Prophet Muhammad did after his victory in the Hudaybiyya Treaty, after he stabilized the Muslim state, and neutralized the Quraysh front, the first mission of the Prophet Muhammad, his first campaign, was against the Jews of Khaybar. 
Your turn has come at last, you offspring of apes and pigs, you most accursed creatures created by Allah, you people who have harmed the Prophet again and again. 
Only 20 days after the Hudaybiyya Treaty, the Prophet Muhammad decided to take the army of Islam to Khaybar. Why the Jews of all people? It has been proven that the Jews are like a cancer – if they are not removed from the body of the nation, they will kill the entire nation. Unless the Jews were dealt with, they would have brought the Persians and the Byzantines to the Arabian Peninsula. the Jews are dangerous to the whole world. They threatened the stability of the Arabian Peninsula.

Jews are always the same. We are still tormented by the sights of their massacres of the Muslims, when they went into Sabra and Shatila. Sharon chopped off the limbs of children, and used them to make a necklace, so that he could boast that he dismembered the bodies of Muslim children. When the Jews entered Sabra and Shatila, a Jewish soldier took a pregnant woman and emptied a submachine gun into her neck. When she was dead, he cut open her belly, took out her nine-month-old fetus, and slaughtered it in front of the Muslims. 
They took 30 Muslim men and women, including a newly-wed couple, and shot them all in Sabra and Shatila. They chased a six-year-old boy, whose mother was hugging him and calling for help. They stabbed him with knives and killed him in his mother's lap. In the end, she went mad, because of what had happened. They shot dead an entire family, except for a baby, who screamed at the sight of the bloodbath. The moment they saw he was crying, they shot him with a machine-gun as well. At Sabra and Shatila, they raped a Muslim woman, and then killed her children in front of her. They tore off women's ears, by pulling their earrings. 
The Jews of Khaybar in the 7th year of the hijra are a replica of the state of Israel in 2009, in terms of the terrifying economy that sucked the blood of the Arabs, the military armaments and superiority over the entire region, the settlements that form the state, the fortifications, like the separation fence that they are building today.

When the army of the Muslims arrived, the Jews removed their women and children from the fortifications at the front, and left only their fighters at the front... The army of the Prophet Muhammad was very poor. The Muslims had nothing to eat. The first time they ate was after the conquest of Khaybar.

One of the Prophet Muhammad's companions had a debt to a Jew. The Jew told him he had to pay his debt before he left, but the Muslim did not have even 5 dirham, so he sold his clothes so he could pay his debt and leave. The Prophet's companions sold their clothes in order to fight the Jews, and take revenge upon them.


Finally, [in the battle of Khaybar], Allah gave the Muslims strength, and they launched a martyrdom-seeking attack on the fortifications. All their lives long, they were martyrdom-seekers and heroes, who sacrificed their blood for Islam. They stormed the fortress and took the Jews captive, for the first time. All the other Jews fled. 
When the Muslims entered the fortress, they were astounded. What is this? Never in their lives had they seen so much food – enough to last years. They were astounded by the weapons too. There was a weapon called a tank. It was a house made of tin, like today's tanks. Soldiers sat in it and drove it towards the fortifications. When they were pelted with arrows, it did not have any effect on them. There were catapults, which fired bombs of fire, which penetrated the walls and smashed the fortifications. Why did the Jews amass all these weapons? They were planning to use them against the Muslims. They were preparing for the day when they would fight the Muslims – otherwise, why would they have amassed all those weapons? The [Muslims] also found large quantities of wine, which they poured out on the floor. 
The [Muslim fighters] reached the final fortification, the final battle. All the Jews, including women and children, were here. The walls were enormous. The number of arrows fired from its towers was indescribable. Its gates were well fortified, and no one could escape from there. This was the first time that the Prophet Muhammad used catapults. The [Muslims] shot catapults at the walls until there were gaping holes in them. All the Muslim army charged into the final fortress, with hatred burning in their hearts for the Jews, with a strong desire to take revenge upon the offspring of apes and pigs. 
All the Muslims – men and women – charged with a strong desire to annihilate the Jews. They entered the fortress, and a terrible battle took place, a violent battle in the last fortress, until all the Jewish soldiers were arrested and all the Jewish women captured. Khaybar trembled with the sound of the cries of "Allah Akbar," and the entire Arabian Peninsula shook with the victorious cries of "Allah Akbar." 
1,400 soldiers defeated 10,000 Jews. The Jews were defeated, and the reputation of the invincible army was shattered. After a month-long siege and terrible fighting, the Jews were defeated. The Arabian Peninsula shook with the cries of "Allah Akbar," and the Jews collapsed.
Soon the cries of "Allah Akbar" will be sounded at the gates of Jerusalem, and at the gates of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Soon, cries of "Allah Akbar" will be heard on the day of vengeance against the Jews.

The Jews were defeated. The Prophet Muhammad and everybody was very surprised that only 96 Jews were killed, along with 16 Muslims. 96 people? The Prophet could have massacred the Jews, down to the last one. Why did the Prophet Muhammad let them be? Because the Prophet Muhammad does not fight for the sake of war or bloodshed. He fights for the sake of peace. this proves to what extent he is the prophet of peace.


I have a message for every Jew on the face of the earth. The army of Muhammad will return. Oh offspring of apes and pigs, the day of vengeance is nearing. Oh most accursed creatures created by Allah, those who swore before the Prophet Muhammad to die are returning. Wait for us and you will see, you most accursed creatures.

Oh nation of Muhammad, do not be afraid to wage war against the Jews. If you do not fight for the sake of Palestine, Allah will fight you. Decide what you are more afraid of – a war with the Jews, or a war with Allah. Can you fight God? If you abandon Palestine, you will be fighting God.
Source: MEMRI

Opstelling Verenigde Naties naar Israël zeer eenzijdig

Palestijns meisje met de ´Palestijnse staat´ op haar gezicht geschilderd,
die huidige Palestijnse gebieden zou moeten omvatten en de staat Israël.
Dergelijke artikelen kom je helaas nooit tegen in de NRC en ook zelden in andere mainstream media.
Er valt natuurlijk nog veel meer over de VN te zeggen, zoals haar visie op Jeruzalem, de honderden Algemene Vergadering resoluties tegen Israel die zijn aangenomen, de speciale waarnemersstatus die de PLO in 1974 kreeg, in een tijd dat zij geregeld aanslagen pleegde (2 jaar na de moord op de Israelische Olympische ploeg in München), de "zionisme is racisme" resolutie uit 1975 etc. etc., maar dat past natuurlijk niet meer in een artikel. Vandaar dat, ook als tegenwicht tegen alle kritiek van de VN op Israel, er geregeld artikelen zouden moeten verschijnen die de andere kant laten zien, en waardoor men begrijpt waarom Israel zo'n VN rapport verwerpt en niet met zo'n 'onafhankelijke' onderzoekscommisse meewerkt.

Opstelling VN naar Israël zeer eenzijdig

30-11-2009 08:10| gewijzigd 30-11-2009 08:15
De VN zijn door de opstelling van islamitische en andere landen in feite een anti-Israëlorganisatie, betoogt G. van Mourik. De VN zouden deze houding moeten laten varen en alle landen gelijk moeten behandelen.


Op 29 november 1947, nu 62 jaar geleden, nam de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties de aanbeveling over om een Joodse en een Arabische staat te vormen. Over het algemeen bestaat de indruk dat Israël veel aan de VN te danken heeft en dat Israël desondanks niet naar de VN wil luisteren. Maar hoe is de houding van de VN naar Israël nu werkelijk?

Voor Joodse vluchtelingen hebben de wereldorganisaties voor en na de Tweede Wereldoorlog niets gedaan. Voor de miljoenen vluchtelingen wereldwijd hebben de VN een algemene vluchtelingenorganisatie, voor de Palestijnen een speciale. Naast de vluchtelingenorganisatie zijn er in de VN veel andere organisaties die opkomen voor de Palestijnen. Ze bepleiten niet zozeer een Palestijnse staat op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en de Gazastrook als wel een staat in geheel Palestina, dus zonder bestaansrecht voor de Joden in Israël.

De Divisie voor Palestijnse Rechten (DPR), opgericht in 1975, is een van de zeven divisies die onder het departement Politieke Zaken van de VN vallen. De andere zes houden zich bezig met problemen in andere werelddelen. De DPR voert veel propaganda en organiseert jaarlijks op 29 november de "Internationale dag van de solidariteit met het Palestijnse volk".

Resolutie 242

Een andere VN-commissie komt op voor „Uitvoering van de onvervreemdbare rechten van het Palestijnse volk" (CEIRPP). Deze organisatie richt zich op het beïnvloeden van VN-functionarissen en hulporganisaties. De invloed van deze commissie was goed te merken op de antiracismeconferentie van de VN in Durban in 2001. Dit werd een beschamende anti-Israëlmanifestatie, waar de vernietiging van Israël werd bepleit en Hitler een held was.

Toen Egypte in 1967 dreigde met oorlog en een haven van Israël afsloot, deden de VN niets. Direct na deze Zesdaagse Oorlog bood Israël aan om bezette gebieden terug te geven in ruil voor erkenning en vrede. Hierna namen de VN resolutie 242 aan. Ten onrechte wordt nu vaak beweerd dat deze resolutie de onvoorwaardelijke terugtrekking van Israël eist uit de bezette gebieden. De tekst spreekt ook over het accepteren van elke staat en het recht op leven binnen erkende en veilige grenzen.

Resolutie 242 gaat uit van het principe "land voor vrede". Israël voldoet daaraan: Egypte kreeg voor de vrede de gehele Sinaï terug. Na 1993 (de Oslo-akkoorden) kregen de Palestijnen steeds meer zeggenschap over hun gebieden. In Israël bleven de Palestijnse zelfmoordaanslagen echter gewoon doorgaan.

Ook na de eenzijdige terugtrekking uit de Gazastrook kreeg Israël geen vrede maar werd het 'beloond' met duizenden raketten van Hamas.


De landen van de VN zijn ingedeeld in regionale groepen. De landen in zo'n groep maken onderling uit welk land ze voordragen voor de verschillende werkcommissies van de VN. Israël kwam bij de Aziatische groep en werd jarenlang door de islamitische buurlanden uitgesloten. Het betekent zelfs dat Israël alleen bij de VN in New York de vergaderingen kan bijwonen. Ook kon Israël in geen enkele commissie of ander orgaan van de VN worden gekozen. Deze uitsluiting trof alleen Israël.

Na jarenlang aandringen van de VS is Israël nu toegelaten tot de WEOG, de groep van westerse landen. Israël mag echter nog steeds niet meedoen aan vergaderingen van de VN-Mensenrechtenraad in Genève. Die raad besteedt onevenredig veel aandacht aan Israël en veroordeelt alleen Israël, terwijl men zwijgt over Palestijns terrorisme of over Sudan.

Deze corrupte raad heeft, op verzoek van Egypte en Pakistan, opdracht gegeven voor een onderzoek naar de Gazaoorlog, waarin alleen de daden van Israël werden beoordeeld, het zogeheten Goldstonerapport. Terwijl Hamas vecht zonder uniform en vanuit dichtbevolkte gebieden, waardoor er veel burgerslachtoffers vallen, veroordeelt de raad deze oorlogsmisdaden niet.

Ook de Algemene Vergadering van de VN heeft Israël eenzijdig in de beklaagdenbank gezet door de resolutie van de Mensenrechtenraad over te nemen. Zo werken de dictatoriale Arabische, islamitische en ongebonden landen in VN-verband samen om steeds Israël veroordeeld te krijgen en de aandacht van hun eigen problemen af te leiden. De VN worden misbruikt en kunnen niet naar hun eigen doelstelling handelen.

Echte brandhaarden

Door dit gedrag van de landen in de VN wordt Israël apart gezet en zijn de VN een eenzijdige anti-Israëlorganisatie geworden. De VN zouden alle landen, groot of klein, met of zonder een blok van bondgenoten, zonder onderscheid op gelijke en eerlijke wijze moeten behandelen. Dan zouden de veroordelingen van Israël achterwege blijven en zou de aandacht naar de echte brandhaarden van de wereld kunnen uitgaan.

De auteur is lezer te Brakel.

De mythische vrede die net buiten bereik blijft

Het is een bekende mythe: iedereen weet hoe vrede tussen Israel en de Palestijnen eruit moet zien, en een meerderheid aan beide kanten steunt dit ook: twee staten op basis van de wapenstilstandslijnen van 1949, met de Arabische wijken in Oost Jeruzalem voor de Palestijnen en West Jeruzalem voor Israel, en geen recht op terugkeer van de nakomelingen van de vluchtelingen. De realiteit is een andere, zoals Ami Isseroff overtuigend laat zien, en dus is het geen kwade speling van het lot of een gemiste kans van Israel, dat men die mythische vrede nog steeds niet heeft bereikt. 

The conventional wisdom in much of the world holds that there is an Israeli-Arab peace settlement that is just out of reach - so near yet so far, frustrated only by tactical accidents. We all know what the peace settlement must look like, says the myth. If only Israel wasn't so stubborn about building in Jerusalem or (under Ehud Olmert) not negotiating at all about Jerusalem, there could be peace in a week. But somehow peace, like the lost tribes of Israel in the medieval Jewish myth, remains beyond reach, on the other side of the Sambatyon river in a land that Christian mythology identified with the Kingdom of Prester John. The river throws up rocks of settlements and fire of "misunderstandings" and nobody can pass.

What does the peace settlement look like? We all know, what the peace settlement would look like, don't we? It would look like the
Clinton Bridging Proposals, or it would look like the Geneva Accord, or it might even look like the reasonable proposal of Palestinian-American comedian Ray Hanania.

All of those proposals rest on three major principles:

1) The Palestinians give up the so-called "Right of Return" of the descendants of Palestinian refugees of 1948. They can live in the state of Palestine or abroad, or in limited numbers in Israel, but they do not have a "right" to return to Israel and they cannot come to
Israel in unlimited numbers.

2) At least some parts of Jerusalem beyond the 1949 armistice line remain under Israeli sovereignty, including the old city Jewish quarter, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol, Gilo, Har Choma and other areas that are today Jewish neighborhoods.

3) The Palestinians recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, just as the Jews recognize that Palestine is the state of the Palestinian Arab people.

Peace "optimists" tell us that the Palestinians leaders have really agreed or are secretly ready to agree to all these proposals and/or that polls show that the Palestinian people back these concessions. For example, a friend, a knowledgeable journalist, insisted to me that the Geneva initiative "has support from the Palestinian PLO establishment." In fact, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, rejected the Geneva accord, as did the Israeli government. It is like saying that the Geneva initiative "has support from the Zionist establishment" since Yossi Beilin signed it. A minority of secondary leaders on both sides signed it, and they seem to have understood it differently. Some of the Palestinian signatories denied that it gave up the right of return.

The depressing fact is that all the polls of Palestinians and all the statements of the leaders and all the documents of the PLO and the Fatah have been fairly consistent in giving negative replies to all the issues. The one ray of hope is that some surveys show that the Palestinian people would be willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but only provided that Israel accept Right of Return and give up all of East Jerusalem. This review will focus primarily on the issue of Right of Return, because it is the issue most studied in the polls, and it is the Palestinian demand with the most devastating consequences for Israel. Surveys almost never ask about giving up parts of the West Bank or any part of East Jerusalem. Almost all the results that show Palestinians support a "two state" solution assume in the questions that the "solution" includes right of return, and Israeli concession of all territories taken in 1967, including all of East Jerusalem.

Palestinian Opinion on the Right of Return

Every poll of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza found that 80-90% insist on Right of Return for the refugees, no matter how the question was asked, and whatever the prospects for peace may have been at the time. For example a
poll by PCPO in 2008:

Responding to the question: "Do you believe that the Palestinians should be obliged to waive their right of home return in exchange for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the conclusion of a peace agreement with Israel ?", (89.8 %) answered "Palestinians shouldn't agree to that, even if the price would be the non-conclusion of an agreement with the Israelis", whilst only (6.8 %) said "Palestinians should agree to that", and (3.3 %) answered "I don't know".

Regarding the additional question:" Should the Palestinian leadership agree to the waiver of the Right of Home Return in exchange of the monetary compensation, would you accept or refuse that?" (89.5 %) answered "I would refuse that", whilst only (7.3 %) said "I would accept that", and (3.2 %) answered "I don't know".

Here is an An Najah university poll from 2006 regarding items in the Prisoner's letter. When asked about: "The need to ------- stress on the right of return and to cling to this right and to call on the international community to implement Resolution 194 which stipulates the right of the refugees to return and to be compensated," 52.4% strongly agreed and 39.7% agreed - over 90% in all.

IPCRI is the oldest Israeli-Palestinian dialog organization. Few people are more optimistic about peace than its co-director, Gershon Baskin. An
IPCRI poll in 2001 asked refugees only about their views on Right of Return. A total of 98.6% strongly agreed or agreed that "Lasting peace in the Middle East is tied to the return of the refugees to their homes." A total of 98.7% strongly agreed or agreed that "Compensation is not an alternative to return." A total of 99.8% strongly agreed or agreed that "Return must be to exact places of original residence." Only 5.1% agreed or strongly agreed that "Family reunification can be considered return." Every survey in the West Bank and Gaza strip produced similar results.

Read further: The mythical peace that is just out of reach