zaterdag 20 maart 2010

Houd kritiek op Israel eens redelijk en zakelijk

 
Terwijl in discussies op internet de nazi vergelijkingen je om de oren vliegen, iedereen die het voor Israel opneemt verdacht wordt gemaakt als zijnde een onderdeel van de notoire en oppermachtige Zionistische lobby en Israels bestaansrecht steeds vaker openlijk wordt ontkend, omdat zij slechts door etnische zuiveringen en het Europese schuldgevoel over de Holocaust tot stand zou zijn gekomen, krijgen Israel sympathisanten in de NRC ook nog eens het verwijt niet zakelijk met kritiek om te gaan. Over de pot en de ketel gesproken. Lees hieronder meer over de vreemde en onrealistische eisen die Jan Dirk Snel aan hen stelt, terwijl hij de onzakelijke, emotionele en onredelijke bijdrages van de Israel critici volkomen negeert.
 
RP
----------

Houd kritiek op Israel eens redelijk en zakelijk

IMO Blog, 2010

In NRC Handelsblad stond - ik wees er in mijn vorige blog al even op - weer eens een lang artikel dat een pro-Palestijns standpunt inneemt. De invalshoek is dit keer dat sympathisanten van Israël niet zakelijk op kritiek zouden ingaan. Ze zouden te snel grote woorden gebruiken en de andere kant verdacht maken, of 'opzichtig' om de zaak heen draaien. De aanleiding is de brief van de PKN aan de Israëlische ambassadeur en de vele kritiek daarop van de ambassadeur zelf, Christenen voor Israël, het Centraal Joods Overleg en het Simon Wiesenthal Centrum.


Wat ze ook zeggen, het voldoet niet aan de hoge normen van journalist/historicus Jan Dirk Snel. Wanneer bijvoorbeeld betoogd wordt dat het afscheidingshek Israël beschermt tegen zelfmoordaanslagen, ontwijkt men het punt dat de barrière naar Israëls eigen grondgebied verplaatst moet worden. Wordt vervolgens uitgelegd "dat verplaatsing van de barrière een grote groep Joodse inwoners in de bezette gebieden 'onbeschermd' zou laten, dan blijft onbesproken wat die lui daar dan doen". Tja meneer Snel, volgens die mensen is dat land waar Joden het recht hebben om te wonen om religieuze, historische of ook veiligheidsredenen. Snel accepteert niet dat men het Kairos document en de oproep tot boycot erin als aanval op Israëls bestaansrecht en veiligheid beschouwt, en dat de steun voor 'verzet tegen de bezetting' en zinsneden als 'Dit land is ons land en het is onze plicht het te verdedigen en het voor ons op te eisen' en 'We hebben groot respect voor hen die hun leven gaven voor onze natie' door sympathisanten van Israël niet als vredelievend worden beschouwd maar als het goedkeuren van terrorisme. Dat moet allemaal 'zakelijker' en 'redelijker' uitgelegd.

Zo'n brief of reactie zou, om aan Snels eisen te voldoen, eerst uitgebreid moeten uitleggen waarom Joden überhaupt recht hebben op een staat, waarom die staat in Israël/Palestina moet liggen met Jeruzalem als hoofdstad, dat de groene lijn een wapenstilstandslijn is en geen grens, en er gebieden over de groene lijn liggen die voor veel Joden een heel grote betekenis hebben, dat bovendien de groene lijn als grens aanzienlijke veiligheidsproblemen met zich mee zou brengen, in ieder geval zolang de Arabische wereld niet principieel verandert in haar houding tegenover Israël, dat als je de barrière precies op de groene lijn bouwt niet alleen grote groepen Joden onbeschermd zouden zijn, maar je ook al het land aan de andere kant in feite al weggeeft nog voordat er over onderhandeld is en zonder er iets voor in ruil te krijgen zoals veiligheidsgaranties, de erkenning van Israël als Joodse staat en opgeven van het zogenaamde 'recht op terugkeer' van de Palestijnse vluchtelingen.

Ook het gehele Kairos document zou in de brief uitgebreid dienen te worden besproken, en uitgelegd waarom een aantal uitspraken (indirect) wel degelijk Israëls bestaansrecht op losse schroeven zetten. Vervolgens gaan we uitgebreid in op waarom een boycot van Israëlische producten, ook als het alleen producten van over de groene lijn betreft, onrechtvaardig en contra productief is.

De brief zal een apart hoofdstuk over Jeruzalem en de Joodse aanspraken daarop bevatten, die niet slechts door religieus fanatisme zijn ingegeven. Een ander, minstens zo uitgebreid hoofdstuk gaat over het internationale recht, hoe dat op verschillende manieren geïnterpreteerd kan worden en hoe dat momenteel op een eenzijdige manier tegen Israël wordt gebruikt, door nota bene staten die zelf de mensenrechten op de meest grove wijze schenden. Uitgelegd moet worden hoe Israël in de VN op verschillende manieren wordt gediscrimineerd, en dat de Mensenrechtenraad, die het Internationaal Gerechtshof opdroeg zich uit te spreken over de barrière, en andere gremia om politieke redenen onevenredig veel aandacht besteden aan Israël, soms zelfs bijna uitsluitend aandacht besteden aan Israël, en dit in feite een voortzetting is van de strijd tegen dit land en haar bestaansrecht.

Kortom, de reactie die aan Snels eisen zou voldoen en die inhoudelijk en zakelijk genoeg op alle verwijten die Israël worden gemaakt zou ingaan, zou een compleet boekwerk worden. Daarnaast vindt Snel dat Israël en haar sympathisanten verplicht zijn om uitgebreid op alle aantijgingen in te gaan, en zij mogen daarbij geen eigen onderwerpen aandragen zoals de behandeling van christenen in de Palestijnse gebieden en de Arabische wereld, of zo'n brief en Kairos document in een breder kader van steeds overspannener wordende kritiek op Israël plaatsen. Dan ontwijken zij immers 'opzichtig' de kritiek, doen aan 'verdachtmakingen' en 'afleidingsmanoeuvres'.

Lees verder op IMO: http://www.zionism-israel.com/blog/archives/00000442.html

 

Vooral Joden online gediscrimineerd

 
Onderstaand bericht over het toegenomen aantal meldingen van antisemitisme op internet leidde op verschillende fora tot de nodige opmerkingen die het bericht juist bevestigen. Ontzettend moe wordt ik daarnaast van de talloze opmerkingen dat het onderzoek wel niet zal deugen, want iedereen die kritiek heeft op Israel zal wel een antisemiet worden genoemd. Weer anderen beweerden dat de Joden zo in de slachtofferrol zitten dat ze iedere opmerking gelijk gaan melden, terwijl moslims dat veel minder snel zouden doen. En eindeloos zijn de berichten over de zionistische misdaden en dat de schuld voor het toegenomen antisemitisme bij Israel ligt. Diepe zucht.
 
Beste mensen, ik ben een van die mensen die enkele keren een klacht heeft ingediend bij het MDI. Mijn ervaring is dat men erg terughoudend is in het aanmerken van een uitlating als antisemitisch. Men gaat uit van de Nederlandse wet, niet van wat men zelf vindt of wat het CIDI vindt of wie dan ook. En onder de Nederlandse wet mag veel. Gretta Duisenberg mag zeggen dat de regering wordt overheerst door Joden, en Wilders mag zeggen dat hij hoofddoekjes rauw lust en de Koran een haatzaaiend boek is a la Mein Kampf.
 
Als je alle uitspraken waarin Israel met de nazi's wordt vergeleken, zionisten crimineel genoemd en moordenaars en Israel het misdadigste regime op aarde, zou melden bij het MDI, dan zouden daar de computers binnen een dag op tilt slaan en men een paar honderd mensen moeten aannemen (nadat men nieuwe computers heeft aangeschaft) om al die meldingen te kunnen verwerken. Dus get real ajb en neem aan dat er echt wel van een probleem sprake is!
 
Hieronder een paar van de 'verlichte' reacties die ik tegenkwam.
 
RP
-------------
 
arabstudentsleague.blogspot.com/2010/03/zionisme-de-doodlopende-straat-van.html
Door Ed-Daoui Amina

Van een vernederd volk tot moordlustige agressors die pogen om een weerloos volk van hun grondgebieden te ontwortelen. Wat bracht die joden er toch toe om nog geen 50 jaar na hun eigen (grote) nederlaag zelf een holocaust te ontketenen? Waar ligt de achterliggende ideologie van deze joodse bezetters? Joodse 'zwakkertjes', tijd om jullie masker af te zetten.
Een merkwaardige notificatie: In 1878 werd de éérste joodse kolonie gesticht. Kennen jullie de geboortedatum van onze gezel Hitler? 1889. Vreemd, 11 jaar voor de komst van deze legende waren de zionisten al druk in de weer met het leggen van de eerste grondslag van hun 'Zuivere staat'. De tijd dat holocaust als geldig excuus gebruikt kon worden, is bij deze dus nietig verklaard.
Het mocht niet zijn, de Britten erkenden desondanks deze noodkreet een Joodse regering en vergemakkelijkten het zo voor deze duivelse zionisten.

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

wo 17 mrt 2010, 19:02

Ik heb geen hekel aan de joden maar wel aan hun streken!!!

tja hoe zou dat nou toch komenMoe
overigens hebben de echte joden te lijden onder de valse streken van de fake jews (lees: zionisten)
 
ik moet altijd lachen om dit soort onderzoekjes
wederom een totaal misleidend resultaat
titel zal moeten worden vervangen door:
gediscrimineerde moslims dienen zelden klacht
of
israelische lobby (waakhond CIDI) meld in 2009 1238 klachten bij het MDI
nulhypothese verworpen!
-----
 
Weer slachtoffertje spelen, altijd refereren die joden naar de 2e wereldoorlog wat ze hebben meegemaakt, maar nu doen ze precies hetzelfde bij de palestijnen. In een paar weken tijd(gaza) honderden kinderen vermoord Moe

Van mij mogen alle zionisten(dus niet alle joden) dood!!!!!Ik zal er in ieder geval niet om treuren
-----
ja we weten dat zionisten graag van alles verzamelen om maar te kunnen bewijzen hoe gehaat ze zijn om zo als slachtoffers gezien te worden. finkelstein heeft dat keer op keer in zijn boeken duidelijk gemaakt. ze hebben toch niks anders te doen. geld van de wereld ten kostte van de wereldbevolking.

ze hebben de grootste aandeel aan het leed in de wereld. de wereldbanken, geld dat bestemd is voor het volk gebruiken om kostte wat kostte oorlogen te voeren. gewoon duivels. en dan moeten mensen hun knuffelen zeker.
nieuws.marokko.nl/index.php?nav=nieuws&nid=14775
---------------
 
nujij127.betafase.nl/vooral-joden-online-gediscrimineerd!.8171867.lynkx
 
weer zo een propaganda bericht!
what about de moslims he?
dat zijn geen mensen he?
kijk maar ff rechts op nujij als het woord marokaan of moslim niet vaker voorkomt dan het eeuwige slachtoffer Israel.

en men komt mij vertellen dat de media een objectieve bron is?
De media is in Europa en in Amerika in handen van de joodse lobby!
------
Kritiek op het agressieve en misselijkmakende beleid van Israel is meer dan terecht en dat is er jammer genoeg nog veel te weinig. Als deze kritiek door de sommige Joden als discriminatie wordt ervaren is dat hun ziekelijke probleem! Misschien moeten ze eerst eens leren in de spiegel te kijken!
 

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

Vooral Joden online gediscrimineerd

http://www.spitsnieuws.nl/archives/tech/2010/03/vooral_joden_online_gediscrimi.html

Bijna de helft (45 procent) van de discriminerende opmerkingen op internet is gericht tegen Joden. Dit blijkt uit cijfers over 2009, die het Meldpunt Discriminatie Internet (MDI) zojuist bekendmaakte. De cijfers zijn gebaseerd op meldingen die de organisatie binnenkreeg van internetgebruikers. Vorig jaar kreeg het MDI 1238 meldingen van discriminatie.

Van de in totaal 577 als strafbaar bestempelde commentaren van internetgebruikers waren er 258 antisemitisch van aard. Op websites als stormfront.org en radioislam.org werd 20 procent van de strafbare anti-joodse opmerkingen aangetroffen, aldus het MDI. Daarvan werd 80 procent op zogenoemde 'mainstream' sites aangetroffen.

Verschil

Het totaal aantal strafbaar geachte opmerkingen is volgens het MDI lager dan in 2008. Toen merkte het MDI nog 899 uitingen aan als strafbaar bij 1226 meldingen. Volgens de organisatie is er echter geen sprake van een afname van discriminatie op internet: "Het verschil tussen dit jaar en vorig jaar komt omdat een aantal sites waar in 2008 erg veel extreme opmerkingen stonden, inmiddels niet meer bestaat", verklaarde een woordvoerster.

 

'Israel zal zichzelf altijd blijven verdedigen tegen raketten uit Gaza'

 
Op de dag voordat het Kwartet in Moskou bij elkaar kwam, werd een Qassam raket vanuit de Gaza strook op Israel afgevuurd, waarbij een dode viel. Sander van Hoorn noemde in het NOS journaal het moment van de aanslag 'ongelukkig, want Israel zal nu tegen het kwartet kunnen zeggen: "jullie verwachten van alles van ons terwijl bij ons doden vallen"'. Het zou inderdaad diep triest zijn als het Kwartet enig begrip voor Israels positie zou tonen, al is het maar vanwege deze raket, en niet alleen van haar allerlei concessies zou eisen. De raket laat weer zien dat er een risico is verbonden aan het openstellen van de grenzen van Gaza, iets waartoe het Kwartet al vaker heeft opgeroepen. De aanval werd overigens opgeëist door zowel een onbekende islamitische groep als de aan Fatah gelieerde Al Aqsa Martelaren Brigades.
Ondertussen spelen de Palestijnen een gevaarlijk spel door de bevolking op te hitsen met verhalen over het in gevaar zijn van de Al Aqsa Moskee, dit omdat Israel op ca. een km. afstand een synagoge heeft gerenoveerd. Misschien dat het Kwartet daar ook iets over kan zeggen?
 
RP
---------------
 
'Israel will defend itself from Gaza rockets, regardless of Goldstone'
By Yanir Yagna and Amos Harel, and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Service
Last update - 03:36 19/03/2010
 
 
The IAF hit six targets, including tunnels and a weapons manufacturing site in the Gaza Strip early Friday.

The strike came in response to a rocket attack on Thursday that killed a Thai foreign worker in nearby Netiv Ha'asara. It was the third rocket fired from the Gaza Strip in the last 24 hours.

Later Thursday, Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon said Israel would defend its citizens against Gaza attacks regardless of the Goldstone report. He added that he did not see the recent tension with the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama as inhibiting the ability to protect Israeli towns.

Speaking to reporters near the impact site, Ayalon said that Israel would not let the Goldstone report, which blamed both Israel and Hamas for alleged war crimes during last year's bout of fighting, to affect Israel's defense strategy, saying that "with or without Goldstone, Israel will defend its citizens. Today we see how absurd the Goldstone report was."

Asked whether recent tensions with the U.S. over East Jerusalem construction could limit Israel's ability to respond, Ayalon said that "we have never asked the permission of anyone to defend ourselves, and we will proceed in a similar fashion."

Referring to the stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinains, Aylon said that he hoped "quiet and security will return, but it just can't be that while we for a year wait and extend our hands toward peace the Palestinians avoid coming to the negotiations table with excuses and preconditions."

"It just can't be that incitement is being advocated in Jerusalem and in the Temple Mount, and today we see that has manifested itself with a terrorist act," the deputy FM said.

Earlier Thursday, Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai declared Hamas responsible for the rocket that hit Moshav Nativ Ha'asara, even though it was not launched by militants from the ruling movement.

Deputy Premier Silvan Shalon vowed that "the Israeli response will be appropriate. It will be strong," adding: "This is a crossing of the red line, which Israel cannot accept.

Britain, the United Nations secretary general and the European Union foreign policy chief were quick on Thursday to condemn the attack.

The EU's top diplomat, Lady Catherine Ashton, had crossed into Gaza Strip from Israel just an hour before militants in the Hamas-ruled territory launched the rocket.

At a Gaza news conference after the attack, Ashton said: "I condemn any kind of violence, we have got to find a peaceful solution to the issues and problems."

"I'm extremely shocked by the rocket attack and the tragic loss of life. I said when I came to Israel that part of the reason for my trip to this region is to express my concern that we move as quickly as we can to proximity talks," Ashton said.

The EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy added that she urged "everyone to continue to work in that direction and to make sure these incidents cannot deter us from finding a lasting peace for this region."

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also expressed his condemnation, saying in a statement: "All such acts of terror and violence against civilians are totally unacceptable and contrary to international law."

More than 100 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israel since Operation Cast Lead ended in January 2009, according to the Israel Defense Forces.

Israel has responsed to strikes since the war with air raids, targeting militants and suspected weapons-manufacturing facilities in the territory.

Hamas Islamists, who seized the Gaza Strip in 2007 in fighting with forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, have been urging other militant groups not to mount attacks on Israel, voicing concern about retaliation.

An unknown Gaza group, Ansar al-Sunna, claimed responsibility for the attack, launched a day before the international Quartet of Middle East peace mediators was to meet in Moscow to discuss ways to revive Israeli-Palestinian talks.

The incident could have more of an impact on internal Palestinian politics than on the Middle East peace process, which Hamas has refused to join and which is at an impasse over Israeli settlement policy on land Palestinians want for a state.

Hamas Islamists, who seized the Gaza Strip in 2007, had been urging other militant groups not to mount attacks on Israel, voicing concern about retaliation.

But it has been faced with a mounting security challenge - including bombings against Hamas officials and facilities - by Gaza militant groups sharing the hardline ideology of Al-Qaida.

A known figure in the hardline Salafist movement, whose agenda of "jihad", or holy war, against the West is contrary to Hamas's nationalist goals, said Ansar al-Sunna was a newly established group.

"The Jihadist mission came in response to the Zionist assaults against the Ibrahimi and al-Aqsa mosques and the continued Zionist aggression against our people in Jerusalem," Ansar al-Sunna said in a statement.

It appeared to be referring to Israel's national heritage plan to renovate holy sites, including the West Bank town of Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs that is revered by Muslims and Jews, and the rededication this week of an 18th-century synagogue in Jerusalem, some 400 meters from al-Aqsa.

In a statement on the rocket firing, Hamas steered clear of comments that could be seen by Palestinians in the Israeli-blockaded Gaza Strip as disapproving of a strike against its enemy, even an attack that strained an informal truce.

"The government of the Zionist enemy, which has launched a war against the Palestinian people and against holy sites and al-Aqsa mosque, bears the responsibility for all the escalation," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said.
 

Beleid Obama leidt tot verlies Amerikaanse invloed in Midden-Oosten

 
Volgens Lee Smith is Amerika hard op weg om haar invloed in het Midden-Oosten te verliezen, door zwakheid in plaats van kracht te tonen en publiekelijk een bondgenoot te vernederen, iets dat in de Arabische wereld als een teken van zwakte geldt. Lee Smith, jarenlang woonachtig in Libanon, kent het Midden-Oosten van nabij.
 
Of het volgende klopt betwijfel ik echter:
 
The recent U.S.-Israeli contretemps is not about progress on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is about Iran. The Obama administration has all but announced that it has resigned itself to an Iranian nuclear program and that it is moving toward a policy of containment and deterrence. We will extend a nuclear umbrella to protect our Arab allies in the Gulf, says Secretary of State Clinton, and we will continue to give Israel security guarantees. And, anyway, says Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, the Iranians are probably years away from building a deployable nuclear weapon. In rattling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cage, the Obama administration was warning Israel not even to contemplate an attack on Iran.
 
Mogelijk heeft dat ermee te maken, maar Amerika is vaker boos geworden om nederzettingenbouw, ook in Oost Jeruzalem. Het heeft Israelische aanspraken in Oost Jeruzalem nooit erkend, en erkent officieel zelfs West Jeruzalem niet als Israelisch. De regering Obama reageert feller op de nederzettingenbouw dan haar voorganger, waarschijnlijk vooral om in de Arabische wereld een wit voetje te halen en het imago van de VS als eenzijdig pro-Israel te veranderen.
 
RP
--------------
 

A Middle East Without American Influence? That's the logical outcome of the Obama administration's current policies.

The prospect of the US losing its influence in the Middle East is real enough and frightening enough. It is the goal of the Iranian government, and so far they have won every round in the fight. In Lebanon - a knockout. In Iraq, they are winning on points as they are in Gaza, and when they explode their first nuclear device, Iran will have won another knockout victory.  
 
On the other hand, Lee Smith goes a bit far here:
... victory does not always go to the smartest -- or even to those who have the most airplanes, the most military bases, and the best technology. It goes to those who do not hesitate to impose their wills on the world in order to reshape it to their liking.
Wasn't that the basic philosophy of Saddam Hussein, and likewise of Adolf Hitler? It didn't work out too well for them.
 
Ami Isseroff
=================
By Lee Smith
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 4:47 PM ET
 
 
Last week, one of Syria's government news organs riffed on the title of my book The Strong Horse; Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. "The American president," Al Tharwa wrote, "was betting on the sick horse." Instead of siding with Syria's Hamas allies, Obama was backing the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas. From Damascus' perspective, the description also applies to the United States' other Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms, as well as to Egypt and Jordan. These states are ready to be put out to pasture, while it is Iran's "axis of resistance," including Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Syria itself, that represents the rising power.
 
OK, maybe the regime in Damascus hasn't actually read my book. I lifted the title from Osama Bin Laden, anyway. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse," said Bin Laden, "by nature, they will like the strong horse." But the Syrian appraisal confirms my thesis—in the Middle East, political power is the prerogative of those who take it and maintain it by both the appearance and application of force. In this instance, unfortunately, what's good for my book is very bad for U.S. interests and allies—and for American citizens.
 
As it turns out, the Syrians have a point. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest known oil reserves, and Egypt is the most populous Arab state, but they are no longer regional powerhouses, at least in the way the Arabic-speaking Middle East has typically registered power over the last 60-plus years—that is, as willingness to fight Israel. Cairo and Amman have peace treaties with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is involved in an on-again-off-again peace process, while Riyadh has opted to remain on the sidelines. This collective weakness is just the way that Washington ordained it four decades ago.
 
In the middle of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Henry Kissinger airlifted arms shipments to Israel in order to guarantee an Israeli victory that for a time had seemed uncertain. Kissinger's strategic intention was to show the Arabs that as long as Washington stood behind Israel, there was no way they could ever defeat the Jewish state. If they wanted concessions from Israel, they would have to petition the Americans for it, a prerogative that made Washington not merely a great power but a power broker. By breaking the Arabs, the United States made itself the regional strong horse.
 

Of course, with those arms shipments, Kissinger meant to drive home another lesson as well, this one to Israel—in effect, that Washington held the power of life and death over the Jewish state and that Israeli leaders had best keep in line. This arrangement—Israeli strength and Arab weakness—secured what some have called the Pax Americana of the Middle East. After Egyptian President Anwar Sadat jumped from the Soviet side to the American one after the '73 war, our regional hegemony was never again seriously contested—until now.
 
The new catch phrase in the Middle East is strategic realignment. Broadly speaking, this means that the balance of power is shifting from the U.S.-backed regional order to the axis of resistance. Some commentators, like Robert Malley, have argued alongside the Syrians that the Obama administration should drop its old allies—the sick horse—for new friends among the axis of resistance. From a certain perspective, it appears that the White House has done just that, albeit unintentionally.
 
When the Obama administration promised to engage the adversaries that the Bush White House had isolated, U.S. allies followed the strong horse's lead and also changed course. Most notably, the Saudis patched things up with the Syrians after five years of intra-Arab discord. Riyadh pushed its Lebanese allies to reconcile with Damascus, and with Beirut's pro-democracy and pro-United States March 14 movement now all but dead, Washington no longer has a Lebanese ally. When President Barack Obama indicated that the most important thing concerning Iraq was to withdraw U.S. forces, the Syrians and Saudis found a shared interest in attacking Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Even as Maliki, his Iraqi security officials, and Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, explained that the Syrians were behind a series of mega-terror attacks in Baghdad, the White House hushed them up for fear that identifying Syria as responsible for the attacks would jeopardize its efforts to engage Damascus. It is lost on no one in the region that Washington left two allies out on their own. But it gets worse.
 
Some U.S. commentators have praised the Obama administration's recent condemnation of Israel for announcing, during Vice President Joe Biden's visit, that it intended to build 1,600 apartment units in East Jerusalem. The White House's response, they argue, sends a strong message that Washington won't be bullied. In the Middle East, however, there is nothing that reeks so much of weakness as beating up on an ally in public. Moreover, this tongue-lashing comes shortly after the White House swallowed the open taunts of its adversaries. At a recent Damascus banquet featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas' Khaled Meshaal, Syrian President Bashar Assad openly mocked Secretary Hillary Clinton. He joked that he had misunderstood her demands that Syria distance itself from Iran, so instead, said Assad, he was waiving visa requirements for visitors from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
 
Of course, Washington shaming Israel will please the Arabs—even U.S. allies like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Cairo, Egypt, that cheered on Jerusalem when it took on Iran's assets Hezbollah and Hamas. Remember, the Arabs have been compelled by the American strong horse to swallow their pride for decades. But given that Arabs do not air their own dirty laundry for fear it will make them look weak, our public humiliation of an ally will earn us only contempt.
 
But here's the most important thing: Even if you discount the centrality of shame and honor as operative principles in the Middle East, the Obama administration has blundered by jeopardizing not Israel's stature but our own regional interests and the Pax Americana that has been ours over the last 35 years. Our position in the region depends on every actor there knowing that we back Israel to the hilt and that they are dependent on us. Sure, there are plenty of times we will not see eye-to-eye on things—differences that should be resolved in quiet consultations—but should any real distance open up between Washington and Jerusalem, that will send a message that the U.S.-backed order of the region is ready to be tested. And that's exactly what the axis of resistance is seeing right now.
 
The recent U.S.-Israeli contretemps is not about progress on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is about Iran. The Obama administration has all but announced that it has resigned itself to an Iranian nuclear program and that it is moving toward a policy of containment and deterrence. We will extend a nuclear umbrella to protect our Arab allies in the Gulf, says Secretary of State Clinton, and we will continue to give Israel security guarantees. And, anyway, says Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, the Iranians are probably years away from building a deployable nuclear weapon. In rattling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cage, the Obama administration was warning Israel not even to contemplate an attack on Iran.
 
Of course, really effective deterrence would require us to make sure that our Israeli allies were perceived as highly volatile and unpredictable actors who might just take matters into their own hands and bomb Iran's nuclear sites. That scenario would have a better chance of cornering Iran and its allies, compelling them to seek relief from us, the rational senior partner. Instead, we've just pulled off the strategic equivalent of beating our pit bull on a street corner to show the neighborhood tough guys that we mean business.
 
President Obama is not intentionally trying to sacrifice our position in the energy-rich and strategically vital Middle East, but his policies may well lead to that. Strategic realignment doesn't just mean that Washington gets to trade in one set of allies for another. It means that the American order of the region will be superseded by a new order in which we will play a secondary role at best. More likely, as Ahmadinejad and Assad say, it will mean a Middle East without American influence.
 
Such a prospect is not impossible, for victory does not always go to the smartest—or even to those who have the most airplanes, the most military bases, and the best technology. It goes to those who do not hesitate to impose their wills on the world in order to reshape it to their liking. It goes to the strong horse. Who is the sick horse? From the perspective of our adversaries, that would be us.
 
 

Hamas wakkert islamitische woede over Jeruzalem aan


For this reason, Hamas spokesmen and leaders in the West Bank, Gaza and beyond have been busily fanning the flames of Arab and Muslim anger since the "Day of Rage" in Jerusalem on Tuesday. The main focus, notably, is the supposed threat to the Aksa Mosque represented by the rebuilding of the Hurva Synagogue, rather than that of construction in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood or broader Palestinian grievances.
 
De Hurva Synagoge staat in het eeuwenoude Joodse deel van de oude stad op honderden meters afstand van de Al Aqsa Moskee. Hij is in 1948 door Jordaanse troepen verwoest tijdens Israels onafhankelijkheidsoorlog. Dat men zo'n aanstoot neemt aan de bouw van deze synagoge laat duidelijk zien dat men helemaal geen Joodse rechten in Jeruzalem erkent.
 
The mobilizing of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish opinion on the basis of an imaginary threat to the Aksa Mosque has a long history in this conflict. The most recent example was the decision to trigger the second intifada in 2000 after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. But as far back as 1929, agitators used arrangements for prayers at the Western Wall to incite country-wide attacks on Jews.
 
RP
---------------
 
The Jerusalem Post
Hamas fans flames of Islamic anger following 'Day of Rage'
By JONATHAN SPYER
18/03/2010 03:03
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171263

Hamas seeks to supplant the West Bank Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad.


Hamas leaders are seeking to escalate Palestinian unrest over the supposed Israeli threat to Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem. In addition to reflecting the movement's ideological goals, this effort makes good political sense.

Hamas seeks to supplant the West Bank Palestinian Authority of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. It knows that by returning the focus of the conflict to the explosive issue of Islamic pride and outrage over the loss of holy places, it can present itself as the natural leader of the Palestinians, and its opponents as irrelevancies or, worse, collaborators.

For this reason, Hamas spokesmen and leaders in the West Bank, Gaza and beyond have been busily fanning the flames of Arab and Muslim anger since the "Day of Rage" in Jerusalem on Tuesday. The main focus, notably, is the supposed threat to the Aksa Mosque represented by the rebuilding of the Hurva Synagogue, rather than that of construction in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood or broader Palestinian grievances.

Speaking at a conference organized by the Hamas authorities in Gaza City on Wednesday, Gaza Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh told his audience that "what is happening now exposes the reality of Jerusalem's future and the Jews' plans."

He urged Palestinians not to fear a "religious or nonreligious war" and declared that Jerusalem will "always remain Islamic."

Haniyeh went on to call for an emergency session of the Islamic Conference Organization countries to support Palestinian protests in Jerusalem. He castigated the PA for preventing protesters from "defending their lands and holy sites."

This basic message was repeated in statements by other senior Palestinian officials in the last days. In Damascus, Hamas Political Bureau head Khaled Mashaal announced the launching of an "open-ended campaign for Jerusalem and the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Palestine."

Mashaal praised the role of '1948' Palestinians (that is, Arab citizens of Israel) in the protests so far. He said that Israel was "playing with fire" and risked triggering a region-wide war.

The movement's ambassador in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told the Al-Jazeera satellite channel that the opening of the Hurva Synagogue formed part of a larger Israeli attempt to "invent" a Jewish history for Jerusalem. Hamdan asserted that no landmarks unambiguously indicating an ancient Jewish presence in the city had been found, so Israel had instead chosen to focus on the Hurva, built at the time of the Ottomans.

Izzadin Kassam, the armed wing of Hamas, said in a statement on its Web site that the latest events in Jerusalem would lead to "dire explosions."

Abu Obaida, spokesman for Izzadin Kassam, predicted that the opening of the Hurva (ruin) Synagogue would itself lead to Israel's ruin, and that any tampering with al-Aksa would mean Israel's demise.

The flood of rhetoric from Hamas leaders and spokesmen in the last days derives from a concerted attempt to regain the political initiative on the Palestinian side. With the split in the Palestinian movement showing no signs of being healed any time soon, Hamas is seeking to foment a new uprising, based on Islamic fury, in which it can wave the banner of the Aksa Mosque. Since Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, Hamas has been mainly engaged in rebuilding and reconsolidating its power in the Strip. Its failure to secure the release of a large number of Palestinian prisoners in a deal for the return of St.-Sgt. Gilad Schalit represented a significant setback.

The rival PA in the West Bank has been making the running in the last months. Its tactics of diplomatic agitation and isolation of Israel appear to be delivering results. Hamas would like to switch the focus, back to the area in which it is able to excel – namely, the use of religious symbols to foment political violence.

The nervous response of the PA – with some spokesmen supporting the protests and others warning against a renewed intifada – indicates that it is aware of the challenge. Some in Fatah would like to try and turn the protests to their own advantage. But the more shrewd among them are aware that renewed open confrontation will benefit Hamas, not the PA.

Will Hamas succeed?

The mobilizing of anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish opinion on the basis of an imaginary threat to the Aksa Mosque has a long history in this conflict. The most recent example was the decision to trigger the second intifada in 2000 after Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. But as far back as 1929, agitators used arrangements for prayers at the Western Wall to incite country-wide attacks on Jews.

The results have been middling this time around – so far. Burning tires and rock-throwing youths offer attractive front page images for media outlets. But observers of the events in Jerusalem noted the relatively small number of participants in the current protests, and a heavy preponderance of activists of Islamist organizations. Much will depend in the coming days on whether the Israeli security forces can contain the unrest without providing Hamas with new martyrs around whom it can mobilize.

But whether or not the next months see heightened unrest, the fact that the "moral high ground" in Palestinian politics can still be achieved by furious opposition to the reopening of a synagogue in the heart of the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem's Old City offers a sobering lesson as to the true nature of the forces driving the conflict.

Kabinet: uitspraken Gretta Duisenberg over Zionistische invloed verwerpelijk

 
Eindelijk wordt de subsidie aan Gretta Duisenbergs 'Stop de Bezetting' ter discussie gesteld. Het is mogelijk en waarschjnlijk meer dan in onderstaand artikel gesuggereerd, want United Civilians for Peace (gefinancierd door Oxfam Novib, ICCO en Cordaid, die allen vette subsidies van de overheid ontvangen) heeft een budget van een half miljoen per jaar en financiert daar allerlei anti-Israel clubs van. Een paar jaar geleden heeft zij SdB 10.000 Euro gegeven.
 
Met de miljaren bezuinigingen die voor de deur staan lijkt mij UCP een prima kandidaat om eens flink te gaan snoeien. Met ontwikkelingshulp hebben haar activiteiten niets te maken, en waarom zou de regering in tijden van crisis een anti-Israel lobby club moeten financieren? Het ministerie kan eisen dat Oxfam etc. hun financiering aan UCP stopzetten, evenals aan het programma Linkis dat heet voor 'bewustwordings activiteiten' in Nederland te zijn, en dat onder andere EAJG en het Palestina Komitee subsidie heeft gegeven.
 
RP
------------
 
Kabinet: uitspraken Duisenberg 'verwerpelijk'
Geplaatst: 18 maart 2010 10:15, laatste wijziging: 18 maart 2010 10:17
van onze redactie politiek
 
DEN HAAG - Het kabinet noemt recente uitspraken van activiste Gretta Duisenberg over zionistische joden die de Nederlandse regering zouden domineren, verwerpelijk.
 
Duisenberg, echtgenote van de overleden PvdA-politicus en bankier Wim Duisenberg, voert al jaren actie voor de Palestijnse zaak. Daarbij komt zij regelmatig in het nieuws met stevige uitspraken. In januari zei ze dat ,,zionistische joden met orthodoxe christenen de regering domineren. Met orthodoxe christenen bedoel ik zeker de ChristenUnie en leden van het CDA.''

Op kritische vragen hierover van Kamerleden van die partijen en de SGP, antwoordt minister Maxime Verhagen (Buitenlandse Zaken) dat ,,de verwerpelijke uitlatingen'' van Duisenberg ,,in eerste instantie op haarzelf betrokken moeten worden en niet op de bevolkingsgroepen wier belangen zij zegt te vertegenwoordigen, dan wel beoogt aan de kaak te stellen''.

Verhagen

Volgens Verhagen is ,,noch Israël, noch de Palestijnse Autoriteit, noch het vredesproces gediend met beschuldigingen, antisemitisme of discriminerende uitspraken.''

In 2007 heeft het actiecomité Stop de Bezetting dat Duisenberg runt, 2500 euro subsidie gekregen uit een fonds dat Oxfam Novib, Icco en Cordaid hebben ingesteld, drie organisaties die door de Nederlandse regering worden gesubsidieerd.

Verhagen stelt in zijn brief aan de Tweede Kamer dat het bij deze 2500 euro gebleven is. Bovendien ging het niet om overheidsgeld; donateurs van de betrokken organisaties zijn opgedraaid voor deze kosten.

 

vrijdag 19 maart 2010

Geschiedenis van Joods terrorisme in Israel (Benny Morris)

 
In een reactie op zijn weblog beweerde Sander van Hoorn onlangs dat een lid van een van de revisionistische ondergrondsen, die in de Knesset werd geëerd, 'een bus met Arabieren opblies'. Dit in reactie op mijn vraag wat hij vond van de verering van terroristen zoals Mughrabi, waarnaar de PA onlangs een plein heeft vernoemd en dat ceremonieel in gebruik heeft genomen, terwijl Biden in de regio was om de vredesbesprekingen vlot te trekken. In de Knesset werden 12 van hen geëerd, die door de Britten waren opgehangen voor met name aanvallen op de Britse autoriteiten in Palestina. Dat was volgens van Hoorn even 'smakeloos' als de vernoeming van het plein naar Mughrabi.
 
De vergelijking gaat natuurlijk mank omdat Mughrabi juist voor die ene daad werd geëerd en tot heldin van het Palestijnse volk uitgeroepen, terwijl de 12 olei hagardom werden geëerd om hun strijd tegen de Britten, tegen militairen en functionarissen. Joden hebben nooit bussen in Londen opgeblazen uit protest tegen de Britse aanwezigheid en repressie in Palestina. Maar erger nog, Van Hoorn vertelt waarschijnlijk onjuistheden, want volgens Morris is er niemand omgekomen bij de aanval op de Arabische bus:
 
Most had been tried and executed for attacking or killing British servicemen. Two had shot dead Lord Moyne, the British minister resident in the Middle East during World War II. One had participated in the 1938 ambush of an Arab bus (no one was killed) during the Palestine Arab Revolt against both the British Mandate and the Zionist enterprise it had fostered.
 
Ik keur de acties van de Lehi en Irgun geenszins goed, en ik denk dat je sommige als teroristisch kunt aanmerken, maar hun primaire doel was niet om zo veel mogelijk burgers te doden. Op de vraag wat precies terorrisme is, gaat Benny Morris in onderstaand artikel dieper in, waarin hij een boek bespreekt van Ami Pedahzur en Arie Perliger over Joods terorrisme in Israël.
 
RP
-------------
 
A new book offers a history of Jewish terrorism in Israel from the Maccabees to the present
By Benny Morris | 7:00 am Mar 10, 2010
 
This is the second in a two-part series.

A few weeks ago, Israel's education minister, Gideon Saar, instructed the country's school teachers to devote a lesson or two to olei hagardom (literally, those who ascended to the gallows), the dozen or so Palestine Jews hanged by the British authorities for politically motivated attacks during the last decade of the Mandate.

A predictable controversy was triggered, the left charging the Likud minister with trying to beatify right-wing "terrorists"—those executed had all belonged either to the IZL (Irgun Zvai Leumi—the National Military Organization, or, as the British called it, the "Irgun") or the LHI (Lohamei Herut Yisrael—Freedom Fighters of Israel, or, as the British called it, the "Stern Gang"). The two organizations emerged from the right-wing Revisionist stream of Zionism; both sought Jewish independence and a state standing astride the Jordan River and encompassing the undivided Land of Israel/Palestine.

Most had been tried and executed for attacking or killing British servicemen. Two had shot dead Lord Moyne, the British minister resident in the Middle East during World War II. One had participated in the 1938 ambush of an Arab bus (no one was killed) during the Palestine Arab Revolt against both the British Mandate and the Zionist enterprise it had fostered.

Terrorists? Freedom fighters? Some sort of mix?

My definition of terrorism would be deliberate and indiscriminate attack on civilians with the aim of terrorizing and otherwise causing harm to a rival community, society, or state in order to achieve political ends. Within that definition certainly fall the cases of Baruch Goldstein, the American-born, Jewish West Bank settler (and medical doctor) who in 1994 slaughtered a roomful of Muslim worshippers in the Ibrahimi Mosque (for Jews, the Tomb of the Patriarchs) in Hebron, and Jack Teitel, the recently arrested American-born West Bank settler who over the years allegedly killed at random a number of Arabs and injured with a bomb the left-wing Israeli political scientist Zeev Sternhell because he is outspokenly critical of the settlers.

I'm not sure Ami Pedahzur and Arie Perliger, Israeli-bred political scientists who work at the University of Texas at Austin and at Stony Brook University, respectively, would contest this definition, but in their new book Jewish Terrorism in Israel they broaden it in an effort to provide their subject—settler-linked Jewish terrorism since the 1980s—with pedigree and historical gravitas. In their effort to establish pattern and continuity, Pedahzur and Perliger trace the roots of the extreme right-wing Jewish terrorists of the end of the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st to the Maccabees (apparently resisting the temptation to trace them back to Cain), the family of Judaean priests who led a successful nationalist-religious revolt against the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire in the mid-second century BCE.

The historical "background" Pedahzur and Perliger provide is a stretch, flimsy, and, at times, derisory. Some might find it offensive. They write: "The foremost incident of terrorism to be carried out by the Hashmonaim [Maccabees] was the murder of Apelles, a Hellenistic envoy. He had been sent to their town, Modi'in, in order to ensure" the Hellenization of the Jews. The authors somehow fail to mention that the assassination was, in effect, the triggering mechanism and clarion call for the Jewish revolt against the Greek-speaking, pagan Seleucid Empire that had oppressively ruled over Jewish-inhabited Judea for decades. But the authors write that "despite the great historical gulf between the Hashmonai revolt and contemporary Jewish terrorism, it is hard not to be impressed by the similarity of the factors responsible for the violence." I see absolutely no connection between that revolt against foreign oppressors of yore and contemporary Jewish terrorism against Arabs (and, occasionally, left-wing Jewish Israelis).

Pedahzur and Perliger go on to berate as "terrorists" (for murdering Jews who collaborated with the Romans or opposed the rebellion) some of the Jews (the Sicarians) who rebelled against the Roman Empire from 66 to 73 CE. They suggest that the 1,000-odd Jews who held out in the Judean Desert fortress of Masada until it was vanquished in 72-73 CE did not, in the end, commit "mass suicide," as described by Josephus, but, rather, that "the Sicarians committed mass murder among themselves." Of course, the authors have no historical evidence for branding the Sicarians of Masada "murderers" (Josephus is the only historical source for the Masada story), and one wonders what purpose such a designation serves.

Pedahzur and Perliger reluctantly admit that during 2,000 years of Jewish life in the Diaspora the "Jews have refrained almost entirely from terrorism," and they concede that this is ascribable to Jewish religious tenets (as well as to Jewish powerlessness). The absence of any Jewish terrorism between the second and 19th centuries forces the authors to skip to the 20th, where their real argument begins. The authors highlight the assassination by one Dmitri Bogrov, a Jew from Kiev, of the czarist Russian prime minister, Pyotr Stolypin, in 1911. But is assassination of a leader of an oppressive regime tantamount to terrorism? Were the failed July 1944 German conspirators against Hitler terrorists? Pedahzur and Perliger then inform us that "many" members of the American Weather Underground were Jews and that a Jewish Labour Bund activist, Hirsh Lekert, in 1902 attempted to assassinate the Russian governor of Vilna, who had earlier ordered the flogging of 20 Jews (the authors mistakenly write that Lekert killed his man). What has any of this to do with Jewish terrorism in Israel?

Very little, but the authors' purpose is clear: to establish that the Jews have a rich tradition of terrorism. Pedahzur and Perliger then move on to 20th-century Palestine. But they get off to a rather confusing start. They mention the first, feeble Zionist self-defense organizations—Hashomer (1909-1920) and its precursor Bar-Giora (1907-1909)—and admit that their "acts of violence" "were carried out primarily in self-defense." But they then write: "However, despite the determination of these groups, the option of engaging in systematic terrorism was not viable." Do Pedahzur and Perliger believe that using violence in "self-defense" is tantamount to "terrorism"? Did Bar-Giora and Hashomer seek to engage in "systematic terrorism"? The authors pose the idea but do not offer proof of any kind.

They next describe the activities of the 20th-century Jewish political right in Palestine, beginning with the IZL and the LHI. But here, too, they misinterpret, mislead, and mis-define. LHI's "public platform," they tell us, "gave preeminence to the aspiration of building a Third Temple." Surely, when LHI literature referred to establishing the "Third Temple," the meaning was metaphorical (to re-establishing Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel) not literal (to constructing a third Temple on the Mount), as Pedahzur and Perliger would have it. Much as when the LHI spoke of re-establishing Malchut Yisrael (the Kingdom of Israel), they meant re-establishing Jewish sovereignty, not a monarchy (very few LHI members, and none of its leaders, were either religious or monarchists).

Pedahzur and Perliger assume that the IZL and LHI were terrorist organizations and describe at length some of their anti-British operations. But was the killing of two British police officers, who were reputed to have been responsible for routinely torturing captured IZL suspects, an act of terrorism? Were the IZL and LHI campaigns against the British in Palestine—directed almost exclusively at military and police personnel—terrorism? They may have been immoderate, unwise, murderous—but were they "terroristic" (as, indeed, these organizations' socialist rivals, from Mapai, Mapam, and the Haganah at the time dubbed them)?

The authors, of course, are on much firmer ground when they define the deliberate IZL and, later, LHI attacks on Arab civilians from the beginning of the Arab Revolt to the end of the civil war of 1947-1948 as "terrorism" (albeit "terrorism" enacted in response to Arab "terrorism"). In 1938, IZL operatives placed large bombs in Arab markets and bus stops in Haifa and elsewhere, indiscriminately killing dozens at a time, and in 1947-1948, IZL and LHI members deliberately targeted civilians, killing large numbers of them outside of the Old City of Jerusalem's Jaffa Gate and in Jaffa's Saraya (governmental) building. Such operations were then emulated by Palestinian bombers, down to the first decade of the third millennium, but with the suicidal nature of the attacks adding a novel, grisly twist.

In the years immediately after 1948, some LHI and IZL veterans took part in (usually) amateur terrorist acts in the newborn state of Israel against their ideological and political opponents. In 1957, one group murdered Israel Kastner, a prominent Hungarian Jewish Holocaust survivor who was accused of collaborating with the Nazis; in 1953, the Tsrifin Underground bombed the Soviet Embassy in Tel Aviv, injuring three people. The reason for the attack was the Soviet Union's mistreatment of its Jews (which the authors compare to the current situation of sometimes radical and violent "European Muslims who identify with the suffering of Muslims in places such as Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan"). This attack occurred a few months after the group had tried to blow up the Israel Foreign Ministry in protest against Israel's acceptance of German reparations for the Holocaust.

This brings us to the core of the book, which is a fairly straightforward, systematic description of the successive cells of terrorists who sprang up in the Jewish settlements of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and their supporters in Israel proper, beginning with the Jewish Underground of the early 1980s that badly injured several PLO-supporting West Bank mayors, targeted the Islamic University in Hebron (where three Arab students were killed and dozens were injured), and made preparations, stopped by Israel's security service, the Shin Bet, to blow up the Islamic holy sites on the Temple Mount. The terrorists were driven by a desire to avenge the death of Israelis killed by Arab terrorists, to consolidate Israel's hold on the West Bank ("Judaea and Samaria"), and, in the case of the Temple Mount, to pave the way for the coming of the Messiah.

The authors' description of the Jewish Underground and its activities is thorough and detailed. They lay particular emphasis on the social networking that underlay its emergence and organization.

Pedahzur and Perliger then describe the activities of Rabbi Meir Kahane and his Kach movement, before and after the rabbi's murder by a Muslim fundamentalist in New York. The Kahanist groups in Israel, composed mostly of new Jewish American immigrants, they write, "resembled, more than anything else, the global Salafi jihad cells of current times": Both are built on immigrant groups who fail to assimilate in their new countries and are alienated from the majority culture's values.

Pedahzur and Perliger's thesis, laid out in the book's preface, is that modern fundamentalist terrorism is a result of a "totalist" ideology or religion that produces a "counterculture community." That collective, or some of its activist members, turn to terrorism when an "external" event occurs that "poses a potential threat to the community or its most cherished values" and when leaders, often clerics, emerge who frame that event as "catastrophic." Some sort of crisis, personal or communal, then propels the activists into terroristic action. All this sounds fairly reasonable.

Not so, however, some of their extrapolation. Pedahzur and Perliger, driven it seems by political correctness, go out of their way to absolve Islam of being uniquely, internationally, responsible for contemporary terrorism, arguing that "religious terrorism is not a one-faith phenomenon"—as if the modern world has also witnessed waves of Christian and Buddhist and Hindu (and Jewish) suicide bombers and airplane hijackers. The most cursory survey of post-World War II terrorism across the globe, from the Philippines to Indonesia, Thailand, India, Pakistan, the Middle East, Somalia, Kenya, Morocco, Madrid, London, and New York, demonstrates that Muslims are peerless and unrivaled in this realm of human enterprise. Conversely, the authors also assert that their study of Jewish terrorism is "pertinent to the study of other contemporary networks of terrorism"—again, "because of the many similarities between the processes that distinguish Jewish terrorism networks and those of the Salafi jihad networks [in] Britain, Holland, Spain." Both are based, they write, on nonhierarchical social networks rather than on rigid, structured organizations.

However true this may be, I seriously doubt that anything one can learn from this book, primarily about the last century of small-scale Jewish terrorism in Israel and the West Bank, will prove useful in fathoming what is happening in the darkest recesses of the Islamist world.

The authors predict an unprecedented level of violence by Jewish terrorists if Israel ever decides to uproot the West Bank settlements. Should a Jewish terrorist attack against the Islamic holy sites on the Temple Mount ever succeed, it "could open the doors to hell," the authors write. This may be so. But it is worthy of note that Israel's destruction of the Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and its uprooting of 7,000 settlers and thousands of their supporters in 2005 passed without serious incident—no one killed, no one severely injured. Then again, destroying settlements in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of Judaism, may prove to be something else entirely.

Benny Morris is a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University and the author, most recently, of the book One State, Two States

donderdag 18 maart 2010

Obama wil andere regeringscoalitie in Israel afdwingen - met Kadima

 
Kadima heeft meer zetels dan Shas en Liebermans Yisrael Beiteinu bij elkaar, en een coalitiewissel zoals hieronder voorgesteld zou een soort paars kabinet opleveren zonder religieuze en radikale partijen. Dat lijkt me een gezonde situatie voor Israel, zoals ook in Nederland paars een heilzame werking had. Zoals hier het CDA, zaten in Israel het (weliswaar kleinere) Shas en andere orthodox-religieuze partijen altijd op de wip, omdat zonder hen geen meerderheid te vormen was. Als de coalitie breekt, hoop ik met Jeffrey Goldberg dat Tzipi Livni ervoor gaat. Nog afgezien van het vredesproces, zou zo'n coalitie op allerlei andere terreinen ook goede vooruitgang kunnen boeken.
 
Wouter
____________________
 
What Obama is Actually Trying to Do in Israel
Jeffrey Goldberg
Mar 16 2010, 11:07 AM ET
 
 
There is much speculation that this kerfluffle over 1,600 theoretical apartments on the wrong side of the green line in Jerusalem will lead to a rupture in American-Israeli relations, but analysts who suggest this are missing the point of President Obama's maneuverings. I've been on the phone with many of the usual suspects (White House and otherwise), and I think it's fair to say that Obama is not trying to destroy America's relations with Israel; he's trying to organize Tzipi Livni's campaign for prime minister, or at least for her inclusion in a broad-based centrist government.  I'm not actually suggesting that the White House is directly meddling in internal Israeli politics, but it's clear to everyone -- at the White House, at the State Department, at Goldblog -- that no progress will be made on any front if Avigdor Lieberman's far-right party, Yisrael Beiteinu, and Eli Yishai's fundamentalist Shas Party, remain in Netanyahu's surpassingly fragile coalition.

So what is the goal? The goal is force a rupture in the governing coalition that will make it necessary for Netanyahu to take into his government Livni's centrist Kadima Party (he has already tried to do this, but too much on his terms) and form a broad, 68-seat majority in Knesset that does not have to rely on gangsters, messianists and medievalists for votes. It's up to Livni, of course, to recognize that it is in Israel's best interests to join a government with Netanyahu and Barak, and I, for one, hope she puts the interests of Israel ahead of her own ambitions.

Obama knows that this sort of stable, centrist coalition is the key to success. He would rather, I understand, not have to deal with Netanyahu at all -- people near the President say that, for one thing, Obama doesn't think that Netanyahu is very bright, and there is no chemistry at all between the two men -- but he'd rather have a Netanyahu who is being pressured from his left than a Netanyahu who is being pressured from the right.
 
 

Haaretz over woede VS over bouwplannen Oost Jeruzalem

 
Een goeie analyse van een linkse journalist bij het linkse Haaretz.
Het volgende is verontrustend:
 
5. But perhaps what is most important is this: Palestinians see the Obama administration's decision to attack Israel as an invitation to adopt a more confrontational line. A previous settlement slowdown led Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to exploit the opportunity and make any new negotiations conditional on a total freeze in construction, including in east Jerusalem.

Now signals from Washington have led his political faction, Fatah, to start picking its own fight. A few days ago Prime Minister Salam Fayad called on Palestinians to rally to the Temple Mount to "defend Al-Aqsa" after Israel announced the dedication of a synagogue "next door to the Al-Aqsa mosque". Even the most secular of Palestinian politicians, PLO executive committee chairman Yasser Abed Rabo, joined in the condemnations and warned of an escalation.

The need to defend Al-Aqsa is more than a little exaggerated. The synagogue in question is not on the doorstep of the mosque. It is in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City on a site it has occupied for more than 300 years.

But the PA has smelled blood. It understands that the international community will not concern itself with secondary details, such as the fact that the synagogue in question would no doubt remain in Israeli territory under even the most generous future peace agreement. So why not start a riot and blame the Israelis, especially when the U.S. government is doing the same.
 
--------------------
 
U.S. anger over East Jerusalem row is excessive
By Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel
 
A few pointers for the Obama administration on the diplomatic crisis with Israel:

1. I don't support Netanyahu. I think his policies on settlements and building in east Jerusalem are wrong. I think he is stalling for time and I would genuinely like to see a comprehensive political settlement with the Palestinians. But America's response to the government's approval of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo in northeast Jerusalem is excessive.

While it extends a hand to Iran, which continues in its effort to acquire a nuclear bomb; and reaches out to Syria as it arms Hezbollah with advanced weapons, it seems the Obama administration has made a conscious decision to aggravate a diplomatic crisis with the Netanyahu government.

True, Netanyahu may - unintentionally - have caused the crisis, which damaged U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. But now Obama's aides are refusing to relax their grip, hoping to force Israel into declaring a total freeze on building in east Jerusalem.

Washington ought to remember one thing, however: The majority of Israelis wholly oppose halting construction in east Jerusalem. They may be angry over the timing of the announcement - but most want building to continue.

So I am not at all sure that America's opposition to a democratic decision by Israel's citizens will damage Netanyahu's standing at home. In the final analysis, it will only push him further into the rightwing camp, by far the country's most powerful political force. The left and center would in any case never vote for him and the latest episode can only strengthen his image in the eyes of the right.

2. As far as anyone can tell, Netanyahu was unaware of the Regional Planning Council's decision to approve the 1,600 new homes, as was Eli Yishai, the interior minister. Local councils don't usually apprise ministers - let alone the prime minister - of their decisions. President Obama would hardly be expected to approve personally plans for a new neighborhood in Washington, D.C. - or even an expansion of U.S. military quarters in Iraq.

With this in mind, Washington conspiracy theorists' claims of an Israeli ruse are misplaced - although the decision did make a hero of Yishai to the Haredi community, which now sees him as some sort of national champion, ready to face down the world's great powers in the name of resolving their accommodation problems.

3. It is fair to assume that the Obama administration made a calculated decision to attack Netanyahu, based partly on the presumption of support from the Israeli public. It would indeed be easy for an outsider to interpret recent reports in Yedioth Ahronot and Maariv as signs of a consensus in Israel and the Israeli media that Netanyahu should resign.

But here again there is a misperception. The strident headlines are not politically motivated but part of a battle editors are waging against the rival Israel Today, known as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu. Yedioth saw now problem in backing Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, who did not freeze building in a single West Bank settlement, let alone in east Jerusalem.

More important, however, is that whatever Israeli journalists might say to undermine the position of their prime minister does not necessarily give foreign officials the right to say the same - even if they do represent the president of the United States. It smacks of intervention.

4. Attempts to imply that Israeli policy is endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and even Iraq, verge on an insult to the intelligence - U.S. citizens particualrly. Afghans don't care about Ramat Shlomo, or about the Palestinians and Netanyahu. They have problems of their own to deal with. As far as extremist Islamists are concerned, the seven-year presence of American forces on Iraqi soil is a good enough excuse to attack Americans.

Efforts by Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, to imply otherwise in television interviews are dishonest. The only people who to suffer from Israeli policy decisions are the Palestinians and neighboring states that have peace agreements with Israel - Jordan and Egypt. Not a single U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is at risk because of 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem.

5. But perhaps what is most important is this: Palestinians see the Obama administration's decision to attack Israel as an invitation to adopt a more confrontational line. A previous settlement slowdown led Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to exploit the opportunity and make any new negotiations conditional on a total freeze in construction, including in east Jerusalem.

Now signals from Washington have led his political faction, Fatah, to start picking its own fight. A few days ago Prime Minister Salam Fayad called on Palestinians to rally to the Temple Mount to "defend Al-Aqsa" after Israel announced the dedication of a synagogue "next door to the Al-Aqsa mosque". Even the most secular of Palestinian politicians, PLO executive committee chairman Yasser Abed Rabo, joined in the condemnations and warned of an escalation.

The need to defend Al-Aqsa is more than a little exaggerated. The synagogue in question is not on the doorstep of the mosque. It is in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City on a site it has occupied for more than 300 years.

But the PA has smelled blood. It understands that the international community will not concern itself with secondary details, such as the fact that the synagogue in question would no doubt remain in Israeli territory under even the most generous future peace agreement. So why not start a riot and blame the Israelis, especially when the U.S. government is doing the same.

6. In other words, it is time to tone down the rhetoric. It plays into the hands of Netanyahu and encourages violence. American criticism is only helping him in his bid for re-election and bolstering his coalition. Nothing less.

7. And as for you, Netanyahu? Do us all a favor and cancel the building in Ramat Shlomo.
 
 

Braziliaanse president Da Silva bezoekt Palestijnse gebieden

 
Weer een buitenstaander die zich met het conflict komt bemoeien. Volgende maand gaat hij meen ik naar Iran, nadat Achmadinejad hem november vorig jaar bezocht.
 
The Brazilian leader has said he would like to play a bigger role in Mideast diplomacy. He is visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories this week.
 
Als hij door beide kanten serieus genomen wil worden zal hij zich iets genuanceerder moeten uitlaten, en iets meer begrip tonen voor Israels kant.  

RP
------------
 
The Jerusalem Post
Da Silva: Tear down W. Bank fence
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
17/03/2010 14:30
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171206


Brazil's president places wreath on Arafat's tomb, despite Israeli protest.


After visiting the grave of late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat in Ramallah on Wednesday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said the security barrier must come down.

Speaking at a joint press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Da Silva added that Brazil would continue to support the Palestinians so that their dream of establishing an independent, secure state will come true.

Earlier, the Brazilian president placed a wreath on Arafat's tomb, despite criticism from Israel.

The Brazilian leader has said he would like to play a bigger role in Mideast diplomacy. He is visiting Israel and the Palestinian territories this week.

On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said he boycotted meetings with Da Silva because the Brazilian leader did not visit the grave of Zionism's founder Theodor Herzl.

Da Silva's office said no such visit had ever been planned.

There was no immediate Israeli reaction to Da Silva's visit to Arafat's grave.

Hamas roept Palestijnen op tot derde intifada


Dat krijg je ervan. Als de VS Israel zo hard aanpakt om het bouwen van huizen in een Joodse wijk vlakbij de groene lijn, ruiken Israels vijanden bloed. Overigens maken Arabische Knessetleden het ook behoorlijk bont, en zij doen de reputatie en positie van de Arabieren in Israel geen goed:
 
MK Haneen Zuabi (Balad) also criticized the government, calling its policy in Jerusalem "no less than ethnic cleansing."
This policy "is a strong motive for launching a third intifada, even more than [former prime minister Ariel] Sharon's Temple Mount visit [after which the 2001 intifada broke out]," Zuabi said.
"I warn the government of an escalation that will ignite the field and will lead the region to a violent conflict. We will not stand by as the Palestinians' rights, and specifically the rights of Jerusalem's residents, are trampled upon," Zuabi said.
 
Is het oproepen tot geweld als Knessetlid niet verboden? Arabische Knessetleden zouden juist bij uitstek de Palestijnen tot kalmte kunnen manen, en vervolgens Israel oproepen zich ook terughoudend op te stellen. Zij zouden, kortom, een brugfunctie kunnen vervullen, maar in plaats daarvan stoken ze het vuurtje nog wat op.

RP
-------------

The Jerusalem Post
Hamas: Palestinians must launch intifada
By JPOST.COM STAFF
16/03/2010 16:46
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171134


Gaza official urges PA to back struggle against "Israeli war crimes in Jerusalem."


Hamas on Tuesday called on Palestinians to launch an intifada to prevent the "Zionist plot" to take over Jerusalem.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy chairman of the Hamas political bureau, urged the Palestinians to join forces against Israel's "intentions" to drive out Muslims and Christians from Jerusalem.

"What happens in Jerusalem will lead to an explosion in the region, and we are studying the response that will bring vitory for Al-Aksa Mosque," Channel 10 quoted a spokesman for the group's military wing as saying.

In a Gaza rally, senior Hamas official Fawzi Barhoum called on the Fatah leadership in Ramallah to assist the "resistance movements" in their struggle against "Israeli war crimes in Jerusalem."

Israeli Arab MKS also harshly criticized the government over clashes that broke out between Palestinian rioters and security forces in the capital, blaming Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's policies for the unrest.

MK Taleb A-Sanaa (UAL-Ta'al), who visited the Aksa Mosque compound on Tuesday morning, said that "the Netanyahu government is dangerous and irresponsible, leading the area to a third intifada."

Sanaa called on the Arab League to put the issue of Jerusalem at the top of its priorities. "Jerusalem is the key to peace and the key to war," he said.

MK Haneen Zuabi (Balad) also criticized the government, calling its policy in Jerusalem "no less than ethnic cleansing."

This policy "is a strong motive for launching a third intifada, even more than [former prime minister Ariel] Sharon's Temple Mount visit [after which the 2001 intifada broke out]," Zuabi said.

"I warn the government of an escalation that will ignite the field and will lead the region to a violent conflict. We will not stand by as the Palestinians' rights, and specifically the rights of Jerusalem's residents, are trampled upon," Zuabi said.

The IDF issued a response condemning remarks by Hamas officials.

"Israel with disgust the recent contemptuous, anti-Semitic remarks of senior Hamas officials, aimed at inflaming emotions in the region," the statement read. "These tenebrous, ignorant and venomous remarks disseminated by the Hamas terror organization against Jews and Judaism, once again emphasize that Hamas is not only a violent, murderous terror organization, which has caused grief and sorrow to all nations in the region, but is also an active anti-Semitic organization whose foundation documents refer to Jews as animals and advocate the murder of Jews.

"Israel calls on intellectuals of all religions and beliefs to resolutely condemn these declarations of incitement and animosity made by the senior officials of this anti-Semitic terrorist organization against Jews and non-Jews alike," the statement concluded

woensdag 17 maart 2010

Over de crisis tussen de VS en Israel


Veel mensen zijn blij met de harde opstelling van de VS tegenover Israel, anderen begrijpen niet hoe Israel zo dom kon zijn. Israel deed wat veel landen doen: zich niet door anderen de wet laten voorschrijven. Jeruzalem heeft een enorme symbolische waarde, en minister Yishai van de religieuze Shas partij wou wellicht laten zien dat men wat dit betreft voor niemand buigt. Het is voor Israel nogal vernederend dat de VS, de EU, en de VN zich continu bemoeien met ieder (Joods) huis dat over de groene lijn wordt gebouwd en ieder (Arabisch) huis dat wordt afgebroken.
 
Het betreft vaak wijken die vlak over de groene lijn liggen en waar voor 1948, toen Jordanië Oost Jeruzalem annexeerde en de Joden eruit verdreef, ook of zelfs voornamelijk Joden woonden. Het is bepaald vernederend steeds te moeten horen en lezen dat je een wrede bezetter en kolonist bent in een gebied waar je altijd hebt gewoond of waaruit je zelfs bent verdreven. Oost Jeruzalem is net zo min 'Palestijns' als dat wijken in Amsterdam waar veel Arabieren wonen Marokkaans zijn, zeker wat betreft de kleinere wijken vlak bij de groene lijn (in tegenstelling tot verder weg gelegen wijken die vroeger niet onder Jeruzalem maar de Westoever vielen en waar nooit Joden hebben gewoond). De 'vernedering' van Biden moet dan ook in dit perspectief worden gezien.
 
Overigens is de VS wat betreft Iran en Syrië heel wat minder gevoelig voor beledigingen: beide landen hebben de uitgestoken had van de VS op een nogal vernederende wijze beantwoord: toenadering O.K, maar wel op onze voorwaarden. In de gehele Arabische wereld is nogal lauw gereageerd op de toenaderingspogingen van Obama. Waarom de VS haar meningsverschillen met Israel wat betreft Jeruzalem zo hoog opspeelt, laat zich raden: zo laat het aan de Arabische wereld zien dat het wel degelijk onafhankelijk is en Israel niet blind steunt.
 
RP
--------------

Three great articles on the US-Israel Crisis

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/03/two-great-articles-on-us-israel-crisis.html
 
 
One of Israel's leading journalists on the moderate left, Ami Issacharoff, who doesn't like Netanyahu, have written a great article repeating the basic points I've been trying to make with excellent clarity about how the Obama Administration is alienating Israelis:

"America's response to the government's approval of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo in northeast Jerusalem is excessive. While it extends a hand to Iran, which continues in its effort to acquire a nuclear bomb; and reaches out to Syria as it arms Hezbollah with advanced weapons, it seems the Obama administration has made a conscious decision to aggravate a diplomatic crisis with the Netanyahu government."

They add:

"Attempts to imply that Israeli policy is endangering the lives of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, and even Iraq, verge on an insult to the intelligence - U.S. citizens particualrly. Afghans don't care about Ramat Shlomo, or about the Palestinians and Netanyahu. They have problems of their own to deal with. As far as extremist Islamists are concerned, the seven-year presence of American forces on Iraqi soil is a good enough excuse to attack Americans.


"Efforts by Obama's senior adviser, David Axelrod, to imply otherwise in television interviews are dishonest. The only people who to suffer from Israeli policy decisions are the Palestinians and neighboring states that have peace agreements with Israel - Jordan and Egypt. Not a single U.S. soldier in Afghanistan is at risk because of 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem."

 And they note that this U.S. policy actually damages any chance for a peace process, or even quiet, by making the Palestinians feel they can get more by being more aggressive in demands and perhaps through violence:
 
"But perhaps what is most important is this: Palestinians see the Obama administration's decision to attack Israel as an invitation to adopt a more confrontational line....But the PA has smelled blood....So why not start a riot and blame the Israelis, especially when the U.S. government is doing the same.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post gets it, too in an editorial

"Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces.... If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself....If this episode reinforces that image, Mr. Obama will accomplish the opposite of what he intends."

Then there's David Rothkopf at Foreign Policy:

"The bigger message that will be unintentionally have been delivered to the world at the end of all this is that the United States is willing to get fierce with its friend Israel over a perceived insult but that we are likely to remain ineffective in the face of self-declared Iranian enemies' efforts to destabilize the entire Middle East with nuclear weapons. This is not only a problem for the president because the outcome is so dangerous. It's also that "tough on your friends, weak with your enemies" is neither a common trait among great leaders nor is it a particularly good campaign bumper sticker."


Precisely.
 
 

Nieuw rapport maakt duidelijk hoe Hamas dekking zocht tussen burgerbevolking tijdens Gaza Oorlog


Verwacht niet dat dit de NRC of de Volkskrant haalt, en verwacht evenmin een reportage van Sander van Hoorn. Ondertussen is dit natuurlijk hardstikke belangrijk, want het toont (nog eens) in detail aan wat er allemaal niet klopt aan het Goldstone rapport. En nou niet gaan beweren dat Israel niet zakelijk op kritiek reageert. Ik verwacht een zakelijke reactie en weerlegging hiervan door de Israel critici en niet het voorspelbare geblaat over de Israellobby.

According to a previously undisclosed interrogation of a Hamas operative, one Hamas cell transported rockets on the back of a wagon in which children were also sitting. In other cases, the Hamas operative said, Hamas fighters disguised themselves as women carrying babies to ensure that they would not be hit by IDF troops.

The intelligence information is backed up by videos, including one declassified air force video from January 6, 2009, which shows a terrorist shooting at troops from the roof of a building. After spotting an Israeli aircraft, the terrorist goes to the building's entrance and calls to nearby civilians to help him escape. A few moments later, a group of children arrive at the entrance to the home and the terrorist walks out.

 
RP
------------

By YAAKOV KATZ
15/03/2010 02:09
Exclusive: New research report highlights extensive use of civilians during Gaza op
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171009
 
 
Hamas gunmen used Palestinian children as human shields, and established command centers and Kassam launch pads in and near more than 100 mosques and hospitals during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip last year, according to a new Israeli report being released on Monday that aims to counter criticism of the IDF.

The detailed 500-page report, obtained exclusively by The Jerusalem Post, was written by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (Malam), a small research group led by Col. (res.) Reuven Erlich, a former Military Intelligence officer who works closely with the army.

The IDF and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) cooperated with the report's authors and declassified hundreds of photographs, videos, prisoner interrogations and Hamas-drawn sketches as part of an effort to counter the criticism leveled at Israel in the UN-sponsored Goldstone Report.

Work on the Malam report began immediately after former judge Richard Goldstone issued his damning report of Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip in September.

One example of the material revealed in the Malam report is an-until-now classified sketch of the village of Beit Lahiya in northern Gaza discovered by IDF troops during the operation, that details the extensive deployment of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and snipers inside and adjacent to civilian homes.

The sketch was discovered in a home of a Hamas operative together with several IEDs and Kalashnikov rifles.

"The Goldstone Report is one-sided, biased, selective and deceptive, since it simply accepts Hamas claims at face value and presents everything through Hamas's eyes," Erlich said.

The Malam report also provides an analysis of another sketch found during the offensive in the Atatra neighborhood in northern Gaza City that Erlich said proves Hamas's culpability for the ensuing death and destruction.

"By placing all of their weaponry next to homes, by operating out of homes, mosques and hospitals, by firing rockets next to schools and by using human shields,Hamas is the one responsible for the civilian deaths during the operation," Erlich said.

The Goldstone Report states that its authors "found no evidence that Palestinian combatants mingled with the civilian population with the intention of shielding themselves from attack."

The Malam report, however, brings declassified videos that show how Hamas used civilians as human shields and deployed its weaponry and command centers inside civilian homes.

In one home, the IDF discovered a note, written in Arabic, that read: "We are your brothers, fighters in this holy war, and we used your home and some of your possessions. We are sorry."

This note, Malam's report said, was a clear indication of how Hamas took over civilian homes to use to attack Israeli forces.

According to a previously undisclosed interrogation of a Hamas operative, one Hamas cell transported rockets on the back of a wagon in which children were also sitting. In other cases, the Hamas operative said, Hamas fighters disguised themselves as women carrying babies to ensure that they would not be hit by IDF troops.

The intelligence information is backed up by videos, including one declassified air force video from January 6, 2009, which shows a terrorist shooting at troops from the roof of a building. After spotting an Israeli aircraft, the terrorist goes to the building's entrance and calls to nearby civilians to help him escape. A few moments later, a group of children arrive at the entrance to the home and the terrorist walks out.

Another video from January 13 shows a senior Hamas terrorist – spotted by an aircraft – walking by himself down a street. After spotting the aircraft, the senior terrorist runs over to an elderly woman walking nearby and continues walking next to her. Later, the IDF discovered that the "elderly woman" was really aHamas operative in disguise.

Malam also takes Goldstone to task for his claim that "the mission found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress," and as a result could "not find a violation of the obligation not to endanger the civilian population in this respect."

In response, Malam interviewed a number of IDF officers who provided testimony that a vast majority of Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians, and Hamas videos that showed fighters – during the Israeli offensive – wearing civilian clothing while firing mortars and rocket-propelled grenades at IDF troops.

The Malam report has an entire section on Hamas's use of mosques, revealing intelligence information that Hamas used almost 100 mosques inside Gaza to fight against the IDF.

"Hamas systematically used mosques as part of its combat doctrine," the report alleges, in contrast to Goldstone's report, which claims that the mission was unable to make a determination about the issue.

The Malam report brings countless videos and photographs of dozens of mosques that were used by Hamas to store weapons, functioned as command centers or whose grounds were used to fire rockets into Israel.

The report also details Hamas's use of hospitals during the offensive, providing evidence that Hamas fired at IDF troops adjacent to and hid weaponry and senior operatives inside at least eight hospitals in the Gaza Strip.

The Malam report devotes an entire section to proving how Hamas's police and internal security forces were involved in military/terrorist activities and were not, as Goldstone claimed, civilian entities whose only duty was enforcing law and order.

In contrast to the report the IDF is working on and plans to release in the coming months that focuses on IDF operations, Malam's report is aboutHamas, its combat tactics and the way it operates from within densely populated urban centers in Gaza, as well as the events that led up to Cast Lead in late December 2008 that Malam says were disregarded by Goldstone.

The report points to four basic flaws in the Goldstone Report: It does not deal with the nature of Hamas – its terrorist aspects and ideology; it minimizes the gravity of the terrorist attacks against Israel, focusing on rocket fire during the six months before Operation Cast Lead while devoting little space to the rocket and mortar fire that began in 2001; it does not deal with the Hamas military buildup in the Gaza Strip in the year preceding Cast Lead that threatened Israel, but at the same time did provide extensive historical coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; and it ignored the role Iran and Syria play in Gaza by aiding Hamas and supplying it with explosives and weaponry.