Pius X broederschap openlijk antisemitisch

 

Het Vlaamse maandblad Joods Actueel heeft 'onthuld' dat de Pius X broederschap niet alleen oer-conservatief en reactionair is, maar openlijk antisemitisch. Dat bleek eenvoudig uit de diverse websites van Pius X zelf. Heeft het Vaticaan nog geen internet??

 

Wouter

 

Voor Joods Actueel zie ook: Interview met hoofdredacteur Joods Actueel in Antwerpen (uit 2007)

_________________

 

Last update - 16:56 19/02/2009      
Report: Vatican readmits society that propagates anti-Semitism
By Cnaan Liphshiz, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065467.html

 

In lifting the excommunication of Bishop Richard Williamson who has been accused of Holocaust denial last month, the Catholic Church also readmitted a priestly society that openly propagates virulent anti-Semitism, according to a probe by a Belgian Jewish newspaper.

The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated The Society of St. Pius X in 1988 along with Williamson and three other member priests, declaring their consecrations were "unlawful" and "schismatic."

In January of this year the Vatican lifted the excommunication. On the same day, a Swedish television station aired an interview with Williamson in which he denied the existence of gas chambers during the Holocaust.
 
In a research performed after the readmittance, a team of journalists from Joods Actueel, an Antwerp-based Jewish news publication, found what they describe as "a slew of anti-Semitic content" on the society's Web sites in five languages.

The probe whose results were made public on Thursday, found that the society's official U.S. Web site described Jews as "the enemy of man, whose secret weapon is the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy," adding that "heads of Jewry have for centuries conspired methodically and out of an undying hatred against the Catholic name."

The South African site said that "Jews have come closer and closer to fulfilling their substitute-Messianic drive towards world dominion." The Irish site asks whether "the Jews are guilty of Deicide," answering: "We must say yes."

The site from Germany, a country with strict limitations on anti-Semitic speech, clarifies that "contemporary Jews are for sure guilty of the murder of God, as long as they don't recognize Christ as God."

The Belgian site accuses Jews of "still believing they are the chosen people" while "awaiting world domination." The Austrian site warns that the Jewish organization B'nai Brith is "found everywhere" and "commands the entire world."

Michael Freilich, editor-in-chief of Joods Actueel, told Haaretz that anti-Semitic content was being pulled offline even as the team of four journalists were documenting and saving the material - which Haaretz obtained from Joods Actueel.

Noting that The Society of St. Pius X is believed to have between 600,000 and a million followers, Frielich said: "Williamson's Holocaust denial has attracted much attention, but this anti-Semitic content is in many ways worse because he is a lone fool and not taken seriously by the masses, whereas here we are talking about an entire society spreading hatred around the world."

Freilich added that "while Williamson's lies negate the past, what we have uncovered here is preaching of lies and hate against Jews today."

The Society of St. Pius X was founded in 1970 by French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.

Experts on the Catholic Church such as Dirk Verhofstadt - brother of the former Belgian prime minister - have said that in addition to expressing these positions on Jews, society members have also disavows the Nostra Aetate - a document whereby the Church says Jews were not responsible for the death of Christ.

VS niet meer gekant tegen Palestijnse eenheidsregering?

 

Hoewel de VS natuurlijk niet zegt voor onderhandelingen met Hamas te zijn, lijkt er wel degelijk sprake van een koerswijziging. De eerste vraag die aan Hamas gesteld zou moeten worden, is waarom men Israel niet wil erkennen en waar men denkt over te willen praten zolang men Israel niet erkent. Het is immers Hamas zelf dat zich isoleert door te weigeren met Israel te praten en onderhandelingen zinloos en een vorm van tijdverspilling noemt.

 

RP

-----------

Mitchell could support PA unity gov't
Hilary Leila Krieger , THE JERUSALEM POST

Feb. 19, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304832116&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

 

US Middle East Envoy George Mitchell expressed support for Egyptian efforts to forge a Palestinian national unity government, indicating that America could take a new tack on Fatah-Hamas reconciliation, during a conference call Thursday with Jewish leaders.

In sharp contrast to the Bush administration, which opposed a Palestinian national unity government, Mitchell said that should Egypt bring the sides together it would be "a step forward," and that until now divisions among the Palestinians have been a major obstacle to bringing peace to the region, according to representatives of Jewish organizations who participated in the call. The 45-minute call was on the record but not open to the media.

Mitchell said that Hamas would still need to adhere to the Quartet's demands that it halt violence, recognize Israel and accept previous Palestinian-Israeli agreements in such a government, and assessed that the chances of Hamas doing that weren't good. But the fact that the US would support a Palestinian structure aimed at incorporating and potentially co-opting Hamas - rather than working to exclude it - suggest the contours of a fresh approach by the Obama administration.

The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for clarification on its policy on a Palestinian unity government Thursday or confirmation of Mitchell's comments.

Mitchell did not take a position on the notion of an Israeli national unity government during the call, saying that decisions about the coalition make-up were ones to be made by Israelis alone, participants said.

He did, however, appear to take a position differing from that of Binyamin Netanyahu, the Likud leader likely to head Israel's next government, when he maintained that economic progress for the Palestinians had to be accompanied by political progress.

Where Netanyahu - who was not mentioned even implicitly in Mitchell's comments, according to those on the call - has focused on the importance of improving the socio-economic condition of Palestinians while prospects for peace appear dim, Mitchell said those improvements must be part of comprehensive peace efforts. He said both economic development and political progress were necessary and should be concurrent rather than sequential.

He compared the situation to that of a builder who might be starting with the foundation but still needed a master plan to create a house.

Despite the Israeli coalition wrangling which has yet to be resolved, Mitchell said he would still be departing for the region as planned this weekend, his second trip since he was appointed in the first week of US President Barack Obama's term. His first trip was a "listening" tour to hear from the different parties in the conflict, and he said that positions on all the issues were still being reviewed, including that toward settlements.

He said that he would not "pre-judge" the settlement issue, surprising some listeners who had expected he would offer starker criticism, particularly since he co-authored a report in 2001 highly critical of settlement construction.

He did note, however, that settlements were one of many important issues - though not the only issue - and that it was one mentioned in every conversation he held with Arab representatives.

Though some of the call participants from left-leaning organizations seemed dismayed that Mitchell did not take a more aggressive line on settlements, others were reassured that he didn't feel beholden to his earlier report.

The call featured a variety of organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the United Jewish Communities and American Jewish Committee, with about half the questions asked by progressive organizations, including Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and the New Israel Fund, that have not always been included in previous administrations' outreach.

"It's a breath of fresh air to have a briefing with a broad spectrum of pro-Israel organizations that is on the record," said Ori Nir, spokesman for the dovish Americans for Peace Now.

At the same time, Nathan Diament of the more hawkish Orthodox Union, said he appreciated that Mitchell acknowledged "he had to operate in the current reality" and was in the process of listening to different points of view before setting out policy prescriptions.

Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, noted that Mitchell was well versed in the politics of each organization but didn't try to conceal differences with them.

"He was always diplomatic, but if he disagreed or thought that a perspective was not where the administration is going, he was willing to say so," he said.

Forman praised Mitchell for also stressing the importance of preserving Israeli's qualitative military edge and the US's strong commitment to Israel's overall security - even as he maintained that that commitment was in no way incompatible with a two-state solution.

Mitchell told the callers that he re-read his report while returning from his last trip to Israel and had been struck by how much had changed in the region since then. As an example, he cited Iran, which wasn't included at all in the 2001 study but now was in the first sentence he heard from all of the players.

He also warned against relying too much on history and historical comparisons, noting that his work brokering peace in Northern Ireland did not provide the best blueprint for resolving the Middle East conflict since the latter was not only different but tougher to solve.

At the same time, he noted that his earlier success made him believe peace in the Middle East was possible.

And he said that he had learned one lesson from his experience in Ireland that he believed was applicable now: the importance of having representation from all the different factions in the conflict. His remarks about the positive impact Egypt's efforts at bringing Palestinians together were made in this context.

It is a comparison that others have made, and seen as a sign that this US administration might be more willing to talk to Hamas than the previous one.

Mitchell, however, did not suggest that that was in the cards, and reiterated that the Quartet's demands remain in place. However, a willingness to work with a unity government, as opposed to a policy of isolating Hamas in hopes that that would diminish its power and popularity, would still represent a dramatic change in America's approach.

Martin Indyk, who was speaking at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy, which he directs, before Mitchell's conference call, suggested that the Obama administration would try to use the Palestinian national unity consultations to change the dynamic there.

Unlike the Bush administration, he said, he expected the US would "not stand in the way" of a national unity government, but that the US would want to ensure that the government that results is "one that can make negotiations possible."

Therefore, he said that while the Arab countries, such as Egypt, will lead the process, America needs "to have a kind of invisible hand" to achieve an outcome where Hamas can work with Fatah so that international demands can be met and the process can move forward.

At this point, there's been no indication that the Obama administration intends to drop the Quartet demands or have direct contacts with Hamas. An Israeli diplomatic official said that "there's no sign, not even a hint of change" on that policy. "I think we see eye to eye fully on that."

And Chairman of the US Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations John Kerry, on Thursday making the first visit to the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control in 2007, also insisted that US policy towards the Islamic organization it labels a terror group wouldn't change.

But that doesn't mean that other states and actors in the international community couldn't act as intermediaries, as Egypt has done in helping to negotiate a truce between Israel and Hamas.

The support that Mitchell expressed on the call for a national unity government was a starting point welcomed by Henry Siegman, director of the New York-based US Middle East Project, who supports including Hamas in Middle East talks.

The project's senior advisers and board members, who include former US national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, represent a bi-partisan group of former high-ranking US foreign policy officials primarily from the "realist" school of thought.

They recently sent a letter to the Obama administration urging a change in policy which would include outreach to Hamas.

Siegman argued that negotiations aimed at moderating Hamas would be most effective if the Americans were directly involved, but said European and other international intermediaries could also work. "The important thing is that such initiatives would have to be supported by the administration," he said.

He added that the administration had indicated it would like to meet with the authors of the letter, which has not been made public, but no date has yet been set.

VS toch naar Durban review conferentie?

 

De VS doet toch mee aan de voorbereidingen voor de Durban vervolg conferentie, ondanks het feit dat de VS onder Bush had gezegd de conferentie - en dus ook de voorbereidingsbijeenkomsten - te boycotten.

 

As for what this Review Conference is supposed to achieve, some clues are provided in the latest draft of the so-called Outcome Document. Israel's "racial policies" are a major theme, as is "the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories," meaning Israel itself. Under debate, however, is whether to include a line that the Holocaust "resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people." Presumably Iran objects.

 

The draft also calls "on states to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation." Yes, you read that right. The transparent purpose is to criminalize all criticism of Islam, a.k.a. "Islamophobia." There is also a not-so-sly effort to extract reparations for the long-banned trans-Atlantic slave trade: States that "have not yet condemned, apologized and paid reparations" for the trade are urged "to do so at the earliest."

 

'Change' is niet altijd goed en niet alles wat Bush deed was verkeerd. Hopelijk komt het State Department snel tot bezinning. Meedoen aan een racistische conferentie is een vorm van medeplichtigheid.

 

RP

-----------

Obama's Durban Dalliance

Does an anti-Semitic conference deserve U.S. participation of any kind?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123508939643928103.html

 

 

Last December, we wrote that an "early test" for the Obama Administration would be whether it participated in a forthcoming U.N. conference on racism, better known as Durban II. Uh, oh.

 

The first "Durban" -- named for the South African city where the U.N. held its 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance -- was chiefly notable as a virulent display of anti-Semitism. Yet last weekend, the Administration announced it would participate in "conference preparations," while reserving judgment on whether to attend the conference itself. If this isn't failing the big test, it's flunking the pop quiz.

 

So here's a make-up review. Back in 2001, then-Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to appear at Durban for fear that it would turn into a carnival of hatred and grievance. That's exactly what happened, prompting Mr. Powell to withdraw the U.S. delegation. As he put it at the time, "I know that you do not combat racism by suggesting that apartheid exists in Israel."

 

Undeterred, the U.N. has been merrily planning what it formally calls the "Durban Review Conference," which is scheduled for April and whose purpose is to "reaffirm the Durban Declaration." The preparatory committee is chaired by Libya. Vice chairs include Iran and Cuba, which does double duty as the committee "rapporteur." The conference is organized under the auspices of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which the Bush Administration refused to join.

 

As for what this Review Conference is supposed to achieve, some clues are provided in the latest draft of the so-called Outcome Document. Israel's "racial policies" are a major theme, as is "the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories," meaning Israel itself. Under debate, however, is whether to include a line that the Holocaust "resulted in the murder of one third of the Jewish people." Presumably Iran objects.

 

The draft also calls "on states to develop, and where appropriate to incorporate, permissible limitations on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression into national legislation." Yes, you read that right. The transparent purpose is to criminalize all criticism of Islam, a.k.a. "Islamophobia." There is also a not-so-sly effort to extract reparations for the long-banned trans-Atlantic slave trade: States that "have not yet condemned, apologized and paid reparations" for the trade are urged "to do so at the earliest."

 

The Obama Administration knows all of this. In its press release, the State Department stressed that its intent in sending a delegation to Geneva is "to try to change the direction in which the Review Conference is heading." State also adds that its involvement "does not indicate -- and should not be misconstrued to indicate -- that the United States will participate" in the formal conference.

 

We'd be more confident if State hadn't released the news at 7:03 p.m. last Saturday, when most of the world was better occupied. This is how Washington officialdom announces decisions of which it is not especially proud.

 

 

Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

 

Palestijnen Gaza vuren 10 mortiergranaten en een Qassam raket af

 

De Palestijnse raketaanvallen en Israelische tegenacties gaan vooralsnog gewoon door.

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

 

Last update - 12:41 20/02/2009    
Gaza militants fire 10 mortar shells, Qassam rocket at Negev
By Haaretz Service
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1065783.html

 

 

Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Friday fired 10 mortar shells and a Qassam rocket at the western Negev, causing no casualties.

 

Israel Defense Forces troops operating in the Kissufim area identified the explosions and opened fire in the direction of the launchers across the border.

 

The strikes came amid an apparent stalemate in Gaza Strip truce negotiations, following Israel's demand that a cease-fire be linked to the release of abducted Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
 
Defense official Amos Gilad, who has been negotiating with Egyptian mediators over the truce, reportedly canceled his trip to Egypt on Friday, according to the Arabic daily Al-Hayat.

 

Five Qassams exploded in open areas of the western Negev on Thursday, three in the evening and two in the morning.

 

In response to the morning attack, Israel Air Force warplanes bombed six smuggling tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border, the army said.

 

There were no reports of casualties, but the attack did cause secondary blasts, according to the Israel Defense Forces, which indicated that explosives were hit in the air strike.

 

The strikes took place about 30 kilometers from where a group of U.S. lawmakers was visiting.

 

Earlier Thursday, the IDF hit a Palestinian militant attempting to plant a bomb on the Israel-Gaza border, lightly wounding him.

 

Peres erkent fout eenzijdige terugtrekking Gazastrook

 

Dit is voer voor rechtse Zionisten, die natuurlijk 'altijd al' hadden geweten dat disengagement niet werkt en slechts de Palestijnse wil om Israel te vernietigen zou versterken. Feit is dat velen dit niet hebben geweten, dat men oprecht hoopte dat de terugtrekking uit Gaza een opening naar vrede kon zijn, en de Palestijnen zouden proberen, met internationale hulp, om wat van de Gazastrook te maken. Natuurlijk had Israel een en ander beter kunnen doen en meer met de Palestijnen moeten coördineren, maar feit blijft dat Hamas na de Israelische terugtrekking de verkiezingen won en het aantal raketten op Israel fors opvoerde, een Israelische soldaat ontvoerde en meermaals probeerde in Israel aanslagen te plegen. Het debacle van de terugtrekking heeft rechts in Israel versterkt en mede geleid tot de overwinning van rechts in de verkiezingen van vorige week.

 

RP

----------

Peres: I was wrong about disengagement
Etgar Lefkovits , THE JERUSALEM POST

Feb. 18, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304815871&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

 

President Shimon Peres said Wednesday that he had erred in supporting Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

The revealing remarks come three years after Israel's evacuation of the volatile coastal strip which has since been seized by Hamas.

"Whatever will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in leaving Gaza," Peres said in a question and answer session with a group of American Jewish leaders. "It should have been done otherwise. I was for leaving Gaza. I consider myself as one of the persons mistaken."

The dovish leader, who has long been a champion of Israeli territorial withdrawals, said that although "lessons must be drawn" from the 2005 unilateral Gaza pullout, demographic and democratic considerations still necessitate the creation of a Palestinian state.

"It doesn't change the fact that there is a [demographic] reality," he told the annual Israel meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "I want to make sure that the state we have remains Jewish."

 

 

PA gaat door met verheerlijken Palestijnse terroristen

 

Het wantrouwen in Israel jegens de Palestijnen is niet zo vreemd, en het zijn dit soort zaken die, veeleer dan een religieuze overtuiging dat Judea en Samaria door God aan de Joden zijn gegeven, tot de winst van rechts hebben geleid.

 

RP

----------

 

Bulletin
Feb. 18, 2009

Palestinian Media Watch

PA continues to glorify terrorist murderers
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

 

The official Palestinian Authority daily has praised and glorified the terrorist who murdered three civilians and seven Israeli soldiers in a 2002 ambush. The terrorist was praised for entering "the history of the Intifada as having carried out the most successful military action, alone... he is the hero of the Intifada... [doing] what tens of brigades and platoons, and hundreds of missiles and heroic stories, failed to do."

The killer, Thaer Hamed, hid on a hill and shot and killed the seven Israeli soldiers, one after the other, as they emerged from a building below. He also shot and killed an Israeli paramedic and two civilians in the area. 

The article, in the official newspaper of Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, also praises the Hamas kidnapping of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit as "a military action that was successful by any military yardstick." It says that the sniper Hamed is "made of the same stuff as those who carried out the capture of Shalit."

Glorifying terrorists is a regular practice in Palestinian society, by both the Fatah and Hamas leadership. The PA regularly honors terrorists as role models for children and youth by naming schools, summer camps and athletic facilities after some of the most heinous killers.

Hafez Barghouti, editor of PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, wrote the yesterday's article glorifying the killings, inflating the number of his victims and praising Hamed. He called on Palestinians to view Hamed as a top priority for release in any future prisoner exchange.

The following is the text from the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, by editor-in-chief, Hafez Barghouti:

"There is still some chance to carry out a deal [to free jailed Palestinians], since the present [Israeli] government wants last-minute achievements to bolster the Kadima and Labor parties... But what pains us is that at the top of the list of senior prisoners whose liberty is being sought, one non-political name is missing, that of the young sniper Thaer Hamed, who carried out the operation at Wadi Al-Haramiyye... [he] belonged to no faction when he carried out his action... which killed nine [Israeli] soldiers and three settlers. [Actual figure was seven soldiers and three civilians - Ed.]...

This young man should be our top priority, since he entered the history of the Intifada as having carried out the most successful military action, alone...

Thaer Hamed deserves freedom because he is the hero of the Intifada, and he is the only Palestinian resistance fighter who belongs to his people and to his land, spurning the factions, for had he been factional, he would not have succeeded in his action. He acted alone, going out to play solo on the M-1 [carbine], and did what tens of brigades and platoons, and hundreds of missiles and heroic stories, failed to do.

He is made of the same stuff as those who carried out the capture of Shalit, a military action that was successful by any military yardstick, and now he [Thaer Hamed] should be freed."

 [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 17, 2009]

Contact Palestinian Media Watch:

 

p:+972 2 625 4140	e: pmw@pmw.org.il
f: +972 2 624 2803	w: www.pmw.org.il

 

Lieberman en Hamas: extremisme, fairness en balans

 

Hoe extremistisch en racistisch is Avigdor Lieberman precies? Zeker ver over de schreef voor Westerse begrippen, en behoorlijk verontrustend voor Israëlische begrippen, maar in een gemiddeld Arabisch land zou hij nauwelijks opvallen, als hij Arabier was tenminste.

 

Wouter

____________

Lieberman and Hamas: Extremism, Fairness and Balance

17.02. 2009
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000661.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com

The rise of Avigdor Lieberman and his Yisrael Beyteinu party have elicited a world wide chorus of dismayed protests about Israel succumbing to "extremism" and "racism." Bombastic statements and frightening editorials evoke visions of storm troopers and torch lit parades in Rabin square.

The Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman branded Avigdor Lieberman a racist. Considering that Egyptian government media regularly feature the Protocols of the Elders of Zion along with articles insisting that Hitler didn't finish his work, that's a pretty strong statement. The Washington Post thundered about "ultranationalist" Avigdor Lieberman's "fiery anti-Arab rhetoric." Americans for Peace Now warned against "Legitimizing Lieberman's Bigotry." From his jail cell, arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti told Newsweek, and Newsweek duly publicized:

This is not just a move to the right; this is a move towards extremism. When you have a person like...Avigdor Lieberman, who openly advocates ethnic cleansing, that is an unhealthy sign. Occupation corrupts Israel, and it corrupts the Israelis.

Barghouti, who is serving 5 life sentences for his role in planning suicide bombings and other terror attacks, is presumably an expert on extremism. As a former Secretary General of the Fatah in the West Bank, he is certainly an expert on corruption. The UK paper Al Quds al Arabi joined a call by Israeli Arab MK Ahmad Tibi to boycott Israel if Avigdor Lieberman is allowed into the Israeli government. Various former US officials and Jewish leaders warned that Avigdor Lieberman's participation in the government would be a disaster for U.S. - Israeli relations.

I am not a great fan of Avigdor Lieberman as many of you know very well. But any fair person has to appreciate the delicious irony of this outcry. All these self righteous defenders of human rights who call for boycotting Avigdor Lieberman, and who are hysterical about the rise of extremism in Israel are almost invariably the same people who insist on legitimizing the Hamas and "recognizing the democratic choice of the Palestinian people. Hamas, it should be pointed out at every opportunity, insists that it is going to implement the vision of the prophet, which calls for extermination of all the Jews. Hamas openly declares that it intends to destroy Israel. Hamas refers to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in its charter.

The critics are alarmed when less than 13% of the Israeli people voted for Avigdor Lieberman, but it didn't bother them at all when nearly 50% of the Palestinians voted for the Hamas. Dear comrade Marwan Barghouti must be "credited" (if that is the right word) with forming the odious "National and Islamic front" which brought the Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad into the mainstream of Palestinian politics. Ahmad Tibi constantly champions the cause of the Hamas.

Aren't many of those same Jewish leaders who are so alarmed about Lieberman and his "extremism," the very same people who are pressuring the Obama administration to negotiate with Iran and with Hamas? Avigdor Lieberman, unlike the Iranian government, doesn't want to hang Bahai and homosexuals. He doesn't even advocate shooting traitors, as Hamas does routinely. So what's all the excitement about Lieberman? He wants Arabs to join an Arab Palestinian state, with their land. That's considered racist. But Marwan Barghouti wants the Jews of East Jerusalem to leave without their land and go to pre-1967 Israel, while the Hamas and the Iranian government plan for the Jews of Israel to leave and go to hell. But the Hamas and Iran are not considered racist, while Lieberman is. They are partners for negotiation and engagement, while Lieberman, according to the critics, should be shunned as an "extremist."

Invariably, the rise of the Hamas and the rise of extremists like Marwan Barghouti are explained away as due to "frustration." The Palestinian people really want peace, but they back suicide bombers and racists because of the frustrations of the peace process and the occupation. Israelis get no no such understanding. The supposedly universal rule that frustration breeds extremism has an exception. Israeli Jews, we are told, chose extremists because are evil, racist and corrupted by the occupation. Otherwise, it cannot be explained. All right thinking people would welcome having Grad rockets in their living room, and warmly accept a minority that supports the enemy in time of war. If some Israeli Jews think otheriwise, it is certainly because they are irretrievably evil and racist.

Finally, let's see if I got this right about Ahmad Tibi. Avigdor Lieberman is angry that Arab MKs in particular are disloyal to Israel. "Nonsense" say his critics. "Nonsense" says Ahmad Tibi. Tibi is such a good citizen of Israel that he proposes to boycott Israel. Does anyone see a problem there?

Ami Isseroff

---

Original content is Copyright by the author 2009. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000661.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.

 

De kanarie in de steenkoolmijn: antisemitisme leeft op tijdens crisis

 

Via de achterdeur van verontwaardiging over Israëlisch geweld, komt het eeuwenoude antisemitisme langzaam weer terug in Europa.

 

Wouter
__________________

February 16, 2009
The writing is on the synagogue wall
World depressions lead to a rise in anti-Semitism. All over Europe, the evidence is around us
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5740603.ece
Denis MacShane

 

The periodic crises that have shaken world capitalism in the century and a half since Marx wrote Das Kapital are marked by a common political phenomenon. It is the rise of political anti-Semitism. Attacks on Jews and Jewishness constitute the canary in the coal mine that tells us something is going seriously wrong.

Last month a 32-year-old IT worker, Michael Booksatz, was beaten up in the streets of north London by two hooded men shouting about Palestinians. Jewish students at the London School of Economics - home to many brilliant Jews who fled Hitler's Germany - are now frightened by anti-Jewish abuse from Islamist students. Graffiti such as "Kill the Jews" or "Jihad 4 Israel" appear close to synagogues in London.

The Metropolitan Police report four times as many anti-Jewish incidents in recent weeks as Islamaphobic events. The respected Community Security Trust, which records anti-Jewish attacks with scrupulous rigour, reports as many attacks on Jews - verbal, vandalism and some violent - in the first weeks of 2009 as in the first six months of last year.

As the world enters a new era of crisis, anti-Semitism is back. History, as ever, begins to repeat itself. The slumps and stock market fever expressed in Zola's novel, L'Argent, or the populist anger against Wall Street at the end of the 19th century gave rise to the virulent anti-Semitic politics witnessed in France in connection with the Dreyfus case or the takeover of Vienna by openly anti-Semitic politicians. The Great Depression gave rise to the worst expressions of anti-Semitism ever seen, namely the politics that led to the Holocaust. But even in Britain the Duke of Wellington of the time was leader of a secret anti-Jewish organisation which had the initials PJ - Perish Judah - on its letterhead.

The economic crises of the 1970s led to a marked increase in the vote for the National Front in Britain and the openly anti-Semitic BNP, its successor extreme party, is doing very well in local elections - below the radar of the national opinion polls.

The distress and upset over the terrible pictures of children killed in Israel's attacks on Hamas in Gaza have allowed anti-Israeli feelings to be more violently and vehemently expressed than ever before. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic. But all anti-Semites hate the existence of a Jewish state and hiding behind code words such as anti-Zionism increases the density and viciousness of their anti-Jewish utterances.

In Italy, the streets of Milan are daubed with slogans urging Italians not to buy goods at Jewish shops - an echo of the Nazi slogan "Kauft Nicht Bei Juden". In Germany, radio phone-ins are full of accusations that the bankers accused of being responsible for the current economic crisis are Jews. In anti-Israel demonstrations in Berlin, placards stating "It was a good idea to use gas" or "I'm anti-Semitic and that's a good thing" were carried. Thus every Jew is made to feel as if they do not fully belong in the countries where they were born or the societies that they participate in.

Terrible massacres of Muslims have taken place in different parts of the world so far this century, from Kashmir to Gujarat. In Iraq and Afghanistan, Nato soldiers are accused of brutality but the men with the most blood on their hands of fellow Muslims have been Islamist ideologues. Yet there is no outrage against the perpetrators of those attacks compared with the onslaught on Israel and on Jews.

Is it unreasonable to argue that the reason that there is worldwide anger against Israel but not against other regimes or religions that carry out massacres of Muslims is because the Israelis are Jews? Has legitimate criticism and anger against Israel allowed Jew hate to become almost acceptable politics again? Add to this a world economic crisis in which it is so easy to point at the names of the swindlers and banksters that happen to be Jewish, and a new perfect storm of anti-Semitism begins to take shape.

Today in London a conference of parliamentarians from different legislatures in Europe and around the world will gather to discuss what can be done. Michael Gove, for the Conservatives, will join Labour Cabinet ministers Hazel Blears and Jim Murphy in saying it is time for the Parliaments of the democractic world to take action against anti-Semitism - especially Islamist attacks against young Jewish students on university campuses.

The Pope embraces a Holocaust-denying Winchester and Cambridge-educated bishop; slogans such as "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas" are chanted in Amsterdam;

Jews are again made to feel they are not full citizens of the countries of their birth because they refuse to support the right of Hamas and Hezbollah to use terror attacks against Israeli civilians. The canary in the coal mine seems in danger of its life once again.


Denis MacShane, MP, is a former Minister for Europe and the author of Globalising Hatred: the New Anti-Semitism (Weidenfeld & Nicolson)

 

 

Lieberman en Livni streven naar 'seculier front' als tegenwicht tegen religieus blok

 

Livni en Netanjahoe lijken in een strijd verwikkeld om de gunst van Lieberman, en Livni heeft verklaard het op de meeste punten met hem eens te zijn. Hoewel Lieberman minder radikaal is dan hij vaak wordt neergezet, lijkt ze nu toch wel makkelijk over zijn sterk anti-Arabische retoriek heen te stappen. De loyaliteitsverklaring die de Arabieren in Israel van Lieberman moeten tekenen is slechts een voorbeeld daarvan. En 'Hamas vernietigen' klinkt mooi, maar de vraag is natuurlijk wel wat de prijs is en wat de internationale beperkingen zijn. Het zou anderzijds mooi zijn als wat meer tegenwicht tegen het machtige religieuze blok wordt gevormd, en bijvoorbeeld eindelijk een burgerlijk huwelijk wordt ingevoerd en mensen niet meer naar Cyprus hoeven om te trouwen.

 

RP

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

Last update - 13:08 17/02/2009       
Lieberman, Livni mull 'civil front' to counter religious bloc
By Mazal Mualem, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064786.html

 

 

Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman and Kadima chief Tzipi Livni are working to form a "civil front" to counter the right-wing and ultra-Orthodox parties which Likud has been wooing in the coalition talks.

 

Sources in Kadima and Likud say they don't expect Lieberman to recommend any candidate to President Shimon Peres on Thursday as Yisrael Beiteinu's choice to form a new government. Lieberman would instead try to force the formation of a national unity government consisting of Kadima, Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu, without ultra-Orthodox Sephardi party Shas.

 

"Bibi doesn't have Lieberman," Vice Premier Haim Ramon told Haaretz on Monday, using the nickname of Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu. "And the significance of this is that Netanyahu doesn't have 61 Knesset members who will recommend that he be asked by the president to form the next government. On civil matters, Lieberman is more of our [Kadima's] partner than Bibi's."

 

Kadima came in first in last week's general election, followed by Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu and Labor.

 

But Labor party chairman Ehud Barak reportedly said that Livni's dealings with Lieberman mean that Labor will not recommend to Peres that Livni form the next government.

 

Closer relations between Kadima and Yisrael Beiteinu were reflected Monday in a meeting between Ramon and Stas Misezhnikov, the head of Yisrael Beiteinu's negotiating team for the coalition talks. Ramon presented a document showing that Kadima had accepted all of Yisrael
Beiteinu's five demands except for the proposal on citizenship legislation.

 

In everything related to religion and state, the Kadima document is similar to Yisrael Beiteinu's position, including support for a civil-marriage law, a change in the system of government and a solution for the conversion issue.

 

At minimum Lieberman will try to show his electorate that he is promoting the so-called civil agenda he advocated during the election campaign, sources say.

 

Senior figures in Lieberman's party say their boss is interested in creating a situation in which Kadima will not enter the government without Yisrael Beiteinu.

 

Netanyahu associates, meanwhile, say there is no chance that Shas will be excluded from a Netanyahu government. They expect Netanyahu to lead the next coalition.

 

Hamas stal niet-ontplofte bommen uit VN waarhuis

 

Vorige week stal Hamas voedsel en dekens van de VN, en ook tijdens Israels offensief in Gaza heeft Hamas meermaals hulpgoederen van UNRWA geconfisceerd.

 

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

Last update - 23:00 17/02/2009
IDF: Hamas seized unexploded ordnance fired during Gaza op
By Haaretz Service
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064943.html

 

The Israel Defense Forces said Tuesday that Hamas has commandeered a large cache of unexploded weapons fired by Israel into the Gaza Strip during its offensive last month.

The cache had disappeared while under guard by Hamas officials. United Nations experts had planned to dispose safely of the stockpile, which includes aircraft bombs and white phosphorous shells.

UN officials discovered earlier this week that most of the contents of a Gaza warehouse being guarded by Hamas were missing. Israel Defense Force spokesman Peter Lerner said the cache had been "commandeered by Hamas."
"We were told of the disappearance of the bombs, our understanding is that Hamas took them," he said.

UN officials said that they were urgently seeking out the location of the weapons and calling for their return. They said some of the unexploded devices were extremely volatile and could easily be set off by accident.

"We are anxious to get the return of this ordnance. It's clearly extremely dangerous and needs to be disposed of in a safe manner," Richard Miron, the senior UN spokesman in Jerusalem said. "This is our primary concern."

A UN team trained to remove and destroy unexploded ordnance has been operating in the Gaza Strip for three weeks, but its work is being held up because Israel has not approved the entry of its equipment nor an area for storing and neutralizing ordnance.

For now some of the latter, located by the Palestinian police, is being stored in locations that are dangerously close to population centers in Rafah, Khan Yunis and Gaza City. The team is waiting for permission from the IDF to use two safe areas to dispose of the ordnance.

Despite the delays, the team has made some progress that does not depend on equipment, especially in searching out unexploded ordnance - many of which have already been collected by Hamas officials.

White phosphorus bombs found in Gaza City and in the northern Gaza Strip last month and placed in a lot near police headquarters in Gaza City, near bombs with a collective weight of 7,500 kilograms, were neutralized by being submerged in water and covered with sand.

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

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304810241&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Five tons of unexploded Israeli bombs stored in the Gaza Strip under Hamas police guard have been stolen, UN officials said Tuesday.
 
UN spokesman Richard Miron said the explosives were being stored in Gaza until a UN team of disposal experts could disarm them, but they disappeared.

 

The bombs were dropped on Gaza during Israel's offensive there last month, according to another UN official. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said three one-ton bombs and eight quarter-ton bombs were taken from the warehouse.

 

Miron said, "It's clearly extremely dangerous and needs to be disposed of in a safe manner." He said the material was under Hamas guard between Feb. 4 and 14 "in a warehouse in Gaza City under guard by Hamas police when it was stolen."

 

IDF spokesman Peter Lerner told The Associated Press that the explosives were probably taken by Hamas. He said Israel had been informed by the UN about the missing ordnance.

 

Hamas officials in Gaza contacted by the AP said they had no knowledge of the matter.

 

 

 

Onderzoek NOS berichtgeving over Israel en Gaza Oorlog

IMO Blog, 2009

Ik heb mij al vaker geërgerd aan de berichtgeving van de NOS. Tijdens de Gaza Oorlog werd er bijna alleen vanuit Gaza bericht, en eindeloos konden Palestijnen vertellen dat Israël vooral onschuldige Palestijnen had getroffen en Hamas nauwelijks was geraakt. Van allerlei incidenten werd steeds alleen of voornamelijk de Palestijnse versie gegeven, zoals de zogenaamde beschieting van een UNRWA school waarbij meer dan 40 doden, onder wie veel vrouwen en kinderen, zouden zijn gevallen, de beschieting van een ander VN gebouw, de beschieting van een Palestijnse familie waarbij tientallen onschuldige burgers omkwamen, de beschieting van moskeeën en een TV station.


In veel gevallen bleek dat er vanuit of van nabij die plaatsen op het Israëlische leger was geschoten of raketten op Israël werden afgevuurd, en in sommige gevallen bleek het hele verhaal onjuist, zoals bij de UNRWA school. De VN bleek niet altijd de zo betrouwbare bron die het volgens de NOS en veel andere media is. De Israëlische versie van het gebeurde, of Israëlische schattingen van aantallen doden, werden niet gegeven.

Ook was er nauwelijks aandacht voor de manier waarop Hamas opereerde, voor haar cynische gebruik van de burgerbevolking, het feit dat het leiderschap zich schuilhield onder het Shifa ziekenhuis, de moskeeën die vol explosieven waren gestopt en de situering van militaire posities van Hamas vlakbij burgerdoelen als scholen en moskeeën. Daarvan zijn verschillende luchtfoto's vrijgegeven, zoals van het schuilen achter burgers en het misbruik van ambulances ook verschillende video's zijn vrijgegeven, maar die werden niet één keer op het journaal getoond. Toen na de Gaza Oorlog steeds meer feiten naar buiten kwamen over Hamas en de executies van vermeende verraders en Fatah leden, het feit dat Palestijnse burgers werden gedwongen hun huis of boerderij aan Hamas strijders ter beschikking te stellen, besloot men niet daar ook eens een reportage over te maken. Tijdens de gehele Gaza Oorlog is er één keer uit Israël bericht over het leed en de angst die de raketten van Hamas veroorzaakten. In de weken voor de operatie besteedde het journaal geen aandacht aan de raketaanvallen, behalve soms in relatie tot Israëlische represailles die dan centraal stonden, en de raketaanvallen werden dan ook als reactie op Israëlische geweld voorgesteld.

Afgelopen zondag meldde de Jerusalem Post dat volgens een onderzoek van het Israëlische leger tweederde van de doden in Gaza Hamas strijders waren:

On Sunday, four full weeks after the fighting ended, the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) was finally ready to show The Jerusalem Post its research into the fatalities - information compiled from a variety of sources, notably including Hamas's own media and other open Palestinian sources.

This research contradicts the official Hamas-Gaza government claims, in the course of the fighting and since, that most of those killed were civilians.

Attempting to investigate every fatality, the CLA now has a list of names, ID numbers, occupation/affiliation and circumstances of death for most of the 1,338 Palestinians killed in the course of Operation Cast Lead. (Thirteen Israelis were killed during the fighting - 10 soldiers and three civilians.)

This dossier is not yet complete, but 1,200-plus fatalities have been identified by name, and the Post was shown the dossier that details them. Some 880 have been categorized as combatants or noncombatants, and the ratio is approximately two-to-one - the reverse of the impression created by Palestinian officials during the conflict, and a world away from the Hamas claim that just 48 of its fighters were killed.

Het is niet de eerste keer dat door de Palestijnen gegeven en door de VN en andere hulporganisaties klakkeloos overgenomen dodenaantallen niet bleken te kloppen. Ook na de 'massaslachting' in Jenin in 2002, waar volgens Palestijnse bronnen en de VN meer dan 500 Palestijnen waren gedood, bleek achteraf dat het om een veel lager aantal slachtoffers ging, waarvan het merendeel strijders, en de VN zag zich genoodzaakt haar dodenaantal bij te stellen. En het Palestijnse jongetje Al Dura bleek hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet door Israëlisch vuur maar Palestijnse kogels om het leven te zijn gekomen, maar zijn dood en de gemanipuleerde beelden zijn de wereld over gegaan en hebben velen geïnspireerd tot het plegen van aanslagen. De lijst met voorbeelden is lang, maar de media lijken er niet van te leren.

Yochanan Visser van Israel Facts onderzocht de berichtgeving van de NOS over de oorlog in Gaza en bracht gisteren de resultaten naar buiten. Deze komen overeen met mijn waarnemingen en klachten. Hieronder een samenvatting van het onderzoek, en op de website van Israel Facts is het gehele onderzoek te lezen.

Een voorbeeld van bijzonder manipulatieve berichtgeving betrof de dood van drie dochters van de Palestijnse arts Izzeldin Abu Elaish. De NOS liet daarbij beelden zien van de Israëlische televisie, waar hij net berichtte over de situatie in Gaza (dit deed Abu Elaish geregeld, en de mensen in Israël kregen dan ook dagelijks beelden uit Gaza te zien), toen zijn huis werd getroffen en zijn drie dochters dodelijk gewond raakten. De Israëlische presentator was aangeslagen en vocht tegen zijn tranen, maar dat werd niet getoond. Nadat men liet zien dat hij, volgens de NOS 'per hoge uitzondering' een ambulance kon regelen en de man en zijn dochters naar Israël zou halen, werden beelden getoond van boze Israëli's die Abu Elaish verweten dat er vast terroristen in zijn huis waren geweest. Daarbij vermeldde Sander van Hoorn dat Abu Elaish niet op enig mededogen in Israël hoefde te rekenen.Later zei van Hoorn in Pauw en Witteman dat er in Israël totaal geen compassie was voor de Palestijnen in Gaza, en in een uitzending van het NOS journaal over de berichtgeving door de Israëlische TV werd beweerd dat deze nationalistisch was en slechts een 'clean' beeld van de verwoestingen in Gaza liet zien, waardoor zoveel Israëli's achter Israëls offensief zouden staan.

In werkelijkheid was er veel medeleven met Abu Elaish en heeft hij Israëli's op de TV zelfs bedankt daarvoor. Er waren en zijn verschillende initiatieven ontplooid om de bevolking in Gaza te helpen, door spullen te brengen en door een groep Gazanen naar Israël te halen. Ook zijn honderden Gazanen in Israëlische ziekenhuizen behandeld. Ik was in eerste instantie verbaasd toen ik over deze zaken las, maar de berichten bleven komen, en dat was niet alleen van een paar verstokte vredesactivisten.

Het is zeer kwalijk dat niet alleen een onvolledig, maar een ronduit onjuist beeld is geschetst van deze zaken, en de Israëli's als bloeddorstig, nationalistisch en zonder enige medemenselijkheid worden afgeschilderd door onze publieke omroep.

Ratna Pelle

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

Onderzoek naar NOS journaal rapportage oorlog Hamas vs. Israël 24-12-2008 t/m 24 -01-2009
http://www.israelfacts.eu/03c1989ac60b2ff0f/03c1989af207bce14/index.html

Uitgevoerd door stichting Waarheid Accuratesse Authenticiteit Reportages (WAAR) en Israel-Facts monitorgroep.

Het onderzoek vond plaats in de periode 24 december 2008 t/m 24 januari 2009, aanleiding voor het onderzoek was het vermoeden dat belangrijk- en essentieel feiten materiaal niet terug te vinden was in de verslaggeving door NOS Journaal.

We toetsten de berichtgeving van de NOS aan de eigen NOS journalistieke code en analyseerden de uitzendingen op feiten materiaal, taalgebruik, beeldmateriaal en de montage van beelden, selectie van beelden en onderwerpen, en tot slot repeterende thema's.

De berichtgeving van de NOS werd voorts vergeleken met andere TV nieuws shows waaronder de ARD en ZDF in Duitsland en Arutz 1 en Arutz 10 in Israël. Laatst genoemde TV stations zonden dagelijks gemiddeld drie uur durende nieuwsshows uit waarin alle aspecten van oorlog, inclusief alle ontwikkelingen in Gaza aan de orde kwamen.
Verder onderzochten we de wijze waarop NOS omging met klachten en met het verstrekken van feiten die vooraf of achteraf hadden kunnen worden gebruikt om tot een feitelijke berichtgeving te komen.

Conclusie van ons onderzoek was dat de NOS stelselmatig op alle genoemde onderzoekspunten niet aan haar eigen code voldeed ; op tal van punten de kijker essentiële informatie onthield en in vele gevallen selectief en soms zelfs manipulatief te werk ging in haar taak als primaire nieuwsbron in Nederland.

Per onderdeel van ons onderzoek een voorbeeld van onze bevindingen:

Feiten en Onjuistheden:

Al voor het begin van de Israëlische actie in Gaza meldde de NOS een incident op de grens van Zuid Israël dat uiteindelijk de directe inleiding vormde tot de oorlog. Hamas plaatste op 23 december 2008 een bom naast de grensweg waarop Israëlische voertuigen patrouilleren waarop het Israëlische leger het vuur opende op de Hamasleden. De NOS berichtte in haar reportage over de 60 raketten die Hamas op 24 december afvuurde op Israëlische steden en meldde: " de raketbeschietingen waren een wraakactie op een Israëlische offensief gisteren waarbij 3 Hamas strijders om het leven kwamen". Het zal duidelijk zijn dat dit een onjuiste weergave van de feiten was.

Suggestief Taalgebruik:

In zijn reportage van 29 december verteld Sander van Hoorn de kijker dat het grensgebied met Gaza nu afgesloten is door het Israëlische leger, hij noemt de door het leger opgegeven reden van veiligheid "onzinnig" en zegt daarop dat "het eerder zo is dat men geen pottenkijkers wil". Op 22 en 24 december vonden in deze bufferzone sluipschutter incidenten plaats waarbij Hamas op in de zone aanwezige burgers schoot. Daarnaast was de maatregel ook van kracht voor Israëlische burgers en zelfs voor de landbouwers in het gebied, die daardoor tonnen schade opliepen.

Beeld en montage: In een reportage op 17 januari laat het NOS journaal een reportage zien die men overnam van Arutz 10 in Israël, in de reportage zagen de Nederlandse kijkers de Arutz 10 reporter Eldar die sprak met de Palestijnse arts Izzildin Abul Al Alaish in Gaza (iets dat Arutz 10 regelmatig deed), op het moment dat het huis van de arts getroffen werd door een granaat van de IDF. Daarbij kwamen drie kinderen van de arts om, Eldar regelde nog tijdens de uitzending Israëlische hulp voor de arts.

De NOS monteerde de beelden van Eldar zo, dat de kijker niet de fragmenten zag die lieten zien dat de man hevig geëmotioneerd was en tegen zijn tranen vocht.

Het vervolg van de NOS reportage maakte het waarom hiervan duidelijk. Het commentaar meldde dat Eldar direct de studio verliet om hulp te regelen voor de arts en dat bij wijze van hoge uitzondering de grens openging voor de gewonde kinderen van de arts, en even verderop meld de NOS dat de arts bij aankomst in het ziekenhuis ook al niet op mededogen hoefde te rekenen. Beide opmerkingen waren onjuist; de ZDF in Duitsland zond in haar nieuwsuitzending een reportage uit waarop Palestijnse kinderen te zien waren die op dat moment in Israëlische ziekenhuizen werden verpleegd (waaronder uit Gaza), en mededogen kreeg de arts in grote mate in Israël, vele Israëli's stuurden hem SMS berichten met steunbetuigingen. Iets waarover hij later op Arutz 10 zijn dank uit sprak aan het Israëlische publiek.

Selectie van beelden en onderwerpen:

In de uitzending van 6 januari van zowel het acht uur als het tien uur journaal werd de Israëlische versie van de aanval "op" de VN school in Jabalyah uit de uitzending gelaten. Wij weten zeker dat de NOS beschikte over deze versie van de gebeurtenissen bij die school, omdat we de redactie een uur voor de acht uur uitzending hierover een E-mail stuurden . Ook het feit dat de ARD in Duitsland gelijktijdig in haar Journaal Tagesschau wel de IDF versie van het incident vermeldde bewijst dat deze informatie bekend was en dus door de NOS had kunnen en moeten worden gebruikt.

Inmiddels heeft de VN bekendgemaakt dat Israël de school niet heeft beschoten, de doden vielen op straat in de buurt van de school.

Repeterende thema's:

Een regelmatig terugkerend thema dat met name correspondent Van Hoorn opnam in zijn reportages was de Israëlische maatregel geen reporters toe te laten in het oorlogsgebied.

Van Hoorn maakte van zijn mening over deze maatregel geen geheim, en deed het voorkomen alsof het uniek was in de media wereld. Echter ook tijdens de oorlog in Georgië in 2008 had de pers geen toegang tot het oorlogsgebied, hetzelfde geldt voor de oorlog in Sri Lanka waar de pers ook moet afgaan op rapporten van derden. ARD's Tagesschau had met de zelfde maatregel te maken maar maakte er niet eens melding van.

Op 30 december 2008 legt Van Hoorn uit, in een reportage aan de rand van Gaza, dat hij besloten heeft een Palestijnse cameraploeg te gaan gebruiken voor het maken van reportages in Gaza. Hij zegt zich bewust te zijn van de onbetrouwbaarheid van dergelijke Palestijnse journalisten ("Palestijnen zijn geneigd tot toneelspel "), maar deze mensen weten dat ze dat bij hem niet moeten doen. En daarmee zou dan de onafhankelijke rapportage gewaarborgd zijn.

Helaas was er nog iets waarover Van Hoorn zweeg, en dat essentieel is voor de vraag naar de betrouwbaarheid van zijn Palestijnse TV ploeg.

Sinds Hamas aan het bewind kwam in Gaza is de persvrijheid aan banden gelegd en werden vaak incidenten gemeld waarbij te onafhankelijk opererende journalisten (fysiek) werden geïntimideerd door Hamas. Ook bepaalde Hamas wie wel of niet een perskaart kon krijgen, de unie van Palestijnse journalisten bevestigde dat men dagelijks met bedreigingen te maken had en met censuur.

Ook de Foreign Press Association (waar de NOS ook bij is aangesloten) bevestigde indertijd deze stand van zaken.

Van Hoorn zweeg over dit alles.

Wij bevelen u aan het hele rapport te lezen en de bijgevoegde bijlage met internetlinks te bekijken

Wij zijn tot de conclusie gekomen dat het NOS journaal in tegenstelling tot wat men beweert in de eigen journalistieke code(die u hieronder aantreft), de Nederlandse TV kijker helpt iets te vinden op basis van wat de redactie van het NOS Journaal zelf vindt over het Midden-Oosten conflict.

Uit het onderzoek komt een patroon naar voren dat wij zeer verontrustend vinden. De kijker in Nederland heeft recht op een NOS journaal dat alle feiten van het Midden Oosten conflict belicht en dat die feiten in een juiste context plaatst.

En de kijker heeft recht op Journaal reporters die zich strikt houden aan de eigen journalistieke code

Gezien het hoge tempo waarin het klimaat rond de discussie over Israël in Nederland verslechtert, en gezien de reeds zichtbare maatschappelijke gevolgen daarvan, achten wij de tijd rijp voor drastische verbetering in de taakopvatting en het verantwoordelijkheidsbesef van de Journaal staf . De primaire nieuwsbron voor de Nederlandse burger behoort primair de feiten te presenteren in het nieuws.

Namens stichting WAAR & Israel-Facts monitorgroep

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


Bijlage journalistieke code NOS Journaal:

De NOS stelt zich, als integraal onderdeel van de publieke omroep, tot doel de primaire informatiebron te zijn op het gebied van nieuws, sport en evenementen, zodat de Nederlandse burger beter in staat is te oordelen over ontwikkelingen in de wereld, en zijn eigen gedrag te bepalen.

De NOS hanteert hierbij de hoogste journalistieke eisen van evenwichtigheid, zorgvuldigheid, betrouwbaarheid, ongebondenheid, pluriformiteit en onbevooroordeeldheid.

De NOS streeft ernaar deze informatie toegankelijk te maken via alle beschikbare media en voor alle maatschappelijke geledingen.

De NOS is vrij in de selectie van nieuws, ze laat zich bij publicatie niet leiden door een ander dan het algemeen belang.

De NOS scheidt feiten en meningen, past hoor en wederhoor toe en vermijdt eenzijdige berichtgeving.

De NOS gaart informatie met een open vizier, journalisten maken zichzelf bekend, betalen informanten niet en beschermen indien nodig hun bronnen.

De NOS discrimineert niet en meldt etnische afkomst, nationaliteit, ras, religie, sekse en seksuele geaardheid van personen en groepen alleen als dat nodig is voor een beter begrip van het nieuwsfeit.

De NOS respecteert de privacy van personen in het nieuws, inbreuken daarop staan in redelijke verhouding tot het belang van publicatie en tot de rol en/of functie van de persoon in het nieuws.

De NOS accepteert embargo's die de kwaliteit van de berichtgeving bevorderen en die niet eenzijdig zijn opgelegd.

De NOS bericht waarheidsgetrouw. Kijkers en luisteraars moeten zich met de door de NOS uitgezonden informatie een reëel en controleerbaar beeld kunnen vormen van de werkelijkheid.

De NOS behandelt klachten serieus en rectificeert ruiterlijk.

De NOS is een met publieke middelen gefinancierde onafhankelijke nieuwsorganisatie. De NOS hecht aan een transparante werkwijze en legt daarover verantwoording af.

Deze NOS-code is gebaseerd op de missies van de Nederlandse Publieke Omroep en de NOS, op de 'Gedragscode voor Journalisten" van de Internationale Federatie van Journalisten (1954/1986), op de "gedragscode voor Nederlandse Journalisten" van het Nederlands Genootschap van Hoofdredacteuren (1995) en op de 'Leidraad van de Raad voor de Journalistiek" (2007).

Cijferstrijd: IDF onderzoek naar dodentallen Gaza

 

This dossier is not yet complete, but 1,200-plus fatalities have been identified by name, and the Post was shown the dossier that details them. Some 880 have been categorized as combatants or noncombatants, and the ratio is approximately two-to-one - the reverse of the impression created by Palestinian officials during the conflict, and a world away from the Hamas claim that just 48 of its fighters were killed.

 

Beter laat dan nooit. De media zullen er geen aandacht meer aan besteden, maar het is goed dat nu eindelijk wordt aangetoond wat al werd vermoed: dat Hamas het aantal burgerdoden schromelijk overdreef, dat de VN en andere hulporganisaties deze cijfers klakkeloos overnamen, en de internationale media die op hun beurt weer overnamen. Het is niet de eerste keer dat dit gebeurt; ook na de 'massaslachting' in Jenin in 2002 bleek achteraf dat het om een veel lager aantal slachtoffers ging waarvan het merendeel strijders, en de VN zag zich genoodzaakt haar dodenaantal bij te stellen. En het Palestijnse jongetje Al Dura bleek hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet door Israelisch vuur maar Palestijnse kogels om het leven te zijn gekomen, maar zijn dood en de gemanipuleerde beelden zijn de wereld over gegaan en hebben velen geinspireerd tot het plegen van aanslagen. De lijst met voorbeelden is lang, maar de media lijken er niet van te leren.

 

RP

 

Zie ook: Hamas hield wereld voor de gek met aantallen doden Gaza

----------

Analysis: Counted out: Belatedly, the IDF enters the life-and-death numbers game
David Horovitz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Feb. 15, 2009
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788705&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

 

Throughout the three weeks of the Gaza fighting in Operation Cast Lead, this newspaper attempted to gather, from official Israeli sources, reliable information on the number and nature of the Palestinian dead.

It was clear that the overall death toll in the Strip - and more specifically the number of the civilian fatalities - was serving as the yardstick by which the "proportionality" of Israel's response to Kassam fire was being measured.

However, Israel was unable to provide even reasonably firm official figures for the death toll and its civilian component. Part of this inability was an inevitable consequence of the fog of a war fought in enemy territory. But part of it also stemmed from the minimal allocation of Israeli resources to the task.

In the absence of official Israeli numbers, reporters worldwide were left with firm Hamas-Gaza-supplied figures, and vague, unofficial Israeli estimates. Unsurprisingly, the Palestinian figures were universally cited in news reporting of the conflict, by the international media and largely by the Israeli media, too. These figures indicated that the overwhelming majority of those killed were civilians - indications that, in turn, exacerbated hostile international attitudes to Israel among reporters, politicians and the general public in this region and far beyond.

On Sunday, four full weeks after the fighting ended, the IDF's Gaza Coordination and Liaison Administration (CLA) was finally ready to show The Jerusalem Post its research into the fatalities - information compiled from a variety of sources, notably including Hamas's own media and other open Palestinian sources.

This research contradicts the official Hamas-Gaza government claims, in the course of the fighting and since, that most of those killed were civilians. Attempting to investigate every fatality, the CLA now has a list of names, ID numbers, occupation/affiliation and circumstances of death for most of the 1,338 Palestinians killed in the course of Operation Cast Lead. (Thirteen Israelis were killed during the fighting - 10 soldiers and three civilians.)

This dossier is not yet complete, but 1,200-plus fatalities have been identified by name, and the Post was shown the dossier that details them. Some 880 have been categorized as combatants or noncombatants, and the ratio is approximately two-to-one - the reverse of the impression created by Palestinian officials during the conflict, and a world away from the Hamas claim that just 48 of its fighters were killed.

Perhaps the most emblematic alleged distortion of the death toll relates to the deaths near the UN school in Jabalya refugee camp, north of Gaza City, on January 6. Palestinian medical officials claimed then that some 40 Palestinians, many of them women and children who had sought refuge from the fighting, were killed at the school by IDF shells. These claims sparked condemnation from the UN, widespread allegations of a "massacre" against Israel and escalated international political demands for an urgent end to the fighting.

The CLA on Sunday, however, belatedly reported that the Palestinian death toll in that incident - which, it restated, involved Israel returning fire against Hamas gunmen outside the school facility - caused an estimated 12 fatalities, nine gunmen and three noncombatants.

CLA head Col. Moshe Levi acknowledged on Sunday that all this information - on both such specific incidents as the UN school and the overall classifications of the dead - would probably be largely ignored today, since it was being made available so long after the fighting ended. But Levi explained that the IDF was not prepared to issue information unless and until it was confident of its accuracy, no matter how grievous the damage to Israel's image, and the consequent political pressures caused by the delays in contesting inaccurate facts and figures.

Levi remarked that, in future conflicts, the IDF might need to bolster the resources it allocates to establishing, in real time, facts as basic as the number and identities of the dead.

Given that compiling the dossier appears to have been the responsibility of a single officer in the CLA, some might regard this remark as something of an understatement.

Gevangenenruil en staakt-het-vuren overeenkomst uitgesteld?

 

Er komt wel een staakt het vuren, er komt geen staakt het vuren, er komt wel een gevangenenruil, er komt geen gevangenenruil, een combinatie van beide? Het is eigenlijk niet meer dan logisch dat de nieuwe politieke verhoudingen hierin ok een rol spelen, al is er nog geen nieuwe regering en kan dat ook nog wel even duren.

 

RP

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

Last update - 02:51 17/02/2009

ANALYSIS / Time has muddled the Cairo-brokered Shalit deal
By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064790.html


Israel's behavior in the past few days in the discussions for the Shalit deal and the cease-fire agreement has put the Egyptians mediators off balance.

About 10 days ago, when senior defense official Amos Gilad traveled to Cairo, the Egyptians understood that the matter was nearly closed. The tahadiyeh [lull] is within reach, and in parallel, or approximately so, the abducted soldier would be exchanged for Palestinian prisoners. The Egyptians had hoped to issue an official statement on a deal close to Election Day in Israel, but when that was not possible they assumed it would take a day or two more.

In the meantime, a week has gone by and Israel is reopening issues for discussion they in Cairo had thought were closed.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak put things bluntly. "Israel has withdrawn from its position," he said. "There was an agreement for a lull, and now the Israelis are going back a bit, but we are pressing them."

Shalit, Mubarak says, "is a different matter," and progress on it will commence only after an agreement is reached on the cease-fire.

The change during the weekend occurred on the Israeli side. It is not only the absolute linkage that Israel is making between opening the crossings into the Gaza Strip, central to the cease-fire agreement, and the release of Shalit, which was announced by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Saturday. Israel is reconsidering entirely the whole question of a cease-fire.

It seems that if it were possible, Israel would opt for a "Shalit Minus" framework for a deal: the soldier in exchange for prisoners, without involving a cease-fire at all.

From the point of view of Hamas, the order of priorities is reversed. The cease-fire, and especially the reopening of the crossings into the Strip, is an urgent demand. The prisoners can wait. They have been sitting in prisons for more than a decade - another month will not make a difference.

Shift in the halls of power

The rather unclear result of the Israeli elections has something to do with what is going on in the Israeli leadership. Defense Minister Ehud Barak appears to have lost some of his influence. Not only has he avoided public appearances (his last was when the election results were announced last week), but there is an atmosphere at the Defense Ministry that his bags are nearly packed.

Under such circumstances Barak, who had been the one pushing for a deal linking the cease-fire with Shalit, is still facing formidable skepticism from the corner of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. Not only does she not share his enthusiasm for concessions in exchange for Shalit, but she also opposes any binding cease-fire agreement. Now Olmert is backtracking and finding merit in Livni's reservations.

Both are questioning whether it is possible to use a strategy of deterrence along the border with the Gaza Strip, without having to go into a cease-fire deal. Likud chairman Benjamin Netanyahu is unofficially participating in the consultations and is apparently a lot more eager to resolve the Shalit issue than agree to a lull. In any case, he does not believe that it would be possible to achieve long-term stability vis-a-vis Hamas.

Even though the cabinet may meet tomorrow to discuss a possible deal, it seems that the matter is suddenly less urgent. This is linked to politics too: it will take a long time before a coalition government is formed. Olmert will probably still have time to enjoy five or six cabinet sessions. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the Egyptians are getting impatient. As late as Saturday they were convinced they would be able to meet each side's needs. But Israel's stance is making things complicated for them.

 

 

Geen rechtse meerderheid voor Groot-Israel

 

Bradley Burston is zeker geen hardliner en geen fan van Netanjahoe, maar hij is realistisch genoeg om te zien dat de karikatuur die veel mensen van Bibi maken niet klopt: Likud is niet principieel tegen een Palestijnse staat en ziet de bezette gebieden niet als voor eeuwig Israelisch en door God gegeven. Likoed stelt wel hardere veiligheidseisen en heeft minder vertrouwen in de intenties van de Palestijnen. Likoed heeft nederzettingen in de Sinai ontruimd en vrede met Egypte gesloten. Ook Lieberman is niet tegen een Palestijnse staat, maar wil vooral dat ook veel Israelische Arabieren daarheen verkassen, vrijwillig danwel gedwongen. Shas heeft in het verleden met de Oslo akkoorden ingestemd, en is niet principieel tegen concessies, zolang ze maar genoeg geld voor de yeshiva's en andere religieuze instellingen ontvangen.

 

Hoewel de winst van rechts het vredesproces zeker zal bemoeilijken, is het 'rechts' van nu niet meer het rechts van 20 jaar geleden, dat de hele Westoever en Gaza voor altijd bij Israel wou voegen.

 

RP

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

 

Sure the Israeli right won? Peace lost? Look closer

By Bradley Burston

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1064569.html

 

To judge solely from the gloating, the right conclusively won last week's election. Hawkish politicians were swift to crow triumph. Hardline analysts and legions of talkbackers have positively glowed in pronouncing the end of the left, the bankruptcy of compromise, the folly of restraint, and, most importantly for the hard right, the death of peace.

Israel has, in their view, finally grown up.

It should, therefore, have been no problem at all for Benjamin Netanyahu to swiftly marshal a clear majority for a coalition dedicated to the proposition that the only outlook more fit to govern than the right, is the far-right.

Why, then, has the self-styled National Camp Government, not simply fallen into place?

A closer examination of the much-vaunted Gush HaYamin, or Bloc of the Right, suggests that it qualifies neither as a bloc, nor, strictly speaking, as the Right.

The longer Netanyahu's ostensible natural partners continue to hold out demands and conditions, the more the fundamental ideological differences between the parties - and the distance between those factions and the traditional Israeli Right - become more pronounced.

Moreover, the more conflicting the demands of Gush HaYamin, the more likely Netanyahu will be forced to turn, for lack of a better alternative, to options thought impossible just a few days ago: a shared-power arrangement with Tzipi Livni's Kadima, or even, in the darkest-horse stable, some resurrection of an alliance with Ehud Barak's Labor. One possible way out for Netanyahu, saving face over a rotation agreement with Livni, is a possible offer to have her remain at the foreign minister's post, with an equal number of ministries, eight or nine, distributed to the Likud and Kadima each.

In fact, if the 2009 election has conclusively demonstrated anything, it is the overwhelming consensus across Israeli society for the rejection of the bedrock right-wing principle of a Greater Israel encompassing and annexing all of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Shockingly, the Israeli public may have voted for the right not because it rejects the idea of peace deals, partition, and a two-state solution, but because it believes the right is better qualified to find a way to carry out that undeniably painful process.

"The outcome of the elections indicates that Israelis view the 'peace process' with the Palestinians as a divorce process," writes economic analyst Elah Alkalai.

"As their unwilling embrace was arranged by global forces, so apparently will be their separation. Think of it as severance of an arranged marriage, and the vote Israelis cast last week was for what they perceive as the roughest, toughest divorce lawyer in town."

Avigdor Lieberman, the hands-down success story of the election, has repeatedly outraged the far-right by suggesting in the past that some heavily Arab-populated East Jerusalem neighborhoods and refugee camps be ceded to an eventual independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. He has consistently alientated the ultra-Orthodox - an essential building block of any right-wing dream coalition - by demanding civil-marriage and modified Jewish conversion legislation favored by Lieberman's ultra-secular constituency.

Netanyahu's Likud, the anchor of a potential rightist coalition, has been on record for years as favoring an eventual Palestinian state in the territories, as long as strict security guarantees were met. The Likud is also the only party ever to have headed a government which dismantled established settlements.

Only two parties, representing just seven seats in the 120-seat Knesset, still argue for a Greater Israel. Not even the fringe-right National Union with its frankly pro-Kahane wing, dares come out in public for a return to permanent Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip, stating in its platform only that "There will be no uprooting of Jewish communities and no surrender of parts of the Land of Israel in any subsequent Israeli government led by the party."

"In other words," Alkalai concludes, "the majority vote was cast for a leadership - the right wing - that the public thinks can end the relationship with the most assets for Israelis and preferably no alimony at all for the spouse."