British Journalists' union boycotts Israel

Een verfrissend journalistiek commentaar op de Israël-boycotcampagnes van links, die helaas zelfs al een Britse journalistenvakbond in hun greep hebben gekregen...

Meer over Israël boycots hier: http://www.israel-palestina.info/israel_boycot.html

 

Abby

 

______________________________________________

   Toby Harnden in Washington DC

Journalists' union boycotts Israel

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/foreign/tobyharnden/april07/savageisrael.htm

 

Posted by Toby Harnden at 14 Apr 07 09:36 

It takes some skill to do something that is at once inane, ineffectual, counter-productive and insulting to the intelligence. But that is what the National Union of Journalists has managed to do by voting to boycott Israeli goods because of the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel".

The NUJ should refrain from criticising Israel

I am a member of the NUJ, though at times like this I wonder why. A union battling for better pay and conditions is one thing. But why should my dues be spent on anti-Israel posturing of which I and many other members want no part?

You could say that this kind of thing is what gives British trade unions their Loony Left image. But in a way it's even worse than that. Although Arthur Scargill, leader of the National Union of Mineworkers in the 1980s, was an unreconstructed Marxist, at least he was fighting for what he saw as the best interests of miners.

As Craig McGinty asks , how the hell does boycotting Israeli goods benefit journalists? Dadblog jokes about the other boycotts the NUJ could go for but his underlying point is serious - if the NUJ is going to go in for this sort of posturing, how about boycotting goods from countries that really abuse human rights?

A glance down the list of NUJ motions reveals a childish fixation with trendy-Leftie causes. It reminds me of the time I was JCR President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford and I was forever being mandated, after verbose motions carried by acclamation, to write to Margaret Thatcher to protest about this or that.

But that was forgivable - we were idealistic students who had not yet entered the real world. We had an outsized sense of our own importance and an impatient reluctance to bother ourselves with considering the complexities of life outside. We have since grown up.

A glance down list of motions shows that the NUJ, despite celebrating its centenary, is still an adolescent. There's a Guantanamo motion that expresses "concern" (that'll make a difference) about "the systematic violation of human rights by the US Military".

Another "applauds the advances made by the Venezuelan people and government in redistributing the country's wealth" and condemns "disinformation" that encourages "unjustified stereotypes of the Venezuelan president as a dictator who is repressing the local media".

So the NUJ is now dictating that its members should all write that Hugo Chavez is a great chap? Clear the front pages. And if you read the anti-Israel motions, you will spot a complete absence of any sense of journalistic impartiality. The "slaughter of civilians" by Israel is condemned (no mention of suicide bombings or human rights abuses by Palestinian militias, needless to say), as is the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon by Israel" and "continued attacks inside Lebanon following the defeat of its army by Hezbollah".

What kind of language is this? It is tendentious and politically-loaded propaganda that would be rightly edited out of any news story written in a newspaper that had any pretensions of fairness. Israel "defeated" by Hezbollah? That is at best debatable - it's the kind of wording smacks of a juvenile combination of unedifying gloating and wishful thinking.

Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack" on Lebanon? Er, am I missing something or wasn't last summer's conflict sparked by Hezbollah firing rockets and mortars at Israeli border villages and kidnapping two Israeli soldiers (who still have not been released) and killing three other troops?

Much has been written about the media's shortcomings in covering events in Lebanon and Israel in 2006 - check out Matthew D'Ancona and Marvin Kalb for starters - but journalistic standards of fairness, professionalism and objectivity seem to be of no concern to the NUJ.

The case of Alan Johnston, the BBC's Gaza correspondent, who was kidnapped by an unknown Palestinian group more than a month ago and has not been seen since, illustrates the dangers of reporting from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Doing one's best to remain impartial in the most volatile and divided part of the world is incredibly difficult. Every single sentence or utterance by a journalist is scrutinised by both sides. Which can be a great thing (and something which I believe is extending across all journalism as the blogosphere spreads) but also adds to the pressure.

Foreign journalists are regarded by most Israelis as partisan advocates of the Palestinian cause. There's clearly some justification for this. It's scarcely breaking news to say that elements of the British press can be strongly anti-Israel.

Remember the Jenin "massacre", when the Guardian compared Israeli actions to 9/11? But most British journalists based in Jerusalem - and I was one of them - have a mix of sympathy for the terrible plight of ordinary Palestinians, a belief that there will be a two-state solution and even sneaking admiration for what Israel has achieved in terms of nation-building in its short history.

So what does the NUJ motion do for its members there? It helps smear them all as being biased and anti-Israel. Bravo NUJ for encouraging people to view your members as partisans in a region when charges like that can be damaging to one's health.

Propagating biased assertions, endangering the safety of its members, singling Israel out for criticism above all other nations, dictating what we should write. It's high time for the NUJ to take a long, hard look at itself if it wants to avoid being consigned to ridicule and irrelevance.

 

Posted by Toby Harnden at 14 Apr 07 09:36

The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict

Onderstaand artikel laat zien waarom juist democratische staten vaak in het nadeel zijn in de 'propaganda-oorlog'. Ondanks beweringen van het tegendeel was er tijdens de Libanon oorlog veel sympathie voor de Libanese kant, en werden de Israëlische bombardementen algemeen als 'disproportioneel' bestempeld.

___________________________________________________________________________________

The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media As A Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict

Bereft - Tuesday, April 10, 2007

 

Marvin Kalb, a former correspondent for CBS News, and Carol Saivetz of Harvard have produced a paper (pdf) examining the role of the media (willingly or otherwise) as a weapon in that war.

Anyone who works as a journalist or who closely followed the coverage of the war ought to read the whole thing. But here are a few segments worth underscoring:


"If we are to collect lessons from this war, one of them would have to be that a closed society can control the image and the message that it wishes to convey to the rest of the world far more effectively than can an open society, especially one engaged in an existential struggle for survival. An open society becomes the victim of its own openness. During the war, no Hezbollah secrets were disclosed, but in Israel secrets were leaked, rumors spread like wildfire, leaders felt obliged to issue hortatory appeals often based on incomplete knowledge, and journalists were driven by the fire of competition to publish and broadcast unsubstantiated information. A closed society conveys the impression of order and discipline; an open society, buffeted by the crosswinds of reality and rumor, criticism and revelation, conveys the impression of disorder, chaos and uncertainty, but this impression can be misleading.

It was hardly an accident that Hezbollah, in this circumstance, projected a very special narrative for the world beyond its ken - a narrative that depicted a selfless movement touched by God and blessed by a religious fervor and determination to resist the enemy, the infidel, and ultimately achieve a "divine victory," no matter the cost in life and treasure. The narrative contained no mention of Hezbollah's dependence upon Iran and Syria for a steady flow of arms and financial resources.
.....
Hezbollah, whenever possible, pointed reporters to civilian deaths among Lebanese, a helpful gesture with heavy propaganda implications. Early in the war, reporters routinely noted that Hezbollah had started the war, and its casualties were a logical consequence of war. But after the first week such references were either dropped or downplayed, leaving the widespread impression that Israel was a loose cannon shooting at anything that moved. "Disproportionality" became the war's mantra; even if Israel did not start the war, so the argument went, it responded to Hezbollah's opening raid with a disproportionate display of military strength, wrecking Lebanon's economy, destroying its infrastructure, inflaming political passions and killing civilians with reckless abandon. "And for what?" Lebanese asked. "For eight soldiers?" Rarely in the coverage was there "proportionate" mention of Israeli civilian deaths suffered during Hezbollah's sustained rocket attacks.

...Once, Hezbollah conducted a media tour of a southern suburb of Beirut inhabited by Shiite supporters whose homes and apartments had been badly damaged during Israeli air strikes. The point was to again use the media as a weapon in the propaganda war for public approval, and the media did not mind being used, though they were forced to pay a price. Foreign correspondents were warned, on entry to the tour, that they could not wander off on their own or ask questions of any of the residents. They could only take pictures of sites approved by their Hezbollah minders. Violations, they were told, would be treated harshly. Cameras would be confiscated, film or tape destroyed, and offending reporters would never again be allowed access to Hezbollah officials or Hezbollah-controlled areas.

...The cameramen didn't need Hezbollah's permission to film the devastation, but if in the wreckage they saw young men with guns, they were warned not to take pictures of these Hezbollah fighters, else their cameras would be confiscated and they might run into trouble returning to Beirut - an indirect warning, which most reporters took seriously... Throughout the conflict, the rarest picture of all was that of a Hezbollah guerrilla. It was as if the war on the Hezbollah side was being fought by ghosts.
...
Not so, on the Israeli side of the war, where officials made a clumsy effort to control and contain the coverage but essentially failed. Hour after hour, day after day, newspapermen and anchormen found many ways to avoid Israeli censorship or obstruction - and cover the war, which was their job... Jonathan Finer, a reporter for The Washington Post, had no trouble interviewing, by his count, two dozen Israeli soldiers "at army bases, hotels, artillery batteries and staging points for their entry into Lebanon since the heaviest ground fighting began last week."... As waves of Israeli armor moved into southern Lebanon, people everywhere, presumably including Hezbollah, could see on their screens what was happening. This was after all a war being carried live to every TV set and computer in the world.

...Walid Omary, Jerusalem bureau chief for Al-Jazeera, described how Israeli police followed his television crews and accused them of "giving information to the enemy," and yet he deployed three television crews to Al-Jazeera's daily coverage of the Israeli side of the war - "one in Haifa and one on the border and a third in Jerusalem."
.....
Rarely did the media use photographs to show that Hezbollah fired its weapons from residential neighborhoods in clear violation of international law. This was rare, because Hezbollah did not allow reporters to film such military activity. Yet, on July 30, the Sunday Herald Sun in Australia did just that. 60 It published photos that, in its own words, "damn Hezbollah" for conducting military operations in populated suburbs. In one photo of a "high density residential area," Hezbollah was shown preparing launch pads for "rockets and heavy-caliber weapons." In another men were firing an anti-aircraft gun "meters from an apartment block" where laundry was drying on a balcony. The newspaper said that the photos were "exclusive," shot by a "visiting journalist and smuggled out by a friend." The photos had to be smuggled out of Beirut, because Hezbollah would never have allowed them to be shot - they proved that Hezbollah was in fact conducting military operations from heavily populated Beirut suburbs, which was considered a war crime. ..."

Also, the line a "closed society can control the image and the message that it wishes to convey to the rest of the world far more effectively than can an open society" should be burned into the brains of all those who have been minimizing Iran's 'propaganda coup'.

 

There should have been a preventive strike against Hizbullah [by Ze'ev Schiff]

Een interessante analyse van de oorzaken van de Libanon Oorlog. Niet Israëlische agressie, maar Israëlische in-actie is mogelijk een belangrijke oorzaak.

Over the years a threatening system was established there, which
required an early preventive strike. Israeli avoidance of a
preventive strike finally led to the war in 2006.

Israel even avoided signaling to its enemies that it would not
return to business as usual in the face of the threatening
system. It did not try to stop the transfer of Iranian weapons to
Damascus, a move the Americans implied they would accept

with understanding. Israel never once struck at the convoys
transferring the missiles to Lebanon, and never struck even one
Hezbollah missile warehouse, or even the short-range rockets near
the border.

Hezbollah bouwde niet alleen een uitgebreid afschrikkingssysteem op in Zuid-Libanon, het viel ook meermaals aan:

Unlike Israel, Hezbollah did act. Its actions included the firing
of anti-aircraft artillery, which in effect harmed Israeli
communities, and it crossed the border and killed six Israelis in
an incident. About a month after the intifada broke out,
Hezbollah kidnapped three soldiers on Mount Hermon, and it did
the same in July 2006, three weeks after a military operation
began in the wake of the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.

Dit laatste is geen toeval.

They [Hezbollah and Iran] understood that Israel was incapable

of properly handling combat on two fronts at the same time.
Hezbollah acted on this assumption when it embarked
on the kidnapping on July 12, 2006. A few weeks earlier
it had not refrained from attacking the air force base on Mount
Meron with rockets.

It is a serious mistake to think that refraining from a reaction
to the kidnapping of the soldiers in July would have spared us a
war. The war would have arrived later, after greater incitement
on the part of Hezbollah and Iran.

Helaas past een dergelijke analyse niet in het heersende paradigma waarin Libanon het slachtoffer was van het wrede en zoveel sterkere Israël, en dus krijgen we dergelijke artikelen niet te lezen in Nederlandse kranten.

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

Haaretz, April 13, 2007
There should have been a preventive strike
By Ze'ev Schiff

In the coming days the Winograd Committee's interim report on the Second Lebanon War will be published. The report will deal, among other things, with the six-year period preceding the war, 2000 to 2006.

The year 2000 is important as a kind of watershed. Hafez Assad died and his son Bashar came to power. Bashar brought Hassan Nasrallah closer and considered Hezbollah a part of his military deployment. Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon unilaterally, but in coordination with the United Nations over the determination of the border. The second intifada broke out. Hezbollah kidnapped three Israel Defense Forces soldiers on Mount Hermon. During this time Iran helped Hezbollah to assemble a huge battery of missiles in Lebanon.

Many assume that the Winograd Committee will focus on these six years, on issues such as how the reserve units had almost no training exercises, why the reserve units' emergency warehouses had emptied out, and why Israel assumed that Hezbollah's missiles would rust.

These are important questions, but there is a more important question: Didn't Israel make a serious mistake when it refrained from responding with force to the build-up of the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria military system next to the border?

Over the years a threatening system was established there, which required an early preventive strike. Israeli avoidance of a preventive strike finally led to the war in 2006.

Israel even avoided signaling to its enemies that it would not return to business as usual in the face of the threatening system. It did not try to stop the transfer of Iranian weapons to Damascus, a move the Americans implied they would accept with understanding. Israel never once struck at the convoys transferring the missiles to Lebanon, and never struck even one Hezbollah missile warehouse, or even the short-range rockets near the border.

Although Israel prepared itself adequately for long-range missiles and carried out several painful localized operations, these did not affect the construction of the threatening system. The result was that during this period Israeli deterrence against Hezbollah and Iran increasingly eroded.

On March 7, 2000, even before the IDF withdrawal from Lebanon, the head of Military Intelligence, Major General Amos Malka, submitted a personal assessment to his superiors, in which he wrote, among other things: "Those in favor of a unilateral withdrawal are relying on the assumption that it is possible to create a sufficiently powerful Israeli deterrence. It is doubtful whether we will be able to create a deterrence. The Revolutionary Guards are helping Hezbollah to set up a long-range weapons system to reach areas in Israel where there is no protection for the population. The result will be that a mutual counter-deterrence will arise against Israel."

Unlike Israel, Hezbollah did act. Its actions included the firing of anti-aircraft artillery, which in effect harmed Israeli communities, and it crossed the border and killed six Israelis in an incident. About a month after the intifada broke out, Hezbollah kidnapped three soldiers on Mount Hermon, and it did the same in July 2006, three weeks after a military operation began in the wake of the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit.

In six years Israel responded twice against the Syrians, but not against the array of rockets, whose number had already reached 10,000. Israel hit a Syrian radar station in Dar el Beidar in Lebanon, and a Palestinian training camp in Ein el Saheb in Syria.

The prime minister at the time, Ehud Barak, rejected the suggestion by chief of staff Shaul Mofaz to take strong action against Hezbollah after the kidnapping of the three soldiers. The main reason was to not open a second front. Israel wanted to focus on the Palestinian front.

This was later also the opinion of Ariel Sharon as prime minister. Sharon certainly did not want to open a second, broader front against Iran, which had built the threatening system in Lebanon.

Hezbollah and Iran read things differently. They understood that Israel was incapable of properly handling combat on two fronts at the same time. Hezbollah acted on this assumption when it embarked on the kidnapping on July 12, 2006. A few weeks earlier it had not refrained from attacking the air force base on Mount Meron with rockets.

It is a serious mistake to think that refraining from a reaction to the kidnapping of the soldiers in July would have spared us a war. The war would have arrived later, after greater incitement on the part of Hezbollah and Iran.

Hizbullah Deputy: We Have Permission From Iran to Carry Out "Martyrdom" Operations and Fire Missiles

Geregeld spreken woordvoerders van Hezbollah en Hamas interpretaties van verlichte westerlingen tegen als zouden deze organisaties bereid zijn tot een redelijk compromis, de wapens neer te leggen of zich beperken tot legitieme aanvallen op soldaten en Israël te erkennen. Een belangrijke mythe over Hezbollah is dat het puur voortkomt uit 'legitiem Libanees verzet' en niet wordt gecontroleerd door Iran. Hizbollah's vervangende Secretaris-Generaal Sheikh Naim Qassem licht een en ander toe:

When the resistance of Hizbullah was launched in 1982, it was based on the jurisprudent position and decision of Imam Khomeini,  who deemed fighting Israel to be an obligation, and therefore we adhered to this opinion. How Israel should be fought, what equipment you should prepare, when you should or shouldn't attack – these questions are guided by principles in Islamic religious law, and you can act in this direction, according to your abilities. Therefore, we covered our jihad position with regard to fighting Israel with the decision of the Jurisprudent. "With regard to all the other details – whenever we need jurisprudent clarifications regarding what is permitted and what is forbidden on the jihad front, we ask, receive general answers, and implement then. Even with regard to martyrdom operations – a person cannot kill himself unless he has jurisprudent permission.

Ik ben ervan overtuigd dat ook deze uitspraken perfect in Hezbollahs voordeel te 'spinnen' zijn, is het immers niet mooi dat de religieuzen waken over Hezbollah's principes? Zij waken overigens ook over het leven van de 'strijders', uiteraard in overeenstemming met Allah.

"Do we really believe in a culture of death? Absolutely not. We believe in the culture of martyrdom. Martyrdom is valuable, sacred, respectable, and great, not something that can be used as an accusation. It is an honor for us to be accused of believing in the culture of martyrdom.

"What is martyrdom? It is death for the sake of Allah, and in defense of what is just. Can martyrdom change the fact that a person dies when his time has come? 'When their time comes, they shall not remain another hour, nor go before it.' We say that, one way or the other, a person dies at a specific time. Brother, instead of dying – when your time is up – in your bed, die – when your time is up – on the battlefront, through martyrdom."

"With Regard to Martyrdom Operations – A Person Cannot Kill Himself Unless He Has Jurisprudent Permission"   

______________________________________________________________________

VISIT THE NEW MEMRI BLOG AT http://www.thememriblog.org

Special Dispatch - Lebanon/Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project
April 19, 2007
No. 1549

Hizbullah Deputy Sec-Gen Sheikh Naim Qassem: We Have Jurisprudent Permission to Carry Out "Martyrdom" Operations, Fire Missiles on Israeli Civilians From Ayatollah Khomeini

To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit:
http://www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD154907 .

The following are excerpts from an interview with Hizbullah Deputy Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem, which aired on Al-Kawthar TV on April 16, 2007.

TO VIEW THIS CLIP:  http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1425 .


"Martyrdom is Valuable, Sacred, Respectable, and Great – Not  Something That Can Be Used as an Accusation; It is an Honor For Us to Be Accused of Believing in the Culture of Martyrdom"

Naim Qassem: "As for the issue of the culture of death, the culture of martyrdom, the culture of life – with all its different names... It is no secret that the materialistic West, and the atheists in general, and all those who see that the power of Islam is on the rise, and that it is gaining influence – and especially with regard to the philosophy of martyrdom-seeking... They all take a negative position and exert pressure, in order to make the believers abandon the culture of martyrdom.

"What is the reason? They seek [the pleasures of] this world and compete in this world. They know that if we competed with them according to the rules of this world, they would overcome us, because they are more materialistic than us. Therefore, by materialistic criteria, they would be victorious. But if they compete with us on the issue of faith, we will overcome them, because the competitive power of faith is greater, stronger, and more influential.

"So they challenge us, or provoke us, by saying that we have a culture of death. They call martyrdom 'death,' in order to make us renounce martyrdom. If we renounce martyrdom, we will only have the strength of our weapons and our numbers, and then they will be able to overcome us. The enemies will be able to overcome us."

[...]

"Do we really believe in a culture of death? Absolutely not. We believe in the culture of martyrdom. Martyrdom is valuable, sacred, respectable, and great, not something that can be used as an accusation. It is an honor for us to be accused of believing in the culture of martyrdom.

"What is martyrdom? It is death for the sake of Allah, and in defense of what is just. Can martyrdom change the fact that a person dies when his time has come? 'When their time comes, they shall not remain another hour, nor go before it.' We say that, one way or the other, a person dies at a specific time. Brother, instead of dying – when your time is up – in your bed, die – when your time is up – on the battlefront, through martyrdom."

Interviewer: "It's the same moment anyway. You will live the same number of years."

"With Regard to Martyrdom Operations – A Person Cannot Kill Himself Unless He Has Jurisprudent Permission"

Naim Qassem: "You benefit from this, and, at the same time, you end your life in a glorious manner, which is accepted by Allah.

[...]

"Let's see if this culture of martyrdom is a culture of death or of life. It is, in fact, a culture of life, because whoever strives for martyrdom does so in order to improve his materialistic life, to prevent the enemies from occupying his land, and to live in pride, honor, and freedom. Therefore, he is improving his life circumstances, by preventing the enemies from accomplishing their goals. Therefore, this is the most noble culture of honorable life in this world, and of life in the world to come – in the event that his life comes to an end."

[...]

"Hizbullah, when it comes to matters of jurisprudence pertaining to its general direction, as well as to its jihad direction, based itself on the decisions of the Jurisprudent. It is the Jurisprudent who permits, and it is the Jurisprudent who forbids. When the resistance of Hizbullah was launched in 1982, it was based on the jurisprudent position and decision of Imam Khomeini, who deemed fighting Israel to be an obligation, and therefore we adhered to this opinion. How Israel should be fought, what equipment you should prepare, when you should or shouldn't attack – these questions are guided by principles in Islamic religious law, and you can act in this direction, according to your abilities. Therefore, we covered our jihad position with regard to fighting Israel with the decision of the Jurisprudent. "With regard to all the other details – whenever we need jurisprudent clarifications regarding what is permitted and what is forbidden on the jihad front, we ask, receive general answers, and implement then. Even with regard to martyrdom operations – a person cannot kill himself unless he has jurisprudent permission.

"Since we, as a Shura council, have the authority to make decisions on martyrdom operations, and then there are operative channels to carry this out... Let's assume that some Lebanese citizen gets it into his head to carry out a martyrdom operation without consulting anybody – it is not certain that he is carrying out his duty according to religious law. He might be committing a sin, because despite the sanctity attributed to an act of such a high level, it requires permission, it requires operative channels, and it requires someone who can evaluate whether this is good or not, because lives are at stake.

"Even with regard to the firing of missiles on Israeli citizens, when they were bombing citizens on our side... This was done in order to put pressure on them. Even that required general permission based on Islamic law. As for Hizbullah, it receives general permission from the Jurisprudent, and if we have questions regarding the religious law, there are channels through which we can learn what is permitted and what is forbidden, what is our obligation, and what is the extent of our freedom of choice."


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

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

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
Search previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.org

Britse journalisten vakbond stemt voor boycot Israel

De Britse Vakbond van Journalisten (NUJ) heeft onlangs een motie aangenomen die oproept tot een boycot van Israëlische goederen, en sancties door de Britse regering. Ik heb er persoonlijk, geen kenner zijnde van Britse gewoontes en cultuele tradities, moeite mee te begrijpen dat men zich met dit soort zeer politieke en omstreden zaken inlaat in plaats van te focussen op betere rechten van journalisten. Heerst er in bepaalde kringen al twijfel aan de objectiviteit van veel Britse journalisten (zowel de BBC als de Guardian als de Independent staan niet bepaald bekend om veel aandacht voor Israël's kant van de zaak), een dergelijke uitspraak is met enige poging tot evenwichtigheid totaal overenigbaar. Extra cynisch is de oorverdovende stilte die op de zitting van de NUJ heerste ten aanzien van de Britse journalist die drie weken eerder in Gaza was ontvoerd. Kan iemand een en ander anders uitleggen dan een extreme vooringenomenheid tegen Israël??

Ratna
--------------------------------    


Jerusalem Post, April 15, 2007
UK reporters union to boycott Israel
By GEORGE CONGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT

LONDON
Britain's National Union of Journalists denounced Israel on
Friday for its "military adventures" in Gaza and Lebanon, called
on the government to impose sanctions and urged a boycott of
Israeli goods.

By a vote of 66 to 54, the annual delegate's meeting of Britain's
largest trade union for journalists called for "a boycott of
Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the struggles against
apartheid South Africa led by trade unions, and [for] the [Trades
Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on Israel by the
British government."

Some of the union's 40,000 members decried its "trendy lefty"
agenda. Other motions before the four-day meeting in Birmingham,
which ends Sunday, included condemnations of the US detention
center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and support for Venezuelan
strongman Hugo Chavez.

# Irish artists' call for Israel boycott mocked
# The second Lebanon war: JPost.com special report

The boycott motion was the third clause of a larger anti-Israel
resolution proposed by the union's South Yorkshire branch that
condemned Israel's "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon" last
summer and the "slaughter of civilians in Gaza" in recent years.

Motion 38 also called for supporting the NGOs Jews for Justice,
the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign and the Council for the
Advancement of British-Arab Understanding.

After an hour of debate, a motion to sever the boycott clause
from the condemnation motion was adopted. The motion condemning
Israel's "savage" behavior toward Palestinian civilians in the
wake of "the defeat of its army" by Hizbullah passed by a wide
margin.

Following two abortive hand counts, the boycott motion passed by
66 to 54.

The Daily Telegraph's Washington correspondent, Toby Harnden,
characterized the vote as "inane, ineffectual, counterproductive
and insulting to the intelligence."

"Why should my dues be spent on anti-Israel posturing of which I
and many other members want no part?" Harnden wrote on his
Telegraph blog, condemning the motion as "tendentious and
politically-loaded propaganda that would be rightly edited out of
any news story written in a newspaper that had any pretensions of
fairness."

Craig McGinty, a freelance journalist and member of the Union of
Journalists asked on his blog, "How boycotting any nation's
goods, whether it's Israel, China or Umpah Lumpah Land will help
improve the lot of both staff and freelance journalists."

Former Guardian reporter and Yahoo Europe news director Lloyd
Shepherd quipped that he now looked "forward to similar boycotts
of Saudi oil (abuse of women and human rights), Turkish desserts
(limits to freedom of speech) and, of course, the immediate
replacement of all stationery in the NUJ's offices which has been
made or assembled in China."

On the same day the National Union of Journalists condemned
Israel, the organization's international affiliate, the
International Federation of Journalists, called on the
Palestinian Authority to secure the release of BBC correspondent
Alan Johnston, who was kidnapped five weeks ago by Palestinian
gunmen in Gaza.

IFJ general-secretary Aidan White urged the "Palestinian
government to do everything in its power to make sure [Johnston]
is released immediately."

The kidnapping had done "great harm not just to journalism but to
the development of the region in general by making it impossible
for journalists to work safely and report on developments there,"
he said.

Johnston's kidnapping was not on the NUJ's agenda.

***

NUJ votes to boycott Israeli goods
by Stephen Brook
Friday April 13, 2007
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2056882,00.html

The National Union of Journalists has voted at its annual meeting
for a boycott of Israeli goods as part of a protest against last
year's war in Lebanon.

Today's vote was carried 66 to 54 - a result that met with gasps
and a small amount of applause from the union delegates present.

The vote came during a series of motions on international affairs
and reads: "This ADM [annual delegate meeting] calls for a
boycott of Israeli goods similar to those boycotts in the
struggles against apartheid South Africa led by trade unions and
the TUC [Trades Union Congress] to demand sanctions be imposed on
Israel by the British government and the United Nations."

The motion was originally brought by the union's South Yorkshire
branch and opposed by the Cumberland branch, which said it was
too political and was not tied closely enough to journalistic
matters.

After a show of hands twice failed to give a clear result, union
scrutineers were called in and the doors to the conference room
closed.

The vote on the motion was taken after it was split from a larger
motion that condemned the "savage, pre-planned attack on Lebanon
by Israel" last year.

This motion, known as Composite B in Order Paper 4, was carried
by a large majority and also condemned the "slaughter of
civilians by Israeli troops in Gaza and the IDF's [Israeli
Defense Forces] continued attacks inside Lebanon following the
defeat of its army by Hezbollah".

The motion called for the end of Israeli aggression in Gaza and
other occupied territories.

The union's national executive committee has been instructed to
support organisations including the Palestinian Solidarity
Campaign, Jews for Justice in Palestine and the Council for the
Advancement of Arab-British Understanding.

PA Holocaust denial in new PA schoolbooks: WWII without a Holocaust

 

Waarom de Arabische wereld zoveel problemen heeft met de Holocaust, meer dan Duitsland zelf bijvoorbeeld, laat zich raden: alom wordt de Holocaust als Israëls belangrijkste morele rechtvaardiging gezien, wat ook blijkt uit de veelvuldig gestelde retorische vraag "waarom moeten de Palestijnen boeten voor wat Europa de Joden heeft aangedaan?" Niet alleen Palestijnen en Achmadinejad stellen deze vraag, ik hoor dergelijke sentimenten steeds vaker in gerenommeerde linkse kringen.

De filosofie is voor sommigen eenvoudig: als de Holocaust niet heeft plaatsgevonden, verdwijnt ook de morele basis onder Israëls bestaansrecht.

 

Voordat er vrede kan komen moet er een fundamentele verandering plaats vinden in de Arabische wereld: de notie moet doordringen dat de Joden een volk zijn met dezelfde nationale rechten als Arabieren en andere volken, en met een millennialange verbondenheid met het land Israël/Palestina. Dit houdt overigens geenszins een ontkenning van de eigen geschiedenis en verbondenheid met hetzelfde land in. 

De extreem eenzijdige focus op het eigen leed en de eigen rechten van de Palestijnen, en de bevestiging hiervan door een toenemend aantal mensen in het Westen, lijdt tot stinkende wonden. 

 

Ratna

------------------------    


Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - April 18, 2007

PA Holocaust denial in new PA schoolbooks:
WWII without a Holocaust

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

In response to queries about Holocaust denial in Palestinian Authority (PA)
education, the following is a section from the recent PMW report on PA
schoolbooks documenting the way in which the Holocaust has been eliminated
from the PA's new Grade 12 history textbook.

History of the Arabs and the World in the 20th Century teaches the military
and the political events of the Second World War in detail, including
sections on Nazi racial ideology, yet does not mention the Holocaust.

It is apparent that the PA educators made an active decision to leave the
Holocaust out of history. The new book carefully treads near and around the
Holocaust. It cites Nazi racist ideology and restrictions placed on
"inferior" non-Aryan nations, and even describes the post war trials of
"senior Nazi leaders as war criminals" (page 46). But it makes no reference
to the Holocaust or to Jews, nor does it mention the crimes for which the
war criminals were on trial.

Teaching the history of the Second World War in detail without mentioning
the Holocaust, the genocide of Jews or even the persecution of Jews is a
very efficient form of Holocaust denial. The Holocaust is simply expunged
from history.

This new history text follows the model of previous PA history schoolbooks,
which also did not mention the Holocaust in their sections on the history of
the Second World War.

The books go into great historical detail about the events of the war, but
in all of the PA history texts, the Holocaust never happened.

The following are highlights of texts from the PA history book on the Second
World War and Nazism:

Book Title:
The History of the Arabs and the World in the 20th Century, for Grade 12.
Published in 2006 by PA Ministry of Education and Higher Education.
Page 123: Lesson 3 - Racial Discrimination
"Race Theory evolved during the thirties of the previous century, when the
Nazi movement appeared in Germany in 1933 and divided the nations into
superior and others who were inferior. It espoused the superiority of the
Aryan race, from which the Germans originated, passed racist laws and
limited the work positions to Germans alone, under the inference that [only]
they are equal in their rights and obligations, while others are subject to
special laws, which were imposed on them under the inference that they were
foreigners in their [German] land."

Pages 23-48: Section Two - World War I and World War II
Page 37: Lesson 3 - The international circumstances between the two world
wars (1918-1939).
Page 37: The severity of conditions imposed by the peace accords.
Page 37: The economic crisis.
Page 38: The rise of dictatorial governments
"With the worsening of the economic and social crisis following World War I
and the failure of the governments to deal with it, some of the peoples
found themselves standing at the side of the dictatorial rule, which
promised to find an effective treatment for their internal and external
problems. This led to some states being governed by a dictatorial rule, for
example Germany, Italy, Spain and Japan."
Page 40: Lesson 4 - World War II (1939-1945)
Page 40: The Immediate Cause: "The immediate cause of World War II was the
establishment of a corridor, which connects Poland with the Danzig Port, of
25 miles in width, which disconnected Eastern Prussia from Germany."

Pages 44-45: The End of the War (1942-1945)
[Teaching of the El Alamein battle; the defeat of the Axis forces, Japan's
defeat and the dropping of the atom bomb.]

Pages 45-46: The Peace Accords (1945-1947) - Potsdam Conference in 1945;.
"The Allied states established an international court to bring to trial the
senior Nazi leaders as war criminals." (Pg 46)
As is seen from this extensive education about the Second World War, the PA
educators made an active decision to avoid teaching their students that
there was a Holocaust.

Yad Vashem bereid geschiedenis te herschrijven voor Vaticaan

Onder druk van het Vaticaan wordt de geschiedenis herschreven. Hoe moeten we eerdere schuldbekentenissen van de katholieke kerk wat betreft hun rol in de Holocaust nu interpreteren?

Stel Nederland is bereid het leed van de troostmeisjes, aangedaan door de Japanse bezetters in WWII, te ontkennen omdat anders de Japanse premier niet op bezoek wil komen?

Waarom wordt een dergelijke arrogantie van het Vaticaan niet feller bekritiseerd?

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

 

Vatican ambassador to take part in Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony

Published:

04.15.07, 15:10 / Israel News

The Vatican's ambassador to Israel, Archbishop Antonio Franco announced to the Foreign Ministey in Jerusalem that he has decided to participate in the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony at Yad Vashem, despite his announcement last week that he would not take part in the event.

 

Franco told Ynet that he had changed his mind after Yad Vashem authorities promised they would reexamine the caption under the picture of Pope Pius XII, whose actions during the Holocaust are disputed. (Lilach Shoval)

__._,_.___
,_._,___

Saudis continue to boycott Israel

 

Het zou een mooi gebaar zijn als Saoedi-Arabië met deze kinderachtige en absurde boycot ophoudt, en misschien zouden door haar geinitieerde vredesplannen dan wat geloofwaardiger overkomen. Desondanks wil Israël graag met Saoedi-Arabië praten, maar ook dat heeft Saoedi-Arabië afgewezen. Hoe komt het toch dat het alom wordt geprezen voor zijn zogenaamd leidende rol in het vredesproces met Israël??    

Saudis continue to boycott Israel

Michael Freund,

THE JERUSALEM POST  Apr. 16, 2007

 

Despite a promise made to Washington nearly 18 months ago to drop its trade embargo against Israel, Saudi Arabia continues to enforce the Arab League boycott, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

 

In November 2005, Riyadh pledged to abandon the boycott after Washington conditioned Saudi Arabia's entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) on such a move. A month later, on December 11, Saudi Arabia was granted WTO membership.

 

The WTO, which aims to promote free trade, prohibits members from engaging in discriminatory practices such as boycotts or embargoes.

 

Nonetheless, the Post has found, Saudi officials continue to bar entry to products manufactured in Israel or to foreign-made goods containing Israeli components.

 

"Goods made in Israel are not allowed here in Saudi Arabia," Khaled A-Sharif, assistant manager of the Saudi Customs Department at King Abdul Aziz Airport outside Jidda, told the Post by phone. "Of course it is not permitted," he said.

 

In the past, A-Sharif added, products made by firms that had "a relation" with Israel were also prohibited, but these were now allowed to be brought into the country.

 

A Saudi customs official at the airport, who identified himself only as Feisal, told the Post, "If it is made in Israel, then it is not allowed here in Saudi Arabia. If it is made in any other country, then no problem. But not from Israel."

 

A Saudi customs official at King Fahd International Airport in Dammam, who declined to give his name, told the Post Israeli-made goods would be confiscated upon arrival and not permitted entry into the kingdom. "You know, it is not allowed here," he said.

 

US officials have said they continue to raise the boycott issue with their Saudi counterparts.

 

In a written response appearing in last month's Congressional Record, US Trade Representative Susan Schwab addressed the question of Saudi compliance after being queried on the matter by Sen. Gordon Smith.

 

In her reply to Smith, Schwab confirmed that continued Saudi enforcement of the anti-Israel boycott would "not be in keeping" with Riyadh's commitments under the WTO.

 

Since the Saudis acceded to the WTO, Schwab wrote, "there have been conflicting signals from Saudi officials" regarding the boycott.

 

"We have taken every available opportunity to raise this issue with Saudi authorities to remind them of their commitment and our expectation that they honor this commitment," she said. "The administration will continue to monitor the situation."

 

As the Post revealed last year, the Saudis played host in March 2006 to a major international conference aimed at intensifying the anti-Israel boycott, and an official Saudi delegation took part in a meeting of the Arab League's boycott office in Damascus last May.

__._,_.___

.

__,_._,___

BBC journalist vermoord volgens onbekende Palestijnse factie

Als dit waar is, is het zeer slecht nieuws. Er zijn nauwelijks nog buitenlandse journalisten in Gaza, en daar komt nu wellicht helemaal een einde aan. Het vreemde is, dat deze journalisten veelal het verhaal van Palestijnse kant naar buiten brengen en dus een belangrijke rol spelen voor hun. Kon of wilde de Palestijnse regering journalisten niet beter beschermen? Hoeveel moeite heeft men gedaan om Johnston vrij te krijgen?

De volgende claim is onjuist:

 

The group, calling itself the Brigades of Tawheed and Jihad, said that its
demands for the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails had been
ignored.

 

Tot nu toe had geen enkele groep de ontvoering geclaimd, laat staan dat het eisen of een motief bekend had gemaakt. 

 

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

 

April 16, 2007

BBC reporter dead, says militant group
http://timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east//article1658089.ece

Sonia Verma in Jerusalem

A previously unknown Palestinian militant group last night claimed that it had killed the BBC reporter Alan Johnston, who was kidnapped in Gaza more than a month ago.
The group, calling itself the Brigades of Tawheed and Jihad, said that its demands for the release of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails had been ignored. The BBC and the Palestinian Government are treating the claim with suspicion.

"The BBC is aware of these reports," the corporation said, "but we stress that at this stage it is rumour with no independent verification."

Group claims BBC reporter killed
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4C6F3D97-B50F-4A2F-AE6F-32D2215D886A.htm

An unknown Palestinian group has said that it has killed a British journalist kidnapped over a month ago in Gaza City, but the claim could not be confirmed.

In a statement sent to news organisations on Sunday, "The Brigades of Tawheed and Jihad" said that it killed Alan Johnston, the BBC's Gaza correspondent, to support demands for the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.

However, the BBC and the Palestinian government both said there was no evidence to back up the claim.

"The BBC is aware of these reports," the corporation said in a statement. "But we have no independent verification of them."

The group claiming to have killed him is unknown in Gaza, but the name has been used elsewhere in the Middle East by organisations linked to al-Qaeda.

"This party that issued the statement about the so-called killing is unknown to the security services," Hani Kawasmeh, the Palestinian interior minister, told a news conference in Gaza City.

"There is no information to confirm the killing of Johnston until now."

Johnston was snatched at gunpoint in Gaza City on March 12. Since then there had been no demands from his captors or any word on his condition.

He has been missing longer than any other foreigner kidnapped in Gaza.

The only foreign reporter still based in Gaza, he was snatched just weeks before he was scheduled to end his three-year stint there. Other news organisations withdrew their foreign-born reporters because of the deteriorating security situation there.

Source: Agencies

 

Palestinijnse facties roepen op tot meer ontvoeringen

Palestijnse facties, inclusief de aan Fatah geliëerde Al Aqsa Martelaren Brigade, roepen op tot de ontvoering van meer Israëlische soldaten om alle Palestijnse gevangenen vrij te laten.

The statement confirmed that Hamas "intends to release all the prisoners,
regardless of their faction or affiliation, by all means available and at
any cost, especially after the failure of the diplomatic efforts, the weak
agreements and the false promises."

Hamas also called on the Israeli leaders to "comply with the factions'
demands, accelerate the exchange deal and avoid deception."

Uiteraard zal een succesvolle deal slechts een uitnodiging zijn om meer soldaten te ontvoeren, aangezien Hamas alle gevangenen vrij wil krijgen. Israël moet in daden duidelijk maken dat de enige manier voor Hamas om Palestijnse gevangenen vrij te krijgen, is door Israël te erkennen en het geweld af te zweren. Gevangenenruil dient op een een-op-een basis te gebeuren (Palestijnen zijn toch evenveel waard als Israëli's?). Gevangenen die voor kleine vergrijpen vastzitten of in administratieve detentie zijn, zou men als 'goodwil gesture' vrij kunnen laten. Anders zullen meer ontvoeringen volgen en vernederende gevangenendeals die de populariteit van Hamas vergroten.

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

Palestinian factions encourage further abductions of Israeli soldiers in order to ensure a prisoners' exchange
Date: 16 / 04 / 2007  Time:  15:05

Khan Younis - Ma'an - A number of Palestinian factions, including Hamas, have called for more Israeli soldiers to be captured in order to ensure Palestinian prisoners are released in exchange. They say that this action is necessary following the failure of the diplomatic efforts to release the Palestinian prisoners.

In a statement, Hamas said that their movement urges the armed brigades of Al-Qassam (Hamas), Al-Aqsa (Fatah), An-Nasser (Popular Resistance Committees), Al-Quds (Islamic Jihad), Abu Ali Mustafa (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and others, to work together to capture more Israeli soldiers in order to exchange them with Palestinian prisoners .

The statement confirmed that Hamas "intends to release all the prisoners, regardless of their faction or affiliation, by all means available and at any cost, especially after the failure of the diplomatic efforts, the weak agreements and the false promises."

Hamas also called on the Israeli leaders to "comply with the factions' demands, accelerate the exchange deal and avoid deception."

The statement called upon the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) to hold a special session to discuss the prisoners' issue and to draw up plans to activate this issue at an international level. It also called on the international community to play their role in releasing the prisoners and not to keep silent.

Hamas also called on the Palestinian people to actively participate in the celebrations marking Palestinian Prisoners' Day on Tuesday, 17th April. In particular, Hamas urged the public to attend the special celebrations taking place outside the PLC in Gaza City at 5pm on Tuesday.

In the same regard, the Fatah-affiliated Al-Aqsa brigades said that "there was no response by the Israelis to release the prisoners and we urge all our fighters to capture and abduct Israeli soldiers and citizens."

The Al-Aqsa brigades said in a statement that the Israelis will be targeted everywhere if the Israeli government does not release the prisoners.

The statement also called on the international organizations and human rights societies to exert pressure on the Israeli government to release the prisoners.

In the same regard, the Popular Resistance Committees, and its armed wing, the An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades, called on the Palestinian government to connect any future truce with the Israelis with the prisoners' issue and their release.

A statement issued by the PRC said that it is ready to do its utmost in order to release the prisoners. It also urged Palestinians to show their support for the prisoners on Palestinian Prisoners' Day on 17th April.

Olmert says ready for talks based on Saudi plan

Israël wil onderhandelen op basis van het Saoedische vredesplan

 

Under U.S. pressure, Olmert signalled this week that Israel would be prepared to take part in talks with the working group, which was expected to include countries like Egypt and Jordan that already have formal relations with Israel.

 

Dat klinkt mooi, maar het is de vraag is of de werkgroepen die de Arabische Liga woensdag zal opstellen, het mandaat zullen krijgen om werkelijk te onderhandelen:

Egypt's foreign minister said at the weekend the working groups were not "mandated to negotiate," but other diplomats in the region said initial contacts could lead to direct negotiations.

 

(...)

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, speaking in Paris, said the broader Arab world will not agree to normalize relations with Israel before a peace deal is reached.

"We can come to a solution through negotiations," Mubarak said. "But it's not possible to normalize and then start talks."

 

Dat klinkt al een stuk beter dan het dictaat dat eerder werd opgelegd: Israël moet zich terugtrekken en meewerken aan een 'eerlijke oplossing van het vluchtelingenprobleem' en daarna kan er over erkenning worden gepraat. Mubaraks positie (die waarschijnlijk gematigder is dan van sommige andere Arabische staten) blijft echter problematisch omdat, om tot een vredesverdrag te komen, Israël vergaande concessies moet doen, en het daarvoor duidelijke veiligheidsgaranties nodig heeft. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Olmert says ready for talks based on Saudi plan

Reuters - Monday, April 16, 2007
By Adam Entous

Israel said on Monday it was ready to start talks based on a Saudi Arabian land-for-peace initiative but made clear it wanted Riyadh and other Arab League members with no formal ties to the Jewish state to take part.

"I'm ready to sit with them on the basis of the Saudi plan. And I'm ready to listen very carefully to their proposal on the basis of this plan and to see how we can work together to ultimately find common ground," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in an interview.

The comments came ahead of a meeting in Cairo on Wednesday of an Arab League committee expected to set up several working groups to promote the 2002 peace initiative, including one that would hold contacts with Israel.

Under U.S. pressure, Olmert signalled this week that Israel would be prepared to take part in talks with the working group, which was expected to include countries like Egypt and Jordan that already have formal relations with Israel.

Saudi Arabia was not expected to join directly.

Diplomats have sent mixed messages about whether this working group could be charged with negotiating with Israel over the details of the initiative, which offers normal relations to the Jewish state in return for land occupied since 1967.

Egypt's foreign minister said at the weekend the working groups were not "mandated to negotiate," but other diplomats in the region said initial contacts could lead to direct negotiations.

Olmert signalled his support for the talks when he told his cabinet on Sunday that he was "willing to hold a dialogue with any grouping of Arab states about their ideas."

But Israeli officials made clear that they want the Arab League to include a wider range of countries, including those like Saudi Arabia that do not have formal ties with Israel, in any future talks.

CENTRAL ROLE

Olmert said Saudi Arabia could play a central role. Even though the kingdom does not have formal relations with the Jewish state, Olmert strongly hinted that unofficial contacts have already taken place.

The Saudis have rejected Olmert's call for a regional conference that would include them and other Arab states.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, speaking in Paris, said the broader Arab world will not agree to normalize relations with Israel before a peace deal is reached.

"We can come to a solution through negotiations," Mubarak said. "But it's not possible to normalize and then start talks."

The land-for-peace initiative, relaunched at an Arab League summit in Riyadh, offers Israel normal ties with all Arab states in return for a full withdrawal from the lands it seized in the 1967 Middle East war, creation of a Palestinian state and a "just solution" for Palestinian refugees.

Olmert has said that he sees positive points in the Saudi-led peace initiative. But Israel opposes the return of Palestinian refugees to their former homes in what is now the Jewish state, and wants to hold on to major settlement blocs in the occupied West Bank.

__,_._,___

Studie: antisemitische incidenten wereldwijd verdubbeld in 2006

Uiteraard zullen velen zeggen dat dit wordt veroorzaakt door Israëls bezettingspolitiek. Volgens een van de onderzoekers zijn Achmadinejad en de recente Libanon oorlog de belangrijkste oorzaken:

 

The head of the institute, Prof. Dina Porat, said the two principle events that encouraged anti-Semitism were the efforts of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deny the Holocaust, and the Second Lebanon War.

 

During the war, "even the world's mainstream journalism portrayed the figure of the Jew as characterized by brutality," Porat said.

 

De vele -op zijn zachtst gezegd- overdrijvingen in het nieuws (Beirut heeft aanblik van Dresden, Libanon naar de steentijd gebombardeerd) en in cartoons, op radio en TV, demonstraties, vergelijkingen van de Hezbollah en de Palestijnen met het verzet in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, hebben allen bijgedragen aan een negatieve beeldvorming over Joden en Israël.

Bovendien kan 'politiek gemotiveerd' antisemitisme op steeds meer begrip rekenen, immers, het is logisch dat je als Marokkaanse tiener kwaad bent over wat je Palestijnse broeders wordt aangedaan, toch? Net als bij huiselijk geweld en ongewenste intimiteiten, is de enige succesvolle bestrijding om consequent te zijn en geen rechtvaardigingen toe te laten. Dat sexy truitje is net zo min een excuus als een Israëlisch bombardement. Antisemitisme is fout. Altijd, overal.

 

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

Last update - 14:26 15/04/2007   

Study: Anti-Semitic incidents worldwide doubled in 2006

 

By Yigal Hai, Haaretz Correspondent

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/848591.html

The year 2006 saw a sharp rise in incidents of anti-Semitism worldwide, and the highest total number of incidents since 2000, according to a study released Sunday by the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism and Racism in conjunction with the World Jewish Congress to correspond with Holocaust Memorial Day.

 

A total of 590 incidents of violence or vandalism were reported in 2006 against Jews, Jewish property and Jewish institutions.

 

The number of physical assaults on Jews was twice as high as it was 2005, the report stated.

 

Since the incidents occur as matters of circumstance, it is difficult to identify the attackers and bring them to trial. Still, the majority of the assailants were Muslim immigrants and extreme right-wing youths, it said.

 

In 2006, incidents of harassment at schools and Jewish community centers also doubled from 2005. The number of synagogues desecrated also rose by a third.

 

The countries with the greatest rise in anti-Semitism were Great Britain, Australia, France and Canada.

 

In Great Britain, the number of violent anti-Semitic incidents was highest in the past 20 years, as more than 100 Jews were assaulted.

 

The number of violent incidents in France rose by 45 percent and doubled in Canada.

 

The head of the institute, Prof. Dina Porat, said the two principle events that encouraged anti-Semitism were the efforts of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to deny the Holocaust, and the Second Lebanon War.

 

During the war, "even the world's mainstream journalism portrayed the figure of the Jew as characterized by brutality," Porat said.

Soros adds voice to debate over Israel lobby

Het volgende citaat uit onderstaand artikel is een beetje vreemd:

The billionaire investor George Soros has added
his voice to a heated but little-noticed debate over the role of
Israel's powerful lobby in shaping Washington policy in a way critics
say hurts U.S. national interests and stifles debate.

Hoezo 'little noticed'? De 'studie' van Mearsheimer en Walt, en Carters boek over Israëlische Apartheid zijn uitgebreid bediscussieerd in de Amerikaanse media. In Nederland hoor en lees ik overigens al jaren verhalen over de zogenaamde machtige Israël lobby, die de buitenlandse politiek van de VS zou bepalen en kritiek in de kiem zou smoren. Uiteraard is het absoluut niet P.C. te wijzen op de gelijkenis met theorieën over de Joodse almacht die al eeuwenlang in Europa opgeld doen. Men moet immers iedere indruk vermijden als dat men de waarde bepleiters van deze theorie voor antisemiet wil uitmaken.  

AIPAC now has more than 100,000 members and is rated one of the most
influential special interest groups in the United States, its political
clout comparable with such lobbies as the National Rifle Association.

De hele 'pro-Israël' lobby stond qua donaties aan kandidaten en partijen in 2004 met $ 5 miljoen slechts op de 39ste plaats, ver achter koploper de advocaten lobby met $ 86 miljoen, de gepensioneerden lobby, de vastgoed lobby en vele andere lobby groepen die de presidentskandidaten sponsorden.

Wie of wat ze als meest invloedrijk heeft gelabeled, blijft in het artikel onduidelijk. AIPAC presenteert zich graag als een machtige groep waar politici niet omheen kunnen - dit doet iedere lobby groep overigens. Om te bepalen hoe invloedrijk ze werkelijk zijn, is het onvoldoende op hun glossy jaarlijkse meeting of andere PR stunts af te gaan. AIPAC's invloed in het Witte huis, met name bij het ministerie voor buitenlandse zaken is beperkt.

Van alle lobbies die er in de VS actief zijn, is AIPAC waarschijnlijk de meest bekende.
Soros mengt zich niet in een 'little noticed' debat, maar in modieus-linkse kritiek op alles wat met Israël en Zionisme te maken heeft. Jammer, want over Europa heeft hij best zinnige dingen te zeggen.

__________________________________________________
 
Soros adds voice to debate over Israel lobby
Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:39pm ET
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2007-04-16T033913Z_01_N13215323_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ISRAEL-LOBBY.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

By Bernd Debusmann, Special Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The billionaire investor George Soros has added
his voice to a heated but little-noticed debate over the role of
Israel's powerful lobby in shaping Washington policy in a way critics
say hurts U.S. national interests and stifles debate.

In the current issue of the New York Review of Books, Soros takes issue
with "the pervasive influence of the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC)" in Washington and says the Bush administration's
close ties with Israel are obstacles to a peace settlement between
Israel and the Palestinians.

Soros, who is Jewish but not often engaged in Israel affairs, echoed
arguments that have fueled a passionate debate conducted largely in the
rarefied world of academia, foreign policy think tanks and parts of the
U.S. Jewish community.

"The pro-Israel lobby has been remarkably successful in suppressing
criticism," wrote Soros. Politicians challenge it at their peril and
dissenters risk personal vilification, he said.

AIPAC has consistently declined comment on such charges, but many of its
supporters have been vocal in dismissing them. Historian Michael Oren,
speaking at AIPAC's 2007 conference in March, said the group was not
merely a lobby for Israel. "It is the embodiment of a conviction as old
as this (American) nation itself that belief in the Jewish state is
tantamount to belief in these United States," he said in a keynote speech.

The long-simmering debate bubbled to the surface a year ago, when two
prominent academics, Stephen Walt of Harvard and John Mearsheimer of the
University of Chicago, published a 12,500-word essay entitled "The
Israel Lobby" and featuring the fiercest criticism of AIPAC since it was
founded in 1953.

AIPAC now has more than 100,000 members and is rated one of the most
influential special interest groups in the United States, its political
clout comparable with such lobbies as the National Rifle Association.

Palestinian security forces to patrol Gaza-Egypt border

 

Een enkele keer komt er hoopvol nieuws uit het Midden-Oosten, en lijken Israeli's en Palestijnen bereid samen te werken. Helaas wordt het vaak door de feiten ingehaald. Snel posten dus.   

Palestinian security forces to patrol Philadelphi

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3388219,00.html

Palestinian presidential guard to deploy along Gaza-Egypt border to prevent weapons' smuggling, will also deploy along northern border to prevent Qassam launchings

Ronny Sofer

Published:

04.15.07, 17:28 / Israel News

The prevention of weapons' smuggling was a key topic at a Sunday meeting between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The meeting dealt with possible channels of Palestinian-Israeli cooperation. 

 Abbas and his associates presented a deployment plan for Palestinian presidential guards along the Philadelphi Route, as part of the effort to prevent weapons' smuggling to Gaza via Egypt.

The plan, according to American General Keith Dayton, also outlines the deployment of presidential guards along other areas of the Gaza border, in order to prevent terror operatives from launching Qassams, laying explosives and undertaking other violent activities.  

 

 The plan was derived as part of an effort to increase the strength of the presidential guards, using US support, in coordination with Israel, Jordan and Egypt.

During the meeting, Olmert and Abbas agreed on the continued operation of a multilateral committee comprised of Israelis, Egyptians, Americans and Palestinians, that will deal with the issue of weapons' smuggling prevention.

This committee has met several times in the past, but Olmert and Abbas both requested that the frequency of these meetings be increased.  

 

The two leaders also both requested that the European Union continue to monitor and operate the Rafah border crossing, and asked that Karni crossing operating hours be extended to 11 p.m. starting Sunday, in order to aid in the transfer of Palestinian wares and humanitarian supplies.  

 

Olmert requested that Abbas work to stop Qassam launchings immediately, prevent Hamas armament and secure the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.  

 

A source said that Olmert and Abbas did not discuss the Arab summit peace initiative during a comprehensive meeting, including Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. The source did not report whether or not the two leaders discussed the issue one-on-one.  

 

"It was a positive meeting, part of the ongoing dialogue which helps build confidence between the Israeli and Palestinian leadership," Olmert spokeswoman Miri Eisin said.  

 

"The next meeting will be in a couple weeks and there's a strong possibility it will be in (the West Bank town of) Jericho," she added.

Saeb Erekat, a senior Abbas aide, said: "This meeting is only the beginning. I don't think that one meeting can solve all the problems ... or (reach) the political horizon."

Following the meeting, Livni headed to Jordan, to discuss the latest version of Arab summit's peace initiative. The foreign minister will return Sunday night, to participate in events in honor of Holocaust Memorial Day.

Reuters contributed to this report

__._,_.___

.

__,_._,___