vrijdag 4 december 2009
Verzet tegen de bezetting slaat toe in Rusland en Syrië
Gaat EU Oost-Jeruzalem als Palestijnse hoofdstad erkennen?
EU will recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestine
EU to recognize East Jerusalem as capital of Palestinian state
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent
The Swedish draft represents the first official EU articulation of a solution for one of the core issues of the final-status arrangement between Israel and the Palestinians.
Twee explosieven ontdekt bij Ramallah
TWO EXPLOSIVE DEVICES UNCOVERED NEAR RAMALLAH
IDF Spokesperson
During the night, IDF forces arrested 15 wanted Palestinians in the Judea and Samaria region. Additionally a force from the Kfir Brigade unveiled an improvised rifle in the belongings of a Palestinian in a checkpoint near the Gush Etzion junction. The rifle was confiscated and the man was taken by the Israeli Police for further investigations.
Het vergeten vredesaanbod van Olmert
donderdag 3 december 2009
Amerikaans-Palestijnse komiek Hanania wil PA-presidentschap en vrede met Israël
door Tuvit Shlomi
'Yalla Salam', 'vooruit, vrede', de wil tot praktische daden karakteriseert zowel de naam als het programma van Hanania's nieuwe partij. Hij spreekt over compromissen, verklaringen van co-existentie en het delen van Jeruzalem. Hanania is standup comediant, auteur en journalist. Hij schrijft voor Amerikaanse, Arabische en Israelische kranten - zijn columns op Ynetnews en de site van de Jerusalem Post werden zelfs bekroond . Zijn optimisme doet denken aan de sfeer in Israel omstreeks 1993. In de uitgangspunten resoneren voorstellen uit Annapolis, Camp David en Oslo maar Hanania denkt buiten de gebaande paden.
Uitgangspunt van Hanania is een tweestatenoplossing waarbij een erkende Joodse staat en een seculiere Palestijnse staat naast elkaar bestaan. Volgens Hanania is een oplossing voor het conflict alleen mogelijk wanneer de partijen elkaar vertrouwen dat klonk eerder door in de Routekaart voor Vrede die het Kwartet (Amerika, Rusland, de VN en de EU) in 2002 lanceerden. Werd dat plan echter van buitenaf opgelegd, ditmaal komt de direct betrokken Hanania met originele voorstellen. Hij wil eerst een principe-akkoord bereiken en pas later ingaan op heikele punten als Jeruzalem, vluchtelingen, en nederzettingen hoewel hij daarvoor wel vast buitengewoon creatieve oplossingen voorstelt. Een uitruilplan bijvoorbeeld, waar voor elke kolonist die op toekomstig gebied van een Palestijnse staat wil blijven wonen, een Palestijnse vluchteling in Israel mag komen wonen.
Is Hanania de juiste man op de juiste plaats? Als christelijke Palestijn die zich naar eigen zeggen moslim voelt en getrouwd is met een Joodse vrouw, kan hij een unieke brugfunctie vervullen de vraag die Hanania zelf ook stelt is of hij door de Palestijnen zal worden geaccepteerd. Als de Palestijnen geen secularisme willen doorvoeren en een Christen niet als vertegenwoordiger van een Palestijnse staat accepteren, zal die staat er nooit komen, stelt Hanania. Een interne Palestijnse kwestie waarover zeker geen overeenstemming is steeds meer Christelijke Palestijnen ontvluchten de gebieden naar Israel of de Westerse wereld omdat hun situatie hoe langer hoe onleefbaarder wordt.
Daarnaast is Hanania geboren en getogen Amerikaan, werd hij door Amerika onderscheiden voor zijn militaire bijdrage aan de luchtmacht in de Vietnam oorlog en zegt hij expliciet een gematigde stem te willen zijn in het Arabisch-Israelische conflict. In de Westerse wereld en Israel wordt die opstelling gewaardeerd, in de islamitsiche wereld en dus in de Palestijnse gebieden zal zijn co-existentiedrift op veel afkeuring en wantrouwen kunnen rekenen.
Israel's eerste premier, Ben Gurion, zei ooit: "wie in Israel woont en niet in wonderen gelooft, is geen realist." Hanania woont dan niet in Israel, maar hij gelooft in zijn visie op vrede en zegt dat een meerderheid van de Palestijnen zijn visie deelt. "Ik besef me dat het moeilijk kan zijn omdat ik in Chicago woon, maar volgens mij is het niet moeilijk een vliegticket te kopen als ik eenmaal gewonnen heb, het is misschien wat gedoe om door de Israelische veiligheidschecks heen te komen", aldus de Palestijns-Amerikaanse komiek.
Barack Obama is niet de slechtse president voor Israel
Lenny Ben-David , THE JERUSALEM POST
This week a senior respected Israeli analyst asked me to look back and decide, "Are we seeing the worst crisis in US-Israel relations? Is this the worst ever administration from Israel's perspective?" Also this week an Israeli minister termed President Obama's administration "awful," and an Israeli political activist was quoted in Israel's largest circulation paper as saying, "The Obama regime is anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic."
To all, I respond with the strongest possible retorts: balderdash, tripe, silliness and stupidity! There are other serious ideological problems with this US administration which results in rock-bottom popularity for the US president in Israel but the labels of "anti-Semitic" or "the worst" are just bum raps.
Just look at the history.
IN 1957, the Eisenhower administration threatened to come down hard on the fledgling Israel, including removing UJA's tax-exempt status, as a way of pressuring Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula.
In 1970, Richard Nixon threatened to cut the supply of 50 F-4 Phantoms to Israel because of insults hurled at French Premier Georges Pompidou by Jewish-American activists in New York. The demonstrations led the notoriously anti-Israel columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak to bray, "More than any president since Dwight Eisenhower, Mr. Nixon has shown a tough realism in trying to stake out the correct US policy in the inflamed Middle East without kowtowing to the large and highly influential Jewish vote." [Note Evans and Novak beat by more than 35 years professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of the 2007 The Israel Lobby a distinctly unoriginal diatribe against Jewish influence on foreign policy. "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose" (the more things change, the more they stay the same.)]
Observers feared the worst in US-Israel relations in 1975 when the Ford Administration weighed a "reassessment" of American policy in the Middle East, including cutting aid to Israel.
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan earned a place in history as one of Israel's strongest friends, but his administration included strong critics of Israel such as vice president George H.W. Bush and defense secretary Caspar Weinberger. The sale of AWACS, just the tip of a massive arms sale and a realignment of US policy to embrace Saudi Arabia, took place under Reagan's watch, and the political war cry of "Reagan or Begin" was broadcast to suggest American Jews' dual loyalties. Arms to Israel were embargoed and delayed after the 1981 Osirak reactor bombing and the 1982 Lebanon War. And the Pollard affair pulled the US-Israel relationship to new lows.
Could relations have been worse than when George Bush Sr. went on national TV to challenge 1000 Jewish lobbyists to block $10 billion in housing loan guarantees over the issue of settlements at a time when hundreds of thousands of Soviet Jews were flowing into Israel? Actually, yes, they worsened when his secretary of state, James Baker, was quoted as saying, "F*** the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway."
YOU GET the point: Anti-Semitism and crises in the US-Israel relationship have existed in the past, and there is simply nothing like it in the current US administration. Arms embargos and aid cut-offs then truly endangered Israel's security and gave Arab states tangible proof that American support for Israel was assailable. There is no such talk of cuts today. In fact, the strong support given to Israel by Congress and the unprecedented joint anti-missile exercise carried out by US and Israeli armed forces last month should put to rest the canard of an anti-Israel America.
So why the pervasive malaise about the Obama administration - a distrust so deep that Obama's popularity in Israel is equal to the margin of error? Well, Obama's failure to visit Israel doesn't improve his popularity, nor does his repeated cold-shouldering of Israel's prime minister.
Even the appointments of prominent Jews, Rahm Emanuel (chief of staff), David Axelrod (senior advisor), Mara Rudman (NSC/Mitchell's team), Hannah Rosenthal (envoy to monitor anti-Semitism), etc. don't make a difference. They arranged the first ever Seder in the White House, and sent the president to visit a concentration camp. How can anyone accuse these individuals of being "self-hating Jews," when they are members of synagogues, observe Jewish holidays, have relatives in Israel and send their children to Jewish Day Schools?
Because they are "Newest Testament" Jews; Jews who have embraced the new American Jewish religion of tikkun olam [fix the world] liberalism. Tikkun olam is the new overarching mitzva that guides them, even though it was never one of the 613 precepts of the Torah. The founding of Israel and the creation of Palestinian refugees may not have been the Original Sin in their theology as it is to others on the Left, but the settling of the West Bank following Israel's victory in 1967 is definitely viewed by them as Israel's Golden Calf .
The translation of Newest Testament universalism into action can be seen in the words and policies of the modern day shaliach tzibbur [leader of the service], J Street.
The policies of J Street - the self-proclaimed "blocking back for Obama" - hold open the option of negotiations with Hamas, oppose Iran sanctions, and embrace the Saudi Plan, now called the Arab Peace Initiative, which demands a return to the 1967 lines, dividing Jerusalem and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.
"There will be no peace if the settlements remain in place," wrote one of the Newest Testament prophets, MJ Rosenberg. "Pre-1967 Israel was not terrible at all. In fact it was pretty wonderful," he also wrote. "The secular areas [of Jerusalem] are charming but much of the rest is Jewish Taliban country... No humor, no aesthetics, just lunatics in black."
The Obama administration certainly has committed its share of questionable activities, such as ignoring George W. Bush's assurances on Israeli population centers in the West Bank, being over-confident in the ability of Palestinian security forces, attempting to appointment Chas Freeman to a high intelligence post, and abysmally executing its campaign against Israeli settlements and building in Jerusalem.
Perhaps the biggest mistake of all, however, was the advice given by Obama advisors that the rules of tikkun olam have a place in the compassionless Middle East.
The diplomatic failures led the New York Times editorial board to conclude on November 28, "We don't know exactly what happened but we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers - specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel - than of his Mideast specialists."
Misguided, perhaps. But to declare the Obama administration to be anti-Semitic is just wrong. Let's keep the debate in the area of policy. Unfortunately, there'll be no shortage of topics to discuss.
==============
The writer served as a senior diplomat in the Israeli Embassy in Washington and a member of AIPAC's staff in Washington and Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997. Today he is a public affairs consultant. He blogs at www.lennybendavid.com
Netanyahu's visie op de nederzettingen
During his speech at the Eilat journalism conference on Sunday, Netanyahu said: "The people in Israel and the Palestinians are tired of long-lasting war and want to reach a peace agreement." Like Menachem Begin, who went from "not a single inch" to "no more war," and like Yitzhak Rabin, who was shocked by the pathetic show of resolve among Tel Aviv residents during the Gulf War and opted for a compromise with the Palestinians, Netanyahu, too, understands that the majority of the Israeli public wants quiet and considers the settlers a nuisance. And this means the decision to freeze settlement construction for 10 months is just the first taste of domestic confrontation.
RP
Last update - 13:43 02/12/2009
What Netanyahu really thinks about settlements
More than previous premiers, Netanyahu considers himself a leader and an intellectual. It is important to him that his policy rely on an extensive worldview, and he has written books presenting his political and economic viewpoints. It is, therefore, worthwhile listening to what Netanyahu has been saying in recent weeks in a series of speeches revealing his strategic outlook; they express deep fear of the threats facing Israel and introduce preferences for countering them.
This is Netanyahu's fear scale: "First, Iran must be prevented from developing a military nuclear capability. Second, we need to find an appropriate solution to the missile and rocket threat. And third, we must reinforce the right of Israel to defend itself."
What to do? Netanyahu wants the international community to rally and impose strict sanctions on Iran and undertake actions to undermine the regime. He is proposing a peace agreement with the Palestinians, based on territorial compromise in the territories and the establishment of "secure and recognized borders" for Israel. Central to the agreement would be security arrangements and disarmament aimed at blocking the smuggling of rockets and missiles into the West Bank. This is the main problem, from the prime minister's point of view, and it will not be resolved by agreeing on a peaceful border. The defense solution must combine effective means for securing the border and intercepting arms shipments into the territories, as well as the development of missile defense systems. Israel will also request international guarantees that "bypass Goldstone" and will be based on Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism.
Netanyahu estimates the security requirements will cost tens of billions of dollars, and for Israel not to collapse economically, it will need to retain annual growth of 4-5 percent. He thinks the money can be found in bureaucratic efficiency, privatization of state lands and incentives for high-tech industries and entrepreneurs. But economic reforms will not be enough. Netanyahu's security model relies on broadening Israel's dependency on the United States. The prime minister wants America to neutralize Iran, back it up in its effort to curb the smuggling of rockets, assist in the development of missile defense and take action to shelve the Goldstone report.
It is worthwhile paying attention to what is missing here: Netanyahu does not consider the settlements a component in the security of Israel. It is important for him to block the border against rockets, and maybe this will require the presence of a military force in the Jordan Valley. But the fact that Jewish settlements exist on the hills offers nothing. In his view, Elon Moreh does not protect Tel Aviv. This does not mean that he has decided to remove Itamar or Yitzhar, only that Obama's support is more important to him.
Netanyahu was not nurtured by the Yesha Council, and it is hard to recall his tours of settlements beyond the separation fence. He stopped at Ma'aleh Adumim and Ariel. The harsh criticism of him from the settler leaders, as a result of the building freeze, is not affecting his supporters the way it did Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu did not climb the hills with bulldozers like Sharon did, and did not sit with Zambish (Ze'ev Hever) to discuss maps and plans, but fought for the rights of Israel in television studios and at the United Nations and considers international support a lot more important than a few prefabricated houses. His support for settlers, in the argument with Obama over the freeze, centered on the call to allow them to have a normal life, not more growth.
During his speech at the Eilat journalism conference on Sunday, Netanyahu said: "The people in Israel and the Palestinians are tired of long-lasting war and want to reach a peace agreement." Like Menachem Begin, who went from "not a single inch" to "no more war," and like Yitzhak Rabin, who was shocked by the pathetic show of resolve among Tel Aviv residents during the Gulf War and opted for a compromise with the Palestinians, Netanyahu, too, understands that the majority of the Israeli public wants quiet and considers the settlers a nuisance. And this means the decision to freeze settlement construction for 10 months is just the first taste of domestic confrontation.
1 Israelische soldaat voor 1.000 Palestijnen
"Sadly, we must beg of those in Israel for over 1,000 of our brave brothers to return to Gaza," a Palestinian journalist told the Israel News Agency.
"It is humiliating to each and every Palestinian to see that one Jewish soldier from Israel is equivalent to 1,000 Islamic soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank. It is even more humiliating for us that the IDF and those of the government in Israel show the Palestinian people more care and compassion than our Arab brothers."
The Palestinian journalist was referring directly to Egypt which shares a border with Gaza.
"We receive tons of food, medicine and fuel daily from Israel while nothing comes from Egypt. The Egyptians allow us to dig a few tunnels to smuggle in cheap cigarettes, drugs, perfume and sex magazines, but nothing else."
Ik vind de ongelijke ruil zelf vooral vernederend voor Israel, dat immers zoveel meer moet 'betalen', maar dit is ook een manier om ernaar te kijken.
Dit argument voor de gevangenenruil had ik nog niet eerder gehoord:
"These 1,000 Islamic terrorists have been living in Israel like parasites. It has been a heavy financial cost to feed, cloth and house them in Israel. As we release them back to Hamas, many, if not all, will be working for our security forces, gathering essential information while others act as sleeper agents. Hamas will not know who to trust. For if these new agents do not follow their directives from the ISS, they will be eliminated. These terrorists were on a paid holiday while being kept prisoner in Israel under the strict and humane terms of the Geneva Convention. That will not be the case once they are back in Gaza."
Hoe betrouwbaar al deze informatie is weet ik niet, want ik ken Israel News Agency niet, en het is onduidelijk wie bovenstaande (een Israelische 'security analist') zei.
RP
-----------
Hamas: 1 Israel Soldier Equals 1,000 Soldiers From Palestine
http://www.israelnewsagency.com/giladshalitisraelhamasgazaprisonersreleasedemocracyislamicjihadirannuclearsoldierspalestineobamaterrorism48011209.html
By Herb Brandon
Israel News Agency
"We receive tons of food, medicine and fuel daily from Israel while nothing comes from Egypt. The Egyptians allow us to dig a few tunnels to smuggle in cheap cigarettes, drugs, perfume and sex magazines, but nothing else."
Hamas has refused requests from the Red Cross (ICRC) to allow visits by the ICRC. Several human rights organizations have stated that the terms and conditions of Shalit's detention are illegal and contrary to international humanitarian law.
"We are neither encouraged nor the opposite. We're still waiting," the soldier's father, Noam, said following the meeting. "We have nothing new."
Buitenlandse steun voor Israelische NGO's ter discussie
RP
Dec 2, 2009 2:22 | Updated Dec 2, 2009 10:42
NGO report: B'Tselem tops European funding list
"For over a decade European governments have been manipulating Israeli politics and promoting demonization by funding a narrow group of favored non-governmental organizations," said NGO Monitor's president Gerald Steinberg.
Egyptische artsen boycotten Israel vanwege vermeende orgaandiefstal
Palestinian body parts
by Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
The Palestinian Authority libel that Israel deliberately harvests organs from dead Palestinians has caught on in the Arab world. Last month Egyptian authorities temporarily denied Israeli doctors entry into Egypt to participate in a medical conference. The head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate explained that this was because they "participated in torture" of Palestinians and because they "are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners."
The following are the remarks by the head of the Egyptian Medical Syndicate as reported in the PA daily, Al-Ayyam:
In response to the Israeli doctors' protest over Egyptian authorities not issuing them permits to enter Egypt for a medical conference, he said: 'We have no regard or respect for the Israeli doctors because the medical community has condemned them due to their participation in the torture of Palestinian prisoners.' He added: 'The Israeli Medical Association has acknowledged having participated in torture, noting that it had done so with the aim of protecting Israeli citizens.' He stated that the Israeli doctors are also guilty of stealing the organs of Palestinian prisoners, and that 'such people will not be permitted to take part in our medical activities."
The Egyptian doctors are the latest in a line of Arab officials to publicly accept as fact the PA libel that Israel steals Palestinian body parts. Several Arab foreign ministers have given support to this libel in recent months, demanding an international investigation of organ theft:
"At the conclusion of its assembly in Cairo a short time ago, the Council of Arab Foreign Ministers published a series of resolutions in support of the Palestinian people. In addition, they demanded an investigation of Israel's crimes of stealing organs of Palestinian Shahids (Martyrs).
They demanded the establishment of a UN Fact-Finding Mission in order to confirm that Israeli government gangs have stolen the organs of many Arab inhabitants, and to provide Arab and international aid to the [Palestinian] national committees that would be set up to investigate these crimes."
Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority continues to reinforce the libel. PA Minister of Prisoners' Affairs Issa Karake described last week how Israel "punishes" the dead by "disfiguring" the "Martyrs" and stealing their organs:
To see more examples of PA's organ theft libel from PMW's collection, click here.
f: +972 2 624 2803 w: www.palwatch.org
woensdag 2 december 2009
Egyptische geestelijke braakt antisemitisme op TV
Egyptian Cleric: Day of vengeance is nearing for every Jew on the face of the Earth
Hazem Shuman: Tonight's lecture is one of the most important lectures of this series. Tonight, we will talk about the Battle of Khaybar, about the Prophet Muhammad's greatest battle [with the Jews], in which the Prophet eradicated the Jewish presence in Al-Madina.
On June 5, 1967, when the Jews occupied Palestine and Jerusalem and were celebrating their victory, Moshe Dayan cried: "This is our revenge for Khaybar." How come Khaybar remained seared in their hearts for 1,400 years? After 1,400 years, their hearts are still burning because of Khaybar. The first thing that the Prophet Muhammad did after his victory in the Hudaybiyya Treaty, after he stabilized the Muslim state, and neutralized the Quraysh front, the first mission of the Prophet Muhammad, his first campaign, was against the Jews of Khaybar.
Your turn has come at last, you offspring of apes and pigs, you most accursed creatures created by Allah, you people who have harmed the Prophet again and again.
[...]
They took 30 Muslim men and women, including a newly-wed couple, and shot them all in Sabra and Shatila. They chased a six-year-old boy, whose mother was hugging him and calling for help. They stabbed him with knives and killed him in his mother's lap. In the end, she went mad, because of what had happened. They shot dead an entire family, except for a baby, who screamed at the sight of the bloodbath. The moment they saw he was crying, they shot him with a machine-gun as well. At Sabra and Shatila, they raped a Muslim woman, and then killed her children in front of her. They tore off women's ears, by pulling their earrings.
[...]
When the army of the Muslims arrived, the Jews removed their women and children from the fortifications at the front, and left only their fighters at the front... The army of the Prophet Muhammad was very poor. The Muslims had nothing to eat. The first time they ate was after the conquest of Khaybar.
One of the Prophet Muhammad's companions had a debt to a Jew. The Jew told him he had to pay his debt before he left, but the Muslim did not have even 5 dirham, so he sold his clothes so he could pay his debt and leave. The Prophet's companions sold their clothes in order to fight the Jews, and take revenge upon them.
[...]
Finally, [in the battle of Khaybar], Allah gave the Muslims strength, and they launched a martyrdom-seeking attack on the fortifications. All their lives long, they were martyrdom-seekers and heroes, who sacrificed their blood for Islam. They stormed the fortress and took the Jews captive, for the first time. All the other Jews fled.
When the Muslims entered the fortress, they were astounded. What is this? Never in their lives had they seen so much food enough to last years. They were astounded by the weapons too. There was a weapon called a tank. It was a house made of tin, like today's tanks. Soldiers sat in it and drove it towards the fortifications. When they were pelted with arrows, it did not have any effect on them. There were catapults, which fired bombs of fire, which penetrated the walls and smashed the fortifications. Why did the Jews amass all these weapons? They were planning to use them against the Muslims. They were preparing for the day when they would fight the Muslims otherwise, why would they have amassed all those weapons? The [Muslims] also found large quantities of wine, which they poured out on the floor.
The [Muslim fighters] reached the final fortification, the final battle. All the Jews, including women and children, were here. The walls were enormous. The number of arrows fired from its towers was indescribable. Its gates were well fortified, and no one could escape from there. This was the first time that the Prophet Muhammad used catapults. The [Muslims] shot catapults at the walls until there were gaping holes in them. All the Muslim army charged into the final fortress, with hatred burning in their hearts for the Jews, with a strong desire to take revenge upon the offspring of apes and pigs.
All the Muslims men and women charged with a strong desire to annihilate the Jews. They entered the fortress, and a terrible battle took place, a violent battle in the last fortress, until all the Jewish soldiers were arrested and all the Jewish women captured. Khaybar trembled with the sound of the cries of "Allah Akbar," and the entire Arabian Peninsula shook with the victorious cries of "Allah Akbar."
1,400 soldiers defeated 10,000 Jews. The Jews were defeated, and the reputation of the invincible army was shattered. After a month-long siege and terrible fighting, the Jews were defeated. The Arabian Peninsula shook with the cries of "Allah Akbar," and the Jews collapsed.
The Jews were defeated. The Prophet Muhammad and everybody was very surprised that only 96 Jews were killed, along with 16 Muslims. 96 people? The Prophet could have massacred the Jews, down to the last one. Why did the Prophet Muhammad let them be? Because the Prophet Muhammad does not fight for the sake of war or bloodshed. He fights for the sake of peace. this proves to what extent he is the prophet of peace.
[...]
I have a message for every Jew on the face of the earth. The army of Muhammad will return. Oh offspring of apes and pigs, the day of vengeance is nearing. Oh most accursed creatures created by Allah, those who swore before the Prophet Muhammad to die are returning. Wait for us and you will see, you most accursed creatures.
[...]
Oh nation of Muhammad, do not be afraid to wage war against the Jews. If you do not fight for the sake of Palestine, Allah will fight you. Decide what you are more afraid of a war with the Jews, or a war with Allah. Can you fight God? If you abandon Palestine, you will be fighting God.
Opstelling Verenigde Naties naar Israël zeer eenzijdig
Opstelling VN naar Israël zeer eenzijdig
Op 29 november 1947, nu 62 jaar geleden, nam de Algemene Vergadering van de Verenigde Naties de aanbeveling over om een Joodse en een Arabische staat te vormen. Over het algemeen bestaat de indruk dat Israël veel aan de VN te danken heeft en dat Israël desondanks niet naar de VN wil luisteren. Maar hoe is de houding van de VN naar Israël nu werkelijk?
Voor Joodse vluchtelingen hebben de wereldorganisaties voor en na de Tweede Wereldoorlog niets gedaan. Voor de miljoenen vluchtelingen wereldwijd hebben de VN een algemene vluchtelingenorganisatie, voor de Palestijnen een speciale. Naast de vluchtelingenorganisatie zijn er in de VN veel andere organisaties die opkomen voor de Palestijnen. Ze bepleiten niet zozeer een Palestijnse staat op de Westelijke Jordaanoever en de Gazastrook als wel een staat in geheel Palestina, dus zonder bestaansrecht voor de Joden in Israël.
De Divisie voor Palestijnse Rechten (DPR), opgericht in 1975, is een van de zeven divisies die onder het departement Politieke Zaken van de VN vallen. De andere zes houden zich bezig met problemen in andere werelddelen. De DPR voert veel propaganda en organiseert jaarlijks op 29 november de "Internationale dag van de solidariteit met het Palestijnse volk".
Resolutie 242
Een andere VN-commissie komt op voor Uitvoering van de onvervreemdbare rechten van het Palestijnse volk" (CEIRPP). Deze organisatie richt zich op het beïnvloeden van VN-functionarissen en hulporganisaties. De invloed van deze commissie was goed te merken op de antiracismeconferentie van de VN in Durban in 2001. Dit werd een beschamende anti-Israëlmanifestatie, waar de vernietiging van Israël werd bepleit en Hitler een held was.
Toen Egypte in 1967 dreigde met oorlog en een haven van Israël afsloot, deden de VN niets. Direct na deze Zesdaagse Oorlog bood Israël aan om bezette gebieden terug te geven in ruil voor erkenning en vrede. Hierna namen de VN resolutie 242 aan. Ten onrechte wordt nu vaak beweerd dat deze resolutie de onvoorwaardelijke terugtrekking van Israël eist uit de bezette gebieden. De tekst spreekt ook over het accepteren van elke staat en het recht op leven binnen erkende en veilige grenzen.
Resolutie 242 gaat uit van het principe "land voor vrede". Israël voldoet daaraan: Egypte kreeg voor de vrede de gehele Sinaï terug. Na 1993 (de Oslo-akkoorden) kregen de Palestijnen steeds meer zeggenschap over hun gebieden. In Israël bleven de Palestijnse zelfmoordaanslagen echter gewoon doorgaan.
Ook na de eenzijdige terugtrekking uit de Gazastrook kreeg Israël geen vrede maar werd het 'beloond' met duizenden raketten van Hamas.
Uitsluiting
De landen van de VN zijn ingedeeld in regionale groepen. De landen in zo'n groep maken onderling uit welk land ze voordragen voor de verschillende werkcommissies van de VN. Israël kwam bij de Aziatische groep en werd jarenlang door de islamitische buurlanden uitgesloten. Het betekent zelfs dat Israël alleen bij de VN in New York de vergaderingen kan bijwonen. Ook kon Israël in geen enkele commissie of ander orgaan van de VN worden gekozen. Deze uitsluiting trof alleen Israël.
Na jarenlang aandringen van de VS is Israël nu toegelaten tot de WEOG, de groep van westerse landen. Israël mag echter nog steeds niet meedoen aan vergaderingen van de VN-Mensenrechtenraad in Genève. Die raad besteedt onevenredig veel aandacht aan Israël en veroordeelt alleen Israël, terwijl men zwijgt over Palestijns terrorisme of over Sudan.
Deze corrupte raad heeft, op verzoek van Egypte en Pakistan, opdracht gegeven voor een onderzoek naar de Gazaoorlog, waarin alleen de daden van Israël werden beoordeeld, het zogeheten Goldstonerapport. Terwijl Hamas vecht zonder uniform en vanuit dichtbevolkte gebieden, waardoor er veel burgerslachtoffers vallen, veroordeelt de raad deze oorlogsmisdaden niet.
Ook de Algemene Vergadering van de VN heeft Israël eenzijdig in de beklaagdenbank gezet door de resolutie van de Mensenrechtenraad over te nemen. Zo werken de dictatoriale Arabische, islamitische en ongebonden landen in VN-verband samen om steeds Israël veroordeeld te krijgen en de aandacht van hun eigen problemen af te leiden. De VN worden misbruikt en kunnen niet naar hun eigen doelstelling handelen.
Echte brandhaarden
Door dit gedrag van de landen in de VN wordt Israël apart gezet en zijn de VN een eenzijdige anti-Israëlorganisatie geworden. De VN zouden alle landen, groot of klein, met of zonder een blok van bondgenoten, zonder onderscheid op gelijke en eerlijke wijze moeten behandelen. Dan zouden de veroordelingen van Israël achterwege blijven en zou de aandacht naar de echte brandhaarden van de wereld kunnen uitgaan.
De auteur is lezer te Brakel.
De mythische vrede die net buiten bereik blijft
The mythical peace that is just out of reach
29.11. 2009
http://www.zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000724.html
Original content copyright by the author
Zionism & Israel Center http://zionism-israel.com
Responding to the question: "Do you believe that the Palestinians should be obliged to waive their right of home return in exchange for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and the conclusion of a peace agreement with Israel ?", (89.8 %) answered "Palestinians shouldn't agree to that, even if the price would be the non-conclusion of an agreement with the Israelis", whilst only (6.8 %) said "Palestinians should agree to that", and (3.3 %) answered "I don't know". Read further: The mythical peace that is just out of reach
What does the peace settlement look like? We all know, what the peace settlement would look like, don't we? It would look like the Clinton Bridging Proposals, or it would look like the Geneva Accord, or it might even look like the reasonable proposal of Palestinian-American comedian Ray Hanania.
All of those proposals rest on three major principles:
1) The Palestinians give up the so-called "Right of Return" of the descendants of Palestinian refugees of 1948. They can live in the state of Palestine or abroad, or in limited numbers in Israel, but they do not have a "right" to return to Israel and they cannot come to Israel in unlimited numbers.
2) At least some parts of Jerusalem beyond the 1949 armistice line remain under Israeli sovereignty, including the old city Jewish quarter, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol, Gilo, Har Choma and other areas that are today Jewish neighborhoods.
3) The Palestinians recognize that Israel is the state of the Jewish people, just as the Jews recognize that Palestine is the state of the Palestinian Arab people.
Peace "optimists" tell us that the Palestinians leaders have really agreed or are secretly ready to agree to all these proposals and/or that polls show that the Palestinian people back these concessions. For example, a friend, a knowledgeable journalist, insisted to me that the Geneva initiative "has support from the Palestinian PLO establishment." In fact, Yasser Arafat, Chairman of the PLO, rejected the Geneva accord, as did the Israeli government. It is like saying that the Geneva initiative "has support from the Zionist establishment" since Yossi Beilin signed it. A minority of secondary leaders on both sides signed it, and they seem to have understood it differently. Some of the Palestinian signatories denied that it gave up the right of return.
The depressing fact is that all the polls of Palestinians and all the statements of the leaders and all the documents of the PLO and the Fatah have been fairly consistent in giving negative replies to all the issues. The one ray of hope is that some surveys show that the Palestinian people would be willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, but only provided that Israel accept Right of Return and give up all of East Jerusalem. This review will focus primarily on the issue of Right of Return, because it is the issue most studied in the polls, and it is the Palestinian demand with the most devastating consequences for Israel. Surveys almost never ask about giving up parts of the West Bank or any part of East Jerusalem. Almost all the results that show Palestinians support a "two state" solution assume in the questions that the "solution" includes right of return, and Israeli concession of all territories taken in 1967, including all of East Jerusalem.
Palestinian Opinion on the Right of Return
Every poll of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza found that 80-90% insist on Right of Return for the refugees, no matter how the question was asked, and whatever the prospects for peace may have been at the time. For example a poll by PCPO in 2008:
Regarding the additional question:" Should the Palestinian leadership agree to the waiver of the Right of Home Return in exchange of the monetary compensation, would you accept or refuse that?" (89.5 %) answered "I would refuse that", whilst only (7.3 %) said "I would accept that", and (3.2 %) answered "I don't know".
Here is an An Najah university poll from 2006 regarding items in the Prisoner's letter. When asked about: "The need to ------- stress on the right of return and to cling to this right and to call on the international community to implement Resolution 194 which stipulates the right of the refugees to return and to be compensated," 52.4% strongly agreed and 39.7% agreed - over 90% in all.
IPCRI is the oldest Israeli-Palestinian dialog organization. Few people are more optimistic about peace than its co-director, Gershon Baskin. An IPCRI poll in 2001 asked refugees only about their views on Right of Return. A total of 98.6% strongly agreed or agreed that "Lasting peace in the Middle East is tied to the return of the refugees to their homes." A total of 98.7% strongly agreed or agreed that "Compensation is not an alternative to return." A total of 99.8% strongly agreed or agreed that "Return must be to exact places of original residence." Only 5.1% agreed or strongly agreed that "Family reunification can be considered return." Every survey in the West Bank and Gaza strip produced similar results.