Opening grens Egypte met Gaza schending vredesverdrag met Israel

 

Vandaag opent Egypte haar grens met de Gazastrook, en kunnen vrouwen zelfs zonder visum de grens over (voor mannen is wel een visum vereist, wat de voorwaarden zijn om dat te verkrijgen is me niet geheel duidelijk).

Volgens Aaron Lerner van IMRA is deze opening van de grens een schending van het vredesverdrag tussen Israel en Egypte.

Article III 2 of the Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt of March 26, 1979 obligates Egypt "to refrain from ... assisting...in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party, anywhere, and undertakes to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice."
The smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip constitutes such "assisting" and Egypt is thus obligated under the treaty to prevent such smuggling and to bring the smugglers "to justice."

 

RP

---------

 

Background: Egyptian treaty obligation to prevent smuggling activity against Israel

26 May 2011

Dr. Aaron Lerner

 

With the Egyptian decision to permanently open the Rafah Border Terminal that links Gaza with Egypt without the presence of international observers, it is appropriate to consider what are Egypt's treaty obligations with Israel relating to the smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip that may be used against the Jewish State.

Article III 2 of the Peace Treaty Between Israel and Egypt of March 26, 1979 obligates Egypt "to refrain from ... assisting...in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party, anywhere, and undertakes to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice."

The smuggling of weapons into the Gaza Strip constitutes such "assisting" and Egypt is thus obligated under the treaty to prevent such smuggling and to bring the smugglers "to justice."

It should be noted that while observers were to insure that the agreement is honored, a memorandum between the US and Israel commits the US to support Israel in the case that Egypt violates the treaty.

Excerpts appear below.

The complete texts are available on www.mfa.gov.il

+++

PEACE TREATY BETWEEN ISRAEL AND EGYPT

March 26, 1979

...Article III 2. Each Party undertakes to ensure that acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, or violence do not originate from and are not committed from within its territory, or by any forces subject to its control or by any other forces stationed on its territory, against the population, citizens or property of the other Party. Each Party also undertakes to refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party, anywhere, and undertakes to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice.

Annex I Protocol Concerning Israeli Withdrawal and Security Agreements

Article II 1. Access across the international boundary shall only be permitted through entry check points designated by each Party and under its control. Such access shall be in accordance with laws and regulations of each country.

Annex I Article VI 1. The Parties will request the United Nations to provide forces and observers to supervise the implementation of this Annex and employ their best efforts to prevent any violation of its terms.

Memorandum of Agreement between the Governments of the United States of America and the State of Israel March 26, 1979

3. The United States will provide support it deems appropriate for proper actions taken by Israel in response to such demonstrated violations of the Treaty of Peace.

 

+++

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis) (Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava) Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730

INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il

Rechten van Joodse "vluchtelingen" moeten betrokken worden bij vredesproces

 

Het is geweldig dat de Joodse vluchtelingen nu aarzelend op de agenda lijken te worden gezet, maar in tegenstelling tot de Palestijnse vluchtelingen en al hun nakomelingen zoeken ze geen recht op terugkeer.

Noah Pollak, the executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, said that the Jewish right of return is actually not an issue that's part of the peace negotiations, largely due to the fact that a) there are no Jewish refugees, and b) they don't have any desire to claim lands in Arab states.

"I would like to congratulate the administration for even-handedness, but in fact there are no Jewish refugees today. That's because the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries have been citizens of Israel for decades, where they live in freedom and prosperity," he said.

Precies. Israel en in mindere mate de VS en Frankrijk hebben de Joodse vluchtelingen die na Israels stichting werden verdreven of wegvluchtten uit de Arabische landen, opgevangen, voor fatsoenlijke behuizing gezorgd en ze gelijke rechten gegeven. Vluchtelingenkampen werden zo snel mogelijk opgeheven, niet in stand gehouden. Er was ook geen UNRWA die de kampen in stand hield en de integratie van de vluchtelingen in Israel (of de VS) tegenhield.

Waarom dan toch de Joodse vluchtelingen erbij halen? Simpel: zij hebben meer bezittingen verloren dan de Palestijnse vluchtelingen die vele miljarden claimen, naast natuurlijk het zogenaamde recht op terugkeer. Het feit dat ze nu geen vluchteling meer zijn komt omdat Israel zich openstelde voor hen en ze gelijke kansen en rechten gaf. Het is niet Israels schuld dat de Arabische staten, maar ook de PLO, dat  niet deden met de Palestijnse vluchtelingen en ze integendeel als een wapen tegen Israel gebruiken.

 

Tot nu toe willen de Arabische staten niks weten van de Joodse vluchtelingen, en weigert men enige morele schuld of verantwoordelijkheid op zich te nemen. Ook mogen Joden die uit Arabische landen zijn gevlucht deze landen vaak niet eens bezoeken. In tegenstelling tot de Palestijnse vluchtelingen begonnen de Joden in Egypte, Irak of Libië geen oorlog tegen de machthebbers. Zij leefden (vaak al eeuwenlang) vreedzaam in deze landen en pasten zich aan aan de cultuur. Zij accepteerden de vaak vernederende maatregelen tegen hen zoals extra belastingen of beperkingen in de beroepen die ze mochten uitoefenen.

Het wordt tijd dat we in het westen eens gaan zien dat er nog een andere vluchtelingengroep was, en dat morele erkenning en enige compensatie op zijn plaats zijn.

 

RP

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

 

White House: Jewish "refugees" right of return should be "on the table"

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/24/white_house_jewish_refugees_right_of_return_should_be_on_the_table

Posted By Josh Rogin 

Tuesday, May 24, 2011 - 4:43 PM   

The right of Jews to return to the Arab and predominantly Muslim countries they fled from or were kicked out of over several decades could be "on the table" as part of the Middle East peace negotiations, according to a senior White House official.

Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor for communications and President Barack Obama's chief speechwriter on foreign policy, talked about what's known as the "Jewish right of return" during an off-the-record conference call with Jewish community leaders on May 20, only one day after Obama's major speech on the Middle East. A recording of the call was provided to The Cable.

In response to a question asking why there is a great deal of focus on the Palestinian refugee issue but almost no focus on the Jews who departed Arab lands, Rhodes declared that the Israelis and Palestinians should negotiate on the Jewish right of return to Arab and Muslim countries and that the United States could play in role in mediating that issue.

Here's the full exchange:

"While Palestinian refugees have concerns that are understandable and need to be dealt with in the peace process, there was no reference in the president's speech to the approximately one million Jewish refugees that emerged from the same Middle East conflict. I'm talking about Jews from Arab and Muslim countries who were forced out of their homelands where they had lived for centuries," said B'nai B'rith International Director of Legislative Affairs Eric Fusfield.

"The international community has never acknowledged their rights and their grievances," Fusfield continued, "[C]an the U.S., as the peace process move forward, play a role in advancing the rights and concerns of these Jewish refugee groups and help ensure that as refugee issues are dealt with... that the focus will not just be on one refugee group but on all refugee groups emerging from the same conflict?"

Rhodes responded: "Certainly the U.S., in our role, is attuned to all the concerns on both sides to include interests among Israel and others in Jewish refugees, so it is something that would come up in the context of negotiations. And certainly, we believe that ultimately the parties themselves should negotiate this. We can introduce ideas, we can introduce parameters for potential negotiation."

"We believe those types of issues that you alluded to could certainly be a part of that discussion and put on the table and it's something that we would obviously be involved in."

The issue of refugees can be a confusing one. GOP Presidential candidate Herman Cain said on May 21 that the Palestinian refugees' right of return was "something that should be negotiated." Cain later admitted that he didn't fully understand the issue.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the argument that Palestinian refugees have the right of return to Israel in his Tuesday speech before a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress.

"[T]he Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside the borders of Israel," he said. "You know, everybody knows this. It's time to say it. It's important."

But neither Obama nor Netanyahu mentioned the Jewish right of return in any of their speeches or remarks over the past few days.

Noah Pollak, the executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, said that the Jewish right of return is actually not an issue that's part of the peace negotiations, largely due to the fact that a) there are no Jewish refugees, and b) they don't have any desire to claim lands in Arab states.

"I would like to congratulate the administration for even-handedness, but in fact there are no Jewish refugees today. That's because the Jews who were expelled from Arab countries have been citizens of Israel for decades, where they live in freedom and prosperity," he said.

 

Abbas antwoordde Netanjahoe met vervalste stamboom

Uit de speech van Netanjahoe voor het congres van de VS:

 

"My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn't easy for me, and I said… `I will accept a Palestinian state.' It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… `I will accept a Jewish state.

"Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise."

 

Abbas antwoordde daarop als volgt:

 

"We say to him [Netanyahu], when he claims - that they [Jews] have a historical right dating back to 3000 years [BC] - we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7000 year history [BC]. This is the truth, which must be understood and we have to note it, in order to say: 'Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.'"

Oftwel: Netanjahoe zegt tegen Abbas: wij hebben rechten maar jullie ook, en als jullie de onze erkennen kunnen we vrede sluiten. Abbas zegt: wij hebben rechten en jullie niet, rot maar op, je betekent niks in de geschiedenis en zult snel verdwijnen. (Nog afgezien van de nonsens dat de Palestijnen van de Canaänieten zouden afstammen.)

 

Anti-zionisten zeggen vaak: ja maar Israel is veel sterker, dus is het logisch dat de Palestijnen feller op hun rechten zijn, ze hebben ze immers nog niet. Dat is natuurlijk flauwekul. Als de Palestijnen zo graag een staat willen, dan zou je zeggen dat ze alle manieren om hem te krijgen aangrijpen, en niet steeds de onderhandelingen afbreken en met extra eisen komen etc. Bovendien is het meestal juist zo dat de sterkere partij het zich kan permitteren om zich hard op te stellen en de voorwaarden kan stellen, en de zwakkere meer flexibilitet toont omdat die nou eenmaal minder macht heeft. Dat is misschien niet eerlijk maar zo werkt het wel, of het nou om onderhandelingen tussen werkgevers en werknemers gaat of om leerlingenraden of om verdragen tussen landen. Maar bij Israel en de Palestijnen werkt het niet zo, en zijn het juist de Palestijnen die continu eisen en voorwaarden stellen en boos van de onderhandelingen weglopen. Toch blijven we ze in het westen als slachtoffer beschouwen. De vraag is of we daar niet eens mee moeten ophouden. 

 

RP

---------
 

The Netanyahu-Abbas Exchange That Explains Why There's No Peace, Who's Responsible, and What Obama Doesn't Understand

Posted: 25 May 2011 10:24 AM PDT

This article is published in PajamasMedia.

"We cannot negotiate with those who say, `What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.'"   --President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

By Barry Rubin

You can read for yourselves Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to the U.S. Congress. Both on regional issues and the Israel-Palestinian question he was quite clear. His speech was vastly superior to those by Obama not just because of the policy content but because he deals with regional realities that the president ignores or just gets completely wrong.

But what I want to talk about here is a remarkable juxtaposition that no one else seems to have noticed. If you understand this article, you can understand all of the problems of the Middle East. If you don't, please go mess up the lives of people elsewhere.

To set up this point I must first quote extensively from Netanyahu's speech. He said:

"This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

"But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel's subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish."

So this is a classic Western—indeed a classic liberal Western—formulation. We have our rights but we also respect your rights. Let's find a win-win situation that benefits everyone.

Netanyahu added:

"They [the Palestinians] were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees."

In a moment, watch Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas prove Netanyahu's first sentence to be true.

"My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn't easy for me, and I said… `I will accept a Palestinian state.' It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… `I will accept a Jewish state.'"

Remember that challenge.

"Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise."

In other words, once the Palestinians really acknowledge—which they have not done—the Jewish connection to the land Israel will know they are a partner for peace and make more compromises.

Now, here's the part nobody noticed. Abbas answered Netanyahu!

In a major speech for "Nakba Day," that is the Palestinian day of mourning that Israel was ever created in the first place, Abbas said:

"We say to him [Netanyahu], when he claims - that they [Jews] have a historical right dating back to 3000 years [BC] - we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7000 year history [BC]. This is the truth, which must be understood and we have to note it, in order to say: 'Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.'"

Do you understand?

Netanyahu said: We have rights; you have rights. We recognize yours and when you recognize ours we can have peace. Your refusal to recognize our rights—to demand total victory for yourself (which means Israel's disappearance)—makes peace impossible.

And what did Abbas (whose name cannot appear in the American media without the word "moderate" being attached to him) answer:

Well, we don't recognize that you have any rights. All the rights belong to us! You are just a passing breeze that will become extinct and you are of no importance.

So that's the bottom line. Even in the year 2011--as happened in the year 1948--even a relative moderate like Abbas simply cannot bring himself to say in Arabic: "Let's share this land in a two-state solution."

Ironically, Netanyahu is taking a liberal and flexible position while Abbas is taking a reactionary, imperialistic stance. Talk about accepting the "other!"

And yet not a single professor in any university class, not a single journalist or expert in the mass media will raise or even report that point. President Obama won't pick up on it to chide the Palestinians. Nobody will start calling Netanyahu moderate and peace-seeking while saying that Abbas is extremist and peace-rejecting.

Nevertheless, what simpler and more graphic example could anyone want?

Now you know why peace is impossible. It isn't because Israel won't go back to the 1967 borders. It's because the Palestinian leadership still believes and tells its people that Israel has no right to exist.

PS: Abbas's history is of course rubbish. There is no connection between ancient Canaanites--who don't go back anywhere near that far--and modern Arabs. Since the Canaanites weren't Muslims, Abbas is acting as a pure opportunist since no Arab nation accepts such pre-Islamic connections any way.

But I love that phrase he said, "We are the owners of history." In other words, we can make up any lie we want and to Hell with the consequences.

The Jewish Temple? Never existed in Jerusalem!

Did we miss a chance to have our own state in 1947? Never happened!

Is it crazy to go on fighting for decades hoping to destroy Israel rather than make acompromise peace now? No alternative. Israel doesn't want peace.

If you are so oppressed and suffering why aren't you in a hurry to negotiate with Israel and make a deal? No! First, they must give us what we want beforehand. We're in no hurry at all because what good is a deal if we have to give up the hope of total victory in the future!

Abbas has told us everything we need to know about who doesn't want peace. And here's the reality of the Palestinian Authority position (not to mention that of its partner, Hamas): If you can't have peace without accepting Israel's permanent existence then it is better not to have peace at all.

 

 

Israel als Joodse staat en Koeweit als Arabische islamitische staat?

 

Precies ditzelfde verhaal geldt voor de Palestijnen die weigeren Israel als Joodse staat te erkennen zogenaamd omdat dan de positie van de Arabieren in Israel in gevaar zou komen. Daarmee erkennen ze impliciet dat in een Arabisch Palestina niet-Arabieren ook geen gelijke rechten zullen hebben. Ook de Palestijnen vermelden zowel de Arabische etniciteit als de islam als religie in hun voorlopige grondwet, net als de meeste Arabische staten. Het gaat dan natuurlijk niet aan er moeilijk over te doen dat ook Israel een bepaalde etniciteit als kenmerkend voor haar identiteit beschouwt. En, even voor de duidelijkheid, Joods verwijst in dit geval niet zozeer naar een religie als naar een volk, een natie, en het zelfbeschikkingsrecht van dat volk.

 

RP

---------

Some hypocrisy from Kuwait

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/some-hypocrisy-from-kuwait.html

A Kuwaiti columnist was not enthralled with Netanyahu:

So at the end of the day, there were only a few things that Netanyahu could mention. He wants Abbas to say the six holy words - "I will accept a Jewish state". If the whole world approves this theory, this means they did not occupy Palestine. There will be no Palestine anymore. This also means they will kick out the more than a million Israeli Arabs (those who did not leave when Israel was created in 1948). 

....Sorry Mr Netanyahu. Your great theory doesn't pass in modern history. Maybe three or four thousand years back, you could have built countries based on religions.

Besides the fact that the Jewish people are a nation, not just a religion, and besides the fact that it is a fevered fantasy that Israel plans to kick out all its Muslim and Christian citizens if Arabs accept it as a Jewish state, we have a little bit of hypocrisy to clear up.

The Kuwaiti constitution says:

Article 1:
Kuwait is an independent sovereign Arab State. Neither its sovereignty nor any part of its territory may be relinquished.

The people of Kuwait is a part of the Arab Nation.

Article 2
The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia shall be a main source of legislation.

So what does this say about Kuwait when its constitution explicitly favors Arabs and Muslims over all others?

 

Israel kent hoge levensverwachting en geboortecijfer, maar ook armoede en stress

In gesprekken met mensen in Israel viel me al vaker op dat veel mensen er moeite moeten doen om de eindjes aan elkaar te knopen, en dat de huizen er klein zijn is me ook opgevallen. Israel doet het economisch redelijk goed, maar de verschillen tussen arm en rijk zijn er groot en de economische groei gaat aan velen voorbij.

Another notable result for Israel found in the OECD's report is life expectancy. The average life expectancy in Israel is 81.1 years, exceeding the OECD average 79.3 years. However, the health findings were not all positive. Israelis ranked the 6th lowest life experiences in the OECD - feeling well-rested, being treated with respect, smiling, experiencing enjoyment. Also, more Israelis reported negative experiences (pain, worry, sadness, stress and depression) than any other country in the OECD.

Ook dat is me wel opgevallen: mensen lijken altijd gestressd en maken lange dagen. Ook maken veel mensen zich zorgen over de toekomst, en vaak vooral ook over die van de kinderen. Dit heeft natuurlijk ook te maken met het conflict met de Palestijnen en de Arabische wereld en Iran. Mensen die wij opzochten hielden serieus rekening met een nieuwe holocaust en een Iraanse kernaanval. Dit kun je niet afdoen als irreëel en ingegeven door de trauma's van de Holocaust. Er is een fundamenteel verschil tussen Israel en andere staten, omdat het Joodse volk een geschiedenis van discriminatie en vervolging kent, en ook van Israel het bestaansrecht veelvuldig ter discussie wordt gesteld of ontkend.

 

RP

---------

 

Israel has high life expectancy, birthrate, also poverty

By MICHAEL OMER-MAN  
05/25/2011 12:44 
http://www.jpost.com/NationalNews/Article.aspx?id=222146

OECD's Better Life Index puts Israel near member states' average, shows strengths in education, weakness in workforce participation.

In a new index released this week by the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, the Better Life Initiative, Israel hovers around average compared to otherOECD states, excelling in life expectancy, education, birthrate and sense of strong community. The findings, do however, show that in some areas, much is lacking compared to other OECD countries.

Measuring how much room people have to live in, the OECD measures the number of rooms per person in a household. The average home in Israel has 1.1 rooms per person, less than the OECD average of 1.6 Also, 4.4 percent of dwellings in Israel lack private access to indoor toilets, in contrast to the OECD average of 2.5%.

Regarding income, Israel comes in both above and below average when compared with OECD countries. The average household disposable income in Israel - after taxes - is $19,456, which is lower than the OECD average of $22,284. However, Israel is high above the OECD average for average household wealth, although the organization's report notes several times that data for this indicator is only available for a small number of countries. The average household wealth, which also measures real estate assets and the total value of a household's financial worth, is $62,684 compared to theOECD average of $36,808.

When it comes to employment, the number of working-age (15 to 64) Israelis who have a paid job stands at 59 percent, slightly lower than the OECD average of 65%. However, when measuring only those participating in the workforce, Israel's unemployment rate is 1.85%, lower than the average.

Education, however, is one of Israel's stronger points. Compared to an OECDaverage of 73% high school graduation rates, Israel excels with 81% of adults in the labor market possessing the equivalent of a high school degree. When it comes to reading comprehension, Israel scored lower than the average.

Other indicators measured by the OECD are less economically oriented and attempt to measure quality of life. One such measure attempts to determine the strength of social networks and communities. Asked if they believe that they know someone they could rely on in a time of need, 93% of Israelis answered yes, putting Israel close to the OECDaverage.

When it comes to personal safety, Israel is relatively average. Three percent of people in Israel reported falling victim to assault in the previous 12 months, lower than the average of four percent. The homicide rate, however, was slightly higher than the OECDaverage.

Among other notable findings released by the OECD in its latest report, is that Israel has the highest fertility rate of all countries in the OECD, with an average of 2.96 children per household. The country with the second highest birthrate is Iceland with 2.22 children per household, also above the average of 1.74.

Israel is also very much a country of immigrants, with 26.5% of the population being foreign-born, coming in second behind Luxembourg. The OECD average is 11.75%.

Another notable result for Israel found in the OECD's report is life expectancy. The average life expectancy in Israel is 81.1 years, exceeding the OECD average 79.3 years. However, the health findings were not all positive. Israelis ranked the 6th lowest life experiences in the OECD - feeling well-rested, being treated with respect, smiling, experiencing enjoyment. Also, more Israelis reported negative experiences (pain, worry, sadness, stress and depression) than any other country in the OECD.

Also reflecting negatively, Israel has the second highest income poverty rate in theOECD, coming in only behind Mexico. While the OECD average of income poverty is 11.1%, one in five - 20% - of Israelis qualify as living in poverty. In addition, 39% of Israelis "find it difficult or very difficult to live on their current income," a much higher rate than the average 24%.

Finally, only 36 percent of Israelis believe that their communities are tolerant places for ethnic minorities, migrants and gays and lesbians, ranking fourth lowest in the OECDand far below the average of 61%.

 

RELATED:
Many elderly 'fall between the cracks'
Child poverty here highest in OECD

 

Boycot Israel kaartje voor medische hulpverlening

 

Zie over boycots ook:

Israel boycot

Buycott Israel

Wat is er mis met BDS

Symposium over Israel boycot en BDS 3 juni

 

-------------------------- 

BDS Medical Emergency Card

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/bds-medical-emergency-card.html

People who want to boycott Israeli goods are invited to print this and carry it with them at all times.

On the back is the fine print:

Israel is a leader in biotechnology development

Israel developed a drug that delays Alzheimer's and helps Parkinson's patients

Teva is a leading pharmaceutical firm from Israel - no medicines from them

Two out of three common Multiple Sclerosis drug treatments were developed in Israel

Israeli company Given Imagining, developed the PillCam for examining the esophagus and digestive tract.

Medical researchers in Israel developed a device that looks like a regular pen, but tests and identifies unwanted substances in bodily fluids

Israel developed a revolutionary device for diagnosing sleep related breathing disorders

And much more

 

Het geheime leven van pro-Palestijnse activisten en hulpverleners

 

In de laatste tien jaar is er een hele hulpindustrie op gang gekomen in de Palestijnse gebieden, waar inmiddels zo'n 200 internationale NGO's actief zijn. Uit een artikel uit een Engelstalig Palestijns blad:

 

"Palestine is the best-kept secret in the aid industry," I am told by Emily Williams, an American project manager at a medical NGO. "People need field experience and Palestine sounds cool and dangerous because it can be described as a war zone, but in reality it's quite safe and has all the comforts that internationals want. Quality of life here is so much higher than somewhere like Afghanistan, but we don't tell anyone so that we are not replaced or reassigned."

That quality of life is becoming rapidly more apparent in the "A" areas. In cities like Ramallah and Nablus, expensive restaurants and high-powered financial institutions are common now. Nightlife and entertainment is expanding to cater for international tastes.

 

Deze mensen zijn meer bezig met het behoud van hun posities dan met het helpen van Palestijnen. En om hun posities te behouden moeten ze een beeld scheppen van een arme wanhopige bevolking die in zeer zware omstandigheden leeft en zonder de aanwezigheid van internationals bij bosjes zou worden afgeslacht door de wrede zionistenhonden. Vandaar al die eenzijdige rapporten waarin zaken op hun best worden aangedikt maar waar soms ook falikante leugens in staan.

Hier zouden onderzoeksprogramma's als Zembla of Holland Doc of Francxx (Canvas) eens onderzoek naar moeten doen, in plaats van de Palestijnse propaganda na te papegaaien en met de eeuwige 'vredesactivisten' van Gush Shalom, Breaking the Silence of het Alternative Information Centre te praten. Hier valt nog heel wat te ontdekken.

 

RP

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

 

Scandal: Anti-Israel NGOs hide the truth for their own profit

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/scandal-anti-israel-ngos-hide-truth-for.html

An eye-opening article rom "This Week in Palestine:"

 

Ala'adin from Al-Bireh used to greet new foreign arrivals to Palestine with a cheerful, "So you're here to save my country too?" He was fond of mocking good intentions.

Still it's fair to say that most international visitors to Palestine, particularly those in relief or activism campaigns, do so at least partly out of conscience. In Britain, and I daresay most of Europe, Palestinian liberation is widely seen as a "good" cause. While many Palestinians feel abandoned by the international community, surely Egypt has taught us not to confuse a nation's rulers with its population.

In London, where I grew up, this conflict was a "red-line" topic. If you took the wrong position on Palestine-Israel, it was as bad as supporting the death penalty, or liking Margaret Thatcher, and you would be considered the devil incarnate. As I overheard at a Kensington dinner party: "You cannot be a good person if you think the Occupation is okay."

...While the vast majority of ex-pats living here genuinely believe in the cause of liberation, it is far from the only reason for our mass invasion. Since the International Solidarity Movement was established in 2001, over 200 NGOs have sprung up in the West Bank and Gaza. Their presence is proof of how favourable Palestinian conditions have become.

"Palestine is the best-kept secret in the aid industry," I am told by Emily Williams, an American project manager at a medical NGO. "People need field experience and Palestine sounds cool and dangerous because it can be described as a war zone, but in reality it's quite safe and has all the comforts that internationals want. Quality of life here is so much higher than somewhere like Afghanistan, but we don't tell anyone so that we are not replaced or reassigned."

That quality of life is becoming rapidly more apparent in the "A" areas. In cities like Ramallah and Nablus, expensive restaurants and high-powered financial institutions are common now. Nightlife and entertainment is expanding to cater for international tastes.

At times these tastes sit uneasily with local values. More than once I've heard the fear voiced that our influence will damage the traditions of Palestinian society. Most internationals at least attempt to be culturally sensitive, but our differences can be striking. I can only imagine how West Bankers feel to see us breezing over to Jerusalem or even Tel Aviv, but these trips have an allure to visitors from the West, who can be somewhere more like home just half an hour away. In my experience, these guilty pleasures are also popular among young Palestinians with the necessary ID.

It is no coincidence that a rise in the number of international visitors here coincides with economic downturn in the West and a shrinking jobs market. With the proliferation of NGOs, the degrees that were just paper back home entitle us to prominent positions in growth industries.

For media professionals, there is a wealth of material to be uncovered here, along with the experience of working on such a major issue. Palestine has been a reliable source of news stories since the conflict began, and it receives forensic, albeit often misguided, analysis across the world. For Western students, Arabic language skills are becoming increasingly desirable and many English universities now arrange placements in exchange for volunteer work. Throw in a warmer climate, Palestine's natural wonders and holy sites, lower crime rates, and a preposterously welcoming host population, and it's little wonder that Bi'lin resembles a model United Nations on a Friday morning.

Here we see the truth. Being "pro-Palestinian" (which means, of course, anti-Israel) is trendy and cool. Going there establishes one as a daredevil, willing to risk one's life. Thousands of young, faux-humanitarians go there to find a use for their useless degrees, and get paid by hundreds of NGOs that pop up to accommodate them, who can always be counted upon to raise all the money needed to keep the Palestinian Arab NGO industry going. But these same Israel haters will happily travel to Tel Aviv to enjoy the comforts of home.

And the NGOs, flush with cash from Westerners who feel that this is the holiest cause on Earth, dutifully churn out reports about how horrible the conditions are, as they live it up in this "war zone." Those reports, filled with lies and exaggerations, are used to raise more money so that these fake adventurers can continue to live it up.

Money that could be used to actually help people in need is instead diverted to help young people live it up and write anti-Israel reports.

This article raises the curtain, only a little, on an entire industry dedicated to demonizing Israel.

It is an entire financial and social ecosystem where everyone knows they are part of a game but they do not want to let the world in on the truth, because it would risk them losing their comfort, stature and prestige - not to mention their salaries. They raise money by claiming life in the territories is terrible and dangerous while they happily flock to live there because it is so safe and comfortable.

It is a scandal - but the only people who can expose it are the ones who are profiting from it, so it remains a dirty little secret.

 

 

Deling van Jeruzalem leidt tot bizarre situaties (zoals Beit Safafa)

 

Je krijgt rare dingen als je in en rond Jeruzalem (en elders) terug wil gaan naar de grenzen (wapenstilstandslijnen) van voor 1967, zoals blijkt uit onderstaand relaas van Yaacov Lozowick.

Natuurlijk moet Jeruzalem gedeeld (en wellicht verdeeld) worden om vrede mogelijk te maken, maar zeker niet precies langs de oude lijnen.

 

Betreffende de rechtmatigheid van zowel Joden en Israeli's (of ook niet-Joden en niet-Israeli's, bijv. een niet-Joodse Nederlander die we in Ariel hebben ontmoet) tegenover Palestijnse Arabieren (misschien ook niet-Palestijnen en niet-Arabieren) om over de Groene Lijn te gaan wonen na 1967: men zou wellicht kunnen argumenteren dat Israel als soeverein land toeliet dat mensen van de Westoever aan de 'Israelische' kant van de vroegere wapenstilstandslijn kwamen wonen, en de Palestijnen geen inspraak hadden wie er vanuit Israel naar hun kant overstak, maar dat lijkt ook problematisch. Na de annexatie van Oost-Jeruzalem bestond dit onderscheid voor de Israelische autoriteiten formeel niet meer, en als men Arabieren uit de Westoever had geweigerd had de internationale gemeenschap waarschijnlijk moord en brand geschreeuwd. Er is al genoeg kritiek op (werkelijke en vermeende) discriminatie van Arabieren die in Jeruzalem wonen of zich daar willen vestigen. Men zou er goed aan doen (van beide kanten) de situatie niet te willen terugdraaien naar 40, 60 of 100 jaar geleden, maar te kijken hoe men nu en in de toekomst zo goed mogelijk als buren kan leven en recht te doen aan ieders wensen en belangen.

 

Wouter

_____________

Don't Divide Jerusalem: The Curious Case of Beit Safafa

http://yaacovlozowick.blogspot.com/2011/05/dont-divide-jerusalem-curious-case-of.html

A century ago Beit Safafa was a village in the hills north of Bethlehem and south of Jerusalem. By the time the British Mandate ended, in 1948, the southern neighborhoods of Jerusalem could be seen on the slopes to the north of the village. When the war of 1948 was over, there was an armistice line running straight through the village, the northern part lying in Israel, the southern part in Jordan. Over the next decade or so, the fields between the village and Jerusalem filled with the neighborhoods of Katamonim, populated mostly by Jewish refugees from Arab countries; eventually the Jewish homes of Pat were erected right next to the Arab homes of northern Beit Safafa.

Pat on the right, Beit Safafa on the left.

During this period the border was sealed. Family members living a stone's throw apart could shout to each other, but never meet, never break bread together, never share family events.

In 1967 the Israelis occupied the West Bank and annexed East Jerusalem. Beit Safafa was united. The villagers were united, too, and over the coming years they multiplied and moved, some crossing the old and forgotten line into the Israeli part, some building larger homes on the hill to the south, which, I remember, used to be mostly empty and now no longer is.

Of course, if you know Jerusalem, you'll recognize that the neighborhood on the top of the hill is Gilo, which much of the world calls a settlement since it was populated by Israeli citizens beyond the line of 1949-67. The odd thing is that in all the endless verbiage on the matter, no-one (NO ONE) ever calls the Israeli Arabs from Beit Safafa who moved in the same direction, settlers. Yet it can't be that Jewish Israeli citizens who crossed the Green Line to settle are illegally forbidden settlers, while the Arab Israeli citizens who did the exact same thing are not. That would make international law explicitly racist and antisemitic, and for all its silliness, it isn't those.

(If we're splitting logic, by the way, it would be interesting to know how American or Russian or French citizens who moved to the area after 1967 can be regarded as internationally forbidden. Merely because many of them took on Israeli citizenship along the way? And if they didn't? Say some of them retained their original citizenship and never acquired Israeli citizenship: are they also forbidden by international law? There are such people, you know. I recognize this sounds silly, but so does the entire construct if you think about it long enough or observe its details close up).

In the decades since 1967 thousands of Israeli Arabs from elsewhere - Nazerath, Jaffa, Sachnin and so on - have moved to Jerusalem. It's a big city, it's got the country's largest university, it's got hospitals, government ministries, and all sorts of other things to encourage migration. Some of them have moved to Beit Hakerem or Rehavia, and that's all right. Others have moved to Beit Hanina, a wealthy area on the city's north side, so they're clearly legally forbidden settlers. Some have moved to Beit Safafa, because it's the one part of town that already had a community of Israeli Arabs and it felt hospitable. Of course, if they moved to the northern part of the neighborhood (it has long since ceased to be a separate village), no problem. If they moved to the southern part however, they're illegal settlers, as we've already seen. The thing is, when you walk through the neighborhood, there's no way of recognizing which it is, unless you happen to be old enough or savvy enough to remember where the long-defunct line ran. Most people aren't. Most people, that is, except for the teeming millions who know that Jerusalem must be divided.

So let's get this straight. According to conventional wisdom, the buildings in the forefront of the picture below remain in Israel no mater what, since their denizens are inside the Green line and they're Israeli citizens anyway, except for the ones who aren't. The buildings in the center of the picture must become part of Palestine, since their denizens are outside the Green Line and they're not Israeli citizens, except for the ones who are. Then the buildings on the top of the hill, at the back of the picture, they will remain in Israel since they're part of the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 which will not be dismantled since there are more than 200,000 people living in them. Of course, the line between the two parts of Beit Safafa doesn't exist on the ground, and in some cases runs through homes constructed since 1967, and the line between Jews and Arabs near the top of the hill runs along garden fences and between parking places on common roads, but hey, don't confuse us with such minutiae.

So now we've got the following situation. There are about 8,000 people in Beit Safafa. Some have been Israeli citizens since 1948, but they'll move or stay depending upon where they live now. Some have become Israeli citizens since 1967, but that's immaterial. If they're Arab (they are), and they live south of the Green Line (many do), they obviously yearn to live in a free Palestine, not Israel. No? Some are not Israeli citizens, merely permanent residents, but if they live north of the line, they can stay put, or move to Haifa, or move 25 feet to the south, and thus choose to live in whichever country they prefer. And then of course there are the non-Israeli citizens who moved in 1974, or 1983, or 1992, or 2001, or whenever it was, to Haifa or Kfar Kassem or elsewhere in Israel, and they won't be affected in any case, since they're inside the Green Line and thus impervious to the entire discussion. It's only Jews who are on the wrong side of the line who need to do any explaining or accommodating.

In case you're skeptical that anyone would really consider drawing all those lines, here's the map as it appears on the website of the Geneva Initiative. I'm not making up any of this.

Post script: My friend Sami (false name), who lives elsewhere in East Jerusalem, tells me many of his neighbors are envious of the Beit Safafians: "They or their cousins have been in Israel since 1948, and they know how to navigate the system in a way the rest of us don't always know."

Posted by Yaacov

 

'Vrije' landen blijven minderheid in VN Mensenrechtenraad

Afgelopen vrijdag is de nieuwe VN Mensenrechtenraad verkozen. Er zitten nu 21 zogenaamde vrije landen in van de in totaal 47 landen. De Islamitische conferentie behoudt haar 18 leden in de raad.

Eigenlijk is de hele Mensenrechtenraad een schandvlek die zo snel mogelijk moet worden opgeheven, en ik verbaas mij er telkens weer over dat politici, mensenrechtenactivisten en media überhaupt nog enig belang hechten aan wat zij zegt. Bij de geheime stemmingen in de Algemene Vergadering spelen de mensenrechten van de kandidaat leden in het geheel geen rol.

 

RP

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

 

UN Watch also called on new members India, Indonesia and the Philippines and Burkina Faso to improve their voting records in the coming months, noting that all four had either abstained or voted against U.N. resolutions relating to rights abuses in Iran, Burma, and North Korea.

 

 

'Free' Countries Once Again a Minority on U.N. Human Rights Council

Monday, May 23, 2011
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/free-countries-once-again-minority-un-hu

By Patrick Goodenough

 

 

(CNSNews.com) – This year's election for the U.N. Human Rights Council has, once again, produced a body that has fewer "free" countries – 21 of a total of 47 – and has more than one-third of the seats held by members of the Islamic bloc.

 

Among the 15 countries to win seats on the Geneva-based HRC on Friday was Congo, which joins 11 other countries ranked "not free" by the democracy advocacy group, Freedom House, based on an annual assessment of political freedoms and civil liberties.

 

Nonetheless, rights advocates did find some cause for cheer: In the only two regional groups to see any contest, Latin America and Eastern Europe, countries ranked "free" by Freedom House defeated candidates scoring a "partly free" grade.

 

In Latin America, Nicaragua's leftist regime was edged out in a four-way race for three seats, won by Peru, Chile and Costa Rica; the Czech Republic and Romania beat Georgia in a three-way contest for two seats for the Eastern Europe group.

 

As expected, Kuwait secured the seat that Syria had been in line to win until President Bashar Assad withdrew his bid last week, after initially supportive Arab and Asian states bowed to pressure from Western governments and non-governmental activists. (Even though Syria was not standing, five countries still voted for it on Friday.)

 

Every May for the past six years the U.N. General Assembly has held an "election" to fill a proportion of seats

on the 47-member HRC, the world body's foremost human rights watchdog.

 

With the exception of the inaugural vote in 2006, the procedure has been marred by "closed slates," where regional groups endorse the same number of countries as there are seats available, thus precluding any contest.

 

Despite the requirement that governments take into account candidates' human rights records, the General Assembly – voting under secret ballot – has ushered onto the council a total of 19 "not free" countries, some more than once.

 

In most cases, they obtained votes well in excess of the 97 required in the 192-member General Assembly.

The 19, along with the number of votes they scored, are: China (won two elections, with vote counts of 146 and 167), Russia (137, 146), Cuba (135, 163), Saudi Arabia (126, 154), Libya (155), Egypt (168), Pakistan (149, 114), Algeria (168), Tunisia (171), Mauritania (167), Bahrain (172), Qatar (170, 177), Jordan (178), Angola (172, 170), Cameroon (171, 142), Gabon (178), Kyrgyzstan (174), Azerbaijan (103) and newcomer Congo (176).

 

The presence on the HRC of such countries, and their tendency to vote as a bloc against initiatives promoted by Western and other democracies, has been among the issues raised most frequently by critics, including Republican lawmakers who want the Obama administration to withdraw from the HRC and to "explore credible, alternative forums to advance human rights."

Another target of criticism has been the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the bloc of mostly Muslim-majority states that has used the HRC to target Israel and to promote its provocative "defamation of religion" campaign.

 

In 2010, the OIC held a record 18 seats in the council. On Friday that remained unchanged, with three OIC members (Bahrain, Pakistan and Gabon) leaving, and three joining (Kuwait, Indonesia and Benin).

UN Watch, a Geneva-based organization that monitors the HRC, led a campaign both to deny Syria a seat, and to urge governments to vote for candidates with strong rights records. It argued that neither Congo, Nicaragua nor Kuwait deserved seats on the council.

UN Watch Hillel Neuer deplored the election of Congo and Kuwait, while calling the defeat of Nicaragua a significant achievement.

 

"It's currently one of the most shameless defenders of Libya's Col. Muammar Gaddafi and Syrian President Bashar Assad. So two dictators who are killing their own people today lost a key ally," he said.

"We're also delighted that Syria was pressured into pulling its bid last week."

UN Watch also called on new members India, Indonesia and the Philippines and Burkina Faso to improve their voting records in the coming months, noting that all four had either abstained or voted against U.N. resolutions relating to rights abuses in Iran, Burma, and North Korea.

The HRC for the next year comprises:

 

"Free" countries (21):

Austria, Benin, Belgium, Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, United States and Uruguay.

 

"Not free" (12):

Angola, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya (currently suspended), Mauritania, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia.

 

"Partly free" (14):

Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Moldova, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Uganda, Thailand.

 

The OIC members are: Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Uganda.