Grensovergangen Gazastrook blijven dicht na nieuwe mortier inslagen

 

Afgelopen dinsdag een mortiergranaat en 4 Qassams, woensdag nog een Qassam, en vrijdag weer 2 mortiergranaten. Israëlische soldaten zouden waarschuwingsschoten hebben gelost naar Gazanen die te dicht bij de grens kwamen, en 1 keer een Gazaan hebben geraakt daarbij, wat de aanleiding voor de eerste mortiergranaat zou zijn geweest. Het staakt-het-vuren begint een lachertje te worden. Als dit nog een of twee dagen zo doorgaat zal Israël het van haar kant waarschijnlijk ook voor gezien houden - en terecht!

 

Wouter

______________

 

Last update - 12:16 27/06/2008

 

Gaza mortar shells hit Israel despite truce; crossings stay shut

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996694.html

By Fadi Eyadat, Haaretz Correspondent, and The Associated Press

 

 

Two mortar shells fired from Gaza hit the western Negev on Friday, exploding in open areas, despite a cease fire agreement between Israel and Hamas, which went into effect last week. No damage or injury were reported.

The attack came one day after two Qassam rockets were fired from the Strip into Israel. The militant Fatah offshoot Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade claimed responsibility for the attack and demanded that the cease fire agreement between Israel and Hamas, which currently includes only the Gaza Strip, be extended to include the West Bank as well.

At a high-level security meeting late Thursday, Israel decided to keep the border crossings into the Gaza Strip closed on Friday because of the latest rocket attack defense officials said. They added that a limited amount of fuel would be transferred into the Strip despite the closure.

Since the cease fire went into effect last Thursday, instead of retaliating for rocket attacks with airstrikes at Palestinian rocket squads, Israel closed the border crossings, where vital supplies are shipped into Gaza - restoring a blockade that has caused severe shortages.

The move hits at the main interest of Hamas - ending the blockade and easing the hardships facing the people under its control. Hamas officials charged that by restoring the blockade, Israel is violating the truce. Underlining the high level of distrust, Palestinians formed a committee to track Israeli violations.

At a meeting Wednesday, Israeli defense officials discussed how to proceed once the crossings are reopened. According to the same officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meetings are closed, Israel might reset the truce clock each time it closes the crossings in response to a Palestinian violation.

Israel had significantly increased the amount of supplies flowing into Gaza on Sunday, in accordance with the truce agreement, and was ready for another increase next Sunday. But a barrage of four Qassam rockets, claimed by Islamic Jihad, stopped the process. Now Israel is considering counting three days from each reopening of the crossings before it reinstates the original increase.

During a visit to Prague, Czech Republic, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said Israel should reopen the crossings to preserve the truce.

"[The reopening is] important because the closure... of Gaza is actually producing a situation where you have 1.5 million of our people who live there with a sense of not much to lose," Fayyad said. "That is a situation that's got to end."

Hamas charged that the re-imposed blockade is a violation. But Hamas official Taher Nunu said that Hamas is committed to the truce. "The [Hamas] government will not allow anyone to violate this agreement," he said.

The rocket attack Thursday came as Israeli envoy Ofer Dekel headed to Egypt to meet with Egyptian officials on the final stage of the truce - a swap of hundreds of Palestinian prisoners for an Israeli soldier Hamas has held captive for two years. Israel has balked at Hamas' demands, saying its list of prisoners includes militants involved in deadly attacks on Israelis.

Hamas also has demanded that Israel allow reopening of Gaza's only border crossing with Egypt in the final phase of the six-month truce deal.

The Rafah crossing has been sealed since the Hamas violent takeover over the Strip last June, confining Gaza's people to the tiny seaside territory. Israel has said it would not allow reopening of Rafah until the soldier is freed.

Protest tegen vrijlaten moordenaar voor waarschijnlijk dode soldaten

Een hartstochtelijk en goed onderbouwd pleidooi van Ami Isseroff tegen het uitwisselen van twee dode lichamen voor een wrede terrorist.

 

The problem is not Kuntar, but Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah. The problem is that releasing Kuntar in return for dead bodies is not going to bring our boys home, and it will whet the appetite of the Hezbollah for further kidnappings, and perhaps further wars. How can we possibly justify this risk? It will also signal to the Hezbollah and other enemies that Israeli captives are worth as much dead or alive. That puts a death sentence on any future kidnap victims. It is easier for politicians and op-ed columnists to succumb to the tears of mothers and loved ones and the pressure of PR campaigns. It is much harder to explain that what they are asking will not bring our beloved sons back to life, and will condemn many other sons and daughters to death.

(....)

If Israel gives up Samir Kuntar, does anyone believe it would put an end to kidnapping? If we give up every enemy prisoner in Israeli jails, won't the the Hamas kidnap more Israelis in order to get Sheba farms or some part of northern Israel that they claim? Will an Israeli government of the future be faced with a crowd of angry parents and "advocates" insisting that we must give up Rosh Haniqra or Kiriat Shmona in order to free their sons, alive or dead?

 

Onder het artikel staan de contactgegevens van Israëlische politici.

 

 

Hezbollah prisoner swap: it's not too late to save our boys and girls

27.06. 2008
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000577.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

We can still stop the Israeli government from making a bad mistake. If all goes as scheduled, the Israeli cabinet may make a decision on Sunday, June 29, that would affect the lives of not two, but thousands of Israelis - boys, girls, men and women, Jews and Arabs. If the Israeli cabinet decides to release convicted Samir Kuntar in return, most likely, for the bodies of murdered soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, they will open the way for the next round of kidnappings that may end in a much larger war than the Second Lebanon War (see With blood on their hands).

Since I last wrote about this issue, a few things have changed. Pressure has grown within the Israeli government and beyond to make Prime Minister Olmert reconsider his ill-judged promise to the families of the kidnapped soldiers to make the swap. As I noted, experts had concluded that Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser probably died shortly after the kidnapping. The "difference" is that now this is admitted publicly and the IDF is proceeding with the religious process that would declare them dead. This will not change the reality.

Ehud Olmert never bothered to explain the reasoning behind decision to make the swap, and strangely nobody asked him. Israel fought the Second Lebanon War precisely in order to avoid making this sway, so what changed? Israel would not give up Samir Kuntar in any previous hostage situation, including the hijacking of the Achille Lauro. What changed since then?

Most of what has been written about the swap, and most of the publicly voiced considerations are irrelevant. Eitan Haber writes that it doesn't matter if Samir Kuntar is a bad guy, we still have to do anything to return our captives. Israel Hasson writes that it would be "immoral" to release Kuntar. The obvious and inconvenient point that they are missing is that the Israeli government is not conducting a kindergarten class in morality, but making a policy decision. Haber recounts that the first such swap was made thirty years ago. He forgets to tell you that a live soldier was exchanged for some prisoners of various descriptions, rather than exchanging a convicted murderer for dead bodies. In 1978, it wasn't quite so clear that such exchanges would drastically increase the likelihood of kidnappings. The Israeli soldier exchanged then had not been intentionally kidnapped from Israeli soil.

Of course there are "moral" issues, but they are not related to Kuntar as Haber thinks or to motivation of soldiers as Hasson thinks. The problem is not Kuntar, but Hassan Nasrallah and the Hezbollah. The problem is that releasing Kuntar in return for dead bodies is not going to bring our boys home, and it will whet the appetite of the Hezbollah for further kidnappings, and perhaps further wars. How can we possibly justify this risk? It will also signal to the Hezbollah and other enemies that Israeli captives are worth as much dead or alive. That puts a death sentence on any future kidnap victims. It is easier for politicians and op-ed columnists to succumb to the tears of mothers and loved ones and the pressure of PR campaigns. It is much harder to explain that what they are asking will not bring our beloved sons back to life, and will condemn many other sons and daughters to death.

There are other alien considerations that play a role, but are not mentioned. Many in the Israeli government and defense establishment feel that not not enough was done to try to save navigator Ron Arad when it was still possible to do so. The "Ron Arad complex" however, does not apply to Goldwasser and Regev. Israel has tried very hard indeed to get them back or at least to get some signs that they are alive, but with no success.

It is true, as advocates of the swap insist, that Goldwasser and Regev might be alive despite all the indications to the contrary. Very well. Let them get some evidence that they are alive. If Regev and Goldwasser are alive, and if the Hezbollah are honestly interested in a deal, they would be willing to provide such information in return for some lesser captives. Surely, the number of prisoners Israel would be willing to release would be very much greater if the government had evidence that the captives are alive, as is the case for Gilad Shalit, captured by the Hamas.

If Israel gives up Samir Kuntar, does anyone believe it would put an end to kidnapping? If we give up every enemy prisoner in Israeli jails, won't the the Hamas kidnap more Israelis in order to get Sheba farms or some part of northern Israel that they claim? Will an Israeli government of the future be faced with a crowd of angry parents and "advocates" insisting that we must give up Rosh Haniqra or Kiriat Shmona in order to free their sons, alive or dead?

It is still not to late to demand a reasoned accounting of advocates of the prisoner swap, an accounting based on the realistic assumption that the kidnap victims are dead. and that takes into account the great victory that will be handed to the Hezbollah and the price that all our sons and daughters will surely pay in the future.

Please help - write, call or fax Knesset members or members of the government - preferably in Hebrew. Ask them to stop the swap and save our kids from future kidnapping and blackmail. Their contact information is
here
(http://www.knesset.gov.il/mk/eng/mkindex_current_eng.asp)

Some important cabinet officials and government members:
PM Ehud Olmert
eulmert@knesset.gov.il
pm@pmo.gov.il
Telephone: 02-6753227
Telephone 2: 02-6753547

---

Avi Dichter
adichter@knesset.gov.il
Telephone: 02-6753727
Fax: 02-6496168

---

Benjamin Ben Eliezer
Telephone: 02-6408193
Telephone 2: 02-6408194
Fax: 02-6496127
Email: binyaminb@knesset.gov.il

---

Israel Ministry of Defense
pniot@mod.gov.il
TEL: 03-6975423 03-6975540
FAX: 03-6976711
Kaplan St 37, Tel Aviv, 61909

Please do it today, as the issue will be discussed on Sunday.
Thanks.

Ami Isseroff

---

Original content is Copyright by the author 2008. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000577.html where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to ZNN-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.

 

Hamas wil 1.000 gevangen Palestijnen vrijkrijgen voor Shalit

 

According to the report, Shalit's transfer to Egypt would go ahead in the first stage of a deal, after 150 Palestinian prisoners are released from jail. With Shalit's return to Israel after one week, 300 additional prisoners would be freed, and after another two months, 550 more ? mostly women and children.
The talks held by Dekel and Suleiman on Thursday are to deal with the prisoners on Hamas' list who Israel refuses to free, said the report, due to their involvement in attacks that have killed Israelis. The Egyptian sources quoted by Al-Hayat blamed Israel for "foot-dragging" because it rejected the names submitted by Hamas.

 

1.000 Gevangenen voor een soldaat. Wat klopt hier niet? En hoe kan het zijn dat, omdat Israël een paar terroristen die erg veel bloed aan hun handen hebben, niet wil vrijlaten, Israël en niet Hamas wordt beschuldigd van 'foot dragging' door Egypte? Misschien is Egypte toch niet zo neutraal als het zich graag presenteert. Nota Bene was afgesproken dat Hamas zich, in ruil voor het staakt-het-vuren, flexibeler op zou stellen.

'Vrouwen en kinderen' klinkt sympathiek en geeft ze een aura van onschuld, maar houdt in jongens van 16 en 17 die niet onderdoen voor hun volwassen broeders, en in de tweede intifada speelden vrouwen een niet onbelangrijke rol, juist omdat zij makkelijker door de veiligheidscontroles komen.

 

Noam Shalit read the speech his wife Aviva had planned to give. "Who would have believed that 731 days have passed and the prime minister who took full responsibility for the matter has not managed to reach an agreement on the return of Gilad? Who would have believed that 731 days have passed and Gilad still does not see the light of day and not even the light at the end of the tunnel."
Shalit called on Olmert to "make a decision, as difficult as it is, to return Gilad home. Gilad was sent by you on a mission and without any hesitation or deliberation he carried it out and was abducted. Gilad paid and is still paying an unbearable price. But the government needs to fulfill its ultimate moral responsibility to a soldier. Here there is nothing taken for granted."
Later Shalit called on Israeli mothers to wake up and cry out, and tell the prime minister clearly that two years of talking is enough.

 

Het antwoord op Noam Shalits vraag waarom Shalit nog niet thuis is, is simpel: omdat Israël niet langer over zijn lot en vrijlating gaat, maar Hamas. Hoe begrijpelijk de woede, frustratie en pijn bij de familie ook moge zijn, als een soldaat de oorlog in wordt gestuurd bestaat er altijd een risico dat hij niet terugkeert. Het is niet verantwoordelijk als de regering grote aantallen terroristen met bloed aan hun handen vrijlaat om een soldaat vrij te krijgen. De regering moet het landsbelang en de veiligheid van het land dienen, en dat moet in haar daden de doorslag geven, niet de pijn van deze familie.

 

Israëlische moeders beseffen hopelijk dat hoe meer terroristen voor Shalit worden vrijgelaten, hoe groter dus de beloning voor Hamas en hoe aantrekkelijker het wordt om vaker soldaten te kidnappen: hun zonen.

Ratna

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

 

Last update - 12:19 26/06/2008

Israel to give Egypt new proposals for Shalit swap 

By Barak Ravid, Yossi Melman, and Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondents and Agencies
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996293.html

 

 

Israel was to present Egyptian mediators in Cairo on Thursday with new formulas that it hopes will result in progress in the case of the abducted Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who has been held captive by Hamas in the Gaza Strip since June 2006.

In a meeting in Cairo on Thursday, the Israeli official charged with the negotiations on the prisoners, Ofer Dekel, was to discuss Israel's new proposals to further the deal on Shalit with Egyptian Chief of Intelligence General Omar Suleiman.

Dekel was expected to tell Suleiman that Israel expects Hamas to show greater flexibility regarding the list of prisoners it wants freed in exchange for Shalit.

Suleiman is scheduled to hold a similar meeting with Hamas representatives in Cairo next week.

Intensive indirect negotiations are planned at a later stage, where representatives of Israel and Hamas will be based in the same hotel, and the Egyptian mediators will shuttle between them with proposals and counter-proposals.

Nevertheless, senior Hamas official Osama al-Mazeini said Wednesday that the group is not willing to bend on its demands for the release of its prisoners.

"Israel has been given 350 names, and wants to release only 70 of them," al-Mazeini said. "Until all the names are approved, there is no chance for a deal.

The London-based Al-Hayat daily reported on Thursday that Cairo officials said that if and when an agreement is struck, Shalit would be moved to Egypt for one week, during which his family would be able to see him.

The report also said that Jerusalem told Egypt it would be willing to free prisoners that have killed Israelis, on the condition they are sent to other countries. Cairo reportedly rejected the suggestion.

According to the report, Shalit's transfer to Egypt would go ahead in the first stage of a deal, after 150 Palestinian prisoners are released from jail. With Shalit's return to Israel after one week, 300 additional prisoners would be freed, and after another two months, 550 more ? mostly women and children.

The talks held by Dekel and Suleiman on Thursday are to deal with the prisoners on Hamas' list who Israel refuses to free, said the report, due to their involvement in attacks that have killed Israelis. The Egyptian sources quoted by Al-Hayat blamed Israel for "foot-dragging" because it rejected the names submitted by Hamas.

Shalit family marks two years since Gilad's abduction

Meanwhile, hundreds took part in a rally in the Shalit family's hometown of Mitzpeh Hila on Wednesday to mark the two-year anniversary of Gilad's abduction.

Shlomo and Miki Goldwasser, the parents of abducted soldier Ehud Goldwasser, and Zvi Regev, the father of Eldad, also came to show support for the Shalits, as did the Avitan family, whose son's body was returned from Lebanon a few years ago.

In a special show of solidarity, Hen Arad, the brother of missing navigator Ron Arad, and Ron's daughter Yuval, were also present. For a moment it appeared that there was a resemblance between the two situations and families - and that it was forbidden to let the same thing happen again.

"Ron did not volunteer to be a pilot in order to be a gladiator, and Gilad did not join the tank corps to be a martyr. It turns out our leaders don't believe in anything," said Hen Arad at the rally, describing the country's political leaders as if they were the last of the Roman emperors.

"On my way here I thought of a fantasy, that if Ron had returned he would have stood in my place today with his daughter Yuval and told the families there is someone to rely on to return the soldiers home," said Arad.

During his speech he read part of his brother's last letter, where he asked his family to act to help bring him home.

Many young people came to the rally, including members of youth movements and some of Gilad's friends from school. One read an emotional letter to Gilad: "It is hard for us, Gilad, when we pass your house in our uniforms, when we see your picture in the newspaper and hear your name on the radio. And every time we are truly happy and before we fall asleep, we wonder if you know whether it is already night and whether you are sleeping."

Mordi Cohen of Mitzpeh Hila, who led the rally, called on the cabinet to make decisions and act from strength. "Do not give in to the demands of release, but to decide on releasing; force the Hamas prisoners with blood on their hands to save the life of an Israeli soldier," he said.

Noam Shalit read the speech his wife Aviva had planned to give. "Who would have believed that 731 days have passed and the prime minister who took full responsibility for the matter has not managed to reach an agreement on the return of Gilad? Who would have believed that 731 days have passed and Gilad still does not see the light of day and not even the light at the end of the tunnel."

Shalit called on Olmert to "make a decision, as difficult as it is, to return Gilad home. Gilad was sent by you on a mission and without any hesitation or deliberation he carried it out and was abducted. Gilad paid and is still paying an unbearable price. But the government needs to fulfill its ultimate moral responsibility to a soldier. Here there is nothing taken for granted."

Later Shalit called on Israeli mothers to wake up and cry out, and tell the prime minister clearly that two years of talking is enough.

At the end of the rally, two children set loose a flock of white doves, and amazingly the birds flew due South. One young girl asked her mother where they were going, and she answered: "To say hello to Gilad."

 

Na week staakt-het-vuren raakt vijfde Qassam de Negev

Als Islamitische Jihad en de Al Aqsa Martelaren Brigade alleen een staakt-het-vuren willen accepteren als dat ook voor de Westoever geldt, dan hadden ze niet met deze deal in moeten stemmen. Hamas had de goedkeuring van alle facties, zo zei men, en is verantwoordelijk voor alle aanvallen vanuit de Gazastrook. I.J. en Al Aqsa moeten zich maar op de Westoever wreken, maar oeps, dat lukt niet, want de checkpoints en Israëlische operaties maken het welhaast onmogelijk van daaruit aanslagen te plegen. Het is niet eerlijk.

 

Ondertussen is de vraag hoelang Israël dergelijke schendingen van het staakt-het-vuren nog zal accepteren. Als de wapensmokkel doorgaat, Hamas zich niet flexibeler opstelt wat betreft Shalit, en de mensen in Sderot en omgeving nog steeds in angst voor de Qassams leven, wat is dan precies Israëls belang van deze deal??

 

Ratna

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

 

Last update - 14:49 26/06/2008

 

Week into cease-fire, fifth Qassam strikes Negev

 

By Avi Issacharoff, Barak Ravid, Yossi Melman, and Jack Khoury, Haaretz Correspondents

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/996294.html

 

 

Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip fired a Qassam rocket at the western Negev on Thursday, threatening to further derail an already shaky week-old truce.

The rocket exploded in an open area near a Negev industrial zone. There were no injuries or damages in the incident.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, a militant group belonging to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, claimed responsibility for the attack and demanded that the cease-fire be extended into the West Bank.

"The rocket attack was in response to Israeli violations. Any calm deal must end Israeli attacks on our people in the West Bank too," said Abu Qusai, spokesman for the group.

Israel said it would keep its border crossings with the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip closed for a second day on Thursday, prompting the Islamist group to warn that the move could wreck the truce.

The crossings were opened on the day the truce went into effect last Thursday, but a decision was made to close them again Tuesday evening, following a violation of the cease-fire by Islamic Jihad militants firing Qassam rockets into Israel.

Two Israelis were lightly wounded during those attacks, as four Qassam struck the western Negev town of Sderot and the surrounding area.

Israeli military liaison official Peter Lerner said that the crossings would remain closed on Thursday and no date had been set for their reopening.

"It depends on the assessment of the situation following Tuesday's rocket attack," Lerner said.

Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri accused Israel of breaching the ceasefire that began a week ago.

"If this closure continues it will render the deal for calm meaningless," Abu Zuhri said.

"Securing the continuation of the Palestinian factions' commitment to the deal hinges on the Occupation's lifting of the siege and the opening of all the crossings in the first 10 days," he said, referring to Israel.

Defense officials expressed concern during Wednesday's meeting that a continuation of the border closure may result in a complete breakdown of the cease-fire agreement with Hamas.

However, following a reassessment of the security situation, it was decided to open the crossings over the weekend. The security assessment will also determine whether extensive quantities of goods and supplies will be allowed into the Gaza Strip.

Security officials said Wednesday that Israel would permit humanitarian cases to cross into Israel for medical assistance through the Erez crossing.

The Islamic Jihad militant group on Wednesday threatened to continue its rocket attacks on Israel, despite the truce.

Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio on Wednesday that Israel must respond to any continuation of Qassam fire with full force, despite the truce agreement.

"We will give them [Hamas] a chance, but if the Qassam fire on the Negev continues, Israel must respond in full force," Ben-Eliezer said.

Abu Abbas & Samir Kuntar

"One hears the terrorists and their excusers say that they are driven to kill out of desperation. But there is always a choice. Even when you have suffered, you can choose whether to kill and ruin another's life, or whether to go on and rebuild. Even after my family was murdered, I never dreamed of taking revenge on any Arab. But I am determined that Samir Kuntar should never be released from prison."

 

---------------------
 

The World Should Know What He Did to My Family

 

By Smadar Haran Kaiser
The Washington Post Sunday, May 18, 2003; Page B02
NAHARIYA, Israel
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A2740-2003May17

 

Abu Abbas, the former head of a Palestinian terrorist group who was captured in Iraq on April 15, is infamous for masterminding the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achille Lauro. But there are probably few who remember why Abbas's terrorists held the ship and its 400-plus passengers hostage for two days. It was to gain the release of a Lebanese terrorist named Samir Kuntar, who is locked up in an Israeli prison for life. Kuntar's name is all but unknown to the world. But I know it well. Because almost a quarter of a century ago, Kuntar murdered my family.

It was a murder of unimaginable cruelty, crueler even than the murder of Leon Klinghoffer, the American tourist who was shot on the Achille Lauro and dumped overboard in his wheelchair. Kuntar's mission against my family, which never made world headlines, was also masterminded by Abu Abbas. And my wish now is that this terrorist leader should be prosecuted in the United States, so that the world may know of all his terrorist acts, not the least of which is what he did to my family on April 22, 1979.

It had been a peaceful Sabbath day. My husband, Danny, and I had picnicked with our little girls, Einat, 4, and Yael, 2, on the beach not far from our home in Nahariya, a city on the northern coast of Israel, about six miles south of the Lebanese border. Around midnight, we were asleep in our apartment when four terrorists, sent by Abu Abbas from Lebanon, landed in a rubber boat on the beach two blocks away. Gunfire and exploding grenades awakened us as the terrorists burst into our building. They had already killed a police officer. As they charged up to the floor above ours, I opened the door to our apartment. In the moment before the hall light went off, they turned and saw me. As they moved on, our neighbor from the upper floor came running down the stairs. I grabbed her and pushed her inside our apartment and slammed the door.

Outside, we could hear the men storming about. Desperately, we sought to hide. Danny helped our neighbor climb into a crawl space above our bedroom; I went in behind her with Yael in my arms. Then Danny grabbed Einat and was dashing out the front door to take refuge in an underground shelter when the terrorists came crashing into our flat. They held Danny and Einat while they searched for me and Yael, knowing there were more people in the apartment. I will never forget the joy and the hatred in their voices as they swaggered about hunting for us, firing their guns and throwing grenades. I knew that if Yael cried out, the terrorists would toss a grenade into the crawl space and we would be killed. So I kept my hand over her mouth, hoping she could breathe. As I lay there, I remembered my mother telling me how she had hidden from the Nazis during the Holocaust. "This is just like what happened to my mother," I thought.

As police began to arrive, the terrorists took Danny and Einat down to the beach. There, according to eyewitnesses, one of them shot Danny in front of Einat so that his death would be the last sight she would ever see. Then he smashed my little girl's skull in against a rock with his rifle butt. That terrorist was Samir Kuntar.
By the time we were rescued from the crawl space, hours later, Yael, too, was dead. In trying to save all our lives, I had smothered her.

The next day, Abu Abbas announced from Beirut that the terrorist attack in Nahariya had been carried out "to protest the signing of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty" at Camp David the previous year. Abbas seems to have a gift for charming journalists, but imagine the character of a man who protests an act of peace by committing an act of slaughter.

Two of Abbas's terrorists had been killed by police on the beach. The other two were captured, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. Despite my protests, one was released in a prisoner exchange for Israeli POWs several months before the Achille Lauro hijacking. Abu Abbas was determined to find a way to free Kuntar as well. So he engineered the hijacking of the Achille Lauro off the coast of Egypt and demanded the release of 50 Arab terrorists from Israeli jails. The only one of those prisoners actually named was Samir Kuntar. The plight of hundreds held hostage on a cruise ship for two days at sea lent itself to massive international media coverage. The attack on Nahariya, by contrast, had taken less than an hour in the middle of the night. So what happened then was hardly noticed outside of Israel.

One hears the terrorists and their excusers say that they are driven to kill out of desperation. But there is always a choice. Even when you have suffered, you can choose whether to kill and ruin another's life, or whether to go on and rebuild. Even after my family was murdered, I never dreamed of taking revenge on any Arab. But I am determined that Samir Kuntar should never be released from prison. In 1984, I had to fight my own government not to release him as part of an exchange for several Israeli soldiers who were POWs in Lebanon. I understood, of course, that the families of those POWs would gladly have agreed to the release of an Arab terrorist to get their sons back. But I told Yitzhak Rabin, then defense minister, that the blood of my family was as red as that of the POWs. Israel had always taken a position of refusing to negotiate with terrorists. If they were going to make an exception, let it be for a terrorist who was not as cruel as Kuntar.
"Your job is not to be emotional," I told Rabin, "but to act rationally." And he did.

So Kuntar remains in prison. I have been shocked to learn that he has married an Israeli Arab woman who is an activist on behalf of terrorist prisoners. As the wife of a prisoner, she gets a monthly stipend from the government. I'm not too happy about that.

In recent years, Abu Abbas started telling journalists that he had renounced terrorism and that killing Leon Klinghoffer had been a mistake. But he has never said that killing my family was a mistake. He was a terrorist once, and a terrorist, I believe, he remains. Why else did he spend these last years, as the Israeli press has reported, free as a bird in Baghdad, passing rewards of $25,000 from Saddam Hussein to families of Palestinian suicide bombers? More than words, that kind of cash prize, which is a fortune to poor families, was a way of urging more suicide bombers. The fortunate thing about Abbas's attaching himself to Hussein is that it set him up for capture.

Some say that Italy should have first crack at Abbas. It had already convicted him of the Achille Lauro hijacking in absentia in 1986. Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi now wants Abbas handed over so that he can begin serving his life sentence. But it's also true that in 1985, the Italians had Abbas in their hands after U.S. fighter jets forced his plane to land in Sicily. And yet they let him go. So while I trust Berlusconi, who knows if a future Italian government might not again wash its hands of Abbas?

In 1995, Rabin, then our prime minister, asked me to join him on his trip to the White House, where he was to sign a peace agreement with Yasser Arafat, which I supported. I believe that he wanted me to represent all Israeli victims of terrorism. Rabin dreaded shaking hands with Arafat, knowing that those hands were bloody. At first, I agreed to make the trip, but at the last minute, I declined. As prime minister, Rabin had to shake hands with Arafat for political reasons. As a private person, I did not. So I stayed here.

Now I am ready and willing to come to the United States to testify against Abu Abbas if he is tried for terrorism. The daughters of Leon Klinghoffer have said they are ready to do the same. Unlike Klinghoffer, Danny, Einat and Yael were not American citizens. But Klinghoffer was killed on an Italian ship in Abbas's attempt to free the killer of my family in Israel.

 

We are all connected by the international web of terrorism woven by Abbas.
Let the truth come out in a new and public trial.
And let it be in the United States, the leader in the struggle against terrorism.

---------------
Smadar Haran Kaiser is a social worker. She is remarried and has two daughters.

Oproep vanuit Berlijn tot ontmanteling van Israël...

Ongelooflijk dat zelfs - en juist - in Duitsland Iran de ruimte krijgt om haar antisemitische, pardon antizionistische, gal te spuwen. Wat komen deze Arabische staten überhaupt in Duitsland discussiëren over anti-raketsystemen, op uitnodiging van een vredesinstituut en met financiering van de Duitse overheid en kerk?

 

Wouter

_______________

Anti-Semitic Iranian performance subsidized by Germany

 

In clearly anti-Israeli horror show, solely a few feet away from Holocaust monument in Berlin's center, Tehran's former deputy foreign minister calls for cancellation of 'Zionist project'

 

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560577,00.html

Eldad Beck
Published:  06.26.08, 09:39

 

 

Berlin - Former Deputy Minister of Iranian Foreign Affairs Dr. Mohammad Javad Ardashir Larijani gave a speech Wednesday at an international conference calling for the cancellation of the "Zionist project", which he said turned in the past 60 years into a "failed plan" that "created only violence and atrocities."

Mohammad Larijani is the brother of Ali Larijani, chairman of the Iranian parliament and formerly the top negotiator on issues of national security, including Iran's nuclear program.

 

Mohammad is presently the director of the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics in Tehran and member of the Iranian Human Rights Committee.

The conference, which was aimed at discussing anti-missile defense systems, quickly turned into a wild anti-Israel event with commentary from Syrian, Lebanese and Saudi Arabian speakers attacking Israel.

 

All of this took place not in Iran, but rather in Berlin, the capital of Germany.

 

The conference was organized by a local foundation for peace and conflict resolutions.

It was "generously" funded as described in the event's program, by the German government, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation connected to the German Social-Democratic party and the German Protestant Church.

Governmental offices in Germany quickly rushed to clear themselves of responsibility for the event. The conference's invitation reveals that the event was sponsored by the German Foreign Ministry. However, in response to an inquiry by Yedioth Ahronoth, the ministry's spokeswoman said that the Finance Ministry subsidized it.
    
An examination on Wednesday into which office really did fund the event yielded no answers. In response to Yedioth Ahronoth's questions regarding what problem Iran has with Israel and if Iran is fearful of Israel, Larijani responded, "We have no problem with Israel, we have a stance.

"We think that Israel represents a plan to create a Jewish State in the heart of the Muslim world and that this Zionist plan has failed terribly and only caused horrible damages."

 

Israël op rand van oorlog met Iran?

 

Dat Israël informatie over haar grootschalige militaire oefening liet uitlekken naar de media kan erop duiden dat de oefening meer was bedoeld als waarschuwing aan het adres van Iran dan als voorbereiding voor een daadwerkelijke aanval.

 

___________________________________

 

Israel on the Iran Brink

 

http://wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121417597798795327.html

June 23, 2008; Page A16

 

Israel isn't famous for welcoming public scrutiny of its most sensitive military plans. But we doubt Jerusalem officials were dismayed to see news of their recent air force exercises splashed over the front pages of the Western press.

 

Those exercises - reportedly involving about 100 fighters, tactical bombers, refueling planes and rescue helicopters - were conducted about 900 miles west of Israel's shores in the Mediterranean. Iran's nuclear facilities at Bushehr, Isfahan and Natanz all fall roughly within the same radius, albeit in the opposite direction. The point was not lost on Tehran, which promptly warned of "strong blows" in the event of a pre-emptive Israeli attack.

 

The more important question is whether the meaning of Israel's exercise registered in Western capitals. It's been six years since Iran's secret nuclear programs were publicly exposed, and Israel has more or less bided its time as the Bush Administration and Europe have pursued diplomacy to induce Tehran to cease enriching uranium.

 

It hasn't worked. Iran has rejected repeated offers of technical and economic assistance, most recently this month. Despite four years of pleading, the Administration has failed to win anything but weak U.N. sanctions. Russia plans to sell advanced antiaircraft missiles to Iran and finish work on a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, though spent fuel from that reactor could eventually be diverted and reprocessed into weapons-usable plutonium. Chinese companies still invest in Iran, while the U.N.'s chief nuclear inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei, has repeatedly downplayed Iran's nuclear threat.

 

As for the U.S., December's publication of a misleading National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran had halted nuclear weaponization signaled America's own lack of seriousness toward Iranian ambitions. Barack Obama is leading in the Presidential polls and portrays as a virtue his promise to negotiate with Iran "without precondition" – i.e., without insisting that Tehran stop enriching uranium. All the while Iran continues to enrich, installing thousands of additional centrifuges of increasingly more sophisticated design while it buries key facilities underground.

 

No wonder Israel is concluding that it will have to act on its own to prevent a nuclear Iran. Earlier this month, Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, a former army chief of staff, warned that "if Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack." Other officials distanced themselves from those remarks, but September's one-shot raid on Syria's nuclear reactor ought to be proof of Israel's determination.

 

An Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites would of course look nothing like the Syrian operation. The distances are greater; the targets are hardened, defended and dispersed; hundreds of sorties and several days would be required. Iran would retaliate, with the help of Hezbollah and Hamas, possibly sparking a regional conflict as large as the 1973 Yom Kippur war.

 

Mr. ElBaradei predicted this weekend that such an attack would turn the Middle East into a "ball of fire," yet his own apologies for Iran and the West's diplomatic failures are responsible for bringing the region to this pass. They have convinced the mullahs that the powers responsible for maintaining world order lack the will to stop Iran.

 

Israelis surely don't welcome a war in which they will suffer. Yet they have no choice but to defend themselves against an enemy that vows to obliterate them if Iran acquires the weapon to do so. The tragic paradox of the past six years is that the diplomatic and intelligence evasions offered in the name of avoiding war with Iran have done the most to bring us close to this brink. Appeasement that ends in war is a familiar theme of history.

 

Enquete onder Palestijnen: 75% denkt dat verzoening in deze generatie niet mogelijk is

 

Hieronder een aantal resultaten van een recente enquete onder de Palestijnse bevolking op de Westoever en Gazastrook.
Men is pessimistisch over de kansen op vrede en verzoening:

44) How soon do you think will a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians be achieved?
42.0%  1) A political settlement is not possible ever
21.9%  2) Only in many generations to come
8.9%  3) Only in the next generation
5.8%  4) Only in the next decade
15.6%  5) Only in the next few years
5.8%  6) No Opinion /Don't know

45) After reaching a peace agreement between the Palestinian people and Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state that is recognized by Israel, how soon do you think will reconciliation between the two peoples be achieved?
42.9%  1) Reconciliation is not possible ever
20.5%  2) Only in many generations to come
12.4%  3) Only in the next generation
6.3%  4) Only in the next decade
11.4%  5) On the next few years
6.5%  6) No Opinion /Don't know

Enkele andere resultaten:
Ondanks dit pessimisme steunt bijna driekwart pogingen om nadat een Palestijnse staat is gesticht tot verzoening van beide volken te komen.

Een meerderheid is voor raketaanvallen en andere aanvallen op burgers binnen Israël.
Steun voor vredesplannen: circa tweederde steunt het Arabische Vredesplan, circa de helft de Roadmap en iets minder dan de helft een tweestatenoplossing zoals het Geneefse Akkoord voorstaat.

 

Ratna
-------------
 

Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (28)

 

These are the results of the latest poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip between 5 and 7 June 2008. Total size of the sample is 1270 adults interviewed face to face in 127 randomly selected locations. Margin of error is 3%.

For further details, contact PSR director, Dr. Khalil Shikaki, or Walid Ladadweh at tel 02-296 4933 or email pcpsr@pcpsr.org.

5-7 June 2008

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2008/p28e.html


30) If Israel agrees to conduct peace negotiations with a Hamas, do you think the Hamas should or should not negotiate with Israel?
16.9%  1) certainly it should negotiate
42.7%  2) it should negotiate
26.4%  3) it should not negotiate
9.0%  4) certainly it should not negotiate
5.0%  5) DK/NA

31) There is a proposal that after the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the settlemnet of all issues in dispute, including the refugees and Jerusalem issues, there will be a mutual recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinians people. Do you agree or disagree to this proposal?
7.4%  1) Definitely agree
48.4%  2) agree
33.6%  3) disagree
9.6%  4) definitely disagree
0.9%  5) DK/NA

32) And what is the Palestinian majority opinion on this issue? Do most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza support or oppose the recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people at the end of the peace process?
52.2%  1) Majority supports
39.5%  2) Majority opposes
8.3%  3) DK/NA

33) And what is the Israeli majority opinion on this issue? Do most Israelis support or oppose the recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as the state of the Palestinian people at the end of the peace process?
41.0%  1) Majority supports
50.1%  2) Majority opposes
8.8%  5) DK/NA

34) Now 40 years after the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, what in your view are the chances for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state next to the state of Israel in the next five years? Are they high, medium, low, or none existent?
31.6%  1) None existent
34.7%  2) Low
27.0%  3) Medium
3.0%  4) High
3.7%  5) DK/NA

35) According to the Saudi plan, Israel will retreat from all territories occupied in 1967 including Gaza the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, and a Palestinian state will be established. The refugees problem will be resoved through negotiation in a just and agreed upon manner and in accordance with UN resolution 194 which allows return of refugees to Israel and compensation. In return, all Arab states will recognize Israel and its right to secure borders, will sign peace treaties with her and establish normal diplomatic relations.  Do you agree or disagree to this plan?
7.5%  1) Certainly agree
59.5%  2) agree
22.4%  3) disagree
6.0%  4) Certainly disagree
4.6%  5) DK/NA

36) The US, Russia, the European Community and the UN, the so called "Quartet", have put forward a "Roadmap" for the implementation of a final settlement within 3 years. The plan includes political reforms in the Palestinian Authority, including a constitution and election of a strong Prime Minister, stopping the incitement and violence on both sides under the Quartet's supervision, a freeze on settlements and the establishment of a Palestinian State within provisional borders. The next phase will see negotiations on the final borders under the auspices of an international conference. Do you support or oppose this initiative?
2.8%  1) Strongly support
46.7%  2) Support
37.1%  3) Oppose
9.8%  4) Strongly oppose
3.5%  5) Don't know/No answer

37-B) When Palestinians and Israelis return to final status negotiations the following items might be presented to negotiators as the elements of a permanent compromise settlement. Tell us what you think of each item then tell us what you think of all combined as one permanent status settlement

 1. An Israeli withdrawal from all of the Gaza Strip and the evacuation of its settlements. But in the West Bank, Israel withdraws and evacuates settlements from most of it, with the exception of few settlement areas in less than 3%  of the West Bank that would be exchanged with an equal amount of territory from Israel in accordance with the attached map {show map}.

 2. An independent Palestinian state would be established in the areas from which Israel withdraws in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; the Palestinian state will have no army, but it will have a strong security force but an international multinational force would be deployed to insure the safety and security of the state. Both sides will be committed to end all forms of violence directed against each other.

 3. East Jerusalem would become the capital of the Palestinian state with Arab neighborhoods coming under Palestinian sovereignty and Jewish neighborhoods coming under Israel sovereignty. The Old City (including al Haram al Sharif) would come under Palestinian sovereignty with the exception of the Jewish Quarter and the Wailing Wall that will come under Israeli sovereignty.

 4. With regard to the refugee question, both sides agree that the solution will be based on UN resolutions 194 and 242 and on the Arab peace initiative. The refugees will be given five choices for permanent residency.
These are: the Palestinian state and the Israeli areas transferred to the Palestinian state in the territorial exchange mentioned above; no restrictions would be imposed on refugee return to these two areas.
Residency in the other three areas (in host countries, third countries, and Israel) would be subject to the decision of the states in those areas. The number of refugees returning to Israel will be based on the average number of refugees admitted to third countries like Australia, Canada, Europe, and others. All refugees will be entitled to compensation for their "refugeehood" and loss of properties.

 5. When the permanent status agreement is fully implemented, it will mean the end of the conflict and no further claims will be made by either side.
The parties will recognize Palestine and Israel as the homelands of their respective peoples 6. The Palestinian state will have sovereignty over its land, water, and airspace. But Israeli will be allowed to use the Palestinian airspace for training purposes, and will maintain two early warning stations in the West Bank for 15 years. The multinational force will remain in the Palestinian state for an indefinite period of time and its responsibility will be to insure the implementation of the agreement, and to monitor territorial borders and coast of the Palestinian state including its international border crossings.

Now that you have been informed of each element of the permanent compromise settlement, tell us what you think of each of its item. Do you agree or disagree with it.

37-1B) Item #1: withdrawal to 1967  borders with territorial swap
5.6%  1) Strongly agree
57.1%  2) Agree
25.5%  3) Disagree
9.4%  4) Strongly Disagree
2.3%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

37-2B) Item #2: a state without an army but with international forces
1.4%  1) Strongly agree
26.5%  2) Agree
54.3%  3) Disagree
16.4%  4) Strongly Disagree
1.4%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

37-3B) Item #3: East Jerusalem as capital of the state of Palestine after it
is divided
1.0%  1) Strongly agree
36.9%  2) Agree
44.5%  3) Disagree
16.4%  4) Strongly Disagree
1.1%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

37-4B) Item #4: refugees with five options for permanent residence
1.7%  1) Strongly agree
39.3%  2) Agree
41.8%  3) Disagree
14.7%  4) Strongly Disagree
2.4%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

37-5B) Item #5: end of conflict
5.2%  1) Strongly agree
50.3%  2) Agree
31.7%  3) Disagree
11.1%  4) Strongly Disagree
1.8%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

37-6B) Item #6: a sovereign state with security arrangements
2.3%  1) Strongly agree
35.5%  2) Agree
45.3%  3) Disagree
14.9%  4) Strongly Disagree
2.0%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

37-7B) Item #7: the combined elements as one permanent status settlement
1.5%  1) Strongly agree
44.2%  2) Agree
38.8%  3) Disagree
13.5%  4) Strongly Disagree
2.0%  5) No Opinion /Don't Know

38-1B) And what is the Palestinian majority opinion on this combined package for a permanent status settlement?  Do most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza support or oppose this combined final status package?
49.4%  1) Majority supports
40.7%  2) Majority opposes
9.9%  3) DK/NA

38-2B) And what is the Israeli majority opinion on this combined package for a permanent status settlement?  Do most Israelis support or oppose this combined final status package?
36.8%  1) Majority supports
50.5%  2) Majority opposes
12.7%  3) DK/NA

39)  If a peace agreement is reached, and a Palestinian state is established and recognized by Israel, would you support or oppose the efforts to reach full reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinian state?
9.4%  1) Would strongly support
63.1%  2) Would support
20.5%  3) Would oppose
5.8%  4) Would strongly oppose
1.2%  5) DK/NA

40) And what are your expectations regarding the chances for the success or failure of the negotiations launched by Annapolis conference? Will it succeed or fail in ending Israeli occupation?
0.7%  1) certainly will succeed
15.6%  2) will succeed
51.0%  3) will fail
25.0%  4) certainly will fail
7.7%  5) DK/NA

41) The joint statement issued by the Annapolis conference stated that the two sides will seek to conclude the permanent status negotiations before the end of 2008. Do you think they will indeed succeed in achieving that on the period indicated?
0.5%  1) certainly will succeed
14.4%  2) will succeed
53.8%  3) will not succeed
25.6%  4) certainly will not succeed
5.7%  5) DK/NA

42) In your view, is it possible or impossible these days to reach a compromise permanent status agreement with the Olmert government?
0.7%  1) Certainly possible
21.5%  2) Possible
47.5%  3) Impossible
27.6%  4) Certainly impossible
2.7%  5) DK/NA

43) With regard to meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA President Mahmud Abbas, do you see them beneficial and should be continued or do you see them unbeneficial and should be stopped?
27.0%  1) Beneficial, and should continue
68.4%  2) Unbeneficial and should stop
4.6%  3) NO/DK

44) How soon do you think will a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians be achieved?
42.0%  1) A political settlement is not possible ever
21.9%  2) Only in many generations to come
8.9%  3) Only in the next generation
5.8%  4) Only in the next decade
15.6%  5) Only in the next few years
5.8%  6) No Opinion /Don't know

45) After reaching a peace agreement between the Palestinian people and Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian state that is recognized by Israel, how soon do you think will reconciliation between the two peoples be achieved?
42.9%  1) Reconciliation is not possible ever
20.5%  2) Only in many generations to come
12.4%  3) Only in the next generation
6.3%  4) Only in the next decade
11.4%  5) On the next few years
6.5%  6) No Opinion /Don't know

46) There is a talk about conducting Palestinian-Israeli negotiations on an interim settlement whereby a Palestinian state is established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip while other issues, such as refugees, would be postponed. Other people prefer negotiations that would lead to a comprehensive settlement that would lead to permanent peace and end of conflict with all issues, including refugees, resolved. Which of the two positions do you prefer: the interim settlement or the comprehensive one?
2.3%  1) definitely the interim
12.9%  2) the interim
60.2%  3) the comprehensive
20.4%  4) definitely the comprehensive
4.1%  5) DK/NA

47) Some people think that a solution based on the establishment of a Palestinian state along side Israel, known as the two-state solution, is difficult to achieve and that Palestinians should struggle for another solution, one in which Israel is unified with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to establish one state whereby Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews would be equal. In your view, which of the two solutions is more difficult to achieve?
35.7%  1) two-state solution
37.5%  2) the one-state solution
24.8%  3) both equally difficult
1.9%  4) DK/NA

48) Regardless of its difficulty, which of the two solutions do you support?
57.6%  1) the two-state solution
27.0%  2) the one-state solution
10.4%  3) another solution (specify -------- )
5.1%  4) DK/NA

49) Do you support or oppose the launching of rockets from the Gaza Strip against towns and cities inside Israel, such as Sderot and Ashkelon?
17.3%  1) Certainly support
39.9%  2) Support
33.0%  3) Oppose
6.5%  4) Certainly oppose
3.2%  5) NA/DK

50) Concerning armed attacks against Israeli civilians inside Israel, I...
15.9%  1) Strongly support
38.9%  2) Support
37.2%  3) Oppose
4.5%  4) Strongly oppose
3.4%  5) DK/NA

51) Hamas is currently negotiation with Israel via Egypt to conclude a ceasefire agreement in the Gaza Strip. Do you support or oppose a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip?
13.9%  1) certainly support
63.7%  2) support
18.2%  3) oppose
3.0%  4) certainly oppose
1.2%  5) DK/NA

52_1) If the ceasefire is restricted to the Gaza Strip, and does not cover the West Bank, would you support or oppose it?
2.1%  1) certainly support
20.7%  2) support
64.9%  3) oppose
10.6%  4) certainly oppose
1.7%  5) DK/NA

52_2) What if the ceasefire did not stipulate an immediate opening of the crossings, especially the Rafah crossing to Egypt, would you in this case support or oppose it?
2.2%  1) certainly support
17.6%  2) support
64.7%  3) oppose
13.9%  4) certainly oppose
1.7%  5) DK/NA

Toen kwamen ze voor de Bahai ...

Roya Hakakian is een Joodse vrouw die als kind de revolutie in Iran meemaakte, en het in onderstaand artikel opneemt voor de Baha'i, een religieuze groepering die in Perzië (Iran) haar bakermat had maar daar zwaar vervolgd wordt. Het wereldcentrum van de Baha'i is gevestigd in Haifa, Israël.

 

_______________________________

 

Then They Came for the Bahai
http://www.forward.com/articles/13602/

 

Opinion

 

By Roya Hakakian
Thu. Jun 19, 2008

 

 

If one must master the knowledge that even bigotry is relative and comes in gradations, then I was a premature pupil. I learned this lesson when I was only 10.
In 1977, in an eclectic neighborhood in Tehran, my Jewish family lived on a narrow, wooded alley in what was then an upscale area, alongside two other Jewish families and many more Muslims. There was also a Bahai family, the Alavis, next door.

 

By then, I had already intuited that my relatives, in the presence of Muslim friends and neighbors, were somehow less flamboyant creatures, quieter and more measured. But the Alavis, debonair and highly educated, were mere ghosts.

 

Theirs was a corner house on the alley, one of the most beautiful in the neighborhood, and the first to be sold within days in 1979, after the return of the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini. In a neighborhood so closely-knit that even the mailman dispensed pearls of pedagogical wisdom to our parents, the Alavis simply vanished one day.

 

No chance for tears, or promises to keep in touch. Not even a forwarding address. My mother insists they said goodbye to her, but my mother considers inventing happy endings a maternal virtue.

 

American audiences, their eyes brimming with anxiety, often ask me about the condition of Jews living in Iran today. But the hardships they assume to be the burden of the Iranian Jews is really the daily experience of the Bahais.

 

In a 1979 meeting with five of the Iranian Jewish community leaders, Khomeini summarized his position on the local Jews in one of his quintessentially coarse one-liners: "We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless Zionists." The line has served as the regime's position on the Jewish minority ever since. So important were these words that they were painted on the walls of nearly every synagogue and Jewish establishment the day after the ayatollah spoke them.

 

It did not prevent Jews from being relegated to second-class citizenry, nor did it enable them to thrive in post-revolutionary Iran. But it recognized the legitimacy of the Jewish existence in Iran and allowed the community to live on, albeit extremely restrictedly.

 

But it is the Bahai community that has been suffering the bleak fate assumed to be that of the Jews. It is the Bahais who are not recognized by the Iranian constitution. Decades ago, Khomeini branded them, among other unsavory terms, a political sect and not a religion, circuitously defining them as plotters against the regime. Iranian Bahais have been accused of espionage for every major power save the Chinese, and simultaneously so. They are not allowed to worship. Their properties are vandalized. Even their dead know no peace, as their cemeteries are systematically destroyed.

 

Their children cannot attend schools, nor can Bahai academics teach. That is why in 1987, unemployed professors, in an act reminiscent of the Middle Ages, established underground universities to educate the Bahai youth.

 

Last month, six Bahai leaders were arrested. They had already been accustomed to routine weekly harassments and interrogations, which is why some of their wives have taken up sewing blindfolds to keep the guards from forcing dirty ones onto their husbands' eyes. What is most alarming about this particular arrest is that they have not returned home and are being kept incommunicado.

 

What compels me to write these lines is the eerie similarity between this and another historical parallel to which I have been a witness. When the American embassy was seized in Tehran in November 1979, the world took the ayatollah at his word for the egregious act he vehemently supported - that it was solely against America. But for those living in Iran, the hostage taking turned out to be about everything but America.

 

Newspapers were shut down. Political parties were banned. Opposition group members were arrested and their leaders hauled off to stand before firing squads.

 

When it was all said and done, the hostages, despite their great suffering during 444 days of captivity, eventually returned home. But the secular opposition of the regime was practically obliterated, and in perfect silence, too, as all attention was focused on the news from the embassy.

 

The current Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has taken a page from Khomeini's book. He rails against Israel. He denies the Holocaust. Through these means he focuses all attention on Jews, and while the world remains perfectly oblivious his men assault the Bahais.

 

Though Ahmadinejad's intentions against Israel are gravely alarming, in immediate terms, the community that is paying the most for his pan-Islamist ambitions is the Bahai. Since Ahmadinejad's election to presidency, there has been a sharp rise in anti-Bahai literature in government-sponsored journals, which has, in turn, led to a rise in gang attacks against the community.

 

That the Bahais shy away, per religious mandate, from advocacy on their own behalf surrounds their predicament with even greater silence. But for those in the West - especially for Jews, who know the lessons of World War II - the plight of the Iranian Bahais is most urgent: It is an act of destruction, not simply promised, but already underway.

 

 

Roya Hakakian, the author of "Journey from the Land of No: A Girlhood Caught in Revolutionary Iran" (Crown, 2004), is a recipient of a 2008 Guggenheim fellowship.

 

Israëlische reaktie op Qassams terughoudend

Als reaktie op de schending van het staakt-het-vuren door de Islamitische Jihad heeft Israël de grensovergangen met de Gazastrook vooralsnog gesloten gehouden. Verdere tegenmaatregelen lijken niet in het verschiet te liggen.

 

___________________________

 

Last update - 02:40 25/06/2008

Olmert, Barak: We will respond to Qassam fire 

 

By Barak Ravid, Amos Harel, Yuval Azoulay and Fadi Eyadat
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/995902.html

 

Security consultations conducted Tuesday by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak indicate that Israel will respond to a Qassam rocket attack that Israel described as a breach of the cease-fire which was agreed with Hamas last week.

The rocket fire constitutes a "blatant violation of the cease-fire on the part of Palestinian groups in the Strip," Olmert said Tuesday, after being informed of the attack upon his return from Egypt, where he met with President Hosni Mubarak to discuss the cease-fire.

Olmert and Barak "agreed on methods of response," the Prime Minister's Bureau said. "We will not provide further details."

Islamic Jihad operatives in the Gaza Strip fired three Qassam rockets on southern Israel, in the first rocket attack since the deal was reached.

Senior security sources told Haaretz that Israel would not be able to ignore the attack.

Israel is expected to respond to the rocket fire either by carrying out a pinpoint attack targeting Islamic Jihad, or by reducing the supply of goods entering the Gaza Strip. Since the cease-fire went into effect, Israel has increased the amount of goods entering the Strip by about 30 percent, as it committed to do in talks with Egypt.

Barring any further deterioration in the security situation, Israel is slated to weigh how to further increase the amount of goods entering Gaza.

Gaza-area residents plan to hold a demonstration outside the Karni and Sufa crossings this morning to protest the transfer of goods into Gaza in the wake of the rocket fire.

Two women went into shock when two of the rockets hit Sderot, a few hours after Palestinian militants fired mortar shells at the Karni crossing around midnight Monday. The third rocket hit an open area in the Negev.

Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the rocket attack, which it said came in response to the death of a senior operative during an Israel Defense Forces raid in Nablus early Tuesday. A Hamas operative who worked with the wanted Jihad man was also killed in the raid. The Israel Defense Forces said troops shot both men to death, and that the Jihad man was armed with a rifle. In addition, four explosive devices and a large quantity of ammunition were found next to the gunmen.

Islamic Jihad had told Hamas before the cease-fire went into effect that it would honor the agreement, a senior political source said Tuesday. The mortar shells were fired by Hamas, although the group did not publicly take responsibility for the attack, which caused no injuries.

Israeli officials said the mortar fire appears to be a Hamas reaction to the wounding of a Palestinian civilian in northern Gaza on Monday, in a bid to show that Hamas will not stand by as Israel harms Palestinian civilians. The civilian, 68, appears to have been hurt by an errant IDF bullet.

 

*** Balanced Middle East News ***
MidEastweb http://www.mideastweb.org
Subscribe - mail to mewnews-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

MewBkd - Background & analysis -
mail to Mewbkd-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

News Letter -  our commentary -
mail to mideastweb-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Iran kan binnen 1 jaar genoeg uranium verrijken voor kernbom

 

El Baradei, geen neoconservatieve Zionistische imperialist, voorspelt dat Iran binnen een jaar een atoomwapen heeft. Hoewel hij geen alternatieve oplossing geeft, zegt hij dat een aanval op de atoominstallaties van Iran nooit gerechtvaardigd is en hij dan zal aftreden omdat 'het internationale systeem dan ineen stort'. Hij heeft dus liever een Iran met een atoomwapen dan een Amerikaanse of Israëlische aanval op Iran. Het is jammer dat hij niet het lef heeft om dat openlijk te zeggen.

 

Ratna

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

 

MEMRI

Special Dispatch | No. 1967| June 23, 2008

Iran

IAEA Chief ElBaradei: Iran Can Produce Enough Enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Bomb in Six Months to a Year   

MEMRI | MEMRI TV | THE MEMRI BLOG | MEMRI ECONOMIC BLOG | ISLAMIST WEBSITE MONITOR PROJECT

TURKISH MEDIA PROJECT | IRAN BLOG | ARAB MOVIES BLOG | ARAB MUSIC BLOG | ARAB LITERATURE BLOG

 

The following are excerpts from an interview with IAEA director-general Mohamed ElBaradei. The interview aired on Al-Arabiya TV on June 20, 2008.    To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1797.htm .

If It Wants To Produce Nuclear Weapons, Iran Would Have To "Leave The NPT, Expel The IAEA Inspectors, And... It Would Need At Least Six Months to One Year" Mohamed ElBaradei: "If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has..."    Interviewer: "How much time would it need?"    ElBaradei: "It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon."    Interviewer: "Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months..."    ElBaradei: "Or one year, at least..."    Interviewer: "... to produce [nuclear] weapons?"    ElBaradei: "It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon." [...]     "A Military Strike [Against Iran] Would Be the Worst Thing Possible" "In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible. It would turn the Middle East into a ball of fire."    Interviewer: "It would be worse than sanctions?"    ElBaradei: "Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called 'crash course,' or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians – even the Iranians living in the West."    [...]    Interviewer: "Dr. ElBaradei, what do the Iranian officials tell you when you confront them about the need for more transparency?"    ElBaradei: "They say there will be more transparency, but at the end of the day, I'd rather wait to see this transparency.    [...]    "I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike."    Interviewer: "You will resign in the event that..."    ElBaradei: "If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend."    Interviewer: "This is a threat directed at the Americans – if you strike, I will resign."    ElBaradei: "I am not doing this for material profit. If I was working in the private sector, I would... I am doing this out of the conviction that I am defending shared values. If we deviate from these shared values..."    Interviewer: "So there is no justification for an attack..."      "There Will Be No Point in My Continuing My Work If Military Force Is Used" ElBaradei: "The day I believe that the international system has begun to collapse is the day I will resign."    [...]    Interviewer: "If the world reaches a consensus that there is no solution but to attack Iran, would you still resign? What if Europe, America, and the entire West agree that the only resolution is a military one?"    ElBaradei: "I don't think that what we are seeing today in Iran poses a clear, imminent, and immediate danger."    Interviewer: "But in a year or two, it could become..."    ElBaradei: "If this happens, it will be a different story, but if a military strike is launched against Iran now, in my opinion, I will have no choice but to..."    Interviewer: "So there is no justification for a strike against Iran today."    ElBaradei: "None whatsoever. There will be no point in my continuing my work if military force is used at present."

 

MEMRI | P.O. Box 27837 | Washington, DC 20038-7837 | T: 202-955-9070 | F: 202-955-9077 | E: memri@memri.org
www.memri.org | www.memritv.org | www.thememriblog.org

Arabische atoomrace met Franse steun

Bijna alle Arabische staten willen kernenergie, voor vreedzame doeleinden naar eigen zeggen, maar de technologie is grotendeels hetzelfde. Frankrijk is een willige bondgenoot en heeft met verschillende Arabische staten overeenkomsten getekend.

 

Arab nuclearization began in recent years mainly in response to Iranian nuclearization. Dr. Ephraim Asculai, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, told Haaretz yesterday: "Why are Arab countries waking up all of a sudden about the nuclear issue? Clearly Arab countries are worried about Iran. This is not their response, but rather a statement: 'We are here.' "

 

Als Iran de bom heeft, is het des te moeilijker andere staten dit te ontzeggen. De Arabische wereld lijkt in een ware atoomrace te zijn verwikkeld, waarvan de gevolgen mogelijk desastreus zijn. Het Westen moet wat dit betreft eensgezind optreden en verhinderen dat een of meerdere landen de techniek in handen krijgt om zelfstandig een kernwapen kunnen maken.

 

Ratna

----------

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/995511.html

 

Arab World nuclear race / Who has what, and from where

 

By Yoav Stern

Haaretz, June 25, 2008

 

 

Israel is following with interest the closer nuclear ties France is forging with the Arab world. The Foreign Ministry has declined to go on the record on the issue, but ministry officials say that though they are concerned about the matter, they do not oppose it.

They say it is better for Israel that France is supplying nuclear technology to Arab countries and not nations less friendly to Israel, such as Russia or China.

So who has what?
Morocco: Advancing a civilian nuclear program with France.

Libya: Canceled its military nuclear program in 2003. Libya and France signed an agreement to cooperate on civilian projects.

Egypt: Developing a program for an energy reactor and negotiating a cooperation agreement with the U.S. and France.

Saudi Arabia: Signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the U.S.

Syria: Interested in developing nuclear activity within an "Arab framework," in cooperation with Turkey.

Jordan: Rapidly advancing an energy nuclear reactor and negotiating its erection with France.

United Arab Emirates: Signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with France at the beginning of the year.

Last Saturday, French Prime Minister Francois Fillon signed a cooperation agreement on nuclear issues with his Algerian counterpart while touring the North African country. Algeria has been suspected in the past of conducting a nuclear project for military purposes.

France is also in close contact on this subject with other North African and Arab countries, as well as states in the Persian Gulf.

Officials in the government are concerned about the nuclearization, even if in most cases it is for civilian purposes and not for arms.

"The French are ready to supply this technology anywhere, as long as they are being paid. They would sell a nuclear reactor to Israel, too, if it expressed an interest," a source at the ministry said.

The officials said France also wants to be seen as a leader in the regional developments in the Mediterranean and Europe.

France is trying to persuade Algeria to support, or at least not oppose, the Mediterranean Union set to be established in Paris next month.

Arab nuclearization began in recent years mainly in response to Iranian nuclearization. Dr. Ephraim Asculai, a senior research fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, told Haaretz yesterday: "Why are Arab countries waking up all of a sudden about the nuclear issue? Clearly Arab countries are worried about Iran. This is not their response, but rather a statement: 'We are here.'"

The sale of nuclear technology by France can provide a livelihood for many of its people. Asculai says billions of dollars are invested in the building of a single reactor, money that no country would scoff at easily.

The Arab nuclear awakening, as well as the search for alternatives to oil, has aroused the major nuclear powers to look for business possibilities. In addition to France, Russia, the United States and China, other powers such as Germany are courting the Arab countries. Iran, for its part, is trying to appear as though it is taking under its wing Muslim countries interested in moving ahead in this area.

In his last visit to Algeria, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad discussed the nuclear issue extensively. But it should be remembered that not every agreement on nuclear cooperation matures into the establishment of reactors or full implementation. Declarations of intent do not necessarily obligate the parties.

Among those expressing themselves on the nuclear issue is King Abdullah of Jordan, who told the Washington Post last week at the Petra Conference that Jordan would be quicker than other Arab countries in obtaining nuclear energy.

He said that Jordan's goals were entirely civilian. Jordan was considering placing nuclear energy in the hands of a civilian firm to decrease concerns, he said.

In Syria, which officially denies that the facility bombed in September was nuclear, Oil Minister Sufian Alao said recently that his country would move ahead on joint nuclear activities with Turkey, as reported by Turkey's Anatolian News Agency.

The extent of Syria's cooperation with North Korea and Iran in the nuclear realm is disturbing to many, and no single answer is forthcoming. Syrian President Bashar Assad says his country wants to develop a nuclear program "in an Arab framework," meaning with other Arab countries under the umbrella of the Arab League.

Egypt uses the nuclear issue to prove its advanced patriotic activities, with promotion of the issue associated with President Hosni Mubarak's son, Gamal Mubarak.

Saudi Arabia has raised the issue in various forums and is holding talks with the U.S. and France. The Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes most of the Arab states in the Persian Gulf, has declared that it would promote cooperation on this issue.

According to Asculai, a number of Arab states have poor scientific infrastructure that will make it difficult for them to develop independent nuclear programs. He says technical difficulties will block the Gulf states from building a nuclear reactor.

"A nuclear reactor for energy must be profitable only if it produces a great deal of electricity. For the countries to collaborate on this issue, they will have to upgrade the infrastructure for delivering electricity," he said.

Algeria: Advancing a nuclear program for civilian purposes with France and Iran. It has several facilities that are suspected of being used in the past for military purposes.

 

 

Related articles:
 

Report: Turkey and Syria consider joint nuclear energy project

Israel and U.S. sign nuclear cooperation agreement

King Abdullah to Haaretz: Jordan aims to develop nuclear power